Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[Asymptote]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

WOW, I only left for 3 days and now coming back and see this .... you guys really went off your rockers!!


In regard to the defense and offense strategies. There is just a simple fact nobody can deny. ABL/Aegis/SM3 whatever, are mobile units. They are limited by the nature that they have to be mobile, so it will have limited range, and limited number to be carry by the launching platform.


Regardless of the real life performance, let's just assume the best scenario for ABL - that ABL/Aegis/SM3 can defeat whatever Chinese throw at their way - but what do you do when your bullets runs out?


You know its funny, even after so many decades, this strategy still works. "Human wave attack" (or swarming) in modern day can still work. With "technological wave attack", regardless of US technological superiority, it will still work. China can swarm the ABL with AA missiles, it doesn't matter the first 10, 20, or even 30 missiles get shot down, but after that, ABL will run out of ammunition, and get shot down eventually. It doesn't even matter if ABL/Aegis/SM3 come in packs, or with fighter escorts, since, they are all mobile by nature, they are limited ammunitions, and will eventually run out. And the ABL/Aegis/whatever will just be a sitting duck waiting to be finish off.


This trend has been continuing since WWII (or maybe even before that) - that superior technologies cannot win against numerical superiority. The Germans were technologically far superior to the Russians and Americans and yet they were worn down and defeated by the numerical superiority of the Russians and Americans. Then the Korean war continued the trend, then the Vietnam war again.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Shadowdragon, Welcome to the forum!

Be sure you read the forum rules before you proceed!..

FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!

..and please introduce yourself to the rest of the forum...

New members introductions - New members Introduce yourselves

Thank you and welcome to SDF!

bd popeye super moderator

 

[i.e.]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

you don't need a what they call a "full range" shot to establish the system's capability.

for big missiles like these they can easily do a high apogee test of their missile and test against a moving target on the ground on their range.

a full range shot has more geopolitical value than actual technical value. as in a full range shot most of your missile's flight time is out of high quality telemetry any ways.

same thing can be said of nuclear war heads. full yield test is not that much "extra" useful for the technical folks than lets say a reduced yield or even a subcritical test.

for a missile like DF-21 ASBM variant:

if a full test over water against a automated moving target was to be done by china in the western pacific, it is likely that rivet joints/Rivet Ball /cobra ball and what not will be all over the place and will try to catch all the data like IR and radar signiture, performance etc etc, those parameters are crucial in aiding in their ship based ABM effort.
the technical knowledge gain by china would be small compare to what US would gain from observing such test.

 

[s002wjh]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

ie

this is not about how to test the weapon, but about china hasn't test ASBM yet. like i said there are weapon system you can test secretly and there are those once you test it, other coutries will notice the test, anti-sat for example. simply put there aren't any data that shows china did a live test with its ASBM, on land or sea. also a small moving land target is much tougher to hit compare to a carrier. there are many issues need to be solved in order for ASBM to work. for example, the terminal speed of ASBM can easliy blind any guidence system locate in missile nose section.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

ie

this is not about how to test the weapon, but about china hasn't test ASBM yet. like i said there are weapon system you can test secretly and there are those once you test it, other coutries will notice the test, anti-sat for example. simply put there aren't any data that shows china did a live test with its ASBM, on land or sea. also a small moving land target is much tougher to hit compare to a carrier. there are many issues need to be solved in order for ASBM to work. for example, the terminal speed of ASBM can easliy blind any guidence system locate in missile nose section.

they did partial test on the land . Somebody from CDF measure the length of the concrete block and come with conclusion that it is about the same length as Carrier. And it is not stationary more like rotating table

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Uploaded with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Admiral Willard in his interview with Asahi Shinbum did confirm that test did occur Here is from the horses mouth

The Pentagon, in its annual report on China's military, which was released last week, states, "China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (alternative name is DF-21)."

It also said, "The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 kilometers, is armed with a maneuverable warhead, and when integrated with appropriate command and control systems, is intended to provide the PLA (People's Liberation Army) with the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean."

The report also points out that the PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capabilities with new radar systems to support long-range precision strikes, including those by ASBMs.

Asked how he perceives the current status of development, Willard said, "To our knowledge, it has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational."

ASBMs are considered to be one of the main pillars of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities that China has been developing to counter and/or neutralize America's vast power projection capabilities.

Arthur Erricson did a lot of work on this subject He is professor at Naval College an authority on Chinese ASBM

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Taiwan intelligent chief also confirm that China did deploy the first ASBM brigade. If anyone should know Taiwan is the one . After all they have 1 million of their citizen live and work in China. Having the same language and culture they can easily blend in.

Their track record is also good No one know that China has Harpy UAV but Taiwan did

Mark Easton from project 2049 a former intelligent officer with US navy also confirm the initial formation of ASBM lead brigade a common practice in 2nd artllery.

Too many leads from independent sources to dismiss it as a hoax

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Tsai's remarks during the "National Intelligence Work" report also revealed information beside the deployment of DF-16. In an interview largely missed by Western media, the PLA has reportedly deployed around 20 of each type of missiles (i.e. the DF-31, the DF-31A, the DF-5, and the DF-5A). Furthermore, the PLA deployed some 20 DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM), and increased its arsenal of medium-to-long range missiles from 150 to 160 (China Review News, August, 20, 2010; China Times [Taiwan], March 17). According to U.S.-based Defense News citing a Taiwan defense source, China has already fielded up to a dozen DF 21-D in Qingyuan, Guangdong Province (Defense News, March 21).

 

[s002wjh]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

and we all know how US military like to hype up about china threat etc. the fact is any weapon system has to gone through rigorous testing phase to prove its fully functional. currently we don't see those data. until there are reports/data support delopyment of such ASBM or some indication of live test(ex. the anti-sat test), no one know whats going on. and its best leave out this subject involve in our china air defence/anti-access discussion, at least right now. maybe in few more years we will see some tests or delpoyment of ASBM etc.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

and we all know how US military like to hype up about china threat etc. the fact is any weapon system has to gone through rigorous testing phase to prove its fully functional. currently we don't see those data. until there are reports/data support delopyment of such ASBM or some indication of live test(ex. the anti-sat test), no one know whats going on. and its best leave out this subject involve in our china air defence/anti-access discussion, at least right now. maybe in few more years we will see some tests or delpoyment of ASBM etc.

If anything US and western press consistently underestimate Chinese capability.Non other than Gates himself acknowledege this Here some sample of their misjudgement

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s assertion in 2009 that China would have no operational stealth fighters before 2020. In the Western Pacific

The same trend has been seen with China’s aircraft carrier program, where Western leaders were slow to acknowledge that the former Soviet carrier Varyag was being rehabilitated as (at least) a test and training carrier until Chinese Internet imagery showed this was the case

As ie said there is not much to gain showing off your strategic weapon. It is not the first time that China on purpose didn't acknowledge their weapon program. I recall J10 program was well in its 18th years of program before they acknowledge it existence

But action speak louder than word. Now that US change their strategy with Air and Sea battle concept is grudging acknowledgement that US cannot rely anymore on Forward base and have to based her stategic asset ot Conus. Disabling Chinese sensor in space with X 46 space ship at the sdame time China is also test their own version of space ship. Yup militarization of space.

Don't forget it is as if China wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decide to built ASBm They have working onit since the middle of 90 So the program is almot 15 years old

 

[IronsightSniper]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Why it is not possible?. They did successfully test ABM at midflight. And the only 2 countries that have the technology to shoot missile with kinetic kill vehicle at midfligt, are US and China. Did US willingly give China the secret?

You way understimate China man

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China tests new technology to shoot down missiles in mid-air
China has successfully tested a new technology designed to shoot down incoming missiles in mid-air, in a move that Chinese military experts claimed was a "breakthrough" for the country's rapidly modernising armed forces.

Photo: AFP/GETTY IMAGESBy Peter Foster in Beijing 7:00AM GMT 12 Jan 2010
The announcement of the successful test, made by the state news agency Xinhua, comes after a week of diplomatic tensions over a US decision to sell advanced Patriot anti-missile systems to neighbouring Taiwan.

"China conducted a test on ground-based midcourse missile interception technology within its territory. The test has achieved the expected objective," said the terse, three-sentence statement by Xinhua. "The test is defensive in nature and is not targeted at any country," it added.

The decision to make the test public, itself unusual, comes after several days of strident complaints from China's defence establishment over the US decision to allow a $3bn deal for 330 PAC-3 Patriot missiles to go ahead.

The sale has angered the Chinese with one senior Chinese general calling for "counter-measures" against the US, including a temporary suspension of military-to-military contacts which both sides agreed to strengthen after President Obama's visit to China last November.

The successful test follows China's 2007 announcement that it had successfully shot-down a satellite in a move which was seen as a deliberately public demonstration of its growing military capabilities.

:|

I never said it was impossible, I am simply stating that the HQ-9 doesn't seem that much different from the S-300, and based off of that assumption, seems to be reverse engineered from a non-detailed point of view. And in regards to that, what knowledge I have uncovered since that post seems to back up that thought. The HQ-9 seems to be original, but it's missiles are reverse engineered from S-300 missiles, so I'm partially correct.

And seriously, did we start talking about AShBMs again? Even after the high payed mod told us not to a page ago?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

:|

I never said it was impossible, I am simply stating that the HQ-9 doesn't seem that much different from the S-300, and based off of that assumption, seems to be reverse engineered from a non-detailed point of view. And in regards to that, what knowledge I have uncovered since that post seems to back up that thought. The HQ-9 seems to be original, but it's missiles are reverse engineered from S-300 missiles, so I'm partially correct.

And seriously, did we start talking about AShBMs again? Even after the high payed mod told us not to a page ago?

All your sources are written by western press who doesn't have any acess to Chinese sources mostly from Russian sources who has the habit of self promotion and take unwarranted credit . As such it can treated as pure conjecture and nothing else

The history of Chinese ABM go way back in 1970 when Russia and China fight a border war, so there is no way Russia or any one else help China, as China was isolated back then. But the effort was abandoned because of the ensuing cultural revolution and lack of fund, low industrial base though the test was succesfull.

After the reform they renew the program again having access to S300 only mean they can improve their design I don't see anything wrong with that

Normal industrial practice. Just look at mig 15 ans sabre F86 They look almost identical. Because they were heavily influence by German Focke Wulff TA 183.

Now do I say Russian and US copy German design . Off course not because they have their own in house design before that . Mikoyan and Gurevic already start working on their own design long before they get a copy of TA183. The same with US they have Bell XP-59A.

So this allegation of copy is nothing but BS. Anyway you cannot just reverse engineer anything unless you have solid foundation in science and technology.

China did copy US torpedo Mk 46 but it take them 10 years to accomplished the task because they have no basis at all

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Historical Project 640Project 640 had been the PRC's indigenous effort to develop ABM capability.[10] The Academy of Anti-Ballistic Missile & Anti-Satellite was established from 1969 for the purpose of developing Project 640.[10] The project was to involve at least three elements, including the necessary sensors and guidance/command systems, the Fan Ji (FJ) missile interceptor, and the XianFeng missile-intercepting cannon.[10] The FJ-1 had completed two successful flight tests during 1979, while the low-altitude interceptor FJ-2 completed some successful flight tests using scaled prototypes.[10] A high altitude FJ-3 interceptor was also proposed. Despite the development of missiles, the programme was slowed down due to financial and political reasons. It was finally closed down during 1980 under a new leadership of Deng Xiao Peng as it was seemingly deemed unnecessary after the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States and the closure of the US Safeguard ABM system.[10]

However, the PRC's interest of continuing the ABM programme was seriously reconsidered after a series of events and a multitude of factors. The nuclear weapon tests in Asia, US intervention during the Taiwan Strait Crisis, ongoing developments of ballistic missile technology from multiple neighboring countries, and the United States' withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Treaty in 2002 may have otherwise convinced Beijing's renewed interests.

 

[plawolf]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

you do know for ANY new product, there is a testing phase, wheather is commercial or military. Name one missile or weapon system thats made by any military power didn't go through a live test. China has to test its weapon to KNOW its working, its a REQUIRED engineering process that every new product intruction has to go through. you think the ipod in your pocket didn't go through extensive test before went to productions? this is nothing about art of war or such, its about prove of concept.

FYI the f-117 DID alot testing during day/night/secretly before actual combat. A chinese ballistic missile testing has to notify other countries due to fact some might mistake as ICBM etc etc. on top of that a ballistic missile lunch by china can detect by russia and US.

And a test cannot be hidden?

Obviously everyone and their grandma would know if the PLA tested an ASBM against a sea based target, but why would they need to do that? They could just as easily test it out against an inland target in one of their normal missile test ranges, and there would be precious little for anyone looking on to tell such a test apart from a run of the mill BM test.

Hell, there has been a google earth picture of a giant crater in the middle of a giant metal rectangle in inner China that's been posted several times in this forum already. Make of that what you will.

---------------------

Edit, looks like Hendrick was kind enough to post the picture here for you.