Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

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?

Click to expand...

Seeing how most Americans are sick and tired of the current wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't think they would protest in large numbers to go into conflict against a bigger and powerful foe like China? Look at 2008 when Russia responded in kind when Georgia attacked South Osetia, did NATO or US responded by attacking Russia? Nope and the same can be said with the South China Sea conflict.

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

NikeX said:

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

"...EMCON limits the amount of information that gets out, explained Brooks."

So, EMCON is not 100% and the report is old and based on data from 2002 or earlier.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Video on You-Tube

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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



So, it seems you are implying that it's justifiable for China to expand its military buildup especially nuclear warheads and ICBM to avoid the bombing in its populated cities by giving the same hit back.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the WWII history, during war time to assume CVBG's free movement in the high sea is a little bit unrealistic. In Mid-way battle, US used its CVBG to defeat Japanese CVBG; nowadays, China tries to use portfolio of missiles, especially land based strategic missiles, to target opponent's naval battle ships. Please let's focus on the topic and let go of unrelated issues, or the discussion will become some kind of tautology.

Click to expand...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Wrong on nearly all counts. Re Afghanistan: the US demanded the immediate extradition of Bin Laden and then went to war without further thought.
Re Iraq: Saddam endangered a part of the world's oil supply in the 1980's when he attacked Iran. But then he was the knight in shining armor protecting civilisation from the godless Iranians. When he occupied Kuwait he had no interest in anything but exporting Kuwait's and Iraq's oil.
When GWB attacked he was to weak to endanger the world's oil supply and he did submit to UN inspections. Remember how Tony Blair said that he might attack the UK in 45 minutes? If he could have done that he must have trained his armed forces and all Iraq's neighbors would have seen it and reported it to the world. Instead these allegations only came from usually unreliable sources. Force was needed in neither case and the result of the use of force will only gladden the harts of parties who feel threatened by the US. I was an interested observer at that time and since the Battle of Dien Ben Phu.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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?

Click to expand...

In a "limited war" each side will be prepared to lose thousand of men. The presidents will be aware of that.
if USN sink PLAN ships with thousand of chinese dead then PLA will counter and could sink a US carrier (or inversly).
but the problem will be if they can manage the war escalability??? That is why aven a "limited war" is dangerous and
highly improbable; because when it start i don't think anyone knows when and how it will finish.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Limited War could lead to an all out war. No winners as NUKEs would be used - China "will not lose face" if, God forbid, it comes to this stage. The comments in this thread are hypotheses that could become a reality IF & WHEN Hawkish Military or Politicians have a greater say in their respective countries. Let nations be sensible & learn from past history of Conflicts & WW I & II. No place for greed & bullies like Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan in WW II.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

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?

Click to expand...

Actually what I would do is dazzle that UAV so that its controllers would think they were having a system malfunction. This would be accomplished by using a laser directed at its optical sensors to overload its detectors and degrade its performance. That would be what is called a 'soft kill' and suddenly the UAV cannot see. Nice!

The Chinese have developed just such a weapon, the ZM-87 Portable Laser Disturber



---------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

Wrong on nearly all counts. Re Afghanistan: the US demanded the immediate extradition of Bin Laden and then went to war without further thought.

Click to expand...

Better check your history because America had pursued bin Laden for some period of time. And this was long before 9/11. In fact bin Laden had been connected with several attacks preceding 9/11. In fact it was bin Laden's connection with the fight in Somalia in 1993 to where he had come to the attention of the American government. Remember Blackhawk Down? It was when bin Laden and AQ were in the Sudan when they trained Aideed's men to use RPGs to attack low flying helicopters. This was something bin Laden had learned when he fought the Russians in Afghanistan.

Re Iraq: Saddam endangered a part of the world's oil supply in the 1980's when he attacked Iran. But then he was the knight in shining armor protecting civilisation from the godless Iranians. When he occupied Kuwait he had no interest in anything but exporting Kuwait's and Iraq's oil.

Click to expand...

Really? Well according to Saddam he saw himself as the next Saladin. If you do not know who Saladin was do the research for yourself

"......For the past few decades, Saddam has used these two figures in his propaganda. He has styled himself the successor to Saladin. Conveniently forgetting that Saladin was a Kurd, Saddam makes much of the fact that he and Saladin were born in the same little village of Tikrit...."



Saddam was a problem who had to be confronted one way or another. There are people like him who refuse to listen to reason and pop-up now and again. Such is the way of the world.

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

In a "limited war" each side will be prepared to lose thousand of men. The presidents will be aware of that.
if USN sink PLAN ships with thousand of chinese dead then PLA will counter and could sink a US carrier (or inversly).
but the problem will be if they can manage the war escalability??? That is why aven a "limited war" is dangerous and
highly improbable; because when it start i don't think anyone knows when and how it will finish.

Click to expand...

I would say that China and America will come to blows sometime before the 21th century has concluded.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Actually what I would do is dazzle that UAV so that its controllers would think they were having a system malfunction. This would be accomplished by using a laser directed at its optical sensors to overload its detectors and degrade its performance. That would be what is called a 'soft kill' and suddenly the UAV cannot see. Nice!

The Chinese have developed just such a weapon, the ZM-87 Portable Laser Disturber

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Well there are other sensors apart from optics which a UAV could be equipped with, anything from radar to ELINT type equipment which can still transmit valuable info back.

And you have to wonder what the effective range of a laser will be before optics or other UAV sensors detects it and take into account the UAV will likely be HALE and with a small RCS so you actualy need to detect the UAV in the first place which isn't a gievn.

And then what if the controllers decide to send another UAV to investigate on the off chance? Not worth attacking or dazzling the UAVs imo -- try to run your CVBG as silent, jam transmissions that UAVs could make if that's even possible... and depending on the phase the conflict is in, you could try all out attacking known sensor assets on the AShBM side (OTH radars, satellites etc. Subs, sonar arrays, UAVs, fishing boats and naval ships will be more difficult.). But that depends what stage of the conflict we're talking about.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Equation said:

Seeing how most Americans are sick and tired of the current wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't think they would protest in large numbers to go into conflict against a bigger and powerful foe like China? Look at 2008 when Russia responded in kind when Georgia attacked South Osetia, did NATO or US responded by attacking Russia? Nope and the same can be said with the South China Sea conflict.

Click to expand...

Depending on the provocation I doubt there would be much protest if America and China got into it. This would be especially true if the start of the conflict involved China causing a large loss of American lives like a carrier sinking.

Americans see the modern Chinese as being an ungrateful lot who has turned on America after America helped them slip out of Japan's grip in WW2

The Chinese see themselves as having the right to reclaim the glory that was theirs from the time they were a world power

These two views cannot be reconciled and will someday clash head on.

"...EMCON limits the amount of information that gets out, explained Brooks."

So, EMCON is not 100% and the report is old and based on data from 2002 or earlier.

Click to expand...

So by your estimation what percentage is EMCON effective in helping the carrier avoid detection?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I would say that China and America will come to blows sometime before the 21th century has concluded.

Click to expand...

there would be more and more incidents (like EP-3 in 2001) as china military grows but i don't think we would have a full scale war.
remember even in cold war the US and URSS manage to avoid war.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Depending on the provocation I doubt there would be much protest if America and China got into it. This would be especially true if the start of the conflict involved China causing a large loss of American lives like a carrier sinking.

Americans see the modern Chinese as being an ungrateful lot who has turned on America after America helped them slip out of Japan's grip in WW2

The Chinese see themselves as having the right to reclaim the glory that was theirs from the time they were a world power

These two views cannot be reconciled and will someday clash head on.






So by your estimation what percentage is EMCON effective in helping the carrier avoid detection?

Click to expand...

All of Americans or is it the neocons that only sees it that way about China being "ingrate" about about America "helping them slip out of Japan"? Uhhh....it was China who caused the most damaged to the Japanese army and they fought the Japanese for longer period of times than America. Japan uses most of her resources battling the Japanese, meanwhile keeping her busy for the Americans to retake the Pacific Islands. Your history is as flawed as your view, therefore I suggest you go back to reading the WHOLE parts instead of the one you like.


Even Americans try to see themselves as the last empire for man kind, but it looks like it's gonna be the fastest one to out of the number one ranking.

As for as EMCON goes I'll say it's NOT 100% effective.