land based missiles in itself can stand up to carriers. It provides air defense and antiship roles. With the combination of land based missiles, carriers, and submarines, the opponent will not dare to come close to you and will likely be operating very far away.
Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
That was the old days; I am saying this is no longer the case.
What can three carriers bring? More planes.
But modern missiles are superior to planes: they are faster and more maneuverable. Thus, the air-to-air battle can be won by SAMs, supported by cueing from an AWACS.
Suppose the US wants to attack a Chinese fleet with three carriers while China has only one. US carriers launch planes to win the air superiority battle. However, those planes need to get close enough to launch their AMRAAMs. Ship-based SAMs have a longer range than those planes. They just need a sensor to cue them toward those planes. An AWACS launched from the one carrier can do that.
Moreover, those three carriers need to get close to launch their planes. China has hypersonic missiles in ship VLS that are longer-ranged and can be launched from ships. Therefore, carriers can be attacked before they can even get close.
For both offense and defense, ships can launch missiles that can defeat carrier-based planes. Consequently, you don't need too many carriers to achieve naval dominance anymore. Yes, you do need some to launch ISR planes, but one can beat three if the ship-based missiles are good and you have enough destroyers to launch those missiles.
Earth isn't flat, stealth is a thing. AWACS can be taken down. Rely too much on single vulnerable aerial targeting nodes - and you have a very obvious single point of failure.
Staged delivery system (carrier - turbofan airplane - munition) trumps over less staged fast attack means in efficiency, i.e. range/payload metrics.
They don't need to get really close. They can if they want to realize their maximum delivery potential, which is a different thing.
You didn't need too many carriers even before, carrier warfare always was and remains unpredictable and highly irrational at its core.
But the only way to get predictable advantage is, who could've thought, numbers.
If we're talking about fighting US on high seas, local carrier parity is a must goal.
At long range, missiles spend most of their time unpowered, so they can't manoeuvre much.
So an aircraft has time to leave the NEZ of a missile.
HQ-9 SAMs have a maximum range of 300km.
However, the radar horizon is 400km
Anti-ship missiles have an even longer range.
So the air battle will happen beyond the range of ship-launched SAMs.
---
Having said that, if you look at carrier group formations, the plan is to have picket destroyers on the threat axis, in order to catch out aircraft. But if you have a 3:1 advantage in aircraft, you can take your time and systematically destroy ships from beyond SAM range, before you eventually reach the carrier.
You still have to detect the opposing carriers.
If the opposing side can shoot down all the opposing aircraft, then the missiles don't have a target.
---
At the moment, it's ISR aircraft detecting and tracking opposing ships.
But note that the US is not replacing its E-3 AWACs. Instead they are placing their hopes on a space-based surveillance system.
If this works, all surface ships (and indeed, everything) in the world will be under constant surveillance.
So in a blue-water battle, if a side has 3x the naval aviation, they can always stay beyond 1500km YJ-21 ASBM range.
They can then plan for very long range air sorties with airborne refuelling. Given they have 3x the naval aviation, they will still have a significant advantage in numbers.
Yes.
When you look at a carrier group, it's still only a handful of ships.
Today, just one "lucky" hit will disable/destroy a carrier or destroyer.
---
Historically, the side with the larger Navy deals a catastrophic defeat on the smaller side because:
1. They can apply more force to overwhelm the defenders
2. They can absorb losses, whilst still being able to conduct their own strikes
Eventually, you end up with a situation where the smaller side is defenceless.
Yes.
To win at 2IC distances, the Chinese Navy can rely on support from the land-based Air Force and Rocket Force.
So you don't strictly need parity in carrier numbers.
Beyond that, it requires more carriers.
An F-35C loaded with anti-ship missiles (for instance, the AGM-158C) can fly to and attack a surface ship at a distance of ~2200-2400km from its carrier without refueling (which they would be able to do essentially without restrictions, in a situation where the PLAN has no air cover). Even the most generous estimates for the range of ship-based hypersonics would put them at a range disadvantage in the hundreds of kilometers, and potentially even more given YJ-20 and YJ-17 are significantly smaller than their land-based counterparts (which range around 1,500-2,000km). The entire point of a carrier is that it does not need to get close.