Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Engineer

Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

when you make a car, you test out the engine, the microprocessor chip, and others components. but eventually you need to put it all together and test it as whole. if you only test the missile, how do you do midcourse correction without satelite, gps system. the missile require those system to work properly.
Look at the example of ICBM again: early warning, missile, and nuclear warheads are not test together as a whole. Fighter aircraft are not proven by actually getting shot at by actual A2A and cannon rounds either before being brought into operation. Examples of systems being tested as a whole is not a support that all system must be tested as a whole.

i never said carrier cannot be sinked. conclusion require scientific facts, prove, and evidences. so far there is not much evidences that prove df21 is in operational status.
Once again, fallacy of equivocation; ASBM being technically sound in striking a carrier is not the same as ASBM having achieved Full Operational Capability, even though you can describe both being operational. No one ever claimed ASBM is in FOC except you with your strawman argument. Furthermore, conclusion requires scientific facts, proofs, and evidences, and so far there is no evidence that proves ABM can intercept targets such as ASBM.

The ABM is already there on ships, been test in the sea. furthermore i never said ABM can hit ASBM, but it can hit ballistic missile. So its likely/better chance an upgrade/differnent phase of ABM could hit ASBM before df21 deployment.
In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that ABM can hit DF21 class weapon. ABM being able to hit SCUD like missiles under ideal conditions (no decoys, no countermeasures, etc.) is not evidence that ABM can intercept maneuverable re-entry vehicles. Such ideal tests do not meet the criteria set up by you (and people like you) who insist weapons must be tested multiple time in real battle situation to be qualified as operational; there is no non-parabolic flight path, no decoys, no ECM, no maneuverable re-entry vehicles, and no simultaneous multiple engagement.

i think people should wait until ASBM is tested, evidence indicate its in operational status or more information on this system before say anything about how it will end the CVBG. Its like saying US will have rail gun that can hit targets hundreds mile away without any evidence to back it up.
I think people should wait until ABM has been tested against an actual ASBM, with evidence indicating that anti-ASBM capability is in operational status or more information on such system before saying anything about defending against ASBM. Until then, it is just claiming US has anti-ASBM capability without any evidence to back it up.

anyway, if you can provide link saying china test missile in the ocean or some general/chinese offical saying the df21 is in operational status then ill retract my arguement. otherwise ITS ALL ASSUMPTION, there just too little evidences indicate its operational and can hit a target thousands km away in the sea.
Anyway, if you cannot provide link saying that USA tested ABM against ASBM like weapon or some American officials saying that such capability exists, then any mentioning of CVBG successfully fend of ASBM is just fantasy.
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

the SM3 test are done in their environment, in the sea, on a ship against a ballistic missile. china hasn't done a test on the ocean against a moving ship, unless you can provide a link!!

i'm not saying SM3 can hit ASBM or not, but since we already know its already deployed on several ships and it has been test on ships in the sea, therefore its development is futher ahead compare to df21. The SM3 system still has alot room to improve and we don't know what phase of SM3 is right now. its really about the likely hood of SM3 hitting DF21 when it finaly deployment in 5-10yrs.. during this time SM3 will be upgrade and shift to different project phase.

There is test and there is dumb down test. A Real engineer will not accept statement at face value without questioning the validity of test.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Bulletin of atomic scientist

Excerpt from Lewis and Postol

SM3 like any other terminal phase kill system suffer the same fundamental flaws as the GMD. Although the SM-3 uses entirely different radars and interceptors, the sensors of both the GMD and SM-3 systems function according to the same laws of physics. The SM-3 interceptors home in on their targets using infrared signals identical to those used by the GMD interceptors; and like the GMD interceptors, they are vulnerable to the same problems. Both defense systems are also designed to intercept targets in the near vacuum of space, where the lack of air-drag makes it easy for an adversary to create highly credible false targets. The last five SM-3 tests against rocket
targets with warheads attached are a good example of how not to test for
real combat conditions. These five tests appear to have been done repetitively
under nearly identical flight conditions and they form the basis of the Defense
Department false claim to President that the test is to President Obama in September 2009 that the SM-3 is proven and effective.

It is false and misleading to tell a president that the SM-3 system

has been tested sufficiently to be described as proven and effective.
To reach this conclusion,the testers would have to demonstrate that

the kill vehicle can find the potentially disguised location of the
warhead on a tumbling missile, and successfully maneuver to hit the

warhead within fractions of a second.

The proof of system reliability would require repeated demonstrations

under widely varied conditions to show that warhead targets attached

to missiles in multiple tests can be hit.

These varied conditions would include target missiles of different
lengths and geometries, and tumbling speeds and directions unknown
to the testers.

It is also worth emphasizing here that a realistically tumbling

missile target is only one of innumerable real combat conditions the

SM-3 has not been tested against.In short, the tests to date of SM-3
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

LMAO!! You guys ( s002wjh and Engineer) are too funny, never the less good arguments from you both.
 

s002wjh

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Look at the example of ICBM again: early warning, missile, and nuclear warheads are not test together as a whole. Fighter aircraft are not proven by actually getting shot at by actual A2A and cannon rounds either before being brought into operation. Examples of systems being tested as a whole is not a support that all system must be tested as a whole.


Once again, fallacy of equivocation; ASBM being technically sound in striking a carrier is not the same as ASBM having achieved Full Operational Capability, even though you can describe both being operational. No one ever claimed ASBM is in FOC except you with your strawman argument. Furthermore, conclusion requires scientific facts, proofs, and evidences, and so far there is no evidence that proves ABM can intercept targets such as ASBM.


In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that ABM can hit DF21 class weapon. ABM being able to hit SCUD like missiles under ideal conditions (no decoys, no countermeasures, etc.) is not evidence that ABM can intercept maneuverable re-entry vehicles. Such ideal tests do not meet the criteria set up by you (and people like you) who insist weapons must be tested multiple time in real battle situation to be qualified as operational; there is no non-parabolic flight path, no decoys, no ECM, no maneuverable re-entry vehicles, and no simultaneous multiple engagement.


I think people should wait until ABM has been tested against an actual ASBM, with evidence indicating that anti-ASBM capability is in operational status or more information on such system before saying anything about defending against ASBM. Until then, it is just claiming US has anti-ASBM capability without any evidence to back it up.


Anyway, if you can provide link saying that USA tested ABM against ASBM like weapon or some American officials saying that such capability exists, any mentioning of CVBG successfully fend of ASBM is just fantasy.

did you read my post I never said ABM can hit df21 or not. but because its already integrate, test and deployed, it can be upgrade or shift to another project phase where the priority is hit ASBM. however we just know ASBM is still in development.

yes in theory DF21 is a good weapon, but from theory to actually working is another matter. So in your opinon is DF21 working now, deployment, or in development? all i'm saying is since its in development we can't just assume it will be the end of carrier.

again sm3 test
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


if you can provide some link saying the missile is test it or some chinese general saying its deployed etc then ill admit its working.

seriously i can also say US is devloping some stealth carrier that can't be track, therefore eliminate the df21 threat. I need least see some evidences says china did some ASBM over the ocean in order for me to belief its operational.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

did you read my post I never said ABM can hit df21 or not. but because its already integrate, test and deployed, it can be upgrade or shift to another project phase where the priority is hit ASBM. however we just know ASBM is still in development.
Oh yes, I read your post, and I pointed out the contradiction in your posts multiple time already. You are correct in saying that you never (specifically) said ABM can hit DF21. However, you argument essentially assume that this is the case without any evidence. For example, you stated and I quote:
...Multiple ASBM has to pass entire US defense network to hit a carrier
where you assume such a defense network exists to defeat ASBM already. You are thus contradicting yourself when you require evidence proving ASBM can work while not holding ABM in the same standard. And let me reiterate that you are still invoking the fallacy of equivocation; whether ASBM is deployed is not the same as the idea as ASBM can work.

Finally, we do not know whether ASBM is still in development or has finished development.

yes in theory DF21 is a good weapon, but from theory to actually working is another matter. So in your opinon is DF21 working now, deployment, or in development? all i'm saying is since its in development we can't just assume it will be the end of carrier.

again sm3 test
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


if you can provide some link saying the missile is test it or some chinese general saying its deployed etc then ill admit its working.
Once again, fallacy of equivocation. Working, as in technical soundness and working, as in Full Operational Capability are different ideas. Your arguments are based on the assumption that a CVBG's defense is impenetrable, from which you infer that an ASBM has to be tested against such non-existence defense to be qualified as operational, that ASBM has conducted no such tests, then conclude ASBM isn't possible. You have yet to be able to prove such defense exist; specifically proofs that show ABM has been tested against ASBM like weapons under actual battle condition (your own criteria), thus your entire argument falls apart.

seriously i can also say US is devloping some stealth carrier that can't be track, therefore eliminate the df21 threat. I need least see some evidences says china did some ASBM over the ocean in order for me to belief its operational.
I need to at least see some evidences saying US did some ABM tests against ASBM like weapons in order for you to have any ground in saying that anti-ASBM capability exists.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

1st of all, the SM-3 is not a terminal phase interceptor, it is a mid-course interceptor used in the AEGIS BMD system. The SM-II Blk IV is the terminal phase HTK BMD interceptor. Both can be deployed on the same ship, along with normal AAW SM Missiles for anti-air and anti-cruise missile defenses.

2nd, the AEGIS BMD system is being tested and upgraded all the time. As early as 2009 it was scoring successful hits against more advanced Ballistic missiles that included various manuevering and ECOM capabilities to avoid BMD interception.

In 2009, the US Navy conducted a study regarding specifically the DF-21D. It was published as System Architecture for Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missile Defense. In went into some detail about the architecture necessary for this particular threat and made recomendations for the testing and planning necessary to meet the threat. The US Navy has proceeded from that point implementing these plans into AEGIS BMD.

The fact is, there is no existing Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missile, with the manuevering capability spoken of that has either been deployed or actively tested. At this spoint the US is simulating both virtually and in real life what such a system might do. In so doing, the US itself is proceeding down a path in developing the capability itself so that it can be more and more realistically tested.

Again, though the PRC has not deplyoed such a system, the fact that it is devloping it has already got the US developing the defenses before said system is even deployed.

Has the US done an active test on a deployed or "real" system with all of these capabilities? No. Has it tested simulated capabilities both virtually and in real life? Yes. The more it tests and developes its test capability, the closer it will come to having that real test. The US already posses much of the 4CI necessary (which China is trying to develop) to make this possible. The US also already posses missile technology with manuevering RVs to make it possible as well. They do not have a deployed system for such a missile, but they can put the components they do have together and come up with very realistic tests and have done so.

I would speculate...and that is all that it is...that the US with its deployed system, being tested to become effective against the threat is probably further along that the PRC is towards actually deploying the system for operational use. One day, when the PRC tests this system, we will know mre and be able to more accurately assess that speculation.

As it is, with each successive AEGIS BMD test you will see those tests proceed against successively more complex ballistic missile threats. There have been well over 20 successful test firings of these systems, with 15 out of 17 hit to kill successes (sometimes two targets at once). The last failure was about five years ago.

By 2015 the US intends to have 37 vessels outfitted with AEGIS BMD allocated to Europe, the Mid East, the Western Pacific, and off the US Coasts.

For a fairly comprehensive description of what the US is doing, the US has an entire Defense Department Agency,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Dedicated to this task. The entire system goes well beyond the AEGIS BMD component. I would suggest anyone reading the info on that site to get a good overview of what the US is accomplishing, and then search nad read the research papers (like the one I mentioned above) for more info.
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

1st of all, the SM-3 is not a terminal phase interceptor, it is a mid-course interceptor used in the AEGIS BMD system. The SM-II Blk IV is the terminal phase HTK BMD interceptor. Both can be deployed on the same ship, along with normal AAW SM Missiles for anti-air and anti-cruise missile defenses.

2nd, the AEGIS BMD system is being tested and upgraded all the time. As early as 2009 it was scoring successful hits against more advanced Ballistic missiles that included various manuevering and ECOM capabilities to avoid BMD interception.

In 2009, the US Navy conducted a study regarding specifically the DF-21D. It was published as System Architecture for Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missile Defense. In went into some detail about the architecture necessary for this particular threat and made recomendations for the testing and planning necessary to meet the threat. The US Navy has proceeded from that point implementing these plans into AEGIS BMD.

The fact is, there is no existing Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missile, with the manuevering capability spoken of that has either been deployed or actively tested. At this spoint the US is simulating both virtually and in real life what such a system might do. In so doing, the US itself is proceeding down a path in developing the capability itself so that it can be more and more realistically tested.

Again, though the PRC has not deplyoed such a system, the fact that it is devloping it has already got the US developing the defenses before said system is even deployed.

Has the US done an active test on a deployed or "real" system with all of these capabilities? No. Has it tested simulated capabilities both virtually and in real life? Yes. The more it tests and developes its test capability, the closer it will come to having that real test. The US already posses much of the 4CI necessary (which China is trying to develop) to make this possible. The US also already posses missile technology with manuevering RVs to make it possible as well. They do not have a deployed system for such a missile, but they can put the components they do have together and come up with very realistic tests and have done so.

I would speculate...and that is all that it is...that the US with its deployed system, being tested to become effective against the threat is probably further along that the PRC is towards actually deploying the system for operational use. One day, when the PRC tests this system, we will know mre and be able to more accurately assess that speculation.

As it is, with each successive AEGIS BMD test you will see those tests proceed against successively more complex ballistic missile threats. There have been well over 20 successful test firings of these systems, with 15 out of 17 hit to kill successes (sometimes two targets at once). The last failure was about five years ago.

By 2015 the US intends to have 37 vessels outfitted with AEGIS BMD allocated to Europe, the Mid East, the Western Pacific, and off the US Coasts.

For a fairly comprehensive description of what the US is doing, the US has an entire Defense Department Agency,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Dedicated to this task. The entire system goes well beyond the AEGIS BMD component. I would suggest anyone reading the info on that site to get a good overview of what the US is accomplishing, and then search nad read the research papers (like the one I mentioned above) for more info.

Jeff the report is quite recent December 2010 and No SM3 is short range missile so it is categorize as terminal phase You need 3 stage missile in order to intercept ICBM at mid course. Too big to carry inside a ship

As Lewis said it work on the principle of infra red detector over long distance that need to distinguished between head and tail and all the test assume that there is a tail. But the recent Iran missile does not have tail at all

Read the report. No one has disputed the accuracy of the report sofar, Nothing except the booster phase will insured the destruction of the the Missile. But getting close to launch site is easier said then done
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Jeff the report is quite recent December 2010 and No SM3 is short range missile so it is categorize as terminal phase You need 3 stage missile in order to intercept ICBM at mid course. Too big to carry inside a ship
Sorry Hendrik. You are wrong. The SM-3 is a three stage missile (with a fourth kintic kill vehicle seperator) and it is a mid-course interceptor.

SM-3 at Missle Defense Agency

Missile Defense Agency said:
...demonstrated ability to defeat short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase, ballistic missile threats with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3),

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


global security said:
To support the extended range of an exo-atmospheric intercept, additional missile thrust is provided in a new third stage for the SM-3 missile, containing a dual pulse rocket motor for the early exo-atmospheric phase of flight and a Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Kinetic Warhead (KW) for the intercept phase. Upon second stage separation, the first pulse burn of the Third Stage Rocket Motor (TSRM) provides the axial thrust to maintain the missile's trajectory into the exo-atmosphere. Upon entering the exo-atmosphere, the third stage coasts. The TSRM's attitude control system maneuvers the third stage to eject the nosecone, exposing the KW's Infrared (IR) seeker. If the third stage requires a course correction for an intercept, the rocket motor begins the second pulse burn. Upon completion of the second pulse burn, the IR seeker is calibrated and the KW ejects. The KW possesses its own attitude control system and guidance commands are acted upon by a solid divert propulsion system. The IR seeker acquires the target. Tracking information is continuously transmitted to the guidance assembly which controls the divert propulsion system.

The SM-3 missile (designated RIM-161A), uses the basic SM-2ER Block IV A airframe and propulsion, and adds a third stage rocket motor, a GPS/INS guidance section, and a LEAP kinetic warhead .

SM-3 Specs (current):

Length : 6.55 m (21 ft 6 in)
Finspan : 1.57 m (61.8 in)
Diameter : 0.34 m (13.5 in)
Speed : 00 km/h (6000 mph)
Ceiling : 160 km (100 miles)
Range : 500 km (270 nm)
Propulsion:
1st Stage: United Techologies MK 72 solid-fueled rocket
2nd Stage: Atlantic Research Corp. MK 104 dual-thrust solid-fueled rocket
3rd stage: Alliant Techsystem MK 136 solid-fueled rocket
Warhead : Hit-to-kill kinetic warhead (KW)

SM-3 Development :

rim-161.jpg
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Sorry Hendrik. You are wrong. The SM-3 is a three stage missile (with a fourth kintic kill vehicle seperator) and it is a mid-course interceptor.

SM-3 at Missle Defense Agency



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




The SM-3 missile (designated RIM-161A), uses the basic SM-2ER Block IV A airframe and propulsion, and adds a third stage rocket motor, a GPS/INS guidance section, and a LEAP kinetic warhead .

SM-3 Specs (current):

Length : 6.55 m (21 ft 6 in)
Finspan : 1.57 m (61.8 in)
Diameter : 0.34 m (13.5 in)
Speed : 00 km/h (6000 mph)
Ceiling : 160 km (100 miles)
Range : 500 km (270 nm)
Propulsion:
1st Stage: United Techologies MK 72 solid-fueled rocket
2nd Stage: Atlantic Research Corp. MK 104 dual-thrust solid-fueled rocket
3rd stage: Alliant Techsystem MK 136 solid-fueled rocket
Warhead : Hit-to-kill kinetic warhead (KW)

SM-3 Development :

rim-161.jpg

Ok seem to be 3 stage missile with 500km range can be considered as mid course(Border line) still doesn't refute the Lewis report on dependence of Infra red seeker and the problem of distinguishing between head and tail over such a long distance!
 

i.e.

Senior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

@Jeff

The way I look at the whole thing is...

wether DF21 AshBM is actually functioning or not. its already achieving some of its (may be intended) effects.

namely USN has had to poured some of its finite resources into ABM, resources that could be spent on something else. let's say long range strike.

physically that means ABM radar gets the priority instead of somethingelse. slots in VLS gets loaded with SM-3 instead of tomahawks.


think about it.
 
Top