Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
No, but that's the most basic critera the AShBM is designed to fill -- and we've all had the whole discussion about testing at sea vs lack of testing at sea in relation to capability etc already, so I'm not going to start that again.
But on another note, I just realized that AShBM (disclaimer: if real) will be the first genuine "top down" weapon designed against naval vessels since dive bombers. Dive bombers vs carriers in the pacific theatre could provide a glimpse of what kind of damage an AShBM could inflict if it gains a hit (depending on the warhead, accuracy etc of course).
No, but that's the most basic critera the AShBM is designed to fill -- and we've all had the whole discussion about testing at sea vs lack of testing at sea in relation to capability etc already, so I'm not going to start that again.
But on another note, I just realized that AShBM (disclaimer: if real) will be the first genuine "top down" weapon designed against naval vessels since dive bombers. Dive bombers vs carriers in the pacific theatre could provide a glimpse of what kind of damage an AShBM could inflict if it gains a hit (depending on the warhead, accuracy etc of course).
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
The height of a Nimitz classed supercarrier is about 40 m. The 600 kg warhead of the DF-21, if traveling unimpeded at 3,400 mps, will yield roughly 800 kg of TNT equivalency from kinetic energy alone. If, assuming, the DF-21D doesn't simply pass through the Carrier and detonate underwater, but instead is logged inside, say, 15m inside the carrier, it's warhead will still, probably not sink the carrier.
Just to show the ineffectiveness of current AShMs, is the case of the Iranian firgate, the Sahand. It's actually a British made Mark V Vosper class frigate. During Operation Praying Mantis, the Sahand was hit by:
And still, she did not sink, instead, she burnt and burnt for some time until her ammunition depot caught fire and that split the ship in two. Remember, the Sahand weighs only 1,500 tonnes, is 95 m long, and 11 m wide. And after roughly 1,650 kg of explosives used against it, it did not sink until the fire blew up it's ammunition.
So, like I said, even if the DF-21D somehow became operational, somehow manages to evade all U.S. counter measures, it will not sink a carrier (unless it's lucky).
And that's if China solves the ARH problem. If the DF-21D wants to do the Pershing and do a "look up" it'll have to slow down, which makes it cake for ABMs. The only DF-21 with both GPS and ARH is the DF-21A, and it only achieves an accuracy of "100-300m" CEP, which means that it has a poor chance of hitting a carrier.
The height of a Nimitz classed supercarrier is about 40 m. The 600 kg warhead of the DF-21, if traveling unimpeded at 3,400 mps, will yield roughly 800 kg of TNT equivalency from kinetic energy alone. If, assuming, the DF-21D doesn't simply pass through the Carrier and detonate underwater, but instead is logged inside, say, 15m inside the carrier, it's warhead will still, probably not sink the carrier.
Just to show the ineffectiveness of current AShMs, is the case of the Iranian firgate, the Sahand. It's actually a British made Mark V Vosper class frigate. During Operation Praying Mantis, the Sahand was hit by:
- 2 AGM-123 Skipper II (450 kg Warhead each)
- 3 Harpoon missiles (221 kg Warhead each)
- 2 CBU-100 Cluster bombs (247, 160 gram HEAT warheads, 45 kg total)
And still, she did not sink, instead, she burnt and burnt for some time until her ammunition depot caught fire and that split the ship in two. Remember, the Sahand weighs only 1,500 tonnes, is 95 m long, and 11 m wide. And after roughly 1,650 kg of explosives used against it, it did not sink until the fire blew up it's ammunition.
So, like I said, even if the DF-21D somehow became operational, somehow manages to evade all U.S. counter measures, it will not sink a carrier (unless it's lucky).
And that's if China solves the ARH problem. If the DF-21D wants to do the Pershing and do a "look up" it'll have to slow down, which makes it cake for ABMs. The only DF-21 with both GPS and ARH is the DF-21A, and it only achieves an accuracy of "100-300m" CEP, which means that it has a poor chance of hitting a carrier.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I'm sure the engineers are not that incompetent and will program a fuse for "direct hit" warheads.
I agree that a single DF-21D will probably not be able to sink a carrier if it hits home, but it will almost certainly take it out of action for a while if not inflict crippling damage depending where it hits and what warheads are used.
No one expects a missile with a CEP of 100-300 m to hit a moving carrier... and I don't think the DF-21A has GPS guidance -- DF-21A is the nuke version, not the conventional warhead version which is DF-21C, which has GPS guidance and a CEP of 30-40m.
I'm no expert in ABM nor the pershing, but if they were use this "slow down" manouever then they would design the upmost speed in which ARH or whatever guidance they choose to be possible.
They've probably been working on this weapon for damn nearly two decades since the thrid taiwan crisis if not before that... If there were challenges they discovered they should damn well be overcome by now, and I think it's also a bit flawed for the comparisons to the Pershing every now and then -- that was Cold War era technology, we've moved a bit since then and China's a giant in the electronics industry.
I'm sure the engineers are not that incompetent and will program a fuse for "direct hit" warheads.
I agree that a single DF-21D will probably not be able to sink a carrier if it hits home, but it will almost certainly take it out of action for a while if not inflict crippling damage depending where it hits and what warheads are used.
No one expects a missile with a CEP of 100-300 m to hit a moving carrier... and I don't think the DF-21A has GPS guidance -- DF-21A is the nuke version, not the conventional warhead version which is DF-21C, which has GPS guidance and a CEP of 30-40m.
I'm no expert in ABM nor the pershing, but if they were use this "slow down" manouever then they would design the upmost speed in which ARH or whatever guidance they choose to be possible.
They've probably been working on this weapon for damn nearly two decades since the thrid taiwan crisis if not before that... If there were challenges they discovered they should damn well be overcome by now, and I think it's also a bit flawed for the comparisons to the Pershing every now and then -- that was Cold War era technology, we've moved a bit since then and China's a giant in the electronics industry.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Exactly -- Now in the midst of a war they might be a bit more lenient on FOD, but if there's a big gaping hole through your ship and a HE warhead that's gone off in there (armour piercing/fused warhead), or if the planes on the flight deck (if not the flight deck itself) and island have had dozens or hundreds of bomblets at mach 10 dropped on them...
It might not sink the carrier but it'll sure as hell stop its mission for a while, and will be more than enough to make commanders think twice to send CVNs within a few thousand kms of China's coast.
Exactly -- Now in the midst of a war they might be a bit more lenient on FOD, but if there's a big gaping hole through your ship and a HE warhead that's gone off in there (armour piercing/fused warhead), or if the planes on the flight deck (if not the flight deck itself) and island have had dozens or hundreds of bomblets at mach 10 dropped on them...
It might not sink the carrier but it'll sure as hell stop its mission for a while, and will be more than enough to make commanders think twice to send CVNs within a few thousand kms of China's coast.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
GPS is useless for Anti-shipping. I used the DF-21A as an example as it's the only operational variant with an ARH warhead. Stopping a CVN will not be the last of the USN. Likely, 100-1000 sailors will die, but unless the DF-21D hits parts of it's propulsion system, it'll limp back to CA., get repaired, recrewed, and ready again. While; the moment China launches a DF-21D, it's location will be pin pointed via satellite, and then a couple tomahawks will whack it to pieces.
GPS is useless for Anti-shipping. I used the DF-21A as an example as it's the only operational variant with an ARH warhead. Stopping a CVN will not be the last of the USN. Likely, 100-1000 sailors will die, but unless the DF-21D hits parts of it's propulsion system, it'll limp back to CA., get repaired, recrewed, and ready again. While; the moment China launches a DF-21D, it's location will be pin pointed via satellite, and then a couple tomahawks will whack it to pieces.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Err, I never said AShBM would only use GPS... It would definitely use a combination of satellite guidance, and varying terminal guidance methods, maybe ARH, electro optic or even anti radiation if you're so inclined.
By ARH you mean active radar homing, right? Because I'm quite sure DF-21A doesn't have that... DF-21C might -- it has terminal guidance of some kind so ARH certainly wouldn't be unsuitable.
If not... then what do you mean by ARH?
No one said stopping a CVN will be the last of the USN, whatever that means. But it will stop and take the CVN itself out of action for a relatively lengthy period, which is all the AShBM is currently projected to do -- to deny carriers as a base to carry fighters to strike at China at.
DF-21D is on a mobile TEL -- and not a onroad one like the DF-31A either, -- so after it fires off the missile it can go and move into cover if tomahawks weren't detected by AWACS and taken out by C-RAM systems or J-7s/JL-8s with SRAAMs. But however vulnerable an AShBM TEL, or the AShBM system itself (which is made up of many satellites, ISR assets, whatever) is is beside my point. Everything important is summed up in the paragraph above -- the AShBM, if it makes a hit will deny the use of the hit carrier for a relative amount of time, with a possibility of outright sinking it.
Can't ask for more than that.
Err, I never said AShBM would only use GPS... It would definitely use a combination of satellite guidance, and varying terminal guidance methods, maybe ARH, electro optic or even anti radiation if you're so inclined.
By ARH you mean active radar homing, right? Because I'm quite sure DF-21A doesn't have that... DF-21C might -- it has terminal guidance of some kind so ARH certainly wouldn't be unsuitable.
If not... then what do you mean by ARH?
No one said stopping a CVN will be the last of the USN, whatever that means. But it will stop and take the CVN itself out of action for a relatively lengthy period, which is all the AShBM is currently projected to do -- to deny carriers as a base to carry fighters to strike at China at.
DF-21D is on a mobile TEL -- and not a onroad one like the DF-31A either, -- so after it fires off the missile it can go and move into cover if tomahawks weren't detected by AWACS and taken out by C-RAM systems or J-7s/JL-8s with SRAAMs. But however vulnerable an AShBM TEL, or the AShBM system itself (which is made up of many satellites, ISR assets, whatever) is is beside my point. Everything important is summed up in the paragraph above -- the AShBM, if it makes a hit will deny the use of the hit carrier for a relative amount of time, with a possibility of outright sinking it.
Can't ask for more than that.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
"radar-based terminal guidance system"
A mobile TEL is very deceptive in it's capabilities. The best TELs, as far as I've seen, can enter an area and prepare to fire in 5 minutes, and then prepare to leave and then actually leave in another 5 minutes, and those TELs are not Chinese. Like I said, I'm assuming the DF-21D even successfully penetrates AEGIS, assuming the Tomahawks penetrate whatever China has for defense, the DF-21D is boom and gonners.
But back to the point. Like I said, a Carrier is not the lynch pin of a USN fleet. It is the largest and most "precious" ship, but the moment it's hit, you can expect hell in China.
"radar-based terminal guidance system"
A mobile TEL is very deceptive in it's capabilities. The best TELs, as far as I've seen, can enter an area and prepare to fire in 5 minutes, and then prepare to leave and then actually leave in another 5 minutes, and those TELs are not Chinese. Like I said, I'm assuming the DF-21D even successfully penetrates AEGIS, assuming the Tomahawks penetrate whatever China has for defense, the DF-21D is boom and gonners.
But back to the point. Like I said, a Carrier is not the lynch pin of a USN fleet. It is the largest and most "precious" ship, but the moment it's hit, you can expect hell in China.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
If you check the citation for that it goes to sinodefence.com, and if you read the DF-21A caption for the page it mentions nothing about ARH or GPS for the DF-21A. GPS andARH guidance would provide a far smaller CEP than 100-300m... wth?
I'd gladly trade a DF-21D TEL and maybe a few support vehicles for putting a CVN out of action for a while and potentially sinking it every day of the week.
Yes, because we won't be expecting hell if a carrier wasn't destroyed or attacked in the first place... I'd rather have "Hell minus a carrier or two" rather than "Hell with a carrier or two"...
Besides, minus a carrier or two it'll be a bit less than hell, maybe more death valley or one of the more remote deserts on the planet.
The real point is that at the end of the day so long as the carriers are out of action in one way or another, either temporarily or permanently, so long as they can't launch planes that can strike China, then AShBM will have done its job, and that counts if the USN doesn't decide to deploy carriers within 3000km in the first place due to the threat of AShBM (deterrence strategy).
GG
If you check the citation for that it goes to sinodefence.com, and if you read the DF-21A caption for the page it mentions nothing about ARH or GPS for the DF-21A. GPS andARH guidance would provide a far smaller CEP than 100-300m... wth?
I'd gladly trade a DF-21D TEL and maybe a few support vehicles for putting a CVN out of action for a while and potentially sinking it every day of the week.
Yes, because we won't be expecting hell if a carrier wasn't destroyed or attacked in the first place... I'd rather have "Hell minus a carrier or two" rather than "Hell with a carrier or two"...
Besides, minus a carrier or two it'll be a bit less than hell, maybe more death valley or one of the more remote deserts on the planet.
The real point is that at the end of the day so long as the carriers are out of action in one way or another, either temporarily or permanently, so long as they can't launch planes that can strike China, then AShBM will have done its job, and that counts if the USN doesn't decide to deploy carriers within 3000km in the first place due to the threat of AShBM (deterrence strategy).
GG