Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Have you given any thought to the idea that the The Prompt Global Strike, the X32b and the new GPS system might all be related. It seems thy launched a Prompt Global Strike payload at the same time as the X32b. I cant see any way a US Air Craft Carrier can be attacked with out starting at least as a minium an allout conventional war.

Oh yeah... and who is to attack US without preparing themselves or fending themselves against an all-out-conventional war? Plus why would anyone want to attack US unless US did something that warrant for that attack. And can you stop coming out, out of nowhere and throw some out of the context technologies that will get this thread lock up again.

The theme of this thread is whether the era of the carriers are coming to an end, and not some farout space war.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Oh yeah... and who is to attack US without preparing themselves or fending themselves against an all-out-conventional war? Plus why would anyone want to attack US unless US did something that warrant for that attack. And can you stop coming out, out of nowhere and throw some out of the context technologies that will get this thread lock up again.

The theme of this thread is whether the era of the carriers are coming to an end, and not some farout space war.

I am seriously going to ask popeye if we could open a "Space War" thread under the strategic defence section.

The ASBM has net yet been tested and we won't know how effective it is or if some of our speculations about it, like the terminal guidance system, is true. As an asymmetrical warfare deterrent, however, I think it did its job. The more the PLA keeps the whole project in the dark the more the every one talks about them. The best weapon is one which never gets used.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

It seems as though BD Popeys warning is not getting through to certain quarters. I would suggest it does and does so quickly.

If you guys really want to have a Future Space Weapons thread, let me know and I will do the necessary for you with posts from here.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

It seems as though BD Popeys warning is not getting through to certain quarters. I would suggest it does and does so quickly.

If you guys really want to have a Future Space Weapons thread, let me know and I will do the necessary for you with posts from here.

No need, I've already got permission from Popeye :rofl::

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/strategic-defense/space-warfare-directed-energy-weapons-other-future-military-technology-5232.html#post125475

@ noname: If you want to discuss future military tech now there is a proper place to do it and I'll be happy to join you. I had an unhealthy obcession with Science Fiction and "new concept" weapons long before I developed an in conventional weapons.
 

Martian

Senior Member
A single hit means catastrophe

Martian said:
"The U.S. has never been tested by a massive combined attack."

Red Fox Ace said:
True, but the U.S. Navy anticipated this sort of massive "saturation attack" as early as the 1960s, largely from the Soviet Union's Northern Fleet. The Soviet Navy was expected to unleash a massive attack with missiles from all different kinds of platforms - bombers, submarines, surface ships, etc.

Granted, the U.S. Navy, 50 years later, still has never faced such an attack in real life, so we don't know. But the threat has long ago been anticipated.

The newcomer is the ASBM, of course.

I believe that the odds favor the attacker. Only one or two missiles need to get past the defender to cause severe damage and create massive confusion/panic. One Yu-6 torpedo (i.e. a clone of the Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo) can split a destroyer in half.

While a massive combined and simultaneous attack is logical and predictable, I am not aware of anyone claiming a 100 percent full-proof U.S. defense system. Also, China has the capability to launch thousands of missiles and torpedoes at targeted capital ships. It is not just a matter of surviving the first wave. The defenders must survive a sustained attack; without fail.

It is my judgment that when a defender faces an attacker with technological-proximity, the odds are heavily in favor of the attacker. I have read that the U.S. strategy is to avoid serious risk to its capital ships. As I understand it, the current plan is to outfit American submarines with conventional tomahawk cruise missiles and threaten to launch many of them at China during a war.

The U.S. wants to be the attacker and shift the burden of defense onto China. The U.S. capital ships will be kept safely out of the strike range of Chinese missiles and quiet diesel submarines with Yu-6 torpedoes lurking near China.
 

Martian

Senior Member
HEAT, cluster bombs, EMP, or thermobaric? What is your preference?

no_name said:
An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.

Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The outcome of a simulation published by Orbis, an American journal on international relations and US foreign policy, clearly did its job in making military circles uneasy. After a hit by a Dong Feng 21D, it took the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington a mere 20 minutes to sink.

The DF-21D, as the missile is commonly called, is a modification of a solid-propellant, single-warhead medium-range ballistic missile that China has been working on since the late 1960s. The newest version, also going under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization reporting name CSS-5 Mod-4, is believed to come with the unique feature that it can target a moving aircraft carrier as far away as 3,000 kilometers from a land-based mobile launcher.

Enabled by this new weapon, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) hopes to gain the option to control the West Pacific from land, as opposed to engaging with the US Navy in sea battles that China would be unlikely to win. If the DF-21D is really as sophisticated as has been widely speculated, the US would have to risk its neck when coming to South Korea's, Japan's or Taiwan's aid in the event of Chinese military aggression.

It can safely be assumed that a fair portion of Washington's military strategies would be rendered useless it the US were to lose the ability to securely travel anywhere using aircraft carriers from which jet fighters start their devastatingly precise bombing campaigns - as has been seen in the wars against Serbia and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Like the DF-21D's earliest predecessor, the German V-2, a long-range World War II ballistic missile that the Nazis called a Wunderwaffe, China's anti-ship ballistic missile remains shrouded in mystery. Military experts from Washington to Taipei have been left guessing its exact capabilities. It is suggested that the missile's high-angle re-entry into the atmosphere, as well as its speed, make it almost impossible to defend against.

What further worries American defense analysts is that the Chinese apparently have the advantage of being able to screw on almost anything that's found in the PLA's warhead arsenals, such as HEAT shells, which are extremely efficient at penetrating steel, as well as cluster bombs, which eject smaller sub-munitions.

The Chinese could even destroy their opponents' electronic control systems - critical to the operation of ground vehicles and aircraft - by producing damaging current and voltage surges with the help of electromagnetic pulse bombs loaded into the DF-21D. Yet another option would be to fit a missile with a thermobaric fuel-air bomb. This warhead produces a blast wave of a very long duration, a feature that is useful in military applications where the attacker aims to increase the number of casualties and cause greater damage to infrastructure.

As a strong indication of how serious the US sees the threat of China's missiles, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently lamented that the DF-21D 'has the ability to disrupt [American] freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options'."
 

noname

Banned Idiot
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

So far the USA has not developed a ballistic missile that can hit a target with in a 150 yards 50 percent of the time and the target is not even moving. Unless China can slow the Dong Feng 21D down its not likely they can do that well. If it can be slowed down the Aegis Cruisers can shoot it down, usually USA just uses one Aegis per carrier but if there is a threat there could be several. So far the Dong Feng 21D does not seem to even have been tested. Especially against a ship moving at top speed. Ballistic Missiles are usually more for psychological purposes then for their real military use, lets wait and see what happens
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

So far the USA has not developed a ballistic missile that can hit a target with in a 150 yards 50 percent of the time and the target is not even moving. Unless China can slow the Dong Feng 21D down its not likely they can do that well. If it can be slowed down the Aegis Cruisers can shoot it down, usually USA just uses one Aegis per carrier but if there is a threat there could be several. So far the Dong Feng 21D does not seem to even have been tested. Especially against a ship moving at top speed. Ballistic Missiles are usually more for psychological purposes then for their real military use, lets wait and see what happens

I can only tell you this: what US cannot do, doesn't mean that the rest of the world can't.

And how do you know US didn't have a ballistic missile that can hit within 150yards? You mean you have intelligence within the US military? Don't go around assuming things.

Another thing is... what US do with her ballistic missile... what is their doctrine. If US's doctrine is using ballistic missiles for mass destruction purpose, there really is no need for that precision accuracy as precision accuracy can be achieved using her cruise missiles.

China on the other hand might have a different doctrine, so they will pursue more precise accuracy.

Finally the idea of using ballistic missile as anti-carrier system is actually not new. Back in the days of Cold War, both US and Soviet did study into the feasibility of the system, they didn't implement it not because of technical constraint, but mainly because it might cause an all out nuclear war, that is why they didn't implement this system.
 
Last edited:

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I have been hearing and reading alot about the supposedly carrier killer and more weapons against carriers had surfaced in recent year, including tactics and techniques used that could bring an end to the carrier... But all these do not spelt an end to the carrier, it would only lead to those countries with CBG to further improve on their CBG doctrine and system.

It is the same as MBT... well... now there are practically hundreds of specialise weapons world wide that can be use to destroy a MBT, but nations worldwide are still developing and manufacturing the MBT. And there are also many weapons that can destroy a destroyer... it doesn't mean that it is the end of the destroyer era either.

Same thing here.

And I have been saying this all the time... carriers are not just a defensive and/or offensive platform. It is a versatile platform... and someone had also mentioned it before (which I fully agreed), carrier is a system that could let you fully project your power to faraway foreign lands.

So just because some nations designed something that can sink a carrier, doesn't mean that is the end of the carriers...
 
Top