Naval Warfare Tactics

[av8rmongo]

This is not a bad an*logy. Since the development of high-capacity guided weapons, the following principles apply to naval warfare:
- If you can see it, you can hit it.
- If you can hit it, you can kill it.

In my opinion this is an oversimplification. There are as many encounters disproving each of these statements as there are proving them.

Paul

[exodusforever]

Hmm don't mind my simplicity on the complex mechanics of naval warfare but just out of curiosity and comparison.

With the United States Navy having the Aegis system on their Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas, which gives them the ability to do multiple tracking and targeting ability.
Would you say that in terms of modern day naval warfare, they would be prevalent and have huge superior advantage against all other navies?

Example
Should a Carrier Battle Group face the entire Northern Fleet (excluding 50% of its submarine flotilla)?

Another question would be, Between a Hunter Killer Submarine like the Akula or Los Angeles Class Submarine against the Arleigh Burke or Type 45 Destroyer. Which naval unit component would have the advantage?

[Timothy OConnor]

This is not a bad an*logy. Since the development of high-capacity guided weapons, the following principles apply to naval warfare:
- If you can see it, you can hit it.
- If you can hit it, you can kill it.

In my opinion this is an oversimplification. There are as many encounters disproving each of these statements as there are proving them.

Paul

But how do you define "kill" in modern naval warfare?

I'm also a huge fan of 18th naval history. It took a lot of fire to disable an enemy ship. And destroying a single gun did little to the ship's firepower.

In modern naval warfare ships seem far more fragile. It seems you don't need to actually kill a ship to (easily?) take it out of action.

For example, we've all seen carrier crews walk the flight deck looking for engine-killing debris. I've always wondered if that was peace-time overkill but my brother in-law, a former carrier-based aircraft mechanic, said it was certainly not overkill. Debris is a serious threat to high performance jet engines. So imagine a naval battle in which a carrier's flight deck is only slightly damaged. Even if the catapults and arresting gear are intact, mere debris could take the carrier out of action for a significant period of time.

Ship electronics and sensing systems are also very fragile. "Killing" a ship may only require disabling a key sensor array.

And with so few primary weapons on modern warships disabling just one or two means the ship is out of the fight (many modern ships only have a single missile launcher, a single torpedo array, and a gun or two at most.)

Advanced hull design and damage control procedures may make actually sinking a ship a more difficult prospect. But maybe "mobility", "weapon", and "sensor" kills are much easier?

I don't know enough about the topic but based on my reading on the Falklands and Israeli actions ships seem both very lethal and very fragile functionally.

[av8rmongo]

Okay, lets look at the de-mythification of Aegis.

By the middle of the cold war the main soviet weapon against US carrier battlegroups were high flying cruise missiles launched by air, surface or submarine units. Aegis was designed to counter this sort of massed attack. Aegis can track and engage multiple targets but there are some important physical limitations. Most important for this discussion is that like any radar it is limited by radar horizon when trying to detect low flying targets. Newer generations of Soviet cruise missiles were designed to take advantage of this limitation by approaching low and fast. Lets look at one example the Moskit 3M80E on the Sovremennyy DDG.

The Moskit's approach altitude is under 20m and its speed is up to Mach 2.2 which is about 1450kts. Radar antenna on an Arleigh Burke is about 60ft above the water. If you use the calculator located here:http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm you get a radar horizon of about 19.5nm. So the first time our mythical Arleigh Burke can see the inbound weapon is when it is 19.5nm away which is about 48 seconds of Moskit flight time. Sound like a lot of time? Maybe if the crew is alerted and looking for trouble and can instantly recognize the inbound threat, the missiles are warmed up and ready and the TAO already has permission to fire. Even so it takes a finite amount of time for the SAMs to intercept.

So the long winded answer to your question is Aegis is very capable but there are a lot of capable platforms out there, I wouldn't get over confident.

Paul

[exodusforever]

Well if that is the case, Im guessing that with the right method of approach in detecting your target and proper modern naval warfare with that stroke of luck would provide the Russian Northern Fleet and equal standing chance of taking a CBG of the USN?

What about with regards to Submarine warfare. How hard is it to take out a destroyer with a hunter killer and vice versa?

[Timothy OConnor]

So the first time our mythical Arleigh Burke can see the inbound weapon is when it is 19.5nm away which is about 48 seconds of Moskit flight time.

Paul,

Doesn't that assume the missile is launched precisely at the radar horizon of the defending ship?

At what range can the Sovremennyy DD acquire the Arleigh Burke? Wouldn't it be operating under similar limitations with respect to target acquisition?

Assuming the attacking Sovremennyy DD can acquire and attack the Arleigh Burke at 19.5nm, the next question is how it got that "close". Would the Arleigh Burke be expected to operate without air recon? Might not another platform detect the Sovremennyy DD well before it reached launch range?

I have no idea and am very interested in that aspect of the problem.

Tim

[av8rmongo]

There are no absolutes and its hard to generalize because so much depends on ROE, mission assignments, meterological/bathymetric data etc. If we assume that each side can shoot on detetction/classification, crews are alert and aware of a threat in the area and both sides have the mission to search for and destroy the other and no helicopters for the DDG then I think it breaks down like this:

Initial detection: Advantage Submarine

1st shot: Could go either way but I'll give slight advantage to submarine.

Give the DDG a helo or two (especially dippers) and I think the advantage swings the other way. But so much depends on the water conditions - the sound velocity profile. Is convergence zone propagation possible? What are direct path predicted ranges? Anything like that will influence who gets first chance of detection.

As far as fragility of modern warships (mission kill vs. sinking) Tim is right modern weapons are destructive and getting hit will almost certainly put a unit out of the fight for some period of time. And that's why the TTP - Training Tactics and Procedures are so important. Know what the enemy is capable of and know what you're going to do well before they become a threat. Don't absorb the first hit, two exocet missiles very nearly sank USS Stark.

Paul

[Devildog]

Certainly not an expert on Naval warfare or the Aegis specifically but my two cents worth anyway:

Relative cost effectiveness of swarming the Aegis system with cruise missles - how many can be shot down vs. how many incoming - especially in situations with the older models lacking the VLS system (depending on hypothetical scenario timeline) - when launchers has to reload.

Environmental conditions that may reduce effectiveness of senors and can be exploited - obviously a double edged sword as it effects both sides, but one fleet may take better advantage of situation.

Everything is great until your system malfunctions/crashes (how do you reflect in a simulation?)

Of course the big issue is that Aegis has never really operated under Third World War types of situations so all of the theoreticals and manufacturer claims aside, who knows if it would really work as advertised (again, how do you simulate this though.) As history shows, weapons systems that look great on paper or on the proving grounds may not actually perform as well in battle, or may perform beyond expectations.

Not helpful I suppose, but hey, I had time to kill.

[exodusforever]

All this talk on modern naval warfare brings me to another question.

Now the topic was raised up on the fragility of Modern ships, i can't help but agree. But then again, training and warfare procedures are pretty different nowadays.

Back in WW2 days or so, Planes could take a significant amount of punishment. But then again, planes only used machine gun and cannon fire. But now, modern aerial warfare, as a pilot, you cant take more than one hit, as such, ur evasive techniques, maneuvering and technology takes count for everything.

It got me wondering though.

How big of an advantage would a Modern Navy have against the likes of WW2 naval elements.

Assuming we lay them down on a battlefield. How many Ships can a Ticonderoga Cruiser take before it gets overwhelm by a WW2 fleet.

I know it is very very improbable, and the amount of variables is significant. But hell, just for debating on the "what ifs" Entertain me

Cheers

[ed*b]

For entertaining, the Japanese anime series Zipang (if you can find a copy) has a modern Japanese Aegis class destroyer going back in time to the Battle of Midway. Although they try to avoid getting involved, the inevitable happens and they have it out with a U.S. carrier group. It has a really good depiction of how modern systems would handle WW2 era attacks.

[av8rmongo]

There is also the movie Final Countdown where Nimitz goes back to the Pearl Harbor attack.

Assuming we lay them down on a battlefield. How many Ships can a Ticonderoga Cruiser take before it gets overwhelm by a WW2 fleet.

The question comes down to two issues in my opinion- range management and weapon inventory.

If the cruiser can engage the aircraft outside of gun range of the BB and CA used to screen the CV then the airwing is no threat to the cruiser. WWII aircraft are slow compared to the missiles Aegis is designed to engage. If the cruiser has Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) which can be fitted in quad packs in each VLS silo then 40 such quad packs (160 missiles) will be more than enough for any WWII airwing. Once the airwing is dealt with the CV is a toothless tiger. Assuming they still want to engage the cruiser then hellfire or penguin armed SH-60B/R helo det can start to soften up the destroyer escort screen around the big boys. WWII ESM can't detect the SH-60 radar so they might not know what hit them. A couple of hellfire hits probably won't sink a DD but it will reduce their combat effectiveness and make them think twice. A penguin hit could cripple a DD.

So what if the force keeps advancing? Any harpoon should be launched at the enemy force. A harpoon won't do a lot of damage against a BB escorting the CV but it will destroy a DD or CL and possibly cripple a CA. Once the Harpoon are expended, and assuming there are no anti-ship TLAM available the cruiser will have to close range to use SAMs in the surface mode. At 15-20nm this is knife fight range for the cruiser. The BB and maybe the CAs will be in gun range although if the cruiser keeps her speed up and drives evasively around the force to maintain at least 15nm distance then the rate of change of bearing and range will make it very difficult for the FC solution of the heavy guns even with the state of the art WWII FC radar. Make no mistake though one hit from the heavy BB guns will ruin the cruiser's day. The Standard Missiles and ESSM used in the surface mode will be deadly against DDs, CLs. Against CAs and BBs outside the armor belt areas it could start devastating fires. The armored belt and citadel of a BB or CA would probably stop the SAM in surface mode. Against the CV it will almost certainly start fires.

But the problem is inventory even an Aegis cruiser has a finite number of weapons which will eventually run out. And one lucky heavy caliber hit or a couple medium caliber hits could ruin your whole day. If the cruiser can first neutralize the air threat and then maintain range standoff outside quick firing 5" gun range then it has a distinct advantage over the slower firing 6", 8" and 14'-16" guns.

But that is my opinion. Others may have other opinions. If anyone wants to game this scenario out The Admiralty Trilogy of which Harpoon is one game has weapon and ship stats standardized for apples to apples comparisons from WWI to present. If anyone is interested it could make for an informative PBEM game.

Paul

[Mickel]

The dive bombers would be doomed. Torpedo bombers might get close enough to see masts... and just close enough to see the weapons directors, before they started to vanish into the sea. I would think that only two directors could point one way at targets that low. The 5" and CIWS might actually be more efficient, if riskier.

It could easily be argued than the CG wins if the opposing air group is gone, even if no major surface vessels were sunk. But as Paul points out... only if they don't get hit.

Once the air strike is planned, gaming that out would be relatively easy. But the dice rolling might get tedious.

How would the carrier group find the cruiser? ESM would be useless, and any scout plane would vanish before it spotted the cruiser, courtesy of a single well aimed SAM. A lucky submarine? It would have to be lucky though. I suspect a WWII sub counts as loud.

Mike

[exodusforever]

WOW. That was very very informative and helpful Mickel and av8rmongo.
I must say, you have illustrated it in a very detailed manner and much is appreciated. I presuming that WW2 planes have very large radar signatures that the Ticonderoga can detect.

But yeah, all that you have stated in terms of its armament makes feasible sense.
Well I guess with technological advantage and better training, they are not suppose to get hit in the first place.

Just wanted to get a visual picture of it in my head and boy would it look awesome.

Give me a CBG back in WW2 and I would rule the world.. At least naval world. MUAHAHAHA.

Great stuff Cheers. Modern Naval Warfare FTW!

[av8rmongo]

How would the carrier group find the cruiser? ESM would be useless, and any scout plane would vanish before it spotted the cruiser, courtesy of a single well aimed SAM.

Send out a spread of airplanes and when one or more don't return you've just figured out what sector the bad guy is in.

Give me a CBG back in WW2 and I would rule the world.. At least naval world. MUAHAHAHA.

True, until you use up all your hi-tech weapons then you're just back in the stone age with all the other cavemen.

I would think that only two directors could point one way at targets that low. The 5" and CIWS might actually be more efficient, if riskier.

I guess if the attacker loaded one side against the CG at very low altitude there could be some structural masking of one or more directors but turning to unmask at least three of the four directors shouldn't be too difficult - but I'm not a SWO so its a little speculative on my part.

Paul

[Timothy OConnor]

You naval warfare gamers are going to regret bringing up this "what if" WWII-modern stuff. In light of GHQ's fantasy WWII line you might inspire them to start a WWII fantasy naval line. Before you know it they'l be turning our fantasy WWII and modern ships while ignoring ACTUAL conflicts (you can field GHQ fantasy German WWII vehicles but try fielding middle eastern insurgents using GHQ figures...)