Alternatives to a Carrier Battle Group

[ajay_ijn]

Guys what do u think is an alternative to a CVBGs.I am talking about US CVBGs
Just imagine CVBGs are not availaible and u have to choose an Alternate Weapon.of course there is no perfect alternative to a CVBG thats why USN maintains so many CSFs.

I would choose SSGNs,about 12-15 of them each armed with a Advanced Missiles,but this is only possible in future.

The Missiles must be able to provide recon,maneuver battlefield and also must be able to carry Smaller warheads which will strike Hardened targets precisely.

Like Surface Warships, SSGNs need not worry about Air defence and also about ASW.


​

 

[kashifshahzad]

Mate you should explain it plz i cant understand some of the terms CVBGs CSFs SSGNs
ASW. plz let me know which thing you want to distroy or for which thing you say countries should have alternatives

 

[ajay_ijn]

Mate you should explain it plz i cant understand some of the terms CVBGs CSFs SSGNs
ASW. plz let me know which thing you want to distroy or for which thing you say countries should have alternative

Cmon u don't know what is ASW.
Anti-Submarine Warfare.
CVBG-Carrier Battle Group
SSGN-Cruise Missile Submarines.
CSF-Carrier Strike Force

plz let me know which thing you want to distroy or for which thing you say countries should have alternative

I don't want to destroy anything,I clearly mentioned that i am talking about US CVBGs

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would choose SSGNs,about 12-15 of them each armed with a Advanced Missiles,but this is only possible in future.

How does an SSGN fleet provide a credible counter to a CTF/CSF? It doesn't
It's mission is fundamentally to act as an underwater arsenal ship. beyond that it starts to act in the traditional underwater ISR role including Specops. It does not provide visible deterrence which is why CSF's, CTF's and SAG's were so effective as butt clinchers.

What "advanced" missile do you think needs to be on an SSGN that is not already on them?

You cannot have a fleet defined unless you have your doctrine defined. Otherwise it's just moving clumps of ships on water. Doctrine is defined by notional likely areas of contact or engagement. Fleet creation is defined by mission and tasking/doctrine/political extension.

The Missiles must be able to provide recon,maneuver battlefield and also must be able to carry Smaller warheads which will strike Hardened targets precisely.

The USN has already shown under Exercise Silent Hammer that they have a variety of warloads and mission flexibility with SSGN's.

Like Surface Warships, SSGNs need not worry about Air defence and also about ASW.

1) Huh??? what surface warfare vessel doesn't need to worry about air defence? why do you think fleets are provided with airwarfare vessels such as AEGIS/PAAMS?

2) SSGN's clearly have to worry about ASW - they're a submarine for goodness sake. In real terms in the USN they have more firepower than any other fleet asset outside of a full nuke delivery.

Cmon u don't know what is ....
SSGN-Cruise Missile Submarines.

Incorrect, the correct definition is
SSGN = Submarine Guided Missile Nuclear Powered.
Under the Int'l accepted naming conventions there is no combat prefix for cruise missile launchers. The definition was created as the USN developed a new internationally recognised class of vessel. There are no dedicated cruise missile launchers that have recognition under the int'l naming conventions.

A conventional sub fitting the guided missile definition would be an SSG.

SSGN's are dedicated to launching guided weapons - that is a little bit more than a sub that is tasked to launch cruise missiles as part of its mix.

 

[Awang se]

i think SSG is a poor man's way of power projection.

Despite any saying on contrary, i think submarines is still a credible threat to CVBG especially in a littoral area. Currently, US have no specialized subs to be use in the littoral waters, though i believe LA class can do the job well.

i wonder why US don't consider using a conventional sub. With the advancement in AIPs, the endurance of conventional sub is greatly increase. besides, US have naval bases all over the world besides the bases of it's allies. so endurance shouldn't be a problem with the US subs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i think SSG is a poor man's way of power projection.

how is it a poor mans projection when the only country that has an SSGN fleet is the most powerful military force on the planet? Nobody else has SSGN's - period. The capacity to launch cruise missiles does not make a sub an SSGN

Despite any saying on contrary, i think submarines is still a credible threat to CVBG especially in a littoral area. Currently, US have no specialized subs to be use in the littoral waters, though i believe LA class can do the job well.

Nobody says to the contrary. The US doesn't expose CSF's and CTF's to the littorals without proper support - they don't need to. What recent military or pending military conflict requires CVN's to be deployed into the littorals in challenge of the threat?

i wonder why US don't consider using a conventional sub.

Because they train against conventionals actively every year. For the last 3 years they have been conducting 3-4 ASW fleet exercises per year against Sth American Forces. Then they practice in the Nthn Atlantic with STANAVFORLANT on an active basis. In the Pacific and Sth China areas they practice with RIMPAC. They conduct more conventional fleet exercises against conventionals than any conventional owner does by themselves. They train in the Aust SubWarfare area 3-4 times per year. They also now train against the leased Swedish Gotland. The intent is to also use the Canadians Upholders as aggressors. That was planned 3 years ago. They currently train against the Collins as aggressors. Why buy their own when they have full access to nearly every class of modern conventional sub amongst their allies and training partners?

With the advancement in AIPs, the endurance of conventional sub is greatly increase. besides, US have naval bases all over the world besides the bases of it's allies. so endurance shouldn't be a problem with the US subs.

Explain where conventionals need to be part of the current USN projection and capability strategy? They don't need them for their own build doctrine - they only need access to them for training purposes.

The USN is moving to USV's in the littorals. They've already embarked on the project to modify the Mk48 ADCAP with the RAN to act as a littorals specific torpedo. (Block 70).

USV's like Mantra will be configured to fire Mk50 sized weapons. More than enough to kill any other sub short of a Typhoon.

Besides - if the US wants to get into the conventionals business - then there are at least 2 ways to get in. Its not as if they are not placed to do it. There is already a move for US companies to start building conventionals to be sold to other navies if the USN doesn't want them.

Subs are built and designed against naval doctrine. It's not like they're rifles.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

SSGN = Submarine Guided Missile Nuclear Powered, isn't SS Ship Submerged ? (googled it hehe)

 

[gf0012-aust]

SSGN = Submarine Guided Missile Nuclear Powered, isn't SS Ship Submerged ? (googled it hehe)

I haven't seen the Submerged Ship definition used for about 20 years. It was originally that when the naming standards were created.

Both Janes and Bakers silence the "submergerd ship" nomenclature and substitute "submarine" instead. The S is almost redundant.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

i think SSG is a poor man's way of power projection.

how is it a poor mans projection when the only country that has an SSGN fleet is the most powerful military force on the planet?.

SSG was mentioned, not SSGN, perhaps Awang se was refering to minor navys that have guided missile, prosumably land attack, equipped conventional submarines.

 

[gf0012-aust]

SSG was mentioned, not SSGN, perhaps Awang se was refering to minor navys that have guided missile, prosumably land attack, equipped conventional submarines.

My apols Awang-se - misread by me.

To the topic.

An SSG is a loadout specific platform. To get it to deliver guided missiles means some drastic construction changes.

If you restrict cruise missile launches to tubes - then that means 4-6 launch options. It also means that the chance of reload in a hot environment is going to be interesting (not)

If you assume that it will follow the current SSG launch profile of using VLS or at a pinch ALS - then there are no conventionals able to fulfill that role. None are designed to do it. technically what conventional has the space to include VLS launchers? It narrows it down to 2 types. Collins and Oyashio. Both aren't about to sacrifice AIP space for VLS cannisters.

Ipso facto, all this means is that you have SSK's or SS's that will take on a role that enables them to fire cruise missiles in addition to torpedoes and/or mines.

IMV it's far from being a viable proposition for a conventional sub - even for the larger 3000 tonners like the Collins and Oyashios.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I agree gf, if you have a SSK with 14 - 18 loadout, if you start mixing torps, harpoons (or similar) and a land attack missile, the SSK is going to be really taxed to do any task well. But it looks good to say "hey we have SSG's" There would have to be a good tactical reason to do so. I can see the point in the case of Israel, especially as they will be nuclear it seems, and 4 additional tubes were added to the new subs so as not to affect the normal loadout. But as most adverseries share your border, and most countries are large enough to hide mobile weapons effectively, its more economical to have the LACM mounted on land mobile platforms and hidden. A handful of LACM loaded out on a few subs really is just showmanship.
I see a good point to the USN's SSGN's. Scenerio 1, there is increasing tension between China and Taiwan (an example only) the US sends a CVBG to the area, this would be certain to inflame the situation. Scenerio 2, same situation, , the USN send in a SSGN, the situation turns sour, the US has 154 LACM available to launch close by, if the tension eases, the SSGN glides away unseen, with no lose of face for either party.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I see a good point to the USN's SSGN's. Scenerio 1, there is increasing tension between China and Taiwan (an example only) the US sends a CVBG to the area, this would be certain to inflame the situation. Scenerio 2, same situation, , the USN send in a SSGN, the situation turns sour, the US has 154 LACM available to launch close by, if the tension eases, the SSGN glides away unseen, with no lose of face for either party.

Exactly, and all these kids who think that the USN will up the ante by moving in a CTF have no idea.

The most powerful non nuke vessels in the USN are the SSGN's. The PLAN does not have the technical capability to counter them with subs.

The recently held Talisman exercise off of Nthn Queensland had a couple of SINKEX's. The PLAN and the Russians sent a couple of electrical sniffers to try and collect data about the exercise. One of the acoustic warfare officers described the PLAN subs as "being as quiet as a blender full of nails". At least the russians sent "fishing boats" (AGI's) and made no bones about the fact that they were there to try and collect data.

Fleet construction is determined by national strategic and political policy - you can't say "what do we get instead of a CSF/CBG?". Without understanding the mission and the need for a specific vessels capability - well it's like taking a Playboy magazine to a Catholic Convent - totally inappropriate and a waste of time.

 

[ajay_ijn]

How does an SSGN fleet provide a credible counter to a CTF/CSF? It doesn't
It's mission is fundamentally to act as an underwater arsenal ship. beyond that it starts to act in the traditional underwater ISR role including Specops. It does not provide visible deterrence which is why CSF's, CTF's and SAG's were so effective as butt clinchers.

GF I clearly mentioned that there is no perfect alternative to the carrier.
I want to discuss about the next best thing to the carrier that all.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

America went throught this debate after WW2. From what I recall, the thinking was that all future wars would be nuclear, and the airforce won over the navy as to who should carry nukes. Big carriers on the drawing board were canned.
"United States, a 65,000-ton attack aircraft carrier, was the Navy's first carrier of post-World War II concept and design. Intended to carry relatively large jet-propelled strategic bombers, she was laid down at Newport News, Virginia, on 18 April 1949. However, her construction was cancelled only five days later by Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, in favor of building a large force of land-based B-36 bombers."
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-u/cva58.htm
Then along came the Korean war, it was conventional, and a long way from US bases. Suddenly the carriers took on a new importance, and have to this day. If the US gets long range hypersonic bombers in its mix, then maybe we will see a diminishing of the CTF / CVBG, but thats a long way off, and you can't beat a carrier to show the flag eh.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF I clearly mentioned that there is no perfect alternative to the carrier. I want to discuss about the next best thing to the carrier that all.

Note my prev comment:

you can't say "what do we get instead of a CSF/CBG?". Without understanding the mission and the need for a specific vessels capability - .... it's like taking a Playboy magazine to a Catholic Convent - totally inappropriate and a waste of time.

that applies to any weapons solution that is being considered. You have to look at the country and then that countries threat matrix. It is different for each country.

determine the above - and then you can start naming "solutions"

 

[Aussie Digger]

For Navies that can't or aren't allowed to acquire a Carrier, I think anti-air warfare ships are the next best thing. A ship with a capable air surveillance radar systems, fire control systems and advanced air warfare, ASuW and ASW capabilities is a pretty tough combination to beat.

The RAN Air Warfare Destroyers coming into service from 2013 will be equipped with AEGIS, SM-2, ESSM, Harpoon II (or later H21 upgrade, ie: Harpoon II fitted with Link 16 data link) , Mk45 Mod 4 5 inch guns, Typhoon 25mm guns, 2x CIWS (probably a combo of missiles and guns), MU-90 torpedo's and a helicopter launched anti-ship/land attack missile (possibly a Penguin derivative or similar missile).

In addition to this the ships will also be equipped with which ever extended range guided munitions win the current US Navy program (to provide 100nm plus range precision guided munitions for surface combatants) for the 5 inch gun. These capabilities are already approved as the FIRM requirements for these ships and WILL be fitted to the intial baseline ships as they have already been approved by the Government.

The flexible options the RAN would also like will include SM-3 BMD missiles, SM-6 extended range SAM's and a long range land attack missile system (Tomahawk or a similar weapon to the proposed Naval JASSM or vertical launcher SLAM-ER variants).

AS can be seen the baseline capabilities for a future AWD (less than 10 years away) are of a VERY high level and outclass almost every type of major surface combatant in service today. If additional capabilities were fitted you'd have a potent warship that can fight and win in almost any operational environment and take part in warfare at every possible level. Such a capability is being sought by almost every major Western Navy, even those that can't afford an Aircraft carrier. An AWD seems to me to be to be 2nd only to Carriers in overall combat capability...

 

[ajay_ijn]

ow does an SSGN fleet provide a credible counter to a CTF/CSF? It doesn't
It's mission is fundamentally to act as an underwater arsenal ship. beyond that it starts to act in the traditional underwater ISR role including Specops. It does not provide visible deterrence which is why CSF's, CTF's and SAG's were soH effective as butt clinchers.

What "advanced" missile do you think needs to be on an SSGN that is not already on them?

You cannot have a fleet defined unless you have your doctrine defined. Otherwise it's just moving clumps of ships on water. Doctrine is defined by notional likely areas of contact or engagement. Fleet creation is defined by mission and tasking/doctrine/political extension.

[/color]


The USN has already shown under Exercise Silent Hammer that they have a variety of warloads and mission flexibility with SSGN's.



1) Huh??? what surface warfare vessel doesn't need to worry about air defence? why do you think fleets are provided with airwarfare vessels such as AEGIS/PAAMS?

2) SSGN's clearly have to worry about ASW - they're a submarine for goodness sake. In real terms in the USN they have more firepower than any other fleet asset outside of a full nuke delivery.

.

Sorry i wrote "like Surface Warships",I should have written "unlike surface Warships".

2) SSGN's clearly have to worry about ASW - they're a submarine for goodness sake. In real terms in the USN they have more firepower than any other fleet asset outside of a full nuke delivery.

They need to have good ASW.
Most of the third world navies do not have subs,even if they have they won't be effective,they can be sink by Attack Submarines easily.
Then I don't think it is seriously necessary for an SSGN to have good ASW Weapons.

Fleet construction is determined by national strategic and political policy - you can't say "what do we get instead of a CSF/CBG?". Without understanding the mission and the need for a specific vessels capability - well it's like taking a Playboy magazine to a Catholic Convent - totally inappropriate and a waste of time.

what do we get instead of a CSF/CBG

I think we can atleast discuss about alternatives instead of reaching the conclusion.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Fleet construction is determined by national strategic and political policy - you can't say "what do we get instead of a CSF/CBG?". Without understanding the mission and the need for a specific vessels capability - well it's like taking a Playboy magazine to a Catholic Convent - totally inappropriate and a waste of time.

GF,We wanted to discuss wiht respect to FirePower and Effectiveness in combat rather than with respect to Strategy or national defence policy.
We are just discussing,we are not going ask any Pentagon official to consider this alternative.

 

[crazypole]

Carriers are there to project power, so any alternative must also do this. In the present time to project power requires either air power or land forces, but the second would mean an invasion of some other sovereign state.

Missile armed ships or submarines do not project power. This means a choice between sending strategic bombers from home bases, which is possible, but difficult... and holding a number of overseas bases. This second option, even-though there are problems with having to establish these, is in my opinion the only way to be able to project power at a moments notice anywhere within whatever region the base has been established, in other words it is a static carrier group, having the same power but not the mobility
The problem with overseas bases is having to maintain them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF,We wanted to discuss wiht respect to FirePower and Effectiveness in combat rather than with respect to Strategy or national defence policy.
We are just discussing,we are not going ask any Pentagon official to consider this alternative.

have you actually understood anything of what I've written?? apparently not. It's an issue of logic - not a matter of discussing US politics.

You obviously fail to comprehend the model I am presenting - try again.

It's common sense to look at threat matrix to define response matrix. How else do you want to do it? Would you rather run a raffle and pick a page out of a Janes military handbook?