Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

shen

Senior Member
One easy way China can simulate a maneuvering target in the desert is simply to have a vehicle with a radar reflector drive around at the speed an aircraft carrier can move.
and remember trying to dodge a Mach 10 missile is not the same a zigzagging to throw off the aim of a dive bomber. in the terminal stage, an aircraft carrier doesn't have the speed to dodge a missile. maneuvering in this context simply is the maximum distance a CSG can displace between the time of detection and the time of impact. That difference can be easily simulated by aiming the missile ballistic impact point a certain distance short of the actual target in the desert and then maneuver the warhead to the final impact point.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Looks to me like the DF-21D ASBM is real enough that the US Navy has to spend money and time dealing with it.:eek:

The US prefers to talk about engaging with China, but it is clear its navy is now also practising for a potential conflict, reports the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes.

You don't get invited out on a US nuclear aircraft carrier all that often, and after writing this I might not get invited back for a while.

On the flight deck of the USS George Washington the noise is like nothing I've ever experienced. A few feet from where I am standing, 11 F/A-18 Super Hornets are lining up to be launched.

The first one is hooked on to the catapult; there is a massive crescendo as its engines roar to full re-heat. Then in a cloud of white steam the 15-tonne jet is thrown down the deck and off the end of the ship like a toy.

Seconds later the deck crew, in their multi-coloured smocks, are calmly lining up the next one.

The crew of the USS George Washington are rehearsing an "anti-access, area denial" scenario
Watching the US Navy close up like this it is hard not to be slightly awed. No other navy in the world has quite the same toys, or shows them off with the same easy charm.

But as I stand on the deck recording a link on how "the US is practising for war with China" I can see my host from the Navy public affairs office wincing.

You get used to hearing the PR rhetoric: The US Navy "is not practising for war with any specific country". But the US Navy has not assembled two whole carrier battle groups and 200 aircraft off the coast of Guam for a jolly either. This is about practising what the Pentagon now calls "Air Sea Battle".

It is a concept first put forward in 2009, and it is specifically designed to counter the rising threat from China.

A few minutes later I am standing on the bridge of the George Washington with Rear Adm Mark Montgomery, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Five. The forces under his command are practising for what he calls an "anti-access, area denial" scenario.

"When we talk about our capabilities," he says "we are talking about our capabilities to operate in unrestricted way in the waters of our choice".

"As some countries have been developing increasingly complex anti-access weapons, we have to develop our tactics, techniques and procedures to continue to operate in an unfettered manner."

Rear Adm Montgomery won't discuss the specifics of the exercise. But his ships and aircraft face an increasingly complex web of threats, from beneath the water, from air, land, from cyberspace and from space.

"It's generally understood that some countries have the ability to remove satellites or to limit satellite communications," he says, "so we have to practise working in a communications-denied environment."

The PLA Navy is still no match for US Navy, and won't be for a very long time. Instead China has been developing other weapons designed to keep America's precious carriers far away from China's shores.

These include new quieter submarines, long-range hypersonic anti-ship missiles and, perhaps most worrying, very accurate medium range ballistic missiles that have been dubbed "carrier killers".

"When we talk about our capabilities," he says "we are talking about our capabilities to operate in unrestricted way in the waters of our choice".

As if on cue an alarm bell starts ringing. A voice comes on the public address system:

"This is a drill, this is a drill! Black smoke black smoke!"

The George Washington is under simulated attack. Part of the ship is reported to be on fire. Teams rush to contain the damage........
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
One easy way China can simulate a maneuvering target in the desert is simply to have a vehicle with a radar reflector drive around at the speed an aircraft carrier can move.

that can only work if the RV uses an active radar seeker. If it's EO, then you'll need a far bigger moving object.
 

shen

Senior Member
that can only work if the RV uses an active radar seeker. If it's EO, then you'll need a far bigger moving object.

perhaps. I think that's another clue that the current generation of Chinese antiship ballistic missile is likely radar guided. :)
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
perhaps. I think that's another clue that the current generation of Chinese antiship ballistic missile is likely radar guided. :)

Not so sure about that. Active radar guidance probably isn't the single most reliable method. I'd like to pair it with some kind of EO guidance as well


means "electro-optically guided"?? thanks

Yes
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Not so sure about that. Active radar guidance probably isn't the single most reliable method. I'd like to pair it with some kind of EO guidance as well

I wonder how hot the surface of the missile gets at Mach 8~10?
If I remember correctly the wing tips of the SR71 starts to glow from heat(approx. 700℃) and that is only going at Mach 3+
Don't think any kind of transparent material can handle that kind of heat.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I wonder how hot the surface of the missile gets at Mach 8~10?
If I remember correctly the wing tips of the SR71 starts to glow from heat(approx. 700℃) and that is only going at Mach 3+
Don't think any kind of transparent material can handle that kind of heat.

Modern WVR AAMs have ImIr seekers with top speeds of over mach 3.

Obviously there's a meaningful difference between mach 3 and medium/high hypersonic velocities, but at this stage of discussion I think it would be prudent to not rule out the possibility of EO guidance just yet, and I think it is deserving of us to consider how such a guidance mechanism could be developed given the relative "unreliability" of active radar.

Window panes have of course been developed on re entry vehicles like soyuz, and the space shuttle of course, although it's worth noting their window panes faced relatively less air friction due to deliberate design, instead with more heat resistant sections of their vehicles receiving the brunt of it. Whether the windows of soyuz and the space shuttle have experienced more or less absolute levels of friction versus what the lower speed RV would experience is something we probably don't know.
But then again, I doubt any EO seeker would be exposed for the entirety of the flight -- it's not implausible for some kind of cap or cover to be ejectable off the EO seeker once terminal phase begins after the hottest and fastest part of re entry. Any "nose up" maneuvre at terminal phase would also likely decrease terminal speed by a meaningful margin from Mach 8-10 downwards. Of course, that'll make the RV a little easier to intercept, but that was always sort of a given.

TL;DR, I don't think EO guidance is implausible to a point where we should rule it out.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Modern WVR AAMs have ImIr seekers with top speeds of over mach 3.

Obviously there's a meaningful difference between mach 3 and medium/high hypersonic velocities, but at this stage of discussion I think it would be prudent to not rule out the possibility of EO guidance just yet, and I think it is deserving of us to consider how such a guidance mechanism could be developed given the relative "unreliability" of active radar.

Window panes have of course been developed on re entry vehicles like soyuz, and the space shuttle of course, although it's worth noting their window panes faced relatively less air friction due to deliberate design, instead with more heat resistant sections of their vehicles receiving the brunt of it. Whether the windows of soyuz and the space shuttle have experienced more or less absolute levels of friction versus what the lower speed RV would experience is something we probably don't know.
But then again, I doubt any EO seeker would be exposed for the entirety of the flight -- it's not implausible for some kind of cap or cover to be ejectable off the EO seeker once terminal phase begins after the hottest and fastest part of re entry. Any "nose up" maneuvre at terminal phase would also likely decrease terminal speed by a meaningful margin from Mach 8-10 downwards. Of course, that'll make the RV a little easier to intercept, but that was always sort of a given.

TL;DR, I don't think EO guidance is implausible to a point where we should rule it out.

Don't think it would work with all the heat distortion facing down. You don't want to reduce speed of the RV since velocity is the main force of destruction and not some kind of explosives.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Don't think it would work with all the heat distortion facing down.

And that's the impasse we reach, because I don't think any of us have the info to make a call either way.
There are definitely difficulties to EO guidance, but I also think the benefits (and potential drawbacks of only relying on active radar) of a passive, image/profile recognition sensor would probably entice innovation to either materials, flight maneuvers, or a combination, to allow such guidance to work.

Whether such guidance exists is another matter, but like I said, we don't know enough to say yay or nay.


You don't want to reduce speed of the RV since velocity is the main force of destruction and not some kind of explosives.

I've always believed the most effective RV would utilize a cluster munition rather than kinetic energy. Kinetic energy will be useful in driving a hole through the carrier, but it requires a pinpoint "hit" on deck and thus greater accuracy. Cluster munitions can cover a much greater area (so accuracy is a little bit less important), and still have the capacity to mission kill all the vulnerable topside bits like catapults, arrestor gear, radar, not to mention pot hole the surface area of the flight deck and possibly even do meaningful damage to the crew in the island as well.
In other words, make a carrier only a carrier of planes and not a launcher/receiver of planes.
 
Top