Submarine first, Carrier second

IDonT said:

You are under estimating the difficulties in targeting a target hundreds of miles away using only passive sonar.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand my expression in tactics. A sub can easily picks up the info of a carrier combat group, radio or sonar, then it can edge in. I don't think it is particular difficult for a sub to sneak in a range, say 50km within the group. If no risk it can also use attenna to precisely locate the carrier group.

After all, a sub can have enough time to play, seeking the best chance to attack, and it has all means. But one mistake of a carrier group, it will be fatal. That will put surface warship in unfavirite position.

In good old days, a single destroy can take a sub without thinking too much of danger, not today. And that's the fundamental change. I think that's why USNY doesn't worry much about Chinese surface warships, even carrier, but they will worry a lot about Chinese subs, since the bet rate changes significantly. There are too many scenario that we can't explore enough, but one thing is for sure: a sub today is much much lethal than its old cusions.

fishhead said:

I think you misunderstand my expression in tactics. A sub can easily picks up the info of a carrier combat group, radio or sonar, then it can edge in. I don't think it is particular difficult for a sub to sneak in a range, say 50km within the group. If no risk it can also use attenna to precisely locate the carrier group.

After all, a sub can have enough time to play, seeking the best chance to attack, and it has all means. But one mistake of a carrier group, it will be fatal. That will put surface warship in unfavirite position.

In good old days, a single destroy can take a sub without thinking too much of danger, not today. And that's the fundamental change. I think that's why USNY doesn't worry much about Chinese surface warships, even carrier, but they will worry a lot about Chinese subs, since the bet rate changes significantly. There are too many scenario that we can't explore enough, but one thing is for sure: a sub today is much much lethal than its old cusions.

Click to expand...

Subs have always been a principle threat to carriers...or any surface vessel for that matter.

But, IMHO, you are seriously mistaken if you think that in a war time condition, with the carrier buttoned up and looking for deadly submarines with a bit in its mouth, intent on prosecuring and sinking them, that it will be easy to get within 50km of a carrier strike group.

It will not be easy at all. It will prove, in most instances, to be fatal. I am not saying it cannot be done...I am just saying it will be very very difficult and dangerous...with a high mortality rate.

Jeff Head said:

Subs have always been a principle threat to carriers...or any surface vessel for that matter.

But, IMHO, you are seriously mistaken if you think that in a war time condition, with the carrier buttoned up and looking for deadly submarines with a bit in its mouth, intent on prosecuring and sinking them, that it will be easy to get within 50km of a carrier strike group.

It will not be easy at all. It will prove, in most instances, to be fatal. I am not saying it cannot be done...I am just saying it will be very very difficult and dangerous...with a high mortality rate.

Click to expand...

This thing has to be left as open I think. There hasn't been a war between sub and carrier since WW2, nobody really knows. In WW2, a sub is much inferior to a CBG, it couldn't handle a destroyer, had to be kept constantly on surface, but still they sank quite a lot of carriers.

Chinese carrier, if really under construction right now, is not for USN. There is no slight chance to put that against Americans. I even don't have an answer how they handle night attack by couple of B2s. Forget about airplanes against airplanes, it will be subs that make Americans sleepless.

PLAN carrier is for small, less fortunate countries, same way as UK and French carriers. It will sail to the open sea, cruise around the world to show off power. This role can't be played by subs, no matter how advanced the subs are. So China needs both, sub and carrier, for different purposes.

fishhead said:

PLAN carrier is for small, less fortunate countries, same way as UK and French carriers. It will sail to the open sea, cruise around the world to show off power. This role can't be played by subs, no matter how advanced the subs are. So China needs both, sub and carrier, for different purposes.

Click to expand...

I agree with your statement here. People tend to have the conclusion that since a carrier is made "vulnerable" to a certain weapons system (submarines in this case) its development and usefulness has come to an end and should not be pursued.

Yes the submarine has advance from the WWII days, however, the ASW doctrine, tactics, and technology has advance with it. Bow mounted sonar, towed arrayed sonar, ASW helicopters, Sono-bouys, praire / masker system, etc are some of the things that come out to make a submariner's life more dangerous.

In WWII, the submarine arm had the highest casualty rate on any service on BOTH sides. In future conflicts, I don't see any changes.

fishhead said:

I even don't have an answer how they handle night attack by couple of B2s.

Click to expand...

Interesting question, this applies not only to a PLAN CV, but any PLAN surface warship. I don't think this question has ever been explored on this forum.

The Chinese have long-wave radars which can detect B-2's fairly well. They use modern signal processing techniques.

If detected further out, long range active SAM's can be fired in their direction, hoping that the missile will get close enough it can acquire the target on its own. The B-2's poor flight characteristics make it a dead duck if the missile gets a lock.

An alternative would be a SAM guided by IR. The Chinese have been very interested in the IR signature of B-2's and have received some critical information on its exhaust systems.

So the B-2's must fly low to survive. If they fly low, they can't drop PGM's on the warships unless they get really close or even fly over them. B-2's don't carry harpoons.

If it has to fly so close that its stealth can no longer protect it from being targeted and engaged by SAM's, then it's dead. If it can drop the PGMs at a distance where the warship's radars cannot track it, it can probably get away.

But even then, since the PGM's are dropped with neither altitude nor speed, and they aren't self-propelled, they are vulnerable to CIWS or short range missiles. Since a B-2 can only drop 16 PGM's, these can probably be successfully shot down. But a larger sortie with several B-2 would overwhelm point defenses.

It seems highly unlikely to me that the B-2's will be able to release their PGM's while they are hidden from the carrier by the Earth's curvature. The PGM's would have to make their way over the horizon without any propulsion.

Roger604 said:

Interesting question, this applies not only to a PLAN CV, but any PLAN surface warship. I don't think this question has ever been explored on this forum.

The Chinese have long-wave radars which can detect B-2's fairly well. They use modern signal processing techniques.

Click to expand...

LOL, I am talking about CV in the open sea. If it needs land-based long-wave radar or something like that (pretty bulky) as part of defence, I would rather build more runways, more airfields, instead of such expensive toy.

fishhead said:

LOL, I am talking about CV in the open sea. If it needs land-based long-wave radar or something like that (pretty bulky) as part of defence, I would rather build more runways, more airfields, instead of such expensive toy.

Click to expand...

A long wave radar is not so bulky as to not fit on a ship. This is a mobile meter wave radar:




But in any case, I just recalled that PGM's can't hit moving targets, since they don't have a seeker (unless you use the B-2 to dive bomb ). So until the B-2 gets a capability to launch anti-ship missiles, they are not a threat at all.

And if you have a CV, you can use a AEW aircraft to detect incoming B-2's.

Sczepan said:

I say NEARLY - because the CBG is dislozed in a big aerea, not compact ship by ship; you can't say its a CBG if you localice the ships by radar, satellite or sub - the enemy may detect on or two ships of the group, but you have to detect the carrier himself and attack this mooving target by crossing a deep graded defence line ... at least I agree with Jeff Head

Click to expand...

Satellites can isolate individual ships no problem. They have the ideal viewing angle, and high resolution cameras. It's not clear how much the U.S. uses satellite-based radar (since this info is classified), but the technology exists to do satellite-based radar imaging with resolutions of less than 50cm. If these things aren't in the sky already, they will be by the time China builds a carrier.

As far as I know, air defense systems are not particularly effective against ballistic missiles. They come in high and fast, and by the time your radar picks them up you're already toast.

The question of how long satellites would last in a major combat is a good one, but it's not something the U.S. is unaware of either (see .

... Ami.

IDonT said:

The best way to take out an air threat is with an aircraft period. You are forgetting certain aspects such as initiative, mobility, and preemption. While the SM-6 can engage targets at such range, it cannot destroy them at their air bases, shot them down through offensive counter air inside their territory, or mess up a strike force's timing through interdiction. It can't attack a air strike group from a different axis. A SAM, once fired cannot be refueled and rearmed and brought back into a fight. Finally all SAM inherently suffer from the disadvantage that they always start their fight at 0 elevation and 0 altitude. An Amraam fired at altitude and at high speeds can double its range.

Click to expand...

Yes, naturally SAM's cannot strike at enemy air fields, but that can be done with land attack missiles and bombers. Carrier borne fighters do not have that much range to act as air interdiction planes. Furthermore, as carrier borne fighters are tanked by other fighters every tanker sortie is away from fighting ability.

For action against air threat, let's consider two operational scenarios with two defending forces. First is a CSG air wing with 48 JSF's and E-2 AEW support. Second is a SM-6 equipped ships with E-2 equivalent AEW support.

Now, to give CSG a head start let's say it has received an advanced warning
of enemy strike operation. All of it's JSF's are fuelled and equipped with 4 AMRAAM's. As it does not know the exact moment enemy will strike, the CSG commander has decided to keep a four plane CAP along threat axis, some 100nm' away, where the E-2 also is. This will demand total use of some 12 JSF planes. Rest of the 36 are armed and ready.

The enemy approaches at 50m height, the E-2 keeps 9000m height. It can thus spot the enemy 225nm's away due to radar horizon. At this point, the enemy is 325nm's away from the carrier. For calculation purposes, the enemy aircraft are SU-34 Fullbacks, capable of Mach 1 speed at sea level, or 660kts.
Each enemy has 2 Moskit ASM's, capable of 65nm range. Thus time before enemy can launch it's missiles is 23 minutes.

Onboard carrier there's frantic activity. A fighter is launched at every 30 seconds. This means the last JSF is in the air at H-5, which means even the last plane launched can launch it's missiles against SU-34 which has not launched it's ASM's.

The fight is brutal. All in all, the 40 JSF's in the air are capable of throwing 160 AMRAAM's against the enemy. Some will hit, some will not. If the enemy has escort, it is well possible that some of the JSF's will get shot down.

You have to note that for this good performance the carrier has had to stood down it's strike operations to arm its entire air wing for air defence.

Now, let's match this performance by SM-6 equipped ships. The object is to match carrier air wing performance by placing 160 AMRAAM seekers into air within range of enemy, before the enemy has a chance to launch its missiles.
Two DDG-51's will be able to perform this task with AEW support. If AEW remains on station above the DDG-51's, again the detection is at 225nm range. After the launch, which can take place well within a minute, the interception will occur within minutes. More realistically, as it is uncertain any enemy will have 160 aircrafts to throw against USN, the AEGIS ships can wait at leisure to see which missiles have hit and which have not.

Now, let's take an another scenario. TU-22M Backfire equivalent planes with AS-6 Kitchen equivalent missiles. TU-22M's max speed at 50m's is 660kts. Range of AS-6 is 161nm's. In case of CSG, the distance from detection to missile launch will be 164nm's, or 15 minutes. While four CAP planes can have their try at Backfires, rest of the JSF's will have exactly 15 minutes to get launched and to get into a firing position. Maybe first two will, meaning a total fo 24 launched AMRAAM's against enemy missile carriers.

The SM-6 equipped ships, however, have time not only to launch against missile carriers but also to get a second shot against those which haven't been hit.

IDonT said:

Secondly, no SAM ship can carry its own AEW and ELINT support.

Click to expand...

Yes they can, if the capability of heliborne or aerostat. The capability may not be as good as AEW airplane, in heliborne case, but can be compensated via use of more platforms.

Moreover, with ultra-long-endurance missions there's less and less reasons to have these capabilities as shipborne at all. With 50h missions its feasible to keep a land based aircraft at station even literally almost half a globe away.

IDonT said:

The question here is not whether a carrier is a bad investment but whether air power is a bad investment. After all that is what a carrier is, a moving floating airfiled. Considering that the fastest and most effective way to deliver ordinance on target is an aircraft, I don't see that change anytime soon.

Click to expand...

No, its just that tactical fighters are getting rapidly obsolete as a way to deliver ordnance to target.

AmiGanguli said:

The question of how long satellites would last in a major combat is a good one, but it's not something the U.S. is unaware of either

Click to expand...

Satellites are nowadays that crucial that rather as to speak about how to fight without space capabilities one should perhaps talk how to develop survivable space capabilities. For recon satellite case, one might use a stealthy one-orbit reusable vehicle, for example, instead of traditional satellite. In case of ballistic ASM's it's well conceivable that after a general hint of carrier operational area a single ballistic ASM would be launched to reconnoiter the area and to locate the target before mass launch.