Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Surface Action Groups

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> The War Room >> Surface Action Groups Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Surface Action Groups - 7/31/2019 2:29:44 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1792
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
Interesting article written by junior officers:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/july/you-miss-100-missile-shots-you-dont-take

I wonder if they play Command? I may have to put their ideas to a test or two.

Kevin



< Message edited by kevinkins -- 7/31/2019 2:30:25 PM >


_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan

Post #: 1
RE: Surface Action Groups - 7/31/2019 3:47:31 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4183
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Some good ideas there.

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 2
RE: Surface Action Groups - 7/31/2019 6:16:47 PM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline
I think they are significantly overestimating both the ability of a SAG to remain undetected, and the ability of a SAG to find targets for its missiles.

Personally, I firmly believe the debate needs to move beyond the simplistic SAG vs CSG binary and instead explore how best to conduct combined arms air/missile warfare.

CMANO amply demonstrates that aircraft remain by far the best way to perform recon, that fighters can defeat air threats long before surface weapons, and that fighter escort and airborne SEAD are vital elements of a successful attack. However, surface launched offensive missiles are a great way to provide an overwhelming punch (even using all of its fighters, a Nimitz can only match the salvo size of a Burke).

Thuss, I think the article is correct in its suggestion to make surface ships more offensively-oriented and carriers more of a supporting asset, but that it is entirely wrong to suggest moving towards independent SAG's as a replacement for CSG's.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 3
RE: Surface Action Groups - 7/31/2019 10:43:54 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 2958
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
I agree with ARCNA442 to a large degree. Roving SAGs are missing too many supporting assets to be truly effective. I do agree that we need to treat surface combatants as offensive tools rather than primarily defensive assets for protecting small, roving airbases.

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 4
RE: Surface Action Groups - 8/3/2019 7:28:24 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1120
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
While I'm not sure I agree with the specifics of the concept they're describing (they're just lieutenants!) there is a general movement towards equipping US CRUDES with ASCMs for a stronger offensive capability balanced with the ongoing need for defense against cruise missiles, aircraft, submarines and ballistic missiles. Already there's Tomahawk MST, LRASM, Harpoon II, NSM and the SM-6 can be used in an ASuW mode as well. All or any of these are either already integrated on US CRUDES, are being considered, or are being planned on.

I don't think the "alone and unafraid" model of hunting SAGs is a particularly smart one, though. When you've got a thousand mile ASCM, who does the targeting? Satellites? MPA? UAS? Helicopters? Submarines? A combination of all of them? Also, the mobility of warships in the age of missiles is basically irrelevant. A 15-20kt DDG is never going to successfully get out of the way of a 500 knot cruise missile, especially given how little warning they might have. That's not even discussing the possibility of supersonic or even hypersonic threats. Furthermore, who is going to protect them from submarines? Themselves? VLA is cutting it awful close. The helo is one more layer. Now we've got to add more MPA in... which is competing for MPA support with the carrier. That won't work.

Also, with VLS tubes, every offensive missile you put in the tube is a defensive missile you could be using. You're not going to go with nothing but offensive missiles. You're still going to be carrying SM-6, ESSM, and VLA for self defense, as well as TLAM for offensive strikes against land targets. How do you balance that loadout? The ability to balance your ability to absorb any raid from the enemy (or sequence of raids) versus your ability to successfully strike them is going to dictate your salvo size. The defensive missiles dictate your endurance within the enemy WEZ, because if they start to get low, you're forced to withdraw. The longer you're able to operate in the enemy WEZ, the less effective you are offensively.


< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 8/6/2019 4:31:14 PM >

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 5
RE: Surface Action Groups - 9/30/2019 4:00:14 PM   
BsmittyVA

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/30/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442

I think they are significantly overestimating both the ability of a SAG to remain undetected, and the ability of a SAG to find targets for its missiles.

Personally, I firmly believe the debate needs to move beyond the simplistic SAG vs CSG binary and instead explore how best to conduct combined arms air/missile warfare.

CMANO amply demonstrates that aircraft remain by far the best way to perform recon, that fighters can defeat air threats long before surface weapons, and that fighter escort and airborne SEAD are vital elements of a successful attack. However, surface launched offensive missiles are a great way to provide an overwhelming punch (even using all of its fighters, a Nimitz can only match the salvo size of a Burke).

Thuss, I think the article is correct in its suggestion to make surface ships more offensively-oriented and carriers more of a supporting asset, but that it is entirely wrong to suggest moving towards independent SAG's as a replacement for CSG's.


First post here. Hi all.

I agree that their concept seems overly simplistic and you're on the right path. Maritime Strike Tomahawk opens up the possibility of SAGs staying on the fringes of the combat zone and firing large salvos into it against aircraft-detected targets from hundreds of miles away.

This led me down the path of how to build deeper VLS magazines for surface forces, and back to the idea of the arsenal ship. A SAG centered around one or more arsenal ships filled with MSTs can throw repeated 50+ missile salvos at anything aircraft detect.

Yes, aircraft need to maintain relatively solid tracks on targets, especially as each salvo nears the target area. In CMANO, F-35s are rather adept at this, given their stealth. They're also good for softening up and disrupting any CAPs the enemy has protecting the targets before the salvo passes by the CAPs.

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> The War Room >> Surface Action Groups Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156