Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Schumacher

Senior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Schumacher, Could you or someone post that story in English? A short transalation would be nice. Thank you.

What I said is basically what the article reported. The rest of it talks some abt him saying the space probe to the moon will fly in the 2nd half of this year.
Some introduction of the 73 year old guy, that he participated in the old DongFeng 1 BM, East is Red 1 sat programs.
More recently as the chief designer of the Shenzou 1 & 5 capsules.
He repeated the China's space program is peaceful, not for arms race.

The only part abt carrier is when asked by the reporter if the ASAT tech can be applied to attack carriers & he said 'Absolutely no problem.' as the tech are inter-related but at the same breath went on to say US is far ahead with such tech as they've demonstrated this tech last century.

I guess what he said is basically the ASAT test demontrated some guidance & BM maneauver tech that in principle are similar to what's required to target carriers. And as I said earlier, no mention if PLA is indeed working on such a system.
 
Last edited:

Asymptote

Banned Idiot
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I didn't read every thread, so someone might have already mention it.
I thought the best method to sink a modern carrier is to hit it's spine below the bow - that way it can "snap the ship in half". SSM or ASM can only damage it the ship minimally since it's above the waterline. The Russians developed several types of torpedos to specifically deal with CBG.
 

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Reuters: US Navy can't protect aircraft carriers against super sonic missiles

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile

Tony Capaccio Fri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.
:eek:
Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressively Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.


To be fair, I've heard quite different from what this reporter is talking about, but what are your opinions?
 

Costas 240GD

Junior Member
Re: Reuters: US Navy can't protect aircraft carriers against super sonic missiles

Didn't the US Navy buy Kh-31 "Krypton" missiles to test the efficiency of anti-missile systems against supersonic ASMs? What happened with these tests?
 

Scratch

Captain
Re: Reuters: US Navy can't protect aircraft carriers against super sonic missiles

I think after the Kh-31 came out, somewhere in the mid-nineties, the US administration showed interest in cooperation with Russia and wanted the missile for anti-missile tests.
However, the missile couldn't fullfill USN specs, among them handling saftey was a major issue. I think range as well. Boeing assisted in working out those bugs. In the end, the US didn't really procure them in numbers.
The now (with US help) improved missile was sold to China (and others?) instead. [Not really sure if it has been exactly this way]

In 2004 I think orbital sciences recieved an order to make a new test target missile for the USN.
The outcome was the GQM-163. A M2.0 missile with ca. 60nm range.
I would presume it should get into service soon at least. Haven't really latest info on the status.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Gents I moved your thread, "US Navy can't protect aircraft carriers against super sonic missiles", to an already existing thread. No need to open a new thread.

bd popeye super moderator
 
Last edited:

Costas 240GD

Junior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

I see, thanks.

----------------

No problem!>>> bd popeye
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scratch

Captain
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Regarding that USN anti supersonic-seaskimmer test probelm.
There's an article at DID, looks like the navy is now purchasing full production vehicles of the GQM-163.

Feb 13/06: Orbital Sciences Corporation announces that that it has received the first full production order from Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD for 19 GQM-163A "Coyote" Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target (SSST) missiles. This is the program's first full-rate production contract, and covers 19 production vehicles. The total contract value of this production order is estimated to be in excess of $20 million.

Including a previously awarded low-rate initial production order (LRIP) of 20 vehicles, Orbital says it is now under firm contract to build and deliver a total of 39 vehicles through early 2008, of which 4 vehicles have already been delivered to the Navy. In addition, 6 previously delivered vehicles were launched in the test program from 2003 - 2005.
 

sidewinder

New Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

i mean i dont think it takes much to sink a carrier .it might have the capability to take down a missiles shot at it but what would happen if were to overload a missile defence such as aegies system with multiple targets i mean by launching more missiles at the carrier as i think self defence capabilities of a warships are limited to say ten to twelve simaltaneous tracking and it can hardly engage 7 at a time and there is no way that the most advanced missile defence will have a 100% kill ratio.

i would say a harpoon exocet could take out a carrier if launched en masse.
and aimed at specific sites of carrier like fuel is stored or armaments.

of course i could be horribly wrong about this just my take thats all.
 

Scratch

Captain
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Well, sidewinder, it certainly depends on what navy's CV your trying to sink. The number of targets AEGIS can track is rather hundred and more, not ten plus. And engaging is at least 20+, or even more.
One main goal was to counter sowjet saturation attacks. An entire CBG carries hundreds of SM-2 and ESSM. It would be somewhat useless to have so many missiles on ships, when they would be destroyed much earlier.
Of course there is not a 100% efficiet system. But the layered defence of SM-2, ESSM, CIWS is really effective. And there are aircraft as well.
When it comes to other navies it will get "easier". But tracking some tens of targets won't be to hard either
But then you still need the capability to deliver such a saturation attack. So while it sure is theoreticly possible, you will have difficulties finding someone to fullfill practical needs.

And then I'm not sure that there's currently a AShM available that could aim for a specific point at the hull.
 
Top