Anti-Carrier Trump Card

[Chairman Hu]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/doctrine-overview.htm

According to the Chinese military publication Junshi Wenzhai, China already has an "Assassin’s Mace" or “Trump Card” doctrine to counter US air superiority in the Western Pacific. One article specifically identifies five major "assassin’s maces," including fighter bombers, submarines, anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, and mines to destroy aircraft carriers. China is acquiring these weapons from Russia or developing them itself. The last paragraph of the article claims that China can coordinate all these five weapons to attack an aircraft carrier simultaneously from several directions and leave it "in flames."

Anyone have any comments or thinks they got a better combo?

[vincelee]

should be dagger, not mace. That was a mis translation.

[bd popeye]

It's always interesting to read these type of articles. A lot of conjecture and speculation.

It appears that the PRC would rely on a surprise attack and would only attack if they felt victory was certain. I feel that it would be very difficult to surprise attack the USN. For many years now the CIC(Combat Information Center) on USN ships remain in a "war footing" constanly. Even when in port in the US.(except during a re-fit)

Captain Shen Zhongchang from the Chinese Navy Research Institute envisions a weaker military defeating a superior one by attacking its spaced-based communications and surveillance systems. He must then surely realize the redundancy of the US spaced based comm-intelligence system. An attack of this nature would require attacking the mainland of the US. Is the PRC willing to do this?

What sort of weapons would the PRC use to "leave a carrier in flames"? It says here fighter bombers, submarines, anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, and mines. All of this is assuming the USN is not ready for a surprise attack.
Does anyone think this senerio is possible? If so how? Personally I don't think the PRC could accomplish this at this moment in time.

[Su-27 Pilot]

It's always interesting to read these type of articles. A lot of conjecture and speculation.

It appears that the PRC would rely on a surprise attack and would only attack if they felt victory was certain. I feel that it would be very difficult to surprise attack the USN. For many years now the CIC(Combat Information Center) on USN ships remain in a "war footing" constanly. Even when in port in the US.(except during a re-fit)

Captain Shen Zhongchang from the Chinese Navy Research Institute envisions a weaker military defeating a superior one by attacking its spaced-based communications and surveillance systems. He must then surely realize the redundancy of the US spaced based comm-intelligence system. An attack of this nature would require attacking the mainland of the US. Is the PRC willing to do this?

What sort of weapons would the PRC use to "leave a carrier in flames"? It says here fighter bombers, submarines, anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, and mines. All of this is assuming the USN is not ready for a surprise attack.
Does anyone think this senerio is possible? If so how? Personally I don't think the PRC could accomplish this at this moment in time.
Okay so if US CVBGs are going to help taiwan. How many CVBGs are they going to send ?? Dont forget China has many older fighters and bombers in its navy. The sea shore based Anti-ship missiles and warship based missiles are just too many for a carrier to evade. PLus the PLAN submarines will keep the escrots busy while the naval air force can strike the ships and sea shore's long range SAMs can take down any planes from the carrier.

[bd popeye]

Okay so if US CVBGs are going to help taiwan. How many CVBGs are they going to send ?? Dont forget China has many older fighters and bombers in its navy. The sea shore based Anti-ship missiles and warship based missiles are just too many for a carrier to evade. PLus the PLAN submarines will keep the escrots busy while the naval air force can strike the ships and sea shore's long range SAMs can take down any planes from the carrier.

Humm? The US would probaly send 3 CSG. With additional LA class subs and Arliegh Burke DDG's. The Aegis system on the DDG's can track hundreds and hundreds of targets.Simotaneously. And kill them . The ECM from EA-6B's & the USN fleet would shut down most of the PLA electronics. The AEW provided by the CV's E-2C's would extend the radar and intelligence gathering ablities of the US fleet for hundreds of miles. Kind of hard to fire a missile or navigate a plane when your electronics are going haywire with CHAFF and ECM. Dont forget the CHAFF despensed by the US Fleet and planes. The PRC has subs? The USN has great ASW. The PLAN would have to contend with shipboard ASW plus numerous SH-60R Seahawks helos. Plus the PLA strike force would be facing at least 6 LA class subs.

The greatest fear of the US fleet would be the Song class sub. Desiel boats are hard to track for now. But the USN is working on that.

By the way are you really an Su-27 pilot? Oh yea I was really a USN sailor for 20 years.

[Totoro]

China theoretically can leave a carrier in flames. But some prerequisites need to be met first. I am not sure how they're realistic to expect in a full blown us-china war. anyway, prerequisites, as i see them, are these:

cbg must be sufficiently close to china/taiwan so its carrier air wing can attack land targets and provide air cover. Otherwise, what's the point of having a cbg, except to launch cruise missiles? This prerequisite is probably most realistic one.

Secondly, it must be a lone cbg. If there are two or even more cbgs operating close enough together that they can offer each other protection, situation becomes way harder. Same goes for the vicinity of okinawa USAAF base with f15s to the said carrier. Though, the difference really is just in number of weapons china would have to posess/use, number of units it can coordinate, and of course number of lives it's ready to lose.

thirdly, china must be able, and this is most problematic and probably most unrealistic of three, to mount the attack without sufficient warning for the us to get help outside combat theatre and even, if they see a serious threat coming, turn back and try to get out of range. At sustained 30 knots, it could get even out of chinese aircraft range if the warning was early enough, i'm talking hours here.

Of course, zero level prerequisite for all this is location of the cbg. With satellites and enough forces (sea and air) commited to it, knowing it's somewhere in range of china, it's doable, albeit with probable high casulties in recon aircraft, etc.

So how would such an attack go? Main issue i see is number of extended rabge standard sm2 missiles in the cbg. would, for example, all 96 vls canisters of an flightII Burke class be armed with standard missiles, and how many of them would be extended range? Now how many burkes and tico would be in a war situation cbg? 3 cruisers and 4 destroyers seem possible.

So, assuming the cbg doesnt have time to flee out of range, an attack with huge number of aircraft would be one way to do the mission. First the forward e2 would need to be taken care of. That's many chinese fighters fighting through its fighter cover. Then the interceptors scrambled from the carrier would need to be neutralized, that's even more fighters. and i'm talking about large numbers here. assuming like 2 chinese craft for each superhornet (if chinese can do it on one for one basis, good for them, im not saying thats not possible) so that losing some 80-90 j11 planes. alternatively, you could send crap planes to get hit first but that'd mean like 300 kills for the hornets before they deplete their AAMs. but hey, if PLAAF can persuade their J6 pilots to go on such a suicidal mission, it's certainly a valid tactic but wasteful, as those crap planes are much better to be play cannon fodder a little later.

If there's any forward patrolling burke, that's taken care of too, with sub launched, awacs data navigated antiship missiles, to stay out of range of standard missiles. I am, though, prone to thinking that there'd be no forward burke, seems to be too costly a tactic.

So anyway, china needs to launch missiles now. how? thats where cannon fodder comes in. you make the cbg spend its extended range sm2 on a mix of obsolete j5, j6, drone aircraft, etc. i'd say its even possible, once the final route it set, to eject from the planes and just send em on autipilot to be brought down by sm2. of course we're talking here about huge amounts of aircraft to be sacrificed, hundreds of planes.

alternatively, the already mentioned sub launched antiship missiles guided from awacs that are outside the sm2 range could help but problem there is there's just not enough subs that can launch those in chinas inventory, even if there is enough missiles. maybe if there's 300 km range air lanuched missiles to aid them, maybe such an attack would be possible.

but to get back to the 'extended range sm2 depleted' scenario. carrier has no aircraft left to send, chinas planes get in range and launch a sufficient number of missiles. the end. Only left question there is what is a sufficient number. no one can tell that for sure. perhaps it could be as little as 50 or as high as 400. ive done some calculations, based on speed of missiles, range of usn defenses, etc, a 200 missile attack seems to be enough to take care of the majority of cbg.

But lets get back to real world. It'd take vast amounts of weapons, huge number of planes of which most would never return home. plus the ability to coordinate such a huge attack. Basically, it'd be something hard to repeat. maybe one more, tops, before even china runs out of resources to do it. And what then, even if it destroyes 2 USN cbgs within weeks US will send more.

*warning, crazy 'what if' scenario following* :D

IF china is to use the cannon fodder, suicide attack, saturation of enemy defences tactic, i'd suggest custom made planes. they need to be pilot driven in order to keep the price down and perhaps more importantly, to avoid jamming/decoys etc. but instead of asking of already trained PLAAF pilots to sacrifice themselves you make a call for ppl ready to give their life for a greater cause. with such huge population pool of poor ppl in rural provinces, it'd be easy for china to train such suicide pilots perhaps even in thousands.

next step would be designing and builidng a cheap plane in vast numbers, again, little under a thousand needed for one cbg attack, even if ALL the missiles USN can use in a few hour period hit their target. small prop planes are commercially sold in us for 18 000. chinese could manufacter such a plane for half the price, given the massive numbers produced. but since it'd have to be fast enough, simple enough, 1000 km one way range plane lets double the figure and multipy by 10. 360 000 per plane. that's 360 million dollars. enough money left to pay the families of the deceased for years.
Oh yeah, once the awacs planes have given them last known coordinates some 300 km away, a small number of the 1000 armada would have their own sensors, flir or such. it'd make them more expensive but only a small number is needed scattered among the 1000 strong force. that'd be enough navigation to find the exact location of the carrier force in those last 300 km (given the speed of planes) and the rest could just go where the planes with sensors tell them.

okay, granted, such an attack (im envisioning ramming the planes) would most probably not sink the carrier, but it'd damage it sufficiently it'd take a year before it can be put back in action. also, chinese would have to have enough of a grasp on their own airspace so those planes dont get attacked and destroyed before they're in air and enroute to the carrier. you can keep em outside even, dispersed enough. if US wants to waste a half a million $ missile for each such plane, let them.

[IDonT]

Attempting to mission kill a Carrier Strike Group will deplete most of PLAN and PLAAF's combat capability that it will not have enough to carry out its original mission, the invasion of Taiwan.

Then there are 11 other CSG to deal with.

[IDonT]

Humm? The US would probaly send 3 CSG. With additional LA class subs and Arliegh Burke DDG's. The Aegis system on the DDG's can track hundreds and hundreds of targets.Simotaneously. And kill them . The ECM from EA-6B's & the USN fleet would shut down most of the PLA electronics. The AEW provided by the CV's E-2C's would extend the radar and intelligence gathering ablities of the US fleet for hundreds of miles. Kind of hard to fire a missile or navigate a plane when your electronics are going haywire with CHAFF and ECM. Dont forget the CHAFF despensed by the US Fleet and planes. The PRC has subs? The USN has great ASW. The PLAN would have to contend with shipboard ASW plus numerous SH-60R Seahawks helos. Plus the PLA strike force would be facing at least 6 LA class subs.

The greatest fear of the US fleet would be the Song class sub. Desiel boats are hard to track for now. But the USN is working on that.

By the way are you really an Su-27 pilot? Oh yea I was really a USN sailor for 20 years.

Problem with SSK's is their lack of endurance. It simply can't keep up with a fast moving CSG. The moment it moves faster than 5 knots, it will be found and a P-3, SSN, or S-3 viking will take care of it.

That article stress the use of a "mace" or a "dagger", the Aegis System (named after the sheild of Zues) will the US sheild against them.

[IDonT]

Okay so if US CVBGs are going to help taiwan. How many CVBGs are they going to send ?? Dont forget China has many older fighters and bombers in its navy. The sea shore based Anti-ship missiles and warship based missiles are just too many for a carrier to evade. PLus the PLAN submarines will keep the escrots busy while the naval air force can strike the ships and sea shore's long range SAMs can take down any planes from the carrier.


You are assuming that those anti-ship missiles have target coordinates.

Those missile SAM batteries directly adjacent to Taiwan will be one of the first tomahawk target from an Ohio SSGN.

[bd popeye]

Otstanding response Totoro. outstanding! ;) .

Bottom line is .."Is the PRC willing to sacrafice so many assets just to sink one CV and damage and or sink it's escorts?" Like you said ..

""And what then, even if it destroyes 2 USN cbgs within weeks US will send more. So true! Basically the PRC would have to catch the US asleep(Like the IJN did at Pearl Harbor) to have an sucessfull attack.

Don't forget..the PRC would have to contend with the USAF also. Most likely based in Guam. The USAF is currently rotating F-15 and B-1 wings to Guam.

okay, granted, such an attack (im envisioning ramming the planes) would most probably not sink the carrier, but it'd damage it sufficiently it'd take a year before it can be put back in action

Correct. It would be very difficult to sink a CV with conventional weapons. In May of this year the USN sank the ex-USS America. It took almost three weeks to sink it. It was finally sunk by some pre-positioned internal charges. Granted it was a controlled sinking. It is believe some Moskit missles with conventional warheads were fired at her along with other weapons.

There have been three devestating fires onboard USN CV's.USS Oriskany CVA-34 in 1966. USS Forrestal CVA-59 in July 1967. And USS Enterprise CVAN-65 in January 1969. On CV-59 & 65 numerous bombs,rockets and missles exploded on the flight deck. Several hundred personal were killed. But the ships survived. The Enterprise was repaired in 6 weeks. The Forrestal required some major work. Oriskany returned to the US for major work.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv59-forrestal/forrestal-fire.html

http://www.bigefire.com/

[Totoro]

Don't forget..the PRC would have to contend with the USAF also. Most likely based in Guam. The USAF is currently rotating F-15 and B-1 wings to Guam.



I didn't know f15s were station on guam (i wonder what for) but guam is way too far away for f15s to be really useful. Of course, it'd be one of main stations (Alongside diego garcia) for bomber raids but we're talking almost 3000 km to china, thats just one way trip. Even with in air refuelling itd be a daunting task, especially when you have a much closer okinawa for basing fighters. Even japan itself, if the politics with jap govt can be worked out, is a significantly closer place to launch fighters.

Some of that repair work you mentioned is pretty impressive, very fast. Still, in a light of hundreds of planes ramming i'd say it'd take a long, long time and a billions worth to do the repair. i know i said it's a crazy 'what if' scenario but the more i think of it, i'd say it has better chances of success than any conventional attack strategy that chineses forces today could use. i guess mine is a bit immoral and highly exploitative but hey, nothing's perfect. :D

[Su-27 Pilot]

By the way are you really an Su-27 pilot? Oh yea I was really a USN sailor for 20 years.
My brother is the navigator not the pilot though. I wish someday I can be a pilot in the PLAAF. I just love Su-27 so much.

[Neko]

A US CV(N) won't be sunk by the PLAN. It can be put in flames, and be knocked out of commission, if everything goes well with the PLAN tactics, and there are no equipment malfunctions, but with the build of a carrier, sinking it would require dozens of torpedoes and missiles.

[Neko]

I didn't know f15s were station on guam (i wonder what for) but guam is way too far away for f15s to be really useful. Of course, it'd be one of main stations (Alongside diego garcia) for bomber raids but we're talking almost 3000 km to china, thats just one way trip. Even with in air refuelling itd be a daunting task, especially when you have a much closer okinawa for basing fighters. Even japan itself, if the politics with jap govt can be worked out, is a significantly closer place to launch fighters.

Some of that repair work you mentioned is pretty impressive, very fast. Still, in a light of hundreds of planes ramming i'd say it'd take a long, long time and a billions worth to do the repair. i know i said it's a crazy 'what if' scenario but the more i think of it, i'd say it has better chances of success than any conventional attack strategy that chineses forces today could use. i guess mine is a bit immoral and highly exploitative but hey, nothing's perfect. :D


An F-15 would act as an escort fighter for bombers.

[MIGleader]

china dosn't need to burn a carrier or sink it. just list it or bamage the deck. china using suicide pilots is an insane idea. it would never happen.

[sumdud]

Sounds more like a blitz of some sort, bullying the CSG.

It can decimate the fleet, but I doubt it can kill a CVN. You have the armor that it has, the ships around it that you have to deal with first.

China right now do not have a lot of ASM strike planes.

BTW, is the Ohio deployed in Guam one of the SSBNs or SSGNs?

[Neko]

Sounds more like a blitz of some sort, bullying the CSG.

It can decimate the fleet, but I doubt it can kill a CVN. You have the armor that it has, the ships around it that you have to deal with first.

China right now do not have a lot of ASM strike planes.

BTW, is the Ohio deployed in Guam one of the SSBNs or SSGNs?


So far as I know, no conversions are completed yet. So, SSBN.

[IDonT]

So far as I know, no conversions are completed yet. So, SSBN.


Ohio SSGN
USS Ohio (SSBN 726) — Out of service 29 Oct. 2002 for conversion to SSGN, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
USS Florida (SSBN 728) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for October 2003, Norfolk, Va.
USS Michigan (SSBN 727) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for October 2003
USS Georgia (SSBN 729) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for 2004


I think that is the SSGN Ohio. The US will not forward deploy one of its strategic nuclear assets

[Neko]

Ohio SSGN
USS Ohio (SSBN 726) — Out of service 29 Oct. 2002 for conversion to SSGN, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
USS Florida (SSBN 728) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for October 2003, Norfolk, Va.
USS Michigan (SSBN 727) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for October 2003
USS Georgia (SSBN 729) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for 2004


I think that is the SSGN Ohio. The US will not forward deploy one of its strategic nuclear assets


So you might think. :P

[bd popeye]

I've been having diffculty posting on this site. Sorry for my lack of response.

I didn't know f15s were station on guam (i wonder what for) but guam is way too far away for f15s to be really useful. Of course, it'd be one of main stations (Alongside diego garcia) for bomber raids but we're talking almost 3000 km to china, thats just one way trip. Even with in air refuelling itd be a daunting task, especially when you have a much closer okinawa for basing fighters. Even japan itself, if the politics with jap govt can be worked out, is a significantly closer place to launch fighters

Yes F-15 and B-1 wings are on Guam on a rotationg basis from their bases in the US. Along with KC-10 tankers. If any air force could accomplish the task of re-fueling anywhere ,anytime the USAF could.

I doubt if the Japanese would balk at more USAF planes on Okinawa in the advent of a crisis in the Tiawan straits. But did you know that the governor of Okinawa is trying to kick the US military off Okinawa? Stupid on his part.

As for the USN SSGN program the information on that is schetchy at best. Presently the USN has 16 SSBN's....

[IDonT]

I guess the USN got their arsenal ship with the SSGN.
I think those ships carry more than 200 tomahawk cruise missiles.

[bd popeye]

I think those ships carry more than 200 tomahawk cruise missiles.

Actually it's only 154. I found out more info at global security than on the USN web page...go figure

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssgn-726.htm

[MIGleader]

I've been having diffculty posting on this site. Sorry for my lack of response.



Yes F-15 and B-1 wings are on Guam on a rotationg basis from their bases in the US. Along with KC-10 tankers. If any air force could accomplish the task of re-fueling anywhere ,anytime the USAF could.

I doubt if the Japanese would balk at more USAF planes on Okinawa in the advent of a crisis in the Tiawan straits. But did you know that the governor of Okinawa is trying to kick the US military off Okinawa? Stupid on his part.

As for the USN SSGN program the information on that is schetchy at best. Presently the USN has 16 SSBN's....

i doubt any country like foreign troops on it's soil. it makes the insecure. why cant he just do it? doeas Us own rights to the island?

[IDonT]

i doubt any country like foreign troops on it's soil. it makes the insecure. why cant he just do it? doeas Us own rights to the island?


The US govt, captured the Island from Japan in WWII. Japanese govt, does not have the backbone to kick the US out.

[Neko]

i doubt any country like foreign troops on it's soil. it makes the insecure. why cant he just do it? doeas Us own rights to the island?


That's a hard one to explain. Consider it a territory of the US.

[Totoro]

Hm, this is getting heated. But what i was actually reffering to were the other bases, on japan's mainland, that could perhaps be used by US. I'm taking for granted that okinawa would be a place to launch attacks, no matter what japan says. Where exactly is USN fleet in japan stationed?

[adeptitus]

I doubt if the Japanese would balk at more USAF planes on Okinawa in the advent of a crisis in the Tiawan straits. But did you know that the governor of Okinawa is trying to kick the US military off Okinawa? Stupid on his part.

As governor of Okiwana, Mr. Inamine is serving the will of the Ryukyuan people, and not of mainland Japan.

The economic dependency on US military bases, measured by % of gross perfectual expenditure of Okiwana, has declined from 15.6% in 1972 to ~5% today. 78% of all US military basis in Japan are in Okinawa, occupying 30% of the Okiwanan prefecture land.

From a self-interest point of view, there is little to gain for Okinawans to keep the US basis on their island(s) when its economic benefits have declined by 2/3rds over the past 3 decades.

[adeptitus]

The US govt, captured the Island from Japan in WWII. Japanese govt, does not have the backbone to kick the US out.

No, the Tokyo government of mainland Japan does want to keep the US bases, just not on mainland Japan. There's a phrase called NIMBY - "Not In My Back Yard". Since 78% of all US bases in Japan are off on the Okinawan islands, it's out of sight and out of mind for Tokyo.

Now if all the American military bases were situated next to Tokyo, it'd have been a different story.

[sumdud]

I've been having diffculty posting on this site. Sorry for my lack of response.



Yes F-15 and B-1 wings are on Guam on a rotationg basis from their bases in the US. Along with KC-10 tankers. If any air force could accomplish the task of re-fueling anywhere ,anytime the USAF could.

I doubt if the Japanese would balk at more USAF planes on Okinawa in the advent of a crisis in the Tiawan straits. But did you know that the governor of Okinawa is trying to kick the US military off Okinawa? Stupid on his part.

As for the USN SSGN program the information on that is schetchy at best. Presently the USN has 16 SSBN's....
The Okinawans had long wanted the US out.

[bd popeye]

adeptitus & Sumdud you are both correct.... To a point.

True that the US Forces on Okinawa have long been a thorn in the side of the Okinawans. There are 23,000 US Marines and suppourting US sailors stationed there.

The economic dependency on US military bases, measured by % of gross perfectual expenditure of Okiwana, has declined from 15.6% in 1972 to ~5% today. 78% of all US military basis in Japan are in Okinawa, occupying 30% of the Okiwanan prefecture land.

When I made my original post I was not thinking of economics. I made no reference to that effect. I was thinking of protection in the event of any conflift in the western Pacific that could threaten Japan and Okinawa.

No, the Tokyo government of mainland Japan does want to keep the US bases, just not on mainland Japan. There's a phrase called NIMBY - "Not In My Back Yard". Since 78% of all US bases in Japan are off on the Okinawan islands, it's out of sight and out of mind for Tokyo

I'm not really sure if this figure,78%, is accurate :confused: . The 7th fleet is statiioned in Yokosuka about 35 miles south of Tokyo. In addition to Yokota(USAF) AB. And another USN base in Sasebo.

The USN has 17 ships homeported on the Japan main island of Honshu. Along with the suppourting aircraft.

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/

[Neko]

My mistake. I thought you were referring to Guam, not Okinawa.


I have found, in my many trips to Okinawa, that the Ryukyu people are generally more strong-willed than true Japanese... if they don't like you, they won't hesitate to tell you. In a polite manner. Then punch you on the nose.


I like them a lot more than the main Japanese body, and like their history more, as well. (For you history buffs, China once also had a claim to Ryukyu.)

[adeptitus]

When I made my original post I was not thinking of economics. I made no reference to that effect. I was thinking of protection in the event of any conflift in the western Pacific that could threaten Japan and Okinawa.


From Okinawa's point of view, the reason why their island(s) would be a military target today is because of the bases. Mainland Japanese are feeling comfy in the US-Japan security arrangement at the expense of the Okinawan people.

Now before anyone starts foaming at the mouth about Okinawan independence, let me say that it's not realistic to think Okinawa could expell both US and Japanese military and relclaim their land and Kingdom. Okinawans today speak Japanese and are willing to accept Japanese sovereignty. However their long-term goal is Okinawan self-determination.

In their vision, they see a future peaceful, semi-independent Okinawa befitting its historical identity as a non-Japanese nation-state, without US or Japanese military bases on its soil. By semi-independent, I don't mean ceding from Japan. I'll quote ex-govnernor Ota Masahide on his vision of the future:

=== quote ===
Toward self-determination

Given the political biases the Japanese state against Okinawa, Okinawans are amply justified to attempt an escape from captivity in such a state. Governor Ota' s Okinawa Prefectural Governments has recently taken a few major steps in this direction. In his testimony, he mentions two projects that Okinawa Prefecture has generated "of its own will". One is an "Action Program for the Return of the Bases." The other is a "Grand Design of an International City, Okinawa."

The land and resources released from the bases will be fed into the grand design to transform Okinawa into an international city. Detailed land-use plans assign well- conceived roles and functions to areas now occupied by the bases. The proposed schedule of base closures envisages the return to Okinawa of all the land under military occupation by 2015.

From Japan, Okinawa wants an enhanced home rule for self-determination of its own future. Okinawa wants to transform itself into an "international" city, not a "Japanese" city. Okinawa has legitimate claims to its distinct identity. All the "special" treatments (most of them "specially" bad) that Okinawa has historically received from Japan speak of how different Okinawa is from Japan. Okinawa now demands "special" treatments that are good for Okinawa and formulated on its terms.

The international status desired by Okinawa requires a whole host of exceptions to the Japanese system of center-local relations. "International Okinawa" must allow free movements of people, goods, money, information, etc. between Okinawa and the rest of the world. A plethora of regulations and border controls must go.

The vision: Foreigners enter or leave Okinawa freely without visas; foreign corporations and financial institutions operate in Okinawa as freely as in most liberal countries of the world; Okinawa is empowered to play an independent diplomacy over a wide range of economic and cultural exchanges; Okinawa functions as a hub for al sorts of transport and communications networks; and so on.

To make all this palatable to the Japanese, Okinawans have coopted the Chinese slogan, "One Country, Two Systems." The Japanese are generally receptive to international precedents. In recent years, even the most Japanocentric circles of Japanese leadership such as the state bureaucracy and the conservative political wings recognize the desirability of restructuring as a new cure for the perceived ills of Japanese economy and society. "Okinawan independence" can be seen as part of these structural reforms for Japan. Ironically, for better or for worse, Okinawa ends up serving the interest of Japan!

=== end quote ===
Source: http://www.okinawa.com/ota.html

Admin - I apologize for getting overly off-topic here.

[Neko]

Trust me. I'd like to see Kadena closed down, and have Naha or Okinawa City beautified. It's little more than a ghetto right now.

Consequentally, it isn't be cause a carrier is there... The Kittyhawk is up north, on one of the onther islands. Honshu, I think. Might be mistaken on the exact one. I think it is at Yokosuka port. Maybe Misawa. Dunno.

[bd popeye]

Trust me. I'd like to see Kadena closed down, and have Naha or Okinawa City beautified. It's little more than a ghetto right now.

Consequentally, it isn't be cause a carrier is there... The Kitty Hawk is up north, on one of the onther islands. Honshu, I think. Might be mistaken on the exact one. I think it is at Yokosuka port. Maybe Misawa. Dunno.

The Kitty Hawk Strike group(9 ships in all) is homeported in Yokosuka. Along with the USS Blue Ridge LCC-19. An amphipous group is homeported in Sasebo.

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/

[Neko]

Yea... well, furthest north I've been is Tokyo, never really anywhere else besides Oki.

[bd popeye]

Well I'm going to try to keep this thread going..Aparently the PRC would try some sort of surprise attack on a CSG(CVBG). I really don't understand how this would be accomplished in this day of intelligence gathering satillites etc.

I think the main problem for the PRC is the US ablity to stand off the battle area 200km + and wage war from a distance.

[Neko]

Well I'm going to try to keep this thread going..Aparently the PRC would try some sort of surprise attack on a CSG(CVBG). I really don't understand how this would be accomplished in this day of intelligence gathering satillites etc.

I think the main problem for the PRC is the US ablity to stand off the battle area 200km + and wage war from a distance.


It is only possible if they make full use of their Kilos. Ask your son about how loud a Kilo 636 is compared to say, a ming.

[bd popeye]

It is only possible if they make full use of their Kilos. Ask your son about how loud a Kilo 636 is compared to say, a ming.

:) My son got a Navy acheviement medal for tracking a Ming for 8 hours. He never lost contact :) ..He also was doing something else..can't say..while tracking the Ming that the Ming was unaware of :) Would not wanna be on a Ming in time of war.

I just talked to him Saturday. A Kilo is... :D a good quiet boat. But not quiet enough to be undectable. a good boat never the less. Hard to track. He can tell me only little things...The Song however is very quiet....Almost impossible to track at this time. But the USN is working on that.

[Totoro]

Song is more quiet than kilo??? wow. What is yuan class gonna be like then? Or are you talking about the original kilo, like the first 2 kilos china got, not all these 10 other improved kilo class they have or are getting?

As for a surprise attack... short of the carrier walking into a submarine ambush (which would basically require lots of guesswork and lots of sheer luck to predict the location where carrier will go to), i don't see it happening. Nor are the chinese hopeing to pull off a surprising attack.

IF chinese are determined to try to neutralize a carrier threat, i see a massive air attack as most likely. Perhaps in accordance with some PLAN forces but a pure air attack seems even more likely to me.

There'd be little surprise there, of course, US would know something's going on a day early and they'd know an attack is imminent hours in advance. Basically, question there is whether they'd believe enough in their own strength to stand ground and hope to fight off the attack or would they temporarely retreat out of range.

If they choose the fight, it'd be pure, massive power, massive numbers attack. No surprise or special wonder tactic or silver bullet weapons. It'd be blood, sweat and death, great losses until china achieves its mission. Or doesn't, if it shows they were too confident in their abilities.

I just don't see the point. They may put one carrier out of comission, maybe even more than that, they will anger US and make em even more determined to fight, and ultimately that one victory would be pointless.

[adeptitus]

The Kilo has been widely exported (21 hulls) around the world. It wouldn't surprise me if the USN intelligence was able to collect data on it from one of its customers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo_class_submarine

[MIGleader]

you put the kilos and yuans and songs in strategic positions so the carriers dont go there, not to ambush them.

[Totoro]

you put the kilos and yuans and songs in strategic positions so the carriers dont go there, not to ambush them.

Are you talking about making a perimeter with subs that USN won't risk crossing? While a pack of subs can pose a threat to USN fleet, a lone sub (And theyd have to be pretty lone to establish such a wide perimeter) is more or less a sitting duck, no matter how silent it is. It will get detected before USN gets in range to be threatened by its torpedoes and since its one lone sub, the fleet will be able to dispose of it promptly.

[Jeff Head]

So far as I know, no conversions are completed yet. So, SSBN.
The Ohio will be going to sea for initial SSGN trials in October. The Florida is right behind her.

[Jeff Head]

I think that is the SSGN Ohio. The US will not forward deploy one of its strategic nuclear assets

Once completed with SSGN conversion, the boat will no longer be considered a strategic nuclear asset. The conversion is complete and the Ohio is going to sea in October. The USS Florida conversion will be following very soon.

[Jeff Head]

I guess the USN got their arsenal ship with the SSGN.
I think those ships carry more than 200 tomahawk cruise missiles.

One hundred fifty four (154).

[Chairman Hu]

errr.... wow and this has been around for only a day or two...

China should increase conventional use of Missile Destroyers and Submarines, nail as much as you can and ambush all the othes you cant go head to head with... so yea it'd would be like the long march on the sea... China still have homefield advantage but China needs to work on organization or a use for everything piece of equipment instead...

[MIGleader]

you can see a sub from hundreds of miles away with sinar, but can you do anything about it untill its within a few miles?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

you can see a sub from hundreds of miles away with sinar, but can you do anything about it untill its within a few miles?

You cannot see even old subs from hundreds of miles away. New quieted subs can get in within a few kilometers without being detected! And generally, subs can detect sufarve vessels before surface vessels can detect subs.

[crazyinsane105]

A US CV(N) won't be sunk by the PLAN. It can be put in flames, and be knocked out of commission, if everything goes well with the PLAN tactics, and there are no equipment malfunctions, but with the build of a carrier, sinking it would require dozens of torpedoes and missiles.

Make that hundreds dude. A US carrier is pretty damn big. The best the PLAN could hope for is to make sure the carrier is operational killled. If the PLAN wants to sink it, then they might as well hit the carrier group with a nuke warhead since that is the easiest way to eliminate it. And that is not a good idea at all. So instead of sinking it, how many Moskits and C-803's would it take to disable the carrier for several days?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Make that hundreds dude. A US carrier is pretty damn big. The best the PLAN could hope for is to make sure the carrier is operational killled. If the PLAN wants to sink it, then they might as well hit the carrier group with a nuke warhead since that is the easiest way to eliminate it. And that is not a good idea at all. So instead of sinking it, how many Moskits and C-803's would it take to disable the carrier for several days?

Hit it with a very small nuke, and tell them it was a newly devleoped top-secret warhead that is nonnuclear.

[walter]

Hit it with a very small nuke, and tell them it was a newly devleoped top-secret warhead that is nonnuclear.

not that this post deserves a response, but please, get real :rolleyes:

[MIGleader]

if the Us sends a cvbg, nuke it with some nuke moskits. i dont believe it is illegal. Us carriers take ten years to build, and now you can vaporize them in a second.

[crazyinsane105]

if the Us sends a cvbg, nuke it with some nuke moskits. i dont believe it is illegal. Us carriers take ten years to build, and now you can vaporize them in a second.

You actually want the PLAN to do that? If the PLAN uses nukes, do you think that the US will just sit back and take hits? Sure, you can probably wipe out two or three carrier groups, but much of China's military would be vaporized as well. So nukes are not an option.

Just think of this as a Pakistan/India scenario: if the IN is going to blockade Karachi, will the PN use nukes? I hardly doubt it. The best the PN could do in preventing the IN from blockading Karachi would be to make very good use of its subs and aircraft. The same goes for the PLAN: it is possible to bog down the USN if the PLAN chooses to fight smartly. Using nukes is not a very smart idea.

[MIGleader]

if china nukes the cvbg in the middle of the ocean, than thats legal. then the chinese send all ships and planes back to mainland, where the U.s isn't allowed to hit them because there will be civilian casualties.

a tactical nukes isn't much different from a powerful coventianal missle, so dont treat it the same as a hiroshima bomb.

[BrotherofSnake]

LOL, then China would cease to exist. :)

[IDonT]

if china nukes the cvbg in the middle of the ocean, than thats legal. then the chinese send all ships and planes back to mainland, where the U.s isn't allowed to hit them because there will be civilian casualties.

a tactical nukes isn't much different from a powerful coventianal missle, so dont treat it the same as a hiroshima bomb.

CHina can't survive a nuclear first strike. All that history, from the Shang Dynasty 1200BC to PRC 2005AD will be gone.

The biggest threat to US hegemony is gone and all it took was the lost of one carrier battle group. I call that a bargain.

There is no such thing as legal or illegal in the international scene. IF the US decides to nuke the entire Chinese mainland, there is no police to arrest it.

[swimmerXC]

LOL, then China would cease to exist. :)

and your happy why...? the west coast and possibly the east coast of hte US, with major cities will be wiped... not to mention all that nuke will put soo much radiation in the air the you sorry smile will turn to a mutated sad face

[FriedRiceNSpice]

LOL, then China would cease to exist. :)

All of California (you die), Oregon, Washington (I die), as well as a lot of other major cities, like DC, New York, Chicago, and Detroit, just to name a few, will all cease to exist. And about 200 million Chinese in underground bunkers will survive.

[BrotherofSnake]

Then that would kinda suck.

[tphuang]

CHina can't survive a nuclear first strike. All that history, from the Shang Dynasty 1200BC to PRC 2005AD will be gone.

The biggest threat to US hegemony is gone and all it took was the lost of one carrier battle group. I call that a bargain.

There is no such thing as legal or illegal in the international scene. IF the US decides to nuke the entire Chinese mainland, there is no police to arrest it.
you do realize that China has the strike back capability with the 094 nuclear sub, right? Don't make me laugh with the ballistic missle defense garbage.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Then that would kinda suck.

Yes it would. I don't exactly want to die, so lets hope that China-US relations stay pleasant the next few years.

[Totoro]

Don't you realize that conventional/nuclear explosive is the only clear treshold? So let someone use a 0.1 kiloton nuke, sure, its weak, its 'nothing'. But then the enemy counters that with a 0.2, and it goes on back and forth, 0.3, 0.5. 0.9, 2, 5, 20, before you know it youre using stuff stronger than what was used on nagasaki.
Nuclear weapons simply must not be used. It's too dangerous, even the weakest one can turn a war into a whole new ballgame. What's currently worrying me most is news about possible change in US nuclear doctrine, allowing their field commanders to use tactical nukes even against overwhelming conventional force that threatens them. That'd be one step in a very wrong direction.

[IDonT]

you do realize that China has the strike back capability with the 094 nuclear sub, right? Don't make me laugh with the ballistic missle defense garbage.


Is 094 out in service yet?
What is China's early warning detection system like? Can they detect the incoming missiles as soon as they reach the silos? If not.. then the first time they know that they are under attack is when a nuke is detonated over Shanghai.

1.) US ballistic missiles are very accurate. The first strike will target military targets, missile silos, and Command and control areas, making it impossible for the leadership to issue the fire order to the 094..

2.) Is the 094 on patrol all the time? If not then their is a gap in China's 2nd strike capability.

3.) In a war, you bet that the 094 will have at least 1 Seawolf class sub on its tail ready to blow it out of the water. PLAN's nuke boats are not exactly silent.

[tphuang]

Is 094 out in service yet?
What is China's early warning detection system like? Can they detect the incoming missiles as soon as they reach the silos? If not.. then the first time they know that they are under attack is when a nuke is detonated over Shanghai.

1.) US ballistic missiles are very accurate. The first strike will target military targets, missile silos, and Command and control areas, making it impossible for the leadership to issue the fire order to the 094..

2.) Is the 094 on patrol all the time? If not then their is a gap in China's 2nd strike capability.

3.) In a war, you bet that the 094 will have at least 1 Seawolf class sub on its tail ready to blow it out of the water. PLAN's nuke boats are not exactly silent.
China is HUGE!!!! Some part of China will definitely survive the first incoming missiles. And you heard the officer, he doesn't care if all the cities eastern of Xian gets destroyed. This is the same country that once said that it wishes Americans drop a atom bomb and kill a few million people so that it looks bad. As for command center, I'm sure they have back up ones in remote country as emergency centers. If America has them, I'm sure other countries have them too. Whether they are noisy or not, that's beside the point. They will have ships protecting them. Remember, there are ICBMs deep inside the Chinese mountains. America will not be able to destroy all of them. Most of them yes, but not all of them. I doubt America will risk getting LA or SF destroyed.

[IDonT]

China is HUGE!!!! Some part of China will definitely survive the first incoming missiles. And you heard the officer, he doesn't care if all the cities eastern of Xian gets destroyed. This is the same country that once said that it wishes Americans drop a atom bomb and kill a few million people so that it looks bad. As for command center, I'm sure they have back up ones in remote country as emergency centers. If America has them, I'm sure other countries have them too. Whether they are noisy or not, that's beside the point. They will have ships protecting them. Remember, there are ICBMs deep inside the Chinese mountains. America will not be able to destroy all of them. Most of them yes, but not all of them. I doubt America will risk getting LA or SF destroyed.


So is the US!
You are forgetting that the US has more nukes than the rest of the world. It can flatten every inch of China 10xover.

Anyway, we are going off topic.

China has a no first use policy regarding nukes. So there will be no nukes used against a carrier group.

Inteestingly, the US has not agreed the no first use policy on nukes.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=3188

[swimmerXC]

So is the US!
You are forgetting that the US has more nukes than the rest of the world. It can flatten every inch of China 10xover.

your forgetting if you destory china 10 times over, the rest of the world will be dead too! :mad:

[MIGleader]

idont, chinese sattelites would detect the missle and china would have nukes flying towards the U.s in no time.

the 94 would retaliate, and unless the U.s has a seawold in chinese waters, it is safe.\

this is major garbage. this is exactly the stuff the admins dont want cause it'll never happen, so get off the subject of nukes.

[adeptitus]

China does not currently have an effective secondary (nuclear) strike capability against the US. The DF-5/DF-5A are in fixed silos, DF-31's range a bit short, and the SSBN fleet's operational status is questionable.

For PRC to have an effective nuclear deterrance, the PLAN needs at least 4-8 SSBN's, armed with SLBM's that can reach US cities from China's shores. The Xia and Type 094 is not enough.

As for "how to defeat a carrier fleet", you shower it with cruise missiles until you penatrate the anti-missile defense and mission-kill the ships. A ship has limited space for anti-missile rockets and ammo, versus your forces launching from land has unlimited space for missiles and munitions.

Develop extended range cruise missiles, or cruise missile carrier rockets. The BGM-109 Tomahawks today have 1,100+ km range today with production unit cost of $500,000 each (not counting R&D cost).

Just as ICBM's can carry multiple warheads, there's no reason why you cannot develop a carrier-rocket (or UAV/drone) that can send 10-20 cruise missiles within 1,000km range, then fire the pre-programmed cruise missiles at the intended target. The US Predator Drone, for an example, can be considered a missile launching UAV platform equipped with 2 hellfire missiles.

[swimmerXC]

well, i was thinking of something like converting all the old J-5 and J-6's into drones and launching them at the group, then cruise missiles....

[MIGleader]

China does not currently have an effective secondary (nuclear) strike capability against the US. The DF-5/DF-5A are in fixed silos, DF-31's range a bit short, and the SSBN fleet's operational status is questionable.

For PRC to have an effective nuclear deterrance, the PLAN needs at least 4-8 SSBN's, armed with SLBM's that can reach US cities from China's shores. The Xia and Type 094 is not enough.

As for "how to defeat a carrier fleet", you shower it with cruise missiles until you penatrate the anti-missile defense and mission-kill the ships. A ship has limited space for anti-missile rockets and ammo, versus your forces launching from land has unlimited space for missiles and munitions.

Develop extended range cruise missiles, or cruise missile carrier rockets. The BGM-109 Tomahawks today have 1,100+ km range today with production unit cost of $500,000 each (not counting R&D cost).

Just as ICBM's can carry multiple warheads, there's no reason why you cannot develop a carrier-rocket (or UAV/drone) that can send 10-20 cruise missiles within 1,000km range, then fire the pre-programmed cruise missiles at the intended target. The US Predator Drone, for an example, can be considered a missile launching UAV platform equipped with 2 hellfire missiles.


stay on topic!!!


china is trying to sink a CVBG, not the north american continent. so stay off of super-nukes and strike/return struike shit, and stick to talking about subs and cruise missles.

[tphuang]

So is the US!
You are forgetting that the US has more nukes than the rest of the world. It can flatten every inch of China 10xover.

Anyway, we are going off topic.

China has a no first use policy regarding nukes. So there will be no nukes used against a carrier group.

Inteestingly, the US has not agreed the no first use policy on nukes.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=3188
sure, US can flatten China 10xover, but it won't, because then the countries around China would get blown over too. You think US is willing to jeopardize 1/4 of its population for Taiwan? China is willing to jeopardize 75% of its population for Taiwan.

[IDonT]

sure, US can flatten China 10xover, but it won't, because then the countries around China would get blown over too. You think US is willing to jeopardize 1/4 of its population for Taiwan? China is willing to jeopardize 75% of its population for Taiwan.


Don't be so sure about that. If that is the case then PRC leadership is irresponsible.

[PiSigma]

of course US don't have a no first use nuke policy, they are actually talking about using nukes on countries without nukes but with potential to get nukes ie iran, NK. that's just irresponsible and ignorant.

[walter]

of course US don't have a no first use nuke policy, they are actually talking about using nukes on countries without nukes but with potential to get nukes ie iran, NK. that's just irresponsible and ignorant.

NK does have nukes.

[IDonT]

of course US don't have a no first use nuke policy, they are actually talking about using nukes on countries without nukes but with potential to get nukes ie iran, NK. that's just irresponsible and ignorant.


No its called bullying.

That's why the US is determined to get a ballistic missile defence sheild. So it can nuke anyone with impunity.

Remember there are two types of western civilization
1.) The passive, socialist, utilitarian, welfare state of Europe
2.) The militaristic, social darwinist, and conservative of the United States.

[Neko]

of course US don't have a no first use nuke policy, they are actually talking about using nukes on countries without nukes but with potential to get nukes ie iran, NK. that's just irresponsible and ignorant.

The United States has a reciprocal nuclear warhead use policy. We will not shoot you first, in the hopes that you aren't dummy enough to do it. If you hit us with nukes, however, those precision surgical strikes we've been doing to Iraq and Afghanistan will go the way of the dodo, giving way to total destruction.

[bd popeye]

The United States has a reciprocal nuclear warhead use policy. We will not shoot you first, in the hopes that you aren't dummy enough to do it. If you hit us with nukes, however, those precision surgical strikes we've been doing to Iraq and Afghanistan will go the way of the dodo, giving way to total destruction.

You fellows can post all you want about the US & PRC using nukes. The bottom line is that Neko is 100% correct. To quote that great American Ric Flair..""To be the man..you gotta beat the man""... If any nation or force used nukes on the USA or it's armed forces they would most certianly would face total and complete inalation. Period. The deserts would be turned to glass.

Neko is a sub sailor. Trust us... he knows of what he post.

So in effect their would be no real winners. I do not want to see any sort of nuclear confrontation between the US and PRC.

So gents...Getting back to the discussion. Do any of you think a USN CVN/CV could be sunk with conventional weapons? If so how? I will be happy to dispute any claims of sinking. :)

[IDonT]

To get back into topic, lets put in 3 scenarios.

Lets answer these 3 questions and put them into a scenario:

1.) Can the PLAN sink a Carrier groups escorts only?
2.) Can the PLAN sink a carrier with out escorts?
3.) Can the PLAN sink a carrier battle group as a whole?

Scenario 1: (easiest)

A USN surface strike group composed of 1 Tico cruiser, 3 Burkes, and 2 LA subs is at 400 miles from the Chinese coast. It is at Emcom Restricted and is supported via data link from an E-3 off Okinawa. PLAN knows that this group is somewhere in the vicinity, but does not know where it is exactly.
How would you do to deal with this threat?

Scenario 2: (medium)

A USN carrier (USS Kitty Hawk) is sailing north towards Japan at 400 miles from the Chinese Coast to rendevous with its escorts as war broke started. The carrier itself is at EMCOM restricted and has 2 E-2 AEW up in the air. The carrier captain has had half of his airgroup in the air at 3 different intervals. The outer group composed of 1 Squadron of super hornets as at 300 miles from the carrier, the mid group composed of another squadron of super hornets at 200 miles from carrier, and the inner group composed of 1 squadron of regular hornets at 100 miles from carrier group. The airwing is supported by EA-6B prowlers ELINT, buddy refueling, and 1 squadron ready to launch for emergency. PLAN knows that this group is somewhere in the vicinity, but does not know where it is exactly. How would you do to deal with this threat?

Scenario 3 (hardest)

A USN carrier strike group composed of 1 Carrier, 1 Tico cruiser, 3 Burkes, and 2 LA subs is at 400 miles from the Chinese coast. It is at Emcom Restricted and has 2 E-2 AEW up in the air. The carrier captain has had half of his airgroup in the air at 3 different intervals. The outer group composed of 1 Squadron of super hornets as at 300 miles from the carrier, the mid group composed of another squadron of super hornets at 200 miles from carrier, and the inner group composed of 1 squadron of regular hornets at 100 miles from carrier group. The airwing is supported by EA-6B prowlers ELINT, buddy refueling, and 1 squadron ready to launch for emergency.
PLAN knows that this group is somewhere in the vicinity, but does not know where it is exactly. How would you do to deal with this threat?

Well guys, its up tp you....
USe all PLAN assets that are currently available and no nukes allowed.

[swimmerXC]

well i'm pretty sure the PLAN will not mass all it's fleets into one area to counter carriers, it must leave SOME at their original headquaters to keep watch?

[MIGleader]

the plan dosn;t even need alot of large ships, small facs and subs do just fine?

how would china not know the area of the fleet? they have sattelites and mainland radar and patrol planes.

[IDonT]

the plan dosn;t even need alot of large ships, small facs and subs do just fine?

how would china not know the area of the fleet? they have sattelites and mainland radar and patrol planes.

Then explain how small facs and subs can sink ships on all 3 scenarios.

[bd popeye]

Then explain how small facs and subs can sink ships on all 3 scenarios.

MIGleader does need to explain...Remember that the US GPS sattlite technology will always know where the surface PLAN fleet is. Always. And LA class subs will probaly keep track of the Kilo's....Along with P-3's..

[jimmyttl]

well.... at 1st i would just like to observe and read all d postings but after reading d posts from IDonT, i can sense the typical ignorance & ********** he said their missile is accurate and can strike anywhere in d world, yet there r so many civillain casualties caused by tomahawk missile in Iraq, n what makes him think US knows each & every secret bunker n missile silo china has. AND he is so proud of US nukes capability that he is boasting it to the world n the way he mentioned it is as if US countrymen are heartless & would use it to threat any country dat goes against its will. duh~~ naive boy who never went through d misery of war, there r arguments dat said China defence budget is deflated and wud makes u think they will report d correct figures of nuke they have.

To IDonT, dun always be sure of victories will come wherever d US army goes, they claimed vivtory at Iraq n Afghan yet their military casualties r increasing by the day, there is this saying dat said dun boast of victory when the match had not took place, anything might happen in this world. Wise up boy

[IDonT]

well.... at 1st i would just like to observe and read all d postings but after reading d posts from IDonT, i can sense the typical ignorance & simplenaive brain he has. he said their missile is accurate and can strike anywhere in d world, yet there r so many civillain casualties caused by tomahawk missile in Iraq, n what makes him think US knows each & every secret bunker n missile silo china has. AND he is so proud of US nukes capability that he is boasting it to the world n the way he mentioned it is as if US countrymen are heartless & would use it to threat any country dat goes against its will. duh~~ naive boy who never went through d misery of war, there r arguments dat said China defence budget is deflated and wud makes u think they will report d correct figures of nuke they have.

To IDonT, dun always be sure of victories will come wherever d US army goes, they claimed vivtory at Iraq n Afghan yet their military casualties r increasing by the day, there is this saying dat said dun boast of victory when the match had not took place, anything might happen in this world. Wise up boy

First - You are detracting from the topic
Second - My nuke post were in response to few members here who are so trigger happy about using nukes to hit a CSG. I was just mainly telling the consequence of going nuclear against the US.
Third - US missiles are accurate but they don't discrimate between military personnel and civilian.
4th - Nuclear blast radius + Pin point accuracy ensures target destruction.
5th - I don't exactly know where all the PRC's nukes are hidden. You don't know where they are hidden.
6th - Conquering 2 countries in 2 years tells something about how good US forces are.
7th - Military casualties are due to occupation not military battles. (there is a difference)
8th - I know you will respond with but the US has not win in Iraq/Afghanistan yet. Let answer with this, why do they need to lose their country first before they can get it back. Wouldn't it be better if they did not lose it in the first place
9th - No more posting about nukes, we are trying to assess China's naval capabilities against US carrier groups
10th - I will not reply to any posts about nukes in this thread.

IDonT

[adeptitus]

To get back into topic, lets put in 3 scenarios.
Lets answer these 3 questions and put them into a scenario:
1.) Can the PLAN sink a Carrier groups escorts only?
2.) Can the PLAN sink a carrier with out escorts?
3.) Can the PLAN sink a carrier battle group as a whole?


Just as the US has satellites to keep track of the PLAN, China has plenty of satellites to keep an eye on the USN too:
http://www.gyre.org/news/related/Satellites/China

If the USN fleet is positioned 400 miles away from China, it'd be hopeless to think any PLAN surface ships could move toward it without being spotted.

The obvious choice would be to send an air strike and use air-launched anti-ship missiles. No missile defense system is perfect. If you can shoot enough missiles at it, sooner or later you'd score a hit.

In such case the question would be, how well can the PLAAF perform against the F-18's, can enough JH-7A or other strike aircraft get within missile launch range, how many strike aircraft can you send, and what are the anti-ship missile's guidance system, performance, and range.

Under ideal conditions, you'd have PLAAF fighters enage the carrier aircraft, and have your strike aircraft launch long-range "fire and forget" anti-ship missiles in large numbers, then run back to base. i.e. if each JH-7A can carry 4 anti-ship missiles, a squadron of 15 planes = 60 anti-ship missiles.

[bd popeye]

[/QUOTE]Just as the US has satellites to keep track of the PLAN, China has plenty of satellites to keep an eye on the USN too[QUOTE]

Big difference is that the US actually has dozens upon dozens of GPS and military(spy) satellites in orbit. And just how many does the PRC have? I saw artiles about what the PRC wants to do but just how many are up in orbit? As far as I know three. Probaly a few more....Anyone know for sure?

In reality the PRC would probaly get GPS info from their pals the Russians on the position of the USN. That is if the Russian satellites are in working condidton.

[IDonT]

Just as the US has satellites to keep track of the PLAN, China has plenty of satellites to keep an eye on the USN too:
http://www.gyre.org/news/related/Satellites/China

If the USN fleet is positioned 400 miles away from China, it'd be hopeless to think any PLAN surface ships could move toward it without being spotted.

The obvious choice would be to send an air strike and use air-launched anti-ship missiles. No missile defense system is perfect. If you can shoot enough missiles at it, sooner or later you'd score a hit.

In such case the question would be, how well can the PLAAF perform against the F-18's, can enough JH-7A or other strike aircraft get within missile launch range, how many strike aircraft can you send, and what are the anti-ship missile's guidance system, performance, and range.

Under ideal conditions, you'd have PLAAF fighters enage the carrier aircraft, and have your strike aircraft launch long-range "fire and forget" anti-ship missiles in large numbers, then run back to base. i.e. if each JH-7A can carry 4 anti-ship missiles, a squadron of 15 planes = 60 anti-ship missiles.

Scenario 1
The main problem with recon sats. is that they are not geo-synchronos. They have a predictable orbit path. Assuming that the sattillites pick up the general direction of the Surface Action group (SAG), it still doesn't provide you with a target solution.

Here is my actions:

Send a maritime survellaince craft to shadow the SAG and keep a radar contact with it. Even without CAP, this is still a very dangerous assignment for the recon unit. The radar detection range of the recon craft must be longer than the range of the Standard ER. IF not, then this will not work. But lets assume that the the recon craft is outside SAM range.

Once radar contact is made, refuel and arm all aircraft capable of carrying anti-ship missiles. Approach the SAG by flying below the horizon to minimize detection and avoid SAM. Flying low reduces aircraft range, therefore ordinance number will not be as great as you will need to carry extra fuel tanks. As soon as radar contact is made, fire the missiles and head for home.


IF the SAG commander is smart, he will know to anticipate a strike and will endevour to move away from aircraft range at flank speed and set up a SAM trap by dispatching part of the SAG towards the threat axis. A sam trap theory is that you move a warship down the anticipated path of the strike. Since attacking aircraft is not anticipating the ship to be closer than expected, they will be caught with heavy ordinance and become targets to Sams.

Overall, attacking 4 Aegis equipped warships is still a hard task. You need to have an immense number of anti-ship missiles to accomplish the task.

That is assuming that the ships play a defensive posture. The two LA subs could preempt the strike by launching tomahawk missiles on the strike aircraft's airfields.

For the other two scenario's they are beyond current PLA's capabilities.

[adeptitus]

I doubt any of us know the exact number and capability of Chinese spy satellites. I can only cite other sources. As of 1997, the PRC had launched 40 domestically made satellites into orbit, out of which 17 were classified as military use:
http://taiwansecurity.org/AFP/AFP-Spy-Satellites.htm

Last year, an article on Reuters claim that the PRC intends to put over 100 geosync satellits by 2020 in space over its territory:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/029248&tid=160&tid=99


As for GPS guidance, I'd point ya'll to the following articles:

http://www.chinaembassy.org.ro/rom/kjwh/t169337.htm
"China's GPS accuracy to 12m"

http://english.people.com.cn/200309/26/eng20030926_124990.shtml
"China joins EU space program to break US GPS monopoly"

And of course, from Sinodefense web page:
http://www.sinodefence.com/space/spacecraft/bd1.asp

Since the Beidou satellites are geostationary, we can conclude that China does have the technology level to launch and maintain such satellites.

=======================

As for anti-ship missiles vs. Aegis-equipped warships, we also need to look at the missile's capability. An effective anti-ship missile today needs to have evasion capability against anti-missile defense systems. The Kongsberg/EADS NSM, for an example, is designed with stealth profile to avoid detection:

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/missiles_space/missiles/
(Photo to right is NSM)

Just as missile defense systems have improved, anti-ship missile technology doesn't need to be stuck in the exocet/silkworm era.

In the end, ships at sea are slow moving targets at sea, with limited space for munitions & supplies. Land-based strike aircraft can fly much faster and has almost "unlimited" space for supplies and munitions. Even if a USN sub were able to launch missiles at a PLAAF airfield, the airfield can be quickly repaired and aircraft flown in from elsewhere. A ship at sea does not have such luxery, once damaged you can only perform limited repairs, and munitions spent are gone until replenishment.

[TJJH]

The trump card?

http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html

[IDonT]

The trump card?

http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html


Submarine warfare generally states that the faster you move, the louder you are. The louder you are, the less likely will you hear the other submarine.

How can this missile's guidance system possibly know where a sub is at this speed? How well can it manuever at this speed?

Here is the scenario from the link:

Picture this scenario... A Los Angeles class and a Russian Akula Class submarine hunt each other. The Los Angeles is first to fire, releasing a conventional Mark 48 torpedo into the water. Upon launch of the Mark 48 a retaliatory VA-111 Shkval is fired down the trajectory of the incoming torpedo, straight at the Los Angeles class, forcing it to maneuver and thus cut the guidance wire to its own fish! Furthermore, the close range of modern submarine engagements would in all likelihood result in the Los Angeles class being incapable of maneuvering out of the path of the Shvkal in the fleeting few seconds between launch and impact.

1.) It assumes that the incoming trajectory of the Mk48 ADCAP is where the LA sub is. LA has the capability to manuever their fish to approach their target at any bearing.

2.) It assumes that the Shkval has sonar that it can acquire its target at such speeds while super cavitating.

3.) IT assumes that a Mk 48 ADCAP with its wires cut will become useless and not acquire the Akula.

4.) LA's optimal position for tracking and firing a Russian sub is directly behind them. Russians are blind in the rear. In the cold war, Russian subs always do the crazy IVAN manuever. IF this is the case, can this torpedo do a 180 degree turn at those speeds?

[swimmerXC]

there's a WIRE connected to the torpedo?

[IDonT]

there's a WIRE connected to the torpedo?


Yes. Its wire guided.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-48.htm

[IDonT]

Here is a ship hit by 1 MK 48 Adcap.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

[MIGleader]

nice, although iu doubt the adcap can do that to a nimitz. the trump card may not be one wepon or platform, but many synchronized with a good attack plan.

[TJJH]

I think its more that AEGIS can not counter the Skyval thats the problem. No more AEGIS means the rest of the battle group is in trouble.

[bd popeye]

nice, although iu doubt the adcap can do that to a nimitz. the trump card may not be one wepon or platform, but many synchronized with a good attack plan.

Excellen statement MIGleader. But that sort of attack would have to be a massive strike all at once. Otherwise US forces would retaliate before a second wave would hit.

As for the Skyval. No Aegis count counter that. But a LA class could counter whatever type sub tried to launched the torpedo.

If that torpedo did hit a CVN it would have to penatrate 3.5 inches of armor. to get through the hull. If targeted towards a magazine or the nuke powerplant try 16 inches of armor. If that torpedo can penatrate that (like a bunker buster bomb) it could reek some havoc. :( But does the PLAN have some? :confused: No. Not to my knowledge. But the PLAN could get them from the Russians.... :eek:

[bd popeye]

As for the picture of the MK 48 sinking a old DE or what ever type ship than is..I think it's a RAN(Aussie)ship. Not sure

Back in the day...January 1973 .way before most of you were born down around Guantanomo Bay I saw an A-7B Corsair from VA-72 operating off the USS John F Kennedy sink a old Gearing class DD with a single MK 84(2000LB) bomb. It was only guided by gravity. It hit the old DD amidships and split it in half. The DD sank in no time. It was quite a sight.

[MIGleader]

an la can counter a sub, but not its torpedo. if the kilo got a first few shots at the cvbg, there is going to be losses. then the kilo needs to get its butt out of there or else...

[IDonT]

an la can counter a sub, but not its torpedo. if the kilo got a first few shots at the cvbg, there is going to be losses. then the kilo needs to get its butt out of there or else...


There are counter measures used to decoy the torpedo. At the speeds the CSG operates, its very unlikely that a SSK can get within firing position.

[IDonT]

I think its more that AEGIS can not counter the Skyval thats the problem. No more AEGIS means the rest of the battle group is in trouble.


Tico and Burkes are very excellent ASW platforms.
The Burke is equipped with hull mounted sonar, towed array sonar, LAMPS III helo with dipping sonar to detect a sub.

The LAMPS III can carry Mk 50 torpedo (I could be wrong) and the MK 41 VLS can be equipped with the next generation ASROC with a range of around 10 miles.

[MIGleader]

There are counter measures used to decoy the torpedo. At the speeds the CSG operates, its very unlikely that a SSK can get within firing position.

the sub dosn't sail towards the cvbg, it waits and lets the cvbg come to it.
it can also use its anti ship missles to attack the carrier.

[Jeff Head]

In addition, I do not believe it is any kind of established fact that AEGIS cannot counter Skyval...it is just believed. The USN is not going to confirm that belief, even if they actually can counter it. They will feel that it is better to leave potential adversaries in doubt and questioning.

[MIGleader]

or not telling would leave your own people in doubt and give rise to a sense of insecurity. if an advrsary didnt know, they would fire anyways.

[Jeff Head]

or not telling would leave your own people in doubt

Clealry, for those involved, the US forces would know. Those involved would not be left in doubt as to capabilities and any pertinent G2.

[bd popeye]

Clealry, for those involved, the US forces would know. Those involved would not be left in doubt as to capabilities and any pertinent G2.

This brings to mind something I posted in the old forum.

Manytimes members of this forum site results of actual "War Games" and joint military excersises as proof of vuanerablities of the US Forces. I tried to point out that in some occasions that the US forces diliberatly loses these games in order to build the confidence of our allies and confuse our foes. I've seen it done more tahn once. And never did the US forces not have superior intelligence on the opposition.

A good poker player knows how to bluff.

[FreeAsia2000]

This brings to mind something I posted in the old forum.

Manytimes members of this forum site results of actual "War Games" and joint military excersises as proof of vuanerablities of the US Forces. I tried to point out that in some occasions that the US forces diliberatly loses these games in order to build the confidence of our allies and confuse our foes. I've seen it done more tahn once. And never did the US forces not have superior intelligence on the opposition.

A good poker player knows how to bluff.

Ahem so that's a bit like the wargame where the US army lost the Vietnam
war...of course in real life they...ALSO LOST THE WAR !

Btw information about this wargame was revealed LONG AFTER the america
had been defeated..so how can it have been to bluff anyone ?

[bd popeye]

Ahem so that's a bit like the wargame where the US army lost the Vietnam

I don't know how this subject popped into the conversation.

Quite frequently a lot of the member post items out of lack of knowledge. I have no idea of what you may have learned..so....

Let me set the record straight.

Unfortunatley history paints the Vietnam war as a defeat for the US Military. Yes the United States was defeated....However
the US Armed Forces was not defeated in Vietnam. It was the policy of the US government reguarding Vietnam that was defeated.

All major US combatant forces had been removed from Vietnam long before the South fell. At no time did the US forces surrender during any major battle with the N. Vietnmese forces. The South fell on April 29,1975. I know. I was there. I was on board the USS Hancock CVA-19.

On January 27, 1973 a peace agreement was signed between the US, S. Veitnamese and N.Vietnamese forces was signed. And all US combat forces widthdrew from S.Vietnam in short order. Only advisors, CIA types and USMC embasy guards remained. There is a link below about the peace agreement. The text is rather long so I did not post. As soon as the US forces had left S.Vietnam the North began it's illeagal incursions into the south in complete violation of the Peace agreement. The US government decided not to assist the S. Vietnamese government any longer because of opposition to the war in the US.

http://www.gruntonline.com/TheWar/peace_accord1.htm

[Jeff Head]

On January 27, 1973 a peace agreement was signed between the US, S. Veitnamese and N.Vietnamese forces was signed. And all US combat forces widthdrew from S.Vietnam in short order.

Well said popeye. US military forces, ground, naval, and air, forced the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table and the peace was made due to what the US military had accomplished. NVA forces were defeated in the South, the VC had ceased to be a major player after Tet, and the North was being bombed into rubble.

After the peace deal was made and we were leaving, the NVA took two years to resupply and get back in order and then they invaded and defeated the S. Vietnamese. The fact that we were a signator to that peace treaty and did little appreciable militarily to stop it was something that makred us amongst other free nations in the area for many years thereafter...and lingers to this day.

But, as you say, the US military did not suffer a military defeat there at all. As you say, it was our political policy and leadership that lost.

[bd popeye]

Well said popeye. US military forces, ground, naval, and air, forced the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table and the peace was made due to what the US military had accomplished. NVA forces were defeated in the South, the VC had ceased to be a major player after Tet, and the North was being bombed into rubble.

After the peace deal was made and we were leaving, the NVA took two years to resupply and get back in order and then they invaded and defeated the S. Vietnamese. The fact that we were a signator to that peace treaty and did little appreciable militarily to stop it was something that makred us amongst other free nations in the area for many years thereafter...and lingers to this day.

But, as you say, the US military did not suffer a military defeat there at all. As you say, it was our political policy and leadership that lost.
Thank you Jeff. I once some years ago got booted out of a history class at San Diego City college because I dare mentioned these facts about the Vietnam war in class. The Class was of course teaching some revisionist history of the post WW 2 years.. The longer I was there the more upset I became...So one day i just lashed out..Then was promptly booted out. My behavior was loud but not unexcusable....

A couple of years ago I spoke to some kids at Pt Loma HS in San Diego as a Vietnam vet about this very subject. On that occasion I was allowed to set the record straight.

[MIGleader]

oh my. i didn't know the u.s had such oppresionist schools. but i guess most americans will not hear their country's bad side only good. the us is not so different from japan after all. things like jap internment, indian internment, the civil rights age, vietnam just seem to fade away into history when the government talks about a "great, free america"

[tphuang]

Thank you Jeff. I once some years ago got booted out of a history class at San Diego City college because I dare mentioned these facts about the Vietnam war in class. The Class was of course teaching some revisionist history of the post WW 2 years.. The longer I was there the more upset I became...So one day i just lashed out..Then was promptly booted out. My behavior was loud but not unexcusable....

A couple of years ago I spoke to some kids at Pt Loma HS in San Diego as a Vietnam vet about this very subject. On that occasion I was allowed to set the record straight.
yeah, I agree. I'd call it a draw, although that's still quite an accomplishment for the Vietnamese army.

[adeptitus]

Thank you Jeff. I once some years ago got booted out of a history class at San Diego City college because I dare mentioned these facts about the Vietnam war in class. The Class was of course teaching some revisionist history of the post WW 2 years.. The longer I was there the more upset I became...So one day i just lashed out..Then was promptly booted out. My behavior was loud but not unexcusable....
A couple of years ago I spoke to some kids at Pt Loma HS in San Diego as a Vietnam vet about this very subject. On that occasion I was allowed to set the record straight.

That's the great liberal invasion of public education for ya. Used to date a girl who was quite normal before going to college, then after being brainwashed by her left-wing liberal professors at school, she graduated to advocating banning of private property ownership and people should rent from the government.

The Vietnam War needs to be evaluated from the respective time period. At the time the communists were expanding, and the Soviets had sent the first man to space. The western world really didn't know if they were going to win in the long-haul, or if the communist ideology would prove superior.

Looking back, we could say the war was unncessary because time has proven the non-competitive communist/socialist economy will crumble and the capitalist, free market system is far superior. But that's an opinion that we have the luxery of making AFTER we had already won the cold war.

The arguement over winning or losing the Vietnam war is mostly irrevelent. Even the Vietnamese government today will admit that the communist economic system is backward and they must reform toward capitalism to prosper.

The Vietnam War was an important lesson that lead to many improvements to the US armed forces and its handling of the media/press. The photo showing children burn by napalm at Trang Bang in 1972 contributed to the push for better, precision guided munitions to avoid hitting civilian targets. And the My Lai massacre and rape of civilians incident lead to better training by the US Army. During the recent actions in Iraq the US commanders would tell their soliders that they expect professional conduct and "no my lais". When confronted with large numbers of Iraqi civilians in a potentially hostile situation, the commander ordered his troops to point their guns down with one knee on the ground. These actions reduced potential civilian deaths and you could say that it's the results of hard lessons from Vietnam.

Another great lesson learned was handling of media/press. The media insertion and laying down the rules - giving Geraldo Rivera the boot for breaking them, was excellent handling of the press.

[Gollevainen]

Quit discussing about Vietnam war and US internal sosiety...this is CHINESE navy forum!

[Raven]

The USN tends to send about 6 CVSGs into a problem area. That doesnt include various surface attack groups and also SSNs and SSGNs. I'll say this, the only US Navy surface combat vessel with no TLAMs is the FFG-7 Perry Class, but it is armed with Harpoons,torperdoes and versions of the SM1 and SM2.


SU27 Pilot, aim high and look towards the SU-30. Better jet, new guts in the aircraft and two seats for assorted bagage(WSO,ECMO,extra food, TV, wife, girlfriend,etc) Plus the PLAAF have some really cool grey paint schemes.

My favorite US Aircraft F/A-18D
Favorite former US Aircraft A-6E and F-14D (MISS THESE BIRDS)
Favorite Non-US Aircraft SU-25 and SU-30MKK

Others
FA-2 Sea Harrier
F-3 Tornado ADV
Rafale
F-111

[MIGleader]

chinese j-11's have the same a2a abilities as an su-30, soon they will be mutirole too. the su-34 is the one with the real space for baggage. a toilet and kitchen!

[Jeff Head]

Thank you Jeff...A couple of years ago I spoke to some kids at Pt Loma HS in San Diego as a Vietnam vet about this very subject. On that occasion I was allowed to set the record straight.

Thank you Popeye. MIlitarily Vietnam was a clear US victory...politically it was an abject defeat for the U.S. that allowed S. Vietnam to fall, and has reverberated in the area ever since and contributed to the current geo-political situation in the area that is now experiencing the rapid rise of the PRC economically and politically, and the significant buildup of the PLAN.

It will be interesting to see how the relationship between Vietnam and China plays out in these circumstances.

[Jeff Head]

...the Soviets had sent the first man to the moon.
Excuse me?

...The arguement over winning or losing the Vietnam war is mostly irrevelent.
Not for the millions of human beings in the area (Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) that suffered and died as a result of the loss of South Vietnam.

The bottom line is...it happened. The US political heriarchy lost its will and we lost an ally in the process when we did not respond to an abject treaty violation. Those particular ouitcomes reverberate in that particular area to this day, and play on the current geo-political situation. A number of countries, understandably wonder, in the event of any major trouble...will the US be there for the long haul?

To me that is the critical political issue of our time in the region and in the current geo-political circumstance. How the Philippines, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. ultimately answer that question in their ow mind will determine the future landscape of the entire region.

[bd popeye]

I'll say this, the only US Navy surface combat vessel with no TLAMs is the FFG-7 Perry Class, but it is armed with Harpoons,torperdoes and versions of the SM1 and SM2.

Raven..according to my son who is on active duty in the USN the Navy wants to eventually get rid of the FFG's and repace them with still more DDG's. Also in the future USN LCS will come into play.

Many USN FFG's are deployed on drug interdiction missions.

As for the orignal topic of an Anti-carrier trump card..Is there really one? Not right now. The best bet the PLAN would have, as I have said before, is the Song class sub. But the USN is working on better methods of decteing these boats with the contracting of a Swedish diesel boat.

[Jeff Head]

The best bet the PLAN would have, as I have said before, is the Song class sub.

Or the new Yuan or Kilos.

...and only then if the US Navy happened to run into where they were hiding and waiting. Those diesel electrics are excellent litoral water vessels...but on the high seas east of Taiwn where the CBGs would be operating, they are too slow to keep up with the CBGs and if they tried to go up to any higher speed operations, I believe they would be found and killed IMHO.

So, the USN will have to stay out to sea a good ways, which will work fine for carrier aircraft ops, and they will have to do a heck of a job with ASW subs, vessels, and aircraft, cleaning the path of the CBG of any lurking diesel electrics on the high seas.

That will be the key and I believe the USN will be able to saturate the ASW environment enough in front of the path of the carrier to do so. Do you think such an effort would currently discover the modern diesel electrics?

[MIGleader]

Or the new Yuan or Kilos.

...and only then if the US Navy happened to run into where they were hiding and waiting. Those diesel electrics are excellent litoral water vessels...but on the high seas east of Taiwn where the CBGs would be operating, they are too slow to keep up with the CBGs and if they tried to go up to any higher speed operations, I believe they would be found and killed IMHO.

So, the USN will have to stay out to sea a good ways, which will work fine for carrier aircraft ops, and they will have to do a heck of a job with ASW subs, vessels, and aircraft, cleaning the path of the CBG of any lurking diesel electrics on the high seas.

That will be the key and I believe the USN will be able to saturate the ASW environment enough in front of the path of the carrier to do so. Do you think such an effort would currently discover the modern diesel electrics?

the diesels dont follow the cvbg, the wait for it, with engines at very low power. add a few mings to fog up the somar, and the cvbg will have a tough time hearing them.

[Jeff Head]

Agreed that this will be the strategy...which is why I said that it only works if the CBG runs into where the DE is waiting.

But its a big ocean there west of the ROC and the chances for that, unless the PLAN has literally dozens of these new subs are reduced.

The US Navy knows this too and will certainly saturate the forward path of the carrier with very effective ASW assets...very capable subs, aircraft and surface vessels hunting for the PLAN DEs.

[MIGleader]

lets count...
in about 3-5 years, china will have
12 kilo
10 song
2-4 yuan
2-4 93
1 92
3-5 91
1-2 94
and a endless # of mings and romeos which can be decoys or sonar pollution.

[bd popeye]

and a endless # of mings and romeos which can be decoys or sonar pollution.

Fact....>>>The USN has the acoustic signatures of all those subs and enough ablity,training, ships, helo's and P-3's to track them all. Period.

[Jeff Head]

and P-3's to track them all. Period.

We need to get the S-3s back on the carriers IMHO. They have longer legs than the helos and carry a lot more ordinance (buoys, torps, electronic gear, etc).

[Totoro]

I second that. Right now, without proper replacement, US would be better off with those S3s. All those aircraft (planes and helos) can't be in the air the whole time, be that for long endurance flights with sonar detection or short hunting flights once a sub has been targeted. On average that will mean a CBG has around 10-12 helos to be used for ASW at one time, simultaneously. add two hunter subs and that's still not that awesome force to guarantee a large scale sub ambush would fail. (I guess i am saying asrock would be not as effective as subs/helos - so shoot me. :D ) That is partly why US would never send a lone carrier group to war w china, even if it could, objectively, help taiwanese. You look after your own butt first, right? With surface ship PLAN and PLAAF threat i'd say even a two CBGs force would not be sent. In my opinion US would wait till it can assemble a 4 CBG force with apropriate USAF cover from jap/guam for the first waves of attack. Does anyone know how much time would that take, from the moment of decision to do so? (which itself would be probably only after there's clear signs of imminent attack, not more than days/day before taiwan invasion)

[MIGleader]

Fact....>>>The USN has the acoustic signatures of all those subs and enough ablity,training, ships, helo's and P-3's to track them all. Period.

thats exactly what the mings and romeos are for. decoy and sonar pollution, and to such asw assets away from the more advanced subs.

[bd popeye]

We need to get the S-3s back on the carriers IMHO. They have longer legs than the helos and carry a lot more ordinance (buoys, torps, electronic gear, etc).

Sorry Jeff. The USN has already started to decomission it's S-3B squadrons and is replacing their ASW mission with more SH-60's provided by 4 plane HSL detatchments on CV's. Don't forget P-3's are always on patrol. E-2C's extend the ablity of the CSG to find most anything.

thats exactly what the mings and romeos are for. decoy and sonar pollution, and to such asw assets away from the more advanced subs.

Keep thinking that. The USN constantly trains on sub hunting technics. If you only knew.

Does anyone know how much time would that take, from the moment of decision to do so? (which itself would be probably only after there's clear signs of imminent attack, not more than days/day before taiwan invasion)

Excellent question Totoro. The USAF has tactical assets deploying on a rotational basis to Guam. F-15's,B-1's B-52's & tankers. There are F-15's & F-16's in Okinawa, Japan and Korea. The USN has the Kitty Hawk strike group in Japan. There will always be one other CSG deployed in the Pacific or Indian Ocean . There will be one CSG preparing(in training) to deploy. And one more in a surge deploymnet status. The one in training and work ups is also in surge deployment status.

So I would say the USAF assest would be availabe in 48-72 hours. The Kitty Hawk CSG would move to the area immediatley and be on station within 72 hours of leaving Japan. Probaly sooner. The CSG on deployment would arrive within one week depending on where it was located when the crisis arose. As for the 2 CSG deploying from the west coast of the US it would take at least 10 days after deploying to get on station..

As some of you may know last year the USN deployed 7 CSG at once in an operation called Summer Pulse.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/surge05.html

[Jeff Head]

I am afraid it will turn into the sub-surface version of the Marinas Turkey Shoot if they try that...they will find the mings, the romeos, and the Kilos and Yuans.

Using several very capable escorts, ten or twenty ASW aicraft, and four to six very capable and advanced subs...the US Navy will clean the path of the carriers. If the PLAN subs are the path, they will be found by all the active sonar buoys, MAD, and electronic gear possesed by all of those assets.

If the diesel electrics are not right in that path, they will not have the speed to catch and target the carrier...and if they try they will make enough noise to be found by the escorts and aircraft along the sides and flanks of the carrier group.

I believe that is what popeye is talking about.

[MIGleader]

remote countrol mings and romeos?? its possible. the chinese have already made j-5 drones.

the klub is also a possibility for long range attack on a cvbg.

[bd popeye]

remote countrol mings and romeos?? its possible. the chinese have already made j-5 drones.

the klub is also a possibility for long range attack on a cvbg.
That's intresting. They probaly would be controlled by a surface vessel that realy would not have to be that close. Actually the persons operating the sub could be shore based miles away. Interesting concept.

[swimmerXC]

remote countrol mings and romeos?? its possible. the chinese have already made j-5 drones.

the klub is also a possibility for long range attack on a cvbg.

do you realize how much it would cost to make the mings and romeos and control them by radio? how will they link the sonar to the ground/ship?? they are going to hit each other before some USN ship sinks them.
im thinking of something like a boey you can stick all around the sea, and when you activate them they makes acoustic signature of kilos, yuan, and songs; that way it will make it look like they got you surrounded; basically like big under speakers that blast the acoustic signature of subs

[IDonT]

do you realize how much it would cost to make the mings and romeos and control them by radio? how will they link the sonar to the ground/ship?? they are going to hit each other before some USN ship sinks them.
im thinking of something like a boey you can stick all around the sea, and when you activate them they makes acoustic signature of kilos, yuan, and songs; that way it will make it look like they got you surrounded; basically like big under speakers that blast the acoustic signature of subs


Remote control subs are a fantasy. How do you control them when there are volumes of water between the sub and the control system?

Bouey decoy will not fool a US sub sonar man. They are not moving and constantly stay at a single depth in the water.
Each ship on the ocean has a very distinct sound and the US probably has a data base full of what every PLAN ship sounds like.

[swimmerXC]

im not thinkging of turning them all before the ships arrive, more like when the real subs come in turn them on to distract teh sonarman for a couple of minutes

[adeptitus]

Submarines have weapons other than Torpedos and AShM's. You can use your submarine fleet to deploy anti-ship mines. The sea mines today are far more advanced than the old floating balls shaped contact type, with anti-sweep features, rockets, remote control/activation, etc.

[MIGleader]

Remote control subs are a fantasy. How do you control them when there are volumes of water between the sub and the control system?

Bouey decoy will not fool a US sub sonar man. They are not moving and constantly stay at a single depth in the water.
Each ship on the ocean has a very distinct sound and the US probably has a data base full of what every PLAN ship sounds like.

they probably have a kilo's sig, but not a yuans or songs.
a remote control ming is not impossible, all you need to do is steer it, not fore it or submerge it or anything complicated.

[swimmerXC]

well from all this, i can prettty much say for all of you, that the only chance PLAN got to defeat carriers is underwater and not on the surface?

[bd popeye]

they probably have a kilo's sig, but not a yuans or songs.

No the USN does not have the acoustic signature for the Song class. But trust me the USN is working on that. Yuan I'm not sure of.

a remote control ming is not impossible, all you need to do is steer it, not fore it or submerge it or anything complicated.

MIGleader I'm sure it could be done but are you aware that there many obstcales underwater that need to be navigated? I'm sure the technology exist to remote control a sub. But it won't be as easy as some may think.

[Jeff Head]

No the USN does not have the acoustic signature for the Song class. But trust me the USN is working on that. Yuan I'm not sure of.

Popeye, are you aware that the Song has been being delivered to the PLAN since 1994? The PLAN has eight or nine of them.

I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the USN has the sig of the Song.

The Yuan is the new boat, delivered first last year in 2004. They have two of them.

It is thought that this was the boat that was off Guam last year...but I do not know that.

Either way, I would be surprized, if it has been very far out of harbor at all into the open waters of the South China Sea or beyond, if an ADCAP LA boat, or maybe even one of the Sea Wolves hasn't tagged it.

[MIGleader]

well, no one said a remote control ming was easy, just possible
even if china has had the song for a while, how has the u.s obtained its sig.
have p-3s been spying in chinese waters? unlikely.

[Jeff Head]

how has the u.s obtained its sig.
have p-3s been spying in chinese waters?

If they did, it would most likely be other subs, either ADCAP LA or Sea Wolf, in the China and South China Seas.

USN boats would regularly tag Soviet subs soon after they left port and got into international waters...outside of a 12 or so mile zone. Sometimes sooner I am told.

[bd popeye]

Jeff posted..>>""Popeye, are you aware that the Song has been being delivered to the PLAN since 1994? The PLAN has eight or nine of them.""

Yes I am. I can state that the USN has had great difficulty tracing diesel subs...Someone..My son told me that the diesel boats are hard if not impossible to track.

As soon as most Soivet subs left port in the cold war days they had a shadow.

[MIGleader]

If they did, it would most likely be other subs, either ADCAP LA or Sea Wolf, in the China and South China Seas.

USN boats would