Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Skywatcher said:

Not something the size of a carrier. They're very compartmentalized, large ships. You'll need several hits at least to mission kill.

Disintegration?

The USS America (CV-66) managed to survive 25 days of explosive testing, and was then scuttled.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And mind you, the USS America is 20% smaller than the Nimitz or Ford CVNs.

Click to expand...

The difficulties of putting an AShBM on target aside....


To mission kill a carrier I think a hit-to-kill warhead isn't the way to go, partly because that means much greater requirements of accuracy.

How heavy is the warhead that they can lob aboard DF-21D? about 2000kg? Bit less?
Fuse two tons worth of ball bearings or bomblets to disperse in an optimal way that will cover the most area over the flight deck. Should reliably kill any planes, crew on board. And even if the carrier has sufficient warning to hide planes and crew beneath, the flight deck itself with its catapults, and the squishy sensors and protruding electronics on the island will be torn to shreds, rendering flight ops difficult if not near impossible to continue without major repairs, thus you get a mission kill.

Not as awe inspiring as images of a torpedo crippling a ship like a branch, but probably more realistic.


On that note, have there been any recent tests of torpedoes against large ships like carriers? A mk 48 has about 300 kg of warhead and can split most ships clean in two beneath the keel. I wonder if a DF-21D penetrating warhead like a bunker buster could be designed to explode near the keel to cause similar damage

Bltizo said:

On that note, have there been any recent tests of torpedoes against large ships like carriers? A mk 48 has about 300 kg of warhead and can split most ships clean in two beneath the keel. I wonder if a DF-21D penetrating warhead like a bunker buster could be designed to explode near the keel to cause similar damage

Click to expand...

Yes.. The ex-USS Okinawa LP3 was sunk with a Mk 48 ADCAP torpedo. Read the caption..

the USS Portsmouth fired an Mk 48 ADCAP torpedo during a SINKEX and sunk the ex-USS Okinawa LPH-3 in 2002.



USS OKINAWA which served the US Navy for over 30 years, was put to rest off the coast of Southern California as part of a COMSUBPAC ship sinking exercise (SINKEX) on June 6, 2002. The ship was sunk by a NUWC Keyport-built MK-48 Mod 5 ADCAP torpedo fired by USS (SSN 707). Decommissioned in December of 1992, the OKINAWA had resided at the Suisan Bay Reserve Fleet in Benecia, CA before being transferred to Naval Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility in Bremerton in August 2000 for SINKEX preparation.

Though the ADCAP torpedo was the weapon that ultimately sank the OKINAWA, it wasn’t the only ordnance employed against her that day. Prior to the warshot firing, naval air training operations were conducted involving several Maverick and Harpoon missile firings as well as a number of general-purpose bomb drops. Though the OKINAWA did sustain some minor damage during the air exercises, there was never any sign of her going down prematurely. After the actual torpedo detonation, the OKINAWA, due to its large size and watertight condition, listed increasingly for almost four hours before ultimately descending below to the briney deep of Davey Jones locker..aarrvv.

Bltizo said:

The difficulties of putting an AShBM on target aside....


To mission kill a carrier I think a hit-to-kill warhead isn't the way to go, partly because that means much greater requirements of accuracy.

How heavy is the warhead that they can lob aboard DF-21D? about 2000kg? Bit less?
Fuse two tons worth of ball bearings or bomblets to disperse in an optimal way that will cover the most area over the flight deck. Should reliably kill any planes, crew on board. And even if the carrier has sufficient warning to hide planes and crew beneath, the flight deck itself with its catapults, and the squishy sensors and protruding electronics on the island will be torn to shreds, rendering flight ops difficult if not near impossible to continue without major repairs, thus you get a mission kill.

Not as awe inspiring as images of a torpedo crippling a ship like a branch, but probably more realistic.


On that note, have there been any recent tests of torpedoes against large ships like carriers? A mk 48 has about 300 kg of warhead and can split most ships clean in two beneath the keel. I wonder if a DF-21D penetrating warhead like a bunker buster could be designed to explode near the keel to cause similar damage

Click to expand...

That would be the preferable option, especially with a combined arms attack on the CVN by the PLANAF/PLAAF/PLAN (if that's possible).

Even a relatively temporary mission kill would raise the risk calculus for the U.S. and allies, which is Chinese intent.

You could try EMP, but I don't know if you could fit one powerful enough to take out a CVN onto a DF-21D warhead.

Skywatcher said:

That would be the preferable option, especially with a combined arms attack on the CVN by the PLANAF/PLAAF/PLAN (if that's possible).

Even a relatively temporary mission kill would raise the risk calculus for the U.S. and allies, which is Chinese intent.

You could try EMP, but I don't know if you could fit one powerful enough to take out a CVN onto a DF-21D warhead.

Click to expand...

Well, putting that DF-21D on target is still the big elephant in the room. Other discussions about how to use the DF-21D warhead to damage a carrier are moo until that is resolved.

Also, as to EMP, major US Naval vessels expected to go into high threat evnironments, have their electrical systems hardened specifcally against EMP.

And if they were going to achieve their EMP through a nuclear blast (which is precisely what US vessels are hardened against), then any nuclear blast at all in an attack against a US group of any kind, particularly a carrier group, would open up a whole new can of worms for the attacker because then all of the gloves would come off...and what a conventionally armed DF-21D can or can't do would pretty quickly slip way down the priority and threat list.

As I say, let's all pray no one is ever insane enough to open that can of worms.

As it is, until I reliably find out about and see that live-fire, full-up system tests of the DF-21D have been conducted out to a test range in the open sea against a manuevering vessel, where they hit the target consistantly, then the DF-21D remains to me a political and Sun Tsu type deterent weapon rather than any real military threat.

And that, in all the years now that they have been discussing it, writing about it, researching it, etc. has yet to happen even once.

That's why the US Admiral...even though while in China and being as diplomatic as possible, said that the DF-21D was years and years away, with a whole lot more testing required, before it would be fully operational or ready for show time.

jobjed said:

A few tonnes traveling at mach 10 is more than enough to mission-kill ANYTHING if it hits. Several hits will ensure not just a mission-kill but disintegration of the vessel.

Click to expand...

As skywatcher pointed out the ex-USS America was pummeled for nearly a month with all sorts of weapons and still did not sink. She was finally scuttled with EOD pre-set explosives.

If any of you ever was aboard a carrier and saw the compartmentalization and the water tight security then perhaps you would understand.

Another ship that was difficult to sink was the ex-USS Belleau Wood LHA-3...on July 13, 2006, and show the BELLEAU WOOD being sunk by EOD set explosives. On July 12, 2006, the ship had already taken several Harpoon hits and naval gunfire from the USS MOBILE BAY (CG 53) but refused to sink.

Written by a former LHA-3 crewmember.

"Sank by the Mobile Bay... They fired the first harpoon at her yesterday and today EOD set off bombs. It only took an hour but she's been taking hits all yesterday from the other ships....she just wouldn't sink." She wasn't designed to sink. She was designed to fight, to stay afloat, and carry her crew through the perils of enemy hostilities. How confusing the last moments must have been for this great lady to have the guns of those she held so dear fire the fatal blows that would carry her to the depths of darkness. May she rest in peace, and may all those who served upon her feel her presence with each misty spray of ocean breeze. Farewell USS BELLEAU WOOD (LHA-3).

Click to expand...

From a crewmember aboard the Mobile Bay.

"We shot the hell out of this ship on July 12, 2006, but it stayed afloat overnight. On July 13 an EOD crew planted explosives inside what was left of her and down she went."
Read more at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I wonder how much energy those explosives all expended during the tests, and I wonder what the sheer kinetic energy of a two ton warhead travelling at mach 10 would affect one of those target ships like USS america.

I personally find it hard to imagine a ship, however big, simply shrugging off what is a dense, two ton mass travelling at ten times the speed of sound, and that's not including whatever kind of warhead they've fused as well.


I imagine there must be a study of a simulation of this somewhere, probably not in the public domain however.

In my view you don't actually have to sink the aircraft carrier to make it obsolete in combat, just have to damage it enough to prevent it from launching and landing any air crafts. Even damaging the arrester or launching system or even a good hole on the deck are enough to make them a no go for any power projections.

This is 1 ton bomb look like

[video=youtube;FAYVMXYYAp4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYVMXYYAp4[/video]

Bltizo said:

I wonder how much energy those explosives all expended during the tests, and I wonder what the sheer kinetic energy of a two ton warhead travelling at mach 10 would affect one of those target ships like USS america.

I personally find it hard to imagine a ship, however big, simply shrugging off what is a dense, two ton mass travelling at ten times the speed of sound, and that's not including whatever kind of warhead they've fused as well.


I imagine there must be a study of a simulation of this somewhere, probably not in the public domain however.

Click to expand...

Blitzo you can actually calculate the energy with simple formula E=1/2 M X V square

12250km/hr=3400m/sec In MKS system (m,sec,kg). Assuming the mass of bom = 2 volkwagen= 4000 pound = 2000 kg X 1/2(3400)*2=1.156E10 joule. roughly 2.5 ton of TNT. Please free to check

yes, the kinetic energy of the warhead at that speed can be calculated but I wasn't sure how the relationship of that energy with a complex structure like an aircraft carrier will work out, which is why I aske about the quantity of munitions used for sinking the USS America etc to maybe gain an estimate of the energy expended in its scuttling. But these things don't work additively, and there are differences between 127mm rounds and mavericks being fired at an empty carrier from conventional trajectories over a span of time — compared to a single two ton warhead at the speeds it will travel at, on a profile more like WWII dive bombers than modern AShMs, at a ship loaded with fuel, munitions and aircraft.

bd popeye said:

As skywatcher pointed out the ex-USS America was pummeled for nearly a month with all sorts of weapons and still did not sink. She was finally scuttled with EOD pre-set explosives.

If any of you ever was aboard a carrier and saw the compartmentalization and the water tight security then perhaps you would understand.

Another ship that was difficult to sink was the ex-USS Belleau Wood LHA-3...on July 13, 2006, and show the BELLEAU WOOD being sunk by EOD set explosives. On July 12, 2006, the ship had already taken several Harpoon hits and naval gunfire from the USS MOBILE BAY (CG 53) but refused to sink.

Written by a former LHA-3 crewmember.



From a crewmember aboard the Mobile Bay.

Click to expand...

An ASM is very different from a 2 ton mach 10 deadweight. The deadweight would easily penetrate from top to bottom of the carrier should it hit. A normal 'bunker buster' bomb dropped from the sky is enough to break through meters of concrete, a heavier and faster object will be more than enough to penetrate ships. But, if the thought of having a hole through the entire ship is not disconcerting enough, the shock wave from the impact will be felt throughout the vessel. The shock wave will damage pretty much every system in the ship, from electronics to fire extinguishing, hydraulics, electrical and combat systems. The possibility of a carrier breaking in half from the shock is very probable, just like how glass shatters when a bullet is shot through it. Now, assuming the carrier doesn't break in half from the shock, the bulkheads or compartmentalisation will have to do their jobs to ensure the carrier floats. If they do manage to do their jobs and the carrier stays afloat, all the people within the compartments will be dead or isolated, which translates to combat-ineffective. So with one single hit of a 2 ton mach 10 deadweight, the carrier will be at least mission-killed for the entirety of the battle in a best case scenario. In a worst case scenario, the carrier will break in half resulting in a great loss of life and severe polluting of the ocean from the radioactive toxins from the reactor. This is assuming only 1 warhead hits, in a combat scenario, it is very probable that dozens of these missiles are fired and multiple missiles find their way to the target.