Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

jobjed said:

What the heck does all that have to do with the DF-21D? The Mig-25 was spotted and the US initiated the 4th gen fighter program. The Soviets didn't need to demonstrate its capability to get the West concerned. Same with the DF-21D, as long as the US knows it exists, they will be concerned. China doesn't need to demonstrate the DF-21D's capability to get the US concerned.

Ask the US back in the 70s why they needed the 4th gen fighter programs and they will say "because the USSR has got a new plane", ask them have they seen the plane's capabilities and they will say "no". Ask the US today why they need counter-measures to the DF-21D and they will say "China has a new missile", ask them have they seen the missile's capabilities and they will also say "no". Even if China has not done testing of the missile against moving targets, the US will still try to find methods to counter its supposed capabilities.

Click to expand...

It is funny why are you asking me why the heck got to do with DF-21D? It is you who used the Mig-25 example in modern carrier tatics thread. Don't tell me DF-21D does nothing to do with dealing carrier? In fact, I need ask you why would you bring up an irrelevant example of Mig-25 to make your point? Now you twist your words by asking me?

I say again, your example is terrible. Please use a relevant example to DF-21D. DF-21D test is not able to hide from US intelligence. Its either you hit it or dont. DF-21D must have conducted some test which convinced US the threat is real.
And why would US wait until now to have a sample similar to DF-21D that can emulate its trajectory to be build?

The talk about DF-21D is more than 6 years ago. Why wait until now to take such more drastic action?

Lion said:

I know such test cannot be hidden but US intelligence is not oblige to tell us,laymen every single detail since , Jeff, I do not know you owned any single spy satelite in outerspace.

The fact US intelligence make such comment and its urgency tells us they have witness something strong enough to convince them ASBM is real and they need to do something about it.

I can perfectly understand your refusal to admit ASBM works and is a threat.

It is a hard fact difficult to swallow.

Click to expand...

It's not a refusal to admit, Lion. To the contrary, it is a certain knowledge that such tests of the DF-21D have not occurred.

Think about North Korea and Iran and their missile tests.

If a long range ballistic missile were fired out onto ranges in the Pacific against manuevering target vessels, every nation in the area would know it before hand, and you would know of it too, my friend, if you were simply watching the right outlets, and particularly given the tensions in the region...those outlets would be numerous.

I watch those outlets all the time, Lion, both US and foreign, and I have my own personal sources within the naval and intelligence community and whether you want to believe it or not...and it's no skin off my back either way...they simply have not performed such tests.

Finally, on top of all of that, your statement about US groups not being able to defend themselves is also just additional fan-boy talk. The AEGIS system has been tested against many ballistic missiles and shoots them down now with regularity, and over a life time of tests, with a 75% rate. They do not have one with a perfect match for the supposed DF-21Ds characteristics, but that does not mean at all that they could not shoot it down. That missile is charging hard into the teeth of the best defense in the world. Very, very un-Sun Tsu like and another reason for it to be a very expertly and carefully crafted Sun Tsu campaign of misdirection. As I said, which is not unusual in the least, for both sides.

This does not mean the PRC does not have a system and have not deployed missiles...it just means, as I have consistantly said, that they have not had a live-fire full up test of that system.

In the end, I find it amusing that you would take a system that has never been full-up, live fire tested against anything at sea manuevering like what it is supposed to attack, and which you cannot show any physical or documented evidence of such a test, and try and indicate somehow that it is the mature, rock-solid system.You then relegate a system which is the most proven anti-ballistic missile defense system in the world, with scores of documented tests, and which is regularly deployed to hot spots, as being unable to defend the vessels, and places it is sent to defend. Surely you can see the illogic, disparity, and inconsistancy of this?

Well, whatever. As I said, no skin off my back...I'll just continue to give the other side, or the "rest" of the story, until such tests are performed numerous times, and shown to be successful. This is what any nation developing such a system would do...and ultimately, if the PRC intends full deployment of such a system, what they will do. In the mean time, both sides will continue with their verbal game of brinksmanship and craft.

Carry on.

Jeff Head said:

It's not a refusal to admit, Lion. And it is certainly not a "fact." To the contrary, it is a certain knowledge that such tests have not occurred.

Think about North Korea and Iran and their missile tests.

If a long range ballistic missile were fired out onto ranges in the Pacific against manuevering target vessles, you would know of it too, my friend...if you were sinmply watching the right outlets, and particularly given the tensions in the region...those outlets would be numerous.

I watch those outlets all the time, Lion, both US and foreign, and I have my own personal sources within the naval and intelligence community and whether you want to believe it or not...and it's no skin off my back either way...they simply have not performed such tests.

Finally, on top of all of that, your statement about US groups not being able to defend themselves is also just additional fan-boy talk. The AEGIS system has been tested against many ballistic missiles and shoots them down now with regularity, and over a life time of tests, with a 75% rate. They do not have one with a perfect match for the supposed DF-21Ds characteristics, but that does not mean at all that they could not shoot it down. That missile is charging hard into the teeth of the best defense. in the world. Very, very un-Sun Tsu like and another reason for it to be a very expertly and carefull crafted Sun Tsu campaign of misdirection. As I said, not unusual in the least.

This does not mean the PRC does not have a system and have not deployed missiles...it just means, as I have consistantly said, that they have not had a live-fire full up test of that system.

In the end, I find it amusing that you would take a system that has never been full-up, live fire tested against anything at sea manuevering like what it is supposed to attack, and which you cannot show any physical or documented evidence of such a test, and try and indicate somehow that it is the mature, rock-solid system.You then relegate a system which is the most proven anti-ballistic missile defense system in the world, with scores of documented tests, and which is regularly deployed to hot spots, as being unable to defend the vessels, and places it is sent to defend. Surely you can see the illogic, disparity, and inconsistancy of this?

Well, whatever. As I said, no skin off my back...I'll just continue to give the other side, or the "rest" of the story, until such tests are performed numerous times, and shown to be successful. This is what any nation developing such a system would do...and ultimately, if the PRC intends full deployment of such a system, what they will do. In the mean time, both sides will continue with their verbal game of brinksmanship and craft.

Carry on.

Click to expand...

If US never broke the news of Chinese ASAT test. Until now, little people will know Chinese has a real working ASAT system which I believe even for you will be hard to believe China has that capabilities.

As for your Aegis system, it has never tested against multiple Ballistic missile attack. It is always few many system taking out just one missile. Even just one missile threat interception and has a 75% rate success is a poor result. You can wonder how it will fare when trying to intercept dozen of it.

Second artillery has always test out their conventional ballistic missiles exercise using multiple salvo. It will be naive China will let you all have a easy time by just firing one missile at CVBG group. See who is the one living in dream land.

Lion said:

If US never broke the news of Chinese ASAT test. Until now, little people will know Chinese has a real working ASAT system which I believe even for you will be hard to believe China has that capabilities.

Click to expand...

Uh, not hard to imagine at all, Lion. The US did this with an F-15 carried missile back in 1985, almost 30 years ago, and has done it in real life exercies with the BM missile aboard AEGIS vessels since. And, a shoot into space at a sat was also something that observers saw outside the intelligence community...but that is still not comparable to shooting a live-fire, large ballistic missile far out to sea over air space of other nations, and over commerical shipping lanes at a manuevering target in the Ocean. Everyone will know.

Lion said:

As for your Aegis system, it has never tested against multiple Ballistic missile attack. It is always few many system taking out just one missile. Even just one missile threat interception and has a 75% rate success is a poor result. You can wonder how it will fare when trying to intercept dozen of it.

Click to expand...

LOL! The 75% is from all tests (over 70). Take the last 20-30 tests and you have a much higher success rate. Deployed missiles will have that higher rate, because they represent the latest missiles.

The US keeps 2-3 AEGIS vessels with each carrier Lion, and they can fire multiple missiles from forward and aft. In a heavy BM threat environment, of the 96 or 120 missiles each vessel holds, they will each have perhaps 25 or more missiles for BM defense. You can do this math.

It is highly doubtful that the PRC would launch 12 missiles at one carrier...but, as I say, given the C4RSI capabilities nessessary and the lack of tests, and the AEGIS system which has been tested and is shooting down BMs, and the other soft kill defenses and capabilities the US NAvy employs, I believe the US is well prepared should such an unlikely event ever occur.

Again, you are chiding a system with 70+ documented tests and an increasing kill rate of well over 75% against a system with absolutely ZERO tests of that complex system all together. Not very consistant of you...again.

Lion said:

Second artillery has always test out their conventional ballistic missiles exercise using multiple salvo. It will be naive China will let you all have a easy time by just firing one missile at CVBG group.

Click to expand...

Fine...no doubt they will shoot more than one...though I doubt twelve at a time.

But, even if they pull out all the stops and do, with the very powerful ECM jammers, very good decoys, and 70+ ABM missiles available, they could shoot 25 or 30 at one carrier at one time and the US still have a very good chance of decoying, jamming, or detroying all of them.

The AEGIS system was designed to defend a carrier against scores (a score is 20) of super-sonic, high-altitude anti-shipping missiles fired at one carrier each wave...and expecting multiple waves. The BM defense is designed to protect against multiple missiles from each AEGIS vessel. As I said, each carrier group usually has three such AEGIS vessels.

But...we could go on ad on. No need. Just glad to get the counter view out there.

'Til next time.

Jeff Head said:

LOL! The 75% is from all tests (Over 70). Take the last 20-30 tests and you have a much higher success rate. Deployed missiles will have that higher rate, because they represent the latest missiles.

The US keeps 2-3 AEGIS vessels with each carrier Lion, and they can fire multiple missiles from forward and aft. In a heavy BM threat environment, of the 96 or 120 missiles each vessel holds, they will each have perhaps 25 or more missiles fo BM defense. You can do this math.


But, even if they pull out all the stops and do, with the very powerful jammers, very good decoys, and 70+ ABM missiles available, they could shoot 25 or 30 at one carrier at one time and the US still have a good chance of decoying, jamming, or detroying all of them.

The AEGIS system was designed to defend a carrier against scores (a score is 20) of super-sonic, high-altitude anti-shipping missiles fired at one carrier each wave...and expecting multipke waves. The BM defense is designed to protect against multiple misisles from each AEGIS vessel. As I said, each carrier group usually has three such AEGIS vessels.

But...we could go on ad on. No need. Just glad to get the counter view out there.

'Til next time.

Click to expand...

No, that'a paper theory only. Until demonstrate of multiple engagement live test will convince most of us(this is your standard apply to ASBM to demand to see a live test carry out so you must accept the same standard apply and proven to your own believe system). All is just hot air and impossible to carry out against such complicated scenario of multi deozn ASBM flying around with decoy.

Why would US everytime one test out against 1 ballistic missile if as what you say capable of engaging multiple engagement?
2nd artillery always practice firing a few salvo of conventional precision strike Ballistic missile. They never just fire off one conventional ballistic missile in exercise.

[video=youtube;AM05LBTLiUg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AM05LBTLiUg[/video]

Lion said:

No, that'a paper theory only. Until demonstrate of multiple engagement live test will convince most of us (this is your standard apply to ASBM to demand to see a live test carry out so you must accept the same standard.

2nd artillery always practice firing a few salvo of conventional precision strike Ballistic missile. They never just fire off one conventional ballistic missile in exercise.

Click to expand...

Grasping at straws, Lion. LOL!

Strange that you are talking about "paper theories," when talking about the AEGIS system which is proven in live fire tests, and trying to convince us that the DF-21D which has not been full-up live fire tested is not. Again, these ongoing inconsistancies. But, please, keep serving up these pitches, just a little high and inside.

Lion, the math for each individual engagement is the same...one or ten. A multiple missile engagement is a gathering of individual engagements, which is what has been tested.

Fact is, live fire tests have been conducted destroying BMs with the AEGIS system. Now, multiple events can occur at the same time, and each of them is a single missile engagement using this same system. Unless you overload the system's ability to handle incoming missiles (a full saturation attack), each one is in fact a seperate intercept and engagement of the same system and math that was tested and does not effect the whole.

And 20-50 or more missiles will not overload or saturate an AEGIS system, much less three vessels worth. It is what it was designed for...like SAMPSON, and I am sure, like what the PRC has develioped for its Type 052C/D DDGs.

Remember, high and inside like this is just like I like them..."WHACK," out of the park.

BTW, what the 2nd artillery does with BMs against ground targets is not the issue here. It is not comparable to what they are proposing to do against manuevering vessels in heavy ECM environments at sea.

I am not asking for the PRC to launch multiple missiles at a single target, or at multiple targets No need. Individual missile tests will do, at single manuevering vessels at sea, 1,000 miles off shore...or even 1,000 kilometers.

In this way it is easy to see that the comparison of these tests I am proposing holds and is consistant across the board...and is what a serious development program would do any way to ensure that their "paper theory," actually works.

When the PRC successully does this, numerous times...and we will know when they do...I will say that the system has moved forward significantly towards full operational capability.

Adieu.

Jeff Head said:

Grasping at straws, Lion. LOL! Strange that you are talking about "paper theories," when talking about the AEGIS system which is proven in live fire tests, and trying to convince us that the DF-21D which has not been tested is not. Please, keep serving up these pitches, just a little high and inside.

Lion, the math for each individual engagement is the same. Each engagement, one, or ten, is a gathering of just that, individual engagements that have been tested.

Fact is, live fire tests have been conducted destroying BMs with the AEGIS system. Now, multiple events can occur at the same time, and each of them is a single missile engagement using this same system. Unless you overload the system's ability to handle incoming missiles, each one is in fact a seperate intercept and engagement of the same system and math that was tested.

And 20-50 or more missiles will not overload an AEGIS system, much less three vessels worth.

Remember, high and inside like this is just like I like them..."WHACK," out of the park.

BTW, what the 2nd artillery does with BMs against ground targets is not the issue here. It is not comparable to what they are proposing to do against manuevering vessels in heavy ECM environments at sea.

I am not asking for the PRC to launch multiple missiles at a single target, or at multiple targets No need. Individual missile tests will do, at single manuevering vessels at sea, 1,000 miles off shore...or even 1,00 kilometers.

In this way it is easy to see that the comparison of these tests on my side holds and is consistant...and is what a serious developmet program would do any way to ensure that their "paper theory," actually works.

When the PRC successully does this, numeropus times...and we will know when they do...I will say that the system has moved forward significantly towards full operational capability.

Adieu.

Click to expand...

There show your double standard. Aegis exercise never practice engage multiple Ballistic missile target. Yet you claim its capable of doing so? Show me the evidence. I say again its only Hot air and will not work. Why would US only test against one Ballistic missile? At least 2 or 3 and why always against 1?

Lion said:

There show your double standard. Aegis exercise never practice engage multiple Ballistic missile target. Yet you claim its capable of doing so? Show me the evidence. I say again its only Hot air and will not work. Why would US only test against one Ballistic missile? At least 2 or 3 and why always against 1?

Click to expand...

Big whoop. A couple of holes in the desert with no real information about the specifics of the test, and at a stationary target as well. Apples and oranges, Lion.

No need to talk further. When the appropriate tests are conducted, we will know it, and if they are consistantly successful, then the system is closer to being opeationally ready for prime time.

As it is, your responses make me think that either you do not understand the math involved, or you are willfully ignoring it, or you are so committed to something that hasn't happened that you will make these comparisons of apples and oranges and try and call it good.

I have used no double standard. Re-read what I just wrote in the last post.

And, as long as you are asking questions, try this one...it is the real central issue of our discussion which you keep avoiding by raising other, non comparative issues.

If the PRC/PLAN is willing to show such a picture as you showed and call it an important test (which early on in such a prgram it would be an important test), why has the PRC/PLAN not conducted one, documented, full-up live fire test anganst a single manuevering vessel far out at sea...which is the whole point of the DF-21D system?

Have a good day...others can read and come to their own conclusions.

Jeff Head said:

Big whoop. A hole in the desert with no real information about the specifics of the test, and at a stationary target as well. Apples and oranges, Lion.

No need to talk further. When the appropriate tests are conducted, we will kinow it, and if they are consistantlyu successful, then the system is closer to being opeationally ready for prime time.

As it is, your responses make me think that either you do not understand the math involved, or you are willfully ignoring it, or you are so committed to something that hasn't happened that you will make these comparisons of apples and oranges and try and call it good.

I have used no double standard at all. Re-read what I just wrote in the last post.

Have a good day...others can read and come to their own conclusions.

Click to expand...

Static or not, its still a precision strike and still a live test which you demanded to see. And you are avoiding my enquiries, never mind I seen enough of your true colors. I will go with your last statement of let others to read thru and make their own conclusion.

Lion said:

Static or not, its still a precision strike and still a live test which you demanded to see. And you are avoiding my enquiries, never mind I seen enough of your true colors. I will go with your last statement of let others to read thru and make their own conclusion.

Click to expand...

I didn't avoid anything Lion. Read my response that you skipped over. I answered it directly.

Again, here's one for you:

If the PRC/PLAN is willing to show such a picture as you showed and call it an important test (which early on in such a prgram it would be an important test), why has the PRC/PLAN not conducted one, documented, full-up live fire test against a single manuevering vessel far out at sea...which is the whole point of the DF-21D system?

BTW, let me know when you see a US Nuclear Aircraft Carrier sitting stationary in the middle of the Gobi Desert will you?