Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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.

Click to expand...

There is no proof whatsoever that the finding of Varyag is by accident other than spin by journalist. The company know the general area where the varyag is. They have intent to find and publicize it in order to attract attention and advertised their services. This is commercial satellite company that sold photos to the public. They are not Chinese integrated defense.

China has so many satellites. As it bypass any Carrier it can easily transmit the location of the target to the subsequent satellite and continue the tracking . That was not possible with Rorsat as the technology is not developed then. Because they don't have relay satellite, SAR satellite, Ocean sateliite, Data Fusion, High speed computer, Advanced tracking and detection system, secure broadband data link

Plus you also have radio telemetry tracking satellite. As Carrier continuously give radio magnetic wave to guide the CAP fighter jet . The range of satellite that they have now in place is tremendous

China too now have HALE UAV with a range of 2000 km . I don't see why they cannot divide the west pacific into square block and have the UAV circle within it

So you are talking different animals here than commercial satellite operator

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

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?

Click to expand...

to nuke Mecca ? any link or reference ? ... that's very interesting thought. I am sure Obama wouldn't do that as he was a Muslim boy back in Jakarta

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

What do you think the chance of the USA to declare that whoever launch long range Ballistic Missile (let's say over 1,000 km) would be considered as an act of war against the USA. I believe that the USA would do when they are convinced this DF-21D is formidable and reliable.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

As I mentioned before, there will be NO winners in any future war as there is every possibility of NUKEs being used. I belive we should let politicians & diplomats on all sides deal with outstanding issues/problems & NOT let the Military Hawks dominate & deal with them. When there is belligerancy shown in words & deeds, miscalculations could occur. No point of threats, let the Asia-Pacific Region progress economically in fair trade & business, as the alternative would be Disasterous. Those who have served in past conventional war or conflicts know this better.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

delft said:

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

Click to expand...

In the case of Afghanistan they were harboring bin Laden and AQ. In the case of Iraq, Saddam just wouldn't listen to reason. Remember: Saddam had invaded Kuwait and threatened the world's supply of oil. And in the second case Saddam refused to submit to UN inspections to verify he had disposed of his WMDs. And in both cases diplomatic means were tried first but both parties refused to comply. Force was needed to enforce the demands. Just check the history for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

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.

Click to expand...

Please follow this link to see how close the world came to nuclear war in 1995 due to the misinterpretation of a research rocket launch



---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------

Hendrik_2000 said:

There is no proof whatsoever that the finding of Varyag is by accident other than spin by journalist. The company know the general area where the varyag is. They have intent to find and publicize it in order to attract attention and advertised their services. This is commercial satellite company that sold photos to the public. They are not Chinese integrated defense.

Click to expand...

Has the company who discovered the Varyag ever declared they were using their satellite to find the carrier? If you have a link that supports that conclusion please post it in your response.

China has so many satellites. As it bypass any Carrier it can easily transmit the location of the target to the subsequent satellite and continue the tracking . That was not possible with Rorsat as the technology is not developed then. Because they don't have relay satellite, SAR satellite, Ocean sateliite, Data Fusion, High speed computer, Advanced tracking and detection system, secure broadband data link

Click to expand...

I think you do not understand what the meaning of the word ROSAT means. Here is the correct meaning. Notice that it is a radar satellite used to provide targeting information against the American carriers. Since radar is radar, the Russian radar satellites were no different than the ones used today by the Chinese

Plus you also have radio telemetry tracking satellite. As Carrier continuously give radio magnetic wave to guide the CAP fighter jet . The range of satellite that they have now in place is tremendous

Click to expand...

The carrier does not need to give continuous radio signals to aircraft. Here is a reference on the carrier using EMCON. In fact the carrier is perfectly capable of carrying out flight operations just using the E-2 AWACS as the flight controller without broadcasting any signals at all.

China too now have HALE UAV with a range of 2000 km . I don't see why they cannot divide the west pacific into square block and have the UAV circle within it

Click to expand...

The UAV will have to let the PLAN know where it is. When that happens they will have to transmit. When that happens they will get that signal jammed.

Also a weapon to shoot down snooping UAVs has been unveiled. See the video here



In other words dealing with a carrier is not as easy as you might think

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Please follow this link to see how close the world came to nuclear war in 1995 due to the misinterpretation of a research rocket launch

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

What's your point? That if the DF-21D or any other ballistic missile is used and has a similar trajectory to an ICBM it will prompt an American nuclear response? I would agree with you if it was an attack out of the blue without dialogue and the chinese clear statement of no first use policy beforehand.

First there's the question of whether an IRBM launch can be misinterpreted for ICBM. Then there's the question of what kind of trajectory DF-21D, the world's first AShBM, has (rumours and the like states it uses a lower altitude along with other bits and pieces). But I'll give you the benefit of doubt, let's say the initial phase of DF-21D is similar to an ICBM. But if such a weapon is launched it will not be out of the blue, the opfor will have had ample warning before hand that their carriers will come under attack if they venture X distance within island Y, and that such attacks will include the use of AShBM. Once DF-21D becomes "public knowledge" I expect there to be some level of dialogue to clarify the use of DF-21D vs ICBMs.
Assuming all that, the threat of misinterpretation and nuclear retaliation is much reduced.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

advill said:

As I mentioned before, there will be NO winners in any future war as there is every possibility of NUKEs being used. I belive we should let politicians & diplomats on all sides deal with outstanding issues/problems & NOT let the Military Hawks dominate & deal with them. When there is belligerancy shown in words & deeds, miscalculations could occur. No point of threats, let the Asia-Pacific Region progress economically in fair trade & business, as the alternative would be Disasterous. Those who have served in past conventional war or conflicts know this better.

Click to expand...

There is wisdom in your words

---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------

What's your point? That if the DF-21D or any other ballistic missile is used and has a similar trajectory to an ICBM it will prompt an American nuclear response? I would agree with you if it was an attack out of the blue without dialogue and the chinese clear statement of no first use policy beforehand.

Click to expand...

In time of crisis a salvo of missiles coming your way will provoke a response. A BAD response. And 'no-first-use" is just words that go out the window during a crisis. Would you risk your countries population or military capabilities on somebody saying they will not use nuclear weapons first and you see these missiles coming your way?

First there's the question of whether an IRBM launch can be misinterpreted for ICBM. Then there's the question of what kind of trajectory DF-21D, the world's first AShBM, has (rumours and the like states it uses a lower altitude along with other bits and pieces). But I'll give you the benefit of doubt, let's say the initial phase of DF-21D is similar to an ICBM. But if such a weapon is launched it will not be out of the blue, the opfor will have had ample warning before hand that their carriers will come under attack if they venture X distance within island Y, and that such attacks will include the use of AShBM. Once DF-21D becomes "public knowledge" I expect there to be some level of dialogue to clarify the use of DF-21D vs ICBMs.
Assuming all that, the threat of misinterpretation and nuclear retaliation is much reduced.

Click to expand...

Really? The Russians sure had their finger on the trigger and that was because one research rocket came from a direction they were not expecting. Imagine what tension a crisis would bring.

And as I asked before what response would China expect if they did succeed in sinking a carrier and causing a great loss of life? Any ideas?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Has the company who discovered the Varyag ever declared they were using their satellite to find the carrier? If you have a link that supports that conclusion please post it in your response.



I think you do not understand what the meaning of the word ROSAT means. Here is the correct meaning. Notice that it is a radar satellite used to provide targeting information against the American carriers. Since radar is radar, the Russian radar satellites were no different than the ones used today by the Chinese

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The carrier does not need to give continuous radio signals to aircraft. Here is a reference on the carrier using EMCON. In fact the carrier is perfectly capable of carrying out flight operations just using the E-2 AWACS as the flight controller without broadcasting any signals at all.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The UAV will have to let the PLAN know where it is. When that happens they will have to transmit. When that happens they will get that signal jammed.

Click to expand...

The UAV will need to use satellites for navigation as well, are you able to jam that too? Why not just jam it so UAV controllers have no link to the plane in the first place?
I suppose the question comes down to the distance the UAV can detect the carrier versus how easily/what distance the CVBG needs to be from the UAV to jam its transmissions of data... but controllers should see something is wrong when their flow of information or video suddenly bugs out.

Also a weapon to shoot down snooping UAVs has been unveiled. See the video here

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A SAM is just as capable of shooting down a UAV as a laser, the question isn't how you shoot it but rather that you are able to.

And think about it, if a UAV in a region it is patrolling is lost under suspicious circumstances wouldn't you direct additional assets in that particular area and thus making the box the AShBM side has to search smaller?

In other words dealing with a carrier is not as easy as you might think

Click to expand...

Sure. But AShBM + the gathering and development of mass sensor assets we've been hearing these past years should also be a valid area denial weapon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Hendrik_2000 said:

Plus you also have radio telemetry tracking satellite. As Carrier continuously give radio magnetic wave to guide the CAP fighter jet . The range of satellite that they have now in place is tremendous

Click to expand...

Here is some more on EMCON. It makes even a carrier hard to find

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

In time of crisis a salvo of missiles coming your way will provoke a response. A BAD response. And 'no-first-use" is just words that go out the window during a crisis. Would you risk your countries population or military capabilities on somebody saying they will not use nuclear weapons first and you see these missiles coming your way?

Really? The Russians sure had their finger on the trigger and that was because one research rocket came from a direction they were not expecting. Imagine what tension a crisis would bring.

Click to expand...

Isn't that a big part of the question -- expecting and not expecting something? When a CVBG is finally moved into the battlezone in a crisis you can expect the chinese will have warned their american counterparts many times about intervening and the weapons they would use.
When you see a salvo of missiles boosting from the chinese coast towards the westpac do you think they're ICBMs with nukes or AShBMs heading for the CVBG you just moved into the area you've been warned over and over not to venture into?

Hell if all that isn't enough we can have the Chinese president call the POSUS to reiterate his stance of not using nukes, but willing to use AShBMs. So when the missiles are launched, the POSUS can make an informed decision as to whether they're nukes or not.

But it seems agreeing to disagree on this topic is in order.

And as I asked before what response would China expect if they did succeed in sinking a carrier and causing a great loss of life? Any ideas?

Click to expand...

See my post 1148.
The problem is aircraft carriers are quite valuable but also carry massive amounts of national prestige. The US public isn't "used" to "losing". Would the public cry out for blood from the butthurt of losing a carrier? By this point if the conflict continues the military's response/retaliation to losing a carrier technically should be no different to losing a destroyer -- that is, just keep fighting the conflict best you can -- but would they choose to attack mass population centres out of spite, fully knowing they were putting their carriers into an area where they could be sunk in the first place, with much pre warning from the AShBM side?

... Tbh after losing a carrier in the inital phases (with pre warning, clearly defined no go one which said carrier was sent into) like that planners should seriously reassess whether they want to intervene at all and whether the military and the public can stomach potential losses. That would be the wise response.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

antiterror13 said:

to nuke Mecca ? any link or reference ? ... that's very interesting thought. I am sure Obama wouldn't do that as he was a Muslim boy back in Jakarta

Click to expand...

Here is your reference. If you need more just say so





Video on You-Tube



---------- Post added at 11:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 PM ----------

Bltizo said:

Isn't that a big part of the question -- expecting and not expecting something? When a CVBG is finally moved into the battlezone in a crisis you can expect the chinese will have warned their american counterparts many times about intervening and the weapons they would use.
When you see a salvo of missiles boosting from the chinese coast towards the westpac do you think they're ICBMs with nukes or AShBMs heading for the CVBG you just moved into the area you've been warned over and over not to venture into?

Hell if all that isn't enough we can have the Chinese president call the POSUS to reiterate his stance of not using nukes, but willing to use AShBMs. So when the missiles are launched, the POSUS can make an informed decision as to whether they're nukes or not.

But it seems agreeing to disagree on this topic is in order.

Click to expand...

Well moving on let discuss what response you would expect after sinking an American carrier with large loss of life. Would you expect America to turn the other cheek and flee with its tail between its legs? Regardless of how many warnings you claim you gave, if the attack happened in international waters what response would you be looking for? Would it be an eye-for -an-eye?

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------

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...

Click to expand...

Well I guess that is your answer. Thanks