Carriers
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.
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.corsair7772 said:
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.