Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

Actually, the successful USS Lake Erie anti-sat shoot was in February of 2008 and proved the concept in a real-life, live-fire excercise against an errant US errant satellites that was about to fall from orbit. The USS Lake Erie fired a SM3 missile that intercepted and destroyed the satellite 247 km above the earth's surface.

The event was tremendously successul and shows that the SM-3 can be successfully modified to perform anti-sat capabilities. It is doubtful that the US simply sat on that proven capability without acting on it. The US Navy now knows exactly how to modify both SM-3 missiles and AEGIS vessels to accomplish that task and that knoweldge has surely not gone to waste.

I would not be surprised at a later date to learn that certain "enhancements" to the AEGIS system and some of the 250 missiles slated for delivery by 2010 (of which most are alreay delvered) do not extend that capability to some vessels. But even if it has not...my guess is they could quickly make the changes in an emergency now that they know how to do so.

Yes, that's right. It was 2/08. OTOH you conveniently missed the entire point, which is that BMD was already fully-functional and present on the Lake Erie by that time and they STILL had to spend over a month and $60 million to modify it to be able to attack satellites, a point which all but proves that anti-sat capability is NOT inherent in Aegis BMD and may not even be fully compatible with it, because they reversed their modification after the shootdown to its prior configuration.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Yes, that's right. It was 2/08. OTOH you conveniently missed the entire point, which is that BMD was already fully-functional and present on the Lake Erie by that time and they STILL had to spend over a month and $60 million to modify it to be able to attack satellites, a point which all but proves that anti-sat capability is NOT inherent in Aegis BMD and may not even be fully compatible with it, because they reversed their modification after the shootdown to its prior configuration.

To the contrary, I passed over nothing. Your own reference proves that the missile is capable of being modified to do it, as was amply demonstrated on that occassion, and now they have that information and can replicate it whenever the need arises...as I say, if they haven't already.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

To the contrary, I passed over nothing. Your own reference proves that the missile is capable of being modified to do it, as was amply demonstrated on that occassion, and now they have that information and can replicate it whenever the need arises...as I say, if they haven't already.

Uh, have you been following along? This is the statement I was responding to:

It also has to be said that taking down a satellite at 250 km is relatively easy feat, though it does offer some theoretically nifty political possibilities for certain countries.

Of course the SM-3 and the Aegis system can be modified to "do it". They obviously were modified to do it. That's not the point. Which means, you missed the point: it was neither cheap nor easy, and as was also pointed out, required a whole lot of help, suspiciously more than seems would be available during wartime. It was also apparently not amenable to permanent inclusion in the Aegis BMD architecture, as I've been saying and you've been ignoring, THEY LATER TOOK IT OUT.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Uh, have you been following along? This is the statement I was responding to:

Of course the SM-3 and the Aegis system can be modified to "do it". They obviously were modified to do it. That's not the point. Which means, you missed the point: it was neither cheap nor easy, and as was also pointed out, required a whole lot of help, suspiciously more than seems would be available during wartime. It was also apparently not amenable to permanent inclusion in the Aegis BMD architecture, as I've been saying and you've been ignoring, THEY LATER TOOK IT OUT.

Of course they took it out. There was no ongoing operational need for it. But, they did it...and they did it relatively cheaply by military standards when accomplishing a from scratch one-off. It is you who are missing my point which is a counter to your own. It is not that I am missing your point, I am refuting it.

Now that they know how to do it, and have done so successfully, you can bet that the ability to do it in the furure will be both much less expensive and time consuming. When it is needed...it will be there.

You may disagree, and that is fine. But do not mistake not agreeing with you as missing what you are saying. I maintain that the US Navy now has another very critical capability in its arsenal that they will be able to make use of it relatively quickly in the future, when it is viewed as necessary.

Originally Posted by Geographer

I presume everyone here is familiar with Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising"? I remember it depicted the Soviets as having a devil of a time finding a US carrier battle group in the mid-Atlantic, even after they took over Iceland.

Why can't China rely on the thousands upon thousands of freight shippers and fisherman between China and North America to spot a carrier battle group? Many are Chinese owned and operated, or at least crewed by Chinese who could radio to the world they just past a convoy of American destroyers at XY coordinates and time, going X knots in Y direction. Even if the battle group didn't take the normal shipping lanes there are still deep water trawlers, research vessels, pleasure yachts, cruise ships, and other types of ships out there. They could even twitter it!

The oceans are empty areas like they used to be, it would be very hard to get that many ships across the Pacific without being noticed by someone.

Well, any civilian ship that close to a carrier group and broadcasting a signal would either be boarded forcibly, or sunk outright, especially if they are aiding the enemy.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

Of course they took it out. There was no ongoing operational need for it. But, they did it...and they did it relatively cheaply by military standards when accomplishing a from scratch one-off. It is you who are missing my point which is a counter to your own. It is not that I am missing your point, I am refuting it.

Now that they know how to do it, and have done so successfully, you can bet that the ability to do it in the furure will be both much less expensive and time consuming. When it is needed...it will be there.

You may disagree, and that is fine. But do not mistake not agreeing with you as missing what you are saying. I maintain that the US Navy now has another very critical capability in its arsenal that they will be able to make use of it relatively quickly in the future, when it is viewed as necessary.

How much faster? How much cheaper? No ongoing operational need, eh? Then why not just leave it there for when the time comes? What's wrong with that? Clearly something justified the expense of pulling all the parts out. It was either too expensive to maintain or too poorly compatible to just leave it in. Neither bodes well for this particular modification. Secondly, you never addressed the need for many additional land, sea, air and spaced-based sensors for this stunt to be pulled off. Will all these be available at the same time when it becomes "necessary"? How about if the Chinese military puts up dozens of microsats or nanosats? Willl the USN be ready for all that?

Originally Posted by Pointblank

Well, any civilian ship that close to a carrier group and broadcasting a signal would either be boarded forcibly, or sunk outright, especially if they are aiding the enemy.

What's close? Visual horizon for most ships is 20-25km. How do they know it's not some fisherman radioing his wife back home that he's bringing home a big catch that day? Is the carrier group going to sink every boat or ship within 20-25km, "just in case"? Remember the closer you get to a coastline the more boats and ships there will be scattered about. Good luck trying to sink them all and having international sympathy on your side. I think even the Japanese would have to bow out of that campaign.

That strategy, with many small ships being used as a sensor network, certainly is applicable for the opening hours of a war, before the first shot is fired. No one wants to start a war and shoot first, but the invading force would probably be forced into boarding such vessels. Even a relatively small boat with an optical sensor can detect stuff up to 25 km on a good day, with a simple radar that goes a bit further and we can disregard bad weather.

There are, of course, some issues. To cover a, say, 1000 by 3000 km patch of ocean, one would need roughly 480 such boats. If manned, that means at least 480 people willing to die without any chance of defending themselves. Ships would have to be simple and small, to keep the costs down, yet it is unclear how such ships would fare in the rough seas. Then, also, what to do when some boats disappear? One can send a patrol yet find nothing (as they were boarded by helicopters, destroyed from the air, etc). Sure, it could narrow down a search area for the enemy fleet, but realistically one'd have to send new boats. Rinse and repeat. Probably too costly. Not to mention that the enemy would deliberately capture or sink boats left and right, to confuse and to draw the patrols in various directions, probably at the same time.

Originally Posted by Totoro

There are, of course, some issues. To cover a, say, 1000 by 3000 km patch of ocean, one would need roughly 480 such boats. If manned, that means at least 480 people willing to die without any chance of defending themselves. Ships would have to be simple and small, to keep the costs down, yet it is unclear how such ships would fare in the rough seas. Then, also, what to do when some boats disappear? One can send a patrol yet find nothing (as they were boarded by helicopters, destroyed from the air, etc). Sure, it could narrow down a search area for the enemy fleet, but realistically one'd have to send new boats. Rinse and repeat. Probably too costly. Not to mention that the enemy would deliberately capture or sink boats left and right, to confuse and to draw the patrols in various directions, probably at the same time.

Who said anything about suicide boats? Stop being so melodramatic. And stop setting up straw men to beat down. I'm talking about common shipping traffic being used as an adjunct to detection, not a fail-safe networked sensor system to catch any and all carriers. That's not what anybody is talking about, so why are you talking about it? This additional capacity will vary by time of day, month of year, and region of ocean. OTOH, all it takes is one fisherman in his boat to sight a passing carrier group in the distance. For that matter, all it takes is one amateur pilot, one cargo plane or one airliner to spot the carrier and the jig's up. Is the carrier group going to smoke all the civilian planes and sink all the civilian boats on its warpath to China? I'm not saying this detection will be automatic, but it certainly is not something insignificant in terms of degrading a carrier's ability to make a covert approach.

I wrote this idea once, I will repeat it again.
U only have to use a lot of the same stuff. A lot of cheap, relatively fast ASHM. Maybe 1000 missiles with the range of 1000km. Something similar to V1 - launched from the ramps, maybe even trains, trucks etc. The most important thing is that they are cheap. Like 100 000$, maybe less. It think it is doable. You just produce thousands upon thousands, all with a modular design. A wave of 1000 LACM, travelling 500km/h WILL deplete stocks of any fleet. They will only be left with ciws. Some of missiles can have submunitions. The goal is not to sink ships, it is to deplete defence missiles and do maximum damage. After the wave is over, you just have to send some more. Afther that you can send shipwrecks, moskits, y-63, whatevew. You can send all that simultaniously, that should`t be a problem. All you need is to find CBG and track it for.

If you can score 100 - 200 hits maybe you can stop the carrier. After that it should be possible to sink it with maybe 2000 very slow, even cheaper simple planes ( without the crew ) armed with 500kg bombs. This simple planes should fly 200km/h, have a range of 1000km, have GPS or beidou goidance and every bomb should have a picture reckoning processor and some self guidance. If droped from 5km, maybe they would be able to penetrate deep enough to blow and sink the ship. Such a simple plane would cosm maybe 50 000$ and the whole attack would cost something like: 1000 * 200 000 =
200 000 000 + 2000 * 50 000 = 100 000 000, all in all 300 000 000$. You shoul try to think of a defence aganist such an attack!!

As on finding the CBG. Maybe with the help of some bottom sonars? Maybe the chinese allready have such capabilities?
I believe there are many ways, after all, the area is not so big.

But Behind the scenes......

USS Lake Erie CG-70 relied on a network of:

i) Land
ii) Air AND
iii) Sea- AND
iv) spaced-based sensors

to track & establish a firing solution..

Did you know that the Aegis system is an totally interlinked system ? That is it was designed to work in unison with many other systems. It works.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

It was either too expensive to maintain or too poorly compatible to just leave it in. Neither bodes well for this particular modification.

That's your opinion. It could just as easily (and IMHO more likely) be because they fulfilled the need and now have the knoweldge and are/have developed operational procedures for it when they need it. No need to keep that capability on board ships when the likelihood of the need is remote at this stage. My guess is if things "heated" up into a more direct "cold war" mentality like we have with the Soviet Union, you would see it deployed on a few ships, for major task forces or CSGs.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Secondly, you never addressed the need for many additional land, sea, air and spaced-based sensors for this stunt to be pulled off. Will all these be available at the same time when it becomes "necessary"? How about if the Chinese military puts up dozens of microsats or nanosats? Willl the USN be ready for all that?

See above. Fact is, they haven't done that so you are asking me to conjecture about your conjecture. The raw capability has been deomonstrated, the rest is in the details.

Why China worries the Pentagon

But it's China's military, which was proudly paraded through Tiananmen Square on National Day, that produces the biggest worries.

In a style reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, Beijing trotted out no less than 50 all-Chinese-made military systems during the spectacle. Many of the weapons weren't brand-new -- but naval attaches probably strained their necks to see at least one system: the land-based DF-21 ballistic missile.

This system -- the world's first ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving target at sea -- could be used to take out US aircraft carriers in a Sino-American dust-up. The conventionally armed missile has maneuverable warheads and a range in excess of 1,000 miles.

Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter - Brooks, October 5 in the "New York Post" claim that DF-21 capable of hitting a moving target at sea--could be used to take out US aircraft carriers in a Sino-American dust-up.

Originally Posted by maozedong

the world's first ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving target at sea

There is no demonstrable evidence of this. There has been no test where it has actually been done. It is a claim, and a bold one at that, and one to investigagte, but at this point it is no more than a claim with nothing to back it up. IMHO, it is an elaborate intelligence/disinformation operation by the PLA.

Originally Posted by Totoro

There are, of course, some issues. To cover a, say, 1000 by 3000 km patch of ocean, one would need roughly 480 such boats. If manned, that means at least 480 people willing to die without any chance of defending themselves. Ships would have to be simple and small, to keep the costs down, yet it is unclear how such ships would fare in the rough seas. Then, also, what to do when some boats disappear? One can send a patrol yet find nothing (as they were boarded by helicopters, destroyed from the air, etc). Sure, it could narrow down a search area for the enemy fleet, but realistically one'd have to send new boats. Rinse and repeat. Probably too costly. Not to mention that the enemy would deliberately capture or sink boats left and right, to confuse and to draw the patrols in various directions, probably at the same time.

I think what the original post was intended for is something like a "neighborhood watch" type of thing. You, as fisherman, do the normal fishing. IF you happen to see something interesting, please call us. And the channel of communication will most likely not be military, so that the CVN will not have the pretext to fire at the vessel.

As a previous post mentioned, even the CVN found out that a certain civilian vessel is an informant for the enemy, it would most likely NOT open fire since the political backlash of opening fire on a unarmed civilian ship would be devastating. Imagine this, "headline news: US CVN opened fire on an unarmed civilian fishing vessel on the high sea". Also if CVN attempts to board every ship that it suspects to be communicating with the enemy, that would definitely disrupt its intended plans and slow it down. That would actually be a good thing for the enemy.

That being said, CVN can certainly jam every kind of communication nearby although I'm not sure if the jamming is still effective 20-25 km out... Of course, there are all those choppers that can definitely fly to the suspected ship and jam the whole thing. One good thing about CVNs: those planes can go anywhere they want as a moment's notice.