Submarine first, Carrier second

bd popeye said:

Thanks Sczepan..this is a serious discussion based on facts not conjecture..let's keep it that way...

Click to expand...

But if we're discussing possible future developments I think projects of the past are relevant. Both USN and Soviet Navy studied flying submarines. Historically RN, USN, French Navy, USN, German Navy and IJN have operated aircraft off the subs. USN planned sub cv's already during 1950's.

Let's go back to June 1957. If I would propose that within 20 years Soviet Navy could counter USN carriers with satellite targeting system which can guide giant cruise missiles launched from atomic submarines, would it be based on conjencture

Norfolk said:

Granted, cruise missiles are expensive, but letting submarines take out many of the more pedestrian targets (I don't mean using cruise missiles on machine gun nests and field kitchens)-and air defenses- frees up, to a certain extent, highly-trained aircrew to go after targets that missiles can't handle.

Click to expand...

With current aircraft prices the cruise missiles don't seem so expensive anymore. Tomahawk costs around 600 000 USD. A single JSF costs, with year old information, around 63 million USD. If and when JSF follows the trend of vastly increasing expenses I think a realistic JSF unit price will be around 80 to 100 million USD. For that you have to add numerous operating costs one only has to pay for a manned aircraft, such as flight hours used for training, pilot costs, high maintenance costs etc.

So, for a price of a single JSF one can buy 105 Tomahawks, or amount of 53 JSF strike sorties. If we're talking about real war situation, it is doubtful that no losses would occur in this large number of sorties.

Norfolk said:

A few submarines so equipped MAY be sufficient to deal with a carrier battle group (potentially very useful to China), but even with land-attack missiles aboard, such a force just can't do enough damage, let alone keep it up, on land targets compared to a carrier.

Click to expand...

If we're counting sustainability we have to consider that first, a SSGN can act alone, and second, a large amount of carrier strike group activities are meant to protect itself. Carrier strike groups are enormously large and expensive. For crew, the largest expense in CSG lifetime, a single CSG has some 9000 men. If we're talking about fight against China, the VLS cells of escorts would be probably filled with SAM's only. So, the practical strike tool of a CSG would be the carrier air wing. A single carrier can launch some 140 sorties a day, of which a large amount would be air defence, tanker, recon etc. sorties.

Naturally, in order to reach primary targets, a large amount of sorties actually launched over enemy territory would be tanker sorties, escort sorties and SEAD sorties. Farther the carrier has to say, less is the amount of actual strike sorties due to transit time and increased amount of tanker sorties. JSF has a strike radius of 600nm's, Super Hornet some 500nm's without refuelling.

If we're generous let's say carrier in question can launch 50 sorties per day which can actually drop JDAM's on the enemy. I seriously doubt the amount would be this large. That would mean 100 targets to be struck. Let's continue this for some five days, which is probably the amount carrier can sustain hight intensity operations in a row. That's total of 500 targets to be struck, not counting inevitable plane losses.

Now, let's take SSGN's for the job. Even a modified Ohio can carry 154 Tomahawks. So, four SSGN's could strike the same amount of targets as a single CSG with crew of 612 compared to crew of 9000. Furthermore, they could strike all the targets simultaneously and launch their weapons either farther, or strike deeper. A Tomahawk has range of some 1300nm's.

Cost of 500 Tomahawks would be about 300 million USD. Surely an enormous sum, but when you consider what amount of flight time, ordnance and personnel have to be used to get an equivalent amount of bombs to target the cost isn't that large. And this is of course without thinking the inevitable losses air wing would suffer.

Norfolk said:

I am not saying that such boats could replace aircraft carriers, but given their heavy missile load-outs a few of these operating with a carrier or two could considerably reduce the strike load on the carriers, allowing them go after targets cruise missiles can't handle and to mop up targets that cruise missiles didn't finish.

Click to expand...

Of course not all targets can be struck with Tomahawks (or whatever the future cruise missile is), but why would they require fighter sorties instead of bomber sorties?

If the political will was there, cheaper and more effective ways to replace carriers could be easily found. For strike missions the carriers are already almost obsolete. For air defence, the new generation of networked long range missiles, such as SM-6, will change the equation. For intelligence duties the duties of carrier air wing can be performed by land based aircraft, in the future easily with UAV's, possibly with space based systems.

The only task carriers are really needed is offensive air superiority, but it's already in the foreseeable future that fighters will be replaced by UCAV's whose endurance with tanker support is limited by lubrication.

For China, I can see no real need to develop technology which is getting old soon. On the other hand, of course Stalin wanted to build battleships after World War II.

Jon K

Excellent argument, you've made a case for submarines that clearly demonstrates their role as THE capital ship of both the present and the foreseeable future. I am coming to the conclusion that carriers are increasingly limited in their usefulness though I think still necessary in some roles, especially in support of amphibious landings. If China does see fit to acquire carriers, it should only be a few, and give first priority to submarines which are still developing their fll potential as capital ships.

Jon K said:

If we're counting sustainability we have to consider that first, a SSGN can act alone, and second, a large amount of carrier strike group activities are meant to protect itself. Carrier strike groups are enormously large and expensive. For crew, the largest expense in CSG lifetime, a single CSG has some 9000 men. If we're talking about fight against China, the VLS cells of escorts would be probably filled with SAM's only. So, the practical strike tool of a CSG would be the carrier air wing. A single carrier can launch some 140 sorties a day, of which a large amount would be air defence, tanker, recon etc. sorties.

Click to expand...

Actually, the goal, and I bet they achieve it, for the new CVN-21 is 160 sorties per day. The US has by far the most experience, and the most carriers. The new flight deck arrangements, and they aircraft themselves, will make this goal achievable. I expect upwards of 70-80 of those to be able to be strike missions.

Jon K said:

That's total of 500 targets to be struck, not counting inevitable plane losses.

Click to expand...

As I have said, I expect the sortie rate for strike missions to be higher, so we are now talking about 600-700 targets. In addition, that's only one carrier. In any major operations, the US will likely be operating with two carries, which will actually more than double to number of strike missions capable because of operational efficiencies when operating in this manner.

Jon K said:

Now, let's take SSGN's for the job. Even a modified Ohio can carry 154 Tomahawks. So, four SSGN's could strike the same amount of targets as a single CSG with crew of 612 compared to crew of 9000. Furthermore, they could strike all the targets simultaneously and launch their weapons either farther, or strike deeper. A Tomahawk has range of some 1300nm's.

Cost of 500 Tomahawks would be about 300 million USD. Surely an enormous sum, but when you consider what amount of flight time, ordnance and personnel have to be used to get an equivalent amount of bombs to target the cost isn't that large. And this is of course without thinking the inevitable losses air wing would suffer.

Click to expand...

The cost of operating carriers is high. Very few countries can afford it, no country outside the US can afford the numbers the US puts to the task. But the US can and does afford it as it has demonstrated. The reason the US affords it is precisely because of the advantage it gives in power projections.

Once the Ohios shoot their missiles, they must return to port and refit...a task that could take weeks. In the mean time, a two carrier task force will continue on station, being replenished regularly, and continuing with its five day turnaround of taking out 1500-2000 targets...and in most areas of the world, outside of very large and very well developed potential agressor nations, they will do so establishing total air dominance over the area. Huge advantage in numbers, in sustainment, and in flexibility over a SSGN.

That is not to diminish the role of the SSGN. In such a scanrio, two to three of them would provide a huge multiplier and supplement to the main couse...which would be the strike aircraft of the carriers.

Jon K said:

For strike missions the carriers are already almost obsolete.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you have given no substanative information to back this up. For the next generation or two, carriers, with manned fighters and unmanned air vehicles, will be the wepaon of choice for power projection in any area where a nation does not have a manned air base.

Jon K said:

The only task carriers are really needed is offensive air superiority, but it's already in the foreseeable future that fighters will be replaced by UCAV's whose endurance with tanker support is limited by lubrication.

Click to expand...

Again, you are basing this on what? The fact is, carrier ground strikes and carrier strike as sea capabilities are much more flexible and capable of much more sustainment than any other alternative and are likely to remain so for the next generation or two (20-40 years) at least.

norfolk said:

Excellent argument, you've made a case for submarines that clearly demonstrates their role as THE capital ship of both the present and the foreseeable future. I am coming to the conclusion that carriers are increasingly limited in their usefulness though I think still necessary in some roles, especially in support of amphibious landings. If China does see fit to acquire carriers, it should only be a few, and give first priority to submarines which are still developing their fll potential as capital ships.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not buying it. There are great arguements there for SSGNs being a huge supplement to carriers...and of course, they have other roles the carrier cannot, and was not meant to fulfill.

But when it comes to flexible, sustainable strike at sea and ground strike missions in any area of the world that delivers the momst ordinance on target, the carrier strike group will remain the weapon and instrument of choice.

Jeff Head said:

Once the Ohios shoot their missiles, they must return to port and refit...a task that could take weeks.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt loading Ohio with missiles could take weeks. Bear in mind that SSBN patrols are very long, while SSGN strike missions would probably be much shorther in duration.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, but you have given no substanative information to back this up. For the next generation or two, carriers, with manned fighters and unmanned air vehicles, will be the wepaon of choice for power projection in any area where a nation does not have a manned air base.

Click to expand...

Well, I think it's fairly common knowledge that the most serious limit for UCAV endurance (after in flight refuelling is perfected) is the length of how much flight time their engine lubrication systems can deal with. Currently the longest missions flown have been around 40-50 hours. With, say, 500kts transit speed that would mean a range of 20 000 to 25 000 nm's. Sure, operating UCAV's at longer range requires more UCAV's as more time is lost on transit. But then, on the other hand, one can buy quite a lot of UCAV's by the amount of money which is saved when carriers (and their escorts) are ditched.

Additionally, technology to re-arm UCAV's in flight is already under development, reducing turnaround time.

Jeff Head said:

Again, you are basing this on what? The fact is, carrier ground strikes and carrier strike as sea capabilities are much more flexible and capable of much more sustainment than any other alternative and are likely to remain so for the next generation or two (20-40 years) at least.

Click to expand...

Yes, due to fact that carriers already exist. But if we are talking about clean slate, I don't think anyone would buy the concept. Except the UK, of course, and if they in fact buy the CV (F), they are going to swear the decision for next fifty years.

Jeff Head said:

But when it comes to flexible, sustainable strike at sea and ground strike missions in any area of the world that delivers the momst ordinance on target, the carrier strike group will remain the weapon and instrument of choice.

Click to expand...

Carriers were the weapon of choice for power projection to distant areas until PGM and networks revolution about ten years ago. With that revolution the worth of tactical aircraft strike sorties has fundamentally changed compared to cruise missiles and bombers. And thus the comparative value of an aircraft carrier as a military tool has decreased.

Carriers can't effectively strike all areas in the world. Range of carrier aircraft is fairly limited. Effectiveness of carrier air power also rapidly diminishes farther the adversary can credibly threaten carrier strike groups. And we haven't even discussed the cost effectiveness yet.

Flexibility as an carrier asset is true, but on the other hand compared to SSGN carrier cannot make such a swamping attack. And we have not brought bombers in the play yet. For mobile targets which cannot be dealt with cruise missiles, a single B-2 sortie can deliver 80 JDAM's, or similar amount to 40 JSF sorties. Bombers can reach any spot on the planet, carrier aircraft can not.

Air defence and offensive air superiority are still problematic tasks to replace with present technology, but will pose no insurmountable problems. For air defence, new generation SAM's will be much more cost-effective solution, for offensive air superiority I doubt carriers would be more effective than land based UCAV's.

Finally, we must consider what advantages would result in ditching the carriers. A carrier-less-global strike force comprised of bombers, UCAV's and SSGN's would have no such tempting single target as carrier. It would be also more flexible as it would not be such dependant on small number of primary units. Ditching carrier groups would also mean freeing up a lot of ships from escort duties to other duties. And finally, and most importantly, a carrier-less-strike force would have truly global reach.

Jon K said:

I seriously doubt loading Ohio with missiles could take weeks. Bear in mind that SSBN patrols are very long, while SSGN strike missions would probably be much shorther in duration.

Click to expand...

Depending on where they have to go to get their missile reload. If they had to go back to their home port from WESTSPAC, then you are talking a total of 2-3 weeks. If they vessels are forweard deployed into WESTPAC, say at Guam, then the redeploy time is substantially lessened. That's why I used the term could. Nonetheless, during whatever time they were away from the OP area, the carriers would continue to pound the enemy positon without let up.

Jon K said:

Well, I think it's fairly common knowledge that the most serious limit for UCAV endurance (after in flight refuelling is perfected) is the length of how much flight time their engine lubrication systems can deal with. Currently the longest missions flown have been around 40-50 hours. With, say, 500kts transit speed that would mean a range of 20 000 to 25 000 nm's.

Click to expand...

I believe UCAVs will be an important part of a Carrier airwing as time goes on. Either automatic, or in remote control. Still, until AI comes a long way further forward, a manned carrier strike force will remain much more flexible. My point is that both will be operating off carrier decks. The carriers will not go away as a result of UCAVs, rather, they will be enhanced by them.

Jon K said:

Yes, due to fact that carriers already exist. But if we are talking about clean slate, I don't think anyone would buy the concept. Except the UK, of course, and if they in fact buy the CV (F), they are going to swear the decision for next fifty years.

Click to expand...

Well, this is a straw man. The reality is that they do exist. But, to counter the arguement, what do we see around us in this regard?

The UK has an excellent opportunity to get away from large carriers with the retirement of the Invicible class...but they are not. Instead, they are building bigger, more capable ones to last for the next 40+ years. The French had the same opportunity, but they too are going to build the second large deck carrier...again for a 40+ year commitment. India, Italy, Spain, even China with its annoucements makes it clear that they are committed to a course which will develop and put to sea large, flat-deck deck carriers.

Why? All of these naval planners and developers are not out to lunch. They are all coming to the same conclusions for the next two generations. I submit, among others, that they are doing so precisely for the reasons I enumerated in my last post, and with an understanding that many of the new technologies will not supplant carriers, they will be used to enhance tham...just like with the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

Carriers are the choice, by far and away, for conventional power projection against hostile shores...and will remain so for the next several decades.

Jon K said:

Carriers were the weapon of choice for power projection to distant areas until PGM and networks revolution about ten years ago. With that revolution the worth of tactical aircraft strike sorties has fundamentally changed compared to cruise missiles and bombers. And thus the comparative value of an aircraft carrier as a military tool has decreased.

Click to expand...

A statement not supported in fact...particularly when you look at what the best minds in the field are planning for in every country that can afford to do so.

Jon K said:

Finally, we must consider what advantages would result in ditching the carriers. A carrier-less-global strike force comprised of bombers, UCAV's and SSGN's would have no such tempting single target as carrier. It would be also more flexible as it would not be such dependant on small number of primary units. Ditching carrier groups would also mean freeing up a lot of ships from escort duties to other duties. And finally, and most importantly, a carrier-less-strike force would have truly global reach.

Click to expand...

The US, Russia, the UK, France, etc. all have that global rech capability already...but they continue to augment it with carriers...particularly the US which has the strongest capability in both areas. Why? Again, it is for the reasons I already cited.

Anyhow, it seems we are not likely to agree on this. I will let what I have already stated, and unfolding history make my arguements for me.

Even in the event of a major war where several carriers were sunk...the trend would continue, as it did after WW II, when the US and UK and others lost many carriers.

All the arguements about high tech, new networks, etc. can also be applied in such a way so as to augment the carrier's capability...as the US is doing with the CVN-21 class. I expect that as the exotic weapons come on line that some feel will negate carrier effectiveness, you will find those same technologies and weapons being applied to the carrier itself and its strike group to enhance its capability and extend its viability.

Until some nation takes complete control of space and orbits offensive weapons platforms that can, with impunity locate and destroy vessels anywhere on the surface of the ocean, this trend will tend to continue. Any nation attempting that on its own, will probably face war to keep it from happening.

This is a bit ff afterall this is a Chinese military forum..However I will express my views.

No warship designed by man can sustain strike capablity like an aircraft carrier. None. USN CV's can conduct airstrikes over a very wide area for 5-7 days before replenishing. If an Ohio class or any other SSGN despenses with it's missiles it needs to withdraw and reload in a safe port.

We use to say aircraft carriers are hos-tile, ag-ile and mob-ile. They can operate over a wide range of open sea for virtually unlimited amount of time. All the time attacking an enemies resources.

Carriers were the weapon of choice for power projection to distant areas until PGM and networks revolution about ten years ago.

Click to expand...

Of course you realize that CVN's carry PGM. And have so for almost 40 years. The first being the Walleye Tv guide bomb. JDAM's and it's variants are the first choice of the USN in it's strike missions.

Yes the Submarine loaded with cruise missiles is a potent weapon. But it does not have the ablity to maintian strikes on an enemey for a prolonged period of time.

Granted, a carrier does have a sustainability that even an Ohio SSGN cannot match. The great question that has been asked for some time now, with so many cruise missiles carried on bombers, ships and submarines, just how long can carriers and their escorts successfully fend off successive saturation attacks, and if carriers are lost, how soon can they be replaced under wartime conditions? Nearly two dozen Essexes and a hoard of light and escort carriers were built in WWII, but can anything even like a one-for-one replacement of any carriers lost be possible today and they foreseeable future-if cruise missile saturation attacks were to prove more or less effective against carrier strike groups?

This has long been the great fear and the great unknown about carriers-can they really survive in a major war? I think it is important also to consider at the same time as this the apparent survivability-or the assumption of that survivability-of the submarine in comparison to that of the carrier in a major war. The assumption, so far well supported, that submarines are inherently survivable at least compared to surface ships and especially carriers certainly plays a major factor in the thinking of those who see in the submarine as the emerging dominant naval weapon.

For China watchers, then, those who are predisposed to such views very much consider that the carrier, if the Chinese do in fact deploy any, should play second fiddle to the submarine.

Norfolk said:

Granted, a carrier does have a sustainability that even an Ohio SSGN cannot match. The great question that has been asked for some time now, with so many cruise missiles carried on bombers, ships and submarines, just how long can carriers and their escorts successfully fend off successive saturation attacks, and if carriers are lost, how soon can they be replaced under wartime conditions?

Click to expand...

This was the Soviet doctrine. It (along with other similar doctrines) bankrupted them. They were having to committ entire regiments of aircraft, and entire surface action groups (which they viewed by their own accounts as "throw away") in the effort to attack and sink one or two Carrier Strike Groups. I know of no country right now, that has the wherewithall, or resources to committ the same. china may one day have that resource...but I believe they will use their it more wisely and develop a different doctrine when attempting to confront or offset US carrier groups.

Norfolk said:

I think it is important also to consider at the same time as this the apparent survivability-or the assumption of that survivability-of the submarine in comparison to that of the carrier in a major war. The assumption, so far well supported, that submarines are inherently survivable at least compared to surface ships and especially carriers certainly plays a major factor in the thinking of those who see in the submarine as the emerging dominant naval weapon.

Click to expand...

But historically in World War II, this was not the case. Many, many submarines were lost in World War II. The mortailty rate onboard a submarine was at least as high, if not higher than on a carrier or surface ship. I believe in a major war, the same would hold true today.

That is not to discount submaries. They also sank much more tonnage of enemy vessels than any other means. it is just an enheritantly dangerous job...and adversaries expends huge resource, not to mention other submarines, to find and kill subs precisely because they are so dangerous at what they do.

norfolk said:

For China watchers, then, those who are predisposed to such views very much consider that the carrier, if the Chinese do in fact deploy any, should play second fiddle to the submarine.

Click to expand...

While it is unlikely that a one for one replacement of supercarriers like we build today would be possible, in a major, multi-year war, with large losses like in World War II, you would see economies and war machines build up where carriers and other combatants were being replaced much more quickly, and in greater numbers than the relative peace time conditions (as far as major naval warfare is concerned) of today. The US intent to build, in essence, Jeep Carriers, with the LPH(R) is indicative of this. Once completed, the US Navy will, in essence have 18-20 carrier decks out there.

Anyhow, I certainly believe strike operations are enhanced significantly with SLCM submarines, particularly SSGNs, but they are not a replacement now, or in the near future, for the large carriers like the US operates.

I also believe the PLAN will take a similar route over the next 10-20 years. Lots of subs (the US has lots of subs too) and several carrier strike groups.

Jeff Head said:

Depending on where they have to go to get their missile reload. If they had to go back to their home port from WESTSPAC, then you are talking a total of 2-3 weeks. If they vessels are forweard deployed into WESTPAC, say at Guam, then the redeploy time is substantially lessened. That's why I used the term could. Nonetheless, during whatever time they were away from the OP area, the carriers would continue to pound the enemy positon without let up.

Click to expand...

Yes, but compared to cost of a carrier strike group one can buy quite large amount of SSGN's. Of course it has to be taken into account that we're in effect talking about jury-rigged SSGN's, not purposely designed ones which would presumably have larger capacity and perhaps also capability for underway replenishment.

Jeff Head said:

All the arguements about high tech, new networks, etc. can also be applied in such a way so as to augment the carrier's capability...as the US is doing with the CVN-21 class. I expect that as the exotic weapons come on line that some feel will negate carrier effectiveness, you will find those same technologies and weapons being applied to the carrier itself and its strike group to enhance its capability and extend its viability.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I agree that introduction of new technology enhances the capabilities of carrier strike groups. With such a large sunken investment to carriers USN is likely to keep them for a long time. But as carrier is an airstrip, there is now, and rapidly coming more, technologies which question the need to place the airstrip next to the enemy coast. The carrier strike group will remain effective, but the real question is, whether it's the most cost effective and survivable option available?

Jeff Head said:

Until some nation takes complete control of space and orbits offensive weapons platforms that can, with impunity locate and destroy vessels anywhere on the surface of the ocean, this trend will tend to continue. Any nation attempting that on its own, will probably face war to keep it from happening.

Click to expand...

The battle for space dominance will be the crucial one in any Sino-US conflict, or indeed any conflict involving serious powers. And space based surveillance is yet another factor working against surface ships, or at least against non-stealth surface ships.