Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

But Behind the scenes......

USS Lake Erie CG-70 relied on a network of:

i) Land
ii) Air AND
iii) Sea- AND
iv) spaced-based sensors

to track & establish a firing solution..

Click to expand...

Did you know that the Aegis system is an totally interlinked system ? That is it was designed to work in unison with many other systems. It works.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Wolverine said:

It was either too expensive to maintain or too poorly compatible to just leave it in. Neither bodes well for this particular modification.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion. It could just as easily (and IMHO more likely) be because they fulfilled the need and now have the knoweldge and are/have developed operational procedures for it when they need it. No need to keep that capability on board ships when the likelihood of the need is remote at this stage. My guess is if things "heated" up into a more direct "cold war" mentality like we have with the Soviet Union, you would see it deployed on a few ships, for major task forces or CSGs.

Wolverine said:

Secondly, you never addressed the need for many additional land, sea, air and spaced-based sensors for this stunt to be pulled off. Will all these be available at the same time when it becomes "necessary"? How about if the Chinese military puts up dozens of microsats or nanosats? Willl the USN be ready for all that?

Click to expand...

See above. Fact is, they haven't done that so you are asking me to conjecture about your conjecture. The raw capability has been deomonstrated, the rest is in the details.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

But it's China's military, which was proudly paraded through Tiananmen Square on National Day, that produces the biggest worries.

In a style reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, Beijing trotted out no less than 50 all-Chinese-made military systems during the spectacle. Many of the weapons weren't brand-new -- but naval attaches probably strained their necks to see at least one system: the land-based DF-21 ballistic missile.

This system -- the world's first ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving target at sea -- could be used to take out US aircraft carriers in a Sino-American dust-up. The conventionally armed missile has maneuverable warheads and a range in excess of 1,000 miles.

Click to expand...

Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter - Brooks, October 5 in the "New York Post" claim that DF-21 capable of hitting a moving target at sea--could be used to take out US aircraft carriers in a Sino-American dust-up.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

maozedong said:

the world's first ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving target at sea

Click to expand...

There is no demonstrable evidence of this. There has been no test where it has actually been done. It is a claim, and a bold one at that, and one to investigagte, but at this point it is no more than a claim with nothing to back it up. IMHO, it is an elaborate intelligence/disinformation operation by the PLA.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Totoro said:

There are, of course, some issues. To cover a, say, 1000 by 3000 km patch of ocean, one would need roughly 480 such boats. If manned, that means at least 480 people willing to die without any chance of defending themselves. Ships would have to be simple and small, to keep the costs down, yet it is unclear how such ships would fare in the rough seas. Then, also, what to do when some boats disappear? One can send a patrol yet find nothing (as they were boarded by helicopters, destroyed from the air, etc). Sure, it could narrow down a search area for the enemy fleet, but realistically one'd have to send new boats. Rinse and repeat. Probably too costly. Not to mention that the enemy would deliberately capture or sink boats left and right, to confuse and to draw the patrols in various directions, probably at the same time.

Click to expand...

I think what the original post was intended for is something like a "neighborhood watch" type of thing. You, as fisherman, do the normal fishing. IF you happen to see something interesting, please call us. And the channel of communication will most likely not be military, so that the CVN will not have the pretext to fire at the vessel.

As a previous post mentioned, even the CVN found out that a certain civilian vessel is an informant for the enemy, it would most likely NOT open fire since the political backlash of opening fire on a unarmed civilian ship would be devastating. Imagine this, "headline news: US CVN opened fire on an unarmed civilian fishing vessel on the high sea". Also if CVN attempts to board every ship that it suspects to be communicating with the enemy, that would definitely disrupt its intended plans and slow it down. That would actually be a good thing for the enemy.

That being said, CVN can certainly jam every kind of communication nearby although I'm not sure if the jamming is still effective 20-25 km out... Of course, there are all those choppers that can definitely fly to the suspected ship and jam the whole thing. One good thing about CVNs: those planes can go anywhere they want as a moment's notice.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

vesicles said:

I think what the original post was intended for is something like a "neighborhood watch" type of thing. You, as fisherman, do the normal fishing. IF you happen to see something interesting, please call us. And the channel of communication will most likely not be military, so that the CVN will not have the pretext to fire at the vessel.

.

Click to expand...

The Americans could just as easily use it to send conflicting sightings.

Futhermore are we talking about a actual declaration of war or were just sabre rattling?

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Jeff Head said:

That's your opinion. It could just as easily (and IMHO more likely) be because they fulfilled the need and now have the knoweldge and are/have developed operational procedures for it when they need it. No need to keep that capability on board ships when the likelihood of the need is remote at this stage. My guess is if things "heated" up into a more direct "cold war" mentality like we have with the Soviet Union, you would see it deployed on a few ships, for major task forces or CSGs.

Click to expand...

I think you're seriously biased on this one. How in the world could it be more likely that they removed a capability that they spent 1 month and $60 million to put in because they "don't need it" at the moment, rather than because it somehow interfered with normal ops or was too expensive to maintain? Come on, they had to take it out again, incurring MORE TIME and EXPENSE. Let's be honest. Whatever the reason, it certainly was NOT simply because they didn't need at the moment. That's just bunk. They don't need Aegis BMD most of the time either, so why not just remove that superfluous stuff until things "heated" up? They don't need half the stuff on those ships 99.9% of the time, why not just save money on maintenance and remove it until things "heated" up? Sure we are both conjecturing, but any dispassionate judge would not be siding with you.

Jeff Head said:

See above. Fact is, they haven't done that so you are asking me to conjecture about your conjecture. The raw capability has been deomonstrated, the rest is in the details.

Click to expand...

Well the devil is in the details, and once again you've missed the point entirely. The fact that Aegis is interoperable with many other sensors does absolutely nothing to change the fact that that shootdown required the presence of many other sensors. What happens during wartime when you don't have the luxury of assembling all those sensors to be at the right places at the right times?

bladerunner said:

The Americans could just as easily use it to send conflicting sightings.

Click to expand...

Oh, right. By using carrier-sized inflatables. Good idea.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Yes, it's important to keep a proper perspective when comparing militaries. The budget gap is gargantuan and fighting experience of US forces is several wars ahead of the PLA. Knowing domestic American politics a lot of these press comments tend to dovetail into requests for more money for some very expensive weapons system.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Wolverine said:

Oh, right. By using carrier-sized inflatables. Good idea.

Click to expand...

Hunh?? I was replying to Pointblanks and Vechiles post about sending Radio messages over possible sightings.......meaning THe Yanks are quite capable of sending their own false messages in a similar fashion

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

bladerunner said:

Hunh?? I was replying to Pointblanks and Vechiles post about sending Radio messages over possible sightings.......meaning THe Yanks are quite capable of sending their own false messages in a similar fashion

Click to expand...

My bad.