Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Jeff Head · Jan 8, 2014

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Guys, Cut the arguement about MAD warfare between the US and China.

It will only lead to increasingly heated arguements, and flame wars (as it is already starting to do).

This thread is about Carrier Battle Group tactics, not about startegic all-out nuclear war.

Do not respond to this post...just cut the MAD discussion

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> END MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Thanks.

Hendrik_2000 · Jan 11, 2014

chuck731 said:
Sometimes I wonder if you understand how little relation your notion of power of small number of chinese nuclear weapons have with results from exhaustively analyzed cold war studies of what it takes to serious set back a large nation geared to fight and win a war involving limited nuclear exchange. The number of countervalue warsheads required to seriously set back la large power prepared to fight is meansured in the hundreds. The number of counterforce warshead required to make any difference is measured in the thousands. China has only dozens.
Then let's talk.

Nobody know the extent of Chinese nuclear stockpile. The number 300 often quoted by western media is totally wrong. It was based on the only study done in MIT back in the 80's plutonium processing capacity by a Chinese post doctoral student who work with Jeffrey Lewis. And since then regurgitated by every analyst in the west. There is no known barrier financial or technical for China to augment the stock pile. Most of the modern nuclear processing facilities has been moved from the north west to the South West and buried underground. Unless US have a satellite that can peer thru thousands meter of hard rock, no one can be sure . Anyway back to the ASBM. Hongjian at CDf just posted paper that confirm they have the accuracy and can hit a moving and rotating target. While ago we saw what look like a rectangular concrete slab on rotating table the size of carrier. I guess it could be proof of concept

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jeff Head · Jan 11, 2014

Hendrik_2000 said:
Hongjian at CDf just posted paper that confirm they have the accuracy and can hit a moving and rotating target. While ago we saw what look like a rectangular concrete slab on rotating table the size of carrier. I guess it could be proof of concept.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

PIC 1

PIC 2

PIC 3

PIC 4

Proof of concept? What?

The first picture is nothing more than a satellite pic of the USS Forrestal and the USS Saratoga mothballed in Rhode Island.

The two following pictures are simply the same tired photographs we have seen of craters in the desert.

The final pic is simply a PLAN test ship at dockside with no relation at all to proving a operational, fully tested system.

None of those lend the least credence to the PLAN being able to hit a moving, maneuvering (and maneuvering means a LOT more than "rotating") target at sea.

As has been stated numerous times...all the excuses, all of the white papers, all of the craters in the desert, all of the touched up photos from other sources, will not make up for or account for the lack of actual live fire, full up tests of this system actually attempting to do what this system purports.

Until that happens...and numerous times so it can be improved upon and perfected...to any serious real-world analyst, this system remains an untested, unproven concept, that may well have undergone static tests and may well have even been deployed, but nonetheless has never really been tested.

Hendrik_2000 · Jan 11, 2014

Jeff Head said:
Proof of concept? What?

The first picture is nothing more than a satellite pic of the USS Forrestal and the USS Saratoga mothballed in Rhode Island.

The two following pictures are simply the same tired photographs we have seen of craters in the desert.

The final pic is simply a PLAN test ship at dockside with no relation at all to proving a operational, fully tested system.

None of those lend the least credence to the PLAN being able to hit a moving, maneuvering (and maneuvering means a LOT more than "rotating") target at sea.

As has been stated numerous times...all the excuses, all of the white papers, all of the craters in the desert, all of the touched up photos from other sources, will not make up for or account for the lack of actual live fire, full up tests of this system actually attempting to do what this system purports.

Until that happens...and numerous times so it can be improved upon and perfected...to any serious real-world analyst, this system remains an untested, unproven concept, that may well have undergone static tests and may well have even been deployed, but nonetheless has never really been tested.

The relative speed of ASBM vs 34 knot make the target stationery as far as the missile goes. so your effort to cast doubt on the viability of ASBM is nothing but denial. There is no need for live test. It has been tested numerous time as attested by the US intelligence. The picture of the concrete block superimposed on the carrier is to confirm the size of the block is equal to carrier It has nothing to do with ASBM hitting the carrier

Jeff Head · Jan 11, 2014

Hendrik_2000 said:
The relative speed of ASBM vs 34 knot make the target stationery as far as the missile goes. so your effort to cast doubt on the viability of ASBM is nothing but denial. There is no need for live test. It has been tested numerous time as attested by the US intelligence. The picture of the concrete block superimposed on the carrier is to confirm the size of the block is equal to carrier It has nothing to do with ASBM hitting the carrier

Hendrick, I am not going to go over and over on this again.

Yes, the speed of the missile makes the speed of the carrier insignificant in the terminal phase..

However, when launched from 1000-1500 miles away, the speed of the carrier plays into it...and any real world engineer or designer knows it.

In the time it takes for the missile to get the targeting communicated to it, lift off, travel the distance, and reach a terminal maneuver, the carrier will have moved a very significant distance at 32-35 knots...several miles. In that sense, the speed of the moving target matters, and it matters a lot. And until they test the system to see if they can in fact re-acquire that target after re-entry at that speed, and then maneuver to hit is...the rest is academic.

They have to do it first in a completely clean environment hitting that maneuvering target at sea...that would be proof of concept. They have not.

Then they have to do it in environments that mimic the EW, anti-air, anti-targeting, etc. conditions they would face in real life. That's called operational testing. They have not.

When they do...I and other real world engineers and designers and testers and analysts will stand up and take much more note of that fact.

As I have said, there is no doubt that static test have been performed. But for a system like this...those are very preliminary tests. There is no doubt that they have performed computer simulations...but those too are only preliminary to the real world test to verify the computer simulation. To deny THIS, is simply incredulous and what is amazing to me. Any engineer or test professional knows these things are necessary to test and improve a system of this nature.

As it is...we have said our parts. Both of us.

To argue more about it is useless at this point until something substantive changes.

Hendrik_2000 · Jan 13, 2014

Jeff Head said:
Hendrick, I am not going to go over and over on this again.

Yes, the speed of the missile makes the speed of the carrier insignificant in the terminal phase.

However, when launched from 1000-1500 miles away, the speed of the carrier plays into it...and any real world engineer or designer knows it.

In the time it takes for the missile to get the targeting communicated to it, lift off, travel the distance, and reach a terminal maneuver, the carrier will have moved a very significant distance at 32-35 knots...several miles. In that sense, the speed of the moving target matters, and it matters a lot. And until they test the system to see if they can in fact re-acquire that target after re-entry at that speed, and then maneuver to hit is...the rest is academic.

They have to do it first in a completely clean environment hitting that maneuvering target at sea...that would be proof of concept. They have not.

Then they have to do it in environments that mimic the EW, anti-air, anti-targeting, etc. conditions they would face in real life. That's called operational testing. They have not.

When they do...I and other real world engineers and designers and testers and analysts will stand up and take much more note of that fact.

As I have said, there is no doubt that static test have been performed. But for a system like this...those are very preliminary tests. There is no doubt that they have performed computer simulations...but those too are only preliminary to the real world test to verify the computer simulation. To deny THIS, is simply incredulous and what is amazing to me. Any engineer or test professional knows these things are necessary to test and improve a system of this nature.

As it is...we have said our parts. Both of us.

To argue more about it is useless at this point until something substantive changes.

There are many system that doesn't require actual test to validate its ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MODERATOR EDIT <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hendrik_2000, you just got two infractions and will be suspended for a week.

1st, you responded to an instruction from a moderator. I put it in blue so you would know that it was a specific moderator instruction, and the rules specifically indicate you should not reply to those instructions. For that you would have received a WARNING.

2nd, in that response you specifically continued a discussion that I had just told you should cease. That's the second infraction and you are SUSPENDED one week for doing so.

You have been here a long time. You know better.

READ THE RULES

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> END MODERATOR EDIT <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

escobar · Jan 13, 2014

Hendrik_2000 said:
There are many system that doesn't require actual test to validate its effectiveness. One of them is nuclear blast.

In fact they use sophisticated supercomputer modeling based on real nuclear tests they have already done in the past. That is why they don't need actual tests anymore.

Jura The idiot · Jan 14, 2014

It seems it's high time

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lezt · Jan 15, 2014

given we are open to the concept of a tactical nuke... a 450 kt warhead is only ~400kg.... and that would have an effective radius of around 5 miles. it doesnt matter if there is terminsl guidiance or not. any tactical nuke will reduce a cvbg a good run for its money

Jeff Head · Jan 15, 2014

Lezt said:
given we are open to the concept of a tactical nuke... a 450 kt warhead is only ~400kg.... and that would have an effective radius of around 5 miles. it doesnt matter if there is terminsl guidiance or not. any tactical nuke will reduce a cvbg a good run for its money

We have discussed this particular issue numerous times in the past her on SD. It always comes down to the same thing.

Any use of a nuclear weapon against a US carrier battle group would invite a massive retaliation in kind.

That would play to an absolute strength the US military has and is not something China would contemplate unless they were ready to go to a full nuclear exchange...which would be madness.

No need to continue a discussion of the use of nuclear weapons as a realistic strategy to fight a carrier group.

Thanks.

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Jeff Head

General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Jeff Head

General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Jeff Head

General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

escobar

Brigadier

Jura The idiot

General

Lezt

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General