Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[shen]

Sorry, chief, that is incorrect.

The AEGIS BMD system is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles both outside the atmosphere, and once they re-enter. That would mean of course intercepting them at escape velocity above the atmosphere, and at whatever terminal velocity they have after re-entry.

Now, when we speak of advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, AEGIS is indeed being designed to defeat those missiles up to the Mach 5 speed, with all sorts of flight profiles up to and including that speed.

But those are two seperate threat envelopes, and they use two seperate missiles to engage them.

What do you mean by "escape velocity"? Ballistic missiles are suppose to be fall back to earth, so by definition they don't have escape velocity.

 

[Jeff Head]

What do you mean by "escape velocity"? Ballistic missiles are suppose to be fall back to earth, so by definition they don't have escape velocity.

A ballistic trajectory does not neceesarily mean mean that they are limited to non-escape velocity speed.

However, in this case, most ICBMs or IRBMs do not exceed a velocity of about Mach 14-Mach 22 (which is below escape veloctiy of Mach 32), so they can reach the apogee of their trajectory at the upper reaches of the atmosphere and coast along before gravity pulls them back.

There are ICBM designs that actually call for escape and then use retro fire to bring them back down. They would get to their targets faster and be more flexable in targeting. But, admittedly, that is not what we are talking about here.

 

[Skywatcher]

Yet she seem somehow oblivious to the danger and keep their most potent weapon at 300? You be the judge

Because Chinese nuclear strategy is centered around deterrence, not warfighting. 300 nukes is plenty for that.

After who would Beijing trust? Marshal Nie or a drooling fanboy?

 

[kwaigonegin]

That article is from Fool.com, not exactly authoritative when it comes to defense news. The Raython press release never mentioned DF-21D, only high diving supersonic target, most likely Talo missile based Vandal supersonic target drone capable of Mach 2.5. That's a huge leap to Mach 11 DF-21D wouldn't you agree? and no, I don't agree that Aegis BMD system has been proven effective against DF-21 class ballistic missile.

Motley Fool is a legit and decent website so I do take their word for it... although one has to admit they are regurgitating stuff form others since they are not an authoritative or subject matter experts in defense related stuff. They are a financial website and probably the only reason it was posted there is because of tie in with Raytheon stocks.

As to the defense against DF-21D, the Americans routinely shoot down missiles that mimic DF-21s at their Pacific missile test range. This is how they operationally qualify their ABM ship's crews as combat ready. The Chinese are very aware of this work. - got from another author and I do agree with him.

Lastly the DF-21D was designed to be an area denial weapon and for that reason it has achieved it's intended purpose. USN even with the ESSM/ABM capabilities with AEGIS is not going to send carriers in where they know DF-21Ds are hunting and within range.. the only exception is a full scale no holds barred war... but even then USAF or USN will probably launch ASATs to take out the tracking satellites first. Again this will most likely lead to a full scale war so it's moot because we're talking the possibility of a global thermonuclear war IF that happens.

Countermeasures or not I have to say the DF-21D has achieved it's intended objective which is area denial and deterence... and USN while having the ability to potentially defeat such a system is still not going to risk it's major surface combatants and capital ships for anything less than a full scale war but that is out of scope since it's all moot if it ever comes to that.

The question is will the US risk starting WWIII and sends the world to the stoneage just to aid Taiwan if China decides to claim it back? Systems like the DF-21D was created in many ways to make decision making easier (for the US) because it makes aiding Taiwan (via CSG) a much harder task to accomplish that the US may deem it not worth it in the grand scheme of things.

 

[shen]

Motley Fool is a legit and decent website so I do take their word for it... although one has to admit they are regurgitating stuff form others since they are not an authoritative or subject matter experts in defense related stuff. They are a financial website and probably the only reason it was posted there is because of tie in with Raytheon stocks.

As to the defense against DF-21D, the Americans routinely shoot down missiles that mimic DF-21s at their Pacific missile test range. This is how they operationally qualify their ABM ship's crews as combat ready. The Chinese are very aware of this work. - got from another author and I do agree with him.

Lastly the DF-21D was designed to be an area denial weapon and for that reason it has achieved it's intended purpose. USN even with the ESSM/ABM capabilities with AEGIS is not going to send carriers in where they know DF-21Ds are hunting and within range.. the only exception is a full scale no holds barred war... but even then USAF or USN will probably launch ASATs to take out the tracking satellites first. Again this will most likely lead to a full scale war so it's moot because we're talking the possibility of a global thermonuclear war IF that happens.

Countermeasures or not I have to say the DF-21D has achieved it's intended objective which is area denial and deterence... and USN while having the ability to potentially defeat such a system is still not going to risk it's major surface combatants and capital ships for anything less than a full scale war but that is out of scope since it's all moot if it ever comes to that.

The question is will the US risk starting WWIII and sends the world to the stoneage just to aid Taiwan if China decides to claim it back? Systems like the DF-21D was created in many ways to make decision making easier (for the US) because it makes aiding Taiwan (via CSG) a much harder task to accomplish that the US may deem it not worth it in the grand scheme of things.

let's make it easy. just name ONE specific Aegis BMD test that in your opinion demonstrates the system's ability to shoot down a DF-21D class ballistic missile. and I'll see if I can come up a refutation for that specific test.

 

[kwaigonegin]

let's make it easy. just name ONE specific Aegis BMD test that in your opinion demonstrates the system's ability to shoot down a DF-21D class ballistic missile. and I'll see if I can come up a refutation for that specific test.

This would be what I called a pointless and futile activity. It seems to me that you have already made up your mind DF-21D is immune to any sort of countermeasures.
There have been countless ABM tests by the AEGIS system in the past several years and you know it (no need for me to name any).. but I suspect for every one example I give you would just refute the claims by saying it really isn't a DF_21D that it was tested against.

In retrospect I can also say how effective is DF-21D? Has it even been tested against a moving ship with ABM capabilities? Has it been tested against an umbrella of AEGIS ships consisting of latest SM-3 and SM-2 missiles and ESSM? a combination which consists of both exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric and shorter range kill vehicles to increase the odds of interception?

Also you must have missed my posting in it's entirety. I did say that even WITH this capability nothing is 100% guaranteed and thefore DF-21D HAS achieved it's purpose which is area denial. It will make the USN think twice where it may not necessary have needed to before with this new capability. As an example, even proven CIWS are at best have 90-95% success against ASMs in an actual wartime scenario especially with saturated attacks. Truth is there has never been any real life instance of such events with saturated attacks or with DF-21D type weaponry.

You are essentially asking me to prove a universal negative and that would be impossible on my part simply because there has been no actual test of DF-21D against an actual CBG. It's like me asking you to prove to me DF-21D can most definitely hit an actual USN CBG in the middle of the ocean and it would be impossible for you to substantiated that claim either.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

let's make it easy. just name ONE specific Aegis BMD test that in your opinion demonstrates the system's ability to shoot down a DF-21D class ballistic missile. and I'll see if I can come up a refutation for that specific test.

Exactly my friend you are right . And so much for the much vaunted ABM . Today they test it again and failed miserably and you said 90% success rate and yeah some success. I mean this is ground based system with no limitation of space and weight. Now Aegis is ship based system can they be more successful than ground based. I am highly skeptical

Missile Defense Interceptor Misses Target in Test
By THOM SHANKER

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WASHINGTON — A test launching of an advanced missile-defense interceptor failed to hit its target high over the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon said on Friday, four months after the Obama administration announced that it would spend $1 billion to increase the number of interceptors along the West Coast in response to verbal threats from North Korea.

A brief Defense Department statement issued Friday said a long-range ballistic missile target had been launched from an Army test range in the Marshall Islands, and that an interceptor had been launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to destroy it.

“An intercept was not achieved,” the statement said. “Program officials will conduct an extensive review to determine the cause or causes of any anomalies which may have prevented a successful intercept.”

Some skeptics of the missile-defense program saw the failure as additional evidence that the technology was unreliable and might not be worth the expense.


Philip E. Coyle III, who once ran the Pentagon’s weapons-testing program and is with the Center for Arms Control, said in a statement that the system “is something the U.S. military, and the American people, cannot depend upon.”

Mr. Coyle said there had been no successful tests of the ground-based, midcourse missile-defense system, like the one launched Friday, in five years. Pentagon officials acknowledge that the interceptors had a mixed record, hitting dummy targets just 50 percent of the time.

In March, as tensions mounted on the Korean Peninsula, the administration announced that it would increase ground-based interceptors in California and Alaska to 44 from 30 by 2017.

All 14 of the new interceptors are to be placed in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, where there are already 26 interceptors. Four others are at Vandenberg.

The increase in interceptors was intended not merely to present a credible deterrent to North Korea’s limited intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal, but also to show South Korea and Japan that the United States was willing to commit resources to deterring the North. At the same time, American officials warned China that it must restrain its ally or face an expanding American military focus on Asia.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Because Chinese nuclear strategy is centered around deterrence, not warfighting. 300 nukes is plenty for that.

After who would Beijing trust? Marshal Nie or a drooling fanboy?

Mashal Nie come from another time and another era and he is long dead. If someone one to stick their head in the sand I don't have any problem with that

 

[bd popeye]

let's make it easy. just name ONE specific Aegis BMD test that in your opinion demonstrates the system's ability to shoot down a DF-21D class ballistic missile. and I'll see if I can come up a refutation for that specific test.

Here ya' go..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just saw this video at mp.net. the ex-USS Guam (LPH-9) while not a carrier took a real beating before going down to Davey Jones locker some 12 years ago..

[video=youtube;reu_0uULP58]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reu_0uULP58#at=25[/video]

 

[Jeff Head]

Exactly my friend you are right . And so much for the much vaunted ABM . Today they test it again and failed miserably and you said 90% success rate and yeah some success. I mean this is ground based system with no limitation of space and weight. Now Aegis is ship based system can they be more successful than ground based. I am highly skeptical.

Be skeptical all you want.

The ground based system you refer to here is not the AEGIS system. The ground based system is meant to hit RVs from ICBMs, not from intermediate range missiles like the DF-21D. The ground based system does have a 50% hit record...so they build and shoot twice as many interceptors until they prove they can sustain higher rates.

Hitting with the 2nd or even 3rd or 4th shot is one hell of a lot cheaper than taking a hit from an incoming nuclear warhead. But that ground based system is a completely different system than AEGIS...and I believe you know that.

The AEGIS system does have the hit record I indicated against ballistic missiles.

The DF-21D has a zero percent hit record against what it is supposed to hit.

Sorry, but those are the simple facts. Sure the AEGIS system can be improved, that is the whole purpose of the tests. After such tests you know what you have, and can work on making the improvements. If it never had a full up, live fire test at all (like a certain other system) against what it is actually meant to work against in real life...then it can never be truly improved against increasing sophistication and capable defenses.

But...hehehe...we have said all of this before, ad-nausium. So I will just step aside again.