Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

solarz · Mar 19, 2013

TerraN_EmpirE said:
US intel is not based purely on satilites. To believe that is under estimating the the powers brought to bare on American foes. The US is the top user of uav types.
Globalhawk and RQ170 are likely the tip of a large iceberg in terms of intel uav and stealth uavs. Add to that U2, nolonger in a penitrating role, but part of ELINT. RC135 variants fly SIGINT and COMINT. USN subs operations can include such packages as well Virginia class was designed to in fact do just that.
Now in time of war a drone entering a carrier group would be killed. Out side of time of war it would be warned off first if it continued it would be killed. A incident yes a war no part of the whole reason for drone use is that unlike a manned craft if a drone is downed the situation never has to accelerate. A downed drone does not need rescue a downed drone has no blood no family to mourn. I mean you dont see the US declaring war over iranian spoofing or Chinese hacking. Its an incident. Russia did not declare war when Gary Powers was shot down and neither did the US. Its excepted and moved on from.

First, the US is a lot more reliant on satellites when compared to the PLA. Without satellite intel, the US would have no idea of the kind of forces the PLA is deploying along its coast. If hostilities break out and both sides blind each other in the initial stages of the conflict, the US is going to suffer more than the PLA in terms of strategic advantage.

Second, downing a drone in peace time *will* have repercussions. Those repercussions do not have to be a declaration of war. At the very *least*, it will provide ample excuse for the Chinese to send in more drones to the area and thus reveal the location of the CVBG.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that both Iran and the Soviet Union shot down reconnaissance planes in *their* airspace. That is vastly different from *Americans* shooting down Chinese drones in *Chinese* (or at least, chinese-claimed) airspace!

In any case, this whole thing is in response to the idea that SK or Japan can provide the US with intel without China doing anything about it. If a US CVBG ever decides to stealthily move into position to strike China, we can be damn sure that it's not going to be in peace time!

s002wjh · Mar 19, 2013

solarz said:
And how is the USN supposed to locate targets and deploy its forces without its satellite network? If anybody is more reliant on its satellites, it's the US, not China.

The Taiwan scenario makes no sense. The entire point of sending in a CVBG back in 96 was for intimidation. How would that be achieved if the PLA can't even find the CVBG? You think the PLA is scared of just the *rumour* of a USN CVBG in the area?

Your idea that the US can down some Chinese surveillance drones within Chinese-claimed waters without repercussion is also ridiculous. Do you think the PLAN can shoot down US drones off the coast of California without repercussions?

1st i never said in chinese water, i said million km2 water. 2nd it is you who think some UAV will easily penetrate survilliance network in the region, not me. and if you read my post, i said in a tense scenario similar to taiwan, could be SCS, japan/china escalation etc. If US is involve for whatever reason, you think PLA is not activelly searching the area for CVBG?

US intel network is not solely depend on satelite, there is a reason US have base in S.korea, japan, and other area in asia. furthermore intel gather can be acheive via allies. china can only rely on itself to search millions km2 water.

if you still believe few UAV will easily spot CVBG without US notice, thats your opinion which not too many people shared.

s002wjh · Mar 19, 2013

solarz said:
In any case, this whole thing is in response to the idea that SK or Japan can provide the US with intel without China doing anything about it. If a US CVBG ever decides to stealthily move into position to strike China, we can be damn sure that it's not going to be in peace time!

so if japan/s.korea provide intel to US, would what you expect china to do. of course US can move its CVBG to sea near china during high tense situation, SCS for example. and it will depend how far things can escalate

Hendrik_2000 · Mar 19, 2013

s002wjh said:
1st i never said in chinese water, i said million km2 water. 2nd it is you who think some UAV will easily penetrate survilliance network in the region, not me. and if you read my post, i said in a tense scenario similar to taiwan, could be SCS, japan/china escalation etc. If US is involve for whatever reason, you think PLA is not activelly searching the area for CVBG?

US intel network is not solely depend on satelite, there is a reason US have base in S.korea, japan, and other area in asia. furthermore intel gather can be acheive via allies. china can only rely on itself to search millions km2 water.

if you still believe few UAV will easily spot CVBG without US notice, thats your opinion which not too many people shared.

Again if US can depend on other method of intelligence so do China. US is rely to large extent on Satellite intelligence gathering more so than China.Due to cultural and language difference The west has trouble penetrating the inner sanctum of Chinese military. They were consistently wrong on the speed and advance of Chinese military development. So you just repeating personal opinion without once shred of evidence

China has also listening post all over the eastern board and again it is not UAV who will find the CBG. China has now enough asset in space to find , identified and track CBG . UAV is only there to confirm and get better situation awareness And No they are not easy to detect if they were stealthtified China has the industrial might and financial resource to build hundred if that need be

Simulation done by RAND has proven over and over again that in conflict over east China sea the Chinese will creamed the opposing force because they are only handful of Air bases and they are not hardened It took only 4 missile to completely shut down and airfield .Most Chinese airbases are hardened and spread over large area with one regiment in one airbase, protected by the strongest AD in the work with layer of Long range surface to air missile not to mention about 700 first class fighter

Hendrik_2000 · Mar 19, 2013

s002wjh said:
so if japan/s.korea provide intel to US, would what you expect china to do. of course US can move its CVBG to sea near china during high tense situation, SCS for example. and it will depend how far things can escalate

Korea will sit out any conflict with China unless Korea is directly attack. Japan is small country with limited airbases that is vulnerable to missile attack

advill · Mar 19, 2013

Various comments and remarks made about battle strategies & tactics I am sure are already known by the Intel Analysts of the countries concerned. Wise to know military SWOT (Strengths & Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats). Anyway, I just read in this morning's headlined news (Straits Times) "China, US vow to boost partnership - the two sides have enormous shared interests despite diffrences, say (President) Xi". This is realistic & pragmatic. Let the politicians & diplomats deal with serious & sensitive issues, & at times agree to disagee over issues. Their respective military/naval forces will continue to be vigilant, but hopefully not antagonistic or naive. In today's modern world most things are openly assessible by all and sunder.

Hendrik_2000 said:
Nope A carrier is only travel at 30 knot per hour which is very slow .Once a satellite detect a Carrier battle group it will pass that information to the next passing satellite. All you need is 32 to 60 satellite. to completely watch over a spot in western Pacific at any time . Then you pass that information to closest UAV that is watching over their grid. You don't need 10000 UAV to do that. Because the UAV is flying at much faster speed than 30 knot an hour! it get there before the Carrier!. A UAV have 40 hour endurance!

You think that easy huh. A Carrier is not merchant ship it has to launch aircraft now and then to perform CAP and maintain radio contact or communication with that aircraft. As I said before identification is not only visual but also electromagnetic,and infra red spectrum. And Carrier has distinct silhouette that cannot be easily camouflage. It is hot body in cold sea and large 300 feet to be exact! By programming the infra red seeker with the profile of Carrier A satellite can easily spot on a carrier with no problem. That is how programmable infra red seeker in missile find their target. You don't know what you are talking about Bwa hahaha

Another thing do you know that the visual accuracy of Chinese Satellite is less than 1 m maybe even 50 centimeter!

Xianglong is equipped with a jet engine mounted on top of the fuselage between the V-shape tail wings. According to Chinese media reports, Xianglong has a normal take-off weight of 7,500 kg and a mission payload of 650 kg. The UAV has a cruise speed of 750 km/h and a maximum range of 7,000 km. According to information disclosed on Zhuhai Airshow, the UAV has a wingspan of 25 meters, 5.4 meters in height and 14.3 meters in length.[1]

I don't know where you get 100 nm grid from? Seem to me HALE has much higher range than 100 nm square
and with 500 mile /hr who will get there first the UAV or the Carrier with 30 nm/hr?

The UAV appears to be a high-altitude, long-duration UAV for strategic reconnaissance, similar in size and arrangement to the U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk.[citation needed] But unlike the Global Hawk, the Xianglong does not possess global operation capability. With the deployment of such a long-range, high-altitude strategic reconnaissance UAV or any similar type of reconnaissance aircraft that covers a wide area, more data capacity or channels will be freed up for smaller tactical reconnaissance UAVs.

The Xianglong completed its high-speed taxing test in October 2008, and the maiden flight was expected to take place in early 2009.

Totoro · Mar 20, 2013

Satellites are not used for such kind of monitoring. They could be used for it, in theory, but in practice it would be a waste of resources most of the time as keeping an eye over one part of the ocean is not even remotely what they were made to do. After soviet Legenda system no one tried to do such monitoring via satellites, even though the technology went forward since then. And of course, short of hearsay and myths no one will ever know just how efficient or inefficient Legenda would have been. I am not talking just about the satellites themselves but the whole system - number of sats in storage, launch rate potential etc.

Satellites for such monitoring fly relatively low orbits. At best they will need 90 minutes to do an orbit, or more. And when they do complete an orbit, it will not be over the same place over earth but 200-300 km away. Then some 100+ orbits later, they will repeat the pattern and fly over the same spot. Some seven days later. That is the best one can hope to get with such satellites.

To have a refreshed image of an area every 45 minutes or so, even assuming the satellites have such side looking resolution to cover 500-600 km swaths at a time, one would have to have over a hundred satellites for such role. Perhaps an update every 45 minutes is unnecessary. Perhaps one every six hours is enough. We're still talking about 30 satellites for that role alone.

No country even has remotely such a number of imaging (radar or optical) satellites operational. Most countries that do have them have small constellations of 3-4 such satellites. US has at most one dozen, optical and radar combined. Rocket launches are tracked, and most are known what they are. Those that aren't known, if we assume they are imaging satellites, come to a dozen platforms for US.

And yes, satellites can be redirected a lot but then their lifespan drops from a decade to under a year. Even just months in some cases of the Legenda system.

asif iqbal · Mar 20, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
China has also listening post all over the eastern board and again it is not UAV who will find the CBG. China has now enough asset in space to find , identified and track CBG . UAV is only there to confirm and get better situation awareness And No they are not easy to detect if they were stealthtified China has the industrial might and financial resource to build hundred if that need be

as of right now China does not have the capability to track a Carrier strike group, who told you that

do you know how hard it is to even follow anything in real time? very hard, it would be until post 2015 that China will have some sort of real time capability in South China Sea, it will be very much longer before it can penetrate further out, do you know the Chinese military satallite count covering the South China Sea?

Warship magazine had a pretty extensive article on the sea monitoring capabilitys of China last year, lets keep this in prespective

United States Armed Forces is in overdrive when it comes to military satellite constellations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years have given them massive knowledge and experience in following enemys in real time, China in comparison is at a very early stage

and also in comparison, American Carrier Strike Groups also carry out satellite evading tatics and have done for decades to evade Soviet/Russian spy satellites, new Ford Class has extremely low electronic emissions and a whole array of stealth at sea tatics, the chances of finding a USN Carrier group is next to zero in the vast Pacific

s002wjh · Mar 20, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
Korea will sit out any conflict with China unless Korea is directly attack. Japan is small country with limited airbases that is vulnerable to missile attack

i think most people agree that find & track a CVBG real time in Pacfic is very difficult, especially if US and its allies are try to prevent such thing to happen.

There is no guranntee korea/japan will not provide intel to US, especially if the event is a tense situation but not during a war.

solarz · Mar 20, 2013

asif iqbal said:
as of right now China does not have the capability to track a Carrier strike group, who told you that

do you know how hard it is to even follow anything in real time? very hard, it would be until post 2015 that China will have some sort of real time capability in South China Sea, it will be very much longer before it can penetrate further out, do you know the Chinese military satallite count covering the South China Sea?

Warship magazine had a pretty extensive article on the sea monitoring capabilitys of China last year, lets keep this in prespective

United States Armed Forces is in overdrive when it comes to military satellite constellations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years have given them massive knowledge and experience in following enemys in real time, China in comparison is at a very early stage

and also in comparison, American Carrier Strike Groups also carry out satellite evading tatics and have done for decades to evade Soviet/Russian spy satellites, new Ford Class has extremely low electronic emissions and a whole array of stealth at sea tatics, the chances of finding a USN Carrier group is next to zero in the vast Pacific

That's a specious argument. Carriers cannot remain stealthed once they start launching attacks. They might be able to slip into position (even then, that's far from a sure thing), but if they want to do anything, they're gonna have to reveal themselves.

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

solarz

Brigadier

s002wjh

Junior Member

s002wjh

Junior Member

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

advill

Junior Member

Totoro

Major

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

s002wjh

Junior Member

solarz

Brigadier