Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AOR with US Carrier Battle Group

 
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 >> AOR with US Carrier Battle Group Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 5:03:33 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
Would the US likely keep an AOR with a CBG at all times? For example if the CBG could be completely replenished and the CBG was sailing to an expected battle with an enemy that had the ability to potentially sink ships in the CBG, would the AOR likely stay behind for safety and to avoid slowing down the CBG?
Post #: 1
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 5:51:10 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4749
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
I think the response may be dependent on the timeframe, but from what this old army guy has read about it - if there is a known battle about to happen - not likely would the replen ships remain with the BG.

About half way down this blog, I talk about how I think they would have been used in 1994+/- http://northernfury.us/blog/post8/

Back then, with CVBGs (when ships and escorts were a little more plentiful) the 'USS' replen ships would shuttle between the CVBG and a replen area while the 'USNS' ships would shuttle between the ports and that replen area: The AO, AE & AFS would replen the AOE/AOR which would then be escorted forward to replen the BG. Rinse & repeat. CVNs made the process much easier than with the CVAs.

NATO carriers worked a similar system but often used USNS ships to replen their AORs or shuttled them straight back to a port. I believe the concept for the French was 2x Durance class per CV so they simply rotated.

The problem with all this of course is escorts. Ideally 2x ASW escorts were needed in the combat zone but often only one or none were available. There were rarely dedicated escorts for the USNS ships in the rear areas, a sort of zone defence was used. In the cold war days this escort task was often the role of the Knox class or OHPs (Type 21/22 etc). Today that means taking a DDG-51 or Type 23 out of the line of battle - that is a big cost! I suspect there are a lot of unescorted AOEs out there these days, but the threat is much lower.

No firm answer but I think any self respecting BG commander would clear the non-combatants out of the way if s/he could, measured against the risk of that asset sailing independently or with a minimal escort.

I've been meaning to write a blog on this for quite some time. Maybe I should.

B


_____________________________

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 orca)
Post #: 2
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 6:33:35 PM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
I agree. To add, it also depends on youre type of tanker. Like Combat support are able to defend themselve to some level. Depending on threat and her self defence weapons. How far is the threat out, are you able to make a good screen. Does the tanker has helo's or UAV's. Are you the only one using that support ship. What the area of operation. So I agree that there are many reason to make different desicions where to put you're tanker in any type of mission.
with regards

_____________________________


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 3
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 6:46:09 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 5201
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: online
I have been remiss in keeping up with your site Gunner. That is an excellent article. I recently bought a bunch of books that Neil Harvey put together. He gathers a lot of public information on modern navies around the world. Some of them a pretty good aggregations of smaller navies. But has this one is interestng:

https://www.amazon.com/Navy-Day-Cold-War-Ended/dp/1999906179/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=neil+harvey&qid=1603305631&sr=8-3

Its a little expensive at US$40, but provides the detailed OOB of the USN on 1/1/1991. There are also similar books on the Soviet Navy and I think he's working on the UK and France. Might be a good, but not great overview. Osprey also has the "In Cold War Skies" for detailed NATO and WP air OOBs for 1989. I like more modern books on cold war OOBs because they have more open sources. I find period Janes books to have made a lot of poor assumptions.

(in reply to Parel803)
Post #: 4
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 7:14:11 PM   
Kushan04


Posts: 506
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I think the response may be dependent on the timeframe, but from what this old army guy has read about it - if there is a known battle about to happen - not likely would the replen ships remain with the BG.

About half way down this blog, I talk about how I think they would have been used in 1994+/- http://northernfury.us/blog/post8/

Back then, with CVBGs (when ships and escorts were a little more plentiful) the 'USS' replen ships would shuttle between the CVBG and a replen area while the 'USNS' ships would shuttle between the ports and that replen area: The AO, AE & AFS would replen the AOE/AOR which would then be escorted forward to replen the BG. Rinse & repeat. CVNs made the process much easier than with the CVAs.

NATO carriers worked a similar system but often used USNS ships to replen their AORs or shuttled them straight back to a port. I believe the concept for the French was 2x Durance class per CV so they simply rotated.

The problem with all this of course is escorts. Ideally 2x ASW escorts were needed in the combat zone but often only one or none were available. There were rarely dedicated escorts for the USNS ships in the rear areas, a sort of zone defence was used. In the cold war days this escort task was often the role of the Knox class or OHPs (Type 21/22 etc). Today that means taking a DDG-51 or Type 23 out of the line of battle - that is a big cost! I suspect there are a lot of unescorted AOEs out there these days, but the threat is much lower.

No firm answer but I think any self respecting BG commander would clear the non-combatants out of the way if s/he could, measured against the risk of that asset sailing independently or with a minimal escort.

I've been meaning to write a blog on this for quite some time. Maybe I should.

B



I agree with Gunner, depends on the time frame.

I can see a few situations where I might be willing to risk them being shot at. If I where a CBG C/O charged with going to the far north to attack Kola during the Cold War, I'd probably keep 1-2 with the CBG. Sure they'll get shot at but they'd be better protected then just roaming about on their own. Just as important, reloads for the missiles you'd definitely be eating through would be close at hand.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 5
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 8:22:15 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4749
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

I can see a few situations where I might be willing to risk them being shot at. If I where a CBG C/O charged with going to the far north to attack Kola during the Cold War, I'd probably keep 1-2 with the CBG. Sure they'll get shot at but they'd be better protected then just roaming about on their own. Just as important, reloads for the missiles you'd definitely be eating through would be close at hand.


Even here, this is not an operation you would undertake lightly, and not with one carrier. Here the logistic effort would be large and under the command of a single element working directly for the Fleet Comd. The replen ships would be coordinated at that level and the carriers would be either cycled through or surged. A CVBG should be able to operate for 72 hours of high intensity flight ops before replen, so with 4 carriers you can keep 2 forward for probably 10 days by rotating them - or all 4 for 72-96 hours without unduly risking your replen force.

In NF #35 Shoulder to Shoulder, I try and show a surge further south with 4 CVNs and 3 NATO carriers, everyone is full-up and pushes in for a 60 hour operations with plenty of Land based support

In NF #41 Tour de Force, I try and show a more sustained operation over 10 days. I still owe an update to that and it is still in testing but shows how to do that nicely I think

In NF #54 Into the Hornet's nest, I'll show what I think would be a push at the Kola. It will be big - 6x CVBGs and 4x CVs but I think that if you're going there you need to go big, because land based air support will be limited. That one is framed out but not built.

_____________________________

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 Kushan04)
Post #: 6
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 8:24:31 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4749
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

That is an excellent article


Thank you, had a lot of fun writing that one. I need to get more blogs out, they help me get my thoughts in order.

I'll check out that book. Thanks

B

_____________________________

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 thewood1)
Post #: 7
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 8:29:16 PM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1997
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

In NF #54 Into the Hornet's nest, I'll show what I think would be a push at the Kola. It will be big - 6x CVBGs and 4x CVs but I think that if you're going there you need to go big, because land based air support will be limited. That one is framed out but not built.


Eagerly looking forward to that one!

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 8
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 8:29:52 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4749
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

Depending on threat and her self defence weapons. How far is the threat out, are you able to make a good screen. Does the tanker has helo's or UAV's.


All good points. I tend to get focused on my Northern Fury world where the threat is always high, however commanders need to take all this into consideration before making their decision. Where you put your replen force is a critical issue.



_____________________________

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 Parel803)
Post #: 9
RE: AOR with US Carrier Battle Group - 10/21/2020 9:46:28 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1266
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
Naval combat logistics are a huge topic of discussion. The short answer is; it depends.

There are station ships and shuttle ships. The station ships stay with the CSG and the shuttle ships travel back and forth between various ports bringing dry goods, fuel and ammunition. T-AOEs are intended to be primarily station ships. T-AKEs and T-AOs are intended to be primarily shuttle ships, but they could also be used as station ships in combination with a T-AO since there aren't many T-AOEs right now. T-AKEs carry the bombs, machine parts, mail, and all the other stuff that makes the fleet go. T-AOs carry the gas for the jets and ships.

Usually what happens is that the logistics ships in the theatre are pre-positioned so they don't really slow anything down. They just have to arrange to meet up at some pre-planned point. T-AOEs are intended to keep up with the fleet. The thing slowing the carriers down, isn't the logistics ships, it's the CRUDES escorting it, because even though they can go fast, they burn a lot of gas doing it, so they need to be replenished a lot when they're going fast a lot. By including the station ships with the CSG you're actually speeding them up since they can UNREP en-route to their operating area and not have to rendezvous with the shuttle ships which might not be someplace convenient.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/logistics.htm#:~:text=Some%20Combat%20Logistics%20Force%20(CLF,the%20battle%20group%20at%20sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: orca

Would the US likely keep an AOR with a CBG at all times? For example if the CBG could be completely replenished and the CBG was sailing to an expected battle with an enemy that had the ability to potentially sink ships in the CBG, would the AOR likely stay behind for safety and to avoid slowing down the CBG?



< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 10/21/2020 10:14:00 PM >

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> AOR with US Carrier Battle Group 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

0.129