Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I don't disagree that actual "facts/data/reports" would be quite helpful to prove the operational viability to detractors...
But this statement is completely wrong:


Honestly how do you define an "actual test"...?

And sinomilitaryfans reach their "assumptions" with rumors and information leaked from the more reliable BBS sources. Think of news on PLA developments like going through numerous filters -- with the BS and wet dreams left behind and leaving only the (mostly) good stuff.

This reminds me of one example:

The original flight test program for Boeing 787 is 6 months.

There is no way to keep that 6 month flight test schedule if every thing came together on the airplane at the last minute and they can only assure themselves that the air plane's major functionality will work when came together and flew.
Boeing had all levels of 787 simulations running years before 787 flew. and they can pretty much assure themselves that this airplane will do what it will do.
in aerospace business the engineering side at all levels is hugely dependent on simulation.

for DF-21 AshBM case. I think we can safely disect the whole system into 3 parts.
1) missile itself
2) the terminal guidance and maneuvering war head
3) targe acquisation network,

the missile/rocket itself is a proven system, its in service and has had test and operational launches , which means they know they can release a war head at certain height and speed with a known probability of success. this actually removes a huge layer of unknown in the engineering side.

as for the terminal guidance and maneuvering war head. they can easily do a number of non-full range shot (which is apparently what happened, judging from comments from DoD) and test the target acquisation and maneuvering systems of the war head from a similar initial condition.

as for a targe acquisation network, made up by survallence Sat, OTH radar, datalinks, and MPA/signal survallences. this is even easier to do in the sense that they do not need any high visibility tests to ascertain its effectiveness.

So to me, a full range shot against a target on on ocean does not need to be done to achieve operation status.

 

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

you watch too much sci-fi movie. radar guided 100lb bomb travel at terminal speed gotta be mini radar guidence system i never seen before.

Did I say radar guided bombs travel at terminal speed?
do you know the old Pershing IRBM war heads can do a X.X-G pull up maneuver to slow down and let the radar in its nose to paint the ground picture before it dives in again? and that's 70s technology.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

This reminds me of one example:

The original flight test program for Boeing 787 is 6 months.

There is no way to keep that 6 month flight test schedule if every thing came together on the airplane at the last minute and they can only assure themselves that the air plane's major functionality will work when came together and flew.
Boeing had all levels of 787 simulations running years before 787 flew. and they can pretty much assure themselves that this airplane will do what it will do.
in aerospace business the engineering side at all levels is hugely dependent on simulation.

for DF-21 AshBM case. I think we can safely disect the whole system into 3 parts.
1) missile itself
2) the terminal guidance and maneuvering war head
3) targe acquisation network,

the missile/rocket itself is a proven system, its in service and has had test and operational launches , which means they know they can release a war head at certain height and speed with a known probability of success. this actually removes a huge layer of unknown in the engineering side.

as for the terminal guidance and maneuvering war head. they can easily do a number of non-full range shot (which is apparently what happened, judging from comments from DoD) and test the target acquisation and maneuvering systems of the war head from a similar initial condition.

as for a targe acquisation network, made up by survallence Sat, OTH radar, datalinks, and MPA/signal survallences. this is even easier to do in the sense that they do not need any high visibility tests to ascertain its effectiveness.

So to me, a full range shot against a target on on ocean does not need to be done to achieve operation status.

Excellent point. Hitting target on the move with ballistic missile is not without precedence.Pershing II has enough accuracy that in theory it can hit moving target and that was 20 years ago, It is not something that is out of this world.The world has move from applecomputer with 256 k memory to quad core processor with 10g memory.

I completely agree with your analysis and considering that China has loft NOSS satellites last year, We know that they have maritime surveillance and observation system in place How good they are nobody know. Is that sufficient time will tell. but judging by the ambitous record launch. They have the will, funding, technology base to do it . Last year it was record 15 launches. This year even better 20 launches.

Just like in the court, you don't need actual witness to be present when the crime is commited, in order to give judgement!. All you need in motivation, proof that the perpetrator was present at the crime scene when the crime is commited, tell tale sign of crime instrument!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Detection and Targeting from Space

These advances are greatly improving China’s ability to monitor and threaten force deployments on its periphery. According to VADM David Dorsett, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) for Information Dominance, “Ten years ago if you looked at their C4ISR capabilities they did not have an over-the-horizon radar. They had virtually […] no ISR satellites. They now have a competent capability in ISR and over-the-horizon radars, but the years from now we expect a much greater increase in the numbers of satellites they have in orbit and their capability to fuse information” [5]. Specifically, DoD added that: “The PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with Sky Wave and Surface Wave OTH radars. OTH radars could be used in conjunction with imagery satellites to assist in locating targets at great distances from PRC shores to support long range precision strikes, including by anti-ship ballistic missiles” (ASBM) [6]. A wide range of Chinese technical sources concur with the DoD’s assessment. According to two researchers affiliated with the PLA Navy Aviation Engineering Academy: “Through the integration of the data obtained via a number of different satellites, and with the addition of processing and data fusion, [one could] guarantee missile guidance requirements for all types of target information for a long-range ASBM strike” [7

Of particular interest with respect to potential for cueing of ASBMs and other precision weapons is the launch of Yaogan 9A, B, and C together on March 5, 2010 to coincide with the first day of China’s National People’s Congress. These satellites fly in triangular formation in similar orbits at identical inclination, apparently as a type of Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS). According to Jane’s, “Yaogan-9 reportedly carries millimetre-wave [sic] radar to help the trio stay in close orbital formation, infra-red sensors to detect ships, and antennas to pick up electronic emissions. They are thought to be able to find and track major Western warships, providing accurate positional data for targeting by land-based [ASBM] systems” [13]. The U.S. Navy reportedly deployed such a system, White Cloud, beginning in the early 1970s, apparently to detect surface vessels by sensing their electronic emissions and locating them using time distance of arrival [14].

 

[IronsightSniper]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

2) climate controled is just one factor in a nuclear weapon's effectiveness decays with time.

Like?

 

[i.e.]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Like?

background reading:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

these are all open source materials.

 

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

]...Pershing II has enough accuracy that in theory it can hit moving target and that was 20 years ago, .

well pershing II's radar guidance was not as straight forward. the intent for the pull up was for the goodyear's radar in the nose to correlate at different pre-set phases in the manuever with pre-stored ground image to update to the inertia guidance. it wasn't done continuousl --- which you would need to hit a moving target.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

well pershing II's radar guidance was not as straight forward. the intent for the pull up was for the goodyear's radar in the nose to correlate at different pre-set phases in the manuever with pre-stored ground image to update to the inertia guidance. it wasn't done continuousl --- which you would need to hit a moving target.

Thanks I read that in wiki too So how can you continuously tracking the target?. Illuminating the target and comparing the transmitted and return energy to guide the missile Active Homing? But how can it differentiate between the carrier and escort ship?. Did they somehow stored the radar image inside the missile and compare it to the result of scanning?.


Radar area correlatorThe highly accurate terminal guidance technique used by the Pershing II RV was radar area correlation, using a Goodyear Aerospace active radar guidance system. This technique compared live radar video return to prestored reference scenes of the target area and determined RV position errors with respect to its trajectory and target location. These position errors were used to update the inertial guidance system, which in turn sent commands to the vane control system to guide the RV to the target.

At a predetermined altitude, the radar unit was activated to provide altitude update data and begin scanning the target area. The analog radar video return was digitized into 2-bit pixels by the correlator unit and was formatted into a 128 by 128 array. The target reference scene data, loaded prior to launch via the ground and missile data links, were also encoded as 2-bit pixels and placed in reference memory formatted in a 256 by 256 array. The reference scene resolution necessary to correspond to the decreasing altitude of the RV was effected by placing four reference data arrays in memory, each representing a given altitude band. This correlation process was performed several times during each of four altitude bands and continued to update the inertial guidance system until just prior to impact.

If for some reason the correlator system failed to operate or if the correlation data quality was determined to be faulty, the inertial guidance system continued to operate and guided the RV to the target area with inertial accuracy only.

Goodyear also developed the Reference Scene Generation Facility— a truck mounted shelter containing the equipment required to program the missile targeting.[21] Radar maps of target areas were stored on disk, then specific targeting data was transferred to a tape cartridge. During countdown operations, the cartridge was plugged into the launcher control panel.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I remember decades ago the US. conducted a series of nuclear tests over ex German Japanese and their own ships. They were quite surprised at the lack of sinkings of the said ships. The German cruiser Prinz Eugen failed to sink even though it was under 2miles from ground zero.

So what effect would a AShBM detonating at the outer limits of the 100km radius have on a modern carrier. Futhermoremore didnt the US, scuttle one of its own carriers not so long ago with controlled explosions, with some placed away from the ship. I should imagine that got some useful info, when it came to building their latest generato carriers.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I remember decades ago the US. conducted a series of nuclear tests over ex German Japanese and their own ships. They were quite surprised at the lack of sinkings of the said ships. The German cruiser Prinz Eugen failed to sink even though it was under 2miles from ground zero.

Several US battleships and at least one carrier Saratoga (CV-3) were used in the test you describe.. They did not sink either but were later scuttled by the USN.

Futhermoremore didnt the US, scuttle one of its own carriers not so long ago with controlled explosions, with some placed away from the ship. I should imagine that got some useful info, when it came to building their latest generato carriers.

True. That would be the ex-USS America which was pummeled for over a month(April-June 2005) with a variety of weapons. Set chargers, bombs, Various missiles etc. Still she did not sink. She was finally scuttled by USN EOD chargers. The final results of the test are classified.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I remember decades ago the US. conducted a series of nuclear tests over ex German Japanese and their own ships. They were quite surprised at the lack of sinkings of the said ships. The German cruiser Prinz Eugen failed to sink even though it was under 2miles from ground zero.

True. That would be the ex-USS America which was pummeled for over a month(April-June 2005) with a variety of weapons. Set chargers, bombs, Various missiles etc. Still she did not sink. She was finally scuttled by USN EOD chargers. The final results of the test are classified.

Did any of these tests include top down strikes from munitions moving at Mach 10+? I mean sure a nuclear detonation above them should've done significant damage in an area of effect kind of fashion but I see it more like letting off a fragmentation grenade in a large room compared to an AShBM which is more like a single well aimed bullet.

So what effect would a AShBM detonating at the outer limits of the 100km radius have on a modern carrier. Futhermoremore didnt the US, scuttle one of its own carriers not so long ago with controlled explosions, with some placed away from the ship. I should imagine that got some useful info, when it came to building their latest generato carriers.

I'm sorry, where did the 100km radius come from, is that supposed to be a CEP, or do you mean something else entirely?
Either way, again we're under the assumption the AShBM can hit a moving carrier sized target, which will require a CEP of ~30m. So in a real combat situation, if the AShBM suffered from ECM or its own manouvering actions it still shouldn't be 100km away.

An AShBM would also be detonating with cluster munitions, which too would be moving at Mach 10+, so while that definitely isn't enough to sink a carrier or any decent sized ship but can certainly take it out of action for a decent amount of time. The altitude at which it detonates would effect the damage such a warhead can do but they'd obviously set it to the optimal one.