Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

"Official confirmation that [China] has advanced to the stage of actual testing."

noname said:

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

Click to expand...

"March 29, 2010

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced () to the stage of actual testing.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier (click to open pdf file) strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Willard’s disclosure should come as little surprise: China’s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead — have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development “has progressed at a remarkable rate.” In the span of just over a decade, he said, “China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.… China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.”

When someone of Bray’s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.

Equally intriguing has been the depiction of this capability in the Chinese media. A lengthy November 2009 program about anti-ship ballistic missiles (video) broadcast on China Central Television Channel 7 (China’s official military channel) featured an unexplained — and rather badly animated — cartoon sequence. This curious 'toon features a sailor who falsely assumes that his carrier’s Aegis defense systems can destroy an incoming ASBM as effectively as a cruise missile, with disastrous results.

The full program is available in three segments (parts 1, 2, and 3) on YouTube. Skip to 7:18 on the second clip to view this strange, and somewhat disturbing, segment.

Likewise, Chinese media seem to be tracking PACOM’s statements about this more closely than the U.S. press. The graphic above is drawn from an article on Dongfang Ribao (Oriental Daily), the website of a Shanghai newspaper.

Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China’s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China’s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress.

U.S. ships, however, will not offer a fixed target for China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. Military planning documents like the February 2010 Joint Operating Environment (.pdf) and Quadrennial Defense Review (.pdf) clearly recognize America’s growing “anti-access” challenge, and the QDR — the Pentagon’s guiding strategy document — charges the U.S. military with multiple initiatives to address it.

In a world where U.S. naval assets will often be safest underwater, President Obama’s defense budget supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine. And developing effective countermeasures against anti-ship ballistic missiles is a topic of vigorous discussion in Navy circles. The United States is clearly taking steps to prevent this kind of weapon from changing the rules of the game in the Western Pacific, but continued effort will be essential for U.S. maritime forces to preserve their role in safeguarding the global commons."

"China has recently launched a series of satellites to support its ASBM efforts"


China's ASBM



"Anti-ship ballistic missile

The US Department of Defense has stated that China is developing a conventionally-armed[8] high hypersonic[1] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on the DF-21, with a range of up to 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi). This would be the world's first and only ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[9][10] These would combine manoeuvrable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with some kind of terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervention in the Taiwan Strait.[11]

China has recently launched a series of satellites to support its ASBM efforts[citation needed]:

* Yaogan-VII electro-optical satellite - 9 December 2009
* Yaogan-VIII synthetic aperture radar satellite - 14 December 2009
* Yaogan-IX Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) constellation (3 satellites in formation) - 5 March 2010.[12]"


Yaogan satellite

China's anti-ship ballistic missile (i.e. ASBM) with incoming Mach 10 warhead

Based on 50 years of missile-technology mastery, China has recently developed a third option: the anti-ship ballistic missile (i.e. ASBM) with an incoming Mach 10 warhead.


China's ASBMs

I don't know whether the following land-based test was conducted with a kinetic or High-Explosive warhead. However, if an aircraft carrier gets hit, it looks like it will be out of commission.





"Marvel · 1 week ago
If somebody could clarify, the ASBM would not be a unitary warhead, correct? I remember reading somewhere that it may be a sort of cluster munition designed to puncture the carrier deck with flechettes, rendering it inoperable."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "We ignore [China's ASBM] developments at our peril."

China can change/destabilize the military balance in East Asia through nuclear or non-nuclear means. Here is a follow-up on the non-nuclear aspect of China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) affecting U.S. military strategy and planning.

Though Defense Secretary Robert Gates never mentions China by name, he has raised the prospect of moving away from a carrier-centric Navy because of China's development of asymmetric weapons to defeat U.S. carriers.


"May 7, 2010 ... Speech by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates at the Navy .... why the Navy needs to rethink its carrier centric policy in this new era .... this year said the move would put carrier procurement on “a more fiscally sustainable path .... Or the cruises could drain away ships, money and sailors given ..."



"Gates To Navy: Anchors Away

Posted 06:16 PM ET


Four Chinese submarines lead 56 destroyers, frigates, missile boats, subs and planes off the port of Qingdao in April 2009 after tensions flared with the U.S. in the South China Sea. AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

Military Advantage: Our defense secretary proposes doing what no other foreign adversary has done: sink the U.S. Navy. We don't need those billion-dollar destroyers, he says. Meanwhile, the Chinese navy rushes to fill the vacuum.

Once Britannia ruled the waves, later to be replaced by America and its Navy. From the Battle of Midway to President Reagan's 600-ship fleet that helped win the Cold War, naval supremacy has been critical to the protection and survival of our nation.

Which is why we find the recent remarks of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Navy League at the Sea-Air-Space expo so disturbing. He seems to think naval supremacy is a luxury we can't afford and that, like every other aspect of our military, an already shrunken U.S. Navy needs to downsize.

"As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades)," Gates quipped.

We are not laughing.

Pubescent pirates aren't the only threat we face. Last month, a Chinese naval task force from the East Sea Fleet — including the imposing Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers, frigates and submarines — passed through the Miyako Strait near Okinawa, a move that sent shock waves through Japan.

The exercise took place just days after warships from the North Sea Fleet returned from what China's army-navy called "confrontation exercises" in the South China Sea.

"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked. The answer is yes. Our national interests are global, in every ocean. Some will be in port, and others will be meeting commitments from the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Strait.

It's well to consider the "new challenges," as Gates put it, in the form of anti-ship missiles in the hands of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah or the threat posed by Iran's arsenal of missiles, mines and speed boats near the Strait of Hormuz. But new challenges don't make the old ones go away. We must be prepared to meet them all.

"At the end of the day, we have to ask whether this nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers," Gates said.

The question is whether we can afford not to. Defense, unlike health care, is a constitutional imperative."




U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Speech

"Naval War College (Newport, RI)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Newport, RI, Friday, April 17, 2009

Good morning. It’s a real pleasure to be here for my first visit as secretary to the Naval War College. Based on the weather I’m thinking I may move the Pentagon here.
...
In this respect, it is important to keep some perspective. For example, as much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet, by one estimate, is still larger than the next 13 navies combined – and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. In terms of capabilities, the over-match is even greater. No country in the rest of the world has anything close to the reach and firepower to match a carrier strike group. And the United States has and will maintain eleven until at least 2040. I might also note that we have a number of Expeditionary Strike Groups and will in the not-too-distant future will be able to carry the F-35.

Potential adversaries are well-aware of this fact, which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the U.S. to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought arms race prior to World War I. Instead, we’ve seen their investments in weapons geared to neutralize our advantages – to deny the U.S. military freedom of movement and action while potentially threatening our primary means of projecting power: our bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them.

This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion dollar blue-water surface combatants – where the loss of even one ship would be a national catastrophe. We know other nations are working on ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet – whether by producing stealthy submarines in quantity or developing anti-ship missiles with increasing range and accuracy. We ignore these developments at our peril.

The Royal Navy’s greatest defeat in World War II – the sinking of the capital ships H.M.S. Repulse and the brand new Prince of Wales by Japanese aircraft just days after Pearl Harbor – was due in part to a command with little appreciation for air power, and in particular the threat posed by a single, air-delivered torpedo."

Office of Naval Intelligence 47-page report

Let's take a look at the "47-page report, entitled, 'A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics'" written by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). "ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces."

China's ASBM program is the "Most worrisome for the US Navy’s pre-eminence in the region...the ASBM’s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept."



"Measuring The Chinese Fleet
January 27, 2010 · Posted in Industry News, Underwater Defence



A mistake by a US Navy intelligence official has given the world an unexpected peek into the secret world of China’s navy. The US Office for Naval Intelligence (ONI) committed the blunder of posting, on an open website, the agency’s assessment of the state of the Chinese navy. Before the ONI could rectify this indiscretion by pulling off the report, it had been downloaded and posted on publicly accessible websites.

The 47-page report, entitled, “A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics”, is still posted on the website of the Federation of American Scientists, a policy advocacy body at:

...
The PLA(N)’s most key acquisition, says the ONI report, is a sophisticated anti-air capability, which would allow its ships to operate in “distant seas”, far from land-based air-defence systems. The Luyang I class of destroyers, already formidable, have been followed by the Luyang II class and the Jiangkai II frigates, which are linked with an air-surveillance network as good as America’s world-standard Aegis system.

Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, will be a key deterrent in the PLA(N). The ONI report says that Beijing will replace its large number of low-tech submarines with “smaller numbers of modern, high-capability boats (submarines)”. But while the number of surface ships remains constant, today’s fleet of 62 submarines will increase over the next 10-15 years to 75. [In that time-frame, India’s submarine fleet will be about one-third that of China’s.]

Most worrisome for the US Navy’s pre-eminence in the region, is the programme to develop the world’s first Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM), a variant of China’s Dong Feng – 21 missile. The ONI report reveals that the ASBM’s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept."




"The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) was established in the United States Navy in 1882. ONI was established to "seek out and report" on the advancements in other nations' navies. Its headquarters are at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Maryland. ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces."

"[China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests"


Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command



"On 24 August 2010, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made the following statement to Japanese media in Tokyo:

To our knowledge, [China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.

A 16 August 2010 background briefing by a Senior U.S. Department of Defense official indicates that China still needs to successfully integrate its ASBM with C4ISR in order to operationalize it:

“We continue to be concerned about their efforts to development this—this particular system. I would say the primary area… where we see them still facing roadblocks is in integrating the missile system with the C4-ISR. And they still have a ways to go before they manage to get that integrated so that they have an operational and effective system.”

“But nonetheless, this is an area that, for all the obvious reasons, remains, you know, of great concern for us.”

The just-released 2010 U.S. Department of Defense Report on China’s Military offers a general background:

“Augmented by direct acquisition of foreign weapons and technology, [defense industry] reforms have enabled China to develop and produce advanced weapon systems that incorporate mid-1990s technology in many areas, and some systems—particularly ballistic missiles—that rival any in the world today.” (p. 43)

“Production trends and resource allocation appear to favor missile and space systems….” (p. 44).

“China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes.” (p. 1)

“China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km, is armed with a maneuverable warhead, and when integrated with appropriate command and control systems, is intended to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.” (p. 2)

“The PLA is acquiring conventional MRBMs to increase the range at which it can conduct precision strikes against land targets and naval ships, including aircraft carriers, operating far from China’s shores out to the first island chain.” (p. 31)

“The PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with Sky Wave and Surface Wave OTH radars. OTH radars could be used in conjunction with imagery satellites to assist in locating targets at great distances from PRC shores to support long range precision strikes, including by anti-ship ballistic missiles.” (p. 2)

“Over the long term, improvements in China’s C4ISR, including space-based and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track, and target military activities deep into the western Pacific Ocean.” (p. 37)

Based on sophisticated organizational analysis, Mark Stokes and Tiffany Ma suggest that the Second Artillery may be constructing ASBM missile brigade facilities in the northern Guangdong Province municipality of Shaoguan (韶关):

“Last week, China’s state-run media quietly announced the construction of facilities for a new Second Artillery missile brigade – the 96166 Unit – in the northern Guangdong municipality of Shaoguan… the province is already home to a Second Artillery short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) brigade (the 96169 unit in Meizhou)….”

“Although the introduction of the 1,700km range solid fuelled, terminally guided DF-21C ballistic missile into Guangdong is possible, the brigade is also a candidate to be the first unit equipped with the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The DF-21C, first introduced into the active inventory in 2005, is designed to attack fixed targets on land. If an ASBM is successful in passing the necessary design reviews and a sufficient sensor network is in place, the Shaoguan brigade could become the first in the PLA to field a lethal capability against moving targets at sea out to a range of 1,500-2,000km or more from launch sites.”

“The Second Artillery planned to finalize the design of the DF-21D by the end of 2010 and the establishment of a permanent deployment location often coincides with the design finalization of a new missile. However, an initial operational capability is likely a ways off, as a follow-on testing of a prototype design may be needed prior to certification for full-rate production.”

Shaoguan’s location near Hunan Province, with the inter-provincial Nanling mountains and tunnels through them that complicate satellite surveillance (under construction since at least 2008), offers significant advantages:

“Whether the unit is equipped with the DF-21C or the more advanced DF-21D maritime variant, the establishment of a conventionally-capable medium range ballistic missile brigade in Guangdong would decisively expand the Second Artillery’s striking radius. More specifically, it would enable the Second Artillery to support the Central Military Commission to enforce territorial claims in the South China Sea, or strike targets in a Taiwan-related contingency without having to overfly Japanese territory.”

Other recent indications of Chinese ASBM development progress include the reported completion of a DF-21D rocket motor facility in 2009 and the recent launch of 5 advanced Yaogan satellites, three of which were apparently placed in the same orbit on 5 March–thereby perhaps offering better coverage of critical areas along China’s maritime periphery. Another possible indication is a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit “slow-moving targets” with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters. Mark Stokes, a noted expert at the Project 2049 Institute on this and related issues, stated on 4 June 2010 that 'odds are what you’re seeing now in terms of testing is… flight tests of the [DF-21D] motor itself and the airframe… the final step would be most likely going against a target at sea in a realistic environment.'”

Re: China's anti-ship ballistic missile (i.e. ASBM) with incoming Mach 10 warhead

Martian said:

Based on 50 years of missile-technology mastery, China has recently developed a third option: the anti-ship ballistic missile (i.e. ASBM) with an incoming Mach 10 warhead.

[qimg]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5027/df21cirbmtel20091s.jpg[/qimg]
China's ASBMs

I don't know whether the following land-based test was conducted with a kinetic or High-Explosive warhead. However, if an aircraft carrier gets hit, it looks like it will be out of commission.

[qimg]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6985/testingbamers.jpg[/qimg]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Marvel · 1 week ago
If somebody could clarify, the ASBM would not be a unitary warhead, correct? I remember reading somewhere that it may be a sort of cluster munition designed to puncture the carrier deck with flechettes, rendering it inoperable."

Click to expand...

Really good work in this thread Martian. A lot of good information on the nature of the threat ASBM poses to carriers. I got to say I was somewhat surprised by how far the Chinese have come, and how fast.

But what I really want to know is, where did you find that satellite picture? Can we confirm the size of the object in it, where it is, and that it actually is a "positive" test of an ASBM?

Re: China's anti-ship ballistic missile (i.e. ASBM) with incoming Mach 10 warhead

Finn McCool said:

Really good work in this thread Martian. A lot of good information on the nature of the threat ASBM poses to carriers. I got to say I was somewhat surprised by how far the Chinese have come, and how fast.

But what I really want to know is, where did you find that satellite picture? Can we confirm the size of the object in it, where it is, and that it actually is a "positive" test of an ASBM?

Click to expand...

You can find the picture at the following links:

Look in the bottom left-hand corner:


See post #6 for hotlinks:



"Re: BAMers: Ballistic Anti-ship Missiles

China is supposedly busy testing its 'Ballistic Anti-ship Missiles' against some Aircraft Carrier sized ground targets:

Image: Testing BAMers

Map: Testing BAMers - Google Maps <--- Enlarge the 2 circles on left of the green arrow, or for the

Coordinates: 40.38N 99.87E

Google Maps <--- Enter above coordinates after clicking on this link and then choose the 'satellite view.' "


My reply is "no" to your questions 1 and 3. Regarding question 2, the coordinates are on the Google map image itself. However, I have heard that Google is now blocking the sensitive military image at the request of the Chinese government at those coordinates. You will have to check for yourself.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

This looks pretty scary if you on a carriers deck

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Scratch said:

An ICBM / SLBM carries very little payload for it's cost. Plus as SSBNs are the only mobile platform, only a few could be deployed at a time, since at the same time these subs have to carry out their primary mission of nuclear deterrance.

Then there may be a few land based ICBMs in the CONUS.

That would allow for a very fast and precise strike of a few well chosen high value targets, but nothing more.
For a more conventional attack / projection of power an aircraft carrier with planes that can carry several thousand pounds of ordnance each, produce close to a hundred sorties a day, that can maintain presence / persistance in the area, for that still valid mission, and aircraft carrier is probably the prime choise for many years still to come.

Click to expand...

The problem is a reliance on missile barrage means you're trading physical presence for offensive power. It's the same doctrinal mistake made about the superiority of air power. Once you've crushed enemy forces you need to occupy the territory to make any substantive gains. Asymmetry works for countries like China because they're playing defense. They already hold their own territories and need some offensive deterrence to prevent physical occupation, which is precisely what a carrier group is for. In that sense, the carrier group is not obsolete in any way.
__________________