Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Build your Own CBG
Jack Tarr    8/23/2007 3:05:25 PM
OK, lately there have been a few topics on the British, French, US Navies which seem to pit these apparently allied navies against each other in a "who's got the biggest stick" competition.(which is all rather silly and pointless, we are supposed to be allies/partners after all) In an effort to see how cooperative we can be instead, I thought it would be interesting to see what you guys can come up with for a force mix for an allied (RN, French {MN?}, USN) CBG? E.G Centered around the CDG, is a Ticonderoga, an Arleigh Burke, a Type 42, a Type 23, a La Fayette, and a Trafalgar SSN. There must be at least one vessel from each participating country. (and don't all just go for a Nimitz at the centre...let's be creative folks!) Try to look at the strengths each navy/vessel can be add to your CBG.(rather than just taking the pi$$ out of each other) I know there are lots of variables like "what's the mission" but this is just meant as a bit of fun, so go crazy with what CBG you would send for a specific mission. Later, we can maybe look at an all Euro CBG, or a Five Power GBG? (otherwise the aussies will feel left out ;-) )
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Jack Tarr    Finally, a reply!   9/2/2007 4:06:05 PM
Apologies for abandoning you guys for so long after starting this thread, social engagements can really get in the way of interesting military discussion! (A wedding, a weekend trip and a birthday party...wait, wasn't that a film from the 90's ;-)  )
 
GF: I knew I'd get an interesting CBG out of you. Nice choice on the KDX III's (Sejong The Great). The South Koreans are building themselves a pretty choice little navy, aren't they.
Would be interested to hear how you think the KDX III's compare to contemporaries (Burkes, Kongou's etc)
Now for the controversial bit... why the Collins'?
Don't get me wrong, they are an excellent boat, but my worry would be that, however excellent, they are still a "conventional sub", without the speed/endurance of an SSN. On station, they'd be great, but deploying, as part of a CBG, my concern would be "Can they keep up with the rest of the group?". (I suppose that depends on your scenario though...is there a need to rush them out to their station?)
As an "ex-skimmer" I realise I'm stepping into your particular area of expertise, so maybe I'm missing something?
 
GF/Stingray: I'm not sure I want to get into the middle of your discussion! ;-)
Personally, I can see both points of view. (OK. that's a cowardly "sitting on the fence" view, but that's where I'm staying!)
With a couple of very decent "flat tops"on the way, it would be easy to start looking further ahead, in the hope that fixed wing aircraft may be flown from them (I really hope so), and from what I've seen of the LHD's they look like they have a ski-jump, which suggests to me the flight deck would also be heat treated. (I might be wrong here though, I haven't seen much info on them?)
However, you have to remember what their main purpose is, with anything else being a bonus.
Even on USMC LHD's, the Harriers take second place to rotary ops. Then you'd need qualified maintenance crews for F35B's, weapons handlers etc.
Having said all that, I'd love to see the Canberras deploying with at least some (4-8?) F35 B's onboard.
I think the LHDs are flexible enough, and they would add so much more capability. (Dammit, you Aussies deserve it, you've waited long enough!)
I guess it comes down to whether the RAN can/will pay for the extra capability? (or would you rather the funds went to, say, 2 extra subs?!...tricky)
 
5thGuards: I'm ex-RN, not USN, so maybe CTF would be a better choice of acronym?
You say potato.....
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Question for the professionals.........   9/2/2007 6:25:04 PM
The function of AAW and ASW is what I call from my peculiar vantagepoint, missor reflexive. It is also my viewpoint that the modern surface warship is an interface platform that operated at a two medium boundary split battlespace.[liquid/gas]
 
You have fast moving vehicles overhead that are relatively easy to see that lob or launch even faster vehicles and objects that attack the surface ship from long distances away. We have radars and passive light detectors of all types to see this stuff coming in and we use all kinds of spoofing, andf shooting weaponry and means to keep this dangerous stuff from hitting the surface ship.
 
You have slow moving vehicles in the water [liquid medium] that launch automobile versions of themszelves that chase your surface ship.
 
These underwater flyers are hard to see [we use sound and water is a lousy direct path sound ranging medium-high index of REFRACTION]and we don't like to emit noise into the medium since water is an EXCELLENT medium for bearing only targeting solutions depending on how good your baseline sound based interferometry is [targets are slow, so positional displacement is not as big a factor as it is in air search when scouring a triangulated volume for a target.] 
 
We specialize ships obviously to fight the threat in either medium. These ships tend to either have robust helo capacity powerful sound and other search detection gear for submarines; but a limited point defense and sensors for air threats: or very powerful miltilayer SAM loadouts and the best air search and countermeasures gear we can devise for air defense. Correspondingly those air warfare ships have poor self defense against submarines. 
 
The question I have, is for a navy {USN} that has for too long ignored the mission of trade defense, can we devise a reasonable ship that has good capability against both the airborne and submerged threats in a single common hull, or do we conclude that in the face of modern weapons: such as kill you dead torpedoes, and hit you anyway missiles that the freighter defended is a lost cause? 
 
Herald   
 
  
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/2/2007 7:46:19 PM

The question I have, is for a navy {USN} that has for too long ignored the mission of trade defense, can we devise a reasonable ship that has good capability against both the airborne and submerged threats in a single common hull, or do we conclude that in the face of modern weapons: such as kill you dead torpedoes, and hit you anyway missiles that the freighter defended is a lost cause? 


aggressive and deeper screening. "kraftwerk" over technology.....

 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tarr    Build Your Own CBG   9/2/2007 7:53:39 PM
OK, catching up on a couple more replies:
 
Nominoe: Interesting group for an EU CBG.
I'm intrigued why you decided on a De Grasse for the ASW role instead of a Duke (Type 23)?
Maybe it's just personal preferance, but I feel a Duke may be better in this role?
 
Herald: No disagreement from me on the Daring's radars. I read in this months "Navy News" that while the Daring was in The Solent (body of water between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight), the Sampson radar tracked "aircraft in the airspace of  all Londons airports, Schiphol in Amsterdam, and Charles de Gaul airport Paris". I confess I don't know much about radars, but that impressed the heck out of me.
In your reply to Nominoe, you mentioned that you would change Daring's AAW missile loadout. I know that Aster has been taking quite a hit on the SP boards, but I was under the impression it was a pretty good system. I know there were probably several (monetary/political etc) reasons that the RN went for Aster, but I have a hard time believing the RN would still go for it if they didn't think it was an improvement over Sea Dart/Sea Wolf (both very effective systems). Is Aster really that poor? (It's an honest question, I'm naive as to Asters capabilities)
 
Finally, I just wanted to reiterate the aim of the excercise.
This isn't a "What sort of CBG can your country put together" question.
In todays world, whether we like it or not, nations militaries are having to collaborate with allies in military operations, for all sorts of reasons. (e.g preventing "overstretch" of available forces, presenting a "unified front", gaining access to capabilities not available in your own military, etc)
In the spirit of this real world cooperation, I think it would interesting to see what kind of "joint task force" you can come up with, for whatever scenario you can dream up.
 
Many thanks for your contributions so far.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/2/2007 7:56:22 PM

GF/Stingray:  from what I've seen of the LHD's they look like they have a ski-jump, which suggests to me the flight deck would also be heat treated. (I might be wrong here though, I haven't seen much info on them?)


We're getting ironing boards - they're getting some steel rhinoplasty before we get them.
 
 

GF: I knew I'd get an interesting CBG out of you. Nice choice on the KDX III's (Sejong The Great). The South Koreans are building themselves a pretty choice little navy, aren't they.
Would be interested to hear how you think the KDX III's compare to contemporaries (Burkes, Kongou's etc)

Now for the controversial bit... why the Collins'?

Don't get me wrong, they are an excellent boat, but my worry would be that, however excellent, they are still a "conventional sub", without the speed/endurance of an SSN. On station, they'd be great, but deploying, as part of a CBG, my concern would be "Can they keep up with the rest of the group?". (I suppose that depends on your scenario though...is there a need to rush them out to their station?)

As an "ex-skimmer" I realise I'm stepping into your particular area of expertise, so maybe I'm missing something?

 

I kind of inferred that it was a PACRIM based fleet, and thus only major regionals in play.  If I'd picked a nuke it would have loaded the bases (esp using a US nuke).  So my choice was to pick subs that were bluewater, fleet, capable of diving to the similar nuke depths and known training competency.... Hence why the Oyashios were an "either/or" string.
 
As for the Sth Koreans, I made the choice because you get a capable battlespace manager skimmer with a Tico loadout (they're basically cruisers - not destroyers, so I guess someone is being loose at their end with definitions). - Plus as a navy they're a known quality
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tarr       9/2/2007 8:20:08 PM




GF/Stingray:  from what I've seen of the LHD's they look like they have a ski-jump, which suggests to me the flight deck would also be heat treated. (I might be wrong here though, I haven't seen much info on them?)




We're getting ironing boards - they're getting some steel rhinoplasty before we get them.
 

 



GF: I knew I'd get an interesting CBG out of you. Nice choice on the KDX III's (Sejong The Great). The South Koreans are building themselves a pretty choice little navy, aren't they.

Would be interested to hear how you think the KDX III's compare to contemporaries (Burkes, Kongou's etc)



Now for the controversial bit... why the Collins'?



Don't get me wrong, they are an excellent boat, but my worry would be that, however excellent, they are still a "conventional sub", without the speed/endurance of an SSN. On station, they'd be great, but deploying, as part of a CBG, my concern would be "Can they keep up with the rest of the group?". (I suppose that depends on your scenario though...is there a need to rush them out to their station?)



As an "ex-skimmer" I realise I'm stepping into your particular area of expertise, so maybe I'm missing something?


 



I kind of inferred that it was a PACRIM based fleet, and thus only major regionals in play.  If I'd picked a nuke it would have loaded the bases (esp using a US nuke).  So my choice was to pick subs that were bluewater, fleet, capable of diving to the similar nuke depths and known training competency.... Hence why the Oyashios were an "either/or" string.

 

As for the Sth Koreans, I made the choice because you get a capable battlespace manager skimmer with a Tico loadout (they're basically cruisers - not destroyers, so I guess someone is being loose at their end with definitions). - Plus as a navy they're a known quality
 


That seems like a real shame about the Rhinoplasty on the LHD's.
Sounds like an opportunity missed (imho), even if the RAN didn't get F35B's.
I had "cross-decking" in mind, with the USMC as an "emergency measure", and even though the USMC don't use Ski Jumps either (yet), I still feel it's still a possibility, however vague. (probably being delusional)
It just feels to me like you're getting a cake without the cherry on top!
 
I like that you went for a KDX III rather than a more obvious Tico.
Thinking outside the box! Nice ;-)
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/2/2007 9:40:50 PM


Sounds like an opportunity missed (imho), even if the RAN didn't get F35B's.

I had "cross-decking" in mind, with the USMC as an "emergency measure", and even though the USMC don't use Ski Jumps either (yet), I still feel it's still a possibility, however vague. (probably being delusional)
It just feels to me like you're getting a cake without the cherry on top!
 
I like that you went for a KDX III rather than a more obvious Tico.

Thinking outside the box! Nice ;-)
 
I'd love to see flatties back in service in the RAN, but IMV, if you are going to do it, then do it properly.  Hybrid solutions are "jack of all trades, master on none" (no offence or perverted pun intended!)


 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       9/3/2007 3:44:21 AM
I think darings radar puts it as a bit of a specialist in a group. It would provide the sort of radar coverage american destroyers and cruisers might lack with out a carrier. Or say a group with poor or little airborne coverage capability (USMC, smaller spanish, Australian, Italian navy etc).
 
RAN:
Well it would be a shame to remove the nose off the LHD's. They would sure make great training carriers (not to mention recruitment publicity). With the nose removed we will never know how useful or not they would have been as mini-CVL's (bar paper estimates). As a fore runner into larger carrier studies. I think Australia will venture down this path, as its gets deeper in its role as "regional player", it will have to rely on its own assets, and will need improved organic aircover. With UAV's comming online, 4-6 F-35B's and a dozen small UAV might surplant the need to land heavy equipment like tanks, artillary, sams, motars etc where as previously a dozen or more aircraft would be needed. Like I said, we will never know, and I think its premature to make that decision given none of the aircraft are currently flying. 
 
 Perhaps a single frigate gun will provide all the shore bombardment/strike power Australia will ever need. Its how we have been doing it so far.  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/3/2007 5:03:35 AM

I think darings radar puts it as a bit of a specialist in a group. It would provide the sort of radar coverage american destroyers and cruisers might lack with out a carrier. Or say a group with poor or little airborne coverage capability (USMC, smaller spanish, Australian, Italian navy etc).

      Daring's radars give her the kind of capability that the Arleigh should have; if she had radars worthy of her missiles. Not that the SPY isn't a very good set, but the more I learn about SAMPSON, the more in awe I am of the Daring. The British outdid themselves. It is a GOOD radar. That makes the Daring something special of an area air defense destroyer. You cannot but womder why the British didn't go whole hog and build a missile equal to the SAMPSON to go with the radars. Even a navalized PAC III or Sea Meteor would give Daring the missiles near equal in capability to the planned SM-6, if not quite the reach.     
      The Daring is I believe is quite likely to be able to match an Arleigh or a Tico straight up in battlespace management if not actually be a superior to the American ships in some important respects. [Multiple target inbound coverage active response-i.e. SAMPSON and SMART-L together can handle a surprising numbers of engagements which could swamp even an AEGIS: that is if the crap ASTER was any damned good. [See "A Toast to the Charles de Gaulle"] The US needds to radar catch up. SPY 3 will do that for us, but until then..............................
RAN:

Well it would be a shame to remove the nose off the LHD's. They would sure make great training carriers (not to mention recruitment publicity). With the nose removed we will never know how useful or not they would have been as mini-CVL's (bar paper estimates). As a fore runner into larger carrier studies. I think Australia will venture down this path, as its gets deeper in its role as "regional player", it will have to rely on its own assets, and will need improved organic aircover. With UAV's comming online, 4-6 F-35B's and a dozen small UAV might surplant the need to land heavy equipment like tanks, artillary, sams, motars etc where as previously a dozen or more aircraft would be needed. Like I said, we will never know, and I think its premature to make that decision given none of the aircraft are currently flying. 

The RAN knows what it is doing. Theydecided they needed the helo space.  I for one would want to keep the ramps, but then I want to rush the F/A-47s into service to make up for our USN tactical aircraft shortfalls. I don't want to have enough to swamp the bandits of the Earth. I want enough UCAVs to terrify them into giving up banditry.
 

 Perhaps a single frigate gun will provide all the shore bombardment/strike power Australia will ever need. Its how we have been doing it so far.  
 
Tailor always what you need  to what you do. Peacekeeping doesn't require a sledgehammer, but there are some rather ugly regimes in your neighborhood. They don't understand restraint and civilized behavior too well.

Never go into the fistfight that such an enemy invites you to join him in. You want to stick a knife into him when he's not looking instead, or better yet, shoot him in the back.  Why should you treat bandits fairly? {see above}

Afterwards come the kid gloves for the liberated oppressed after youn pick up the piecesof the mess the bandits left behind.
 
Herald 



 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006    Commenwealth Battle Group 2020   9/9/2007 3:59:52 AM
Commonwealth  fleet...
 
1x HMS Queen Elizabeth -CVF ( Aircraft carrier) -UK
1X Viraat  (aircraft carrier ) India
2 x Type 45 Daring class  AWD -UK
2 x Hobart class  AWD - AUS
1X Type 15/Delhi class  Destroyer - India 
2 x ANZAC II frigates- AUS
2 x ANZAC II frigates -NZ
2X Formidable-Class Stealth Frigates - Singapore
1 x KD 29 Hang Jebat Frigate -Malaysia
1 X SSK Victoria  class -Canada
1 X  SSG Collins  MK2 -AUS
1 X SSN - Future  Sub  -  UK
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics