Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Roger604 said:

Australian airpower estimates 7 seconds including the time it takes for the illuminator to rotate.

Click to expand...

Sorry, calling no way on that one. The Timbuktuan Aerospace Magazine on the other hand cites only 3 seconds for a complete 360 degree rotation.

Roger604 said:

The official line is that illumination (not including rotation) is needed for the last "few seconds". "Few seconds" does not mean 1 or 2 -- it should mean at least 3 but less than 10.

Click to expand...

OMG that is so weak. I almost don't even want to dignify this one with a response. "Few" is quite open to interpretation, especially if the author didn't feel like spelling out "1 or 2" when "few" would have been more succinct and ambiguous, especially if Friedman doesn't know the exact number, which he may not. And if you want to get even more ridiculously grammatical then I don't know how on earth you could think 8 or 9 means "few". In any case this assertion is not worthy of legitimate discussion.

Roger604 said:

The Australian airpower estimate of 7 seconds is reasonable to me. You can use this to calculate how quickly an illuminator can fend off a salvo of ASM. Each time an incoming missile is destroyed, the other missiles get closer and closer.

Click to expand...

7 seconds is truly ridiculous. Have you seen how quickly the much more massive Phalanx CIWS rotates its entire structure? Try Youtube. There is absolutely no reason the USN would accept a radar not built to rotate as fast as possible, especially when it would otherwise become a crippling bottleneck for the entire air defense system of the ship.

Roger604 said:

Your estimate assumes that the carrier's fighter cover exists. I am talking strictly about the technical limits of AEGIS -- in a full featured scenario, the carrier's fighter cover of course would need to be engaged.

Click to expand...

My estimate in no way assumed any fighter cover at all. It is based on the missile capacities of the carrier's escorts. Statistically speaking, each carrier will be escorted on average by 2 Tico cruisers, 2 Flight I AB's and 2 Flight II+ AB's (and 1 Perry frigate). Some carrier groups, like the George Washington carrier group forward-deployed in Japan, will have more escorts.

Roger604 said:

IR seeker for SM-2 (Block IIIB) is brand new technology. I question how effective they could be against small, subsonic cruising sea skimmers. IR seeker is for close range work.

Click to expand...

The IR seeker is not for "close range work", whatever you mean by that. It was specifically designed to engage OTH targets in lieu of them being lit up by SPG-62 radars. Whether the IR seekers can engage targets as effectively as the radar illuminators remains anyone's guess, but certainly they had to have achieved a level of effectiveness roughly comparable to what is achieved by the SPG-62 before being adopted on a wide scale. The SM-2 Block IIIB is present on all Flight II+ ships, which represent over half the Arleigh Burke fleet. They are also being backfitted to the Flight I's and Ticonderoga class cruisers during overhauls.

Roger604 said:

There are lots of variable and unknowns here. Consider the effect of a final stage using rocket booster, stealth shaping and coating and high-G endgame maneuvers. All these make things even more difficult for the illuminator to keep up.

Click to expand...

This all means what? Nothing. You don't have a clue what effect any of these factors has on the ability of the SPG-62 to keep up with targeting. And in fact the illuminator does NOT at all keep up with targeting as you claim. It is completely slaved to the SPY-1D radar which does the tracking and pointing for it. The SPY-1 also does all the midcourse updates and tracks the outbound missiles on their way to their targets, not the SPG-62. The SPG-62 is nothing but an X-band puppet radar for the SPY-1 S-band radar to use during terminal guidance.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Wolverine said:

No. There is no need to "array" submunitions into any kind of "contour" at all. This is not a requirement just because you would like it to be. There is no need to "locate" anything either. The submunitions would be essentially dumb bomblets scattered into an area determined by the time of release prior to impact as well as the speed of rotation of the missile body.

Click to expand...

Yes there is, or at least should be. Some attempts are already in use...

Cluster bombs have been used for some time to provide area coverage from a single bomb drop. Up to several hundred bomblets are carried within a single outer housing or canister, which separates into two parts when dropped from an aircraft andreleases the bomblets. The individual bomblets ideally fall in a predetermined dispersion pattern to cover a large area. Some cluster bombs have no facilities for communicating with individual bomblets, and the bomblets explode upon impact or after abuilt-in delay period. In a more sophisticated type of cluster bomb, each of the individual bomblets is connected to a central controller by means of a wire harness, with separate cables running from the harness to each individual bomblet. The use ofsuch cables makes it possible to communicate with the bomblets after they have been positioned in the bomb canister, for purposes such as arming the bomblets or providing a common detonation delay time to each of the bomblets.

While the use of such wire harness connections provides greater versatility in the applications for which the cluster bomb may be used, it also limits the performance of the bomb. It is generally desirable that the bomblet dispersion pattern be homogeneous over a large area. The forces acting on the bomblets as they are released from the cluster bomb are critical in determining the dispersion pattern, with only a few ounces of force on each bomblet being sufficient to greatly distort thepattern. One problem with the prior art wire harness approach has been that, in order to provide communication with the bomblets, the wire harnesses have had their cables mechanically connected directly to each bomblet. When the bomblets are released,they must then be disconnected from their respective cables in order to fall freely. Various attempts have been made to disconnect the bomblets without adversely effecting their dispersion pattern, but none have been entirely successful.

Click to expand...

But now we are talking dispensing heavier submunitions from even higher altitudes than where aircrafts dispense lighter ones at a target that would be moving. There are algorithms in the works to make the current dispense methods and patterns even more directed and work in conjunction with other deliverers...

Wolverine said:

You're attempting to conflate facts for which you almost certainly have no evidence. If you do, let's see the evidence for the association between "Over-the-horizon radars are not new" and "could not find the ship". Was there one in Hawaii that was looking for the carrier group at the time of the exercise? Prove it. Was it even pointed in the direction of the exercise? Those things can't be redirected. You do know that do you not?

Click to expand...

I do not have direct evidences of an over-the-horizon-radar system that the Navy may have used in RIMPAC 1986. However, we are not talking about attempting to detect a target that is thousands of nm away, as in how a true OTHR system would perform. Over the horizon is as much a technique as it is a distinct radar system. LORAN have been bouncing signals off the E-F layers for decades. Ham radio bounced off the same E-F layers as LORAN and they can be in ghz bands...

All modes and licensees (except Novices) are authorized on the following bands [FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a)]:

2300-2310 MHz
2390-2450 MHz
3300-3500 MHz
5650-5925 MHz
10.0-10.5 GHz
24.0-24.25 GHz
47.0-47.2 GHz
76.0-81.9 GHz*
119.98-120.02 GHz
142-149 GHz
241-250 GHz
All above 300 GHz

Click to expand...

When I was at RAF Upper Heyford and at MacDill, put an aircraft on jacks or pop the WoW breakers and I will have full power to the radar. Under the right conditions, even the ghz freqs can bounce and I have picked up dubious surface returns when faced the Gulf. If a carrier based aircraft is flying around, then we know the ship cannot be further than the aircraft's fuel capability. I cannot see Navy radar boys unable or ignorant of exploiting over the horizon techniques when the potential target is within several hundred nm.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

gambit said:

Yes there is, or at least should be. Some attempts are already in use...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But now we are talking dispensing heavier submunitions from even higher altitudes than where aircrafts dispense lighter ones at a target that would be moving. There are algorithms in the works to make the current dispense methods and patterns even more directed and work in conjunction with other deliverers...

Click to expand...

This line of argumentation is ridiculous. You're essentially trying to claim that cluster munitions MUST be dispersed into a set pattern, and because they must, and because an ASBM can't do so according to your claim, that therefore an ASBM cannot use submunitions. This chain of reasoning is fraught with tenuous assumptions and non sequiturs and is clearly wrong even on the face of it. Who says that just because "some" other systems are trying to find ways to disperse them into a set pattern, that therefore an ASBM MUST also try to disperse them into a set pattern? How do you even know that the dispersal pattern of an ASBM submunitions dispenser will be more random or inaccurate just because it's higher altitude? The time to target is much less than conventional submunitions and if anything, any lateral forces which act on submunitions have far less time to knock them significantly out of place before they impact.

gambit said:

I do not have direct evidences of an over-the-horizon-radar system that the Navy may have used in RIMPAC 1986. However, we are not talking about attempting to detect a target that is thousands of nm away, as in how a true OTHR system would perform. Over the horizon is as much a technique as it is a distinct radar system. LORAN have been bouncing signals off the E-F layers for decades. Ham radio bounced off the same E-F layers as LORAN and they can be in ghz bands...

When I was at RAF Upper Heyford and at MacDill, put an aircraft on jacks or pop the WoW breakers and I will have full power to the radar. Under the right conditions, even the ghz freqs can bounce and I have picked up dubious surface returns when faced the Gulf. If a carrier based aircraft is flying around, then we know the ship cannot be further than the aircraft's fuel capability. I cannot see Navy radar boys unable or ignorant of exploiting over the horizon techniques when the potential target is within several hundred nm.

Click to expand...

Here I see a whole lot of handwaving trying to cover up the fact that you have no proof OTH radars (or even anything resembling them) were used during RIMPAC 86. This is a direct contradiction to your previous authoritative-sounding (and now unambiguously erroneous) claim:

Over-the-horizon radars are not new and could not find the ship.

Click to expand...

So was this statement a lie or an exaggeration?

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Ambivalent said:

Last edited by bd popeye; 6 Days Ago at 12:18 PM.

Click to expand...

What exactly do the moderators edit , and why is it not clearly indicated ?

I think some remarks should be indicated so that others may well benefit from the comments and avoid similar errors in future.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

marclees said:

What exactly do the moderators edit , and why is it not clearly indicated ?

I think some remarks should be indicated so that others may well benefit from the comments and avoid similar errors in future.

Click to expand...

Mods note.>>> As moderator I can tell you it is not necessary for any mod to explain why he edited a post. However most of my editing involves merging post and removing foul language.

The forum rules clearly state;

A) If a moderator edits your post. So be it. Do not edit a moderators post!

Click to expand...

bd popeye super moderator

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Excellent discussion gents.

No offense, but I don't care what you claim that you've seen or done in the military.

Click to expand...

Many times persons who have served can only give tidbits of information on discussion boards without compromising security.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

TO hith most Royal and Regal Majeethty Edward III of England

With all Fealty, Love and Devoutionn from hiyh most obedient seryvant John the Lord Beauchamp of Warwick, Admiral of the North, South and West.
On this daye the fyth of June in the year of ar Loryd 1360

Felicitous greethings my Liege

I hath read oth your sore concern come bye reportzs that by deviousness and devilry, the Freench doth so seek as to assaultr the shippes of his mahrsty by use of stones fired drom bronzen tubes propelled by the Chineese powder and thus to cause them such distress by the ravaging oth their tymbers and thus cayse them to founder to the dystryss and dytrimynt to tge realm.

It ith the view of thy serveants thyat sych stoynes wil fhail to penytrate the stout tymbers of our mythy Man-O-War and thayt our realm will be preserved by the myhty arms of our Loyng Bowmen and hardy Boarders and that such method of prosecuting just war on your enymeys with prevail in the futuur as it hath in the past.

John Beauchamp – Lord Warwick
Admiral off the North, South ande Wyst.

Click to expand...

OK I made it up, but you know what I mean

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

bd popeye said:

Excellent discussion gents.



Many times persons who have served can only give tidbits of information on discussion boards without compromising security.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but for the purposes of a forum debate, 'I could tell you my sources but then I'd have to kill you' is equivalent to an unsupported personal opinion. Otherwise anybody could claim to have confidential sources, whether they were in the military or not.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Wolverine said:

That's all well and good, but for the purposes of a forum debate, 'I could tell you my sources but then I'd have to kill you' is equivalent to an unsupported personal opinion. Otherwise anybody could claim to have confidential sources, whether they were in the military or not.

Click to expand...

Well..you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However certain information must remain confidential.

I'm out.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

bd popeye said:

Well..you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However certain information must remain confidential.

I'm out.

Click to expand...

No prob popeye. Your, Ambivalent, and other's bonafides are well known and established to many of us here.

Just the same, Ambivalent is giving a good education based on existing documentation from older systems that is available for those willing to look and research. For those who know, it is clear where the current systems are in advance, and in relation of those older ones.

Charlie Mike.