Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
It would be interesting to see if the Chinese ASBMs could 'overwhelm' this system: "...MDA is concerned about the problem of multiple targets -- decoys and countermeasures as well as warheads. The agency hopes to flight test and field the systems around 2015 to 2017. They are intended for use first on the Ground-Based Midcourse Interceptor and then the SM-3 Block IIB and the Kintetic Energy Interceptor later...."
source: Raytheon concept
source: Lockheed Martin concept
Lockheed Martin system relies on a carrier vehicle employing a 512X512 two-color IR focal plane array. The carrier vehicle would use the advanced sensor system to deploy the smaller kill vehicles late in the endgame of an engagement.
This image shows how Raytheon's vehicles would be stacked inside the nose cone.
With Raytheon's concept, the MKVs would get their targeting data from the ground via existing communications links on the booster. Once deployed, a lead MKV would act as the battle manager, directing the other systems to their targets.
It would be interesting to see if the Chinese ASBMs could 'overwhelm' this system: "...MDA is concerned about the problem of multiple targets -- decoys and countermeasures as well as warheads. The agency hopes to flight test and field the systems around 2015 to 2017. They are intended for use first on the Ground-Based Midcourse Interceptor and then the SM-3 Block IIB and the Kintetic Energy Interceptor later...."
source: Raytheon concept
source: Lockheed Martin concept
Lockheed Martin system relies on a carrier vehicle employing a 512X512 two-color IR focal plane array. The carrier vehicle would use the advanced sensor system to deploy the smaller kill vehicles late in the endgame of an engagement.
This image shows how Raytheon's vehicles would be stacked inside the nose cone.
With Raytheon's concept, the MKVs would get their targeting data from the ground via existing communications links on the booster. Once deployed, a lead MKV would act as the battle manager, directing the other systems to their targets.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Deja Vu all over again.I don't know how old you are But I am old enough to remember SDI a star war program started with Hollywood razzmatazz only to be quietly withdrawn. Because it is infeasible or cost enormous amount of money that even US cannot afford it. That was then when US is at the apex of the power after the demise of Soviet Union.
All those "painting" that you show, is just concept weapon aka vaporware that will never see the daylight because it will never get funding
I guess people never learn from history!
More Than $1 Trillion
The cost of a full "Star Wars" program, including laser-beam weapons providing a space-based "shield" from nuclear attack, is estimated at more than $1 trillion, according to several previous secretaries of defense who were asked by a Senate subcommittee to study the proposal. Full deployment would occur sometime in the 21st Century.
Proxmire charged that the Administration may push for an earlier implementation of SDI--and seek to spend billions of dollars on "Star Wars"-related jobs, construction and research--to create a political and economic lobby for the program.
"If you spend $200 (million) to $300 million now on a "Star Wars"-related project, that can make a big difference to the economy of a city," he said. "That's exactly what they (Administration officials) have in mind."
Deja Vu all over again.I don't know how old you are But I am old enough to remember SDI a star war program started with Hollywood razzmatazz only to be quietly withdrawn. Because it is infeasible or cost enormous amount of money that even US cannot afford it. That was then when US is at the apex of the power after the demise of Soviet Union.
All those "painting" that you show, is just concept weapon aka vaporware that will never see the daylight because it will never get funding
I guess people never learn from history!
More Than $1 Trillion
The cost of a full "Star Wars" program, including laser-beam weapons providing a space-based "shield" from nuclear attack, is estimated at more than $1 trillion, according to several previous secretaries of defense who were asked by a Senate subcommittee to study the proposal. Full deployment would occur sometime in the 21st Century.
Proxmire charged that the Administration may push for an earlier implementation of SDI--and seek to spend billions of dollars on "Star Wars"-related jobs, construction and research--to create a political and economic lobby for the program.
"If you spend $200 (million) to $300 million now on a "Star Wars"-related project, that can make a big difference to the economy of a city," he said. "That's exactly what they (Administration officials) have in mind."
Last edited:
Geographer
Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I haven't followed this thread so apologize in advance if this has been covered. The title is provocative but misses a key point. Only a few countries possess the ability to strike at a CVBG, and those countries are pretty much never going to war. Against the other 200 countries in the world, an American CVBG is the ultimate weapon, invulnerable and extremely powerful. Carriers have played a key role in every American military engagement, World War II to Libya. France and Britain used theirs in Libya too, and Britain needed them in the Falklands War. Saying the era of the carriers is over because a couple countries might be able to sneak some missiles past the protective escorts in an all-out war is like saying the body armor is obsolete because criminals have access to assault weapons. Very, very few criminals use assault weapons, the vast majority of shots fired against police come from handguns, and body armor is still somewhat useful against an AK-47, just ask the U.S. troops in Iraq how it's saved their lives countless times.
I haven't followed this thread so apologize in advance if this has been covered. The title is provocative but misses a key point. Only a few countries possess the ability to strike at a CVBG, and those countries are pretty much never going to war. Against the other 200 countries in the world, an American CVBG is the ultimate weapon, invulnerable and extremely powerful. Carriers have played a key role in every American military engagement, World War II to Libya. France and Britain used theirs in Libya too, and Britain needed them in the Falklands War. Saying the era of the carriers is over because a couple countries might be able to sneak some missiles past the protective escorts in an all-out war is like saying the body armor is obsolete because criminals have access to assault weapons. Very, very few criminals use assault weapons, the vast majority of shots fired against police come from handguns, and body armor is still somewhat useful against an AK-47, just ask the U.S. troops in Iraq how it's saved their lives countless times.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
The greatest threat to carriers is sub-surface. The new missile the PLAN is developing is charging head on into the most effective defense American carriers have, their AEGIS anti-missile defense. Which has already numerous proven tests against ballistic missiles.
The new Chinese missile on the other hand, to date has shown no evidence of a single life fire test against a moving target at sea.
So, no, the carrier age is not ended. This thread has shown that numerous times.
What this thread has really morphed into is a deiscussion about the DF-21 CHinese missile's pro's and cons and the ability to defend against it. Clearly the PLAN is developing it and in the process of initial deployment...again without that live fire test. It is clearly a threat, but one the US (and any nation that can use AEGIS defense) is preparing for.
Agreed...added to that is the fact that the use of carriers is proliferating around the world. Every country that can afford one is buying them or building them.
The greatest threat to carriers is sub-surface. The new missile the PLAN is developing is charging head on into the most effective defense American carriers have, their AEGIS anti-missile defense. Which has already numerous proven tests against ballistic missiles.
The new Chinese missile on the other hand, to date has shown no evidence of a single life fire test against a moving target at sea.
So, no, the carrier age is not ended. This thread has shown that numerous times.
What this thread has really morphed into is a deiscussion about the DF-21 CHinese missile's pro's and cons and the ability to defend against it. Clearly the PLAN is developing it and in the process of initial deployment...again without that live fire test. It is clearly a threat, but one the US (and any nation that can use AEGIS defense) is preparing for.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
If you remember correctly the Soviet Union went bankrupt just trying to respond to the threat of 'Starwars' being deployed or as it is more correctly known SDI. The technology and R&D of SDI at was fantastic and remains cutting edge. There are concepts and proposals still sitting on the shelf that you cannot begin to imagine.
Today some ideas from the SDI program is being updated to respond to your assertion that Chinese ASBM will 'overwhelm' the defenses of the carrier battle group. There is no further research needed to respond to these saturation attacks. All they must do is dust off concepts designed during the 1980s in response to SDI and things are good
And you will recall at the time of SDI there was no shipborne missile defense programs. There is are today. And they are robust.
The modest proposals I present here are just the tip of the iceberg on how the the carrier battlegroup would respond to a full on attack by an ASBM using decoys and countermeasures.
If you remember correctly the Soviet Union went bankrupt just trying to respond to the threat of 'Starwars' being deployed or as it is more correctly known SDI. The technology and R&D of SDI at was fantastic and remains cutting edge. There are concepts and proposals still sitting on the shelf that you cannot begin to imagine.
Today some ideas from the SDI program is being updated to respond to your assertion that Chinese ASBM will 'overwhelm' the defenses of the carrier battle group. There is no further research needed to respond to these saturation attacks. All they must do is dust off concepts designed during the 1980s in response to SDI and things are good
And you will recall at the time of SDI there was no shipborne missile defense programs. There is are today. And they are robust.
The modest proposals I present here are just the tip of the iceberg on how the the carrier battlegroup would respond to a full on attack by an ASBM using decoys and countermeasures.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
*future carrier battlegroup, in the case of those MKV ideas. Will be interesting to see how far they get off the ground in terms of funding... cause apparently MKV is potentially down for termination by good ole robert gates too (proposal around 2009?)
Interesting idea though, I expect in future it might be ressurected by the US, or maybe China might even try out the idea to experiment for their midcourse missile defence for it's basically replacing one large kinetic kill vehicle with multiple smaller ones. MiRV basically.
This thread should be renamed to DF-21D AShBM discussion or something, the title originally was meant to wonder whether highly accurate ballistic missile systems like DF-21D and prompt global strike could replace carriers. Clearly the answer is no, and nothing will replace carriers for decades to come. Then we somehow moved briefly onto the idea that DF-21D might "end" or make inferior carriers, and the answer to that is it obviously won't, seeing as only China will have this system and the sensors reqired to support it and even then it's not a miracle weapon.
*future carrier battlegroup, in the case of those MKV ideas. Will be interesting to see how far they get off the ground in terms of funding... cause apparently MKV is potentially down for termination by good ole robert gates too (proposal around 2009?)
Interesting idea though, I expect in future it might be ressurected by the US, or maybe China might even try out the idea to experiment for their midcourse missile defence for it's basically replacing one large kinetic kill vehicle with multiple smaller ones. MiRV basically.
This thread should be renamed to DF-21D AShBM discussion or something, the title originally was meant to wonder whether highly accurate ballistic missile systems like DF-21D and prompt global strike could replace carriers. Clearly the answer is no, and nothing will replace carriers for decades to come. Then we somehow moved briefly onto the idea that DF-21D might "end" or make inferior carriers, and the answer to that is it obviously won't, seeing as only China will have this system and the sensors reqired to support it and even then it's not a miracle weapon.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Here, Lockheed tested the Pratt & Whitney propulsion system for its carrier vehicle last summer.
The Multiple Kill Vehicle allows the interceptor bus to loiter and deploy its kinetic energy hitters to defeat decoys, countermeasures and warheads.
This shows a good depiction of how Lockheed Martin plans to load up its carrier vehicle.
Finally, this is a pic of the BAE telescope Lockheed Martin plans to use on its carrier vehicle. MDA plans to flight test it with two new 512 X 512 pixel FPAs (one by Raytheon Vision Systems and another from DRS) next year.
Uploaded with
Here, Lockheed tested the Pratt & Whitney propulsion system for its carrier vehicle last summer.
The Multiple Kill Vehicle allows the interceptor bus to loiter and deploy its kinetic energy hitters to defeat decoys, countermeasures and warheads.
This shows a good depiction of how Lockheed Martin plans to load up its carrier vehicle.
Finally, this is a pic of the BAE telescope Lockheed Martin plans to use on its carrier vehicle. MDA plans to flight test it with two new 512 X 512 pixel FPAs (one by Raytheon Vision Systems and another from DRS) next year.
Uploaded with
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Laboratory type technical demonstrator doesn't constitute a working weapon it is still far away from realization. But apparently it meet premature demise due to budget cut
Projected taxpayer savings from Andrews’ and Murphy’s defense spending cuts:
The termination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle will save over $4 billion from 2010 through 2015. Secretary Gates said, “We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement.”
Statistically it is impossible to hit all the warhead with certainty. Someone did a probabilistic model and come out with conclusion it might work against not so sophisticated missile like scud like missile but against multi vector attack with decoy It is impossible period.
There is no magic weapon against it
The problem of defense against MIRVs
Testing of the LGM-118A Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight shot from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons.
ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from large Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.
Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. The defense would still require a rocket for every warhead, as they would be re-entering over a wide space and could not be attacked by several warheads from a single antimissile rocket. Suddenly the defense was more expensive than offense; it was much less expensive to add more warheads, or even decoys, than it was to build the interceptor needed to shoot them down.
In summary, the MIRV made ABM economically ineffective, and practically non-workable.
Laboratory type technical demonstrator doesn't constitute a working weapon it is still far away from realization. But apparently it meet premature demise due to budget cut
Projected taxpayer savings from Andrews’ and Murphy’s defense spending cuts:
The termination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle will save over $4 billion from 2010 through 2015. Secretary Gates said, “We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement.”
Statistically it is impossible to hit all the warhead with certainty. Someone did a probabilistic model and come out with conclusion it might work against not so sophisticated missile like scud like missile but against multi vector attack with decoy It is impossible period.
There is no magic weapon against it
The problem of defense against MIRVs
Testing of the LGM-118A Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight shot from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons.
ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from large Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.
Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. The defense would still require a rocket for every warhead, as they would be re-entering over a wide space and could not be attacked by several warheads from a single antimissile rocket. Suddenly the defense was more expensive than offense; it was much less expensive to add more warheads, or even decoys, than it was to build the interceptor needed to shoot them down.
In summary, the MIRV made ABM economically ineffective, and practically non-workable.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Using that type of measurement hitting a carrier with an ASBM is impossible. The evidence is that the Russians tried and failed with their SS-NX-13. And no one to date has been able to successfully achieve a hit on a carrier even in tests. Note in the following excerpt the SS-NX-13 had the ability to maneuver to hit the carrier and even with that capability they had to use a nuclear warhead.
Unless there is some breakthrough in technology, the task remains out of reach.
"...The SS-NX-13 submarine-launched ballistic missile is a short-range, two-stage, storable liquid-propellant missile apparently designed for anti-ship missions. It is capable of delivering a reentry vehicle in the 2500-lb class, containing a warhead with a yield of 2.0 to 3.5 MT, to a minimum operational range of 80 nm or a maximum operational range of 360 nm. The missile flies a lofted trajectory, and is unique in that it has an impact-point correction capability of up to 30 nm through use of a restartable second-stage. The missile uses an inertial guidance system aided by an onboard passive ELINT target sensor. In a pure ballistic mode the SS-NX-13 is capable of a CEP of about 0.3 nm, and against cooperative targets, i.e., a target emanating radio-frequency transmissions, the SS-NX-13 is capable of a CEP of 0.1 to 0.2 nm...."
On a further note if you or anyone else wishes to understand the task of a ballistic missile maneuvering to hit a fixed target read this excellent book. Hitting a moving target is orders of difficulty more.
"....Lightning Bolts by William Yengst describes the initial feasibility programs to test three alternative designs for implementing hypersonic maneuvers and accurate guidance of long-range reentry vehicles. It identifies the political and military motivations, environmental challenges, design difficulties, innovative technology solutions, test failures, and spectacular successes. It also summarizes development of operational maneuvering reentry vehicles prepared for U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army long-range missile systems during the 1980s. The technology has been adopted and further refined by foreign nations (India, China and Russia) in building their latest missile systems. Therefore, it is important to understand the capabilities and performance characteristics of future potential threats. Written as a first-hand account of the technology's evolution, the book honors the dedicated engineers and scientists who worked to make these programs a success...."
Using that type of measurement hitting a carrier with an ASBM is impossible. The evidence is that the Russians tried and failed with their SS-NX-13. And no one to date has been able to successfully achieve a hit on a carrier even in tests. Note in the following excerpt the SS-NX-13 had the ability to maneuver to hit the carrier and even with that capability they had to use a nuclear warhead.
Unless there is some breakthrough in technology, the task remains out of reach.
"...The SS-NX-13 submarine-launched ballistic missile is a short-range, two-stage, storable liquid-propellant missile apparently designed for anti-ship missions. It is capable of delivering a reentry vehicle in the 2500-lb class, containing a warhead with a yield of 2.0 to 3.5 MT, to a minimum operational range of 80 nm or a maximum operational range of 360 nm. The missile flies a lofted trajectory, and is unique in that it has an impact-point correction capability of up to 30 nm through use of a restartable second-stage. The missile uses an inertial guidance system aided by an onboard passive ELINT target sensor. In a pure ballistic mode the SS-NX-13 is capable of a CEP of about 0.3 nm, and against cooperative targets, i.e., a target emanating radio-frequency transmissions, the SS-NX-13 is capable of a CEP of 0.1 to 0.2 nm...."
On a further note if you or anyone else wishes to understand the task of a ballistic missile maneuvering to hit a fixed target read this excellent book. Hitting a moving target is orders of difficulty more.
"....Lightning Bolts by William Yengst describes the initial feasibility programs to test three alternative designs for implementing hypersonic maneuvers and accurate guidance of long-range reentry vehicles. It identifies the political and military motivations, environmental challenges, design difficulties, innovative technology solutions, test failures, and spectacular successes. It also summarizes development of operational maneuvering reentry vehicles prepared for U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army long-range missile systems during the 1980s. The technology has been adopted and further refined by foreign nations (India, China and Russia) in building their latest missile systems. Therefore, it is important to understand the capabilities and performance characteristics of future potential threats. Written as a first-hand account of the technology's evolution, the book honors the dedicated engineers and scientists who worked to make these programs a success...."
Last edited: