Should we switch some of the Carrier Strike Groups back to full Battle Groups?

[Random8145]

So been wondering about this, from what I've read, around the late 90s-early 2000s, the Navy made the decision to get rid of the Carrier Battle Group model and turn them into Strike Groups, a strike group being a carrier with just a few ships and around 75% of the aircraft of a battle group. Basically it can sail around the world and launch attacks at other countries but not fight another Navy like a Battle Group, but then didn't need to as no such navy was in existence anymore and with the budget constraints, it made more sense.

However, with the growing territorial claims and military growth of China, should we be considering at least converting the Pacific strike groups back into full Battle Groups? One of the concerns from what I understand is for example Chinese development of very high-speed anti-ship missiles, along with other "area denial" capabilities. From what I've read, the only real ways to defeat these, if launched, are to shoot them out of the sky (anti-anti-ship missiles, machine guns), and electronic warfare. I would think a full Battle Group would be needed to properly defend against things like that, as then you have a whole network of ships interacting to defend the carrier along with the carrier itself. Curious on your thoughts.

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

So been wondering about this, from what I've read, around the late 90s-early 2000s, the Navy made the decision to get rid of the Carrier Battle Group model and turn them into Strike Groups, a strike group being a carrier with just a few ships and around 75% of the aircraft of a battle group. Basically it can sail around the world and launch attacks at other countries but not fight another Navy like a Battle Group, but then didn't need to as no such navy was in existence anymore and with the budget constraints, it made more sense.

However, with the growing territorial claims and military growth of China, should we be considering at least converting the Pacific strike groups back into full Battle Groups? One of the concerns from what I understand is for example Chinese development of very high-speed anti-ship missiles, along with other "area denial" capabilities. From what I've read, the only real ways to defeat these, if launched, are to shoot them out of the sky (anti-anti-ship missiles, machine guns), and electronic warfare. I would think a full Battle Group would be needed to properly defend against things like that, as then you have a whole network of ships interacting to defend the carrier along with the carrier itself. Curious on your thoughts.

Not today, ISIS.

 

[Brett327]

So been wondering about this, from what I've read, around the late 90s-early 2000s, the Navy made the decision to get rid of the Carrier Battle Group model and turn them into Strike Groups, a strike group being a carrier with just a few ships and around 75% of the aircraft of a battle group. Basically it can sail around the world and launch attacks at other countries but not fight another Navy like a Battle Group, but then didn't need to as no such navy was in existence anymore and with the budget constraints, it made more sense.

However, with the growing territorial claims and military growth of China, should we be considering at least converting the Pacific strike groups back into full Battle Groups? One of the concerns from what I understand is for example Chinese development of very high-speed anti-ship missiles, along with other "area denial" capabilities. From what I've read, the only real ways to defeat these, if launched, are to shoot them out of the sky (anti-anti-ship missiles, machine guns), and electronic warfare. I would think a full Battle Group would be needed to properly defend against things like that, as then you have a whole network of ships interacting to defend the carrier along with the carrier itself. Curious on your thoughts.

Exactly how would you propose changing the capabilities or capacity of the CSG? If you want more ships, where are they going to come from? It's difficult to compare the modern CVW and CSG to their Cold War predecessors. You can't just say that the CVW has 75% of the aircraft it once did, thus it must have 75% of the capabilities. Doesn't quite work like that.

 

[RedFive]

Exactly how would you propose changing the capabilities or capacity of the CSG?

LCS

 

[Jim123]

LCS

That'd change it alright...

 

[Random8145]

Exactly how would you propose changing the capabilities or capacity of the CSG? If you want more ships, where are they going to come from?

Well on the capabilities and capacities, if the CSG has less capability to defend itself than a full CBG, I would want to bring it back up to the capabilities of the CBG, and if that means converting back into a CBG, I would be for that. If it could be done without converting into a CBG, then that would be fine I suppose. On the issue of ships, I'd say build more? Not saying the change could be done overnight. The idea is to begin the change so that it would be done in time to deal with the more robust Chinese threat. And yes I know about funding is an issue, but I'm talking about from a raw military standpoint, should this be done.

It's difficult to compare the modern CVW and CSG to their Cold War predecessors. You can't just say that the CVW has 75% of the aircraft it once did, thus it must have 75% of the capabilities. Doesn't quite work like that.

Well that's one reason why I am asking. I know better technology can allow smaller numbers, but there's a limit to how far one can take that with both ships and aircraft as numbers are their own capability after a certain point. Also it wouldn't just be capabilities for attacking other countries, but for fighting other navies and protecting against land-based Chinese anti-ship missiles.

 

[Hair Warrior]

“...flexible, scalable, on-call capabilities...”

That’s the rhetoric we hear from admirals. In other words, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. I wouldn’t worry about it. If another blue water navy ever challenges ours, we have way more options than Halsey did.

 

[Brett327]

“...flexible, scalable, on-call capabilities...”

That’s the rhetoric we hear from admirals. In other words, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. I wouldn’t worry about it. If another blue water navy ever challenges ours, we have way more options than Halsey did.

I think that sums it up just about as succinctly as necessary.

 

[webmaster]

Yesterday I flew over what looked like all of Norfolk's ships sailing south along the Florida coast. A couple SWO's were hotdogging their destroyers and doing donuts off the coast of Ormond Beach while the carriers were leaving everyone in the dust (maybe they wanted to beat everyone to liberty call and drinks?). Nary a plane in sight on the flight decks, those damn tailhookers are all probably on hurricane det to exotic locations such as Lemore and South Texas perhaps... maybe the lucky souls made it to Key West and are prowling Duval street? One could hope.

Was pretty cool though to see 30+ warships cruising south along the coast (shitty formation though SWOs!!!!! you were all over the place!!)

Can someone lend me their SHARPs login so I can annotate my recce readiness appropriately?

 

[RotorBoy83]

Well on the capabilities and capacities, if the CSG has less capability to defend itself than a full CBG, I would want to bring it back up to the capabilities of the CBG, and if that means converting back into a CBG, I would be for that. If it could be done without converting into a CBG, then that would be fine I suppose. On the issue of ships, I'd say build more? Not saying the change could be done overnight. The idea is to begin the change so that it would be done in time to deal with the more robust Chinese threat. And yes I know about funding is an issue, but I'm talking about from a raw military standpoint, should this be done.



Well that's one reason why I am asking. I know better technology can allow smaller numbers, but there's a limit to how far one can take that with both ships and aircraft as numbers are their own capability after a certain point. Also it wouldn't just be capabilities for attacking other countries, but for fighting other navies and protecting against land-based Chinese anti-ship missiles.

This is probably an unpopular opinion around these let’s, but if we ever get into a skirmish with a near-peer adversary, you could drop the “C” on CVW cause we won’t have many carriers left after the first few days.

 

[Random8145]

“...flexible, scalable, on-call capabilities...”

That’s the rhetoric we hear from admirals. In other words, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. I wouldn’t worry about it. If another blue water navy ever challenges ours, we have way more options than Halsey did.

According to the Gold Standard of Internet-based information (aka Wikipedia), the Navy says there actually is no specific definition of a CSG, that they can be scaled up and down depending on requirement, so I suppose they could scale them up to the equivalent of a CBG if needed. The issue with China as I see it is that it is not just about facing another blue-water navy, it is about their forming threats that can successfully fight our own blue-water navy, such as very fast anti-ship missiles and aircraft. The Chinese strategy of building their artificial islands is a way to create the equivalent of fixed aircraft carriers at sea, from which they could launch various missiles and aircraft,, along with missiles from mainland China, and missiles from their own smaller ships. They can play a defensive role to keep our ships out.

BTW I am sure the Navy brass itself is aware of all of this, I had just wanted some food for thought

 

[Random8145]

Yesterday I flew over what looked like all of Norfolk's ships sailing south along the Florida coast. A couple SWO's were hotdogging their destroyers and doing donuts off the coast of Ormond Beach while the carriers were leaving everyone in the dust (maybe they wanted to beat everyone to liberty call and drinks?). Nary a plane in sight on the flight decks, those damn tailhookers are all probably on hurricane det to exotic locations such as Lemore and South Texas perhaps... maybe the lucky souls made it to Key West and are prowling Duval street? One could hope.

Fast and Furious: Atlantic Drift?

Was pretty cool though to see 30+ warships cruising south along the coast (shitty formation though SWOs!!!!! you were all over the place!!)

Can someone lend me their SHARPs login so I can annotate my recce readiness appropriately?

Have noticed you guys have some tough views regarding SWOs!

 

[Brett327]

According to the Gold Standard of Internet-based information (aka Wikipedia), the Navy says there actually is no specific definition of a CSG, that they can be scaled up and down depending on requirement, so I suppose they could scale them up to the equivalent of a CBG if needed. The issue with China as I see it is that it is not just about facing another blue-water navy, it is about their forming threats that can successfully fight our own blue-water navy, such as very fast anti-ship missiles and aircraft. The Chinese strategy of building their artificial islands is a way to create the equivalent of fixed aircraft carriers at sea, from which they could launch various missiles and aircraft,, along with missiles from mainland China, and missiles from their own smaller ships. They can play a defensive role to keep our ships out.

BTW I am sure the Navy brass itself is aware of all of this, I had just wanted some food for thought

This kind of stuff gets regularly recycled in the various Nat Sec publications and blogs - Thanks Jerry Hendrix. It has been rehashed so many times that I'm hesitant to get into any level of detail. Suffice it to say, in the broadest terms, the Navy has to allocate limited resources toward various priorities. So, while the Navy aims to reach a fleet of 355 ships at some point, to include 12 CSGs, it also has to continue F-35 procurement and completely recapitalize the Ohio class SSBN fleet with the very costly SSBN-X.

Long story-short, we have the flexibility to tailor the CSG to the right mission, and if conflict with China becomes likely (which it currently isn't), it will be all hands on deck to win that fight. In the interim, we have to expect SECNAV/CNO to resource other priorities accordingly. These resourcing decisions are really just a giant ORM matrix, where likelihood and severity of different choices factor in.

My $.02

 

[Griz882]

While we are at it, can we bring back CVEs and CVS types?

 

[Jim123]

While we are at it, can we bring back CVEs and CVS types?

I thought @RedFive already mentioned the "combustible, vulnerable, expendables" in this thread.

Just kidding, but seriously...

(ducking for cover emoji goes here)