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: carrier battle group
stinger    11/8/2007 1:09:57 AM
i have seen resent changes to the current configuration of u.s. battle groups from cold war 2 cruisers 2-3 destroyers 1-2 frigates 1 submarine plus support ships aoe etc.. now i think they changed it to 1 cruiser 2 destroyers and 1 sub no frigate. now i saw an article of a battle group that deployed with 2 cruisers and 3 destroyers.. are they just packaging the carriers and and is there no set standard///
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
VelocityVector       11/8/2007 1:17:59 AM

The historical threat hasn't kept pace with the progress of our defensive capabilities for the most part.  Defenses against new carrier threats like ballistic missiles are being developed under dual application guise like SM-3.  And doctrine won't let us place carriers in zones where there are quiet subs.  Practices change; this is good (for US).

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Dimitri       11/8/2007 7:42:48 AM
I believe they are doing the right thing - its experimenting in this way that shows you what works and what doesn't. Also bear in mind the global security situation changes, threats change from particular countries and in particular regions, and the navy may have only certain ships available at certain times...
 
But for a notional 'baseline standard' carrier group (that can be added or subtracted from as needed), how about:
 
1 cruiser
2 destroyers
4 frigates
1 SSN
1 supply ship
 
I think this would allow for a layered defence; you have your cruiser as the goalkeeper up close to the carrier, destroyers as an inner screen, and then frigates as the outer screen up-threat.
SSN for a variety of tasks (to include ASW cover) and supply ship to also operate in the centre under maximum protection by the cruiser too.
 
The number of frigates allows you to post the majority up-threat whilst still allowing you 1 (or even 2) posted elsewhere to maintain an all-round defence in the event that the enemy attacks from an unknown quarter.
 
Although I am from the other side of the lake, and so my definitions of certain ship types may differ slightly from yours!
 
Thoughts?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keensetofpeepers       11/21/2007 12:11:08 PM
US don't have that many frigates left Dmitri. what few Oliver Hazard Perrys they might have left (not sure if they're completely retired by now, i think they are) aren't enough for 4 per CBG. USN chose to go with a hi-hi mix of capital (by capital i mean Aegis-equipped) ships, instead of the traditional, Cold War-style hi-low mix of ships. this reflects the downsizing of the Navy from a 600-800 ship navy to the current force level.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       11/21/2007 1:31:08 PM
The FFGs were never intended as battlegroup combatants.  They were only used in that role that to fill the gap between the retirement of the old DDGs (the Coontz and C.F. Adams) and CGs (Belknap and Leahy) and the entry into service of large numbers of Burkes.

Today the FFGs are mostly used independently.  Of the 50 O.H. Perry class frigates built for the USN, 30 remain in service now.  All of the ones in service are the "long hull" version, the "short hull" ones have been decommissioned or sold.  They don't really qualify as "FFG" now anyway, since the Mk.13 launcher and SM1 have been removed.

The standard composition for a Carrier Strike Group is currently 1-2 CGs, 2-3 DDGs, 1-2 SSN, and support ships.
 
Quote    Reply

ASL       11/21/2007 1:32:45 PM
There really isn't a standard strike group that carriers get underway with anymore.  And the ships a carrier gets underway with don't necessarily stay with it.  They could escort it to the eastern med, then one or two could get detached to carry out other missions in the gulf.  Then maybe an allied ship might join the strike group for a while.  There may or may not be submarines present. 
 
There's really not much that frigates can contribute to a strike group now.  Their helos can be helpful (even with a carrier nearby) and they can at least still "detect" threats, but there's very little they can do to actually stop threats from reaching the carrier since they don't have ASROCs or SM's anymore.
 
Quote    Reply

keensetofpeepers       11/25/2007 8:26:41 PM
god dang! how far the Perrys have fallen! you're right, there's about 30 long-hulled Perrys still in service, but they're quite toothless. if i were a navy sailor, i'd hate to serve on one of these ships. i imagine they're not particularly good for the career.
 
Quote    Reply

Dimitri       11/25/2007 11:13:15 PM
Ahh, I didn't realise your frigates had been downrated so far and used only in the convoy protection role I take it... ours are fully members of a larger group, but there again we have fewer destroyers and no cruisers.
 
For my term 'frigate' in the discussion above, I was envisaging a vessel of about 5000 tons, outfitted with:
 
1 medium range turretted gun (4.5in or more)
SSMs (8 Harpoon)
Lightweight torpedo launch facility (tube or magazine)
Maritime patrol helicopter (i.e. not a Lynx that is more geared towards the surface battle, but something larger that can handle ASuW and ASW)
CIWS (2 Goalkeeper and 1 11-round Sea RAM in a Phalanx mount would be nice, but unlikely)
Area air defence missile system operating out to the ~40nm range (although point defence is more likely)
Phased array radar if possible (medium range air search more likely) and towed array sonar
The usual assortments of small calibre short range crew served upperdeck gunnery
CODLAG propulsion to allow usual gas turbine performance, but with quiet running during ASW operations
 
i.e. essentially something like the Type 23 except with an improved range air defence missile system and phased array, and a sturdy CIWS fit, to turn it into more of an 'all-rounder' as opposed to an ASW-biased ship.
 
Thoughts?
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics