Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by rhino123

Oh... and one more thing about laser CIWS, I think it is about time people stop using it as a trump card for many reason as was argued and discussed for a zillion years already and I am not going to start this discussion again.

Actually challenge was talking about airborne lasers, but it'll be hard for any turret emplacement (shipboard or airborne) to track a small, manouevering, hypersonic target and any airborne or laser ciws may only get a chance in the boost phase, but it'll be thousands of km away that it'll hardly matter. the whole talk of laser ciws will be more useful for Ashm than ASBM/BAMmers.
I think the development of laser weapons may warrant discussion in the near future as the technology matures, but the effect on BAMmers will be minimal.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

Actually challenge was talking about airborne lasers, but it'll be hard for any turret emplacement (shipboard or airborne) to track a small, manouevering, hypersonic target and any airborne or laser ciws may only get a chance in the boost phase, but it'll be thousands of km away that it'll hardly matter. the whole talk of laser ciws will be more useful for Ashm than ASBM/BAMmers.
I think the development of laser weapons may warrant discussion in the near future as the technology matures, but the effect on BAMmers will be minimal.

As pointed out before in some time ago. Laser, be it airborne or shipborne or landborne is useful when it is targeted against ballistic missiles if it was not in the final entry stage, which mean the warhead was not released yet. And that would involve the ballistic missile still in space or during launch time.

However after the warhead had been release and it was coming down, even if it was airborne laser, was it really useful?

Laser was only a concentrated beam of light energy that could burn through almost any surface material. And it would be very useful if there are substance (explosive) inside the warhead and the laser might detonate the explosive. However if the warhead is a solid piece of material without any third or forth material in it, then all laser could do is to punch a hole in the warhead.

Laser is also useful in blinding enemy's detecting devices or burn the optic of the sensor and stuff like that. And that is that.

Originally Posted by rhino123

As pointed out before in some time ago. Laser, be it airborne or shipborne or landborne is useful when it is targeted against ballistic missiles if it was not in the final entry stage, which mean the warhead was not released yet. And that would involve the ballistic missile still in space or during launch time.

However after the warhead had been release and it was coming down, even if it was airborne laser, was it really useful?

Laser was only a concentrated beam of light energy that could burn through almost any surface material. And it would be very useful if there are substance (explosive) inside the warhead and the laser might detonate the explosive. However if the warhead is a solid piece of material without any third or forth material in it, then all laser could do is to punch a hole in the warhead.

Laser is also useful in blinding enemy's detecting devices or burn the optic of the sensor and stuff like that. And that is that.

I agree completely with what you said that lasers are only in the boost and space-flight stages.

But if a laser is able to keep its beam (i.e.: the turret can keep "tracking") the warhead, then it could damage the optics/guidance systems of the ASBM in the terminal stage. It won't be able to blow up or probably even melt through the warhead but could intefere with guidance, so that the warhead will miss.

My question is whether any seaborne or airborne (or land-based) laser "turret" would be capable of tracking the manouevering, mach 10 warhead for a sufficient amount of time to damage the electronics (which would probably be hardened against ECM, not to mention atmospheric reentry). If the laser source was at a greater distance from where the warhead will drop in, the laser emplacement won't have to swivel as great, but laser strength will be greatly depleted. If the laser was say, beneath the warhead on a ship, then the turret will have to keep moving to track it on its evasive manouevering but will obviously be stronger due to shorter distance.

Just some food for thought -- I think in the forseeable future any laser based systems won't be capable of intercepting any hypothetical BAMmers in the terminal phase; ECM and maybe SM-3 will try to take that role (how well the latter does, imho is still in question).

I think people's imagination are running ahead of reality in regards to lasers. I've seen all those pics of "successful" tests against missiles. Something that seems to be overlooked that if it's so successful against missiles, it should even do better against aircraft. It's like a comment I heard recently in regards to all these ghost hunting shows on TV in the US. If all these shows are actually discovering ghosts, shouldn't it be big news in the news media? A new anti-aircraft defense using lasers! It should be replacing SM-3s on Aegis cruisers. No need for anti-aircraft missiles anymore. One airborne laser could probably wipeout anything a country like Iran flies into the air. A revolution in air defense has just taken place. Yet you hear nothing of it like all these ghosts being discovered.

Originally Posted by SampanViking

Where did I leave my tinfoil hat.....?

The lizards that control China took it from you!

Anyway I basically have to agree with Popeye. The amount of buzz we've been hearing about the ASBM program indicates that China has been making a lot of progress there but I still wouldn't go as far as some have on this forum, talking as if it's an obvious fact that China has hundreds of these things tested and deployed. We don't know exactly what stage the program is in, but we can be fairly certain that it's probably a later stage. I've seen one truly convincing bit of evidence for actual ASBM testing, and that is the Google Earth pictures of carrier-shaped targets with big craters in them somewhere in central China. However, there's been no official roll-out of the program. So while the PLA probably has working prototypes right now they probably haven't gone into production just yet.

I've seen one truly convincing bit of evidence for actual ASBM testing, and that is the Google Earth pictures of carrier-shaped targets with big craters in them somewhere in central China.

Sey what??? Post the link... please!!

I've seen one truly convincing bit of evidence for actual ASBM testing, and that is the Google Earth pictures of carrier-shaped targets with big craters in them somewhere in central China.

I'm not quite sold as that imagery being "truly convincing". After looking at the time scales involved on Google Earth, those craters at that particular site were made sometime between Oct 22, 2005 and Sept 9, 2006. There is also newer and older imagery showing the site in different states of repair.

Could the site be a ASBM testing site for carrier targets? Sure. The site could also be many more things. Is it testing damage to concrete runways? Is is testing conventional bombing accuracy and not ASBM testing?

Yes, we can all observe this testing and/or training area, but do we have a preponderance of the evidence that makes it a ASBM carrier killer facility?

Put that carrier sized target on some rail tracks, then it would be more convincing, it would reflect carrier targeting rather than concrete runway penetration testing.

imagery at Google Earth: 40 22' 13.69"N, 99 51' 30.78"E Use the "clock symbol" to scroll through different date acquisitions

Originally Posted by bd popeye

lol!..

[qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/11cb8mf.jpg[/qimg]

This is what I think..

I think China has said missile. Probably tested on shore. BUT >> Not at sea.

The US Admrials/Generals have been for the last several years been building China as the next foe of the US. So in order to keep those defense dollars rolling in they say what they have to to keep those defense bucks rolling in. There's much truth in what they say.

And don't get me wrong China is a concern of the US DoD. A big concern.

Hey I have complained before about you posting me and my cats picture without permission

Regarding the Carrier Target, you will find it as part of Martian's post in post 91 of this thread. When I first saw it I wondered what was the point as we all know that the PLA can strike a fixed position with a SRBM etc without any difficulty and so simply being able to hit a fixed Carrier sized object seemed a bit retrogressive.

I looked again and noted the circle which enclosed the rectangular feature and then surmised that what I was looking at was not a fixed object but a very large turntable. If the speed and direction can be varied at a rate comparable to that of a Carrier at Sea, then I think you have an effective test if you aim for the furthest ends.

The lizards that control China took it from you!

Damn those Lizards!!

Originally Posted by jantxv

I'm not quite sold as that imagery being "truly convincing". After looking at the time scales involved on Google Earth, those craters at that particular site were made sometime between Oct 22, 2005 and Sept 9, 2006. There is also newer and older imagery showing the site in different states of repair.

Could the site be a ASBM testing site for carrier targets? Sure. The site could also be many more things. Is it testing damage to concrete runways? Is is testing conventional bombing accuracy and not ASBM testing?

Yes, we can all observe this testing and/or training area, but do we have a preponderance of the evidence that makes it a ASBM carrier killer facility?

Put that carrier sized target on some rail tracks, then it would be more convincing, it would reflect carrier targeting rather than concrete runway penetration testing.

imagery at Google Earth: 40 22' 13.69"N, 99 51' 30.78"E Use the "clock symbol" to scroll through different date acquisitions

To be honest I didn't know about the time scales I was just sort of lazy and took Martian's post at face value. I don't have time to fact-check everyone's posts you know!

Also, Sampan, I went back and looked at the Google Earth pics, and I didn't see anything that made me think the "circle" formation under the "rectangle" formation moved around at all. In fact you can see all sorts of texturing and holes in the "circle" that indicate that it's just dirt.

The Circle is just dirt, only the rectangle needs to move and the circle describes its arc perfectly. Also is it concrete? It looks a bit shiny to me and could be a structure like a swing bridge rather than your classic railway turntable. Net result is same.

Quick addendum

Look at that picture again. The impact damage looks far more like a peeled metal skin than it does an impact on concrete. there are no radial fractures which a solid impact would produce (just like you see on the moon).

Here the missile appears to have punched through the rectangle and exploded beneath it, as you can see quite clearly on the top impact zone, where the debris is clearly spreading from underneath the structure.

There is also a structure on the right hand side which is pretty much where you would expect to see a power control bunker for such a structure if it were movable.

In short I think that not only do you have a something the same size as a Carrier Flight deck, but that you also have a moveable structure constructed the same way and from the same materials as a Carrier flight deck, so that the facility can test not only accuracy but also penetration and potential damage assessments. These are after all, the very things you would be wanting to test with such a facility

There is a video on You-Tube that depicts the engagement kill chain for a DF-21D against an aircraft carrier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXLKZDVcBt8

^^ show me a video of an actual test on a large target underway at sea at 30 knots..under the cover of ECM and SM3 missiles. Then we will talk.

No doubt China has this weapon. But have they really..I mean really tested the DF-21???

Originally Posted by bd popeye

No doubt China has this weapon. But have they really..I mean really tested the DF-21???

And what stage is the project at? Does the lack of a publicly known test indicate that China does not have a functioning missile just yet or does it just mean the tests have been super secret? How long will it take from the testing stage (which the project may or may not be in) to get the missile in production and deployed, in significant numbers?

We just don't know the answers to these questions. With information we have access to now, we can't know. There's really very little solid information out there about China's ASBM project. There's lots of fanboy dreaming and "educated guesses" (read: probably half-made-up BS) from the US Navy. We know the project is out there, and that it has advanced quite a bit in recent years. But beyond that we don't know anything for sure.