Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Jeff Head said:

Sorry Kalim. This is not the first time these scenarios have been examined and examined very very carefully and thoroughly, where two large, competing nations, had massive arsenals of both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

Evey war game scenario conceivable was looked at and studied by both side ad infinitum. In every conceivable case, the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battle field (land or at sea) to gain a local advantage invariably led to a full scale nuclear exchange, usually with days, if not weeks.

No nation will use tactical nuclear weapons against the other without having considered the results of a full scale nuclear war. In essense, the tactical nukes become part of the MAD deterrent doctrine themselves and tend to hold one the competing superpowers geographic gains static, except through proxy, conventional warfare, or economic competition to gain the advantage. That is where it ultimately leads for any rational nation.

Click to expand...

Sounds interesting, but these are just "games", and ones that are based on no historical data at all. Using tactical nukes on continental land masses, where infrastructure and civilians are in play is one thing, but using them far out at sea to remove military targets - now that's another thing entirely, even from a psychological viewpoint.

I think carrier power projection is useful for minor wars where the belligerents are unequal in capabilities, but in any desperate major war, once they are detected the use of tactical nukes (or even just non-nuke ballistic missiles) coupled with a credible space based infrastructure makes them useless, and in fact a liability because of all the exposed and vulnerable assets.

WW2 featured carriers as the height of sea power, just like WW1 and earlier featured battleships, but I can see the next major war being one where extremely accurately ballistic missiles coupled to space systems as the determining factor, rendering carrier fleets obsolete.

But then again, I am a noob, so i'd like some feedback on that from people here with more info.... ;-)

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

kalim2010 said:

I think carrier power projection is useful for minor wars where the belligerents are unequal in capabilities, but in any desperate major war, once they are detected the use of tactical nukes (or even just non-nuke ballistic missiles) coupled with a credible space based infrastructure makes them useless, and in fact a liability because of all the exposed and vulnerable assets.

But then again, I am a noob, so i'd like some feedback on that from people here with more info.... ;-)

Click to expand...

People always seem to think that anti-ship ballistic missiles are a silver bullet against carriers. However I have yet to see one shred of evidence that such a system actually exists beyond an early R&D phase. Yes, the PLAN is undoubtedly working on such a technology. But it is most certainly not operational. We've seen no tests or anything. That's the sort of tech you'd want to show off. It's likely that one day, possibly in the relatively near future, they will develop such a technology. But it's difficult to hit a moving target the size of a ship in a ballistic attack profile.

Furthermore people act as if there are no counters to this sort of technology. There are, and, guess what, they're ALREADY OPERATIONAL. The SM-3 is the best known one. So let's see we have on the one hand a rumored technology in development and on the other hand an operational, real-life tested system that already exists to counter the rumored technology. And you're saying the USN is the one being obsolete here? I'd wager that the USN already has laser (or DEW, you know, the future stuff) tech already in development, possibly at a similar stage of development as any Chinese ASBM, that would make that ASBM about as much of a threat as current day cruise missiles, if not less.

(Rant over)

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

(rant on) dear Finn:

Then lets hope or better pray that PBoC will consistently pump a couple of hundred billions every year during the next decade into America's sick economy and continues to pretend that the greenback has indeed yet retained some worth unless DoD will suddenly get really short of ´real money´ to pay for all that nice stuff you exitedly talked about.

(rant off)

Moreover recently ret. rear admiral McVadon (former military attache in Beijing) gave Reuters an interesting interview about PLA's general progress and he was certainly not at all relaxed about DF-21D. (...besides his diction actually implied that tests of the ´thing´ have been already conducted and obviously observed by the US IC, just stay tuned for a revelation in the next DoD China report!)

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Violet Oboe said:

(rant on) dear Finn:

Then lets hope or better pray that PBoC will consistently pump a couple of hundred billions every year during the next decade into America's sick economy and continues to pretend that the greenback has indeed yet retained some worth unless DoD will suddenly get really short of ´real money´ to pay for all that nice stuff you exitedly talked about.

(rant off)

Click to expand...

We're talking about hardware here, how one specific system can be used to destroy another specific system. "China can stop giving u monies OMG !!11!1" is an argument that can be used to supposedly negate any technological advantage that the US might have. It doesn't change the fact that when you come down to the nuts and bolts of it people make a far bigger deal out of ASBM than they have any right to given the available facts.

Of course, I'm interested in reading that interview if you'd like to link us.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

ff
Regarding fiscal challenges threatening many of the Pentagon's pet projects and technological pies in the sky China's financial dealings with the US are probably of secondary importance. Nevertheless Obama's dramatic deficit spending policy creating up to six $ trillion additional federal debt until 2013 will certainly put stringent limitations on any long term US military spending plans. (...introducing some ´socialistic´ innovations is expensive, Americans will have to learn paying up for this kind of luxury.)

As for McVadon's Reuters piece, you can find it via Google news easily.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

kalim2010 said:

Sounds interesting, but these are just "games", and ones that are based on no historical data at all. Using tactical nukes on continental land masses, where infrastructure and civilians are in play is one thing, but using them far out at sea to remove military targets - now that's another thing entirely, even from a psychological viewpoint.

I think carrier power projection is useful for minor wars where the belligerents are unequal in capabilities, but in any desperate major war, once they are detected the use of tactical nukes (or even just non-nuke ballistic missiles) coupled with a credible space based infrastructure makes them useless, and in fact a liability because of all the exposed and vulnerable assets.

WW2 featured carriers as the height of sea power, just like WW1 and earlier featured battleships, but I can see the next major war being one where extremely accurately ballistic missiles coupled to space systems as the determining factor, rendering carrier fleets obsolete.

But then again, I am a noob, so i'd like some feedback on that from people here with more info.... ;-)

Click to expand...

All of those scenarios were played out by people with significant operational and historical experience...and by experts in their fields. They were played out over years and years.

Both on land and at sea. From nuclear tipped cruise missiles, to nuclear tipped torpedoes, to nuclear mines. The outcomes always led to the same place.

And both sides knew it.

I expect China knows it too.

Having a relizable threat is one thing...and it lends credence to deterrent. My guess is that any skirmish or even a larger hot conflict in a regional area would remain conventional. The risks are just too great to punch the nuclear button and risk the escalation.

If one side does, you can bet the other will too...and the second response it likely to be correspondingly larger in orde to deter and halt the intitial...and so on and so forth.

Do not underestimate the will of the American people, their leaders, or any other nation in such a scenario. To do so invites disaster and catastophe.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Great discussion gents!

However I have yet to see one shred of evidence that such a system actually exists beyond an early R&D phase.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Someone show us one video or one photo of the ASBM in action. I'd like to see it tracking then sinking a carrier sized ship moving at 30+ knots in the open sea.

I can show you the SM-3 in action or the rail gun the USN is developing.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

First off, there is no guarantee that all the space based sensors in the world will necessarily reveal the locations of US naval forces. I always groan when I read such things. The Soviets had far more space based sensors than any other nation in history except the US and still could not reliably find US naval forces. All such sensors have limits penetrating weather, and can be spoofed by ECM. Naval forces can go EMCON, hide under a weather system and disappear. This was done fairly routinely against Soviet surveillance. Naval units can transmit a commercial surface search radar and appear to be a big container ship to direction finding and ELINT equipment, and can be invisible under typical north Pacific of north Atlantic overcast. ECM can be effective enough to force an opponent to fly out and physically look for naval forces their satellites and ELINT cannot find. When a carrier goes EMCON, finding it almost reverts back to WWII era tactics of patrolling with airplanes and good eyeballs. The typical weather in the northern latitudes of the Pacific and Atlantic is overcast and stormy, perfect weather for hiding from satellites.
As far as MARV's hitting a moving target, it has never been demonstrated by any nation. Pershing II had a MARV with an active radar seeker, but it was designed to reduce the size of the CEP when aimed at a fixed land target. These missiles carried a small warhead, therefore they needed a very tight CEP so the blast radius of the warhead exceeded the CEP, the usual standard for ordinance accuracy. No one has ever hit a moving target with a ballistic missile. At a minimum such a missile would have to find it's target from at least 100 miles up to have any chance match the maneuvers of a ship at sea. The warhead's maneuver footprint over the water falls dramatically as warhead altitude decreases. It probably would not be too hard to spoof the seeker and maneuver to a point where the missile could not possibly hit the target.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

i highly doubt PLA will utilize any forms of nuclear weapons in the battlefield until it has become necessary as pre-emptive measure against a confirmed report of an enemy in the process of launching one at PRC.
otherwise even for a battlefleet, PRC will be more likely to use conventional warheads with multiple simulatenous launches in order to the chances of a strike and to reduce the enemy the same time.
even if the fleet is not destroyed, it will be enough of a morale shock to force the enemies to reconsider their options.

either way, all this will depend largely on the conflict and PRC's policies and stance are.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Ambivalent said:

All such sensors have limits penetrating weather, and can be spoofed by ECM. Naval forces can go EMCON, hide under a weather system and disappear. This was done fairly routinely against Soviet surveillance. Naval units can transmit a commercial surface search radar and appear to be a big container ship to direction finding and ELINT equipment, and can be invisible under typical north Pacific of north Atlantic overcast. ECM can be effective enough to force an opponent to fly out and physically look for naval forces their satellites and ELINT cannot find. When a carrier goes EMCON, finding it almost reverts back to WWII era tactics of patrolling with airplanes and good eyeballs. The typical weather in the northern latitudes of the Pacific and Atlantic is overcast and stormy, perfect weather for hiding from satellites.

Click to expand...

OTH radars have been making a comeback. I know for sure the PLA has them and is building more. The US Coast Guard uses them to routinely monitor for drug smugglers. Targeting is obviously a non-issue, but in its role of early warning an OTH radar does quitely nicely, and at long range. Any suspicious target traveling at high speed could be further localized by KJ-2000. Actually any target at all could be further localized by KJ-2000. The problem with the Russians was that they had difficulty tracking carrier groups because they were trying to do so on the high seas in several of the world's oceans. The PLAN would not have such lofty goals. The Western Pacific and South China Sea would be sufficient. A KJ-2000 flying along China's eastern coastline under the cover of fighter CAP and SAM protection could detect incoming ships out to several hundred km.

Ambivalent said:

As far as MARV's hitting a moving target, it has never been demonstrated by any nation. Pershing II had a MARV with an active radar seeker, but it was designed to reduce the size of the CEP when aimed at a fixed land target. These missiles carried a small warhead, therefore they needed a very tight CEP so the blast radius of the warhead exceeded the CEP, the usual standard for ordinance accuracy. No one has ever hit a moving target with a ballistic missile. At a minimum such a missile would have to find it's target from at least 100 miles up to have any chance match the maneuvers of a ship at sea. The warhead's maneuver footprint over the water falls dramatically as warhead altitude decreases. It probably would not be too hard to spoof the seeker and maneuver to a point where the missile could not possibly hit the target.

Click to expand...

This is assuming an ASBM carrying a simple HE warhead. There was an interesting discussion at CDF about using submunitions or dispersed DU/tungsten penetrators, which would increase the odds of a hit or partial hits. Enough near misses and you get a full hit. The idea wouldn't be to sink the carrier so much as to make the flight deck inoperable (and maybe start some fires). And in the case of penetrators, the hangar and the decks below that as well.