Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

marclees said:

The great powers said the same of their Battleships just before the outbreak of World War 2...how wrong they were . From the Bismarck , to the Prince of Wales, the Yamato , and the Arizona , the unsinkables ...were sunk.

Fast Forward 50 years later , why build Carriers ? They are a lame floating duck . For the price of one carrier , one can get 10000 Asbm + Cruise . Even if 1% get past Aegis 2 & 3 , that is enough to sink all the 11 CVNs.

What are the odds of success ? at 1% ? Do the numbers .....

Click to expand...

1. It was easily known that airplanes would eclipse the battleship in war after World War I. Billy Mitchell's little experiment demonstrated that airplanes were capable of sinking battleships when everyone else doubted otherwise.

2. Carriers are still very relevant in today's wars; the USSR spent a lot of time, money and energy trying to figure out ways in neutralizing the American carrier groups. They have failed. Ballistic missiles are highly inaccurate against moving and manoeuvring targets, and long range cruise missiles require a large launch platform that can easily be neutralized by carrier aviation.

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

marclees said:

Fast Forward 50 years later , why build Carriers ? They are a lame floating duck . For the price of one carrier , one can get 10000 Asbm + Cruise . Even if 1% get past Aegis 2 & 3 , that is enough to sink all the 11 CVNs.

What are the odds of success ? at 1% ? Do the numbers .....

Click to expand...

The problem here is this is great if you're into coastal defense work, but what about an engagement in open water? To carry 10,000 AShMs, you need either 1) 62 SSNs 2) 250+ DDGs, 3) 400+ FFGs, or 4) 500+ large strategic bombers. Plus you need other assets to protect these assets. The problem with battlships was that aircraft carriers had so much range on them, and could put a vast deal of distance between themselves and the firepower of a battleship's massive guns. Today, no single weapons platform capable of precision strike has enough range to overcome the reach of a USN carrier.

10,000 AShMs will easily and completely obliterate the USN's surface assets, but how are you going to get even a few dozen to within 200-400km of a CVGB? You will have to contend with air power from the CVs at ranges well in excess of 1000km. Once you finally are within range, you will have exhausted your AD capabilities and be utterly defenseless from the ship-launched AShMs of your adversary's escort vessels. And as of now, a USN DDG carries a heck lot more Harpoons than the number of AShMs on any PLAN vessel.

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Today, no single weapons platform capable of precision strike has enough range to overcome the reach of a USN carrier.
10,000 AShMs will easily and completely obliterate the USN's surface assets, but how are you going to get even a few dozen to within 200-400km of a CVGB? You will have to contend with air power from the CVs at ranges well in excess of 1000km

Click to expand...

If One had 10000 ASBM to rain on any CVN battle group , the lack of precision would hardly be a material concern . China's weapon of choice for the ASBM role is a conventionally-armed variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) MRBM, possibly armed with terminally-guided submunitions with an effective kill range of 1,800 to 3,000 kilometer (depending on the source) launched from a mobile TEL.

The DF-21C is reported to employ terminal homing to achieve a CEP in the order of 10 meters, a level of accuracy sufficient to target a large surface vessel such as an aircraft carrier. Even assuming that it only achieves a CEP of 100 metres , one just needs to fire 9 more DF-21Cs to compensate for the lack of accuracy .

Reminds me of the classical game of 'Battleship' I used to play as a child. What fun it would be if I even had 1000 ASBM as an option during my turn , I would be a winner every time

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

If One had 10000 ASBM to rain on any CVN battle group , the lack of precision would hardly be a material concern . China's weapon of choice for the ASBM role is a conventionally-armed variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) MRBM, possibly armed with terminally-guided submunitions with an effective kill range of 1,800 to 3,000 kilometer (depending on the source) launched from a mobile TEL.

The DF-21C is reported to employ terminal homing to achieve a CEP in the order of 10 meters, a level of accuracy sufficient to target a large surface vessel such as an aircraft carrier. Even assuming that it only achieves a CEP of 100 metres , one just needs to fire 9 more DF-21Cs to compensate for the lack of accuracy .

Click to expand...

Yeah, good luck producing 10,000 DF-21Cs.
The weapon is still undergoing development/evaluation and only a few dozen are in development.
Are you aware that in total, China has not even produced over 500 IRBMs/MRBMs? And that is over a span of four decades.
Also the cost fo the DF-21 will not be the same... so I doubt you can buy 10,000 for the price of a carrier. A fully-loaded and equipped USN carrier costs about $4.5 billion + about $4 billion for the airwing, for a total of $8.5 billion. To purchase 10,000 DF-21s for the price of a single carrier, you're assuming a unit cost of under $1 million.
In reality, a DF-21 will cost almost as much as a J-10 (which have unit costs of around $28 million).

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

LOL

1) the Chinese have nearly 1000 SRBM headed to Taiwan, this figure probably will rise to 1500 to 2015 :coffee:

2) many American reports predict that China has ballistic missiles (with conventional warhead) capable of reaching a moving target at sea by 2015 :coffee:

4) 1 or 2 tactical ballistic missiles (usually with a warhead of 500/750 Kg) can severely damage or sink AIRCRAFT CARRIER

4) 3 to 6 cruise missile (with 250/ 500 Kg warhead) can sink a aircraft carrier

we imagine to 2015 (not very far)

1500 with ballistic missiles fired from bases

Cruise missiles: 800
- 400 fired from shore
- 300 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Anti ship missile: 800
- 500 fired from shore
- 200 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Note that these figures are not disproportionate or excentric ![/COLOR][/U]

say that only 3% of missiles reach their targets % this is very pessimistic for the Chinese, must admit all[/U])

and say that only 2% of ballistic missiles reach their targets % very pessimistic for the Chinese yet[/U]

1500 X 0, 02 = 30 impact
800 x 2 = 1600 X0, 03 = 48 impact

Count how it would impact on American vessels

= 78 impacts

(1 impact on a ship with modern electronics makes this one out of action, 2 or 3 impact probably sink her, 4 / 5 for an aircraft carrier)

Result (+/-)

78 ships out of action

Or

26 sink

Or

11 aircraft carrier (with 7 hits each)

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

gerboisebleue said:

LOL

1) the Chinese have nearly 1000 SRBM headed to Taiwan, this figure probably will rise to 1500 to 2015 :coffee:

2) many American reports predict that China has ballistic missiles (with conventional warhead) capable of reaching a moving target at sea by 2015 :coffee:

4) 1 or 2 tactical ballistic missiles (usually with a warhead of 500/750 Kg) can severely damage or sink AIRCRAFT CARRIER

4) 3 to 6 cruise missile (with 250/ 500 Kg warhead) can sink a aircraft carrier

we imagine to 2015 (not very far)

1500 with ballistic missiles fired from bases

Cruise missiles: 800
- 400 fired from shore
- 300 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Anti ship missile: 800
- 500 fired from shore
- 200 fired from aircraft
- 50 fired from ships
- 50 fired from submarines

Note that these figures are not disproportionate or excentric !

say that only 3% of missiles reach their targets (% this is very pessimistic for the Chinese, must admit all)

and say that only 2% of ballistic missiles reach their targets (% very pessimistic for the Chinese yet)

1500 X 0, 02 = 30 impact
800 x 2 = 1600 X0, 03 = 48 impact

Count how it would impact on American vessels

= 78 impacts

(1 impact on a ship with modern electronics makes this one out of action, 2 or 3 impact probably sink her, 4 / 5 for an aircraft carrier)

Result (+/-)

78 ships out of action

Or

26 sink

Or

11 aircraft carrier (with 7 hits each)

Click to expand...

I did a similar calculation last night in Command and Conquerff

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

with 10,000 missle that money could be better spent in refining submarine technology, equipping them to become SSGN and thus stealth approaching within range to launch their cruise missle. more reliable and viable solution in all respects.

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

SRBMs have lesser range than the operational range of aircraft carriers. DF-15's maximum range is 600km. The USN can launch air strikes in excess of 1000km away, it will not get within 1000km of the Chinese coast.

Anti-ship missiles have ranges of under 250km. They will be useless unless air-launched, in which case the JH-7s/Su-30s/H-6s launching them must fight through waves of USN aircraft. However the big unknown here are submarine launched anti-ship missiles. The USN has no way of preventing such assets from getting within strike range, yet currently the number of capable platforms (Kilos, Yuans, and Shangs) just won't be able to deliver enough firepower to overcome the AEGIS defense system.

As for cruise missiles, it is possible to modify the DH-10 for naval attack, but at its large size and relatively low-speed it will be much easier to intercept than dedicated anti-ship missiles. Every other Chinese LACM are derivatives of AShMs and lack the range necessary. However, DH-10's are expensive and you cannot produce them like sausages.

The DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile is still the most viable option here, but you have to factor in production-capability and cost into the equation. Furthermore, as of now it is unconfirmed whether the anti-ship DF-21 has reached operational status.

Pretty much, as of now the only missiles China has that can strike at CVBG are the hundred or so 3M-54 Klubs luanched from 8 of its Kilos and maybe a couple of pre-deployment DF-21s.

By 2015, I think the USN will have developed a reliable way to intercept the DF-21. However, when combined with a saturated, comprehensive strike of naval DH-10s and a greater number of anti-ship SLCMs and a JH-7/Su-30MKK2 strike, I still think China will be able to deter a limited number of CVBGs from approaching within 2000-3000km off of the Chinese coast.

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------with 10,000 missle that money could be better spent in refining submarine technology, equipping them to become SSGN and thus stealth approaching within range to launch their cruise missle. more reliable and viable solution in all respects.

Click to expand...

It is most cost-effective to invest that into conventional submarine development. If China could produce more Yuans and design an indigenous weapon similiar to the Klub, then it'll have a credible deterrent against any surface group.

Another effective platforrm will be a future stealth strike aircraft capable of carrying the KD/KH series of anti-ship weapons.

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

marclees said:

The great powers said the same of their Battleships just before the outbreak of World War 2...how wrong they were . From the Bismarck , to the Prince of Wales, the Yamato , and the Arizona , the unsinkables ...were sunk.

Fast Forward 50 years later , why build Carriers ? They are a lame floating duck . For the price of one carrier , one can get 10000 Asbm + Cruise . Even if 1% get past Aegis 2 & 3 , that is enough to sink all the 11 CVNs.

What are the odds of success ? at 1% ? Do the numbers .....

Click to expand...

We've had all these sink your carrier discussions many, many times.

Before you sink or attack an CVN you'd have to find it. Not an easy task.

You don't really believe what you posted do you? Have you ever served or even visited an Nimitz class? Do you really think any single missile could sink a CVN? Damage yes, but sink?? No.

The redundancy built into a USN CVN would have to be seen to be believed.

As far as anti-ship missiles the USN now has 3 and soon 4 trump cards. The Ohio class SSGN can carry 154 cruise missiles of various types. Nearly undetectable a single Ohio class could reek havoc on any nations navy with virtual impunity.

I suggest you search our forum for the previous sink your carrier discussions.

I have to go to work now but I'll be back later...