Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Jeff Head · Apr 1, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
All this discussion is moot ASBM is already in operation period

Highly doubtful that any serious operational capability exists.

Just because it is said to be, does not mean that it is.

It has never had an opetrational, full-up system live fire test out into any ocean attempting to hit a manuevering sea vessel. Much less into any serious ECM environment.

Lots of white papers, lots of missile trucks rolling around, a few static firing of some missile into the desert at a static target...but not one, full-up operational, live fire test against a manuevering vessel at sea.

This single fact speaks volumes over all the white papers, all the research papers, and all of the "chatter," that has gone on about this system for years.

When such an operational test is conducted successfully, and documentd as a success...and then repeated numerous times...get back to me. Until then, I view the entiore system as a very strong "Sun Tsu" campaign to attempt to get the US and its allies to not use the assets that are their strength...and it is a very sophisticated operation, IMHO, to do that.

Even then, the system itself, untested and unproven, then would fly directly into the teeth of the strongest defense the US has for its carriers and that is the AEGIS system which, contrary to the DF-21D, has been proven countelss times to be able to live-fire, operationally intercept ballistic missiles.

duskylim · Apr 2, 2013

Skywatcher said:
Umm, no. Firstly, you're talking about a ballistic warhead, which at the very high speeds it's going at, won't have much in the ways of wing surface area or propellant to have much terminal maneuverability.

The area that the ASBM would have to adjust would be at least a circular area of over 700 square miles (1.15(5^2 X 3.14)), assuming that the carrier is going at 30 knots per hour and that it's ten minutes from launch to impact.

Now you could try to make some adjustments using midcourse corrections, but a ballistic missile doesn't have very much room for that, and its certainly not going to be enough to realistically cover a 700 square mile area that the carrier group could be anywhere in after ten minutes).

Yes and that's flat-out running a rather predictable straight line, with all your escorts on full-throttle creating a thermal plume the size of Kansas.

Forgive me if I believe that this spectacle should be easily visible from space.

Lion · Apr 2, 2013

Jeff Head said:
Even then, the system itself, untested and unproven, then would fly directly into the teeth of the strongest defense the US has for its carriers and that is the AEGIS system which, contrary to the DF-21D, has been proven countelss times to be able to live-fire, operationally intercept ballistic missiles.

May I know what live test has aegis sytem go through? Like 10 ballistic missile going for fleet group, has it been tested out for complete interception? Thanks.

bd popeye · Apr 2, 2013

Lion said:
May I know what live test has aegis sytem go through? Like 10 ballistic missile going for fleet group, has it been tested out for complete interception? Thanks.

Well Lion I don't think the Aegis system has been tested in actuality against a swarming missile attack but it has been tested many times against ballistic missiles. With successful hits in 58 out of 73 test.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Aegis Missile Defense System Intercepts Target in Test

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13, 2013 – The Missile Defense Agency and sailors aboard the USS Lake Erie conducted a successful flight test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system today, resulting in the intercept of a medium-range ballistic missile target over the Pacific Ocean by a Standard Missile-3 Block IA guided missile.

At 4:10 a.m. EST, a unitary medium-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii. The target flew northwest toward a broad area of the Pacific Ocean.

The in-orbit Space Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrators, or STSS-D, detected and tracked the target, and forwarded track data to the USS Lake Erie. The ship, equipped with the second-generation Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense weapon system, used “Launch on Remote” doctrine to engage the target.

The ship developed a fire control solution from the STSS-D track and launched the SM-3 Block IA guided missile about five minutes after target launch. The SM-3 maneuvered to a point in space and released its kinetic warhead. The warhead acquired the target re-entry vehicle, diverted into its path, and, using only the force of a direct impact, engaged and destroyed the target.

Initial indications are that all components performed as designed, officials said. Program officials will assess and evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test, they added.

Today's event, designated Flight Test Standard Missile-20, or FTM-20, was a demonstration of the ability of space-based assets to provide mid-course fire control quality data to an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ship, extending the battle space, providing the ability for longer-range intercepts and defense of larger areas, officials said.

FTM-20 is the 24th successful intercept in 30 flight test attempts for the Aegis BMD program since flight testing began in 2002. Across all Ballistic Missile Defense System programs, this is the 58th successful hit-to-kill intercept in 73 flight tests since 2001.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense is the sea-based component of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. The Aegis BMD engagement capability defeats short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase ballistic missile threats with the SM-3, as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2 Block IV missile.

The MDA and the Navy cooperatively manage the Aegis BMD program.

s002wjh · Apr 2, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
What kind of BS are you talking about cluttering what kind of cluttering you mean sea cluttering. They can be filtered out.I already post an article by Chinese scientist how to filtered out sea background go find it yourself You think that China doesn't know how to counter EW only US know how to do it you must be very naive. It is everyday problem in the world of data link and missile technology. You can make your frequency jump or add phase shift . That is how cell phone work

Carrier has very specific silhouette that distinguished it from other ships you can program the heat profile of the carrier into the seeker and program the seeker only to find those silhouette as soon as it reenter the atmosphere.

All this discussion is moot ASBM is already in operation period

oh plz there are tons article on stuff, laser weapon, railgun etc, just because its on the theorictical paper doesn't mean its work.
its not only clutter, there are MULTIPLE issues invovle, from clutter, to ID, to Track, to integration, to G-force sustain on components , cooling, real-time processing etc etc. its a complex system in REAL TIME.
cvbg will be hundreds mile away from china where china EW can't reach it, tell me how china gonna counter EW with a ASBM warhead, when entire US CVBG is sending out EW, or you think a few rf power generated by few warhead is on par with entire CVBG+AWAC. ive been in this field for long time, and know what kind diffculty needed to have a real-time.
like i said until there is test, this is just in unproving. unless you got some inside man indicate otherwise. we have seen test conducted for j20, carrier, and other project. back in old days, china test its ICBM to make sure its working. same has to happen for ASBM to consider working. right now, just bunch theoritical papers, i wrote those two, but integrate into a system is different matter.
untill there are test, and not just hitting some stationary target on desert. all these are just BS, and all the paper are just theorictical. nothing more. paper's on railgun, and other fancy stuff has been published for decade, doesn't change the fact we still don't have railgun etc.

Lion · Apr 2, 2013

bd popeye said:
Well Lion I don't think the Aegis system has been tested in actuality against a swarming missile attack but it has been tested many times against ballistic missiles. With successful hits in 58 out of 73 test.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thanks! I believe every test conducted is just against 1 ballistic missile interception.

Jeff Head · Apr 2, 2013

Lion said:
May I know what live test has aegis sytem go through? Like 10 ballistic missile going for fleet group, has it been tested out for complete interception? Thanks.

There have been over 70 tests, and the interception rate is like 53 out of 70 or over 75%, with increasing probablility of a kill as time has gone on. I know there have been tests against at least two missles at once, and perhaps three, but nothing against say 12 missiles at once. It is very likely that there would be swarming missile attacks by crusie missiles, which the system has proven even more capable against. But we are talking about ballistic missiles here and BMD, where it is much less likely that there would be swarming missile attacks because they are simply far, far less numerous themselves then air launched, surface launched, or sub launched cruise missiles.

The point is, the AEGIS system has been and continues to be live fired tested against the type of targets it is meant to engage, at sea against live ballistic targets, and it is shooting them down more and more frequently. Ie. hte percentages of successful engagements are rising over time, with a current overall rate of 75%.

Such tests have not been performed by the DF-21D in live fire operations of any sort against what it is meant to engage. This brings into question, 1st its operational status at all, and 2nd, even if they did place some in the field, its reliability and capability of actually hitting what it is meant to hit.

Sorry, there is no slight meant here...those are just the facts and the way things are at the present time. Perhaps some day, like with the AEGIS system meant to defend the fleet against this sort of threat, we will actually see firm and unquestonable documentation of live fire tests by the Chinese against manuevering targets at sea. Until we do do, as I said, I will consider all of this as much more of an effort to simply dissuade the US from using its assets rather than any kind of real, immenent and deployed threat against them.

bd popeye · Apr 2, 2013

Lion said:
Thanks! I believe every test conducted is just against 1 ballistic missile interception.

And when was the last time China demonstrated a swarming missile attack? That would be never.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense is the sea-based component of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. The Aegis BMD engagement capability defeats short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase ballistic missile threats with the SM-3, as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2 Block IV missile.

The Aegis system can track NUMEROUS targets simultaneously. The Aegis system is all encompassing and each ships system is integrated with other Aegis ships not just in the battle zone but World Wide receiving and processing information 24/7/365. The only time the Aegis system is disabled aboard an Aegis equipped ship is when the ship is under re-fit..

Another members opinion from some years ago.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/str...ing-hypersonic-missile-13-3987.html#post85300

LOL. China's electronics capabilities are far far ahead of Russia, nevermind the Soviet Union. Even reliable sources refer to some new Chinese missiles -- "DH-10" is a name sometimes used, HN-X (forgot which number) is another name.

Click to expand...

Despite your LOL's, China's current missile paradigms are exactly the same. Missile intercepts continue to work the sameway. You're deluding yourself if you believe China's got missiles that are miles beyond what is used from past systems. Anti-ship missiles still all fly the same way, and for the most part engage the same way. USN electronics are far ahead, and have always been far ahead, and now use COTS for much quicker and easier upgrades. Yet anti-ship missile warfare remains pretty much the same in application as in the past. You can't escape that fact no matter how hard you try. System improvements in missiles won't change missile intercept geometry in any way. But yet system upgrades onboard ships with more processing power multiplies engagement capabilities drastically. It's alot harder to do that in a missile. Nor has the same been applied in the REAL world for missiles in the same way. You couldn't name an example if you tried.

Skywatcher · Apr 2, 2013

duskylim said:
Yes and that's flat-out running a rather predictable straight line, with all your escorts on full-throttle creating a thermal plume the size of Kansas.

Forgive me if I believe that this spectacle should be easily visible from space.

You do realize that carriers have this little (relatively speaking) thing called a rudder?

One that allows them to move in non-linear motions?

Hendrik_2000 said:
Apparently you didn't follow this thread closely go back couple of pages and read all the discussion about how to find carrier

MARV is a proven technology and In case you didn't know they have micro thruster that can adjust their path and directed to their target. Ballistic missile has 20-50 m accuracy Now how can they achieve this accuracy if they don't have guidance. So do your homework and not just blurted statement

They have update from satellite and UAV and the Chinese know how to harden their data link and CCEW is common practice in any missile design

Are you simply not aware of the basic physics behind plasma sheathing (it blocks out EW communications)?

Sure, the DF-21D has no problem hitting a 20-50m size target (but not if the target is moving at CVN speed). Those microthruster adjustments aren't going to be much use if the CVN has moved a mile or two since atmospheric reentry.

Jeez, and I thought Russian fanbois were bad.

jobjed said:
That still only requires a 5.63 degrees adjustment from a 100km altitude. Steering 6 degrees in any direction shouldn't be a difficulty for the DF-21D considering that's its job. The DF-21D is especially designed to manoeuvre while reentering the earth's atmosphere and turning 6 degrees is not a very radical change at all.

The CVN is a constantly moving target, and it won't be moving in a straight line. And at 100km, then that leaves the AShBM with a 30 sec-1min window from final trajectory maneuver to impact where the CVN can move anywhere in a circle with a 0.5 mi radius and you can't update it thanks to plasma sheathing effects from the high reentry speed.

May I ask where you get the 6 degree steering figure from?

bd popeye · Apr 2, 2013

You do realize that carriers have this little (relatively speaking) thing called a rudder?

One that allows them to move in non-linear motions?

I do.. an USN CVN can move backwards and maneuver backwards. I've experienced that type of action.

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Jeff Head

General

duskylim

Junior Member

Lion

Senior Member

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

s002wjh

Junior Member

Lion

Senior Member

Jeff Head

General

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

Skywatcher

Captain

bd popeye

The Last Jedi