Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[TimmyC]

Imagine this scenario:
The year is 2012...
...Now, how far would a CTF, if deployed, stay away from trouble? Will this sabre rattling mission kill it?

So your saying as Taiwan inches closer towards independence China displays an almighty show of force using technically routine pre-announced missile tests which are blatantly nothing other than a warning shot to U.S & her allies not to get any further involved as intervention around the Taiwan Strait will definitely not be tolerated by China.
Would this be enough for the U.S to consider the consequences of her own military interference to be sufficient as to not directly aid the Taiwanese forces? Indeed would the U.S ever openly back down towards China? This must be the $64 trillion question.
I certainly believe the U.S would, once the decision had been taken by the President go about it militarily in the correct fashion such as all units standing by on DEFCON2 while at least a double CVN CTF entered the South China Sea.
I believe the answers are easier to achieve by political thought at a more strategic level than post event operational. During the cold war the U.S.A would defend Taiwan if attacked by China, the current situation is the U.S agrees with China's 'One China' policy, and is 100% in favour of status quo. However if the Taiwanese electorate/politicians seem to move towards of independence then I believe policies will adjust accordingly. Countries will not steer blindly into WWIII, if the U.S remains rigid in it's defence of Taiwan I can't see China moving unless it has somehow already assured itself of victory. The U.S and the American people wouldn't back down to anyone, in my view. Their policies may however, change in future years if they consider it to be in their interests.
As for Chinese victory, Sun Tzu's Art Of War may see that being easiest achieved via future global financial markets than a naval victory.
I wouldn't think the RN would have been so bold for a fictional deployment to save Hong Kong.

 

[tphuang]

And to plan the strike, ready the planes, launch, form up and transit to launch coordinates takes time. The more packages required, the more time is needed in each of the phases above. Which requires that the CSG be tracked during this time. What assets are available for the tracking? A few MPAs. Which are going to be happily left alone by the USN? And what anti-radiation drones? Ever bothered to check the speed and range of the Harpies? Say again - these anti-carrier exercises inevitably become 'list the inventory' games when one doesn't pause to think through the processes and limitations involved.

MPAs, you really think that's the only thing they have for tracking?
As for anti-radiation drone, what gave you the impression that the modern anti-radiation drones only have the range of Harpies?
Nobody is going after a US CSG with just a bunch of strike planes and no escorts + surveillance assets around.

 

[Transient]

MPAs, you really think that's the only thing they have for tracking?

Other than a few ships with the Bandstand radar and the few MPAs, what other assets does China have that are viable for tracking?

As for anti-radiation drone, what gave you the impression that the modern anti-radiation drones only have the range of Harpies?

What anti-radiation UAV does China have that has the range and speed to form part of an anti-carrier strike?

 

[the road runner]

To sink a USA CBG i would :-
1.use my inteligence assets to firstly find the CBG
2.then shadow the CBG with my subs(ie collins)
3.then send my strike aircraft(ie f-111) and shoot a number of harm 88(anti radiation missles to strip away CBG electronics,even tho we dont have harm 88s ) and then harpy missles(anti ship missles) and laser guided bombs to do damage on the CBG
4.then use the subs who are shadowing the CBG(use as recon assets) to call in more air strikes or to finish off the CBG with torpedoes
5.then i would probably get bombed out of my country with the retribution that the USA would sent after me

NOW i think that points 1 to 4 are an effective way to destroy a CBG but most countries do not have all of these assets needed to do this,ie intel,survalince,recon assets ,harm missles,harpoon missles,strike aircraft,subs and torpedos.

Point 5,well if you are stupid enough to attack a USA CBG well point 5 is one point to take into account,IT WONT HAPPEN OVER NIGHT,BUT IT WILL HAPPEND this is a form of prevention i think as you may sink a CBG but you will not sink em all)

May i ask what what the other members think of this idea ?,as i am not a defence analisist.

MEEP MEEP

 

[zetruz]

"analisist."
This year's typo.

Well, how would you get close enough to a carrier to use LGB's?

 

[alexsa]

To sink a USA CBG i would :-
1.use my inteligence assets to firstly find the CBG
2.then shadow the CBG with my subs(ie collins)
3.then send my strike aircraft(ie f-111) and shoot a number of harm 88(anti radiation missles to strip away CBG electronics,even tho we dont have harm 88s ) and then harpy missles(anti ship missles) and laser guided bombs to do damage on the CBG
4.then use the subs who are shadowing the CBG(use as recon assets) to call in more air strikes or to finish off the CBG with torpedoes
5.then i would probably get bombed out of my country with the retribution that the USA would sent after me

NOW i think that points 1 to 4 are an effective way to destroy a CBG but most countries do not have all of these assets needed to do this,ie intel,survalince,recon assets ,harm missles,harpoon missles,strike aircraft,subs and torpedos.

Point 5,well if you are stupid enough to attack a USA CBG well point 5 is one point to take into account,IT WONT HAPPEN OVER NIGHT,BUT IT WILL HAPPEND this is a form of prevention i think as you may sink a CBG but you will not sink em all)

May i ask what what the other members think of this idea ?,as i am not a defence analisist.

MEEP MEEP

And while your are doing this the carrier air wing, assocaited recon and AEW assets (don't forget the satillites) and escorts are doing what exactly. It is doubtful you would ever get into HARM range let along laser guided bomb range.

 

[the road runner]

Firstly,i do not pretend to be an analyst(hell i cant even spell the word)
My main point was that most nations do not have the capability to attack a CBG,and that if you did attack a US CBG that you would be bombed into the stone age.

i would only use LGB when the harm missles had destroyed the electronics of the ship,but alexsa and zetrua have pointed out a number of flaws in my plan,i guess a little more thinking and alot less typing on my behalf is needed:lol2 :lol2

So it seems there are a number of points that an attacker will need to take into account to even get close to a CBG let alone destroy it.

alexsa what would you do to destroy a CBG ?,or dose it just seem like suicide to try to attack a CBG,as the losses from an attacker would be to great?

Thankyou all for your insight and i will try to think of another way to attack a CBG but im sure all you guys will shoot holes in my plan:ar15
MAYBE i could use a couple "ACME" rocketsfftopic

THANX again

MEEP MEEP

 

[Firehorse]

the best defense

IMO, at the end of the day, to fight a CBG/CSG/CTF you need your own CBG/CSG/CTF- just like the saying goes- the best thing to fight a sub is another sub, helicopter- another helo, etc. Then the playing field is leveled and the defenders are better prepared. That's why any aspiring or de-facto superpower must have carriers! And that's why the US has tried quite recently, to discourage the Chinese from getting & using them!

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228(197524/197624)21<86:SRAS>2.0.CO;2-U

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007226232856.asp

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9581310

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=722&language_id=1

Also:

As China refines its missile guidance capabilities, forward-deployed U.S. forces in the Western Pacific will become vulnerable to Chinese missiles. For example, U.S. carrier battle groups could face the*ater ballistic missiles with maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) capable of hitting moving ships at sea.[20] The hyperspeeds of these MaRVs make them virtually impossible to defeat with current missile defense technology.
..The official Chinese press noted the PLA high command's confidence in Admiral Ding—ample evidence of their pleasure at the success the mission against the Kitty Hawk. The Chinese foreign minis*try's protest that the vessel had not stalked the Kitty Hawk is likely the literal truth, indicating that the submarine simply waited submerged until the U.S. battle group sailed over it.[54] The ease with which the submarine maneuvered undetected into Japa*nese waters and evaded U.S. and Japan Self Defense Force submarine sensors suggests that China's large submarine fleet engages in far more sea patrols than the U.S. has any hope of tracking. ..Since 1995, the PLAN has commissioned about 31 new submarines, including two nuclear-powered submarines based on advanced Russian technology.[57] Eight subma*rines were commissioned in 2005, and seven were commissioned in 2006, including new Song-class boats and a Yuan-class boat heavily inspired by Rus*sia's Amur-class sub with its anechoic tile coatings and quiet seven-bladed skewed propeller.[58] The reported incorporation of "air-independent propul*sion" systems that permit submarines to operate underwater for up to 30 days would make the Song and Yuan submarines virtually undetectable to existing U.S. surveillance networks. ..China has at least six new submarine programs under way simulta*neously—a submarine development campaign that is unprecedented in peacetime. China will have at least 34 advanced submarines deployed in the Pacific by 2010—some analysts expect as many as 50 to 60—assuming that those under construction will be completed within three years. China will cer*tainly have over 60 advanced submarines by 2020.
..The Varyag. For over a year, the PLAN has been more or less open about China's eventual deploy*ment of an aircraft carrier battle group. Except for the carrier, China has all the elements of a carrier battle group in place, according to Lieutenant Gen*eral Wang Zhiyuan of the PLA General Armaments Department.[66] China will finish constructing its first aircraft carrier by 2010, according to an unnamed lieutenant general (probably General Wang again),[67] but its first operational carrier will likely be the Varyag, the former Soviet carrier bought from Ukraine. ..China has reportedly negotiated a contract for 48 Sukhoi-33 jet fighters, the carrier-based version of the Su-27, and is now preparing the Varyag's flight deck for flight operations.[70] Reports in the PRC media indicate that China will also configure its new Jian-10 fighter for carrier operations. http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/bg2036.cfm#_ftn67

 

[AGRA]

IMO, at the end of the day, to fight a CBG/CSG/CTF you need your own CBG/CSG/CTF- just like the saying goes- the best thing to fight a sub is another sub, helicopter- another helo, etc. Then the playing field is leveled and the defenders are better prepared.

I wouldn’t want to go after a CVBG with another CVBG. The best way to take down a CVBG is with a massive air strike, preferably with nuclear weapons. A CVBG lacks the overmatch of airpower and has the just as vulnerable basing platform as what you’re trying to get.

The Soviets who realistically pursued the anti-CVBG mission would have done so with hundreds of very big ASMs air launched by long range, high speed bombers supported by subsurface, airborne and satellite reconnaissance (to find the CVBG).

The USN’s counter to this threat was Aegis – in all its forms, which also extends to managing the F-14s. The Soviets were planning on countering Aegis with even more capable missiles that would fly above the engagement envelope of SM-2ER and the AIM-154 and descend on the carriers in a semi-ballistic Mach 5+ terminal engagement. The US was working up the response to this that has emerged as… SM-3…

However the end of the Cold War brought to end this battle. The USN has SM-3 in service thanks to the North Koreans so could intercept a ballistic missile attack.

 

[ejaz007]

Yes it does seem like the best way to take out a carrier is with massive air strike. The plan should be to attack carrier with two different formations of aircrafts. First wave of mostly interceptors should fly at a medium level so that it can be easily tracked and intercepted by carrier’s own fighters. Then the other formation of fighter-bombers flying at low level can begin their attack. Though losses are going to be high it is the best chance of hitting a US carrier.

 

[AGRA]

Yes it does seem like the best way to take out a carrier is with massive air strike. The plan should be to attack carrier with two different formations of aircrafts. First wave of mostly interceptors should fly at a medium level so that it can be easily tracked and intercepted by carrier’s own fighters. Then the other formation of fighter-bombers flying at low level can begin their attack. Though losses are going to be high it is the best chance of hitting a US carrier.

God no! No one actually plans to lose aircraft!

If you want to decoy the CVBG’s defences then you launch decoys. However they aren’t then going to launch 48 fighters in one threat direction and leave nothing to cover other areas…

Any massive airstrike would consist – ideally – of multiple strike directions, as in a full 360 degrees of strikes. The shooters, armed with ASMs, would be covered by fighters to knock down the defending fighters or at least get them engaged so the shooters can get past.

 

[Todjaeger]

In general I would say the David vs. Goliath comparison is reasonably accurate given that a USN CBG would have additional support from other US assets conducting general ops. Having said that, sometimes David will get lucky, or Goliath might get over confident or careless.

At this point, I think the scenario most likely to succeed in sinking a US carrier would be a concerted attack by either RN or France attack subs. Given the tech and levels of training (AFAIK comparable to USN) and the advantages sub typically have versus surface ships, several attack subs would likely occupy or overwhelm the escorting USN attack sub(s). On the other hand though, I believe British dissatisfaction with the outcome of the American Revolution/War of Independence/American War and the War of 1812, or France's view of the outcome of the French and Indian War/Seven Years War and the Quasi War not sufficient to lead them to such actions. If Russia is able to turn its sub force around and return to Soviet era quantity and quality (in terms of personnel) with current designs, then Russia might also be reliably capable of attacking a CBG.

Otherwise, I think most nations if faced with engaging a USN CBG will need large measures of creativity and luck to succeed.

-Cheers

 

[tphuang]

Other than a few ships with the Bandstand radar and the few MPAs, what other assets does China have that are viable for tracking?

military satellites.

If a war breaks out in the next year, they will have 10 or 12 ships in the two fleet closest to Taiwan with OTH radar. I don't call that few. And that number is increasing pretty fast year by year.

What anti-radiation UAV does China have that has the range and speed to form part of an anti-carrier strike?

A while back, iran got some Harpie like UAVs from China, but not harpie. There was also a while back with someone from the KJ-2000 project, in which he said the following.
王小谟简历：信息产业部电子科学研究院常务副院长，1995年当选为中国工程院院士。60年代创造性提出脉内扫描方法，使雷达系统大大简化。70年代担任 JY－8雷达主持设计师，研制成功我国第一部自动化引导雷达。80年代开始出口的JY－9雷达，在国外演习和综合评定中名列前茅，是国际上优秀的低空雷达。设计研制了多种具有国际先进水平的雷达，尤其在三坐标雷达和低空雷达方面卓有建树。分别获1986年、1995年国家科技进步一等奖，1987年作为 14名有突出成就的中青年来京，受到邓小平的接见。　　
　　整理如下：
　　１．２００５年３０５雷达获得国家科技一等奖，采用的算法和达到的水平在国际上处于领先地位．去年西亚某国已出资一亿多美元购买多部．
　　２．某预警机已抵蓉，明日为巴基斯坦弟兄表演，兼推销．
　　３．我国某型ＳＡＲ雷达分辨率已经达到０．１米级．
　　４．以色列哈比无人攻击机结构很简单，中国在当初购买之时已经可以设计并制造，但是由于体制的原因只能购买，但现在已经实现自行升级．　　
　　５．根据国家需要，同时上大型预警机和平衡木型预警机，未来还有更多的预警机会出现，形成一个系列，从天到海．
　　６．大预警机在目前是非常先进的，算法上没的说，器件是采用目前所能找到的最好的器件．　　
　　７．被动式雷达已经出现产品，于２００３年实现．　　
　　８．类于美国＂寂静哨兵＂和英国的＂ＣＥＬＬＤＡＲ＂雷达在研制中．
Not sure if you can read Chinese, but point 4 says Harpy structure is very simple and they've achieved indigenous upgrade. In the years since they got Harpies, they've taken the technology and developed better anti-radiation UAVs.

 

[Grand Danois]

But a USN CSG deployment in case of a Taiwan event would be positioned to the east of Taiwan - outside of OTH-SW coverage; tactical fighter, drone and cruise missile range.

In a blue water ASW environment with optimal condtions for the SSNs etc.

That's the advantage factoring geography into the equation gives the USN.

The carrier has the initiative, it choses when to expose itself, not the would be attacker.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I wouldn’t want to go after a CVBG with another CVBG. The best way to take down a CVBG is with a massive air strike, preferably with nuclear weapons. A CVBG lacks the overmatch of airpower and has the just as vulnerable basing platform as what you’re trying to get..

What protection does a Carrier have against NBC, it must be a bit hard with at least 3 whopping great holes in the superstructure?

What's the survivability of something short of a direct hit?

 

[Waylander]

Why is everybody here concentrating on a lonely CSG?

I thought the us tends to combine carriers into big task forces if the shit hits the fan.

It is not as if a big war occurs and the USN sends 1 carrier...

 

[Grand Danois]

Why is everybody here concentrating on a lonely CSG?

I thought the us tends to combine carriers into big task forces if the shit hits the fan.

It is not as if a big war occurs and the USN sends 1 carrier...

Arright. Replace CSG with CTF. Was what I actually meant for the Taiwan event.

 

[funtz]

ya, well what about the huge intelligence gathering ability of US military and the ability to take out aggressive assets of a possible hostile force in the first stages of a war,
not much good attacking a carrier strike force etc. etc. if you don't have anything to attack with, is it?

 

[contedicavour]

I would fear more asymmetrical warfare such as mines or terrorist attacks coming from divers or small boats loaded with TNT in harbours.
Also, since attention on ASW has decreased significantly recently, a very lucky SSGN could still somehow get through the ASW screen of a carrier battle group and launch a mix of missiles and torpedoes that might hit the carrier or some of its escorts. If for instance a big AOR gets hit and explodes when it is next to a carrier it might not sink it but it would definitively take it out of operations for quite a while.

cheers

 

[Transient]

military satellites.

Before we continue, do you know the difference between detecting and tracking? Optical satellites are already barely adequate as detection assets. They provide time-late detection at best. SAR satellites can provide tracking, provided you have a constellation of US-P and US-A satellites. Of which China has none. All it has is 1 or 2 SAR satellites which are for land surveillance. 1 or 2 SARs do not provide tracking.

Not that they might be working in the event of hostilities anyway. The US already has the Counter Communications System deployed.

If a war breaks out in the next year, they will have 10 or 12 ships in the two fleet closest to Taiwan with OTH radar. I don't call that few. And that number is increasing pretty fast year by year.

Which are reliant on conducive atmospheric conditions to function, and cannot be utilised without broadcasting their position to everybody.

A while back, iran got some Harpie like UAVs from China, but not harpie. There was also a while back with someone from the KJ-2000 project, in which he said the following.
王小谟简历：信息产业部电子科学研究院常务副院长，1995年当选为中国工程院院士。60年代创造性提出脉 内扫描方法，使雷达系统大大简化。70年代担任 JY－8雷达主持设计师，研制成功我国第一部自动化引导雷达。80年代开始出口的JY－9雷达，在国外演习 和综合评定中名列前茅，是国际上优秀的低空雷达。设计研制了多种具有国际先进水平的雷达，尤其在三坐标雷达 和低空雷达方面卓有建树。分别获1986年、1995年国家科技进步一等奖，1987年作为 14名有突出成就的中青年来京，受到邓小平的接见。　　
　　整理如下：
　　１．２００５年３０５雷达获得国家科技一等奖，采用的算法和达到的水平在国际上处于领先地位．去年西亚 某国已出资一亿多美元购买多部．
　　２．某预警机已抵蓉，明日为巴基斯坦弟兄表演，兼推销．
　　３．我国某型ＳＡＲ雷达分辨率已经达到０．１米级．
　　４．以色列哈比无人攻击机结构很简单，中国在当初购买之时已经可以设计并制造，但是由于体制的原因只能 购买，但现在已经实现自行升级．　　
　　５．根据国家需要，同时上大型预警机和平衡木型预警机，未来还有更多的预警机会出现，形成一个系列，从 天到海．
　　６．大预警机在目前是非常先进的，算法上没的说，器件是采用目前所能找到的最好的器件．　 　
　　７．被动式雷达已经出现产品，于２００３年实现．　　
　　８．类于美国＂寂静哨兵＂和英国的＂ＣＥＬＬＤＡＲ＂雷达在研制中．
Not sure if you can read Chinese, but point 4 says Harpy structure is very simple and they've achieved indigenous upgrade. In the years since they got Harpies, they've taken the technology and developed better anti-radiation UAVs.

Some vague reference to upgrades means that China has anti-radiation drones with the range and speed to be part of a strike package? Who are you trying to impress?