Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Sea Dog said:

UAV's are extremely useful. The USAF is currently running the GlobalHawk which has a huge range, and long loiter times at high or medium altitudes. The thing about PLAN potentially using these things is that the USN already has them, and also has the answers to them in the SM-6. SM-6 will be game, set, and match for much of the things that China is trying to develop but doesn't currently have now. SM-6 is fully autonomous, active radar homing, and used against UAV's, cruise missiles, surface-ships, and aircraft at 600 Km ranges. And will be fully linked with USN/USAF AEW assets. It will be in the fleet very soon.

Click to expand...

Hi Sea Dog,

I'm inclined to think that if a ship launch a missile, it'd give away its position. Even with 600 km range, the SM-6 is still short-legged comparred to good cruise missiles. The number of SM-6's carried on ships will also be limited. If I'm not mistaken, if a ship detects an incoming cruise missile, it'd launch multiple missiles to intercept it and not just one?

I think missile-based defense systems are superior to CIWS guns, but is not the holy grail of missile defense. If and when we develop energy based missile defense that can be mounted on ships, that could zap dozens of incoming missiles quickly, then I'd say that we've rendered the anti-ship missile mostly obsolete (unless if stealth weapon development surpass radar detection).

The SM-6 is a good improvement, hope it doesn't end up like the SM-2 Block IVA...!

Sea Dog said:

There is a UAV squadron here in California. From their control center in California, they controlled UAV's armed with Hellfires in Iraq in real-time. USAF has this ability.

Click to expand...

The Israelis are also very good at making fully autonomous UAV's that can be pre-programmed for the mission.

Currently most long-range UAV's are lacking in speed. I'd like to see more development in jet powered UAV's, possibly with drop tanks or even aerial refueling to extend its range. UAV's are also much cheaper than manned combat aircraft, and can be deployed from trucks and ships without an airstrip. You guys can prolly tell that I like the armed UAV concept a lot. LoL.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I am perfectly aware of that, but I don't think even the US right now has the ability to do what Adeptitus has suggested. US right now has the ability to sustain only a couple of orbits of UAVs in Iraq, I think around 2 or 3, if I recall correctly. What Adeptitus proposed is a whole lot of UAVs operating. Not even the US has the satellite bandwidth to pass around all the info that Adeptitus's concept requires, and the C&C system to control all of them at the same time.

adeptitus said:

I'm inclined to think that if a ship launch a missile, it'd give away its position. Even with 600 km range, the SM-6 is still short-legged comparred to good cruise missiles. The number of SM-6's carried on ships will also be limited. If I'm not mistaken, if a ship detects an incoming cruise missile, it'd launch multiple missiles to intercept it and not just one?

I think missile-based defense systems are superior to CIWS guns, but is not the holy grail of missile defense. If and when we develop energy based missile defense that can be mounted on ships, that could zap dozens of incoming missiles quickly, then I'd say that we've rendered the anti-ship missile mostly obsolete.

The SM-6 is a good improvement, hope it doesn't end up like the SM-2 Block IVA...!

Click to expand...

Some of these SM-6 carrying ships may not even be a part of the main CSG task force. Plus, right now, China's ability to detect, identify and track naval movements in order to stop USN naval operations is rather iffy. You're also assuming that the CSG operates in a vacuum all by itself. The USN does not operate that way and currently has a huge connective operability with offboard sensors and assets through established networks.

As far as SM-6, there is every indication that it will be successful, and ubiquitous throughout the fleet.

adeptitus said:

Currently most long-range UAV's are lacking in speed. I'd like to see more development in jet powered UAV's, possibly with drop tanks or even aerial refueling to extend its range. UAV's are also much cheaper than manned combat aircraft, and can be deployed from trucks and ships without an airstrip. You guys can prolly tell that I like the armed UAV concept a lot. LoL.

Click to expand...

I like these concepts too. I do feel that they are the way of the future in many ways. UUV's and USV's are also becoming extremely useful in the roles they will serve. The USN LCS will make use of both in their mission modules packages for SuW and ASW roles. Not to mention the Mine-hunting capacity they will offer. It's also looking more like Virginia SSN's will hunt with offboard UUV's also. As far as air-refueling UAV's, I recently read that Boeing demonstrated this with GlobalHawk. I'll see if I can dig up a link. But all in all, I think you're right in assuming that these concepts are the future in many warfare roles.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I found some articles on the bandwith issue with Predator drones:


According to The Wall Street Journal, bandwidth constraints kept the military from flying more than two of the Predator unmanned spy planes at a time in Afghanistan -- out of a fleet of a half-dozen.

The Pentagon has a grand total of four satellites for secure, unjammable communications, said Air Force Maj. Dave Mattson. Two of these send and receive data about as fast as a T1 line. The other two work at the anemic rate of 2,400 bits per second -- one-twentieth the speed of today's 56-Kbps modems.

I find some of the claims in the article to be a bit shocking. 70% of the bandwith consumed by powerpoint presentation??

On bandwith and C&C limitations, this is what I can think of for now:

* If you're operating in a specific region close to home, it may be possible to increase bandwith avail via ground-based installations, as well as any communications equipment you can put on ships, aircraft, and geostationary satellites.

If you're looking at global deployement, then the requirements for communications satellites are much greater. But if you're only concerend about a specific region, then I think the cost of putting up more geostationary communication satellites in limited area would be cheaper, than a system that spans the globe.

* To reduce the bandwith requirement, some UAV's can be set to operate in autonomous mode (surveillance, hunter-killer, etc). You'd communicate with the UAV on "as needed" basis and not all the time. If the UAV's are deployed in a pack, they could data-link with each other as well.

* Another area of critical development would be stealth technology. UAV's can be made smaller than manned aircraft, so it has some advantages in reducing RCS.

* The payload needs stealth/reduced RCS too. A good present-day example is the NSM missile:


Made of composites, the NSM will be the world's most sophisticated stealth strike missile. Advanced design technology has minimised the missile's signature. Its excellent sea-skimming ability and random manouvres in the terminal phase make it virtually impossible to stop. The imaging infrared seeker is completely passive. Target selection is at the forefront of new technology. That provides NSM with a substantial capacity for autonomous detection and recognition of targets - at sea or on land.

The "random manouvres" may also assist in penatration of defense layer. Example:


* In the "carrier UAV" concept that I described, it may be possible to increase penatration success rate with decoys. The carrier itself could be used as a decoy, or, instead of 2 x cruise missiles, you could go with 1 x cruise missile and 1 x quad pack decoy rocket. The decoy rocket won't have a warhead, so can be made much smaller and lighter, perhaps with a small radar emitter or some other EW device.


====================


The technologies that I've suggested are based mostly on what's avail right now, or reasonable advanced version of them. I try not to go into realm of science fiction.

For example, I suggested UAV's can extend its range via inflight refueling. This technology is currently avail, but in infancy stage:


As Kongo has stated, no country has unlimited resources for its military. In this discussion we're focused primarily on PLAN/PLANAF vs. USN. Currently the PLAN/PLANAF cannot fend off the USN -- the gap in power is too great. So from PLA's point of view, we'd ask, what areas should they allocate their limited funds, to develop systems that can close the gap as much as possible, and provide effective deterrance?

By effective deterrance, as the title of this thread suggested, is the power and capability to not only "mission kill" an USN CVBG, but hopefully strong enough that your opponent would choose to stay home instead.

We'd also assume that the PLA adopt Korean attitude of rolling up one's sleeves and getting to work, instead of the self-defeating attitude of "we'd never get there". The longest journey starts with the first step, and a fortune starts with a penny in savings.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I find the bandwidth figures rather suprising Is this another example of the Miltary procurement cycle being completely out of phase with commercial development?

How old are these satellites?

Ordinary Mobile Phone and Internet Uplinks handle infinitly more bandwidth than this. Is their something very fundemental in all this which I have failed to appreciate? If so please enlighten me

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

During the CW, the Soviets not only shadowed US/NATO CBGs with their AGIs/ SSGs/SSGNs, but also with Tu-16/95/142/22s- so I wouldn't rely only on PLANs SSKs/SSNs/SSGNs in confronting CSGs of today & tomorrow.
The Chinese could also outfit their and (or any large transport, see post#67 ) with hundreds of conventional/nuclear ALCMs- like the USAF C-17 Arsenal aircraft.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Arsenal aircraft are an interesting idea but the IL's may not be the best bet. Old technology with no VSTOL capability meaning they are fixed to extended commerical leangth runways. Unless the PLAN plans on hititng the CBG's witha suprise attack from a peace time footing those runways are big vulnerable imovable targets.

The key isn't sinking a carrier, the US will not commit its carriers until it already has superiority they are too vulnerable. Winning control of the air vs a stealthed airforce is not a winnign bet, that leaves winning the submarine battle.

As long as the USN wins the sub fight it can expect to be able to move it's CBG's at will anywhere(1). If some one can deny the USN victory in this arena the carriers can't close. If the carriers can't close if they can't play a role. if they can't play a role they might as well be at the bottom of the ocean.

1- If the USN subs can close inshore more or less at will then any airfield with range of the tommahawks and all naval anchorages are vulnerable to attack.

In a shooting war boths sides airpower will be more or less dependant on nthe winner of the submarien fight. As long as US subs are a credible threat the best aircraft of the PLAAF have to be held back severily limiting thier time on station over Taiwan, a sLong as PLAn subs ar e a credible threat the CBG cant close and any help for Taiwan will be F-15 and 22's flying at maximum range.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

adeptitus said:

* If you're operating in a specific region close to home, it may be possible to increase bandwith avail via ground-based installations, as well as any communications equipment you can put on ships, aircraft, and geostationary satellites.

Click to expand...

Yes you can rely to a certain extent on ground based installations, but since they will have to be line of sight, that'll force them to be emplaced near the coast, and leave them vulnerable to strikes from cruise missiles. Ships remain vulnerable with their need to emit, but airplanes provide a good way of extending the horizon. Their drawbacks are that they will have to be kept in the air to maintain the links. Using all of them though, will result in a terribly complex network. Which means a LOT of money invested.

If you're looking at global deployement, then the requirements for communications satellites are much greater. But if you're only concerend about a specific region, then I think the cost of putting up more geostationary communication satellites in limited area would be cheaper, than a system that spans the globe.

Click to expand...

Geostationary satellites mean the job can be done relatively cheaper. Emphasis on the word relatively.

* To reduce the bandwith requirement, some UAV's can be set to operate in autonomous mode (surveillance, hunter-killer, etc). You'd communicate with the UAV on "as needed" basis and not all the time. If the UAV's are deployed in a pack, they could data-link with each other as well.

Click to expand...

Autonomous? Nice. Unfortunately only the J-UCAS even comes close to what you're suggesting, and it has only been demonstated in a 2 platform scenario. Look at how much money they intend to invest to develop the J-UCAS before it got canned. Add that to the cost.

* Another area of critical development would be stealth technology. UAV's can be made smaller than manned aircraft, so it has some advantages in reducing RCS.

Click to expand...

Stealth? Very nice. China is a long way from developing a stealth platform that can be placed into operational service though. more money yet again.

* The payload needs stealth/reduced RCS too. A good present-day example is the NSM missile:

Click to expand...

Wow. Even the payload needs to be made LO. MORE money.

* In the "carrier UAV" concept that I described, it may be possible to increase penatration success rate with decoys. The carrier itself could be used as a decoy, or, instead of 2 x cruise missiles, you could go with 1 x cruise missile and 1 x quad pack decoy rocket. The decoy rocket won't have a warhead, so can be made much smaller and lighter, perhaps with a small radar emitter or some other EW device.

Click to expand...

The problem with decoys is that the decoys have to be like what they are supposed to emulate, or they would be pointless. That means that they must have the same range, flight profile, speed as the ASMs they are supposed to emulate. Which means that at the end of the day, all the decoy would differ from a real ASM would be the warhead. Which begs the question of why not carry another real ASM instead when the decoy takes up as much space and weight to carry as the ASM? Put it this way, if decoys were useful, why did the Soviets not field a similar concept?

The technologies that I've suggested are based mostly on what's avail right now, or reasonable advanced version of them. I try not to go into realm of science fiction.

Click to expand...

It is not only the realm of the possible that you should formulate any anti-carrier concept. Think in terms of the realm of the fiscally possible. The Soviet Union tried to tackle the west without limiting themselves to fiscally acceptable solutions. (one could say that they couldn't find any solutions that wouldn't bankrupt them) There's no more Soviet Union left. Sun Tsu would have been proud.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

It will be impossible to disable all big runways in such large country as the PRC- many of them are used for civilian/tourist traffic with many foreigners (including Americans- the recent is a sase in point) present at all times; also IL-76s can be refueled in mid-air by H-6/IL-78 tankers, so they can take off from farther inland, giving time for - which PLAAF - to shot down most, if not all of those ALCMs/SLCMs. The well defended CSG must be attacked from all possible platforms, not just subs. The earlier mentioned SOSUS (post# 50) they undoubtedly have/will deploy & keep in the surrounding waters will also help them detect enemy's fleet & aircraft presence- the era of a carrier enjoying the proverbial "needle in the haystack" advantage is over!

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Kongo said:

It is not only the realm of the possible that you should formulate any anti-carrier concept. Think in terms of the realm of the fiscally possible. The Soviet Union tried to tackle the west without limiting themselves to fiscally acceptable solutions. (one could say that they couldn't find any solutions that wouldn't bankrupt them) There's no more Soviet Union left. Sun Tsu would have been proud.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's talk about costs.

There are 2 factors that I think would make my suggested systems cost-effective.

First, I believe reduced-RCS technology is cheaper to do on smaller UAV's, than larger manned aircraft. It's not realistic to think the PLA could build up to F/A-22's level within a decade, but low-RCS UAV's, I think possible.

Second, if the system can be used by multiple branches, I think it has higher chance to receive funding to develop baseline models, then modified for different services. Advanced, low-RCS, long-range cruise missile with anti-shipping and surface attack modes can be useful to all 3 branches of the military.

The missile can be deployed from aircraft, surface ships, submarines, trucks, etc. Same with UAV's. The AF, Navy, and Army can all use them.


The one platform I suggested that might be too expensive is SSGN's. These subs will have very high unit cost, perhaps as much as 1,000 cruise missiles, and is only useful to the navy.

==================

On autonomous modes on UAV's, some forms of it is already in use today. For example the IAI Harpy can be set to patrol a certain area and engage hostile targets:


This autonomous attack mode is prolly what made the US government choke at Israeli arms sales to China, because it has the potential to be more dangerous than Russian jets.


As for decoy rockets, I think they can be made to emulate radar sig of a larger anti-ship missile. Not perfect, but might be able to trick the defending ship from wasting interceptor missiles.

As air to air combat moves to BVR, I also see decoy rockets or UAV's used to deceive enemy radar in attempt to make them waste their BVRAAM's. But that's into the future and not today.


p.s. This is pretty new, but might be one method of launching "battlefield satellites" cheaply:


(see attached pic)