Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IDonT said:

The thread topic here is "How do you sink a carrier?" This emplies that the carrier force is on the defensive. A carrier, with its protected escorts, is the closest thing to unsinkable as one can get.

Click to expand...

Point taken.

The CVBG, as we've already discussed, has the advantage of mobility. It can move away from shore at will and hide somewherein the vast ocean.

The attacker would need to find the CVBG, then deploy sufficient number of aircraft and munitions to attack it.

Detection can be done via satellites, aircraft, ships, and intelligence. i.e. if the 7th fleet was docked in Japan, we'd assume the PLA intelligence would be tracking its location and deployement by a variety of means. Human agents, satellite tracking, agents on commercial ships with spyglass and a cel phone, submarine parked somewhere, etc.

An attack on the CVBG with current PLAAF/PLANAF arsenal would be very difficult. The PLAAF/PLANAF does not have long-range anti-ship cruise missiles. The air-launched C-80X missiles are limited in range, plus the PLANAF doesn't have that many modern strike aircraft.

Thus, I think before they even consider attacking the CVBG, they need to obtain more aircraft and better missiles. Alternatively, you could go with UAV and armed UAV route. I've attached a couple of pictures that conceptually show what I have in mind for armed UAV (note: the pic actually shows drones and are not combat UAVs).

First, let's look at some advantages with UAVs.

Combat aircraft require human pilots, which takes many years to train. Afterwards they might serve for some years, then quit to fly 747's. When you send a human pilot up, you might lose the pilot in combat.

An UAV does not require a human pilot in cockpit. It can be pre-programmed, computer-controlled, or remotely controlled. It takes less time and resources to train an UAV controller, than a combat pilot.

Combat aircraft need large AFB's to operate, plus hardened shelters, maintenance facilities, mechanics, supplies, munitions, fuel depo, etc. The aircraft needs an airstrip to take off and land. Combat aircraft are also very expensive.

UAV's can be deployed from the back of a truck:


Theorically, to assemble a strike wing you'd need to equip ~30 strike aircraft, plus escrots, take off from AFB, refuel in mid air, etc. The 30 strike aircraft would carry about 120 AShM's total. But if you were using UAV's, you could prolly just drive ~60 trucks to deployement area and launch the UAV's.

There are 2 types of armed UAV's. The first is Israeli harpy type, which is a "kamakazi" UAV with a warhead that just slams into the target. The second is like the US Predator, which can be equipped with missiles. Either type will work, as long as it has the range. For the latter type, you'd have a "carrier" UAV with 2 anti-ship missiles, that could be sent on a one-way trip to extend its reach/range.

To start, we'd use intelligence data to determine the probable location of enemy ships. Then you can send surveillance drones up to see if they're actually there. The IAI Heron, for example, has 50+ hour endurance and 3,300 km range:


Once the enemy ships are found, you'd deploy armed UAV's to attack it, or even a mix of armed UAV's and manned strike aircraft & fighter escorts.

The armed UAV can be used as the primary assault weapon, or a "force multiplier" in support of manned aircraft. The defender would have to contend with enemy aircraft, plus large numbers of armed drones with a variety of targetting systems (radar, IR, electro-optical, operator-guided, etc) to make soft-kill difficult.

Now, the problem with UAV's is that most of them have limited range and cannot be refuelled in mid-air. If we were to go with a "carrier UAV" concept, it's possible to program it to be refuelled in mid-air. Maybe even from unmanned refueling drones (!). I think this technology is very possible to do with today's technology and is not in the realm of science fiction. BUT it will take the PLA at least a decade to develop and deploy. I'm not expecting something as advanced as the Dassault Neuron.

Armed UAV carriers with 1,000-2,000 km range on internal fuel, plus mid-air refuelling capability, equipped with 2 x anti-ship cruise missiles. If this type of platform can be developed and built in large numbers cheaply, I think it might work in keeping CVBG's at bay. Plus, unlike aircraft, the UAV can be stored in sealed containers with 10-20 year shelf life, ready for use within minuets.

What does everyone think?

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Jeff Head said:

As I have said, the land based force has to find the carrier group art sea first. Not easy at all if the carrier does not want to be found. And with a US carrier, the 30 aircraft attacking the carrier will have to contend with 24-30 high performance, long range naval fighter aircraft who are being directed by very capable AEW aircraft off the carrier.

Click to expand...

MiG 25/31 flying at the age of space at above Mach 3 can make it easier to find, and there are like that can knock out any and all AWACs/shipboard radars, or EM burst above the ocean could fry all electonics in a few hundred mile radius off a CSG! After that, the attack could proceed with regular long/medium/short range anti-ship/ballistic missiles- if they succeed in setting CVN's flight deck on fire, destroy parked aircraft and kill a lot of people then there is no need to actualy sink it! It's crew may do it itself to avoid CVN's capture by the enemy!

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I've included an attachment that roughly shows the range of Klub-N missiles, the 3M-54E (220km) and 3M-54E1 (300km).

Assuming that the drawings are correct, each pink circle is about 600 km across. So if you had a cruise missile with 1,200 km range, you could prolly reach from Shanghai to Hokkaido. Anything with 600km range will prolly also reach from PRC shroeline to Okinawa.

My "eyeball" estimates are based on the drawing and not actual map data. I'm just using them to visualize the reach of cruise missiles and UAV's.

A SSG/SSGN armed with Tomahawks can park off Hokkaido and launch missiles at Shanghai. Similarily, if the PLAN deploy the same weapon, it can reach every Japanese naval port while parked off PRC's coast. Or, if fired from land-based units, reach all of Japanese mainland (with 1,500 km range missile) or up to Hokkaido (with 1,200 km range missile).

If the PLAN deploy armed UAV's or anti-ship cruise missiles with 1,200 km range, it can prolly reach USN CVBG parked well east of the Okinawa or Taiwan, from the back of a truck parked on the beach. UAV trucks can move around and is far more difficult to destroy via stealth bombers than fixed AFB's.

Detection of the CVBG and firing sufficient number of missiles to over-come its defenses, however, is another matter. But if the weapons could actually keep the CVBG at bay, then it'd prevent the CVBG from deploying its aircraft on strike missions against land-targets (F-18 combat radius is 500-600 km?).

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

As I've already stated, both land-based AFB/AF and CVBG has their own advantages. The CVGB is mobile but expensive, while land-based AFB/AF is cheaper but not mobile (except you could move the planes around, of course).

From a cost point of view, for the price of a carrier, you can afford many more land-based AFB's. A single carrier has 1-2 "runways" while land-based AFB can build many more runways. Carriers are limited in the amount of munitions and supplies it carries, versus land-based AF has unlimited "space" for supplies.

A single Arleign Burke class ship carries up to 90 missiles and 2 CIWS guns. A land-based AFB can field many more defensive SAMs and CIWS guns -- if it chooses to do so. If the Aegis ship runs out of missiles, it either has to return to port to replenish, or attempt replenish at sea that is time consuming and dangerous. Land-based SAM units can simply reload from storage in almost any weather.

A CVGB has to worry about threats from above and below, while land-based AFB usually only has to worry about threats from above. Given SSGN/SSG's to both sides in a fight, the cruise missiles from a SSGN can only hit targets up to ~1,500 km inland. Any aircraft destroyed can be replaced from other AFB's from the interior, and any damage done to the AFB can be repaired quickly. A CVBG away from home waters, on the other hand, cannot afford to sustain "mission kill" type damages.

In a situation where both sides suffer from "fog of war" without real time satellite images, the CVBG has the advantage of hiding in the vast ocean, while the land-based AF has the advantage of sending out many patrol aircraft in attempt to find the carrier. Or, possibly launching a geostationary spy satellite.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, if you're on the defensive, you should utilize every advantage given (and if you were on the offense, you'd take every advantage too). Say if you're PLANAF tasked to defend against possible USN strike. You should demand the government to allocate you the budget and resources needed to construct many more PLANAF AFB's, equip them with lots of SAMs and guns, buy strike aircraft & fighters by the hundreds, many aerial refueling tankers, long-range cruise missiles, armed UAV's, build SSG/SSGN's, buy more patrol aircraft, ask for more geostationary spy satellites, etc. over a 10+ year period.

You should also have many AFB's well into the interior, with aircraft stored across the land. This process will take at least a decade, because it's not realistic to think that they could build up the strengh and numbers within a short period of time (2-3 years), plus it takes that long (10 years) to train good pilots, assemble domestic or Russian-licensed aircraft, R&D/serial produce cruise missiles, SAMS, land-based CIWS, direct energy weapons, etc. It's a long-term investment that cannot be done quickly, versus the USN has the advantage in already having its CVBG's, along with equipment and experienced staff.

If the PLAN/PLANAF engage an USN CVBG today and lose, you can fault the PLA for its impatience, as well as the political leadership's unwilling to give them the kind of resoruces needed to build up an effective PLANAF force.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you ar assuming an unlimited resources scenario for the land based forces. Do you realise how much what you are suggesting will cost? A carrier will be cheap by comparison. If all that is done just to increase survivability against the carrier, then the carrier has just forced virtual attrition on the land based force just by existing, which is a victory unto itself, since all the money that was spent on beefing up the survivability of the land bases was just diverted from some other priority that could be no less pressing.

Simiarily, an USN CVBG is strong not only because it's well equipped and staffed with experienced people, but also because its opponents are weaker. There's little doubt that the PLAN and PLANAF today is weak vs. the USN -- they're simply not as well equipped and skilled/expereinced. The only question is if the PRC leadership is really willing to spend the kind of resources needed to build up the PLANAF (with PLAN in support role) into a force that could deter the USN.

Click to expand...

Spending so much more that other areas would be left deficient. Nice. Always keep in mind that this is a resource limited world. If you don't keep that in mind, and keep using the word 'if' (if China spends more money, if China adds more defenses, if China buys more planes etc) to add more and more capabilities to the land based force, then you relegate a discussion into irrelevance.

Sinking one USN carrier will not defeat the USN -- the USN can simply send more. But if you had (like Jeff mentioned) many regiments of strike aircraft, equipped with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, plus a dozen SSG/SSGN's parked off-shore, each equippd with ~100 anti-ship cruise missiles ready to go, that might make the USN pause and think "um, maybe not a good idea".

Click to expand...

The USN will be deterred when they see real capability. They are not deterred yet... if ever.

The CVBG, as we've already discussed, has the advantage of mobility. It can move away from shore at will and hide somewherein the vast ocean.

Click to expand...

You understand that the carrier moves, but you do not appreciate fully just what advantages mobility brings to the carrier.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Obviously a carrier is a powerful tool in the hands of the USN.

However, other navies have carriers but do not have AEGIS, DDGs and CGs as capable as Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas to escort her, naval fighters that are as capable as the FA-18 and the F-35 and their carriers are smaller meaning they do not have the capability of a Nimitz. Therefore, when faced with a similar level of threat I don't think that carriers are the same sort of tool in the hands of other navies, namely the Indian Navy, the Brazillian Navy, the Thai Navy, the Spanish Navy and (unfourtuneatly) soon the PLAN. You could even throw the Russian Navy into this category. In the hands of these navies a carrier might even be a liability-a major, valueable asset that needs escorts and "attracts attention" from the enemy when faced with a very capable opponent.

Question: How many fighter aircraft does a USN carrier carry?

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Question: How many fighter aircraft does a USN carrier carry?

Click to expand...

Presently USN CVN's carry 48 F/A-18 variants, 4 E/A-6B's for fighter and fighter/attack. Generally 1 squadron of 12 Hornets is deticated to fighter cover.

Modern U.S. Navy air wing consists of:

Three Navy Strike Fighter Squadrons (VFA or VMFA) of F/A-18 Hornets
One additional Strike Fighter Squadron(deticated Fighter)
One Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) of EA-6B Prowlers
One Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) of E-2C Hawkeyes
A detachment from a Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) of C-2 Greyhounds
One Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron (HS) of SH-60F & HH-60H Seahawks. Some CVW's are now deploying with 4 additional SH-60 varints augmented by HSL squadrons which normally deploy on DDG, CG, & FFG type ships.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Kongo said:

The problem is that you ar assuming an unlimited resources scenario for the land based forces. Do you realise how much what you are suggesting will cost?
<snip>
The USN will be deterred when they see real capability. They are not deterred yet... if ever.

Click to expand...

Then the solution is to obtain "real capability" on a budget, to find cost-effective ways. Or, invest in ways to grow PRC's economy so the government would have more funds to spend.

The Koreans didn't look at Japan Inc. and say "we'll never catch up to them", or "let's just live with the status quo". They rolled up their sleeves and got to work.

The PRC doesn't have ot accept USN's dominance in East Asia. The question is are they willing to learn from the Koreans and roll up their sleeves to get to work. It may take 10, 20, or even 30 years to accompolish that goal. Everything starts with the first step, and the will to continue.

IMO true victory is not achieved through military edge or sinking a carrier. It comes from economic, social, technological, and military advancements. To afford military, you need to have a large and healthy economy. Success means being on a higher socio-economic ladder, where the brightest students from around the globe want to come study in your universities, people desiring to "marry up" to members of your civilization, and losers in the new economic reality feeling resentful toward you and want to blow you up. Success will only come at a price, and will cost even more to maintain such a position. If the PRC wish to attain top of the pryamid, they should also look at what the US is paying in blood to stay there. There's no free lunch in the world.

==========

As for weapon platforms, I lean toward SSGN's (with cruise missiles) and armed UAV's. I like the Ohio-class SSGN which is armed with 154 Tomahawks. I think if the sub was specifically built for cruise missiles (instead of SSGN conversion), you can prolly build a smaller sub that carries 100+ missiles.

The cruise missiles would have to have 1200-1500+ km range, and both anti-shipping and land attack modes. The PRC is still in development phase (DH-10?) and it'd prolly take some years before they can catch up to Tomahawk quality. But if they were able to deploy them on SSGN's, they'd be able to launch hundreds of missiles at the distance from Shanghai to Hokkaido, and the missiles itself can be very cost effective.

Like the CVBG, the SSGN also has the advantage of mobility, and global deployement by sea. It can be sent across the sea to attack enemy nation's ports and ships, or kept near your own shores in defensive deployement.

Armed UAV's would make a good addition and force multiplier to any AF, working alone or in conjunction with manned aircraft. This has already been discussed in my earlier post. I don't think UAV's can completely replace manned aircraft yet, but that day will come in the future.

If we look at the UAV's under devleopment in China today, the WZ-2000 is pretty nice, though it only has about 1/2 the range and 1/3rd the payload of IAI Heron. They need to work on extending the range and payload capability for a good surveillance UAV to find your targets.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Then the solution is to obtain "real capability" on a budget, to find cost-effective ways.

Click to expand...

Easy to say. The Russians thought over the problem of USN's carriers for decades. Look at their investment in an attempt to solve the problem.

As for weapon platforms, I lean toward SSGN's (with cruise missiles) and armed UAV's. I like the Ohio-class SSGN which is armed with 154 Tomahawks. I think if the sub was specifically built for cruise missiles (instead of SSGN conversion), you can prolly build a smaller sub that carries 100+ missiles.

The cruise missiles would have to have 1200-1500+ km range, and both anti-shipping and land attack modes. The PRC is still in development phase (DH-10?) and it'd prolly take some years before they can catch up to Tomahawk quality. But if they were able to deploy them on SSGN's, they'd be able to launch hundreds of missiles at the distance from Shanghai to Hokkaido, and the missiles itself can be very cost effective.

Like the CVBG, the SSGN also has the advantage of mobility, and global deployement by sea. It can be sent across the sea to attack enemy nation's ports and ships, or kept near your own shores in defensive deployement.

Click to expand...

SSGNs are nice. But they are not carrier replacements, not by far. A carrier is able to do much more damage over a much more sustained basis.

Armed UAV's would make a good addition and force multiplier to any AF, working alone or in conjunction with manned aircraft. This has already been discussed in my earlier post. I don't think UAV's can completely replace manned aircraft yet, but that day will come in the future.

Click to expand...

UAVs deployed the way you suggested in your earlier post is nice. But the command and control as well as comms infrastructure to do something like that is not available to China, or perhaps even America, yet. As of now it is a nice vision, but not practical.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Kongo said:

UAVs deployed the way you suggested in your earlier post is nice. But the command and control as well as comms infrastructure to do something like that is not available to China, or perhaps even America, yet. As of now it is a nice vision, but not practical.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not on the large scale that I envisioned, but I think we're not too far away from it. The MQ-1 Predator, for example, is remotely controlled and can be equipped with a variety of sensors, as well as ATGM's:


One major short-coming that the PLA has to overcome is in aircraft/jet/rocket engine technology. This would allow them to extend the range of aircraft and munitions. There are several countries that has built cruise missiles, but none with the range and efficiency of the Tomahawk or AGM-86.

The same holds true for UAV's. US and Israeli built UAV's have much longer range and endurance. The US has lost many Predator UAV's, some were captured relatively intact -- there's one sitting in a Serbian war museum. The PLA should prolly pay the Serbians some $$ to have a look at it.

Kongo said:

SSGNs are nice. But they are not carrier replacements, not by far. A carrier is able to do much more damage over a much more sustained basis.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at the SSGN as a cost-effective way of defending a nation's shores from enemy ships at distance. Needless to say it's not as flexible as a CVBG. A couple of SSG/SSGN's equipped with ~100 missiles each that can launch them very rapidly at enemy ships, would have a good chance of penatrating its defenses through saturated missile attacks.

Also, if you think about it, a supercarrier is ~100,000 tons. There's just no way that a single anti-ship missile is going to mission kill it. You need a LOT of missiles and score multiple hits. Plus the USN is very good at damage control.

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.

And yes, AEGIS is very effective. If one CSG has 1 Ticonderoga, and 3 Arleigh Burkes, you can control over 70 missiles at one time, launch another wave immediately after. These ships now have SM-2 and ESSM to get through, Phalanx or RAM, plus the electromagnetic spectrum. China has nowhere near the ability to mass, prepare, deploy, and launch an attack of this magnitude. It doesn't matter what the China hawks say about China's ability now or the future to do this. China is nowhere near the capability of the threat presented by the Soviet Union of the 1980's. These USN CVBG concepts and defenses were built to deal with that enemy. And now USN is building things to deal with elements that China currently doesn't even possess.

Kongo said:

UAVs deployed the way you suggested in your earlier post is nice. But the command and control as well as comms infrastructure to do something like that is not available to China, or perhaps even America, yet. As of now it is a nice vision, but not practical.

Click to expand...

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.