Well, there is the DF-ZF boost-glide vehicle under development. It will be somewhat slower, but have longer range and be able to really maneuver
PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Well, there is the DF-ZF boost-glide vehicle under development. It will be somewhat slower, but have longer range and be able to really maneuver
I agree it wasn't the most straight forward way of writing it, but I've typically thought about the relationship of a cluster munition vs unitary warhead relationship in terms of the former still being able to partially "hit" a carrier with degraded guidance/increased CEP. I understand what you mean though.
Yes, in the anti armour role they've been superceded by other munitions that are more effective against tanks. For that purpose, top attack EFPs with guidance is obviously far more effective.
But we're not talking about their utility against tanks, but rather the potential utility of an anti armour submunition against a carrier's flight deck. My point was not so much that an anti armour cluster munition would specifically be used for an AShBM's warhead, but rather that they could be considered as an option.
Yes, I'm aware flight times for these are fifteen minutes. I expect forward sensors would involve satellites and forward based OTH radars for early warning and verification, and that would allow for time to evacuate a meaningful amount of aircraft and most if not all of the personnel from the flight deck.
I don't think such a measure would be particularly silly, given the USN will likely rely on an early warning network would be part of their kill chain to intercept AShBMs, and any launches that are analyzed to be likely part of an attack will be alerted to the CSG's commander and the carrier itself, which along with its escorts will put up as many countermeasures to defend themselves and reduce their vulnerability as possible, from things like hard kill and soft kill measures to more simpler things like evasive maneuvers, and yes, I think stowing aircraft and personnel below decks.
I've never heard of an evacuation of all personnel off the flight deck of an aircraft carrier in the event of an imminent attack. As far as I know they keep flight ops going no matter the circumstance. Perhaps you could link an example of such a thing happening. I've never heard of stowing fighters in the hangar in the face of an attack either. Again, how many could you stow in the timeframe given and still be able to evacuate all the flight deck crew after that? You would also have to undo everything you did when resuming flight ops, resulting in significant delays. As I said, the PLAN would just randomly toss a DF-21D at the carrier at unpredictable intervals and force flight ops to immediately cease (and reverse), and also become highly inefficient, as well as significantly increase risk to the crew. I feel like 'evacuate and stow' is just one of your fanciful ideas that wouldn't actually pan out in realistic situations.
Jura The idiot
General
by78
General
Yes, and it's been around for years.
I'm not sure if there are any good sources describing what the USN's modus operandi towards other more traditional threats (fighters, air breathing missiles, submarines etc) are like... for example, I'm not sure how a USN carrier's flight deck operations would change if say, an AEW&C detected a collection of AShMs approaching a CSG with say, 10-15 minutes to arrive. I imagine the response would depend on the type of AshMs, the likelihood of intercepting them/likelihood of some leaking through, etc, and I'm not certain if all of those cases mean the carrier will always continue flight operations.
...but the trajectory from which an AShBM is coming from I think would logically dictate a different response to what the USN's previous legacy threats have been. Given an AShBM is a very new type of system, whatever countermeasures the USN may do are obviously a result of speculation.
The Chinese military definitely could toss a random missile now and then, and I imagine the US side would do their best to analyze how to best counter each individual threat with their early warning sensors and distribute that info to the CSG, which would in turn consider whether it would be worth putting in various countermeasures, such as potentially evacuating the flight deck.
I don't have a problem with disagreement of ideas, but I don't believe you need to make it personal. Call it unlikely if you wish, but "just one of your fanciful ideas".
A significant portion (even a majority?) of ASCMs are terminal pop-up attackers these days, so the crew would have to plan for a decktop attack, if they even plan for such things at all. Let's just say that it sounds pretty ridiculous to me to move a few aircraft (out of a few dozen on the flight deck) into the hangar for 10-15 minutes, evacuate the entire crew off the flight deck, then undo all of that and try to resume flight ops in response to an ASBM launch. Like they would somehow rather leave all the live ordinance laying around and store the aircraft and people instead. It sounds so unrealistic I don't know why this is even being discussed as if it's a plausible scenario.
What do you even mean "worth putting in various countermeasures"? As in each ASBM is somehow different from the last one that was launched?
Whoever said anything about leaving live ordnance on the flight deck? I thought it may have been implied, but apparently not -- evacuating the flight deck of personnel and aircraft, would also include the evacuation of live ordnance atop the flight deck as well.
Realistically I don't expect a carrier to be able to evacuate all aircraft (and ordnance) from the flight deck within that amount of time, but I think it's reasonable to expect a partial evacuation to mitigate damage to aircraft, (ordnance), and most if not all of the personnel from the flight deck, to be a reasonable response to AShBM attacks that are deemed worthwhile or credible.
Each AShBM attack definitely may be different from the last one which was launched (even assuming the Chinese sensor/kill chain is intact for each of them).
I.e.: launching one AShBM every half hour or whatever would prompt a different reaction to say, launching twelve AShBMs at once every half hour.
I see. So, all the ordinance, all the people, and most of the planes, in less than 15 minutes. ROFLMAO
Saying it "definitely may be different" doesn't make it different. Even launching a single ASBM is a "credible" threat since if the interceptor missiles miss, the flight deck is finished. In any case, I feel like this entire discussion is comically surreal and utterly ludicrous to begin with. As far as I'm concerned it remains your personal fantasy until you can demonstrate there is any shred of reality to it.
All the people -- yes, I consider that fairly reasonable. .
All the ordnance -- probably not.
All the aircraft -- probably not.
Let's not exaggerate my position here.
There is a difference between saying that a carrier may try to evacuate the flight deck of as many personnel, ordnance and aircraft as they can, versus saying that a carrier would be able to get literally everything below decks.
I respectfully disagree.