Sea Dog, I don't care if you have a billion ESSMs on your AEGIS destroyer. I have one word for you: illuminators. An AEGIS destroyer can't even handle more than 10 simultaneously incoming missiles.
Really ludicrous is denying this reality.
Roger, you are preaching standard Soviet era saturation missile attack doctrine. They were equiped to do so, realizing that their "Bears" were too slow, trackable, and vulenrable...which brough the Backfires into play. And they had a LOT of Backfires and were prepared to attack carriers in regimental strength in order to saturate the system.
That was their doctrine and the US designed the AEGIS system specifically to handle any level of attack up to and including that.
A CG has four SPG 62 illuminators and can bring, I believe, 3 to bear against any angle of attack. The DDGs have three each.
While it is true that theoretically it would take 8-10
simulataneous, terminal phase missiles to overcome any one of those in terms of its ability to use its SPG 62s and standard missiles to down them, that is far from the complete story.
First the US has developed and deployed cooperatiove engagement capabilities so now, the three vessels could hypothetically (and that is all you are talking about here) engage up to 30, depending on the grouping of the vessels in the battle group.
Next, any surviving missiles have to get through the RAM and Phalanyx systems, and though Phalanyx is good for the type of system it is, RAM is very, very good.
Finally, we have to include the electronic countermeasures the US employs, which are also very good and will be extremely heavy in that environment close in to the vessels.
An attacker will lose missiles in terminal phase to
ALL of those and must account for them.
Lot's of parameters involved, but if the group is tightly situated around the carrier, then you are going to have to have well over30 simultanous, terminal phase missiles to be able to saturate the entire system it in that phase, maybe 40 or 45.
To do that and account for earlier missiles that would be shot down before terminal phase, and to account for aircraft that will be shot down before they launch...well, now, you are back to the Soviet style attack in order to overcome the entire system...attacking in regimental strength with beaucoup missiles slung under every aircraft...which of course will make them all the more visible and open to earlier attack.
And that is if there is just one CVSG. In all likelihood, there will be at least two operating together, if not three.
Such an investment to try and overcome that defense, particularly to find and track them until the strike aircraft are close enough, and then to engage and win through, will require a HUGE investment and a very risky one.
Very easily the investment might be made and lost without sinking or injuring any carrier. That possibility will have to be carefully weighed, because in either case, the US would then transition from an engagement to, for example interdict and defend Taiwan, to an offensive posture and retaliate against the nation and attack its naval and air bases, its ships, and its ability to continue to mount such attacks.
As everyone has said here...can it be done? Yes, it certainly has a chance if enough resource are thrown at it and they are properly coordinated.
Will China be able to mount such an attack? Right now, I think they could maybe throw together an attempt at a saturation attack like this, but it would totally stretch their resources and the chances for success will be farily low...which is to say, in the cost benefit analysis they probably will not risk it.
Even if you project forward a few years, the Chinese will certainly have more numbers and better equipment and may well have a better chance...but the US is not a stationary target and its technology (SM 6, potential direct energy weapons, etc.) in the next few years will be gauged to ensuring that a nation like China will not be willing to risk it...as the case most likely is right now.
It's a technological dance, it's a logistics dance, it's a it's a training dance, it's a battle damage and survivablity dance, it's a cost/benefit dance, and it's a historical dance where each side has to weigh its initial posture, what it is trying to accomplish, and what the likely consequences are.
Let's all hope it remains just a "dance".
