TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
And now I fire the sarcasm killer... The DDG1000 AGS pretty much is a Howitzer and the AC130s 105mm is to.
Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
SamuraiBlue
Captain
I'll post this:JGSDF has been operates the Type 88 Surface-to-Ship Missile for more than 20 years and now the Type 12 Surface-to-Ship Missile.
It' basically depends on how close a potential enemy is close your shores.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
At Mach 8 the missile traverse approx. 30Km in ten seconds, so when the terminal AHR kicks in there isn't much time. Having said that I really doubt a large civilian ship will be within a kilometer distance of a CVBG let alone a CV.
vesicles
Colonel
What about CVBGs intentionally position civilian tankers next to CVs as decoys?
SamuraiBlue
Captain
I doubt the US will go that low using human shields to protect their ships.
Jura The idiot
General
that's for sure, plus it'd slow down a CVBG, plus this "blend" would be much more easily detectable
vesicles
Colonel
Geesh! Of course I was not talking about using cruise liners with thousands of people onboard! I was thinking more in line of somehow rigging the tankers for remote control and then positioning them close to the CVBG. People have been suggesting testing China's DF-21 using tankers moving at high speed at sea to definitively show validity of the missile. I don't think they are suggesting actual people controlling the tankers when the DF-21 hits the ship... So there has to be a way to remote control it.
About detectability, I don't know how an entire CVBG can make itself stealth enough to avoid detection. So adding a few tankers won't hurt too much.
Speed is indeed a concern.
Last edited:
The speed of a CV might be twice that of the tanker. If they are near each other than only for a short time unless the CV goes slow on purpose.
No...not at all.
Being able to identify a capitol ship through satellite images and EM triangulation is not a full scale test of the ASBM system.
Not even close.
It simply indicates that in peace time, with satellites active, that if they ID EM sources or a SAT pic with a ship in it that they can ID the ship as a military capitol ship. I think that would be a given.
This proves one part of the acquisition portion of the total chain. That's all...and that was a given IMHO.
A) It does not tell us they acquired a maneuvering target out in the middle of the sea, 1,000+ miles offshore.
B) It does not tell us that they are able to feed that data from the acquisition source that vessel into the missile.
C) It does not tell us that the missile can launch on that moving target at sea in timely manner.
D) It does not tell us that the missile will re-enter the atmosphere near the target.
E) It does not tell us that the missile can then re-acquire the proper target after re-entry, and,
F) It does not then tell us the key to the whole matter, that the missile can then hit that maneuvering target.
I have no doubts that the PLAN can identify a target at sea with some degree of accuracy if they can find its EM or find it on a Sat picture. But neither of those is a given in a combat situation.
All this tells us is that once they do find EM emissions and/or a Sat pic, they had a 98% chance of ID'ing it as a capitol warship.
That is a VERY small portion of the entire chain of events.
So, A is not a given. I believe once they have a good target, that B, C and D are probably something they can make happen.
E and F are not a given at all. So, A, E and F are not givens with their missile.
And no matter how you dice it Engineer, a weapons system of this type that has never been full up tested (and that does not require a warhead to actually detonate, it just requires that they go through their paces with all of these complicated interfacing systems including the missile itself) is a system that is just that...untested. Never verified. Completely questionable as to its operational status.
We are seeing the NSM tested in such a fashion now. The LRASM will be similarly tested. The PLAN has regularly tested its naval surface to surface missile as well...for these same reasons.
This system should also be tested if the PLAN ever expects to actually rely on it functioning. Now, it can also be quite effective at deterrence if they can convince people that it might work. I believe that is the stage this system is at right now.
Testing it full up will require that the world knows about it. They have to test it on targets at sea to be sure...heck, to even be close to being sure. In order to do that, they are going to have to establish test zones/ranges. They are going to have to warn commercial shipping. And they are going to have to actually fire the thing at a moving target. When they do that...we will know about it.
I will keep saying this until they do...and keep indicating that until they do, what you have is much more a Sun Tsu type deception and subterfuge operations than an actual functioning system.
Your analogy to nuclear weapon tests is completely apples and oranges, and a strawman.
The missile systems they ride on have been tested in this fashion. So new warheads that fit the parameters of the launch and delivery systems do not have to be tested again.
This system is projecting/claiming a new capability. It must be tested to verify that claim...not for the US, or any potential target...but for the PRC military itself so they can know if it is something that will actually hit a target.
If the goal is to actually hit targets maneuvering out at sea...they will test it.
If the goal is to plant seeds of doubt in an effort to get a potential adversary to hesitate to use their principle advantage (ie. a carrier strike group), they never will.
To date, they have not.
Last edited:
shen
Senior Member
You can believe what you want, the US government disagrees with you. Pentagon announced it believes DF-21D achieved IOC back in 2010. As a point of comparison, the F-35, with over 100 copies flying, has not achieved IOC status yet according to Pentagon. You must know something the guys at Pentagon don't, or are you saying Pentagon is lying?