Submarine first, Carrier second

bd popeye said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's my point. Before PGM's the strike power of a bomber and fighter were very different. Today both can deliver the same result.

The real question is, whether it's more cost-effective to deploy 48 JSF's to an extremely expensive floating airstrip close to the adversary to deliver same daily bombload which can be delivered by perhaps two B-2's flying from a safe airfield. The choice is naturally not that simple due to difference in possible targets bombers and JSF's can strike.

bd popeye said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, yes a single sub cannot, but many submarines can.

Jon K said:

The real question is, whether it's more cost-effective to deploy 48 JSF's to an extremely expensive floating airstrip close to the adversary to deliver same daily bombload which can be delivered by perhaps two B-2's flying from a safe airfield. The choice is naturally not that simple due to difference in possible targets bombers and JSF's can strike.

Click to expand...

Depends on your definitions of "close to the adversary" (ie 200 to 400 miles out with the JSF) and "a safe airfield" which may prove vulnerable to terrorist attack (if on a host nation's land, where security cannot be guaranteed). It doesn't boil down to a simple 'either /or' argument and a balanced approach to the aquisition of weapon systems gives the most flexible responses. The Soviets chose to focus on the carrier killing mission and were thus weak at power projection from the sea. To remedy this they had to build their own carrier force and associated escorts. China has for decades copied Soviet weapons and doctrines (though not slavishly by any means) but must have come to the same conclusions. The most flexible weapon system available today is the carrier, and to deprive your own forces of them is to handicap them unreasonably. The submarine will always be second best in the flexibility stakes, and by it's very nature cannot provide 'presence', which may in itself be enough to defuse some situations.

Obi Wan Russell said:

The Soviets chose to focus on the carrier killing mission and were thus weak at power projection from the sea. To remedy this they had to build their own carrier force and associated escorts. China has for decades copied Soviet weapons and doctrines (though not slavishly by any means) but must have come to the same conclusions. The most flexible weapon system available today is the carrier, and to deprive your own forces of them is to handicap them unreasonably. The submarine will always be second best in the flexibility stakes, and by it's very nature cannot provide 'presence', which may in itself be enough to defuse some situations.

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe "presence" has actually meant anything in defusing situations. I certainly don't think that carrier presence -specifically- has had any effect on any crisis during past 60 years. Perhaps the most spectacular naval show of force of Cold War involved surface battleships, not carriers. On the other hand, a possible Argentine invasion of Falklands was deflected during 1970's by mere RN notice that subs were deployed in the area.

The power projection now, and in the future, does not have to come from the sea. What is specifically needed in sea is sea control and sea denial, both of which can be provided by combination of submarine, surface and aerial force, in cheaper, more effective and less vulnerable way than with a carrier force.

Soviet experience of 1980's is not that relevant as the Soviet Union lacked access to advanced technology available now.

Getting this discussion back to China, I think China does not need a carrier at all. For defence of China, carriers are irrelevant. Combination of advanced bomber force, anti-ship ballistic missiles and cruise missile subs would be far better and cheaper option. For power projection an advanced bomber force would be more useful as it can also be used towards Eurasia, where carrier strike force certainly cannot reach. As an addition, dedicated cruise missile submarines could be used for power projection too.

What China will need, eventually, are amphibious carriers which of course may easily embark V/STOL UAV's for various duties. To cover distant landings it will also need air defence vessels with advanced SAM's, and long range UCAV fighter force with tanker support. Tanker support is needed for long range aerial transport.

And why carriers would actually be bad option for China? First, constructing a carrier force is extremely expensive. Second, it would remain a second tier force compared to US, UK or French carrier forces for a long time. Third, escorting and supplying these expensive airstrips would devour all surface combatants of PLAN.

Jon K said:

...
What China will need, eventually, are amphibious carriers which of course may easily embark V/STOL UAV's for various duties. To cover distant landings it will also need air defence vessels with advanced SAM's, and long range UCAV fighter force with tanker support. Tanker support is needed for long range aerial transport.

.....

Click to expand...

for that I agree - without the word "eventually" ....
but:
with diesel powerd subs today you can only stay near home waters, they will be sunk by every enemy when they have no airshield - air refreshing, loading battery by diesels - for all that they have to go near the surface of the water, and there they can be detected and killed very easy by helos, planes, destroyers, frigates and other subs;
only nucelar powered subs can go away, deep in the ocean, but they ar expansiv to - and lonesome fighters.

A carrier will have a lot of power in board, fighteres to defence and attack, helos for subhunting, AEW, ASW .. everything you need; in combination with the cbg its a nearly undetectable power and very hard to attack.
Remeber WW II?
The planes of the carriers was the death of german wolfpacks ...

Sczepan said:

A carrier will have a lot of power in board, fighteres to defence and attack, helos for subhunting, AEW, ASW .. everything you need; in combination with the cbg its a nearly undetectable power and very hard to attack.
Remeber WW II?
The planes of the carriers was the death of german wolfpacks ...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that carriers are undetectable - I'm probably just reading it wrong. Nowadays it's pretty easy to track massive ships like carriers.

I think these WWII comparisons are where a lot of people go astray. WWII finished over 60 years ago and just about everything has changed radically since then. And there hasn't been a major conflict between large military powers since then, so nobody really knows what tactics will work. (And hopefully we'll never find out.)

It might be worthwhile to draw a sharp line between the asymmetric conflicts (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Falkland Islands) that have characterized the last few decades and an all-out world war. A major power has to be ready for both, but the first happens relatively frequently, whereas the second is rare, and perhaps won't happen this century.

It's entirely possible that carriers are very effective in the "normal" smaller wars, but would be wiped out quickly in a major conflict. If the U.S. can target all of the (future) Chinese carriers by satellite and send ballistic missiles after each, it's entirely possible that they'll all be wiped out within the first hours of conflict. Even if that's not quite possible today (and I'm not sure it isn't), it will certainly be possible within a decade or two.

That doesn't make carriers useless. After all, it's the smaller wars where the military is actually used regularly.

The missions for a Chinese carrier would (in my opinion) be 1) to sit in the middle of the Pacific and discourage the U.S. or Japan from intervening in a conflict with Taiwan; 2) to establish a presence near conflict areas where China wants to exert influence (over smaller countries like Iran or Venezuela); 3) to provide logistical support for a humanitarian relief effort in the case of a natural disaster.

This are still viable missions, even the carrier couldn't survive an attack by a major power.

... Ami.

AmiGanguli said:

That doesn't make carriers useless. After all, it's the smaller wars where the military is actually used regularly.

The missions for a Chinese carrier would (in my opinion) be 1) to sit in the middle of the Pacific and discourage the U.S. or Japan from intervening in a conflict with Taiwan; 2) to establish a presence near conflict areas where China wants to exert influence (over smaller countries like Iran or Venezuela); 3) to provide logistical support for a humanitarian relief effort in the case of a natural disaster.

This are still viable missions, even the carrier couldn't survive an attack by a major power.

Click to expand...

Although I agree that a carrier is still probably fair, although not optimal, investment for minor conflicts one has to consider that by procuring a carrier one lays out direction of naval investments for the next 50-60 years. Why waste money on system which is, although somewhat usable in minor conflicts, has dubious credibility for a major war?

Even for a Falklands/Vietnam/Iraq style scenario carrier task forces aren't necessary even with present technology, with a few foreseeable advances even less. Actually it is questionable whether during Vietnam and newer Iraq war carriers were necessary for anything but to ensure continutation of US Navy budget.

The possible missions for a hypothetical Chinese carrier you list are all relevant, but can be reached via other means. Number 3 is more easily achievable via LPH/LHD (or whatever combination), which is also usable in a major conflict and actually relevant to all types of conflicts.

Number 2 and 1 are usually quoted as useful carrier missions, but I find it hard to find any historical situations in which presence of carriers, specifically, would have been useful. Shows of force can be made by other surface ships and air power more easily, cheaply, and possibly faster. Especially in case of China vs. USA showdown achieving number 1 would be humongously expensive.

Mvh,
Jon K

Sczepan said:

A carrier will have a lot of power in board, fighteres to defence and attack, helos for subhunting, AEW, ASW .. everything you need; in combination with the cbg its a nearly undetectable power and very hard to attack. Remeber WW II?
The planes of the carriers was the death of german wolfpacks ...

Click to expand...

As AmiGanguli said, World War II has been over for 62 years. Helos for sub hunting do not require a carrier platform. For AEW, for example, for future UK CV (F) it is seriously considered that the AEW capability is achieved by using quite small helo UAV. For air defence, the true defence of carrier strike group, especially after introduction of SM-6, will be SAM's, not fighters. For strike, I've written about cost-effectiveness already.

The presence of a carrier near a conflict zone can and will make a significant differance, IMO.
Having that many figher planes rather close to an enemy provides a lot of flexibility and short notice reactions. CAS is a very good example were airpower stationed in the vicinity is essentiall, as well as interdiction. Be it manned aircraft or UCAVs, they'd both be placed on a CV.
On the other hand, highly advanced long range bombers operating from save homeland bases might have to travel around half of the globe, wich takes up a lot of time. They also have to be extansively maintained, wich is again cost and time intensive. That means you need several or many of them to be able to have a mattering number of them over the target area.
Similar with subs. They have to be nuclear powered, really quiet and generally sophisticated. After firing their salvo they have to return for reloading. That mean you also need some of these SSGN, what again makes procurement costs rise. As well as operationg costs, since a CV can be conventionally powered.
The fact that a carrier needs a certain amount of it's airpower to defend itself is not a one-sided argument. The opponent will need a good amount of his own resources to be able to do significant damage to that CSG. Wich will mean risking and loosing valuable assets. BTW, the most sophisticated SAMs can not really track/engage targets far over the horizon.
And I really don't see that good indications that a CSG is an easy target at all in a major conflict. Though one may spot it rather easily with sats, getting your weapons through the shield without being screwed is a completely different matter.
A smaller carrier is already a great asset for sea conroll/denial. One for power projection is a neccessity, IMO.

Jon K said:

As AmiGanguli said, World War II has been over for 62 years. Helos for sub hunting do not require a carrier platform. For AEW, for example, for future UK CV (F) it is seriously considered that the AEW capability is achieved by using quite small helo UAV. For air defence, the true defence of carrier strike group, especially after introduction of SM-6, will be SAM's, not fighters. For strike, I've written about cost-effectiveness already.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I believe your information is either flawed, or your interpretation of it is leading you to the wrong conclusions. SM6 like SM2 is a very critical part of a carrier's anti-air self defense...but it is by no means all of it, or will it be all of it for the forseeable future. The fighter wing itself is a very critical part and able to defend the carrier much further away from the carrier along the threat axis...or any other axis for that matter. The fighter is also much more adept and flexible at engaging enemy aircraft before they launch their missiles.

As to AEW, a helo AEW is pitiful when compared to a platform like the E2-C, both in terms of its own area coverage and the amount of processing and target tracking it can do. Not to mention its range and staying power. Do not get me wrong,a helo is far better than nothing...but an E2-C is far, far better than a helo and will make a critical difference in any engagement, as will the EW aircraft from the carrier and the EW capabilities of the task force itself, all of which are greatly diminished with a smaller carrier.

As to the economy and effectiveness of the strike package...yes, you have commneted on this and discussed it, but all of those options have been countered and I believe it is clear, that for the next generation or two, the carrier air wing is far more economic (in the long run), far more effective militarily, and far more flexible than any of the options you have discussed. Do not get me wrong, those options are important and can either augment a carrier, or make a difference on their own...but not to the point that one or two (or more) super carriers will.

As to a carrier strike group being found and targeted easily, particularly with satellites....well, that is a lot of talk and is much more difficult and much less sure than what has been spoken of on this thread. First of all, it is likely that the sat capability will be immediately degraded severelly or destroyed in any major conflict...so it will not be a free lunch that can be taken for granted. As often as they are replaced, they are likely to be destroyed.

Even then, the carrier is a rapidly moving target and will use the wide expanse of ocean and weather conditions to mask or hide its presence...and they are good at this. In addition, once the balloons go up, the carrier will be buttoned up and operating in quiet mode much of the time, except during actual combat, and will be producing little or no electronic emissions itself. Very difficult to locate in such conditions. It is likely that one or two e2-Cs, far removed from the carrier itself, or their fighters will be the only sign of the carrier that can be found and they will be located so as to draw agressors into SAM and fighter traps. The US (and others I am sure) trains for this and is very good at it.

Finally, the talk about WWII being over, while true, does not negate the applicability of the experience or the lessons learned...properly enhanced for the more modern environment. Those lessons and the tactics are still very applicable when brought forward into todays world.

The various nations of the world and their very experienced naval war planners are proving this. Every nation that can afford to is building and fielding carriers. Either now, or in the next few years the US, the UK, France, Brazil, India, China, Spain, Italy...and probably Russia (who has done so in the past), S. Korea, and perhaps Japan will all have multiple carriers of some type at sea. This is not being done by accident are because they are obsolete. It is because of the power and flexibility that they represent now and for the forseeable future.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, but I believe your information is either flawed, or your interpretation of it is leading you to the wrong conclusions. SM6 like SM2 is a very critical part of a carrier's anti-air self defense...but it is by no means all of it, or will it be all of it for the forseeable future. The fighter wing itself is a very critical part and able to defend the carrier much further away from the carrier along the threat axis...or any other axis for that matter. The fighter is also much more adept and flexible at engaging enemy aircraft before they launch their missiles.

Click to expand...

Fighters are good for air combat, but the question is, do they provide the service their cost implies? JSF costs 67mill USD, perhaps more. Their primary weapon, AMRAAM, costs 300k USD a piece. They are flown by pilots needing extensive and continuos training, every hour of which puts a strain on airframe. Air wing of 48 JSF's alone will cost some 3200 million USD at least.

Now, a SM-6 are more expensive than AMRAAM's, costing some 2 mill USD a piece, but can engage targets at virtually same range as realistic JSF sortie and over the radar horizon using outside target information. SAM's can also respond to massed attacks easier, are easier to keep in readiness and do not require pilots to be put into danger. (Although with UCAV's this is a moot point) SAM's can also fight ballistic missile threat which fighter aircraft cannot.

Jeff Head said:

As to AEW, a helo AEW is pitiful when compared to a platform like the E2-C, both in terms of its own area coverage and the amount of processing and target tracking it can do. Not to mention its range and staying power.

Click to expand...

Yes, but technology has leapt since E-2 was introduced in 1964, 43 years ago. Today only the radar transmitter and power source need to placed onboard aircraft, while back-office duties can be handled somewhere else. A helo UAV AEW is only an example, aerostat option is also viable.

Jeff Head said:

As to a carrier strike group being found and targeted easily, particularly with satellites....well, that is a lot of talk and is much more difficult and much less sure than what has been spoken of on this thread.

Click to expand...

Farther the ocean they are, more right you are, but every mile farther from targets means less sorties and less payload on target.

Jeff Head said:

The various nations of the world and their very experienced naval war planners are proving this. Every nation that can afford to is building and fielding carriers. Either now, or in the next few years the US, the UK, France, Brazil, India, China, Spain, Italy...and probably Russia (who has done so in the past), S. Korea, and perhaps Japan will all have multiple carriers of some type at sea. This is not being done by accident are because they are obsolete. It is because of the power and flexibility that they represent now and for the forseeable future.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree carriers are not a bad naval investments all. The question is, whether they are optimal investments and whether carrier really has a long term naval role. Remember that during late 1930's quite much everyone in naval business was quickly procuring battleships. Battleships were useful during the war, but it may be well asked whether they were ultimately needed.