Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Engineer said:

An example is nuclear deterrence, where ICBM is not tested together with early warning systems and fully functional nuclear warheads. There has not been test which involved a launch of ICBM followed by the nuclear detonation of the warhead carried by said ICBM. So even your own view of the second meaning of the word operational is flawed.

Click to expand...

i.e. said:

@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.

Click to expand...

i.e. said:

@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.

Click to expand...

Pointblank said:

Problem is that there is a lot more VLS slots in the fleet than ever before. The USN has over 60 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, with an additional 15 more planned. 96 VLS cells per ship, so 7200 VLS cells available. And that's excluding the VLS equipped Tico's (122 missiles each ship, 22 active), and the 3 Zumwalt's with 80 cells each. Oh, and for cruise missiles, don't forget the 4 Ohio class SSGN's, with a capacity of 154 Tomahawk's each.

Most likely, the ships escorting the carrier will focus on AAW and ABM, while independently operating squadrons of Burke's will have the cruise missiles.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

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 deployed such a system, the fact that it is developing it has already got the US developing the defenses before said system is even deployed.


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.

Click to expand...

i.e. said:

not all ships will load to full.

not all ships will present at same time.

Click to expand...

Hendrik_2000 said:

I will argue with your stated success rate. Did the warhead destroyed in each of the case or merely grazed. In other word can the warhead still continue on its flight path

Exaggerated success rate should be taken with caution

Click to expand...

Hendrik_2000 said:

To say that China doesn't have integrated command and control is not true They do have integrated command and control as proven by the docking of Shenzhou 8

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Hendrik_2000 said:

During Irak war The Army’s initial claim in Congressional testimony of a 96% intercept rate, was later shown by the authors of this article to
be “almost certainly zero,” as defined by destruction of the SCUD warhead.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even today, the Army claims a Patriot “success rate” of more than 40 percent in Israel and more than 70 percent in Saudi Arabia. Thus, current and past evidence of performance claims being made about
proven ballistic missile defense capabilities need to be taken with caution.

Click to expand...

Engineer said:

More like said success is not really applicable when it comes to ASBM like weapons. These tests were conducted against ballistic missile targets with traditional parabolic trajectory, not with multiple apogees as described by open literature from China. Missiles from Russia and China employ decoys, which are metal balloons designed to have exact radar signature as the re-entry vehicles to absorb/confuse enemy's countermeasures. In the ABM tests, the targets carry a unitary warhead with no decoys. Finally, in their terminal interception tests, their target re-entry vehicles do not maneuver in anyway, whereas ASBM's re-entry vehicle must maneuver if it were to hit a moving target.

If we were to use what the nay-sayers have been telling as criterias for working, then there is no proof that ABM works against ASBM. This is where contradiction in their arguments arise - they demand proofs for existance (not deployment) of ASBM, yet assume the non-existance anti-ASBM system is already up and fully functional. That's not to say the ability for ABM to intercept targets with maneuverable RVs and decoys is not in development; in fact, since the inception of ABM the ultimate goal has aimed at nullifying MAD from China and Russia. However, that remains just a goal for now.

Another thing is that the US publicize everything it does, whereas China never publicize anything it does. So, just because there is absence of evidence in regards to Chinese weapon system, it does not mean this is evidence of absence. China could have sunk one of older Yuanwang with ASBM, but if China doesn't say anything about it and US doesn't say anything about it, then we will not actually know about it.


I think anyone who claims China doesn't have command and control capability is out of touch with reality. I have yet to see people making such a claim on this board, however.



I also heard that rather than attributing the cause to enemy fire, aircraft that were shot down over Iraq instead have the cause of their crash attributed to mechanical failures.

Click to expand...