Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Would China really want to risk the destruction of one of their major population centers by attacking an American aircraft carrier sailing on the high seas and not violating Chinese territorial waters? Somehow I do not think so. The American population would demand retaliation.

Click to expand...

Let's keep strawmans out of this, clearly we aren't talking about peacetime but a time of crisis or conflict instead.
I expect much warning from the chinese side to the americans about the consequences of intervening in such a regional conflict so they won't exactly be uninformed on the situation...

And that's interesting, suggesting the americans would retaliate with an attack against major population centres if they lost a carrier... I'm quite sure there's a law or something against that, though you can argue all chinese cities are "dual use" (trololol >_> )

Exactly! And since China is a new comer to this game they would be at a disadvantage to this type of warfare.

Click to expand...

Whether they'd be at a "disadvantage" is debatable seeing as we can argue this is a new game for everyone...

Yes there are many systems/sensors that DF-21D can use but not all of them needs to be operational for it to work. I.e: You can argue the "more system used for the DF21", the greater the redundancy in case of losing one >_>

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

=Bltizo;174599]Let's keep strawmans out of this, clearly we aren't talking about peacetime but a time of crisis or conflict instead.
I expect much warning from the chinese side to the americans about the consequences of intervening in such a regional conflict so they won't exactly be uninformed on the situation...

Click to expand...

An American carrier sailing near a crisis area on the high seas without violating Chinese territorial waters would be within the right of free navigation on the high seas. Attacking Chinese territory is one thing and would be grounds for China to use whatever means to defend itself.

But a preemptive strike on an American carrier that results in heavy losses of American lives and without the American navy violating Chinese waters would be something else again

And that's interesting, suggesting the americans would retaliate with an attack against major population centres if they lost a carrier... I'm quite sure there's a law or something against that, though you can argue all chinese cities are "dual use" (trololol >_> )

Click to expand...

This response has been discussed in open literature so it is not just speculation

Whether they'd be at a "disadvantage" is debatable seeing as we can argue this is a new game for everyone...

Yes there are many systems/sensors that DF-21D can use but not all of them needs to be operational for it to work. I.e: You can argue the "more system used for the DF21", the greater the redundancy in case of losing one >_>

Click to expand...

The longer the kill chain for a weapon to be effective the more that kill chain is vulnerable to disruption.

And here is something else to consider: DF-21's rising up from their launch sites look just like ICBMs being launched for attacks towards the continental United States to early warning space based systems. If in the event of a crisis, the United States might adopt a launch on warning response. A DF-21 attack could trigger an all out nuclear war.

Something to consider.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

An American carrier sailing near a crisis area on the high seas without violating Chinese territorial waters would be within the right of free navigation on the high seas. Attacking Chinese territory is one thing and would be grounds for China to use whatever means to defend itself.

But a preemptive strike on an American carrier that results in heavy losses of American lives and without the American navy violating Chinese waters would be something else again

Click to expand...

It depends, if China clearly states "if you move your ships within X distance of this area" (i.e. a blockade around a certain island of the sort) and clearly states such an action would be taken as aggression, then the ball is in the aircraft carrier's court.
IF it choose to venture into the clearly stated no go zone knowing the warning, then an moves taken against it can hardly be called a pre emptive strike.

Clearly China won't be stupid enough to attack an american vessel, or any country's vessel without having clearly stated what it perceives to be aggressive behaviour.

The longer the kill chain for a weapon to be effective the more that kill chain is vulnerable to disruption.

Click to expand...

Yes I know, but saying "DF-21D needs many sensors to be effective and is therefore very vulnerable" is a redundant statement because you're not comparing it to a similar system.
the chinese are embarking on a road of integrating their sensors together into one system and from the sound of things all of these sensor assets are meant to be capable of supporting the DF-21D. Satellites, UAVs, MPAs, submarines, ships, sonar, OTH, even fishing boats. The kill chain isn't Satellites --> UAV --> MPA --> submarine --> sonar --> ships --> fishing boat --> OTH radars --> --> data relay --> DF-21D launch, the sensors are not stacked vertically like that. It'll be Satellites and/or UAVs and/or MPAs and/or submarines and/or sonar and/or navy ship ad/or fishing boats and/or OTH radars --> data relay --> DF-21D launch, so destruction of one sensor asset or even a whole type of sensors will keep the system slightly degraded but operable. The transmission of data can be a potential weakness to exploit but that's how the system works.
To rephrase a sentence in my last post, having multiple types of sensors acting in conjunction with each other will provide redundancy in case one fails.

And here is something else to consider: DF-21's rising up from their launch sites look just like ICBMs being launched for attacks towards the continental United States to early warning space based systems. If in the event of a crisis, the United States might adopt a launch on warning response. A DF-21 attack could trigger an all out nuclear war.

Something to consider.

Click to expand...

That's been discussed before and I'm sure once the weapon is fully out in the open some kind of dialogue would be constructed to say "hey we're only attacking your ships with conventional warheads, not nuking your cities". Besides the US has played around with the idea of putting conventional warheads onto ICBMs as part of their prompt global strike system so the pendulum swings both ways.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

the ariticle also mention vulnerability of the chain system. its not just SM3 china has to worry about. all the system used in DF21 can be destroy, jammed etc, which make the weapon much less efficient. also if china can't detect, Identify, and track carrier in real time under US combat condition then its worthless.

the more system used for DF21, the more chance a part of system chain will be jammed or destroyed.

on top of that no one know if the missile really been tested against a moving ship involve all the necessary system. in order to be operational, any system has to be tested in an environmnet it was design for.

Click to expand...

WE been thru this before. A commercial satellite operator with only 4 optical satellites can find Ex Varyag with no problem using computer name Eyeball mark1. Now last I heard China has 17(SAR, Optolectronic) Yaogan series and Shijian series Plus god know how many more total 70 satellites with the best integrated system money can buy. so I don't see detection is any problem here. Dunn and Haagt come with the conclusion that China can track a target 5 hr continuously over any spot in western Pacific

What is sauce for the geese is sauce for the gander. China can equally degrade or render useless the US sensor by launching preemptive EMP attack if hostility is started after repeated warning

Read this monograph from 2007 by RAND
Entering the Dragon's Lair
Chinese Antiaccess Strategies and Their Implications for the United States

by
Roger Cliff,
Mark Burles,
Michael S. Chase,
Derek Eaton,
Kevin L. Pollpeter




EMP Attacks
A number of Chinese writers suggest utilizing EMP weapons to disrupt
the U.S. C4ISR system. One Chinese source (Dai, 1999, p. 272)
describes EMP attacks as including
nuclear EMP attacks and nonnuclear EMP attacks. Nuclear and
thermonuclear explosions create a large EMP effect that can cause
electronic equipment to be overloaded and ruined. This type of
large nuclear EMP can cause electronic systems within hundreds
to over a thousand kilometers to be destroyed. The effective power
of a nonnuclear EMP burst is several million times greater than
those of current jammers (reaching 10,000 MW) and can burn
unprotected and highly sensitive and even complete electronic
equipment (systems) [sic], as well as destroy the normal operation
of computer systems. [authors’ translation]
Another source (Nie, 1999, p. 185) speaks of using EMP weapons
as part of an attack on an aircraft carrier strike group:
We can use the Second Artillery or the Air Force to deliver an
EMP bomb to the enemy’s large naval force to destroy the enemy’s
warning and detection systems, operational command sysPotential
Implications for U.S. Theater Access 57
tems, and other electronic information systems. [authors’ translation]
2
Attacks on Satellites
Space warfare, a subset of information warfare, is also receiving an
increasing amount of attention from Chinese military writers. The
U.S. military’s use of space for strategic reconnaissance, communications,
navigation and positioning, and early warning have highlighted
the importance of space as a force multiplier. In part because of these
observations, Chinese writers have predicted that space power will
develop as airpower has developed, from a reconnaissance force into a
strategic bombing force. Because of this, space is thought to be the next
“strategic vantage point” from which the control of the air, land, and
sea will be determined. According to this logic, the importance of seizing

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Would China really want to risk the destruction of one of their major population centers by attacking an American aircraft carrier sailing on the high seas and not violating Chinese territorial waters? Somehow I do not think so. The American population would demand retaliation.

Click to expand...

it is more than a little disconcerting to think that the US would respond to a Chinese conventional attack on a US military asset by nuking a Chinese civilian population centre.

in any case if it does happen one might expect the Chinese to respond in kind, so the risk taken is mutual...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

PikeCowboy said:

it is more than a little disconcerting to think that the US would respond to a Chinese conventional attack on a US military asset by nuking a Chinese civilian population centre.

in any case if it does happen one might expect the Chinese to respond in kind, so the risk taken is mutual...

Click to expand...

One response to 9/11 considered was to launch a nuclear missile at Mecca so it is not outside the range of possibilities to think that the loss of an American carrier would go unpunished.

The thing that China has to take into account would be the American response to losing an American carrier and 4000 Americans to Chinese action? As a decision maker what would you do? Any discussions?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

The thing that China has to take into account would be the American response to losing an American carrier and 4000 Americans to Chinese action? As a decision maker what would you do? Any discussions?

Click to expand...

you have to specify the condition under which the carrier has been sink

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Hendrik_2000 said:

WE been thru this before. A commercial satellite operator with only 4 optical satellites can find Ex Varyag with no problem using computer name Eyeball mark1. Now last I heard China has 17(SAR, Optolectronic) Yaogan series and Shijian series Plus god know how many more total 70 satellites with the best integrated system money can buy. so I don't see detection is any problem here. Dunn and Haagt come with the conclusion that China can track a target 5 hr continuously over any spot in western Pacific

Click to expand...

However this finding of the Varyag was purely by accident and the information of the discovery was a couple of days old, and too late to be of any use in a rapidly developing situation that would be needed for the DF-21 kill chain to be an effective weapon system to engage a carrier on the move at high speed.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------

PikeCowboy said:

it is more than a little disconcerting to think that the US would respond to a Chinese conventional attack on a US military asset by nuking a Chinese civilian population centre.

in any case if it does happen one might expect the Chinese to respond in kind, so the risk taken is mutual...

Click to expand...

Well consider this. The Russians almost launched a nuclear war over detection of a sounding rocket coming their way. Imagine a salvo of DF-21s in a time of crisis in Asia, coming over the horizon toward an American carrier battlegroup and the target being unknown from the American point of view.

Would the American decision makers launch on warning? Think about it.

Here is the situation as it happened in 1995

".......The Norwegian rocket incident (or Black Brant scare) refers to a few minutes of post-Cold War nuclear tension that took place on January 25, 1995, more than four years after the end of the Cold War. The incident started when a team of Norwegian and American scientists launched a Black Brant XII four-stage sounding rocket from the Andøya Rocket Range off the northwest coast of Norway. The rocket, which carried equipment to study the aurora borealis over Svalbard, flew on a high northbound trajectory, which included an air corridor that stretches from the North Dakota Minuteman-III silos all the way to Moscow, eventually reaching an altitude of 1,453 kilometers (903 mi). Nuclear forces in Russia were put on alert, and the nuclear-command suitcase was brought to President Boris Yeltsin, who then had to decide whether to launch a nuclear barrage against the United States. Notably, there is still no clear and direct confirmation that the trajectory of the rocket was taken by mistake, caused by computer or other technical failure. One version of events persists: Using the allies' facilities, the US were testing the Russian early time detection systems and response policies, since the status of the Russian defensive-offensive capacities was considered to be at least questionable after the collapse of the USSR......."



---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------

escobar said:

you have to specify the condition under which the carrier has been sink

Click to expand...

Whatever the conditions 4000 Americans would be dead and some American carrier would be at the bottom of the sea. There is no way that the United States could let that go unanswered. If you were in their shoes what would you do?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

If American lives are so valuable why did a US president attack Afghanistan and Iraq?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

^ lets say the Chinese sank an American carrier with all hands lost BUT was recognized as a legitimate act of war (that is, the US had ample warning and clear no go zones set out by the Chinese but still ventured in)

In terms of strategy it's no more than losing a carrier but the American public may be inflamed and demand blood as they're not quite "used" to "losing". So a military response would be to continue to fight the conflict best you can. A response fueled by anger and spite may well lead to an attack on a major Chinese economic or population centre, which nuclear or not would be considered an atrocity.
Somehow I don't think US strategists would want to have such an act stain their history like that... Though for the US it would be a drop in the ocean I suppose...

As for the possibility of misinterpreting DF-21Ds for nukes--- well you'd expect them to uphold their no first use policy and once the AShBM is OT in the open expect some rules of engagement/strategic dialogue to be issued. Out of the challenges for DF-21D, this is one of the smaller, easier to manage ones.