Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

not gonna argue with you anymore, for all i care you can said china is building 10 supercarrier hidden somewhere and has hundreads ASBM hidden and can take down entire worlds navy

i've been in defense industry for decade, and we always do some worst case scenario/performance/capability test. believe whatever you like. might want to ease up on your Fanboy level, its way up there.

Click to expand...

s002wjh said:

i've been in defense industry for decade, and we always do some worst case scenario/performance/capability test. believe whatever you like. might want to ease up on your Fanboy level, its way up there.

Click to expand...

actually, usually only at a component level you are able to do worst case scenario tests.
once you validate the component level, the system level worst case is usually mandated to be proven using validated simulations/ analysis. that goes truer and truer as the complexity of your system goes up.

Case in point is a cruise missile (can't tell you which version/what kind)
Usually the "user" (navy, again can't tell you which one) asks for a certain version or block to have certain % number that can complete a mission (hit a target with in certain deviation), given a variability in external (atmosphere conditions for example) and internal (component failure probabilities, for example) factorw.
since there is no way in hell the "user" will pay for enough missiles to establish the real failure rates through flight testing , In the end the real rate has to be established by analysis and simulation. including running millions of simulated scenarios in a validated simulation enviornment with the component failure probability established by test.
This whole process has to go through rigorous reviews by people from contracting agencies.

nothing is as simple as you make them out to be.

and please don't think the people on the other side of this arguments are all "fanboys".

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

i.e. said:

actually, usually only at a component level you are able to do worst case scenario tests.
once you validate the component level, the system level worst case is usually mandated to be proven using validated simulations/ analysis. that goes truer and truer as the complexity of your system goes up.

Case in point is a cruise missile (can't tell you which version/what kind)
Usually the "user" (navy, again can't tell you which one) asks for a certain version or block to have certain % number that can complete a mission (hit a target with in certain deviation), given a variability in external (atmosphere conditions for example) and internal (component failure probabilities, for example) factorw.
since there is no way in hell the "user" will pay for enough missiles to establish the real failure rates through flight testing , In the end the real rate has to be established by analysis and simulation. including running millions of simulated scenarios in a validated simulation enviornment with the component failure probability established by test.
This whole process has to go through rigorous reviews by people from contracting agencies.

nothing is as simple as you make them out to be.

and please don't think the people on the other side of this arguments are all "fanboys".

Click to expand...

if you say so... the system still need to be tested, multiple tests. the lack of DF21 tests/reports doesn't really give indicate evidences of its operational status. furthermore, ive seen alot folks just assume ASBM is up running, and chinese already test out everything etc etc.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

KingLouis said:

OH you have work in the defence industry. What company?

Click to expand...

WPAFB,ATK, Sierra Nevada Corporation,Macb

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

if you say so... the system still need to be tested, multiple tests. the lack of DF21 tests/reports doesn't really give indicate evidences of its operational status. furthermore, ive seen alot folks just assume ASBM is up running, and chinese already test out everything etc etc.

Click to expand...

The Question is what kind of test and what is the purpose.
These test are to valid their simulations? or are they to ascertain a specific performance criteria that the user just can not live with out? You can not be vague and lack in specifics in your criteria then generalizing.

As to the lack of DF21 tests/reports. It would be wise for you to go back in this thread and re-read some of this stuff...



"Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

Testing

just because you lack the intel and raw data to make a judgement, doesn't mean head of PACOM also doesn't.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bd popeye said:

Surely China can simulate these ships operating in an EMCOM condition..

Click to expand...

The PLAN could simulate an ECM environment if they so desired. They have their own ECM and could use that if all else failed...but I imagine that they know enough about the US capability to be able to model it to whatever level of knoweldge and capability that they have, and then build into the test whatever presumptions are necessary to establish parameters that account for any differences.

In addition, all the talk about a ASAT test compared to this anti-carrier BM ship killer test and that if the PRC can pull off one, then they automatically have the technology to do the other is comparing apples and oranges.

A satellite that is in a fixed, or defined orbit that is not manuevering to avoid a collission comes down to your capability at math and the accuracy of your equations/calculations as they relate to the hardware you are using to intercept it.

This is not the case with a carrier where the missile is launched at a particularl location (that may or may not be very accurate as to the initial location) and then sometime later, the warhead itself having to reacquire that target. Depending on the distance from the initial launch, the target my have moved many kilometers in any direction, and eratically at that. The target will also be deploying its ECM and electronic and physical decoys to confuse the re-acquisition. This is all different than most ASAT kills where the orbit and location of the target are known at any given time once you know the orbit.

Now, if the target in question is able to manuever in space and adjust its location, speed, etc...then you have a different matter. But my understanding is that this was not the case with the Chinese ASAT test.

It is most certainly the case with an aircraft carrier.

Too many variables to be able to say that one technology begets another...starting with a clean and accurate location of the carrier from the start and how that information is transmitted back to the firing base, and then how the warhead reacquires the carrier sometime later and what capability the warhead itself has to manuever to accomodate the manueveriung carrier.

I am willing to bet that the US will continue improving its ABM capaility for the US Navy, with more and more successful tests, and that the USN will also test successfully laser and then charged particle defenses against the same. I am willing to bet popeye, that in your and my lifetime (which amounts to another 20-30 years anyway) that US aircraft carriers will remain the predominant power projection tool on the world's oceans and seas, and that at that time, they will be even better defended than they are now...and that other nations will still be hoping to develop a "carrier killer" system of some type to counter them.

I am also willing to bet, whether they advertise it to the press or not, that those nations will conduct operational and live fire testing of their systems to try and determine, as best as they can, whether they "got it right" before spending hundreds of millions of dollars...or billions...to deploy such a system in any large numbers.

Time will tell...but I am willing to wager that time also proves these projections of mine correct.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Jeff. ^^^.I can't bet you on that because I believe you. The USN never retreats in technology. They always proceed forward.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

How reliable is this? Claims made that ASBM deployed?




...........Public statements made by senior authorities in the U.S. and Taiwan indicate that the PLA has formed its first unit equipped with an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) system. Looking beyond a first generation ASBM, .................

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

cataphract said:

As cheap as Chinese products are, their high end, advanced products are equally as expensive as that of the American counterpart. That combined with their reported military budget limits the number of ballistic missile they can buy.

Click to expand...

Why are PRC's advanced products equally expensive as that of the American counterpart?

PRC enjoy significantly lower labour costs, as compared to the unionised labour costs paid by western contractors. That is a component of manufacturing cost, whether it be a low end product or a cutting edge product. This applies to maintenance costs as well. R&D costs in PRC is also lower because the PRC researcher is paid a fraction of what a western researcher is paid.

The only cost that remains the same for everyone is raw materials cost that are imported.

Now, with lower manufacturing, maintenance and R&D costs, can you explain why an advanced product in PRC is "equally as expensive as that of the American counterpart"?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bladerunner said:

How reliable is this? Claims made that ASBM deployed?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...........Public statements made by senior authorities in the U.S. and Taiwan indicate that the PLA has formed its first unit equipped with an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) system. Looking beyond a first generation ASBM, .................

Click to expand...

i did saw that this morning, if its true, me and others who has doubts on ASBM might have to eat our words ;(

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Spartan95 said:

Why are PRC's advanced products equally expensive as that of the American counterpart?

PRC enjoy significantly lower labour costs, as compared to the unionised labour costs paid by western contractors. That is a component of manufacturing cost, whether it be a low end product or a cutting edge product. This applies to maintenance costs as well. R&D costs in PRC is also lower because the PRC researcher is paid a fraction of what a western researcher is paid.

The only cost that remains the same for everyone is raw materials cost that are imported.

Now, with lower manufacturing, maintenance and R&D costs, can you explain why an advanced product in PRC is "equally as expensive as that of the American counterpart"?

Click to expand...

well i heard someone said before, although the labor is cheap, but alot time the government hire more people so everyone can be employed. maybe they spend more time on R&D. but this is my guessing.