Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

We could keep doing this for a very long time and keep trying to counter each other's detailed suggestions and strategies. But I feel that that would be a bit of a waste of effort and time as well as being off topic. So how about we just agree to disagree on how effective we think the USN will be at trying to create a safe enough environment to operate their carriers in?

What I think we can both agree on is that the US will certainly try, and may well succeed in taking out key ASBM elements if war breaks out, but it won't be easy, or quick.
Agreed in so long that the counter agreement is that we also disagree on how successful the PLAN will be at defending it. That's why I asked the rhetorical question in my last post, "Willthey be successful," and then answered it myself with, "Who knows."

No one ever said it would be quick or easy...on either side. The ROC would not be a pushover, the US would most probably intervene, and the question on which way it goes will take quite some time to become apparent.

Again, that's why it is critical, that the process that is going forward now, where this is peace and both sides are slowly moving towards each other continues and is what I hope prevails.
 

NikeX

Banned Idiot
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

And that is just self-serving circular logic, flawed logic at that.

The USN might have more operational experience sailing around and bombarding enemy land targets, but when was the last time they actually faced an enemy capable of shooting back on the open seas? So much for school of hard knocks.

The Russian navy was probably the closet enemy that would fit the bill in the definition you mentioned. With a modern undersea fleet and worldwide ocean surveillance system that included satellites they were a formidable opponent to be reckoned with. Yet the way the mighty Russian fleet has ended up, rusting and wasting away at dock side tells the story of who won and who lost

With the greatest respect to USN personnel, but in terms of fighting a modern, well-equipped, well-trained and well-lead enemy navy, they have about as much operational experience as the PLAN.

I beg to differ with you on that. The opposition shown in dealing with the threat posed by a world wide Russian fleet proves where the experience was developed

The USN does have vastly more experiece in fleet maneuvers, damage control, flight ops etc, and that does count for a great deal, but that is hardly something the PLAN cannot learn by themselves from normal operations and joint exercises.

To argue that the PLAN cannot and will not gain operational experience is plainly ridiculous.

Let us talk again when this operational experience becomes reality rather than theory. For the record understand I am not saying that the PLAN cannot become an experienced blue water navy much like the Russian navy was at its height.

My question to you and anyone else is when do you think this will occur and in what time frame will it occur. Any ideas?
 

Duran

New Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

China is behind and will remain behind because they lack operational experience. All the nice shiny weapons in the world are useless without experienced personnel to man them. And short of a war China does not have that experience.

The American navy has gotten to the point it is today by going to the school of hard knocks.

China has no tradition of naval experience. And that means they lack tactical experience. Its just a fact of life.

It's true that China is behind US in technology and modern battle experiences, especially for navy; but Chinese people is not that behind in strategic thinking. Don't forget Chinese is one of the oldest peoples in the world, in its history there were many talented military strategists. If Chinese fleet is to combat with US fleet in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, nobody will bet china will have any chance of winning a battle confronting US CVBGs, with ASBM or any fan boys' advanced equipment. But the situation is vice versa. Technology can't defy the physical truth that much resource is needed to move logistics and supplies across the Pacific Ocean. There is a Chinese old saying, 'An army from far away, can not last long and tedious battles (遠來之師, 不耐久戰),' not to mention the war which might last for decades. From military history as I know, the only exception and similar situation to the possible confrontation, if it is to be happened, is WWII pacific war, US against Japan. I hope international community won't encourage this kind of confrontation happen again.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason why I believe that missiles with advanced sensors are effective ways to counter CVBG is from an incident I read in a book 'The Age of The Unthinkable' by Joshua Cooper Ramo. In Falkland War, a British mathematician, James Moffat, used his algorithm to solve the problem of 'how to effectively bombing Stanley Airfield' to stop Argentina's supplies to its army in the island.

If BM's re-entry time of atmosphere is T0, and the impact of sea level is T1. Suppose T0 to T1 is 1 minute, then for a 100,000 metric tons carrier with 30 knots speed, the possible moving area of the carrier is less than 1 square kilometer. BM to hit a moving carrier will become how to synchronize enough missiles at T0, to increase possibility of hitting an area of 330*75 square meters within 1,000*1,000 square meters.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

My question to you and anyone else is when do you think this will occur and in what time frame will it occur. Any ideas?


Somewhere in the 21st century, there, satisfy? That is such a rhetorical question, did the US Navy needs a time frame to surpassed the British Navy during the 20th century?
 

NikeX

Banned Idiot
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Somewhere in the 21st century, there, satisfy? That is such a rhetorical question, did the US Navy needs a time frame to surpassed the British Navy during the 20th century?

Thank you. And for the record the British navy was never an opposing force, so there was never a competition to surpass them. In fact the cooperation between the British and American navies led to the development of the angled deck, the steam cat, and the mirrored landing system

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

If BM's re-entry time of atmosphere is T0, and the impact of sea level is T1. Suppose T0 to T1 is 1 minute, then for a 100,000 metric tons carrier with 30 knots speed, the possible moving area of the carrier is less than 1 square kilometer. BM to hit a moving carrier will become how to synchronize enough missiles at T0, to increase possibility of hitting an area of 330*75 square meters within 1,000*1,000 square meters.

To counter a modern super carrier, the ASBM will have to loft a much larger warhead than they use today. A near miss will not do it. The only hope for as ASBM to have a major effect would be to use a fuel-air explosive. This is something the PLAN is researching today
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Thank you. And for the record the British navy was never an opposing force, so there was never a competition to surpass them.

But it was the Germans that gave the British incentives to upkeep their Navies. The British may not be an opposing force, but they sure do would like to maintain their maritime status quo over Europe and their world wide colonies.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

To counter a modern super carrier, the ASBM will have to loft a much larger warhead than they use today. A near miss will not do it. The only hope for as ASBM to have a major effect would be to use a fuel-air explosive. This is something the PLAN is researching today

China has produced air fuel explosive since 1990 They even offer it for export
Type
Cluster bomb, multi-purpose.

Development
These fuel/air explosive bombs have been developed by the China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) for use by the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). In 1990 it was reported that two sizes of the bombs were being developed: a 250 kg bomb that carries two Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) bomblets, and a 500 kg bomb that carries three FAE bomblets. A model of the 250 kg version was on display at the 1991 Paris Air Show. In 1997 a single bomb version was advertised for export, with a weight of 310 kg and carrying three FAE bomblets. It is believed that development trials have been completed and the weapon has entered service with the PLAAF

Another thing TLAM will face one of the most formidable air defense in the world . Most strategic weapon are protected by multiple layer of defense from short range missile, HEAD 35 mm skyguard analogue all the way to bistatic radar and Bodyguard laser, smoke, chaff launcher . It is not easy to penetrate strategic weapon defense. Here is R Fisher article long time ago 2001 By now they should improve on those system or have a better system deployed

Bluffer has compile excellent Chinese air defense systems titled Fortress China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

NTEGRATED AIR DEFENSES

The PLA is now building up perhaps one of the most formidable air defense networks in the world. Especially since the Gulf War and Kosovo, the creation of an integrated air defense network has become a high PLAAF priority. One recent reports notes the PLA Air Force is building 68 new radar sites near Taiwan. [107] A robust air defense is viewed as a critical component for supporting offensive forces. [108] There is a heavy emphasis on defeating U.S. PGMs and stealth platforms. The last decade has also seen a heavy investment in range of new radar systems, to include counter-stealth radar. New SAMs from Russia are being integrated into PLAAF and Army air defense units while new indigenous SAMs are making their appearance. A likely hallmark of this investment is to integrate space, airborne and radar sensors to be able to defend the sensor network while directing missiles and guns. For the future, it is possible that the PLAAF will press to control China’s space defense and missile defense forces.

New radar. The PLA has been developing Over-the-Horizon (OTH) radar since 1967 but it is not clear that it has developed this technology for extensive use. Early efforts focused on ground-wave OTH with a range of 250km (150mi). Such radar would be most useful for tracking ships. In the 1980s the PLA revealed efforts to build sky-wave OTH, which bounces radar waves off of the upper atmosphere, and has the potential to detect targets out to 3,500km (2,100mi).

The PLA has developed many long-range surveillance and tactical radar. For long-range surveillance the PLA has developed the YLC-4, a 410km (246mi) range 2-D radar, meaning it can only find the height and range of a target. This radar is advertised as having a potential anti-stealth capability. The JY-14 is a 320km (192mi) range 3-D radar that is resistant to clutter and jamming. The YLC-2 is a more transportable 300km (180mi) range 3-D radar that employs a variety of electronic counter-counter measures (ECCM) to survive enemy jamming. The JY-11 is a new 180 km (108mi) range 3-D radar that is accurate enough to supplant weapon guidance radar, allowing them to turn off, thus decreasing their vulnerability to attack by anti-radar missiles. [109]

The PLA’s knowledge of phased array radar was likely increased when it acquired the Russian Almaz S-300PMU long-range anti-aircraft missile system in the early 1990s. The phased array 76N6 CLAM SHELL radar is able to detect targets out to 90km (54mi) and down to 500m altitude. It can track up to 180 targets. Its phased array configuration means that it can focus periodic “points” of radar energy on a target instead of bathing the sky in radar waves. This allows the radar to avoid triggering aircraft radar- warning devices that might result in anti-radar missile (ARM) attacks. [110] The PLA also has purchased the S-300PMU1, which employs the more powerful 96L6 3-D phased array radar that can track 100 targets simultaneously out to 300km (180mi).

The PLA is also developing new phased array radar that allow for electronic beam steering and allow the radar beam to be focused to achieve longer ranges. A new such phased array radar was revealed at the 2000 China International Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX). It is possible that this same phased array radar is also being developed for naval air defense.

The PLA Army is also introducing new radar systems. The YLC-6 is a 180km (108mi) range low-altitude surveillance radar that is said in tests to have detected a U.S. AH-64 APACHE attack helicopter out to 30km. The CLC-3 is a new mast-mounted radar that is useful to detect low-flying objects such as helicopters and cruise missiles. Also known as the AS901, this is a solid-state L-Band radar that can track up to 10 targets at 3,500m altitude, up to 25km, and out to 15km at 100m. [111] The CLC-2 is a new tactical air defense radar mounted on a tank chassis to provide cueing for the new PZG-95 self-propelled missile/gun anti-aircraft tank, which itself carries the short-range CLC-1 defense radar. A new Army phased array radar is the SLC-2, which can detect incoming artillery out to 50km (30mi) to direct counter-battery fire. Counter-stealth radar. To counter the growing U.S. reliance on radar-evading stealth in its platforms and weapons, the PLA is devoting considerable effort to develop counter-stealth radar to diminish this U.S. advantage. One area of particular PLA effort is in the area of metric-wave radar. The PLA uses several metric-wave radar. At the 1998 Zhuhai Air Show the Institute No. 23 of the China Aerospace Corporation marketed its J-231 radar. The radar is advertised as having “high capability of detecting anti-radiation missile, high anti-stealth capability.” [112] The PLA also operates other metric wave radar like the 2D YLC-14 and a larger 3D YLC-9. Many PLAN warships, including the newest LUHAI class use the Type 636 Metric-wave radar. Russia now markets several new and upgraded Metric-wave radar that incorporate solid-state electronics, countermeasures, automatic processing features and modern displays. Russians complain that the PRC has stolen their technology to upgrade Metric-wave radar. [113]

The PLA may also be exploiting a U.S. technology called “passive-coherent” detection reported to have been purchased from a U.S. company. This technology, developed by Lockheed-Martin, is able to detect disturbances in television broadcast signals caused by aircraft. When this data is combined with normal radar data, detection of stealth aircraft is possible. The PLA may also be exploring “Bi-static” radar, in which the transmitter and receiver are separated by some distance, to overcome stealth shaping. [114]

Obscurants, decoys. Smoke, chaff, lasers and decoys figure heavily in PLA defensive operations, especially to counter the U.S. advantage in laser and radar-guided precision-guided munitions (PGMs). To defend against PGMs the PLA uses a unique system called BODYGUARD. It is a wheeled chassis that contains a smoke and chaff launcher, very likely combined with a laser sensor and dazzler system. [115] When a threat is near BODYGUARD automatically fires off smoke and chaff, and its laser, to confuse the aim of PGMs. The PLA also uses a range of decoys. Full-scale representations could include missiles, ships, aircraft, tanks, command vehicles and other vehicles. [116] Replicas are said to include full-scale representations of a tank-type first seen in the 1999 military parade, to include simulating the tank’s radar and infrared profile. [117] The PLA has also used radar reflectors in exercises. These can be inflatable structures with metallic sides that reflect and obscure radar returns


Bistatic radar
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Uploaded with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Bodyguard anti PGM
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Uploaded with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Uploaded with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SPAA_35mm Skyguardsky

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Uploaded with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


HQ-16 Medium range Anti Stand off weapon
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Uploaded with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

The Russian navy was probably the closet enemy that would fit the bill in the definition you mentioned. With a modern undersea fleet and worldwide ocean surveillance system that included satellites they were a formidable opponent to be reckoned with. Yet the way the mighty Russian fleet has ended up, rusting and wasting away at dock side tells the story of who won and who lost

It is the lack of money that broke the Russian Navy and all Russia military industrial base.
Frankly compare today china to old URSS is a very bad idea.

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

It's true that China is behind US in technology and modern battle experiences, especially for navy; but Chinese people is not that behind in strategic thinking.

The US is amazing and incredible in Tactical Military Expertise and nobody approach them but china is very good in strategic thinking.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

To counter a modern super carrier, the ASBM will have to loft a much larger warhead than they use today. A near miss will not do it. The only hope for as ASBM to have a major effect would be to use a fuel-air explosive. This is something the PLAN is researching today

Fuel air explosive? Honestly a submunition warhead airburst with hundreds of tiny bomblets will do well enough to put the surface of a carrier out of operation for a few days, probably longer and that's assuming it doesn't have a CEP small enough to actually hit the carrier.
The deck of a carrier is full of unarmoured aircraft and personnel. Look back to the fires of previous carriers to see what might happen from a submunition warhead (each submunition travelling at some mach 10 from the ballistic missile's terminal velocity). Even if they received warning of the DF-21D being fired and managed to stow fighters and personnel below deck, bomblets will do great damage to the catapult and flight deck. It won't sink or even cripple the carrier, but put it out of commission for a good while.

Then let's assume DF-21D has a necessary CEP to achieve a direct hit with a single fused HE, armour piercing warhead. DF-21C is said to have a payload of 2 tonnes. A penetrating warhead going at mach 10 with a 2000 kg warhead fused to explode as it penetrates the middle of the hull... Such a warhead could cripple or sink a carrier.

In the USS enterprise fire of 1969 500 and 1000 lb bombs were detonated by a zuni rocket which misfired. Some of the holes caused by the bombs went two decks down. Now think a 2000 kg warhead detonating in the heart of the carrier, beneath decks, having blown through the carrier's deck. Scary thought I think.

If the idea of an AShBM sinking a carrier is inconceivable (assuming it's aim was true), remember that dive bombers of WWII worked on the same principle of dropping high speed bombs from the up down and were very successful to put it leniently. Now think the same thing, only with the bomb going at mach ten and the warhead much heavier and potent than what a douglas dauntless can carry. A single hit, if it hit true, would probably cripple said carrier if not eventually sink it.
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

To counter a modern super carrier, the ASBM will have to loft a much larger warhead than they use today.
Do you know the warhead of the ASBM??:confused:

---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------

A penetrating warhead going at mach 10 with a 2000 kg warhead fused to explode as it penetrates the middle of the hull... Such a warhead could cripple or sink a carrier.

It will produce lot of damage but i don't think it could sink a 100k carrier.
Sink big ship is not easy.
 
Top