Countering a CBG(s) with CBG(s)

You’re right. I had it in my head that Jarrett was AEGIS, but she wasn’t.

So has AEGIS never faced an operational anti-ship missile?

No, I don’t think it’s ever been used against a hostile aircraft either.

I don’t think there was an Aegis vessel escorting Missouri, I thought it was just Gloucester and Jarrett.

You’re right. I had it in my head that Jarrett was AEGIS, but she wasn’t.

So has AEGIS never faced an operational anti-ship missile?

Although a carrier often (depending upon wind direction) makes it easier by turning round at regular intervals and going as fast as they can into the wind. This makes them easier to overtake and easier to hear,

True it slows down the general rate of advance, but, it does add the extra unpredicatability on course changes meaning that the sub has to be careful to balance speed and sensor performance. Echoing Kilo’s sentiments the point I was making was that SSNs are powerful ASuW platforms but they have to put a lot of work into what they do.

The only example of Aegis facing a missile attack that I can think of is the GW I case where 2 Silkwork missiles were fired by Iraqi forces at the USS Missouri and USS Jarrett.

The Royal Navy destroyer HMS Gloucester shot down one and the other fell into the sea.

So hardly a coordinated attack, but not a great success story for the Aegis system either.

I don’t think there was an Aegis vessel escorting Missouri, I thought it was just Gloucester and Jarrett.

Just to clarify the SSN cannot ‘chase’ a surface group down.

Although a carrier often (depending upon wind direction) makes it easier by turning round at regular intervals and going as fast as they can into the wind.

This makes them easier to overtake and easier to hear,

Yep. She did return to port. But she got within about 100 miles of the TG and the only thing that stopped her from launching an air strike was a lack of wind. The point I was kinda trying to make was: SSNs ARE formidable things…….but they are not the end all solution to the CVBG problem……..

Correct.

However I’d also say a knackered carrier that was barely able to launch aircraft isn’t much of a carrier.

btw, has the early 90’s era aegis system ever faced a coordinated supersonic AshM attack wave under real battle field EW environment?
before co-op engagement and ESSMs and Active seekers for Standard missile and all that ?

The only example of Aegis facing a missile attack that I can think of is the GW I case where 2 Silkwork missiles were fired by Iraqi forces at the USS Missouri and USS Jarrett.

The Royal Navy destroyer HMS Gloucester shot down one and the other fell into the sea.

So hardly a coordinated attack, but not a great success story for the Aegis system either.

It was HMS Spartan, and it’s probably fair to say that for a good portion of that time she couldn’t be found because she’d returned to port :diablo:

Yep. She did return to port. But she got within about 100 miles of the TG and the only thing that stopped her from launching an air strike was a lack of wind. The point I was kinda trying to make was: SSNs ARE formidable things…….but they are not the end all solution to the CVBG problem……..

Soviets didn’t choose to go for missiles becouse they tought that carriers weren’t up for the task. The reasons why soviet navy was what it was was much more complicated matter than that.

But I’m not that much interested on figuring out how well the existing or “almoust” existing carrier airgroups would have performed, but more of what sort of carriergroup would you need in order to get it done. I know it may sound difficoult, I tough myself that its just easy to ask others obinions but my lack of good means to express my toughts in english have failed me.

But lets do it this way: You are now in the powers of some nation X’s strategical planning and you have all the resourses needed. You have been given a task: counter USN carrier force. You have 9 carriers of various size in your possesion and 4 new supercarriers on build ready to replace older vessels. USN has introduced Aegis and has quite effective layered airdefence umbrella over its carriers. How would proceed? What sort of airgroup would you come up with to counter the new defence meassures of USN? Scrapping the carrier fleet isen’t an option due their enormous symbolic and prestige status for your country.
(don’t fix on exisiting aircrafts, just the concepts)

i did qualify my statement by saying it is a ” best what they can do given the resources”.

but anyways,

In your hypothetical scenario.
let’s say early 80s is the program starting date.

given that aegis is mainly a airdefense weapon, and that anti-shipping tomahawk is subsonic.

1) develope a dedicated large striker, a F-111 reborn would be nice but some along the lines of A-6s. range and payload is the key here. supersonic for getting away. and a detachable sensor pack for the striker for long range recon missions. so you can send out many of them if you have to, to find where you opposing number is.

2) develope a long range subsonic/supersonic cruise missile, subsnic for cruise range, terminal supersonic boost phase, radar+IR composite seeker. that striker in 1) can carry at least two and still has a hefty hi-lo-hi range.
3) leverage the turbofan and pulse doppler fighter radars that has came onto scene and develope a single engine turbofan powered light agile fighter that can shoot Aim-7s, something along the lines of a naval F-16. aimed to challenge F-14 in the outer rims, range and staying power in a small pacakge.

4) develope a 2 stage long range, boosted Aim-7 type that has a anti-radiation warhead and a autopilot, eyed for taking out E-2s.
5) a dedicated air defense destroyer/frigate but emphasis the traditional picket role. something like a krivak class derivative, instead with a hotdog pack in front, put a airdefense package. something like a buk-m with TVM would be nice. key is build in numbers.
6) of course, your own awacs to coordinate all these

#3 would dance with F-14s and rip a hole in the outer ring. and with #4 you scare E-2s so it will loss some situation awareness.
while #1 would go in for the kill with #2s in salvos.
#5 would accept some losses but forces the opposing strike force away from your carrier.

think traditional WWII pacific battles…
big rumbling kate-val/ daubtless-avenger formations and A6Ms/Wildcat to duke it out.
while destroyer pickets screens out.

Soviets didn’t choose to go for missiles becouse they tought that carriers weren’t up for the task. The reasons why soviet navy was what it was was much more complicated matter than that.

But I’m not that much interested on figuring out how well the existing or “almoust” existing carrier airgroups would have performed, but more of what sort of carriergroup would you need in order to get it done. I know it may sound difficoult, I tough myself that its just easy to ask others obinions but my lack of good means to express my toughts in english have failed me.

But lets do it this way: You are now in the powers of some nation X’s strategical planning and you have all the resourses needed. You have been given a task: counter USN carrier force. You have 9 carriers of various size in your possesion and 4 new supercarriers on build ready to replace older vessels. USN has introduced Aegis and has quite effective layered airdefence umbrella over its carriers. How would proceed? What sort of airgroup would you come up with to counter the new defence meassures of USN? Scrapping the carrier fleet isen’t an option due their enormous symbolic and prestige status for your country.
(don’t fix on exisiting aircrafts, just the concepts)

Just to clarify the SSN cannot ‘chase’ a surface group down. Running at speed to overhaul a surface group transitting is pure suicide for even a modern SSN. At speed the sub is deaf and wont always be able to tell if a surface ASW escort has chopped power to have a listen for a trailer.

An SSN will try to leapfrog ahead of a surface group, using its high sustained underwater speed, and try and predict where the surface group will be that it can get to first to lay ambush on the bows or forward quarter. Its never a good idea to fire torpedoes in tailchase unless you are close and/or have very fast torpedoes!. Obviously if the surface group changes course a few degrees, while the SSN is leapfrogging to set its ambush, then the SSN is going to get nothing for its endeavours. Getting position to make an attack on a surface group can be a frustrating and prolonged exercise and shouldn’t be underestimated as a challenge.

yep,
soviet SSGNs in cold-war always dependent on other platform to feed it information and coordinate its attack.

but on the other hand even the presence of SSNs and SSGNs in critical battle area may force carrier group to pause and devote considerable resources to clear the area. thus their mere presence can alter their opponent’s behavior, which many time is success by itself.

Indeed not in real life, but thus I’m asking the question. What if soviets would have gone to the carrierrace and had sizeble carrier force. What sort of aircrafts/airgroup would they had to counter USN carriers? Or would the late cold war era carrier battlegroups defensive meassures be so good that attacking carriers with carriers would not be vital option anymore?

you mean with a Project 1143.7 Ul’yanovsk class with Yak-44/Su-33/Be P-42/Mig -29K?

well if two sides were practically the same then no one will “win”.
if two sides were significantly different in their approaches then it would not in your scope of comparison, the very reason soviets went to missile based solution becuase they believe it works the best given the resources to neutralize USN’s advantage in conventional carrier power.

however if lets say soviets strived for a carier based solution, per Ul’yanovsk with Yak-44/Su-33/Be P-42/Mig -29K, then my money is on soviet navy if 1) such hypothetical group would exist and 2) the encounter would be on neutral grouds i.e. no external factors such as space based early warning or SSNs or horrendous arctic sea weather that prevents safe launch and recovery of carrier aircraft….

… simply because soviets had a slightly better anti-shipping missiles on paper. and I would guess by the 90s they would have had them on their carrier strikers. now wether their supersonic anti-shipping missiles can do what it advertised on paper against what americans advertised their defensive system can do on paper, is another entirely new question by itself.

btw, has the early 90’s era aegis system ever faced a coordinated supersonic AshM attack wave under real battle field EW environment?
before co-op engagement and ESSMs and Active seekers for Standard missile and all that ?

I always thought it is bit of a strech when all of your area defense missiles are SARH and you claim you can throw up such a tight shield that nothing can get through.

The Russians dont count in this as antiship was never a design function of their airwing – the antiship firepower was the ships P-700 battery and the area surveillance was supposed to be space-based from the Legenda platform. So carrier-on-carrier, in terms of airgroup composition, doesnt work between Kuznetsov and a US CV. As others have said anticarrier the Soviets intended to do with submarines.

Indeed not in real life, but thus I’m asking the question. What if soviets would have gone to the carrierrace and had sizeble carrier force. What sort of aircrafts/airgroup would they had to counter USN carriers? Or would the late cold war era carrier battlegroups defensive meassures be so good that attacking carriers with carriers would not be vital option anymore?

I think you are looking for US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1503627

The safe way in a CBG vs CBG is to keep A2A load out and defend relatively close to carrier until air supremacy is achieved before attempting strike.

Was it one or two modern SSNs that couldnt fint the 25 de Mayo? (yep, I went there:diablo:)

Yep it was one Spartan…..and she did find her in the end…..just when she was already clearly on the way back to port. Conqueror obviously had a bit more luck with her surface group, but, nearly lost her track as well at one point.

It was HMS Spartan, and it’s probably fair to say that for a good portion of that time she couldn’t be found because she’d returned to port :diablo:

Was it one or two modern SSNs that couldnt fint the 25 de Mayo? (yep, I went there:diablo:)

Its a difficult question to answer comprehensively as the only alternate carrier group, to the USN, set up for organic sea control was French with either the Clemenceau’s largely SEM airgroup supported by a few Alize or, perhaps, the CdeG’s group with a sqdn of early blk Rafales, a couple of SEM sqdns and a short det of Hawkeye. Both would need surprise and some sleight of hand to slip the E2/BARCAP/AEGIS trap and slam AM39’s into ships flying the stars and stripes.

The Russians dont count in this as antiship was never a design function of their airwing – the antiship firepower was the ships P-700 battery and the area surveillance was supposed to be space-based from the Legenda platform. So carrier-on-carrier, in terms of airgroup composition, doesnt work between Kuznetsov and a US CV. As others have said anticarrier the Soviets intended to do with submarines.

That’s not at all the case, only for conventional subs. A modern, quiet, SSN can chase down a CVN and get well within torpedo range without being detected in open sea.

Just to clarify the SSN cannot ‘chase’ a surface group down. Running at speed to overhaul a surface group transitting is pure suicide for even a modern SSN. At speed the sub is deaf and wont always be able to tell if a surface ASW escort has chopped power to have a listen for a trailer.

An SSN will try to leapfrog ahead of a surface group, using its high sustained underwater speed, and try and predict where the surface group will be that it can get to first to lay ambush on the bows or forward quarter. Its never a good idea to fire torpedoes in tailchase unless you are close and/or have very fast torpedoes!. Obviously if the surface group changes course a few degrees, while the SSN is leapfrogging to set its ambush, then the SSN is going to get nothing for its endeavours. Getting position to make an attack on a surface group can be a frustrating and prolonged exercise and shouldn’t be underestimated as a challenge.

But don’t use Tigerfish because they aren’t very good. Use Spearfish, then the enemy ship will actually be hit and maybe even sink 😉

Gollevainen set his post in the 70’s to the early 90’s so I suggested tigerfish as that was the RN guided torp of the era. Could always use the mark 8!

That’s not at all the case, only for conventional subs. A modern, quiet, SSN can chase down a CVN and get well within torpedo range without being detected in open sea.[/QUOTE]

My point exactly

The attacker is almost certain to lose his planes. You attack your enemies weakness, not their strength.

Stick a couple of tigerfish torpedo’s into it, courtesy of your SSN 🙂

But don’t use Tigerfish because they aren’t very good. Use Spearfish, then the enemy ship will actually be hit and maybe even sink 😉

so if a USN CBG go up against a USN CBG, who will win?!

They will both likely run out of aircraft unless one gets a lucky strike on the carrier.

I’m mostly after what sort of airgroup would modern carriers have if they are facing another similar strenght carrierfleet. To easen the hypotetism, lets pretend that its the late cold war era USN carrier fleet you are facing. What sort of aircrafts would you get onboard and how would you use them? This said I’m expecting that the carrier fleets main role would be fighting against the other carrier fleet, pretty much in the same ways as nations build up dreadnoughts to counter other nations dreadnoughts.

It depends on your approach. If you want to swarm them, then you’ll need lots of simpler, smaller aircraft. Or you could try to reduce reaction time by using something really fast, like a TR-3B or Mach 20 rocket plane or the like.

@flanker30
b]. As for submarines. Try getting a sub close enough to launch missiles at a CBG 500+ km away! By the time a submarine is in range to launch – lets says 300 km – the opposing CBG is not where it was originally detected. Then the sub chase begins again!

Subs are great for ambushing CBGs in littorals, sneaking around being a pain to CBG’s. They are useful chasing away other subs from around their own CBGs, but using them to chase down opposition CBG’s is something they were not designed for.

That’s not at all the case, only for conventional subs. A modern, quiet, SSN can chase down a CVN and get well within torpedo range without being detected in open sea.