Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Spartan95 said:

And the point of this is?

That the 2nd largest economy, which also happens to be 1 of the fastest growing economy on earth, is unable to pay for ballistic missiles and all the necessary supporting equipment? This does not even take into account their financial reserves of US$3 trillion, which also happens to be the world's largest.

Another factor to consider is that of purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, a PRC engineer costs the PRC government much less than what a US engineer costs the US (or any other developed country) government. This is true at all levels, which translates into massive costs difference for the PLA and their military industrial-base as compared to that of another developed countries. This is the single biggest reason why developed countries don't seem to understand how the PRC is able to modernise rapidly despite what others consider to be an under-declared defence budget.

The simple example will be that of a GI. How much does a GI cost the Pentagon a month? And how much do you think a PLA infantry man cost a month? The difference in pay alone is quite staggering, not to mention the difference in the cost of military hardware. Afterall, US military hardware are manufactured by unionised labour with nice pension benefits paid for by the Pentagon in the form of acquisition costs.

Click to expand...

Uh...

"If x is worth more than y has, y cannot purchase x"

If you don't know how much a AShBM costs along with all the logistical and other supporting equipment, simply stating that, "we has lotsa money" doesn't mean that you can have that AShBM.

Which does bring me to an earlier post from someone I can't remember, he said something about China launching an DF-21D randomly into the pacific to use it's radar seeker to bait out the CVN so to say. Let me just point out how stupidly expensive that would be and that China would be better off with a satellite uptop.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

cataphract said:

As cheap as Chinese products are, their high end, advanced products are equally as expensive as that of the American counterpart. That combined with their reported military budget limits the number of ballistic missile they can buy.

Click to expand...

That specifically applies to retail commercial products where the prices follows the market. Price of indigenous military products depends on competition between local manufacturers and suppliers and will normally be much cheaper.

I wanted to commend on some your points but I'll just be repeating myself like there's no end. But one thing: Without the recon sats, intelligence gathering will have to depend on UAVs and other aerial assets with all its associated risks, and the DF-21 are mobile platforms that can be hidden or/and decoyed if required.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Quickie said:

That specifically applies to retail commercial products where the prices follows the market. Price of indigenous military products depends on competition between local manufacturers and suppliers and will normally be much cheaper.

Click to expand...

I was referring to military hardware too. J-10 flyaway for example costs ~30 million USD in 2010, while F-16C/D accounted for inflation costs ~30 million USD too (This is after the decision to not produce any more for the AF)
F-16's costs:

I wanted to commend on some your points but I'll just be repeating myself like there's no end. But one thing: Without the recon sats, intelligence gathering will have to depend on UAVs and other aerial assets with all its associated risks, and the DF-21 are mobile platforms that can be hidden or/and decoyed if required.

Click to expand...

Firstly, China has not demonstrated reliable ability to take out satellites. Their ASAT test failed several attempts.
Secondly, even the F-35's DAS can track a ballistic missile @ 1300km away.
Lastly, you can hide the launcher all day, you'll still need to move them to relatively close positions to the shore to maximize the range. Long by then, chances are you would've been spotted and destroyed.

Point is again, there are so many available countermeasures for DF-21 that it simply will not change the the balance of power nor will it be an effective denial system.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

LOL. FYI, the Excalibur is a gun-launched munition. You're thinking about the M-30 GPS-guided rocket that is fired from the M270 MLRS. The difference between gun and tube arty the latter goes slower than the former

Click to expand...

Ok lapse of memory, I was thinking about the episode in TV about test firing of M270 when I type Excalibur.

But actually both Chinese defense industry has been testing and producing both GPS guided Munition and GPS guided Rocket for years now. Export version are offered to oversea client.

So I don't believe electronic protection in harsh environment pose hurdle or handicap to the Chinese defense industry. Here is couple of link

I dont normally quote Strategypage.com but in this case they cite their sources from Chinese source

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

cataphract said:

I was referring to military hardware too. J-10 flyaway for example costs ~30 million USD in 2010, while F-16C/D accounted for inflation costs ~30 million USD too (This is after the decision to not produce any more for the AF)
F-16's costs:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

No one knows the exact J-10 flying cost, not to mention its used of Russian engine. J-11B on the other hand is fully indigenous and so is most of China's military hardware.

Firstly, China has not demonstrated reliable ability to take out satellites. Their ASAT test failed several attempts.

Click to expand...

Proof? As far as I can remember it worked the first time. China's ABM test last year can be considered to be an ASAT test too. Remember that failures do happen during testing phase including the U.S.

Secondly, even the F-35's DAS can track a ballistic missile @ 1300km away.
Lastly, you can hide the launcher all day, you'll still need to move them to relatively close positions to the shore to maximize the range. Long by then, chances are you would've been spotted and destroyed.

Click to expand...

DF-21 have about 3000km range. It don't need to be too close to shore and can be kept hidden until the last minutes to prepare for launch. Your spotting aerial assets are at risk of being shot down too.

Point is again, there are so many available countermeasures for DF-21 that it simply will not change the the balance of power nor will it be an effective denial system.

Click to expand...

Question is how effective is the countermeasures. On a sinkable platform, 90% success rate just may not be good enough.

Remember that the DF-21 is very different from the cruise missile in a number of aspects which are already mentioned in the previous posts.

One significant difference is that it can come from directly above the carrier, and this will literally lead the defensive missiles from the destroyers towards the direction of the carrier. A not so bad scenario could be the defensive missiles hitting each other. The worst thing that could happen is the carrier got hit by the carrier group's own missiles.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

lets see we have data on J-10

Click to expand...

What data? Do you know its range? Its max load? Its turn rates, climb rates, roll rates? Do you even know how much it weighs?

we have pic/videos on J20 fly testing,

Click to expand...

You call that data?

but yet there isn't a bit of test data/reports on ASBM other than reports of development from some hype up media and those in pentagon who like to exaggerate chinese military.

Click to expand...

Well considering the media in China reports what they are allowed to report, the lack of reported tests proves nothing. And you have obviously missed some key developments if you think the pentagon have not warned about possible Chinese AShBMs.

like peoples said many time before, a BM will travel to outer atomsphere/high altitude, so the trajectory is like an arch shape. China, US, and russia has ways to detect BM, so a test hidden from both US and Russia detention is much more diffcult compare to some jet tests.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that most basic and completely irrelevant information. The only thing that shows is that you have not even bothered to read what has been written before, or that you simply were too many steps behind the curve to realize what the implications to those words were.

Go back and re-read what I had posted before, because all the answers to your questions are there, and I see no point in repeating myself.

on top of that its never a good idea to lunch a DF21 without least give a heads up to its neighbors. At the begining of BM phase, no one know where that missile is going.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like how the Chinese told everyone there were doing an ASAT test?

Even if you forgot that bit of recent history, surely you would realize any space agency worth its funding would be able to work out in pretty short order if a missile launched is SRBM, IRBM or ICBM.

Typical military test involve some worst case performance test, meaning whats the MAX distance for the missile that can travel before it lose accuracy/damage factors etc. also under counter-measure environment whats the expected result etc etc. only after these test are sucessful or tested, then the product can be said is operational. Ive been working in aerodefence/defense for many years, thats how the military industry work as far as i know

Click to expand...

Ahaha! You are funny.

If that is the case, half the weapons systems operational world wide, and not just Russian/Chinese btw, would never have made it past the testing phase. Weapons are never tested in the worst possible case because a) its impractical and b) its bad press. If they did as you claim, then western PGMs would never have had such a terrible time trying to distinguish simple decoys from the real thing in Kosovo, or even being humbled by fog. Apaches would be able to operate with a full load in Afghanistan, and not nearly as many AMRAAMs would have been needed to shoot down what for all intents and purposes, were defenseless enemy jets.

Weapons are tested to a certain tolerance, beyond that, they don't work. But there is no standard anywhere that says what the minimum tolerance needs to be before a weapon is deemed operational. At the end of the day, all tests are simulated to some extent, and if the Chinese are happy enough with an inland simulated test that they are confident it will work just as well out at sea, they can deem an AShBM operational and start equipping it without a full sea test.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

plawolf said:

What data? Do you know its range? Its max load? Its turn rates, climb rates, roll rates? Do you even know how much it weighs?



You call that data?



Well considering the media in China reports what they are allowed to report, the lack of reported tests proves nothing. And you have obviously missed some key developments if you think the pentagon have not warned about possible Chinese AShBMs.



Thanks for that most basic and completely irrelevant information. The only thing that shows is that you have not even bothered to read what has been written before, or that you simply were too many steps behind the curve to realize what the implications to those words were.

Go back and re-read what I had posted before, because all the answers to your questions are there, and I see no point in repeating myself.



Oh, you mean like how the Chinese told everyone there were doing an ASAT test?

Even if you forgot that bit of recent history, surely you would realize any space agency worth its funding would be able to work out in pretty short order if a missile launched is SRBM, IRBM or ICBM.



Ahaha! You are funny.

If that is the case, half the weapons systems operational world wide, and not just Russian/Chinese btw, would never have made it past the testing phase. Weapons are never tested in the worst possible case because a) its impractical and b) its bad press. If they did as you claim, then western PGMs would never have had such a terrible time trying to distinguish simple decoys from the real thing in Kosovo, or even being humbled by fog. Apaches would be able to operate with a full load in Afghanistan, and not nearly as many AMRAAMs would have been needed to shoot down what for all intents and purposes, were defenseless enemy jets.

Weapons are tested to a certain tolerance, beyond that, they don't work. But there is no standard anywhere that says what the minimum tolerance needs to be before a weapon is deemed operational. At the end of the day, all tests are simulated to some extent, and if the Chinese are happy enough with an inland simulated test that they are confident it will work just as well out at sea, they can deem an AShBM operational and start equipping it without a full sea test.

Click to expand...

not gonna argue with you anymore, for all i care you can said china is building 10 supercarrier hidden somewhere and has hundreads ASBM hidden and can take down entire worlds navy

i've been in defense industry for decade, and we always do some worst case scenario/performance/capability test. believe whatever you like. might want to ease up on your Fanboy level, its way up there.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

OH you have work in the defence industry. What company?

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

bladerunner said:

Theres claims that it required several attempts to conduct a successful ASAT .If they just sat back and relied on their computer simulations and not tested at all, their whole military strategy may come unstuck if they wanted to use it for real.

Click to expand...

To our knowledge China has only conducted one test, which cannot be used as a measure of reliability of the system. But by only doing one test it also shows that they have already done a lot of simulations on the ground to their own satisfaction that the system would work when needed. So my belief is, the ASAT was done not because it was needed, but because China wanted to.

Also, don't let the word simulations fool you into thinking that they are purely done on computers. These simulations actually involve a lot of hardware, and we call them hardware-in-the-loop simulation.

bladerunner said:

Why cant they test their ASBM against a disused super tanker steaming around the first island chain under radio control or whatever?

Click to expand...

Because it costs a lot of money, generates a lot of political backlash, and China simply doesn't want to.

The whole argument that ASBM can only be proven by hitting something traveling at 30kts in the sea under ECM condition is nothing but a smack of denials. Think about it, what is as big as a carrier, can travel at 30kts in the sea, and generate ECM? Certainly not a super tanker, nor any civilian ship for that matter; only an actual combat-ready carrier can meet the criteria. This BS comes up again and again and again because the those who came up with it know full well such a test is absolutely not feasible to pull off. Then they use to claim that ASBM can't work (the claim is not that ASBM isn't in operation) because the system wasn't tested to their BS criteria.

A test not meeting their BS criteria is still a test, but admitting this would shatter fan boys' beliefs that American carriers are untouchable.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

A test not meeting their BS criteria is still a test, but admitting this would shatter fan boys' beliefs that American carriers are untouchable.

Click to expand...

I know you are not calling me a fanboy. I just know it. Last I checked I served 20 active duty and 10 years as a reservist with the USN. I'm no fan boy. I'm the real deal.

As for the test ..true enough the test I suggested cannot be done as described without ECM. However USN CVNs rely on Arliegh Burke or Ticos and Prowlers and Growlers for ECM. Surely China can simulate these ships operating in an EMCOM condition..