Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Bltizo said:

Sigh see the post I made a few days ago. It's satellite and/or OTH and/or sonar and/or submarines and/or ships and/or UAV and/or mpa and/or fishing boats ---> transmission of data ---> DF-21D launch. Destroying one system or even a whole type of systems won't necessarily make the weapon unable to fire. There are weak points in the AShBM's kill chain; losing all the satellites will be worse than losing all the MPAs, but in terms of the sensors, they all can cover one another's roles to an extent so they offer redundancy. I'm pretty sure we've been through this.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately China has not demonstrated an integrated system able to sustain a kill chain able to attack a carrier battlegroup at sea. This talk of redundancy is just that talk

Large gaps are present in the Chinese kill chain.

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------

On another point the idea of a few sub-munitions taking out a carrier or even disrupting flight operations is just folly. Look at how the Enterprise was able to shrug off multiple detonations of 500 and 1000 pound bombs on her deck and continue to sail along her way

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Unfortunately China has not demonstrated an integrated system able to sustain a kill chain able to attack a carrier battlegroup at sea. This talk of redundancy is just that talk

Click to expand...

What is this kind of logic? does the lack of "public demonstration of an integrated system able to sustain an attack of a carrier by china" lead to an incapacity to do that?

On another point the idea of a few sub-munitions taking out a carrier or even disrupting flight operations is just folly. Look at how the Enterprise was able to shrug off multiple detonations of 500 and 1000 pound bombs on her deck and continue to sail along her way

Click to expand...

i agree with that and Nobody here said that a few sub-munition could take out a carrier. Big ships like carrier are very very dificult
to sink.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Unfortunately China has not demonstrated an integrated system able to sustain a kill chain able to attack a carrier battlegroup at sea. This talk of redundancy is just that talk

Large gaps are present in the Chinese kill chain.

Click to expand...

I thought we both knew we were talking about a system to be set up in the future, and this was all theory anyway? Lol the fact is all of the sensors, MPA, UAV, sonar, submarine, surface ships, satellites, OTH stations etc are not linked one to another. The destruction of an MPA or a satellite will weaken the overall system a little depending on what sensor asset it is, but will hardly make the entire network unfunctionable as you seem to imply.
Basically I'm saying the multitude of sensors is not an inbuilt weakness. If you wanted to pick at a weakness, I suggest data transmission nodes might be a better weak point -- shoot a satellite down and you could jeopradize the collection and relay of information from all sensor assets. But then it becomes a question of how many back up satellites, potential of microsats as redundancy etc.

On another point the idea of a few sub-munitions taking out a carrier or even disrupting flight operations is just folly. Look at how the Enterprise was able to shrug off multiple detonations of 500 and 1000 pound bombs on her deck and continue to sail along her way

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yes because a few 1000 lb bombs blown up on deck are a fair representation of a cluster bomb exploding above the flight deck at the AShBM's terminal velocity? >_>
Depending how big the cluster bomb's spread is, it should be able to cover a good fraction of the flight deck, let's say a third just for argument's sake. All the aircraft in that third will be ruined, the flight deck will be dotted with dozens of holes like that in the second picture. And that's if it's at the rear of the flight deck, if it was at the bow near the catapults then you can say good bye to operating from those. Though at the rear of the flight deck you'll have a hard time landing aircraft as well
Certainly the carrier will be able to keep on sailing, I never said submunitions would sink or even cripple a carrier. But wanting to keep on flying aircraft off deck is another matter.

---

On a tangent, I wonder if AShBM can be equipped with a shaped warhead, like that of an ATGM only much larger, an explosively formed penetrator of your modern ATGM times two hundred. Would a 2000 kg shaped warhead be more effective or a armour penetrating HE warhead to do most damage against a carrier? hmm

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

just to reply to blitzo because i havent been following the thread

hate to have such a hit or miss weapon (have to hit ammo or fuel store to do the job, hit ship edge or unimportant part of ship will be a near miss too), would rather get the a/cs wiped out and render the deck unusable for weeks or months

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

A combination of various platforms and systems would be more than a match against this IADS. You must consider that in order for the IADS to be effective it must light up its radars. Once these radars are radiating they can be mapped. And once mapped they become vulnerable to counterattack.

So you say that the radars will remain silent and attempt to passively engage the attacking force?

Well some radars will have to come up and illuminate the attacking force otherwise the attackers have a free pass into the target

Any attack today would be a combination of cheap drones that are configured to look like attacking aircraft while EW aircraft standoff and map the positions of the emitters. The EW aircraft overwhelm some part of the IADS with intense jamming while the drones slip in to attack the emitters with pin point attacks

The thing to realize is that all you have to do is overwhelm some part of the IADS. You don't have to destroy the entire system. You just have to overwhelm doors in the IADS to be effective

See how they did it in the Bekaa Valley against a very advanced for the time IADS

"....Reports of what happened next vary. It is generally accepted that in the course of the first attack against the Bekaa an 9 June 1982, the IAF destroyed 17 of the 19 Syrian SAM batteries and their radar sites, as well as 29 Syrian Air Force (SAF) fighters, without loss.15 The following day, the IAF destroyed the remaining two missile batteries. The SAF once more challenged the Israelis and lost approximately 35 more aircraft, again without downing an Israeli aircraft. By the end of July, Syria had lost at least 87 aircraft, while Israeli losses amounted to a few helicopters, one RF-4E, and an A-4 Skyhawk downed by a PLO SA-7.16..."

Remember this was without the use of stealth. And systems and tactics have evolved greatly since that time

More:

".....The IAF worked to obstruct Syrian C3 while enhancing its own, making especially effective use of modified Boeing 707s. These aircraft were equipped with standoff jammers capable of disrupting several enemy frequencies at once with very little out-of-phase disturbance, thereby minimizing self-jamming of frequencies used by the IDF.38 Effective jamming of Syrian communications and radar systems cut off SAF MiGs from ground control, leaving them isolated and vulnerable to AWACS-directed attacks from F-15s and F-16s.39The result was chaos within the Syrian formations. According to one Western military observer, "I watched a group of Syrian fighter planes fly figure-eights. They just flew around and around and obviously had no idea what to do next.".....



---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

escobar said:

What is this kind of logic? does the lack of "public demonstration of an integrated system able to sustain an attack of a carrier by china" lead to an incapacity to do that?

Click to expand...

Cool out. All that is being said is that training is one thing but going against a live enemy is another. And this IADS of China has never faced a real live enemy

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Let's get real here. How many USAF bases are there with fighters that can reach china? How many of them would still be operable in event of a conflict, factoring in use of PLA long range cruise missiles and conventional IRBMs?

Then factor in the fact PLAAF will have its own SIGINT, EW, AWACS, and CAP in addition to its IADS, try to get SIGINT/EW aircraft with what fighters you can scrape from westpac bases for the perfectly executed attack you have in mind.

Modern IADS are also much more mobile than the SA-2s and SA-6s of the eighties, let's get real here. You'll be dealing with the likes of mobile S-300PMU/PMU-2, HQ-9 and HQ-16 on top of the less capable HQ-12 and HQ-2s.

I guess every country who's spent money on IADS have invested in the wrong weapon then, because simply turning on a radar will result in its mapping and the IADS's destruction apparently... lol

---

Paintgun, yes obviously a cluster bomb would have an almost guaranteed chance of hitting something as the spread of bomblets or shrapnel will make up for the CEP. but let's say CEP was good enough. Would EFP be more potent than armour piercing HE?

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

A combination of various platforms and systems would be more than a match against this IADS. You must consider that in order for the IADS to be effective it must light up its radars. Once these radars are radiating they can be mapped. And once mapped they become vulnerable to counterattack.

So you say that the radars will remain silent and attempt to passively engage the attacking force?

Well some radars will have to come up and illuminate the attacking force otherwise the attackers have a free pass into the target

Any attack today would be a combination of cheap drones that are configured to look like attacking aircraft while EW aircraft standoff and map the positions of the emitters. The EW aircraft overwhelm some part of the IADS with intense jamming while the drones slip in to attack the emitters with pin point attacks

The thing to realize is that all you have to do is overwhelm some part of the IADS. You don't have to destroy the entire system. You just have to overwhelm doors in the IADS to be effective

See how they did it in the Bekaa Valley against a very advanced for the time IADS

"....Reports of what happened next vary. It is generally accepted that in the course of the first attack against the Bekaa an 9 June 1982, the IAF destroyed 17 of the 19 Syrian SAM batteries and their radar sites, as well as 29 Syrian Air Force (SAF) fighters, without loss.15 The following day, the IAF destroyed the remaining two missile batteries. The SAF once more challenged the Israelis and lost approximately 35 more aircraft, again without downing an Israeli aircraft. By the end of July, Syria had lost at least 87 aircraft, while Israeli losses amounted to a few helicopters, one RF-4E, and an A-4 Skyhawk downed by a PLO SA-7.16..."

Remember this was without the use of stealth. And systems and tactics have evolved greatly since that time

More:

".....The IAF worked to obstruct Syrian C3 while enhancing its own, making especially effective use of modified Boeing 707s. These aircraft were equipped with standoff jammers capable of disrupting several enemy frequencies at once with very little out-of-phase disturbance, thereby minimizing self-jamming of frequencies used by the IDF.38 Effective jamming of Syrian communications and radar systems cut off SAF MiGs from ground control, leaving them isolated and vulnerable to AWACS-directed attacks from F-15s and F-16s.39The result was chaos within the Syrian formations. According to one Western military observer, "I watched a group of Syrian fighter planes fly figure-eights. They just flew around and around and obviously had no idea what to do next.".....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

Click to expand...

Enlighten me. Are you trying to make a comparision between an "hypothetical IADS" from a country like syria and one of the best IADS in
the world from china???

Cool out. All that is being said is that training is one thing but going against a live enemy is another. And this IADS of China has never faced a real live enemy

Click to expand...

Another flawed logic. Because it has never been tested against a real ennemy does mean that it will be ineffective in a real war???

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Bltizo said:

Paintgun, yes obviously a cluster bomb would have an almost guaranteed chance of hitting something as the spread of bomblets or shrapnel will make up for the CEP. but let's say CEP was good enough. Would EFP be more potent than armour piercing HE?

Click to expand...

i assume the idea of a single large warhead is to do high enough damage to sink the carrier on the spot or in operations area without any chance of returning for another operation, to wipe the carrier asset off the conflict

even with a decent or excellent CEP and hit probability (let's say it will always hit), it will have to hit at the right spot, penetrate deck, all the way to the lower structures, and probably hull
it is unimaginable damage requirement for something as solid and hardened as a carrier

as opposed to a AShM, of which a heavy single warhead makes a lot of sense, because it needs to penetrate from the side, which is closer to the water line

not to mention if it hits fore or aft, or the sides

we can also guess what kind of firepower needed to damage a US carrier by looking on Soviet massive anti ship missiles, probably a magnitude above that needed to penetrated from top deck and wreak havoc

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

^ Well my question was which one would do more damage, armour piercing HE, or EFP ala ATGM style? It doesn't necessarily have to sink a carrier, but assuming the missile was accurate enough to hit the carrier full on, what would be more effective?

I posted the same question on the "behind china missile hype" thread, where I outlined it in more detail.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Bltizo said:

^ Well my question was which one would do more damage, armour piercing HE, or EFP ala ATGM style? It doesn't necessarily have to sink a carrier, but assuming the missile was accurate enough to hit the carrier full on, what would be more effective?

I posted the same question on the "behind china missile hype" thread, where I outlined it in more detail.

Click to expand...

well to be honest i don't know, wouldnt they work in the same way? or do you mean the armour piercing HE like an arty HE shell?
i imagined it will be inefficient to employ an effective EFP as large as a DF-21 sized ballistic missile, and will produce a smaller damage cross section
in another hand, a hardened tipped (think bunker buster + kinetic penetrator) with explosives might be better

edit : btw it reminds of the German WW2 massive bomb which has to be mounted on the fuselage