Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

s002wjh

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Because it will be bloody if it escalate, they will not take the risk to go to war.


Destroy physicaly target directly on china soil means that US "give" the excuse to china to retaliate on CONUS.
It is a very bad idea. No we don't know US capabilities against a near-peer. And frankly saying irak and kosovo had an "Air Defens" is a joke.

serb had decent air defense due to russia and former soviet.

as far as china retaliate on cont US. not sure how they gonna reach US mainland. china can only retaliate US efficenitly if the CVBG is in range and chinese DF21 and maybe other things is not weakened by alpha strike. beside DF21 is not operational yet, so we have to wait, and get more info before discuss this topic again.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

No we don't know US capabilities against a near-peer. And frankly saying irak and kosovo had an "Air Defens" is a joke.

The USAF/USN/USMC team would smoke check them. I have no doubt. None.

Iraq had the best Russian & french equipment they could purchase both aircraft and weapons.. There operators were poorly trained and Russian ECM against US targets does not work.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


serb had decent air defense due to russia and former soviet.

Really? It was a lucky shot. Golly and myself argued this point for some time long ago in this forum ..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


One F-117 has been lost in combat, to Serbian/Yugoslav forces. On March 27, 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, equipped with the Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ (NATO designation SA-3 ‘Goa’), downed F-117A serial number 82-806 with a Neva-M missile. According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their “obsolete” Soviet radars operating on long wavelengths. This, combined with the loss of stealth when the jets got wet or opened their bomb bays, made them visible on radar screens. The pilot, Captain Ken “Wiz” Dwelle, survived and was later rescued by NATO forces. However, the wreckage of the F-117 was not promptly bombed, and the Serbs are believed to have invited Russian personnel to inspect the remains, inevitably compromising the US stealth technology. The SAMs were most likely guided manually with the help of thermal imagers and laser rangefinders included in the Pechora-M variant of the SA-3s believed to have been used. Reportedly several SA-3s were launched, one of which detonated in close promixity to the F-117A, forcing the pilot to eject. According to an interview, Zoltán Dani was able to keep most of his missile sites intact and had a number of spotters spread out looking for F-117s and other aircraft. Zoltán and his missile crews guessed the flight paths of earlier F-117As from occasional visual and radar spottings and judging from this information and what target had just been bombed, Zoltán and his missile battery determined the probable flight path of F-117A. His missile crews and spotters were then able to locate it and fire their missiles. Zoltán also claims to have modified his radars to better detect the F-117A, but he has not disclosed what was changed. Parts of the shot-down aircraft are now presented to the public in the Museum of Yugoslav Aviation in Belgrade.
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

serb had decent air defense due to russia and former soviet.
as far as china retaliate on cont US. not sure how they gonna reach US mainland.

Having a "decent air defense" is not having an IADS.
The question is not if you are not sure china could retaliate on CONUS but US is willing to take the risk.

china can only retaliate US efficenitly if the CVBG is in range and chinese DF21 and maybe other things is not weakened by alpha strike. beside DF21 is not operational yet, so we have to wait, and get more info before discuss this topic again
Why everybody is obsessed with the DF-21. There are other cheap way to deal with carrier like minewarfare.

---------- Post added at 01:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

The USAF/USN/USMC team would smoke check them. I have no doubt. None.
It is your opinion that USAF/USN/USMC team would smoke a near-peer; The reality may be different.

Iraq had the best Russian & french equipment they could purchase both aircraft and weapons. There operators were poorly trained and Russian ECM against US targets does not work.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I read the link. Sorrry but are you calling those aircraft "modern"(compared to those of the coalition)??
You could say USAF win the air war because of his superiority(which is not entirely true) and i could say iraq failed miserably
because of lack of good training, modern aircraft, a very good IADS, EW aircraft, strong ECM and the fewness
of all those things (which is not entirely false).

Really? It was a lucky shot. Golly and myself argued this point for some time long ago in this forum ..
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It is the most common view and i don't share it. I have my own opinion on this affair.
 

advill

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I read that the US is now looking towards an "Air-Sea" Strategy. Apparently it's being debated among its Military Armed Services & Defense Officials. Have anyone among you professionals any additional info? BTW, personally I believe that most of the times the US Military Technologies & Strategies are "copied" by others.
 

escobar

Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I read that the US is now looking towards an "Air-Sea" Strategy. Apparently it's being debated among its Military Armed Services & Defense Officials. Have anyone among you professionals any additional info? .

Air-Sea Battle Concept:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BTW, personally I believe that most of the times the US Military Technologies & Strategies are "copied" by others.
i woul rather say "inspired"
 

advill

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

VMT for the prompt response escobar. I am also "inspired" to read all the comments and recommended open web sources posted in this professional forum.
 

s002wjh

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Really? It was a lucky shot. Golly and myself argued this point for some time long ago in this forum ..

was talking about the overall air defense. not the lucky shot one.

---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------

Having a "decent air defense" is not having an IADS.
The question is not if you are not sure china could retaliate on CONUS but US is willing to take the risk.

true china defense is better. but no one really know how effictive against US alpha strike. B2, stealth UAV, cruise missile etc. if anyone can penetrate chinese air defense, US has the best chance of all
 

advill

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I would like to share this Discovery video on a US aircraft carrier entitled "One US Aircraft Carrier has a more powerful Airforce than 70% of all countries" I believe PLA-AF is excluded from the 70%. See it at //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_C._Stennis. What a modern Carrier with fantastic Air Power derived from various different aircraft.
 

Kurt

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I'm not much of an expert, but air warfare of manned fighter aircrafts seems to be limited to sorties against determined targets or patrols against possible dangers. If one combatant has a better system to activate his manned air power for strikes while the other must fly more patrols in order to know what's going on then even an outnumbered force of aircrafts can overwhelm a numerically superior enemy piecemeal.
That's a simplification to show my point that not numbers but effficiency of deployment count. The aforementioned smoke would be one of the methods an outnumbered US force would use to fight numerical Chinese forces. Especially aircraft carriers have a high sortie rate, can switch location and while not easy to spot, can have enough fakes around to make the depoyment of a strike system against carriers really dangerous (not counting the missiles, but the whole targeting complex).

It's my opinion that in modern warfare it's easier to fake an appearance and military supremacy is much dependant on the ability to fake and to see through these disguises. I'm not sure China has the same benchmark as the US and her allies in that field (altogether over 1 billion people) with lots of technically experienced people who had a lifetime on information technology jobs and can easily work from home in our interconnected world.
As a result I would step up US sensor capability in order to optimize resource deployment against an enemy with plenty of stuff locally available.

The other revolution in aerial affairs is permanence and availability. Strike and intelligence gathering drones are accessable on increasingly lower military unit level in staggering numbers with few countries other than the US having much knowledge about that same degree of deployment.
The increased aerial availability of unmanned platforms in my opinion is a force multiplier for the manned platforms due to increased damocles strike and surveillance capability. China may have reached some supremacy on the old playing field, but the US is rewriting the rules.

Having all new ships capable of launching UAV is of major importance for the new carriers that are far from dated with this new approach.

The F117 case was supposedly pulled off with HUMINT from a spy (a French general got blamed) and still seems to have been a rather difficult affair. I heard rumours that in some cases similar traps were set by the North Vietnamese against stealth aircrafts that have the characteristic of predictable directional reflection in a certain angle.

The whole debate about the F35 is about an idea that has ever since the F-104 starfighter been central to the American idea of a warplane. Small wings and high thrust with lots of gimmicks on board. It's possible that the F 35 will mature with improved thrust vectoring into an outstanding aircraft that even benefits from the small wingplane by increased capability to go unpredictable under less restrictions of airflow than other designs. Finally small things like the Libelle g-suit that works much faster than conventional designs and allows slightly higher g-forces will have a major impact on the capabilities a pilot has with his aircraft (imagine everyone becoming a g-monster). As far as I know the Libelle technology is not available to China and they have nothing equivalent.
 
Top