Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

I think that the ultimate hypothetical 21st century solution to the long range strike role is a a large satellite capable of firing kinetic impactors at Earth, and with some sort of weapons for self defense. I'm sort of shooting the breeze here, but I think that spaced based weapons are inevitable in humanity's future, so it would stand to reason that space-based weapons will be used for striking the Earth one day. That's one possible form they could take.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I think that the ultimate hypothetical 21st century solution to the long range strike role is a a large satellite capable of firing kinetic impactors at Earth, and with some sort of weapons for self defense. I'm sort of shooting the breeze here, but I think that spaced based weapons are inevitable in humanity's future, so it would stand to reason that space-based weapons will be used for striking the Earth one day. That's one possible form they could take.

Just my 2 cents.

Never be afraid to fly a kite Finn, its the way people make progress. Although I think there is quite a bit of development needed to get to that from where we are today. It does however need to start from somewhere and here is where we are

The difference between the missiles notion and the Star Wars satellites, is that the missiles have a parallel with the building of HMS Dreadnought. The ship itself was revolutionary, but nothing about it was "new", what it did was incorporate the best of proven design into a highly refined package and by doing so blew the rest of the field away and changed things forever.

Large surface combatants of all kinds have their days numbered, but that number is bigger than people give them credit for.

That's a fair point and follows the same territory as Jeffs comments. With regards the issue of timing, you can only view it in the timescale of the Procurement/Deployment Process. The question then is what are those tasked with beginning the next phase of their nations procurement, thinking about the nature of the security environment that they will face in the 2nd and 3rd Quarters of this century? I suspect that the level of effort being invested worldwide in missile technology, provides the answer for us already.

victtodd says

First, on the contrary to your prediction of widespread "anti hegemony" stand off weapons that make the deployment of carrier group untenable,
in the foreseeable future, it remains a very daunting task for a nation other than the few known powers to defeat carrier groups. China, to its credit, is alleged to have develped ASBM, other than that, can you elaborate on other effective anti-carrier weapon systems in the pipeline?

Not only has a Strike Carrier got to get into range to launch its aircraft, but those aircraft have to be able to achieve something after penetrating enemy airspace in order to make the exercise worthwhile. Over the course of this decade we are going to see the Russian and Chinese perfect their next generation fighters as discussed in other threads on this board. The difference though is that while aircraft like the F22 and F35 are about kicking doors open the Russian and Chinese models are far more about slamming it shut. They do not have to feature the full spec of the attacking models and of course will be designed to work as part of integrated air defences and be far cheaper/quicker to build.
The next part is based on my understanding of China's anti-hegemony policy "We will never seek to impose hegemony, we are opposed to hegemony" My reading is that over the next few decades China intends to crash production values for all of these types of system to make advanced SAM's ASBM and Next Generation Fighters affordable by even many developing nations. This not only attempts to create a near monopoly for them in the International Military Aviation Market, but also creates a global environment where Strike Carriers and even their most advanced Aircraft are deemed at too high a risk to be used. There comes a point where either disaster strikes or even the most die hard supporter has to question the wisdom of continuation of the platform.

Very clearly Carriers are not going to go away, but the days that Big Carrier groups can sale within Strike Range of a country and unleash its bombers with impunity are looking very short indeed.

The problem is a reliance on missile barrage means you're trading physical presence for offensive power. It's the same doctrinal mistake made about the superiority of air power. Once you've crushed enemy forces you need to occupy the territory to make any substantive gains. Asymmetry works for countries like China because they're playing defense. They already hold their own territories and need some offensive deterrence to prevent physical occupation, which is precisely what a carrier group is for. In that sense, the carrier group is not obsolete in any way.

Depends on the objective of the mission. If it is to dissuade an aggressive nation, then the ability to damage key defence infrastructure in this way could be highly effective. Likewise if you wanted to clear the path for an Amphibious Assault Group its a cheap and low risk option.

Will big nations use this system against each other? well would big nations want to use any system against each other. I could however have a big impact on proxies and the protection of Client States.

Finally, to argue your point, you should mention that in WW2, long before German production of planes and armour had ground to a halt, they already ran out of qualified pilots, crews and oil.

Thanks, which I am sure was a major factor in German High Commands decision making at the time and as real a factor (if not more so) now as then.

Other people have raised many excellent points and my apologies for not trying to answer them directly. I hope much of the territory has been covered with the answers that have been provided. If anyone things I have ducked anything significant, pleased raw my attention to it and I will give it my best shot.

Also, I want to note that I think that directed energy weapons will increase survivability of larger surface ships in coming years. When it comes down to physics, it's easier to aim a beam of particles at a missile than it is to hit it with another missile. It's just a matter of making the beam powerful enough.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

Also, I want to note that I think that directed energy weapons will increase survivability of larger surface ships in coming years. When it comes down to physics, it's easier to aim a beam of particles at a missile than it is to hit it with another missile. It's just a matter of making the beam powerful enough.

How about making the beam powerful enough that it can burn and sink surface ships and other targets?

Originally Posted by SampanViking

Depends on the objective of the mission. If it is to dissuade an aggressive nation, then the ability to damage key defence infrastructure in this way could be highly effective. Likewise if you wanted to clear the path for an Amphibious Assault Group its a cheap and low risk option.

Will big nations use this system against each other? well would big nations want to use any system against each other. I could however have a big impact on proxies and the protection of Client States.

I'm just pointing out how the need for physical presence in some missions will continue to make the carrier group highly relevant. Even if your primary objective is to soften defenses for other purposes like amphibious assaults, having that physical presence acting as a mobile base is a very powerful asset.

Originally Posted by SampanViking

I had always supposed that it would have required the US to suffer a Military Disaster involving its Carriers before the point was hit home. I do therefore give the US credit if they have indeed decided to bit the bullet in advance. If so it could be fair to say the current economic condition of the US may well have provided the final level of rationale.

So, has America suddenly decided to play the game the Chinese way?

You have opened Pandora's box by even suggesting that Carriers may soon be obsolete .

Any causal observer reading similar threads here may well be led to believe that US Naval Carriers are unsunkable ...LOL

But look at the reality , Even if US planners come to realize that the aircraft carrier battle groups (which are the mainstay of the US Navy and the main instrument of US power projection worldwide), have been rendered
vulnerable or obsolete by a changing naval landscape , can it ever be acknowledged ?


The US cannot simply change strategy or discard such a weapons
system. To change strategy or "retool" would mean wasting
hundreds of billions of dollars invested in those highly
sophisticated systems. The strong lobbying of influential defense
contractors making those systems would make change extremely
difficult.

For defense authorities to admit the strategic blunder constitutes
an almost insurmountable barrier to a change of strategy. And
finally, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs related to those
systems may be politically and economically unbearable for any
US administration to bear should the program for the aircraft
carrier battle groups be scrapped.

Because of these factors,America may be stuck with an obsolete system that is too expensive to maintain but will may not best serve US interest when
employed in a major conflict.

We'll well into the 21st century . Yet there are 19th Century mindset & relics hovering around ; and some of them sincerely believe that US Naval Carriers cannot be sunk.

The Chinese Admirals must be very happy ...

To sink another fleet. You can do it without carrier but to occupy a distant foreign land. You definitely need one or 2 to do the jobs.

I believe more or less carrier is only useful for taking on much weaker forces without strong aircover and navy forces.

But in a fair conventional warfare of both modern forces fighting each other. Sending a fleet of carrier trying to attack yout foes is sucide.

We all talk about the carrier to project power, but the mayor problem will by the way we protect the GPS orbital sattelite's
Because most weapon system run on it.

NO Its the American Admirals that would be very happy if the Pro Carrier Element in the Chinese Navy had their way.

Originally Posted by bladerunner

NO Its the American Admirals that would be very happy if the Pro Carrier Element in the Chinese Navy had their way.

But the Chinese Pro Carrier elements did not get the toys they wanted ; instead China Navy embarked on a regime of submarines , Missiles , and Carrier Killers ASBM ....

So that means now there are 2 unhappy admirals , the American Admirals , and the Chinese Pro carrier admirals...

Originally Posted by marclees

But the Chinese Pro Carrier elements did not get the toys they wanted ; instead China Navy embarked on a regime of submarines , Missiles , and Carrier Killers ASBM ....

So that means now there are 2 unhappy admirals , the American Admirals , and the Chinese Pro carrier admirals...

What about the Varyag and possibly two others over the next decade?

Originally Posted by bladerunner

What about the Varyag and possibly two others over the next decade?

One experience carrier + other two will not be too expensive for China.

Originally Posted by bladerunner

What about the Varyag and possibly two others over the next decade?

There is; as previously stated, a big difference between Marine Aviation and the Carrier Strike Group. If you read the other Carrier threads, there are many instances of posters from both sides of the argument bemoaning that Varyag and the other Chinese Carriers will not be the size and complexity of the Nimitz Class Strike Carrier and only seem to follow the Russian doctrine.

Maybe now we know why.

Originally Posted by marclees

So that means now there are 2 unhappy admirals , the American Admirals , and the Chinese Pro carrier admirals...

Very True