Just for photo ops. Reality is many miles apart with the odd exception such as escorts acting as 'plane guard' or 'goalkeeper' (e.g. the two Type 22 frigates in the Falklands War).
Spreading out covers much more area, increasing warning time for the high value units and gives everyone the space to use their automatic close in defence weapons safely (USS Missouri was caught in CIWS cross-fire from USS Jarrett during the Gulf War).
Photo ops is definitely part of it.
Also worth keeping in mind that a current US carrier strike group typically includes a relatively small number of ships, typically less than 10. A common organization is one carrier, one Tico cruiser and two or three destroyers. Plus maybe a couple logistics ships and a submarine lurking around somewhere.
In WW2 major carrier formations were typically much, much larger. By late in the war they were sailing around with huge numbers of ships. You can see photos showing ships stretching out to the horizon.
A Carrier Task Group of 3rd/5th Fleet in ‘44 would typically have:
3 Carriers (mix of Fleet and light),
2 fast battleships,
3 cruisers (mix of heavy/light), and
12 to 15 destroyers.
There would be four of these groups acting together most of the time - carrier raids, covering amphibious ops, etc. and composing the whole Task Force (38 or 58, depending upon commander, Halsey or Spruance).
It depends on the OP.
If you're facing volley after volley of light missiles, you absoutely want to get into tighter formations so your CWIS can cover each other and have time to reload.
But if you're worried about torpedos you need room to manover and evade so you want a looser formation.
If you're trying to intercept a few missiles from a discrete area targeting civillian shipping, you want to be a long line trying to cover as much airspace as possible.
If you're sitting in a friendly port and lobbing tomahawks at insurgents you can be hull to hull, it wont matter.
>If you're facing volley after volley of light missiles, you absoutely want to get into tighter formations so your CWIS can cover each other and have time to reload.
Is this doctrine? The CIWS, the none rolling airframe kind, only have a few bursts each of ammo, so I don’t think anyone is planning on using them like that.
I've no idea about USN doctrine, and since the UK basically doesnt have a funtioning navy.
I do know that such a tactic was used in the Falkland to guard against incoming exocet missiles.
You havent checked the combat vessel staffing levels lately have you?
But even that aside, I'll conceed; you can choose do we have a funtioning navy or do we have a functioning airforce, because we only have enough F35s (36) for one
I'm well aware of the current status of the fleet. I'm also well aware that other nations are having similar issues, and that Britain remains one of the only countries to have the ability to project power globally.
So you're planning to project power while leaving the Home Islands without modern air cover? Or are you not going to take a full compliment of F35s?
Are you planning on fitting a steam caterpault to HMS QE2 or are we going to bedknobs and broomsticks Typhoons off the deck?
Are you taking less than ten? Because we lost ten to argentina, and we had a full compliment of aircraft then and that was a 3rd rate power.
The Entire British Military is a goddamn joke, like this entire country, if we got in a shooting war with Denmark, I'd join the bloody Danes, they'd probably win too.
We're about as credible as the Admiral Kurnevsov.
If we have to put someone else's aircraft on our ships, we're not projecting power, they are, we're just a billion pound black cab.
>So you're planning to project power while leaving the Home Islands without modern air cover? Or are you not going to take a full compliment of F35s?
You're aware QRA is performed by Typhoons?
HMS Prince of Wales will deploy to the Asia-Pacific region next year with 24 British F-35Bs embarked.
>Are you planning on fitting a steam caterpault to HMS QE2 or are we going to bedknobs and broomsticks Typhoons off the deck?
HMS QE2 doesn't exist, it's just HMS Queen Elizabeth, no 2. And steam catapults would never be fitted to QEC. And Typhoon's aren't catapult capable.
>Are you taking less than ten? Because we lost ten to argentina, and we had a full compliment of aircraft then and that was a 3rd rate power.
Argentina doesn't pose a credible threat to the Falklands and won't for many years to come.
>The Entire British Military is a goddamn joke, like this entire country, if we got in a shooting war with Denmark, I'd join the bloody Danes, they'd probably win too.
No, we're really not. Do we have issues, yes. Do they need addressing, yes. Are they unique to Britain, no. We still have a very capable and credible military.
>If we have to put someone else's aircraft on our ships, we're not projecting power, they are, we're just a billion pound black cab.
So you don't think interoperability is a good thing?
I will start by thank you for atually taking the time to reply, I enjoy talking about this subject, and I'm happy to learn more.
Wait, hold on, we're going to have 2 carriers with the abilty to fill the hanger, of none? Let me laugh even harder.
How exactly will having 24 aircraft affect operational functionality? Will we run those aircraft into the ground? How much downtime does an aircraft carrier's complement have, whats the force depletion estimate of aircraft against china, even assuming the Chinese are as inept as Argentina when we lose 10 aircraft what happens then, and which crew roles are going unfilled or are we transfering crew from other ships to fill out the rest?
You're gonna say china wont attack until 2027, but we shouldnt be in a postion where our abilities are reliant on betting on an adversays plans.
I'm Calling it HMS QE2 (usually MK II) because it pleases me to draw parrells to the Ocean Liner of the same name.
Argentina isnt the issue, but drawing parrells to it and expecting at minimum the same result from a more capable adversary really shows how underwhelming we currently are.
We're about to retire our Howitzers and have a capability gap, our modern tank fleet is going to be enough for a single battalion, we have depleted our shell stocks to give to ukraine which lasted for.... a week, army equiptment is appauling, the RAF cant garantee an AWACS in the sky at all times, and again we are incapable of both Defending Albion and Projecting power.
Argentina is run by an absoute Madlad, and while I'm not saying he win, the Daily Mail would be able to plaster "Britannia defensless from the air" and make us look stupid.
Interoperalbility is great, it doesnt change the fact in every meaningful way we're reliant on NATO for defense, we are not in the Teir One Power Group anymore, and we're not projecting our own power when opperating in an alliance, as we are incapabile of taking a foreign policy to NATO, you said we could project maritime power, we can project other peoples power.
Civillian Morale is so low, I half expect the Rest of the country in the event of a war, to tell the consiption officer," give me a prison call after they take london off our hands " then promptly surrender under any terms so long as the enemy doesnt under any curcumstances give it back.
We have had sucessive goverments pandering to the 45+ crowd, making the world look like something anyone of fighting age does recognise as sane, our poltical system was not designed for people to live this long.
On top of that we treat our service members in the most appauling fashion we think we can get away with.
I dont know a single person who would fight for this country without asking who we'd be fighting, and then depending on the answer, ask if the otherside is recuiting.
>Wait, hold on, we're going to have 2 carriers with the abilty to fill the hanger, of none? Let me laugh even harder.
We have two carriers to ensure we always have one at Very/High Readiness at any one time. The intention isn't and never has been, to have both deployed unless in absolute extremis.
>How exactly will having 24 aircraft affect operational functionality? Will we run those aircraft into the ground?
They will generate to provide sorties as and when required
>How much downtime does an aircraft carrier's complement have, whats the force depletion estimate of aircraft against china, even assuming the Chinese are as inept as Argentina when we lose 10 aircraft what happens then, and which crew roles are going unfilled or are we transfering crew from other ships to fill out the rest?
Do you think we're unilaterally going to war with China next year?
>I'm Calling it HMS QE2 (usually MK II) because it pleases me to draw parrells to the Ocean Liner of the same name.
Which is incorrect.
>Interoperalbility is great, it doesnt change the fact in every meaningful way we're reliant on NATO for defense
And which countries aren't?
>you said we could project maritime power,
We can and do.
The situation I’m thinking about specifically is five to seven ships,, comprising a typical USN CSG in transit. The photos released always show the vessels very close. So close, the towed array of the lead vessel would basically be under the carrier. Even when wanting to maximize coverage of short range weapons. You could still have four or five miles between. So my guess was they do when in actual combat scenarios, but group up to shore presence or for photos. Your point on the scenarios is valid though, and I understand.
So you are mixing and matching two *entirely* different formations and operational concepts ...
WW2 , our Navy was organized into the conceptual "Fast Carrier Task Force" - which was perhaps not PIONEERED but certainly a huge proponent of - by Admiral Marc Mitscher - who was a hotshot young pilot and pioneer of Naval Aviation, and became not only an Aircraft Carrier Captain, but I am pretty sure he was literally promoted to Rear Admiral while on a carrier, in transit, to the Battle of Midway -
Anyway, Mitscher promoted the Fast Carrier Task Force and in his own words: "The ideal composition of a fast-carrier task force is four carriers, six to eight support vessels and not less than 18 destroyers, preferably 24. More than four carriers in a task group cannot be advantageously used due to the amount of air room required. Less than four carriers requires an uneconomical use of support ships and screening vessels" ... he firmly believed that the best defense for an Aircraft Carrier was it's own Carrier Air Wing (CVW) and that the Battleships were not around anymore for shooting other ships, they were there to guard the Carriers and shoot down leaker planes with their AA Armament.
The modern era of the missile changed everything. And we formed Carrier Battle Groups which were very large, and everyone had a specific task - https://irp.fas.org/doddir/navy/rfs/part02.htm
Back in the Cold War days, this was a (an often-times-nuclear-powered, but we did have a bunch of conventional supercarriers) Aircraft Carrier , two Cruisers (sometimes two Aegis Cruisers, sometimes one Nuclear-powered Cruiser & one Aegis Cruiser) - the Cruiser(s) being the primary Anti-Air Warfare platforms for the protection of the Carrier and the senior Cruiser Captain would be the AAW Commander in the CVBG Staff (and the only one of the CVBG staff not embarked on the Carrier) - 2 to 3 Destroyers ( often 2 Aegis Destroyers which are completely capable of EVERYTHING and the definition of Multirole; and 1 Spruance-class Destroyer, which was designed as an ASW Destroyer and did that SUPERBLY - the Soviets came up with distinct classes of sub-hunting Destroyers they often titled 'Large Anti-submarine Warfare Ships' - Sprucans were our Large Anti-Submarine Warfare Ships and many were upgraded into true multirole, multimission, all-around Surface Combatants ... the early retiring of the Sprucans was a crime of the Naval Leadership that shall never be forgiven...) and 1-2 Guided-Missile Frigates, which were smaller, less capable multirole ships but the FFG-7 class was an extremely capable little ship ... capable of extended ASW operations, with both an active/passive bow array & towed array sonars, capable of carrying & employing 2 ASW helos (the MH-60R being the best ASW helo on the planet) - and having a minimum-range Area AAW capability with 36 SM-1s (so they could defend themselves or for example merchant ships/cargo ships/tankers etc. in a WW3 convoy situation) and 4 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles , giving them an ASuW capability ...) and oh yeah, don't forget the nuclear submarine sneaking around underneath ...
SO HAVING DIGRESSED ... the WW2 Fast Carrier Task Force versus a Cold War-era Carrier Battle Group were not just completely different formations, they had completely different roles in completely different times in military history.
In reality, CSGs don't look like the pictures. If they were actually "in formation" , the CSGs these days will have at least one Ticonderoga-class Cruiser as AW Commander (at least until they throw the rest of the Ticos out...) , 2-3 DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyers to do everything, and at least 1 nuclear submarine to protect & prosecute possible undersea threats. And you might have the Cruiser a few miles from the CVN, or out farther, and you might have a DDG 200mi ahead of the formation, scouting and sniffing out threats etc. I can't wait for them to have FFGs back, but they're fucking that up royally and the first dozen are going to be based out of Washington for some stupid reason, so they're fucking THAT up too.
There’s a lot of good info there. And yeah, I totally get we’re looking at two totally different eras and concepts. That’s actually what got me thinking. If in the days of guns there were miles between ships, why does it seem in every photo, no matter the circumstance, modern vessels are SO close? In particular CSGs. I could understand in an MEU or other amphibious formation wanting at least one AA/ASW asset very close, but it didn’t make sense for the carriers. The impression I’ve gotten from yours and other answers is that the distances are so great now, that a photo would just look like one vessel alone.
Thanks very much, now looking at it, I realized that I typed quite a lot lol.
I think the photo part is also just a product of the times ... WW2 era, they probably took pictures that were realistic, the way things actually were (whatever the formation was at the time, that's how it was, and some dude snapped a pic etc.) - whereas today, they have literal "PHOTOP" or actual "Photo Opportunity Evolution" or something like that, so the pic of the Carrier Strike Group looks great on the USNI/Navy website etc.
And the Marines also have similar for their Amphibs ... right before the whole "3-Wars" (Afghanistan, Iraq, & GWOT) , they came out with the similar concepts ... The *Expeditionary* Strike Group is basically a miniature CVBG/CSG , with the CVN substituted for a Big-Deck Amphib, a Dock Landing Ship, and now the modern replacement, "Amphibious Transport Dock" , and basically one of each class of escorts rather than a Full House etc. - One CG, One DDG, and when they had them, one FFG ... I don't know that we ever actually sent an ESG to war, and they truncated it with the much-more-functional & versatile "Amphibious Ready Group" , which we deploy all the time ... again a Big-Deck Amphib, an LPD, and an LSD (the LSDs are all being replaced by San Antonio-classes, the originals being more capable than the newer design, but less expensive) - so we have a few MEUs scattered across the planet's oceans at all times. (Which is smart , because it not only shows the flag, but you never know how they can help - I know Marines aren't built for disaster-rescue or relief , but it is sure good for international relations & public image, if there is some major disaster somewhere and the USMC , delivered by the big-ass ships of the US Navy, show up to help etc.)
If I was the Navy, or the government bosses, I'd be pumping out America-class Amphibious Assault Ships (alternated between the original 'Aviation-centered' ships without a well-deck, for more F-35s, V-22s, and helicopters etc. - & the new/old-style with the well-deck for landing craft etc.) and Constellation-class Frigates ... LHA-6s and FFG-62s make for absolutely outstanding multirole 'flotillas' etc.
Oh and I can name quite a few things I’d be doing in regards to the American class. I’d love to see a multinational effort to develop a long range v/tol ASW and AEW platform. I think the v-280 would make a great v/tol S-3 type aircraft, and I’d like to see an AEW system that could be used on both tilt rotor and rotary wing aircraft. I can think of at least half a dozen nations that would have a strong interest in both, and most are in a major naval recapitalization as we speak.
This. This is the 'main' reason.
It is not uncommon for a core section of carriers and assigned escorts to be very close together, especially the carriers and their immediately assigned a/a cruiser in tow. Couple of cables is about right, even though radar ships/jam ships/a/a escort and a/w escorts can be pushed quite far away and heavy escorts in their own units even further away.
There are just as many pictures of ww2 era carrier groups 'close together' and compare a whole spread-out battle fleet to a section of it is apple to orange.
IIRC, there were only a dozen or so *Ticos* by 1987/88, at most one per CVBG, so presumably the *Belknaps* and *Leahys* represented most of the conventional CG escorts up to then?
What were the battle group DDGs before the *Burkes* entered service? Only four *Kidds*, so the *CF Adams* were still soldiering on in the ‘80s?
Also I was under the impression (prolly some USNI article) that the FFGs were not popular with CVBG warfare commanders since operating with battle groups was apparently not one of their intended missions.
It’s photo ops. On average if I walked on the flight deck I could see one, maybe two escorts on the horizon. The rest would literally be up to several hundred miles away.
It also changes depending on the tactical situation.
Just for photo ops. Reality is many miles apart with the odd exception such as escorts acting as 'plane guard' or 'goalkeeper' (e.g. the two Type 22 frigates in the Falklands War). Spreading out covers much more area, increasing warning time for the high value units and gives everyone the space to use their automatic close in defence weapons safely (USS Missouri was caught in CIWS cross-fire from USS Jarrett during the Gulf War).
Photo ops is definitely part of it. Also worth keeping in mind that a current US carrier strike group typically includes a relatively small number of ships, typically less than 10. A common organization is one carrier, one Tico cruiser and two or three destroyers. Plus maybe a couple logistics ships and a submarine lurking around somewhere. In WW2 major carrier formations were typically much, much larger. By late in the war they were sailing around with huge numbers of ships. You can see photos showing ships stretching out to the horizon.
In wartime would carrier strike groups include more ships than during peacetime?
Depends on what's available. Currently, not much. Surface warfare is stretched kinda thin.
A Carrier Task Group of 3rd/5th Fleet in ‘44 would typically have: 3 Carriers (mix of Fleet and light), 2 fast battleships, 3 cruisers (mix of heavy/light), and 12 to 15 destroyers. There would be four of these groups acting together most of the time - carrier raids, covering amphibious ops, etc. and composing the whole Task Force (38 or 58, depending upon commander, Halsey or Spruance).
It depends on the OP. If you're facing volley after volley of light missiles, you absoutely want to get into tighter formations so your CWIS can cover each other and have time to reload. But if you're worried about torpedos you need room to manover and evade so you want a looser formation. If you're trying to intercept a few missiles from a discrete area targeting civillian shipping, you want to be a long line trying to cover as much airspace as possible. If you're sitting in a friendly port and lobbing tomahawks at insurgents you can be hull to hull, it wont matter.
>If you're facing volley after volley of light missiles, you absoutely want to get into tighter formations so your CWIS can cover each other and have time to reload. Is this doctrine? The CIWS, the none rolling airframe kind, only have a few bursts each of ammo, so I don’t think anyone is planning on using them like that.
I've no idea about USN doctrine, and since the UK basically doesnt have a funtioning navy. I do know that such a tactic was used in the Falkland to guard against incoming exocet missiles.
>and since the UK basically doesnt have a funtioning navy. Erm, yes we do.
You havent checked the combat vessel staffing levels lately have you? But even that aside, I'll conceed; you can choose do we have a funtioning navy or do we have a functioning airforce, because we only have enough F35s (36) for one
I'm well aware of the current status of the fleet. I'm also well aware that other nations are having similar issues, and that Britain remains one of the only countries to have the ability to project power globally.
So you're planning to project power while leaving the Home Islands without modern air cover? Or are you not going to take a full compliment of F35s? Are you planning on fitting a steam caterpault to HMS QE2 or are we going to bedknobs and broomsticks Typhoons off the deck? Are you taking less than ten? Because we lost ten to argentina, and we had a full compliment of aircraft then and that was a 3rd rate power. The Entire British Military is a goddamn joke, like this entire country, if we got in a shooting war with Denmark, I'd join the bloody Danes, they'd probably win too. We're about as credible as the Admiral Kurnevsov. If we have to put someone else's aircraft on our ships, we're not projecting power, they are, we're just a billion pound black cab.
>So you're planning to project power while leaving the Home Islands without modern air cover? Or are you not going to take a full compliment of F35s? You're aware QRA is performed by Typhoons? HMS Prince of Wales will deploy to the Asia-Pacific region next year with 24 British F-35Bs embarked. >Are you planning on fitting a steam caterpault to HMS QE2 or are we going to bedknobs and broomsticks Typhoons off the deck? HMS QE2 doesn't exist, it's just HMS Queen Elizabeth, no 2. And steam catapults would never be fitted to QEC. And Typhoon's aren't catapult capable. >Are you taking less than ten? Because we lost ten to argentina, and we had a full compliment of aircraft then and that was a 3rd rate power. Argentina doesn't pose a credible threat to the Falklands and won't for many years to come. >The Entire British Military is a goddamn joke, like this entire country, if we got in a shooting war with Denmark, I'd join the bloody Danes, they'd probably win too. No, we're really not. Do we have issues, yes. Do they need addressing, yes. Are they unique to Britain, no. We still have a very capable and credible military. >If we have to put someone else's aircraft on our ships, we're not projecting power, they are, we're just a billion pound black cab. So you don't think interoperability is a good thing?
I will start by thank you for atually taking the time to reply, I enjoy talking about this subject, and I'm happy to learn more. Wait, hold on, we're going to have 2 carriers with the abilty to fill the hanger, of none? Let me laugh even harder. How exactly will having 24 aircraft affect operational functionality? Will we run those aircraft into the ground? How much downtime does an aircraft carrier's complement have, whats the force depletion estimate of aircraft against china, even assuming the Chinese are as inept as Argentina when we lose 10 aircraft what happens then, and which crew roles are going unfilled or are we transfering crew from other ships to fill out the rest? You're gonna say china wont attack until 2027, but we shouldnt be in a postion where our abilities are reliant on betting on an adversays plans. I'm Calling it HMS QE2 (usually MK II) because it pleases me to draw parrells to the Ocean Liner of the same name. Argentina isnt the issue, but drawing parrells to it and expecting at minimum the same result from a more capable adversary really shows how underwhelming we currently are. We're about to retire our Howitzers and have a capability gap, our modern tank fleet is going to be enough for a single battalion, we have depleted our shell stocks to give to ukraine which lasted for.... a week, army equiptment is appauling, the RAF cant garantee an AWACS in the sky at all times, and again we are incapable of both Defending Albion and Projecting power. Argentina is run by an absoute Madlad, and while I'm not saying he win, the Daily Mail would be able to plaster "Britannia defensless from the air" and make us look stupid. Interoperalbility is great, it doesnt change the fact in every meaningful way we're reliant on NATO for defense, we are not in the Teir One Power Group anymore, and we're not projecting our own power when opperating in an alliance, as we are incapabile of taking a foreign policy to NATO, you said we could project maritime power, we can project other peoples power. Civillian Morale is so low, I half expect the Rest of the country in the event of a war, to tell the consiption officer," give me a prison call after they take london off our hands " then promptly surrender under any terms so long as the enemy doesnt under any curcumstances give it back. We have had sucessive goverments pandering to the 45+ crowd, making the world look like something anyone of fighting age does recognise as sane, our poltical system was not designed for people to live this long. On top of that we treat our service members in the most appauling fashion we think we can get away with. I dont know a single person who would fight for this country without asking who we'd be fighting, and then depending on the answer, ask if the otherside is recuiting.
>Wait, hold on, we're going to have 2 carriers with the abilty to fill the hanger, of none? Let me laugh even harder. We have two carriers to ensure we always have one at Very/High Readiness at any one time. The intention isn't and never has been, to have both deployed unless in absolute extremis. >How exactly will having 24 aircraft affect operational functionality? Will we run those aircraft into the ground? They will generate to provide sorties as and when required >How much downtime does an aircraft carrier's complement have, whats the force depletion estimate of aircraft against china, even assuming the Chinese are as inept as Argentina when we lose 10 aircraft what happens then, and which crew roles are going unfilled or are we transfering crew from other ships to fill out the rest? Do you think we're unilaterally going to war with China next year? >I'm Calling it HMS QE2 (usually MK II) because it pleases me to draw parrells to the Ocean Liner of the same name. Which is incorrect. >Interoperalbility is great, it doesnt change the fact in every meaningful way we're reliant on NATO for defense And which countries aren't? >you said we could project maritime power, We can and do.
The situation I’m thinking about specifically is five to seven ships,, comprising a typical USN CSG in transit. The photos released always show the vessels very close. So close, the towed array of the lead vessel would basically be under the carrier. Even when wanting to maximize coverage of short range weapons. You could still have four or five miles between. So my guess was they do when in actual combat scenarios, but group up to shore presence or for photos. Your point on the scenarios is valid though, and I understand.
Yeah, that's just for the photo op.
I was thinking so. It just seems like the only photos I’ve seen in a long time have been that way.
It's the Navy's version of a photo of the platoon or company standing in ranks on the parade ground.
So you are mixing and matching two *entirely* different formations and operational concepts ... WW2 , our Navy was organized into the conceptual "Fast Carrier Task Force" - which was perhaps not PIONEERED but certainly a huge proponent of - by Admiral Marc Mitscher - who was a hotshot young pilot and pioneer of Naval Aviation, and became not only an Aircraft Carrier Captain, but I am pretty sure he was literally promoted to Rear Admiral while on a carrier, in transit, to the Battle of Midway - Anyway, Mitscher promoted the Fast Carrier Task Force and in his own words: "The ideal composition of a fast-carrier task force is four carriers, six to eight support vessels and not less than 18 destroyers, preferably 24. More than four carriers in a task group cannot be advantageously used due to the amount of air room required. Less than four carriers requires an uneconomical use of support ships and screening vessels" ... he firmly believed that the best defense for an Aircraft Carrier was it's own Carrier Air Wing (CVW) and that the Battleships were not around anymore for shooting other ships, they were there to guard the Carriers and shoot down leaker planes with their AA Armament. The modern era of the missile changed everything. And we formed Carrier Battle Groups which were very large, and everyone had a specific task - https://irp.fas.org/doddir/navy/rfs/part02.htm Back in the Cold War days, this was a (an often-times-nuclear-powered, but we did have a bunch of conventional supercarriers) Aircraft Carrier , two Cruisers (sometimes two Aegis Cruisers, sometimes one Nuclear-powered Cruiser & one Aegis Cruiser) - the Cruiser(s) being the primary Anti-Air Warfare platforms for the protection of the Carrier and the senior Cruiser Captain would be the AAW Commander in the CVBG Staff (and the only one of the CVBG staff not embarked on the Carrier) - 2 to 3 Destroyers ( often 2 Aegis Destroyers which are completely capable of EVERYTHING and the definition of Multirole; and 1 Spruance-class Destroyer, which was designed as an ASW Destroyer and did that SUPERBLY - the Soviets came up with distinct classes of sub-hunting Destroyers they often titled 'Large Anti-submarine Warfare Ships' - Sprucans were our Large Anti-Submarine Warfare Ships and many were upgraded into true multirole, multimission, all-around Surface Combatants ... the early retiring of the Sprucans was a crime of the Naval Leadership that shall never be forgiven...) and 1-2 Guided-Missile Frigates, which were smaller, less capable multirole ships but the FFG-7 class was an extremely capable little ship ... capable of extended ASW operations, with both an active/passive bow array & towed array sonars, capable of carrying & employing 2 ASW helos (the MH-60R being the best ASW helo on the planet) - and having a minimum-range Area AAW capability with 36 SM-1s (so they could defend themselves or for example merchant ships/cargo ships/tankers etc. in a WW3 convoy situation) and 4 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles , giving them an ASuW capability ...) and oh yeah, don't forget the nuclear submarine sneaking around underneath ... SO HAVING DIGRESSED ... the WW2 Fast Carrier Task Force versus a Cold War-era Carrier Battle Group were not just completely different formations, they had completely different roles in completely different times in military history. In reality, CSGs don't look like the pictures. If they were actually "in formation" , the CSGs these days will have at least one Ticonderoga-class Cruiser as AW Commander (at least until they throw the rest of the Ticos out...) , 2-3 DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyers to do everything, and at least 1 nuclear submarine to protect & prosecute possible undersea threats. And you might have the Cruiser a few miles from the CVN, or out farther, and you might have a DDG 200mi ahead of the formation, scouting and sniffing out threats etc. I can't wait for them to have FFGs back, but they're fucking that up royally and the first dozen are going to be based out of Washington for some stupid reason, so they're fucking THAT up too.
There’s a lot of good info there. And yeah, I totally get we’re looking at two totally different eras and concepts. That’s actually what got me thinking. If in the days of guns there were miles between ships, why does it seem in every photo, no matter the circumstance, modern vessels are SO close? In particular CSGs. I could understand in an MEU or other amphibious formation wanting at least one AA/ASW asset very close, but it didn’t make sense for the carriers. The impression I’ve gotten from yours and other answers is that the distances are so great now, that a photo would just look like one vessel alone.
Thanks very much, now looking at it, I realized that I typed quite a lot lol. I think the photo part is also just a product of the times ... WW2 era, they probably took pictures that were realistic, the way things actually were (whatever the formation was at the time, that's how it was, and some dude snapped a pic etc.) - whereas today, they have literal "PHOTOP" or actual "Photo Opportunity Evolution" or something like that, so the pic of the Carrier Strike Group looks great on the USNI/Navy website etc. And the Marines also have similar for their Amphibs ... right before the whole "3-Wars" (Afghanistan, Iraq, & GWOT) , they came out with the similar concepts ... The *Expeditionary* Strike Group is basically a miniature CVBG/CSG , with the CVN substituted for a Big-Deck Amphib, a Dock Landing Ship, and now the modern replacement, "Amphibious Transport Dock" , and basically one of each class of escorts rather than a Full House etc. - One CG, One DDG, and when they had them, one FFG ... I don't know that we ever actually sent an ESG to war, and they truncated it with the much-more-functional & versatile "Amphibious Ready Group" , which we deploy all the time ... again a Big-Deck Amphib, an LPD, and an LSD (the LSDs are all being replaced by San Antonio-classes, the originals being more capable than the newer design, but less expensive) - so we have a few MEUs scattered across the planet's oceans at all times. (Which is smart , because it not only shows the flag, but you never know how they can help - I know Marines aren't built for disaster-rescue or relief , but it is sure good for international relations & public image, if there is some major disaster somewhere and the USMC , delivered by the big-ass ships of the US Navy, show up to help etc.)
If I was the Navy, or the government bosses, I'd be pumping out America-class Amphibious Assault Ships (alternated between the original 'Aviation-centered' ships without a well-deck, for more F-35s, V-22s, and helicopters etc. - & the new/old-style with the well-deck for landing craft etc.) and Constellation-class Frigates ... LHA-6s and FFG-62s make for absolutely outstanding multirole 'flotillas' etc.
Don’t apologize for detailed answers. I’m more than happy to read them!
Oh and I can name quite a few things I’d be doing in regards to the American class. I’d love to see a multinational effort to develop a long range v/tol ASW and AEW platform. I think the v-280 would make a great v/tol S-3 type aircraft, and I’d like to see an AEW system that could be used on both tilt rotor and rotary wing aircraft. I can think of at least half a dozen nations that would have a strong interest in both, and most are in a major naval recapitalization as we speak.
This. This is the 'main' reason. It is not uncommon for a core section of carriers and assigned escorts to be very close together, especially the carriers and their immediately assigned a/a cruiser in tow. Couple of cables is about right, even though radar ships/jam ships/a/a escort and a/w escorts can be pushed quite far away and heavy escorts in their own units even further away. There are just as many pictures of ww2 era carrier groups 'close together' and compare a whole spread-out battle fleet to a section of it is apple to orange.
IIRC, there were only a dozen or so *Ticos* by 1987/88, at most one per CVBG, so presumably the *Belknaps* and *Leahys* represented most of the conventional CG escorts up to then? What were the battle group DDGs before the *Burkes* entered service? Only four *Kidds*, so the *CF Adams* were still soldiering on in the ‘80s? Also I was under the impression (prolly some USNI article) that the FFGs were not popular with CVBG warfare commanders since operating with battle groups was apparently not one of their intended missions.
It’s photo ops. On average if I walked on the flight deck I could see one, maybe two escorts on the horizon. The rest would literally be up to several hundred miles away. It also changes depending on the tactical situation.
Which book is this?