Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Ambivalent · Jan 18, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Red Moon said:
It's interesting that this sort-of-military reporting is actually much more "benign" than the liberal New York Times on these things. They even quote the Heritage Foundation here, but there's no twisted spin in the article.

How much of this "reportage" is lobbying by defense contractors and their supporters? Just askin' ......

You might be surprise how much of the fight over the defense budget takes the form of such new releases. Take it all with a grain of salt. A proportion of these articles are sea stories aimed at a constituency.

Ambivalent · Jan 18, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Finn McCool said:
That cuts both ways. Lots of civilian traffic will make it harder to pick out the military targets.

As for the example of the Falklands War that's being discussed, I'd like to point out that both sides were using technology that was outdated even at the time. Argentinian aircraft dropping dumb bombs were going up against British ships firing at them with WWII-style AA guns. So sometimes I think people extrapolate too much from that conflict. But it is fair to say that it showed how decisive shipborne air power can be because the Harriers effectively defeated the Argentine bombing campaign against the fleet.

Eh, not totally buying that. The Brits had some modern weapons like AIM-9L, Seawolf and Sea Dart that proved effective. The Brits had effective seduction jammers that saved one of their carriers. One of the two Exocet missiles that were diverted re-locked on Atlantic Conveyor which had no ECM and was hit. The Brits had one very trick piece of equipment out there, a laser system, that claimed a few Argentine Daggers. I have seen the exact weapon on a Royal Navy ship. The crew was quite proud of it. There certainly weren't any of those used in WWII. It was used to light up the canopy and blind the pilot. If you ever wonder why Argentine and British accounts of who shot down what with what weapon never jive, I suspect this is part of the reason.

bd popeye · Jan 18, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

solarz said:
Sounds like the DF21 is doing its job: keeping the Americans guessing and off guard. Unless China and the US comes to open war, whether or not the DF21 can actually sink a carrier is irrelevant. The fact that it potentially *could*, would make the US much more circumspect in the future about sending in a "show of force". This is like a poker bluff that the US can't afford to call.

I deliberately left this statement below out of the news article..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“It’s very difficult to target a moving ship,” said retired Adm. James Lyons, who commanded the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1987.

“We don’t need to run in fear just because of Chinese arrogance and bluster.”

..So I could later post it..and I did not want to inflame anyone.. You see as an retired Admiral ADM. Lyons(USN ret.) can state what others are more than likely are thinking. He knows no one will freeze him in rank or stick him behind a desk or force an early retirement.

ccL1 · Jan 18, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Chinese arrogance? Were the Chinese being arrogant about this?

I feel that all this fear about the DF-21 was stoked mainly by US defence companies to sell their own weaponry and naval higher-ups to increase the Navy's budget. And it is a fact that we don't know what this missile can do, let alone even find a target.

If the Chinese military comes out with a new mouse-trap, the US defence industry and naval command will find some way to turn that into a "threat" for their own purposes.

advill · Jan 18, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

It is unlikely to be the end of the Carrier Age. China, India & UK are building their Carriers. Russia is purchasing the Mistral "Carrier" from France. Japan and South Korea have also built their "Destroyer" (DDH) carrying helicopters - they look more like small carriers.

bd popeye · Jan 18, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Japan and South Korea have also built their "Destroyer" (DDH) carrying helicopters - they look more like small carriers.

Japan and the ROK DDHs are carriers as you describe..

ROKN LP-X Dokdo (Landing Platform Experimental) Amphibious Ship;
Displacement 18,860 tons fully loaded
Length 200m(656ft) length
Beam 32m(?)(105ft)

JMSDF DDH-161 Hyuga / 16DDH
Displacement 18,000-20,000 tons
Length 185m(606ft)
Beam 32m(105ft)

Hardly destroyers.

It is estimated theHyuga may carry as many as 24 helos.

The Dokdo may carry 15 helos.

solarz · Jan 18, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bd popeye said:
I deliberately left this statement below out of the news article..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

..So I could later post it..and I did not want to inflame anyone.. You see as an retired Admiral ADM. Lyons(USN ret.) can state what others are more than likely are thinking. He knows no one will freeze him in rank or stick him behind a desk or force an early retirement.

Sure, it's difficult to target a moving ship, and, as Ambivalent pointed out, there are plenty of ways that a CBG can hide itself.

That's why I said: "whether or not the DF21 can actually sink a carrier is irrelevant". Even if the DF21 had a decent targeting rate, there's no telling how effective it will be in actual combat.

However (!), that doesn't matter! The fact that the Chinese *could* have a weapon that can destroy a carrier poses a huge risk, not only to the US Navy and personelle, but to the image of American naval supremacy. No US administration is going to risk a carrier like this unless they were ready for open war.

Duran · Jan 19, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Spartan95 said:
The point about US carriers manoeuvring at 30 knots making it a harder target to hit by ASBM has been repeated many times. Let's have a look at what simple arithmetic says about a hyper-sonic weapon's speed relative to 30 knots.

1 knot = 1.852km/hr
30 knots = 55.56km/hr = 55,560m/hr = 15.43m/s

A Nimitz class carrier is 332.85m in length.
(from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Thus, at 30 knots, it takes the carrier ~21.57s to travel 1 carrier length.

Assuming the ASBM's speed is Mach 7 gives the following:

Mach 1 ~ 340m/s (rounded down for easier calculation)
Mach 7 ~ 2,380m/s

Thus, a Mach 7 ASBM will cover 2,380m every sec as compared to 15.43m for the carrier. And, in the time that the carrier takes to travel 1 carrier length, the ASBM would have travelled 51,336.6m (or 51.336km, which is sub-orbital height).

IMO, to achieve decent accuracy, the update rate for the ASBM should be ~half the time it takes the carrier to travel 1 carrier length. This would put the update rate requirement for the ASBM at ~10s to allow for reasonable terminal guidance. An update ~10s prior to hitting the target would put the ASBM at ~23,800m above the carrier. This puts the ASBM outside the troposphere (i.e., outside the densest portion of the atmosphere).
.......

.

From Spartan95's theoretic model, I modify as below.

We tend to calculate the evasion distance of air carrier according to DF-21D's travel time to target. Yet from entry profile of space shuttle, we can find there is around 100 km (altitude before black-out) to sea level. If DF-21D updates air-carrier's position before its entry into the atmosphere, the time-to-hit will be less then 1 minute and the travel distance will shorten to less than 1 kilometer (700 meters). In addition, air-carrier's evasion measures, urgent take-off of air-planes, might limit its freedom of movement. Judging from air-carrier's length and huge body, it will be an obvious target located in such narrow area.

bd popeye · Jan 19, 2011

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Huh?

Theories are nice. But you still have to prove them. I'm not aware of a DF-21 hitting a moving target at sea.

Spartan95 · Jan 19, 2011

Ambivalent said:
If China were the adversary there wouldn't be just one. When the F-35B IOC's the LHA's and LHD's start to become a factor.

You are refering to USN vessels that carry strike aircraft?

I would think that would have been taken into account when the PLA Navy decided on how many 022s, submarines, etc they would need to use to hunt such vessels within the 1st Island Chain in the event of just such a scenario.

Ambivalent said:
There was a famous simulation some years back where commercial traffic made it dangerous to use guided weapons designed for a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict at sea. Something like Exocet or Harpoon does not discriminate well between big combat ships and big merchant ships. They fly to a waypoint on their INS and conduct a radar search, then attack whatever shows up, within some defined limits, on the missile's radar. Too often the missile locks neutral shipping and not an adversary target. This would be a problem for both sides in a highly congested sea lane.

This is the typical American/British mindset.

Bear in mind that the NATO missiles (such as Harpoon & Exocets) were designed for open ocean warfare against USSR ships. These are essentially Cold War designs that have gone through various upgrades over the years. These missiles are not designed specifically for use in the congested littorals.

Thus, the question is whether navies that operate in the littorals (such as the PLA Navy) have designed missiles specifically for use in the congested littorals? There is probably no evidence in the open realm to support this. But, to assume that lack of evidence means there is no such weapon could prove a costly mistake when it turns out otherwise.

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Ambivalent

Junior Member

Ambivalent

Junior Member

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

ccL1

New Member

advill

Junior Member

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

solarz

Brigadier

Duran

New Member

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

Spartan95

Junior Member