Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Yes, Soviets did have their cruiser carriers, but I believe their airborne radar abilities were rather poor, compared to ones in my musings.

One must remember that we (well, at least I) are discussing one doctrine versus another, with everything else being equal - meaning same performance of antiship, antiaircraft and antimissile missles, plus same radar and target identification abilities. I strongly believe part of Soviet doubts about their success was stemming from the fact they knew or suspected their tech level was behind US one.

Also, I was discussing the scenario where there's no land based assets working hand in hand with the battlecruiser fleet. That fleet is all alone in the middle of an imaginary, infinitely large ocean, just like the opposing carrier fleet is. Such a scenario is, one might say, exactly what a carrier has been designed for. The closer the carrier gets to the shore, and the more land based assets attacker can use versus the carrier - the harder it will be to defend the carrier.

All that being said, you will notice that in my previous post I expressed doubts about the viability of the whole anti-carrier battlecruiser concept. It was really me playing a role of devil's advocate. In the end, a carrier is a great multitasking platform, while a battlecruiser fleet is geared towards just one role - antishipping. If both sides received the same money to build their fleets - the contest might be pretty interesting to see. Sadly, such perfect, laboratory conditions even playground will never be available in the real world.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Totoro said:

Yes, Soviets did have their cruiser carriers, but I believe their airborne radar abilities were rather poor, compared to ones in my musings.

One must remember that we (well, at least I) are discussing one doctrine versus another, with everything else being equal - meaning same performance of antiship, antiaircraft and antimissile missles, plus same radar and target identification abilities. I strongly believe part of Soviet doubts about their success was stemming from the fact they knew or suspected their tech level was behind US one.

Also, I was discussing the scenario where there's no land based assets working hand in hand with the battlecruiser fleet. That fleet is all alone in the middle of an imaginary, infinitely large ocean, just like the opposing carrier fleet is. Such a scenario is, one might say, exactly what a carrier has been designed for. The closer the carrier gets to the shore, and the more land based assets attacker can use versus the carrier - the harder it will be to defend the carrier.

All that being said, you will notice that in my previous post I expressed doubts about the viability of the whole anti-carrier battlecruiser concept. It was really me playing a role of devil's advocate. In the end, a carrier is a great multitasking platform, while a battlecruiser fleet is geared towards just one role - antishipping. If both sides received the same money to build their fleets - the contest might be pretty interesting to see. Sadly, such perfect, laboratory conditions even playground will never be available in the real world.

Click to expand...

Gotcha!!

The Soviets fielded the world's greatest sea denial force in history. This thread was ressurected to discuss the merits of a modern battlecruiser fleet against a carrier. My arguments stated that it was a losing strategy based on the Soviet experience. The best tactic of such a fleet is the Battle of First Salvo doctrine.

It is interesting how the Soviets come about in protecting these platforms from air attacks. It strated from inner defence to long range SAMs and finally culminating in the Kuznetsov class, with organic air to defend against air attack. The organic airwing always served as secondary to the large missile batteries. In this regard, the Soviet fleet is the direct descendant of the battleship.

how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

I have read some of articles mentioning equiped/modified short/medium range multi-warhead conventional ballisitc missile against aircraft carrier in the ocean. How realistic could that be? I figure it would be fairly tough to hit a moving target /w ballistic missiles.. Anyone has some insights on that.

Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

lilzz said:

I have read some of articles mentioning equiped/modified short/medium range multi-warhead conventional ballisitc missile against aircraft carrier in the ocean. How realistic could that be? I figure it would be fairly tough to hit a moving target /w ballistic missiles.. Anyone has some insights on that.

Click to expand...

i put some of my thoughts on this in my blog.

note, I think most of this is a wait and see approach.

Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

lilzz said:

I have read some of articles mentioning equiped/modified short/medium range multi-warhead conventional ballisitc missile against aircraft carrier in the ocean. How realistic could that be? I figure it would be fairly tough to hit a moving target /w ballistic missiles.. Anyone has some insights on that.

Click to expand...

If the warhead is maneuverable, then there is no difference to hit a moving target from a fixed target, in warhead capability aspect. The difference is, to hit a fixed target, you know where to go before you lauch the missile; to hit a moving target, it's not enough even you know the target before the launch.

So to hit a moving target, the warhead needs to know the real-time info of the target location. That can be implemented by sensor mounted on the warhead. The warhead will drop from about 100km above the sea level, thus it can see a vast area, so at the launch time, you only need to know roughly where the carrier is. Once it catches the carrier location from very high sky, it will maneuver to it just like hitting a fixed target, with the info updated from sensor.

Then given small enough the CEP, it can almost ensure a kill. But all these are just in principle, The implementation will have a lot of problems especially for the sensor part.

Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

Even if the missile is updated 1 minute before impact, that'll do. You might need to fire 3-4 in that case. Or use some kind of submunitions. But a carrier isn't going to get very far in 1 minute.

Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

lilzz said:

I have read some of articles mentioning equiped/modified short/medium range multi-warhead conventional ballisitc missile against aircraft carrier in the ocean. How realistic could that be? I figure it would be fairly tough to hit a moving target /w ballistic missiles.. Anyone has some insights on that.

Click to expand...

use of ballistic missile against moving naval target is not new,according to 1964 issue of Proceeding,Soviet do have plan to convert there land base ballistic missile to attack moving aircraft carrier.but it turn out to be much more difficult. in the end it was abandone in favor airborne long range anti ship missile.

Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

The problem is that a ballistic missile is detectable from very far out; it has a launch signature that can be detected from outer space, and futhermore, once it is in flight, it is detectable by radar. A sea skimming cruise missile is less detectable; because it flies so low, it is much more difficult to detect, and reduces reaction time significantly.

Because the USN is starting to field the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System and the associated SM-3 missile, the likelihood for a successful attack using ballistic missiles becomes somewhat remote. Not only can the launch be detected, the missile can be tracked from the moment of launch and actions can be taken against the missile by changing course, or by shooting the missile or the warhead down. With the ability to intercept such missiles in essentially outer space and be able to distinguish between the warhead and the missile body itself, I would rate the success rate fairly low.

If I were the Chinese, I would prioritize and invest heavily into longer range cruise missiles. Such weapons are harder to detect, not only the missile itself, but also the launch platform.

Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

Pointblank said:

Because the USN is starting to field the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System and the associated SM-3 missile, the likelihood for a successful attack using ballistic missiles becomes somewhat remote.

Click to expand...

Let's be realistic here, please. :rofl:

use of ballistic missile against moving naval target is not new,according to 1964 issue of Proceeding,Soviet do have plan to convert there land base ballistic missile to attack moving aircraft carrier.but it turn out to be much more difficult. in the end it was abandone in favor airborne long range anti ship missile.

Click to expand...

It's all about satellite technology. I suspect the anti-ship ballistic missile is closely related to China's capability to launch satellites "on demand" from mobile launchers.

Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group

Sea based missile defence can be overcame by manoeuvering war heads, decoys, and launching more missiles, and incorporating stealth features into the warheads.

The biggest problem with the ballistic missile is that as the warheads descends back into the atmosphere, the hypersonic speed it travels at will create a plasma field around it, blocking out all radio waves, making guidances virtuall impossible. One way around it is to use massive amount of sub munitions, some kind of a small tungsten dart with carbide tip would be a good idea, first, launch multiple missiles, correct their path as they travel towards the target, right before the warheads enter the atmosphere, give them the last correction, the darts should reach the ground in less than half a minute, because of its size and weight, it will take time for the carrier to either change its speed or direction, so the area a carrier can possibly be in after 30 seconds is quite limited. So just, make sure that the fall of the darts will cover that area. These darts will not sink the carrier, they will only cause severe damage to the flight deck, the bridge and everything attached to it, and all aircrafts parked on the flight deck, making the carrier inoperable.