Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Vader, several things:

What is "cut doughnuts" actually? I know "cut", I know "doughnuts", but don't know the slang when used on Navy.

...I really feel The PLAN needs to step up it's training...

I agree absolutely, [joke] next time PLAN go out for a stretch at seas and oceans, I nominate Lord Vader to be our speaksman to "demand" the pacific policeman and island-chain watching-dogs to provide necessary room for our stretch. [/joke]

- But seriously, this TRAINING aspect can play as "finding who's better", as well as "finding who's worse".

Besides USN itself, talking about anti-CVBG battle-readiness, those who favours RUSSIANS HAVE A BETTER TRAINING please raise your hands. - and budget-cutting Brits or Gaulish? - or "share-the-same-encryption-channel-with-US" kind of client country like JSDF? (in my personal opinion, Japenese Navy, in the name of SDF, is better than Dutches)

Pick a less rotten apple from a rotten apple tree, PLAN is still your top choice.

So, from Bltizo:

Out of the nations in the world currently I think maybe China has the best shot at defeating CVBGs with their ASBM, FACs, SSK/Ns, anti ship fighters, yeah? Of course that's because they have the doctrine, leading to the construction of these weapons.
Russia would come second?

I agree.

Edit:

To make it easy for reference, I consider the scenario is "USN invading the abovementioned countries, who got a bigger shot?". Because it is hard to analyse in real-life, China and France don't have a chance to success in invading each other by navy, on their own, for one.

What is "cut doughnuts" actually? I know "cut", I know "doughnuts", but don't know the slang when used on Navy.

Just going out to sea to do nothing but burn fuel. No ops planned, no nothing.

Yes... but is there anything to suggest the PLAN cannot do that with their ships?

They don't, in my opinion, spend enough time at sea to be properly trained. Period.

Regarding using lasers to intercept DF21s. Well I am unconvinced.

Firstly, the DF21 RV would have been shielded to withstand re-entry.

Secondly, with the speed the RV would be traveling, and laser would have an extremely short window to 'light it up'.

Given these two factors, I am finding it hard to believe that even by 2020 we would have lasers powerful enough to heat a target to well beyond re-entry temperatures in a few seconds.

Lasers would be good against standard AShMs, but I highly doubt they will be all that effective against AShBMs. Railguns would be a far more feasible counter to AShBMs imo.

Originally Posted by plawolf

Regarding using lasers to intercept DF21s. Well I am unconvinced.

Firstly, the DF21 RV would have been shielded to withstand re-entry.

Secondly, with the speed the RV would be traveling, and laser would have an extremely short window to 'light it up'.

Given these two factors, I am finding it hard to believe that even by 2020 we would have lasers powerful enough to heat a target to well beyond re-entry temperatures in a few seconds.

Lasers would be good against standard AShMs, but I highly doubt they will be all that effective against AShBMs. Railguns would be a far more feasible counter to AShBMs imo.

The US is also working on kinetic kill solutions, of which the rail hgun is one solution. The US has also deployed BMD missiles on land as well as at sea and these missiles will engage the target (particularly the "at Sea" variety in this scenario), first...and they are "hit to kill" weapons.

But the laser is instantaneous and the High Energy Laser has the potential of heating the RV to well above re-entry temperatires. If it does this in terminal phase (which is what it is designed for on board ships), it can hit the target while still renetering the atmospher when it is most vulnerable because not too much more heat will cause the heat shield itself to fail, thus destroying the RV...bubt has plenty of time (since it is operating at the speed of light), to continue tracking and hiting the RV as it continues on its termial phase.

Right now, the lasers being tested are not there yet...they are waiting for the much higher electrical power the new reactors and new propulsion systems will make available.

But, these factors have all been taken into consideration. Time will tell, but I believe by 2020 they will have the solution available.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

The US is also working on kinetic kill solutions, of which the rail hgun is one solution. The US has also deployed BMD missiles on land as well as at sea and these missiles will engage the target (particularly the "at Sea" variety in this scenario), first...and they are "hit to kill" weapons.

But the laser is instantaneous and the High Energy Laser has the potential of heating the RV to well above re-entry temperatires. If it does this in terminal phase (which is what it is designed for on board ships), it can hit the target while still renetering the atmospher when it is most vulnerable because not too much more heat will cause the heat shield itself to fail, thus destroying the RV...bubt has plenty of time (since it is operating at the speed of light), to continue tracking and hiting the RV as it continues on its termial phase.

Right now, the lasers being tested are not there yet...they are waiting for the much higher electrical power the new reactors and new propulsion systems will make available.

But, these factors have all been taken into consideration. Time will tell, but I believe by 2020 they will have the solution available.

imho by 2020 they might have operational lasers as ciws for cruise missiles or rocket artillery, but a ballistic missile in the terminal stage? Maybe a few more years after that.
I'm still waiting for the USN response to the AShBM threat -- whether it be a new variant of the SM-2/3, or development of rail gun intercept solutions (wasn't rail gun development recently axed?). But hey maybe USN believes SM-3 and 2 are enough to deal with DF-21D or they can disrupt the kill chain in other areas.
I do find the idea of laser or gun turrets facing upwards shooting at a RV coming straight down at mach 10 a bit hard to ponder.

Maybe lasers could be used in the soft kill arena, disrupting the RVs electronics and what not.

But this is OT and should be in the end of carrier age thread.

I'm not very familar with Railgun or Maritime Laser technology but I assume both require a substantial amount of energy, and so repeated shots, should require time recharge and redirect unlike missiles. Even assuming that it works like Jeff Head says, given the relatively cheap platform for D-21 waves of D-21 will make it very difficult to intercept, even more so than Sm-2/3 platforms with traditional AShMs imo.

Originally Posted by In4ser

I'm not very familar with Railgun or Maritime Laser technology but I assume both require a substantial amount of energy, and so repeated shots, should require time recharge and redirect unlike missiles. Even assuming that it works like Jeff Head says, given the relatively cheap platform for D-21 waves of D-21 will make it very difficult to intercept, even more so than Sm-2/3 platforms with traditional AShMs imo.

The amount of energy available as a result of the new reactors on the Ford class, and the projected new electrical systems on the Zumwalt and Flight II (although not as great as the carriers) will provide very abundant power for these applications. The new technology power source and the new technology lasers will mean essentially that the power is available on the carriers on demand.

The AEGIS SM3 BMD and the anit-cruise missile SM2s will still be available as will the RAM missiles. But we are talking about a significant game changer with the lasers.

Time will tell...but if the non-nulcear electrical systems of the Zumwalt work out as predicted, then even those vessels will have the power and that means...oce other nations catch up or figure it out, that conventiopnal surface ships will be much better defended. It is certainly something the PLAN will look at as well. In fact, we know that the Russians and the Chinese inparticular are already testing laser systems of their own...just not as far along yet.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

The US is also working on kinetic kill solutions, of which the rail hgun is one solution. The US has also deployed BMD missiles on land as well as at sea and these missiles will engage the target (particularly the "at Sea" variety in this scenario), first...and they are "hit to kill" weapons.

But the laser is instantaneous and the High Energy Laser has the potential of heating the RV to well above re-entry temperatires. If it does this in terminal phase (which is what it is designed for on board ships), it can hit the target while still renetering the atmospher when it is most vulnerable because not too much more heat will cause the heat shield itself to fail, thus destroying the RV...bubt has plenty of time (since it is operating at the speed of light), to continue tracking and hiting the RV as it continues on its termial phase.

Right now, the lasers being tested are not there yet...they are waiting for the much higher electrical power the new reactors and new propulsion systems will make available.

But, these factors have all been taken into consideration. Time will tell, but I believe by 2020 they will have the solution available.

Lasers would definitely provide a faster response than ABMs, but I am still at a loss as to how it will be able to intercept a terminally guided warhead. Normal ABMs use pre calculated intercept points, which assumes constant trajectory for the warhead. The DF-21D has a terminally guided warhead, which can alter trajectory.

The laser system would have to have a very fast fire control computer.

There was a PLA concept of an airborne laser system that can also intercept satellites (which is under development), which means their laser is potentially capable of intercepting missiles in mid course stage. How feasible a naval YAL-1 would be is anyone's guess.

PLA also tested their hard kill laser system on a Type 81 MRL rocket. There was a rumor that it will be on Type 052D DDGs.

Originally Posted by SinoSoldier

Lasers would definitely provide a faster response than ABMs...The DF-21D has a terminally guided warhead, which can alter trajectory.

The laser system would have to have a very fast fire control computer.

Its ability to alter a ballistic trajectory in terminal mode will be very limited. On top of that, there has been no observed live test over the ocean against a manueverabvle target...so we are not really sure 1) if it can do terminal guidance as claimed, or 2) If the system is at any stage of operation or deployment.

Time will tell.

My guess is that the ability to manuever will be very limited...and the laser, particularluy if it catches it while in reentry mode, will have the time to do its work.

As I say...time will tell. Right now we have a tested and deployed AEGIS BMD (on at least 5 cruisers and 16 destroyers as of late 2010) and a live fire tested laser. The DF-21D has no known operational tests at all.

But, for future carriers and capitol ships, like the PLAN carrier, the ability to successfully defend your vessel with lasers will be a huge step forward.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

Its ability to alter a ballistic trajectory in terminal mode will be very limited. On top of that, there has been no observed live test over the ocean against a manueverabvle target...so we are not really sure 1) if it can do terminal guidance as claimed, or 2) If the system is at any stage of operation or deployment.

Time will tell.

My guess is that the ability to manuever will be very limited...and the laser, particularluy if it catches it while in reentry mode, will have the time to do its work.

As I say...time will tell. Right now we have a tested and deployed AEGIS BMD (on at least 5 cruisers and 16 destroyers as of late 2010) and a live fire tested laser. The DF-21D has no known operational tests at all.

But, for future carriers and capitol ships, like the PLAN carrier, the ability to successfully defend your vessel with lasers will be a huge step forward.

For the sake of the discussion (posts of which need to be moved, #moderators), I think we sould assume DF-21D is what most believe it to be.

I see no reason why DF-21D could not manouver in the terminal stage, the most modern ICBMs and IRBMs seem to have that capability as a way to counter ABM if I'm not mistaken, among chaff and other decoys?

Originally Posted by SinoSoldier

Lasers would definitely provide a faster response than ABMs, but I am still at a loss as to how it will be able to intercept a terminally guided warhead. Normal ABMs use pre calculated intercept points, which assumes constant trajectory for the warhead. The DF-21D has a terminally guided warhead, which can alter trajectory.

The laser system would have to have a very fast fire control computer.

Assuming DF-21D is all it's said to be -- well if we're able to guide missiles onto an incoming ballistic missile it will not be a massive challenge to keep the beam of a laser on a similar target. The challenge for an anti AshBM laser shoudn't be whether the FCR can handle it or not, but rather whether the laser is powerful enough to take it down, never mind whether the turret can be designed to point near vertical.

Most defensive laser concepts at the moment are for ciws, to take out small boats or cruise missiles. A counter AShBM will need a bit more power at the speed and altitude it's coming in at methinks. Though as you mentioned, AShBM will have terminal guidance. Lasers could well act as a soft kill system by screwing with said guidace.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

For the sake of the discussion (posts of which need to be moved, #moderators), I think we sould assume DF-21D is what most believe it to be.

I disagree. That adds a presumption to the discussion that is merely presumed and not proven or shown...I personally will presume it is still in R&D and not beyond initial lab, site tests until I see hard evidence to the contrary...which we have not seen and which, if they conducted it out over the ocean in any kind of real test they could not hide.

Irrespective, the US with the AEGIS SM3/BMD system is not deterred and has a defense already in place on at least 5 cruisers and 16 destroyers as of late 2010...probably several more now.

The laser system will just add another layer of defense. For this discussion I also thought to add in this animation of that defense (though the RV would not be burning as it renters (that's just artistic license so it is easier to see), though there would be a possible visible ion trail as it fell.



With that, I have more than said my piece about this and will wait for further developments on either side before adding more.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have yet to see solid evidence of what the DF-21D is and what it is capable of. While we have seen solid evidence of the very real anti-missile technologies of various types that the USN is developing which, theoretically, can defeat the DF-21D (assuming the DF-21D is basically what it's generally assumed to be)

That doesn't mean that the DF-21D will be shot down everytime. But it does mean that I think it's a big, big mistake to assume that the DF-21D will leave US carriers defenseless.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have yet to see solid evidence of what the DF-21D is and what it is capable of. While we have seen solid evidence of the very real anti-missile technologies of various types that the USN is developing which, theoretically, can defeat the DF-21D (assuming the DF-21D is basically what it's generally assumed to be)

That doesn't mean that the DF-21D will be shot down everytime. But it does mean that I think it's a big, big mistake to assume that the DF-21D will leave US carriers defenseless.

How much does an aircraft carrier cost? How much does an anti-ship ballistic missile cost? How many ASBMs can a carrier group's anti-missile defenses shoot down in one minute?

Originally Posted by solarz

How much does an aircraft carrier cost? How much does an anti-ship ballistic missile cost? How many ASBMs can a carrier group's anti-missile defenses shoot down in one minute?

We can't really answer two of those questions. My point was that the only thing we can say with confidence is that both sides have a dog in this fight, so to speak. It's a bit premature to declare the DF-21D the game-over answer to carriers.