Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

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 .

Click to expand...

Firstly, I repeat Bltizo's skepticism of your 3m cruise height claim. A casual search showed most sources indicates a 10-15m cruise height, which seems far more reasonable and believable. And example.



So there goes your 'real world example'.

Secondly, the very premise of your argument is fundamentally unrealistic and frankly, unworkable since you are never going to get a principle surface combatant within a few hundred miles of a decent CVBG. To send surface ships, any surface ships, against a modern CVBG is to send that warship to the bottom of the sea as it will be detected and obliterated by massed carrier based fighters long before it has a chance to get close enough to even think about using its AShMs. The only exception might be small stealthy FACs like the Type 022, which can egress at high speed after missile launch, and are small and stealthy enough to have reasonable chance of avoiding reprisal attacks.

If you are to have any chance whatsoever trying to take out a properly protected carrier, your best bet against a carrier would either be a sub or massed air strike.

For subs, the Klub would be better, but even then that is more a pot shot rather than a sure thing.

If you really want to kill a hostile carrier battle group, the surest way is massed saturation attacks, preferable from beyond the range of defensive weapons, and that is what the YJ62 does.

You are thinking of a single YJ62 or a small salvo. But realistically, YJ62s are meant to be fired in the hundreds. It does not matter if AEGIGs can track and target every last one of them when the ships carrying the AEGIS can only engage 4-8 missiles each at any one time because of the limitation of missile illuminators. The defenders will simply not be physically able to shoot down enough missiles to stop enough of them getting through.

And in case I wave is not enough to guarantee a sure kill, because of the longer stand-off range of the YJ62, there is a far higher chance that all the launch platforms will get home safe to come back with a fresh load to do it all again. With hundreds of YJ62s inbound, it will take a quite a feat to argue that any CVBG can hope to intercept all of them, and even if they managed to shoot down the vast majority of the inbound missiles, enough will have gotten through to at the very least mission kill some of the escorts. So the second wave of missiles will have an easier time of it.

The PLAAF/PLANAF will rinse and repeat this process for as long as it takes to obliterate the hostile CVBG or until they run out of missiles. With China's manufacturing capacity, you would be hard pressed to find many people who would bet on them running out of missiles before they overwhelm any CVBG.

There is no need to over complicate the scenario, this same massed saturation attack will work no matter what variable you care to include. The only way to counter it would be to stay outside of the strike range of hostile land based fighter bombers and bombers (since the YJ62's longer range would allow even the likes of the H6 to be used with little risk). But doing so would render a carrier useless as its own strike aircraft will also be outside of strike range. But if the YJ62 can keep hostile CVBGs outside of their strike aircraft, and hence out of the fight, then that is better than killing the carrier in all but a WWIII scenario.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do any US CBGs ever operate in a potentially hostile environment with no AWACs up?

If AWACs is up, surface launch platforms will not get within 300nm (555km, probably further out actually) of the CVN without being detected. Unless the AWACs is under risk of attack and has to shrink its detection range. Even than, getting closer to a CVN going at 30+ knots isn't an easy feat for surface ships and will take quite some time.

This is 1 of the key reasons for the Russians developing seriously long ranged anti-ship missiles. So that they can shoot and scoot, and the launch platforms have a decent chance of surviving and doing the same thing another time.

However, this is just 1 avenue of attacking a CBG. The other is by using submarines. The Russian knew this and they developed their SSNs for this purpose. And now, the PLAN is also pouring resources into this undersea avenue. The key difference being that the PLAN is currently focused on diesel subs, which are considerably cheaper but has a trade off in speed. This is not too much of a problem for the PLAN within the 1st Island Chain, since they have enough diesel subs to cover a large part of the deep waters within the 1st island chain.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

plawolf said:

Secondly, the very premise of your argument is fundamentally unrealistic and frankly, unworkable since you are never going to get a principle surface combatant within a few hundred miles of a decent CVBG. To send surface ships, any surface ships, against a modern CVBG is to send that warship to the bottom of the sea as it will be detected and obliterated by massed carrier based fighters long before it has a chance to get close enough to even think about using its AShMs. The only exception might be small stealthy FACs like the Type 022, which can egress at high speed after missile launch, and are small and stealthy enough to have reasonable chance of avoiding reprisal attacks.

Click to expand...

We are not comparing launch platforms but rather missiles.

If you are to have any chance whatsoever trying to take out a properly protected carrier, your best bet against a carrier would either be a sub or massed air strike.

For subs, the Klub would be better, but even then that is more a pot shot rather than a sure thing.

If you really want to kill a hostile carrier battle group, the surest way is massed saturation attacks, preferable from beyond the range of defensive weapons, and that is what the YJ62 does.

You are thinking of a single YJ62 or a small salvo. But realistically, YJ62s are meant to be fired in the hundreds. It does not matter if AEGIGs can track and target every last one of them when the ships carrying the AEGIS can only engage 4-8 missiles each at any one time because of the limitation of missile illuminators. The defenders will simply not be physically able to shoot down enough missiles to stop enough of them getting through.

And in case I wave is not enough to guarantee a sure kill, because of the longer stand-off range of the YJ62, there is a far higher chance that all the launch platforms will get home safe to come back with a fresh load to do it all again. With hundreds of YJ62s inbound, it will take a quite a feat to argue that any CVBG can hope to intercept all of them, and even if they managed to shoot down the vast majority of the inbound missiles, enough will have gotten through to at the very least mission kill some of the escorts. So the second wave of missiles will have an easier time of it.

Click to expand...

You are correct that the best overall chance to penetrate AEGIS is via a massed attack. But you are incorrect to believe that the YJ-62s are cut out for that task. Individually, they are essentially useless. A Phalanx can shoot it down, no problem, not even considering the SM-2s, ESSMs, RIMs, etc that are onboard the various ships of the CBG. As of now, AEGIS, as far as my knowledge, maintains the best mastery of electronics than any other ship-borne integrated defense system. Reaction times for the Phalanx to the ESSM to the RIM are under 5 seconds. The latter can engage multiple targets and the SM-2/ESSM can both mass-launched vs. incoming targets. Simply said, even a hundred YJ-62s have a dubious chance of penetrating AEGIS. However, a mere 50 Klubs have a far, far, better chance of penetrating AEGIS, and causing actual damage.

The PLAAF/PLANAF will rinse and repeat this process for as long as it takes to obliterate the hostile CVBG or until they run out of missiles. With China's manufacturing capacity, you would be hard pressed to find many people who would bet on them running out of missiles before they overwhelm any CVBG.

Click to expand...

Of course, you can always factor in AWACs into the scenario, add some hundred km between the CBG and the PLA bases and it's quite dubious that the ships would be undetected and unengaged.

There is no need to over complicate the scenario, this same massed saturation attack will work no matter what variable you care to include. The only way to counter it would be to stay outside of the strike range of hostile land based fighter bombers and bombers (since the YJ62's longer range would allow even the likes of the H6 to be used with little risk). But doing so would render a carrier useless as its own strike aircraft will also be outside of strike range. But if the YJ62 can keep hostile CVBGs outside of their strike aircraft, and hence out of the fight, then that is better than killing the carrier in all but a WWIII scenario.

Click to expand...

Actually, since you wanted to bring the YJ-62s range further into this discussion, I think it's dubious to assume that a Chinese destroyer will be undetected by even A/N-SPY-1 from 400 km. In fact, the U.S. has more methods than China of tracking the other's ship. But like I've said, just because the YJ-62 has a longer reach doesn't make it the better missile.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

We are not comparing launch platforms but rather missiles.

Click to expand...

That is such a poor and transparent attempt to misdirect, and it is even more amusing since you yourself then went on to say a Chinese destroyer cannot hope to get within 400km of a hostile CVBG without being detected first.

So then, how would you expect a Russian Destroyer to be able to close to within 260km?

A good indication that someone is looking for justifications for a pre-formed opinion instead of seeking to make a judgement based on facts is where people start making ridiculous assumptions and limitations of scope to the point where the results of the exercise have no relevance to reality. And your argument is a classic example of such.

You are correct that the best overall chance to penetrate AEGIS is via a massed attack. But you are incorrect to believe that the YJ-62s are cut out for that task. Individually, they are essentially useless. A Phalanx can shoot it down, no problem, not even considering the SM-2s, ESSMs, RIMs, etc that are onboard the various ships of the CBG. As of now, AEGIS, as far as my knowledge, maintains the best mastery of electronics than any other ship-borne integrated defense system. Reaction times for the Phalanx to the ESSM to the RIM are under 5 seconds. The latter can engage multiple targets and the SM-2/ESSM can both mass-launched vs. incoming targets. Simply said, even a hundred YJ-62s have a dubious chance of penetrating AEGIS. However, a mere 50 Klubs have a far, far, better chance of penetrating AEGIS, and causing actual damage.

Click to expand...

The only thing this has demonstrated is that you do not even have the basic knowledge to recognize the significance and implications of points I have already made, nor did you have the wit to actually look up on things you clearly do not understand before posting to avoid making a fool of yourself.

What you obviously do not know is that both the SM2 and ESSM are SARH. As such, the missiles require that a radar illuminator 'paint' targets with radar energy to allow the missiles to hit their targets.

The point I made in my last post about illuminators is that since an Arleigh Burke only have 3 SPG62 illuminators each, there is a limit on how many incoming missiles an Arleigh Burke can engage at once.

You can mass launch as many SAMs as you want, but if you do not have illuminator time available for those missiles, they are nothing more than really expensive bottle rockets.

Since an Arleigh Burke only has 3 illuminators, it cannot possibly bring more than 2 to face a single threat axis. While the number of missiles a single SPG62 can direct at once is not in the public domain, I have yet to see anyone claim that one can handle more than 4 at the same time. If the income missiles are spaced, even 4 will probably be optimistic as the SPG62 will need to physically steer if the missiles are not all in its cone.

Your attempt to disregard launch platforms to try and favor your own preferred missile is even more transparent when one considers the logistics of a massed saturation attack.

The point of a saturation attack is that the missiles need to all arrive at almost precisely the same time. Even a delay of a few minutes would be more than enough time for the defenders to take down the attack piecemeal and you would have no chance of overwhelming the defenses other than maybe if the defenders ran out of ordinance.

Now, with that in mind, we can look at the delivery options. Even you have acknowledged that using principle surface combatants is plain unworkable. So for the Klub, that only leaves subs. How many subs would it take to launch your 50 Klubs? And what are the chances you can hope to co-ordinate all those subs to chase down a CVBG steaming as fast, if not faster, than the subs so that all the missiles arrive within a matter of minutes, ideally all coming from the same direction to overwhelm that portion of the defenses?

OTOH, a single JH7 regiment of 24 birds can loft 96 YJ62s, can mass launch all those missiles within minutes at worst, and they will all be coming from the same direction so only a few illuminators and Phalanx guns can be used to deal with them by each ship.

And the PLA will be sending a lot more than a single JH7 regiment to attack a carrier battle group.

What more, with the range of the YJ62, even H6 bombers can be used with little risk to the launch platforms. Even J10s and J11s can probably be used at a push. In fact, the PLANAF J11s are almost certain to be naval strike capable, same for their J10s.

Considering the PLA have at least 200 JH7s, a Regiment of naval J11s and J10s each as well as all their new cruise missile launcher H6s, they can launch 1000+ YJ62s in a single strike package at a CVBG with ease. They may be able to launch 2000+ depending on how many of the PLAAF J10s and J11s are compatible with the YJ62, but that is not a realistic scenario.

Even if the YJ62s really are "individually essentially useless" (and I challenge you to find anyone else who shares such a ridiculous sentiment), 1000 of them is far more than enough to penetrate the defenses of any CVBG, probably enough to do it several times over in fact.

Hell, does any CSG even have 1000 SAMs? Considering the Arleigh Burke has 96 cells, some of which will be quad packed with ESSM, you would expect no more than 150-200 AA missiles per ship.

Even with an above average escort of 5 AAW ships each with 200 missiles per ship, you need a 100% intercept rate to take down 1000 YJ62s. That's a huge ask if the PLA were obliging enough to fire the YJ62s one at a time. With them all coming within a few minutes of each other, the CSG is dead several times over.

Even with the carrier's air wing getting involved, that is far too many missiles to handle with conventional weapons. So unless the USN airbursts a tactical nuke in the middle of the missile swarm, whatever those missiles are targeting is dead.

Of course, you can always factor in AWACs into the scenario, add some hundred km between the CBG and the PLA bases and it's quite dubious that the ships would be undetected and unengaged.

Click to expand...

Well there lies the difference. With your precious Klub, you need the AWACS to be out of the picture for you to have any chance at all, but with the YJ62, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if there is AWACS airborne.

Witness the difference between a sure kill weapons system (or as close as you can get in real life) and a pot shot weapons system.

Actually, since you wanted to bring the YJ-62s range further into this discussion, I think it's dubious to assume that a Chinese destroyer will be undetected by even A/N-SPY-1 from 400 km. In fact, the U.S. has more methods than China of tracking the other's ship. But like I've said, just because the YJ-62 has a longer reach doesn't make it the better missile.

Click to expand...

The above sentence is so ridiculous in so many ways its actually quite an accomplishment.

Firstly, you were only one who was foolish enough to suggest trying to attack a CVBG with a destroyer, and I was the one who pointed out how ridiculous it was to expect to get a destroyer that close. Then you have the cheek to turn around and rip-off my own point and repeat it back to me like this was your own thinking? What was going through your mind?

Secondly, if a PLAN destroyer, which are far sleeker and have signature reduction measures in their design cannot expect to get within 400km of a USN CSG, how on earth do you expect a clunky Russian destroyer, which likely has many times the RCS as the Chinese ship, to get within 260km?

Thirdly, when has anyone but you ever suggested using principle surface combatants to mount attacks against hostile carriers? You are the only one who has ever suggested it, and all you have done is score an own goal against yourself with that statement.

Lastly, the criteria by which a missile is deemed 'better' is based on how well it can achieve the job it was intended to do, not what fancy features it might have. Something with all sorts of fancy features but which cannot do its intended job well is still a fail.

As things stand, you have one weapons system that at present, can almost guarantee a dead carrier battlegroup with presently available and operationally deploy assets, and you judge that as inferior to something that needs a huge amount of luck in order to be launched at all, and would require essential defensive elements to be AWOL in order to have much chance to even hit the target? We can all see how impartial your judgement is.

The only area where the Klub is better than the YJ62 in any way is in the terminal 20km or so. By that criteria, the Sunburn would be better than your precious Klub.

Your argument is based on hopelessly warped criteria, no doubt devised to show your preferred choice in the best light when attempting to ignore all the advantages of the YJ62. On top of that, you have a shocking lack of basic background knowledge (that SM2 and ESSM are SARH), and clearly ridiculous assumptions (that YJ62s are essentially useless individually).

Based on the above, I find your assessment to be fatally flawed, at best.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier
Interesting article by captain J Hendrix. What you guys thinks?


Issue: Proceedings Magazine - May 2011 Vol. 137/5/1,299

By Captain Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy, and Lieutenant Colonel J. Noel Williams, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)

Sparks fly during the first cut of steel for the next supercarrier in the Gerald R. Ford class, CVN-79, on 25 February at the Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding Sector in Newport News, Virginia. Not so fast, the authors say, figuratively unleashing sparks of their own: "The Gerald R. Ford is just the first of her class. She should also be the last."

With smaller and lighter unmanned aircraft coming into the mix, the United States can also deploy smaller and lighter—and less expensive—ships to carry them.

We can’t know for sure in what ways future adversaries will challenge our Fleet, but we can assess with some certainty how technology is affecting their principal capabilities. Judging from the evidence at hand, future Fleet actions will place a premium on early sensing, precision targeting, and long-range ballistic- and cruise-missile munitions. Increasingly sophisticated over-the-horizon and space-based sensors, in particular, will focus on signature control and signature deception. Thus, we must ask ourselves how best to win this battle of signatures and long-range strike.

In the current Fleet, submarines are the gold standard for signature control. But unless they receive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) from other sources, they have limited sensing ranges. While surface combatants have longer-range sensing capabilities in multiple domains, they pay for it with a significantly higher signature. This balance between signature and sensing will, in large measure, dictate the future Fleet’s architecture.

So will the future be one of submarines belching massive salvos of missiles, or large arrays of land- and air-launched hypersonic, conventional projectiles crossing a maritime no-man’s-land to directly strike strategic centers of gravity? Given very clear technology trends toward precision long-range strike and increasingly sophisticated anti-access and area-denial capabilities, high-signature, limited-range combatants like the current aircraft carrier will not meet the requirements of tomorrow’s Fleet. In short, the march of technology is bringing the supercarrier era to an end, just as the new long-range strike capabilities of carrier aviation brought on the demise of the battleship era in the 1940s.

The Carrier Dilemma

Factors both internal and external are hastening the carrier’s curtain call. Competitors abroad have focused their attention on the United States’ ability to go anywhere on the global maritime commons and strike targets ashore with pinpoint accuracy. That focus has resulted in the development of a series of sensors and weapons that combine range and strike profiles to deny carrier strike groups the access necessary to launch squadrons of aircraft against shore installations.

One issue of concern is the highly experimental and expensive move toward high-sortie-generation technology like the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), which flies in the face of transition to precision-strike systems that promise one-targetne-weapon ratios. In addition, a series of poor acquisition decisions, beginning with the mismanagement and ultimate cancellation of the A-12 Avenger as the replacement aircraft for the A-6 Intruder deep-strike aircraft, have exacerbated the challenge to carrier efficacy. The resulting reduction in the combat-effective range of the carrier air wing from 1,050 to 500 nautical miles forces the carrier to operate closer to enemy shores even as anti-access systems would logically force the carrier farther seaward.

Accompanying this range deficiency has been the dramatic increase in the cost of the carrier and her air wing. The price tag for the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) was $950 million, or 4.5 percent of the Navy’s $21 billion budget in 1976. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), lead ship of a new class of supercarriers, is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $12.5 billion. Add to that the Navy’s own estimate of a 60 percent chance the ship will exceed the original cost projection and the number of technologies still under development. This brings the estimate to around $13.5 billion, or 8.7 percent of a $156 billion budget—all this while the

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

plawolf said:

That is such a poor and transparent attempt to misdirect, and it is even more amusing since you yourself then went on to say a Chinese destroyer cannot hope to get within 400km of a hostile CVBG without being detected first.

So then, how would you expect a Russian Destroyer to be able to close to within 260km?

A good indication that someone is looking for justifications for a pre-formed opinion instead of seeking to make a judgement based on facts is where people start making ridiculous assumptions and limitations of scope to the point where the results of the exercise have no relevance to reality. And your argument is a classic example of such.

Click to expand...

I'm not expecting both destroyers to even get close, which is why I said we're not comparing launch platforms.

The only thing this has demonstrated is that you do not even have the basic knowledge to recognize the significance and implications of points I have already made, nor did you have the wit to actually look up on things you clearly do not understand before posting to avoid making a fool of yourself.

What you obviously do not know is that both the SM2 and ESSM are SARH. As such, the missiles require that a radar illuminator 'paint' targets with radar energy to allow the missiles to hit their targets.

The point I made in my last post about illuminators is that since an Arleigh Burke only have 3 SPG62 illuminators each, there is a limit on how many incoming missiles an Arleigh Burke can engage at once.

You can mass launch as many SAMs as you want, but if you do not have illuminator time available for those missiles, they are nothing more than really expensive bottle rockets.

Since an Arleigh Burke only has 3 illuminators, it cannot possibly bring more than 2 to face a single threat axis. While the number of missiles a single SPG62 can direct at once is not in the public domain, I have yet to see anyone claim that one can handle more than 4 at the same time. If the income missiles are spaced, even 4 will probably be optimistic as the SPG62 will need to physically steer if the missiles are not all in its cone.

Your attempt to disregard launch platforms to try and favor your own preferred missile is even more transparent when one considers the logistics of a massed saturation attack.

The point of a saturation attack is that the missiles need to all arrive at almost precisely the same time. Even a delay of a few minutes would be more than enough time for the defenders to take down the attack piecemeal and you would have no chance of overwhelming the defenses other than maybe if the defenders ran out of ordinance.

Now, with that in mind, we can look at the delivery options. Even you have acknowledged that using principle surface combatants is plain unworkable. So for the Klub, that only leaves subs. How many subs would it take to launch your 50 Klubs? And what are the chances you can hope to co-ordinate all those subs to chase down a CVBG steaming as fast, if not faster, than the subs so that all the missiles arrive within a matter of minutes, ideally all coming from the same direction to overwhelm that portion of the defenses?

OTOH, a single JH7 regiment of 24 birds can loft 96 YJ62s, can mass launch all those missiles within minutes at worst, and they will all be coming from the same direction so only a few illuminators and Phalanx guns can be used to deal with them by each ship.

And the PLA will be sending a lot more than a single JH7 regiment to attack a carrier battle group.

What more, with the range of the YJ62, even H6 bombers can be used with little risk to the launch platforms. Even J10s and J11s can probably be used at a push. In fact, the PLANAF J11s are almost certain to be naval strike capable, same for their J10s.

Considering the PLA have at least 200 JH7s, a Regiment of naval J11s and J10s each as well as all their new cruise missile launcher H6s, they can launch 1000+ YJ62s in a single strike package at a CVBG with ease. They may be able to launch 2000+ depending on how many of the PLAAF J10s and J11s are compatible with the YJ62, but that is not a realistic scenario.

Even if the YJ62s really are "individually essentially useless" (and I challenge you to find anyone else who shares such a ridiculous sentiment), 1000 of them is far more than enough to penetrate the defenses of any CVBG, probably enough to do it several times over in fact.

Hell, does any CSG even have 1000 SAMs? Considering the Arleigh Burke has 96 cells, some of which will be quad packed with ESSM, you would expect no more than 150-200 AA missiles per ship.

Even with an above average escort of 5 AAW ships each with 200 missiles per ship, you need a 100% intercept rate to take down 1000 YJ62s. That's a huge ask if the PLA were obliging enough to fire the YJ62s one at a time. With them all coming within a few minutes of each other, the CSG is dead several times over.

Even with the carrier's air wing getting involved, that is far too many missiles to handle with conventional weapons. So unless the USN airbursts a tactical nuke in the middle of the missile swarm, whatever those missiles are targeting is dead.

Well there lies the difference. With your precious Klub, you need the AWACS to be out of the picture for you to have any chance at all, but with the YJ62, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if there is AWACS airborne.

Witness the difference between a sure kill weapons system (or as close as you can get in real life) and a pot shot weapons system.

The above sentence is so ridiculous in so many ways its actually quite an accomplishment.

Firstly, you were only one who was foolish enough to suggest trying to attack a CVBG with a destroyer, and I was the one who pointed out how ridiculous it was to expect to get a destroyer that close. Then you have the cheek to turn around and rip-off my own point and repeat it back to me like this was your own thinking? What was going through your mind?

Secondly, if a PLAN destroyer, which are far sleeker and have signature reduction measures in their design cannot expect to get within 400km of a USN CSG, how on earth do you expect a clunky Russian destroyer, which likely has many times the RCS as the Chinese ship, to get within 260km?

Thirdly, when has anyone but you ever suggested using principle surface combatants to mount attacks against hostile carriers? You are the only one who has ever suggested it, and all you have done is score an own goal against yourself with that statement.

Lastly, the criteria by which a missile is deemed 'better' is based on how well it can achieve the job it was intended to do, not what fancy features it might have. Something with all sorts of fancy features but which cannot do its intended job well is still a fail.

As things stand, you have one weapons system that at present, can almost guarantee a dead carrier battlegroup with presently available and operationally deploy assets, and you judge that as inferior to something that needs a huge amount of luck in order to be launched at all, and would require essential defensive elements to be AWOL in order to have much chance to even hit the target? We can all see how impartial your judgement is.

The only area where the Klub is better than the YJ62 in any way is in the terminal 20km or so. By that criteria, the Sunburn would be better than your precious Klub.

Your argument is based on hopelessly warped criteria, no doubt devised to show your preferred choice in the best light when attempting to ignore all the advantages of the YJ62. On top of that, you have a shocking lack of basic background knowledge (that SM2 and ESSM are SARH), and clearly ridiculous assumptions (that YJ62s are essentially useless individually).

Based on the above, I find your assessment to be fatally flawed, at best.

Click to expand...

This is a very laughable attempt to idealize China's capabilities. Weren't comparing launch platforms. If you want to, I can. Chances are, your planes will get shot down before they get within range. They won't even be able to maneuver. It's still dubious a single YJ-62 would then be launched.

Like I've said, ESSMs and SM-2s are not the only things you have to contend with. Individual Phalanxes have actually, a great chance to shoot down a YJ-62, and they're mostly autonomous btw. So does RIM-116s, they're 11 celled and IR guided, mostly autonomous themselves. Depending on which CV you pick, you can expect at least 2 of one or the other. If you're talking about the RIM-116, you're talking 11 YJ-62s downed already. A standard carrier escort is 2 Arleigh Burkes and 2 Ticonderogas, you can expect some SAMs in their VLSs, so even at 3 Illuminators per ship, you have a total of 12 missiles engaged alone. Lets not forget about the extremely long end-game time for the YJ-62 of 89 seconds. The reload rate of ESSMs on a VLC is about 2 seconds, while the total engagement time is about 15 seconds from ship to intercept. You're bringing down over 50 CJ-62s before impact, and that's not including the new RIM-174A ARH SAMs we have. Like I've said, even if any CJ-62 launch platforms are able to fire, chances are, all missiles will be shot down.

Next, the Sunburn is a joke. A few DU rounds will blow up it's liquid-fuel engine. You'll need more than that for the Klub or CJ-62. Again, the Klub is clearly superior to the Sunburn in the endgame and total range, if you honestly don't know that than I again suggest you read my source that I provided above.

Finally, the strawman arguments that you've thrown at me are adjective and hilarious. Anyone with a clear thought pattern can infer that if by "we're not talking about launch platforms" that, "we're not talking about launch platforms!" The situation you put up is far from likely as it's dubious China even has more than a thousand CJ-62s and it's again dubious of the CJ-62's effectiveness; which is almost none at all. It's best if China just mass produced Sunburns or tried to purchase more Klubs right now.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I guess US Navy prepare for the day when sailing close to China will become too risky . But long range unmanned drone is unproven technology plus how much munition can the drone carry?

US Navy drones: Coming to a carrier near China?


By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Eric Talmadge, Associated Press – Mon May 16, 7:31 am ET
YOKOSUKA, Japan – The U.S. is developing aircraft carrier-based drones that could provide a crucial edge as it tries to counter China's military rise.

American officials have been tightlipped about where the unmanned armed planes might be used, but a top Navy officer has told The Associated Press that some would likely be deployed in Asia.

"They will play an integral role in our future operations in this region," predicted Vice Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, which covers most of the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Land-based drones are in wide use in the war in Afghanistan, but sea-based versions will take several more years to develop. Northrop Grumman conducted a first-ever test flight — still on land — earlier this year.

Van Buskirk didn't mention China specifically, but military analysts agree the drones could offset some of China's recent advances, notably its work on a "carrier-killer" missile.

"Chinese military modernization is the major long-term threat that the U.S. must prepare for in the Asia-Pacific region, and robotic vehicles — aerial and subsurface — are increasingly critical to countering that potential threat," said Patrick Cronin, a senior analyst with the Washington-based Center for New American Security.

China is decades away from building a military as strong as America's, but it is developing air, naval and missile capabilities that could challenge U.S. supremacy in the Pacific — and with it, America's ability to protect important shipping lanes and allies such as Japan and South Korea.

China maintains it does not have offensive intentions and is only protecting its own interests: The shipping lanes are also vital to China's export-dependent economy. There are potential flash points, though, notably Taiwan and clusters of tiny islands that both China and other Asian nations claim as their territory.

The U.S. Navy's pursuit of drones is a recognition of the need for new weapons and strategies to deal not only with China but a changing military landscape generally.

"Carrier-based unmanned aircraft systems have tremendous potential, especially in increasing the range and persistence of our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations, as well as our ability to strike targets quickly," Van Buskirk said at the 7th Fleet's headquarters in Yokosuka, Japan.

His fleet boasts one carrier — the USS George Washington — along with about 60 other ships and 40,000 sailors and Marines.

Experts say the drones could be used on any of the 11 U.S. carriers worldwide and are not being developed exclusively as a counterbalance to China.

But China's reported progress in missile development appears to make the need for them more urgent.

The DF 21D "carrier killer" missile is designed for launch from land with enough accuracy to hit a moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 900 miles (1,500 kilometers). Though still unproven — and some analysts say overrated — no other country has such a weapon.

Current Navy fighter jets can only operate about 500 nautical miles (900 kilometers) from a target, leaving a carrier within range of the Chinese missile.

Drones would have an unrefueled combat radius of 1,500 nautical miles (2,780 kilometers) and could remain airborne for 50 to 100 hours — versus the 10 hour maximum for a pilot, according to a 2008 paper by analysts Tom Ehrhard and Robert Work at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Work is now an undersecretary of the Navy.

"Introducing a new aircraft that promises to let the strike group do its work from beyond the maximum effective firing range of the anti-ship ballistic missile — or beyond its range entirely — represents a considerable boost in defensive potential for the carrier strike group," said James Holmes of the U.S. Naval War College.

Northrop Grumman has a six-year, $635.8 million contract to develop two of the planes, with more acquisitions expected if they work. A prototype of its X-47B took a maiden 29-minute flight in February at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Initial testing on carriers is planned for 2013.

Other makers including Boeing and Lockheed are also in the game. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. — the maker of the Predator drones used in the Afghan war — carried out wind tunnel tests in February. Spokeswoman Kimberly Kasitz said it was too early to divulge further details.

Some experts warn carrier-based drones are still untested and stress that Chinese advances have not rendered carriers obsolete.

"Drones, if they work, are just the next tech leap. As long as there is a need for tactical aviation launched from the sea, carriers will be useful weapons of war," said Michael McDevitt, a former commandant of the National War College in Washington, D.C., and a retired rear admiral whose commands included an aircraft carrier battle group.

Some analysts also note that China may be reluctant to instigate any fighting that could interfere with its trade.

Nan Li, an expert at the U.S. Naval War College's China Maritime Studies Institute, doubts China would try to attack a U.S. carrier.

"I am a skeptic of such an interpretation of Chinese strategy," he said. "But I do think the X-47B may still be a useful preventive capability for worst-case scenarios."

The Air Force and Navy both sponsored a project to develop carrier-based drones in the early 2000s, but the Air Force pulled out in 2005, leaving the Navy to fund the research.

Adm. Gary Roughhead, chief of naval operations, said last summer that the current goal of getting a handful of unmanned bombers in action by 2018 is "too damn slow."

"Seriously, we've got to have a sense of urgency about getting this stuff out there," he told a conference. "It could fundamentally change how we think of naval aviation."

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Hendrik_2000 said:

Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier
Interesting article by captain J Hendrix. What you guys thinks?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Issue: Proceedings Magazine - May 2011 Vol. 137/5/1,299

By Captain Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy, and Lieutenant Colonel J. Noel Williams, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)

Click to expand...

1 of the writers of this article is a Marine. And this article argues that super carriers are too expensive and that more America-class amphibs should be built even though these are smaller and less capable ships. Note that amphibs are used by the Marines. The article also says that current carrier aircraft has limited combat radius, but ignores the range limitation of V/STOL aircraft carried by amphibs....

Nonetheless, there are several good points raised. Cost is certainly a concern for any military acquisition. Going for unmanned aircraft is said to be the trend for the future. However, having a super carrier + unmanned aircraft beats amphib + unmanned aircraft simply due to the size of the super carrier (which allows it to carry a lot more aircraft).

The article is also primarily concerned with war. Although there is a passing mention of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, carriers do have other roles to play outside of warfare. Following the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, a US CBG delivered a huge amount of relief supplies to the survivors of Aceh, Indonesia. This assistance went a long way to mend US-Indonesia ties that were frozen following human rights issues in the mid-90s.

Beyond disaster relief, a super carrier is a multi-role platform that is currently unmatched in capability. This is the key reason why it replaced the largely single-role battleship. The carrier provides a mobile airbase that can be deployed in any of the world's oceans. The power projection can be used to police no-fly zones, enforce peace, conduct surveillance, support allies, keep own sea lanes open, attack enemy sea lanes, etc.

There is no single platform that can do what a super carrier does at the moment. Hence, they are unlikely to be obsolete any time soon.

With regard to unmanned aircraft, having them fly off and return to a carrier will be an interesting challenge. However, once that is successfully developed, super carriers will likely be an even more versatile platform since the unmanned aircraft will offer longer ranges if nothing else (since there is no need to carry a pilot, ejection seat and other life support systems onboard).

Hendrik_2000 said:

I guess US Navy prepare for the day when sailing close to China will become too risky . But long range unmanned drone is unproven technology plus how much munition can the drone carry?

US Navy drones: Coming to a carrier near China?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Eric Talmadge, Associated Press – Mon May 16, 7:31 am ET

Click to expand...

Long range control of unmanned drones has been done for years by the US military. The drones they fly in Afghanistan are operated by people in continental US (that's half a world away). There is at least 1 documentary on this.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

I'm not expecting both destroyers to even get close, which is why I said we're not comparing launch platforms.

Click to expand...

What laughable nonsense. If you cannot hope to get into a position to even fire the weapon, then that is an automatic fail! There is nothing further to discuss. Your entire line of argument can be summed up with a very simple analogy.

Its like you got a crossbow and is arguing that it can deliver far more energy on target, and so can punch through kavlar armor a little better than a bullet, but dismissing the fact that if you tried to attack someone who has a gun with your crossbow, you will be shot long before you get the chance to shoot the thing.

This is a very laughable attempt to idealize China's capabilities. Weren't comparing launch platforms. If you want to, I can. Chances are, your planes will get shot down before they get within range. They won't even be able to maneuver. It's still dubious a single YJ-62 would then be launched.

Like I've said, ESSMs and SM-2s are not the only things you have to contend with. Individual Phalanxes have actually, a great chance to shoot down a YJ-62, and they're mostly autonomous btw. So does RIM-116s, they're 11 celled and IR guided, mostly autonomous themselves. Depending on which CV you pick, you can expect at least 2 of one or the other. If you're talking about the RIM-116, you're talking 11 YJ-62s downed already. A standard carrier escort is 2 Arleigh Burkes and 2 Ticonderogas, you can expect some SAMs in their VLSs, so even at 3 Illuminators per ship, you have a total of 12 missiles engaged alone. Lets not forget about the extremely long end-game time for the YJ-62 of 89 seconds. The reload rate of ESSMs on a VLC is about 2 seconds, while the total engagement time is about 15 seconds from ship to intercept. You're bringing down over 50 CJ-62s before impact, and that's not including the new RIM-174A ARH SAMs we have. Like I've said, even if any CJ-62 launch platforms are able to fire, chances are, all missiles will be shot down.

Next, the Sunburn is a joke. A few DU rounds will blow up it's liquid-fuel engine. You'll need more than that for the Klub or CJ-62. Again, the Klub is clearly superior to the Sunburn in the endgame and total range, if you honestly don't know that than I again suggest you read my source that I provided above.

Finally, the strawman arguments that you've thrown at me are adjective and hilarious. Anyone with a clear thought pattern can infer that if by "we're not talking about launch platforms" that, "we're not talking about launch platforms!" The situation you put up is far from likely as it's dubious China even has more than a thousand CJ-62s and it's again dubious of the CJ-62's effectiveness; which is almost none at all. It's best if China just mass produced Sunburns or tried to purchase more Klubs right now.

Click to expand...

Right, at this point it is crystal clear that I have been wasting my time trying to reason with a close minded fanboy.

I have listed fact based scenarios based on operationally deployed and available PLA assets, and I am 'idealize China's capabilities'?

OTOH, lets have a quick look at your arguments.

- You are ignoring facts I have already pointed out (like the fact that since an AB DDG only has three illuminators, there is no possible way it can position the ship so that all three are available to face targets coming in from one direction);

- Making fanciful claims (like how the USN can expect to be able to reliably intercept a PLA strike wave 400km from the carrier, have you even stopped to think how far out you need to detect those planes to have your own planes in position to intercept them 400km out? Obviously not, as you would realize how ridiculous your suggestion is if you had. )

- Expect RIM116 to have a 100% intercept probability (11 missiles = 11 downed YJ62s, and you are expecting to fire those 11 missiles in one volley to boot )

- Totally ignored facts pointed out again, like how a typical USN CSG would not physically carry enough munitions to shoot down 1000 missiles even if they achieved a 100% hit rate.

- Totally unable to understand why a weapon system is pointless if cannot expect to get into range to be launched in the first place.

Then to finish it off, you go off on a totally baseless and frankly ridiculous verbal diarrhea bash-fest.

Believe what you want, but even an idiot can clearly see who clearly has no idea what they are talking about.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

An interesting chart of the AShBM's possible coverage. Of course the only AshBM we know of us the DF-21D, so only the 2000-3000km range applies here.
Via bbc