Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

1. to have the capacity to hit a moving target, the ASBM must be able to track the target, or receive information about the target till the re-enter stage, otherwise it cannot be called ASBM, to aim a target based on projected position before lauch is certainly not ASBM, any ballistic missile can do that.

2. the american carrier is twice the size of the Titanic, you can not manoeuver the ship that size to evade a coming missile, lookouts on Titanic spotted the iceberg, it didn't help. the time from re-enter to hit is too short, bd popeye can tell you that any amnoeuvring order takes longer than that to come into effect.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bd popeye can tell you that any manoeuvrings order takes longer than that to come into effect.

Click to expand...

True.

But this is one of the reasons CVNs have escorts for AAW armed with SM-2 and SM-3 missiles.

I still say it would be difficult to have a direct hit on a moving CVN. I hope none of us ever find out!

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bd popeye said:

True.

But this is one of the reasons CVNs have escorts for AAW armed with SM-2 and SM-3 missiles.

I still say it would be difficult to have a direct hit on a moving CVN. I hope none of us ever find out!

Click to expand...

I would also add that it would be difficult to have a direct hit without very accurate targeting information...information that can only be gathered through either visual or close in radar systems. And such systems won't last long near a hostile carrier group to be of use for a long distance shot.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I would also add that it would be difficult to have a direct hit without very accurate targeting information...information that can only be gathered through either visual or close in radar systems. And such systems won't last long near a hostile carrier group to be of use for a long distance shot.

Click to expand...

Can these systems be aboard a Song class ? I remember one breezed past a dozen or so warships to get within visual sight of USS Kitty Hawk.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

zoom said:

Can these systems be aboard a Song class ? I remember one breezed past a dozen or so warships to get within visual sight of USS Kitty Hawk.

Click to expand...

You certainly could use an SSK to relay the location of the CV back to base by using satellite communications. However once the sub put up it's antenna to transmit it would be vulnerable to detection and attack. As for the Kitty Hawk incident, this was in peacetime, if it was in war or at a time of increased tensions between the U.S. and China the carrier group would be keeping a sharper look out and getting into a position to relay that sort of information would be much harder. IIRC there was a report from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in about 2008 that they had used a UAV to project their emblem on to a USN warship in the Straits of Hormuz. They of course claimed this showed they had the power to "chase America out of the Gulf" or some similar such words. I suspect the warship knew all the time that the UAV was there and if it had wanted to it could have shot the thing down before it even got close.

So yes you could use a sub to identify the target area for the missile battery but then you still have the problem as to how to accurately guide the warhead in towards a moving target. The sub wouldn't be able to provide terminal guidance as after making it's transmission it would be under attack within minutes.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Better the sub took out the cv by itself then giving it a higher chance of survival.

I don't think a sub should get close to a carrier group peacetime or otherwise.I'm not quite with you on that.How do you know it's not going to attack? It's always peacetime until the first shot is fired.There may not be heightened tensions beforehand or an expectation of escalation of tensions.I think the threat from the Iranian UAV would have been assessed beforehand and judged to be low.
Would a sub be sacrificed for such a 'trophy' of a cv during hostilities? It's a terrible thought but war can be like that i guess.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

zoom said:

Better the sub took out the cv by itself then giving it a higher chance of survival.

I don't think a sub should get close to a carrier group peacetime or otherwise.I'm not quite with you on that.How do you know it's not going to attack? It's always peacetime until the first shot is fired.There may not be heightened tensions beforehand or an expectation of escalation of tensions.I think the threat from the Iranian UAV would have been assessed beforehand and judged to be low.
Would a sub be sacrificed for such a 'trophy' of a cv during hostilities? It's a terrible thought but war can be like that i guess.

Click to expand...

Yes it would be terrible, sadly recent history has shown that there are plenty of people who are willing to carry out suicide missions but I doubt PLAN would do that.

The sub wouldn't need to get close enough to attack by itself, just close enough for it's passive sonar to establish the CVBG's course and speed. But as you say in wartime the sub crew would be taking a big risk for an objective that had a moderate chance of success.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

regarding the Song class submarine getting close to the CV, well... there are plenty of theory behind it. It might not be that the sub managed to sneak up to the CV and surfaced... it might be that the sub was forced to surface and that it had all along been tracked by the US destroyers and CV.

I think Finn and Popeye had better infor in this issue. Using the Song sub example might not be very useful in this case.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

rhino123 said:

regarding the Song class submarine getting close to the CV, well... there are plenty of theory behind it. It might not be that the sub managed to sneak up to the CV and surfaced... it might be that the sub was forced to surface and that it had all along been tracked by the US destroyers and CV.

I think Finn and Popeye had better infor in this issue. Using the Song sub example might not be very useful in this case.

Click to expand...

I don't really want to go in that direction again..

Here's two links to two old threads on the Song sub and Kitty Hawk incident.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/chinese-sub-surfaces-undetected-behind-uss-kitty-hawk-2603.html

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/plan-sub-appears-close-uss-kitty-hawk-again-3562.html

The Changing Military Balance

bd popeye said:

No doubt China has this weapon. But have they really..I mean really tested the DF-21???

Click to expand...

"The Changing Military Balance
Lee DeCovnick
January 08, 2011
...
U.S. intelligence in particular misjudged China's progress developing the technology necessary to sense and attack a maneuvering vessel, [and in addition] the Chinese have tested the DF-21D missile over land a sufficient number of times to conclude that "the missile system itself is truly competent and capable," Dorsett said. Dorsett heads the Navy's Office of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, which includes Navy intelligence."