Naval Warfare Tactics

[av8rmongo]

Before you know it they'l be turning our fantasy WWII and modern ships while ignoring ACTUAL conflicts

ROFL. You say it like its not already happening, or rather hasn't been happeneing for at least a dozen years. No new modern units in a dog's lifetime but we can buy USS Montana or H-39 Super Bismarck or HMS Furious. Can't fight the Falkands/Malvinas conflict of 1982 but I can duke it out in the N. Atlantic with ships that never existed.

[voltigeur]

I'm enjoying Tim's comment as well! Maybe a Nemo class submarine is in order. LOL

[exodusforever]

Hi, i thought I would post a few more questions for all you modern naval warfare ** CENSORED **

Here is another few questions to ponder about in terms of Modern Naval Warfare.

There have been questions on the Carrier Vulnerability with its lack of weapons to defend itself and attack. However, I read from some modern naval warfare novel (I think it was called "Carrier") that in essence it is more of te carrier with its fixed air wing that protects the entire battle groups elements.

Through running CAPs (Carrier Air Patrols) and the speed at which a Fixed Air Wing can provide, a Carrier is the most formidable naval fighting element.

So I mean here must be many elements that can still dealt a swift blow onto the carrier? I mean with modern submarine technology, isn't it possible to slip with in the fleet to get to the carrier and launch torpedo strikes on it? Perhaps maybe ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) warfare and capabilities from the Carriers Helicopters and the Carrier Battle Groups ASW elements provide more than enough deterrence?

Of course, Bear in mind, I'm just talking based on holding other things constant, ceterus paribus. How would a sub fair in terms of picking the Carrier.

Another Scenario would be, since many of jets can carry a variety of weaponary including Harpoons or ASM (Anti Ship Missiles).

How would a fleet of Type 45 Destroyers or Arleigh Burke Destroyers prevent say two to 3 squadrons of Fighter jets (be it Su-30s or F-18s armed with ASM) from hitting their target: Say an Aircraft Carrier. As such, I'm sure even with a Expeditionary Force like a Carrier Battle Group can be deterred by a few squadrons of Airforce planes yes?

Does the Aegis System prove to be real deadly in such a situation?

Just curious.... Don't mind me if i sound like a simpleton to all you pro naval wargamers :p

[fredjg]

Two or three squadrons are going to be picked up by an AWACS long before they are in range to launch their ASMs. So, once the CAP gets done savaging the attackers ('cause avoiding AAMs when you have an ASM slung underneath you, is a more difficult proposition) the carriers screen is going to start knocking down the survivors.

If the aggressor squadrons are still pushing the attack, at that juncture, and launch - the SAMs and any late launched CAP would be directed at the ASMs. The final defense would be the phalanx systems.

Of course, any CVBG that is entering a situation where it would be facing 3 squadrons, would likely have a sister ship or two along for the trip.

Now, change the scenario to three Backfire squadrons coming in and launching 2 or 3 of their supersonic, long range ASMs and the game changes significantly. The CAP has to get to them before the Backfires launch, or there is a good chance they will be looking for an alternate landing site.

[Timothy OConnor]

Based on the Falklands how many of those ASMs need to get through to take the carrier out of action? One? Many?

I know it depends on hit location. So given the layout of a carrier and the most likely impact point, in light of how an ASM works what would that situation look like?

[exodusforever]

Very informative. Thanks a lot.

However, How about the Submarine Scenario?
How deadly efficient would the fleets ASW capabilities to prevent submarines from infiltrating to attach the Carrier.

Say given you have a complement of a squadron of Akula Submarines.

[Mk 1]

I don't claim any expertise beyond amature/hobbyist standards in modern naval tactics, so as with the USN tradition of coffee, please take my comments with a grain of salt...

Based on the Falklands how many of those ASMs need to get through to take the carrier out of action? One? Many?
...
So given the layout of a carrier and the most likely impact point, in light of how an ASM works what would that situation look like?

With many of the comments in this thread, we might be well served to specify more than just the generic catagories.

What type of carrier? What type of ASM?

The Falklands actions provide some data on how US-made "light" ASMs performed against shipping, and how a British "light" carrier performed within an ad hoc task force.

The ships that the RN sent to the Falklands had not been designed, nor their crews trained up, for force-projection in distant waters. Yet that was what was needed, and they were the assets that were available, and so they assembled and put to sea.

A USN CVN task force would be a different animal altogether.

The Argentine AF used US-made Harpoon missiles. The attack profile (multi-hundred-pound warhead, subsonic, sea-skimmer with pop-up) is/was entirely different from the attack of Soviet heavy ASMs (multi-thousand pound warhead, hypersonic dive from high-atitude).

A Soviet Backfire regimental attack would be a different animal altogether.

With that said, from my understanding a British jump-jet carrier would not have been able to absorb more than one or two Harpoons without grave danger. They were not big ships, and were not built to take punishment. The biggest danger would have been the control of fires, so the number of hits that the damage control parties had to address at any one time would have been important. However, the most likely strike profile of the Harpoon would not be into the flight deck, and so it is possible, with good damage-control efforts and a little luck, that the ship would have survived one or two Harpoons, and may even been able to stay on station and resume flight operations after some period.

A Soviet heavy ASM would have torn the deck asunder and gutted the ship. Structural damage would have been massive, water-tight / fireproof bulkheads would have been ruptured throughout a large section of the ship, and it might well have blown out a portion of the hull. It would be lucky to stay afloat, and even so could well burn to the point that it was nothing but a floating hulk.

A USN CVN could probably absorb several Harpoons, and might even resume flight operations within just hours. Highly depends on where the missiles struck.

But one Soviet heavy ASM would end flight ops, and a few (2 or 3?) would place the ship at risk of survival. Big bombs on those Soviet ASMs.

Might be worth mentioning that even a successful "intercept" of a heavy ASM might have not been enough to keep a CV operational, in particular when considering the CIWS. If you take a multi-thousand pound object with a few hundred pounds of rocket fuel, and blow it up with a multi-thousand pound bomb while it is travelling at you at multi-mach speeds, it has to be a LONG way away for you not to get plastered wtih very dangerous fragments and flammables. You could easily expect to loose a large portion of the sensors and comms gear, if not the flight deck itself, from a "successful" anit-missile engagement. And then, well, good luck dealing with the next missile behind it.

However, How about the Submarine Scenario?
How deadly efficient would the fleets ASW capabilities to prevent submarines from infiltrating to attach the Carrier.

Again highly dependent on what fleet, and what submarines.

Say given you have a complement of a squadron of Akula Submarines.

A squadron of Akulas?

I don't know if the Soviets ever operated their hunter-killers in squadrons. As I understand it, their doctrine called for a sort of "wolf-pack" approach using dis-similar submarines -- hunter-killers sneaking in to torpedo range while SSM missile-carriers launched attacks from outside of the AS screen. If they could coordinate it with the attack of air assets, so much the better.

So a USN CVN task force might have faced a regiment or two of Backfires launching dozens of heavy ASMs, which would come in at very high atlitude and then dive on the carrier at Mach 5 speeds. At the same time (approximately -- unlikely to be timed to the minute) a couple/few Oscars would launch a couple dozen sea-skimming cruise missiles, perhaps from two or more directions. While the air assets and screening destroyers/frigates were manuevering to cover these threats, and were perhaps being damaged or incapacitated themselves, the hunter-killer subs would be maneuvering to penetrate the screen, looking for the carrier. A single hit by a heavy wake-following torpedo would probably be enough to cripple the CVN. Or one of their rocket-propelled hyper-speed torpedoes under the keel might well break it's back.

As far as I understand, that was their theory. In practice it would have been very difficult to coordinate the attack, and the battle group could probably handle each one seperately. At least one or two US hunter-killer subs would have been around providing an additional AS escort that would not have been distracted by the air battle. USN AS assets would have been searching for subs far and wide, along the route of advance, and it is exceedingly difficult to coordinate an attack when some of your assets are themselves running-and-hiding.

Fortunately, we never had to find out who's doctrine, equipment, and crews were the winning combination.

Interesting discussion so far. I look forward to being corrected on my (undoubtedly many) mis-interpretations.

[Timothy OConnor]

"Might be worth mentioning that even a successful "intercept" of a heavy ASM might have not been enough to keep a CV operational, in particular when considering the CIWS. If you take a multi-thousand pound object with a few hundred pounds of rocket fuel, and blow it up with a multi-thousand pound bomb while it is travelling at you at multi-mach speeds, it has to be a LONG way away for you not to get plastered wtih very dangerous fragments and flammables. You could easily expect to loose a large portion of the sensors and comms gear, if not the flight deck itself, from a "successful" anit-missile engagement. And then, well, good luck dealing with the next missile behind it"

.

Very interesting point!!!

[Mk 1]

"Might be worth mentioning that even a successful "intercept" of a heavy ASM might have not been enough to keep a CV operational ... it has to be a LONG way away for you not to get plastered wtih very dangerous fragments and flammables. You could easily expect to loose a large portion of the sensors and comms gear, if not the flight deck itself, from a "successful" anit-missile engagement. And then, well, good luck dealing with the next missile behind it"

.

Very interesting point!!!

Yeah, and often missed in the more simple calculations of "hit" and "damage" roles.

I had a co-worker from Israel who showed me a home photo once of a "successful SCUD intercept" during Operation Desert Storm. The missile had been "brought down" by a US Patriot. Brought down, that is, into the parking lot behind HIS condo complex.

Fortunately it did not hit any of the buildings in the area. Just the parking lot. Asphalt layed over rock. The crater was about 40 feet across, and at least 15 feet deep. All of the buildings facing on to the parking lot were destroyed up to a depth of 2 or 3 rooms in from the outer walls.

And that's with nothing blowing up or burning. Just a portion of the missile's booster section falling from the sky at mach speed.

[fredjg]

From what I remember, the Argentine airforce used Exocets, not Harpoons.

Also, I seem to recall that the Exocets were somewhat hobbled, in that the French(?) had not enabled all the bells and whistles required to make them more potent.

However, the British escorts still took a pounding even with the tremendous efforts supplied by the defending Harrier pilots.

Not a huge fan of Tom Clancy, but for an interesting take on a Backfire attack on a joint US/French CVBG, "Red Storm Rising" provided something different - although I thought Larry Bond might have had more than a little input.

When you consider that the US, in the event of hostilities with the then USSR, was running scenarios of sending 3 or 4 CVs against the Kola Peninsula you can hazard a guess that they had a healthy respect for the Backfire squadrons based there.

[Mk 1]

From what I remember, the Argentine airforce used Exocets, not Harpoons.

Yes yes yes. Of course you are right ... and I am eating crow for dinner.

Don't know what possessed me to say they used Harpoons. They were Exocets.

Also, I seem to recall that the Exocets were somewhat hobbled, in that the French(?) had not enabled all the bells and whistles required to make them more potent.

Not sure about that. What kinds of bells would have made them more potent? Better terminal manuevering software?

As I recall there were several dud warheads, but even in those cases the unburned fuel caused terrible fires in the ships. Also it has been claimed that the British anti-missile systems were pre-loaded with profiles for Soviet ASMs, and so when they were in automatic mode they did not fire at the Exocets as they were not ID'ed as "threat" missiles. The same has been said of the USS Stark. Don't know if it was actually true in either case.

[exodusforever]

As I recall there were several dud warheads, but even in those cases the unburned fuel caused terrible fires in the ships. Also it has been claimed that the British anti-missile systems were pre-loaded with profiles for Soviet ASMs, and so when they were in automatic mode they did not fire at the Exocets as they were not ID'ed as "threat" missiles. The same has been said of the USS Stark. Don't know if it was actually true in either case

Hmm Im sure they must have updated their missile system to take into consideration such possibility of other ASMs being a missile threat. Especially after the Stark. Perhaps Type 45 Darring Class Destroyers would take that into measure? Or update on Missile Solution?

Hm if not, I mean the aggressor could get all these type ASM missiles that serve as loopholes against the Missile defense systems of British Warships.

Preloading a different profile shouldn't take long yes? :p

[fredjg]

Yes, there were a number of misfires, but I recall speaking with some Brits at the time that it was a result of the French not supplying advanced codes. Was it something to do with the missles being fired from closer range and not arming?

In any event, the subsequent fires were more a result of the Brits using a higher aluminum content in the construction of their escorts (was it the Type 22s?).

Since it has been almost 30 years....., the memory is getting a little fuzzy on the details.

[fredjg]

As far as eating crow - with all the errors I've made over the years - I should be sitting off to the side, preening my feathers.....

[exodusforever]

hmm trust me.. Its better to be a crow who makes mistakes but is uber knowledgeable than being a noob who has no idea how to visualize modern naval warfare while taking an interest in it.

Sometimes i feel like a retard just trying to play Fleet Command and thinking its all aim and shoot.

Rather embarassing :p