Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[crobato]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Not true. You need to find out more.

You need to find out that the main mission of the Backfires aren't as much as the carriers but the troop transports that can be used to reinforce NATO armies in Western Europe.

Which is why the CAP isn't in some defensive position around the carrier. They need to go to the offense to take down the Backfires before they launch their missiles.

You don't seem to know that the Superhornet loiter times actually exceed that of the Tomcat in the Fleet Air Defense mission? :nana:

Because they carry much shorter ranged AMRAAMs as opposed to Phoenix?

With a loadout of 6 AAMs, the F-14 has a loiter time on station of 1.91 hours, while the SuperHornet has a loiter time of 2.25 hours. Both are at 150nm from the carrier. Similarly the SuperHornet's range in the fighter escort role exceeds that of the F-14.

The SH has a cruise speed much slower than the F-14. If the SH matches the cruise speed of the F-14, its range won't be as long, or even close.

You seem to be assuming that all the carrier aircraft is going to do are some form of defensive posture. That's not the reason why they come in the first place. If they're going to intervene it would be offensive CAP. And besides a loiter range of 150nm from the carrier from an intervention spot would put the carrier in range of J-11s plus a few other stuff.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

You need to find out that the main mission of the Backfires aren't as much as the carriers but the troop transports that can be used to reinforce NATO armies in Western Europe.

Which is why the CAP isn't in some defensive position around the carrier. They need to go to the offense to take down the Backfires before they launch their missiles.

You really need to understand more about how the Soviets saw the carriers and the threat implicit in them.

Because they carry much shorter ranged AMRAAMs as opposed to Phoenix?

No, the 1.91 hours loiter time was given with a loadout of 2 Phoenixes, 2 Sparrows and 2 sidewinders, with 6 Phoenixes loiter time further decreases to 1.5 hours. Think about this. The F-14s were capable of handling the threat the Soviet Union posed which is far more capable than what the PLAAF and PLAN can put up now. The SuperHornets are actually more than enought to handle the PLAN now. Anyway, the SuperHornets are to get the AMRAAM-D, which will restore the long range capability lost.

The SH has a cruise speed much slower than the F-14. If the SH matches the cruise speed of the F-14, its range won't be as long, or even close.

In a Fleet Air Defense (CAP) role, cruise speed is not the critical factor. I thought you would have understood that. It's really tiring having to explain to someone who doesn't understand what's needed to hold an intelligent discussion.

You seem to be assuming that all the carrier aircraft is going to do are some form of defensive posture. That's not the reason why they come in the first place. If they're going to intervene it would be offensive CAP. And besides a loiter range of 150nm from the carrier from an intervention spot would put the carrier in range of J-11s plus a few other stuff.

If they are going to intervene then expect strikes. Just mentioning range of ground based aircraft betrays ignorance of the advantages of an aircraft carrier. And makes one wonder why if range was all that was needed why not build a 2000km fighter-bomber? That way a carrier won't be survivable within 2000km, going by that stunted logic.

 

[crobato]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

You really need to understand more about how the Soviets saw the carriers and the threat implicit in them.

I got a book about Soviet navy doctrine. It does not change that they're fighting most of all, a land war and the main role of the Soviet Navy was interdiction of reinforcements.

No, the 1.91 hours loiter time was given with a loadout of 2 Phoenixes, 2 Sparrows and 2 sidewinders, with 6 Phoenixes loiter time further decreases to 1.5 hours. Think about this. The F-14s were capable of handling the threat the Soviet Union posed which is far more capable than what the PLAAF and PLAN can put up now. The SuperHornets are actually more than enought to handle the PLAN now. Anyway, the SuperHornets are to get the AMRAAM-D, which will restore the long range capability lost.

When you get the AMRAAM D, but then the PLAAF isn't exactly sitting on what they have either, as PL-12s now have a notch up and a new generation BVRAAM seems to be in development.

In a Fleet Air Defense (CAP) role, cruise speed is not the critical factor. I thought you would have understood that. It's really tiring having to explain to someone who doesn't understand what's needed to hold an intelligent discussion.

The problem with you is that you suddenly decided to change the mission role of a carrier planning to intervene in a Taiwan situation. They didn't come all the way there just to protect themselves.

If they are going to intervene then expect strikes. Just mentioning range of ground based aircraft betrays ignorance of the advantages of an aircraft carrier. And makes one wonder why if range was all that was needed why not build a 2000km fighter-bomber? That way a carrier won't be survivable within 2000km, going by that stunted logic.

And if you expect strikes from the carrier fleet, don't expect 150km loiter ranges either. Furthemore, you betray the ignorance of land based aircraft, which includes the ability to field aircraft with far greater range, far greater number, much greater depth of logistics, and not the least, far greater mission sortie rate. The USAF delivered mission sortie rates several times over that of carrier based aircraft in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I'm sorry, Kongo, i made a mistake of pressing the edit button instead of the reply button---crobato.

And it says the Backfires were meant to go after convoys and not carriers? :rofl:I've a feeling you got conned, if true.

It says that the main Soviet doctrine is to prevent troop and material reinforcement of NATO armies in the event of continental conflict.

Robert Bachurst, Understanding The Soviet Navy, a Handbook, published by the Naval War College.

Considering the AMRAAM-D is approaching fielding in a few years time... And that the SuperHornet has AESA and an overall more advanced avionics suite...

Considering how fast the PL-12 mod was incorporated, and the export version being marketed now...

Where did I change any role? A carriers jets can be tasked to have certain roles at certain times, just because I mentioned a Fleet Air Defense mission doesn't mean its jets are stuck ding that mission throughout the campaign? You seriously didn't know that?

You cannot separate the mission context from the potential vulnerability of the carrier. A carrier around 600nm away from PLA staging points playing safe, defeats the purpose of the intervention.

Uh, not 150km loiter range. It's 2.25 hours of loiter at a station 150nm away from the carrier. Of course, that can increase or decrease with corresponind tradeoffs on loiter time. Certainly the SuperHornet can be tasked for other duties like escort or strikes.

You don't seem to know the difference of loiter time vs. cruise time. Loiter is just flying slow, saving gas. Cruising towards the mission point is something very different. There is a time factor involved. The Super Hornet isn't as efficient as other planes when a higher cruise speed is called. If you want to reach to the target at a slow rate, go ahead. The target might not be there.

The point remains. If you're in range for the Super Hornet to conduct inland strikes, the carrier in turn would also be in range of retaliatory attacks from opposing aircraft.

Ah, a Hellraiser number 2 you are. Specifying situations to back yourself up with totally no idea of the circumstances behind them. You do realise that distances affect sortie rates? The very long distances involved served to decrease the Navy sortie rates dramatically. In any case, what makes you think PLAN/PLAAF sortie rates are comparable with the USAF's?

The PLAAF were certainly impressed what they saw with the USAF back in the eighties, and getting faster sortie rates have been a primary agenda ever since.

And you are certainly ignorant of one great point that the carrier has. It moves. Yes, I know you know that, but so far you've demonstrated that you don't know the full implications of what that means and the operational advantages that is derived from it. If you did, you wouldn't have made the point about range.

So it moves. But in order to support strike operations against PLA assembly areas, the carrier has to come closer in order to support the strike combat radius of the Super Hornets. That increases the risk of interdiction, even from SSKs. All you have to do is get the combat radius and draw circles around these assembly areas. That will give you an idea where the ideal zones where the carrier has to operate, and this is something that the opponent would be aware of. If you have to strike further inland, the carrier has to move further closer to coast. Range does count.

 

[crobato]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I'm sorry, Kongo, i made a mistake of pressing the edit button instead of the reply button. My sincerest apologies, please feel free to edit back the material as you remember---crobato.

And it says the Backfires were meant to go after convoys and not carriers? I've a feeling you got conned, if true.

It says that the main Soviet doctrine is to prevent troop and material reinforcement of NATO armies in the event of continental conflict.

Robert Bachurst, Understanding The Soviet Navy, a Handbook, published by the Naval War College.

Considering the AMRAAM-D is approaching fielding in a few years time... And that the SuperHornet has AESA and an overall more advanced avionics suite...

Considering how fast the PL-12 mod was incorporated, and the export version being marketed now...

Where did I change any role? A carriers jets can be tasked to have certain roles at certain times, just because I mentioned a Fleet Air Defense mission doesn't mean its jets are stuck ding that mission throughout the campaign? You seriously didn't know that?

You cannot separate the mission context from the potential vulnerability of the carrier. A carrier around 600nm away from PLA staging points playing safe, defeats the purpose of the intervention.

Uh, not 150km loiter range. It's 2.25 hours of loiter at a station 150nm away from the carrier. Of course, that can increase or decrease with corresponind tradeoffs on loiter time. Certainly the SuperHornet can be tasked for other duties like escort or strikes.

You don't seem to know the difference of loiter time vs. cruise time. Loiter is just flying slow, saving gas. Cruising towards the mission point is something very different. There is a time factor involved. The Super Hornet isn't as efficient as other planes when a higher cruise speed is called. If you want to reach to the target at a slow rate, go ahead. The target might not be there.

The point remains. If you're in range for the Super Hornet to conduct inland strikes, the carrier in turn would also be in range of retaliatory attacks from opposing aircraft.

Ah, a Hellraiser number 2 you are. Specifying situations to back yourself up with totally no idea of the circumstances behind them. You do realise that distances affect sortie rates? The very long distances involved served to decrease the Navy sortie rates dramatically. In any case, what makes you think PLAN/PLAAF sortie rates are comparable with the USAF's?

The PLAAF were certainly impressed what they saw with the USAF back in the eighties, and getting faster sortie rates have been a primary agenda ever since.

And you are certainly ignorant of one great point that the carrier has. It moves. Yes, I know you know that, but so far you've demonstrated that you don't know the full implications of what that means and the operational advantages that is derived from it. If you did, you wouldn't have made the point about range.

So it moves. But in order to support strike operations against PLA assembly areas, the carrier has to come closer in order to support the strike combat radius of the Super Hornets. That increases the risk of interdiction, even from SSKs. All you have to do is get the combat radius and draw circles around these assembly areas. That will give you an idea where the ideal zones where the carrier has to operate, and this is something that the opponent would be aware of. If you have to strike further inland, the carrier has to move further closer to coast. Range does count.

 

[Delbert]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Aircraft carriers are not built for defensive roles.

But it provides power for the Navy to project far beyond your shores.

 

[marclees]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

. Furthermore, the AIM-120D just entered full production; this one has a range of 165km.

The Russian KS172 has an effective BVR of 400 km , so in a sense , the AIM-120D has joined the party way too late .

The US is not standing still; you are assuming that the US will stop innovating and stay static. This is a dangerous assumption to make. For example, the USN is fitting the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet with a brand new AESA radar. The Russians and the Chinese are either still using PESA (a dead end radar technology), or a mechanically scanned array. Although the Russians and the Chinese are working on AESA arrays, this will take some time, which is time for the US to again, leap further ahead.

On the contrary , most observers expect that the US will continue to innovate and invest billions of $$ (which it does not have !) into the battlefield . This is deja vu , the cold war (redux) again (version 2.0 ?) . Only this time , the actors face a vastly different factual matrix . One player is an economic bankrupt - the 2nd is still (attempting) to play a low key role and waiting, and the 3rd , licking his previous wounds and waiting to pounce .


As for your comments about F/A 18s being upgraded with AESA , there are lots of pros/cons of the different antenna designs ...but as crobato has very correctly pointed out ECM resistant has nothing to do with antenna design.

It is akin to saying my OS X Mac can do better internet surfing than your Vista PC .
(ok a bad analogy , but it has been a long day !)

 

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Aircraft carriers are not built for defensive roles.

But it provides power for the Navy to project far beyond your shores.

thats not true. the soviet carriers were to escort their SSBN, purely for defensive role. it depends how you utilise the carrier. when you build a carrier you can't say its for offensive, it can be for either, it just depends what you intend to do with it. soviet doctrine was different to the USN, during the Cold War. China plans to build carrier to insert influence upon the possible conflict between Tawain, and assume soverienty over the resource rich islands in the South China Sea. Other then that they plan to use it for defence, not projecting powers beyond South-East Asia. 6 carriers are deemed sufficient. 2 for each fleet. One in docks and one on patrol.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

It says that the main Soviet doctrine is to prevent troop and material reinforcement of NATO armies in the event of continental conflict.

So it certainly doesn't say that backfires are for anti-convoy operations. And naturally so. Look at the Backfire and its loadouts and it is clear as daylight that it was meant to operate against Carrier groups.

Considering how fast the PL-12 mod was incorporated, and the export version being marketed now...

No news yet then?

You cannot separate the mission context from the potential vulnerability of the carrier. A carrier around 600nm away from PLA staging points playing safe, defeats the purpose of the intervention.

What makes you think it is always going to stay 600nm from the coast? Try finding out how the carriers would have been used against the Soviet Union. If you haven't figured it out by your next post, I'd tell you then.

You don't seem to know the difference of loiter time vs. cruise time. Loiter is just flying slow, saving gas. Cruising towards the mission point is something very different. There is a time factor involved. The Super Hornet isn't as efficient as other planes when a higher cruise speed is called. If you want to reach to the target at a slow rate, go ahead. The target might not be there.

In a fleet air defense role which is what I was talking about all along, loiter time is paramount. Why are you playing shift the goalposts now? Or do you not understand the meaning of fleet air defense? In terms of fighter escort the Super Hornet similarly trumps the Tomcat in terms of range.

The point remains. If you're in range for the Super Hornet to conduct inland strikes, the carrier in turn would also be in range of retaliatory attacks from opposing aircraft.

Again, to understand why this isn't that much of a matter, you'd need to find out how carriers were meant to operate against the Soviet Union. Anyway, the whole problem is your fixation on range of the platform. That isn't the critical metric in play. What matters is range at which the PLAN can maintain credible surveillance.

The PLAAF were certainly impressed what they saw with the USAF back in the eighties, and getting faster sortie rates have been a primary agenda ever since.

So they're impressed, so now their sortie rates exceed that of the Carrier? I'm impressed with how far you can stretch logic.

So it moves. But in order to support strike operations against PLA assembly areas, the carrier has to come closer in order to support the strike combat radius of the Super Hornets. That increases the risk of interdiction, even from SSKs. All you have to do is get the combat radius and draw circles around these assembly areas. That will give you an idea where the ideal zones where the carrier has to operate, and this is something that the opponent would be aware of. If you have to strike further inland, the carrier has to move further closer to coast. Range does count.

Certainly range is a factor, but it isn't quite the overriding factor you make it out to be, or people would have made 2000km ranged strike-bombers. Does that doesn't make a carrier unsurvivable within 2000km of the coast then? To those who understand, that 2000km range doesn't matter one bit without considering other factors at play.

 

[crobato]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

So it certainly doesn't say that backfires are for anti-convoy operations. And naturally so. Look at the Backfire and its loadouts and it is clear as daylight that it was meant to operate against Carrier groups.

One cannot say that backfires are mainly against carriers either? Do you hae proof of that? All those load outs are equally applicable against large transports and troop carriers.

Why have you attended the Soviet doctrine? Do you realize that the Soviet Navy is an adjunct of their Army, and their Army's goal is to "liberate" Western Europe? The Soviet Navy is not there to prove its power, its there to serve a very specific purpose. Go read some references.

No news yet then?

Did you check the USAF threat video? And in Zhuhai, they have gone one version up on the export version.

What makes you think it is always going to stay 600nm from the coast? Try finding out how the carriers would have been used against the Soviet Union. If you haven't figured it out by your next post, I'd tell you then.

You're telling me this when you don't know what Soviet Navy doctrine really is?

So tell me how carriers can protect the troop transports reinforcing NATO armies?

In a fleet air defense role which is what I was talking about all along, loiter time is paramount. Why are you playing shift the goalposts now? Or do you not understand the meaning of fleet air defense? In terms of fighter escort the Super Hornet similarly trumps the Tomcat in terms of range.

I never seen the Super Hornet trump the Tomcat in range. I want you to qualify that.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Assuming the use of S-3 tankers, an F-14D strike, refueling somewhere between Quetta and Sukkur, Pakistan, wouldn't have any trouble attacking targets in northern most Afghanistan. If however, an F/A-18 E/F refuels in the same spot, it will barely make it to Kabul. The unrefueled radius of an F-14D carrying normal strike load (4 2,000lb LGBs, 2 Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two 280 gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles. Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350 statute mile radius carrying about half the bomb load."

And once again, I tell you, loiter time isn't cruise time.

I also want you to show me references of the Tomcat's loiter time.

""The most devastating commet came from a Hornet pilot who flew numerous side by side comparison flights with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and says, 'We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them."

Again, to understand why this isn't that much of a matter, you'd need to find out how carriers were meant to operate against the Soviet Union. Anyway, the whole problem is your fixation on range of the platform. That isn't the critical metric in play. What matters is range at which the PLAN can maintain credible surveillance.

Well then, go ahead and tell me. Tell me please how you plan to protect the supply lines to NATO.

So they're impressed, so now their sortie rates exceed that of the Carrier? I'm impressed with how far you can stretch logic.

Why don't you explain to me why USAF land based aircraft are able to pull sortie rates exceeding that of carrier born aircraft by several fold?

Certainly range is a factor, but it isn't quite the overriding factor you make it out to be, or people would have made 2000km ranged strike-bombers. Does that doesn't make a carrier unsurvivable within 2000km of the coast then? To those who understand, that 2000km range doesn't matter one bit without considering other factors at play.

Is there a Super Hornet with a 2000km combat radius with a full combat load? I think not.

Whatever a Super Hornet can reach, a Flanker will do equal to better. Flankers are among the most rangiest fighters out there.