Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
BLUEJACKET
Banned Idiot
Last edited:
Vlad Plasmius
Junior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
This all sounds like rampant speculation on your part.
I mean, 1,000 miles? What kind of fool do you take me for? Are you talking about these fighters flying at 50,000 feet or something? They can fly very low and move slowly. You also have to assume a great deal of distance of the carrier from the land. Even so, aerial refueling doesn't have to take place before the attack. Considering the only air support will be provided by the target it makes it much less likely for any air battle to take place. Flying low and slow with sufficiently ranged weapons would make it far easier than you assume.
You really make one too many assumptions. You're talking a very large amount of empty water for a sub to slip through. 2 subs and a few helicopters can never hope to cover all of it. Second, you again continue thinking of this as a "chase" when it in no manner has to be one in the direct sense.
You consistently fail to contemplate what I'm saying. Many countries, despite being third world can afford to purchase or develop such expensive systems. The reason they don't is focus on large amount of other weapons. However, these systems can be used as long as you can maintain them and repair them. Ultimately they cost less in the long run than missiles would. Jamming missiles to prevent them from hitting a target is a more cost-effective method than producing or buying SAMs that may or may not hit their targets. At the same time jamming sensors to allow one missile to sink a carrier is more effective than launch 100 or more missiles.
I'm saying that regardless of doctrine, things change a lot when you have to face the actual consequences of that doctrine. You'll note that on many occasions we could have used that doctrine, but anyone suggesting it is immediately condemned. Remember McArthur?
This all sounds like rampant speculation on your part.
I mean, 1,000 miles? What kind of fool do you take me for? Are you talking about these fighters flying at 50,000 feet or something? They can fly very low and move slowly. You also have to assume a great deal of distance of the carrier from the land. Even so, aerial refueling doesn't have to take place before the attack. Considering the only air support will be provided by the target it makes it much less likely for any air battle to take place. Flying low and slow with sufficiently ranged weapons would make it far easier than you assume.
You really make one too many assumptions. You're talking a very large amount of empty water for a sub to slip through. 2 subs and a few helicopters can never hope to cover all of it. Second, you again continue thinking of this as a "chase" when it in no manner has to be one in the direct sense.
You consistently fail to contemplate what I'm saying. Many countries, despite being third world can afford to purchase or develop such expensive systems. The reason they don't is focus on large amount of other weapons. However, these systems can be used as long as you can maintain them and repair them. Ultimately they cost less in the long run than missiles would. Jamming missiles to prevent them from hitting a target is a more cost-effective method than producing or buying SAMs that may or may not hit their targets. At the same time jamming sensors to allow one missile to sink a carrier is more effective than launch 100 or more missiles.
I'm saying that regardless of doctrine, things change a lot when you have to face the actual consequences of that doctrine. You'll note that on many occasions we could have used that doctrine, but anyone suggesting it is immediately condemned. Remember McArthur?
BLUEJACKET
Banned Idiot
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
A CSG is only effective max 400-500 or even maybe 600mi. off the coast, due to range limitations of its aircraft. At that distance, it will be far easier to locate it with air/space assets, old and new (see my prev. post here and here), and then God help it to defend against land, air & sea based missiles!
A CSG is only effective max 400-500 or even maybe 600mi. off the coast, due to range limitations of its aircraft. At that distance, it will be far easier to locate it with air/space assets, old and new (see my prev. post here and here), and then God help it to defend against land, air & sea based missiles!
Last edited:
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
One problem, placing a UAV over an Americna carrier while launching missiles is a threat that cannot be ignored.
Also what ever iran's claims the aircraft don't match up.
One problem, placing a UAV over an Americna carrier while launching missiles is a threat that cannot be ignored.
Also what ever iran's claims the aircraft don't match up.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Effective at what? The CSG is also very effective ANYWHERE in the open ocean for strike at sea operations against enemy vessels...either military formations or even convoys. As to effectiveness against ground installations, this is generally true, although with refueling capability that effectiveness can be extended when necessary
At 400-600 miles off shore, I believe a carrier will still be difficult to locate and a very hard nut to crack. It is a moving target, it is well defended, and it is not so easy to find as you portray within those distances. 400 to 600 miles is a long ways and there are many different azimuths to search at those distances from the land mass. With ECM, and using passive methods, it is not as easy to find...depending on weather and the capabilities of the spaces based assets, it is also not a sure thing that it will be found....and once it is, as I say, it is not an easy thing, even for the PRC, to then go out and challenge it.BLUEJACKET said:
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Hi there, since I'm new here I haven't read all and every post, so hopefully I'm not saying the same things again.
I once found an interesting theater of disableing a carrier in a book. I'm no expert so just correct my if this is too far from reality.
Tom Clancy's "Red Storm rising". As far as I know he at least kwnos a bit what he's talking about:
This scenario would require that the Carrier Group is in rang of long range bombers operating from land. It goes the following.
The CG is located be satalites an T-95 Bear Recces. Badgers head for it an start crues missiles hundreds of miles off the CG and then turn away. The CM have radar reflectors that lets them look like bombers still closing in on the group. The Air wing starts out to intercept those targets. In the meantime Backfires, beeing air-refuled close in on the CP now without it's airwing and start hundresds of anti-ship missiles. I think it was sowjet doctrin to lunch so many missiles, that the CG simlpy has not the capacity to intercept all...
Do you think that was ever possible and would still be work today if one could get the AirWing away from the CG
Of course this would require enourmes resources, it's just a thought i find interesting.
Awating your oppinions ...
Hi there, since I'm new here I haven't read all and every post, so hopefully I'm not saying the same things again.
I once found an interesting theater of disableing a carrier in a book. I'm no expert so just correct my if this is too far from reality.
Tom Clancy's "Red Storm rising". As far as I know he at least kwnos a bit what he's talking about:
This scenario would require that the Carrier Group is in rang of long range bombers operating from land. It goes the following.
The CG is located be satalites an T-95 Bear Recces. Badgers head for it an start crues missiles hundreds of miles off the CG and then turn away. The CM have radar reflectors that lets them look like bombers still closing in on the group. The Air wing starts out to intercept those targets. In the meantime Backfires, beeing air-refuled close in on the CP now without it's airwing and start hundresds of anti-ship missiles. I think it was sowjet doctrin to lunch so many missiles, that the CG simlpy has not the capacity to intercept all...
Do you think that was ever possible and would still be work today if one could get the AirWing away from the CG
Of course this would require enourmes resources, it's just a thought i find interesting.
Awating your oppinions ...
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Now, it is still possible to saturate a CSG with missiles, but your are then talking about air groups in regimental force coming against her...and you better be prepared to lose a lot of them. Although with the loss of the F-15/AIM-54 combo, the chances of getting to the strike aircraft before they launch are now less...but American space and other recon and detection technology can still give ample warning for the fighters to be in place.
Most nations, even Russia today, simply do not have that type of strength or the operational recon to accomplish such a mission today.
Here's another, more modern scenario, which SD readers can download for free and read if they so desire:
.
AEGIS was designed to counter exactly this scenario. There are usually three AEGIS ships with a CSG, one or two cruisers and one or two destroyers. In addition, the entire air wing will NEVER leave the carrier. There will always be a CAP and there will always be other ready alert aircraft prepared to launch to support the CAP in a crisis. If several aircraft are pulled away to counter one threat, another CAP is immediatley launched.
Now, it is still possible to saturate a CSG with missiles, but your are then talking about air groups in regimental force coming against her...and you better be prepared to lose a lot of them. Although with the loss of the F-15/AIM-54 combo, the chances of getting to the strike aircraft before they launch are now less...but American space and other recon and detection technology can still give ample warning for the fighters to be in place.
Most nations, even Russia today, simply do not have that type of strength or the operational recon to accomplish such a mission today.
Here's another, more modern scenario, which SD readers can download for free and read if they so desire:
.