Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Schumacher said:

Of course, as I said, either methods' chances of success is remote unless there's a leap in the guidance capabilities of PLA BM.

Click to expand...

Exactly...since the BMs will be launched from a long distance and the carrier is moving at 30+ knots, it is also unlikely that, short of significant improvement to a ballistic missiles guidance allowing it to cahnge its targeting profile based on external imput during flight or its own acquisition capability, that a ballistic missile will be able to hit a carrier that has moved a significant distance since the missile was launched...even with dispersed bomblet munitions.

This has alwasy been the issue with land-launched BMs against naval targets. Unless the missile is very intelligent, or can communicate to a system that updats the target (and that system would of course be targeted itself by the US military during such hostilities), it is not going to be able to acquire and hit the target that has moved anywhere from 20-60 km or more since the missile was launched. Most land-launched BMs are designed for hitting immobile land stationary targets using inertia or GPS guidance, or against massed troop formations that are not very far away and therefore will not move far at all before the missile arrives.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Jeff Head said:

This has alwasy been the issue with land-launched BMs against naval targets. Unless the missile is very intelligent, or can communicate to a system that updats the target (and that system would of course be targeted itself by the US military during such hostilities), it is not going to be able to acquire and hit the target that has moved anywhere from 20-60 km or more since the missile was launched. Most land-launched BMs are designed for hitting immobile land stationary targets using inertia or GPS guidance, or against massed troop formations that are not very far away and therefore will not move far at all before the missile arrives.

Click to expand...

Is the problem really that large? Let's take a carrier moving at 30kts. Flight time for Ghauri II (or any other ballistic missile) with 1100 km range is 9 minutes 58 seconds. That means that from the missile takeoff to impact the carrier can move 5 nautical miles from the starting point. Moreover, it cannot move to which direction it wants as a ship running at high speed has a long turning radius. So, if the target information includes ship's location, speed and bearing the area the warhead has to manouever is not going to be as large as a circle with radius of 5nm's. Most probably the ship will continue on same route, especially if conducting flight operations, but this of course cannot be counted on. If only target location is available the circle is roughly 5nm's.

This means that terminal guidance is needed, but the are which the missile has to search, locate and guide itself towards target is not as large as it seems.

Already US Pershing II with range of 1600km's and 1970's technology had a active radar guidance with CEP of 30m's, so I would imagine it would be possible to remake one today. Especially as I would imagine Pershing radar task to be more difficult as it had to match terrain instead of searching a target. Other possibilities would be infrared guidance or optical guidance or even a combination of these methods to evade countermeasures. For a "quick DIY" simulation of optical guidance to target take a Google Earth look of Tokyo Bay from 150 miles (apogee for a ballistic missile fired roughly 1100km distance). Of course there's no problems with plasma etc.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Jon K said:

Is the problem really that large? Let's take a carrier moving at 30kts. Flight time for Ghauri II (or any other ballistic missile) with 1100 km range is 9 minutes 58 seconds. That means that from the missile takeoff to impact the carrier can move 5 nautical miles from the starting point.

This means that terminal guidance is needed, but the are which the missile has to search, locate and guide itself towards target is not as large as it seems.

Already US Pershing II with range of 1600km's and 1970's technology had a active radar guidance with CEP of 30m's, so I would imagine it would be possible to remake one today. Especially as I would imagine Pershing radar task to be more difficult as it had to match terrain instead of searching a target. Other possibilities would be infrared guidance or optical guidance or even a combination of these methods to evade countermeasures.

Click to expand...

Why suppose that the flight time is only 9 minutes? That is an optimal solution requiring the carrier to be in range of that particular missile...there is nothing to say that it will.

And in an environment where there is a war going on, you can bet that the carrier will in fact be taking evasive manuevers...both before and after the launch.

In addition, terminal guidance in wartime is going to have to run a the very heavy ECM gauntlet when near the carrier that you allude to, designed specifically to beat the electronics of the various guidance options. The US is very good at this.

It is a much larger problem than one might imagine, particularly if the missile is not designed from the outset for that environment (strike at sea against manuevering targets at high speed) and is only retrofitted (like most BMs will have to be) with the guidance technology which will limit what can be added.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Jon K said:

Is the problem really that large? Let's take a carrier moving at 30kts. Flight time for Ghauri II (or any other ballistic missile) with 1100 km range is 9 minutes 58 seconds. That means that from the missile takeoff to impact the carrier can move 5 nautical miles from the starting point. Moreover, it cannot move to which direction it wants as a ship running at high speed has a long turning radius. So, if the target information includes ship's location, speed and bearing the area the warhead has to manouever is not going to be as large as a circle with radius of 5nm's. Most probably the ship will continue on same route, especially if conducting flight operations, but this of course cannot be counted on. If only target location is available the circle is roughly 5nm's.

This means that terminal guidance is needed, but the are which the missile has to search, locate and guide itself towards target is not as large as it seems.

Already US Pershing II with range of 1600km's and 1970's technology had a active radar guidance with CEP of 30m's, so I would imagine it would be possible to remake one today. Especially as I would imagine Pershing radar task to be more difficult as it had to match terrain instead of searching a target. Other possibilities would be infrared guidance or optical guidance or even a combination of these methods to evade countermeasures. For a "quick DIY" simulation of optical guidance to target take a Google Earth look of Tokyo Bay from 150 miles (apogee for a ballistic missile fired roughly 1100km distance). Of course there's no problems with plasma etc.

Click to expand...

Jon,

There is a reason why 100 percent of antiship missiles are cruise missiles not ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are notoriously inaccurate and extremely hard to guide, especially a moving target. It is not just a problem of guidance but also manueverability. Ballistic missiles uses a parabolic trajectory, similar to artillery shells. This isn't a problem if your target are large immobile structures. But a maneuvering warship at sea, this is practically impossible. It reminds me of USAAF doctrine of carpet bombing the Japanese Fleet with B-17s. No single Japanese ship was ever hit by a bomb dropped from them.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

IDonT said:

There is a reason why 100 percent of antiship missiles are cruise missiles not ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are notoriously inaccurate and extremely hard to guide, especially a moving target. It is not just a problem of guidance but also manueverability. Ballistic missiles uses a parabolic trajectory, similar to artillery shells. This isn't a problem if your target are large immobile structures. But a maneuvering warship at sea, this is practically impossible. It reminds me of USAAF doctrine of carpet bombing the Japanese Fleet with B-17s. No single Japanese ship was ever hit by a bomb dropped from them.

Click to expand...

Yes, there's difficulties but even with PLA budget it's hard to see why they would throw money on impossible dream. Like it's possible to make a guided or even intelligent artillery round it's possible to make a guided re-entry vehicle. It may has to sacrifice some speed on re-entry to get manouverability and enough time to acquire a target but it would be still very hard and very bitchy to act against. And I wouldn't bet PLA is setting on using only nukes with AS ballistic missiles.

Already RV's with at least some manouverability for course correction and terminal guidance have been used. If Pershing II's accuracy figure of 30m CEP is compared to SS-5 Skeans 3.5km CEP I'd guess that former includes some rough course correction and terminal guidance capability.

Why ballistic missiles aren't more used for anti-ship duties is probably more because of weight and cost requirements. While C-802 for 120km range and 165kg warhead weights 715kg's, Pluton ballistic missile with fairly similar range and warhead weights a whoppin 2500kg's and is most probably a whole lot more expensive. I would also bet C-802 style missile is also easier to launch.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Jon K said:

Yes, there's difficulties but even with PLA budget it's hard to see why they would throw money on impossible dream. Like it's possible to make a guided or even intelligent artillery round it's possible to make a guided re-entry vehicle. It may has to sacrifice some speed on re-entry to get manouverability and enough time to acquire a target but it would be still very hard and very bitchy to act against. And I wouldn't bet PLA is setting on using only nukes with AS ballistic missiles.

Already RV's with at least some manouverability for course correction and terminal guidance have been used. If Pershing II's accuracy figure of 30m CEP is compared to SS-5 Skeans 3.5km CEP I'd guess that former includes some rough course correction and terminal guidance capability.

Why ballistic missiles aren't more used for anti-ship duties is probably more because of weight and cost requirements. While C-802 for 120km range and 165kg warhead weights 715kg's, Pluton ballistic missile with fairly similar range and warhead weights a whoppin 2500kg's and is most probably a whole lot more expensive. I would also bet C-802 style missile is also easier to launch.

Click to expand...

The difference between a "guided" artillery round and a ballistic round that you are proposing is that artillery is an area effect weapon. Yes it can take out fix targets with pin point accuracy but those targets are fixed and do not move which makes it easier to adjust.

Consider the ballistic missile you are proposing. A ballistic missile by its defination is only guided on its powered flight phase (boost) and rely on the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics to reach its destination. At the apex of a ballistic missile flight it litterally starts to fall and is guided only by enertia. You can put flight controls on the warhead to give it a semblance of guidance like you would a smart bomb. However, the energy of the speed of re-entry of these warheads are extremely high and you would not get the same freedom of movement like a cruise missile would. This is even problem is even compounded if your intended target is moving at 30 knots.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

zraver said:

Blujacket, the PLAAF will not paint the aircraft in civillian colors, that is aviolation of the LOAC and such subterfuge to sink a carrier risks a nuclear strike in retaliation acording to current US nuclear doctrine
FOD is a problem on any rough strip landing or taking off.

Click to expand...

The Soviets had many of their IL-76s & AN-22s in Aeroflot markings but used by the VTA, also isn't sporting PLAAF marking either.
As for their ,

Officially all IL-76s belong to the China United Airline (CUA), the commercial branch of the PLAAF in operation between 1986 and 2002. The IL-76s are registered with the four digit civilian aircraft numbering (B-XXXX), and some of them are in the CUA colour scheme. In practice these aircraft are operated by the PLAAF 13th Air Division based at Wuhan, Hubei Province.

Click to expand...

Since you are so concerned about FOD, there is a thing called "FOD walkdown"- it can be done as often as needed with a line of soldiers across the width of a runway strip- they'll pick and remove any object that might be ingested on takeoff, thus greatly reducing the chance of FOD- I've done it myself many, many times both at sea on CV-63's flight deck and on airfields!

Now to BMs: the Russians already revealed that they are developing new BM's to defeat US BMD.

The warhead fires off the vehicles in midcourse, changing direction twice a minute to fool warning radars as to where the charges are heading. Each vehicle is assigned an individual target at up to 100km (60 miles) from the separation point.
As Russian Chief of Staff Colonel Gen. Yuri Baluevsky put it, "The vehicle can successfully avoid monitors and penetrate all missile defense systems, including the ones still under development.
"In a huge improvement over conventional ballistic warheads, this re-entry vehicle can either follow a preset flight maneuvering program or be re-targeted when it is already over enemy territory," he said. This means that the re-entry vehicle will effectively penetrate anything the U.S. military is trying to build now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

By the same token, IRBMs/SLBMs can be modified to change their trajectories for terminal guidance toward CSGs.

Another developing area of PLA superiority may be in the area of anti-ship ballistic missiles. In 2004 the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) warned "…Chinese writings state China intends to develop the capability to attack ships, including carrier strike groups, in the waters around Taiwan using conventional theater ballistic missiles (TBMs) as part of a combined-arms campaign."[15] This fear was also echoed in the 2005 Pentagon report on PLA modernization. Candidate missiles include the 600km range DF-15, 1,000km range DF-15 Mod 1 and the 2,000+km range DF-21C solid-fuel mobile ballistic missiles. ONI fears the PLA is developing a maneuverable ballistic missile warhead that also contains a terminal guidance system that apparently may use both active and passive radar.[16] While the PLA may be capable of building such a missile, to do so would require very advanced guidance and surveillance systems. However, today neither the JMSDF nor the U.S. Navy has the means to defend against anti-ship ballistic missiles. Successful acquisition of this capability by the PLA would serve to undermine both the deterrent capabilities of the Japanese and U.S. navies.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Since you are so concerned about FOD, there is a thing called "FOD walkdown"- it can be done as often as needed with a line of soldiers across the width of a runway strip- they'll pick and remove any object that might be ingested on takeoff, thus greatly reducing the chance of FOD- I've done it myself many, many times both at sea on CV-63's flight deck and on airfields!

Click to expand...

You are so correct. I did it many,many,many times. Here are some pics of FOD walkdown. One is a vintage pic taken on CV-63.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

BLUEJACKET said:

......
Now to BMs: the Russians already revealed that they are developing new BM's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to defeat US BMD.
By the same token, IRBMs/SLBMs can be modified to change their trajectories for terminal guidance toward CSGs.

Click to expand...

Good piece of info. Having said that current BM guidance systems are unlikely to be good enough for the task of hitting carriers, I do think the technologies are not that out of reach & definitely worth to put some research resources to make it work, as I believe PLA are definitely looking seriously into this.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

In the RN the FOD Walkdown is known as the "FOD PLOD", to emphasise it is something not to be rushed! I have video footage of a Fod Plod taking place aboard the Old Ark Royal in 1975 for a training film, and at the end they throw everything they've picked up to the fishes from the roundown at the stern.