Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

What do you guys think?

Hasn't China already acquired Russian made Soveremmeny ships with onboard ship-ship cruise missiles that are capable of hitting US aircraft carrier ships?

The bulk of China's modernization has been to protect its vital sea lanes of communications via which 80% of its oil comes from (straits of Mellaca) and repelling against the 800lb gorilla that is the US Naval aircraft carrier.

------

My opinion

Such a large scale weapon that can destroy a single aircraft carrier in one shot (equal to the number of casualty deaths in Iraq) would simply be unacceptable on both sides. When the United States does enter in an engagement with the Chinese navy, I can see that this ASBM be utilized as a deterrent against the US. Much like the atom bomb, this weapon is far too destructive to be put in actual use. Such a sinking of an aircraft carrier (or multiple ones) would result in a magnitude of American lives lost that it could inevitably lead to a greater more wide spread war involving Greater China....which is not what China needs or wants.

Much is known that China's modernization is aimed only for a LIMITED engagement with a high tech adversary. The PLAN wishes to buy time, engage and put the US naval strike group off long enough, long enough to achieve its objectives against Taiwan. It simply does not wish to confront and defeat the US Navy. Their goal is NOT to defeat the US Navy. Simply put, China wants to avoid a greater widespread war as much as possible and wants to avoid risking engaging ALL 13 of America's Naval strike group (in that case, China has no chance of winning).

Limited engagement...quick win as possible with limited US involvment.This new power weapon can throw US into the peacemaking negeotiation table and totally force Admirals and naval commanders to rethink its strategy of engaging China's navy. More used as a deterrent against US Naval aircraft carriers than an actual killer. Thats my opinion.

I believe that amount of backlash that sinking 18,000 sailors of two US Naval strike group would be CATASTROPHIC for China long term if it does not succesfully accomplish its mission and objectives in Taiwan. Just imagine the resources that would be diverted and the attention it would cause in America. Catastrophic indeed. lol

If that happen, China would FORCE US into a greater war and rejuvenate the American public's support much like to the effect of Japan and the revenge of Pearl Harbor where thousands of US lives were lost and it plunged America into WW2.

sink or cripple few US carrier battle groups are not going to lead a full out nuclear war between the two parties.carrier is perfectly legal military target, and an all out war will be costly to US just as to China, and i doubt US public will support a full war with a potential nuclear power, especially China managed to sent more than 36000 bodybags to US during the Korean War, yet US did not attack mainland China or use any nukes.
also the mentality for war once the conflict with Taiwan is erupted will be different, for the chinese government and to some extent the chinese population it will be a war of survival, once the war is on, the die is cast. It is either win it or lose everything for the chinese government.

just had a discussion with a friend of mine, who is an expert on GPS positioning last night, he said once Beidou 2 is established and functional, which is not very far from now. it is indeed possible to combine beidou 2 (a copy of GPS) and intertia gudience to target something like a carrier

Who really believes that China will have sunk a US warship first? Isn't the US military smart enough to try to soften enemy forces before they send their ships into harm's way? How many of China's warships (including future carriers) will have been struck before then? How many Chinese lives will have been loss that not one American will shed a tear for? How many tactical nukes will have been used in the US's proclaimed right to first strike on countries with nuclear weapons? So why should China care about how many US sailors get killed as a result of this weapon?

The whole point of deterence is the fear of severe loss. What if China responded by saying that when US carriers get into range of these weapons, they should abandon ship so China can destroy them without resistance if there's so much concern over the lives of their sailors. Or what if China protests anyone developing a counter against it. Or China demanding no one else develop similar weapons themselves? Now you know how the Chinese feel when such demands are made all the time from the other side.

With the US's ability to knock out ballistic missiles, what does anyone have to worry about? What I've been reading is that all US tests in the past few years in intercepting missiles has been really successful.

Don't want enemy countries to have nukes, then get rid of yours. You don't want the enemy to have aircraft carriers, then get rid of yours. You don't want the enemy spending money on defense, then don't have a budget yourself that is more than all the countries of the world combined.

If this weapon exists, China has every right to have it.

Originally Posted by sinowarrior

sink or cripple few US carrier battle groups are not going to lead a full out nuclear war between the two parties.carrier is perfectly legal military target, and an all out war will be costly to US just as to China, and i doubt US public will support a full war with a potential nuclear power, especially China managed to sent more than 36000 bodybags to US during the Korean War, yet US did not attack mainland China or use any nukes.
also the mentality for war once the conflict with Taiwan is erupted will be different, for the chinese government and to some extent the chinese population it will be a war of survival, once the war is on, the die is cast. It is either win it or lose everything for the chinese government.

1. The US didn't use nukes or attack China proper during the Korean War because it feared expanding the war to officially involved the Soviet Block (ie. WW3 and nuclear war), this would seriously threaten its position in Europe, which was really the main prize during the Cold War.

2. Imperial Japan also gambled that they could cow the Americans into retreating if they inflicted enough damage on them, I think we all know how that turned out...

Originally Posted by Spike

1. The US didn't use nukes or attack China proper during the Korean War because it feared expanding the war to officially involved the Soviet Block (ie. WW3 and nuclear war), this would seriously threaten its position in Europe, which was really the main prize during the Cold War.

2. Imperial Japan also gambled that they could cow the Americans into retreating if they inflicted enough damage on them, I think we all know how that turned out...

but china is different from japan, at least for now, its prize is Taiwan, and is US going to risk a nuclear confrontation with China for Taiwan? and what is US going to do if china sink 1 of its carrier? the mentality is different, nothing will happen to US if it lost taiwan but to chinese government, lossing taiwan is the last straw. having a war with US over taiwan may be less costly for the government than backdown from taiwan and let it go. Chinese government knew that the fall of both Qing Dynstey and KMT is their apparent weakness to foregin powers.

In any case, US will not be able to afford war with China. The risk is too high and their economy is interconnected. In order to have a sure win over chinese force in the region, the US will have to mobilize most if not all of its forces to the war. If that happens then what about iraq, afghanistan and maybe Iran. What about the billions of dollars that corporate america have invested in China? Are all these worth it just because of Taiwan? In this scenario, deterence from both side is one of the most useful tool to prevent wars. If only both side know the huge consequence of going to war with major powers, then the war will not happen...even if Taiwan declares independence and war ensues. Most we will see is US pressuring its allies for economic sanction against China while further increasing its presence in the pacific.

Originally Posted by Spike

1. The US didn't use nukes or attack China proper during the Korean War because it feared expanding the war to officially involved the Soviet Block (ie. WW3 and nuclear war), this would seriously threaten its position in Europe, which was really the main prize during the Cold War.

2. Imperial Japan also gambled that they could cow the Americans into retreating if they inflicted enough damage on them, I think we all know how that turned out...

For the second part, Japan tried but was unsuccessful, because US just nuked Japan into submission. I think we all know neither party(both US and china) want to start a nuclear war to resolve a military conflict.

I have never regarded Super Carriers as much more than costly White Elephant, Missile Magnets and this news, (if true and not just part of a further funding campaign for SW2) rather bears it out.

I'll believe it when there is an exercise that shows an actual ballistic missile hitting a ship/moving or otherwise.

There are many problems to solve for this weapon to work. I'm not saying it won't happen, but the engineers have a lot of work ahead of them.

Threads combined. No need for two CV sinking threads. Please keep the discussion civil.

bd popeye super moderator

One thing the Americans haves talked about is the Kinetic Lance concept, i.e. using armor piercing bolts fired from orbit at hypersonic speeds to hit targets at sea; an interesting idea, but materials technology for it is no where near feasible at present.

Please note the latest article is at the Washington Times, and written by Bill Gertz. The guy is a warmonger.