Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I think he meant the Cold War.
Bluejacket, your not going to hide a fleet of commerical airline sized plane in PLAF colora from satalites and other elint sources. or risk a multi-tens of million dollar aircraft to F.O.D.
Even if the PLA and PLAAF can intercept 10% of the strikes that is still a huge number gettign through. BTW ther eis no evidecne for a Tomahawk ever being shot down over land. With high subsonic speeds and nap of the earth flying you simply cant see them from the ground. Chinese awacs and the most advanced fighters of the PLAAF will be engaged in fighting thier own battle. Please give the US some credit for being able to conduct a multi-phase multi-dimension battle and knowing what the key linchpin units in the Chinese military are. Those will be the targets and thats where the battle will be centered.

They may be in civilian colors, and some of them kept in the air in time of crisis for extra survivability. On IL-76/AN-124 the engines are on highmounted wings, and the FOD is possible on REVERSE trust during landings, AFTER the mission!

The runway surface is not good, small gravel is abundantly available. Given the hostile actions of LTTE, who reportedly had 'some' shoulder fired AA missiles, we had to land on a westerly heading irrespective of wind direction. Using all four in reverse would have been very unwise and fraught with FOD (Foreign Object Damage) possibility for No 1 and No. 4 engines due to the back flow of the reverse thrust of No 2 and 3 engines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CMs are too expensive, even to the US, to be used against runways- the Israelis used fighter-bombers for that in Lebanon. There are also AAA and ground observers, both military & civilian who would spot & report them flying along predictable paths between hills & mountains toward their intended targets. So, even if those airfields are attacked with B-1/2s, the dirt strips can be filled up & used again by dispersed IL-76/AN-124 arsenal planes.

the C-5, C-17, KC-10, ..could carry as many as 48, 30, 30,.. [missiles]respectively. ..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

..The fact that transports are ubiquitous and capable of employing force add an element of uncertainty thus complicating their ability to track and estimate our relative firepower. The transport-bomber exploits this uncertainty through the element of surprise. ..Transport-bombers have the potential be the "gunship" of the future. Transport-bombers could be capable of carrying a wide variety of cruise missile rounds including high explosive, anti-armor/anti-personnel/runway cratering submunitions, anti-radiation, reconnaissance, decoys, etc. The ability to retarget weapons in-flight enhances this flexibility. Ostensibly, the aircraft could loiter in a standoff orbit [and a safe number of them can be kept in the air at all times during crises for extra survivability] waiting orders to attack targets much the same as current fighters and gunships do today. This concept also allows for immediate restrike of targets upon receipt of negative Battle Damage Assessment reports.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is comparable in size to C-5, IL-76 to C-17, and KC-10 to IL-86 (the latter 2 can't use unprepared airstips, but can be staged at civilian airports to hide their true ID). Let's say that only 7-11 (conservative figure) are converted- 1 AN-124 , 4-6 IL-76 & 2-4 IL-86 to carry missiles. That makes 48+(4x30)+(2x30)=228 MIN.(!) & 48+ (6x30)+(4x30)= 348 MAX.(!) missiles, many of them supersonic - that is on top of what other

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!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

can launch.

30 January 1996
U.S. Navy Commander Vice Admiral Scott Redd, commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, says that Iran's naval forces recently test-fired the Chinese-designed C-802 (YJ-2/CSSC-8 Saccade) cruise missile. The Saccade missile, currently in the development stage, is substantially more advanced than the Silkworm missile. He says this is the first time Iran has had a sea-based anti-ship missile in its arsenal since 1988. Redd declines to say how many of the C-802 missiles Iran has, but that Iran has been modifying a "significant number" of naval patrol boats to make them capable of launching the new missile. The patrol boats are reportedly Houdong fast-patrol boats. He also says that Iran has been adding new sites ashore for surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missile launchers. Iran's activity points to a resurgent Iranian naval force in the Gulf. Redd says that Iran has four shore bases from which to launch anti-ship missiles and is expected to buy a third Kilo diesel submarine and perhaps five more Houdong patrol crafts in 1996.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Russian export organizations and Sukhoi are now trying to market two dedicated anti-ship capable models of the "Flanker" family. The side-by-side Su-32/34 that has been evaluated by the Russian Navy and a special version of the tandem seat Su-30 that has been sold to the Indian Air Force (InAF). In both cases however, a version of the 3M-80 long range anti-ship missile is being considered. The 3M-80EA is an air launched version of the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" submarine and ship launched missile produced by the Raduga Central Design Bureau in Dubna. Since China has already ordered the shipboard version with the two Sovremenny Class destroyers (the $800 million Project 956 in 1997) it is a strong possibility that they might consider the air-launched version for a model of the Su-27 that would go to the PLA Navy. The carrier borne Su-33 (Su-27K) is already modified to carry and utilize the 3M-80EA missile.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if the US deploy their own arsenal C-5/C-17, they are best used against the invading force (as the above quoted

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

suggests), not a large spread out & well defended target list!
We are talking here about the initial missile barrage, not subsequent air-air battles!
Also, how about using

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

& retired

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

GROUND ATTACK AIRCRAFT as UAVs (with long ferry ranges) loaded with rockets & missiles, contolled from the AWACs for the 2nd & 3rd wave attacks?

The reports of the demise of the H-5 seem somewhat exagerated. It was asserted without citation in 1995 that the H-5 had been withdrawn from service, but the continued presence of the H-5 in the PLAAF inventory is widely attested by subsequent sources.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The field-modified Red Navy Il-28s were not suitable for carrying standard torpedoes or mines, and so the Ilyushin OKB developed a dedicated torpedo-bomber variant, the "Il-28T". It featured a longer weapons bay; the wing shifted back about 10 centimeters (4 inches) to compensate for the change in center of gravity; modified nose glazing, with a blister on the bottom, to accommodate a torpedo sighting system; and carriage of an inflatable dinghy. The right nose cannon was deleted and the internal fuel capacity was reduced, with Il-28R-style wingtip tanks adopted to compensate. Operational stores included bombs, rocket or conventional torpedoes, and naval mines. Two prototypes were built as conversions of standard Il-28s, with the first flying on 8 January 1951, with Kokkinaki at the controls. The type entered limited production in the summer of 1951. Late in the 1950s, the Red Navy converted a batch of Il-28s and Il-28Ts to an antisubmarine patrol configuration, designated the "Il-28PL". Modifications were fairly minor, with the machines fitted with a sonobuoy receiver and qualified for carriage of sonobuoys and depth charges in the bombbay. Homing torpedoes were qualified later.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If all else fails, something similar to the "Rods from God" may be the solution!

massive metal rods that could rain down upon earth-based targets (nicknamed "metallurgical nukes" by Chinese defense analysts and "rods from god" by their more religious American colleagues).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If so-called "Rods from God"... ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work.... The rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the "absentee ratio" -- the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ..
ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right now.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if such rod-tipped missiles hit water and ocean bottom near the CSG, there will be strong enough steam & shockwave generated + debris hurled up & then down (similar of what would happen if a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with enough speed) on ships & subs of CSG to render them out of action!

However, the speed of impact is more important than the size of the meteorite or asteroid: the faster the object is traveling, the higher the wall of water.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

The close encounter between a Chinese diesel sub and the American carrier USS Kitty Hawk on October 26 near Okinawa, first reported openly in the U.S. in mid-November, has already generated quite a lot of commentary. ..
China's seaward ambitions for deterrence -- both nuclear and conventional -- and for self-proclaimed regional hegemony need to be understood in the context of Beijing's own evolving, translucent (not opaque) strategic culture. The modern Song-class passive sonars are certainly good enough to know at a range of 10,000 yards that a group of big and noisy surface ships was there. No PLAN submarine captain in his right mind would surface in such conditions unless he wanted to be absolutely sure that his presence, previously undetected within the carrier's inner defense zone, was made unmistakably clear to theater U.S. admirals and their higher-ups inside the Beltway.
China is progressively drawing wider and wider deep-water redlines, warnings that her self-perceived inviolable defense interests lie thousands of miles beyond her coast, and American naval forces will in future cross those redlines at their perile.
A previous redline was signaled in 2003, when a Ming-class diesel sub transited on the surface between two of Japan's main islands in an east-to-west direction -- that is, on its way home from somewhere out in the blue Pacific. The Ming had not been previously detected despite its obsolescent design. Beijing was proving pointedly that the First Island Chain does not present an effective barrier to a surprise surge of Chinese submarines, a surge that could prove militarily decisive around 2030. On that timeframe, America's submarine fleet will have dwindled to barely 40, while China's is on a path to numbering 180 or even more by then.

 

[IDonT]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

What I meant was mid-corse guidance. You have wonderful ideas of 1000+ km ranged cruide missiles going after the CVN.... ever wondered how to update the guidance of the cruide missile mid-course? The CVN isn't sitting prettily at one spot waiting for the missiles, you know. You could do it the Russian way and try to shorten the time of flight by making the missiles supersonic, but that would in turn make them large and heavy, which would in turn limit the number of missiles carried. Stop thinking just about the missile firing platform, think end to end of the whole chain of events needed to engage a CVN. At least, look up how the Russians tried to do it - it would give you a far more realistic perspective of the difficulties involved in trying to take on an American CBG.

Yeah, the Kirov class battlecruiser, all 24,500 tons of it, can only cary 20 P-700. This is equivalent to a single anti-ship attack of squadron's worth of F-18's. Not very cost effective.

 

[SampanViking]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I would remind you all that the Soviet Union collapsed over 15 years ago and that most of the electronic breathroughs that have occured since then have been in Imaging, Tracking and Communications. This is true not only in cutting edge terms, but also in production cost terms.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IDonT sez;

Yeah, the Kirov class battlecruiser, all 24,500 tons of it, can only cary 20 P-700. This is equivalent to a single anti-ship attack of squadron's worth of F-18's. Not very cost effective.

Exactly. As an example the new USN LCS has a module that carries 200 missiles of various types.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The cost is really up in the air once the final ship type is chosen. Estimates range from $90 million to $220 million USD each.

I think some of the poster do not take in the full cablity of what sort of defenses the USN can put up to defend it's CSG's.

One of the most often overlooked items is the USN ablity to deploy an ECM enviroment that is so disruptive many electronics will not function properly.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IDonT sez;



Exactly. As an example the new USN LCS has a module that carries 200 missiles of various types.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The cost is really up in the air once the final ship type is chosen. Estimates range from $90 million to $220 million USD each.

I think some of the poster do not take in the full cablity of what sort of defenses the USN can put up to defend it's CSG's.

One of the most often overlooked items is the USN ablity to deploy an ESM enviroment that is so disruptive many electronics will not function properly.

They intend these babies to be able to act in an offensive and defensive ASW role not only in the littorals, but also in conjunction with CSGs. You gotta love it.

They will also be able to provide an effective AAW role, serving perhaps as either pickets on the threat axis, or as goal tenders in the middle...and I will bet dollars to doughnuts that they are capable in that mission package of being completely data linked and controlled by the AEGIS vessels...IMPRESIVE!

I am really excited to see LCS 2 launched. I believe the GD design is innovative and very sea-worthy. I also believe that both varieties will be built in numbers. Here's a pic of LCS 1, Freedom:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[zraver]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Blujacket, the PLAAF will not paint the aircraft in civillian colors, that is aviolation of the LOAC and such subterfuge to sink a carrier risks a nuclear strike in retaliation acording to current US nuclear doctrine

FOD is a problem on any rough strip landing or taking off.

I am also not sure the IL-76 (close rin size and caapbility to a C-141 not a C-17) can be modified into a misisle platform. The IL-86 is a pure civillian airline and lacks the structurla streangth for military applications.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Yeah, the Kirov class battlecruiser, all 24,500 tons of it, can only cary 20 P-700. This is equivalent to a single anti-ship attack of squadron's worth of F-18's. Not very cost effective.

Yes. It was cost ineffective. And yet the Soviets went with this solution. The question for Adeptitus should then be, why? Making the effort to find out the rationale for why things were done the way they were would provide great insight into the capabilities of the CBG that the Soviet Union faced then. Then from there, one should look at the dramatic improvements in capability the CBG got since the end of the Cold War, all the way to the present. From here, one should finally look at the assets on the horizon, which are scheduled to appear in the 2010~2015 timeframe, which would provide another quantum leap in CSG capabilities. And after all this, note that the threat to the CSG hasn't actually increased since the end of the Cold War - the overall system fielded by the PLA come nowhere near the capability fielded by the Soviets. THAT is how much the capability disparity has widened.

 

[adeptitus]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Yes. It was cost ineffective. And yet the Soviets went with this solution. The question for Adeptitus should then be, why?

IMO the Soviets were behind the West in technology and sought to use raw performance to overcome the gap, hence we have products like the MiG-25 Foxbat with 500 kw radar, and Mach 2+ anti-ship missiles (P700, Sunburn, etc). Also those huge missiles can do a lot of damage by impact alone, or equipped with nuclear warhead.

And after all this, note that the threat to the CSG hasn't actually increased since the end of the Cold War - the overall system fielded by the PLA come nowhere near the capability fielded by the Soviets. THAT is how much the capability disparity has widened.

Depends on how you look at it. In the post Cold War era, there's an increased world-wide proliferation of anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, subs, etc. Missile defensive capabilities may have increased, but so has the threat level and missile technology. i.e. NSM may represent a trend in future AShM R&D.

The fall of the Soviet Union also resulted in some deep cuts on the US side. For example programs like the Sea Lance (ASROC replacement), DD-21, CG-21, Arsenal Ship, and CG(X) all got the ax. The F-22 purchase was cut from 750 to 183, and DD(X) from 30 to 12 to 2. So what we have is a powerful and technically advanced military under increased pressure to do more with less. How this would impact the USN in the future, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Kongo]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IMO the Soviets were behind the West in technology and sought to use raw performance to overcome the gap, hence we have products like the MiG-25 Foxbat with 500 kw radar, and Mach 2+ anti-ship missiles (P700, Sunburn, etc). Also those huge missiles can do a lot of damage by impact alone, or equipped with nuclear warhead.

No, I was not asking you to talk about things in general. Here's an exercise for you. Look at the characteristics of the Granit. Ask yourself, why did the missile have to be so big? Why did they not use Kh-55 sized missiles instead? Why? The simple reason is this - they had decided that a range of 550km was required. 550km imposed a number of problems, one of them being time of flight. Using a subsonic missile like what you proposed would have meant that any targeting solution provided to the subsonic ASM on launch would have been obsolete by the time the missile reached the target, since the target would have moved out of the missile seekers acquisition basket. One of the practical solution was, of course, to make sure the missile reached the target's vicinity in time. That meant not only a long ranged weapon, but a FAST one as well. (of course, 'fast' had other benefits, like compressing the engagement time for the CBG's defense system, which hadn't fielded the AEGIS yet at the time of design) What range and speed meant was that the missile had to be big, heavy and costly, in order to contain the requisite fuel and engine. The lesson here is this: Everything has implications on something else: range on speed; range and speed on size, weight and cost; size and weight on launch platform size and number of missiles carried. This is only looking at the missile. Range also imposed further requirements on targeting assets etc. Now here we come back to your wonderful 1000 anti-ship missile SSGN. Think through what are the requirements and constraints. If you insist and say that, hey, we can give the missiles mid-course updates so their subsonic speed is not a problem, ok, now go on to think: how do you provide the updates to the missiles? What assets will be needed? How many? Finally, think - within budget? What would have to be sacrificed to get those assets? Maybe sacrifice a couple of 093s that could have been bought with the money? Wait. Maybe those 093s could have done the job just as well? You won't ever have the definite answers to those.... but then that will help give you a much better appreciation on the issues and constraints behind anti-carrier warfare.

Depends on how you look at it. In the post Cold War era, there's an increased world-wide proliferation of anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, subs, etc. Missile defensive capabilities may have increased, but so has the threat level and missile technology. i.e. NSM may represent a trend in future AShM R&D.

Has it increased dramatically? Look at the Sunburn, for example. It was a missile that was developed in the 70s and entered service in 1981! That was a threat that was countered before the Soviet Union collapsed. Sure it proliferated to China, but big deal. There's no ASM threat out there that seriously threatens the CSG's defenses - most are the same generic threat left over from the Cold War. Only the 'Threat D' (the Sizzler profile) is an exception, and the USN has not fully tested their capabilities against such a threat due to the lack of a drone that can emulate its flight characteristics. That doesn't mean they are incapable against it though. The country out there which poses the greatest threat to the CSG is China - and China is far from achieving the level of threat the Soviet Union posed to the CSG. NSM doesn't pose a threat - because it isn't fielded yet, and is not likely to be fielded by the USN's likely adversaries. Even if the NSM is fielded by, say, Iran, the NSM still won't be a threat. (E-2C, CEC and ESSM is the counter. With E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and SM-6 combo, the defenses become even more capable)

The fall of the Soviet Union also resulted in some deep cuts on the US side. For example programs like the Sea Lance (ASROC replacement), DD-21, CG-21, Arsenal Ship, and CG(X) all got the ax. The F-22 purchase was cut from 750 to 183, and DD(X) from 30 to 12 to 2. So what we have is a powerful and technically advanced military under increased pressure to do more with less. How this would impact the USN in the future, we'll have to wait and see.

So? They can cut all the F-22s and it doesn't affect the CVN's defenses at all. We are talking about the CSG's defenses, are we? CG(X) and DD(X) are not canceled, by the way. Look at the quantum leap in capability the CSG has since the end of the Cold War - RAM and ESSM are fielded. SSDS to dramatically improve the survivability of non-AEGIS equipped large platforms. Upgrades to AEGIS to deal with the littoral environment. CEC to tie them all together. Conversely, compare the PLAN to the Soviet Union to see how much the ASM threat to the CSG has dropped. The PLAN has no similar satellite targeting system like the Legenda, it has far fewer MPAs to find the CSG, it has less capable platforms to deliver the ASMs. And China is used as the benchmark because it poses the greatest ASM threat to the CSG now. Can you say the disparity hasn't widened significantly?

That is of course, only in the aerial domain. Where the CSG faces the greatest threat is now from below the surface. Even then, the problems are not necessarily more severe than during the Cold War - the Soviets fielded SSNs which were capable of actually hunting the carriers. (And this necessitated the development of the 688s to provide carrier escort) China has Hans which announce to the world where they are, while the 093 is only available in extremely limited numbers (and not ncessarily quieter than their Soviet counterparts). Her SSKs are a threat, but the threat they pose can be handled to a certain extent with proper evasive tactics like constant course changes. Already, new technologies and platforms like the SSGN and the LCS are designed to handle the SSK threat, while tactics development against similar threats like the Gotland is continued.

 

[adeptitus]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

No, I was not asking you to talk about things in general. Here's an exercise for you. Look at the characteristics of the Granit. Ask yourself, why did the missile have to be so big? Why did they not use Kh-55 sized missiles instead? Why? The simple reason is this - they had decided that a range of 550km was required. 550km imposed a number of problems, one of them being time of flight. Using a subsonic missile like what you proposed would have meant that any targeting solution provided to the subsonic ASM on launch would have been obsolete by the time the missile reached the target, since the target would have moved out of the missile seekers acquisition basket. One of the practical solution was, of course, to make sure the missile reached the target's vicinity in time. That meant not only a long ranged weapon, but a FAST one as well.
<snip>

(Sorry your paragraphs are huge and I'm not going to quote the whole thing)

Given a situation where mid-course correction data is unavial, and you could only depend on the initial target solution and the missile's own search radar, then yeah, speed is critical over range. But if we're talking about ~550km, I'm inclined to think the P700 would receive mid-course correction via datalink. The P500 had it and there's no reason why the successor P700 wouldn't.

If we're talking about satellite datafeed (instead of aircraft/UAVs), I think in this case the PLA is only concerned about East Asia theatre. In comparison, the Russians required a much larger area of coverage, and thus they needed a whole constellation of satellites doing orbital overflights like the EORSAT. It's my opinion that the PLA's requirement is smaller and more affordable. Your opinion may vary.

<snip>
Soviet Union posed to the CSG. NSM doesn't pose a threat - because it isn't fielded yet, and is not likely to be fielded by the USN's likely adversaries. Even if the NSM is fielded by, say, Iran, the NSM still won't be a threat. (E-2C, CEC and ESSM is the counter. With E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and SM-6 combo, the defenses become even more capable)

The NSM is unlikely to be deployed against the USN, nor would its small warhead pose any real threat to a supercarrier. However I do believe this is the beginning of a trend where anti-ship & cruise missile development tilt toward reduced-RCS/stealth technology.

So? They can cut all the F-22s and it doesn't affect the CVN's defenses at all. We are talking about the CSG's defenses, are we? CG(X) and DD(X) are not canceled, by the way. Look at the quantum leap in capability the CSG

If you check my original post, you'd note that I did not claim the DD(X) was cancelled, only that the production numbers has been cut. Though I'm not optimistic about the CG(X).

What I've stated in my prior post is a prediction of future trends, based on existing observations. The estimated cost increase on these ships far out-strips the increase to size of US economy and military budget. There's no doubt in my mind that the future USN will have to perform its mission with fewer, but better ships. The ships will be put out to sea more frequently with shorter maintenance requirement. How this would affect the USN of the future, we'll have to see.

I'll make another prediction: within this century, armed UAV's, both in the air, at sea, and under water (robotic underwater vehicles?), will mostly render manned combat aircraft and submarines obsolete. This will be a gradual process, like commercial airline aircraft shifting from human pilot to automated pilot:

1) commercial airliner piloted by human pilot, copilot, navigator
2) automated systems reduce number of pilot crew needed
3) automated flight-assistance system reduce human pilot workload
4) automated flight system render human pilot in "back-up" position
5) automated flight system replaces human pilot

I think in our children's time, they'd board a commercial aircraft and it'd have no human pilot in the cockpit. Some of you might laugh at me for this suggestion -- wait and see.


We're all pretty clear that the PLAN is way behind the USN in capability. To try and emulate old Russian model to defeat the USN over a sideshow like Taiwan is, IMO, a waste of resources. The PRC today is in a very good strategtic situation where it's under no threat of war (other than of its own making). The US is already spending some $500 billion/year to maintain a global status quo that's favorable to trade and commerece, there's no need to spoil the soup at this time. There are bigger fish to fry later.

Rather than pouring $$ into more Su-30's and 093 SSN's, I think the $ is better spent in areas like armed UAV's, space-based platforms (satellites), long-range cruise missiles, RCS reduction (stealth), underwater robotic vehicles, direct-energy weapons, nuclear deterrant, etc. If you're going to develop the capability to defeat the USN or any other navy (strategtic situation do change) in the future, there's no point in making weapons in 2016 that'd only defeat ships from 1996.

====================

One possible way to save on R&D is to encourage "dual use" technologies that is applicable both commercially and for the military. The PRC spends about $136 billion annually on R&D with 926,000 researchers. It's a good resource to tap into:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!