Talk:Carrier battle group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Escort Ships?[edit]

Was trying to find a article for Escort ships, specifically ships designed to escort in general. Instead I get linked to this articles, which seems to be more geared on carriers then a escort ship. listed as a class type in some of the WWII japanese ship articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

US Centric[edit]

This article is pretty informative, but it's very US-oriented. Try to summarize much of it in the lead, and then follow up with a proper history section. Some simplified drawings and the description of how and why a carrier group is the prefered unit would be very nice.

Peter Isotalo 11:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, God forbid an article about Carrier Battle Groups, of which the United States has the lion's share, both in quantity and quality, should be US Centric.

You could not be more right. The person who called the article u.s. centric is clearly anti-american this dispute should be reputed.I used to be in the navy as well, please I apologize for the harsh words i perviously used.But, I was so stunned to see a dispute about this article.The article is informative and us centric, but how many thousands of articles in wikipedia are us centric or german centric or chinese centric etc...Whats next an article about apple pie is going to be labeled us centric.Of all things an article about carrier battle groups is branded us centric when the us by a large means is the only nation who can form a truly effective carrier battle group(as well as britain,possilly france and a few others).

I disagree. There's more statments here with no citation than, have it. The whole last 5 paragraphs are completely uncorroborated. -Randall

--- As a Naval Officer, I don't necessarily think that the original poster should be branded "anti-American" simply for pointing out that the article is US-centric. It is US centric. But as the second poster stated, it should be, for obvious reasons. Furthermore, there are billions of non-American people on this planet entitled to their opinions, who shouldn't be scoffed at for raising questions about the legitamacy of America's naval hegemony. Anyway, yes, the dispute should be removed.

- The article is indeed US-centric. but for this particular subject that should be a given - no other country operates carrier battlegroups in the same way as the US. It wasn't really worth pointing that out, but equally it wasn't worth criticising for said point.

I have removed the NPOV tag as the discussion here is in consensus toward removal and I agree. I am, however, going to add a few clarifications to the article to further reduce the U.S. centricism (of course, as reasoned here, this article is decidedly about the U.S. -- but we can be clearer in the article). Rlove 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Old, but the article is going to be U.S.-centric for obvious reasons. The U.S. is the only power in the world that even has supercarriers, along with unparalled power-projection. 08:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added in brief pieces describing other nations carriers, but to be quite frank the article is going to have to be very US centric. --J.StuartClarke 15:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Threat?[edit]

Now I'm no expert in this field but I have read that Nuclear Weapons were/are a major potential threat to Carrier Battle Groups, but this doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the article at all. I mean for example just look at the picture, you can imagine a single Nuclear Warhead being detonated in the middle of that and it's Good Bye battle group. I think I read somewhere that the Soviets had Nuclear Torpedoes on their Submarines for use specifically against Carrier Battle Groups. Shouldn't any of this be mentioned? (perhaps in the Debate on Future Viability section)? --Hibernian 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons were, and remain, a significant threat to large naval formations of any sort. The photograph you mentioned is not typical of the manner in which Carrier Battle Groups operate. During normal operations there can be tens of kilometers between the various elements. A single nuclear detonation of realistic size would not destroy all the ships in a given Battle Group.

Of course, that assumes that the opposition had realiable, realtime knowledge of where the Carrier, or other capital ship, was. Not an easy task, even with satellite coverage. The opposition would have to spot the ship; issue attack orders to the appropriate command; the attack would have to be prepped and sent on it's merry way; get to the last known or projected location of the target...and then it would have to start looking for a large, mobile, heavily defended target that has probably changed course and speed since the recon flight or satellite initially spotted it.

Submarines have an even nastier problem. To get close the Carrier it would have to cross the paths of some very capable ASW platforms. And it would have to move smartly to get into firing position. That makes noise. And noise is deadly to submarines. Of course, if the sub decided to lay in wait it would have to deal with the two or more submarines attached to Battle Groups. Submarines specifically tasked with sanitizing the area immediately ahead of a Battle Groups path. Nuclear torpedoes or not, you've got to be alive to fire them.

This said, as technology improves around the world, Carrier Battle Groups will become more vulnerable. Long range, high endurance, un-manned attack aircraft with global reach and almost unlimited time on station may make the aircraft carrier obsolete. We're already seeing how capable some of these air platforms can be. Loitering for hours or days, refueling as needed, just to hit targets of opportunity. No pilot fatigue, no risk of casualties (on our side), no-one to take prisoner if the aircraft is shot down.

Top Gun it isn't, but it just may be the wave of the future.

Cool, that's interesting information, so are you (or anyone else) going to put any of it into the article?
--Hibernian 16:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is more that needs to be said on the topic of a CVN's vulnerability to nuclear weapons. Do the Russians and Chinese not have the ability to shadow all 12 CVNs via sattelite, and target them with nuclear tipped ICBMs, against which there is no defense during the re-entry phase? Is it not the case that CVNs are good against asymetrically armed foes such as the US faces in the GWOT, but are no longer a threat to the first class powers, Russia and China? Are the true experts reluctant to speak due to fear of turning US opinion against the continued funding of operation and acquistion of CVNs?

Given that China's nuclear arsenal is smaller and inferior to that of the United States, they have far more to lose by making a nuclear first strike. If they used an ICBM to take out a CVBG, we'd use MIRVs to take out their entire navy at anchor and air force in hangars. It would be a dramatic escalation to use nukes in that sort of "tactical" sense - anyone who believes that there is such a thing as a "limited nuclear exchange" is deluded. But this even assumes that China is interested in waging war on us - their economy hinges on foreign trade, much of it with the US, so what would the logical war aims be? If they start a war on us, the first thing that happens is every single Chinese factory devoted to supplying cheap crap to Wal-Mart goes dark, throwing millions of Chinese into unemployment. Without a blue-water navy to speak of, China's defenceless merchant fleet around the world can be rapidly converted into the world's largest collection of artificial reefs. Given that China has neither sufficient or sufficiently modern surface ships to provide escorts, nor CVNs or foreign bases to provide air cover, it wouldn't take more than an FFG's 76mm deck gun to effectively wipe out China's export-dependent economy. So, OK, let's assume they go nuclear and take out a CVBG or two. We then respond with nukes... and maybe then they do, and we've got a lot more, so we lose most of our cities and China becomes a glowing radioactive pit, 1 billion people die around the world... and I don't think the Chinese are that stupid. FCYTravis 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Asuming both sides can make their missiles connect with the enemy , its redundant to compare arsenal sizes. Its like saying 'whats makes you more dead, bombs or guns'. Both make you as dead as the other. Dead is dead. And considering that both have arsenals of nukes big enough to pretty much cause extinction for the other sides human population, and initiation of nuclear war is potentially sparking off Armagedon. Nobody wants that. So other than as a last resort in a fight for life (Say a US invasion of China, which is obviously an absurdity) , there is no reason at all to believe China would first strike. Neither would the United states. (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Role of "DESRON" commander[edit]

I'm a bit unclear (and so is the article) about the chain of command of the (non-carrier) surface vessels; do these all report to the commander of the destroyer squadron, or only the ships originally in that formation? If the cruiser (or two) reports directly to the commander of the carrier group, what about any "additional" destroyers? Alai 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:HMS Bulwark (Commando carrier).jpg[edit]

The image File:HMS Bulwark (Commando carrier).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm removing this content which has been identified as a suspected hoax:

The People's Liberation Army Navy plans to maintain a force of 4 active Huangguang class aircraft carriers. A standard aircraft carrier battalion, as the Chinese Navy calls it, consists of:

The People's Liberation Army Navy has stated that in a real battle, the combinations would be tailored made to the battling environment, enemy tactics, and

other factors. A standard aircraft carrier battalion is only used for reference and in a formal live fire practice.

I've replaced it with:

China’s planned naval modernization efforts include aircraft carriers and destroyers. [1][2].

Please let me know if there are any objections. Ocaasi t | c 16:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break[edit]

This article states: "However, carriers have been called upon to be first responders even when conventional land based aircraft were employed. During Desert Shield, the U.S. Navy sortied additional carriers to augment the on station assets eventually maintaining six carriers for Desert Storm. Although the U.S. Air Force sent fighters such as the F-16 to theater in Desert Shield, they had to carry bombs with them as no stores were in place for sustained operations whereas the carriers arrived on scene with full magazines and had support ships to allow them to conduct strikes indefinitely." A carrier group cannot conduct "strikes indefinitely" as their accompanying support ships will, of course, also be depleted of bombs and fuel before very long in sustained operations. In addition, a carrier is limited in terms of the number of aircraft it can carry relative to a land based force. While indeed carriers are good "first responders," history shows that eventually (even in very limited operations) land-based aircraft must be brought in to fully accomplish any airpower mission. Carriers are a great resource, but they aren't a replacement for land-based airpower (just like the latter can't fully provide what a carrier offers). Maybe that's why countries with aircraft carriers also have large air forces...perhaps this article should be edited to reduce the amount of such original research being presented.


a question guys, it is Spain Qualified for be an example of Carrier battle group?.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@LuigiPortaro29. The Spanish Navy classify Juan Carlos I as an LHD, with its primary mission as amphibious and force protection. The navy does not maintain a standing CVBG. Considering the Spanish section is not supported by any relevant sources, you are free to challenge and remove the material yourself if you want. I have no objection, and have removed several erroneous additions to this article already. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Antiochus the Great!. I thank you for your reply!. I was wondering in fact why Spain should be listed as an example, Yesterday I was looking for some information, but I didn't found nothing of "juicy" about Spanish CVBG. and I agree with you about the Spanish section! and about the Italian section I have found this nice article [3] ,but I think that isnt reliable, because the information comes from a Blog ( even if the images of the Italian ships are real). instead of that Blog I have found a gallery from Marina Miltare of this CSG [4] , I will add it as an aditional source!, Thanks again for your reply!.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrier battle group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)