Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

from other countries. If it is being attached, it is not in China's interest to "attack all countries with US bases (or whoever the aggressor is)" first and being called an "aggressor" and attract hostile actions from all nations.

Under normal situation, yes that would be the case but once Taiwan declare de jure independence. All bet are off, China has drawn red line in sand. They have to act or they will be overthrown

Although China will not attack first and it is not applicable, FYI, it is hilarious some would expect "most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific be destroyed by Chinese MRBMs" - without even talking about PAC-3, SM-3, etc deployments and their ability against these missiles, accuracy of Chinese MRBMs, you should count how many Chinese MRBMs can reach those targets first.

Sm3 is work in progress. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN FINISHED TESTING , You apparently didn't read the previous posting. They tested under the most favorable condition. Can't even handle decoy or multi warhead missile. See my post

And another point: the fact is DF-21D is not operational and has not done tests (easily detectable by other countries), assuming the programme actually exists.

At the moment it's just rumours and some newspapers trying to write something that gains attention. Oh yeah, and there are a few guys trying to get funding for their projects.

It already achieved IOC read Admiral Willard statement.Now who are you to say otherwise Your qualification,Access to intel

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Q: Let me go into China's anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. What is the current status of China's anti-ship ballistic missile development, and how close is it to actual operational deployment?

A: The anti-ship ballistic missile system in China has undergone extensive testing. An analogy using a Western term would be "initial operational capability," whereby it has--I think China would perceive that it has--an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it. It will continue to undergo testing, I would imagine, for several more years.

Q: China has achieved IOC?

A: You would have to ask China that, but as we see the development of the system, their acknowledging the system in open press reporting and the continued testing of the system, I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC.

Q: Has China already perfected the technology to fly that missile and also the sensor systems for targeting? Has the entire system integration been completed?

A: Typically, to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large.

It is in China's interest to develop ASBM, however I do not see how it will work given China's current resources (detection, position and tracking of the target, guidance, etc)

They have all the surveillance asset in place now. Last year they loft the NOSS satellite, 10 SAR and optical satellite, Data Relay satellite, Just yesterday they launched 8th Beidou II satellite. planned 5 more this year. In time to achieve operational status for Asia Pacific region this year. Maritime surveillance plane, Over the horizon radar, Long range UAV.They have proven to shoot Ballistic missile at mid phase flight. So what else do you need

The Chief designer of ASBM is recently given public commendation for job well done. She have moved to even more advanced Missile project now

The Chinese Society of Astronautics recently honored three senior aerospace system designers for significant contributions to national defense. One of China’s most accomplished senior conventional ballistic missile designers is a gifted, relatively young, gentle mother of one – Zhu Xuejun [祝学军]. Born in December 1962, Ms. Zhu graduated from the National University of Defense Technology’s Automated Control Department in 1987 and earned a graduate degree from the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation's (CASC) China Academy of Launch Technology (CALT, or First Academy) in missile systems design.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Looking toward the future, Ms. Zhu is at the cutting edge of some of the world’s most sophisticated long range precision strike systems. As lead engineer of a newly established CASC First Academy conventional weapon system business division [战术武器事业部], she serves as chief designer for CASC First Academy’s first conventional two-stage solid-fueled conventional ballistic missile. CASC First Academy’s two-staged conventional ballistic missile recently completed conceptual design flight tests. Existing SRBMs, such as the CASC’s DF-15 and CASIC 066 Base’s DF-11A, have a single solid rocket motor. A CASC First Academy missile system with two solid motors would be indicative of a competition with the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation's (CASIC) Fourth Academy’s 1700-kilometer range DF-21C medium range ballistic missile (MRBM). Appearing to be near completion of the research and development phase, the DF-21D ASBM likely is a variant of the DF-21C modified to engage moving targets at sea, such as aircraft carriers.

 

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Looking toward the future, Ms. Zhu is at the cutting edge of some of the world’s most sophisticated long range precision strike systems. As lead engineer of a newly established CASC First Academy conventional weapon system business division [战术武器事业部], she serves as chief designer for CASC First Academy’s first conventional two-stage solid-fueled conventional ballistic missile. CASC First Academy’s two-staged conventional ballistic missile recently completed conceptual design flight tests. Existing SRBMs, such as the CASC’s DF-15 and CASIC 066 Base’s DF-11A, have a single solid rocket motor. A CASC First Academy missile system with two solid motors would be indicative of a competition with the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation's (CASIC) Fourth Academy’s 1700-kilometer range DF-21C medium range ballistic missile (MRBM). Appearing to be near completion of the research and development phase, the DF-21D ASBM likely is a variant of the DF-21C modified to engage moving targets at sea, such as aircraft carriers.

I think they are developing a weapon which will strap a SCRAM jet missile on top of a DF-21 with a depressed trajectory.

Good luck intercepting those.

what's the saying goes? US never fight fair? well, don't expect anyone else to either.

 

[BRLG]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

To put certain items in perspective, unleashing cluster-demolition onto the flight deck of a CVN, would mean detonation within 250 m of a 350-m object traveling at less than Mach 0.1; while intercepting an AShBM, or for that matter, a MRBM, would mean targeting a 11-m object traveling at about Mach 10, probably with decoys and multiple warheads........ The case is stacked more against ABM systems, such as PAC-3 and SM-3, regardless of all the finer details.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

The case is stacked more against ABM systems, such as PAC-3 and SM-3, regardless of all the finer details.

Exept in one case, operational tests, and deployment of a system has actually occurred. In the other case, no operational tests and no deployment has occurred.

My guess is that the one that has undergone many successful tests of what it is designed to accomplish (intercepting ballistic missiles) and is deployed to do so, has a better chance of accomplishing its goal than a system that has not had any live-fire/operational tests and is not deployed.

 

[BRLG]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Exept in one case, operational tests, and deployment of a system has actually occurred. In the other case, no operational tests and no deployment has occurred.

My guess is that the one that has undergone many successful tests of what it is designed to accomplish (intercepting ballistic missiles) and is deployed to do so, has a better chance of accomplishing its goal than a system that has not had any live-fire/operational tests and is not deployed.

You may want to read the numerous responses earlier in this thread, on whether a full operational test is even necessary for testing AShBMs and the controlled scenarios that ABM systems were so-called "proven". I shall not repeat them here.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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.

I got it from Hendrivks post at 379. Im not sure myself what the author meant

"using a different simulation—that
the warhead could have a kill radius of one hundred kilometers once terminal
guidance was engaged."

RE atomic tests on naval Ships.

Apparently the conclusions arrived at from the the Hiroshima blast, indicated that most of the blast force was directed dowards rather than sideways which was used to explain why a relatively small area (1mile radius) was totalled?
Im assuming the same thing occured at the Bikini Atoll tests.

A submerged test was conducted as well. While the Prinz Eugen remained about a mile away from ground Zero, the "Saratoga" that Popeye mentioned was much closer"

Surely leasons learned from this as well as the "America" one would result in much improved carriers that would be hardly compromised by relatively close misses.?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I got it from Hendrivks post at 379. Im not sure myself what the author meant

"using a different simulation—that
the warhead could have a kill radius of one hundred kilometers once terminal
guidance was engaged."

RE atomic tests on naval Ships.

Apparently the conclusions arrived at from the the Hiroshima blast, indicated that most of the blast force was directed dowards rather than sideways which was used to explain why a relatively small area (1mile radius) was totalled?
Im assuming the same thing occured at the Bikini Atoll tests.

A submerged test was conducted as well. While the Prinz Eugen remained about a mile away from ground Zero, the "Saratoga" that Popeye mentioned was much closer"

Surely leasons learned from this as well as the "America" one would result in much improved carriers that would be hardly compromised by relatively close misses.?

Kill radius doesn't mean accuracy. The Chinese D21C is certified with CEP of 10m.

The kill radius mean from the time the terminal guidance engage until the missile hit its target,the maximum distance is 100km. Meaning 100km is the distance that the ship can evade based on 30 knot speed. Which is within the range of your average ASM Active homing radar

 

[IronsightSniper]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Kill radius doesn't mean accuracy. The Chinese D21C is certified with CEP of 10m.

The kill radius mean from the time the terminal guidance engage until the missile hit its target,the maximum distance is 100km. Meaning 100km is the distance that the ship can evade based on 30 knot speed. Which is within the range of your average ASM Active homing radar

Just to note, the DF-21C according to Sinodefense only has a "30-40m CEP" with a new GPS guided warhead. To also note, GPS is useless for AShMs.

China would do exactly what you are proposing for the US ----- once the superbugs or Tomohawks are launched toward Chinese soil, MRBMs and AShBMs would simultaneously attack most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific and the flight decks on CVNs off the coast, leaving the superbugs scrambling for save airstrips to land. After the first wave of air strikes, the US would have no more superbugs nearby to continue and swarms of J-7s and J-8s are free to hunt down the Tomohawks. And the more than 40 super-hardened airbases protected under mountains in China, would likely survive and provide counter-strikes for a long time.

That is a false assumption. For one thing, the U.S. would not launch only just that, we'd send in Stealth bombers, armed with JASSMs, we'd conduct EW all over China, we'd knock out ever KNOWN base China has, even the hardened ones, etc. Another thing is that J-8s and J-8s would flop at shooting at Tomahawks, in fact, it's safe to assume that China can only knock down about 20% of incoming Tomahawks if such a massed strike were to occur. But like, I said, (why no one listens, I don't know), that's off topic.

Apparently, you are too fixated on the symbolism of the US CVNs. Once again, what is the use of CVNs without aircrafts and pilots? It was illustrated in the earlier messages that AShBMs can indeed destroy the flight decks, essentially denying air strikes after the first wave. Either the launched superbugs would immediately turn back without even fighting or they no longer have their 1,500-km range intact anymore. If the superbugs were to engage J-10s and J-11s, most of the superbugs would not have enough fuel to seek refuge in the civilian airstrips at Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and have to land on hostile territories or crash into the sea. And as mentioned earlier, the small fraction of superbugs that survived would essentially be mission-killed, without support from the destroyed US airbases ----- meaning, the AShBMs would have accomplished its mission.

...are you even reading my posts? Like I said, superbugs have a very long range, over 2,300 km in a combat load. They'd be launch <700 km from their targets as that's their COMBAT RADIUS, but if the DF-21Ds do anything other than just sit there and are launched at the carriers, hitting them in the flight deck, the superbugs still have over 1,500 km of range left, which would mean that they can shoot down any J-10/11s in area, than fly back to Japan and have a nice cup of tea. Like so, you are too fixated on the symbolism of a carrier.

also don't assume that AshBMs are going for carrier only and by themselves. that is a bad assumption.

They can easily configure a wave of AshBM to include dedicated anti-radiation warheads as well as active radar homing war heads or even IR (IMHO the most likely option, as the termal bloom of 4xLM2500 is bit different from a nuclear flat top ) that pre-programed to target AEGIS ships.

once the AEGIS SPY-1 radars are lit up trying to paint the warheads, their signals can be used to cure in other strike assets.

That wouldn't work unless the carrier is actually close to Chinese shores. The DF-21D, as it stands, is the only AShM that can be considered an MRBM. Once SPY-1 lights up, China won't even know.

also on the terminal phase intercept of warheads coming down.

it is really hard. especially the warhead is manuevering and has decoys.

that's why US also invest so much in launch phase interception.

Scud warheads did corkscrews when they were about to hit. PACs ate them up fine (except for one case). Decoys are not as useful as they were before. Without the advanced seekers on our KVs, we can differentiate between a decoy and a warhead. If that doesn't work, you can always use MKVs.

 

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

That wouldn't work unless the carrier is actually close to Chinese shores. The DF-21D, as it stands, is the only AShM that can be considered an MRBM. Once SPY-1 lights up, China won't even know.



Scud warheads did corkscrews when they were about to hit. PACs ate them up fine (except for one case). Decoys are not as useful as they were before. Without the advanced seekers on our KVs, we can differentiate between a decoy and a warhead. If that doesn't work, you can always use MKVs.

The point IS to make the AEGIS go active so the space/shore/air based elint network can pick them up and triangulate where the Carrier battle group is.

as for scud corkscrewing, that is different from an intentional maneuver or a depressed trajectory.
PACs in Gulfwar I or II's hit ratio, I think you should read a bit more before commenting:

"A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate. "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with track record like this you can forgive the doubters.

and,....
China is not Iraq or Iran, if they came out to get your CVs they wouldn't send one at a time. it would be couple of brigade worth of missiles at once.

 

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Just to note, the DF-21C according to Sinodefense only has a "30-40m CEP" with a new GPS guided warhead. To also note, GPS is useless for AShMs. .

GPS is something that is nice to have, can do with out for a AshBM. as far as I know chinese also have good star cameras. CEP number for a missile variant designed to hit stationary target is useless when used to gauge another variant designed to hit a slow moving target.

That is a false assumption. For one thing, the U.S. would not launch only just that, we'd send in Stealth bombers, armed with JASSMs, we'd conduct EW all over China, we'd knock out ever KNOWN base China has, even the hardened ones, etc. Another thing is that J-8s and J-8s would flop at shooting at Tomahawks, in fact, it's safe to assume that China can only knock down about 20% of incoming Tomahawks if such a massed strike were to occur. But like, I said, (why no one listens, I don't know), that's off topic..

yep, and PLA would just twiddle their thumbs and freting about all these assets hovering around china.

...are you even reading my posts? Like I said, superbugs have a very long range, over 2,300 km in a combat load. They'd be launch <700 km from their targets as that's their COMBAT RADIUS, but if the DF-21Ds do anything other than just sit there and are launched at the carriers, hitting them in the flight deck, the superbugs still have over 1,500 km of range left, which would mean that they can shoot down any J-10/11s in area, than fly back to Japan and have a nice cup of tea. Like so, you are too fixated on the symbolism of a carrier...

FYI, your 2300 km combat radius Superbug has to be topped off with USAF s tankers when launching mission for afghanistan. so...nope, Superbug don't have the range. 2300 km is close to its full-external tank ferry range, which means no turn-and-burn and optimal speed/altitude.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The un-refueled radius of an F-14 carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000-pound LGBs, two HARM missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two, 280-gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles. Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350-statute-mile radius carrying about half the bomb load. "


In fact J-11 will easily out range superbug in any scenario. especially if Superbug is carrying strike package and J-11/J-10 is loaded for A2A, and if you send your bugs in with out requisit support to win air superiority... good luck having them back. looks like most of them will have to ditch.

alsom,
I think you would assume PLA is restraint in not attacking US bases in Japan? especially missions attacking china is launched from those bases? if you are assuming that, then I would really like some of the stuff you are smoking...


----

couple of note.

1) for CVs to be a factor they have to be much closer to Chinese shores, which means they can be in reach by more chinese assets. that's why USN is going fanatical over longer range UCAVs.
2) AshBM is but a part of a integrated network.

3) IMHO AshBM is actually also a good option at catching follow on un-escorted assets. imaging your tanker or Ro-Ro ships carrying reinforcements going to bases in Guam or Japan getting sunk.