Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[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 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% : )

 

[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 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% : )

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

 

[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 :

 

[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.