Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
In the realm of USW (undersea warfare) the US lead is as great as it is in the air. You are dealing with a navy with a long tradition of submarine and anti-submarine warfare.
Let start with the 51 ship of the LA class submarine. This design is from the 1970's yet only a few subs in the world can contend with it. The improved version, the 688i, is even better still.
The seawolf class was its replacement.
The USS Virginia is the F-22 in the submarine world. It is one of the quietest submarine in the world and designed to fight in the littorals.
Against this, the PLAN have obsolescent SSN and SSKs. The newer ships, 093 and Yuan SSKs, are not even up to par with the early model LA class, which is due to be replaced by the Virginia class in the next decade.
In the realm of USW (undersea warfare) the US lead is as great as it is in the air. You are dealing with a navy with a long tradition of submarine and anti-submarine warfare.
Let start with the 51 ship of the LA class submarine. This design is from the 1970's yet only a few subs in the world can contend with it. The improved version, the 688i, is even better still.
The seawolf class was its replacement.
The USS Virginia is the F-22 in the submarine world. It is one of the quietest submarine in the world and designed to fight in the littorals.
Against this, the PLAN have obsolescent SSN and SSKs. The newer ships, 093 and Yuan SSKs, are not even up to par with the early model LA class, which is due to be replaced by the Virginia class in the next decade.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
I think it'd be very difficult for PLAN subs to attack USN CVBG under war conditions. Which is why I suggested the very expensive SSG/SSGN option.
SSGN's armed with 100+ cruise missiles could launch its payload at enemy surface ships from ~1,200-1,500km away. So even if your launch is detected, you'd have some time (and distance) to get away.
It's not impossible to envision PLAN SSGN armed with many DH-10's. If the PLAN can build SSBN's, I think the can build SSGN's. With the long-range of cruise missiles, the SSBN doesn't have to get very close to the target ships to kill it.
The major downside with SSGN's is that it'd be very expensive, and only useful to the navy. So when the different branches fight for budget allocation, it'd be difficult to justify this expense, versus cruise missiles are useful to all branches and much easier to gain support and funding.
I think it'd be very difficult for PLAN subs to attack USN CVBG under war conditions. Which is why I suggested the very expensive SSG/SSGN option.
SSGN's armed with 100+ cruise missiles could launch its payload at enemy surface ships from ~1,200-1,500km away. So even if your launch is detected, you'd have some time (and distance) to get away.
It's not impossible to envision PLAN SSGN armed with many DH-10's. If the PLAN can build SSBN's, I think the can build SSGN's. With the long-range of cruise missiles, the SSBN doesn't have to get very close to the target ships to kill it.
The major downside with SSGN's is that it'd be very expensive, and only useful to the navy. So when the different branches fight for budget allocation, it'd be difficult to justify this expense, versus cruise missiles are useful to all branches and much easier to gain support and funding.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
If your nation has the strategic depth of China, Russia, India or even smaller nations like Korea, it is possible to destroy a carrier without a navy. Yes its true!
A carrier has a limited number of aircraft. In fact, even multiple CBGs would fairly quickly loose almost all of their strike aircraft if they seriously tried to crack China's air defence network without serious help from the Air Force. If you play your cards right, even small nations have something of an answer to the carrier problem. Of course, to do this you need a large and capable air defence network, which again presents the "massive allocation of resources" problem. However, I just wanted to point out this somewhat asymmetic solution to the carrier problem-let them come to you.
The other problem is that you are giving control of the sea to the enemy, which is not really an option for China. But in the event of a protracted conflict, allowing the carrier to make strikes on the mainland and thus whittling down its air corps would work.
If your nation has the strategic depth of China, Russia, India or even smaller nations like Korea, it is possible to destroy a carrier without a navy. Yes its true!
A carrier has a limited number of aircraft. In fact, even multiple CBGs would fairly quickly loose almost all of their strike aircraft if they seriously tried to crack China's air defence network without serious help from the Air Force. If you play your cards right, even small nations have something of an answer to the carrier problem. Of course, to do this you need a large and capable air defence network, which again presents the "massive allocation of resources" problem. However, I just wanted to point out this somewhat asymmetic solution to the carrier problem-let them come to you.
The other problem is that you are giving control of the sea to the enemy, which is not really an option for China. But in the event of a protracted conflict, allowing the carrier to make strikes on the mainland and thus whittling down its air corps would work.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Unless the UAVs have a level of RCS that reaches F-117 levels, then they are vulnerable to being shot down. It may still be a moot point if they have to use radar in order to search for the CVN.
Satisfying all their requirements would mean a very high unit costs, or alternatively you could compromise and have a weapon that's mediocre to all of them.
A sub which can carry lots of missiles sound nice, but what about missile guidance etc?
What you suggests requires a level of automation that's of a totally different order of magnitude than that inherent in the Harpy. Defeating a CSG's defenses requires saturating its defenses, which means automated coordination among the disparate UAVs backed up with substantial human oversight. Harpy's automation is limited to a single platform, which is mediocre in sophistication compared to the J-UCAS level of automation your concept requires.
You think. The only difference a decoy would have from the ASM it would emulate is the lack of a terminal guidance system and a warhead. Virtually everything else would be similar. That pretty much dictates that the decoy won't be much smaller (or even much cheaper) than an ASM. If you disagree, look at the drones used by the USN to emulate ASMs - they are not much smaller than the ASMs they are to emulate. In fact, some of them are smaller because they are shorter ranged, if they were to be the same ranged as the ASMs they were to emulate they'd be even bigger.
Look. Anybody can come up with fanciful ideas. The difference is coming up with ideas that can meet technological and fiscal limitations while still solving the problem. The Soviets had decades to think through the problems. You think that not one Russkie ever had the idea of decoys pop into their head? Of course not! The thing to do then is ask oneself - why wasn't this idea implemented? Usually there are good reasons why ideas remain as, well, an idea. As for your UAV network concept, that is something the US planners forsee, and something they have chosen to invest in. That said, they are at the forefront, and whether anybody else can pour in the same amount of resources is questionable. Also, while the concept sounds good, it hardly is an insurmountable threat to the CSG. In fact, if China spent so much just to counter the CSG that it's left little money to develop abilities to threaten Taiwan, then the CSG just served its purpose! Sun Tsu would be mighty pleased!
Unless the UAVs have a level of RCS that reaches F-117 levels, then they are vulnerable to being shot down. It may still be a moot point if they have to use radar in order to search for the CVN.
Satisfying all their requirements would mean a very high unit costs, or alternatively you could compromise and have a weapon that's mediocre to all of them.
A sub which can carry lots of missiles sound nice, but what about missile guidance etc?
What you suggests requires a level of automation that's of a totally different order of magnitude than that inherent in the Harpy. Defeating a CSG's defenses requires saturating its defenses, which means automated coordination among the disparate UAVs backed up with substantial human oversight. Harpy's automation is limited to a single platform, which is mediocre in sophistication compared to the J-UCAS level of automation your concept requires.
You think. The only difference a decoy would have from the ASM it would emulate is the lack of a terminal guidance system and a warhead. Virtually everything else would be similar. That pretty much dictates that the decoy won't be much smaller (or even much cheaper) than an ASM. If you disagree, look at the drones used by the USN to emulate ASMs - they are not much smaller than the ASMs they are to emulate. In fact, some of them are smaller because they are shorter ranged, if they were to be the same ranged as the ASMs they were to emulate they'd be even bigger.
Look. Anybody can come up with fanciful ideas. The difference is coming up with ideas that can meet technological and fiscal limitations while still solving the problem. The Soviets had decades to think through the problems. You think that not one Russkie ever had the idea of decoys pop into their head? Of course not! The thing to do then is ask oneself - why wasn't this idea implemented? Usually there are good reasons why ideas remain as, well, an idea. As for your UAV network concept, that is something the US planners forsee, and something they have chosen to invest in. That said, they are at the forefront, and whether anybody else can pour in the same amount of resources is questionable. Also, while the concept sounds good, it hardly is an insurmountable threat to the CSG. In fact, if China spent so much just to counter the CSG that it's left little money to develop abilities to threaten Taiwan, then the CSG just served its purpose! Sun Tsu would be mighty pleased!
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Even if you have a fleet of SSGN's, you still have a problem of targeting data. No sub in the world can create a firing missile solution to a target ship 1,200-1500km away by itself. Even at 200 km, it still needs over the horizon targeting info from a third party. The Soviet's realized this with their Oscar SSGN.
There lies the problem. Your over the horizon recon platform (maritime surveillance aircraft such as the Bear D) is easy to intercept. Secondly, is communication. Submarines are not very easy to communicate with due to their nature. For the SSGN to be on hair trigger mode, it needs to be at periscope depth to received the targeting info and fire its missiles ASAP. Being at periscope depth in a war footing is extremely dangerous since hostile subs, can easily find you.
Even if you have a fleet of SSGN's, you still have a problem of targeting data. No sub in the world can create a firing missile solution to a target ship 1,200-1500km away by itself. Even at 200 km, it still needs over the horizon targeting info from a third party. The Soviet's realized this with their Oscar SSGN.
There lies the problem. Your over the horizon recon platform (maritime surveillance aircraft such as the Bear D) is easy to intercept. Secondly, is communication. Submarines are not very easy to communicate with due to their nature. For the SSGN to be on hair trigger mode, it needs to be at periscope depth to received the targeting info and fire its missiles ASAP. Being at periscope depth in a war footing is extremely dangerous since hostile subs, can easily find you.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Bluejacket, has a Tomahawk ever been intercpeted by aircraft or ADA? China doesn thave all that many interceptors with advance lookdown/shoot down. Also given the size of China's budget she would not be albe to build all that many arsenal planes. You don thave to tak out every runway, just the runways being used for the arsenal planes. The CBG won't be sititgn still given the PRC's capabilites and size, the smart plan would be to create a window to dash aircraft in and savage the PLAN/PLAAF assets needed to actually invade/re-supply an invasion of Taiwan.
Finn MCool,
within a decade the USN will be stealthed and will conveivably be able to slip past the cracks in China's airdefence net. It's the handicap of a big country, you can't be strong everywhere.
IDont,
I know this I am American and pro-USN. However the submarine battle is on e the USN has to fight and win to bring the CBG close enogh to be effective over Taiwan. Who wins this fight wins the carrier battle.
Bluejacket, has a Tomahawk ever been intercpeted by aircraft or ADA? China doesn thave all that many interceptors with advance lookdown/shoot down. Also given the size of China's budget she would not be albe to build all that many arsenal planes. You don thave to tak out every runway, just the runways being used for the arsenal planes. The CBG won't be sititgn still given the PRC's capabilites and size, the smart plan would be to create a window to dash aircraft in and savage the PLAN/PLAAF assets needed to actually invade/re-supply an invasion of Taiwan.
Finn MCool,
within a decade the USN will be stealthed and will conveivably be able to slip past the cracks in China's airdefence net. It's the handicap of a big country, you can't be strong everywhere.
IDont,
I know this I am American and pro-USN. However the submarine battle is on e the USN has to fight and win to bring the CBG close enogh to be effective over Taiwan. Who wins this fight wins the carrier battle.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
No, the unit cost is dependent on total number produced, because you have to average out the R&D expense. So if you make a cruise missile that's useful to multiple branches, it'd increase the order potential, and therefore reduce per unit cost.
On missile guidance, since this scenario calls for anti-shipping, we prolly cannot use TERCOM. It'd prolly use a mix of inertial and satellite navigation to reach the target area, then go into hunter-killer mode with its seeker head. I envision something like an IR + electro-optical imaging technology that can guide the missile to specific target area on a ship.
Rather than say "F-117 level" or "F-22 level", I think it's more realistic to say "gradual RCS reduction" through research advances and implementation. Or, if you want to be under-handed about it, theft and espionage.
Development can be categorized into 2 areas, hardware (physical) and software (human resource). The PRC has made some advancement in the hardware sector (manufacturing), but is lacking in software (skilled/expereinced people). They have computers that are much faster than the supercomputers of 1970s, but not the experienced research staff at Skunk Works to make the F-117. Human resource takes time to cultivate, there's no shortcuts around it.
UAV's are very attractive to me, because it doesn't require a human pilot in the cockpit. It takes many years to train a combat pilot today, if you lose them in combat, it's difficult to replace in short time. Same with manned combat jets, they're large and expensive.
UAV's, on the other hand, doesn't require a manned pilot. So even if it gets shot down, the controllers are still safetly back home and out of harm's way. I also think it'd be easier to replace UAV's than large manned aircraft.
If we look at recent PRC developments, some of the stuff that I suggested are already in development, i.e. DH-10, H-6 based satellite launch, etc. There's some progress in UAV development, but I think it's not enough, and should be allocated more resources, even at the expense of manned aircraft programs (no free lunch here), because I believe UAV's will be the future, and will replace most manned aircraft.
As for Taiwan, I think these developments are applicable and not solely useful against surface ships. Cruise missiles do have land attack mode and are more accurate than SRBM's. Just as UAV's can be used for target acqusition on ships, it can be used for land targets, ships at dock, aircraft in an AFB, etc.
No, the unit cost is dependent on total number produced, because you have to average out the R&D expense. So if you make a cruise missile that's useful to multiple branches, it'd increase the order potential, and therefore reduce per unit cost.
On missile guidance, since this scenario calls for anti-shipping, we prolly cannot use TERCOM. It'd prolly use a mix of inertial and satellite navigation to reach the target area, then go into hunter-killer mode with its seeker head. I envision something like an IR + electro-optical imaging technology that can guide the missile to specific target area on a ship.
Rather than say "F-117 level" or "F-22 level", I think it's more realistic to say "gradual RCS reduction" through research advances and implementation. Or, if you want to be under-handed about it, theft and espionage.
Development can be categorized into 2 areas, hardware (physical) and software (human resource). The PRC has made some advancement in the hardware sector (manufacturing), but is lacking in software (skilled/expereinced people). They have computers that are much faster than the supercomputers of 1970s, but not the experienced research staff at Skunk Works to make the F-117. Human resource takes time to cultivate, there's no shortcuts around it.
UAV's are very attractive to me, because it doesn't require a human pilot in the cockpit. It takes many years to train a combat pilot today, if you lose them in combat, it's difficult to replace in short time. Same with manned combat jets, they're large and expensive.
UAV's, on the other hand, doesn't require a manned pilot. So even if it gets shot down, the controllers are still safetly back home and out of harm's way. I also think it'd be easier to replace UAV's than large manned aircraft.
If we look at recent PRC developments, some of the stuff that I suggested are already in development, i.e. DH-10, H-6 based satellite launch, etc. There's some progress in UAV development, but I think it's not enough, and should be allocated more resources, even at the expense of manned aircraft programs (no free lunch here), because I believe UAV's will be the future, and will replace most manned aircraft.
As for Taiwan, I think these developments are applicable and not solely useful against surface ships. Cruise missiles do have land attack mode and are more accurate than SRBM's. Just as UAV's can be used for target acqusition on ships, it can be used for land targets, ships at dock, aircraft in an AFB, etc.
Last edited:
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
The situation you describing can only be done in a surprise attack/invasion. Either than that CBGs will be detected hundreds of miles away.
Has any Tomahawk been fired against any strong countries ?
The situation you describing can only be done in a surprise attack/invasion. Either than that CBGs will be detected hundreds of miles away.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Yes, Iraq in 1991, which had the 7th largest airforce and 4th largest army.
Lets get away from the PLAAF/PLAN vs USN argument.
How about this.
How do you sink a carrier: French vs Russian Navy
1 French Fleet centered around the Charles de Gaulle escorted by 2 Horizon Frigates and 4 FREMM ASW frigates.
Charles De Gaulle has mix of Rafael, Super Etendard, helo, and E-2C.
FREMM Frigates
vs.
1 Russian Northern Fleet with Kuznetsov, 2 Kirov, 1 Slava, and 2 Udaloy, 1 Udaly 2, and 2 Sovremmeny.
Remember that SU-33 is only capable of Air to air missions.
Here are some rules:
No land base aircraft or other third party surveillance and support.
No submarines (for simplicity)
You can tailor made your carrier airwing (be reasonable) but Kuznetsov's aircraft cannot carry heavy anti-ship ordinance due to ski jump limitations.
How would you fight this battle as either commander?
Yes, Iraq in 1991, which had the 7th largest airforce and 4th largest army.
Lets get away from the PLAAF/PLAN vs USN argument.
How about this.
How do you sink a carrier: French vs Russian Navy
1 French Fleet centered around the Charles de Gaulle escorted by 2 Horizon Frigates and 4 FREMM ASW frigates.
Charles De Gaulle has mix of Rafael, Super Etendard, helo, and E-2C.
FREMM Frigates
vs.
1 Russian Northern Fleet with Kuznetsov, 2 Kirov, 1 Slava, and 2 Udaloy, 1 Udaly 2, and 2 Sovremmeny.
Remember that SU-33 is only capable of Air to air missions.
Here are some rules:
No land base aircraft or other third party surveillance and support.
No submarines (for simplicity)
You can tailor made your carrier airwing (be reasonable) but Kuznetsov's aircraft cannot carry heavy anti-ship ordinance due to ski jump limitations.
How would you fight this battle as either commander?
Last edited: