Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[BRLG]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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.

Actually it is your false assumption that the B-2s would be effective without US fighter escorts over China. Remember that most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific, would have been destroyed by MRBMs and the superbugs would have crashed or mission-killed, after the flight decks of US CVNs off the coast, have been taken out by cluster-demolition from AShBMs. The known locations of some high-valued assets would attract B-2s to within 500 km, and a good portion of the PLAAF would be waiting nearby with bi-static radars to hunt down the B-2s. And Tomahawks are subsonic SLCMs ----- they are sitting ducks to swarms of J-7s and J-8s. The 20 % hit-rate that you are throwing out of thin air, is indeed another false assumption.

...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.

Flight distance is different from flight range. The flight distance within a finite area can be infinite for convoluted flight paths and especially fuel-thirsty with afterburners under combat conditions. So as mentioned in my earlier message, unless the launched superbugs would immediately turn back without even fighting, or they no longer have their 1,500-km range left, 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 with J-10s and J-11s chasing them down too. Once the superbugs are gone, you may attach whatever symbol you like to the US CVNs, with damaged flight decks waiting to be repaired, but no superbugs to host for a long time.

 

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Actually it is your false assumption that the B-2s would be effective without US fighter escorts over China. Remember that most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific, would have been destroyed by MRBMs and the superbugs would have crashed or mission-killed, after the flight decks of US CVNs off the coast, have been taken out by cluster-demolition from AShBMs. The known locations of some high-valued assets would attract B-2s to within 500 km, and a good portion of the PLAAF would be waiting nearby with bi-static radars to hunt down the B-2s. And Tomahawks are subsonic SLCMs ----- they are sitting ducks to swarms of J-7s and J-8s. The 20 % hit-rate that you are throwing out of thin air, is indeed another false assumption.

The fact of the matter is:
1) China prob has more (BM/CM) missiles than US has in PAC3 missiles in their launchers in western pacfic.
2) the ratio of chinese missiles per US nodes is higher than the ratio of US missiles per Chinese nodes. even if US converts alot of Ohios Subs into CM subs.
3) US operation against china would be dependent up on a limited number of packed logistical bases. while Chinese operation against these packed logistical bases would be dependent upon a large number of nodes. many of them hardened.

it all came down on geography.

The smart people in USN has already figured this out. so they are fanatical over cruise missile Subs and UCAVs and persistence survallence.

they assumed that their logistical nodes would be under assault and would be at least temporarily unavailble, so they will have to rely more on long range and expendable systems in a network to keep up a prescence in western pacfic. they pray that tomahawks barrages from CM subs would at least slow down china a bit in the initial stages in the exchange. that's the game behind this new "air-sea" battle concept.

Think of it as this way,
USN is like a Taichi master, while china is more like a kick-boxer.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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.

I have read them.

On one hand you think the PLAN does not need any operational tests. On the other you claim that the many verified US ABM tests are all "contrived" and therefore, you discount them.

How covienent. You do realize how narrow and actually immature such assertions sound don't you? Believe me, the testing is critical...and the US tests are not as "contrived" as you may think. The PLAN would be foolish to think so...and I can almost assure you that their planners will not so readily or handily dismiss or underestimate what has been tested and deployed by the US.

Again, when I hear from my own sources or through other verifiable or credible sources that the PLAN has actually successfully tested such a system against moving and actively avoiding targets at sea, I will give the existence and threat of such a system much more credence.

 

[no_name]

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

Actually I think it is the distance that the ship have to cover to escape the missile (which is impossible). So 100Km is the radius that the warhead can maneuver around it's pre-aimed impact point during it's terminal stage, but the actual accuracy radius should be better.

I feel that the techs on the missile side of the AShBM may already be mature, and what they will be mainly working on all this years is mainly the networking and ways for finding/tracking the carrier, assuming that the AShBM program exists.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Actually I think it is the distance that the ship have to cover to escape the missile (which is impossible). So 100Km is the radius that the warhead can maneuver around it's pre-aimed impact point during it's terminal stage, but the actual accuracy radius should be better.

I feel that the techs on the missile side of the AShBM may already be mature, and what they will be mainly working on all this years is mainly the networking and ways for finding/tracking the carrier, assuming that the AShBM program exists.

Right thanks for better explanation. I too believe that the missile is a mature technology. The difficult part is information fusing,networking,tracking the target, Having enough asset in space to give it 30 minute revisit rate

 

[IronsightSniper]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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.

...but that doesn't really matter because you wouldn't be able to hit it with anything else...

as for scud corkscrewing, that is different from an intentional maneuver or a depressed trajectory.

True, but the DF-21D does not do "intentional maneuvers" in it's End-game phase. It, like the Iskander or the TOPOL-M, does mid-flight maneuvers to evade mid-flight interceptors. Like I've discussed before, it HAS to have a logical trajectory in it's end-game phase to actually hit the carrier (it can't pull too much Gs too). A depressed trajectory is easier to deal with really.

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.

...

*facepalm*

Everyone has read that. There's a difference between "success rate" (to which the PACs had very low scores, and "hit rates", to which they have very high scores. If you manage to land a KV anywhere on the DF-21D and not just simply skim a chip of paint off, that DF-21D is going to go off course regardless, thus, I'd consider that a mission-kill, which is enough.

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

I'm quite sure Tomahawks and JASSMs don't hover and I'm also quite sure that B2s don't hover.

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. "

...you gotta be kidding, you haven't read my post at all.

"Like I said, superbugs have a very long range, over 2,300 km in a combat load."

I said range, I never said combat radius. I did say that superbugs will be launched <700km away from their targets to abide by their combat radius, but that's for an Interdiction strike, not an Air Dominance op.

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...

We wouldn't use superbugs for interdiction missions over China, simply because of their proliferation of advanced SAMs and their mass of a competent air force. We would however, send superbugs in for Air Dominance ops.

Seriously, please read my above posts. Assuming China even has any assets left to attack U.S. Pacific bases with, superbugs can still land in Civilian air fields or on highways (both not recommended). They can always just ditch too, or just land in unprepared air fields.

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.

Unfortunately using an AShBM for a naval interdiction role is far beyond China's economic ability. It's easier to just do what the Germans did.

Actually it is your false assumption that the B-2s would be effective without US fighter escorts over China. Remember that most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific, would have been destroyed by MRBMs and the superbugs would have crashed or mission-killed, after the flight decks of US CVNs off the coast, have been taken out by cluster-demolition from AShBMs. The known locations of some high-valued assets would attract B-2s to within 500 km, and a good portion of the PLAAF would be waiting nearby with bi-static radars to hunt down the B-2s. And Tomahawks are subsonic SLCMs ----- they are sitting ducks to swarms of J-7s and J-8s. The 20 % hit-rate that you are throwing out of thin air, is indeed another false assumption.

You know nothing of stealth do you?

Quoting

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"The Northrop-Grumman B-2A 'Batwing' is sufficiently large that its shaping remains effective against lower band radars. The same is not true for fighters with LO shaping (US DoD)."

Those bistatic radars will flop.
B-2s can bomb China fine without air support. Air support would be great but is not necessary. Next, a B-2 will not be 500 km from PLA targets, rather 900 km thanks to the extended range version of the JASSM (which has stealth qualities in itself). A swarm of "J-7s and J-8s" would only waste their fuel as they wouldn't even see the JASSM, which has an all aspect RCS of about 0.01 m2. That 20% hit rate is an estimation, but seeing as the small amount of short-range PDS that China has, that's to be expected.

Flight distance is different from flight range. The flight distance within a finite area can be infinite for convoluted flight paths and especially fuel-thirsty with afterburners under combat conditions. So as mentioned in my earlier message, unless the launched superbugs would immediately turn back without even fighting, or they no longer have their 1,500-km range left, 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 with J-10s and J-11s chasing them down too. Once the superbugs are gone, you may attach whatever symbol you like to the US CVNs, with damaged flight decks waiting to be repaired, but no superbugs to host for a long time.

You really don't have to do much maneuvering if you're in a superbug. Superbugs have an AESA radar, to which J-10/11s don't. They can launch their fire-and-forget AMRAAMs and whack a couple of J-10/11s out. If that doesn't scare them, the Chinese can try to close in but AIM-9Xs would whack them at that. You may have say, 1,000 km worth of fuel left afterward, but that's still enough to land at Japanese air fields, get refueled and rearmed, and hit China again.


BUT! Like I said, this is off topic, why you or anyone won't listen to me, I don't know, I can blame many factors, but I won't.

 

[Quickie]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Everyone has read that. There's a difference between "success rate" (to which the PACs had very low scores, and "hit rates", to which they have very high scores. If you manage to land a KV anywhere on the DF-21D and not just simply skim a chip of paint off, that DF-21D is going to go off course regardless, thus, I'd consider that a mission-kill, which is enough.

A hit missile with an intact conventional warhead still poses a problem for the reason that it may still be lobbing in the direction the missile was heading just before it got hit. It'll not go that far but it'll serve to confuse the radar defensive system and rob it of the precious seconds that otherwise can be used to defend against fully intact missiles. I remember seeing a video of defensive missiles doing just that i.e. two defensive missiles hitting one offensive missile.

You really don't have to do much maneuvering if you're in a superbug. Superbugs have an AESA radar, to which J-10/11s don't. They can launch their fire-and-forget AMRAAMs and whack a couple of J-10/11s out. If that doesn't scare them, the Chinese can try to close in but AIM-9Xs would whack them at that. You may have say, 1,000 km worth of fuel left afterward, but that's still enough to land at Japanese air fields, get refueled and rearmed, and hit China again.

The J-10s and J-11s (with the advantage of IRST) have MRAAM and IR missiles too, assuming both sides do not have the advantage of AWACS. It won't be so one sided as you would think.

 

[BRLG]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

You know nothing of stealth do you?

Quoting AirPowerAustralia:.

At least I don't pretend to be an expert by merely quoting an article.

"The Northrop-Grumman B-2A 'Batwing' is sufficiently large that its shaping remains effective against lower band radars. The same is not true for fighters with LO shaping (US DoD)."

Those bistatic radars will flop. B-2s can bomb China fine without air support. Air support would be great but is not necessary. Next, a B-2 will not be 500 km from PLA targets, rather 900 km thanks to the extended range version of the JASSM (which has stealth qualities in itself). A swarm of "J-7s and J-8s" would only waste their fuel as they wouldn't even see the JASSM, which has an all aspect RCS of about 0.01 m2.

B-2s can remain stealthy toward the lower bands, is because the radar wavelengths are short as compared with the physical features of B-2s, such that geometrical optics can still be applied to deflect or minimize reflected radar signals. But being stealthy doesn't mean undetectable and the RCS varies with direction, for which a distributed network of bi-static radars (multi-static) with specific algorithms, can significantly improve the signal-to-noise ratio and hence, the detection range by data fusion of radar signals from multiple directions. This is the primary reason that the RCS of B-2s is classified, because it is still detectable, only less than other aircrafts.

The same cannot be said about JASSMs, where the physical features are small as compared with lower-band wavelengths and therefore, detectable with lower-band radars alone, even without going through the trouble of a distributed network. So the JASSMs, which is subsonic, canbe tracked by lower-band radars and hunted down with J-7s and J-8s. And their flight paths would also provide leads to the firing B-2s, which canbe tracked by a distributed network of bi-static radars and pursuit with J-7s and J-8s.

That 20% hit rate (for hunting down Tomahawks) is an estimation, but seeing as the small amount of short-range PDS that China has, that's to be expected..

So despite of rationalizations, you are indeed pulling numbers out of thin air.

You really don't have to do much maneuvering if you're in a superbug. Superbugs have an AESA radar, to which J-10/11s don't. They can launch their fire-and-forget AMRAAMs and whack a couple of J-10/11s out. If that doesn't scare them, the Chinese can try to close in but AIM-9Xs would whack them at that. You may have say, 1,000 km worth of fuel left afterward, but that's still enough to land at Japanese air fields, get refueled and rearmed, and hit China again...

As if the superbugs wouldn't be fired at. The best you may hope for is a better kill ratio. But J-10s and J-11s would still be chasing them down, as it is the superbugs that would desperately be trying to seek refuge. And you have already back-peddled from 1,500-km to 1,000-km worth of fuel. Based on your tendency of pulling numbers out of thin air, the superbugs would indeed be doomed.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I agree with Jeff in that the DF-21 needs to be tested before being deployed. Any other thinking is incorrect. No military on Earth would deploy a weapon with first giving said weapon a full field test.

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.

and..

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.

How will you counter the Aegis ECM being emitted? And ECM from Prowlers and Growlers?? That ECM will make it difficult to find anything.

 

[i.e.]

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

In blue

...but that doesn't really matter because you wouldn't be able to hit it with anything else...

True, but the DF-21D does not do "intentional maneuvers" in it's End-game phase. It, like the Iskander or the TOPOL-M, does mid-flight maneuvers to evade mid-flight interceptors. Like I've discussed before, it HAS to have a logical trajectory in it's end-game phase to actually hit the carrier (it can't pull too much Gs too). A depressed trajectory is easier to deal with really.

How do you know DF-21's warhead does not do maneuvers in its end game? something you guesstimated?
what if I tell you one of the ways they have looked at is to use the warhead payload poach to release a LO cruise missile in mid flight?
and how is a depressed trajectory is easier to deal with exactly? you understand that a missile with a depressed trajectory means it presents a shorter horizon/shorter reaction time for the interceptor's missiles? do you?


...

*facepalm*

Everyone has read that. There's a difference between "success rate" (to which the PACs had very low scores, and "hit rates", to which they have very high scores. If you manage to land a KV anywhere on the DF-21D and not just simply skim a chip of paint off, that DF-21D is going to go off course regardless, thus, I'd consider that a mission-kill, which is enough.

I still think you don't get how DF-21 works, for the range we are talking about here, PACs can only reach out to the final warhead terminal phase. its a smaller, faster and manuevable target and god knows they has countermeasures. there is no "skim a chip of paint off" like on those single stage slow scuds. The mid course intercept you are thinking (with SM-3) occures only if the missile is flying overhead of the shooter, not with a smaller warhead screaming down at the shooter.

let me put it this in another way....
If PACs were so successful intercepting DF-21 they should have no problem intercepting mirvs coming from Russian ICBMs, we are talking about the same level of target physics here. Do you see PACs claiming they can shoot down Russian ICBM warheads? thus saving DoD billions of $$$ for a NMD program? no. even the PR savy LM doesn't even try to claim that.


I'm quite sure Tomahawks and JASSMs don't hover and I'm also quite sure that B2s don't hover.

...you gotta be kidding, you haven't read my post at all.

"Like I said, superbugs have a very long range, over 2,300 km in a combat load."

I said range, I never said combat radius. I did say that superbugs will be launched <700km away from their targets to abide by their combat radius, but that's for an Interdiction strike, not an Air Dominance op.

That 2300km is the brochure ferry range. turn on the buners and you will see your meters drop off.
actually one of the biggest complaint from A2A and interdiction community is the short leg (compare to F-14 and A-6s) of 18E/F in a similar loadout. now I can somewhat believe the scenario if F-14/A-6/7 is still in the picture. with Bug? no.
air dominance op? with what? no AWACS or Tanker support? with your AESA radar desperately scanning the sky while their signiture is picked up by KJ-2000 if not painted by KJ-2000 itself?
LOL indeed.

Unfortunately using an AShBM for a naval interdiction role is far beyond China's economic ability. It's easier to just do what the Germans did.

How much do you think a missile cost?

You really don't have to do much maneuvering if you're in a superbug. Superbugs have an AESA radar, to which J-10/11s don't. They can launch their fire-and-forget AMRAAMs and whack a couple of J-10/11s out. If that doesn't scare them, the Chinese can try to close in but AIM-9Xs would whack them at that. You may have say, 1,000 km worth of fuel left afterward, but that's still enough to land at Japanese air fields, get refueled and rearmed, and hit China again.


yep in a superbug you can carry your ferry tanks and do Air combat manuevers, at same time. wait, why do you even need a fighter that is stressed to +8Gs and has a turn-and-burn wing? just mount your AESA and Missiles on a DC-3 and you should be fine right?

But hey, the missions in afghanistan doesn't even require any a2a turn-and-burn, just a bomb tossing mission against some villagers, why the hell Superbugs still needs tankerage like a drunken sailor in a bar?
try to square that one.

mods note >> Do not use BLUE or RED Text. These colors are for the sole use of the moderators. This is a forum rule.

G) The colors RED, BROWN & BLUE are for the exclusive use of moderators!! If you want to make a point use some other color or bold print.