Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bladerunner said:

I wonder if the PLAAF are considering working on a similar strike capability?

Click to expand...

Those air dropped torpedoes are intended for ASW against subs the P8 might find. If you can get an MPA within torpedo range of a hostile carrier, you should have no problem putting enough ordinance on target to sink the ship 10 times over using the rest of your air force and navy.

The PLAN is putting a lot of effort into new MPAs, but they are for ASW, not anti-carrier ops.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bladerunner said:

Hey thats interesting, though I suppose the idea of aircraft launched torpedoes is now obsolete?

Click to expand...

As plawolf mentioned, air-launched torpedoes these days are meant for anti-submarine purposes. Thus, aircraft carry light weight torpedoes that have limited range and payload since they are expected to be dropped near their target. Being light means that an aircraft can carry more, and having a small warhead is sufficient to sink a sub since it is essentially a pressurised vessel. Doesn't take too much to puncture a pressurised vessel.

As for the torpedoes used by subs against warships, they are heavy weight torpedoes that have longer range and carry a much bigger warhead. There are some clips on Youtube of what a heavy weight torpedo can do to a warship. Think 1 of the old Australian frigates (FFG7, Australian version of American Oliver Hazard Perry class) was sunk as an artificial reef by a single heavy weight torpedo.

--- EDIT ---

Poked around Youtube a bit and found this old clip of the old RAN destroyer escort being sunk by a single heavy weight torpedo:

[video=youtube;pBSixrh4G_4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBSixrh4G_4[/video]

Note how the explosion lifts the mid-ships area, causing the keel of the ship to break. This is known as the "Bubble Effect".

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Spartan95 said:

Modern anti-ship missiles designed by western countries are generally not intended to be used against armored targets, hence their small warhead. In contrast, the Russians designed huge missiles that carry a much larger warhead precisely because the CVNs are armored.

Whilst it is true that conventional missiles and bombs are not particularly effective at sinking an armored CVN (as shown by the clips posted by popeye), torpedoes are an entirely different matter altogether.

Now, I wonder why the PLAN put so much resources into building submarines in the past decade.....

Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that as time goes by, Russian AShM warheads get smaller and slightly faster.

The 3M-54 Klub for example, is the most modern Russian AShM there is. Range is 220 km and terminal phase velocity is Mach 3. Warhead is 200 kg. Kinetic energy from the impact of the warhead alone equates to only about 25 kg of TNT.

compared to...

P-500 Bazalt, which had a maximum range of 550 km in a mixed flight trajectory (lo-lo or lo-hi). If the former, it'll go about Mach 1.5 or 510 meters per second. If the latter, it'll go Mach 2.5, or 835 meters per second, in a terminal dive on the target. If it goes in a lo-hi trajectory, it'll hit with a kinetic energy equivalence of about 80 kg of TNT. If it goes in a lo-lo trajectory, it'll hit with the kinetic energy equivalence of about 30 kg of TNT.


The evolution of Russian AShMs does not aim for "Carrier killing" status (which only the 3M-54E1 Klub-N achieves with a 400 kg warhead, at the expense of being locked at Mach 0.8), but instead, for Defensive-bypass capability, or a way of circumventing ship-based defenses. Instead of having a mixed-trajectory, to which, ship-based radars can easily track when the missile is in it's high altitude phase, Russian missiles tend to stay low. They'd cruise at an awfully low altitude, 3-5 m above sea-level. At the leg of it's attack, roughly 20 km out, it climbs up in altitude to acquire it's target and then descends back and activates it's 3rd stage, the sizzling aspect of the whole missile, which accelerates it to close to Mach 3, while engaging in evasive maneuvers, to finally land it's semi-armor piercing warhead against the target. To aid in this, it also uses radar signature reduction measures, including RAM.

This entire set of defense-bypass capabilities allows the Klub to avoid detection until it's at least 23 km out, which, because it's traveling at almost 1 km per second, means less then 30 seconds before impact, which overall means that it reduces the enemies' reaction time and exemplifies the Klub's lethality.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

The interesting thing is that as time goes by, Russian AShM warheads get smaller and slightly faster.

The 3M-54 Klub for example, is the most modern Russian AShM there is. Range is 220 km and terminal phase velocity is Mach 3. Warhead is 200 kg. Kinetic energy from the impact of the warhead alone equates to only about 25 kg of TNT.

compared to...

P-500 Bazalt, which had a maximum range of 550 km in a mixed flight trajectory (lo-lo or lo-hi). If the former, it'll go about Mach 1.5 or 510 meters per second. If the latter, it'll go Mach 2.5, or 835 meters per second, in a terminal dive on the target. If it goes in a lo-hi trajectory, it'll hit with a kinetic energy equivalence of about 80 kg of TNT. If it goes in a lo-lo trajectory, it'll hit with the kinetic energy equivalence of about 30 kg of TNT.


The evolution of Russian AShMs does not aim for "Carrier killing" status (which only the 3M-54E1 Klub-N achieves with a 400 kg warhead, at the expense of being locked at Mach 0.8), but instead, for Defensive-bypass capability, or a way of circumventing ship-based defenses. Instead of having a mixed-trajectory, to which, ship-based radars can easily track when the missile is in it's high altitude phase, Russian missiles tend to stay low. They'd cruise at an awfully low altitude, 3-5 m above sea-level. At the leg of it's attack, roughly 20 km out, it climbs up in altitude to acquire it's target and then descends back and activates it's 3rd stage, the sizzling aspect of the whole missile, which accelerates it to close to Mach 3, while engaging in evasive maneuvers, to finally land it's semi-armor piercing warhead against the target. To aid in this, it also uses radar signature reduction measures, including RAM.

This entire set of defense-bypass capabilities allows the Klub to avoid detection until it's at least 23 km out, which, because it's traveling at almost 1 km per second, means less then 30 seconds before impact, which overall means that it reduces the enemies' reaction time and exemplifies the Klub's lethality.

Click to expand...

Do you really believe 3M-54 Klub is more advanced than Brahmo ?

Also Chinese YJ-62 and YJ-83 are not inferior to 3M-54 Klub

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

The Brahmos is just a P-800 Onyx with modernized electronics. The Klub is far more outfitted for the AShM role than the Brahmos. The YJ-62 is not even competitive with the Klub, and the YJ-83 is slower and carries a smaller payload than the Klub. As far as I see it, the Klub is the epitome of Anti-Ship Missiles to date.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

The Brahmos is just a P-800 Onyx with modernized electronics. The Klub is far more outfitted for the AShM role than the Brahmos. The YJ-62 is not even competitive with the Klub, and the YJ-83 is slower and carries a smaller payload than the Klub. As far as I see it, the Klub is the epitome of Anti-Ship Missiles to date.

Click to expand...

Yj-62 has a range far superior to klub (~400km).
None if the current pla ashms are designed for supersonic flight, they obviously believe it's not worth the drawbacks.
The plan doesn't seem very keen on klub either...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Bltizo said:

Yj-62 has a range far superior to klub (~400km).
None if the current pla ashms are designed for supersonic flight, they obviously believe it's not worth the drawbacks.
The plan doesn't seem very keen on klub either...

Click to expand...

The range is not relevant when you're slow. Basically, the YJ-62 is just another Exocet/Harpoon. The YJ-83 is supersonic but it doesn't do it as well as the Klub.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

The range is not relevant when you're slow. Basically, the YJ-62 is just another Exocet/Harpoon. The YJ-83 is supersonic but it doesn't do it as well as the Klub.

Click to expand...

Range is far more important than speed when you are dealing with carriers and AWACS as it gives your launch assets far greater stand-off capability, and be immune to the CVBG's escorts and also have a far greater chance of avoiding the carrier's CAP altogether.

With modern AWACS, there is every chance a carrier will spot the sea skimmers coming in a great deal further out than your best case scenario. They could potentially provide off-board targeting for naval SAMs and/or vector in the CAP to intercept the missiles well before they go supersonic, in which case the Klub has zero advantages over a 'mere' YJ62, but costs a great deal more per missile, so there will be far fewer Klubs inbound compared to a YJ62 attack.

The losses you take trying to get your launch assets within range of the Klub will also add up over the long term and adversely affect your overall combat potential and capabilities.

The Klub is best used as it was originally designed - a sub-launched sneak attack AShM. You get a sub within a couple hundred klicks of a enemy ship or fleet, pop off a salvo without warning and leg it out of there. The missile depends on being able to catch an enemy unawares and minimize their reaction time as its primary means to hitting targets. It was designed more to take out surface ships without AWACS support, probably transiting into theatre, and hence not at combat readiness.

If the Russians had intended the Klub to be their alpha-strike option against hostile CVBGs, they would have prioritized an air launched version and probably put on a bigger warhead.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

They did. Coincidentally there's more than 1 version of the Klub, my favorite being the one I described, but other variants that have the same capability as the CJ-62/Harpoon/Exocet/etc. It has a 400 kg warhead, mach 0.8 speed, and a 300 km range. In regards to AWACs, it all depends on the location of such an incident. An extra 180 km stand-off that the CJ-62 provides is not relevant when it won't get through AEGIS or any similar integrated ship-borne defense systems, it simply won't. Plus, if an AWAC were to be present in our scenario, than it'd be dubious to assume that the CJ-82 won't be detected from beyond it's radar activation range. Simply speaking, if our missile is going to be detected by an off-board sensor suite, i.e., AWACs, than I'd much rather take the missile that has a better chance of surviving the ensuing barrage of Point defense systems, which would be the Klub missile, over the missile that'd be shot out before it begins it attacks, the CJ-62.

Of course, like I said, this all depends on location. If the Carrier in question is <400 km then the CJ-62 would win out simply because the Klub would not be able to reach out that far. However, if the Carrier in question is <220 km, then the Klub wins out, simply because the CJ-62 is inadequate to penetrate a Carrier Battle Group's defensive suite while the Klub is far more likely to do so.

I can do a word-based simulation for you.

Stats of the 3M-54E:
-----------------------
220 km maximum range
200 kg semi-armor piercing HE warhead
Mach 2.9 terminal speed (20 km from target)
3 meter cruise altitude

Stats of the YJ-62
--------------------
400 km maximum range
300 kg semi-armor piercing HE warhead
Mach 0.9 terminal speed (30 km from target)
7 meter cruise altitude


Now, according to the , (with the AN/SPY-1 antenna being 16 m tall), the 3M-54E can be detected by on-board systems from 23.6 km away, and can be seen by Thermal imagers from 20.4 km away. The CJ-62 can be detected by on-board systems from 27.4 km away, and can be seen by Thermal imagers from 23.7 km away. So, because the Klub can be detected 3.6 km away from it's terminal stage, the Carrier in question will have an extra 13 seconds to engage the Cruise velocity Klub. Once the terminal stage dart separates from the Klub, it accelerates to Mach 2.9 (995 meters per second), which means that it will take 20 seconds for the Klub to finally impact the Carrier. The total time from detection to impact for the Klub s about 34 seconds. The CJ-62 will be detected after it enters it's attack phase, and at Mach 0.9, it will be traveling at about 308 meters per second. The time from detection to impact for the CJ-62 will be about 89 seconds.

The Type 052C destroyer can carry 8 CJ-62s, while the Steregushchy class corvette can carry 6 3M-54E Klubs. If you were to take those two missiles and faced them versus some, off the line Nimitz class carrier, you have to contend with 4 Phalanxes and 24 Seasparrows, at the least. Lets use the Phalanxes for this example, as they are the least capable of the defenses onboard a Carrier and even less capable when compared to other options available in a Carrier Battle Group in general. This is a picture from a Raytheon brochure for the Phalanx:



And I will quote myself here from another forum:

"A couple things to notice. The first is that the Phalanx in question is engaging a MQM-8G Vandal drone which is a variant of the RIM-8 Talos. Next, the drone was about 17,500 ft(5,300 m) in altitude, coming down at an angle of 30 degrees which gave it a velocity of about Mach 2.4 or 815 meters per second. Next, the drone was engaged(detected) at about 33,000 ft(10 km), the Phalanx opened fire at about 11,000 ft(3.3 km) and the target was destroyed at about 4,700 ft(900 meters). From the open firing distance to the destruction distance, it was about 6,300ft(1.9 km). Given that the drone was traveling at Mach 2.4, that makes the the time from firing to destruction out to about 2.3 seconds. In that 2.3 second span, 115-172 rounds could of been expended at the vandal."

So, versus a Mach 2.4 diving target, it took the vandal 2.3 seconds to kill it, and only after it was 900 m from the Phalanx itself. Now, compare the two missiles again. One goes Mach 2.9, the other goes Mach 0.9. The Chinese ship in question only has 2 more CJ-62s than the Russian ship in question, yet the Chinese missile's capability to evade ship-based defense systems is less than half of the Russian missiles in question. Therefore, it seems only logical for me to conclude that because there's a higher probability of success rate for the Russian missiles, it is therefore, superior.

And yes, I do know that I didn't factor AWACs into this situation, it would only mean longer-range engagement of the incoming missiles from the Carrier's side, plus, there's many variables when factoring in an AWAC, such as it's altitude, it's search area, etc, which would of forced me to include the location of this imaginary engagement, which would only complicate the conclusion, which would be a constant in this little word experiment.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Where did you get the 3 meter cruise altitude for the klub? It would be more reasonable as a terminal altitude... Even on wiki (which I know isn't the most credible source but I got nothing else at the moment) it quotes the terminal altitude at over 4 meters.