Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[IDonT]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I ask what preparation would actually be needed? 24 strike aircraft can carry 96 missiles.

That is 4 missiles per aircraft. What range and what type of missile are you carrying. Missiles like the Moskit and Brahmos are Heavy and BULKY. No way you can carry 4.

For example; take a section of four aircraft each with four hardpoints (two under each wing) trying to penetrate an air defense system equipped with missiles and deliver 16 bombs to target. To do so, it needs a jamming pod. That takes up one hardpoint per aircraft. The warload on each bird is now reduced from four to three, meaning we have to add an extra aircraft to maintain the weight of attack. That extra aircraft is virtual attrition - if it wasn't here it would be doing something else. If the ADS now has fighters (even MiG-21s), those bombers may now have to carry an AIM-9 for self defense, cumulatively reducing their hardpoints from four to two. We now have to use eight aircraft where four were previously necessary. Looked at another way we can only hit half as many targets as previously.

Oh really, because they've actually conducted tests resembling the exact scenario right? Hundreds of missiles or drones tested against AEGIS. Some flying high and very fast, some flying low and very fast, and some flying low and slow. This has actually been test-proven? Not to mention this coming without any effective warning. At what altitude and distance can AEGIS detect a threat over-the-horiozon? How many targets can it detect at that distance, can it track any and if so how many?

Nope but they have been simulations (Cheaper alternative than putting a billion dollar ship and spending hundreds of millions of dollars of arsenal to prove a point).

Aegis ships are data link to an E-2 C hawkeye in real time, which has detection AND tracking range of over 600 miles of more 2,000 objects. The Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radar is capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets and controlling the interception of 40 hostile targets.

Furthermore, E-2 C can provide mid-course guidance to Standard missiles to intercept bogeys that are below the radar horizon.

That is not putting into account the carrier airwing intercepts.

Has this all been conclusively found in training exercises showing that a varied mass attack would not be effective if conducted without warning?

Yes it has. USN continually trained on network centric warfare. It is called information superiority. The USN will more likely know where your forces are deployed better than you will.

How long does it take to get all those aircraft in the air now?

About a minute.

Again, I ask how well this has actually been tested. I'm pretty sure plenty has come within that envelope undetected.

Yes in simulation. The question to ask is, have the threat force actually tested their command and control to accomplished such an attack involving many disperse forces to arrive just in the correct sequence. Do you know how easy it is to disrupt that sequence?

Amateurs talk tactics and weapon system, experts talk logistics.

Let me educate you about air defence:

To the air defence system, the objective is to stop the aircraft getting through to damage a critical target. Whether the aircraft in question is shot down, forced to abort or has to spend its time on defending other planes from the ADS is of no great consequence. The important thing is that the aircraft in question isn't going to be attacking something valuable today.

Looked at another way, the attacker has still made an investment in fuel, warload, pilot flying time, airframe life, whatever in getting that plane out. It got no return on (inflicted no damage with) that investment, therefore the attacker lost.

The way we assess these things in my end of the business is to designated aircraft actually shot down or so badly damaged that they are beyond economical repair as being "real attrition". These are assets that are gone and will have to be replaced. Sorties that are lost for any other reason, whether by being aborted or diverted to non-critical tasks, are "virtual attrition". Now, the value relationship between real and virtual attrition is variable and depends on circumstances. As you point out, to the USAF, there is a world of difference, to the air defense system crews, there is almost none.

Virtual attrition can result from quite subtle interplays. For example, the Iraqi SCUD missile attacks on Israel and Saudi during the Second Gulf War caused literally hundreds of aircraft sorties to be spent in chasing around looking for missile TELs rather than pounding on the Republican Guard. Those strikes that didn't happen were all virtual attrition attributable to the missile attacks.

Virtual attrition doesn't even have to be caused by an airstrike being diverted or aborted. For example; take a section of four aircraft each with four hardpoints (two under each wing) trying to penetrate an air defense system equipped with missiles and deliver 16 bombs to target. To do so, it needs a jamming pod. That takes up one hardpoint per aircraft. The warload on each bird is now reduced from four to three, meaning we have to add an extra aircraft to maintain the weight of attack. That extra aircraft is virtual attrition - if it wasn't here it would be doing something else. If the ADS now has fighters (even MiG-21s), those bombers may now have to carry an AIM-9 for self defense, cumulatively reducing their hardpoints from four to two. We now have to use eight aircraft where four were previously necessary. Looked at another way we can only hit half as many targets as previously.

The USAF is fortunate in that it has so many assets that it can accept a high level of virtual attrition without flinching. Other air forces are not so lucky. If they have only limited assets to begin with, virtual attrition can neutralize the air force almost without firing a shot. The ADS wins simply by being there. By the time the assets needed to protect the bombers are allocated, there aren't any bombers left to protect.

by Stuart Slade

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IDont has got it about right, but the time needed to scramble all aircraft would take much more than 1 minute. Which is why early warning of an impending attack is required. Not a problem though. The USN's early warning system for an air raid encompasses more than just the E-2C. Early warning of an impending raid can be provided well before the E-2C detects planes coming in. Also, the USN has beefed up its air defenses tremendously since the end of the Cold War, whereas Russia hasn't exactly introduced more capable threats, with the exception of the Sizzler. The Sizzler is the only threat they have not yet conducted comprehensive tests of satisfactory fidelity to reliably conclude that USN's defenses are sufficiently robust against that threat. The rest of the Russian missiles are a known quantity with the existence of USN drones designed to emulate their performance, and while Russian missiles are not treated with disrespect by the USN, they are also not regarded as show stoppers at all.

I'm talking hundreds of missiles here, they do have that much.

It's not how many missiles you have, but how many you can employ at one time, which in turn hinges on how well the attack can be coordinated. Not as easy as you imagine, and IDont has a better appreciation of the difficulties involved. As a measure, look at how many regiments of Backfires the Soviets expected to use in an assault on a carrier - that would give a rough idea of the limit in terms of practical size of raid.

 

[Finn McCool]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Violet Oboe-The main problem with you 24 plane-96 missle scenario (in addition to the fuel concerns and other things that IDon't pointed out) is that you are not taking into account the fact that the carrier's airwing would intercept the strike package. In your scenario the aircraft have no AAMs for their own defence, which is fine as long as you allow for your strike package to have more aircraft to escort. So that means that you will need a lot more planes-without them your strike aircraft are dead meat. In any event, it is probable that the carrier pilots, even if they were defeated, would get quite a few missles onto the ASM carrying planes. So 24 planes with 96 missles is really a best case scenario because you are not taking into account interception by the carriers planes, which is really their main defence.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I ask what preparation would actually be needed? 24 strike aircraft can carry 96 missiles.

First, you have to find the carrier. not as easy as you imagine. That will require significant coordination of search assetts that will likely not go unnnoticed by US intelligence the carrier group itself.

Second, in order to launch 24 combat ready aircraft at a USN Carrier Task Force, those aircraft have to be staged, fueled, armed, and launched. It is likely that those preparations in and of themselves would also be noticed by US intelligence.

However, you better double the aircraft in the strike package in order to get that many capable ASMs into the air...meaning ASMs with the range and flight charateristics and ESM capabilities that would give them a prayer of reaching the carrier group. Otherwise, very few, if any, of your aircraft will ever get in range to launch.

Third, those aircraft have to approach the aircraft carrier in such a way so as to avoid US air defense aircraft that will be in the air along the threat axis to detect and thwart such an attack. They have to then get into range to launch their missiles.

All of these preparations, prior to launching the missiles are required. It is extremely unlikely that all missiles will be launched in such a scenario. Then, once they are launched, the teeth of the US defense in the AEGIS system, including both active defenses and passive defenses will come into play to both hard kill and soft kill those missiles. Taking all of this into consideration, 96 missiles in a strike package is likely not enough. Even the Soviets recognized this and were prepared to use regimental Backfire and other strike aircraft strength to go after a carrier battle group.

Since that time, the AEGIS defense system has improved significantly.

 

[adeptitus]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

A land-based AF and a carrier strike group each has its advantages. A carrier battle group can be deployed globally by sea, but is limited in number of aircraft, munitions, supplies, etc. The land-based AF isn't restricted by the ship's capacity, and theorically, can field unlimited number of aircraft via land-based AFB's, as well as SAM units.

In the event of a land-based AF vs. carrier strike group conflict, the land-based AF should utilize its advantages to the fullest. While AFB's aren't mobile, countries like the PRC does have lots of land and strategtic depth. The PLANAF needs more AFB's and more "new" strike aircraft and long-range anti-ship missiles.

Currently there is no perfect missile-defense system. The Aegis ships are powerful, but not perfect and limited in number of missile it carries. In the end, it's a target on the receiving end of missiles. Until energy/beam weapons are perfected, I think one wing (~30?) of strike aircraft, each with 4 anti-ship missiles, can prolly punch through an aegis ship's defenses to mission-kill it. The carrier-based CAP aircraft, would require additional naval air force aircraft to engage.

Alternatively, if you had enough SSGN's/SSG's, they can be used to field cruise missiles by the hundreds. Cruise missiles can, of course, be modified to target ships. The Tomahawk TASM had range of 450 km.

From a cost-benefit point of view, an Aegis ship today can cost $1 billion fitted, versus 100 anti-ship/cruise missiles at $1 million each would only cost $100 million per 100. If the missiles had sufficient range can be deployed at distance without endangering the launch aircraft, then it'd be a good cost trade-off against expensive naval ships.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

In the event of a land-based AF vs. carrier strike group conflict, the land-based AF should utilize its advantages to the fullest. While AFB's aren't mobile, countries like the PRC does have lots of land and strategtic depth. The PLANAF needs more AFB's and more "new" strike aircraft and long-range anti-ship missiles.

Currently there is no perfect missile-defense system. The Aegis ships are powerful, but not perfect and limited in number of missile it carries. In the end, it's a target on the receiving end of missiles. Until energy/beam weapons are perfected, I think one wing (~30?) of strike aircraft, each with 4 anti-ship missiles, can prolly punch through an aegis ship's defenses to mission-kill it. The carrier-based CAP aircraft, would require additional naval air force aircraft to engage.

As I have said, the land based force has to find the carrier group art sea first. Not easy at all if the carrier does not want to be found.

And with a US carrier, the 30 aircraft attacking the carrier will have to contend with 24-30 high performance, long range naval fighter aircraft who are being directed by very capable AEW aircraft off the carrier.

If your 30 SU-30s are carrying four long rangs ASMs each, their range is going to be limited. If they carry short range missiles, they are not likely to get into launch range before coming into range of AEGIS vessels themselves.

My point is not that the AEGIS system is infallible, it is just that this defense is the very strength and teeth of the carrier's defense and will be very, very difficult to crack. That is why the Russians planned to attack carrier strike groups in regimental strength.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

A land-based AF and a carrier strike group each has its advantages. A carrier battle group can be deployed globally by sea, but is limited in number of aircraft, munitions, supplies, etc. The land-based AF isn't restricted by the ship's capacity, and theorically, can field unlimited number of aircraft via land-based AFB's, as well as SAM units.

Sounds like the odds are loaded in the land based force's favor, but it is not so. The CBG may have a smaller number of fighters, but mobility gives them a few very powerful advantages. One is that with mobility, the CVN can position itself to be in range of only a few enemy airbases at a time. Meaning that the force ratio is cut down dramatically. Second is the fact that since the CVN is mobile, it has the initiative in determining when it wants to strike. Very powerful advantages that cannot be ignored and more than balances out the uneven numbers ratio.

Currently there is no perfect missile-defense system.

Pointless remark. No one defense system is impregnable. The only question is, is what's needed to saturate the system practically achievable?

The Aegis ships are powerful, but not perfect and limited in number of missile it carries. In the end, it's a target on the receiving end of missiles. Until energy/beam weapons are perfected, I think one wing (~30?) of strike aircraft, each with 4 anti-ship missiles, can prolly punch through an aegis ship's defenses to mission-kill it. The carrier-based CAP aircraft, would require additional naval air force aircraft to engage.

You don't seem to have an adequate appreciation of the defenses that force will have to face in order to complete their objectives.

From a cost-benefit point of view, an Aegis ship today can cost $1 billion fitted, versus 100 anti-ship/cruise missiles at $1 million each would only cost $100 million per 100. If the missiles had sufficient range can be deployed at distance without endangering the launch aircraft, then it'd be a good cost trade-off against expensive naval ships.

Very nice, but supremely simplistic and fatally flawed. Don't follow the KISS principle to closely. Add in the cost of the equipment needed to find the ships and the equipment needed to carry the ASM missiles. Cost ratio don't look too good anymore.

 

[IDonT]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

The main problem with this type of scenario is that it is always geared against the carrier. We make assumptions that take out most of the carriers strength. It is the carrier that ALWAYS operates in a vaccum while the attacker uses a combined arms team. In real life this is not the case.

In the earlier post, an airfield may have greater flight ops capabilities but it is static and the carrier commander knows where it is. An SSGN strike at the airfield will negate its capabilities. Furthermore, the airfield needs to find the carrier force itself.

Currently there is no perfect missile-defense system. The Aegis ships are powerful, but not perfect and limited in number of missile it carries. In the end, it's a target on the receiving end of missiles. Until energy/beam weapons are perfected, I think one wing (~30?) of strike aircraft, each with 4 anti-ship missiles, can prolly punch through an aegis ship's defenses to mission-kill it. The carrier-based CAP aircraft, would require additional naval air force aircraft to engage.

True of course but you are assuming those aircraft will reach within optimal launching range at the CORRECT time to ensure time on target. It is not difficult to mess up the timing of strike aircraft with a carrier's airwing. It is as much a victory for the carrier defence if the airwing can mess up the launch timing so you have 6 missiles arriving every minute for 16 minutes than 96 missiles arriving at the same time. Note that aircraft destruction is not a mentioned.

From a cost-benefit point of view, an Aegis ship today can cost $1 billion fitted, versus 100 anti-ship/cruise missiles at $1 million each would only cost $100 million per 100. If the missiles had sufficient range can be deployed at distance without endangering the launch aircraft, then it'd be a good cost trade-off against expensive naval ships.

Looked at another way, the attacker has still made an investment in fuel, warload, pilot flying time, airframe life, whatever in getting that plane out and firing its $1 million dollar missile. Real attrition are designated aircraft actually shot down or so badly damaged that they are beyond economical repair. These are assets that are gone and will have to be replaced.

So you are risking a lot more than $100 million in a strike.

 

[adeptitus]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

As I've already stated, both land-based AFB/AF and CVBG has their own advantages. The CVGB is mobile but expensive, while land-based AFB/AF is cheaper but not mobile (except you could move the planes around, of course).

From a cost point of view, for the price of a carrier, you can afford many more land-based AFB's. A single carrier has 1-2 "runways" while land-based AFB can build many more runways. Carriers are limited in the amount of munitions and supplies it carries, versus land-based AF has unlimited "space" for supplies.

A single Arleign Burke class ship carries up to 90 missiles and 2 CIWS guns. A land-based AFB can field many more defensive SAMs and CIWS guns -- if it chooses to do so. If the Aegis ship runs out of missiles, it either has to return to port to replenish, or attempt replenish at sea that is time consuming and dangerous. Land-based SAM units can simply reload from storage in almost any weather.

A CVGB has to worry about threats from above and below, while land-based AFB usually only has to worry about threats from above. Given SSGN/SSG's to both sides in a fight, the cruise missiles from a SSGN can only hit targets up to ~1,500 km inland. Any aircraft destroyed can be replaced from other AFB's from the interior, and any damage done to the AFB can be repaired quickly. A CVBG away from home waters, on the other hand, cannot afford to sustain "mission kill" type damages.

In a situation where both sides suffer from "fog of war" without real time satellite images, the CVBG has the advantage of hiding in the vast ocean, while the land-based AF has the advantage of sending out many patrol aircraft in attempt to find the carrier. Or, possibly launching a geostationary spy satellite.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, if you're on the defensive, you should utilize every advantage given (and if you were on the offense, you'd take every advantage too). Say if you're PLANAF tasked to defend against possible USN strike. You should demand the government to allocate you the budget and resources needed to construct many more PLANAF AFB's, equip them with lots of SAMs and guns, buy strike aircraft & fighters by the hundreds, many aerial refueling tankers, long-range cruise missiles, armed UAV's, build SSG/SSGN's, buy more patrol aircraft, ask for more geostationary spy satellites, etc. over a 10+ year period.

You should also have many AFB's well into the interior, with aircraft stored across the land. This process will take at least a decade, because it's not realistic to think that they could build up the strengh and numbers within a short period of time (2-3 years), plus it takes that long (10 years) to train good pilots, assemble domestic or Russian-licensed aircraft, R&D/serial produce cruise missiles, SAMS, land-based CIWS, direct energy weapons, etc. It's a long-term investment that cannot be done quickly, versus the USN has the advantage in already having its CVBG's, along with equipment and experienced staff.

If the PLAN/PLANAF engage an USN CVBG today and lose, you can fault the PLA for its impatience, as well as the political leadership's unwilling to give them the kind of resoruces needed to build up an effective PLANAF force.

You don't seem to have an adequate appreciation of the defenses that force will have to face in order to complete their objectives.

I'd like to use the Singapore analogy. Singapore is a small power house in her region, not only because its people are educated and hard-working, but also beacuse its neighbors (Malay, Indonesia) are weak. If you could pick up Singapore and put it inbetween S. Korea and Japan, suddenly it's not as powerful anymore, because the Koreans and Japanese are just as hard-working.

Simiarily, an USN CVBG is strong not only because it's well equipped and staffed with experienced people, but also because its opponents are weaker. There's little doubt that the PLAN and PLANAF today is weak vs. the USN -- they're simply not as well equipped and skilled/expereinced. The only question is if the PRC leadership is really willing to spend the kind of resources needed to build up the PLANAF (with PLAN in support role) into a force that could deter the USN.

Sinking one USN carrier will not defeat the USN -- the USN can simply send more. But if you had (like Jeff mentioned) many regiments of strike aircraft, equipped with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, plus a dozen SSG/SSGN's parked off-shore, each equippd with ~100 anti-ship cruise missiles ready to go, that might make the USN pause and think "um, maybe not a good idea".

From a defender's point of view, you don't win just by sinking enemy ships, you win by making them stay home and send diplomats over instead.

============

Can the PLA/PLAN/PLANAF reach such a goal? Maybe -- time will tell.

At one time Japan was the sole economic power house of NE Asia, with everyone else behind. The Koreans didn't look at Japan Inc. and say "oh we can't catch up to them" or "let's maintain the status quo". They rolled up their sleeves and went to work. Today the Koreans compete against Japan in high-end consumer electronics. Suddenly Sony/Matsushida/etc does't look so big anymore in face of Samsung.

If the PRC would follow S. Korea's example and rolled up its sleeves and went to work, I think they can prolly do it too. The Chinese people aren't stupid and they're gaining the wealth and technology needed to rise up and compete against Japan and US in civilian/commercial and military sectors. But it'd take a lot of hard work and building up a good foundation, which is opposite of the "shortcut" or "giant/quick leap" mentality. It's possible to take a shortcut and get ahead for a shrot time, but to sustain the lead you need good fundamentals to support you, otherwise you'll fall right back behind.

 

[IDonT]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Adeptius,

A carrier battle group is a tool of power projection while an airfield is not. An airfield in Hainan cannot project its power to South America. The US builds carriers not because of its defensive capability but on its capability to project power without the need of air-basing rights. This capability is very very expensive, hence the need to protect it. For the record, a US airbase in Guam can sustain greater flight operations than any carrier and with a greater variety of aircraft.

In this regard your comparison is wrong. You are changing it to a carrier vs airbase attack.

The thread topic here is "How do you sink a carrier?" This emplies that the carrier force is on the defensive. A carrier, with its protected escorts, is the closest thing to unsinkable as one can get.