Submarine first, Carrier second

Tasman said:

This may have some merit, however, to provide air cover for a surprise strike mission or a surprise amphibious assault, where the assault troops are carried in transport submarines. Once the assault has commenced the submarines could stay on the surface until they had recovered their aircraft. Consequently they would need to be armed for anti aircraft and anti missile defence.

Having said that, however, my own preference would be for submarines operating in these roles to be equipped with land attack cruise missiles and/or UCAVs rather than manned aircraft. That way they could submerge whenever necessary for self preservation.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Hi Tasman nice to hear from you.

As you noticed, there is a problem using the "carrier" that way. Fundamentally, basing planes on a platform that survives by hiding, is wasting the operational ability of aircraft. Also if the enemy is strong enough to make your fleet hide, you can say goodbye to the assault troops.

If you want a surprise attack with aircraft, why not just send them in sea level, refueled from a real carrier?

goldenpanda said:

Hi Tasman nice to hear from you.

As you noticed, there is a problem using the "carrier" that way. Fundamentally, basing planes on a platform that survives by hiding, is wasting the operational ability of aircraft. Also if the enemy is strong enough to make your fleet hide, you can say goodbye to the assault troops.

If you want a surprise attack with aircraft, why not just send them in sea level, refueled from a real carrier?

Click to expand...

Hi Panda

My preference would be to use a proper carrier for strike missions and as I said before I would rather use submarines to launch land attack missiles but I think that the idea of a submersible carrier may have some merit for special operations. In the same way that Special Forces use submarines for reconnaissance and raids when operating in enemy controlled waters a submarine could potentially get aircraft close to a target to reduce the chances of early detection. It may be that once it has flown off its aircraft the submarine would then submerge and leave the scene with the strike aircraft returning to a conventional carrier stationed further away. I must admit that at this stage the idea is a bit fanciful to say the least. But maybe one day...!

Cheers

If you can occupy the enemy somewhere else and use the subCV to sneak into his back, I would think 30 strike aircraft supported by perhaps hundred+ CMs and SSNs that provide fleet AD, can deliver a significant blow to the enemy.
In a major conflict where close to all of your assests are assigned to something, such an attackwill be difficult to counter in time anyway.
If you just come to strike and run, the CSG would probably not spent more than two to three hours in jeopardy. If you catch your enemy off guard at a totally unexspected place far behind his own lines in an area as big as an ocean, that really is not much time to react.
And if you're come to stay with an amphib force, you may not need the carrier to land again. In your attack you may capture an airfield or establish a support point for those fighteres close to the shore. It would be the VTOL JSF here.

That concept is far from being the perfect way of general warfare.
But if you can mature it to some extand I think it can be of real tactical and strategic value if used properly in the right situations.
With this concept, the way to survive would probably be to ensure the destruction of all enemy forces in the initial strike, denying the enemy to counter-attack. What might be possible due to the immense suprise such an CSG could bring.

The question should be, what does aircraft allow one to do, that missiles can't do? Well, compared to missiles, aircraft can be *reused*, and they can stay *on station*. Both capabilities are rather nullified if the sub cannot spend more than 15 minutes above water.

Tasman's proposal about a special ops helicopter carrier may be closer to useful. It can allow quick insertion and extraction of a small size mission in an area where you don't have sea control.

goldenpanda said:

The question should be, what does aircraft allow one to do, that missiles can't do? Well, compared to missiles, aircraft can be *reused*, and they can stay *on station*. Both capabilities are rather nullified if the sub cannot spend more than 15 minutes above water.

Tasman's proposal about a special ops helicopter carrier may be closer to useful. It can allow quick insertion and extraction of a small size mission in an area where you don't have sea control.

Click to expand...

Special ops are nominally inserted via submarine, either submerged through special hatches or surfaced using a Zodiac. If you are inserting special ops forces, most likely the area where they are landing does have anti-air defenses, and it is easier to slip in divers or men on a Zodiac than slipping in a airplane or a helicopter.

If it's an extremely hostile environment one can imagine a sub carrier and a conventional carrier operating in tandem.

The sub carrier goes as close to the target as possible and surfaces just long enough to launch strike fighters. The conventional carrier stays a safer distance away in order to pick up the fighters after the attack.

If you and your enemy both have (for example) fighters with a range of 3000km, you could launch 500km from the target, hit, and run for pickup to a carrier 2000km from the target. The enemy interceptors couldn't follow you to the pickup carrier because they need to preserve enough fuel to return home.

AmiGanguli said:

If it's an extremely hostile environment one can imagine a sub carrier and a conventional carrier operating in tandem.

The sub carrier goes as close to the target as possible and surfaces just long enough to launch strike fighters. The conventional carrier stays a safer distance away in order to pick up the fighters after the attack.

If you and your enemy both have (for example) fighters with a range of 3000km, you could launch 500km from the target, hit, and run for pickup to a carrier 2000km from the target. The enemy interceptors couldn't follow you to the pickup carrier because they need to preserve enough fuel to return home.

Click to expand...

The thing is with a sub carrier, it is a HVU, or a High Value Unit. If the presence of one is suspected, you can expect that a lot of enemy assets will be deployed to attack it. Therefore, there is a need to escort a HVU. A carrier never goes to sea without an escort, even on trials. The problem here is that submarines rarely like to operate with friendly ships in close proximity, which is required to escort a HVU. It ties submarine commander's hands, and introduces a more easily detectable target that could give away the presence of the submarine. You are going to have to think about the bigger picture: how are you going to escort such a ship (there is no way in hell that such a valuable target be not escorted)? How are you going to conduct flight ops under rough weather due to the low freeboard and shallow draft? A war ain't going to be paused because there is rough weather.

A carrier is meant to be a beacon of permanent power projection; it is meant to bust its way into an area, and sustain a presence there. A submarine aircraft carrier cannot do either; it cannot break its way into an area and sustain a presence. Such a design, may I state this clearly, IS NOT PRACTICAL, even with the advances of technology seen today.

If I know a enemy submarine is in an area, and it is a important one or it is close to my assets, I will flood the area with ASW assets to hunt it down. Submarines are extremely vulnerable ships, often one hit and they are often done for. Surface carriers have the advantage of first of all, being able to continuously fight back 24/7 with aircraft, sustain high tempo flight ops in any weather, and take significantly more punishment than any submerged platform.

Indeed, it may not be practical. Obviously nobody's built one, so there's probably a reason for that. But it's still interesting to think about under what conditions they might become practical.

IF you know the sub carrier is in the area, AND you have air superiority then you can do extensive ASW ops. You can't have aircraft lingering over the area dropping sonic buoys if you're being harassed by opposing forces.

I think the general problem is that you're assuming the current situation where the U.S. sends in a CBG and basically owns the neighbourhood. Imagine instead two conventional carrier groups of equal strength facing off. The ability to load some planes onto a sub to get them closer to the target could be of some value.

Note that there's presumably a hot war going on in the airspace between the opposing forces. You can't assume that either side will have the freedom to do large area ASW.

AmiGanguli said:

Indeed, it may not be practical. Obviously nobody's built one, so there's probably a reason for that. But it's still interesting to think about under what conditions they might become practical.

IF you know the sub carrier is in the area, AND you have air superiority then you can do extensive ASW ops. You can't have aircraft lingering over the area dropping sonic buoys if you're being harassed by opposing forces.

I think the general problem is that you're assuming the current situation where the U.S. sends in a CBG and basically owns the neighbourhood. Imagine instead two conventional carrier groups of equal strength facing off. The ability to load some planes onto a sub to get them closer to the target could be of some value.

Note that there's presumably a hot war going on in the airspace between the opposing forces. You can't assume that either side will have the freedom to do large area ASW.

Click to expand...

It makes more sense to utilize longer range strike capabilites. What can be done in the USN's case is to deploy S-3 Viking's with external fuel tanks and a buddy packs ahead of the strike force and then send a strike force after the S-3's to fill up on fuel from the S-3's, then onto attack the enemy CBG. Aircraft travel a lot faster than enemy submarines can ever hope to travel, and this is a much more cost effective, flexible and convenient way to do the same job.

Pointblank said:

It makes more sense to utilize longer range strike capabilites.

Click to expand...

That just extends the distances, but not the concept. If everybody's fighter range doubles then you stay further apart, but there's still an argument for getting a fully fueled aircraft closer to the target without being detected.