Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Imperialism has its perks
Global hegemony offers unequalled training opportunities. Just ask the Royal navy.
And you know this how exactly?
Imperialism has its perks
Global hegemony offers unequalled training opportunities. Just ask the Royal navy.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
It's about playing the percentages.
The PLAN only needs to get lucky once. The USN needs to be lucky every single time.
Besides, only fanboys and extremely bad generals would think that the only way to defeat an enemy is to take him on head-on.
One of the core PLA strategies have always been to attack the enemy where he thinks he is safe and not allow them to dictate the terms of engagement.
If you want to leave the entire PLAN SSK fleet alone and play hide and seek, that is fine with the PLAN. They will have their SSKs lurk behind your forces and hunt your support assets instead. Loose a few UNREP ships to PLAN SSKs and suddenly you will see the entire game change with the USN having to either split off forces to escort their support ships, or divert assets to try and hunt down the PLAN SSKs. Because there is no such thing as 'acceptable losses' in US military vocabulary.
2050? That is really into crystal ball gazing territory.
And of course the Chinese will mine their own backyard first.
PLAN naval mine warfare stresses the importance of hitting the enemy where they least expect it. It is no good mining Chinese territorial waters because the USN will never venture that close.
PLAN subs are all reported to be able to be equipped with mine belts. And they will seek to deploy those mines as close to enemy territory as possible.
If a PLAN SSN dropped off a clutch of mines near Pearl, that will massively screw up USN operations because not only will that have a great chance of catching USN ships off guard and going real damage, it will also force USN forces to start anti-mine sweeps from Pearl and continue all the way to Taiwan, adding considerably more time to when USN carriers can be on station.
Also, it is amusing that you are gazing 40 years into the future to bring railguns into play for the USN while still assuming that the PLAN would be using WWII era dumb mines.
Modern mines are more than capable of distinguishing between friend, foe and neutrals.
It's about playing the percentages.
The PLAN only needs to get lucky once. The USN needs to be lucky every single time.
Besides, only fanboys and extremely bad generals would think that the only way to defeat an enemy is to take him on head-on.
One of the core PLA strategies have always been to attack the enemy where he thinks he is safe and not allow them to dictate the terms of engagement.
If you want to leave the entire PLAN SSK fleet alone and play hide and seek, that is fine with the PLAN. They will have their SSKs lurk behind your forces and hunt your support assets instead. Loose a few UNREP ships to PLAN SSKs and suddenly you will see the entire game change with the USN having to either split off forces to escort their support ships, or divert assets to try and hunt down the PLAN SSKs. Because there is no such thing as 'acceptable losses' in US military vocabulary.
2050? That is really into crystal ball gazing territory.
And of course the Chinese will mine their own backyard first.
PLAN naval mine warfare stresses the importance of hitting the enemy where they least expect it. It is no good mining Chinese territorial waters because the USN will never venture that close.
PLAN subs are all reported to be able to be equipped with mine belts. And they will seek to deploy those mines as close to enemy territory as possible.
If a PLAN SSN dropped off a clutch of mines near Pearl, that will massively screw up USN operations because not only will that have a great chance of catching USN ships off guard and going real damage, it will also force USN forces to start anti-mine sweeps from Pearl and continue all the way to Taiwan, adding considerably more time to when USN carriers can be on station.
Also, it is amusing that you are gazing 40 years into the future to bring railguns into play for the USN while still assuming that the PLAN would be using WWII era dumb mines.
Modern mines are more than capable of distinguishing between friend, foe and neutrals.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Irrelevant. All sports teams train about the same amount of time, do they all perform to the same standard?
Pointblank made a pretty strong claim, and I would like to know what he is basing that on.
Imperialism has its perks
Irrelevant. All sports teams train about the same amount of time, do they all perform to the same standard?
Pointblank made a pretty strong claim, and I would like to know what he is basing that on.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
1. Disagree. ASBM can be best compared to the German Wunderwaffe's. A whole lot of bluster for very little tactical or strategic capabilities. How are you going to provide the accurate guidance and tracking system for the launcher? How about target verification? Data links to communicate the targeting information? Post attack analysis? Guess what, you need conventional platforms (maritime patrol aircraft, ships, submarines, etc) to do that. And all of these systems are well within reach of a carrier's weapons and aircraft preventing the sharing of key information to aim your weapons to begin with. Unless the Chinese feel like randomly bombarding the open Pacific Ocean with nuclear weapons...
Hint: The Soviets had more maritime patrol aircraft, satellites, ships, and submarines during the Cold War to find USN carrier groups, and they even had trouble or didn't know where USN carrier groups where, even when we operated just outside of Soviet waters.
2. How often does a PLAN sailor go to sea in a year? It seems like PLAN ships tend to stay tied up for pretty long periods of time. I know RCN sailors go to sea roughly 250 days out of the year for regular force, and some reservists have regularly been out at sea 270 days out of the year. I know USN and other Western navies are fairly equivalent in terms of days spent at sea. That time spent at sea provide invaluable training that cannot be simulated on shore in a classroom or simulator.
1. Disagree. ASBM can be best compared to the German Wunderwaffe's. A whole lot of bluster for very little tactical or strategic capabilities. How are you going to provide the accurate guidance and tracking system for the launcher? How about target verification? Data links to communicate the targeting information? Post attack analysis? Guess what, you need conventional platforms (maritime patrol aircraft, ships, submarines, etc) to do that. And all of these systems are well within reach of a carrier's weapons and aircraft preventing the sharing of key information to aim your weapons to begin with. Unless the Chinese feel like randomly bombarding the open Pacific Ocean with nuclear weapons...
Hint: The Soviets had more maritime patrol aircraft, satellites, ships, and submarines during the Cold War to find USN carrier groups, and they even had trouble or didn't know where USN carrier groups where, even when we operated just outside of Soviet waters.
2. How often does a PLAN sailor go to sea in a year? It seems like PLAN ships tend to stay tied up for pretty long periods of time. I know RCN sailors go to sea roughly 250 days out of the year for regular force, and some reservists have regularly been out at sea 270 days out of the year. I know USN and other Western navies are fairly equivalent in terms of days spent at sea. That time spent at sea provide invaluable training that cannot be simulated on shore in a classroom or simulator.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
For one time is on China's side, there is no pressure to indulge in make-belief, as a dying nation would have (as in the Nazis in the latter stage of the WWII)
If you are honestly interested in how the DF-21 mod D might work, here is a physicist's point of view. A health dose of scepticism but admitting to the very achievable technology that resides in the DF-21 mod D project.
The USN's playground is all the of the oceans of the world. The PLAN's sub fleet's playground is the first or second island chain. Nuff said. He has his biases but so do you if you fail to recognize the comparative advantage this offers.
For one time is on China's side, there is no pressure to indulge in make-belief, as a dying nation would have (as in the Nazis in the latter stage of the WWII)
If you are honestly interested in how the DF-21 mod D might work, here is a physicist's point of view. A health dose of scepticism but admitting to the very achievable technology that resides in the DF-21 mod D project.
The USN's playground is all the of the oceans of the world. The PLAN's sub fleet's playground is the first or second island chain. Nuff said. He has his biases but so do you if you fail to recognize the comparative advantage this offers.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
And how does that translate to a judgement on professionalism and seamenship?
I ask him the question, so just let him answer it.
And how does that translate to a judgement on professionalism and seamenship?
I ask him the question, so just let him answer it.
"interactive guidance" replaced "perturbation guidance" on new LM-2F
and delivered the shenzhou-8 "within a few meters of the target orbit" according to the deputy commander of China's Manned Space Project. (CCTV news last night)
interactive guidance developed with DF-21D and KT-409 has been introduced to LM-2F, and the result is impressive given the fact that the core tech of LM-2F is quite old.
KT-409 can kill a satellite, DF-21D can kill a carrier, both need to hit a moving target, that's the dynamic dimension of the interactive guidance, the difference is KT need to hit a very small target moving very quickly and DF need to hit a very big target moving very slowly.
and delivered the shenzhou-8 "within a few meters of the target orbit" according to the deputy commander of China's Manned Space Project. (CCTV news last night)
interactive guidance developed with DF-21D and KT-409 has been introduced to LM-2F, and the result is impressive given the fact that the core tech of LM-2F is quite old.
KT-409 can kill a satellite, DF-21D can kill a carrier, both need to hit a moving target, that's the dynamic dimension of the interactive guidance, the difference is KT need to hit a very small target moving very quickly and DF need to hit a very big target moving very slowly.
Re: "interactive guidance" replaced "perturbation guidance" on new LM-2F
The satellite, unless it is military and very advanced, will not be able to offer ECM, decoys, or manuevering.
The carrier will offer all of these things, including an active defense that has been tested at shooting down ballistic missiles.
Finding the carrier to begin with will not be easy. Reaquiring it upon reentry will be equally difficult and depending on range will have allowed the carrier to move up to several kilometers.
There are a lot of major differences...and as far as all of the logistical and infrastructure to just get the warhead on target, the PLAN and PRC has not demonstrated the raw capability to do so and communicate over those differences with such a joint command all operating together...and critical parts of that infrastructure will have to operate within range of the carrier and its escorts or other defenses.
As I have said...I know they are researching and developing it...but until they test it operationally and actually show they can do it...I will continue to believe that no working system has been deployed. You do not deploy (as in establish a working, deployable, usable (multiple times)) system worth literally billions without being absolutely sure you can at least come close to the design parameters.
And the US Navy is pressing forward anyway. They have multiple passive and soft defenses in place, one tested and deployed active defense, and are developing more (ie the laser systems) active defenses as we speak.
The "End of the Carrier Age" is not upon us. In fact, China itself is punctuating this by building their own. The refurbished Varyag was very expensive. The development of the J-15 is very expensive and they will continue to develop others. They are planning to build at least two indegenous carriers...and I believe they will build more.
India is building, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Brazil, Australia, Russia, China (as stated), Thailand has a capanility. And of course the US. Instead of ending, the carrier age is actually, at this moment proliferating.
All of these nations planners are building vessels that they expect to last 30-50 years. I expect the Carrier Age will extend at least that long...and perhaps longer.
Will rail guns herald the end? I do not think so...rail guns can intercept rail guns. Lasers or charged particle weapons can too. We will cotninue to see proliferation and I expect the thing that will ultimately render them obsolete will be large and heavy militarization of space. That's a long way off right now and I do not expect to live long enough to see that. In fact, I will most certainly not see the USS Gerald Ford decomissioned.
The satellite is moving in a fixed orbit. The carrier is not on a fixed course.
The satellite, unless it is military and very advanced, will not be able to offer ECM, decoys, or manuevering.
The carrier will offer all of these things, including an active defense that has been tested at shooting down ballistic missiles.
Finding the carrier to begin with will not be easy. Reaquiring it upon reentry will be equally difficult and depending on range will have allowed the carrier to move up to several kilometers.
There are a lot of major differences...and as far as all of the logistical and infrastructure to just get the warhead on target, the PLAN and PRC has not demonstrated the raw capability to do so and communicate over those differences with such a joint command all operating together...and critical parts of that infrastructure will have to operate within range of the carrier and its escorts or other defenses.
As I have said...I know they are researching and developing it...but until they test it operationally and actually show they can do it...I will continue to believe that no working system has been deployed. You do not deploy (as in establish a working, deployable, usable (multiple times)) system worth literally billions without being absolutely sure you can at least come close to the design parameters.
And the US Navy is pressing forward anyway. They have multiple passive and soft defenses in place, one tested and deployed active defense, and are developing more (ie the laser systems) active defenses as we speak.
The "End of the Carrier Age" is not upon us. In fact, China itself is punctuating this by building their own. The refurbished Varyag was very expensive. The development of the J-15 is very expensive and they will continue to develop others. They are planning to build at least two indegenous carriers...and I believe they will build more.
India is building, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Brazil, Australia, Russia, China (as stated), Thailand has a capanility. And of course the US. Instead of ending, the carrier age is actually, at this moment proliferating.
All of these nations planners are building vessels that they expect to last 30-50 years. I expect the Carrier Age will extend at least that long...and perhaps longer.
Will rail guns herald the end? I do not think so...rail guns can intercept rail guns. Lasers or charged particle weapons can too. We will cotninue to see proliferation and I expect the thing that will ultimately render them obsolete will be large and heavy militarization of space. That's a long way off right now and I do not expect to live long enough to see that. In fact, I will most certainly not see the USS Gerald Ford decomissioned.