Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Maybe because they have to spend more R&D effort to catch up on technology, build infrastructure and machine tools for something that's already off-the-shelf for US? Everything being equivalent, PRC has a cost advantage over US, but not everything is equivalent.
Maybe because they have to spend more R&D effort to catch up on technology, build infrastructure and machine tools for something that's already off-the-shelf for US? Everything being equivalent, PRC has a cost advantage over US, but not everything is equivalent.
Quickie
Colonel
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Well, don't believe everything you hear without doing some research yourself. Its a myth that factory workers in China can afford to laze around in the factory as you seem to imply. The opposite of what you hear is closer to the truth. There is currently a shortage of factory labour which is part of the reason why factory wages are increasing. And factory workers there work more hours than their counterparts in most
other countries.
Well, don't believe everything you hear without doing some research yourself. Its a myth that factory workers in China can afford to laze around in the factory as you seem to imply. The opposite of what you hear is closer to the truth. There is currently a shortage of factory labour which is part of the reason why factory wages are increasing. And factory workers there work more hours than their counterparts in most
other countries.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
You can calculate the orbit all you want but you still have to track the satellite and steer the kill vehicle toward the target while the target is speeding at 18000mile/hr So your contention of calculating the target make it easy to hit the target is irrelevant.
ECM is nothing new all the world anti ship missile has to have built in ECCM to counter ECM.
Firing flare won't fool Imaging infra red sensor. The processing power and software development of ECCM can differentiate between stationary chaff and moving object. Jammer or home on the jam are technique to beat the ECM. So Counter measure is not silver bullet against near peer rival.
Plus who know what kind of sensor ASBM has on board, it could be dual seeker with midsourse update from satellite, And how far can the carrier move in an hour at 30 knot ?. I bet no more than 100km which is well within the killzone of your average Anti ship missile sensor
Again I quote Mark Stoke research on Chinese ECM
Chinese research and development into counter-surveillance [fanzhencha] systems is centered on electronic countermeasures, stealth, decoys, and fast burn motors. From China's perspective, passive and active electronic countermeasures (ECM) are a fundamental yet effective means of ensuring ballistic missiles are able to reach their targets. Chinese missile engineers also have been studying on-board jammers for more than a decade. 131 Development of jammers and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) is of sufficient importance to warrant a research institute solely dedicated to space and missile electronic warfare.132 Chinese literature cites use of passive electronic countermeasures, such as chaff, to confuse enemy ground radar systems, such UEWR systems. 133 Measures under investigation include electronic and infrared countermeasures on board reentry vehicles, as well as carrying out hard kills against enemy theater missile defense (TMD) radars through the use of anti-radiation missiles.134 Under the 863-409 program, the Nanjing University of Science and Technology was awarded a contract for developing space vehicle, warhead MMW and IR
passive countermeasures, including use of expanded graphite.135
Counter-intercept [fanlanzai] measures seek to deny missile defense interceptors the ability to properly engage their targets. These include multiple maneuvering reentry vehicles and hardening or spinning of ballistic missiles. China has had the capability to develop and deploy a multiple reentry vehicle system for many years, as well as maneuverable reentry vehicles that can complicate missile defense tracking. Maneuvering is also essential for terminal
guidance packages.136
In addition to the techniques described above, a range of other technical and operational countermeasures also is under consideration. These include trajectory techniques, indigenous missile defense development, ASAT development, and possibly multi-axis strikes, including use of submarine launch ASBMs. One article addressing missile defenses argues that it is difficult in general to defend against a
Possible Dual seeker mode
Beyond the DF-21C, a former high ranking aerospace industry official opined that an ASBM would share many of the same guidance technologies the ASAT system that was tested in January 2007.113 Basic technologies for the ASAT KKV developed under the 863 Program (specifically the 863-409 and 863-801 focus areas) include a mid-wave infrared seeker, couple charged devices (CCDs), all-digital fiber optic gyroscope, major simulation facilities, millimeter
wave (MMW) seeker, and diamond coating technologies.114
The development of MMW technology is a national R&D priority, and is a likely candidate for ASBM terminal guidance package.115 Most likely operating in the Ka-Band portion of the frequency spectrum, MMW terminal guidance systems are compact, can achieve high resolution, and have a range of dual use applications. Unlike side-looking SAR systems, a
The anti-ship ballistic missile challenge to U.S. maritime operations in the Western Pacific and Beyond
MMW radar seeker can track targets at nose on or high angles of attack. On the civil side, MMW sensors are increasingly being used for collision avoidance systems in the auto industry. Ranging in frequency between 30 to 300GHz, MMW technology also is used air collision avoidance systems. At the same time, MMW technologies have become common in air defense and anti-ship missile systems. MMW seekers are perhaps best known for "hit-to-kill" capabilities associated with the terminal missile defenses, such as the Patriot PAC-3 missile. MMW also is used for robotics, concealed weapons detection, broadband communications satellites, and terrain mapping radar.
Chinese aerospace engineers have been refining technologies for developing advanced MMW seekers for missile terminal guidance.116 The principles associated with intercepting a target the size of a mini-van traveling above Mach 20 and hitting an aircraft carrier are similar, except that the aircraft carrier is a much larger and slower moving target. Priorities in developing a MMW terminal seeker appear to include miniaturizing a high powered amplifier.117 Engineers are developing hardware-in-the-loop simulations and testing MMW
missile seekers in "realistic flight scenarios."118
Imaging Infrared and Laser Guidance. MMW terminal guidance on ballistic missiles often is discussed in the context of an integrated MMW/IIR seeker.119 IIR seekers offer significant precision, and are critical for striking moving targets while traveling at high velocities.120 Aircraft carriers have a prominent infrared signature when contrasted with the ocean background. In order to minimize weight of the missile, an uncooled infrared seeker would likely be preferred as a cooled infrared seeker requires a more complex cryogenic assembly to cool the focal plane array. In addition to IIR seekers, engineers in the aerospace industry and Second Artillery have explored the feasibility of a laser terminal guidance system.121 The
Second Artillery has completed at least one technical requirements assessment on a CO2
coherent laser imaging radar for ballistic missile terminal guidance.122
You can calculate the orbit all you want but you still have to track the satellite and steer the kill vehicle toward the target while the target is speeding at 18000mile/hr So your contention of calculating the target make it easy to hit the target is irrelevant.
ECM is nothing new all the world anti ship missile has to have built in ECCM to counter ECM.
Firing flare won't fool Imaging infra red sensor. The processing power and software development of ECCM can differentiate between stationary chaff and moving object. Jammer or home on the jam are technique to beat the ECM. So Counter measure is not silver bullet against near peer rival.
Plus who know what kind of sensor ASBM has on board, it could be dual seeker with midsourse update from satellite, And how far can the carrier move in an hour at 30 knot ?. I bet no more than 100km which is well within the killzone of your average Anti ship missile sensor
Again I quote Mark Stoke research on Chinese ECM
Chinese research and development into counter-surveillance [fanzhencha] systems is centered on electronic countermeasures, stealth, decoys, and fast burn motors. From China's perspective, passive and active electronic countermeasures (ECM) are a fundamental yet effective means of ensuring ballistic missiles are able to reach their targets. Chinese missile engineers also have been studying on-board jammers for more than a decade. 131 Development of jammers and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) is of sufficient importance to warrant a research institute solely dedicated to space and missile electronic warfare.132 Chinese literature cites use of passive electronic countermeasures, such as chaff, to confuse enemy ground radar systems, such UEWR systems. 133 Measures under investigation include electronic and infrared countermeasures on board reentry vehicles, as well as carrying out hard kills against enemy theater missile defense (TMD) radars through the use of anti-radiation missiles.134 Under the 863-409 program, the Nanjing University of Science and Technology was awarded a contract for developing space vehicle, warhead MMW and IR
passive countermeasures, including use of expanded graphite.135
Counter-intercept [fanlanzai] measures seek to deny missile defense interceptors the ability to properly engage their targets. These include multiple maneuvering reentry vehicles and hardening or spinning of ballistic missiles. China has had the capability to develop and deploy a multiple reentry vehicle system for many years, as well as maneuverable reentry vehicles that can complicate missile defense tracking. Maneuvering is also essential for terminal
guidance packages.136
In addition to the techniques described above, a range of other technical and operational countermeasures also is under consideration. These include trajectory techniques, indigenous missile defense development, ASAT development, and possibly multi-axis strikes, including use of submarine launch ASBMs. One article addressing missile defenses argues that it is difficult in general to defend against a
Possible Dual seeker mode
Beyond the DF-21C, a former high ranking aerospace industry official opined that an ASBM would share many of the same guidance technologies the ASAT system that was tested in January 2007.113 Basic technologies for the ASAT KKV developed under the 863 Program (specifically the 863-409 and 863-801 focus areas) include a mid-wave infrared seeker, couple charged devices (CCDs), all-digital fiber optic gyroscope, major simulation facilities, millimeter
wave (MMW) seeker, and diamond coating technologies.114
The development of MMW technology is a national R&D priority, and is a likely candidate for ASBM terminal guidance package.115 Most likely operating in the Ka-Band portion of the frequency spectrum, MMW terminal guidance systems are compact, can achieve high resolution, and have a range of dual use applications. Unlike side-looking SAR systems, a
The anti-ship ballistic missile challenge to U.S. maritime operations in the Western Pacific and Beyond
MMW radar seeker can track targets at nose on or high angles of attack. On the civil side, MMW sensors are increasingly being used for collision avoidance systems in the auto industry. Ranging in frequency between 30 to 300GHz, MMW technology also is used air collision avoidance systems. At the same time, MMW technologies have become common in air defense and anti-ship missile systems. MMW seekers are perhaps best known for "hit-to-kill" capabilities associated with the terminal missile defenses, such as the Patriot PAC-3 missile. MMW also is used for robotics, concealed weapons detection, broadband communications satellites, and terrain mapping radar.
Chinese aerospace engineers have been refining technologies for developing advanced MMW seekers for missile terminal guidance.116 The principles associated with intercepting a target the size of a mini-van traveling above Mach 20 and hitting an aircraft carrier are similar, except that the aircraft carrier is a much larger and slower moving target. Priorities in developing a MMW terminal seeker appear to include miniaturizing a high powered amplifier.117 Engineers are developing hardware-in-the-loop simulations and testing MMW
missile seekers in "realistic flight scenarios."118
Imaging Infrared and Laser Guidance. MMW terminal guidance on ballistic missiles often is discussed in the context of an integrated MMW/IIR seeker.119 IIR seekers offer significant precision, and are critical for striking moving targets while traveling at high velocities.120 Aircraft carriers have a prominent infrared signature when contrasted with the ocean background. In order to minimize weight of the missile, an uncooled infrared seeker would likely be preferred as a cooled infrared seeker requires a more complex cryogenic assembly to cool the focal plane array. In addition to IIR seekers, engineers in the aerospace industry and Second Artillery have explored the feasibility of a laser terminal guidance system.121 The
Second Artillery has completed at least one technical requirements assessment on a CO2
coherent laser imaging radar for ballistic missile terminal guidance.122
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
i hear that from an employee of certain company doing business in china. it turn out the local government want to hire 3000 employees instead 500 that the company want it. the shortage of factory workers is mostly at east coast, alot worker were able to find job near their hometown etc. anyway its off topic
i hear that from an employee of certain company doing business in china. it turn out the local government want to hire 3000 employees instead 500 that the company want it. the shortage of factory workers is mostly at east coast, alot worker were able to find job near their hometown etc. anyway its off topic
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
yes china has ECW etc etc, but so does US with plenty experience backing it up. at the end ASBM has to penetrate entire defense of battle group and other platforms.
china know exactly where the sat is at, so the complexity of tracking/processing is less complicate compare to an unknow/random position(which require some kind of real-time processing).
When traveling faster than the speed of bullet, the heat generate by friction in atomsphere could easily blind IR sensor or any visible spectrum sensor locate in the nose of missile.
Also due to ground clutters, atomsphere clutters, and background clutters, its very different when hitting something in space vs something on the ground/moving etc.
also due to atomsphere/velocity, there are several vibration during terminal phase of ASBM, which also affect sensor and other on-board equipments. so overall when destroy something moving in orbit vs something moving on the ground is different due to many things.
yes china has ECW etc etc, but so does US with plenty experience backing it up. at the end ASBM has to penetrate entire defense of battle group and other platforms.
china know exactly where the sat is at, so the complexity of tracking/processing is less complicate compare to an unknow/random position(which require some kind of real-time processing).
When traveling faster than the speed of bullet, the heat generate by friction in atomsphere could easily blind IR sensor or any visible spectrum sensor locate in the nose of missile.
Also due to ground clutters, atomsphere clutters, and background clutters, its very different when hitting something in space vs something on the ground/moving etc.
also due to atomsphere/velocity, there are several vibration during terminal phase of ASBM, which also affect sensor and other on-board equipments. so overall when destroy something moving in orbit vs something moving on the ground is different due to many things.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
In addition, most anti-ship missile get their targeting information when they are fired. They kick their onboard radar or other sensors in when they get much closer than 100km.
Your other quotes and "opines" are replete with the following types of qualifieers: "Most likely", "a national priority", "could possibly", "is often discussed", etc.
When operational and live fire tests prove these points out, the US military will know it...and my guess is that soon thereafter it will be leaked to the press. That has not happened to date.
Finally, as I have stated...this missile is going head to head with the heart and strength of the developing AEGIS BMD system, which has had those level of tests successfully performed and published. And which has even more highly advanced technology being developed as we speak.
Actucally, it is not irrelevent. it is completely relevent. The level of math required to hit a stable orbit is an order of magnitude (or more) lesss than to hit one that is variable and not stable. Therefore the calculations, math, and technology required are significantly more complicated.
That's assuming they are a "near peer", and in any case does not negate the fact that in order to ensure that your equipment works in that environment, you will want to test it in something as close to that environment as possible.
Actually, most Anti-ship missiles are not ballistic missiles on ballistic trajectories, traveling at ballistic speeds. At those speeds, and with the weight restrictions necessary for most ballistic applications, the ability for the RV to re-acquire and adequately manuever is going to come into question.
In addition, most anti-ship missile get their targeting information when they are fired. They kick their onboard radar or other sensors in when they get much closer than 100km.
Already discussed. See above. They actually are not similar given the points I discussed in the prior p[ost. There is an order of magnitude difference.
Your other quotes and "opines" are replete with the following types of qualifieers: "Most likely", "a national priority", "could possibly", "is often discussed", etc.
When operational and live fire tests prove these points out, the US military will know it...and my guess is that soon thereafter it will be leaked to the press. That has not happened to date.
Finally, as I have stated...this missile is going head to head with the heart and strength of the developing AEGIS BMD system, which has had those level of tests successfully performed and published. And which has even more highly advanced technology being developed as we speak.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Someone who cleaned the toilets at BAE can claim they have worked in the defense industry. (Not suggesting you did that.)
But empty claims about your credentials are meaningless when your responses makes it clear you do not know what you are talking about or are being deliberately 'liberal' with the truth and facts to prove your point, which is worse in my book.
I have given explanations for my reasons with examples, whereas all you have done is trumpet the 'I have worked in the defense industry' line, as if that automatically makes you an authority on everything, set up silly strawman arguments and try and brand those that don't agree with you as 'fanboys'. The facts here would point to someone else being the fanboy.
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.
Someone who cleaned the toilets at BAE can claim they have worked in the defense industry. (Not suggesting you did that.)
But empty claims about your credentials are meaningless when your responses makes it clear you do not know what you are talking about or are being deliberately 'liberal' with the truth and facts to prove your point, which is worse in my book.
I have given explanations for my reasons with examples, whereas all you have done is trumpet the 'I have worked in the defense industry' line, as if that automatically makes you an authority on everything, set up silly strawman arguments and try and brand those that don't agree with you as 'fanboys'. The facts here would point to someone else being the fanboy.