Non-US Carrier Group operations

[HalfLifeExpert]

This discussion may be more appropriate in the "War Room" subforum, so mods may move it if they wish.

Of all the different types of operations in CMANO, the one that interests me the most is operations of Carrier Battle Groups, especially clashes between different CVBGs. Even though the USN will most probably reign supreme in the Aircraft Carrier department for quite a while, the new vessels being built by such nations as China and India, as well as the recently unveiled Russian design and the possibility of Japan's Izumo Class operating F-35s, all intrigue me greatly about the future of global sea power.

However, most of the material I have been reading on modern carrier ops and tactics is centered around the capabilities and aircraft available on the US Navy's post-WWII aircraft carriers. I haven't seen that much on non US carriers, as much of the principles may not apply when your vessel doesn't have more than a dozen Fixed wing combat aircraft and no long range AEW or tankers.

Recently, i have tried out a couple scenarios that involve CVBGs that are not from the USN.

These two scenarios are:

The Clash of Titans, 2018 (From CSP)

The Tiger and the Dragon, 2019 (Official Standalone Scenario)

In both instances, I have commanded a CVBG centered around the relatively new Indian carrier Vikramaditya, which is a heavily modified Kiev class carrier. And In both instances I have not done well.

The fixed wing aircraft available on the Vikramaditya are limited to a relatively small number of MiG-29K multirole fighters. The rest of the carrier's capabilities, including AEW, are performed by helicopters.



While I would appreciate advice for the two mentioned scenarios, I also think it would be interesting to discuss general advice and tactics on how to put up a respectable fight with such a limited carrier capability, especially with a small number of planes and AEW being limited to a helo as opposed to a fixed wing aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye.

[Gunner98]

Just building a scenario now where the Ark Royal (1994) with a couple escorts is alone and gets into a sticky situation. Very interesting and challenging, just keeping a decent sortie rate going.

Even facing antiquated opposition it is not a cake walk - fun.

B

[HalfLifeExpert]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Very interesting and challenging, just keeping a decent sortie rate going.

I had a different mindset playing The Clash of Titans, 2018. I was tasked with finding and sinking the French CV Charles De Gaulle, and her escorts if possible.

According to the briefing, The Vikramidtya had a reinforced squadron of MiG-29Ks. That totaled up to 16. Three were down for maintenance, leaving me 13 real combat aircraft to work with.

6 had standard CAP loadout, six had my entire arsenal of air launched AShMs (AS-20 'Kayak's), two per planes, so 12 missiles. Finally, one MiG had no loadout, so I gave it a Heavy cap loadout.

The French had the Rafale fighter, which I did not think my MiGs could compare equally to.

Here is a CMANO-DB.com comparison: http://cmano-db.com/compare/aircraft/920/aircraft/3919/

Plus the French Carrier was CATOBAR, meaning they had a proper AEW aircraft in the E-2 Hawkeye.

My thinking was, I need to use my sub (INS Chakra) and my helos to find the De Gaulle CVBG, and then I would get one shot to deliver one big strike with all my aircraft, expecting maybe half of them to not make it back.

[Kaldadarnes]

I'm on the lookout for anything involving HMS Queen ELizabeth ("Big Lizzie") launched last week. Anyone know of anything?

Thanks

Charlie

[AlGrant]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
Just building a scenario now where the Ark Royal (1994) with a couple escorts is alone and gets into a sticky situation. Very interesting and challenging, just keeping a decent sortie rate going.

I'm part way through making an alternate Falklands-78 scenario, set in 1978 (1 year after Op Journeyman), which includes carrier vs carrier.

(the Old Ark) Ark Royal (Phantom FG.1's & Buccaneers) vs Veinticinco de Mayo (A-4Q's).
The problem for the de Mayo is a lack of standoff weapons ...... and those Buccaneers in their element on a low level naval strike.

The Phantoms usually win out against the A-4's without too much trouble but Ark can struggle to keep sufficient operational Phantoms to establish air superiority over the FI against land based a/c during the amphib landing stage.

[butch4343]

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
Just building a scenario now where the Ark Royal (1994) with a couple escorts is alone and gets into a sticky situation. Very interesting and challenging, just keeping a decent sortie rate going.

I'm part way through making an alternate Falklands-78 scenario, set in 1978 (1 year after Op Journeyman), which includes carrier vs carrier.

(the Old Ark) Ark Royal (Phantom FG.1's & Buccaneers) vs Veinticinco de Mayo (A-4Q's).
The problem for the de Mayo is a lack of standoff weapons ...... and those Buccaneers in their element on a low level naval strike.

The Phantoms usually win out against the A-4's without too much trouble but Ark can struggle to keep sufficient operational Phantoms to establish air superiority over the FI against land based a/c during the amphib landing stage.

Just a quick thought re- your A4s lacking standoff munitions, wouldnt swapping the A-4Qs for 1972 era USMC A4E or Ms allow for a greater variety of ordinance? IRRC that will give you walleye glide bombs. You could limit their number in the ships magazine.

Just a thought

Butch

[AlGrant]

ORIGINAL: butch4343
.........wouldnt swapping the A-4Qs for 1972 era USMC A4E or Ms allow for a greater variety of ordinance?

Probably, but I where possible I want to stick to the ships/aircraft available to each side at that time.
That said I am considering a limited supply of AS.20/AS.30 or perhaps AGM-12 Bullpup's for Argentina.
Peru supplied some AS.30's in '82 so thinking of building something similar into this '78 setting.

[Coiler12]

ORIGINAL: AlGrant
I'm part way through making an alternate Falklands-78 scenario, set in 1978 (1 year after Op Journeyman), which includes carrier vs carrier.

(the Old Ark) Ark Royal (Phantom FG.1's & Buccaneers) vs Veinticinco de Mayo (A-4Q's).
The problem for the de Mayo is a lack of standoff weapons ...... and those Buccaneers in their element on a low level naval strike.

How thick and capable is the AR's screen? The historical Falklands was at the very end of the time when unguided air attacks on ships were viable.

[Kaldadarnes]

[/quote]

I'm part way through making an alternate Falklands-78 scenario, set in 1978 (1 year after Op Journeyman), which includes carrier vs carrier.

(the Old Ark) Ark Royal (Phantom FG.1's & Buccaneers) vs Veinticinco de Mayo (A-4Q's).

[/quote]

This sounds like a very interesting scenario. Keep us posted. What sort of duration?

[SeaQueen]

If you haven't done well there's two possible conclusions:

1) Their CVBGs aren't all they're cracked up to be
or
2) Something is done wrong.

Assuming that the first thing isn't true, then the next question is what might one be doing wrong? It could be the scenario being contrived, or it could be your choice of tactics. I haven't played the scenarios you mentioned, so I can't critique them. Things to consider might be questions like, "How do I use my carrier based aircraft in combination with land based aircraft?" and "Is my goal to attack or defend a specific objective? How many aircraft do I really need to do that?"

In their most abstract, I'm not clear that carrier tactics vary that much as a result of having fewer aircraft. Essentially, if you think of a carrier as a battleship, then its aircraft are its main battery. Fewer aircraft is just a smaller main battery. You can think of carriers as delivering firepower in "pulses" corresponding to each deck cycle. Many small carriers are even more constrained to the "pulse" model in that they lack an angled flight deck, so they cannot simultaneously recover and launch aircraft. That makes it harder to fill CAPs continuously. Some smaller aircraft carriers have batteries of ASCMs in addition to aircraft. It's interesting to consider how one might employ those in combination with aircraft to maximize effect in an anti-ship role. Defensively, if helo based ISR is insufficient for directing your aircraft a long ways out then perhaps you ought to pull them in closer to the carrier? Perhaps you can only employ your aircraft in an offensive or defensive role, and not divide them into both roles and perform both simultaneously?


I hope this helps.

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
I haven't seen that much on non US carriers, as much of the principles may not apply when your vessel doesn't have more than a dozen Fixed wing combat aircraft and no long range AEW or tankers.

..

While I would appreciate advice for the two mentioned scenarios, I also think it would be interesting to discuss general advice and tactics on how to put up a respectable fight with such a limited carrier capability, especially with a small number of planes and AEW being limited to a helo as opposed to a fixed wing aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye.

[Cik]

smaller carriers fit the "battleship" model more than larger ones though; a nimitz can control a wide swath of air and sea while also launching strikes; a smaller carrier cannot do that for various reasons (insufficient aircraft numbers to do both, sortie rate, launching weight restrictions etc.)

if you have a smaller deck seems to me your best strategy is to punch with the whole deck at once (alpha strike) launching some mix of escorts and strikers all in one go. area control/denial is beyond the pale unless you are dedicating the entire aircraft complement to it.

if you have land-based craft available i would use those + tankers (if available) to control sea and air and use the carrier wing as a strike force if possible. depends of course on what you're up against and also what you have at your disposal but dedicating the carrier strictly to sea control seems wasteful unless your objective is primarily defensive and the carrier itself is in a good spot to contribute to that.

[butch4343]

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

ORIGINAL: butch4343
.........wouldnt swapping the A-4Qs for 1972 era USMC A4E or Ms allow for a greater variety of ordinance?

Probably, but I where possible I want to stick to the ships/aircraft available to each side at that time.
That said I am considering a limited supply of AS.20/AS.30 or perhaps AGM-12 Bullpup's for Argentina.
Peru supplied some AS.30's in '82 so thinking of building something similar into this '78 setting.

Yeah,

I understand mate, CMNAO doesnt allow for custom AC loadouts, so your a bit stuck , you could stick a hypothetical loadout request in the requests thread.


BTW are you going to release your scenario to the community in time? I was thinking about your scenario last night, I wanted to test an idea out. I wonder what is the biggest game changer in the Falklands, so I wonder what the results would be, if you took the Gannet AEW off the ark in your scenario how would the phantoms fair, similarly team the Sea Harrier with Gannets and does that increase their kill ratio?

Regards

Butch

[AlGrant]

I understand mate, CMNAO doesnt allow for custom AC loadouts, so your a bit stuck , you could stick a hypothetical loadout request in the requests thread.

Yeah I was forgetting about that.
I'm testing it today with some different A-4 variants.
Probably end up with most staying as A-4Q and a few others to simulate aircraft 'modified' to carry the weapons.

I do plan on releasing it for once I'm happy with the balance.
'78 seemed like an interesting year, (the old) Ark Royal approaching the end of its life and the new carriers not yet commissioned.

[butch4343]

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

I understand mate, CMNAO doesnt allow for custom AC loadouts, so your a bit stuck , you could stick a hypothetical loadout request in the requests thread.

Yeah I was forgetting about that.
I'm testing it today with some different A-4 variants.
Probably end up with most staying as A-4Q and a few others to simulate aircraft 'modified' to carry the weapons.

I do plan on releasing it for once I'm happy with the balance.
'78 seemed like an interesting year, (the old) Ark Royal approaching the end of its life and the new carriers not yet commissioned.

Great stuff, am looking forward to it.

[Sardaukar]

I'd be interested to see typical aircraft and helicopter composition of non-US carriers.

[SeaQueen]

(France) Charles de Gaulle

10-14 Rafale M
12-16 Super Entendards
2-3 Hawkeyes
4 helicopters

(Brazil) Sao Paulo

6 A-4KU
2 TA-4KU
2 S-2T AEW
2 S-2T COD
4 S-70B Seahawk Helicopters

(UK) Invincible

12 Harrier GR 7/9
10 Sea King ASaC / Merlin HM Mk. 1

(Spain) Príncipe de Asturias
12 AV-8B Harriers
6 Sikorsky Sea King SH-3H
4 Agusta AB-212
2 Sikorsky SH-3 AEW

(Italy) Cavour

8 AV-8B Harriers


The typical non-US carrier is really more comparable to what in the US would be called an LHD or LHA, maybe an LPH.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I'd be interested to see typical aircraft and helicopter composition of non-US carriers.

if you have land-based craft available i would use those + tankers (if available) to control sea and air and use the carrier wing as a strike force if possible. depends of course on what you're up against and also what you have at your disposal but dedicating the carrier strictly to sea control seems wasteful unless your objective is primarily defensive and the carrier itself is in a good spot to contribute to that.

[Cik]

charles de gaulle is CATOBAR though, so at least it has that going for it. it's complement seems to have actual teeth, too.

I don't know about the rest- seem pretty marginal. maybe with an alpha strike you could approach sufficient mass to achieve something; but it's risky. it seems further hampered to me by the reliance on relatively low-performance S/VTOL craft and helicopters, both of which aren't going to fare very well against land-based air superiority or sea-based SAMs.

granted they may just be really old and showing their age, but I'm kind of skeptical about their prospects in a realistic scenario where they aren't whacking something effectively defenseless.

[SeaQueen]

In comparison to land-based aviation, even US super carriers don't provide much. Land based air forces provide bulk where sea based forces just can't. As I said, most foreign carriers are really more comparable to a US LHD, LHA, or LPH. The French CVN is an exception, but even it is limited in comparison. A single US carrier provides double the number of fixed wing aircraft.

Since foreign carriers are more comparable to a US big-deck amphib, the most sensible tactic to me is to use them similarly. Use the fixed wing aircraft to provide CAS or air cover to an amphibious strike force. The helos are the real strike power, delivering marines inland.

ORIGINAL: Cik

granted they may just be really old and showing their age, but I'm kind of skeptical about their prospects in a realistic scenario where they aren't whacking something effectively defenseless.

[ojms]

Have you played both "Clash of the Titans" and also "Clash of the Titans II" ?

tm.asp?m=3813614&mpage=1&key=clash%2Ctitans&#3828342

tm.asp?m=3809107&mpage=1&key=clash%2Ctitans&#3811291

Cheers!

[CCIP-subsim]

I've been hooked on British catapult carriers by way of Northern Inferno - I love the Buccaneer/F-4K-based air wing to bits, and I always found scenarios with them pretty exciting. It's a leaner air wing than you get with US fleet carriers, but it does pack a real punch and, thanks to the Buccaneers especially, a very long reach.