Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

in the event of taiwan or SCS, if US decide to inervene, which has fairlly good chance US will be involvde, then US 1st priority is to secure the area for CVBG. that means use its air force, sub, missile or other to disable chinese satilite, OVH radar, amount other things. they won't sail the CVBG into a threat area without secure the area first. as far as Navy warfare, US still #1 by far. don't assume US wont get involve due to public pressure, we seen it again and again, US goto many war despite some anti-war protest. on top of that, both china and US public has some negative feeling toward each other.
if the obejective is to push china to backoff, then US are likely to position its CVBG outside range of threat. if that doesn't work, then US will start to secure the area and move in. the objective will be disable chinese navy, since navy is essential for claim SCS or taiwan. of course US could lose some ship or satelite, but at the end US has the advantage of overwhelming resource/capability/experience, these factors tilt the favor toward US side. both US and china don't want to escalate into full scale war. if US manage to elimanate the navy threat toward SCS/taiwan, then they pretty much done with their jobs.

i'm not sure why you think US navy commander is stupid enough to sail its CVBG into ABSM range without disable some essential DF21 system first. the first thing US will do is minimize the threat level in the conflict area. you sent in the scouts before you send in the main force in any conflict.

Click to expand...

And just with what do you think the USN is going to be using to take out China's navy or destroy key elements of the DF21 if not with their carriers?

The USN may be far and away the biggest and most powerful navy in the world, but it is nowhere near as infallable or invincible as you seem to think.

If the PLAN has a decent chance of cracking open the fleet defences of USN CSGs - the best protected and most powerful combat force the USN (or any navy) can field, what makes you think mere scouts would be able to cripple the PLAN and disable the DF21?

All weapons platforms, be it the tiny 022 FAC or the giant supercarriers and everything in between exists and operates as part of a system. They work best (if at all) when supported by friendly platforms and systems specifically designed to complement each other.

An 022 is of no threat to a large warship without the off-board detection and targeting assets that allow them to use their missiles to full effect, and a carrier is a very big, very expensive sitting duck without it's escorts.

The idea of sending in scouts become pointless if those scouts are extremely unlikely to report back.

With the exception of subs, no USN assets other than a CSG (or rather, several operating together) would have much of a chance trying to get close to the Chinese coast without being overwhelmed by AShMs. Even a CSG's defences would struggle to defend against the kind of saturation attacks the PLA could launch with only a fraction of their forces.

Subs can probably operate with more safety, but they would not be able to provide much in the way of useful intell. Subs also have a very small weapons load, so they would not be able to put much of a dint in the PLAN if they chose to attack. Any AShMs they launch would be exactly the kind of targets modern PLAN SAMs and CIWS are designed to take out, and the subs would not be able to launch enough of them to achieve the critical mass needed for saturating ship defenses.

If the subs decide to close in and use fish for a better KP, they also massively increase the risk to themselves, as they would be operating well within range of ship board ASW helos and land based MPAs as well as the PLAN's own subs.

The USAF's stealth bombers would face a very similar problem if they trying to penetrate Chinese airspace to hit targets while the PLAAF and the PLA's air defences are all operating at peak effectiveness.

The USAF will also struggle to bring more assets into the fight because of the small number of bases in range to launch operations from. In addition, those air bases are all within strike range of PLA assets themselves, and were not designed to take much punishment.

Compared to tracking and attacking USN CSGs, targeting and attacking those fixed air bases would be a far more simple task, and the PLA would have a better success rate as none of those air bases are defended remotely as well as CSGs.

So, to sum up, the USN has little choice but to send their carriers into range of DF21s and all the other more conventional anti-ship assets the PLA has been developing and fielding if it wants to get involved.

If the USN response to the DF21 is to keep their carriers outsode of 2000km of the Chinese coast, from where they are safe but could not influence the course of any conflict, well, then, doesn't that mean that the DF21 has already done it's job?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

plawolf said:

And just with what do you think the USN is going to be using to take out China's navy or destroy key elements of the DF21 if not with their carriers?

Click to expand...

There are parts of the entire system needed to make the DF21 scenario operate properly that the US can hit before sending the carriers in range of the missiles themselves. The PLAN has to rely on recon...either subs, sats, or aircraft. The US can sweep ahead and ensure that such recon is not available for targeting...or taken out in space.

There are C4 capabilities apart from the launchers that could be targeted by their coordinates and launches of TLAMs and other ordinance from far, far away from the Chinese coasts...either by US Attack Subs or US Cruisers/DDGS or SSGNs. The stationary C4 components would be vulnerable.

Yes the US could attempt to send in B2s or F-22s, but I doubt they would in this scenario because the missiles are mobile and probably located well inland...but they could be used with standoff weapons to hit anything near the coast without themselves having to enter into mainland airspace. So any part of the system located too near the coast would be vulnerable to that type of attack.

That's what I believe he was talking about in an effort to degrade the DF21 system before getting in range.

Would it work? Who knows?

A better question is going to be whether the DF21 itself, which has never been operationally tested on targets manuevering in the Ocean will work. But the US (as, IMHO, has been the Chinese intention all along) cannot risk a carrier to find out without attempting to degrade other components of the system first.

Let's all hope it never comes to that.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I must say the strategies (USN CSGs vs PLA-N) based on the forum contributors' hypothesis are quite realistic & unravelling. Nevertheless, let's hope the USN, Other Navies & Military Forces will not eventually clash with the PLA & PLA-N - a scenario that could become a reality if we are not careful. Those of us who have served in the military during past Conflicts know the disastrous results suffered by both opposing sides. Let's hope China & the US will continue with their Military Dialogue in a Constructive way. We want Peace & Stability in the Region, but no nation big or small wants to be bullied.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Jeff Head said:

There are parts of the entire system needed to make the DF21 scenario operate properly that the US can hit before sending the carriers in range of the missiles themselves. The PLAN has to rely on recon...eithe subs,, sats, or aircraft. The US can sweep ahead and ensure that such recon is not available foir targeting or taken out in space.

There are C4 capabilities apart from the launchers that could be targeted by their coordinates and launches of TLAMs and other ordinance from far, far away from the Chinese coasts...either by US Attack Subs or US Cruisers/DDGS or SSGNs. The stationary C4 components would be vulnerable.

That's what I believe he was talking about in an effort to degrade the DF21 system before getting in range.

Would it work? Who knows?

Click to expand...

Indeed -- but soo2wjh's idea/tone that such attempts to degrade the C4I, sensor systems etc would go unopposed is the point of dispute.

A better question is going to be whether the DF21 itself, which has never been operationally tested on targets manuevering in the Ocean will work. But the US (as, IMHO, has been the Chinese intention all along) cannot risk a carrier to find out without attempting to degrade other components of the system first.

Let's all hope it never comes to that.

Click to expand...

Yes -- and to degrade other components, they will either have to risk more (smaller) assets like aircraft, destroyers/cruisers, SSNs whose success is not guaranteed either, and/or use ASAT weapons, any act upon which will be considered an act of war.
The only real flashpoint which AShBM will make an effect in the near future imo is taiwan, and/or maybe a SCS dispute but mostly taiwan because the US has that written agreement about defending it. DF-21D is a gambit to threaten the major power projection tools (not to mention thousands of lives aboard one ship) of the US, so if there is a repeat of the third taiwan crisis the US must think carefully about whether it, and its public wants to sustain potential losses for intervention -- and hopefully back off, without a shot being fired between the US and China.

If we're talking about a no holding back, all out war type scenario then everybody loses -- and that can erupt from a future taiwan crisis, which DF-21D can avoid. Isn't it kind of funny, that USN carriers were used in previous taiwan strait crises to "deter" china from making "aggression"... yet today and in the near future DF-21D will be used by China to "deter" USN carriers from future taiwan/regional crises to prevent "aggression" from said carriers... And if either side in either scenarios acted to make the other side use their deterrence, it would result in them theoretically sustaining hard to accept losses (chinese cities vs a few usn carriers).

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Hendrik_2000 said:

Well It depend on how much priority one has on certain weapon system China may well behind when it come to conventional weapon but definitely not in strategic weapon

China is behind in number of conventional weapon because China commit smaller number of their GDP to weapon purchases !.5% vs 4.5% in US

Click to expand...

China is behind and will remain behind because they lack operational experience. All the nice shiny weapons in the world are useless without experienced personnel to man them. And short of a war China does not have that experience.

The American navy has gotten to the point it is today by going to the school of hard knocks.

China has no tradition of naval experience. And that means they lack tactical experience. Its just a fact of life.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Bltizo said:

to degrade other components, they will either have to risk more (smaller) assets like aircraft, destroyers/cruisers, SSNs whose success is not guaranteed either, and/or use ASAT weapons, any act upon which will be considered an act of war.

Click to expand...

They could take out portions of the DF21 total system...detection, C4, comms, without coming into range of the missiles. That was the point of my prior post.

Crusie missiles, and a lot of them, could be launched, aircraft, subs, trying to target the carrier group, or sats doing the same could be attacked.

C4 on land could be.

Alll withjout ever going after the missiles themselves or coming inot range of them.

And of course they would be warlike acts because the US, as a result of its agreement with the ROC would view that attack in the same way.

As it is, I do not believe it will come to that because the ROC is becoming more and more dependent economically on the mainland, and the mainland is willing to give a lot of autonomy to the island...and, I also believe because over time the mainland is going to have more and more individual freedoms and representative institutions that will render the ROC objections moot.

If it turns out that way, the ROC will not have a reason to officially declare independence , the PRC will have no reason to attack, and the US will have no reason to intervene.

That is my hope.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

China is behind and will remain behind because they lack operational experience. All the nice shiny weapons in the world are useless without experienced personnel to man them. And short of a war China does not have that experience.

The American navy has gotten to the point it is today by going to the school of hard knocks.

China has no tradition of naval experience. And that means they lack tactical experience. Its just a fact of life.

Click to expand...

Having all that kind of experience on third world forces won't make a lick of difference when the folks back home has to read the bad news on the high casualties rate over seas. Experience in one way of fighting won't bring the same results when the OPFOR fights asymmetrically.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Jeff Head said:

They could take out portions of the DF21 total system...detection, C4, comms, without coming into range of the missiles. That was the point of my prior post.

Crusie missiles, and a lot of them, could be launched, aircraft, subs, trying to target the carrier group, or sats doing the same could be attacked.

C4 on land could be.

Alll withjout ever going after the missiles themselves or coming inot range of them.

Click to expand...

I agree there's little stopping either country from attacking each other's satellites, but C4 stations on land, OTH etc will be harder to get to even with destroyers/cruisers/submarines -- because it won't only be DF-21D but other A2AD systems including the PLAN's own SSKs and SSNs, long range AShM like YJ-62 not to mention the PLAN itself, with accompanying PLANAF and PLAAF air fleets for both anti ship and anti cruise missile duties. Around high value targets during times of high tension I'd also expect C4I and other fixed potentially attractive targets to have C-RAM systems and AEWC with look down radar/aircraft armed with SRAAM to ward off cruise missiles.

Basically what I'm trying to say, is that striking at the sensors which feed the PLA's A2AD systems is a logical course of action to take to decrease the likelihood of AShBM striking at a carrier, but getting to the places you want to attack and actually having your missiles hit home won't be easy. Especially if the PLA recognizes the weaker links in their system.

And of course they would be warlike acts because the US, as a result of its agreement with the ROC would view that attack in the same way.

Click to expand...

I forget, what exactly are the conditions that the US will come to ROC defence if it came under attack, or was it unconditional? Of course in the scenario I was outlining Taiwan would be first to declare independence, with months of public building up and thus backroom lobbying from china, the united states and other countries gone into it to diplomatically prevent official independence... If Taiwan was the first to declare independence and the PLA moved against it, is the US automatically at war (under current law that is. in such a "fourth taiwan crisis" political initiatives may skew things differently).

As it is, I do not believe it will come to that because the ROC is becoming more and more dependent economically on the mainland, and the mainland is willing to give a lot of autonomy to the island...and, I also believe because over time the mainland is going to have more and more individual freedoms and representative institutions that will render the ROC objections moot.

If it turns out that way, the ROC will not have a reason to officially declare independence , the PRC will have no reason to attack, and the US will have no reason to intervene.

That is my hope.

Click to expand...

Agreed ^^

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

The island chains, including Taiwan are excellent positions to establish forward deployed missile defenses that can shoot down incoming AShBM in a missile trap constellation if the CSG provide back-up to the island defenders from behind the first/second island chain. Operating from behind the island chains is not as effective for interdiction as operating in front of the island chains, but effective enough to contain an enemy.

I don't know how a clash between the US and China would play out and hopefully won't ever know. Both nations have realized that the green waters of the island chains and the islands themselves are important and for this reason build up capabilities to fight for them. The DF21 is an effective weapon to support such green water fleets during their advance to secure the island chains, but it's rather not a stand alone system that denies area access by itself. It's a Chinese hype of ambitions "coming true" and a US hype of "we found a really powerful enemy that justifies our military budget", actual impact in naval warfare will be very limited as long as it doesn't operate from a naval platform, preferably a submarine.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Jeff Head said:

There are parts of the entire system needed to make the DF21 scenario operate properly that the US can hit before sending the carriers in range of the missiles themselves. The PLAN has to rely on recon...either subs, sats, or aircraft. The US can sweep ahead and ensure that such recon is not available for targeting...or taken out in space.

There are C4 capabilities apart from the launchers that could be targeted by their coordinates and launches of TLAMs and other ordinance from far, far away from the Chinese coasts...either by US Attack Subs or US Cruisers/DDGS or SSGNs. The stationary C4 components would be vulnerable.

Yes the US could attempt to send in B2s or F-22s, but I doubt they would in this scenario because the missiles are mobile and probably located well inland...but they could be used with standoff weapons to hit anything near the coast without themselves having to enter into mainland airspace. So any part of the system located too near the coast would be vulnerable to that type of attack.

That's what I believe he was talking about in an effort to degrade the DF21 system before getting in range.

Would it work? Who knows?

A better question is going to be whether the DF21 itself, which has never been operationally tested on targets manuevering in the Ocean will work. But the US (as, IMHO, has been the Chinese intention all along) cannot risk a carrier to find out without attempting to degrade other components of the system first.

Let's all hope it never comes to that.

Click to expand...

Come on Jeff old buddy, haven't we had this dance enough times already?

The PLAN is not the only side that relies on a complicated C4 and recon assets to guide their weapons, and at present, the PLA has the capabilities to retaliate, or even pre-emptively take out key US kill-chain and recon assets in the region.

Those TLAMs are not going to be operating at anything like their normal effectiveness because much of the support systems they rely on for targeting, navigation and after-action evaluation may be degraded or even denied to them.

Cruise missiles coming in from long range and over water are also more vulnerable to interception by Chinese fighters and air defences. In addition, key installations like the kind the USN would need to take out to affect the likes of the DF21 will also have layered close in point defences from things like LD2000 and Tors etc.

We could keep doing this for a very long time and keep trying to counter each other's detailed suggestions and strategies. But I feel that that would be a bit of a waste of effort and time as well as being off topic. So how about we just agree to disagree on how effective we think the USN will be at trying to create a safe enough environment to operate their carriers in?

What I think we can both agree on is that the US will certainly try, and may well succeed in taking out key ASBM elements if war breaks out, but it won't be easy, or quick.

There is also the small matter of verifying that they have successfully disabled the DF21. How sure does the USN need to be that they have rended the system ineffective before they risk committing their carriers to close within range? What happens if they in fact didn't manage to disable the system and only managed to cause superficial damage, and the PLA deliberately made the damage look worse to temp the carriers into range to take a shot?

All of this will delay when USN carriers can feel safe enough to operate within DF21 range of the mainland, and given the range of USN carrier aircraft, staying outside of the range of the DF21 means staying out of any likely fight, which as I mentioned before, is most of the point of the likes of the DF21. Their primary mission is to keep USN carriers out of the fight while the PLA achieve whatever objective they have in mind (almost certainly to take over Taiwan). After that has happened, the entire nature of US involvment would drastically change, as well as the cost and risk involved. Even if the US doesn't just call quits at that point, it makes it much easier and likely that the PLA will be able to hold out and win.

Also, I think it is a bit missing the point to be focusing so much on the DF21.

Sure, it's a snazzy and cool weapon that makes the weapons nerd in us all drool, but that is no silver bullet even if it does exist and is operational. It will be a key part of the PLA's area denial and anti-carrier arsenal, but it will not be the sole, or even main weapon that the PLA will employ against hostile enemy carriers and warships operating near the Chinese coast.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

NikeX said:

China is behind and will remain behind because they lack operational experience. All the nice shiny weapons in the world are useless without experienced personnel to man them. And short of a war China does not have that experience.

The American navy has gotten to the point it is today by going to the school of hard knocks.

China has no tradition of naval experience. And that means they lack tactical experience. Its just a fact of life.

Click to expand...

And that is just self-serving circular logic, flawed logic at that.

The USN might have more operational experience sailing around and bombarding enemy land targets, but when was the last time they actually faced an enemy capable of shooting back on the open seas? So much for school of hard knocks.

With the greatest respect to USN personnel, but in terms of fighting a modern, well-equipped, well-trained and well-lead enemy navy, they have about as much operational experience as the PLAN.

The USN does have vastly more experiece in fleet maneuvers, damage control, flight ops etc, and that does count for a great deal, but that is hardly something the PLAN cannot learn by themselves from normal operations and joint exercises.

To argue that the PLAN cannot and will not gain operational experience is plainly ridiculous.