Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[marclees]

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

You don't really believe what you posted do you? Have you ever served or even visited an Nimitz class? Do you really think any single missile could sink a CVN? Damage yes, but sink?? No.

The redundancy built into a USN CVN would have to be seen to be believed.

..

Let's take your statement to the extreme . Will a single 200 kiloton nuclear cruise missile/ ASBM sink a CVN ? Yes of course, Easily . One doesn't need to have served or visited a Nimitz class to know that . What about a 900 pound conventional warhead ? A 1000 pound ? A 1499 pound warhead ?

To make a sweeping statement to suggest that a single missile could never sink a CVN is extremely hopeful at best. To have made this suggestive statement after having served on a CVN - Priceless .

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.

The notion that a CVN can not be sunk by a single missile , or a storm of ASBM , will have to be believed , for those who need to believe .

I guess it is a case of Fox Mulder vs Dana Scully.

 

[Sczepan]

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

... that money could be better spent in refining submarine technology, ....

subs - remember the german "wolfpacks" - ar obsolet after WW II; they was and will be killed by ASW-planes pretty soon!

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

subs - remember the german "wolfpacks" - ar obsolet after WW II; they was and will be killed by ASW-planes pretty soon!

How many ASW planes do you need to cover such a vast swathe of territory? A surface group needs to be able to sanitize the waters within a 300km radius in order to neutralize the threat of SLCM strike.

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 carrier is still a matchless weapon for power-projection and engagements on the open seas. A missile/submarine based naval power will forever be a defense-oriented force lacking in true blue-water and power-projection capability. The Chinese military has been modernizing for over two decades, and have invested heavily in asymmetric warfare capabilities designed specifically to negate US naval air power for the last decade. Yet their work has just begun to bear fruit. Also you must understand that China will be far, far from naval superiority or even naval parity with the USN for at least the next two decades. They are beginning to be able to exercise sea-denial out to the second island chain, but anything beyond that the PLAN is toast. They cannot protect their vital shipping lanes such as the Strait of Malaca from any serious USN effort at blockade, they cannot succeed in any major naval engagements outside of their missile umbrella. Nothing they have can engage a CBG on equal terms.

Do you really think any single missile could sink a CVN? Damage yes, but sink?? No.

Maybe not a single missile, but we're not talking about anti-ship missiles here. I'd think two or three direct hits from a 500kg fuel-air explosive would cause unrecoverable damage to any surface vessel.

As far as anti-ship missiles the USN now has 3 and soon 4 trump cards. The Ohio class SSGN can carry 154 cruise missiles of various types. Nearly undetectable a single Ohio class could reek havoc on any nations navy with virtual impunity.

Exactly right! But it works both ways too.

Kilo's armed with Klubs will not be able to match that on a platform for platform basis, but once a missile similar to the Klub is deployed on the Yuan (which China will be rolling out like sausages), the PLAN will have a stealthier platform and a greater total number of sub-based AShms that can be deployed at any one time.

Before you sink or attack an CVN you'd have to find it. Not an easy task.

Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites and Beidou.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I've moved about 14 post from;

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2438&page=29

... to here because the discussion has turned to "I can sink your carrier" again as it has in the past. Please keep the discussion civil.

bd popeye super moderator

 

[bd popeye]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

The notion that a CVN can not be sunk by a single missile , or a storm of ASBM , will have to be believed , for those who need to believe .

I believe it...Anyone else may choose to believe what they wish.

Let's take your statement to the extreme . Will a single 200 kiloton nuclear cruise missile/ ASBM sink a CVN ? Yes of course, Easily . One doesn't need to have served or visited a Nimitz class to know that . What about a 900 pound conventional warhead ? A 1000 pound ? A 1499 pound warhead ?

Sorry as I've previously posted in many a thread about sinking a CV(N) I've always stated that a conventional weapons would or could "mission kill
a CV but not sink it.

Both the USS Forrestal & USS Enterprise suffered terrible fires because of munitions accidents from conventional explosives. The crews of those ships fouth the massive fires and saved both ships. The ships were repaired and lived to serve futher. The Enterprise still sails on today.

Forrestal Fire;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Enterprise Fire;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition in May 2005 the USN set out to sink the ex-USS America CV-66 (Kitty Hawk class) with conventionl weapons in a "SINKEX" that was to test what combination of conventional weapons would sink an "Super Carrier".. After three weeks of on & off test the America was still afloat and was eventually sunk by EOD set explosives.

 

[SampanViking]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

For me the key point has to be the actual development of effective ASBM's. If they have been developed I think it changes the game completely.

The key strength of such a weapon would lie in its Kinetic Impact and as such I would not even bother putting on high explosives. It would eb far better to load multiple and varied Kinetic Kill weapons, some designed to penetrate an fragment at terminal velocity and others to Impact and Crush, destroying the actual frame of the ship. I would further emphasise the greater importance of imparting structual impact damage over that of blast and incendiary, I think 911 gave a very clear demonstration of this.

If one missile could break the structure then potentially it could sink the ship, no matter how big it is. Afterall; talk to the merchant marine, as during the Nineties, Bulk Carriers, bigger than Carriers were being lost at a surprising rate when Wave Impact damage broke the structure.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

For me the key point has to be the actual development of effective ASBM's. If they have been developed I think it changes the game completely.

The key strength of such a weapon would lie in its Kinetic Impact and as such I would not even bother putting on high explosives. It would eb far better to load multiple and varied Kinetic Kill weapons, some designed to penetrate an fragment at terminal velocity and others to Impact and Crush, destroying the actual frame of the ship. I would further emphasise the greater importance of imparting structual impact damage over that of blast and incendiary, I think 911 gave a very clear demonstration of this.

If one missile could break the structure then potentially it could sink the ship, no matter how big it is. Afterall; talk to the merchant marine, as during the Nineties, Bulk Carriers, bigger than Carriers were being lost at a surprising rate when Wave Impact damage broke the structure.

Really?? They have to penatrate the air defence shield first. Not an easy task. Bulk carriers and skyscrapers are not Aircraft Carriers.

I reiterate;

Sorry as I've previously posted in many a thread about sinking a CV(N) I've always stated that a conventional weapons would or could "mission kill
a CV but not sink it.

and;

In addition in May 2005 the USN set out to sink the ex-USS America CV-66 (Kitty Hawk class) with conventionl weapons in a "SINKEX" that was to test what combination of conventional weapons would sink an "Super Carrier".. After three weeks of on & off test the America was still afloat and was eventually sunk by EOD set explosives.

We in this forum have discussed this subject at nasuem. My fellow members you may continue to believe what you will on this subject. Those ^^ are my last words on this topic. Thank you.

 

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

It is most cost-effective to invest that into conventional submarine development. If China could produce more Yuans and design an indigenous weapon similiar to the Klub, then it'll have a credible deterrent against any surface group.

Another effective platforrm will be a future stealth strike aircraft capable of carrying the KD/KH series of anti-ship weapons.

conventional submarine don't have the speed to follow carrier groups, without compromising their position by using their diesel engines to acquire sufficient speed. Using battery powered can only last so long before surfacing for recharge. Another factor is the submarine is much smaller then nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarine is the best option so far.

 

[Pointblank]

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

conventional submarine don't have the speed to follow carrier groups, without compromising their position by using their diesel engines to acquire sufficient speed. Using battery powered can only last so long before surfacing for recharge. Another factor is the submarine is much smaller then nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarine is the best option so far.

Exactly, you need raw speed to catch and stay with a US CVBG; a diesel electric sub lacks that speed unless it got really lucky and just happened to be right in the path of a CVBG.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

conventional submarine don't have the speed to follow carrier groups, without compromising their position by using their diesel engines to acquire sufficient speed. Using battery powered can only last so long before surfacing for recharge. Another factor is the submarine is much smaller then nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarine is the best option so far.

Exactly, you need raw speed to catch and stay with a US CVBG; a diesel electric sub lacks that speed unless it got really lucky and just happened to be right in the path of a CVBG.

Well, I doubt a nuclear submarine can keep up with a CVBG either. In both cases, you will deploy your submarines to pre-determined ambush locations and then strike in a coordinated saturation attack utilizing air, sea, and land assets. We are not really talking about going out and engaging carriers directly, but rather being able to succesfully conduct sea denial missions against the carriers. Being smaller, stealthier, but most important cheaper, you can disperse a larger number of diesels in the theatre prior to the arrival of the CVBGs. Ideally you would want your engines running for as short an amount of time as possible. Also, the diesels have a much better chance of getting away, and also with a lot more platforms losing a couple is not as big of a deal.

And a question to anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject- What kind of effect would a fuel-air explosive that managed to penetrate the deck of a carrier have? Would the extreme overpressure be enough to cause something like what happened to the USS Arizona?

Really?? They have to penatrate the air defence shield first. Not an easy task. Bulk carriers and skyscrapers are not Aircraft Carriers.

It gets difficult once there are a half dozen MIRVED projectiles coming at you at mach7+ speeds, along with the accompanying chaff and decoys.

Just dawned on me... you can also navalize DF-21... imagine DF-21 raining down from Yuans, Shangs, and future surface combatants!