Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

In summary, the MIRV made ABM economically ineffective, and practically non-workable.

Click to expand...

That might have been true years ago. But with the new kinetic energy hit-to-kill ABMs, the problems of accurate guidance have been overcome making the need for nuclear warheads a thing of the past. The numerous successful intercepts over the years prove the validity of the system.

MIRVs are defeated by hit-to-kill projectiles(MKVs) being guided by a battle manager onboard the missile booster itself. The principle has been proven in many tests and now is being expanded to counter multiple incoming targets. It actually is quite simple.

And to deal with saturation attacks you just launch more interceptors. And there is a limit on how many decoys and countermeasure the incoming missile can carry. Too many penetration aids and you decrease the size of the warhead being carried by the missile. Trade-off.

With the 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. I like it.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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

Click to expand...

Answer: The Missile Defense Agency's Multiple Kill Vehicle is a force multiplier for all of the land- and sea-based weapons of the integrated midcourse missile defense system. In the event of an enemy launch, a single interceptor equipped with this payload destroys not only the re-entry vehicle but also all credible threat objects, including countermeasures the enemy deploys to try to spoof our defenses.

This many-on-many strategy eliminates the need for extensive pre-launch intelligence while leveraging the Ballistic Missile Defense System's discrimination capability, ensuring a robust and affordable solution to emerging threats.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

That might have been true years ago. But with the new kinetic energy hit-to-kill ABMs, the problems of accurate guidance have been overcome making the need for nuclear warheads a thing of the past. The numerous successful intercepts over the years prove the validity of the system.

MIRVs are defeated by hit-to-kill projectiles(MKVs) being guided by a battle manager onboard the missile booster itself. The principle has been proven in many tests and now is being expanded to counter multiple incoming targets. It actually is quite simple.

And to deal with saturation attacks you just launch more interceptors. And there is a limit on how many decoys and countermeasure the incoming missile can carry. Too many penetration aids and you decrease the size of the warhead being carried by the missile. Trade-off.

With the 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. I like it.

Click to expand...

If you believe in Death Ray, Transformer, Flash Gordon you can believe in this MKV But unfortunately congress and their appropriation committee doesn't think so Good Luck in your day dreaming

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Unless there is some breakthrough in technology, the task remains out of reach.

Click to expand...

There has been. It's called the 21st century if I'm not mistaken.

Regardless of how feasible MKV is and how it can match against AShBM it seems to be on the chopping board, if not already been chopped so this discussion is kind of moot. It will be interesting whether SM-3 will/would have been able to have MKV, simply seeing as it's such a small missile in the first place.

but on the subject of multiple warheads...if 2nd arty can perfect and eventually miniaturize the technology (things just keep getting smaller these days) we might start hearing about MiRVed AShBMs in coming years. That would be something, four or so warheads on a single missile -- not only complicates defence, but means carriers are not the only potential targets. Using NikeX's own words -- I like it!

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

It will not be an end of the Carrier Age. The PLA-N has its "new" Carrier and reportedly planning to build 2-3 indigeneous ones. The RN is presently building 2, and the other countries like the JMSDF & ROK Navy have their "small carriers" (destroyer-helos). The USN has the strongest Carrier Groups with 10 or is it 11 boats. This Navy is the most experienced. with actual combat during WW II in the Pacific. It is also up-to-date in their fighting capabilities i.e. air-craft & weaponry - not wise to mess up with the USN as of now and the near future.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Regardless of how feasible MKV is and how it can match against AShBM it seems to be on the chopping board, if not already been chopped so this discussion is kind of moot. It will be interesting whether SM-3 will/would have been able to have MKV, simply seeing as it's such a small missile in the first place.

Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that all the supporting technologies for this kinetic energy ABM have been defined and demonstrated. Doing that was the hard part

but on the subject of multiple warheads...if 2nd arty can perfect and eventually miniaturize the technology (things just keep getting smaller these days) we might start hearing about MiRVed AShBMs in coming years. That would be something, four or so warheads on a single missile -- not only complicates defence, but means carriers are not the only potential targets. Using NikeX's own words -- I like it

Click to expand...

There's that word again...'if'' Until they can flight test this ASBM under something resembling operational conditions and find and hit a carrier sized target at sea this whole thing remains just an interesting discussion in 'what if'.

Let me know when these test occur. I will be most interested.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

The fact of the matter is that all the supporting technologies for this kinetic energy ABM have been defined and demonstrated. Doing that was the hard part

Click to expand...

Convincing the government the weapon is needed would be the hard part now, I think, but okay.

There's that word again...'if'' Until they can flight test this ASBM under something resembling operational conditions and find and hit a carrier sized target at sea this whole thing remains just an interesting discussion in 'what if'.

Let me know when these test occur. I will be most interested.

Click to expand...

Well the preceding pages of discussion was all assuming the weapon that we've heard of, is operational in some stage or another. I would love to know the details of current testing or service, but with things like missiles it's harder to make out compared with aircraft or ships.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

DF 21-D status is in IOC Meaning limited deployment with further improvement along the way.

What seemed increasingly likely in recent months has now been confirmed. Top U.S. Navy officials state that China’s anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) has reached the equivalent of Initial Operational Capability (IOC).

While the exact details remain uncertain, both U.S. officials and the director-general of Taiwan’s National Security Bureau state that China has already begun to deploy the DF-21D. A Taiwan defense source says that up to 12 DF-21D ASBMs have been deployed in southern China. And one Chinese source likewise claims that the missile has already been deployed.

[tt_news]=37695&tx_ttnews[backPid]=228&cHash=935bd75162f111718eb3ac405984ff88

This is the definition of IOC

Standard U.S. military definitions of IOC suggest the following:

China must have conducted a rigorous program of tests, most likely including flight tests, to demonstrate that the DF-21D ASBM is mature enough for initial production, deployment, and employment.
Chinese unit(s) must have already received the DF-21D.
While doubtless an area of continuous challenge and improvement, the DF-21D’s C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, information, surveillance, and reconnaissance) infrastructure must be sufficient to support basic carrier strike group (CSG)-targeting capabilities.
Based on previous Second Artillery deployment patterns, ever-better-performing and -C4ISR-linked versions of the DF-21D will likely be deployed in “waves” to different units until the majority of ASBMs reach a level of capability the PLA deems sufficient to meet its present deterrence objectives.
On the basis of present capabilities, China likely already expects to achieve some level of (growing) deterrence benefits from its DF-21D ASBM.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Hendrik_2000 said:

China must have conducted a rigorous program of tests, most likely including flight tests, to demonstrate that the DF-21D ASBM is mature enough for initial production, deployment, and employment.

Click to expand...

Not according to the US Navy.

As I responded to you much earlier on this thread, the US Navy's Deputy Chief of Operations clarified Willards comments in an interview with Bloomberg. Much of it confirmed the IOC, but there was a huge provision with this question, which makes it clear that full operational tests have not occurred and that they impact the potential effectiveness (obviously) of the system...but to what extent is anyone's guess.

bloomberg said:

3. How effective can it be if it has not been flight tested?

Answer: It is unknown to us, and probably the Chinese, as to how effective the missile will be without a full-scale test.

Click to expand...

This is a telling piece of information. My own personal belief is that the system will never gain what the US terms and deems as FOC until a full operation test confirming its ability to actually do what it is designed to do is conducted.

Time will tell. But a full scale test shooting the missile into the middle of the Ocean at the ranges indicated in its capability will be something the PLAN will have to announce for safety purposes, and will definitely be noticed and tracked by the US and other countries. Apparently, that has not occurred to date.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Jeff Head said:

Not according to the US Navy.

As I responded to you much earlier on this thread, the US Navy's Deputy Chief of Operations clarified Willards comments in an interview with Bloomberg. Much of it confirmed the IOC, but there was a huge provision with this question, which makes it clear that full operational tests have not occurred and that they impact the potential effectiveness (obviously) of the system...but to what extent is anyone's guess.

This is a telling piece of information. My own personal belief is that the system will never gain what the US terms and deems as FOC until a full operation test confirming its ability to actually do what it is designed to do is conducted.

Time will tell. But a full scale test shooting the missile into the middle of the Ocean at the ranges indicated in its capability will be something the PLAN will have to announce for safety purposes, and will definitely be noticed and tracked by the US and other countries. Apparently, that has not occurred to date.

Click to expand...

Jeff
These are Andrew Anderson definition of Chinese ASBM IOC using US definitons of IOC as template.

All he did is elaborate more what it mean when Adm Willard said that Chinese ASBM is in IOC status.

We can debate until the earth frozen about the effectiveness of ASBM but it doesn't change the fact that they are deployed as we speak and will someday reach FOC

Whether they need full test or not it their judgement call .Some of us here think there is no need as they definitely test the components of the system.
They have C4ISR in place with constant surveillance at one spot for 5 hr certainly not 24 hr but enough for IOC.

As you say let wait and see