Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Click the link that I provided 3 or 4 pages back and read the whole paper by Haagt & Durnin. I guess Engineer extract the information from the paper I just quote him
Click the link that I provided 3 or 4 pages back and read the whole paper by Haagt & Durnin. I guess Engineer extract the information from the paper I just quote him
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
If they continue such a path, they will not really find out the effectiveness of their system until the day they need it...and that is generally not a good idea.
I believe sooner or later they will test it in such a manner, for these precise reasons...and I look forward to an analysis of those tests.
Fielding new, and unproven technology, particularly when it is extremely complicated and depending on numerous systems working together, without a full blown, full function live fire test is just, well, strange to say the least...and given the costs associated with such a program, almost financially wreckless in my opinion.
If they continue such a path, they will not really find out the effectiveness of their system until the day they need it...and that is generally not a good idea.
I believe sooner or later they will test it in such a manner, for these precise reasons...and I look forward to an analysis of those tests.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
You can say the same thing with deployment of SM3 far from prefect yet already deploy. will it work against MIRV warhead? Not tested yet!
Will it work against maneuvering warhead? Not tested yet!
Will it work against decoy?. Not tested yet?.
So the question is what is good at? Scud missile from Iranian maybe even that is not sure because Iranian had missile with no fin
You can say the same thing with deployment of SM3 far from prefect yet already deploy. will it work against MIRV warhead? Not tested yet!
Will it work against maneuvering warhead? Not tested yet!
Will it work against decoy?. Not tested yet?.
So the question is what is good at? Scud missile from Iranian maybe even that is not sure because Iranian had missile with no fin
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
The system continues to go through numerous life fire tests to test it against the new threats. And, OBTW, it has in fact been tested against verying levels of manuevering targets. Decoys have not been specifically named, but I believe they have probably done that as well.
MIRV I believe has definitely not been tested to date...but the US will.
Thats' the point. That system has been deployed...and it is very expensive and very complicated. it has had many live fire, full function tests. it is being improved upon as time goes on with more such tests.
That's my whole point. the PLAN missile has not hasd a single full up, live-fire full function test to hit a manuevering vessel at sea in the type of threat environment it is designed for. I believe they will ultimately do so...and also believe that they longer they wait, the more they risk.
It is not an apt comparison to compare the SM-3 which has had many, many live fire tests against the PLAN ballistic missile which has had none.
of course there will be new developments and when they arise, the SM3 is a perfect example of the need for more such tests...which the US Navy is conducting. Same should hold for the anti-shipping missile IMHO.
As we say...time will tell.
The SM3 has been field tested against the threat it was designed for. We know it can hit an incoming ballistic missile and do so regularly.
The system continues to go through numerous life fire tests to test it against the new threats. And, OBTW, it has in fact been tested against verying levels of manuevering targets. Decoys have not been specifically named, but I believe they have probably done that as well.
MIRV I believe has definitely not been tested to date...but the US will.
Thats' the point. That system has been deployed...and it is very expensive and very complicated. it has had many live fire, full function tests. it is being improved upon as time goes on with more such tests.
That's my whole point. the PLAN missile has not hasd a single full up, live-fire full function test to hit a manuevering vessel at sea in the type of threat environment it is designed for. I believe they will ultimately do so...and also believe that they longer they wait, the more they risk.
It is not an apt comparison to compare the SM-3 which has had many, many live fire tests against the PLAN ballistic missile which has had none.
of course there will be new developments and when they arise, the SM3 is a perfect example of the need for more such tests...which the US Navy is conducting. Same should hold for the anti-shipping missile IMHO.
As we say...time will tell.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Dear all,
I have noticed the ongoing debate about finding carrier at sea. I found this picture of Shilang from commercial satellite. Now, what does this picture tell us about finding carrier in the sea? Needle in the haystack? I still can't spot the satellite in the midst of the cloud of formation.
Please continue your discussion so that we can continue to learn.
Dear all,
I have noticed the ongoing debate about finding carrier at sea. I found this picture of Shilang from commercial satellite. Now, what does this picture tell us about finding carrier in the sea? Needle in the haystack? I still can't spot the satellite in the midst of the cloud of formation.
Please continue your discussion so that we can continue to learn.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
They found it though . This should rebut once for all all those skeptic who has been saying it is impossible to find CBG in the open sea. Now if this lowly commercial satellite can find Carrier in open sea based on open source internet, Imagine what a highly sophisticated military satellite can do
This satellite image provided by the the DigitalGlobe Analysis Center shows the Chinese aircraft carrier Shi Lang (Varyag) sailing in the Yellow Sea. The picture was acquired Dec. 8 by DigitalGlobe's QuickBird satellite.
Alan Boyle writes
A commercial satellite operator says it has captured a rare image of China's first aircraft carrier as it sailed through the Yellow Sea, after going through an exercise that's the 21st-century equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack.
DigitalGlobe said the aircraft carrier showed up on a cloud-filled picture snapped on Dec. 8 by its polar-orbiting QuickBird satellite from a height of 280 miles (450 kilometers). An analyst spotted the ship while checking the image on Tuesday, said Stephen Wood, the director of the company's analysis center.
"There is something that is always indispensable about having people involved," Wood told me. The ship was identified "using a combination of the satellite imagery plus open-source material on the Internet, and geography," he said, but "at the end of the day, it still comes down to a person."
Experts have been hoping for months to get a glimpse of the aircraft carrier at sea. The former Soviet Union started building the ship, originally known as the Varyag, but never finished it. After the Soviet breakup, the Varyag ended up in the hands of the Ukrainian government. The ship was auctioned off to the Chinese in 1998. Since then, the Varyag, which has reportedly been rechristened the Shi Lang, has been under refurbishment for sea service.
"This is a ship and a story that has had legs for many years," Wood said.
DigitalGlobe
Don't feel bad if you can't spot the aircraft carrier in this wide-field version of the satellite image from QuickBird. It's just above the cloud formation closest to the center of the picture, but a bit to the left.
DigitalGlobe said this picture was taken during the carrier's second sea trial, approximately 62 miles (100 kilometers) south-southeast of the port of Dalian. Wood said the picture indicates that the ship is "moving at a decent rate of speed, which would be expected in the middle of the ocean." The U.S. military could no doubt glean more information about the Shi Lang's status, from QuickBird's pictures as well as from classified, higher-resolution imagery.
advertisement
Uploaded with
Uploaded with
China says the Shi Lang will be used for research and training, and the project is thought to be part of the country's strategy to expand its presence as a naval power. The Chinese military is expected to build more copies of the ship in coming years. In fact, sources told Reuters in July that a second aircraft carrier was under construction.
"China's next moves have to be watched carefully, or there eventually could be a negative impact on maritime safety in Asia," Yoshihiko Yamada, a professor at Japan's Tokai University, told Reuters at the time.
QuickBird's view of the Shi Lang serves as today's offering from the Cosmic Log Space Advent Calendar, which features an image of Earth from space every day from now until Christmas. Here are the past offerings in the series:
Dear all,
I have noticed the ongoing debate about finding carrier at sea. I found this picture of Shilang from commercial satellite. Now, what does this picture tell us about finding carrier in the sea? Needle in the haystack? I still can't spot the satellite in the midst of the cloud of formation.
Please continue your discussion so that we can continue to learn.
They found it though . This should rebut once for all all those skeptic who has been saying it is impossible to find CBG in the open sea. Now if this lowly commercial satellite can find Carrier in open sea based on open source internet, Imagine what a highly sophisticated military satellite can do
This satellite image provided by the the DigitalGlobe Analysis Center shows the Chinese aircraft carrier Shi Lang (Varyag) sailing in the Yellow Sea. The picture was acquired Dec. 8 by DigitalGlobe's QuickBird satellite.
Alan Boyle writes
A commercial satellite operator says it has captured a rare image of China's first aircraft carrier as it sailed through the Yellow Sea, after going through an exercise that's the 21st-century equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack.
DigitalGlobe said the aircraft carrier showed up on a cloud-filled picture snapped on Dec. 8 by its polar-orbiting QuickBird satellite from a height of 280 miles (450 kilometers). An analyst spotted the ship while checking the image on Tuesday, said Stephen Wood, the director of the company's analysis center.
"There is something that is always indispensable about having people involved," Wood told me. The ship was identified "using a combination of the satellite imagery plus open-source material on the Internet, and geography," he said, but "at the end of the day, it still comes down to a person."
Experts have been hoping for months to get a glimpse of the aircraft carrier at sea. The former Soviet Union started building the ship, originally known as the Varyag, but never finished it. After the Soviet breakup, the Varyag ended up in the hands of the Ukrainian government. The ship was auctioned off to the Chinese in 1998. Since then, the Varyag, which has reportedly been rechristened the Shi Lang, has been under refurbishment for sea service.
"This is a ship and a story that has had legs for many years," Wood said.
DigitalGlobe
Don't feel bad if you can't spot the aircraft carrier in this wide-field version of the satellite image from QuickBird. It's just above the cloud formation closest to the center of the picture, but a bit to the left.
DigitalGlobe said this picture was taken during the carrier's second sea trial, approximately 62 miles (100 kilometers) south-southeast of the port of Dalian. Wood said the picture indicates that the ship is "moving at a decent rate of speed, which would be expected in the middle of the ocean." The U.S. military could no doubt glean more information about the Shi Lang's status, from QuickBird's pictures as well as from classified, higher-resolution imagery.
advertisement
Uploaded with
Uploaded with
China says the Shi Lang will be used for research and training, and the project is thought to be part of the country's strategy to expand its presence as a naval power. The Chinese military is expected to build more copies of the ship in coming years. In fact, sources told Reuters in July that a second aircraft carrier was under construction.
"China's next moves have to be watched carefully, or there eventually could be a negative impact on maritime safety in Asia," Yoshihiko Yamada, a professor at Japan's Tokai University, told Reuters at the time.
QuickBird's view of the Shi Lang serves as today's offering from the Cosmic Log Space Advent Calendar, which features an image of Earth from space every day from now until Christmas. Here are the past offerings in the series:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
See my pics below, I highlighted it for you.
The pic was taken on Dec 8th. Today is Dec. 14th. So it took six days to figure out what they had.
Whether a defense system will find it that quickly or not is pure speculation. Unless you can find it in minutes, verify it and then request targeting within a short time, the carrier will no longer be where you saw it. So a leap from what this company did to a functional system in wartime is still a long one.
There has never been any doubt that in clear weather, when a carrier is not trying to hide itself, that a satellite is capable of seeing it. If the carrier had happened to be under one of the large cloud banks, then this particular visual sat would have missed it.
I still believe from the company and their wording on how they came to this pic, that there was some touch up work done on the end product. I do not believe the stern markings on the landing area are right or what the vessel left port painted as, and the aircraft parking spaces appear to be new as well and not what was painted on deck when the carrier left.
I have put together four pictures of what the sat images progressed through to get to what they have...and then added my own touch up at the end as number five:
And my final touch up with correct marking as seen when she left port:
balance said:
See my pics below, I highlighted it for you.
We do not know how they came to the info. From reading, it sounds like happen stance. We do not know how many pictures they had gone through before someone noticed this anomoly and checked it out.
The pic was taken on Dec 8th. Today is Dec. 14th. So it took six days to figure out what they had.
Whether a defense system will find it that quickly or not is pure speculation. Unless you can find it in minutes, verify it and then request targeting within a short time, the carrier will no longer be where you saw it. So a leap from what this company did to a functional system in wartime is still a long one.
There has never been any doubt that in clear weather, when a carrier is not trying to hide itself, that a satellite is capable of seeing it. If the carrier had happened to be under one of the large cloud banks, then this particular visual sat would have missed it.
I still believe from the company and their wording on how they came to this pic, that there was some touch up work done on the end product. I do not believe the stern markings on the landing area are right or what the vessel left port painted as, and the aircraft parking spaces appear to be new as well and not what was painted on deck when the carrier left.
I have put together four pictures of what the sat images progressed through to get to what they have...and then added my own touch up at the end as number five:
And my final touch up with correct marking as seen when she left port:
Engineer
Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Exactly. There's no test against maneuvering warhead, and no test against warhead with multiple decoys. In other words, non of the tests that took place was a full-scale test against an ASBM.
Claiming SM-3 hitting SCUD type ballistic missiles constitutes as proof that SM-3 can intercept ASBM warheads is no different than claiming that ASBM works because ballistic missile have good CEP against fixed ground targets. Yet, those who claim the former is valid argued that the latter cannot be valid. Talk about inconsistency.
Exactly. There's no test against maneuvering warhead, and no test against warhead with multiple decoys. In other words, non of the tests that took place was a full-scale test against an ASBM.
Claiming SM-3 hitting SCUD type ballistic missiles constitutes as proof that SM-3 can intercept ASBM warheads is no different than claiming that ASBM works because ballistic missile have good CEP against fixed ground targets. Yet, those who claim the former is valid argued that the latter cannot be valid. Talk about inconsistency.