Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Jeff Head

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A picture from Yahoo News showing pictures from Iranian TV which claim that they show a US Carrier in the Persian Gulf being overflown by a Iranian Drone.

Any comments?
From the shape of the flight deck, that is either the JFK or one of the Nimitz carriers. But it looks to have an old assortment of aircraft on deck...seems like some A-6's and F-4s perhaps in addition to E-2C, F-18, etc. In addition, the carrier number, characteristically on deck near the bow, is missing, probably PS'ed out to keep from identifying it...meaning, IMHO, it is not a recent photo at all.

Just my initial thoughts...I'll do some more looking and analyzing.
 
Last edited:

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

well in what fantasy world does PLANs "magnificent" AAW&ASW come even near the ones that eq Russians have? Or now as Aster is getting ready, the French or UK has?? US is the sole navy that can offer the capacity that you explained, but China?? Lets try to keep at least some sort of reality in check...

I was not aware of how good the Aster was. Well, I guess when those get set up around a carrier that'll change things. I also had forgotten about Russian cruisers.

However, China certainly does have the capability.

Of course, anything in excess of 100 it becomes increasingly unlikely that any country could defend their carriers, even the U.S.
 

Gollevainen

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

yeas, but to claim it in the same caliber as USN has and somewhat atop the rest was too farfetched claim...
PLAN has now taken its first steps of creating blue water navy whit its normal division (western) to fleet ASWs ships to escort other shipping and actively hunt enemy subs and expecially, towards AAW to protect these ships. In term of the 956s they also have limited surface strike capapility of Soviet blue water philoshopies...but these all are still maturing and presents the first generation of such in chinese inventory, compared to that all traditional naval powers have several ones in the past...
 

bd popeye

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

The claim that the Iranians overflew a USN CVN is bogus. The ship in question was addlegley CVN-76. On the day CVN-76 was susposdley(30 May'06) overflown in the Persian Gulf she was in the Indian Ocean. There was no USN CVN in the Gulf that day.

Check CVN-76 and CVN-65 locations for 30 May.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Navy refutes Iran claim that UAV buzzed Reagan

By Andrew Scutro
Times staff writer

A news item that an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle loitered over the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan in the Persian Gulf was refuted by Navy officials this week.

“It was an erroneous report,” said Lt. Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.

On Thursday, a United Press International wire story cited a report from Azerbaijan’s Trend news agency quoting Iranian officials and Iranian news service claims that a pilotless drone flew over the Reagan for 25 minutes before descending back into Iran.

The news item also claimed that the Reagan dispatched four fighter aircraft and two helicopters but the UAV got away.

The report comes at a time of heightened international tensions over Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons.

Mann said 5th Fleet officials in Bahrain “categorically denied” the event took place and “No planes were scrambled at all. That did not happen.”

The Reagan is on her first deployment after being commissioned in 2003.

Reagan relieved the carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the gulf in February. Reagan left the gulf on May 22 and is returning to San Diego.

An anonymous Iranian official quoted in the wire story would not say when the UAV allegedly flew over Reagan.
 
Last edited:

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

For example, a carrier in the middle of the Pacific does not need to, and rarely does depend at all on USAF assetts...in most cases they could not get there to help in a crisis anyway...particularly for strike at sea issues.
Why the USAF B-52 have anti-ship 2ndary mission listed?
The aircraft is highly effective when used for ocean surveillance, and can assist the U.S. Navy in anti-ship and mine-laying operations. In two hours, two B-52s can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 km²) of ocean surface. This area is about as large as a circle centered at New York City and covered as far as Washington, DC, Syracuse and Boston (radius, equaling 212 statute miles or 340 km). ..
History, especially wartime operations, has shown the value of airpower in maritime operations. Land based airpower, traveling at 420 knots, can quickly deploy to a world trouble spot and immediately begin combat operations. Even with advanced warning, ships will always be limited by the time it takes them to reach a given point on the earth. For example, a typical Atlantic crossing from Norfolk, Virginia to the Western Mediterranean could take around seven days. To compensate, we could deploy our fleet to cover all the world’s possible problem areas with ships, but this would quickly break our nation’s budget. Today’s selective use of land based airpower affords the nation a cost effective and quick alternative to engaging an enemy navy or performing a variety of maritime missions. However, Navy aircraft carriers cannot be everywhere when needed.
The US invested in the USAF bomber force during the Cold War for the maritime mission. The B-52 can carry multiple Raptor or Harpoon missiles and along with the B-1 can dispense Mk-62 bottom mines. This mining capability was demonstrated in April 1997 when two B-52s flew from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana in support of exercise Blue Harrier 97. Each aircraft deployed eight mines in the North Sea on time, on target, then returned non-stop to Barksdale. In addition, the B-52 is configured to dispense "captive mines." These sophisticated mines wait for the sounds of passing vessels before releasing a torpedo against them, thus effectively denying selected areas to an adversary. These capabilities allow the US land based anti-ship missions from the air today. Finally, bomber use of high technology Synthetic Aperture Radar allows reconnaissance of vast ocean areas, thus relieving stress on hard-pressed maritime patrol aircraft resources.
The AEF provides the Theater Commander a flexible and responsive force. The AEF is a specially tailored package which can be composed of support and strike aircraft, quickly deploy, and be ready for sustained combat operations. AEF aircraft, like the F-16 or F-15E, could engage enemy shipping with the Maverick missile or laser guided munitions. AEF bombers can add immeasurably to maritime operations with their long range and massive firepower. Air Force units which compose AEFs could quickly train for these operations in addition to maintaining the readiness required for projecting power over land. AEFs can give the US a global engagement capability to control sea lines of communication and bottle up enemy shipping when needed, freeing expensive naval assets for other tasks.
Where foreign navies have more capable ships, our current aircraft inventory can defeat them as well. Strike packages can be built with the EA-6B Prowler or F-16s equipped with the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) which can effectively blind enemy ships before air attacks destroy them.
Airpower will play a key role in the future of maritime interdiction. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, has directed his forces to prepare for warfare in the future in his document, Joint Vision 2010 (JV 2010). In it, he provides the concepts for "Full Spectrum Dominance." One of the pillars of JV2010 is Information Superiority which gives the battlefield commander full knowledge of the location of enemy forces. In maritime cases, this would entail the knowledge of where each enemy ship is positioned. The commander can see which enemy ships are a threat and the location of commercial shipping in the area and position his forces accordingly.
Current Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) provide the accuracy to readily attack ships and are instrumental to the future of maritime operations. Terminal guidance seekers allow the weapon to home in on the ship, not just a specific location. Location awareness and identification of ships will be essential in high traffic areas like the Strait of Hormuz where heavy commercial shipping may be present. Additionally, large scale warfare often requires unhampered access to ports. Advanced stealth aircraft, such as the B-2, F-117, and F-22 will be able to clear defensive ships in port areas as well as eliminate port defenses, like SILKWORM anti-ship missiles. This will allow the unimpeded entry of friendly naval forces and cargo ships bearing ground forces and equipment. ..
Here again, the asymmetry of airpower provides great advantage. High flying aircraft (manned or unmanned) or satellites can survey visually and electronically for miles around. Ships easily standout on the surface. As General Mitchell stated, "Surface seacraft cannot hide…They must stand boldly out on top of the water."17 Under way, they leave telltale wakes which extend for several ship lengths behind them making them even easier to spot with the naked eye or satellite sensors. Advanced electro-optical and signal analysis sensors make this task much quicker.
Anti-ship missiles hold surface ships hostage, just like Iraqi tanks were hostages of airpower during Desert Storm. Like tanks, ships use the concept of maneuver to gain an advantage over the opponent. But at sea, there is nothing to hide behind. A ship is big, relatively slow (around 30 knots), and on the defensive compared to aircraft and missiles which are small, fast (thousands of knots), and on the offensive. Ships are capital intensive and filled with expensive people. Missiles are cheap; if the missile makes a mistake, we lose a missile. If a ship makes a mistake, a nation loses an expensive asset and many sons and daughters.
During the Persian Gulf Oil Crisis, as the US Navy escorted oil tankers through the area, they relied on helicopter and aircraft support to extend the eyes of the ship over the horizon. If the same were to occur today, you can count on the use of the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) radar aircraft which can see moving ships and vehicles for several hundred square miles. Any fast patrol boat headed toward the convoy would be known well in advance. Since patrol boats have limited or no anti-aircraft defense, they are easy targets for aircraft.
Ships with more extensive defenses are still at a significant disadvantage. Many advanced missiles, like the SS-N-22 (NATO code name SUNBURN), travel faster than the speed of sound (over Mach 2) and have terminal maneuvers to disrupt any defense in the last few seconds of flight. Seeker heads on missiles and PGMs can discriminate decoys from the target and maneuver with the ship. When all else fails, the concept of massed attacks still apply. Salvo launches of several missiles or PGMs can easily overwhelm ship defenses. It is difficult enough to react and defend against a single warhead, reacting to and defending against 10 or 20 warheads would be unlikely.
Aspect.ratio.b52.arp.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy may not be in the right place at the right time.
Taking into account all of the above quotations, a few high & fast flying MIG-25/31s or SU-34s can detect CSG within a 300-400mi off the cost in a matter of hours!
At several Israeli airfields, obvious targets for MiG-25 reconnaissance, there was always an armed Phantom fighter on alert. On several occasions, we learned that when there was a MiG-25 recon flight, the Phantoms would be gone. We later learned the Israelis had desperately tried to intercept the MiG-25 with zoom climbs and firing air-to-air missiles. None, however, were successful. ..
The F-16 can just barely squeak past Mach 2.0 with a pair of tip 'winders. The F-14 can only manage Mach 1.81. And the mighty Eagle is only good for Mach 1.78. The Foxbat can outclimb all of these fighters by a healthy margin, and has a mauch better supersonic endurance than the best Western fighter. Furthermore, the Foxbat has demonstrated the ability to outrun all U.S. frontline fighters at _low_ altitude. The Foxbat is hardly a dud.
Gulf War Experience -
Did you know that a MiG-25PD recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill of the Gulf War? It dropped an F-18C on the first night of the war--then went on to fire another missile at an A-6 and buzz an A-7, all while avoiding escorting F-14s and F-15s.
An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111's retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.
There's more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren't expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat's off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.
The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A number of Foxbat’s were later again operated by Soviet pilots and groundcrew, again from the Cairo-West airfield in 1974, but concentrated their activity against US Naval activity in the eastern Mediterranean.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

MiG-25a.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The MiG-31 was born as an upgraded MiG-25. Unlike it's predecessor, the MiG-31 has some very modern characteristics. It is the first fighter aircraft with an onboard phased array radar. This allows the MiG-31 to act as both a fighter as well as a director aircraft. With a sophisticated digital link system the MiG-31 can coordinate other fighters in an attack force making the MiG-31 the only combination fighter/director in the world. The crew consists of 1 pilot and 1 weapons systems officer. First produced in 1975, about 500 Foxhounds are currently in service.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The upgraded MiG-31BM is fitted with a powerful onboard computer system and a radar with a phased array which will allow the pilot to simultaneously activate the air-to-air and air-to-surface missile fire modes. When working with air targets, the MiG-31BM is capable of intercepting up to 24 targets simultaneously.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

mig-31-002.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When however the Su-34 was sent to its first international airshow, Le Bourget in 1995, the aircraft was given the designation Su-32FN. This commercial designation was adopted by Sukhoi, to stress the aircraft's potential as a shore-based maritime patrol and strike aircraft for potential export customers in search of a fast aircraft to be deployed against ships and submarines. The design called for special equipment and weapons to detect and destroy waterborne targets.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

su34-11.jpg

su34-13.jpg


And the TU-16/142/22M along with M-4 could perform as good (if not better) then B-52 in maritime strike role!
3m_4.jpg

m4-1.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2326

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2504
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

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

My goodness BLUEJACKET How long did it take you to write & research that post? Couple of hours at least!..jeez. Anybody read all that and all the links? I didn't. Old news..very old. Let's try to keep it focused on the hear and now.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

My goodness BLUEJACKET How long did it take you to write & research that post? Couple of hours at least!..jeez. Anybody read all that and all the links? I didn't. Old news..very old. Let's try to keep it focused on the hear and now.
Thanks to google, i spent about an hour at most! It's all interconnected: I propose that the Navy & AF merge into SASF- SEA, AIR & SPACE FORCE!
 

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Well, in regards to sinking a carrier there are a few methods that can be effective:

1. Mass missile attack - Pretty basic. Throw as many cruise missiles as you can and several are bound to get in. Anything in excess of 100 will have a chance of success and anything over 150 will have a very good chance at success. This is something a lot of poor countries and any major power can pull off. Round up maybe 60 attack aircraft, a few subs with ASMs, some destroyers and frigates, and maybe use some ground launchers. As long as a carrier is within 500 miles of the coast, this strategy of mass attacks from ground, sea, and air can be deadly. However, this is not likely to be viable more than once for any nation other than a mass-producer of such weapons meaning the major powers.

2. Silently move in with subs - If you have the subs or skill to sneak up on a carrier group this is definitely the most cost-effective method. Get a hunter-killer sub or two to tail the carrier and lob a dozen torpedoes at it from six or seven miles away. If taken by surprise it could mean the carrier will be unable to move out of the way before being hit.

3. Electronic Warfare-assisted missile attack - This is something that would probably be cheapest or easiest for a third-world country to use. Instead of trying to overwhelm the defense, simply get around them. With sufficient electronic countermeasures or use ARMs as ASMS, it's possible for a few missiles to evade defense and demolish a carrier. An ideal choice would be the Kh-31P Krypton. By homing in on radar sensors it would be harder to detect initially and with its high speed terminal phase would be nigh impossible to intercept. If possible to jam the radar systems of the battle group, though, even a horribly unadvanced exocet would have little trouble sinking a carrier.

4. One-shot One-kill conventional weapons - This is the most difficult one and probably not something that could be developed by just any country, but certainly can be bought. This is the anti-ship ballistic missile or underwater missile. Such weapons could be included in the Assassin's Mace concept. The idea being to have something so powerful and so difficult to take out that it practically guarantees a kill every shot. At 10 miles away a torpedo capable of over 250 miles per hour could by itself sink a carrier.


5. Nuclear option - The other possibility, though rarely mentioned, is that of the nuclear-tipped torpedo or anti-ship cruise missiles. Obviously such a weapon could easily kill a carrier and the entire battle group without actually having to hit it. Of course, this probably wouldn't sink the carrier, considering it would more likely vaporize or destroy it than sink it. However, this is really only an option for nuclear nations and some may not be able to make nuclear weapons of that kind.
 

IDonT

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

Well, in regards to sinking a carrier there are a few methods that can be effective:

1. Mass missile attack - Pretty basic. Throw as many cruise missiles as you can and several are bound to get in. Anything in excess of 100 will have a chance of success and anything over 150 will have a very good chance at success. This is something a lot of poor countries and any major power can pull off. Round up maybe 60 attack aircraft, a few subs with ASMs, some destroyers and frigates, and maybe use some ground launchers. As long as a carrier is within 500 miles of the coast, this strategy of mass attacks from ground, sea, and air can be deadly. However, this is not likely to be viable more than once for any nation other than a mass-producer of such weapons meaning the major powers.

2. Silently move in with subs - If you have the subs or skill to sneak up on a carrier group this is definitely the most cost-effective method. Get a hunter-killer sub or two to tail the carrier and lob a dozen torpedoes at it from six or seven miles away. If taken by surprise it could mean the carrier will be unable to move out of the way before being hit.

3. Electronic Warfare-assisted missile attack - This is something that would probably be cheapest or easiest for a third-world country to use. Instead of trying to overwhelm the defense, simply get around them. With sufficient electronic countermeasures or use ARMs as ASMS, it's possible for a few missiles to evade defense and demolish a carrier. An ideal choice would be the Kh-31P Krypton. By homing in on radar sensors it would be harder to detect initially and with its high speed terminal phase would be nigh impossible to intercept. If possible to jam the radar systems of the battle group, though, even a horribly unadvanced exocet would have little trouble sinking a carrier.

4. One-shot One-kill conventional weapons - This is the most difficult one and probably not something that could be developed by just any country, but certainly can be bought. This is the anti-ship ballistic missile or underwater missile. Such weapons could be included in the Assassin's Mace concept. The idea being to have something so powerful and so difficult to take out that it practically guarantees a kill every shot. At 10 miles away a torpedo capable of over 250 miles per hour could by itself sink a carrier.


5. Nuclear option - The other possibility, though rarely mentioned, is that of the nuclear-tipped torpedo or anti-ship cruise missiles. Obviously such a weapon could easily kill a carrier and the entire battle group without actually having to hit it. Of course, this probably wouldn't sink the carrier, considering it would more likely vaporize or destroy it than sink it. However, this is really only an option for nuclear nations and some may not be able to make nuclear weapons of that kind.

1.) You still need the targeting data in order to aim you 100 antiship missiles. This also requires enormous command and control facility to ensure that correct time on target. Coordination of a hundred aircraft flying from many airbases, setting up rendevous, refueling, and egress and ingress routes takes a lot of C&C assets. Even harder if you take into account US jamming of your communications assets.

2.) The faster the sub moves, the noisier it is. It will have a hard time catching up on a CSG. Unless you have an SSN, you wont even have a remote chance of getting into firing position. Then there is the 2 SSNs riding shotgun that you have to deal with.

3.) ECM attack is the most expensive and difficult to pull off. The most expensive item in modern arms is the electronics system. (radars, jammers, ECM, etc) The US lead in this arms submarket is even greater than the others.

4.) You still have the same problem of getting targeting data and guidance.

5.) Are you prepared for the US nuke response.
 

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

1.) You still need the targeting data in order to aim you 100 antiship missiles. This also requires enormous command and control facility to ensure that correct time on target. Coordination of a hundred aircraft flying from many airbases, setting up rendevous, refueling, and egress and ingress routes takes a lot of C&C assets. Even harder if you take into account US jamming of your communications assets.

I think you greatly underestimate how easy it is to avoid such measures. There are many means of communication, some impossible to jam, and good planning will effectively defeat any amount of jamming since there's not as much need for communication.

Also you fail to consider that there would not be 100 aircraft in the air. There could actually only be 24. That's very easy to coordinate and with naval, coastal, and perhaps sub-based system assisting you might be able to cut that further.

2.) The faster the sub moves, the noisier it is. It will have a hard time catching up on a CSG. Unless you have an SSN, you wont even have a remote chance of getting into firing position. Then there is the 2 SSNs riding shotgun that you have to deal with.

"Catching up"? This assumes a great deal. In particular it assumes the CSG is moving at high speed, not making many stops, and is following a random path. It even seems to assume they know they're being followed.

3.) ECM attack is the most expensive and difficult to pull off. The most expensive item in modern arms is the electronics system. (radars, jammers, ECM, etc) The US lead in this arms submarket is even greater than the others.

Sorry, it is, in fact, the cheapest and easiest. Coordinating large amounts of assets requires a great deal more than jamming and firing a single missile. While the electronic systems are expensive, you need far less of them. Unlike the hundreds of missiles necessary to overwhelm a carrier's defense, a sufficient electronic system would be plenty to allow for a single missile to kill a carrier. The missile itself can be horribly unadvanced. Also, the electronics don't have single-use lifespan like missiles.

You also don't address using ARMs against ships.

4.) You still have the same problem of getting targeting data and guidance.

Which is why I said it's not something just any country can develop.

5.) Are you prepared for the US nuke response.

Do you think any nation would be willing to play that game? Do you think any nuclear nation would automatically respond to a nuclear attack on a purely military target with nuclear attacks? If this was another nation with carriers or some kind of naval fighting group that might be possible. However, if we're talking about Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, or maybe Iran, any response against military installations would almost definitely involve significant civillian casualties.
 
Top