Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

bd popeye said:

Some of the factors that I feel are ignored at times in these discussions are;

1) USN/USMC ECM provided by Growlers and Prowlers and Ticos and Arliegh Burke's. Nothing will work right if your gear is queer.

Click to expand...

PLAN ECM/ECCM has advanced substantially over the past decade or so. I'd rate that aspect of their naval suite as the most advanced, relatively speaking, in their quiver.

2) The ability of USN sailors to perform damage control and major repairs in a wartime situation.

Click to expand...

This is something Fleet Command didn't let me model, unfortunately. What were the sort of repairs a crew could perform, say, after one or two AShM or AShBM strikes? Would they be focused on maintaining seaworthiness, or would they try going one step further to restoring mission functionality?

3) USN submarines i.e. SSN/SSBN & at least one SSGN roam the Pacific virtually at will. What sort of ASW could the PLAN muster against this force??

Click to expand...

Not much, and two SSGNs were the tools my buddy used to try and equalize what looked like a lost battle. However, HQ-9s and 19s (S-300/400), plus an active anti-cruise-missile CAP of legacy J-10As, worked really well against Tomahawks. In the end, it boiled down to a question of numbers: I had twelve long-range SAM batteries with 48 SAMs each, a dozen J-10s with 4x medium-range AAMs apiece, and twenty short-range SAM batteries with 48 SAMs each scattered in four-pack groupings around critical targets, versus the 2x154 UGMs the SSGNs could pop, plus other incoming threats (B-2s and ALCMs). As long as I was hitting better than about 70% on the UGMs and AGMs, I found I could spare the missile volleys needed to credibly threaten B-2s. If the hit rate dropped below that, I was in trouble.

Humm? Lets turn the tables. What if the Chinese decided to attack Hawaii and the US Pacific coast. What sort of forces would they face?

Click to expand...

Not going to happen conventionally. SSNs and SSGNs would be China's only option there, and even so it would be tough going. China doesn't have enough SSNs and SSGNs nor does it have the operating expertise for that.

are one of the most important sea lines of communication at the present. The USA is simply the central part of that communication with much less traffic running through alternative channels. There's a strong network developing in the Western Pacific Rim and China is part of it, especially Hong Kong, but it is being part of a network of Japan and Korea, who are quite capable of defending their important sea lines of communication with two of the most powerful navies in the world.
highlights the position of the USA in that vulnerable network even more (Alexandria accident). The global role of navies reflects the connections by these sea lines of communication more than statistics on merchant traffic and the USA is the central hub for most global communication. Ships sail under a number of flags, but the money is made in information exchange networks and the USA sits in the center of the global information network. In East Asia an own information network is developing. China is part of it, but will it agree or quarrel with the other partners and how independent can this network be from the global US network?

How does that relate to carrier tactics and strategies? It defines the environment of the struggle. It's about sea lines of communication and these sea lines are information traffic and ships under neutral flags (Panama, Liberia) that sail according to profitability in more or less safe environments. There's little doubt that China won't see hostile brown water navies and limit green water incursions, but what will be insurance costs for shipping to China against hostile US actions? To influence that game you need to communicate with others. How can China protect their share in a global communication network? Discussing aircraft carriers is about two topics, the green waters around Taiwan and various other Western Pacific Rim Islands and the global sea lines of communication.

Can the green waters adjacent to the Chinese coast be the playground of amphibious warfare vessels with traditional aircraft carriers not serving as the primary strike tool (the debate seems always about aircraft carriers striking Chinese mainland targets there)?
How do you insecure sea lines of communication in blue water against aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships in sea control mode? None has made a suggestion that invalidats the aircraft carrier as the best tool to protect the US core interest, their global maritime network.

PLAN ECM/ECCM has advanced substantially over the past decade or so. I'd rate that aspect of their naval suite as the most advanced, relatively speaking, in their quiver

Click to expand...

I have a good idea what US ECM can do. You'd be amazed.. But the Chinese? I have no clue. I suspect they have some ability with ECM but how well could they deploy it?

This is something Fleet Command didn't let me model, unfortunately. What were the sort of repairs a crew could perform, say, after one or two AShM or AShBM strikes? Would they be focused on maintaining seaworthiness, or would they try going one step further to restoring mission functionality?

Click to expand...

The crew would be focused on keeping the ship afloat first and repairs later.

Good response to all my queries t_co!

t_co said:

This is something Fleet Command didn't let me model, unfortunately. What were the sort of repairs a crew could perform, say, after one or two AShM or AShBM strikes?

Click to expand...

Fleet Command is really a very limited gaming platform when it comes to designing and programming realistic scenarios.

I would suggest you looking up the latest Harpoon games which are to this day maintained online and available for purchase.



They have a very significant and modern editable data base for all weapons, platforms, sensors, etc. This data base is kept up to date by analysts and former US Navy and other nation's veterans who have dealt with the equipment.

In its earlier formats it was used for gaming and scenarios at the Naval War College for training new officers.

One of our own SD members is very involved with the editing and gaming of this system.

I used this system extensively when designing the super-cavitating weapons I had the Chinese design and test secretly that were successful in driving the US Navy from the Western Pacific in a huge, seven year, World War III scenrio I wrote a series of books about, called:



It has been reviewed here on SD in the members club room.

Anyhow, Harpoon is the gaming platform for any really serious modern naval war gamer. You can benefit from the expertise of literally hundreds of others who have background and experience...or you can do a lot of what-iffing and design your own weapons systems and program them into the data base to see what would happen.

Very good stuff.

Computer simulation of damage efficiency for aircraft carrier under attacking of tactical ballistic missiles

Determination and evaluation of effective range for terminal Guidance ballistic missile attacking aircraft carrier

Research on the design of Ballistic missiles anti-aircraft carrier simulation system

Design of reentry maneuvering trajectory for ballistic missile

escobar said:

Design of reentry maneuvering trajectory for ballistic missile

Click to expand...

Wow i am flabbergasted . Excellent find I have been telling people that China has studied this ASBM to death and Now we have glimpse of early theoretical study(Prelim engineering) of this beast. But I still see people in denial and poo poo the idea of ASBM. They definitely study every aspect of ASBM . That must be done in 80's Now we are in IOC phase and every year they will improve the system as we recently witness the UAV brigade deployment with Second artillery

Research on terminal homing guidance of ballistic missile attacking aircraft carrier