Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Brumby

Major
Interesting Mr Brumby i like much these stuff confirm what I thought and Jeff had say around 30 Tomahawks rather for a Ticonderoga than a Burke, 30 on 122 missiles do this 25 % in the chart.

But right now USN don' t have much SM-3 very expensive about 200 in more 72 SM-2 Bl IV and buy 100 SM-6 also expensive by year so right now only some combattants armed with it.

Full PDF
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As you said, SM-3 is very expensive to acquire. Under the US policy of SSLS, typically two missiles will be directed at a target to ensure a 100 % kill. This is a highly unfavourable cost exchange ratio and is one of the primary driver in shifting towards a mid tier kill zone besides the use of lasers and rail gun to turn around this ratio as part of offset strategy.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Firstly Equation you mention National Interests which is renowned for do worst anti Chinese propaganda and you know it :mad:

QUOTE]
QUOTE]


On politics and geopolitics it still does for the most part, don't know what you are yammering about since the subject is about missiles and anti-ship missile defense.:rolleyes:o_O Perhaps even this is about anti-China according to your take?:confused: I guest the National Interests ran out of anti-China subject to talk about perhaps? I doubt it, they will rinse and recycle old rhetoric later on.[/
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Not yammering here only i prove with especialy YJ-18 "NI" is neutral for weapons for all countries, they have do also recently an very good article on T-14 tank he say very good, i don't see not particular Western propanganda, anti China Russia or about others countries no no.

But seems you have a doubt...so allow me in this case why you post a NI article, curious.
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I precise, i don't want to be unpleasant but i see often these remarks as i have say not justified for armaments and I do not see any favoritism or negativism about a specific country.

Precising also i read in National Interest only article about real militaries things especialy weapons* then after in others category of articles i don't know and politic don' t interested me only ofc moraly some behavior when a country get wrong about international law especialy.
And confusion seems to be there true military things and politic i don't mix both.

*Articles in general very reliable interesting in more a excellent Blogger specialist for Russians submarines have mentionned recently one these articles.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Not yammering here only i prove with especialy YJ-18 "NI" is neutral for weapons for all countries, they have do also recently an very good article on T-14 tank he say very good, i don't see not particular Western propanganda, anti China Russia or about others countries no no.

But seems you have a doubt...so allow me in this case why you post a NI article, curious.

Because in a bigger picture it has to do about the effectiveness and sophistication of China's A2/AD against carrier battle groups that's why. They didn't even mention China's other more sophisticated Anti-ship weapons such as the DF-21D, DF-26, and DF-ZS (WU-14) HGV. A few neutral or at least NOT anti-China article still does not make them get labeled as Western Propaganda because most of the time they are.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Ok your more clear, for ASBM but this matter remains difficult coz DF-21D exist, in service, deployed but right now i am not sure operationnal coz target with these missiles remains extremely difficult and no sure right now they have what they need for do that.

For DF-26 different very new we don't have all spécifications, especialy range 3000/4000 up to 5000 km ? then logic right now some sites don' t talk about it and i don' t get units equiped, DF-21D almost sure a Brigade up to 3 i have 3 approached units each have 12 TEL.

But i remenber an "NI" article where DF-26 is mentionned. But not in bookmark :)
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
If possible could one of you fine gentlemen translate this article. The Google translation ..well.... sucks. Thank you!

China sinking an US Carrier in the South China Sea

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


这个问题过于沉重,提起他就些紧张。因为从来没有考虑要在南海击沉美国航母,引起中美大战这个问题。我一直思考的是:“大国博弈斗而不散”。如何在博弈中占到上风,获得最后的胜利。将美国佬慢慢的逼出亚太地区,没有想到使用武力与美国大干一场。现在想来大战一场的可能性还是有的。不能把事情想得太乐观了,必须报后果设想的更坏一些。世间的事不怕做不到,就怕想不到。做不到不要紧,失败是成功之母。还可以在做。只要把准备工作做得更加充分一些,下一次就能做到。想不到,就会惊慌失措,甚至束手无策。完全陷入被动挨打,在稀里糊涂中彻底惨败,陷入万劫不复的境地。所以我们必须着手研究这个问题,以便出现万一,我们好能从容不迫的应对。使战争趋势向着有利于我们的一方转化,最终夺取战争的胜利。
  击沉美国航母,不论美国做什么反应?中国都必须在击沉之前做好一切预案。预案可以分为两大部分,第一部分是击沉航母的预案。它包括两部分:1.击沉航母的底线。2.击沉航母的方法措施。第二部分是击沉航母后的应对方案。这里面包括美国不同反应的不同应对措施。下面我们共同探讨一下这个击沉美国航母及其反应的应对预案。
  第一部分是击沉航母的预案:
  作为国家战争行为,决不能像一腔热血的愤青那样。感情用事,动辄就高喊:“”开火、击沉、击落、杀光!”听着解气、泄恨、爽快。可要真做就完全不是一回事啦,别说我们面对的是比我们强大好多倍的对手。就是比我们弱小很多的对手,我们也要本着:“与邻为伴,与邻为善。和平共处五项原则去做”不称霸,不随便挑起战争,不制造杀戮。以仁爱布施于天下。从而赢得万国敬仰与拥戴。又何况我们面对的是,穷凶极恶强大无比的敌人。再动手之前岂能不三思而后行。所以再动手之前必须先预设一个击沉航母的底线。
  1.击沉航母的底线:本人认为如果开战就必须出师有名,出师有理,出师有利,出师有节。真正体现我军是文明之师,威武之师、无敌之师!所以首先必须出师有理,占据道义的制高点。让全世界都知道,我们进行的是反侵略战争。是保家卫国,是别无选择的自卫反击战。以便我方“得道多助”,让对方“失道寡助”。所以必须划下动舞的底线:① 美国舰机已经进入国际社会公认的我国领土或者领海,而不是有争议的的海域。② 其舰机不是抵近侦察而是进攻我岛礁,给我国人民生命财产造成了损失,有了实际的侵略行为。③ 我国已经采取了抗议、谴责、驱离等措施,均无效果。④ 我国已经向联合国提交美国侵略我国领土、领海的报告,要求联合国对美国采取强有力的制裁措施,联合国不作为,或者美国拒不执行联合国的指示对抗制裁,继续侵略中国。⑤ 我国被迫还击,已遭受到一定的军事损失,国土域领海正在大面积的沦陷中。
  2.击沉航母的方法措施:既然决定要击沉对手赖以依存的战争平台,航空母舰战斗群。就要一击成功,彻底粉碎敌人的进攻,斩断敌人的侵略魔爪。给敌人以致命的打击。使敌人丧失战斗的意志与信心。不敢再战。如果一击不中,反而助长敌人多嚣张气焰。所以击沉敌人航母的方案要做到精密细致,万无一失。具体可从以下几个方面着手:① 预设战场;要想一击成功必须预设战场,通过佯攻,佯动、诱饵把对手的航母诱入我预设的伏击海域。在这一海域的水下。布设了深海声呐探测系统。太空中有北斗与各种侦察定位系统覆盖,中空有预警机、无人机、飞艇的侦测系统笼罩。航道上有布设着各种反舰水雷。特别是能够自动攻击的智能鱼雷。如伪装成鲨鱼的东海808自动攻击鱼雷。水下还有早已蹲坑静默潜伏的各种攻击潜艇。②在对敌航母战群实施攻击时,一定要集中优势火力采取各个击破的战术。不论敌人有多少只舰船,先集中攻击其中的一艘防御相对薄弱的航母,弹头都瞄准这一艘航母,不管其他舰机。只要先打沉一艘航母。剩下一艘就孤立无援啦,至少使可以升空的战机减少了一半。然后在集中火力打沉另一艘航母。至于随从战舰失去了飞机的保卫,他就成了我空军与海军航空兵,空对舰导弹的活靶子啦。③ 多兵种合同作战;美国的航母战斗群,有很强大的防御系统,有自卫能力与抗饱和攻击能力。千万不要相信一两枚东风21D或者东风26就能搞定。它上面的标三防空导弹拦截能力也可以说独步天下。再加上其它舰载武器,如密集阵,激光武器、电磁干扰系统。一般的攻击密度根本就进不了他的身,所以必须进行超饱和攻击。对其进行多兵种联合打击。如水面舰艇使用C805反舰导弹,这种导弹射程380公里,3.5马赫掠水飞行速度,很难拦截。战机使用鹰击18反舰导弹,射程20公里,末端攻击速度3马赫,也很难拦截。轰六K使用长剑10巡航导弹,射程1000——1500公里。可掠海飞行。各军种统一指挥步调一致,不论从何处发射的武器弹药,根据弹头运动速度与轨迹,计算好发射时间,让弹头同时到达目标上空。超出航母防御系统能够同时拦截的最大数量。让其防不胜防,拦也拦不完,保障使其中弹沉没。 ④在攻击时最先到达目标上空的弹头,要使用超大功率电磁脉冲弹头。即使被拦截成功,在战区上空爆炸。其产生的电磁脉冲足以将战区内的电子系统全部瘫痪掉。这样敌方的防御系统就会失效,为后续而来的打击弹药扫清前进路上的障碍。⑤再水面与天空弹头到达目标上空的同时,水下潜伏的智能水雷与潜艇同时发起水下攻击。⑥ 在各种弹头立体式攻击目标之际。东风21D或者东风26的多枚弹头当空而下。这时敌人的拦截武器已经全部开动,尚且不能完全拦截攻击的弹头。再也没有拦截东风系列反舰道导弹的分身术。只有挨打的份。保障东风中程反航母弹道导弹一击成功,使航母葬身海底。
  第二部分是击沉航母后的应对方案:
  当我们击沉了美国在南海的两个航母战斗群之后,美国会如何反映呢?我们只能自己设想,无法推测美国的战略应对。我们先看看美国这些年对华的战争准备吧!
  自1996年台海危机以后。美国最有影响力的军事家,安德烈.马歇尔便提出了对华“海空一体战”的战略。在这一思想的指导下,五角大楼的对华海空一体化战略,现在已经逐步去以成熟。这一战略的目标要求美国以战争手段击败中国大陆,并且是美国先发制人的打击方式,在打败中国之后,由美国决定中国的投降条款。这个海空一体战略规划。具体来说就是美国重返亚太战略的实施。在中国周边部署重兵,美国的计划是把60%的兵力部署到中国周边。例如:日本、韩国、菲律宾、越南、印度、阿富汗、蒙古、澳大利亚、印度尼西亚、马来西亚、新加坡、泰国等国的军事基地。对中国形成完全包围结构,届时一起发动对中国的打击。现在这个包围圈已基本形成。没完成的地方只有印度、蒙古、泰国、印度尼西亚、马来西亚、越南。目前正在进行中的国家有越南、印度、马来西亚、印度尼西亚、蒙古。其余关键的地方都已经部署完毕。整个第一岛链已经形成了C字形包围圈。现在南海部署两个航母战斗群。在日本还有一个第七舰队,在太平洋中的第二、三岛链之间放置了一个第三舰队。在日、韩、菲军事基地部署了大量的海空力量与陆军力量。最为关键的是他们部署了美军最先进的武器装备。如攻击核潜艇、战略核潜艇、BI\B2战略轰炸机。F22\F35隐形战机。据说还要部署即将服役的最新航母福特号与未来战舰DDG1000。直接应对中国。美军有14万人的海军陆战队。是美国政府对付其他国家的首选力量与马前卒。另外还有著名的“海豹、与绿色贝雷帽”特种部队。美国的海空一体战包括:陆、海、空、天、网络以及金融经济等方面打击与破坏。这个战略最初的设计不包括核打击。后来修正包括使用最终打击手段——核战。
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
If possible could one of you fine gentlemen translate this article. The Google translation ..well.... sucks. Thank you!

China sinking an US Carrier in the South China Sea

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't know how you got this hot potato;), but I think if it is translated in detail and "allowed" to be discussed here there will be lots of flames. The reason? I can give a very brief summary.
  1. It is an "what-if, what-to-do-if" article about "possible" U.S. confrontation to China in SCS centered around CBG and discussed sinking of it.
  2. It made it clear that although China does not and should not actively go for a direct confrontation to US, China must prepare for the worst scenario so not to be caught in a surprise. On this topic, the author is very much against the war-loving fan-boys.
  3. It sets the threshold of such act such as U.S. navy crossed into undisputed Chinese territorial waters, and attacked Chinese personnel's and infrastructures etc.
  4. Then it talked about the means of retaliation including sinking it.
  5. The last part talked about the handling afterwards.
 
Most modern naval shipping has some degree of Stealth I used Zumwalt because it has the most. but Arleigh Burkes, Daring class, Kongō, Atago, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam, Type 52 C and Type 52D, Sejong the Great-class,Steregushchiy class, Gepard-class all have stealthy designs, they may not be able to fully penetrate sea denial zones but they can pierce the edges, physical stealth is signature reduction. It reduces the range of detection by enemy radars with the aim of allowing you as the attacker to get in your weapons range well the enemy cannot see you. a Destroyer or frigate may be stealthed to the point where rather then a detection by enemy radar at thousands of miles it can close to a couple hundred, fighters and Stealthy drones have even smaller sizes and more reduced radar cross section meaning where an enemy may detect a F15 at hundreds of miles an F22 and close to a few dozen.
Destroyer and Naval weapons have far longer range and more available then fighters meaning they can stand off at the edges of enemy radar detection range get data from a network like Link 16 or MADL and engage in strikes from over the horizon.
Carriers and LHA/LHD types could not do this as they are far larger and even stealthed would still have a large cross section. and be visible from a very long range.
your argument of the longer range of warships as compared to that of aircraft is misplaced here (while being formally correct, of course), and in an actual combat it would be incomparably safer to send aircraft off of the carrier to engage the Opfor, than to send for example a Destroyer Squadron to engage the Opfor, simply because the aircraft would be able to "hit and run" (hit as in launching an AShM, run as in flying away for a refill), while the surface combatants would be exposed to the Opfor shooting back; please note I assume realistic conditions, not any imaginary superiority, as I talk peer-to-peer conflict (and not for example the USN going against some Navy of Windward or Leeward Islands :)

anyway I quickly scrambled the chart below, to consider the tactics in case the encounter happened:

1all in red is a Destroyer Squadron, sailing in the direction of the Opfor coast, towards 'edges of sea denial zone' from your post;
1all in blue is a Destroyer Squadron of the Opfor, on patrol because of the info about the Red Force coming;
from what I've read the likely tactical move of the Blue Force would be split (various 2. in blue: half of it egresses at first (so that Red Force pursues: 2all in red), the other half turns to sides of the Red Force, not to encircle :) but to position helos for mid-course correction(s) of the AShMs

OK now I changed my mind and we may actually play it here, if you don't consider it silly LOL
(I would be the Blue Force; your move):
9rtz7.png
 

advill

Junior Member
Just wondering where the Chinese learnt the manoeuvres - likely Russian or US? a combination of both to produce their own manoeuvres? Like everything else, they are yet to be tested. The WW II Japanese IJN were trained by the British RN (don't know about carriers, except IJN learnt about Taranto in 1941 - defeat of the Italian Fleet by the RN old bi-plane aircraft surprise launch by RN Carrier). Japan used this strategy/tactic for Pearl Harbour Surprise attack. However, we also know that the Japanese Carrier Group in WW II were badly defeated by the much superior USN Carrier Groups. Good lessons of History for Naval War Colleges.
 
Top