Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[Blitzo]

Wow, really, too casual, just let anyone mount an assault of any kind on a US carrier, and see what happens, the good ole DF-21 is more likely to trigger a all out assault, on those who launched it, than any other weapon save an ICBM..

And you think it is casual for carriers to launch fighters to attack locations on China's mainland?

I think we can all agree that if the US does get really pissed over a loss of a carrier, they can obviously escalate any conflict with more losses on all sides and upending the global economic and social order.

But at the end of the day, geography and history does come into play. US CSGs will most likely to be used to attack Chinese soil, and if you think that is not a threat to China and if you think that is equal or less of an incident compared to the damaging or the loss of an aircraft carrier, then you really have to recalibrate what is reasonable and what isn't. Attacking one's military forward deployed tools and bases that are meant to project power on the otherside of the world is quite different to attacking one's military bases and tools within a nation's homeland and close to populated areas. It is entirely different again when one doesn't know if the other will attack your populated areas or infrastructure, or key economic centers, just to make it more difficult for the country's leadership to wage war.


In any such situation, USN carriers will be projecting power away from the US mainland in an offensive manner towards another country's mainland. I can appreciate US alliances and interests in the western pacific which may prompt the US to intervene or deploy assets in some manner against the PRC, but that in the end is the root of the problem -- as China's economy continues growing, is it reasonable for the US to continue such a potent forward deployed force so close to China's dootstep?

Military strategy would say that any method to limit the maneuvre of your foe and distance the location of conflict from your own homeland and economic and population sites is the way to go. So in that sense, the US of course has national interests in an offensive-defensive strategy -- "forward defense". Call it realpolitik if you want. By threatening the heartland of other countries, they are able to increase the safety of their own populace and economic centres. It is an understandable desire, but in the eyes of the PRC and many of its people, it is becoming increasingly intolerable, and the ultimate goal is to maintain a PRC version of the monroe doctrine eventually, if economics allow for it. The hope is that China will not have any major threats that could target its homeland -- in the same way that the US have no threats near its homeland today. One can argue whether geography in the western pacific makes it reasonable for such a goal to be attained, but that's beside the question.

As I've said before, ironically, the PRC and US could probably be best friends internationally if the US did not maintain such a wide circle of forward deployed military assets near China. Unfortunately this does not look like it will change any time in the near future.

 

[jobjed]

(we don't really consider anyone intelligent enough to design/deploy the DF-21, dumb enough to use it against a US carrier)

That would depend on whether the people commanding US carriers are dumb enough to use it against China. The DF-21D is an anti-carrier weapon; deploying carriers against a country that has a weapon-system tailor-made to defeat them is suicidal. But then again, intentionally deploying any military options against China, in this day and age, would be suicidal.

 

[Engineer]

that's only partially true. The Threat has to be realistic to the mind of the Deterred. that's the key here. The Deterrence has to be a threat that is real to the mind of your foe. it doesn't have to be real. The Enemy has to think it is though. Jeff understands that. Although I don't think it is a toothless system, I am not that bold. DF21D is aimed to deterre, But the PRC leaderships knows that if they sink an American carrier The responce would be far larger then conventional.
That said however my belief is that the DF21D has a expiration date. and that date will come in the form of a countermeasure. Rail gun technology in particular has my attention.

Then PRC leaderships should sink more than one American carrier. That is, the response to nuclear blackmailing should be "hit them harder" and opposite to what the blackmailer wants. At the end of the day, the US leaderships know that carrying out an unconventional threat will invite unbearable retaliation on US mainland. If US doesn't want its carriers to be hit, then US shouldn't sail them within range. It is not the responsibilities of Chinese generals to take care of America's pride in a conflict. If anything, China should make it very clear to the US that China will shoot then ask questions later if a conflict is deemed inevitable.

 

[Lethe]

Second Artillery manual outlines a series of escalation steps with regard to the use of DF-21D. Warning shots fired ahead of a CSG. EMP warhead missiles to disable communication and sensors of CSG. Cluster warhead to disable CSG's ability to launch warplanes. Finally the death blow to sink carriers.

It is good that China is concerned about managing conflict escalation, and it may be that there are situations where such an incremental approach is prudent (e.g. a repeat of the 1996 Taiwan strait crisis), but a rigid framework like this can also hinder flexibility of response according to the unique cirumstances of the moment.

As for the notion that minor losses might deter US forces from pushing further, I believe this fundamentally misreads American psychology -- or if you want to put it in structural terms, the psychology of a heretofore hegemonic power. America has been running the world for 60+ years now, with the last generation combining both the extreme height of American sovereign power with the retirement without adequate replacement of Cold War-era strategists. As such, America will continue to believe it runs the world until receiving incontrovertible evidence to the contrary -- much as, in a bygone era, China believed she was the centre of the universe until so rudely shown otherwise. Arguing from both structural dynamics, and with respect to American military, political, and domestic culture, the response to minor losses will not be to pause and reassess, but to charge forward with righteous rage. Therefore, it is imperative that if armed conflict ever does occur, that China is prepared to unleash "Shock and Awe" on the United States, eliminating its forward deployed bases, and sinking everything with an American flag west of Hawaii, possibly including Pearl Harbor. Only after suffering such a major defeat will US military and political cultures be prepared to reassess the situation.

This is not to suggest that "Shock and Awe" should be the first response to tensions spiralling out of control -- as I stated at the beginning, it is good that thought is being given to how to manage conflict (de-)escalation, incremental approaches, etc. I guess, what I am saying is that the distance between warning shots and the opposite extreme of all-out war is likely to be quite narrow. In particular, if tensions have reached the point that sinking an American carrier is deemed the appropriate course of action, it is probably time to (attempt to) sink everything.

 

[Blitzo]

It is good that China is concerned about managing conflict escalation, and it may be that there are situations where such an incremental approach is prudent (e.g. a repeat of the 1996 Taiwan strait crisis), but a rigid framework like this can also hinder flexibility of response according to the unique cirumstances of the moment.

As for the notion that minor losses might deter US forces from pushing further, I believe this fundamentally misreads American psychology -- or if you want to put it in structural terms, the psychology of a heretofore hegemonic power. America has been running the world for 60+ years now, with the last generation combining both the extreme height of American sovereign power with the retirement without adequate replacement of Cold War-era strategists. As such, America will continue to believe it runs the world until receiving incontrovertible evidence to the contrary -- much as, in a bygone era, China believed she was the centre of the universe until so rudely shown otherwise. Arguing from both structural dynamics, and with respect to American military, political, and domestic culture, the response to minor losses will not be to pause and reassess, but to charge forward with righteous rage. Therefore, it is imperative that if armed conflict ever does occur, that China is prepared to unleash "Shock and Awe" on the United States, eliminating its forward deployed bases, and sinking everything with an American flag west of Hawaii, possibly including Pearl Harbor. Only after suffering such a major defeat will US military and political cultures be prepared to reassess the situation.

This is not to suggest that "Shock and Awe" should be the first response to tensions spiralling out of control -- as I stated at the beginning, it is good that thought is being given to how to manage conflict (de-)escalation, incremental approaches, etc. I guess, what I am saying is that the distance between warning shots and the opposite extreme of all-out war is likely to be quite narrow. In particular, if tensions have reached the point that sinking an American carrier is deemed the appropriate course of action, it is probably time to (attempt to) sink everything.

I think this is waaay beyond the scope of the thread topic, although I agree with everything you said. Whether China has the ability to do what you described is another matter, and it will probably be more focused on protecting its own heartland from US attacks -- that of course is the entire point of targeting US carriers.

In the end, the circumstances that lead up to any contingency will determine how the public on all sides perceive it. Also, just as it is worth considering the US public's response to any sinking of US ships, one must consider Chinese and overseas Chinese reactions to any situations if the US manage to bomb Chinese bases (if not cities and infrastructure) on the mainland.

In either scenario, I fear for the consequences for day to day, person to person relations. It will not be pretty, and it will cause some pretty sensitive but important topics to rouse up.
The only thing we can hope for in the next few decades, is either the US is willing to back off if China continues growing economically and militarily, or if China's economic growth slows then it will probably be more willing to accept a lower military capability overall

 

[delft]

Wow, really, too casual, just let anyone mount an assault of any kind on a US carrier, and see what happens, the good ole DF-21 is more likely to trigger a all out assault, on those who launched it, than any other weapon save an ICBM.. Even if you miss, and as Mr. Head has pointed out, this is a very complex system, I would advise all that the US tests all of its weapons systems, as does Russia, and there are a very significant number of failures, even on more mature systems. To assume the DF-21 is mature is very naïve, does the US consider it a threat, of course, and there are many systems in play to mitigate that threat....... so while we are casual---(we don't really consider anyone intelligent enough to design/deploy the DF-21, dumb enough to use it against a US carrier), it is because those who know us, know that kind of provocation, will result in a chain of events, that set in motion will leave the perpetrator of said stoopidity, unable to engage in further similar stoopidity. as Forrest Gump says, "stupid is, as stupid does".

Do you imply that if a country is attacked by US and it has the crust to attack the aircraft carriers that are used that country will be destroyed to encourage others not to try the same?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Do you imply that if a country is attacked by US and it has the crust to attack the aircraft carriers that are used that country will be destroyed to encourage others not to try the same?

There you go again! Did you read my post, the US is accused of being casual, my response is of course we are casual, we are a non-threat to you unless "YOU" are a bad guy and start something. Those of you, who continually misrepresent our actions and our attitudes have apparently come to believe your own "stories", let me repeat it here once again.... we are there to maintain the "PEACE", just like the sheriff patrolling the back roads in America with his SUV, we are armed, we are ready, but we have NO DESIRE to jack up any world situation. Our friends depend on us, we depend on them,,,,,, we would protect China from an aggressor as soon as Japan or Australia, I, as do many Americans, think of China as a friend and partner, and will continue to do so, unless given a reason to do otherwise? brat

 

[delft]

There you go again! Did you read my post, the US is accused of being casual, my response is of course we are casual, we are a non-threat to you unless "YOU" are a bad guy and start something. Those of you, who continually misrepresent our actions and our attitudes have apparently come to believe your own "stories", let me repeat it here once again.... we are there to maintain the "PEACE", just like the sheriff patrolling the back roads in America with his SUV, we are armed, we are ready, but we have NO DESIRE to jack up any world situation. Our friends depend on us, we depend on them,,,,,, we would protect China from an aggressor as soon as Japan or Australia, I, as do many Americans, think of China as a friend and partner, and will continue to do so, unless given a reason to do otherwise? brat

To take an extreme example: In what sense was Granada a threat in 1983? The US government said then that the airfield being built with money from the then European Economic Community to improve the access to the island for tourists was the threat? How can you say that you want to maintain "PEACE" when you use such a lame excuse?

 

[Jeff Head]

touche haha

This analysis is from 2010, but it is still the best information based on open source information.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is DF-21D battle tested? No. But it would be foolish to think it is a deception campaign at this point. Otherwise USN will be caught off guard and an American carrier will suffer the same fate ...

No, the US Navy will not be caught off guard in any case, Shen.

The US Navy has been testing, full-up its defenses against anti-ship missiles and against ballistic missiles for a long time, and they continue to improve those capabilities.

This includes all spectrums of defenses from active, direct defense via anti-missile weapons, to electornic counter measures, to chaff and other decoy systems.

The US has been preparing this type of defense and practicing it for decades, from times well before anything like the DF-21 was written about in the Chinese whitre papers. Which has always been the primary source for concern as opposed to actual contiinual testing and improvement of the so-called system.

My point is very simple...all of the prognostication and excuses that continue ad-nuasium asoide, as one who has worlked in the US Defense Industrry with aircraft, missile and defense systems, etc. in the design and engineering areas, I can tell you that it is ludicrouse to think that such a system does not need, or would not be full up tested.

Period.

Make of that whatever you will...but the Chinese have not fired this missile in a single full-up test out into the open ocean at a manuevering target. Until they do, and successfully hit those targets consistantly, the system is not fully tested, and whatever is meant by its IOC status has nothing to do with its verified capability to do what it is supposed to do.

I've been around this block numerous times...both over this issue, and with actual systems that have been tested.

The DF-21 could be a deception campaign...I never said it defintiely was. Such an operation to give a potential opponent pause is not only a very credible thing to do...it is something that is done failry often in this business.

Do not think to discount it. In the west, the civilian leadership is advised by the military, but they make the decisions. Targeting those leaders with exotic technologies and capabilities so that they will pause in exercising certain mlitary options is a credible and well know effort that goes on fairly regularly.

Anyhow, once again we have talked about this on this forum at length.

I stand by everything I have written in this regard.

When the PRC tests this system, we will know about it That is unavoidable.

The test the performed in the desert shooting at a static target that was outlined to look like a carrier is well known. It was noticed by the west's intelligence, and it was advertised by the Chinese.

No such test has been forthcoming out into the open ocea. Until it does, the system is not fully tested. Whatever else may be said about it.

Anti-shipping missile systems are regualrly tested by all countries who possess them for all of the reasons I have given. When they do, they announce such tests and insure that the test ranges are very specifically marked and that commercial shipping is kept away. One day we may see the PLAN do so for the DF-21...but after all of these years I am not holding my breath.

In the mean time the US Navy regularly exercises and improves its capabilities in defenses against weapons that might threaten its vessels, as they have done since before the DF-21 was announced, and as they will continue to do into the future. Soon, those defenses will be bolstered by laser and rail gun defenses.

The US navy does this in order to be prepared for any contingency. As I said, it is unblikely that they will be caught off-guard.

surprised? Perhaps. but that will only be for a limited time, and in specific cases when an attack occurs in peace time, or when it is nnot anticpated. But caught off guard without systems, defenses, and resources available on a general basis? Not likely.

 

[Blitzo]

Jeff, what do you think of my suggestion that the PLA would actively seek to avoid a full scale test of the system?

If you think it is a plausible desire, do you think if there is a way to test all the individual components in as realistic a way to avoid a high profile test?