Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by bd popeye

I deliberately left this statement below out of the news article..

Will China's 'carrier killer' missile change U.S. Navy? - SignOnSanDiego.com

..So I could later post it..and I did not want to inflame anyone.. You see as an retired Admiral ADM. Lyons(USN ret.) can state what others are more than likely are thinking. He knows no one will freeze him in rank or stick him behind a desk or force an early retirement.

Sure, it's difficult to target a moving ship, and, as Ambivalent pointed out, there are plenty of ways that a CBG can hide itself.

That's why I said: "whether or not the DF21 can actually sink a carrier is irrelevant". Even if the DF21 had a decent targeting rate, there's no telling how effective it will be in actual combat.

However (!), that doesn't matter! The fact that the Chinese *could* have a weapon that can destroy a carrier poses a huge risk, not only to the US Navy and personelle, but to the image of American naval supremacy. No US administration is going to risk a carrier like this unless they were ready for open war.

Originally Posted by Spartan95

The point about US carriers manoeuvring at 30 knots making it a harder target to hit by ASBM has been repeated many times. Let's have a look at what simple arithmetic says about a hyper-sonic weapon's speed relative to 30 knots.

1 knot = 1.852km/hr
30 knots = 55.56km/hr = 55,560m/hr = 15.43m/s

A Nimitz class carrier is 332.85m in length.
(from The US Navy -- Fact File)

Thus, at 30 knots, it takes the carrier ~21.57s to travel 1 carrier length.

Assuming the ASBM's speed is Mach 7 gives the following:

Mach 1 ~ 340m/s (rounded down for easier calculation)
Mach 7 ~ 2,380m/s

Thus, a Mach 7 ASBM will cover 2,380m every sec as compared to 15.43m for the carrier. And, in the time that the carrier takes to travel 1 carrier length, the ASBM would have travelled 51,336.6m (or 51.336km, which is sub-orbital height).

IMO, to achieve decent accuracy, the update rate for the ASBM should be ~half the time it takes the carrier to travel 1 carrier length. This would put the update rate requirement for the ASBM at ~10s to allow for reasonable terminal guidance. An update ~10s prior to hitting the target would put the ASBM at ~23,800m above the carrier. This puts the ASBM outside the troposphere (i.e., outside the densest portion of the atmosphere).
.......

.

From Spartan95's theoretic model, I modify as below.

We tend to calculate the evasion distance of air carrier according to DF-21D's travel time to target. Yet from entry profile of space shuttle, we can find there is around 100 km (altitude before black-out) to sea level. If DF-21D updates air-carrier's position before its entry into the atmosphere, the time-to-hit will be less then 1 minute and the travel distance will shorten to less than 1 kilometer (700 meters). In addition, air-carrier's evasion measures, urgent take-off of air-planes, might limit its freedom of movement. Judging from air-carrier's length and huge body, it will be an obvious target located in such narrow area.

entry profile - space shuttle.jpg

Huh?

Theories are nice. But you still have to prove them. I'm not aware of a DF-21 hitting a moving target at sea.

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

If China were the adversary there wouldn't be just one. When the F-35B IOC's the LHA's and LHD's start to become a factor.

You are refering to USN vessels that carry strike aircraft?

I would think that would have been taken into account when the PLA Navy decided on how many 022s, submarines, etc they would need to use to hunt such vessels within the 1st Island Chain in the event of just such a scenario.

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

There was a famous simulation some years back where commercial traffic made it dangerous to use guided weapons designed for a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict at sea. Something like Exocet or Harpoon does not discriminate well between big combat ships and big merchant ships. They fly to a waypoint on their INS and conduct a radar search, then attack whatever shows up, within some defined limits, on the missile's radar. Too often the missile locks neutral shipping and not an adversary target. This would be a problem for both sides in a highly congested sea lane.

This is the typical American/British mindset.

Bear in mind that the NATO missiles (such as Harpoon & Exocets) were designed for open ocean warfare against USSR ships. These are essentially Cold War designs that have gone through various upgrades over the years. These missiles are not designed specifically for use in the congested littorals.

Thus, the question is whether navies that operate in the littorals (such as the PLA Navy) have designed missiles specifically for use in the congested littorals? There is probably no evidence in the open realm to support this. But, to assume that lack of evidence means there is no such weapon could prove a costly mistake when it turns out otherwise.

There has not been so much as one verifiable operational test of a DF-21. Not one. When they launch them far out to sea at stationary and then moving targets the US Navy and the world will know...we will detect it and "see" it happen. Until then I will think there is nothing more to this than feint, bait, switch, and using "reports" of a weapon to create the illusion that the weapon is real in an effort to change the thinking of naval planners and particularly politicians on this side.

I have no doubt that they are researching something...but they are not far enough along to have live fire tests.

Even if they ever do, the US has already operationally tested defenses against incoming ballistic missiles. BMD is becoming a reality on AEGIS vessels, so the "new" weapon is playing against a growing and proven strength of AEGIS in any case.

When discussing 'Whether the coming of ASBM will mean the end of the Carrier age?', it refer to some kind of possibility. The same tactics can also be applied by the US against other countries' air carriers. Only the other countries' air carriers will be more vulnerable than those of the US because without sufficient AEGIS protectioin.
If previous estimation is reasonable, then the technologies similar to that of Pershing II can pose threat to large navy vessels.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Huh?

Theories are nice. But you still have to prove them. I'm not aware of a DF-21 hitting a moving target at sea.

A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to revolve around a US CBG just cruising around the big ocean minding it's own business and getting jumped on by a DF21 lobbed at it by those sneaky Chinese Pearl Harbor Style.

What if the DF21 is a second strike weapon when all those F18's swarm in to attack or, to be unbiased, defend, eventually they'll have to go back to the carrier and land, so getting a fix on the location of the carrier by tracking the returning aircraft and if there's reasonable details of prevailing weather direction is it not conceivable that both the location and direction of travel of the carrier can be determined?

Not saying it's going to be easy or straight forward to drop a warhead on a moving carrier just that in order to retrieve it's aircraft a carrier goes through a series of prescribed steps which acts to reduce the variability of it's manoeuvre and hence reduce the degree of difficulty therefore probability of a hit.

The DF21 seems to be just one aspect of a multi faceted approach to neutralise a CBG, but coupled with long range SSM, supersonic strike aircraft, missile armed fast attack craft and submarines? Each component by itself would be insufficient but together they should significantly reduce the odds of survival! What if the purpose of the DF-21's are not to directly hit a carrier but to drive it towards lurking subs. After all it's the theoretical probability that the carrier can be sunk that's important as a deterrent effect not the fact that one wakes up one morning and decides to actually sink one.

I don't believe it's the end of the age of the carrier but it's probably had it's zenith.

Who knows may be one of the first jobs for the refurb'ed Varyag is not to act as a strike carrier but as a target! When the 2nd artillery starts lobbing dummy warheads whilst the Varyag's aircrew are practising deck landings that's probably the time to get worried!

Originally Posted by hkbc

A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to revolve around a US CBG just cruising around the big ocean minding it's own business and getting jumped on by a DF21 lobbed at it by those sneaky Chinese Pearl Harbor Style.

What if the DF21 is a second strike weapon when all those F18's swarm in to attack or, to be unbiased, defend, eventually they'll have to go back to the carrier and land, so getting a fix on the location of the carrier by tracking the returning aircraft and if there's reasonable details of prevailing weather direction is it not conceivable that both the location and direction of travel of the carrier can be determined?

Not saying it's going to be easy or straight forward to drop a warhead on a moving carrier just that in order to retrieve it's aircraft a carrier goes through a series of prescribed steps which acts to reduce the variability of it's manoeuvre and hence reduce the degree of difficulty therefore probability of a hit.

The DF21 seems to be just one aspect of a multi faceted approach to neutralise a CBG, but coupled with long range SSM, supersonic strike aircraft, missile armed fast attack craft and submarines? Each component by itself would be insufficient but together they should significantly reduce the odds of survival! What if the purpose of the DF-21's are not to directly hit a carrier but to drive it towards lurking subs. After all it's the theoretical probability that the carrier can be sunk that's important as a deterrent effect not the fact that one wakes up one morning and decides to actually sink one.

I don't believe it's the end of the age of the carrier but it's probably had it's zenith.

Who knows may be one of the first jobs for the refurb'ed Varyag is not to act as a strike carrier but as a target! When the 2nd artillery starts lobbing dummy warheads whilst the Varyag's aircrew are practising deck landings that's probably the time to get worried!

good points!

What if the DF21 is a second strike weapon when all those F18's swarm in to attack or, to be unbiased, defend, eventually they'll have to go back to the carrier and land, so getting a fix on the location of the carrier by tracking the returning aircraft and if there's reasonable details of prevailing weather direction is it not conceivable that both the location and direction of travel of the carrier can be determined?

In war time wit the proper EMCOM conditions set an CSG is very difficult, very difficult to find.

There has not been so much as one verifiable operational test of a DF-21. Not one. When they launch them far out to sea at stationary and then moving targets the US Navy and the world will know...we will detect it and "see" it happen. Until then I will think there is nothing more to this than feint, bait, switch, and using "reports" of a weapon to create the illusion that the weapon is real in an effort to change the thinking of naval planners and particularly politicians on this side.

I have no doubt that they are researching something...but they are not far enough along to have live fire tests.

Even if they ever do, the US has already operationally tested defenses against incoming ballistic missiles. BMD is becoming a reality on AEGIS vessels, so the "new" weapon is playing against a growing and proven strength of AEGIS in any case.

Did you fellows read this^^^? Jeff is posting the truth. Yes China probaly does have the DF-21. But who has ever seen it tested at sea?? Who??

The USN has no magical missiles that may or may not work.. or an "Aegis like" system. The USN has a working anti-missile system deployed and tested. It works.

I pray that there is never an confrontation of any kind between the US and PRC. I sincerely mean that.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

The USN has no magical missiles that may or may not work..

Magic missile always works!

I pray that there is never an confrontation of any kind between the US and PRC. I sincerely mean that.

I think that's what the US military is worried about. China has time on its side. It's not as if the DF-21 needs to be operational tomorrow. The fact that it eventually *will be* is what worries the US.

Also, while AEGIS systems work, they're not perfect, and can only handle a limited number of attacks. The worry here is that the PLA can produce an operational anti-carrier missile and mass produce it cheaply, enough to overwhelm the AEGIS system. After all, you can make missiles pretty cheaply while carriers cost billions of dollars, plus the cost of aircraft, and the human cost of personnel.

Originally Posted by hkbc

... eventually they'll have to go back to the carrier and land, so getting a fix on the location of the carrier by tracking the returning aircraft and if there's reasonable details of prevailing weather direction is it not conceivable that both the location and direction of travel of the carrier can be determined?

Not saying it's going to be easy or straight forward to drop a warhead on a moving carrier just that in order to retrieve it's aircraft a carrier goes through a series of prescribed steps which acts to reduce the variability of it's manoeuvre and hence reduce the degree of difficulty therefore probability of a hit.

The DF21 seems to be just one aspect of a multi faceted approach to neutralise a CBG, but coupled with long range SSM, supersonic strike aircraft, missile armed fast attack craft and submarines? Each component by itself would be insufficient but together they should significantly reduce the odds of survival! What if the purpose of the DF-21's are not to directly hit a carrier but to drive it towards lurking subs. After all it's the theoretical probability that the carrier can be sunk that's important as a deterrent effect not the fact that one wakes up one morning and decides to actually sink one.

I don't believe it's the end of the age of the carrier but it's probably had it's zenith.

Who knows may be one of the first jobs for the refurb'ed Varyag is not to act as a strike carrier but as a target! When the 2nd artillery starts lobbing dummy warheads whilst the Varyag's aircrew are practising deck landings that's probably the time to get worried!

The US navy is well aware hat their aircraft might be tracked...but there are only certain ways to do that. ie. Another aircraft mainly.

The US takes great pains to egress areas in such a way as to confuse an enemy...and guard their back trail. They also do it in as much a non-emitting mode as possible.

It would be VERY difficult to track them back. Both the group leaving will make sure they are not followed, using their own aircraft to guard their backs, and evasive courses to confuse anyone tryoig.

Then, there will be a barrier CAP well out and away from the carrier to trap anyone that somehow finds a way to follow anyway.

Originally Posted by solarz

AEGIS ... can only handle a limited number of attacks. The worry here is that the PLA can produce an operational anti-carrier missile and mass produce it cheaply, enough to overwhelm the AEGIS system. After all, you can make missiles pretty cheaply while carriers cost billions of dollars, plus the cost of aircraft, and the human cost of personnel.

The Soviets were prepared to launch REGIMENTS of Backfire and Bear bombers loaded up with very fast and powerful cruise missiles to try and overpower a AEGIS defended carrier strike group. They figured they would have to launch hundreds of missiles.

I believe individual DF-2s are going to cost more than those individual cruise missiles. It is a more sophisticated and much larger weapon.

It will be difficult for such a missile to come in barrage numbers and overwhelm AEGIS. They may try...and given enough time and money and practise, they may develop a system that has a chance. But they are a long long way from that and the US Navy is not a stationary target either.

By the time the DF-21 gets here in those numbers, the US Navy will have laser or particle energy weapons that will shoot at the speed of light. It's already being tested. The US Navy research center tested a Mega-watt laser just recently. tested it verifiably I might add out there for all to see. Not just talked about it.

US Navy Office of Naval Research Achieves FEL Laser Milestone

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

The Soviets were prepared to launch REGIMENTS of Backfire and Bear bombers loaded up with very fast and powerful cruise missiles to try and overpower a AEGIS defended carrier strike group. They figured they would have to launch hundreds of missiles.

I believe individual DF-2s are going to cost more than those individual cruise missiles. It is a more sophisticated and much larger weapon.

It will be difficult for such a missile to come in barrage numbers and overwhelm AEGIS. They may try...and given enough time and money and practise, they may develop a system that has a chance. But they are a long long way from that and the US Navy is not a stationary target either.

By the time the DF-21 gets here in those numbers, the US Navy will have laser or particle energy weapons that will shoot at the speed of light. It's already being tested. The US Navy research center tested a Mega-watt laser just recently. tested it verifiably I might add out there for all to see. Not just talked about it.

US Navy Office of Naval Research Achieves FEL Laser Milestone

I don't disagree that the US is also moving ahead. However, I think what surprised the US military is the *speed* at which the PLA is moving ahead. DF-21, J-20, the Varyag, those are all milestones, and the US is starting to realize that in the not-too-far future, it will no longer be able to rely on its technological supremacy.

Originally Posted by solarz

I don't disagree that the US is also moving ahead. However, I think what surprised the US military is the *speed* at which the PLA is moving ahead. DF-21, J-20, the Varyag, those are all milestones, and the US is starting to realize that in the not-too-far future, it will no longer be able to rely on its technological supremacy.

True some what... however the only one of those weapons even remotely close to deploying is the Varyag.

As for the DF-21. The missile more than likely is undergoing testing...Let's see some verified testing..then I shall believe.