Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Not very impressive. You're talking about Silkworm/Styx/Seersucker family of first generation antiship missiles. Very old stuff that can't be considered true low level sea skimmers. Shooting them down won't be called a feat.

During the Falklands War, the number of Exocets that got through British defenses was particularly disturbing.

Going back to the Russian carrier, I'm pretty sure, all their Cold War stuff were extensively tested, though I can't say that with the same confidence on their post-Cold War material.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Yeah its very old stuff... I think generally people are much more confident about the accuracy and effectiveness of US missiles, they have defected Russian systems easily too many times in the past few decades

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

"Defected" what? Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. Its clear here that the Russian carrier is exceedingly well armed, and I have not seen anything to suggest that Kashtan or the Klinok is subpar. I'm pretty sure the Russians pay exceedingly well attention on their AA systems. Furthermore, these systems have their land based equivalents that actually have experienced true combat. The 9M311 mentioned here is part of the Tunguska. The Klinok here is known by another name---the Tor. Both these systems have scored a number of kills in the war in Georgia. So yeah, they're blooded. Along with the land based system called the Buk, whose naval version is better known as the Shtil, the same system. Though the Shtil is not part of any carrier, it does equip a number of Russian and Chinese naval vessels, not to mention getting copied.

Gollevainen said:

Russian Carriers? There is only one russian carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov.

Would it be easier to sink than USN carriers? Perhaps as the Russian navy doesen't have proper carrier support force/fleet which USN have. Tough then again USN doesen't have the dedicated anti-carrier elements of themselves becouse there weren't that much enemy carriers to counter.

Best weapon against Admiral Kuznetsov would be submarines (as would be against USN carriers). Also the airdefence elements of the Russian fleet aren't as good as USN as the Soviet union broke up before something similar in capabilites of Aegis could be fielded. But to state that Kuznetsov has weaker CIWS than USN carriers is utter diaknowlidging of facts. Admiral Kuznetsov has the most extensive close range airdefence suite ever fitted to any ship in service anywhere in the world.

Click to expand...

As discussed in this thread before, non nuclear submarines could not follow the speed of CVBG, and nuclear submarines could not be made in large numbers in China. The number of missiles launched from a single nuclear attack submarine is not enough to defect the defence of USN CVBG, and its very hard to get close enough to use torpedos. In any case the submarine would be doing a suiside mission, as ASW on board other vessles could destory the exposed submarine easily, unless it can disable the whole CVBG. However even a few missiles hit the CV it would not sink. This may deter the submarine from attacking. And most importantly, all chinese made submarines are too noisy, they are most likely destoryed by LA-class, Seawolf-class submarines or S-3 before they attack. China need to work hard on technologies that could make their submarines stealthy. Or they could develop long range cruise missiles for their submarines, this may be a much easier approach.

crobato said:

"Defected" what? Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. Its clear here that the Russian carrier is exceedingly well armed, and I have not seen anything to suggest that Kashtan or the Klinok is subpar. I'm pretty sure the Russians pay exceedingly well attention on their AA systems. Furthermore, these systems have their land based equivalents that actually have experienced true combat. The 9M311 mentioned here is part of the Tunguska. The Klinok here is known by another name---the Tor. Both these systems have scored a number of kills in the war in Georgia. So yeah, they're blooded. Along with the land based system called the Buk, whose naval version is better known as the Shtil, the same system. Though the Shtil is not part of any carrier, it does equip a number of Russian and Chinese naval vessels, not to mention getting copied.

Click to expand...

I mean from the likes of Gulf War proved the ability of US missiles against Russian systems, regardless its tanks, aircrafts or missiles, US systems scored very high kill-loss ratio. I am not sure about the ability of Tor and Tunguska against missiles, although I am sure they are effective against aircrafts. Is there combact statistics against missiles available for them

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

crobato said:

During the Falklands War, the number of Exocets that got through British defenses was particularly disturbing.

Click to expand...

Falklands was a very different scenario. The RN had no AEW cover and none of the ships had CIWS. The RN's first Phalanx system was hurriedly fitted to HMS Illustrious as it was rushed to completion but it didn't arrive until after the war. Had the RN had CIWS the ship losses wouldn't have been as great. I'm thinking in particular of HMS Coventry which was lost after a complete FUBAR when her escort Broadsword couldn't engage the attacking A-4's because the Sea Wolf's control computer crashed and had to be rebooted, just as they were ready to fire, Coventry blundered into her line of fire. Her crew were forced to resort to firing rifles and shining the ship's signal lamp at the Argentine jets to try and distract the. They would have been easy meat for a CIWS but it was not to be.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

williamhou said:

I mean from the likes of Gulf War proved the ability of US missiles against Russian systems, regardless its tanks, aircrafts or missiles, US systems scored very high kill-loss ratio. I am not sure about the ability of Tor and Tunguska against missiles, although I am sure they are effective against aircrafts. Is there combact statistics against missiles available for them

Click to expand...

There was no Tor and Tunguska in the Gulf War, and a lot of the stuff in Iraq wasn't well handled. Do note that one of the Iraqi AA systems were French, and they didn't do well either.

Your example cannot be taken seriously. The US/Coalition might was so overwhelming, even if the Iraqis were using US made systems, these systems would also be overwhelmed.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

If we're going to look at historical examples, CIWS and CIWS-type systems have a mixed record. Off the top of my head I can remember:
-Yom Kippur War: The Israeli Navy evaded a few Silkworm/Seersucker-type first gen missles using ECM alone.
-Falklands War: Sea Wolf (although not a proper CIWS) shot down several Argentine aircraft, one of them outside of its maximum engagement range. When aiming at targets inside of its intended, I don't really know what to say here, area of engagement I suppose (ie medium-to-short range, not at very low altitudes) it was reasonably successful. However it had a very mixed (At best) record against A-4s flying low and close in, and failed to bring down even one Exocet IIRC.
-Persian Gulf War: The Phalanx system on the HMS Broadsword (again IIRC) downed an Iraqi missle, although after the missle had missed the ship. In the same engagement the Phalanx system of the USS Missouri accidentally engaged an OHP class frigate.

So it's a real mixed bag, although computing technology has made huge advances since then and we can expect the newer systems (RAM, Aster Tor, etc) to be far more effective.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

williamhou said:

As discussed in this thread before, non nuclear submarines could not follow the speed of CVBG, and nuclear submarines could not be made in large numbers in China. The number of missiles launched from a single nuclear attack submarine is not enough to defect the defence of USN CVBG, and its very hard to get close enough to use torpedos.

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular perceptions, the USN has NO defence against some of the PLAN sub launched anti ship missiles. The U.S. Navy can't stop China's anti-ship missile -- and won't even start testing a defense until 2014, so the media reports .






But why bother ? Just shoot the carriers with an ABSM . China has developed the capability to use its DF-21 tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) against tar¬gets at sea. The DF-21 carries a single warhead of about 500/600 kg over a distance of 1,500 km to 2,000 km, or more.. such a weapon would be a 'carrier killer' without equal.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

marclees said:

Contrary to popular perceptions, the USN has NO defence against some of the PLAN sub launched anti ship missiles. The U.S. Navy can't stop China's anti-ship missile -- and won't even start testing a defense until 2014, so the media reports .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But why bother ? Just shoot the carriers with an ABSM . China has developed the capability to use its DF-21 tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) against tar¬gets at sea. The DF-21 carries a single warhead of about 500/600 kg over a distance of 1,500 km to 2,000 km, or more.. such a weapon would be a 'carrier killer' without equal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Which PLAN sub launched anti ship missiles can not be shot down?

As for ballistic missiles, how could they attack targets moving at 30nm/h? At 1000km+ range, it needs AWACS to position the CVBG, and US CVBG can deter or shoot down the AWACS easily. Moreover, what is SM-3 built for?

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Which PLAN sub launched anti ship missiles can not be shot down?

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out williamhou. The article states "is developing". Never have I read any report or news article stating that the PLAN or China has launched such a missile. If they did what was the target? When did this occur? Thank you.