Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

GPS isn't entirely necessary for guiding an AShBM. For example, an OTH radar with 0.5-degree beamwidth, can initially generate a 22-km targeting grid from about 2,500 km away. The AShBM launching from about 1,000 km away, would take about 7 minutes to arrive. A CVG speed of about 100 kmh, would correspondingly spread the targeting grid to about 45 km, for which ARH scanning with a 256x 256 array, can already provide a resolution of about 176 m, close enough for cluster-demolition from the AShBM.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Bltizo said:

If you check the citation for that it goes to sinodefence.com, and if you read the DF-21A caption for the page it mentions nothing about ARH or GPS for the DF-21A. GPS andARH guidance would provide a far smaller CEP than 100-300m... wth?

Click to expand...

The mystery has been solved.



"Accuracy is increased from 700 m CEP to 50 m CEP,...The accuracy is improved by the use of GPS and a radar correlation terminal guidance system in the missile’s navigation system."

So it seems it used SARH. My mistake.

I'd gladly trade a DF-21D TEL and maybe a few support vehicles for putting a CVN out of action for a while and potentially sinking it every day of the week.

Click to expand...

The problem is that each DF-21D TEL needs to be linked to other supporting structures, which would potentially put the general strategic area at risk for a full tomahawk bombardment. They can be linked wirelessly, but not far.

Yes, because we won't be expecting hell if a carrier wasn't destroyed or attacked in the first place... I'd rather have "Hell minus a carrier or two" rather than "Hell with a carrier or two"...
Besides, minus a carrier or two it'll be a bit less than hell, maybe more death valley or one of the more remote deserts on the planet.
The real point is that at the end of the day so long as the carriers are out of action in one way or another, either temporarily or permanently, so long as they can't launch planes that can strike China, then AShBM will have done its job, and that counts if the USN doesn't decide to deploy carriers within 3000km in the first place due to the threat of AShBM (deterrence strategy).

GG

Click to expand...

If your real intention is to get the Carriers out of the picture, you will do it, temporarily. In the bigger scheme of things, they are not the biggest contender in the seas that China will have to deal with. I have demonstrated with prior cases of past AShM engagements to show how ineffective they essentially are, and like I said, it is highly unlikely the DF-21D is going to be a carrier killer, more like carrier wounder.

Also, after reading the missilethreat page and noting that the DF-21A has a reduced size warhead of 500 kg, I have recalculated the KE of a DF-21D possible impact down to 690 kg of TNT equivalency.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

A good opportunity to launch the AShBMs, is after the aircrafts have taken off the CVNs. With the flight decks destroyed by cluster-demolition, most of the returning aircrafts would have to land in hostile territories or crash into the sea, after they run out of fuel. Although the CVNs can limp back to the continental US for repair, how soon can the massive losses of aircrafts and pilots be replaced? And what is the use of refurbished CVNs without aircrafts and pilots? Mission accomplished for the AShBMs, with or without the guidance of GPS.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

You underestimate the U.S.'s logistical capabilities in the Pacific. Our CVNs would never launch our superbugs 3000km from the coast of China. Most likely, targets will be a few hundred km inland in itself. The combat radius of the superbug being only about 700 km, means that the CVs will have to be <700km to launch it's planes, bomb stuff, and head back. In that regards, if the actual distance to the target was only about 350 km, and the DF-21Ds damage the flight deck of the Nimitz class while the planes are heading back means that the superbug still has enough fuel for at least 1,500 km of flight, which would allow it to easily land at airbases in Japan, SoKo, or Taiwan, if those bases are damaged, you can always land on civilian airfields (not recommended), on highways (extremely not recommended), or just bail there.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

And you underestimate the ingenuity of asymmetric warfare and the scale of such a conflict. It is hilarious that some may even fantasize that China would just sit back and wait for air strikes. If the US were to launch an attack on Chinese soil, you can expect most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific be destroyed by Chinese MRBMs. There would be close to none US airbases suitable for landing. Unless the superbugs would immediately turn back without even fighting (J-10s and J-11s would be chasing them down too), few would make it to Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. And the small fraction of superbugs that survived would essentially be mission-killed, without support from the destroyed US airbases.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Which would mean you underestimate the superiority of American assets in region. If you're argument is, "China sits back as America bombards" than that is false. If we wanted to "attack" China, we would hit everything they have at once. It would be highly unlikely that China would have anything left capable of even launching a DF-21D afterwards. However, if China were to be the aggressors and attack the CVN first, like I said, the Carrier would not be sunk, and if they did it how you advised, after the superbugs are launched, than most likely, those superbugs would be in the Air-to-Air configuration and would thus engage said J-10s and J-11s in air combat. If China is able to detect and strike "all" U.S. far eastern bases, than like I said, those superbug pilots can land on civilian runways or just bail in friendly territory. But like I said, that's going off topic.

Some people do not know that China, and Chinese, naturally are not aggressors and will not shoot unless they are shot at. (unless the rival is considered part of China, in which case it is considered a civil war and an entirely internal affair). If you read about Chinese history (it's a very lengthy history) and know China's foreign policies, for example China's nuclear policies, you should know that.

Also politically, China need to gain support from other countries. If it is being attached, it is not in China's interest to "attack all countries with US bases (or whoever the aggressor is)" first and being called an "aggressor" and attract hostile actions from all nations.

Although China will not attack first and it is not applicable, FYI, it is hilarious some would expect "most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific be destroyed by Chinese MRBMs" - without even talking about PAC-3, SM-3, etc deployments and their ability against these missiles, accuracy of Chinese MRBMs, you should count how many Chinese MRBMs can reach those targets first.

BRLG said:

And you underestimate the ingenuity of asymmetric warfare and the scale of such a conflict. It is hilarious that some may even fantasize that China would just sit back and wait for air strikes. If the US were to launch an attack on Chinese soil, you can expect most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific be destroyed by Chinese MRBMs. There would be close to none US airbases suitable for landing. Unless the superbugs would immediately turn back without even fighting (J-10s and J-11s would be chasing them down too), few would make it to Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. And the small fraction of superbugs that survived would essentially be mission-killed, without support from the destroyed US airbases.

Click to expand...

And another point: the fact is DF-21D is not operational and has not done tests (easily detectable by other countries), assuming the programme actually exists.

At the moment it's just rumours and some newspapers trying to write something that gains attention. Oh yeah, and there are a few guys trying to get funding for their projects.

It is in China's interest to develop ASBM, however I do not see how it will work given China's current resources (detection, position and tracking of the target, guidance, etc)

IronsightSniper said:

Which would mean you underestimate the superiority of American assets in region. If you're argument is, "China sits back as America bombards" than that is false. If we wanted to "attack" China, we would hit everything they have at once. It would be highly unlikely that China would have anything left capable of even launching a DF-21D afterwards. However, if China were to be the aggressors and attack the CVN first, like I said, the Carrier would not be sunk, and if they did it how you advised, after the superbugs are launched, than most likely, those superbugs would be in the Air-to-Air configuration and would thus engage said J-10s and J-11s in air combat. If China is able to detect and strike "all" U.S. far eastern bases, than like I said, those superbug pilots can land on civilian runways or just bail in friendly territory. But like I said, that's going off topic.

Click to expand...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

Which would mean you underestimate the superiority of American assets in region. If you're argument is, "China sits back as America bombards" than that is false. If we (the US) wanted to "attack" China, we would hit everything they have at once. It would be highly unlikely that China would have anything left capable of even launching a DF-21D afterwards.

Click to expand...

China would do exactly what you are proposing for the US ----- once the superbugs or Tomohawks are launched toward Chinese soil, MRBMs and AShBMs would simultaneously attack most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific and the flight decks on CVNs off the coast, leaving the superbugs scrambling for save airstrips to land. After the first wave of air strikes, the US would have no more superbugs nearby to continue and swarms of J-7s and J-8s are free to hunt down the Tomohawks. And the more than 40 super-hardened airbases protected under mountains in China, would likely survive and provide counter-strikes for a long time.

IronsightSniper said:

However, if China were to be the aggressors and attack the CVN first, like I said, the Carrier would not be sunk, and if they did it how you advised, after the superbugs are launched, than most likely, those superbugs would be in the Air-to-Air configuration and would thus engage said J-10s and J-11s in air combat. If China is able to detect and strike "all" U.S. far eastern bases, than like I said, those superbug pilots can land on civilian runways or just bail in friendly territory. But like I said, that's going off topic.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you are too fixated on the symbolism of the US CVNs. Once again, what is the use of CVNs without aircrafts and pilots? It was illustrated in the earlier messages that AShBMs can indeed destroy the flight decks, essentially denying air strikes after the first wave. Either the launched superbugs would immediately turn back without even fighting or they no longer have their 1,500-km range intact anymore. If the superbugs were to engage J-10s and J-11s, most of the superbugs would not have enough fuel to seek refuge in the civilian airstrips at Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and have to land on hostile territories or crash into the sea. And as mentioned earlier, the small fraction of superbugs that survived would essentially be mission-killed, without support from the destroyed US airbases ----- meaning, the AShBMs would have accomplished its mission.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

williamhou said:

Some people do not know that China, and Chinese, naturally are not aggressors and will not shoot unless they are shot at........

Click to expand...

If you were to carefully read my earlier messages, China would counter-strike right after the first wave of US air strikes were launched.

williamhou said:

Also politically, China need to gain support from other countries........

Click to expand...

You have forgotten about the military alliances between the US, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Once the US have decided to launch an attack toward Chinese soil, they are all in, together.

williamhou said:

Although China will not attack first and it is not applicable, FYI, it is hilarious some would expect "most of the US airbases in Asia-Pacific be destroyed by Chinese MRBMs" - without even talking about PAC-3, SM-3, etc deployments and their ability against these missiles, accuracy of Chinese MRBMs, you should count how many Chinese MRBMs can reach those targets first.

Click to expand...

If you were to doubt the feasibility of AShBMs based on a lack of existing demonstrations, and for that matter, MRBMs, then you should also acknowledge that PAC-3s and SM-3s, are only tested under controlled scenarios, without the problems of handling multiple MRBMs and AShBMs, with decoys and ECMs. So far, the advantage is still clearly on the attacking missiles.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Bltizo said:

The real point is that at the end of the day so long as the carriers are out of action in one way or another, either temporarily or permanently, so long as they can't launch planes that can strike China, then AShBM will have done its job, and that counts if the USN doesn't decide to deploy carriers within 3000km in the first place due to the threat of AShBM (deterrence strategy).

GG

Click to expand...

also don't assume that AshBMs are going for carrier only and by themselves. that is a bad assumption.

They can easily configure a wave of AshBM to include dedicated anti-radiation warheads as well as active radar homing war heads or even IR (IMHO the most likely option, as the termal bloom of 4xLM2500 is bit different from a nuclear flat top ) that pre-programed to target AEGIS ships.

once the AEGIS SPY-1 radars are lit up trying to paint the warheads, their signals can be used to cure in other strike assets.

don't assume AshBM is the only asset in the game.

...

as for GPS for guidance. GPS data is used in a ballistic missile's flight to get a position fix to update/correct its inertial guidance system. nice to have , can do without.


---

also on the terminal phase intercept of warheads coming down.

it is really hard. especially the warhead is manuevering and has decoys.

that's why US also invest so much in launch phase interception.