tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7072131290463721289..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Why Is A Carrier The Size It Is?ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90322812079098870372016-08-23T14:57:20.354-07:002016-08-23T14:57:20.354-07:00Anywhere from minutes if all you need is a hot ref...Anywhere from minutes if all you need is a hot refueling to hours if you need munitions, maintenance, and pilot rest.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80203615618131969262016-08-23T14:38:31.024-07:002016-08-23T14:38:31.024-07:00Fair enough--what are reasonable assumptions for t...Fair enough--what are reasonable assumptions for turn times for a plane between sorties, and how often they need carrier level maintenance?TomRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06684365488588679701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44104343618462844652016-08-23T14:19:51.349-07:002016-08-23T14:19:51.349-07:00Think through how many aircraft are needed to cond...Think through how many aircraft are needed to conduct a given mission. You make up the mission - it doesn't matter. Work through the numbers and logistics of a mission. Tell me what you find. Don't forget to leave the carrier a healthy protective force of aircraft just in case the enemy doesn't cooperate and approach along a perfectly predictable threat axis!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85052165596970208582016-08-23T13:43:30.439-07:002016-08-23T13:43:30.439-07:00The stepping stones would deploy on the threat axi...The stepping stones would deploy on the threat axis. Since they're between the carrier and the threat, the CAP over the stepping stones is also the carriers extended defense--incoming air attacks are engaged 800nm out.<br /><br />The mission/benefits:<br /> - increase the carrier's strike range by 800nm<br /> - more depth on the carrier's air defense<br /> - dispersal of aircraft. This is not complete, since the carrier is still needed, but it certainly helps aircraft survive and continue ops if the carrier is under ballistic missile threat.<br /><br />I'm specifically thinking of this in a Pacific conflict--the geometry and distances make a "barrier CAP" feasible vs. a "ring around the carrier CAP." The hope is to find a way for carriers to be effective from outside DF-21 range.<br /><br />(This draws some inspiration from the cold war strategy of dispersing and staging aircraft through FOBs during a conflict)TomRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06684365488588679701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5057798565958028652016-08-23T13:35:40.283-07:002016-08-23T13:35:40.283-07:00I've repeatedly discussed the role of carriers...I've repeatedly discussed the role of carriers and suggested that their role is to provide escort for "shooter" ships (Tomahawks) and to establish local air superiority in support of Air Force mission and other operations. This is essentially what you're suggesting. I have done posts on this.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31451643489442405362016-08-23T12:35:19.891-07:002016-08-23T12:35:19.891-07:00I wonder if it would be reasonable to use missiles...I wonder if it would be reasonable to use missiles, rockets and guns to attack shore targets, and use aircraft carriers predominantly for air superiority and fleet protection. Obviously, new aircraft and munitions would be needed, especially relatively inexpensive SRBMs. Maybe this idea would be worthy of a post by ComNavOps (if he hasn't already done one considering the idea).JInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4567939100541971582016-08-23T08:25:50.513-07:002016-08-23T08:25:50.513-07:00" ... small enough that each one services 3-4..." ... small enough that each one services 3-4 planes, and you have a dozen or so deployed 800nm or so ahead of the carrier group."<br /><br />"ship doesn't need a full sensor suite"<br /><br />"CAP"<br /><br />How are minimally armed ships with no sensors of their own going to survive 800 miles ahead of a carrier group? How is having to dedicate a CAP to protect these non-carriers going to enhance the carriers capability? It will just drain aircraft and resources from the carrier. How much air cover do you think will be required to protect these ships? Four planes can't stop a raid. You'd need dozens of aircraft - this sounds like the ultimate example of existing just to protect itself.<br /><br />Do you really think the enemy is going to allow us to operate a nearly unarmed and blind ship 800 miles from the nearest help?<br /><br />All that aside, you didn't lay out a mission. You described a method but not a mission. What mission would these non-carriers do or contribute to?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89677262725423144152016-08-23T07:44:29.865-07:002016-08-23T07:44:29.865-07:00Joking aside, this makes me wonder what the smalle...Joking aside, this makes me wonder what the smallest feasible carrier for a STVOL aircraft is.<br /><br />Feel free to punch holes in this idea, but imagine a minimum-sized carrier whose job is to be a "stepping stone." Size is determined by the minimum flight deck required to launch. No below decks hanger or elevators, all aviation operations are on a single deck. <br /><br />It isn't a long-term base for aircraft, but allows them to land, refuel, rearm, swap pilots and possibly perform minor maintenance. The operational concept is that it extends the reach of the supercarrier by a ferry range, both for strike and CAP. Ideally, they'll be small enough that each one services 3-4 planes, and you have a dozen or so deployed 800nm or so ahead of the carrier group.<br /><br />If design allows, add a few VLS cells with the intent that the missiles are slaved to aircraft, so the ship doesn't need a full sensor suite. SAMs would work well here if the CAP can control them. It's also an interesting thought to add either firepower, decoys, or drones to a strike package.<br /><br />Survivability is the big problem--small and stealthy helps, but it's going to rely on its air cover. It will need at least passive ASW--ideally a towed sonar.<br /><br />Sensible? Stupid? Fun to think about?<br /><br /><br /><br />TomRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06684365488588679701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14673547654343863262016-08-22T18:15:08.907-07:002016-08-22T18:15:08.907-07:00CNO,
You remember the 'Hungry lion and Africa...CNO,<br /><br />You remember the 'Hungry lion and Africans' story? Chinese don't have to outrun (i.e. outlast) the American. They just have to outlast either Taiwanese, South Korean, or Japanese. Any one (of 3) breaks, and China can make that 'China containment' a mute point; especially in the case of Taiwan.<br /><br />Or, let me look it this way. A2/AD(china) will not be about SCS or Senkakus/Japan. If push comes to shove, China will make it about Taiwan-grab. Taiwan is <100 miles from China; its military is de-spirited and under equipped; it fits China's last nationalism narrative; and if PLA can grab the island(and can't be dislodged) in a week. The 1st island chain is snapped, Japan is flanked geopolitically, and the Pacific is wide open to PLA eventually.<br /><br />So, whether it is air-sea-battle or off-shore-containment; US mil.has one-week (or two).Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56479363507384269712016-08-22T13:15:00.993-07:002016-08-22T13:15:00.993-07:00"Regarding escort number..."
What is yo..."Regarding escort number..."<br /><br />What is your point? <br /><br />The number of escorts will be however many are needed to deal with the threats.<br /><br />What point are you trying to make?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61260848114379921952016-08-22T13:11:25.695-07:002016-08-22T13:11:25.695-07:00"China internally pumps about 4-5 million bar..."China internally pumps about 4-5 million barrels a day, same as what US did in 1945. So, if the US could sustain a full blown 2 fronts war then; I think China can get by, by belt tightening, in energy embargo today."<br /><br />I'm venturing way outside my area of expertise but in 1943, the middle of WWII, the US population was 136 million. The Chinese population today is 1.4 BILLION!!! The amount of energy China needs just to sustain her population, to say nothing of military needs, dwarfs the US needs in WWII. I suspect your conclusion is incorrect.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-901302366257656572016-08-22T12:47:48.197-07:002016-08-22T12:47:48.197-07:00" ..Unless it is an all out war, the US will ..." ..Unless it is an all out war, the US will lose at least 1 of 3 Westpac footprint in an A2AD/anti-A2AD (but limited) conflict."<br /><br />Rephrase: Unless it is an all out war, the US will lose at least 1 of 3 Westpac geopolitical (i.e. containment) footprint in an A2AD/anti-A2AD (but limited) conflict (i.e. China/CCP retains its fundamental industrial and political footings).<br /><br />Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33686973527594833922016-08-22T11:13:21.255-07:002016-08-22T11:13:21.255-07:00GAB,
Regarding escort number (again, I preface I ...GAB,<br /><br />Regarding escort number (again, I preface I have no mil background), I went with the logic of more carriers will invite more 'A2/AD asset allocation', and the fact that there must be spacing between 2 carriers (which enlarge the inner circle footprint)for air wings staging/landing. For example: if Chinese pencils in another 50-100 missiles (and related infrastructure) for the extra carrier in CSG, that's another 100-150 interceptors (or 1-2 more burkes) to knock them down. <br /><br />A2/AD is the only Chinese gig there is, so whether it is strategically limited(or strategic differently), is not the point. As for energy security and raw material, there are actually two problems there. First, China internally pumps about 4-5 million barrels a day, same as what US did in 1945. So, if the US could sustain a full blown 2 fronts war then; I think China can get by, by belt tightening, in energy embargo today. (btw, the US is not about to bomb Russia-China gas line in a constrained conflict either). Second, a high sea energy embargo is a double edge sword: there will be no (or severely throttled) fuels going to US Westpac allies (Japan, SK, or Taiwan). These littoral nations are going to starve long before China does, and 1 or 2 of these nations will compromise itself with China. Unless it is an all out war, the US will lose at least 1 of 3 Westpac footprint in an A2AD/anti-A2AD (but limited) conflict.<br /><br />I'm talking about US mil has to defend Taiwan, come hell or high water. (I know I'm going way off topic here..) If Taiwan is gone, you all can see its ramification.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41010177915232916282016-08-21T17:32:00.888-07:002016-08-21T17:32:00.888-07:00"Energy security and access to certain raw ma..."Energy security and access to certain raw materials."<br /><br />Isn't that nearly the same issues we would face as well in a hypothetical war with china?Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8020729145540347942016-08-21T15:50:18.929-07:002016-08-21T15:50:18.929-07:00Tim,
You did not address my point on escort numbe...Tim,<br /><br />You did not address my point on escort numbers, and you point about A2/AD is strategically limited.<br /><br />Every nation has vulnerabilities, and China certainly has issues with energy security and access to certain raw materials; we need to think hard about what can be done beyond "go downtown and drop bombs."<br /><br />GAB<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28389739411438835962016-08-20T11:57:39.336-07:002016-08-20T11:57:39.336-07:00That's operationally absurd. If our doctrine ...That's operationally absurd. If our doctrine is for carriers to fight in pairs (or 4, or whatever multiples) then that is how they will fight. <br /><br />In WWII, for example, once we had enough carriers, we always fought our carriers in groups. They never split up. <br /><br />The entire concept of a carrier group is based on multiple carriers, operating together, to mutually support each other.<br /><br />You're trying to create a conceptual flaw in a carrier group that doesn't exist. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6920680671790775442016-08-20T11:08:42.292-07:002016-08-20T11:08:42.292-07:00GAB,
With all due respect, A2/AD is not Chinese ...GAB, <br /><br />With all due respect, A2/AD is not Chinese CSG meeting USN CSG in high sea, in the context of historical USN carrier battles. If USAF and Virginia subs can't subdue Chinese land (and near shore) missile corp/fleet, USN carriers, with its short legged air wings, will stay out and stay put. If USAF/Virginia do their job, this here argument is a 2ndary issue (i.e. either expensive or cheap carrier can mop the floor clean, and Chinese subs are not main stay of its A2/AD deterrence).<br /><br />Also, in ww2 context, IJN couldn't keep up with carriers/planes/pilots production. In today's A2/AD context, China can certainly keep up with missile production (at $2-3M per) to match/mission-kill (at $7000M per cheap-carrier) any USN ship increase. There is no leverage advantage (or wrong kind of leverage) in $$ or industrial capacity here.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9260851305336630192016-08-20T10:18:07.820-07:002016-08-20T10:18:07.820-07:00But, as you well know, there are situations when i...But, as you well know, there are situations when it will be necessary to split the carriers. A carrier should be able to fight on its own and it simply can't with so few Hawkeyes and Growlers. Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43172818810155214802016-08-20T06:06:19.361-07:002016-08-20T06:06:19.361-07:00"By splitting up the Growler and Hawkeye squa..."By splitting up the Growler and Hawkeye squadrons between the 2 carriers"<br /><br />No, the carriers would operate in pairs for combat (actually groups of 4 or more). During peacetime, they can operate any way they want - it doesn't matter.<br /><br />This was the entire point of the post! Two carriers combine their aviation assets to have a full wing of Hawkeyes and Growlers WITH TWICE THE COMBAT AIRCRAFT!<br /><br />Regarding Hornets, I would suggest buying a new design, dedicated strike aircraft and a new design dedicated fighter aircraft. Failing that, yes, we would have to fill in with Hornets but that's the far distant second choice.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70017360136738248682016-08-20T01:01:05.756-07:002016-08-20T01:01:05.756-07:00Sorry, got technical there, and made a typo.
Margi...Sorry, got technical there, and made a typo.<br />Marginal Cost is the cost to build one additional unit.<br />So the Program cost might be $200mn per unit, but the actual construction cost of building one additional unit might be $150mn.<br />Or tons in this case.<br /><br />"Every additional fighter requires a small increase in ship size than the preceding fighter."<br />Should have been "smaller".<br />From an "efficiency" stand point, building huge carriers is perfectly rational.<br /><br />From a military utility point, its a lot less clear cut, but I think the problem is that the USN is failing to utilise the Carriers, rather than they are too big to be utilised effectively.<br /><br />Personally, I think maintaining a CAP is going to require four sets 1 E2, 4 Hornets and 1 tanker, probably a fifth set as a spare.<br /><br />Strike on top of that.<br /><br /><br />The UKs rationale for having such small Carriers is that the US will provide fighter and information support.<br />They would be severely hampered if they were forced to fight someone who can fight back, and there isnt a "big brother" nearby.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38637469517366839162016-08-19T22:28:54.097-07:002016-08-19T22:28:54.097-07:00By splitting up the Growler and Hawkeye squadrons ...By splitting up the Growler and Hawkeye squadrons between the 2 carriers, your doing just that. If the carriers were forced to operate independently, as they have had in the past, the 2 Hawkeyes provide a limited AEW capability. And, what if one becomes a maintenance casualty, that leaves just one Hawkeye to serve as the eyes of the carrier. Same reasoning for the Growlers for EW support.<br /><br />At the same time, your suggestion means buying more Hornets, something you recently chastised me for suggesting.Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56458838316339687422016-08-19T16:39:02.773-07:002016-08-19T16:39:02.773-07:00Jim - good points, do not forget the F-111 issue e...Jim - good points, do not forget the F-111 issue either.<br /><br />There were some good reasons to walk, but the had the carrier capable version of the F-111 been built, the Navy would have ended up with a superb long-range heavy attack aircraft and access to a great EW platform as well.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61486607165739365772016-08-19T16:29:01.721-07:002016-08-19T16:29:01.721-07:00One of the smallest postwar carriers (USS Midway),...One of the smallest postwar carriers (USS Midway), operated one of the largest of USN aircraft the A-3B Skywarrior from VAH-8.<br /><br />It may not have been the best mix of planes, but it was done.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69339145951104761702016-08-19T16:22:28.096-07:002016-08-19T16:22:28.096-07:00Tim,
The historical answer is that escort numbers...Tim,<br /><br />The historical answer is that escort numbers are largely independent of the number of carriers being escorted.<br /><br />The escort size *should be based upon the threat; one, two, or even four carriers really does not affect this.<br /><br />GAB Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40680877896039607282016-08-19T11:36:24.010-07:002016-08-19T11:36:24.010-07:00CNO,
I have two questions: escort requirement due...CNO,<br /><br />I have two questions: escort requirement due to dual carriers CSG, and CSG role vs. $resource$ allocation.<br /><br />1. Escort requirement: wiki says there are two surface/sub rings for 1-carrier CSG, and I took an average radius of both to be about 15 miles. Now, in a 2-carrier group, if the spacing between two carriers is 10 miles (air traffic safety), the radius increases by 33%, and the CSG surface footprint area increases by 75%. Does it mean: a 100% increase in carrier will also result in 75% increase of its surface/sub escorts? (or, is my train of thought correct?)<br /><br />2. CSG role vs. resource allocation: in your post you said to replace burke with ASW dedicated vessel (and your previous posts also recommend using long range missiles and aerial asset to kick down doors in A2/AD scenario), which means CSG is more of clean-up crew than a door kicker. Where would you allocate the additional(but limited) budget: better/more door ram, or mop?<br /><br />I'll put my helmet on.Timnoreply@blogger.com