Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
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.

brave men and there proud simulators. Any military system has to be tested simply going though the motions is not enough. At this point DF21D is a hypothetical danger. A actual launch is needed. And that's a fact. We can argue possibility's for years decades even but a single successful test puts the argument to bed.
believing doesn't mean its real.or that its ready for prime time. In the Vietnam skies theory said sparrow missiles render north Vietnamese fighter aircraft as targets to be swatted from the sky. Practice proved this as bull. History repeats this over and over again. Theory says golden practice says fools gold.

and as time goes by another factor becomes more and more critical that being that as the PLA second art develops DF21D the US DOD has placed a emphasis on counter ballistic missile systems. Not just because of the Chinese, the Iranians claim to have there own Carrier killers and its likely others with ballistic missile technology will try and follow suit.
so the longer the PLA keeps its claims the more likely the system may be render mute.
now some will argue "but they can't test against DF21D" and your right but then the opposite also holds true. There is no proof that a DF21D is undefeatable either.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
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!

It has already been tested.

carrier-124813_copy1.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
brave men and there proud simulators. Any military system has to be tested simply going though the motions is not enough. At this point DF21D is a hypothetical danger. A actual launch is needed. And that's a fact. We can argue possibility's for years decades even but a single successful test puts the argument to bed.
believing doesn't mean its real.or that its ready for prime time. In the Vietnam skies theory said sparrow missiles render north Vietnamese fighter aircraft as targets to be swatted from the sky. Practice proved this as bull. History repeats this over and over again. Theory says golden practice says fools gold.

and as time goes by another factor becomes more and more critical that being that as the PLA second art develops DF21D the US DOD has placed a emphasis on counter ballistic missile systems. Not just because of the Chinese, the Iranians claim to have there own Carrier killers and its likely others with ballistic missile technology will try and follow suit.
so the longer the PLA keeps its claims the more likely the system may be render mute.
now some will argue "but they can't test against DF21D" and your right but then the opposite also holds true. There is no proof that a DF21D is undefeatable either.

Yeah but who has to shell out more money just to keep up with the other guy? China doesn't have a defense budget problems anytime soon, therefore they can keep coming up with new and better ways to defeat the other guys until they ran out of money. In my theory for every $1 China puts into it's space and missile defense systems, that's $10 the US has to spend to maintain the current status quo possibly even more depending on Congress and the economy.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
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.
Anyone can believe whatever they want.

I believe the Chinese are working on an ASBM system, and trying to develop it.

But, in order to hit a maneuvering target at sea, with all of the weather conditions, atmospheric conditions, barometric pressures, humidity, etc. that exist out over the ocean, and against a manuevering, tens of thousands of ton target vessel on the ocean, will require them to ultimately test it in that environment if they want to ensure that it will do what they want.

Computer syms, dry tests, test against static objects in the desert, etc., etc. will only go so far.

So first they test against a simple, straight line moving target. Once they perfect that, they add difficulty to it. Faster movement, harder manuevering. When they know they can do that, they add electronic warfare, jamming, decoys, etc. so they can know how to modify the missile, its warhead, the C4ISR sensors required to make it work, and the software to account for these things.

To get it right, it will take numerous tests.

Just imagine all of the targeting, surveillance, recon, satellite, sub-surface, airborne, surface sensors, etc. that have to come together to make this work, and all of the software to tie it together. Then the propulsion and particularly onboard guidance and counter measures they will try to build into it. All of it has to work together. The only way to know for sure it is doing that, and has the capability to actually hit a moving ship 1,000 or 1,5000 km away is to actually do it.

In order to fire a balistic missile into a test area somehwere in the Ocean, they will have to announce the test and have other vessels stand clear. The would create an exclusion zone so they do not accidently sink a cargo vessels or some other vessel by accident.

That type of ballistic missile test, over the ocean will be detected and tracked. Heck, a long range test like that over land will be detected and tracked.

The US does this type of thing all the time. It's what you do if you develop these types of weapons. The US recently did two tests of the Long Range Anti-shipping missile, fired against moving container ships at sea as targets.

It is far too crtical a task when you are betting the defense of your homeland on such a system, to not test it rigorously, particlarly a new technology like this.

Anyhow...as I said, people can believe whatever they want. IMHO, the PRC is being quite successful in a Sun Tzu campaign, which is kind of embedded into the actual development of the system, to get people to treat it like it is already ready, when they have never tested the entire system, end to end. Have to give them credit for that.

Perhaps one day they will test it end to end and put it all to rest.

But really now, I am repeating things that have been regurgitated on this thread (and others) numerous times. I just wanted to get this dose of reality out there once more. That's all. I hope you understand my explanation...and you certainly can believe whatever you wish about it.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It has already been tested.

carrier-124813_copy1.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Come on Equation.

Seriously?

We have been over that test time and again too.

It's a static test in the desert. This would be a very preliminary test for a system like they are proposing. Many nations have ballistic missiles that can hit static targets on land. That's a far diffent matter than hitting a manuevering warship 1,000 or 1,500 km out to sea.

We do not know the range, how many times they fired, or anything else about that test, except a couple of craters and a penciled in outline of a carrier.

I have no doubts they have tested the missile and its warhead in the desert. Fine. But it is only an intial start, as I have already stated.

But again, this is exaclty what has been discussed in the past.

Bottom line...there has been no live fire, full up test of this very complex C4ISR ASBM system against a manuevering target at sea, much less against any kind of EW evnironment with decoys, jamming, etc.

Go back to the example of the Liaoning I gave earlier. Do you think they would send the Liaoning out to fight at sea with a deck load of J-15s and their pilots who had never trained and perfected their capabilities to take-off, simualte attacks, and then land on the carrier at sea? Of course they would not.

Same holds for this system. When they test it and prove it end to end, full-up...and do it numerous times in an increaslingly difficult environment, then I will believe that they actually have an operational system capable of succeeeding at their Area Denial strategy.

Until then, they are doing fairly well by raising the hype at accomplishing the same strategy through alarming politicians and some analysts while they develop it, without ever fireing a shot over the ocean...and that's commendable too. But there are far too many people in the US industry and military who know full well the types of things I am talking about...and two can play the Sun Tzu game.

It is very likely that some of the "acceptance," and "reluctance," voiced by US personnel is a reverse strategy. Think about it. The US Navy, if it had to, would far rather sail into harm's way against an untested system, than against one that had shown without a doubt what it was capable of.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Come on Equation.

Seriously?

We have been over that test time and again too.

It's a static test in the desert. This would be a very preliminary test for a system like they are proposing. Many nations have ballistic missiles that can hit static targets on land. That's a far diffent matter than hitting a manuevering warship 1,000 or 1,500 km out to sea.

We do not know the range, how many times they fired, or anything else about that test, except a couple of craters and a penciled in outline of a carrier.

I have no doubts they have tested the missile and its warhead in the desert. Fine. But it is only an intial start, as I have already stated.

But again, this is exaclty what has been discussed in the past.

Bottom line...there has been no live fire, full up test of this very complex C4ISR ASBM system against a manuevering target at sea, much less against any kind of EW evnironment with decoys, jamming, etc.

Go back to the example of the Liaoning I gave earlier. Do you think they would send the Liaoning out to fight at sea with a deck load of J-15s and their pilots who had never trained and perfected their capabilities to take-off, simualte attacks, and then land on the carrier at sea? Of course they would not.

Same holds for this system. When they test it and prove it end to end, full-up...and do it numerous times in an increaslingly difficult environment, then I will believe that they actually have an operational system capable of succeeeding at their Area Denial strategy.

Until then, they are doing fairly well by raising the hype at accomplishing the same strategy through alarming politicians and some analysts while they develop it, without ever fireing a shot over the ocean...and that's commendable too. But there are far too many people in the US industry and military who know full well the types of things I am talking about...and two can play the Sun Tzu game.

It is very likely that some of the "acceptance," and "reluctance," voiced by US personnel is a reverse strategy. Think about it. The US Navy, if it had to, would far rather sail into harm's way against an untested system, than against one that had shown without a doubt what it was capable of.

But EW environment with decoys, jamming, are NOT a guarantee against a weapon of this kind is all I'm saying. Also no body spends millions of dollars just to prove Sun Tzu's theory. Those people in the US industry and military know how are ONLY basing the technology of the DF-21D from what they already experienced, but not the total package. If it were just a "hypothetical weapon" than why worry about it? The big worry in IMO because building aircraft carriers is a big business and if this DF-21D were able to counter that threat, there goes tens of billions of dollars, plus the thousands of jobs that goes with it. I respect your opinion Jeff, but for me I chose to believe it's an operable system.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Those people in the US industry and military know how are ONLY basing the technology of the DF-21D from what they already experienced, but not the total package.
Not really. The engineers and high level analysts understand full well what the total package is, and would have to be to make such a system work.

If it were just a "hypothetical weapon" than why worry about it?
I have said several times that the PLAN is developing it. It is not "just hypothetical," it is however not fully tested.

The big worry in IMO because building aircraft carriers is a big business and if this DF-21D were able to counter that threat, there goes tens of billions of dollars, plus the thousands of jobs that goes with it.
The US will not stop building and using carriers even if there is an operational system. The US is actively developing the counter measures, passive, direct electronics, decoying, and hard kill missiles to defend against such a system. And will ultiamtely field laser and rail gun defenses too. Hehehe....which just means more jobs and more billions. LOL!

I respect your opinion Jeff, but for me I chose to believe it's an operable system.
I have no problem with that. I believe the PLAN is developing a system. I believe they have positioned some launchers for it too...and would probably use them if it had to. I also know that they have not thoroughly testred it end to end. That makes for a big risk. I am sure the US will, while developing actual defenses against it...and testing them full up as they have been doing...will also have PSYOPs that encourage the PLAN to never test it completely and prove its functionality.

It's a wheels within wheels game.

But...fair enough. Here in about 4-6 months, we can do it all again. LOL!
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
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.

an excellent post and well stated, it is a threat, it will be defended against, but without definitive testing and tweaking, it is an unknown quantity????? it is most certainly NOT a silver bullet.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
Frankly, I'm more worried about the YJ-12 armed JH-7s (escorted in the future by J-20s?). A DF-21D can't shoot back at the SM-3s coming its way. But a J-20 would be a heck of an opponent for a Superhornet or F-35C.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
an excellent post and well stated, it is a threat, it will be defended against, but without definitive testing and tweaking, it is an unknown quantity????? it is most certainly NOT a silver bullet.

Which brings us to the more important carrier defense, which is the unmitigated hell that will rain down on whoever would be foolish enough to sink or attempt to sink someone else's carrier, a carrier, more than any other capital vessel, besides possibly a boomer is a piece of the owners sovereign territory, not to mention the citizen soldiers who live there. All the more reason for posters to keep this on an academic level, a carrier is a dangerous place to work, but reasonably safe from the bad guys, unless from a terrorist attack or some similar incident..
 
Top