Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
First, time for a math lesson. A 30 knot cruising speed is about 34.5 miles per hour. 24 hours later, and the carrier would've traveled 828 miles, or very nearly 720 nautical miles. The United States has been at the game of hiding carriers for longer than the PRC has had a navy. Don't underestimate them. Satellites can only make short quick passes (geosynchronous sats can only operate on the equator, so no luck there either), and recon UAVs will be detected long before they see the carrier, thanks to the E-2s operating from it. The only realistic option for the Chinese to find a Nimitz or Ford would be submarines- and PRC subs still can't communicate in real time with other forces, and they themselves are outclassed by US submarine technology.

Well seem you are good with math but awful with logic. Do you think all those time the UAV sit still and not flying? The UAV is not there to detect. They are there to confirm and get more situation awareness. Because of the much faster speed of UAV and small signature(stealth) It will find the behemoth Carrier long before the Carrier can find the UAV.
New stealth UAV will be built in time that will evade detection by radar

You need to learn more about satellite . It is a system of reconnaissance satellite consists many satellites which operate on a whole spectrum of mediums from SAR to Visual. to Infra Red. Given enough satellite and using a relay satellite they can be networked. Meaning they can talk to each other autonomously

So even when one satellite pass the object of observation they will relay the position of Carrier to the incoming satellite. So they can watch any spot in western pacific all the time while vectoring the UAV to get confirmation

Plus Geosynchronous satellite doesn't have to be on equator but near equator
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
The easiest way, by far, to nail a CVBG isn't through SIGINT or ELINT methods... it's to hit it while it's in port or steaming along known shipping lines; i.e., good old-fashioned HUMINT.

What you don't realize is that first, a CVBG can run completely 'silent' (e.g. no radar or comms EM emissions) for its entire 6-month deployment cruise, simply listening to other sensors in the US global defense grid. USN CV doctrine and training ops have evolved to the point where a CVBG can steam up to an opposing coastline and run deep penetration strikes without making a single radio transmission for the last 1000 nm of the journey... between all those dozens of helos and planes and 6-10 combat and support vessels.

In that case, UAVs have to use visual methods to find the CVBG. This limits their scan range to about 6nm in either direction, assuming they're flying at sea level in normal sea states. Of course, if they were flying at a super high altitude, they would have a much larger search radius, but they would also be much easier to find by the ELINT suite on E-2D AWACS and/or the carrier's own CAP.

Now, even if the UAVs are sent out--e.g., China/Russia knows there's a CVBG in the area--then there are also a variety of ways to spoof 'em.

For example: the CVBG finds a large civilian radar signature, like an oil tanker or cargo ship or passenger liner, and when the air wing takes off, it first vectors out to that radar signature at wavetop height (below the minimum detection altitude of OTH radars) before climbing to standard cruising altitude, and when they're done bombing or performing air superiority missions, they fly back to that big ship and then vector at low altitude to the CVN. Sure, this cuts down on the range of the aircraft, but what it does is it makes that civilian ship look like an aircraft carrier to the opponent--it'll look like a big radar signature launching and landing aircraft. It's basically baiting the opponent into killing a bunch of civilians, or at the very least wasting a sub or UAV to go and check it out--a sub or UAV that can then be easily killed itself as it wades into a preplanned trap.

Another example: the CVBG baits the opponent into searching the wrong area of ocean based on the path of its incoming and outgoing flight vectors. Basically, you do aerial buddy-refueling of a few fighters, run them in and out along a triangular path that, by the listed range on their fuel tanks, implies the carrier is hundreds of nm away from its actual location.

Yet another example: say the CVBG has been found by a UAV, and the UAV gets detected and shot down. Now the Chinese/Russian side has a snapshot of the CVBG location--not a real-time track, so they'll need to sortie out a regiment of land-based strike aircraft (likely J-20s, Su-34s, or Tu-22M3s) to the last known location of the CVBG. This usually takes about two hours, assuming the CVBG is operating three or four hundred nm away from the coast and five or six hundred nm away from the nearest airbase. So then in those two hours, the CVBG can run a pair of DDGs 60nm down the threat axis (e.g. towards the airbase) as a picket, leave a CG and a DDG at its original location, set up a combat air patrol flanking the expected flight vector of the J-20 regiment, and sail another 60nm with a lone DDG escort in an off-axis direction. (e.g. diagonally away from the airbase) Then, when the J-20 regiment arrives and pops up 150nm away for a radar peek to launch their YJ-12 anti-ship missiles, the picketing DDGs can spam the area with SAMs from the front at the same time the air patrol swarms the J-20s from behind--as close to a turkey shoot as modern air combat allows--and the anti-ship missiles, set to go and sink a big ship in the target area, lock on to a CG boasting 128 VLS tubes loaded with anti-missile-missiles. In effect, the entire J-20 regiment is wasted and the CVN is never even threatened. And the best thing about it is that the USN trains to run this entire maneuver in radio silence--which means the opponent has no idea it's coming. And, yes, if US ELINT/SIGINT (satellites) or HUMINT (spies/cyber) detect that those planes aren't taking off for whatever reason, the CVBG can cancel its maneuver or reorient itself if the planes are vectoring out from an unexpected airbase.

Of course, these tactics themselves can all be counteracted by good training and coordination between the PLAAF, PLAN, and 2nd Artillery, and better ELINT/SIGINT capabilities. It's not a one-sided affair at all, and yes, the DF-21D and J-20 have made things harder for the USN in very uncomfortable ways--but those weapons are by no means the game-changers and magic bullets proponents would like to believe.

China needs to learn to use these weapons by upping the annual training regimen's quantity (flight hours, sim hours, deployment hours, total # of exercises), quality (real-time combat conditions with large doses of mindfuckery on both sides, and preferably involving large numbers of aircraft and ground assets to stress-test C4ISR systems), and internationalization (e.g. run these exercises with partners like Russia on a more than once-per-year basis). Combine that with 5th-gen fighters, ASBMs, transport/tanker/AWACS, and advanced sub/surface/naval air assets, and the PLA will be on track to challenge or even usurp military dominance in the Western Pacific. Until then, no dice.

Just one word . There is such thing as merchant ship tracking system. those ship carry transponder to avoid collision and tracking purposes. Only military vessel doesn't carry identification tag. So all your elaborate fantasy doesn't work
 
Last edited:

ahadicow

Junior Member
why would China need to hunt a CVBG in the enitre pacific? There is only a couple places a CVBG would have to be in order to engage Chinese core naval assets. If Chinese surface fleet is at yellow sea, why would China care if the 7th fleet is lurking around SCS waiting to strike at Hainan? If a CVBG strikes anywhere but the core Chinese naval asset, China could simply take the punishment in exchange for a fairly good idea of where you are. And if you approach within hundreds kilometers of Chinese fleet. You can be sure Chinese would pick that up through their satellite, UAV and AEWACs network.
 

J-XX

Banned Idiot
The easiest way, by far, to nail a CVBG isn't through SIGINT or ELINT methods... it's to hit it while it's in port or steaming along known shipping lines; i.e., good old-fashioned HUMINT.

What you don't realize is that first, a CVBG can run completely 'silent' (e.g. no radar or comms EM emissions) for its entire 6-month deployment cruise, simply listening to other sensors in the US global defense grid. USN CV doctrine and training ops have evolved to the point where a CVBG can steam up to an opposing coastline and run deep penetration strikes without making a single radio transmission for the last 1000 nm of the journey... between all those dozens of helos and planes and 6-10 combat and support vessels.

In that case, UAVs have to use visual methods to find the CVBG. This limits their scan range to about 6nm in either direction, assuming they're flying at sea level in normal sea states. Of course, if they were flying at a super high altitude, they would have a much larger search radius, but they would also be much easier to find by the ELINT suite on E-2D AWACS and/or the carrier's own CAP.

Now, even if the UAVs are sent out--e.g., China/Russia knows there's a CVBG in the area--then there are also a variety of ways to spoof 'em.

For example: the CVBG finds a large civilian radar signature, like an oil tanker or cargo ship or passenger liner, and when the air wing takes off, it first vectors out to that radar signature at wavetop height (below the minimum detection altitude of OTH radars) before climbing to standard cruising altitude, and when they're done bombing or performing air superiority missions, they fly back to that big ship and then vector at low altitude to the CVN. Sure, this cuts down on the range of the aircraft, but what it does is it makes that civilian ship look like an aircraft carrier to the opponent--it'll look like a big radar signature launching and landing aircraft. It's basically baiting the opponent into killing a bunch of civilians, or at the very least wasting a sub or UAV to go and check it out--a sub or UAV that can then be easily killed itself as it wades into a preplanned trap.

Another example: the CVBG baits the opponent into searching the wrong area of ocean based on the path of its incoming and outgoing flight vectors. Basically, you do aerial buddy-refueling of a few fighters, run them in and out along a triangular path that, by the listed range on their fuel tanks, implies the carrier is hundreds of nm away from its actual location.

Yet another example: say the CVBG has been found by a UAV, and the UAV gets detected and shot down. Now the Chinese/Russian side has a snapshot of the CVBG location--not a real-time track, so they'll need to sortie out a regiment of land-based strike aircraft (likely J-20s, Su-34s, or Tu-22M3s) to the last known location of the CVBG. This usually takes about two hours, assuming the CVBG is operating three or four hundred nm away from the coast and five or six hundred nm away from the nearest airbase. So then in those two hours, the CVBG can run a pair of DDGs 60nm down the threat axis (e.g. towards the airbase) as a picket, leave a CG and a DDG at its original location, set up a combat air patrol flanking the expected flight vector of the J-20 regiment, and sail another 60nm with a lone DDG escort in an off-axis direction. (e.g. diagonally away from the airbase) Then, when the J-20 regiment arrives and pops up 150nm away for a radar peek to launch their YJ-12 anti-ship missiles, the picketing DDGs can spam the area with SAMs from the front at the same time the air patrol swarms the J-20s from behind--as close to a turkey shoot as modern air combat allows--and the anti-ship missiles, set to go and sink a big ship in the target area, lock on to a CG boasting 128 VLS tubes loaded with anti-missile-missiles. In effect, the entire J-20 regiment is wasted and the CVN is never even threatened. And the best thing about it is that the USN trains to run this entire maneuver in radio silence--which means the opponent has no idea it's coming. And, yes, if US ELINT/SIGINT (satellites) or HUMINT (spies/cyber) detect that those planes aren't taking off for whatever reason, the CVBG can cancel its maneuver or reorient itself if the planes are vectoring out from an unexpected airbase.

Of course, these tactics themselves can all be counteracted by good training and coordination between the PLAAF, PLAN, and 2nd Artillery, and better ELINT/SIGINT capabilities. It's not a one-sided affair at all, and yes, the DF-21D and J-20 have made things harder for the USN in very uncomfortable ways--but those weapons are by no means the game-changers and magic bullets proponents would like to believe.

China needs to learn to use these weapons by upping the annual training regimen's quantity (flight hours, sim hours, deployment hours, total # of exercises), quality (real-time combat conditions with large doses of mindfuckery on both sides, and preferably involving large numbers of aircraft and ground assets to stress-test C4ISR systems), and internationalization (e.g. run these exercises with partners like Russia on a more than once-per-year basis). Combine that with 5th-gen fighters, ASBMs, transport/tanker/AWACS, and advanced sub/surface/naval air assets, and the PLA will be on track to challenge or even usurp military dominance in the Western Pacific. Until then, no dice.

Seems like pure fantasy to me. US thought the same kind of thing in the Korean War, and we all know how that turned out after China entered the war. So to say US CVBG is 'invincible' is pushing it. In war, nothing is certain.
 

leibowitz

Junior Member
Just one word . There is such thing as merchant ship tracking system. those ship carry transponder to avoid collision and tracking only military vessel doesn't carry identification tag. So all your elaborate fantasy doesn't work

Why wouldn't the USN spoof the merchant ship tracking transponders in wartime or a time of 'tensions'?
 

leibowitz

Junior Member
Seems like pure fantasy to me. US thought the same kind of thing in the Korean War, and we all know how that turned out after China entered the war. So to say US CVBG is 'invincible' is pushing it. In war, nothing is certain.

Care to elaborate how this seems like fantasy?
 

leibowitz

Junior Member
why would China need to hunt a CVBG in the enitre pacific? There is only a couple places a CVBG would have to be in order to engage Chinese core naval assets. If Chinese surface fleet is at yellow sea, why would China care if the 7th fleet is lurking around SCS waiting to strike at Hainan? If a CVBG strikes anywhere but the core Chinese naval asset, China could simply take the punishment in exchange for a fairly good idea of where you are. And if you approach within hundreds kilometers of Chinese fleet. You can be sure Chinese would pick that up through their satellite, UAV and AEWACs network.

Even if you deduce a CVBG is in a certain area (say the SCS) that still doesn't mean you can now go and sink it easily. This task is made doubly difficult if you're picking yourself out of the (possibly radioactive) rubble of your airbases and sub pens. For example, after Pearl Harbor, the USN knew the Japanese carriers were operating at the end of their logistical capability; the carriers would literally have to steam back the shortest route to Japanese home ports because not doing so would mean they would run out of fuel. The USN still couldn't find them even after stationing sub and destroyer pickets all along the return route.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Why wouldn't the USN spoof the merchant ship tracking transponders in wartime or a time of 'tensions'?

I think I don't make myself clear . Merchant ship carry transponder for self identification. But military ship doesn't.

And there is computer system to identify civilian ship worldwide. Look somewhere in this thread I did posted it long time ago

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

leibowitz

Junior Member
I think I don't make myself clear . Merchant ship carry transponder for self identification. But military ship doesn't.

And there is computer system to identify civilian ship worldwide. Look somewhere in this thread I did posted it long time ago

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The question still stands, though: why wouldn't the USN just put merchant IFF transponders on all their naval vessels? Like, put transponders on an A/C that say "this is the ULCC oil tanker ABCDE" and on their DDGs that say "this is the midsize cargo ship DEFGH"
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
The only thing that might make it any where near a CVBG is a fruit fly. The radar power around a american carrier group is massive you have Anti air cruisers, destroyers, E3, and individual fighters all looking for just that kind of track. A scout uav will be killed long before it could have identified the target.

Nice thought TerraN, but lets not forget the Song and the KittyHawk, lots of stoopid stuff can happen, I guess the real question is or should be?? how do we prevent World War III, doesn't look like much fun to me. The modern Carrier operates with a battle group for a distinct reason, its not stealth, carriers remain a sovereign bit of territory wherever they deploy, and while there is a lot of firepower, and might make a tempting target for the naive, the consequences are enough to make us all pale.

Any action, against anyones CV or CVN is going to bring down Hell Fire itself, while some question whether or not the US still has any MOJO, and everyone on this forum can read the freshman enthusiam of many of our posters to engage in a little world domination, lots of luck with that. It stands to reason that you don't leave loaded guns around the house for children to play with, but some seem to think that some kind of limited engagement could happen, and there seems to be some enthusiam for that, but I think for some maybe you should actually READ the book of Revelation, scares the you know what out of me???? During the cold war, thats what we called MAD---Mutually Assured Destruction, I hope you lads are too smart to pull the trigger on that one, but I have learned not to underestimate the Power of Ignorance, and Wisdom is in especially short supply these days, hope I'm wrong??? Brat, and no I'm not smiling, far from it.

I was gonna yell at somebody for starting this stoopidity, but I think I did back in June, sorry guys. Brat
 
Top