Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[Finn McCool]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

This has been quite an interesting argument to read. You guys have been arguing quite a bit about what exactly "Soviet Naval Doctrine" is. I was under the impression that the main role of the Soviet surface fleet and Naval Air Arm was to clear a path for the Soviet Navy's SSNs to get around the geographical chokepoints that hemmed in the Soviets and allow them to engage convoys bringing US reinforcements to Western Europe and to try and find American SSBNs. The surface fleet and Naval Air Arm were also there to protect the areas of "sanitized sea" (ie the White Sea, the Sea of Okhtosk) from American SSNs and surface elements that would be looking for the Soviet Navy's own SSBNs. So really I think you both give too much importance to carriers and aviation. To both sides it was really more about the subs, because that's where the nukes are.

 

[marclees]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Yes, yes, the Pentagon needs to read Chinese reports to learn about their systems. :roll: That's an AFA video, fer chrissakes! DO you really think the AFA is the USAF? I applaud your gullibility. THe Pentagon relies on neither AFA nor Chinese reports to assess their capability. They have their own software and tools to do that for them.

If one is honest enough , one would know that the AFA video is probably derived from a 2006/2007 USAF report . The full version hasn't been declassified, but there has been lots of public domain discussions and feeder information derived from the 2006 JSF project, in particular , why the need for a JSF project in the 1st place ?
(Hint : Because the current batch of USAF fighters are losing all their Air Superiority Advantage )

The USAF can ill-afford such an expensive JSF program , so the concept has to be "sold" to the JV -partners, where it was subjected to some degree of public scrutiny . (e.g, Dennis Jensen in Australia ).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And let's not forget - There are even some quarters within RAND that believe that even with the new F35 , the USAF cannot out-match the current Russian-made Flanker jets which are used by China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So maybe the current outdated F/A 18 Super Hornet is not as invincible as some posters hope or dream .....

Maybe this is the real gullibility after all. :rofl:

 

[SampanViking]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I think Crobato has been very tolerant if not indulgent in these exchanges.

In terms of the Cold War against the Soviets, I agree with Crobato that the use of NATO Carriers would have been limited and largely defencive, mainly concentrating on winning the third Battle of the Atlantic, by protectign US Convoys.

After all what else in there for them to do?

The Lower North Sea and Baltic are far too constrained for effective Carrier use and any operation far better served by Land Bases.

The Med would be too far away for any real use (unless the Red Army had really broken through into Southern Europe) and trying to Access the Black Sea would have been suicidal!

Other than Convoy Protection, the only other real use would have been patrolling the Higher North Sea and North Atlantic/Atrctic Ocean to interdict Soviet Air and Sea Power coming from the far North, which while undoubtedly an important hole to plug, would be a very peripheral action to a major Land War on the European Peninsular.

 

[Finn McCool]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Other than Convoy Protection, the only other real use would have been patrolling the Higher North Sea and North Atlantic/Atrctic Ocean to interdict Soviet Air and Sea Power coming from the far North, which while undoubtedly an important hole to plug, would be a very peripheral action to a major Land War on the European Peninsular.

Everything you say is very true. However I dispute the notion that the action in the High North/Arctic theater would be "peripheral". When you put nukes into the equation it becomes downright essential. Plugging the GIUK gap would be a key task of the carriers, trying to prevent Soviet subs from entering the Atlantic proper. This is import both to protect the convoys, but also to prevent Soviet SSBNs from getting to a point where they can cut the launch to impact times of their missiles were low enough to seriously affect American ability to retaliate/prepare for impact. The USN would also want to breach the GIUK gap to try to kill Soviet SSBNs that were lurking behind the cover of the Soviet surface fleet and naval air. Action in this theater would have been absolutely critical to the survival of both nations, as this is where nukes would be flying. At a certain point its all academic, because both sides had enough land based nukes to destroy the world, but obviously both sides realized the importance of the North Atlantic/Arctic oceans to the nuclear balance of power.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I'm back..

In terms of the Cold War against the Soviets, I agree with Crobato that the use of NATO Carriers would have been limited and largely defencive, mainly concentrating on winning the third Battle of the Atlantic, by protectign US Convoys.

I will neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard USN carriers..

USN CVs carrierd nuclear weapons until the "nuke strike mission" was taken away from the USN carriers in 1987. Gradually all nuks weapons were removed from USN CVs by the mid 90's. So in some "Cold War" confrontation both sides were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

With the USN CVs armed with nukes it made them an important factor in any confrontation with the USSR. And of course made them a prime target of the Soviets.

 

[crobato]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I feel that Kongo here has continually failed to provide references, post after Post AFTER POST.

Failure to do so and I wonder if you are here to troll or what?

Show me authoritative references to the actual Soviet doctrine. Knocking out carriers are important, but there is no one who will doubt here the much greater value of sending a US Army division to the bottom of the ocean.

When it comes to nuclear related missions, there are two levels, a strategic level and a theatre level. You can well understand that an A-6 is not by any means close to the imagination, a B-52.

Cruising speed isn't important? Figure out why the F-22 has the cruise speed it has.

As for the PL-12 reports, that much intel is also being gathered by ROC's own agencies. You honestly think the USAF would rely purely on Chinese reports do you without cross references of their own.

Why by the way, is what I will be asking you about the Super Hornet's combat radii on full strike configuration. Something is in error when it is not provided with cross references, and where every other data, including Boeing's and a CSR (C as in US Congress) report, says otherwise. I have Jane's Warship Recognition book here, and it lists the Type 22 Houbei as being "Made in France", and Thailand's OPV as made in the US.

The next post you must make here that you better start showing some references.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I feel that Kongo here has continually failed to provide references, post after Post AFTER POST.

I have. The only problem for you is that my references are either not available on the net, or that the information they provide are not agreeable to you, so you dismiss them out of hand.

Failure to do so and I wonder if you are here to troll or what?

Seriously, you have to find a better justification to accuse me of trolling. Especially when your judgement here isn't exactly neutral, not after having your POV systematically thrashed.

Show me authoritative references to the actual Soviet doctrine. Knocking out carriers are important, but there is no one who will doubt here the much greater value of sending a US Army division to the bottom of the ocean.

I told you, you won't find anywhere in the Soviet Doctrine which would outright mention that Backfires would be used against Carriers, or that Backfires would be used against convoys, for that matter. That's because doctrine simply doesn't go into such details. By asking for proof in such a manner you betray more about what you don't know of Soviet doctrine than you do! :rofl: Quite obviously you have found yourself stuck in a corner when I called you out to prove where in Soviet doctrine was it said that backfires were used against convoys. You couldn't! Are you trying to do the same thing on me? Do understand that I have never claimed it was soviet doctrine to use backfires against carriers. Rather, by looking at the characteristics of the anti-ship armament of the Tu-22s, one could clearly see what their targets were.

When it comes to nuclear related missions, there are two levels, a strategic level and a theatre level. You can well understand that an A-6 is not by any means close to the imagination, a B-52.

So now you acknowledge that carriers were nuclear tasked? I guess you had to after popeye confirmed it? Otherwise you'd still be squawking about me not showing proof for that. And anyway, what you're saying is irrelevant. The Soviet Navy were tasked to defend the homeland, and carriers were the number one surface platform which were capable of launching devastating nuclear strikes prior to introduction of Tomahawks.

Cruising speed isn't important? Figure out why the F-22 has the cruise speed it has.

I'm in constant amazement of how you betray more of what you don't know with every attempt to discredit me. The rationale for the F-22's cruise speed was very different from that of the SuperHornet. And those advantages apply only to the F-22, since supercruise brings about advantages that minor sustained speed improvements don't give. In any case, the F-18 SuperHornet cruise speed differential with other aircraft probably isn't that far behind other aircraft, if it is at all. Would you please provide the cruise speed of the SuperHornet, since you keep insisting, and were the first to insist that the SuperHornet's cruise speed is lower than that of the Tomcat?

As for the PL-12 reports, that much intel is also being gathered by ROC's own agencies. You honestly think the USAF would rely purely on Chinese reports do you without cross references of their own.

You are the one which asserted the USAF relied on AFA and Chinese reports. Why are you accusing me of doing that now?

Why by the way, is what I will be asking you about the Super Hornet's combat radii on full strike configuration. Something is in error when it is not provided with cross references, and where every other data, including Boeing's and a CSR (C as in US Congress) report, says otherwise.

Why don't you open your eyes and look carefully at the figures given? Only one of them is given with a particular flight configuration. The rest of the figures are meaningless.

I have Jane's Warship Recognition book here, and it lists the Type 22 Houbei as being "Made in France", and Thailand's OPV as made in the US.

And that makes the figures I have given wrong? How about giving concrete figures along with the parameters under which those figures are valid? For once? Simply taking a 40% figure and multiplying that by the Hornet's range isn't any good if you don't know what config that applies under for both the Super and normal version. Unfortunately, you're the one here who isn't providing good references for made claims.

 

[crobato]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I have. The only problem for you is that my references are either not available on the net, or that the information they provide are not agreeable to you, so you dismiss them out of hand.

LOL. The bottom line is that you have not provided one at all. I am asking you to name it.

Seriously, you have to find a better justification to accuse me of trolling. Especially when your judgement here isn't exactly neutral, not after having your POV systematically thrashed.

Oh really. How neutral are you? You just went off the moment I mentioned that carriers can be in Flanker strike range.

I told you, you won't find anywhere in the Soviet Doctrine which would outright mention that Backfires would be used against Carriers, or that Backfires would be used against convoys, for that matter. That's because doctrine simply doesn't go into such details. By asking for proof in such a manner you betray more about what you don't know of Soviet doctrine than you do! :rofl: Quite obviously you have found yourself stuck in a corner when I called you out to prove where in Soviet doctrine was it said that backfires were used against convoys. You couldn't! Are you tring to do the same thing on me? Do understand that I have never claimed it was soviet doctrine to use backfires against carriers. Rather, by looking at the characteristics of the anti-ship armament of the Tu-22s, one could clearly see what their targets were.

LOL. If you can't find anywhere where Soviet Doctrine actually says that, so how the hell do you know that is Soviet doctrine.

Yet, you continue to dismiss a book published by the Naval War College where the author has actually made deep research, made interviews from defectors, and obtained quotes from Russian leaders including Admiral Gorshkov.

So now you acknowledge that carriers were nuclear tasked? :rofl: I guess you had to after popeye confirmed it? Otherwise you'd still be squawking about me not showing proof for that. And anyway, what you're saying is irrelevant. The Soviet Navy were tasked to defend the homeland, and carriers were the number one surface platform which were capable of launching devastating nuclear strikes prior to introduction of Tomahawks.

LOL. You don't know what the difference between a strategic and theatre task is.

Theatre level do not actually task in the attack in the Soviet homeland. That's left for the Strategic element. When they say theater in the NATO context, that is Western Europe. Using nuclear bombs in response to let's say, tactical atomic missile strikes from the Soviet Army. The difference between a Pershing and a Minuteman.

You honestly think that A-6s can strike in the SU's deep interior? Do they have the range? The persistance? Enough bombs?

I'm in constant amazement of how you betray more of what you don't know with every attempt to discredit me. The rationale for the F-22's cruise speed was very different from that of the SuperHornet. And those advantages apply only to the F-22, since supercruise brings about advantages that minor sustained speed improvements don't give. In any case, the F-18 SuperHornet cruise speed differential with other aircraft probably isn't that far behind other aircraft, if it is at all. Would you please provide the cruise speed of the SuperHornet, since you keep insisting, and were the first to insist that the SuperHornet's cruise speed is lower than that of the Tomcat?

That is absolutely hogwash.

Why is the rationale for the F-22's high cruise speed different from the Super Hornet? By intention, the F-22 has a high cruise speed for many reasons related to its mission. are you saying the Super Hornet has a different mission from the F-22 or any other superiority and strike fighter?

I already provided you Admiral Gilchrist's article. Go read it. Not my problem if you continue to ignore it.

You are the one which asserted the USAF relied on AFA and Chinese reports. Why are you accusing me of doing that now? :rofl:

So anything more to add? The fact is that the USAF now thinks the PL-12 is indeed a threat. You are the one dismissive of it, acting as if just because the reports are Chinese, they're not reliable. Is that a bit of a racial prejudice there?

Why don't you open your eyes and look carefully at the figures given? Only one of them is given with a particular flight configuration. The rest of the figures are meaningless.

And that makes the figures I have given wrong? How about giving concrete figures along with the parameters under which those figures are valid? For once?

The fact that I have not seen your figures collaborated anywhere else. Not from even from Boeing or the CSR.

The reason why I want you to post links is because I want to read the data by myself. So many have posted information alleged from sources, and when the source is examined closer, or when the context is examined, there are either errors, misinterpretation, failed to add details, or taking things out of context. I find your figures most especially funny when they exceed the combat radius of the F-35 at least by a factor of 2.

Simply taking a 40% figure and multiplying that by the Hornet's range isn't any good if you don't know what config that applies under for both the Super and normal version. Unfortunately, you're the one here who isn't providing good references for made claims.

Wow, you never even read the CSR report, haven't you? It somehow doubts that the 40% improvement is even reached. Go read Gilchrist's article again, there is a quote there that even doubts the SH matches the older Hornet in range.

I've showed you a hell of a lot more than you ever did. Up to now, you have not provided references.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

LOL. The bottom line is that you have not provided one at all. I am asking you to name it.

I have provided Jane's as a reference, and you quickly dismissed it out of hand?

Oh really. How neutral are you? You just went off the moment I mentioned that carriers can be in Flanker strike range.

I just mentioned that that is irrelevant. You took it as a personal affront, tried to argue and ressort to misdirection and have the cheek of accuseingme of trolling? I don't have to be neutral, I'm not a mod so I have no powers to abuse.

LOL. If you can't find anywhere where Soviet Doctrine actually says that, so how the hell do you know that is Soviet doctrine.

Laughing won't hide what you don't know. It's not that I can't find it in Soviet Doctrine, it's that Soviet doctrine simply doesn't state specific uses of specific weaponry. So when you tried to say that soviet doctrine specified backfires were used mainly against convoys, you throughly discredited yourself. There is no need for me to 'show' you soviet doctrine says 'backfires are used against carreirs' because I never used 'soviet doctrine' to back myself up. I pointed to the weaponry used by Backfires. That was as good an indicator as any. Only ignorants will try to use 'doctrine' as proof the way you're doing.

Yet, you continue to dismiss a book published by the Naval War College where the author has actually made deep research, made interviews from defectors, and obtained quotes from Russian leaders including Admiral Gorshkov.

I never dismissed it. I just think that you totally misinterpreted it, and drew wrong conclusions from it to support yourself. In the end, when I called you out, you were clearly cornered.

LOL. You don't know what the difference between a strategic and theatre task is.

Theatre level do not actually task in the attack in the Soviet homeland. That's left for the Strategic element. When they say theater in the NATO context, that is Western Europe. Using nuclear bombs in response to let's say, tactical atomic missile strikes from the Soviet Army. The difference between a Pershing and a Minuteman.

Sorry, carriers were tasked for offensive nuclear missions against the Soviet homeland. I mentioned it before, you just couldn't read. I don't know why you're trying to bring in 'strategic' and 'theater' to this. They're irrelevant. More misdirection from you. Something which you tried to accuse me of doing. And calling me a troll for it. Perhaps you might want to consider relinquishing your post.

You honestly think that A-6s can strike in the SU's deep interior? Do they have the range? The persistance? Enough bombs?

Their range was sufficient to put a considerable number of targets in the USSR at risk. With nuclear weaponry, their loads needn't be as heavy as with conventiona munitions, thus extending their range.

Why is the rationale for the F-22's high cruise speed different from the Super Hornet? By intention, the F-22 has a high cruise speed for many reasons related to its mission.

The far higher cruise speed of the F-22 was primarily to support its air superiority role. Which meant that with supercruise, the objectives were to make the F-22 harder to intercept, while increasing its ability to conduct intercepts timely. It also gave it advantages in initial missile energy state. This is a wholy different rationale from the argument you are putting up for the Super Hornet. In fact, with the Super Hornet, the low speed differential, even if it exists, isn't going to affect their survivability adversely.

are you saying the Super Hornet has a different mission from the F-22 or any other superiority and strike fighter?

Excellent. You have once again managed to massively discredit yourself. Yes, THe F-22 was originally envisioned as a dedicated air superiority fighter, unlike the Super Hornet with a heavy emphasis on multi-role effectiveness.
Of course, the F-22 was found to be very capable of ther missions along the way and so upgrades are in place to give it an air to ground role.

I already provided you Admiral Gilchrist's article. Go read it. Not my problem if you continue to ignore it.

You are posting an opinion filled with anecdotes without hard figures and parameters. F-15 pilots had opinions about how bad the F-22 was, until they went up against it.

So anything more to add? The fact is that the USAF now thinks the PL-12 is indeed a threat. You are the one dismissive of it, acting as if just because the reports are Chinese, they're not reliable. Is that a bit of a racial prejudice there?

What is there to add when you bring out an AFA video as evidence? :roll: Its there to bluff congress idiots into giving more money. You are collateral damage.

The fact that I have not seen your figures collaborated anywhere else. Not from even from Boeing or the CSR.

The reason why I want you to post links is because I want to read the data by myself. So many have posted information alleged from sources, and when the source is examined closer, or when the context is examined, there are either errors, misinterpretation, failed to add details, or taking things out of context. I find your figures most especially funny when they exceed the combat radius of the F-35 at least by a factor 2.5.

The 945 nm figure includes the range of the SLAM. Maybe if you cared to look carefully you'd see that the figures weren't so outrageous after all. As for other discrepancies, its very probably because flight profiles and weapon loads matter significantly. The A-6A's range, for example, differed by almost 500 nm for the same load when using a hi-lo-lo-hi profile compared to a hi-hi-hi profile.

Wow, you never even read the CSR report, haven't you? It somehow doubts that the 40% improvement is even reached. Go read Gilchrist's article again, there is a quote there that even doubts the SH matches the older Hornet in range.

Yeah, you can doubt the sun rises from the east. So? That article is clearly advocating for more F-14s. Maybe he's nolstalgic?

 

[Maggern]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Seriously guys, you two need to take a step back and cool off. Your posts are beginning to move towards attacking each other's intelligence and nitpicking each other's posts to pieces. It's hardly constructive.