Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I am saying that they may try, but in the end the threat is enough. If the PLAN wanted to though they could have run a sinxtec on one of the unused carriers being wasted as casinos. At the moment all the DF is is a threat. It may have been tested inland but not sea. Its key strength though is its deployed openly. The stealth hawk was never suppose to be known about. It was a weapon of plausible deniability. Its the sudden unexpected unexplained death of the worlds worst in the middle of the night.
 
Navyrecognition.com "revealed" this (I think today)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I can't help but ask the same question as I did here about two months ago:

Does somebody here have an idea how an attack of the CSS-5 would proceed from the reentry of the atmosphere, at Mach twenty or so, up to the point of hitting the desired ship (and not for example a tanker which just happened to join the group) presumably at much lower speed? I read in Russian source(s) that cruise missiles like Sandbox or Shipwreck could have been made faster, but were not, so that they could maneuver more effectively (picking up the right target) ...
 

Zhifu

New Member
Registered Member
Firstly, your unawareness of such a capability does not constitute as a valid argument that such a capability does not exist. Secondly, we know China is fully capable of commanding mid-course changes to objects in space through all the publicized Shenzhou and Chang'e missions. There is no question about that.


The argument based on the ship's maneuverability is moot since the speed of the missile is so much higher than the ship that the ship's speed is negligible. As for the hard-kill measures aboard the ship, they will be subjected to ECM and are not guaranteed to be effective.


While such test is great for settling an argument (or will it), it is not necessary. Many real-world systems that are deployed are not full-up live fire tested according to your definition.



Using your own arguments, these would not constitute as a full-up live fire tests since they were performed against physical simulation of enemy ballistic missiles, not against an actual ASBM.

The

The main issue is did the US respond i.e. ignore the noise, taking serious steps to counter or stayed out of the affected zone?
 

Kurt

Junior Member
Navyrecognition.com "revealed" this (I think today)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I can't help but ask the same question as I did here about two months ago:

Does somebody here have an idea how an attack of the CSS-5 would proceed from the reentry of the atmosphere, at Mach twenty or so, up to the point of hitting the desired ship (and not for example a tanker which just happened to join the group) presumably at much lower speed? I read in Russian source(s) that cruise missiles like Sandbox or Shipwreck could have been made faster, but were not, so that they could maneuver more effectively (picking up the right target) ...

If you look at space reentry vehicles, they have a communication antenna far to the front. The plasma created by the friction at that high speed makes a sender and receiver outside the high speed hull necessary that is less affected by the plasma. The problem with this missile is the blindness at high speed or the much slower speed with own perception. You can't have both. If it is a high speed weapon it will depend on external targeting assets and secure communication with these. These are the weak links for attack. Setting up such a targeting complex will take longer than the flight of the missile and the battle will be waged about setting up and maintining the complex for a successful strike.
If it has own perception it will be even easier to spoof because the sensor area is limited. Even then, it is highly unlikely that this system will work without a helpful targeting complex.
The missile is just the strike component that highlights a capability if the observation and communication function. The secret is observation and communication for this to happen. Therein lies the arms race of the carrier killing and of our modern armaments in general. Speedy delivery of the strike component makes it easier for this observation and communication complex, because exposure due to active emission and presence in areas of higher visibility get more limited. What news do we have about carrier killer observation platforms? These are the black projects.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
We have been around and around on this.

The DF-21D has never been full-up, operationally tested by firing it out to sea over 1,000 km and trying to hit a manuevering target. Not once...much less numerous times. The very idea that a very complicated system like this, that is absolutely dependent upon such daunting C4ISR capabilities, would be considered anywhere close to fully operational without a single full-up, live fire test is simply ludicrous. Those requirements start before launch with respect to target acquisition, and extend right through to terminal targeting after re-entry.

Now, having said that, an opertion that is meant to pose the possibility of such a threat (while working to develop it) can be very effective. And THAT is exactly what is happening here in terms of AD. The PRC understands the culture of the west, and particularly its current concern about almost any casualites. So, despite never having been tested, if they can get enough credible people worrying about what it "might" do, they can give pause to powerful forces, and the very strength of the opposition, without ever firing a shot...even in testing.

And that, IMHO, is what is happening with the DF-21D.

..and that is classic Sun Tzu strategy, plain and simple. And it is working fairly well to this point.

As for me, and based on my own engineering and weapons system work...as I have said numerous times...until the PLAN proves to themselves and the rest of the world that their technology for these daunting capabilities actually works by reliably hitting maneuvering targets 1,000 km at sea and more...the project is an untested, unproven project. Full stop, end of story.

All the excuses, apologies, reasoning, in the world will not change that. Anyone who has ever worked on an actual complicated weapons system that must be proven in the elements where it intends to operate, knows what I am saying is true.

It would be like sending the Chinese carrier, the Liaoning, CV-16, out to sea with a deck load of J-15 aircraft, where not a one of those aircraft had ever actually landed on, or taken off from the moving carrier at sea, and saying it was operational anyway...and ready to send out strikes at sea against OPFOR carriers.

Ask yourself. Is that what the PLAN is doing? Of course not.

They have to make sure those compicated naval air systems will work in the environment they were designed for, and reliably so, by testing them, constantly improving, training all of the parts together, over and over again...before ever committing them to operational duties or battle. The risk of having them fail precisely when they are needed would otherwise simply be far too great.

In numerous ways the C4ISR capabilities required for the DF-21D are even more daunting than those necessary for a carrier strike at sea scenario. There is no way of reliably knowing it is going to work without testing and improving it through numerous such tests...which have simply not happened to date.

But, this has been said many times...so, I will document it here once more so people can consider it.
 
Last edited:
Kurt, Jeff, thank you for responding to my original question; I'm new to sinodefenceforum, probably didn't take notice of older posts on CSS-5 and didn't realize you were perhaps fed up with this topic :)
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
We have been around and around on this.

The DF-21D has never been full-up, operationally tested by firing it out to sea over 1,000 km and trying to hit a manuevering target. Not once...much less numerous times. The very idea that a very complicated system like this, that is absolutely dependent upon such daunting C4ISR capabilities, would be considered anywhere close to fully operational without a single full-up, live fire test is simply ludicrous. Those requirements start before launch with respect to target acquisition, and extend right through to terminal targeting after re-entry.

Now, having said that, an opertion that is meant to pose the possibility of such a threat (while working to develop it) can be very effective. And THAT is exactly what is happening here in terms of AD. The PRC understands the culture of the west, and particularly its current concern about almost any casualites. So, despite never having been tested, if they can get enough credible people worrying about what it "might" do, they can give pause to powerful forces, and the very strength of the opposition, without ever firing a shot...even in testing.

And that, IMHO, is what is happening with the DF-21D.

..and that is classic Sun Tzu strategy, plain and simple. And it is working fairly well to this point.

As for me, and based on my own engineering and weapons system work...as I have said numerous times...until the PLAN proves to themselves and the rest of the world that their technology for these daunting capabilities actually works by reliably hitting maneuvering targets 1,000 km at sea and more...the project is an untested, unproven project. Full stop, end of story.

All the excuses, apologies, reasoning, in the world will not change that. Anyone who has ever worked on an actual complicated weapons system that must be proven in the elements where it intends to operate, knows what I am saying is true.

It would be like sending the Chinese carrier, the Liaoning, CV-16, out to sea with a deck load of J-15 aircraft, where not a one of those aircraft had ever actually landed on, or taken off from the moving carrier at sea, and saying it was operational anyway...and ready to send out strikes at sea against OPFOR carriers.

Ask yourself. Is that what the PLAN is doing? Of course not.

They have to make sure those compicated naval air systems will work in the environment they were designed for, and reliably so, by testing them, constantly improving, training all of the parts together, over and over again...before ever committing them to operational duties or battle. The risk of having them fail precisely when they are needed would otherwise simply be far too great.

In numerous ways the C4ISR capabilities required for the DF-21D are even more daunting than those necessary for a carrier strike at sea scenario. There is no way of reliably knowing it is going to work without testing and improving it through numerous such tests...which have simply not happened to date.

But, this has been said many times...so, I will document it here once more so people can consider it.


With due respect whether one wants to believe in the DF-21D full CVISR capabilities or not, the fact of the matter is that China has a continuing, working platform, and sufficient funding to keep the program going are enough to keep research and developments going for years to come. In the end you can't denied the DF-21D existence, whether you want to see proof or not.

BROAD-BASED CHINESE ASBM development since then suggests that China will continue to make great progress on the infrastructure supporting these missiles. China enjoys a formidable science and technology base, and can be expected to devote considerable resources and expertise to “keep out” weapons development. An emerging network of air- and space-based sensors promises to radically improve PLA targeting. The DF-21D’s C4ISR infrastructure is already sufficient to support basic carrier-targeting capabilities.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
With due respect whether one wants to believe in the DF-21D full CVISR capabilities or not, the fact of the matter is that China has a continuing, working platform, and sufficient funding to keep the program going are enough to keep research and developments going for years to come.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Equation, my friend, I have not said that the PRC does not have a ASBM program. In fact, I say they are working on and developing a capability.

But it has never been tested to do what it purports. And so we are right back to the same discussion.

As I said, in working with largre, complicated weapons systems that are critical for national defense, you simply must test them...many times over...to ensure that they will do what you are depending on them to do when you need them.

Some day, perhaps the PRC will perform a full-up, live fire test of this system out into the Pacific or China Sea...and then continue testing numerous times it to improve it. Until that day, for me, and with my own background in weapons systems, it is simply an unfinished, untested project.

...and so again, I have said my piece on this. Folks can consider it, and take it into account however they desire.

Probably well funded...but not complete. The goals for the program are very, very daunting.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Equation, my friend, I have not said that the PRC does not have a ASBM program. In fact, I say they probably working on developing a capability.

But it has never been tested to do what it purports. And so we are right back to the same discussion.

As I said, in working with largre, complicated weapons systems that are critical for national defense, you simply must test them...many times over...to ensure that they will do what you are depending on them to do when you need them.

Some day, peerhaps the PRC will perform a full-up, live fire test of this system out into the PAcific or China Sea...and then continue testing numerous times it to improve it. Until that day, for me, and with my own background in weapons systems, it is simply an unfinished, untested project.

Probably well funded...but not complete. The goals for the program are very, very daunting.

I understand Jeff, but who says that they needed to be seen tested according to "full-up" to believe it? It's a very sophisticated and complicated weapon systems that must be tested in secrecy to be away from the prying eyes of US satellites and such. Maybe China had figure out a way to test them without going through what you've said before. We on the other hand have to just wait and see.
 
I understand Jeff, but who says that they needed to be seen tested according to "full-up" to believe it? It's a very sophisticated and complicated weapon systems that must be tested in secrecy to be away from the prying eyes of US satellites and such. Maybe China had figure out a way to test them without going through what you've said before. We on the other hand have to just wait and see.

I doubt a test of ANY ballistic missile(s) can go undetected nowadays
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top