Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[bd popeye]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Thanks Finn..

There's lots of fanboy dreaming and "educated guesses" (read: probably half-made-up BS) from the US Navy.

You got that right. When you have Admirals tooting the trumpet of doom and dispare over this missile no one has seen in a real test..well..you gotta wonder.

There are valid reasons the USN is speaking out about this missile. They need to keep the politicians interested in the projects they have going to defend against this weapon.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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.

With most Chinese military projects (espicially ones as important as the ASBM), lack of declaration does not mean lack of capability. In fact they usually don't declare their newest weapons just to keep potential adversaries guessing.
I mean the J-10's existance was only publicly announced in 2006, but they had prototypes since the early nineties...

With the PLA's future we can only dream and make educated guesses.

 

[Spartan95]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

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).

Another important point that is seldom brought up regarding the ASBM is that it doesn't need particularly high hit rates to be effective. IMO, a hit rate of 5% (or 1 ASBM hitting its target out of every 20 fired) will represent a very credible threat. Heck, even a hit rate of 1% needs to be taken as a serious threat. Afterall, China can build lots of ASBMs, but the US can't build that many carriers.

Note that this is purely theoretical.

But, the arithmetic shows the attractiveness of the ASBM option. And, if the ASBM is even faster (Mach 10?), it will be even more deadly (final course correction at even higher altitudes, shorter reaction times, etc).

 

[bd popeye]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

The point about US carriers maneuvering at 30 knots making it a harder target to hit by ASBM has been repeated many times.

Yep..that would be me!

Your theory might as well be in Greek to me.. sorry.

Note that this is purely theoretical.

You bet it is because they have yet to make any documented demonstration of performance of this missile.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I think we have to keep in mind that a ballistic missile warhead has the option of coming down as shrapnels. We can't know for sure how effective the ASBM is until we know the killing radius of the shrapnels vs. a carrier's manueverability in 2/3 minutes.

 

[Neutral Zone]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Just been catching up on the thread, some great contributions!

For what it's worth, my opinion on the issue is that undoubtedly China has made huge progress in developing a working ASBM but it's not the invincible superweapon that some people claim that it is. I don't believe that the system is advanced enough to hit a moving carrier over a 1,000 kms away from the launch site. It's probably accurate enough to get within a certain distance of a CVBG, possibly enough for an EMP warhead to disrupt it's electronic systems, but the sort of "one shot, one kill" capability talked about in the George Washington scenario is not achieveable, yet.

The difficulty for an ASBM system is you still have to try and find the carrier and then anticipate where it's going to be when the warhead gets there. Obviously China has expanded it's satellite recon capability in recent years and mention is made of using OTH radars to help locate the target, well radars can be jammed or deceived and satellite comm links can be disrupted. In any case if there was ever a full scale war between the U.S. and China I'm certain that ASAT weapons would be used to take out the other side's satellites. Therefore although I've no doubt that Chinese ASBM's are serious threats to USN carriers they aren't yet the gamechangers that some people claim.

 

[A.Man]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Is This Good Enough To Kill Aircraft Carriers?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[prototype]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

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).

Another important point that is seldom brought up regarding the ASBM is that it doesn't need particularly high hit rates to be effective. IMO, a hit rate of 5% (or 1 ASBM hitting its target out of every 20 fired) will represent a very credible threat. Heck, even a hit rate of 1% needs to be taken as a serious threat. Afterall, China can build lots of ASBMs, but the US can't build that many carriers.

Note that this is purely theoretical.

But, the arithmetic shows the attractiveness of the ASBM option. And, if the ASBM is even faster (Mach 10?), it will be even more deadly (final course correction at even higher altitudes, shorter reaction times, etc).

i think DF-21 had a range of 3000 km,so lets talk about from that aspect,by the time Df-21 had reached this target how many carrier lengths should have been the CVN moved,and that to in any direction.

plus even consider this DF-21 as a success American CSG's(carrier strike groups) can fire Tomahawk cruise from a range of 2500-3000 km into Chinese mainland were (utheit ??) Fighter planes can also target Chinese mainland from that distance,compared to very relatively low chance or no chance of DF-21 to hit their CVNs

 

[rhino123]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

i think DF-21 had a range of 3000 km,so lets talk about from that aspect,by the time Df-21 had reached this target how many carrier lengths should have been the CVN moved,and that to in any direction.

plus even consider this DF-21 as a success American CSG's(carrier strike groups) can fire Tomahawk cruise from a range of 2500-3000 km into Chinese mainland were (utheit ??) Fighter planes can also target Chinese mainland from that distance,compared to very relatively low chance or no chance of DF-21 to hit their CVNs

And you are basing on the Chinese only had the ASBM only. Which is not the case. The Chinese also had their own Air Force, Navy and Army... plus credible air defences. So do you think the American's fighter can just come and go as they will without resistance?

Of course I am not saying that the ASBM is a very successful design, until we actually see a real test on sea.

 

[Spartan95]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

i think DF-21 had a range of 3000 km,so lets talk about from that aspect,by the time Df-21 had reached this target how many carrier lengths should have been the CVN moved,and that to in any direction.

Well, I think I didn't make clear that the calculations were meant to provide an idea as to :
1. How difficult it is for a carrier to evade a ASBM (30 knots vs Mach 7),
2. What kind of target update interval is required for the ASBM in terminal guidance (hence the use of 1 carrier length).

The total engagement time for the ASBM will necessarily be longer, and I'm sure the ASBM launch will be picked up by NORAD. However, the crux of the issue that most forum discussions (not just here) has always stated 2 issues, which is:
1. A carrier at 30 knots is a hard target to hit,
2. Terminal guidance remains to be solved (or some say impossible to solve).

The basic arithmetic I laid out is about those 2 issues.