Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Blitzo · Nov 10, 2013

The challenge is whether the PLA can test the system as robustly as it can, without giving away too much useful data and alarming neighbours and the US etc.

Because I agree the AShBM works as a psychological deterrent but I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest such a weapon is definitely in some state of operation and as rigorously tested as possible sans the above factors.

Jura The idiot · Nov 10, 2013

I just took notice of this thread, really heavy caliber here, my favorite topic

Does somebody here have an idea how an attack of the CSS-5 would proceed from the reentry of the atmosphere, at Mach twenty or so, up to the point of hitting the desired ship (and not for example a tanker which just happened to join the group) presumably at much lower speed? I read in Russian source(s) that cruise missiles like Sandbox or Shipwreck could have been made faster, but were not, so that they could maneuver more effectively (picking up the right target) ...

Equation · Nov 10, 2013

Jeff Head said:
Hehehe...come on my friend. A live fire test is not against a ship full of people, not even against us Americans.

It is against a target at sea, that is underway. Just like the US does when it tests its missiles, lasers, etc.

Think of Sun Tsu. What better way to give an enemy pause, and deny access to a critical area by not having to fire a shot, than to get your adversary to think you have something that you have never tested, but which they cannot afford to ignore.

Of course they would deploy it if they felt that could reap such a reward. The Soviets did it all the time.

But, if it has never been tested, there is a huge chance it will not work, and can be defeated. It's just that unless something extremely critical hangs in the balance, you will think twice before committing a 8-10 billion dollar carrier, it's air wing, and 5,000 people on it.

And that, my friend, is the point.

I understand my friend, but here is the kicker.

Did the US needs to test their stealth helicopter in public in order to do complete their mission when raiding Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan? Nope. DF-21D is a strike weapon first and foremost, it's not made solely for deterrent like ICBMs. It will be use only when necessary. These secret weapons has to go through lots of testings before deployment.

PanAsian · Nov 10, 2013

bd popeye said:
Here ya' go..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just saw this video at mp.net. the ex-USS Guam (LPH-9) while not a carrier took a real beating before going down to Davey Jones locker some 12 years ago..

[video=youtube;reu_0uULP58]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reu_0uULP58#at=25[/video]

I assume the Guam was an empty hull and this doesn't reflect how it would react to hits if it had ordnance and fuel around?

Equation · Nov 10, 2013

Bltizo said:
The challenge is whether the PLA can test the system as robustly as it can, without giving away too much useful data and alarming neighbours and the US etc.

Because I agree the AShBM works as a psychological deterrent but I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest such a weapon is definitely in some state of operation and as rigorously tested as possible sans the above factors.

China has the most active missile development program in the world and well funded. Why did you think Turkey decided to pick the Chinese HQ-9 (FD 2000 for export version) over the Patriot, S-3000 and the European version? And the Chinese were willing to transfer technology with Turkey for that deal because they're confidence enough to know it's ok because it's not even their best missile technology, meanwhile the US and the European refuses to give Turkey ToT. Now take that into consideration about how effective the DF-21D can be.

bd popeye · Nov 10, 2013

PanAsian said:
I assume the Guam was an empty hull and this doesn't reflect how it would react to hits if it had ordnance and fuel around?

Yes she was empty. No fuel or ordnance. However watertight integrity (all doors and hatches closed and secured) was set i.e. material condition yoke. And no crew ,of course, was aboard to perform damage control.

Engineer · Nov 10, 2013

kwaigonegin said:
This would be what I called a pointless and futile activity. It seems to me that you have already made up your mind DF-21D is immune to any sort of countermeasures.
There have been countless ABM tests by the AEGIS system in the past several years and you know it (no need for me to name any).. but I suspect for every one example I give you would just refute the claims by saying it really isn't a DF_21D that it was tested against.

That's the problem. What have been tested against aren't remotely like the DF-21D. People are assuming that hitting dummies flying traditional ballistic trajectory automatically means any ballistic missile derivative can be hit. The fact is that publicly available information show the DF-21D does not fly with a traditional ballistic trajectory at all, which makes ABM test results rather meaningless.

kwaigonegin said:
In retrospect I can also say how effective is DF-21D? Has it even been tested against a moving ship with ABM capabilities? Has it been tested against an umbrella of AEGIS ships consisting of latest SM-3 and SM-2 missiles and ESSM? a combination which consists of both exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric and shorter range kill vehicles to increase the odds of interception?

Also you must have missed my posting in it's entirety. I did say that even WITH this capability nothing is 100% guaranteed and thefore DF-21D HAS achieved it's purpose which is area denial. It will make the USN think twice where it may not necessary have needed to before with this new capability. As an example, even proven CIWS are at best have 90-95% success against ASMs in an actual wartime scenario especially with saturated attacks. Truth is there has never been any real life instance of such events with saturated attacks or with DF-21D type weaponry.

You are essentially asking me to prove a universal negative and that would be impossible on my part simply because there has been no actual test of DF-21D against an actual CBG. It's like me asking you to prove to me DF-21D can most definitely hit an actual USN CBG in the middle of the ocean and it would be impossible for you to substantiated that claim either.

You highlighted a common problem that occurs whenever ASBM comes up. There are always people that demand evidences to prove that DF-21D an most definitely hit an actual CBG in war time scenario. Like you have said, that's asking for proof that is impossible to obtain. At the same time, those same people assume their favorite systems such as ABM remain effective under the same scenario. That's a smack of hypocrisy.

TerraN_EmpirE · Nov 10, 2013

Equation said:
I understand my friend, but here is the kicker.

Did the US needs to test their stealth helicopter in public in order to do complete their mission when raiding Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan? Nope. DF-21D is a strike weapon first and foremost, it's not made solely for deterrent like ICBMs. It will be use only when necessary. These secret weapons has to go through lots of testings before deployment.

there is a world of difference between DF12 missiles and Stealth hawk, Stealth Hawk was likely already flying around in the deserts of Nevada long before Neptune spear. Stealth Hawk was never admitted to until after the mission even today the closest to a image of one ever seen is the tail section and bombed out wreckage. the program remains deep in the black. The reasons Stealth Hawk was used was concern that Pakistani military personnel might actually be protecting OBL after all the Pakistani military academy is a mile from where OBL's complex stands. And were if not for a miss calculation in winds you and I would never have known about the Stealth hawks. Had that tail not been left behind the world would have thought it was just regular old MH60s used.

vis via the Dong Fang is lauded by the PLA as a Carrier killer, its a white program as we say in the US but also a threat.
Like the stealth hawk if the Chinese have tested it they went out of there way to keep it under wraps. Its intention and existence however is very much on the fore front. Where stealth hawk is a blackops techno thriller writers wet dream come true, a platform designed to engage specifically in covert infiltration of denied territory and covert operations recovery from denied airspace. Dong fang is a undeniable. Its whole point is not to make the kill but to place the American navy in a position where they have to keep at arms length.

Equation · Nov 10, 2013

TerraN_EmpirE said:
there is a world of difference between DF12 missiles and Stealth hawk, Stealth Hawk was likely already flying around in the deserts of Nevada long before Neptune spear. Stealth Hawk was never admitted to until after the mission even today the closest to a image of one ever seen is the tail section and bombed out wreckage. the program remains deep in the black. The reasons Stealth Hawk was used was concern that Pakistani military personnel might actually be protecting OBL after all the Pakistani military academy is a mile from where OBL's complex stands. And were if not for a miss calculation in winds you and I would never have known about the Stealth hawks. Had that tail not been left behind the world would have thought it was just regular old MH60s used.

vis via the Dong Fang is lauded by the PLA as a Carrier killer, its a white program as we say in the US but also a threat.
Like the stealth hawk if the Chinese have tested it they went out of there way to keep it under wraps. Its intention and existence however is very much on the fore front. Where stealth hawk is a blackops techno thriller writers wet dream come true, a platform designed to engage specifically in covert infiltration of denied territory and covert operations recovery from denied airspace. Dong fang is a undeniable. Its whole point is not to make the kill but to place the American navy in a position where they have to keep at arms length.

And you don't think the technical success and break through success is a close kept secret? Remember the word "carrier killer" was a name given to it by the Department of Defense, not China. It is NOT China's job to make sure the doubters wrong through their own perspectives. The PLA are not going to waste billions of dollars and decades worth of real scientific break research just for a "bluff" during peace time. They could have spend it on more submarines. This assumptions that the DF-21D is just a deterrent weapon comes from naysayers and fan boys (no not assuming you) who still refused the facts and that the Pentagon has already acknowledged its existence.

Equation · Nov 10, 2013

Engineer said:
You highlighted a common problem that occurs whenever ASBM comes up. There are always people that demand evidences to prove that DF-21D an most definitely hit an actual CBG in war time scenario. Like you have said, that's asking for proof that is impossible to obtain. At the same time, those same people assume their favorite systems such as ABM remain effective under the same scenario. That's a smack of hypocrisy.

True, and the carrier fan boys (outside this forum) just don't want to accept that somewhere out there, there is a system that can neutralize their favorite weapon.

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jura The idiot

General

Equation

Lieutenant General

PanAsian

Major

Equation

Lieutenant General

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

Engineer

Major

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Equation

Lieutenant General

Equation

Lieutenant General