Proposed Future US Carrier Battle Group

[Tailhook]

James Holmes made a pitch to replace CSG with CVBG (again) and I think there's some merit to the idea. His logic being that a strike group operates in safe seas, a battle group does not. His big changes are more aircraft in the wing (and longer range) and more surface escorts.

I fiddled around in the editor to come up with a hypothetical ~2020 or so air wing, heavily inspired by late Cold War Air Wings

2 Squadrons of 10 F-35C
2 Squadrons of 12 F/A-18E*
1 Squadron of 12 F/A-18F*
1 Squadron of 8 E/A-18G**
1 Squadron of 5 E-2D***
1 Squadron of 5 MQ-25
1 Squadron of 8 MH-60R
1 Squadron of 8 MH-60S
1 Detachment of 6 SV/MV-22****

Update from Tailhook 2019


*The Block III Super Hornet is not included in game yet so this does not have the extended range.
**I don't recall where but I saw on a reputable site that the Navy is considering expanding VAQ detachments to 8 aircraft
***E-2D Squadrons get a 5th aircraft
****I assumed the Navy at some point realizes it can use the Osprey for ASW and used the Hypothetical SV-22 unit

Total of 96 aircraft. Definitely a tight squeeze but theoretically possible on both Nimitz and Ford class and comparable to Cold War loadouts. MH-60R numbers could be reduced due to presence of SV-22.

I may throw this into some scenarios to mess around with, but wanted to offer it up for discussion and use for scenario makers. I'm not entirely certain what the rest of the group would look like, but as a suggestion:

2x CG
4-5x DDG
3-4x FFG(X)*
1-2 AO/AKE

*Either LCS, a Saudi Inspired US MMSC, or for more future fun something like the National Security Cutter derivatives

Any thoughts on the composition? I'd like to give this a try in the last scenario of Chains of War. I can attach a premade unit if you are interested.

[Gunner98]

I like the idea. A couple of thoughts:

The MH-60R's - assuming that the current philosophy remains, would have 1 or 2 birds on the CVN with the Sqn HQ and the rest dispersed on the escorts. So that frees up a bit of space.

For the escorts if you go on the cold war doctrine of 2-3 AAW and 3-4 ASW platforms, your probably a bit heavy - something like:

2x CG
1x DDG with AAW load
2x DDG with balanced load not sure if there is value in an ASW load for a DDG but it is an option, but this gives some ASuW punch as well.
2x FFG the LCS would not be worth much in this structure, a resurrected OHP would be better but that's not really an option I don't think
AOR/E as opposed to the AKE

Cold war had a couple SSNs working with a CVBG but I think then as now they would be very loosely coordinated.

The 12 Carriers in the 355 ship navy would mean a max of 8 at sea at any one time and that would be stretching it. With this you would need:

16x CG - got them with 6 to spare, so do-able but just
24x DDG - got them with plenty to spare
16x FFG - problem but in the interim another DDG could fill in
8x AOR/E - 2x AOE + 2 in reserve this is a real issue unless the Kaisers can start carrying a bunch of ammo

Actually I see your point with the Lewis and Clark AKE linked with a Kaiser, two ships for one job but it works.

This looks like a good project!

B

[Tailhook]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I like the idea. A couple of thoughts:

The MH-60R's - assuming that the current philosophy remains, would have 1 or 2 birds on the CVN with the Sqn HQ and the rest dispersed on the escorts. So that frees up a bit of space.

For the escorts if you go on the cold war doctrine of 2-3 AAW and 3-4 ASW platforms, your probably a bit heavy - something like:

2x CG
1x DDG with AAW load
2x DDG with balanced load not sure if there is value in an ASW load for a DDG but it is an option, but this gives some ASuW punch as well.
2x FFG the LCS would not be worth much in this structure, a resurrected OHP would be better but that's not really an option I don't think
AOR/E as opposed to the AKE

Cold war had a couple SSNs working with a CVBG but I think then as now they would be very loosely coordinated.

The 12 Carriers in the 355 ship navy would mean a max of 8 at sea at any one time and that would be stretching it. With this you would need:

16x CG - got them with 6 to spare, so do-able but just
24x DDG - got them with plenty to spare
16x FFG - problem but in the interim another DDG could fill in
8x AOR/E - 2x AOE + 2 in reserve this is a real issue unless the Kaisers can start carrying a bunch of ammo

Actually I see your point with the Lewis and Clark AKE linked with a Kaiser, two ships for one job but it works.

This looks like a good project!

B

Thanks Gunner, I trust you'll come up with some good scenarios for this!

Regarding the Frigates, I submitted a suggestion to the DB3000 thread for some of the FFG(X) concepts
fb.asp?m=4313547
I'm a big fan of the Patrol Frigates, personally. I hope they get taken a look at.

Your escorts seem like a better mix. I think that adding LRASM to the "balanced" DDGs would really help out. I deliberately left out the SSN because of the looseness of the coordination.

Also I don't think every at sea carrier would need a CVBG, only ones in high threat environments.

[Dysta]

It's sad that US Navy doesn't looks much interest into Sea-based LRASM, and the naval budget increase for Trump will be focused to quantity, piling up Burke III and Virginia productions rather than newer but expensive assets.

I think the CVN can carry even more fighters if you can leave some MH-60s to LHA, despite its for USMC and had has poor flank speed. Since F-35C will be boarded there isn't much of need for F-35B, as well as the potential combat involved with shore/islands, so you could bring some marines too.

[Tailhook]

LRASM is disqualified as a non-VLS missile I believe, but I think VLS LRASM is still a possibility. As for new tech, the FFG(X) requirements were just submitted. There's a couple strong contenders substantially more capable than LCS. Keep an eye on that.

You're right that an LHA could offer some benefits, but my intention was a single CVN only providing the flat top space.

[jtoatoktoe]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

It's sad that US Navy doesn't looks much interest into Sea-based LRASM, and the naval budget increase for Trump will be focused to quantity, piling up Burke III and Virginia productions rather than newer but expensive assets.

I think the CVN can carry even more fighters if you can leave some MH-60s to LHA, despite its for USMC and had has poor flank speed. Since F-35C will be boarded there isn't much of need for F-35B, as well as the potential combat involved with shore/islands, so you could bring some marines too.

LRASM is taking part in the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 2 along with Tomahawk (for VLS) and Joint Strike Missile for Air Launch and anyone else who may enter, for a 2024 deployment,

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I like the idea. A couple of thoughts:

The MH-60R's - assuming that the current philosophy remains, would have 1 or 2 birds on the CVN with the Sqn HQ and the rest dispersed on the escorts. So that frees up a bit of space.

For the escorts if you go on the cold war doctrine of 2-3 AAW and 3-4 ASW platforms, your probably a bit heavy - something like:

2x CG
1x DDG with AAW load
2x DDG with balanced load not sure if there is value in an ASW load for a DDG but it is an option, but this gives some ASuW punch as well.
2x FFG the LCS would not be worth much in this structure, a resurrected OHP would be better but that's not really an option I don't think
AOR/E as opposed to the AKE

Cold war had a couple SSNs working with a CVBG but I think then as now they would be very loosely coordinated.

The 12 Carriers in the 355 ship navy would mean a max of 8 at sea at any one time and that would be stretching it. With this you would need:

16x CG - got them with 6 to spare, so do-able but just
24x DDG - got them with plenty to spare
16x FFG - problem but in the interim another DDG could fill in
8x AOR/E - 2x AOE + 2 in reserve this is a real issue unless the Kaisers can start carrying a bunch of ammo

Actually I see your point with the Lewis and Clark AKE linked with a Kaiser, two ships for one job but it works.

This looks like a good project!

B

You'd need more escorts in the fleet than that - they still need to undergo their own maintenance and workup periods like the carriers.

So 20-24x CG (would likely need to be new builds, as there aren't enough Ticos)
36x DDG
20-24x FFG(X)
12-16 AOR/E, if not more for high-tempo or distant ops.

But otherwise, I don't disagree. A multimission S/CV-22 would be a huge benefit, IMHO - especially if you can make a ro/ro AWACS or ECM variant for the Marines and the amphibs.

[Gunner98]

So 20-24x CG (would likely need to be new builds, as there aren't enough Ticos)
36x DDG
20-24x FFG(X)
12-16 AOR/E, if not more for high-tempo or distant ops.

I think there are 22 Tycos left so it could just work
There are 60+ DDG and building but considering all the other jobs they do it would still be tight
The Frigate is the real problem.... each one you don't have costs you a DDG and then you run out of them and nothing for the Amphibs etc
The support ships are interesting, the doctrine seems to be changing. There are 15x Kaiser class AOs and 12x Lewis & Clarke class AKEs as opposed to the AOR/E that I was remembering from the 90s. So with the 4 Supply class AOEs there are probably enough.

The real gap --- FFGs ---

B

[Coiler12]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

So 20-24x CG (would likely need to be new builds, as there aren't enough Ticos)
36x DDG
20-24x FFG(X)
12-16 AOR/E, if not more for high-tempo or distant ops.

I think there are 22 Tycos left so it could just work
There are 60+ DDG and building but considering all the other jobs they do it would still be tight
The Frigate is the real problem.... each one you don't have costs you a DDG and then you run out of them and nothing for the Amphibs etc
The support ships are interesting, the doctrine seems to be changing. There are 15x Kaiser class AOs and 12x Lewis & Clarke class AKEs as opposed to the AOR/E that I was remembering from the 90s. So with the 4 Supply class AOEs there are probably enough.

The real gap --- FFGs ---

B

You might able to use an allied NATO frigate as a workaround for the FFG role.

[Tailhook]

I'd be willing to bet the allied FFG would be the most likely solution until FFG(X) comes around.

[Gunner98]

I'd be willing to bet the allied FFG would be the most likely solution until FFG(X) comes around.

Agree - I'm sure the decision makers in Washington considered that when they decided to stop building FFGs - that is the one element other NATO countries have in decent numbers.

Some are quite good as well: 6 of the top 10 in this list: http://www.military-today.com/navy/top_10_frigates.htm

But numbers are still light:

3x Sachsen class
3x Iver Huitfeldt class
5x Alvaro de Bazan class
4x Aquitaine class (up to 4 more by 2022)
5x Carlo Bergamini class (up to 5 more by 2021)
5x Fridtjof Nansen class

Many (most) others will be obsolete by 2024 but still around.

When you consider that the Brits will be wanting some help from some of these to help out their Type 45 DDGs escorting their new carriers, and the French will want most of theirs for the CdG. Plus national requirements...

I think the US could count on perhaps 4 or 5 of these being available - so 2x CVBGs in the Atlantic or Med
Japan will help out in the Pacific I'm sure
But the gap will have to be covered by Burks, not an efficient way of doing things.

B

[AlphaSierra]

I really like the Idea of the FFGx's escorting the LHA's plane guards etc.

You math on using up the DDG's is spot on.

[Tailhook]

Don't forget any number of South Pacific Allies with few but capable frigates, same with the ROK.

[kevinkins]

I apologize for not doing OOB research on this question but rather post it sooner than later. What would be the difference between a US carrier battle group of 2 carriers as proposed above Vs. combining 2 one carrier strike groups as they exist today? Are we not seeing this off the coast of Korea now? Articulation in firepower is generally preferred if the distributed force can recombine decisively by out Boyd cycling the enemy. Hey wait, maybe that is the essence of the operational question posed in the OP. Cool topic.

Kevin

PS: let's not forget the submarine component. I know... that's about a top secret as it gets.

[Gunner98]

Kevin

You raise an interesting point - the combined effects of 2 CVs (or 3 or 4..) concentrating at the decisive moment would indeed be an excellent example of operational art. But those CVs when dispersed need to be able to defend themselves and in a pinch conduct independent offensive action. Thus the need for a CVBG in a contested battlespace vice the more risky CSG which is really optimized for offensive action in uncontested spaces. Yes a CSG can defend itself - no question, but against a concerted, coordinated attack by a first line foe - it would be hard pressed.

As to the Sub threat - this points to the gap that the FFG leaves in the current structure. A DDG-51 can do a very good job in an ASW role, but it is a 2 Billion dollar piece of kit. An FFG should be equally capable in ASW work, probably much less capable in other roles but cost 1/2 or less. So its easier to risk in an outer screen.

A sub working in conjunction with a CVBG (or a CSG) is a huge asset. Cold War CVBGs had two of them and that should continue I think.

Land based support from EP-3s and P-3Cs was also critical in the cold war, don't know the numbers on the P-8s but that one platform should be able to do both jobs I think.

BTW: Not really the case around NK anymore - but it would only take a week to make it so again.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/26673

[kevinkins]

in a pinch conduct independent offensive action

In land warfare, this was the innovation of the French with the Corps concept of self contained and self sufficient miniature armies. The idea was to spread out a cloud of information gathering elements that could find fix and destroy a major portion of the enemy rendering the rest demoralized and fearing what was next since they were so surprised in the first place. I think distributed deployment will work best as peace transitions to war. That is when the conflict is in the "meeting engagement" phase. This is when information (enemy position and intentions) are key. Assembling a carrier battle group to deliver a decisive blow at the key geopolitical points would then begin.

Kevin

[Tailhook]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Kevin

You raise an interesting point - the combined effects of 2 CVs (or 3 or 4..) concentrating at the decisive moment would indeed be an excellent example of operational art. But those CVs when dispersed need to be able to defend themselves and in a pinch conduct independent offensive action. Thus the need for a CVBG in a contested battlespace vice the more risky CSG which is really optimized for offensive action in uncontested spaces. Yes a CSG can defend itself - no question, but against a concerted, coordinated attack by a first line foe - it would be hard pressed.

As to the Sub threat - this points to the gap that the FFG leaves in the current structure. A DDG-51 can do a very good job in an ASW role, but it is a 2 Billion dollar piece of kit. An FFG should be equally capable in ASW work, probably much less capable in other roles but cost 1/2 or less. So its easier to risk in an outer screen.

A sub working in conjunction with a CVBG (or a CSG) is a huge asset. Cold War CVBGs had two of them and that should continue I think.

Land based support from EP-3s and P-3Cs was also critical in the cold war, don't know the numbers on the P-8s but that one platform should be able to do both jobs I think.

BTW: Not really the case around NK anymore - but it would only take a week to make it so again.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/26673

I deliberately ommitted the addition of an SSN to the group but obviously there'd be 1-2, global taskings permitting. I know that P-8 detachments typically tie to an aircraft carrier, so those can also expect to be around. The SV-22 could take some of the load off these.

[temkc5]

I can attach a premade unit if you are interested.

Hi there I would be very interested if you could attach a pre-made unit

[sergiopl]

Back in the late Cold War years, the 600-ship Navy project envisioned a CVBG for the 90s consisting in 1x CV, 2x CG-47, 2x DDG-51, 2x DD-963, 1x AOE and the usual 2x SSN. Also, in wartime, CVBGs were to be merged in CVBFs with at least 4x CG-47, 4x DDG-51 and 4x DD-963.

Nowadays, 2 additional Burkes could take the Spruances place (as they have top-class ASW capabilities) in a 2 cruisers/4 destroyers escort force. The limiting factor would be the number of AOEs on the logistic force (AOs and AKEs were supposed to shuttle cargo between FOB and the fleet, as the centerpiece of URGs, escorted by 1x DDG and 3x FFG, not for battle group operations).

Regarding CVWs, I agree with Tailhook on reinforce with a 5th fighter bomber squadron and additional ECM and AEW a/c.

[Tailhook]

Update from Tailhook 2019.

I promise I'll update and release this. I was really hoping for a FFG(X) addition to the database before I did.