Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Bltizo said:

Jeff, what do you think of my suggestion that the PLA would actively seek to avoid a full scale test of the system?

If you think it is a plausible desire, do you think if there is a way to test all the individual components in as realistic a way to avoid a high profile test?

Click to expand...

Simple, remember the 1995 missile tests? A public test of DF-21D that involves sinking a ship at sea would be interpreted and spinned by western press as another provocative action by the evil Chinese. China is probably waiting for the next crisis that threatens its core interests to do a public demonstration of DF-21D's power. Anything less is not worth the backlash.

Thankfully the USN leadership is not interpreting this self-control on China's part as weakness and is taking DF-21D seriously.

btw, Aegis ABM system is hardly fully tested against a DF-21D class threat. has it intercepted a maneuvering warhead with the range and reentry speed of DF-21? No. Is it combat tested? No. But I'm not going to call Aegis system a fortune cookie trick as that would be foolish and a bad cliche.

shen said:

A public test of DF-21D that involves sinking a ship at sea would be interpreted and spinned by western press as another provocative action by the evil Chinese. China is probably waiting for the next crisis that threatens its core interests to do a public demonstration of DF-21D's power. Anything less is not worth the backlash.

Click to expand...

Poppycock.

shen said:

Thankfully the USN leadership is not interpreting this self-control on China's part as weakness and is taking DF-21D seriously.

Click to expand...

Of course they take it seriously...so do I. At the same being perfectly frank and clear about the state of a potential weapon system, is also critcally important. You can only take something seriously when you factually consider what it is, and where it is.

Even untested, there is a potential threat of a system that is fielded. That threat you take seriously...even though it may never have been tested appropriately. At the same time, you are neither over awed or initimidated by bluster and talk.[/quote]

shen said:

BTW, Aegis ABM system is hardly fully tested against a DF-21D class threat. has it intercepted a maneuvering warhead with the range and reentry speed of DF-21? No. Is it combat tested? No. But I'm not going to call Aegis system a fortune cookie trick as that would be foolish and a bad cliche.

Click to expand...

Oh, what balderdash. Hardly fully tested?

Do your homework and look at the many, many tests and their success rate. Is it a perfect system? Nope...but, shen, in the real world, that's why you keep testing it and improving it because your opposition is not sitting still either.

The AEGIS ABM system is not only funtional, but deployed to protect the US and allies...and it has been able to do so in large part precisely because that system has been regularly and rigurously tested with an imptroving high success rate. And tested against what? Well, the very thing it is meant to defend against..yes, you guessed it, ballistic missiles.

This allows it to be constantly improved upon as weaknesses and failures are experienced. As I said, it is a common, interinsic part of fielding any complex weapon system. And the US has done many live fire, in the open, full-up tests of that system and will continue to do so. I would settle for the PLAN starting with just one full-up test on the DF-21D out into the ocean, several hundred miles off shore against a straight line moving target to begin with...just one.

As to people being overly excited about it and politicians and fear mongers genning up fear over it...of course they will...that's part of the world we live in. That's why I called your excuse for not doing so poppycock.

If a nation is going to depend on a major, complex weapon system to deny access to a powerful opponent...then youy cna bet that nation will want to absolutely know it will work, and improve on it when it invariably has failutres. Those two things are far more important than anyfear mongering that some press may try to create over it.

If the PRC leadership is afraid to so much as test a system they may have to depnd on because they are afraid of fear mongers...then they either do not really believe there is a threat, or they are very weak.

I do not believe either of those to be the case.

As it is, I have said my piece. In any serious design and deployment environment for military systems, significant real world, full-up tests of the system are paramount and a necessary part of the process. That's how you prove it works. That's how you improve upon it.

...'til next time.

shen said:

Simple, remember the 1995 missile tests? A public test of DF-21D that involves sinking a ship at sea would be interpreted and spinned by western press as another provocative action by the evil Chinese. China is probably waiting for the next crisis that threatens its core interests to do a public demonstration of DF-21D's power. Anything less is not worth the backlash.

Thankfully the USN leadership is not interpreting this self-control on China's part as weakness and is taking DF-21D seriously.

btw, Aegis ABM system is hardly fully tested against a DF-21D class threat. has it intercepted a maneuvering warhead with the range and reentry speed of DF-21? No. Is it combat tested? No. But I'm not going to call Aegis system a fortune cookie trick as that would be foolish and a bad cliche.

Click to expand...

Make a strawman with narrow enough definition and nothing is ever fully tested. And despite what some may claim according to their experience, I can tell you from my own experience that there are systems that routinely not tested as whole. Like, how do you do full test of a system that suppose to work in a zero-G environment? You can't. For some, a "full test" is the real deal and there is only one shot. Look at the Mars Opportunity rover. Everything has to work perfectly on the first attempt, and it is achieved without having done the so call "full test" of the entire sequence of events from start to finish. There are technological, cost, and political reasons that prohibit some tests to be performed. It just has to be compensated with more exhaustive tests and quality control in other areas.

Engineer said:

Make a strawman with narrow enough definition and nothing is ever fully tested. And despite what some may claim according to their experience, I can tell you from my own experience that there are systems that routinely not tested as whole. Like, how do you do full test of a system that suppose to work in a zero-G environment? You can't. For some, a "full test" is the real deal and there is only one shot. Look at the Mars Opportunity rover. Do you think NASA full tested the mission before the actual mission? Everything has to work perfectly on the first attempt, and it is done without having done the so call "full test" of the entire sequence of events from start to finish. There are technological, cost, and political reasons that prohibit some tests to be performed. It just has to be compensated with more exhaustive tests and quality control in other areas.

Click to expand...

indeed, very good to hear the perspective of an engineer. is it correct to say that a test which provide meaningful technical data and a public demonstration are very different?

my point is that other than technical reasons, there are political reasons why testing can only be carried to certain level at certain time. For example, for the US to carry out a full test of Aegis ABM against a DF-21 class target, it would have to abrogate the INF Treaty. Which would be a big betray of European allies.

Bltizo said:

Jeff, what do you think of my suggestion that the PLA would actively seek to avoid a full scale test of the system?

If you think it is a plausible desire, do you think if there is a way to test all the individual components in as realistic a way to avoid a high profile test?

Click to expand...

Bltizo, I was going to stop with my last post, but I saw your question and I know it is sincere and seeking to identify the facts and the potential for vrious paths the PRC wouild seek in this set of circumstances.

In a real world engineering environment where complex systems are being developed for the military...every component will be tested.

Then sub-systems based on those components will be tested.

All of that will initially be modeled in a virtual environemtnt these days as much as possible before proceeding to the real world, field tests of those components and/or sub-systems.

But stopping there would be extremely short-sighted.

Those systems will all have to work together in order to produce the desired results. The C4RSI environment that this system has to work in simply demands that they be tested together in order to prove the premise of the suystem and then to define flaws...so they can be corrected and so the system can be improved.

But in the end, if it is a system that your nation wants to count on to deny to a powerful opponent in certain areas...you will test it all together.

IThe idea that such a critical, complex, and expensive system would stop short of testing it in full to define its capabilities and be able to improve on any weakness, is itself a very weak arguement. Such an arguement itself actually implies that the commitment to such a system is also weak.

I do not believe that.

If they intend on depending on this system...they will test it in full.

How many nations have stopped testing other powerful anti-shipping missiles because they were afraid the other side would consider it too dangerous? Do the Russians? Do the Janaese? Do the Norwegians, UK, France, Swedes, etc. The list is pretty exhaustive.


No, of course they do not.

In some cases we are talking about weapons that are huge, travel at multiple machs, and have very significant range. Such systems themselves are getting pretty close to the type capabiloity of the DF-21D...and yet they have been tested and proven...despite whatever press downsides there were.

IMHO, the same will hold true for the DF-21D in order for it to be a prven, reliable...and improving weapon system.

If they elect to not test it fully, then they are taking the inherant risk that it may certianly not perform to expectations, and they will be risking the real world opportunity to improve on the system over time. I would not recommend such a course for any critical system.

Anyhow...I have pretty much had my say. In afew more months I will be back and remind everyone of these same points...that is until the PRC actually starts testing this system against what it is meant to prevent.

Thanks jeff.

So basically you believe both that there are no downsides for the PLA to test the system fully (both military and political), and that they can't do non full scale, shoot-at-a-moving-target-at-sea tests to demonstrate the viability of the system?

Because I absolutely agree there needs to be realistic tests, I'm just not sure if it has to involve a high profile, risky and revealing test fire into the western pacific. I've listed various ways they could test the system in previous posts, I would be interested in your opinion regarding it

But in the end I suppose we'll just agree to disagree on this matter

Engineer said:

I can tell you from my own experience that there are systems that routinely not tested as whole. Like, how do you do full test of a system that suppose to work in a zero-G environment? You can't.

Click to expand...

Yes...you can. Zero G environments are simulated all of the time in the atmosphere.

Further more, many systems are taken into space on DOD missions and tested there. Yes...systems can be and are tested in zero G.

Engineer said:

For some, a "full test" is the real deal and there is only one shot. Look at the Mars Opportunity rover. Everything has to work perfectly on the first attempt, and it is achieved without having done the so call "full test" .

Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges, Engineer.

Is the PLAN intending to attack a carrier on the face of Mars?

No...of course not.

How many times did the NASA crash into Mars in proceeding to the Opportunity Rovers? How many smaller, shorter range, and shorter term NASA landers went to Mars? How many times did NASA simulate environments where they could full-up test those rovers? The answer in all cases is that they did it multiple time in leading up to somthing like the Opportunity Rover on Mars.

Testing is intrinsic. You cannot prove anything's reliability, and then improve on it, without testing. Sometimes circumstances demand that the real world environment and in operations constitutes the test..but that is rare, and most times not.

That is also not the case here. There is nothing keeping the PRC from establishing a test range out in the Pacific, as the US and other nations have done, and then shooting their missiles out there to test them.

Testing anti-shipping missiles is routinely done. First for the missiles themselves and showing that they work. Second to improve on them, and finally to ensure that the people using them are adequtely trained in their use...up to and including life fire tests.

I have worked on all of the following systems in the real world in the design/engineering environment.

The A-7 Corsair II Naval Attack aircraft
The US Army Multiple-Launch-Rocket System (MLRS)
The THAADS (Theater High Altitude Air defense System)
The NSSN program that became the Virginia Class attack submarines.

Before any of those systems went operational, a lot of prototyping and testing was done. A lot. In some cases vehicles and systems were lost as a result of the tests. But the tests allowed us to know exaclty what was working...and many tests were perfomred to understand how those systems performed in varying environments...both atmospheric, electronic, and for numerous other criteria.

The DF-21D is a system, with a big reliance on C4ISR that would absolutely require significant testing, from the component level on up, to ensure it operates properly and then to improve on the invariable problems such a complex system will have.

There is nothing "narrow," about this. There is no progganda involved in this discussion. This is straight design/engineering pracitse in any development, particularly for military systems.

Anyhow...I am repeating myself.

The Chinese have made huge strides and progress in their military systems. Qualitatively and technolofgically they are orders of magnitude further advanced and better than they were just 15 years ago. They have gotten there by not taking short cuts and I respect what they have done and are doing.

If they plan for the DF-21D to be a system that they must rely on, I do not expect they will shortcut it. They will test it as much as they possibly can.

Anyhow..as I already said...I have said enough.

Jeff Head said:

Yes...you can. Zero G envoironments are simulated all of the time in the atmosphere.

Further more, many systems are taken into space on DOD missions and tested there. YEs...they can be and are tested.

Click to expand...

Note what I said in the previous post: "full test in zero-G". This is not the same as simulating zero-G environments. This is not the same as taking sub components to space for heritage flights. You don't launch a system into space to see if it works. You launch the system because you know it will work. They won't let you fly otherwise. But how to full test a system that suppose to work in zero-G environment? You can't. You test each link in the chain and each subsystem as much as possible. This is routinely done, and that is why your funny criteria is a strawman.

Jeff Head said:

Apples and Oranges, Engineer...and you know it.

Is the PLAN intending to attack a carrier on the face of Mars?

Nope...of course not.

Click to expand...

So fruit and fruit? System and system? Valid example then, and you know it. You asserted a system must undergo full test, under realistic situations too. I only need to provide one exception to disprove that assertion and I have showed you two examples already. Just like ICBMs, the Opportunity and other spacecraft had subsections of the chain tested rather than the entire chained being tested from start to finish. Despite not meeting your funny criteria, these systems are very much operational.

Jeff Head said:

How many times did the NASA crash into Mars in proceeding to the Opportunity Rovers? How many smaller smaller, shorter range and shorter term NASA landers went to MArs?

How many times did NASA simulate environments where they could full-up test thpose rovers? The answer in all cases is that they did it multiple time in leading up to somthing like the Opportunity Rover.

Click to expand...

What have these previous missions got to do with anything? You asserted a system must be fully tested. Those previous spacecraft are not the Opportunity so do not support your assertion. Or are you now trying to argue that previously tested components are already proven thus allowing Opportunity to be an exception to your funny criteria? If that's the case, ASBM should be an exception as well since it is already using many existing systems. Oh, the contradictions!

By the way, how many operational Opportunity spacecraft did NASA build? One, the one that went to Mars, the one that didn't gone through your "full test" criteria.

Jeff Head said:

Testing is intrinsic. You can prove anything's reliability, and then improve on it, without testing. Sometimes circumstances demand that the real world environment constitutes the test.

That is not the case here. There is nothing keeping the PRC from establishing a test range out in the PAcific, as the US and other nations have done, and then shooting their missiles out there to test them.

Click to expand...

Who said proving reliability without testing? Not me. What I have been saying all this time is a test doesn't have to meet your funny criteria. Nothing keeps the PRC from establishing a test range in the Gobi Desert, and that is precisely what China did. Nothing prevents the PRC from tracking US carriers, relaying those data to missile units through C4ISR, while not actually launching anything. Nothing keeps the PRC from providing the re-entry vehicle with a virtual maneuvering target out in the middle of Gobi Desert to test the capability of the re-entry vehicle.

Jeff Head said:

Testing anti-shipping missiles is routinely done. First for the missiles themselves and showing that they work. Second to improve on them, and finally to ensure that the people using them are adequtely trained in their use...up to and including life fire tests.

Click to expand...

So? A system would of course be tested more routinely when it is easier and cheaper to do so. This doesn't mean those systems located further up are not being tested or not being tested enough. At the very top of those scales, items such as ICBMs can't be fully tested as a fully functional system as such tests are prohibited. Likewise, ASBM would have concerns such as trajectory data that would discourage a test of similar nature from being conducted. Yet, other tests can still be conducted to ensure reliability of the system.

Jeff Head said:

I have worked on all of the following systems in the real world in the design/engineering environment.

The A-7 Corsair II Naval Attack aircraft
The US Army Multiple-Launch-Rocket System (MLRS)
The THAADS (Theater High Altitude Air defense System)
The NSSN program that became the Virginia Class attack submarines.

Before any of those systems went operational, a lot of prototyping and testing was done. A lot. In some cases vehicles and systems were lost as a result of the tests. But the tests allowed us to know exaclty what was working...and many tests were perfomred to understand how those systems performed in varying environments...both atmospheric, electronic, and for numerous other criteria.

The DF-21D is a system, with a big reliance on C4ISR that would absolutely require significant testing, from the compnent level on up, to ensure it operates properly and then to improve on the invariable problems such a complex system will have.

There is nothing "narrow," about this. There is no progganda involved in this discussion. This is straight design/engineering pracitse in any developmnent ment, particularly for military systems.

Anyhow...I am repeating myself.

The Chinese have made huge strides and progress in their military systems. Qualitatively and technolofgically they are orders of magnitude further advanced and better than they were just 15 years ago. They have gotten there by not taking short cuts and I respect what they have done and are doing.

If they plan for the DF-21D to be a system that they must rely on, I do not expect they will shortcut it. They will test it as much as they possibly can.

Anyhow..as I already said...I have said enough.

Click to expand...

No where did I say tests are not needed. What this is is your conjured up criteria, to that I already provided two specific examples to demonstrate the criteria can be broken.

Engineer said:

What this is is your conjured up criteria, to that I already provided two specific examples to demonstrate the criteria can be broken.

Click to expand...

Nothing is "conjured," up, engineer. That' seems to just be your mechanism to try and negate an arguement you do not happen to agree with.

It's pretty straight forward. The specifications of the system define the test parameters.

Shooting at a static target in the Gobi desert is something you do on the front end...and the PRC did that. But it is also not fulfilling the basic specifications of the overall system. Which would be targeting and hitting a manuevering ship sized target in the Ocean...which is what the system intends and where it intends it.

I have indicated in the past that that desert shot was a good thing, and something that would certainly be an intial test.

Then you move on to the next steps.

Anyhow, we clearly disagree...and that is fine. I have said what I intended to say, and for the reasons I gave. And, you know what, eng? I was able to do so without somehow using any invective against oither SD members.

'til the next go around.

Jeff Head said:

Nothing is "conjured," up, engineer. That' seems to just be your mechanism to try and negate an arguement you do not happen to agree with.

It's pretty straight forward. The specifications of the system define the test parameters.

Shooting at a static target in the Gobi desert is something you do on the front end...and the PRC did that. But it is also not fulfilling the basic specifications of the overall system. Which would be targeting and hitting a manuevering ship sized target in the Ocean...which is what the system intends and where it intends it.

I have indicated in the past that that desert shot was a good thing, and something that would certainly be an intial test.

Then you move on to the next steps.

Anyhow, we clearly disagree...and that is fine. I have said what I intended to say, and for the reasons I gave. And, you know what, eng? I was able to do so without somehow using any invective against oither SD members.

'til the next go around.

Click to expand...

You are reversing the cause and effect. The mechanism which negates your funny criteria are the real world examples. It is a consequent to that that I call a spade a spade, Jeff.

And since when did I mentioned shooting of a static target? No where. This is your third response in a row where you took the liberty of manufacturing an argument then proceed to argue against your own creation. For the record, I said "nothing keeps the PRC from providing the re-entry vehicle with a virtual maneuvering target out in the middle of Gobi Desert to test the capability of the re-entry vehicle." What is a maneuvering target? Simply put, it isn't static.