Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

siegecrossbow said:

Also keep in mind that ballistic missile warheads does a great deal of damage via sheer kinetic energy. I don't think the amount of damage caused by the blast is as much as the damage achieved through saturated fragment bombardment.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I dont think kinetic energy and ballistic missile damage have any thing to do with each other.

If you can find any thing to that effect I would be interested, and the assumption of the cost of man bombers and fighters being shot down is just an assumption so far theres never been an anti aircraft system that could not be defeated.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

I may be wrong but I dont think kinetic energy and ballistic missile damage have any thing to do with each other.

If you can find any thing to that effect I would be interested, and the assumption of the cost of man bombers and fighters being shot down is just an assumption so far theres never been an anti aircraft system that could not be defeated.

Click to expand...

Ballistic missiles typically reach great heights (as in war heads entering space before re entry) so I would think that large metal fragments falling from such height will carry a great deal of kinetic energy when they strike the surface. To minimize collateral damage on Baghdad the U.S. air force actually removed the ordinances from several guided bombs used by the B-2 spirit during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. If metal dropped by high altitude planes are capable of damaging buildings/bunkers significantly, imagine what they can do when they are being dropped from a suborbital space flight.

Risking your pilots, who take years of training and are arguably even more precious than the multi-million dollar planes they fly, is hardly ever preferable to pelting your enemy at a safe distance with guided missiles.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

If you can find any thing to that effect I would be interested, and the assumption of the cost of man bombers and fighters being shot down is just an assumption so far theres never been an anti aircraft system that could not be defeated.

Click to expand...

And how are you going to defeat the anti-aircraft system? With bombs again I presume. So you are going to sent your bomber to bomb these anti-aircraft system first, before you can bomb the enemy's targets.

Also, have you forgotten that the enemy also have their own fighters too.

Plus Seigecrossbow had done a pretty good job in explaining the effect of kinetic force in relation to the missile damage so I am not going to touch on that effect again.

Ballistic missile as I have already said, is tough to intercept and no missile shield had yet to achieve a very high percentage of interception, plus with today's guidance system and control system, the missile is a very, very effective weapon.

And common sense has it... all nations are looking into creating this type of weapon...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

For some reason missiles are belived to be an effective weapon, about the largest conventional war head a missile is going to carry is about the same as a 2000 lb bomb.

The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb), maybe 3000 feet if it is a fragmentation bomb. Missiles are expensive to build, not that dependable and perhaps not that accurate.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This analysis is based on numerous assumptions. For simplicity of analysis, I assume that the lethal radius of each missile is 60 meters, as would be the case with a high explosive warhead (the most logical for the destruction of buildings). Other warhead types (prefragmentation, incendiary, or cluster) would differ. Additionally, I assume that if the missile lands within the blast radius of the center of the building, the structure is destroyed. The totality of destruction will vary with the size and hardness of the building, but I find this to be a fair simplification.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Missiles have there uses, but as a weapon goes they are not all that effective with conventional war heads. Why people wish to belive otherwise is just not logical.

Missiles are like very expensive bullets, shoot it once and thats it, and how well missiles function that have been sitting in storage for years is any ones guess, how well trained missiles crews are going to be if it comes to launching several 1000 missiles is any ones guess.

If a country is going to project power its going to need Aircraft Carriers.

Click to expand...

Huh? Missiles are not all that effective with conventional war heads? Which planet have you been leaving on?

Have you heard of Falklands War? Look at this list of warships lost in Falklands and see the effectiveness of missiles.



This is a simplified account of ships lost that does not take into account the aircraft losses during the fighting.

The Argentinean air force used A4s (sub-sonic fighters) to do bombing runs on the British ships. Thus, they had to go through the air defence mounted by Harrier jump jets and get within range of the ships guns and SAMs.

In contrast, the Exocets were launched by Super Etendards (super sonic fighters) that does stand off attacks from outside the range of the ships guns and SAMs. Because they fly low, and the British fleet had no carrier-based AWACs, there is hardly any early warning before the Exocets were launched. Also, the British sub-sonic Harriers can't catch the super-sonic Etendards once they decide to run after launching the missiles.

The British were fortunate as the Argentineans didn't have a lot of Exocets. Otherwise, more ships would have been lost. And this is the reason why they had to use bombs as well.

Check this link:



Of particular interest is this portion:

A total of five AM-39 missiles, the entire Argentine inventory at the start of the conflict, were fired. One missile struck HMS Sheffield and one, possible two, struck the container ship Atlantic Conveyor. Curiously, it is believed that neither (or none) of the warheads exploded. Rather, the ships were destroyed by fires which were started by the still burning rocket motors. Authorities are reluctant to speculate why the warheads failed to detonate. Because the two vessels sank, no missile parts could be recovered for analysis.
None of the AM-38 missiles (the ship launched version of the Exocet) installed aboard Argentine Navy ships were fired from their vessels. Several AM-38s, however, were removed from the ships and fastened to truck trailers for use as land-based mobile anti-ship batteries. At least two missiles were fired from these shore based launchers. One struck HMS Glamorgan and exploded, destroying the ship's helicopter and hanger, but did not sink the ship.

Click to expand...

Oh, and Chapter 12 of that link talks about the Argentine air attacks and how many A-4s were shot down.

And for something more recent, perhaps you have heard of USS Stark?



1 Exocet missile fired,
37 American sailors died,
1 USN frigate severely damaged,
Exocet launching aircraft (F1 Mirage) got back to base safely.

Now, why do you think so many of the world's militaries are spending so much money on missiles?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I think ballistic missiles is an effective weapon to counter CVBG, not only in pure economic figures, but also in the scalability in manufacturing of ASBM vs. forming of a CVBG.

The most valuable assets of US navy lies both in its hardware and software (including management, seamanship, various knowledge base accumulated in operation, etc.) It will take decades for Chinese navy to master skills in operating a CVBG. And it is almost impossible for other countries to use CVBGs to counter US' CVBGs. Yet the ASBM provides an innovative approach which also shortens China's capability in regional denial. Say if the exchange ratio of ASBM (ie. DF-21D) vs CVBG is 100. It will be both time and capital economical for China to manufacturing more than enough ASBM to counter US CVBGs within a limited time span.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I should have used the word ballistic missiles, there is no doubt that tactical missiles and anti ship missiles, hell fire missiles and antiaircraft missiles are effective weapons. I just have my doubts about ballistic missiles armed with conventional war heads being an effective weapons. I still have my doubts about kinetic energy from ballistic missiles haveing any effect.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

I still have my doubts about kinetic energy from ballistic missiles haveing any effect.

Click to expand...

It depends on the size of fragments. A hand-size stone dropping at mach-10+ could punch a hole on the carrier deck.

Smaller size fragments will be powerfull enough to damage ship sensors.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Guys I think we are moving off topic once again. This is not a thread about ballistic missiles (I believe there is one collecting dust in the strategic defence section). Let us go back to aircraft carriers!

Personally I think that aircraft carriers are relevant and will continue to be relevant for a very long time. The reason for my opinion is that true global power projection, as of now, could only be achieved via aircraft carriers. When we develop planes that could circle the planet several times an hour is when the aircraft carrier will become a outdated concept.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

I should have used the word ballistic missiles, there is no doubt that tactical missiles and anti ship missiles, hell fire missiles and antiaircraft missiles are effective weapons. I just have my doubts about ballistic missiles armed with conventional war heads being an effective weapons. I still have my doubts about kinetic energy from ballistic missiles haveing any effect.

Click to expand...

Tactical Missiles are ballistic missiles... Dongfeng 11 and Dongfeng 15 are all tactical missiles, US ATACMS are tactical missiles (although only consider as a semi-ballistic missile), and the list goes on.

The fact is, as guidance system became more effective and accurate, the use of ballistic missiles are more and more effective. And I believe it is achievable to a semi-surgurical capability, the Chinese had began fielding the ASBM system and if a ballistic missile is deemed to be accurate enough to hit a target as small as a carrier in the occean with basically 3D movement, then what is it to stop them from hitting stationary target on land with much more references to take?

The only use I see of bombers nowaday was their ability to carry cruise missiles, long range standoff missiles and anti-radiation missiles. They could launch these missiles in area that are quite safe and not in direct path of the enemy's anti-aircraft systems and destroy these targets.

So... in a sense, the arguement for the age of the carrier coming to an end might also be linked to the increased capability, accuracy and speed of reaction of the missiles (with conventional warheads).

However if we are just looking at the basic function of an aircraft carrier, which is to launch aircraft (each armed with a certain amount of munitions) as an offensive weapon, then I think ballistic missiles and cruise missiles would suffice to replace them.

Afterall the missiles are cheaper to maintain, build and operate than a CBG.

However, war doesn't end by striking a country with missiles. Presence of the military and the aggressor nation needed to be there... and what was to support their ground unit? Carriers with aircrafts on it.

Thus Carriers couldn't be replaced.

As to someone's strange thinking that bombs are more effective than ballistic missiles...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

siegecrossbow said:

Guys I think we are moving off topic once again. This is not a thread about ballistic missiles (I believe there is one collecting dust in the strategic defence section). Let us go back to aircraft carriers!

Personally I think that aircraft carriers are relevant and will continue to be relevant for a very long time. The reason for my opinion is that true global power projection, as of now, could only be achieved via aircraft carriers. When we develop planes that could circle the planet several times an hour is when the aircraft carrier will become a outdated concept.

Click to expand...

There is one, its called the X37b,, its in orbit right now and another one under construction.