Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

BLUEJACKET said:

granted, it's not easy to find a carrier, but ocean surveillance satellites can detect CBG/SSG better than 1 in 1M chance. Besides space detection, there are other methods. And planes/submarines CAN get very close to a carrier

Click to expand...

Planes and subs can get close to a carrier only as long as the carrier wants it to be. In a wartime footing, things are very different. Surveillance planes, like the bulky Bear recon, are large and slow and easy to shoot down at the outer edge of the carrier defensive grid.

Subs can get close only by running at flank speed or through luck (carrier going to a place where it is already). Running at flank speed means you are noisy and your sonar won't be working. The more noise you make, the easier you are to detect and prosecuted.

The USAF space command tracks everything that orbits the earth that is bigger than a basketball. Surveillance Satellites fly in a predictable orbits are known when it will scan a particular area. A simple course change is all it takes to spoof it.


If nukes are used against tactical targets-i.e. ships, bases, troop concentrations and not against continental USA there is no risk of starting nuclear war. Besides, EMP bomb doesn't have to be nuclear, and their own forces can be kept at a safe distance before other conventional attacks are launched.
[/QUOTE]

Yes there is a risk. By going nuclear you are escalating the conflict. The current US nuclear doctrine specifically states that a nuke attack on its forces and bases around the world is the same as an attack on the US homeland. DO you really want to risk a respond.

Tortoro says:
Why would the attackers go in blind? Why wouldn't they have continuous information feed about the situation both at sea and in the air?

Where would the attackers get their information from? An AWACS? Putting a high value asset in the front lines is not militarily sound (the position the AWACS needs to be in order see the battlefield - Remember you are attacking here). Awacs are slow and are easy to shot down.

You can argue escorting it, but by then you have dispersed your attack forces.

Secondly, the SAM trap is meant to destroy and/or absorbed an anti-ship attack while keeping the carrier safe. Using your anti-ship ordinance and military assets on an Aegis Equipped warship is a waste of money and munitions. A battle group commander would gladly trade a destroy for a carrier.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

BLUEJACKET said:

If nukes are used against tactical targets-i.e. ships, bases, troop concentrations and not against continental USA there is no risk of starting nuclear war. Besides, EMP bomb doesn't have to be nuclear, and their own forces can be kept at a safe distance before other conventional attacks are launched.

Click to expand...

I must disagree. The use of nuclear weapons to destroy a US carrier would result in American forces retaliating with more use of tactical nuclear weapons against other targets. Considering that the US has a massive advantage over most other countries in this sort of a limited nuclear exchange, the use of a nuke against a US carrier is not reccomended.

Question: What would happen if the nuclear reactor on a Nimitz was damaged or ruptured in an attack. This could be accomplished by a single SSM (I think )

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Finn McCool said:

I must disagree. The use of nuclear weapons to destroy a US carrier would result in American forces retaliating with more use of tactical nuclear weapons against other targets. Considering that the US has a massive advantage over most other countries in this sort of a limited nuclear exchange, the use of a nuke against a US carrier is not reccomended.

Question: What would happen if the nuclear reactor on a Nimitz was damaged or ruptured in an attack. This could be accomplished by a single SSM (I think )

Click to expand...

imo, if a nuclear weapon is used and destroys a US carrier, you can definitely expect nukes against the guilty party's homeland. I suppose the radiation effect from nuclear reactor is dangerous, but it's not going to be something like chernobyl.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IDonT said:

Where would the attackers get their information from? An AWACS? ...
You can argue escorting it, but by then you have dispersed your attack forces.

Secondly, the SAM trap is meant to destroy and/or absorbed an anti-ship attack while keeping the carrier safe. Using your anti-ship ordinance and military assets on an Aegis Equipped warship is a waste of money and munitions. A battle group commander would gladly trade a destroy for a carrier.

Click to expand...

Well, in my previous posts i have already stated that one'd have to use vastly bigger forces to defeat a carrier that what carrier has. A single awacs and 60 combat planes just won't cut it. One'd have to use forces that perhaps just a few countries in the world have today, and even then it'd be like using almost all of them. So realistically, yeah, it'd probably not be worth it, but we're talking about how does one sink a carrier, not how does one win the war. So, still providing carrier is somehat close to shore (as when its out in the ocean it's a game stopper ) one would need multiple surveillance platforms for larger search footprint AND perhaps even rotation and replacements. One would need strong enough fighter cover deployed at any time, which again, is a huge force. and on top of that one'd need decently sized attack force. Yes, i am aware i'm talking about 100-400 planes, depending on their efficiency against USN fighters. No sane person would trade 400 of its fighters for 40 of enemy's planes. (lets say 8 are rearming/refuelling/whatnot on the carrier deck)

The further the carrier is, the harder it is for attacker - having to use more planes to keep the rotations going, perhaps even add in flight refuelling, etc. 1000 km out in the sea it'd be a monumental logistical undertaking.

In such light, destroying the forward burke might not be a waste for the attacker. Sure without awacs it'd be more or less blind for low flying threats but attackers would still not be able to go high up, being threatened by sm-2. Flying low all the time might not give them enough range to strike the carrier itself. Going around the forward burke at high altitude also means shaving at least 200 km off range. Hence, there very well might be a situation where it's just necesarry to 'waste' 50 missiles to get the burke first, clear way for planes to go straight for the main target.

Alternatively, one could also design, produce then use VAST numbers of uavs
all interconnected during flight, exchanging info, spread out first to find the carrier, then sending data to rest of the swarm to attack. Here we're probably talking numbers well over a thousand. Again, not practical, in the bigger scheme of things not worth it, but when talking bout a hypothetical scenario - doable.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

OK folks, here is another argument: unless a carrier is stealth or a submarine it's a BIG target that can be spotted by long range AWACS flying over 3rd countries, from space, by AGI and /or civilian ships, etc. And in the past, countries have been known to share intel.- so if a given nation lacks its own assets, it still has allies. "Don't have just $100, have 100 friends!"
Subs with ot without AIP can be positioned along the probable routes of CBG and sooner or later they'll score. Again, disabling it will be easier than sending it to the bottom; taking a lot of prisoners & ships as war booty is better than wasting ammo on tons of steel.
Another method is to detonate some low-yeld nukes underwater- the shock wave will disable if not SSN escorts, than their sensors at least- along with ASW ones on surface ships in a CBG, besides the radiation effect on crews/ electronics. Then the attackers could move their own subs for a kill.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

BLUEJACKET said:

OK folks, here is another argument: unless a carrier is stealth or a submarine it's a BIG target that can be spotted by long range AWACS flying over 3rd countries, from space, by AGI and /or civilian ships, etc. And in the past, countries have been known to share intel.- so if a given nation lacks its own assets, it still has allies. "Don't have just $100, have 100 friends!"
Subs with ot without AIP can be positioned along the probable routes of CBG and sooner or later they'll score. Again, disabling it will be easier than sending it to the bottom; taking a lot of prisoners & ships as war booty is better than wasting ammo on tons of steel.
Another method is to detonate some low-yeld nukes underwater- the shock wave will disable if not SSN escorts, than their sensors at least- along with ASW ones on surface ships in a CBG, besides the radiation effect on crews/ electronics. Then the attackers could move their own subs for a kill.

Click to expand...

I would like to point out a low yield nuke underwater would probably kill friendly submarines too. Not only would the the shock wave/overpressure probably compromise the hull of a sub, we must not forget that sound waves are much more profound underwater. And I am pretty sure a nuclear blast, no matter how weak, is pretty loud. The waves, if not killing the occupants, will either render them with bleeding ears, bleeding eyes, or in the most likely scenario, both.

tphuang said:

imo, if a nuclear weapon is used and destroys a US carrier, you can definitely expect nukes against the guilty party's homeland. I suppose the radiation effect from nuclear reactor is dangerous, but it's not going to be something like chernobyl.

Click to expand...

When a nuclear reactor is leaking, most likely the entire carrier will have to be evacuated. The carrier would be crippled. However, if a nation is really crafty, they would send the carrier careening towards the hostile nation and let them deal with it.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

BLUEJACKET said:

OK folks, here is another argument: unless a carrier is stealth or a submarine it's a BIG target that can be spotted by long range AWACS flying over 3rd countries, from space, by AGI and /or civilian ships, etc. And in the past, countries have been known to share intel.- so if a given nation lacks its own assets, it still has allies. "Don't have just $100, have 100 friends!"
Subs with ot without AIP can be positioned along the probable routes of CBG and sooner or later they'll score. Again, disabling it will be easier than sending it to the bottom; taking a lot of prisoners & ships as war booty is better than wasting ammo on tons of steel.
Another method is to detonate some low-yeld nukes underwater- the shock wave will disable if not SSN escorts, than their sensors at least- along with ASW ones on surface ships in a CBG, besides the radiation effect on crews/ electronics. Then the attackers could move their own subs for a kill.

Click to expand...

Yes a carrier is big, but the ocean is many times bigger. You make it sound so easy. Why not just send AWACS to find it?

1.) Do you ever consider that the AWACS might get shot down before the carrier is even in its range?

2.) Do you even consider how an EA-18G Growler will wreck havoc on your radar and communication picture.

3.) Sharing intel makes sense, but by the time you receive intel, it would have been "overtaken by events."

Here is Russia's AWACS, and some respects China's AWACS


The radar and guidance systems have the capacity to track 50 to 60 targets simultaneously and to guide 10 to 12 fighter aircraft simultaneously



Here is the E-2C hawkeye with only 4 operators


The Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radar is capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets and controlling the interception of 40 hostile targets. One radar sweep covers 6 million cubic miles. The radar's total radiation aperture control antenna reduces sidelobes and is robust against electronic countermeasures. It is capable of detecting aircraft at ranges greater than 550km.

See how huge the electronic gap between the US and other countries. That is comparing a full fledge AWACS with more than a dozen operators vs a small carrier base AWACS. Imagine what the E-3 capability is. Good luck finding a carrier in a hostile EM environment.

4.)Your prepositioned subs, still need to move to get into firing position.

5.) Using Nukes, on any form, is still escalation. Be very sure you are prepared for the US response.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IDonT said:

Yes a carrier is big, but the ocean is many times bigger. You make it sound so easy. Why not just send AWACS to find it?

1.) Do you ever consider that the AWACS might get shot down before the carrier is even in its range?

2.) Do you even consider how an EA-18G Growler will wreck havoc on your radar and communication picture.

3.) Sharing intel makes sense, but by the time you receive intel, it would have been "overtaken by events."

Here is Russia's AWACS, and some respects China's AWACS

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The radar and guidance systems have the capacity to track 50 to 60 targets simultaneously and to guide 10 to 12 fighter aircraft simultaneously



Here is the E-2C hawkeye with only 4 operators

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radar is capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets and controlling the interception of 40 hostile targets. One radar sweep covers 6 million cubic miles. The radar's total radiation aperture control antenna reduces sidelobes and is robust against electronic countermeasures. It is capable of detecting aircraft at ranges greater than 550km.

See how huge the electronic gap between the US and other countries. That is comparing a full fledge AWACS with more than a dozen operators vs a small carrier base AWACS. Imagine what the E-3 capability is. Good luck finding a carrier in a hostile EM environment.

4.)Your prepositioned subs, still need to move to get into firing position.

5.) Using Nukes, on any form, is still escalation. Be very sure you are prepared for the US response.

Click to expand...

All good points, but what if:
1. an enemy uses many AWACS with fighter escorts in its own or in other friendly airspace to even the odds. They could be based in Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh & Burma and also fly over Nepal and/orTibet.

"Radar "Vega-M" designed by MNIIP, Moscow, produced by NPO Vega-M. "Vega-M" is capable to track up to 50 targets simultaneously within 230 km range. Large targets (ships) are tracked within 400 km range."

Click to expand...

2. E-2s are shot down by long range missiles-

3. instead of targeting a carrier, land-based tankers (they aren't stealthy either) & their bases are attacked- without tanker support, airwings are limited to CAP around CBG, as it has to stay further away from shore based missiles. If it comes closer to coast, its volnurability will increase. See my post on another tread-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?p=45991&posted=1#post45991
Their own subs may wait well outside the nuked area and then arrive on station- it may take them a week but the CBG will still be in bad shape.
Using nukes may lead to escalated responce, but will the US sacrifice Anchorage, Honolulu (& Pearl Harbor with it), Seattle, and/or L.A. for a carrier with a few thousand sailors? I don't think so! A country like China can lose a few large cities along with a few hundred million of its citizens easier than the USA.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

The Moskit missile seems very useful in sinking a carrier, especially it's supersonic speed.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

BLUEJACKET said:

Using nukes may lead to escalated responce, but will the US sacrifice Anchorage, Honolulu (& Pearl Harbor with it), Seattle, and/or L.A. for a carrier with a few thousand sailors? I don't think so! A country like China can lose a few large cities along with a few hundred million of its citizens easier than the USA.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Bluejacket, but IMHO this is an insane comment. Nuking a US carrier will evoke an American nuclear response targeting most to the aggressor nation's military capabilities, particularly their nuclear capabilities. If that agressor responded by nuking one or more US cities (which would have to get through the ever developing American BMD), the aggressor would not just lose a few cities, they would probably lose all cities of any appreciable size and capable of adding to the war effort in any way.

No sane person wants to go there or would ever attempt to do so. If they were insane, then the US would undoubtedly be hurt, but not fatally by any measure. However, that agressor would cease to exist.