Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

pugachev_diver said:

I know this is drastically off topic, but I still want to present my point. Seriously, why de hell everyone still believe the anti ship ballistic missile thing is true. It is impossible to develop, even for NASA in this day and age. A carrier might seem to be big comparing to a human being, but it is really just a grain of salt in the vast oceans, not mentioning its speed exceeding 60km/h.
Ballistic missiles themselves are very fast travelling objects easily exceeding Mach 10. it would be very very difficult to maneuver at terminal stage. Even if the maneuverability issue can be solved, tracking a carrier is also very challenging.
Satellite can only scan an area periodically at fixed times and long range radar stations use long radiowaves that could travel far but are not accurate enough to guide a missile to hit a carrier. The navy would need large AEWs and UAVs to track carriers and to guide the missiles, but these are very vulnerable as they are prone to fighter jets and Aegis Shield.
Even if these problems can be solved, there is still another fatal flaw in all ballistic missiles, is that they all have terminal blackout caused by intense friction with the air. I forgot the full name of this phenomenon, but it's pretty much cause by friction with air, it turns the surrounding air and the heat shield itself into like big magnets that block off all radar signal and all electromagnetic waves. This is not just in ballistic missiles, but also in re-entry manned capsules and spaceships. At this period, all communications are cut off. It would be impossible for the missile to find and track the carrier on its own and it couldn't received information from the outside. Preset guidance would be a joke, since carriers travel at speed excess of 60km/h.
So this whole thing is just a joke, I still don't understand why everyone are still so interested about it.

Click to expand...

johnqh said:

If satellite is used to acquire carrier location, by the way the data is sent to control center, the carrier is miles away. The the time the missile re-entered the atmosphere, the carrier is dozens of miles away.

If airplane or submarine are used for targeting, they would be taken out by the carrier group's defense in no time - and why not using the airplane or submarine as attack vehicle at the first place?

This kind of wishful thinking can only fool the fanboys and US congressmen.

Click to expand...

Well, the US DoD authored those China defence white papers for the past 2 years that says DF-21D ASBM is operational. We can only assume it is true, or the US DoD is deluding themselves. Maybe China did discovered some techniques to overcome the targeting problem. Who knows. Its not like US has the monopoly on scientific discovery.....(even if does looks like it for the past 60 years) I can only say it would be arrogant to assume otherwise.

Also, what would be the point to develop an ASBM if it cannot maneuver? By the time it flies to the targeting area the CBG would be long gone! So it should be natural to assume if DF-21D is reality as pentagon's whitepaper is to believe, then it would most likely to be a MaRV capable of maneuvering at terminal stage.

BTW, MGM-31 Pershing II had an active radar guidance system - meaning it is NOT inconceivable to have radar working at terminal stage.

The point is, for now we have to assume DF-21D ASBM is operational (or near the future, or any other hypersonic missiles in China's arsenals). And what is the evolving strategy with this implication.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Asymptote said:

Well, the US DoD authored those China defence white papers for the past 2 years that says DF-21D ASBM is operational. We can only assume it is true, or the US DoD is deluding themselves. Maybe China did discover some techniques to overcome the targetting problem. Who knows. Its not like US has the monopoly on scientific discovery.....(even if does looks like it for the past 60 years) I can only say it would be arrogant to assume otherwise.

Click to expand...

You meant those white papers?

No, those are completely useless papers, meant to tell the congress to allocate more funding. Seriously, it doesn't mean a thing.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

johnqh said:

People overthink these things way too much.

Forget about attacking the carrier in the defense screen. Take out the destroyers first. If you cannot take out the destroyers, when do you think it is possible to take out the carrier in the middle of the destroyer defense circle?

Click to expand...

I am talking about the AAW destroyers/frigates all along. Disable those first, then go after the carrier.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

johnqh said:

And then?

So, you have J-20 to use radar to have an accurate lock on the carrier, accurate enough to guide a GPS(or Beidou)-guided ASBM? Then the data must be sent back somehow (satellite?). The ASBM must be prepped and fired. The J-20 must stay with the carrier (with radar on toward the carrier during all this time) without knowing if or when the ASBM will come. Never mind that the moment the radar has a lock on the carrier, the carrier would know.....

Somehow I call that a suicide mission...

Yes, there is still some chance to succeed in this very complicated setup.....but then, why don't we simply have the J-20 fire a couple of C-803?

Click to expand...

Suppose they have rough intelligence on the general location of the carrier. The J-20 take off and ASBM launch can be timed so that when the ASBM is almost directly on top of the carrier group the J-20 would be in the vicinity to guide it's final leg. Also the J-20 might not need to open her search radar.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

johnqh said:

You meant those white papers?

No, those are completely useless papers, meant to tell the congress to allocate more funding. Seriously, it doesn't mean a thing.

Click to expand...

Re-read my post. I just updated it.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

johnqh said:

If satellite is used to acquire carrier location, by the way the data is sent to control center, the carrier is miles away. The the time the missile re-entered the atmosphere, the carrier is dozens of miles away.

If airplane or submarine are used for targeting, they would be taken out by the carrier group's defense in no time - and why not using the airplane or submarine as attack vehicle at the first place?

This kind of wishful thinking can only fool the fanboys and US congressmen.

Click to expand...

Not really someone actually do the modelling and calculation of revisit rate vs radar tracking capability

According to an analysis by Eric Hagt and Matthew Durnin published in
these pages in 2009, assuming a then-accurate total of twenty-two satellites with
an off-nadir (i.e., side-to-side) field of view of sixty degrees, China could ensure
that each area was revisited by a satellite every forty-five minutes, on average.35
This would be sufficient to monitor stationary concentrations of aircraft and
ships at regional bases. Also, the space-based ISR architecture may already be
able to locate and track moving carrier groups, especially when combined with
other ISR assets.Hagt and Durnin deemed the forty-five-minute revisit rate insufficient
for tracking carriers continuously with space-based assets.36 However,
extrapolating fromtheir study, having thirty satellites in orbit would reduce that
interval to thirty or thirty-five minutes. Furthermore, the Hagt-Durnin model
somewhat plays down the importance of other facets of China’s ISR assets and
their ability to overlay and complement each other. Significantly, a carrier group,
once its general location has been detected by a certain ISR asset, does not need
to be tracked by the same asset. General coordinates from the OTH radar or a
satellite could be passed to a nearby submarine or to aircraft that would close in
on the carrier to engage it or continue tracking it.
In addition to ocean-bottom sonar beds, China operates fifty-five submarines,
all of which could assist with carrier detection and tracking. The boats of
the relatively old and noisy Romeo andMing classes would likely lie in wait with
their engines stopped, serving as listening posts. Newer, quieter submarines
would likely be able to track U.S. surface assets while shadowing them undetected.
Many observers have pointed out the likelihood that China would fit a
number of inconspicuous civilian vessels, such as fishing boats,with equipment
to detect U.S. carrier groups and relay their locations. Finally, China would call
on its surface combatants and maritime reconnaissance aircraft to assist in locating
and tracking U.S. surface assets. In fact, China’s Gaoxin Project is developing
seven specialized variants of the indigenous Y-8 cargo aircraft, with
versions specializing in electronic and signal intelligence collection, communication
and data relay, and electronic warfare, all useful against American air and
naval assets in the theater.37
China is also proficient in remote-communication technologies, which
would be essential for coordinating assets in a high-intensity campaign. It
18 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW
operates four dedicated military communications satellites: three FengHuo vehicles
and the DongFangHong-4, launched in 2010.38 Also, it has access to a
number of commercial communication satellites, like Sinosat. China has also
bolstered its AWACS* capability and is continuing to push for greater airborne
C2 capability. The PLAAF has added four Y-8 early-warning planes and at least
four A-50 Mainstay AWACS aircraft to its force in the recent years.39 It is working
on the KJ-200 and KJ-2000 projects, based on the Y-8 and A-50 platforms,
respectively.40
Even more strikingly, China appears

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Asymptote said:

I am talking about the AAW destroyers/frigates all along. Disable those first, then go after the carrier.

Click to expand...

In other words, take out the carrier group the same way you peel an onion, layer by layer.
Once the support attrition is severe enough the carrier would be forced to abort her mission due to increased risks to her own safety.

We're assuming that the commander would be holding back and won't defend a destroyer with the same vigour as say his own carrier, just in case it was a diversion and the real killers popped up somewhere.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

I would not underestimate the importance of the ASBM.

Because different from say a C-803, the ASBM is an area denial weapon. There is no telling of it's terminal maneuverable range. The mere threat of having one in the vicinity takes a toll on mission planning of the commander of the task force. They could possibly be used to steer the carrier group to designated kill zones.

edit: If you can deny a whole big area it would have the same implication as a tactical nuclear weapon. Is there any wonder then that US warned that use of such weapon should be considered in the same severity range as an actual nuke missile.

In other words a steerable non-nuclear ASBM has the same advantage as a normal nuclear BM, when it comes to destroying or deny access to individual high value carrier, without being actually labelled as a nuclear strike. So it's threatening radius can be just as big or even bigger than the distruction radius of a nuke warhead. One should not think of the ASBM as falling on a single pin point on the map but a big fuzzy grey area with near equal capability.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Asymptote said:

Well, the US DoD authored those China defence white papers for the past 2 years that says DF-21D ASBM is operational. We can only assume it is true, or the US DoD is deluding themselves. Maybe China did discovered some techniques to overcome the targeting problem. Who knows. Its not like US has the monopoly on scientific discovery.....(even if does looks like it for the past 60 years) I can only say it would be arrogant to assume otherwise.

Also, what would be the point to develop an ASBM if it cannot maneuver? By the time it flies to the targeting area the CBG would be long gone! So it should be natural to assume if DF-21D is reality as pentagon's whitepaper is to believe, then it would most likely to be a MaRV capable of maneuvering at terminal stage.

BTW, MGM-31 Pershing II had an active radar guidance system - meaning it is NOT inconceivable to have radar working at terminal stage.

The point is, for now we have to assume DF-21D ASBM is operational (or near the future, or any other hypersonic missiles in China's arsenals). And what is the evolving strategy with this implication.

Click to expand...

I guess everyone must have missed my previous updated post.
Allow me to mention it again

"BTW, MGM-31 Pershing II had an active radar guidance system - meaning it is NOT inconceivable to have radar for targetting at terminal stage onboard the missile."



Also, don't forget, its not like DF-21D can only carry a single warhead. DF-21D is a ballistic missile! it is capable of carrying upto 6 warheads/RVs. So even if its not accurate for one warhead, there is chance other warheads might not miss. It would be like being hit by a shotgun blast.

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Asymptote said:

I guess everyone must have missed my previous updated post.
Allow me to mention it again

"BTW, MGM-31 Pershing II had an active radar guidance system - meaning it is NOT inconceivable to have radar for targetting at terminal stage onboard the missile."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also, don't forget, its not like DF-21D can only carry a single warhead. DF-21D is a ballistic missile! it is capable of carrying upto 6 warheads/RVs. So even if its not accurate for one warhead, there is chance other warheads might not miss. It would be like being hit by a shotgun blast.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the point of radar.....

For a ballistic missile, radar is fine for final stage if the target is not moving or moving on a set path with set speed.

However, a ship moves in whatever way you want. Between the time you have the initial position for launching the missile to when the missile re-enters and able the use the radar, the ship is miles away (30nm/hour, that's 5 miles within 10 minutes).

First, the radar does not cover enough area to make a lock.
Second, even if the radar has a lock, at 10 Mach speed, the missile's ability to turn before hitting the sea level is very limited. It takes only 6 seconds for the missile to travel through the 17km atmosphere. Yes, 6 seconds is enough time for it to make fine adjustment of a couple of hundred meters for a fixed ground target, but there is no way it can turn enough to catch a target 10km away.

It is simple math and physics. I don't care if you have 6 warheads. You can have 100 warheads and you still cannot beat law of physics.