Alternatives to a Carrier Battle Group

What is the alternate to the Carrier Battle Group

  • Guided Missile Submarines which TLAMs

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Surface Warships with TLAMs

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • Satellite Launched Conventional Weapons

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Strategic Bombers

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • OverSea Bases

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ajay_ijn said:
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.
err, part of the ASW system is sensors as well as responders. of course its necessary to have capability - what the hell do you think is sitting in their armoury?

ajay_ijn said:
I think we can atleast discuss about alternatives instead of reaching the conclusion.
it was a rhetorical question. take the time to read the tone and intent of the response before answering.
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Hmm, first one has to define the tasks carried out by a CVBG, then come up with an alternative that can take on as many of those that are deemed to be of the highest priority. Its really going to depend on that. If you place the ability to place the maximum number of warheads on target from the smallest number of vessels, you can't beat the SSGN, but if you are willing to go for a greater mix of surface combatants, then the CG based BG. You have long range recon using unmanned drones and satelites, short to medium with ship based sensors and helicopters, antisubmarine warfare, area AD and antiship. Graduated response capabilty, and basing flexibilty. Afew years ago I would have gone for a battleship battle group, remove the rear turrent and install VLS into the rear deck, back in the 1980's there was a plan to remove the rear turrent and build a partial angled deck, and to operate Harriers and helos. Nothing came of it, was designated as a Sea Controll Ship. Looked really nice in the drawings.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
EnigmaNZ said:
Afew years ago I would have gone for a battleship battle group, remove the rear turrent and install VLS into the rear deck, back in the 1980's there was a plan to remove the rear turrent and build a partial angled deck, and to operate Harriers and helos. Nothing came of it, was designated as a Sea Controll Ship. Looked really nice in the drawings.
I've got a book detailing the mods to be made to the New Jersey to turn it into a helo-carrier. It's an interesting design, but operationally pretty useless. The poms worked out fairly quickly that small harrier capable "non carrier" platforms didn't add that much value to the mix.

Surface Action Groups (as led by the Battleship right up until Lebanon) lost their charisma once more accurate cruise missiles - and definitely once standoff precision missiles improved. The problem for the SAG is that it doesn't have organic air with look down capability to detect incoming cruise missiles that extra 150km further out.

When you add in the fact that an effective ASW screen really needs a combination of 3 discreet assets to effectively hound and prosecute, it leaves the BB looking a little vulnerable. In a peace time disposition, that would mean a third of the effective skimmer force is riding shotgun for subs - and no real effective organic air to watch out as a CAP.

Be that as it may, I have a soft spot for the US BB's, classic clipper design, nicely balanced. Anything that can throw a shell that weighs as much as a Volkswagen gets my attention. ;)

NGFS is better served by PGM's though.
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Hmm, drooling at the thought of that book gf ;) I have a hanking for battleships as well.
Interesting site for those into Battleships, compare your favourite.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Ever wonder "what if" the plans for various warships that were cancelled by the end of the war would have been like.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm
Btw gf, love the new Aussie cruiser, saw it on this site :D
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Australian_Devonshire_Missile_Cruiser.htm
 

Pendekar

New Member
can't they just rig the guns to fire an extended range guided munitions? a 155mm extended range artillery munitions can hit a target almost a hundred km away, imagine how far extended range 16 inch shell can go. besides that, there's plenty of room in the battleships so there's room to install additional weapons (SAMs, Cruise Missiles, ASM, Helos).I really hope in the future, i would see the revival of the Battleships bristling with mother guns.

I'm a fan of japanese battleship Yamato
.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
EnigmaNZ said:
Yep, pity he left out some of the good stuff we have. eg:

Metalstorm CIWS
CEA Phased Array Radar package
Nulka
Hypersonic SAM

Considering the fact that 2 of them exist and are in use, and that the other two are in various staged of development but have working technology demonstraters - then I think he "detuned" the ship. ;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I thought the range of those guns was a little bit short-legged myself. The Mk 45 Mod 4 5 inch gun that is to be used on the RAN's upcoming Air Warfare Destroyers will have an extended range guided munition that is rated as possessing a 100 nautical mile range (ie: 180k's)...
 

highsea

New Member
There is an ongoing debate over reactivating two of the BB's with extended range 16" shells. The first essay here outlines the postition of the USNFSA, and the second is a response from Rear Adm. Charles S. Hamilton.
June 6, 2005

Battleships fit for duty

By Dennis Reilly

The 2006 National Defense Authorization Act would strike the battleships USS Iowa and Wisconsin from the Navy register and turn them into museums. This sounds attractive, but it would in fact erect monuments to folly, placing the lives of thousands of our Marines at risk. It would void the previous law, PL104-106, that instructed the Navy to keep two Iowa-class battleships readily available until the Navy certifies to Congress that it has fire-support capability that equals or exceeds that of the Iowa-class battleships. The Navy is unable to do this. Instead, it has taken steps detrimental to reactivation of these ships.

Why this reaction? Simply put, there has been a failure of strategic insight on the part of leadership. A July 2002 meeting between then Navy Secretary Gordon England -- now up for confirmation as deputy secretary of defense -- and the U.S. Naval Surface Fire Support Association focused on reactivating the battleships to provide the fire support that was then and is now missing. Mr. England stated that there was no need for that kind of firepower, as the only remaining threat was terrorism. When I brought up North Korea, China, Iran, and the impending war with Iraq, the Secretary replied: "We do not regard such scenarios as realistic." Iraq is now history. Fortunately we did not have to fight our way ashore.

The world, however, remains a dangerous place, and the threat of terrorism is still but one head on the hydra. While North Korea continues to churn out nuclear weapons, some 12,000 well-dug-in artillery tubes along the DMZ hold Seoul hostage with the threat of overnight obliteration. China's rapidly escalating military capabilities, alliances and thinly veiled threats are alarming. China clearly feels free to choose the time and means -- including force -- to resolve the Taiwan issue. How events will unfold in these places and in others, such as Iran, is anyone's guess. But one thing is sure. Should there be conflict in these areas, the Marines will be involved, and it will not be an antiterrorist action.

Based on its vision, the Navy has focused on the development of a destroyer, the DD(X), equipped with two long range guns. No doubt this would be useful in breaking up terrorist camps scattered about the Pacific littorals, but it is not the gun you would want to bring to a major conflict. The small mass delivered to target makes these rounds ineffective against hardened positions. The cost per round forces the Navy to admit that high-volume fire is unaffordable. Lacking armor, the ship is highly vulnerable, despite its low-radar cross section. The cost -- Congress demands a cap of $1.7 billion per ship -- is out of proportion to its usefulness.

What can a supposedly antiquated battleship bring to the fight? During the Vietnam War, the New Jersey was on station for 6 months. It wreaked havoc on the DMZ and in the North, including destruction of the deeply buried North Vietnamese Army (NVA) command headquarters. Had this ship been deployed throughout that war, a fair fraction of the 2,000 aviators killed, missing in action or captured as prisoners of war would have been spared. No statistic conveys the impact of the New Jersey's assault on the NVA better than the fact that North Vietnam demanded the withdrawal of the ship -- not the B-52s -- before it would continue with the Paris peace talks.

Technology now allows battleships to do far better. GPS guidance will ensure one-shot, one-kill of hard targets such as the North Korean gun emplacements and Chinese missile batteries. Shells weighing 525 pounds can reach as far as 115 miles in a life-saving time of only 3 minutes. Over the longer term, the battleship's potential is truly revolutionary. Studies show that its massive firepower could be projected to at least 460 miles. With enhanced firepower and the ability to steam between Inchon and the Formosan Straits in less than a day and a half, two modernized battleships would have a chilling deterrent effect on aggressive designs by either the Chinese or the North Koreans.

The Navy has misled Congress regarding the battleship's firepower, costs, survivability -- the Nevada survived two atom bombs -- and condition of equipment. The reality is that these ships could meet Marine Corps fire-support requirements in the near future. Nothing else can. Cost effective? Each battleship, with a reactivation and modernization cost of only $1.5 billion, has firepower equivalent to two aircraft carriers using only one-eighththemanpower. Moreover, the battleships' response is all-weather, is generally faster and is impervious to air defenses.

As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said, you go to war with the army you have. If in the future our brave Marines are getting butchered because of insufficient fire support, "the Army we have" then will be a result of the actions taken today. What should be done? Reactivate the battleships now. Would you rather have a museum or a live Marine?

Dennis Reilly, a physicist, serves as science advisor to the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050605-105946-6398r.htm

This is Admiral Hamilton's response:

June 13, 2005

Building a new Navy

By Charles S. Hamilton

Passionate advocates of returning our Nation's two battleships to service maintain that these two ships could be brought back into service quickly, safely and economically to meet Marine Corps requirements for long-range, precise firepower ashore.

The battleships and the Sailors who manned them served our Nation with pride and distinction through some of the darkest days of the Republic. We must continue to honor that service and recognize their achievements, but we should not confuse our fondness for those ships with an assumption of their appropriateness for the task at hand.

If reactivated, the battleships would not be able to fire munitions "as far as 115 miles in a life-saving time of only three minutes." Such munitions just do not exist, nor could they be quickly developed, tested and fielded within the next few years. The current range of an unguided 16-inch round is only 20 nautical miles ? half the distance the Navy has fired the latest generations of smart rounds for our new naval guns. The notion that super long-range 16-inch gun rounds are within our grasp is illusory.

And given today's battlefields, particularly the densely populated urban jungles in which our Marines and Soldiers currently fight, it would be folly to assume that a battlefield commander would employ a high-yield "dumb" weapon at long ranges without the utmost confidence that it would not inflict massive collateral damage. Without that confidence, such a weapon would have dubious utility. Developing a hardened guidance and control system that could withstand the punishing muzzle energy of the 16-inch guns, if at all possible, would not be a simple or cheap two-to-three-year effort.

The Navy's solution is the next-generation destroyer, DD(X), with its two fully automated 155mm guns capable of firing 10 Global Positioning System-guided rounds per minute up to 83 nautical miles from an expandable 920-round magazine. To provide sustained fire for major combat operations, DD(X) can employ imaginative new feature called an unlimited magazine. Because of DD(X)'s design, with its two forward-mounted guns and expansive flight deck aft, the ship can simultaneously conduct fire missions while being resupplied. Pre-loaded pallets are brought aboard and quickly placed directly into the fully automated magazine, much like a clip is used to reload a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. At no point do sailors have to labor with loading or assembling the ammunition, which increases the firing rate, reloading time and safety to the crew.

DD(X) will use a devastating new tactic called "multiple simultaneously round impact" in which the ship fires six to eight rounds at different trajectories depending on the range of the target. Each round steers to precise aim points, landing in a particular pattern at the same time in a no-notice, lethal salvo that catches targets unaware and unprepared from the very first shot. Hostile forces will no longer be able to hunker down in bunkers or flee an area during the time it currently takes our spotters find the proper range, adjust their shots and fire for effect. DD(X) will deliver this powerful firepower at more than four times the range and with more than 20 times the accuracy of a battleship.

The Navy's current strategy will outfit its current world-class ships with the best weapons possible and develop a long-term solution, DD(X). This approach is designed to spread capability throughout the Fleet, rather than concentrate it in two ships that cannot be everywhere at once. Given the current resource-constrained wartime budget, spending the billions of dollars to reactivate the battleships, develop advanced munitions, and pay the very high costs to operate them would come at the expense of other vital programs.

The mighty ships of the Iowa Class served this nation well in the 20th century. It is now time to build the ships that will do so in the 21st.

Rear Adm. Charles S. Hamilton is the Navy's Program Executive Officer for Ships.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050612-095954-8831r.htm

What I thought was most interesting was the "multiple simultaneously round impact" tactic. 8 x 155mm at once would be a serious hit to anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end.

As much as I love the Iowa's, the cost of updating and reactivation, developing new rounds, etc, just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
highsea said:
What I thought was most interesting was the "multiple simultaneously round impact" tactic. 8 x 155mm at once would be a serious hit to anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end.
That sounds like a variation on the "portable MIRV" concept. ;)


highsea said:
As much as I love the Iowa's, the cost of updating and reactivation, developing new rounds, etc, just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
I can't see it happening. Carlton Meyers has been running a little support group to reactivate them but I can't see it happening due to numbers of reasons.

1) Cost of crewing. Even if they went to COTs in the engine room, they still coundn't lower the manning levels to a point that is attractive. The USN is trying to revise manning opportunities to similar vessel ratios in the RAN (we typically have 20-30% less people on similar sized vessels) and are struggling.

2) Primary mission. Rounds on target from an unprotected position (cost efficiency reasons) If you can't deliver weight on target from a relatively autonomous position (ie standalone and without the need for CAP or a SAG support element), then you're rapidly hitting the cost inefficiency curve.

3) IIRC the tests they did showed that they got more weight on target en-masse with 8" shells than 16" shells (Lebanon). If an arsenal vessel response is needed, then VLS stacks in other vessels are more useful.

A Tico is more lethal than an Iowa. It can stand off, protect itself, have a 1/5th of the crew and still be able to support the fleet. The question is, (and lets just use manning levels as opposed to overall capability), do you want 5 x Tico's or ABII's or an Iowa? ;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The multiple simultaneous round impact tactic is one that is also being used by Artillery forces around the world. Rapidly loaded SPG's in particular are capable of this type of fire, though probably not to the same effect that an automatic naval gun could manage.

You have to wonder about some American's. The US Marine Corps alone has more firepower than just about any other land force on Earth. It's already acquiring new capabilities such as XM777 155mm Howitzers, HIMARS artillery rocket systems, new 120mm towed and self propelled mortars, a vast range of new direct fire weapons, plus upgraded weapons for it's F/A-18 and AV-2B Harrier fleets (which by themselves they are one of the most powerful "air forces" on the planet) AND the F-35 JSF replacement program for those fleets and still they complain that they don't have enough firepower...

How much is "enough"? When the USMC combines with the US Navy's offensive firepower and the USAF's it has far greater firepower than any potential adversary force. Most land commanders would "kill" to have the fire support available to them that the USMC can muster. The USMC should concentrate more on the skill of it's soldiers, than it's firepower IMHO...
 
Top