Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[corsair7772]

Oh well the topic sayz all. This thread is about naval operations to sink an aircraft carrier ranging fom the Soviets vs Americans to the Pakistanis vs Indians. Discuss the possible elements needed to strike at an aircraft carrier like submarines, martme strike aircraft etc. No Flames, im keeping a eye on this forum myslef.

Frankly speaking on an indo-pak scenario i think that the PN has a chance of damaging the Gorshkov but not sinking it. As the viraat is probably going to be operating along with the Gorshkov its the same kind of protection for it. Airstrikes are difficult and so are Submarines so it possible tht it can be hit only by a small FAC, when the Indian taskforce is operating close enough to pakistani shores to allow a combined arms operation.

[XEROX]

It would take 5+ cruise missiles to SINK a large (40,000+) aircraft carrier!!

[doggychow14]

a couple of sunburns missiles will do just fine

[XEROX]

Id prefer the BrahMos over the Sunburns to sink an aircraft carrier

[doggychow14]

either is good enuf. or better yet both at once. or u can throw a couple Yakhont in it 2. the gorshov is not really an aircraft carrier. more of a helocarrier.

[corsair7772]

No actually the Gorhkov WAS something of a helo carrier, dats why india made such a lot of modifications on it. In indian insignias itll be a perfect Aircraft carrier. Thats when the Viraat turns into a helo carrier.
I think the PN would have a better chance trying to take out the carrier in port. Airstrikes are out of the question. Subs are a good choice here. The indians have much left to do to bridge the ASW gap.

[doggychow14]

i still believe the best bet are sunburn missiles or Yakhon missiles. americans do not have the ability to shoot these missiles down let alone india. how ever in order launch these missiles many other indian navy ships must be sunk or disabled because i'm guessing that they won't just be sitting there as pakastan gets close enuf to launch such an attack

[corsair7772]

exactly. so its best to just maka a hit and run raid against the carrier using the subs and just damage it enough to keep it in port for a month, well out of the war period.

[insas556]

exactly. so its best to just maka a hit and run raid against the carrier using the subs and just damage it enough to keep it in port for a month, well out of the war period.

The Indian navy knows well from past experience that the Pak Navy's subs are quite a threat. In fact against the Indian navy , they are PNs best bet. The recognition of this threat also has made sure that the Indian navy is very rapidly developing its anti-sub warfare capabilities.
The Delhi, Talwar class ships already have very good capabilitiesThe Kamovs and the re-operational Seaking Helos also have capable anti sub warfare capabilities.Along with the Tu-142s existing IN anti-submarine capability is enough to make sure its not an easy hit and run. In any case a carrier is not something you leave alone at any time.
As for the future with talk of Israeli up grades to Tu-142s,the future project 28 ships designed specifically for subs, acquisitions of maritime recce/strike aircraft maybe, Orions will bolster it much more.
Also with the SU-30s in the Maritime strike role, with the Jags,and future Mig29Ks, the Harriers coupled with improving capabilities provided by KA-31Helos ,the TUs etc. , and further bolstered by the tremendous punch and range of the IAF with the refuellers and the Phalcons , the PN is going to have it hands quite full I think.
And off course there will be indian Subs too which shall be lurking around.

[XEROX]

What would be the Primary missile defence systems for the admiral Gorshkov Aircraft carrier in case of cruise missile attacks!!

btw - is there anything official regarding the akula 2 subs, last i heard they were supposed to be delivered early 2004 but nothing else??

[tatra]

What would be the Primary missile defence systems for the admiral Gorshkov Aircraft carrier in case of cruise missile attacks!!

On board: a couple of Kashtan CIWS with twin 30mm gatlings and 8km range SA-N-19 missiles or - perhaps - VL Barak SAM.

But mainly it would rely on its jets and escorts (destroyers, frigates) to kill any launch platform before it got into range or to thin out the wave of incoming missiles

[Deltared075]

what about anti-ship missile like the moskit with tactical nuclear war head?
it sure can disable the carrier even not sink it.

US also using tactical nuke (US was the pioneer for tactical nuke) , so no total nuke war will happen even some other nation using tactical nuke.

[tatra]

what about anti-ship missile like the moskit with tactical nuclear war head?
it sure can disable the carrier even not sink it.

US also using tactical nuke (US was the pioneer for tactical nuke) , so no total nuke war will happen even some other nation using tactical nuke.

Don't kid yourself, use of ANY nuclear weapon (regardless tactical or strategic) will trigger a nuclear response. It is irrelevant whether this is a TOTAL nuke war.

[gf0012-aust]

i still believe the best bet are sunburn missiles or Yakhon missiles. americans do not have the ability to shoot these missiles down let alone india. how ever in order launch these missiles many other indian navy ships must be sunk or disabled because i'm guessing that they won't just be sitting there as pakastan gets close enuf to launch such an attack

absolute bollocks. ;) the USN has trained against supersonic threats for the last 8 years (public declaration - but has been longer) In fact they have used russian missiles as the test beds (KH-31's).

The KH-31's were modified by Boeing and found to be inadequate to simulate sunburns and have been replaced.

At the last series of supersonic tests, 49 out of 50 supersonic launches were intercepted successfully.

The US was running supersonic ship strikes in 1958 - so the issue of how to counter them has been undertaken since then.

[Aussie Digger]

The RAAF's F-111's have "notionally" sunk US carriers in maritime strikes in Exercises many times. The RAAF uses a combination of Harpoon missile strikes (to damage the ship) and LGB's (to finish it off) dropped from high altitude at the maximum standoff range. Their techniques have proven quite effective (and frustrating) to the Americans. Cheers.

[Pathfinder-X]

An U.S carrier is not easy to sink. It's always protected by several Ticonderoga cruiser or Alreit Burke DDG. Normally an battle group can track up to 600 targets along with E-2 support. No single navy in the world can challenge the might of a U.S battle group at the point in time, with the possible exception of Russian subs launching a massive missile strike, numbering about several hundred supersonic "Shipwreck" missile.

I doubt F-111 can even get in range to strike the battle group. Since the sky is closely monitored by E-2 and Aegis system on the ships. Not to mention interceptors sent by the carrier itself.

[Aussie Digger]

Well pathfinder, I'm afraid you're wrong. The US Carrier WAS "sunk" in Exercise Tandem Thrust 01, by RAAF F-111's, despite the presence of Ticonderoga's, Arleigh Burke destroyers and the Carrier's Air Wing, including the E-2C's, Hornets and Super Hornets.

I agree that sinking a US carrier is a very tough exercise, but the F-111 is not rated as the best maritime strike aircraft in the world for nothing and the RAAF is VERY good at it...

[corsair7772]

Amazing stuff. was it one of the Nimitz class ones or what? Could give us a link on this?

The only aircraft available for marime attack are either the new JF-17, JH-7 or J-10 with some older mirages as well. An indian task force would appear as a US one on a sub continent scale. The Indians would have their own super hornets (Mig-29s) and something of an E-2C (Ka-31). due to this and the Sams the best option would remain a well co ordinated sub attack in conjuction with aircraft.

[gf0012-aust]

To get inside a CVN Strike force is going to be exceptionally difficult. The Soviets were the best placed to be able to do it (and they were a real blue water navy with enough supersonic regiments to swarm and create a real presence)

The electronic air screen for a USN CSF is atypically 700-1000k's in radius from the carrier. That ignores the fact that there will also be 2-3 Aegis AB's in escort and a minimum of 1 x Tico.

For a supersonic that is air launched to get past the screen and identify the carrier at terminal stages means that the data link has to be visual and it also needs to be able to avoid systems such as the "lamb" and Nulka.

The Soviets estimated that if they were lucky then less than 10% of a full regiment launch would get through the screen - they had no guarantee or ever had any confidence of killing the carrier. This was even with a nuke tipped SSM or ASM.

While the regiment has launched their weaps, the CVN is travelling at flank, running evasion and also (in current scenarios) NETFORCEd with every other ship in the fleet and any other platform within a 1000 k's, that means that in current scenarios, there will be another CSF adding its electronic capability to the response.

It's estimated that it would take 4 torps of the capability of the Mk48 ADCAP to sink a carrier.

A non USN CSF would be easier to strike, but it also depends on their force constitution and the distance they are from shore support. However, the further out to sea a CSF is, the better its ability to survive and destroy the incoming air OPFOR

[corsair7772]

Yes but the nearer you are to Hostile mainland or port or whatever, the more vulnerable you become. the british were lucky that they had to fight falklands from a safe distance, out of the range of most of the argentenian arsenal. However fighting close to the argentenain mainland would have been a totally different story ( a horror story). Similarly, the gorshkov has a good chance of gettin blown up if it operates close to pakistani shores where it would have 2 face everything pakistan throws at it.

[gf0012-aust]

Yes but the nearer you are to Hostile mainland or port or whatever, the more vulnerable you become. the british were lucky that they had to fight falklands from a safe distance, out of the range of most of the argentenian arsenal. However fighting close to the argentenain mainland would have been a totally different story ( a horror story). Similarly, the gorshkov has a good chance of gettin blown up if it operates close to pakistani shores where it would have 2 face everything pakistan throws at it.

But a carrier is not designed to engage at a shore bombardment type range. Any carrier driver will stand off so that landbased "enemy" aircraft have a further distance to travel.

The further the distance, the less the loiter and hence engagement time, the greater the bingo chance happening early.

It's why cruise missiles would be used to remove and compromise all airfields close to the coast and close to the groups sailing area. You force the aircraft to have to take off from further inland so as to extend their range and reduce their engagement time.

Any carrier driver who came in close would be an idiot. The british used their carriers in the falklands properly. Under a different scenario the battle plan would have been different.

Nobody plays to their enemies advantage. Thats why the US is so dominant in conventional warfare, they slowly (sometimes) peel back the layers of defense so that remaining forces can be bludgeoned in a decisive fashion.

A CVN strike force, and cruise or ballistic launching subs working together have some considerable advantages. In the USN case, you are talking about a Navy that has the most experience of any other navy (and probably all carrier using navies together) of deploying carriers and of developing a symbiotic battle doctrine. The electronic perimeter around a USN CFS is almost 1000k's. An aircraft has to penetrate half that gap without being detected to even get a chance to launch a long range anti-ship missile. That missile then has to travel the last 500k's without interference and be able to effectively strike a target which has also got it's own electronic defence measures to "be somewhere" else.

Good luck!

As an example, the Chinese "think" they can handle 2 x CSF's and possibly stall them enough to get onto Taiwan. That conveniently ignores the way that USN carriers work, the fact that they are NETFORCEd and the fact that at the moment the USN has 7 strike groups "training" in the region. The argument that the chinese have a capacity to use their subs to compromise the USN fleet is a nonsense. In peacetime the fleet has 2 escort SSN's. There are 12 carrier groups. That means that 24 subs are committed to the fleet. 27 SSN's and 2 SSGN'x are therefore running loose and autonomously. 20 SSN's are in active reserve. If the USN was able to top and tail the best submarine force (numerically) in the world in the 80's, how hard do you think it is for them to T&T chinese subs?

I know how noisy a Kilo is - and they won't survive more than 15 minutes in a shooting war if they are being hacked by an SSN. The combat system on the Kilos is less than stellar, the Songs even less so. The Hans sound like trains driving underwater with all their orifices open. The theoreticals that people talk about in scenarios like the straits are exercises in patriotic optimism and have little bearing on how such a battle would evolve in the real world.

eg. 1 x SSGN is able to compromise every chinese east coast naval and air facility if they decide to launch against a chinese attack on US forces. In the 80's it was estimated that the USN would be able to decapitate over 90% of the russian sub fleet within 30 minutes - well before they were able to launch, and if those russian subs started to go through a launch sequence, they would have sunk them immediately. The US has always made it clear that a response on a carrier is akin to striking a mainland city and that they would respond disproportionately.

If you want to wage war on a carrier - then try a smaller less capable navy. ;)

[XEROX]

What would happen if a Modern Nuclear Powered aircraft carrier has been sunk, surly there must be a mechanism in place to ensure nuclear material doesnt leak into the ocean?? :?

[Awang se]

I think the most cost effective way to sunk an aircraft carrier is by an efficient hunter killer submarine.

[srirangan]

One will need lot more than just a standalone "hunter killer" submarine.

[corsair7772]

regarding what sirri said, it is a normal tactic of communist nations to put up 2 or 3 of their hunter killer subs against a merchant convoy. however to due lack of C3I and communicaton ( cooperation another story) they were unable to achieve decisive results. If however the same tactics are used against an AC group with deficiencies taken care of someone might make a difference.

[XEROX]

"two missiles(PJ-10 BrahMos :) ) are enough to sink an enemy aircraft carrier" - Dr Pillai



http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_227427.php

[doggychow14]

of course. but the problem is the defences around an aircraft carrier. it is very very difficult for any missile to penetrate the carrier shield

[corsair7772]

well unless you try lobbing a 100 SSMs at the carrier group like the soviets, india doesnt posses the ability to stop that. but neither does Pakistan have the capability to initiate that.

[doggychow14]

oooooooooooo :eek u were talking about the indian navy, i thought u were talking about the usn carriers. my bad

[gf0012-aust]

"two missiles(PJ-10 BrahMos :) ) are enough to sink an enemy aircraft carrier" - Dr Pillai



http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_227427.php

I'd say against a small or medium sized carrier - definitely not against a vessel the size of the Charles de Gaulle or a US CVN.

[Pathfinder-X]

GF, there is also another factor, it depends on where the missile hits the carrier.

[gf0012-aust]

GF, there is also another factor, it depends on where the missile hits the carrier.

It does, but not on a larger CV like the CdG or a CVN.

Carriers (especially larger ones) have citadels in place. Smaller carriers don't.

eg, it's generally accepted that a Mk48 ADCAP can kill a guided missile destroyer or light cruiser to about 9000t if it hits it anywhere. OTOH it's also accepted that it would take approx 4 Mk48 type weapons to do significant damage - let alone kill a large carrier. Torps work on spine breaking, so they concatenate their destructive power by using physics to assist in the kill.

An ASM doesn't have that advantage at all, it's a straight kinetic, then explosive reaction. There is not enough explosive power in a Yakhont/Brahmos to kill a large CVN.

They've done real time tests on large distressed merchant vessels which were obviously not citadeled and bunkerage configured like a large CV or CVN

2 x Brahmos would most likely kill a small carrier if they were able to be placed in the same spot (which would need an excellent terminal guidance capability), however, they aren't a large vessel ship killer by any means.

Maybe a golden bb shot like against the Hood, but that would be extremely lucky.

[corsair7772]

GF, there is also another factor, it depends on where the missile hits the carrier.

It does, but not on a larger CV like the CdG or a CVN.

Carriers (especially larger ones) have citadels in place. Smaller carriers don't.

I suppose your referring to the two Brahmos hitting something like the Viraat right? or one of those smaller carriers spain and argentina posses.

Torps are basically the best weapons poor nations have against a carrier unless they can afford advanced technologies like submarines that can fire missiles from underwater ( the missiles and the technology an altogether different affair). Recently the chinese have acquired this capability as well as ability to sink US ships (not carriers mind you) with single one shot hits. This info is available at news week and sino defense.

[gf0012-aust]

I suppose your referring to the two Brahmos hitting something like the Viraat right? or one of those smaller carriers spain and argentina posses.

Torps are basically the best weapons poor nations have against a carrier unless they can afford advanced technologies like submarines that can fire missiles from underwater ( the missiles and the technology an altogether different affair). Recently the chinese have acquired this capability as well as ability to sink US ships (not carriers mind you) with single one shot hits. This info is available at news week and sino defense.

If I was a carrier driver, I'd be more worried about a quartet of wake sniffers hitting me up the clacker than a couple of supersonics coming in. If it was a US CSF with Aegis or a UK CSF with PAAMs then a supersonic strike would not cause me to lose as much sleep as a team of SSK's shunting off some wake sniffers. Especially the UK Torps which have a 60km range.

There are some nasty torps currently under development that would make quite a few skimmer drivers nervous.

I'll be at the UDT Submarine Warfare Conference in Hawaii in Oct, so if there is any unclassified detail I'll post some info.

[Darkwand]

The latest versions of the Ageis types can't reload their SAM's at sea so when they are out of SM2's looses a large part of it's defence. in essence one could launch a HUGE number of chep Anti-Ship missiles with the goal of wearing down the taskforce's defences. After that you launch your sunburns and sink the entire taskforce.

[gf0012-aust]

The latest versions of the Ageis types can't reload their SAM's at sea so when they are out of SM2's looses a large part of it's defence. in essence one could launch a HUGE number of chep Anti-Ship missiles with the goal of wearing down the taskforce's defences. After that you launch your sunburns and sink the entire taskforce.

Are you serious? In a peacetime disposition and in a known volatile area the fleet normally comprises 1 x Tico, 3 x Arleigh Burke and 2 Guided Missile platforms. That means well in excess of 500 missiles in bunker.

Name 1 country that is capable of surging 250-500 strike platforms and able to penetrate a battle dispersed screen to a depth of 500km before being able to get to the centre of gravity of that fleet. Ans = 1 (if they're lucky). Even they (the Russians) have a fleet that is estimated to only have 20% of it's active penanted fleet seaworthy, and has an airforce that is progressively being sold off to India as they need the money. They won't sell off supersonic strike bombers and anti-shipping specific aircraft to China as they mistrust them. Out of all the platforms they have that are capable to go the distance and attempt to break the screen - well, they have less than 20 of them in total. They were even at the stage where last year they were prepared to lease Tu-142's to the USN so that they could practice swarmed strikes. They've been selling their missiles to the US (KH-31's and rumour has it some Sunburns) to act as Supersonic targets. China is not even a 10th of the capability of the Russian current ORBAT in capability. India arguably is better at AS roles than China in current capability and platform potential.

The US has spent 20 years training against supersonics (why some people think that a supersonic cruise is a new invention is beyond me :eek ). The only navy and airforce that had the capacity to surge and swarm were the Soviets in the halcyon days of their navy and airforce - and even their post cold war documents indicated that they believed that less than 5% of their platforms would break the screen - let alone get the capital targets.

There is no country outside of the US that can surge sufficient platforms to overwhelm a strike force - the mere gearing up to do it would be picked up by satellites and sigint days before a launch.

The policy now is to surge CSF's in theatre battlegroups - hence the recent exercise to surge 7 groups into the China Sea. The next ecercise will have 6 CSF's surged together.

The other issue is that the US sees that an attack on a CSF is tantamount to attacking the CONUS - any nation that strikes or attempts to strike a CSF will trigger SSGN's launching cruise missiles (at best) against their shore based important assets - and the bet is that the US would strike a symbolic asset to make a significant point.

There needs to be some reality attached to this. Doctrine and response is not dealt with in isolation.

[Darkwand]

We're not talking a deep sea battle here the Carrier taskfore is usually employed to strike against ground targets that means it's less then 500km from the coast to start with, the persian gulf is at most 400km wide and the US got carriers there. Besides all missiles don't have to come at once thats whats so (strange) you can use a small group of 50 aircrafts carrying 2-4 AShM's thats 100-200 missiles launched from 200km+ range that skims all the way to the target they don't have to be supersonic because they would have to fly much higher then.
If you do that mission at most 5 times then the US carrier group is gone if it hasn't reatreated before then putting it in a much poorer position to launch strikes.

I'm sure that the day a US carrier group is attacked it will be an attritional battle like the frontal charges of ww1 and if you can't reload your machine guns you're in pretty dire straits.
The Swedish Airforce could probably have a go at it 200 Gripen aircraft carrying 2 RBS15 mk3 AShM's each and advanced jaming equipment on the other pylons besides AAM's, even the powerfull radars of Hawkeyes and AEGIS can't burn through that at 500km.
You might have confused my statement with nations that the US could have to go to war with Today then no nobody except China could probably do this. But if the US is ever forced to fight a truly developed country again with a first class defence force this might be a real possibility.

On the other hand someone might just invent and Anti-Gravity AShM that has a stealth hul and is virtually undetectable that just sneaks into the carrier at 30mph.

[gf0012-aust]

We're not talking a deep sea battle here the Carrier taskfore is usually employed to strike against ground targets that means it's less then 500km from the coast to start with, the persian gulf is at most 400km wide and the US got carriers there.

Fair enough, but close in contact dictates that in a volatile area (rather than a benign environment) that any potential threat will be removed by TLAM-SLTLAM etc... Hence LA's and SSGN's. A carrier commander who went in close without the proper implementation of combined arms and combined strikes would not hold his job very long. CSF's don't work in isolation - they're autonomous - but not isolated. Thats the subtle disconnect that a lot of people miss.


Besides all missiles don't have to come at once thats whats so (strange) you can use a small group of 50 aircrafts carrying 2-4 AShM's thats 100-200 missiles launched from 200km+ range that skims all the way to the target they don't have to be supersonic because they would have to fly much higher then.

Anything that hits the 800km perimeter is automatically scaled at a threat level. Don't you think that a CSF commander under NETFORCE is going to be able to determine the likely OPFOR assets in theatre, deployed the fleet as a layered response and also bought in peripheral (non CSF) strike elements? At 200k a flight of incoming would be at risk. TU-142's would have been engaged at 450k's by organic air defence, at 200k they are starting to come into LR-SLI response areas. At the same time that the OPFOR packages are coming in, the fleet or LR strike are going to strike the home airbases with TLAMs SLTLAMs - hence the aircraft have no base and have just had their bingo call escalated considerably as they need to find another base to return to.

If you do that mission at most 5 times then the US carrier group is gone if it hasn't reatreated before then putting it in a much poorer position to launch strikes.

Yes, but you've made the mistake that most wargamers make - the US has a combined package response. They act concurrently in strike and defence. They will take out the airbases within a 600k radius with cruise or B2's and they will alter the available base points to effect the OPFOR bingo issues.

I'm sure that the day a US carrier group is attacked it will be an attritional battle like the frontal charges of ww1 and if you can't reload your machine guns you're in pretty dire straits.

Hence why the new focus is on theatre strike forces and extensive use of SSGN's and B2's

The Swedish Airforce could probably have a go at it 200 Gripen aircraft carrying 2 RBS15 mk3 AShM's each and advanced jaming equipment on the other pylons besides AAM's, even the powerfull radars of Hawkeyes and AEGIS can't burn through that at 500km.

NETFORCE virtually gives a 900km perimeter. 500km doesn't need to be burnt through. Depending on theatre event, they are also watching the launch points with sats. Eg China is virtually on 24/7/365 sat coverage. The US is also at a point where film arrays are becoming a reality. That means that it's possible to have every plane so equipped acting as a phased array panel in its own right. That is enormous coverage if it is finessed to a deliverable capability. In addition, you now have Growlers coming into service. The USN just doesn't have one arrow in its quiver - it has different arrows with different warheads and multiple quivers. Subodai taught every commander that lesson 700 years ago.

You might have confused my statement with nations that the US could have to go to war with Today then no nobody except China could probably do this. But if the US is ever forced to fight a truly developed country again with a first class defence force this might be a real possibility.

Even China admits that the most they can cope with (and thats not the same as sink) is a 2 carrier strike force. That also assumes that the CSF commanders are morons and are playing to the enemies advantages and not their own.

On the other hand someone might just invent and Anti-Gravity AShM that has a stealth hul and is virtually undetectable that just sneaks into the carrier at 30mph.

I think the immediate future lies with hypersonics. There are already technologies being developed to identify stealth enhanced torpedoes. One of the techs I deal with is signature management - the stealth torpedo has been on the agenda for quite a while.

[Darkwand]

You win but you have to agree that the RBS15 is cool for a subsonic!

[gf0012-aust]

You win but you have to agree that the RBS15 is cool for a subsonic!

I wasn't trying to win, I just wanted to show probable outcomes.

Yep, I do like Swedish kit. ;)

[umair]

My bit!
I've tried this tactic many a times in JANE'S Fleet Command(it works 64 % of the time).
I pick 4 squadrons of fighters(12 aircraft each) either carrier or land based and send them in this fashion to combat.
1st squadron)All aircraft carry upto 4 aams, one 330 gallon droptank and 4 airlaunched decoys.Approach the CBG at medium alt and launch their decoys.Decoys simulate subsonic cruise missiles causing the CBG to light up.
2nd Squadron)Now these guys carry 4 ARMs,coupled with the load as above(except for the decoys).Following the 1st squadron at an interval of about 5-10 secs.They approach at med-high level(so as to maximise the ARM range)The CBG is lit up at this time so they pick out airdefence radars and knock out upto 65% of them.
3rd Squadron)Upto 6 aams, one ecm jammer and two 360 gallon drop tanks(escorts, they accompany no1 squad to a certian distance then set up in a position to intercept any aircraft launching.
4th Squadron 4 ASM's each[4x12=48].These guys follow no2 squadron at an interval of about 4 mins.The CBG's defenses are already down.The 48 ASMs go in and hit anything they see.If necessary, a 5th flight carrying ASMs can be sent to finish the job.
Also I get my subs to move in just as the 4th squadron launches.Thereby hoping to take advantage of the confusion caused by the earlier decoy,ARM and current ASM strikes.
Now would the experts :P here tell me it's chances of succeeeding in the real world.
P.S to anybody who plays Fleet command, this tactic also works against SAGs(success rate 70% :D: )

[gf0012-aust]

My bit!
I've tried this tactic many a times in JANE'S Fleet Command(it works 64 % of the time).
I pick 4 squadrons of fighters(12 aircraft each) either carrier or land based and send them in this fashion to combat.
1st squadron)All aircraft carry upto 4 aams, one 330 gallon droptank and 4 airlaunched decoys.Approach the CBG at medium alt and launch their decoys.Decoys simulate subsonic cruise missiles causing the CBG to light up.
2nd Squadron)Now these guys carry 4 ARMs,coupled with the load as above(except for the decoys).Following the 1st squadron at an interval of about 5-10 secs.They approach at med-high level(so as to maximise the ARM range)The CBG is lit up at this time so they pick out airdefence radars and knock out upto 65% of them.
3rd Squadron)Upto 6 aams, one ecm jammer and two 360 gallon drop tanks(escorts, they accompany no1 squad to a certian distance then set up in a position to intercept any aircraft launching.
4th Squadron 4 ASM's each[4x12=48].These guys follow no2 squadron at an interval of about 4 mins.The CBG's defenses are already down.The 48 ASMs go in and hit anything they see.If necessary, a 5th flight carrying ASMs can be sent to finish the job.
Also I get my subs to move in just as the 4th squadron launches.Thereby hoping to take advantage of the confusion caused by the earlier decoy,ARM and current ASM strikes.
Now would the experts :P here tell me it's chances of succeeeding in the real world.
P.S to anybody who plays Fleet command, this tactic also works against SAGs(success rate 70% :D: )

1) It depends on the country that is attacking and the country that is defending (that also determines the aggressors AWACs/AEW/EW capability. I can't think of any country apart from UK, France and Russia that could try and interrupt a "burn back" against their incoming ECM systems. No other country has a portable ECM system that is remotely capable of contending with a Prowler - let alone a Growler with 360deg artic and/or a E2D working in concert)

2) It depends on the fleet location

3) It depends on whether the fleet is at peacetime or a battle disposition

4) It depends on the fleet structure (vessel types which will also be impacted upon by 3)

5) It depends on the threat level assigned to the conflict (which will also determine 1 and 4)

6) Pt 5 will determibe how far out the fleet is and the depth of external intervention from normal combined arms contribution)

7) It also depends on how many subs are running loose outside of the normal CSF structure - which normally includes only 2 x nukes) That will be influenced by 1

8) It depends on the ROE's for response. The ROEs determine the start and thus the evolutionary response of the fleet.

9) You need to define the launch depth - and then I can tell you whether you even got the opportunity to launch from that distance

10) It also includes the fact that the US policy (if they are the CSF in question) will resort to absolute violence if the CVN is compromised - and that comes then from outside intervention beyond the ability of the principle players to influence. eg, look forward to guests from Whiteman prepared to destroy the largest equivalent symbolic city, port or location of psychological importance to send a message.

11) It ignores the fact that depending on the status of 2 and 5, the CSF is likely to be travelling in concert with another CSF (min) if it's a USN CSF

If we play with realistic rules it becomes frightening to say the least. :)



It's not like chess, its more like "go".

[Revival_786]

JANE's Fleet Command? What's that? Can I get a demo or something :P

[corsair7772]

Its this old game by Janes combat simulation. I dont think it exists anywhere anymore. too bad. It was a great game. Did u ppl play the mission in the arabian sea?

[Aussie Digger]

This would be a very big threat to a carrier battle group to say the least, however this is also an outright act of war. For one thing, high quality anti-ship missiles are very expensive, so this would be a very expensive exercise, even assuming none of your aircraft are destroyed.

Second, you still have to deal with massive incoming SM-2 and Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM attacks, from the US fleet who are not going to sit idly by, not to mention the 80+ fighter/Attack aircraft a single US aircraft carrier carries.

Thirdly you will then have to be prepared for the massive retaliation you WILL face. The US public "might" not be too happy about a war fought on specious grounds, but sink one of their ships, particularly a Carrier, and they will not have any dramas with yet another "regime change"...

[umair]

I was talking about anycountry's bloody CBG not the US exclusively mate :roll
Besides in my view only the USN in the real world as of now(discounting Russian TU-22Ms) has resources capable of pulling off such an exercise.

[gf0012-aust]

I was talking about anycountry's bloody CBG not the US exclusively mate :roll
Besides in my view only the USN in the real world as of now(discounting Russian TU-22Ms) has resources capable of pulling off such an exercise.

Well, if it was Thailands aircraft carrier - it's a floating target. ;)

I think there's only 20 Tu-22M's left now. India has 6 of them and the Russians have stood down most of theirs due to parts shortages. They were talking about putting them through SLEP but ran out of money.

[Aussie Digger]

Well people were asked what they thought. THAT"s what I think. As an interesting aside, Aircraft carriers have been in a lot of battles since World war 2, by many nations, not just the USA. Not a single one has been sunk or even damaged from direct enemy action as far as I can recall. What does that say to people?

[gf0012-aust]

The difficulty is in what people accept as datasets. I can tell you unequivocably that a Kilo has a lousy signature profile. Yet people will insist that it is a low transmission stealthy "wunderweapon". It's not at all.

For someone who works with subs (like Awang Se) I can tell you what the db level difference is on a typical russian/chinese kilo and a scorpene/agosta

That is not data I would throw into a discussion like this as people are wargaming on gaming models - they are completely different from real tactical world sims.

The datasets in games like Janes are very good, but they don't factor in close data sets let alone reflect accurate solutions. It's a bit like looking at the specs of a Mercedes SL600 and a Brabus SL600. The printed detail is nothing like what has happened under the bonnet, it does not declare all the delicate changes that were made to make a substantial change in drivability, handling, torque etc...

Specs only say so much. If the specs are "broad" then the data accuracy and assumptions are then on the downward slippery slope of divergent outcomes. Stick a taxi driver in a F1 and he'll probably kill the car, stick the F1 driver in the taxi - and the outcome could be dramatically different.

[doggychow14]

during WWII carriers have been sunk and severly damaged. battle of midway for instance.

[turin]

Well people were asked what they thought. THAT"s what I think. As an interesting aside, Aircraft carriers have been in a lot of battles since World war 2, by many nations, not just the USA. Not a single one has been sunk or even damaged from direct enemy action as far as I can recall. What does that say to people?


Well to me it says, that there has not been a major conflict with extensive surface action comparable to the engagements in WW2. What are these battles after WW2 including carriers? Battles, where the opponent actually had the capability to successfully attack a carrier? Falkland maybe, but what else? Suez certainly not. As it was with Iraq or Vietnam.

And there is still speculation about the Invincible being damaged due to the Exocet attack on 30th may 1982.

A more recent example of the security of a CBG is the collision of CV 67 JFK with a dhow in the Persian Ghulf on July 22nd while conducting night flight exercises. Remember USS Cole and what that dhow might have carried in the worst case.

[Aussie Digger]

Well Turin, if you read my comment accurately I asked if anybody knew of an incident where a Carrier (not just a ship the actual carrier) was damaged or sunk from DIRECT enemy action, since WW11. Obviously there were carriers sunk during WW11, but ship defences have greatly improved since then.

Offhand I can think of numerous wars and battles (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1&2) where US carriers have been directly in harms way of forces with the potential to damage a carrier. Iraq possessed Mirage F-1's armed with Exocet's then remember? Exocet's are a pretty big threat to a ship don't you think? Certainly Pakistan, France and Argentina at least thinks so. US also operated Carriers off the coast of Lebanon and Libya in the early 80's, to no detrimental effect. The French also operated their Carrier Foch off the Coast of Iraq as well as Britain's Invincible Carriers operating off Iraq, Bosnia, and Argentina, there has not to my knowledge been any official reports of any damage to any of these ships.

To me this says more of the defensive capabilities of these ships...

[Hellscream]

A USN carrier task group is very well defended by its AAW escorts and its ASW screen . it is almost impossible for an SSN to egt through that screen forget about an SSK that neither has the endurance nor range to reach out to a carrier group .
With referance to the soviets and the USN.
the best bet the soviets relied on was a massive salvo of air launched supersonic sea skimmers.
the carrier group is not exactly jumping about at the prospect of a showdown between the Aegis and its supersonic adversary..so the carrier group is maintaining EMCON no wants to invite the plethora of assets at the soviet naval air arms disposal however confident u are.
so the E-2Cs are maintaining coverage for the carrier group.
the ruskies will be using their RORSATs and ESM bearing Bear-Ds to try and get a fix on the carrier group.the BEAR-Ds detect the E-2Cs way before vice versa happens and estimate the rough position wrt the E-2s.

alrite now around 60 Badgers with 2 AS-5 kelts under each wing are now heading for the carrier group with a couple of Badger-Js for standoff jamming.
the Badgers launch the kelts and turn away while the Js interfere with the E-2Cs radar. the jamming fudges the kelts and the carrier group lights up all it radars .the kelts are equipped with Electronic packages to make them look like Badgers that is around 100 badgers heading in. the jamming ensures support.
so the carrier group launches its tomcats to take out these badgers(kelts).
they expend all their AIM-54s and a couple that get through are engaged by the aegis forcing them waste a couple of missiles in the process.

A minute later illuminated by 60 odd backfires and more badgers and big bulges they encompass the carrier group and proceed to launch the supersonic AS-6 kingfish and AS-4 kitchens (sunburns)..way outside the SAM envelope.
now with all the hype of the much adored Aegis lets give it a kill rate of around 60% against supersonic missiles.
U have 150 odd supersonic sunburns with 1000 Kg warheads .
u can do the math lets say theres is one Tico with 96 SMs and a couple of other aegis equipped ships.
atleast 50 odd get through the Aegis perimeter 40 for the aegis fans
lets say inspite of its 20G manuvers CIWS gets some more kills .
we have very bad deck damage to some ships like the tico and atleast 4 or 5 sunburns headed for the carrier(how many ever) itself.
some tricked by chaff others jammed.lets say minimum probability of 2 hitting the carrier..it may not bloody sink but is significantly crippled and is in no condition to enter a war zone anymore.and some escorts sunk.

open to debate..

as for the IN carrier group .
PN naval arm is in no condition to approach the carrier group that is significantly outside Air coverage and has Ka-31 AEW choppers in the air to prevent any exocet launches highly unlikely of any Mirage-Vs getting with the 50KM range to launch their exocets and considering they have a very small stockpile of AM-39s.their surface fleet is in no condition to engage even a missile corvette of the IN . I mean look at the Type-21 Amazons.
they have no serious hard kill facility. save the phalanx and maybe some
anzas and mistrals launched by NCOs...a salvo of Sea-Eagle will do the job.

so the best bet is the Agostas to get close in and launch a torpedo or Sm-39 if they get past the ASW screen and any marauding Kilos or HDW-209s.

[gf0012-aust]

1) The NETFORCE screen is approx 800k's. Planes have to penetrate 800k's first

2) The Tomcats are already up. A CSF always has a CAP element up. They don't launch on threat, they launch more on threat

3) The reason why Russia went to Tu-22's was due to the fact that Badgers and Bears would not survive against Tomcats with Phoenix. At 800k's with the CAP at perimeter that means that The Phoenix extends the perimeter to 920k (with Prowler/Growler in tow)

4) Unless you have terminal visual guidance, how will you stop the ASM's going for the lamb? (one of more vessels can act as the lamb and can emulate the carriers signal suite)

5) How will you stop Nulka?

[Hellscream]

my whole assumption is based on the fact that the Carrier group maintains EMCON till the last minute.
like i said the Big bulge radars are lit up once the Air search radars come on
so the onboard the Backfires and blinders u can differetiate between the radar signature of a tico and an Arleigh burke(spelling ???).
yeah some other vessel might mimick the signature of the carrier.
but since there are enough missiles to go around the carrier will be targetted .

what is Nulka ??

great forum man .

[gf0012-aust]

my whole assumption is based on the fact that the Carrier group maintains EMCON till the last minute.

The CSF may be running controlled emmissions, but if it's in a war footing footprint, then the fleet is spread out over 100-200sq miles. It also has AWACs running ahead and the fact that its' linked to space based systems tellin them what aircraft movements are happening in likely threat areas. As soon as aircraft take off (depending on which country is doing the attacking) the USN already knows that there are inbounds.

If this is a wartime scenario - the fleet will be bigger than the std config of 1 x tico, 2-3 x AB's and 2 x DDG's. A wartime footing would probably see 2 x ticos, 3-4 x AB's and 2-3 DDGs. Instead of 2 SSN's there is a pool of 27 "spare" nukes to run loose to take out surface targets such as ports and airfields. Because they are running loose it means that the OPFOR has to assign crucial assets to roam and hunt for them in anticipation of a strike.

like i said the Big bulge radars are lit up once the Air search radars come on so the onboard the Backfires and blinders u can differetiate between the radar signature of a tico and an Arleigh burke(spelling ???).

The skimmers can emulate each others signals, and to some extent that is unnecessary as they have Nulka and the CAP in attendance

yeah some other vessel might mimick the signature of the carrier.

but since there are enough missiles to go around the carrier will be targetted .

One vessel does actually act as the carrier at the ECM level, Its job is to "take a bullet for the prez" (so to speak) Actually, all the wargames done indicated that there aren't enough ASM's to be launched that would get through the screen etc... As soon as a strike was organised against the CSF, the SSGN's would be demolishing airbases so that the aircraft would have to change their return waypoints for another base - and that would effect their bingo state earlier than before.

what is Nulka ??

Nulka is an Australian decoy system in use by the USN. It emulates the ECM footprint of a vessel - or the parent vessel if required. basically it is a rocket that will hover in the air (much like a small VTOL UAV) and squeal like a girl to act like the designated target. It will hover in the target space that an algorithm might determine is where the vessel "should be" at termonation.

great forum man . Thank webs. ;)

[Awang se]

I still think a lone and efficient Hunter Killer Sub (preferably conventional one) can do the job better then a swarm of Aircrafts and missiles. the carrier group is a noisy bunch and it can be easily detected by most of modern digital sonar systems from very long range at least at two or maybe three convergence zones. Then they just have to do a quick TMA and acquire a general course of the CVBG (i don't think an accurate TMA can be establish at this range). Then the sub race at it's top silent speed to the estimated location that the carrier will pass and laid in wait on it's batteries. once in range, the sub launch a salvo of 8 torps, cut the wires, and bug out before the group know what's going on.

I do remenber that GF mentioned something about the collins sunk a US carrier and it's 688 escort. am I remenber correctly?

[Aussie Digger]

Yep, RAN Collins Class subs have "sunk" US Carriers in Exercises. This has been admitted publicly, though obviously no particulars have been released of how they managed it...

[umair]

A USN carrier task group is very well defended by its AAW escorts and its ASW screen . it is almost impossible for an SSN to egt through that screen forget about an SSK that neither has the endurance nor range to reach out to a carrier group .
With referance to the soviets and the USN.
the best bet the soviets relied on was a massive salvo of air launched supersonic sea skimmers.
the carrier group is not exactly jumping about at the prospect of a showdown between the Aegis and its supersonic adversary..so the carrier group is maintaining EMCON no wants to invite the plethora of assets at the soviet naval air arms disposal however confident u are.
so the E-2Cs are maintaining coverage for the carrier group.
the ruskies will be using their RORSATs and ESM bearing Bear-Ds to try and get a fix on the carrier group.the BEAR-Ds detect the E-2Cs way before vice versa happens and estimate the rough position wrt the E-2s.

alrite now around 60 Badgers with 2 AS-5 kelts under each wing are now heading for the carrier group with a couple of Badger-Js for standoff jamming.
the Badgers launch the kelts and turn away while the Js interfere with the E-2Cs radar. the jamming fudges the kelts and the carrier group lights up all it radars .the kelts are equipped with Electronic packages to make them look like Badgers that is around 100 badgers heading in. the jamming ensures support.
so the carrier group launches its tomcats to take out these badgers(kelts).
they expend all their AIM-54s and a couple that get through are engaged by the aegis forcing them waste a couple of missiles in the process.

A minute later illuminated by 60 odd backfires and more badgers and big bulges they encompass the carrier group and proceed to launch the supersonic AS-6 kingfish and AS-4 kitchens (sunburns)..way outside the SAM envelope.
now with all the hype of the much adored Aegis lets give it a kill rate of around 60% against supersonic missiles.
U have 150 odd supersonic sunburns with 1000 Kg warheads .
u can do the math lets say theres is one Tico with 96 SMs and a couple of other aegis equipped ships.
atleast 50 odd get through the Aegis perimeter 40 for the aegis fans
lets say inspite of its 20G manuvers CIWS gets some more kills .
we have very bad deck damage to some ships like the tico and atleast 4 or 5 sunburns headed for the carrier(how many ever) itself.
some tricked by chaff others jammed.lets say minimum probability of 2 hitting the carrier..it may not bloody sink but is significantly crippled and is in no condition to enter a war zone anymore.and some escorts sunk.

open to debate..

as for the IN carrier group .
PN naval arm is in no condition to approach the carrier group that is significantly outside Air coverage and has Ka-31 AEW choppers in the air to prevent any exocet launches highly unlikely of any Mirage-Vs getting with the 50KM range to launch their exocets and considering they have a very small stockpile of AM-39s.their surface fleet is in no condition to engage even a missile corvette of the IN . I mean look at the Type-21 Amazons.
they have no serious hard kill facility. save the phalanx and maybe some
anzas and mistrals launched by NCOs...a salvo of Sea-Eagle will do the job.

so the best bet is the Agostas to get close in and launch a torpedo or Sm-39 if they get past the ASW screen and any marauding Kilos or HDW-209s.

Look's like somebody's been reading Clancy's Red Storm Rising :D: :P

[Percy]

To sink an american carrier you need a german 206 alpha class conventionel submarine. They managed to sink them in a few exercises.

The Norwegians did the same with similar boats in an exercise with british carriers.

[gf0012-aust]

To sink an american carrier you need a german 206 alpha class conventionel submarine. They managed to sink them in a few exercises.

The Norwegians did the same with similar boats in an exercise with british carriers.

Record holders: Oberon 6
Collins 4
Daphne 1
HDW 209 2

Just remember that apart from the exercise run in the last RIMPAC, that all prev exercises were scripted. In RIMPAC 04 the sub was loose.

[Percy]

Just remember that apart from the exercise run in the last RIMPAC, that all prev exercises were scripted. In RIMPAC 04 the sub was loose.

Scripted or not, it seems to be possible. True, as Commander of such a sub, you need plenty of luck :P

[gf0012-aust]

Just remember that apart from the exercise run in the last RIMPAC, that all prev exercises were scripted. In RIMPAC 04 the sub was loose.

Scripted or not, it seems to be possible. True, as Commander of such a sub, you need plenty of luck :P

Anythings possible... ;)

[Yaguarete_AR]

Yes but the nearer you are to Hostile mainland or port or whatever, the more vulnerable you become. the british were lucky that they had to fight falklands from a safe distance, out of the range of most of the argentenian arsenal. However fighting close to the argentenain mainland would have been a totally different story ( a horror story). Similarly, the gorshkov has a good chance of gettin blown up if it operates close to pakistani shores where it would have 2 face everything pakistan throws at it.

That's true, my fellow corsair. BEsides, even with several oldies Exocets an modern aircraft carrier could be leave it out of combat (radar damage, eletronic equipment damage, fire all over the place...) leaving the wreck unprotected for a free fall bombing ride (Malvinas old style... ;) )

[corsair7772]

Yup. You gotta appreciate the skill and courage the Argentinians showed in the Falklands. Ive read abt the entire war and written two analytical papers on it, and youll never find a single word against them. They deserve to be in the top 10 performanc wise.

[Awang se]

The chinese also seem to go in the same direction. They began to build up their sub forces. probably to tangled with the USCVBG in the coming Taiwan conflict.

[corsair7772]

I suppose their emphasising on a decaying ASW capability of the USN which used to be ultra in the old days but seems to have lost its edge due to neglation and in comparison with other military projects going on the ASW capability has fewer projects assigned to it.

PLAN should have 4 new subs online by 2010 which are:
Type 093 SSN
Yuan SSK
Song SSK
Kilo SSK

These new subs have more capable torps capable of sinking a large USN ship with one hit and none of these has to surface to launch its missiles. Added to this are better hull designs and more endurance.

PS the chinese have got a new MING variant as well which seems to be excellent in coastal defense role and similar to Daphne class subs due to improvements especially in C3I.

[gf0012-aust]

These new subs have more capable torps capable of sinking a large USN ship with one hit and none of these has to surface to launch its missiles. Added to this are better hull designs and more endurance.

Nope, incorrect. The only torp that could sink a CVN with one shot are the British ones designed in the early 1960's. They were nukes. The British stopped producing them as there were other ways to take out Russian Battle Cruisers and Cruisers (of that period)

Nobody makes a nuke torpedo now as there are other ways to achieve the kill.

The most powerful torps currently known would have to hit a CVN at least 3 times to achieve a terminal effect.

A Mk48 ADCAP will sink a WW2 Cruiser sized vessel. 2-3 could finish of a carrier the size of the Vikrant.

If anyone launched a nuke torp, or a nuke ASM, then that's as good as a declaration of war.

Whoever launched it would probably end up with a country that would be the largest piece of silicate in the history of the world.

[Aussie Digger]

1 hit by a heavy weight torpedo like the Mk-48 ADCAP, would probably put the Carrier out of action though, gf. That'd be just as useful tactically as sinking it...

[gf0012-aust]

1 hit by a heavy weight torpedo like the Mk-48 ADCAP, would probably put the Carrier out of action though, gf. That'd be just as useful tactically as sinking it...

True, hitting it up the freckle would lame it. Sinking it though is another issue. The USN estimates that it would take probably 4 torps of the calibre of an ADCAP to drop a CVN.

3 would be precision shots and would assume that proper lockdown was not able to be affected.

[corsair7772]

These new subs have more capable torps capable of sinking a large USN ship with one hit and none of these has to surface to launch its missiles. Added to this are better hull designs and more endurance.

Nope, incorrect. The only torp that could sink a CVN with one shot are the British ones designed in the early 1960's. They were nukes. The British stopped producing them as there were other ways to take out Russian Battle Cruisers and Cruisers (of that period)

Nobody makes a nuke torpedo now as there are other ways to achieve the kill.

The most powerful torps currently known would have to hit a CVN at least 3 times to achieve a terminal effect.

A Mk48 ADCAP will sink a WW2 Cruiser sized vessel. 2-3 could finish of a carrier the size of the Vikrant.

If anyone launched a nuke torp, or a nuke ASM, then that's as good as a declaration of war.

Whoever launched it would probably end up with a country that would be the largest piece of silicate in the history of the world.

No no Gary i wasnt referring to a capital class cruiser or Carrier. it was a vague reference for destroyers and frigates like an Aegis or possibly a supply ship. The chinese these days have torps capable of sinking one of those with a single hit but certainly not an CVN let alone disable it.

[gf0012-aust]

No no Gary i wasnt referring to a capital class cruiser or Carrier. it was a vague reference for destroyers and frigates like an Aegis or possibly a supply ship. The chinese these days have torps capable of sinking one of those with a single hit but certainly not an CVN let alone disable it.

OK, I assumed that we were talking about a carrier. A ticonderoga would probably need 2, but 1 would be terminal enough I think to take it out of a fully functioning role.

(assuming the torp was of an ADCAP capability)

[Awang se]

A heavily listed carrier cannot launch it's aircrafts. a carrier that cannot launch it's aircrafts is a dead weight in a fleet. a highly confidence (close to insane) Sub commander might aim to sink the carrier outright. The less confident one might aim to heavily damage the carrier and send it limping to the port.

[Aussie Digger]

Sending it limping to port would be more useful than hanging around to try and sink it, IMHO. US "Super Carriers" need to be able to cruise into the wind at a failry high speed to launch their aircraft. If a carrier can't launch it's aircraft it's basically useless, other than providing some command and control capabilities.

If a sub driver managed to get a good shot on a Carrier it would be more useful for him to get the hell out of there. The ASW effort would be enormous at that point... I would imagine that a decent shot by a heavyweight torpedo (or anti-ship missile for that matter) on a US Carrier would probably damage it to the point that it would be unable to launch and would probably be obliged to make it's way home as best it could. Of course the Americans would be none too impressed and you could probably kiss your Navy goodbye, but at least you would have achieved something no-one else has managed in recent times...

[gf0012-aust]

Sending it limping to port would be more useful than hanging around to try and sink it, IMHO. US "Super Carriers" need to be able to cruise into the wind at a failry high speed to launch their aircraft. If a carrier can't launch it's aircraft it's basically useless, other than providing some command and control capabilities.

If a sub driver managed to get a good shot on a Carrier it would be more useful for him to get the hell out of there. The ASW effort would be enormous at that point... I would imagine that a decent shot by a heavyweight torpedo (or anti-ship missile for that matter) on a US Carrier would probably damage it to the point that it would be unable to launch and would probably be obliged to make it's way home as best it could. Of course the Americans would be none too impressed and you could probably kiss your Navy goodbye, but at least you would have achieved something no-one else has managed in recent times...

That's true enough, but the conventional driver would also need to try and shoot from within the littorals to increase survivability chances. Any deep blue attack would reduce by significant quantums their chance in getting away alive. That of course doesn't matter if their intent is to be sacrificial.

A nuke could do a deep blue attack, and gamble on running the 800k perimeter at high speed to get away, but they are handicapped by their noisemaking.

Any sub travelling above 5-8 knots is basically starting to act like an aquatic transducer - so it makes the issue of wolf packing even more critical.

Again, bear in mind that a battle formation is running numerous layers of ASW capability at different ranges - so a sub has to peel the onion first.

[Awang se]

It's not just staying undetected. That would be a longshot option for a 3rd world sub. All they have to do is to prevent the enemy ASW force from pinpointing their exact location. Remember, Detecting a sub is one thing. Localizing it accurate enough for weapon delivery is another thing. Sub might be able to use the thermal layers and the biologics to create a confusing picture to the Surface ASW force. Of course, there is a Submarine escort to be trifle with.

I wonder how the SSN(DS) can keep up with the CVBG. The CVBG might travel at 20 knots at least. the sub probably use sprint and drift tactics but what if the enemy sub can lob a torps during the sprint when sonar is virtually blind.

[gf0012-aust]

It's not just staying undetected. That would be a longshot option for a 3rd world sub. All they have to do is to prevent the enemy ASW force from pinpointing their exact location. Remember, Detecting a sub is one thing. Localizing it accurate enough for weapon delivery is another thing. Sub might be able to use the thermal layers and the biologics to create a confusing picture to the Surface ASW force. Of course, there is a Submarine escort to be trifle with.

I wonder how the SSN(DS) can keep up with the CVBG. The CVBG might travel at 20 knots at least. the sub probably use sprint and drift tactics but what if the enemy sub can lob a torps during the sprint when sonar is virtually blind.

It depends on what countries navy you are talking about. The disposition of units in the USN is different from that of the French, or the Indian Navy.

If a USN CSF is in battle config, then they are travelling at greater than 25 knots and also engaging in manouvre as well. They also have their own SSK(N)'s as part of the defensive layer. ASW in a USN fleet is not passive, it is aggressive. So all ASW platforms are used to find and scare an OPFOR sub into movement.

A fleet commander would have run probables on what subs were a likely threat, check their last known appearance from various Int areas and then done a tactical of likely intercept points etc... Hence why they will probably run deep water strikes and at flank speed at various points in time. The only sub that can keep up with a CSF travelling at flank is a nuke, and then its hoping that flank noise is masking it's own interception approach.

If subs are in a LUP then the advance units of a CSF will be aggressive (especially if they are going in closer to littorals)

No fleet commander is going to play into a sub driver with local knowdledge - that would be courting risk.

[Nautilus]

I know it's a very old topic, nontheless quite intriguing :)

I do realize there is little that can counter a USN carrier battle group and chances of suceeding are slim at best, however this doesn't mean an opposing force would necessarily give up right away.

Obviously a surprise attack (as much as that is possible given todays sat coverage) would have much better chances at being successful, then again one would still need a plan for the remaining 11 carriers. So not really a bright idea.

For the sake of discussion, lets assume the Taiwan conflict goes hot and Chinese are determined to re-integrate the 'province' to gain access to vital technology, more tax revenue and to set and example to other provinces and the rest of the world. The USA have a strategic interest in the region and highly dependant on Taiwanese products (specifically -> computers). Despite having gigantic foreign debt to China, they decide to intervene to ensure Taiwans independency.

In general terms the Chinese do have two advantages to start with - firstly it is their home turf and secondly Americans are incredibly convinced of themselves (to a degree that causes errors).

[Francois]

I know it's a very old topic, nontheless quite intriguing :)

I do realize there is little that can counter a USN carrier battle group and chances of suceeding are slim at best, however this doesn't mean an opposing force would necessarily give up right away.

Obviously a surprise attack (as much as that is possible given todays sat coverage) would have much better chances at being successful, then again one would still need a plan for the remaining 11 carriers. So not really a bright idea.
No CVSF commander will be fool enough to put its assets in harm way.
Plus, he has the legs to reach very very far. So all HVUs will stay out of reach, while ops are running around.
Opfor will have to find the CVSG before to get to it.
I recommand you study the Falkland war, especially Sandy Woodwark's book.

For the sake of discussion, lets assume the Taiwan conflict goes hot and Chinese are determined to re-integrate the 'province' to gain access to vital technology, more tax revenue and to set and example to other provinces and the rest of the world. The USA have a strategic interest in the region and highly dependant on Taiwanese products (specifically -> computers). Despite having gigantic foreign debt to China, they decide to intervene to ensure Taiwans independency.

In general terms the Chinese do have two advantages to start with - firstly it is their home turf and secondly Americans are incredibly convinced of themselves (to a degree that causes errors).
Today, chinese assets are the most "looked at" of the world. Because for the last ten years, the US are preparing for the inthinkable.
And, reading the chinese reaction after the Iraqi wars, I can tell you that the over-self-confident are the chineses. At least they were.

[Nautilus]

I believe it takes a much wider approach than launching X number of jets with such and such AShM to throw at the CBG! Here are some ideas to toss around...

China would approach Russia in an attempt to negotiate some 'special exercises' to be conducted. Given enough incentives, Russia could be persuaded to put to sea (part of) their fleet of SSBN's and SSN's. Basically this is nothing but smoke and mirrors to divert attention. Worry some decision makers in the Pentagon and in turn some USN SSN's would be pre-occupied with shadowing these subs. Less SSN's available for ops in chinese waters.

A weakness in carrier ops is their dependency on RAS. Between 12 CBG's there are only four large Supply class replenishment ships (and a fleet of other less capable ships) in the USN. The Supply class had their Phalanx and SeaSparrow armament removed a couple of years back. They have a part civilian crew and recently have adopted a new doctrine by which these ships operate idependently from CGB's - essentially these ships ferry ammo, fuel and food between friendly harbours and CBG's. Sinking some of these ships would have a direct impact on US ability to sustain ops around Taiwan. Compared to a CBG these ships are lightly escorted if at all.

Next, China would want to ensure the game is played by their rules (to an extend). For example, they could mine the southern and eastern areas around Taiwan. Obviously this would be picked up by american satellites which is the whole point of the exercise. As the ground invasion is in full progress, the USN would not have the time to clear the mines in time and hence have two options - a) stay away further from the shore effectively cutting down on the range of their jets or b) moving into the area not mined by China (north-east of Taiwan) which is a trap. It is close to chinese air bases and Taiwan is not in between the carrier and China as a buffer zone.

Direct attacks on the CBG would be drawn out, even though China would be interested to get it done with as quickly as possible to give Americans less time to repair damage and to wear out the crews. If at all, then it could only be tackled with a combined approach by masses of aircraft, submarines and during the final phase - surface units. The attrition rate would be extremely high.

For the Chinese some ideas could be worthwhile considering before all this starts. Firstly, installing a network much like SOSUS in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea to track US SSN's. Secondly, investments in american media as support for a war or lack thereof highly depends on the perception in the general american public. Also, the chinese navy would need to be build up considerably - something that is happening NOW! Chilling thought huh?

[Francois]

[QUOTE=Nautilus]China would approach Russia in an attempt to negotiate some 'special exercises' to be conducted. Given enough incentives, Russia could be persuaded to put to sea (part of) their fleet of SSBN's and SSN's. Basically this is nothing but smoke and mirrors to divert attention. Worry some decision makers in the Pentagon and in turn some USN SSN's would be pre-occupied with shadowing these subs. Less SSN's available for ops in chinese waters.
First, russians wound not do something to hurt the US, even if China pays in gold. They would have too much to loose.
Second, if 3 russian boats can leave port without problem, they should find themselves happy.

A weakness in carrier ops is their dependency on RAS. Between 12 CBG's there are only four large Supply class replenishment ships (and a fleet of other less capable ships) in the USN. The Supply class had their Phalanx and SeaSparrow armament removed a couple of years back. They have a part civilian crew and recently have adopted a new doctrine by which these ships operate idependently from CGB's - essentially these ships ferry ammo, fuel and food between friendly harbours and CBG's. Sinking some of these ships would have a direct impact on US ability to sustain ops around Taiwan. Compared to a CBG these ships are lightly escorted if at all.
It is well known for years (since respl at sea exist actually).
And they are not going to put their RAS in arms way. They will protect their assets, don't worry.

Next, China would want to ensure the game is played by their rules (to an extend). For example, they could mine the southern and eastern areas around Taiwan. Obviously this would be picked up by american satellites which is the whole point of the exercise. As the ground invasion is in full progress, the USN would not have the time to clear the mines in time and hence have two options - a) stay away further from the shore effectively cutting down on the range of their jets or b) moving into the area not mined by China (north-east of Taiwan) which is a trap. It is close to chinese air bases and Taiwan is not in between the carrier and China as a buffer zone.
Not a prob here. US won't send their CVSG in the straight anyway.

Direct attacks on the CBG would be drawn out, even though China would be interested to get it done with as quickly as possible to give Americans less time to repair damage and to wear out the crews. If at all, then it could only be tackled with a combined approach by masses of aircraft, submarines and during the final phase - surface units. The attrition rate would be extremely high.
You don't make war without looses. CVSGs will come by waves until the war is finished. They may loose one, I doudt so though.

For the Chinese some ideas could be worthwhile considering before all this starts. Firstly, installing a network much like SOSUS in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea to track US SSN's. Secondly, investments in american media as support for a war or lack thereof highly depends on the perception in the general american public. Also, the chinese navy would need to be build up considerably - something that is happening NOW! Chilling thought huh?
China already has pu markers in the sea bottom to monitor the incomings. That is well known today. Rest is speculations.

[gf0012-aust]

Chilling thought huh?

Reality check:

China is a continental power - she is not an intercontinental power, she does not have a blue water navy, and in real terms her intercontinental naval capability is way below UK, France, Germany, Brazil and Japan.

China fails the multiple P test of warfighting (there are 5 discrete tests)

The US has just fired a borer at a meteor in space - and hit the target. (subst borer with weapon and you see the inference) China has not done anything remotely similar - in fact she has not hit any of the space milestones achieved by Russia and the US in the 1960's. The US can track meteors, space debris and other assorted space junk and has done so for years - China cannot. Read into the lines about capability.

China has been dependant on acquiring technology via other sources and modifying them for local use - she has not demonstrated any independance of innovation. The JF17 is legacied to the Lavi and F-16, the Song is a modified Kilo, the 2208 is a stolen Australian cat design from 1998, the C series cruise missiles are Russian etc....

China has one coast - and that means that it is far easier to monitor traffic with satellites than a country like the US which has split coastlines. Think about it, the USAF has more military satellites in space than all other satellite users combined - and that ignores CIA/NSA/USN assets. At the peak of Russian power, they still did not have a fully functioning Glonass network - in fact it's only been considered for proper launch coverage (ie the min of 32-33 satellites) since India agreed to participate - how many satellites does China have up as part of one group? They've got less than Russia, arguably even India, France, Israel have greater resolution in their satellites than China.

If you're going to target a vessel, then you need persistence and saturation (as well as technological capability) to monitor then vector approp weapons systems to target - China does not have the footprint in any of the required disciplines to do that.

If the Russians, at the peak of their power, thought that at best they could maybe get 1/5th of all US CSF's in an allout conflict, then I find it hard to believe that China, with considerably less capability, and certainly far less capability at projection will achieve any of the requirements to win a war.

The US is geared to be able to fight mulitple conflicts on multiple fronts, it's a legacy of Adm Fishers "2 Powers" philosophy - China could not engage Taiwan and guarantee success, something she readily acknowledges. Assuming that a country that is lacking confidence on waging war on an island target less than 90kms away, and can't guarantee success speaks volumes for how they would cope in a real fast moving shooting war.

On forums, chinese kids, like american kids, like martian kids, become patriotic and tend to talk up capability. the reality is that the cold hard figures don't stack up for China - and won't stack up for close to 15 years. The US btw, won't operate in a vacuum.

[Nautilus]

At the very begin of my previous post I stated the chances were remote at best, I absolutely realize it would be very diffifult. However, what do you believe would happen if Taiwan declared independence in 1-2 years from now knowing that it only gets tougher the longer they wait?

If China didn't react within a reasonable time frame - it would look like they aren't going to do what they've threatening for years. It would make them look rather weak.

I am not an american nor chinese nor martian kid, I just see a possible conflict of interests! I am interest in defence and read up on it quite a bit (typical armchair general :D ) and I see some more simple facts, namely that China is expanding its military considerably and that the Chinese economy is doing extremely well whereas the American economy is doing very poor.

Also, consider where the Chinese military was 10 year ago and where it is now from a technology perspective. There are some countries in Europe which would love to lift the ban on arms exports to China. An attempt to change legislation was made this year but the Chinese pulled themselves a leg by introducing laws that would justify military means of Taiwan declared independence. Now they are talking about a 'delayed' lift of the ban in Brussels. So clearly, there are efforts being made to modernize their military. They want to buy systems to copy them.

Francois - your reply sounded like a typical american statement ;)

gf - I do agree, I am just asking to consider the possibility

[Francois]

Francois - your reply sounded like a typical american statement ;)

Naut, I am not american, but european (hence, caucasian). To give you a trick, my passport's country have similar 5 first letters then my name.
But, I am living 10,000km from Paris now (make a circle on your globe).

Anyway, I don't know how to take your statement. I am rather pro-European.
My resume states many years of engineering in both military and civilian industry (mainly aircraft, naval too), so I believe what I am talking about.
And I have access to data the most don't via the industrial channel that give me a good insight of what is running around the world.
And in the industry, we like to know what the others are doing.

[Nautilus]

Ehh bon jour mon ami! Ca va bien?

Anyway, I don't know how to take your statement. I am rather pro-European.

See, I didn't post this to be pro one side or the other. I actually considered to write my post in abstract terms (ie country A vs B) but I guess you can't take such a conflict out of its context.

I believe in the principle that there is no such thing as a perfect system and that everything has a weakness.

For me it is not the point to prove that China would beat the USA! By no means... I just wonder what their best options would be if facing a carrier battle group.

gf - earlier you posted that China only posesses a brown water navy and wouldn't stand a chance on the open ocean. I totally agree but the East China Sea is effectively this brown water area the way I understand it. Presuming that China can maintain air superiority over the mainland, the carrier would be at a disadvantage the closer it gets to shore from a tactical perspective and at a disadvantage the further it stays away from the shore from a aviation perspective.

[gf0012-aust]

gf - earlier you posted that China only posesses a brown water navy and wouldn't stand a chance on the open ocean. I totally agree but the East China Sea is effectively this brown water area the way I understand it. Presuming that China can maintain air superiority over the mainland, the carrier would be at a disadvantage the closer it gets to shore from a tactical perspective and at a disadvantage the further it stays away from the shore from a aviation perspective.

I think the big issue is that people focus on the US committing carriers early in the game - and thats just not how I see it.

No CSF is going to be put in harms way without adequate support. There are easier and cheaper ways to land punches on China than by committing a CSF. The flight times for F-22's, F15's from various spots is 4hrs, standoff weapons from B2's, B1's and even B52's are well outside the reach of the PLAAF, and the USN has been sortying super taskforces (ie 6-7 CSF's) as a clear message as to what can happen if deployed. Even the Russians weren't confident about killing carriers - and they had far more launch platforms, and far more capable technology.

The US can see what China does every living moment of the day. They can programme and reroute satellites to their hearts content, then can effectively have a redundant interrogation presence there 24/7/365 - and all of those assets are way way way beyond the reach of any chinese system.

There are too many numerous examples of what not to do, Eilat, Stark, Cole etc...

Besides, what US President would standby and not respond with approp force as soon as a carrier was attacked? maybe a democrat (which is why China was pro-Clinton) - but certainly not a republican ;)

I just don't see that the East China Sea is going to be the great naval "megido" that some others do.

[Francois]

This being said, and risking to repeat myself, nobody is going to put an CVSG in littoral waters! Not the US, not French and not Brits for sure.
It is out of doctrine. And useless. And suicidal.

[Nautilus]

Ok but then how are they stopping a chinese amphibious task force crossing over? TLAM's can be the answer to sink a large number of small to mid size ships transporting men and vehicles.

From what I know, CSF's are the standard first response the US comes up with. If they'd be reluctant to commit them in the East China Sea then there's gotta be something to China having a better position in this geographical area.

What are the closest land bases the US could operate from? South Korea?

[gf0012-aust]

Ok but then how are they stopping a chinese amphibious task force crossing over? TLAM's can be the answer to sink a large number of small to mid size ships transporting men and vehicles.

The Straits are a damocles sword, just as they see it as being am aquatic graveyard for large vessels, the same applies to any expeditionary force that attempts to cross it.

From what I know, CSF's are the standard first response the US comes up with. If they'd be reluctant to commit them in the East China Sea then there's gotta be something to China having a better position in this geographical area.

The CSF's are the only things that people mention as they seem to be the obvious choice to get persistance of air on target. it's not the only option though.


What are the closest land bases the US could operate from? South Korea?

From the numbers I've seen they can have non USN aircraft on station within 4-7 hrs. They have the numbers to fill air space until the first CSF arrives on station within 7 days, and that CSF doesn't need to be on the westward side of Taiwan.

They already have increased the number of AEGIS kitted skimmers normally based in Japan. IIRC they've now got an additional 3 on rotation.

If you include an ESG in the mix, then it means that all rotors can be offloaded to the ESG flag and the vacant parking taken up by more fixed wing combat aircraft. So any future CV(N) arrivals will be overpopulated with fixed wing combat aircraft. The DDG's and CG's can take on an extra helo each as an interim measure - and within a fleet it becomes less critical as more would be up flying ASW and picket duty.

and then there are the subs....

[Francois]

Ok but then how are they stopping a chinese amphibious task force crossing over? TLAM's can be the answer to sink a large number of small to mid size ships transporting men and vehicles.

From what I know, CSF's are the standard first response the US comes up with. If they'd be reluctant to commit them in the East China Sea then there's gotta be something to China having a better position in this geographical area.

What are the closest land bases the US could operate from? South Korea?
Do you really think it is a good idea to put a CV in the middle of the straight to prevent the invasion? Not me.
Bases are all around. From Okinawa to Sth Korea.

[Nautilus]

Do you really think it is a good idea to put a CV in the middle of the straight to prevent the invasion? Not me.
Bases are all around. From Okinawa to Sth Korea.

I never said that! In fact it'd be the most stupid thing to do. The position of choice for the US side would probably be the south east side of Taiwan. This puts the island in between the carrier and the mainland as a buffer zone with Taiwanese F16 and SAM's.

If the US want to prevent China from taking the island, they have to do something about Chinese forces getting over the strait. Not a week later but while its actually happening. The targets are amphib ships of various sizes.

Japan and South Korea may be all good as a long range bomber base but they're a bit far for fighters and ground attack planes. Sure, can be air refueled but the transit takes time and pilots get tired.

As was stated before quite correctly, once China assembles a large force of Ships near Taiwan - this would be detected by sats and would allow the US to pre-position a CSF (or more) if only as deterrant.

What is a ESG?

[gf0012-aust]

If the US want to prevent China from taking the island, they have to do something about Chinese forces getting over the strait. Not a week later but while its actually happening. The targets are amphib ships of various sizes.Taiwan has started deploying cruise missiles along the coast - they only have to disrupt and hold until greater force arrives in time (assuming that extra force is required). And I know what I'd be targeting - and it wouldn't be the amphibs.

Japan and South Korea may be all good as a long range bomber base but they're a bit far for fighters and ground attack planes. Sure, can be air refueled but the transit takes time and pilots get tired.The Stinkbugs flew from the US to Iraq with 4-5 refuleings along the way - far more than whats required for USAF aircraft to reach Taiwan

As was stated before quite correctly, once China assembles a large force of Ships near Taiwan - this would be detected by sats and would allow the US to pre-position a CSF (or more) if only as deterrant. You cannot conduct a major amphibious assault without alerting some harvester somewhere. To gather together an assault group large enough to storm Taiwan would start significant alarm bells. even if it was scaled slowly some analyst somewhere would be coming to theoreticals and chucking it up the line for someone else to decide upon.

What is a ESG?Expeditionary Strike Group, or sometimes referred to as an ARG (Amphibious Response Group). of which the USN has 11 of. They're basically pretend aircraft carriers for VTOL and for carting around Marines. Sort of like a mini carrier group.

Apart from all of this, an amphibious assault requires favourable weather conditions - IMV there are far more variables to alert the US that something is about to happen than the situation of the US having to get assets together to deal with a "surprise attack".

Anyone who thinks that running an amphibious event against Taiwan is in favour of the PLAN and PLAAF is seriously not looking at the impact of weather, logistics, persistence, projection, protection etc.... Political will and intent only counts for so much.

[Nautilus]

The Stinkbugs flew from the US to Iraq with 4-5 refuleings along the way - far more than whats required for USAF aircraft to reach Taiwan

Still doesn't address the point I made. You want your planes as close as possible to the action as they spend a lot of time transiting otherwise. Plus pilots get tired plus planes have less sorties between maintenance.


You cannot conduct a major amphibious assault without alerting some harvester somewhere. To gather together an assault group large enough to storm Taiwan would start significant alarm bells.

Exactly my point.

[gf0012-aust]

Still doesn't address the point I made. You want your planes as close as possible to the action as they spend a lot of time transiting otherwise. Plus pilots get tired plus planes have less sorties between maintenance.

Thats based on your assumption that planes on station are required immediately or relatively immediately to deal with the amphibious force.

Planes on station is a timing issue - its got little to do with how an invasion force can be blunted in the interim. The first planes are only 4 hrs away. An amphibious force can do bugger all in 4 hours, as they arrive on station (assuming that sea state is ideal and that they can travel unmolested as a group for the entire crossing) then the US component is either on station or in a position to launch standoff weapons for deterrence.

The Taiwanese Airforce isn't exactly going to be sitting still and waiting - and neither will the Taiwanese navy or coastal forces. They can see what mainland Chinese forces are doing for up to 250km past the shoreline. If Chinese aircraft don't want to be seen by Taiwanese controllers, then they have to saddle up at the 250-300km inland point - and that means reduced loiter time, earlier turn around time etc... Apart from that, any mainland Chinese aircraft movements are going to be seen as they happen by the US.

The dumbest thing China could do is pick a fight in the Straits. It's not going to be a Coral Sea event.

[abramsteve]

I am unsure but wouldnt the best way to stall any sort of aggression from China against Taiwan be to flood the straits with SSN's. I dont know the force levels of either side in terms of Subs.

A sub blockade of the straits would deny the Chinese the abillity to sealift troops into Taiwan, and would mean that the CVB can stand off at safe distance and take part in a defensive air war.

Like I said though I dont know, and alot would be determined by what would be connsidered an acceptable loss of manpower/equiptment in regards to the US/Allies anyways.

Could China try to saturate a CBG's defences with massed missile attacks? Would this work, and if so would it be worth it?

[gf0012-aust]

I am unsure but wouldnt the best way to stall any sort of aggression from China against Taiwan be to flood the straits with SSN's. I dont know the force levels of either side in terms of Subs.

A sub blockade of the straits would deny the Chinese the abillity to sealift troops into Taiwan, and would mean that the CVB can stand off at safe distance and take part in a defensive air war. well, I know what I'd do, but thats kind of irrelevant ;), and considering the fact that mission planners have access to far more data than any of us do, then I'm pretty sure they've crunched the numbers.

Could China try to saturate a CBG's defences with massed missile attacks? Would this work, and if so would it be worth it?Of course they can, but that still means that their are launch arcs that are known and can be dealt with. I'd rather be on a moving target than one that is fixed and easily updated for retargetting.

The Russians had the most complex and capable force that ever contested the Americans, and they have admitted through various historical publications released in the last 4-5 years that they lacked the confidence to deal with the USN. They had far more capable aircraft, far greater range and speed in those aircraft, far better weapons and far better synergy than China has today - in fact I can't see China hitting the same capability footprint for at least 10 years - irrespective of how strong her economy is - and believe me unless they've reinvented economics, their economy is going to experience some ugly times like every other country on the planet.

With a military that is fundamentally landlocked, with a barely functiong navy (in the blue water sense) and an army that lacks expeditionary capability in the most basic of senses - I don't see her being that stupid in contesting another power - especially one that has a modern synchronised military, has the best electronic harvesting in the world and actually has functioning battle management systems in 3 dimensions and operates in all five environments, submarine, surface, land, air (gravity bound) and space.

Hence why my frequent comments about reality checks being needed to be demonstrated all the time when these kinds of scenarios are postulated.

IMO of course. ;)

[Nautilus]

I am not so sure this SSN idea is good. These subs are considered high value assets and are not exactly designed to mass sink ships in the littoral area. Whilst Chinese subs may be far inferior, they'd still get some hits. One US SSN sunk for every ten Chinese subs is simply unacceptable and then there is the flotilla above crossing the strait.

[gf0012-aust]

I am not so sure this SSN idea is good. These subs are considered high value assets and are not exactly designed to mass sink ships in the littoral area. Whilst Chinese subs may be far inferior, they'd still get some hits. One US SSN sunk for every ten Chinese subs is simply unacceptable and then there is the flotilla above crossing the strait.

the US isn't going to commit subs to the Strait - it's a relatively pointless exercise. Both sides have been establishing seabed sensor systems anyway - putting subs in those situations would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

The Taiwanese are more than capable of defending the approaches. Things get interesting after D+1.

[Francois]

Brits and French did manage to get a few CVs in simulated battles, with tremendous odds on the Opfor (the US).
The US won't commit their assets too close to Chinese's.
And the US space management is thousend times more precise then chinese.
They will keep their HVUs out of reach and hit at the same time.

The only bad news would be that Taiwan refuses to fight.
But there won't be a war then, uh?

[gf0012-aust]

Brits and French did manage to get a few CVs in simulated battles, with tremendous odds on the Opfor (the US). and we're talking about real blue water navies with substantial experience at naval warfighting who also know how their US partners tend to train and react under given circumstances - advantages that China does not have. They also have the advantage of having active aircraft carriers and thus knowing what they'd do in a fight - again, CV handling is anathema to the PLAN.

The US won't commit their assets too close to Chinese's.
And the US space management is thousend times more precise then chinese.
They will keep their HVUs out of reach and hit at the same time.and thats the advantage of having large flexible mass where they can graduate how and what they dispose to a fight. they have force flexibility - china does not.

The only bad news would be that Taiwan refuses to fight.
But there won't be a war then, uh?agree, and thats the wildcard in all of this.