Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.

Post by SeaQueen »

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe]
Just think though if the CSG had 200+ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles that the PLAAF would have to put up a pretty good amount of A/C just to defeat the picket ships around the carrier.

I think you're thinking in too limited a way. Sure a CSG has lots of missiles and can probably knock down a raid, but in the process they expend missiles which can't be replaced at sea. What about the next one? And the next one? The whole exercise is a numbers game of how many SAMs do I have versus how many anti-ship missiles do you have? How much risk are you willing to accept that after the first raid you'll be able to survive the next one? If you're not confident enough then even after a raid where you knock all the missiles down, you have to withdraw to someplace more safe. The question is not if they will reach that point, but how quickly. Once ships start emptying their magazines of SM-3s and SM-6s, you need to consider withdrawing the carrier or risk taking a hit.
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe]
Just think though if the CSG had 200+ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles that the PLAAF would have to put up a pretty good amount of A/C just to defeat the picket ships around the carrier.

I think you're thinking in too limited a way. Sure a CSG has lots of missiles and can probably knock down a raid, but in the process they expend missiles which can't be replaced at sea. What about the next one? And the next one? The whole exercise is a numbers game of how many SAMs do I have versus how many anti-ship missiles do you have? How much risk are you willing to accept that after the first raid you'll be able to survive the next one? If you're not confident enough then even after a raid where you knock all the missiles down, you have to withdraw to someplace more safe. The question is not if they will reach that point, but how quickly. Once ships start emptying their magazines of SM-3s and SM-6s, you need to consider withdrawing the carrier or risk taking a hit.

You reflect a perspective of military operations that even professional military commanders ignore.

As a former Army acquisition logistics specialist, I would be a rival of Trump's wealth if I had a dime for every time I heard a professional military acquisition manager (captain through general) pooh pooh the impacts of logistics when it came to realisticly testing the operational suitability of new designs for combat platforms.

The gee whiz of how the design could shoot, scoot and communicate with "the force" always superseded the logistician's "how quickly can it conduct the next fight after its last combat operation?" concern.

Take care,

jim
User avatar
AdmiralSteve
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Red Bluff, CA

RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.

Post by AdmiralSteve »

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe]
Just think though if the CSG had 200+ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles that the PLAAF would have to put up a pretty good amount of A/C just to defeat the picket ships around the carrier.

I think you're thinking in too limited a way. Sure a CSG has lots of missiles and can probably knock down a raid, but in the process they expend missiles which can't be replaced at sea. What about the next one? And the next one?
That's what I had suggested at my original post. PLAAF would have to put a bunch of SEAD and ECM aircraft just to get the 1st wave rolling which would be a huge blip on somebody's radar screen. And then what? Do you send another wave of SEAD aircraft to finish off the screening vessels or do you fire a salvo of Mach 10 ASBM's? Would the CSG be even within range?
The whole exercise is a numbers game of how many SAMs do I have versus how many anti-ship missiles do you have? How much risk are you willing to accept that after the first raid you'll be able to survive the next one? If you're not confident enough then even after a raid where you knock all the missiles down, you have to withdraw to someplace more safe. The question is not if they will reach that point, but how quickly. Once ships start emptying their magazines of SM-3s and SM-6s, you need to consider withdrawing the carrier or risk taking a hit.
I even question the feasibility of attempting an attack onto a CSG in the first place. I ran a simple 100 aircraft attack onto a CSG with a carrier and 5 cruisers and destroyers and it was difficult enough just to get the anti-radiation missiles on target. I was only able to neutralize 1 vessel and had 4 more to deal with. As for speed, hit them hard and fast I believe was once said by a US Navy Admiral in the Pacific. That would work for China too but again it brings up my original question; would an an attacking force send up that many aircraft at once and expect not to be detected?
“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959

Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”