Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Gents, don't see your post? I moved them and started a new thread because I felt the discussion excellent but was way off topic..Follow the link below for the new thread!
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...-modern-military-sensors-4763.html#post109007
bd popeye super moderator
Gents, don't see your post? I moved them and started a new thread because I felt the discussion excellent but was way off topic..Follow the link below for the new thread!
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...-modern-military-sensors-4763.html#post109007
bd popeye super moderator
Last edited:
Sometimes you just read something, somewhere and you know that you are being told something important, but that its nots immediately obvious what it is and that it takes a few days or message to strike home.
I think its fair to say that the following from Peter J Brown, published in ATOL falls into this category.
Its not so much the discourse of the article itself, which; to be honest, is hardly the most riveting compelling or convincing of reads, but it does leave the nagging feeling of significance and one which bugged me for a while after reading.
But what was it?
The Premise is simple enough, build some long range missiles and use them to deliver a massive and crushing deep strike against any other nation on earth in less than an hour. On the face of it, not that remarkable if you wanted to punish another Iraq or Libya perhaps, but the author was specifically speaking about China. Well China is a huge country full of strategic targets, if you wanted to perform an effective C-PGS strike against China, you would need a huge number of missiles and the cost of this on top of the current platforms for long range power projection - The Carrier Strike Group, would be prohibitive....
.......which of course is when the penny started to drop.
C_PGS is not about running alongside the Carriers, its all about replacing them.
The next sensation can only be described as a Clapham Junction moment, where a whole shedload of thoughts start running through your mind pretty much all at once.
Trying desperately to restore order and make a a bewildering series of circular thoughts in to a logical and serial progression, I finally managed to nail the premise down.
What this whole thing is about is recognising and realising the moment at which the effective expressions of National Power and Power Projection change fundamentally. Its not a new process.
In the last one hundred and fifty years, the Battleship has been the Prime Symbol of a Nations Power, during that time, Sail has given way to Steam, Wood to Iron, The Iron Clad to the Super Dreadnought and the Dreadnought in turn given way to the Aircraft Carrier.
Now not only is the Aircraft Carrier and its Aircraft about to surrender its position, but the Navy itself is losing its Pride of Place to an entirely new set of Aerial/Orbital Weapon Systems. It is the biggest shift in Military affairs since the introduction of Firearms Five hundred Years ago.
The Strike Carrier has had a good run since the 1950's but the world has changed beyond all recognition since those days, with the development of powerful computers, Global positioning Satellites and High Resolution Imaging for tracking and targeting. All of these things combined with various disciplines of rocket science have resulted in extremely mobile, flexible and fast launching missiles that can land with pin point accuracy at the furthest distances of the Planet or intercept orbital Satellites or even other missiles as they prepare for re-entry. The Strike Carrier, for so long the hunter, has now become the prey.
This has undoubtedly been accepted in many quarters for a while, but for a country like the US, dispensing of its Carriers has become an almost impossible political act. Too much investment in time, money resources, men and prestige has made the image of the Carrier synonymous with the image of the US itself. This is exactly the same problem as Britain had in the 1930's with the Dreadnoughts, even though it was clear that airpower was now the key and that the Big Battleships were vulnerable to it. The admission was to painful to contemplate and it cost the humiliation of the Prince of Wales and Repulse at the hands of the Japanese to put the matter beyond doubt.
My personal belief has been for some time that the Strike Carrier is obsolete and that the only role for the Carrier is the more modest one of Organic Fleet Air Protection. It has also been my belief that the CCP shared this view, which is why work on its Carrier project has been undertaken at a modest pace, while much more effort has gone into Strategic Missiles.
China has been lucky that it has joined the party late, without baggage and with a free hand to build modern forces that really reflect the strategic realities of the modern level of technology.
For China the prioritise have been precision missiles, ASBM, ASAT systems and now Missile Defence, all along side a growing network of positioning and spy satellites.
America has suddenly realised that it has invested huge sums of money to finance systems which may very well be evolutionary dead ends in military development. Systems like the F22 may be superb examples of the craft, but they are overly expensive and their advantage quickly lost by the widespread introduction of cheaper but only slightly less capable systems. Indeed, what has to date been described in almost condescending tones as China's asymmetrical capability may well soon emerge as fully acknowledged, truly modern tactics.
I had always supposed that it would have required the US to suffer a Military Disaster involving its Carriers before the point was hit home. I do therefore give the US credit if they have indeed decided to bit the bullet in advance. If so it could be fair to say the current economic condition of the US may well have provided the final level of rationale.
If this is so, then the US has one tremendous advantage to be able to rapidly build this new capability and to be able to do so on the cheap: its vast stockpile of ICBMs and other nuclear delivery missile systems. The drive for nuclear weapons reductions can indeed release significant resources no longer needed to safely contain fissionable weaponised material.
In addition, a stockpile of conventional missiles only requires a fraction of the cost and manpower to operate than it needs to operate a dozen Carrier Strike Groups.
So, has America suddenly decided to play the game the Chinese way?
I think its fair to say that the following from Peter J Brown, published in ATOL falls into this category.
Its not so much the discourse of the article itself, which; to be honest, is hardly the most riveting compelling or convincing of reads, but it does leave the nagging feeling of significance and one which bugged me for a while after reading.
But what was it?
The Premise is simple enough, build some long range missiles and use them to deliver a massive and crushing deep strike against any other nation on earth in less than an hour. On the face of it, not that remarkable if you wanted to punish another Iraq or Libya perhaps, but the author was specifically speaking about China. Well China is a huge country full of strategic targets, if you wanted to perform an effective C-PGS strike against China, you would need a huge number of missiles and the cost of this on top of the current platforms for long range power projection - The Carrier Strike Group, would be prohibitive....
.......which of course is when the penny started to drop.
C_PGS is not about running alongside the Carriers, its all about replacing them.
The next sensation can only be described as a Clapham Junction moment, where a whole shedload of thoughts start running through your mind pretty much all at once.
Trying desperately to restore order and make a a bewildering series of circular thoughts in to a logical and serial progression, I finally managed to nail the premise down.
What this whole thing is about is recognising and realising the moment at which the effective expressions of National Power and Power Projection change fundamentally. Its not a new process.
In the last one hundred and fifty years, the Battleship has been the Prime Symbol of a Nations Power, during that time, Sail has given way to Steam, Wood to Iron, The Iron Clad to the Super Dreadnought and the Dreadnought in turn given way to the Aircraft Carrier.
Now not only is the Aircraft Carrier and its Aircraft about to surrender its position, but the Navy itself is losing its Pride of Place to an entirely new set of Aerial/Orbital Weapon Systems. It is the biggest shift in Military affairs since the introduction of Firearms Five hundred Years ago.
The Strike Carrier has had a good run since the 1950's but the world has changed beyond all recognition since those days, with the development of powerful computers, Global positioning Satellites and High Resolution Imaging for tracking and targeting. All of these things combined with various disciplines of rocket science have resulted in extremely mobile, flexible and fast launching missiles that can land with pin point accuracy at the furthest distances of the Planet or intercept orbital Satellites or even other missiles as they prepare for re-entry. The Strike Carrier, for so long the hunter, has now become the prey.
This has undoubtedly been accepted in many quarters for a while, but for a country like the US, dispensing of its Carriers has become an almost impossible political act. Too much investment in time, money resources, men and prestige has made the image of the Carrier synonymous with the image of the US itself. This is exactly the same problem as Britain had in the 1930's with the Dreadnoughts, even though it was clear that airpower was now the key and that the Big Battleships were vulnerable to it. The admission was to painful to contemplate and it cost the humiliation of the Prince of Wales and Repulse at the hands of the Japanese to put the matter beyond doubt.
My personal belief has been for some time that the Strike Carrier is obsolete and that the only role for the Carrier is the more modest one of Organic Fleet Air Protection. It has also been my belief that the CCP shared this view, which is why work on its Carrier project has been undertaken at a modest pace, while much more effort has gone into Strategic Missiles.
China has been lucky that it has joined the party late, without baggage and with a free hand to build modern forces that really reflect the strategic realities of the modern level of technology.
For China the prioritise have been precision missiles, ASBM, ASAT systems and now Missile Defence, all along side a growing network of positioning and spy satellites.
America has suddenly realised that it has invested huge sums of money to finance systems which may very well be evolutionary dead ends in military development. Systems like the F22 may be superb examples of the craft, but they are overly expensive and their advantage quickly lost by the widespread introduction of cheaper but only slightly less capable systems. Indeed, what has to date been described in almost condescending tones as China's asymmetrical capability may well soon emerge as fully acknowledged, truly modern tactics.
I had always supposed that it would have required the US to suffer a Military Disaster involving its Carriers before the point was hit home. I do therefore give the US credit if they have indeed decided to bit the bullet in advance. If so it could be fair to say the current economic condition of the US may well have provided the final level of rationale.
If this is so, then the US has one tremendous advantage to be able to rapidly build this new capability and to be able to do so on the cheap: its vast stockpile of ICBMs and other nuclear delivery missile systems. The drive for nuclear weapons reductions can indeed release significant resources no longer needed to safely contain fissionable weaponised material.
In addition, a stockpile of conventional missiles only requires a fraction of the cost and manpower to operate than it needs to operate a dozen Carrier Strike Groups.
So, has America suddenly decided to play the game the Chinese way?
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
For one I don´t believe the end of the Carrier Age is closing in.
Just because it´s easier to defeat or even destroy a carrier group, you can´t jump to conclude that the bell is tolling for carrier age. One can always argue tanks are still widely deployed as a major army assault weapon despite the invention and progress of anti-armor technologies.
However, it would be reasonable to say the time is long gone when major powers would slug it out on the high seas with their carrier groups, as the major powers have weaponized themselve to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
It is not because carrier groups are no longer decisive instruments, but because no rational power would risk a carrier dual which could escalate into a nuclear war. It´s one thing to restrain itself in the face of losing a dozen, even several dozens footsoldiers, even an aircraft, but it would be much more humiliating to lose a aircraft carrier group. As a result, retaliation would be sought even with nuclear weapons, possibly followed by the cascade of further escalation. So, why not try to reconcile and co-rule the world instead of destroying each other?
Aircraft carrier groups will continue to serve the navy powers well: they can be deployed to intimidate or even invade the small nations; when it comes to powers´ navies, they are more likely used as muscle-flexing gesture which is choregraphed by hippos to mark their own turfs; well occasionally they can be used for disaster relief efforts.
For one I don´t believe the end of the Carrier Age is closing in.
Just because it´s easier to defeat or even destroy a carrier group, you can´t jump to conclude that the bell is tolling for carrier age. One can always argue tanks are still widely deployed as a major army assault weapon despite the invention and progress of anti-armor technologies.
However, it would be reasonable to say the time is long gone when major powers would slug it out on the high seas with their carrier groups, as the major powers have weaponized themselve to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
It is not because carrier groups are no longer decisive instruments, but because no rational power would risk a carrier dual which could escalate into a nuclear war. It´s one thing to restrain itself in the face of losing a dozen, even several dozens footsoldiers, even an aircraft, but it would be much more humiliating to lose a aircraft carrier group. As a result, retaliation would be sought even with nuclear weapons, possibly followed by the cascade of further escalation. So, why not try to reconcile and co-rule the world instead of destroying each other?
Aircraft carrier groups will continue to serve the navy powers well: they can be deployed to intimidate or even invade the small nations; when it comes to powers´ navies, they are more likely used as muscle-flexing gesture which is choregraphed by hippos to mark their own turfs; well occasionally they can be used for disaster relief efforts.
vesicles
Colonel
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I understand what you are saying. And I believe that this might happen IF the US fights an open war with China. But the thing is an open war between China and the US would unlikely to happen. Look at the former soviet Union. During the Cold War, people's fear for an all out war between the Soviets and the US was very real. Yet, it never happened because the leaders of both nations knew too well that an open war between the two nations would benefit no one. So instead, they play their tug-of-war on a much limited scale and only fought using third parties.
I imagine the same thing will happen between the US and China. So investing so much on strategic missiles in anticipation of an all out war between the two nations will be wasteful in the least. Also, one cannot use these ICBMs in a limited regional conflict. For one thing, it's using "airdefence artillery to hit a misquito". Without Carrier, these missiles would be the only option for long distance attacks. Just imagine the US or China letting loose a couple of these ICBMs to hit a small village somewhere. The collateral damage is too huge to justify such use of ICBMs in most cases and may escalate the conflict to an all out war. So leader may have their hands tied when making a decision on whether to use these missiles. Carriers, however, can deliver measured amount of attack that is suitable to the situation. One can send out a couple fighter-bombers to drop a few missiles and bombs on some small target. And the two nations can play one of these "war games" without any concerns of any potential escalation of the situation. This also might suit China's goal to "fight a limited and high tech war".
So all in all, I feel that the missiles may be a good option for big nations to use in an all out war, like WWIII. But it is too much and too costly to be used in a day-to-day situation. And without Carriers, a naiton would be left without a long distance option in one of these limited and regional conflicts.
I understand what you are saying. And I believe that this might happen IF the US fights an open war with China. But the thing is an open war between China and the US would unlikely to happen. Look at the former soviet Union. During the Cold War, people's fear for an all out war between the Soviets and the US was very real. Yet, it never happened because the leaders of both nations knew too well that an open war between the two nations would benefit no one. So instead, they play their tug-of-war on a much limited scale and only fought using third parties.
I imagine the same thing will happen between the US and China. So investing so much on strategic missiles in anticipation of an all out war between the two nations will be wasteful in the least. Also, one cannot use these ICBMs in a limited regional conflict. For one thing, it's using "airdefence artillery to hit a misquito". Without Carrier, these missiles would be the only option for long distance attacks. Just imagine the US or China letting loose a couple of these ICBMs to hit a small village somewhere. The collateral damage is too huge to justify such use of ICBMs in most cases and may escalate the conflict to an all out war. So leader may have their hands tied when making a decision on whether to use these missiles. Carriers, however, can deliver measured amount of attack that is suitable to the situation. One can send out a couple fighter-bombers to drop a few missiles and bombs on some small target. And the two nations can play one of these "war games" without any concerns of any potential escalation of the situation. This also might suit China's goal to "fight a limited and high tech war".
So all in all, I feel that the missiles may be a good option for big nations to use in an all out war, like WWIII. But it is too much and too costly to be used in a day-to-day situation. And without Carriers, a naiton would be left without a long distance option in one of these limited and regional conflicts.
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Let's look at this from a practical point of view: what is the biggest likelihood of US and China coming into open conflict, and where Carriers would be a factor?
The answer, of course, is Taiwan.
So let's try to answer this question: at what point would China's missile technology become enough of a threat to the US 7th fleet that it would become unable to stop a mainland invasion of Taiwan? Is this development likely in the next 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?
On the flip side, what would the US gain by replacing its Carriers with missiles? Can missiles stop the PLA from invading Taiwan? Very doubtful.
Let's look at this from a practical point of view: what is the biggest likelihood of US and China coming into open conflict, and where Carriers would be a factor?
The answer, of course, is Taiwan.
So let's try to answer this question: at what point would China's missile technology become enough of a threat to the US 7th fleet that it would become unable to stop a mainland invasion of Taiwan? Is this development likely in the next 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?
On the flip side, what would the US gain by replacing its Carriers with missiles? Can missiles stop the PLA from invading Taiwan? Very doubtful.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
And since they ALL are aspiring to, or already actually acquiring aircraft carriers...the answe to the question is, No. The age of carriers is definitely not over, in fact, it is escalating.
The planning and spending by virtually every large nation (including China) with any aspirations for a blue water navy answer this question for us.
And since they ALL are aspiring to, or already actually acquiring aircraft carriers...the answe to the question is, No. The age of carriers is definitely not over, in fact, it is escalating.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
But if the US get their C.P.G.S. up and running, in the next decade or so,will a continued large carrier force be necessary?. As I read it with such a force established, only a few carriers would be required to launch the weapons.
US's strike threat catches China off guard
By Peter J Brown
The United States plans to unveil later this decade a new conventional "Prompt Global Strike" (C-PGS) system. It will enable the US to instantly carry out a massive conventional attack anywhere in the world in an hour or less. ......... Cont reading article at
But if the US get their C.P.G.S. up and running, in the next decade or so,will a continued large carrier force be necessary?. As I read it with such a force established, only a few carriers would be required to launch the weapons.
US's strike threat catches China off guard
By Peter J Brown
The United States plans to unveil later this decade a new conventional "Prompt Global Strike" (C-PGS) system. It will enable the US to instantly carry out a massive conventional attack anywhere in the world in an hour or less. ......... Cont reading article at
Last edited: