Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Bltizo said:

And that's the impasse we reach, because I don't think any of us have the info to make a call either way.
There are definitely difficulties to EO guidance, but I also think the benefits (and potential drawbacks of only relying on active radar) of a passive, image/profile recognition sensor would probably entice innovation to either materials, flight maneuvers, or a combination, to allow such guidance to work.

Whether such guidance exists is another matter, but like I said, we don't know enough to say yay or nay.

Click to expand...

I understand your enthusiasm and the potential benefits you state, just acting as devil's advocate to examine and debate all possibilities.

Bltizo said:

I've always believed the most effective RV would utilize a cluster munition rather than kinetic energy. Kinetic energy will be useful in driving a hole through the carrier, but it requires a pinpoint "hit" on deck and thus greater accuracy. Cluster munitions can cover a much greater area (so accuracy is a little bit less important), and still have the capacity to mission kill all the vulnerable topside bits like catapults, arrestor gear, radar, not to mention pot hole the surface area of the flight deck and possibly even do meaningful damage to the crew in the island as well.
In other words, make a carrier only a carrier of planes and not a launcher/receiver of planes.

Click to expand...

At those velocities kinetic energy works better then any chemical explosives. If you want clusters just place Tungsten rods weighing 50 Kg each and disperse them at the last few seconds and wind will do the rest.
What would happen is pierce the first floor but will burst into fragments at the lower floors due to action and reaction colliding one another within the rod as it burrows down. It the same as a lead bullet hitting a soft target where the exit point is much larger then the entry point.

SamuraiBlue said:

I understand your enthusiasm and the potential benefits you state, just acting as devil's advocate to examine and debate all possibilities.

Click to expand...

Sure, no problem.

At those velocities kinetic energy works better then any chemical explosives. If you want clusters just place Tungsten rods weighing 50 Kg each and disperse them at the last few seconds and wind will do the rest.
What would happen is pierce the first floor but will burst into fragments at the lower floors due to action and reaction colliding one another within the rod as it burrows down. It the same as a lead bullet hitting a soft target where the exit point is much larger then the entry point.

Click to expand...

I actually think ball bearings would be more effective, as the dispersion of rods may be more influenced by the angle of descent of the RV and potentially lose some of its kinetic energy due to "tumbling" in air as they fall. That depends on the dispersal mechanism of course, there are probably ways to make it more even.

Take home message IMO is that any AShBM would probably use a cluster munition of some description. Either bomblets, ball bearings, or rods. In any case, the terminal velocity would be beneficial, but not vital to destructive effects.

Bltizo said:

In any case, the terminal velocity would be beneficial, but not vital to destructive effects.

Click to expand...

No you need the extreme velocity to make the destructive effects I had described.

Bltizo, SamuraiBlue, you're having a great discussion, but let me ask you something: I've read (in a Czech military journal) that the warhead of an ASBM might carry "some electromagnetic weapon" ... I think of it as like short-circuiting above a CVBG, disabling most of the gear on the ships and airplanes ... will you please comment on it?

Jura said:

Bltizo, SamuraiBlue, you're having a great discussion, but let me ask you something: I've read (in a Czech military journal) that the warhead of an ASBM might carry "some electromagnetic weapon" ... I think of it as like short-circuiting above a CVBG, disabling most of the gear on the ships and airplanes ... will you please comment on it?

Click to expand...

Basically it is the same as EMP created by a nuclear blast in the stratosphere where an EMP is forced downwards, a conventional explosive blast can probably obtain a similar effect near the target. The explosive blast can be focused by utilizing the Monroe effect.
This is all speculation and really do not know how strong the EMP will be.

SamuraiBlue said:

No you need the extreme velocity to make the destructive effects I had described.

Click to expand...

But does it really matter if it is Mach 8-10 or Mach 5 if all you want is a mission kill of the top side structures?

Also, any cluster munition would likely feature an explosive charge to both spread and provide velocity to kinetic effectors. How much damage they can do is another thing altogether, but again, the requirement should be to achieve a mission kill of the flight deck

Bltizo said:

But does it really matter if it is Mach 8-10 or Mach 5 if all you want is a mission kill of the top side structures?

Also, any cluster munition would likely feature an explosive charge to both spread and provide velocity to kinetic effectors. How much damage they can do is another thing altogether, but again, the requirement should be to achieve a mission kill of the flight deck

Click to expand...

Probably not, and like a "frangible bullet" there may be such a thing as too much velocity causing the warhead to disentigrate, but who knows for sure, as this sho nuff is "rocket science". brat

Bltizo said:

But does it really matter if it is Mach 8-10 or Mach 5 if all you want is a mission kill of the top side structures?

Also, any cluster munition would likely feature an explosive charge to both spread and provide velocity to kinetic effectors. How much damage they can do is another thing altogether, but again, the requirement should be to achieve a mission kill of the flight deck

Click to expand...

Air Force Brat said:

Probably not, and like a "frangible bullet" there may be such a thing as too much velocity causing the warhead to disentigrate, but who knows for sure, as this sho nuff is "rocket science". brat

Click to expand...

As laws of physics dictates twice the speed four times the amount of energy. As for the rod it basically explodes as the kinetic energy wave of action and reaction collides within the rod turning into spontaneous heat instantly evaporating the rod and super heating the air around it. It the same principle as an asteroid blows up when it hits earth.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

It amazing HOW MANY PEOPLE for got what happened in the 1982 South Atlantic Conflict & what hit the Atlantic Conveyor during its journey down to the S. Atlantic.

For those that do remember, we used the container ship, as an additional vertical landing & take-off aircraft carrier for both Harriers & Chinooks.

The only problem which would affect such seaborne aerial activities IS the 5 degree variation of flight deck usage cannot be guaranteed. UNLESS the naval authorities concerned, retrofit the necessary underwater wings, which are currently used by modern aircraft carrier (& rely upon the two shipboard gyroscopes to ensure this 5 degree slope). Both active military usage of runway born aircraft (rather than vertical take-off & landing aircraft), would be limited to some extremely careful piloting in the heaviest of weather conditions.

During the Atlantic Conveyors involvement in that military expedition. They used loaded shipping containers on either side of the weather deck, to act as cross deck wind breaks. This was to allow flight deck maintenance & replenishing of the aircraft during combat activity.

The biggest interest shown by any military at the time, was in fact the old Soviet spy trawlers, who shadowed the Task Force all the way South. They OFTEN would pass between other naval convoy vessels & the A/C to take numerous photos. Twice the convoy was buzzed by Bears (soviet bombers) trying to perform their own aerial recces of the convoy. What they did not count on, was the Harrier reception committees loitering with intent to greet them!

So my question is: How do you land runway aircraft onto a vessel which pitches & rolls more than the 5 degrees normally delivered during normal aircraft carrier activities?

Yours,

JGHB1962.

Bltizo said:

And that's the impasse we reach, because I don't think any of us have the info to make a call either way.
There are definitely difficulties to EO guidance, but I also think the benefits (and potential drawbacks of only relying on active radar) of a passive, image/profile recognition sensor would probably entice innovation to either materials, flight maneuvers, or a combination, to allow such guidance to work.

Whether such guidance exists is another matter, but like I said, we don't know enough to say yay or nay.

I've always believed the most effective RV would utilize a cluster munition rather than kinetic energy. Kinetic energy will be useful in driving a hole through the carrier, but it requires a pinpoint "hit" on deck and thus greater accuracy. Cluster munitions can cover a much greater area (so accuracy is a little bit less important), and still have the capacity to mission kill all the vulnerable topside bits like catapults, arrestor gear, radar, not to mention pot hole the surface area of the flight deck and possibly even do meaningful damage to the crew in the island as well.
In other words, make a carrier only a carrier of planes and not a launcher/receiver of planes.

Click to expand...

Ever think they may develop both kinds of warheads and seekers?

I think the primary aim, at least to start with, would be to develop a working seeker and deployable weapon. That means its likely that the first gen of AShBMs would use the easiest means to guide them to the target, and that would be active radar.

That does not preclude the developed of EO or dual seekers, but as far as the Chinese mentality goes for military equipment, having an operational but less than perfect system is better than having the perfect system still on the drawing board when you need it.

The seeker may well also be linked with attack profile and warhead choice.

For the same logical choices as above, I think the PLA would rather have a much higher chance to cripple or mission kill a ship rather than have a much smaller chance to kill it outright. For that reason, and if they are only using active radar seekers, I can see them employing cluster munitions on at least some of their first gen AShBMs.

A suggested 50kg sabot is way overkill.

Your average DU 120mm sabot weighs 7.5-8kg, and at M10, it will be hitting with more than twice the speed of the tank round straight out of the muzzle. Even one of those should be plenty of kill power to mess up any ship's day, a DF21 could carry 75 of those. To be honest, even 120mm is overkill, for mission kill, even 20 or 30mm would be plenty, and a DF21 would be able to carry hundreds to over a thousand of those rounds depending on cal. It would be the equivalent of an A10 doing a strafing run on your warship at point blank range, only the rounds are hitting 4 times as hard.

I think if China is using sabots for its AShBM, DU would be a good choice because of its self-sharpening properties since you want maximum penetration.

From an operational deployment scenario, I can see the PLAN employing a mixed attack method, whereby they have their first wave is designed to airburst at medium altitude. At M10, even if they airburst end at 10km height, the sabots would be hitting around 3 seconds later, making terminal manoeuvring of the target ship all but irrelevant.

That makes both hard kill and soft kill countermeasures a lot less effective, and pretty much makes the CIWS lay of any ship's defences irrelevant.

The second wave would be fired to arrive a few minutes after the first, and would consist of hit to kill unity warhead rounds.

The idea is that the first wave massively degrades the target fleet's defensive capabilities, both soft kill and hard kill wise, to pave the way for the heavy hitters to deliver the knock out blow.

If you really want to make sure, you can also thrown in conventional AShMs, from both standard subsonics to the new super and hypersonic ones the PLA have been working on, some of which were recently unveiled at Zhuhai.

After they have achieved some form of operational capacity, that is when the PLA is likely to be inclined to look at follow-on systems with better performance, so I think that is where your dual seekers and complex flight profiles might come into play.