Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by marclees

Fast Forward 50 years later , why build Carriers ? They are a lame floating duck . For the price of one carrier , one can get 10000 Asbm + Cruise . Even if 1% get past Aegis 2 & 3 , that is enough to sink all the 11 CVNs.

What are the odds of success ? at 1% ? Do the numbers .....

The problem here is this is great if you're into coastal defense work, but what about an engagement in open water? To carry 10,000 AShMs, you need either 1) 62 SSNs 2) 250+ DDGs, 3) 400+ FFGs, or 4) 500+ large strategic bombers. Plus you need other assets to protect these assets. The problem with battlships was that aircraft carriers had so much range on them, and could put a vast deal of distance between themselves and the firepower of a battleship's massive guns. Today, no single weapons platform capable of precision strike has enough range to overcome the reach of a USN carrier.

10,000 AShMs will easily and completely obliterate the USN's surface assets, but how are you going to get even a few dozen to within 200-400km of a CVGB? You will have to contend with air power from the CVs at ranges well in excess of 1000km. Once you finally are within range, you will have exhausted your AD capabilities and be utterly defenseless from the ship-launched AShMs of your adversary's escort vessels. And as of now, a USN DDG carries a heck lot more Harpoons than the number of AShMs on any PLAN vessel.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

Today, no single weapons platform capable of precision strike has enough range to overcome the reach of a USN carrier.
10,000 AShMs will easily and completely obliterate the USN's surface assets, but how are you going to get even a few dozen to within 200-400km of a CVGB? You will have to contend with air power from the CVs at ranges well in excess of 1000km

If One had 10000 ASBM to rain on any CVN battle group , the lack of precision would hardly be a material concern . China's weapon of choice for the ASBM role is a conventionally-armed variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) MRBM, possibly armed with terminally-guided submunitions with an effective kill range of 1,800 to 3,000 kilometer (depending on the source) launched from a mobile TEL.

The DF-21C is reported to employ terminal homing to achieve a CEP in the order of 10 meters, a level of accuracy sufficient to target a large surface vessel such as an aircraft carrier. Even assuming that it only achieves a CEP of 100 metres , one just needs to fire 9 more DF-21Cs to compensate for the lack of accuracy .

Reminds me of the classical game of 'Battleship' I used to play as a child. What fun it would be if I even had 1000 ASBM as an option during my turn , I would be a winner every time

If One had 10000 ASBM to rain on any CVN battle group , the lack of precision would hardly be a material concern . China's weapon of choice for the ASBM role is a conventionally-armed variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) MRBM, possibly armed with terminally-guided submunitions with an effective kill range of 1,800 to 3,000 kilometer (depending on the source) launched from a mobile TEL.

The DF-21C is reported to employ terminal homing to achieve a CEP in the order of 10 meters, a level of accuracy sufficient to target a large surface vessel such as an aircraft carrier. Even assuming that it only achieves a CEP of 100 metres , one just needs to fire 9 more DF-21Cs to compensate for the lack of accuracy .

Yeah, good luck producing 10,000 DF-21Cs.
The weapon is still undergoing development/evaluation and only a few dozen are in development.
Are you aware that in total, China has not even produced over 500 IRBMs/MRBMs? And that is over a span of four decades.
Also the cost fo the DF-21 will not be the same... so I doubt you can buy 10,000 for the price of a carrier. A fully-loaded and equipped USN carrier costs about $4.5 billion + about $4 billion for the airwing, for a total of $8.5 billion. To purchase 10,000 DF-21s for the price of a single carrier, you're assuming a unit cost of under $1 million.
In reality, a DF-21 will cost almost as much as a J-10 (which have unit costs of around $28 million).

LOL

1) the Chinese have nearly 1000 SRBM headed to Taiwan, this figure probably will rise to 1500 to 2015

2) many American reports predict that China has ballistic missiles (with conventional warhead) capable of reaching a moving target at sea by 2015

4) 1 or 2 tactical ballistic missiles (usually with a warhead of 500/750 Kg) can severely damage or sink AIRCRAFT CARRIER

4) 3 to 6 cruise missile (with 250/ 500 Kg warhead) can sink a aircraft carrier

we imagine to 2015 (not very far)

1500 with ballistic missiles fired from bases

Cruise missiles: 800
- 400 fired from shore
- 300 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Anti ship missile: 800
- 500 fired from shore
- 200 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Note that these figures are not disproportionate or excentric ![/COLOR][/U]

say that only 3% of missiles reach their targets % this is very pessimistic for the Chinese, must admit all[/U])

and say that only 2% of ballistic missiles reach their targets % very pessimistic for the Chinese yet[/U]

1500 X 0, 02 = 30 impact
800 x 2 = 1600 X0, 03 = 48 impact

Count how it would impact on American vessels

= 78 impacts

(1 impact on a ship with modern electronics makes this one out of action, 2 or 3 impact probably sink her, 4 / 5 for an aircraft carrier)

Result (+/-)

78 ships out of action

Or

26 sink

Or

11 aircraft carrier (with 7 hits each)

Originally Posted by gerboisebleue

LOL

1) the Chinese have nearly 1000 SRBM headed to Taiwan, this figure probably will rise to 1500 to 2015

2) many American reports predict that China has ballistic missiles (with conventional warhead) capable of reaching a moving target at sea by 2015

4) 1 or 2 tactical ballistic missiles (usually with a warhead of 500/750 Kg) can severely damage or sink AIRCRAFT CARRIER

4) 3 to 6 cruise missile (with 250/ 500 Kg warhead) can sink a aircraft carrier

we imagine to 2015 (not very far)

1500 with ballistic missiles fired from bases

Cruise missiles: 800
- 400 fired from shore
- 300 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Anti ship missile: 800
- 500 fired from shore
- 200 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Note that these figures are not disproportionate or excentric !

say that only 3% of missiles reach their targets (% this is very pessimistic for the Chinese, must admit all)

and say that only 2% of ballistic missiles reach their targets (% very pessimistic for the Chinese yet)

1500 X 0, 02 = 30 impact
800 x 2 = 1600 X0, 03 = 48 impact

Count how it would impact on American vessels

= 78 impacts

(1 impact on a ship with modern electronics makes this one out of action, 2 or 3 impact probably sink her, 4 / 5 for an aircraft carrier)

Result (+/-)

78 ships out of action

Or

26 sink

Or

11 aircraft carrier (with 7 hits each)

I did a similar calculation last night in Command and Conquer

with 10,000 missle that money could be better spent in refining submarine technology, equipping them to become SSGN and thus stealth approaching within range to launch their cruise missle. more reliable and viable solution in all respects.

SRBMs have lesser range than the operational range of aircraft carriers. DF-15's maximum range is 600km. The USN can launch air strikes in excess of 1000km away, it will not get within 1000km of the Chinese coast.

Anti-ship missiles have ranges of under 250km. They will be useless unless air-launched, in which case the JH-7s/Su-30s/H-6s launching them must fight through waves of USN aircraft. However the big unknown here are submarine launched anti-ship missiles. The USN has no way of preventing such assets from getting within strike range, yet currently the number of capable platforms (Kilos, Yuans, and Shangs) just won't be able to deliver enough firepower to overcome the AEGIS defense system.

As for cruise missiles, it is possible to modify the DH-10 for naval attack, but at its large size and relatively low-speed it will be much easier to intercept than dedicated anti-ship missiles. Every other Chinese LACM are derivatives of AShMs and lack the range necessary. However, DH-10's are expensive and you cannot produce them like sausages.

The DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile is still the most viable option here, but you have to factor in production-capability and cost into the equation. Furthermore, as of now it is unconfirmed whether the anti-ship DF-21 has reached operational status.

Pretty much, as of now the only missiles China has that can strike at CVBG are the hundred or so 3M-54 Klubs luanched from 8 of its Kilos and maybe a couple of pre-deployment DF-21s.

By 2015, I think the USN will have developed a reliable way to intercept the DF-21. However, when combined with a saturated, comprehensive strike of naval DH-10s and a greater number of anti-ship SLCMs and a JH-7/Su-30MKK2 strike, I still think China will be able to deter a limited number of CVBGs from approaching within 2000-3000km off of the Chinese coast.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------with 10,000 missle that money could be better spent in refining submarine technology, equipping them to become SSGN and thus stealth approaching within range to launch their cruise missle. more reliable and viable solution in all respects.

It is most cost-effective to invest that into conventional submarine development. If China could produce more Yuans and design an indigenous weapon similiar to the Klub, then it'll have a credible deterrent against any surface group.

Another effective platforrm will be a future stealth strike aircraft capable of carrying the KD/KH series of anti-ship weapons.

Originally Posted by marclees

The great powers said the same of their Battleships just before the outbreak of World War 2...how wrong they were . From the Bismarck , to the Prince of Wales, the Yamato , and the Arizona , the unsinkables ...were sunk.

Fast Forward 50 years later , why build Carriers ? They are a lame floating duck . For the price of one carrier , one can get 10000 Asbm + Cruise . Even if 1% get past Aegis 2 & 3 , that is enough to sink all the 11 CVNs.

What are the odds of success ? at 1% ? Do the numbers .....

We've had all these sink your carrier discussions many, many times.

Before you sink or attack an CVN you'd have to find it. Not an easy task.

You don't really believe what you posted do you? Have you ever served or even visited an Nimitz class? Do you really think any single missile could sink a CVN? Damage yes, but sink?? No.

The redundancy built into a USN CVN would have to be seen to be believed.

As far as anti-ship missiles the USN now has 3 and soon 4 trump cards. The Ohio class SSGN can carry 154 cruise missiles of various types. Nearly undetectable a single Ohio class could reek havoc on any nations navy with virtual impunity.

I suggest you search our forum for the previous sink your carrier discussions.

I have to go to work now but I'll be back later...

Originally Posted by bd popeye

You don't really believe what you posted do you? Have you ever served or even visited an Nimitz class? Do you really think any single missile could sink a CVN? Damage yes, but sink?? No.

The redundancy built into a USN CVN would have to be seen to be believed.

..

Let's take your statement to the extreme . Will a single 200 kiloton nuclear cruise missile/ ASBM sink a CVN ? Yes of course, Easily . One doesn't need to have served or visited a Nimitz class to know that . What about a 900 pound conventional warhead ? A 1000 pound ? A 1499 pound warhead ?

To make a sweeping statement to suggest that a single missile could never sink a CVN is extremely hopeful at best. To have made this suggestive statement after having served on a CVN - Priceless .

Even if US planners come to realize that the aircraft carrier battle groups
(which are the mainstay of the US Navy and the main instrument
of US power projection worldwide), have been rendered
vulnerable or obsolete by a changing naval landscape , can it ever be acknowledged ?

The US cannot simply change strategy or discard such a weapons
system. To change strategy or "retool" would mean wasting
hundreds of billions of dollars invested in those highly
sophisticated systems. The strong lobbying of influential defense
contractors making those systems would make change extremely
difficult.

For defense authorities to admit the strategic blunder constitutes
an almost insurmountable barrier to a change of strategy. And
finally, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs related to those
systems may be politically and economically unbearable for any
US administration to bear should the program for the aircraft
carrier battle groups be scrapped. Because of these factors,
America may be stuck with an obsolete system that is too
expensive to maintain but will may not best serve US interest when
employed in a major conflict.

The notion that a CVN can not be sunk by a single missile , or a storm of ASBM , will have to be believed , for those who need to believe .

I guess it is a case of Fox Mulder vs Dana Scully.

Originally Posted by PrOeLiTeZ

... that money could be better spent in refining submarine technology, ....

subs - remember the german "wolfpacks" - ar obsolet after WW II; they was and will be killed by ASW-planes pretty soon!

subs - remember the german "wolfpacks" - ar obsolet after WW II; they was and will be killed by ASW-planes pretty soon!

How many ASW planes do you need to cover such a vast swathe of territory? A surface group needs to be able to sanitize the waters within a 300km radius in order to neutralize the threat of SLCM strike.

Even if US planners come to realize that the aircraft carrier battle groups
(which are the mainstay of the US Navy and the main instrument
of US power projection worldwide), have been rendered
vulnerable or obsolete by a changing naval landscape , can it ever be acknowledged ?

The carrier is still a matchless weapon for power-projection and engagements on the open seas. A missile/submarine based naval power will forever be a defense-oriented force lacking in true blue-water and power-projection capability. The Chinese military has been modernizing for over two decades, and have invested heavily in asymmetric warfare capabilities designed specifically to negate US naval air power for the last decade. Yet their work has just begun to bear fruit. Also you must understand that China will be far, far from naval superiority or even naval parity with the USN for at least the next two decades. They are beginning to be able to exercise sea-denial out to the second island chain, but anything beyond that the PLAN is toast. They cannot protect their vital shipping lanes such as the Strait of Malaca from any serious USN effort at blockade, they cannot succeed in any major naval engagements outside of their missile umbrella. Nothing they have can engage a CBG on equal terms.

Do you really think any single missile could sink a CVN? Damage yes, but sink?? No.

Maybe not a single missile, but we're not talking about anti-ship missiles here. I'd think two or three direct hits from a 500kg fuel-air explosive would cause unrecoverable damage to any surface vessel.

As far as anti-ship missiles the USN now has 3 and soon 4 trump cards. The Ohio class SSGN can carry 154 cruise missiles of various types. Nearly undetectable a single Ohio class could reek havoc on any nations navy with virtual impunity.

Exactly right! But it works both ways too.

Kilo's armed with Klubs will not be able to match that on a platform for platform basis, but once a missile similar to the Klub is deployed on the Yuan (which China will be rolling out like sausages), the PLAN will have a stealthier platform and a greater total number of sub-based AShms that can be deployed at any one time.

Before you sink or attack an CVN you'd have to find it. Not an easy task.

Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites and Beidou.

I've moved about 14 post from;

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/show...t=2438&page=29

... to here because the discussion has turned to "I can sink your carrier" again as it has in the past. Please keep the discussion civil.

bd popeye super moderator

The notion that a CVN can not be sunk by a single missile , or a storm of ASBM , will have to be believed , for those who need to believe .

I believe it...Anyone else may choose to believe what they wish.

Let's take your statement to the extreme . Will a single 200 kiloton nuclear cruise missile/ ASBM sink a CVN ? Yes of course, Easily . One doesn't need to have served or visited a Nimitz class to know that . What about a 900 pound conventional warhead ? A 1000 pound ? A 1499 pound warhead ?

Sorry as I've previously posted in many a thread about sinking a CV(N) I've always stated that a conventional weapons would or could "mission kill
a CV but not sink it.

Both the USS Forrestal & USS Enterprise suffered terrible fires because of munitions accidents from conventional explosives. The crews of those ships fouth the massive fires and saved both ships. The ships were repaired and lived to serve futher. The Enterprise still sails on today.

Forrestal Fire;
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...stal-fire.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3I

Enterprise Fire;
http://www.enterprisefire.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKCT0...eature=related

In addition in May 2005 the USN set out to sink the ex-USS America CV-66 (Kitty Hawk class) with conventionl weapons in a "SINKEX" that was to test what combination of conventional weapons would sink an "Super Carrier".. After three weeks of on & off test the America was still afloat and was eventually sunk by EOD set explosives.