Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Mightypeon

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Hehe, if they wouldnt be ahead of a random German private first class from a conscript Tank Artillery batallion they should all be shot for treason and/or incompetence :D

I would guess that the best time to hide something funny in a carrier would be while the carrier is beeing constructed. Although the Arms industry will have a fair amount of vetting going on, it is unlikely to be as extensive as the state based measures (who can access much more information) are.

To me, a Carrier is a very very mean machine that is after all, piloted by fairly normal humans. Attacking the Humans via deception simply seems easier than trying to storm something equivalent to a highly mobile and well protected fortress.

If we take the analogy further, storming a fortress is something one should only do if there are no other options. The prefered method would be to shoot/ambush the forces defending the fortress when they are out of it. This would mean to, engage the Carriers Air force in range of land based SAM systems, the carriers air force enjoys, since its base is mobile, a greater amount of strategic mobility than landbourne air assets, however, the land side should have a solid clue about what the Carriers air force will eventually want to attack.
The next best thing would be to engage the carriers air forces on neutral grounds (somewhere over the ocean) followed by cutting off the supplies of the fortress (sinking the Supply ships, cutting of the supplies is MUCH more difficult than it would be with against a immobile land based fortress) and only as a total last measure, going up against the formidable defenses of the carrier itself.

Correct me if I am wrong, but an aircraftless carrier group is not that efficient right?
To deal damage, the Carriers airwing eventually has to leave the area where the Carrier acts as a huge force multiplier, and if the (expensive, so not easy to replace) air wing is down, the carrier looses a lot of its teeth.

If someone really wants to down a carrier,
I still think that trying to smuggle bombs on a carrier via spy operations has a much better cost-gain ratio then trying to storm a carrier by force. If the bomb-smuggling goes wrong, you loose some spies (getting spies where you want them takes time, but not a lot of ressources) and some explosives (which would have been blown up anyway), if the air raid goes wrong you loose much much more.

given the feasability of such spy actions: I would guess that, to set up a suitable infiltration process capable of accompaniying such a thing you would need about a decade (get your spies into the US, have them assimilate there, get them to raise through the ranks, write of some spies off that went somewhere else etc.). US carrier dominance is a fact since the 1960es IIRC. So interested parties (and I could think of a couple) would have had an ample amount of time to set up something like that.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Excellent post Mightypeon!

Correct me if I am wrong, but an aircraftless carrier group is not that efficient right?

An USN CVN only operates without it's aircraft after a re-fit for sea trails or some such special occasion such as a parde or change of command..and never when deployed..

During any strike mission all the aircraft are not launched. Some measure of force protection ergo the carrier air wing is in a alert status in case of attack.
 

Mightypeon

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

In my not really informed imagination, a carrier group at war first tries to blow up the naval assets of the enemy by whatever means possible, and then acts like a mobile air base, primarly using its aireal assets to inflict damage on the enemy.

What I wanted to imply, if the carriers air force get sufficiently depleted during their offensive missions (do the carrier air groups fly primarly tactical or strategic missions? My guess would be strategic), could the opponent country afford to more or less ignore the airforce depleted carrier group?
A Carrier is way more awesome than an airfield, but also way more expensive.
Since Carriers like to stay far away from the coast, they should not be that suited for blockading actions.
What kind of damage can the accompaniying Aegis etc. do via their own missles/ballistic weapons etc. ?
And a what range? The Carriers air force (operational range is what, around 400km?) can easily and totally outrange landbased artillery systems, I am less certain about the abilities of the Aegis rockets etc. to do that.
While the range of tube based systems (about 40km for high class like the PZH2000) will propably be insufficient for this kind of antiship duty, MLRS or Grad-like Systems may be able to reach it under such circumstances.
Wether it is worthwhile to use a air-force-depleted-Carrier group like a bunch of weak battleships propably depends a lot on the situation.
The US has 11 Carrier groups, and can propably use another "still full" carrier under such circumstances, in a clash between China and Russia (large scale battles around Vladivostok or the Chinese coast anyone?) or india and China things would be different, and aircraft-depleted carrier groups may be ordered to render shorter range assistance to crucial battles happening close to the coast.
Under such situation, sinking or seriously damaging them seems to be much more feasable.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

What kind of damage can the accompaniying Aegis etc. do via their own missles/ballistic weapons etc. ?
And a what range? The Carriers air force (operational range is what, around 400km?

Well the Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas carry TLACMs (Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missle) with a range of 2500 kms, although they prefer to fire them from much closer range. The Super Hornet's range is 2,346 kms clean plus two AIM-9s. Obviously it would usually be less then that because the aircraft would be carrying more weapons, but also we have to take into consideration that the carrier's aircraft can act as tankers for each other. I got these ranges off Wikipedia, and they seem right to me, but if they are wrong I apologize.

On the subject of neutralizing carriers, I think that in the future we will more likely see asymmetric warfare being used at sea if anyone is going up against carriers. In a long war, strangling the enemy's logistics is always a good option if you can't go up against their main fleet; however in naval warfare that is more difficult because of the mobile nature of the fighting. I'm just rambling here, but I think that China is hard at work figuring out cost-effective solutions to carrier groups.
 
Last edited:

Ambivalent

Junior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I think the other person is referring to the Klubs fitted on the PLAN Kilos right now. Currently, there is no drone in the Western world that could simulate its performance and flight behavior, that is until sometime in the next decade. Fire control issues on the Klubs have been resolved and they are tested and operational.

Cannot be shot down is too strong a phrase. More like, never tested in shooting down.

Um, are you willing to bet some beers on that statement? :rofl:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Due to field in two years.
 

Ambivalent

Junior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Well the Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas carry TLACMs (Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missle) with a range of 2500 kms, although they prefer to fire them from much closer range. The Super Hornet's range is 2,346 kms clean plus two AIM-9s. Obviously it would usually be less then that because the aircraft would be carrying more weapons, but also we have to take into consideration that the carrier's aircraft can act as tankers for each other. I got these ranges off Wikipedia, and they seem right to me, but if they are wrong I apologize.

On the subject of neutralizing carriers, I think that in the future we will more likely see asymmetric warfare being used at sea if anyone is going up against carriers. In a long war, strangling the enemy's logistics is always a good option if you can't go up against their main fleet; however in naval warfare that is more difficult because of the mobile nature of the fighting. I'm just rambling here, but I think that China is hard at work figuring out cost-effective solutions to carrier groups.

Careful, asymmetric warfare implies the enemy has a glaring weakness that can be exploited. Maybe one can use this against smaller navies who cannot afford the full spectrum of weapons and sensors, but against the USN there is close to nothing they are not good at already. A fight involving the USN would look like Desert Storm at sea with them setting a very high operational tempo, using speed to control the battle space completely. Any enemy would have to defeat the carrier's air wing, no mean task, to get in close enough to attack the ships. Those carriers aren't going to go close inshore to fight, they will make an enemy come out into deep water away from shore based air protection and fight on their terms, against that air wing. Good luck. Without equal carriers such a navy is doomed to defeat. In my opinion, the ship with the most chance of doing damage against a carrier strike group is a modern nuclear attack sub like an Akula. It will have to be very very quiet and deep diving to evade the CSG's ASW sensors, and even then it will be a difficult tactical problem. The CSG brings along a couple of their own high quality subs.
To strangle the USN's logistics would require sweeping their combat ships from the seas first. Have fun trying. The logistics functions will be well out of the way of the fight. The USN has a lot of experience resupplying combat forces during combat. They invented it remember. It was one of the well kept secrets of WWII. Credit then Lt. Nimits immediately after WWI for pioneering the techniques used today.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Careful, asymmetric warfare implies the enemy has a glaring weakness that can be exploited. Maybe one can use this against smaller navies who cannot afford the full spectrum of weapons and sensors, but against the USN there is close to nothing they are not good at already. A fight involving the USN would look like Desert Storm at sea with them setting a very high operational tempo, using speed to control the battle space completely. Any enemy would have to defeat the carrier's air wing, no mean task, to get in close enough to attack the ships. Those carriers aren't going to go close inshore to fight, they will make an enemy come out into deep water away from shore based air protection and fight on their terms, against that air wing. Good luck. Without equal carriers such a navy is doomed to defeat. In my opinion, the ship with the most chance of doing damage against a carrier strike group is a modern nuclear attack sub like an Akula. It will have to be very very quiet and deep diving to evade the CSG's ASW sensors, and even then it will be a difficult tactical problem. The CSG brings along a couple of their own high quality subs.
To strangle the USN's logistics would require sweeping their combat ships from the seas first. Have fun trying. The logistics functions will be well out of the way of the fight. The USN has a lot of experience resupplying combat forces during combat. They invented it remember. It was one of the well kept secrets of WWII. Credit then Lt. Nimits immediately after WWI for pioneering the techniques used today.

Yes, I was sort of speaking in theoretical terms, I didn't hit anything concrete because I couldn't really think of anyways around the USNs full-spectrum dominance. Suffice to say that there is no good solution to the problem of a CSG. I suppose what I was trying to say is that you shouldn't even play the USN's game. Don't fight them. Achieve your objectives other ways. For example, rather than fighting the USN in the waters around the Gulf to stop the flow of the oil supply, blow up Ras Tanura Oil Terminal in a terrorist-style attack.

Basically the point I'm trying to make is that getting around the USNs sheer dominance at sea requires some very out of the box and not necessarily naval thinking, which is not really very pertinent to this thread, it is after all about sinking a carrier.
 

kroko

Senior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Hey there guys. I realize this is an extremely strange question, but hopefuly it will generate some discussion. Also, it helps, because I am a complete and utter n00b when it comes to the navies of the world.

Anyway...On to the question: How does one sink a modern Nuclear-Powered carrier, like The Enterprise or H.M.S Invincible get sunk by conventional means? An Aircraft sortie seems quite risky, if not impossible. Are there any unconventional means of going about it? I apologize if this seems vague, but the basic question is in the topic.

Oh, and one final word. PLAY NICE KIDS!

well, if it is to sink a USN carrier, its virtually impossible, due to the long range of surveillance and fighter escort and difficulty of detecting an carrier, and even to the durability of the carrier. And even if it was sunk, there would be regime changing in the attacking nation.
 

Mightypeon

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Well, if I intend to blow up a carrier than we already are in a situation were the US tries to Regime change me.

I have come to the belief that blowing up its bombers outside of the carriers assistance range is propably more cost effective for nearly any potential enemy.
IIRC there have been successfull terrorist/Sabotage (actually, a carrier is a purely military target, so terrorist is wrong here) like attacks against US navy Vessels in the past, and a sabotgae attempted by a major power will be MUCH more nasty than what some islamic dudes operating out of caves could do.

Apart from that, the US is, because its a relative free and heterogenous society, relativly easy to infiltrate (same applies to most European countries apart from Russia which is not as easy to get into). US strategists now of this weakness and try to amend it, but it still stays one.

Secondly, the more complex a system becomes, the easier sabotage gets.
It doesnt get much more complicated than a carrier.

Third: "Winning" a war against the US (actually, since invading the USA is out of the question, the goal would be to make the US believe that it is loosing, worked fine in Vietnam)would require attrititing their troops. Starting a large scale conventional anti Carrier wave would mean to fight on the opponents terms, which does not seem to be very smart.
Given the relative industrial outputs, even a China/Russia/EU (assuming nobody goes nuclear) alliance may run out of conventional waves before all carriers are downed .


Lets do something different:
What about a fictional little briefing?

Watch out, bunch of clichees detected ahead:

Situation:

Following several diplomatic incidents (after terrorist attacks in Moskva and Khabarovsk )between a resurgent Russia and China, a limited war broke out between the 2 nations.
Russian troops in the far east seized the initiave, obliberated the Chinese border guards in Manchuria and has an armoured spear head advancing down the manchurian coast.
The Varyag is supporting this corps and fundamental to the current Russian aerial superiority.

A holding action is fought to delay the Russian advance until sufficient reserves have been mobilized.
For this to succeed, the Varyag has to sink.

assume the Chinese state to be fully operational, but nukes are not a possibility.
 

marclees

New Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Careful, asymmetric warfare implies the enemy has a glaring weakness that can be exploited. Maybe one can use this against smaller navies who cannot afford the full spectrum of weapons and sensors, but against the USN there is close to nothing they are not good at already.

Yes, thanks for reminding us how "unsinkable" the US Carriers are . Let those who dare challenge the Almighty USN beware.

It would be interesting to see how the USN would fare against the Iranian navy since the probability of conflict is the highest given the current tension; the Iranian Navy are reportedly armed with the Sunburn and Klub.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top