Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

bd popeye said:

The Chinese side of this argument is this.. Our missiles will over whelm you. We will destroy your navy, air force and all your bases in the Pacific. You have no chance against out untested new shiny military equipment. We have you figured out. And the American people have no will to fight China. Plus like in a real war between the US and China we simply outnumber you. So give it up.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute boss (boss with respect. I intend to call you "grandpa", in Chinese means respect, but guess in English it dose not) - Chinese culture got this thing that, in argue, one side "play weak", get PR boost, get "moral highground", get lots of perks... I am not saying you are doing that here, but - as me claim to be a Chinese citizen, you ever saw me making that kind of claim or sugguestion you just suggested? Put it on table, I am one guy said that even the rest of the world's navy add togather, pit against USN, US wins with easy.

OK, I am one man, others may do something else. But hey, others bash China too, I didn't consider "being bashed so many times, the next foreign guy is simply here to bash, also." kind of mindset.

So, "True American" like Mr. IronsightSniper, using bad example (fruitfulless claims) defending true condition (that USN ROCKS! - it is true!), and out-manuvoured (correct my spelling please), American mindset just simply turn to "oh, that's only because he's out-numbered" automaticly?

Can a young man like me friendly point out the mistake (or, "un-righteous-ness") of an older person ("oldman" is also disrespect in English, right?) like you? PLEASE?

One's debate, can simply being HOLLOW, despite the number of (other) people attacking that hollow-ness. - Not am I saying Mr. IronsightSniper never right, nor I saying those who debating Chinese people never being hollow... It's just jump to conclusion "You JUST win by numbers."... is cowardice.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

Ha. You are so blind. Russia to North. Afghanistan, to the West. SoKo and Japan, to the East. Australia, to the South. China is surrounded and U.S. forces are proliferating all over the area. China's response? AShBM. You should remember that it was you who brought up the idea of the DF-21Ds being launched after the superbugs/prowlers/growlers have been launched. Therefore, they are indeed still in the picture, and can face and defeat the majority of what it meets in the air.

Click to expand...

Without a base to land, the U.S. fighter jets will be engaged differently. The Chinese fighters will fake engagement and then just shoot off or they'll fire their MRAAM at the longest range just to make their opponents' jet make a run from it and running out of fuel and forced to land.

To be fair, I was going after a nice, even, round number. You can pretend that the superbugs went into some Hollywood-dogfight with the J-10s if you want. Your assumption, is of course, that each superbug is invaluable, and if destroyed, becomes useless. I am stating, that if in such a scenario, that a superbug is to be destroyed, more will take it's place. While in China, per J-10 destroyed, it is unlikely that even the dragon's factories can produce much more J-10s, after the Chinese IADS has been circumvented and the factories destroyed by a long-range semi-stealth missile from a B-2.

Click to expand...

China is not Iraq or Libya. Most of U.S. weapons rely on satellite intelligence and GPS. This is where China's ASAT weapons are so significant. Some of the U.S. precision weapons are basically blind without these satellites.

Ahh...this again. I have already told the guy who suggested, why China's nuclear deterrence is a flop. Nuking Russia will get China nuked. Russia is best in a world where China doesn't exist. A MAD scenario will not be so, as China, even though they've officially "switched" to a "limited" deterrence, really doesn't have anything that is comparable to the strike capability of our Nuclear force. Like so, in a neo-con U.S.A., it's really irrelevant if you nuke our major cities, because, well, at least we know you're all dead.

Click to expand...

Your statement here smell awful of you just trying to troll. No, Russia will not nuke China, neither will China nuke Russia, because where do the remaining one billion Chinese go if their country is nuked by the U.S? Russia, of course, since it happens to be its nearest neighbour with the longest border, and also a neighbour with lots of nukes that can be used either under coersion by the half a billion Chinese army or by cooperation dictated by survival of both nations.

Great, not even being original anymore. Like I've said, you revert back to old arguments when your present ones flop, you accuse the other side of the deeds that he has accused you to circumvent investigation into your deeds, lets be quite honest, you've been leading this discussion because I let you lead it to show you how flawed your thoughts are. Like I've said before, grand scheme of things, AShBM v.s. Carrier, Carrier wins, U.S.A. v.s. China, U.S.A. wins, accept that or not, one thing is true, that this is off topic, why you don't listen to me, I don't know, if you're going to say I don't listen to you, you're proving my point.

Click to expand...

Yeah, anybody can write a winning script. The fact is it'll be a bloody mayhem for a lot of nations.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Hendrik_2000 said:

You didn't answer my rhetorical question. If ASAT Missile can hit head on an 2 m3 object travelling at 18000 mile/hr. How hard it is to hit 400m long Carriere travelling at 35 knot using the same technology?.

The fact that they didn't have full test mean that they have high confidence that the missile and seeker will do the job. Notice they used the same missile, the same seeker

BTW the ASAT test was revealed by Aviation week and not DoD For some reason Dod keep quiet 3 or 5 days after the test. Only when the news broke out did they confirm it. So it is not unusual for DoD to keep their finding secret

The Chinese anti-satellite system has been named by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Maples, in a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing as the SC-19.[15] The SC-19 has been described as being based on a modified DF-21 ballistic missile or its commercial derivative, the KT-2 with a Kinetic Kill Vehicle mounted. The ASAT kill vehicle relies on an imaging infrared seeker and also has been described as a modified HQ-19 surface-to-air missile. The program is said to have been at least partially funded by China's 863 Program (specifically, the 863-409 focus area).[16] The closing velocity of the intercept was approximately 18,000 miles per hour, comparable to the American National Missile Defense system.[1

Click to expand...

1st china know exactly where the sat is at, and the trajectory of the sat. the carrier group has to be detect and locate it in an open sea 1st, i think china has about 9k mile(14.5km) coastline(CVG can be anywhere from some x milie out to hundreds miles out, which make it very diffcult to find due to large area)
2nd china has to identify which one is the carriers, and believe me its not an easy task to differentiate a carriers vs a cruiser with RF or other type of beyond visual range sensors.
3rd the due to unknow CVG travel path/position, the missile has to adjust its path in REAL TIME(this is very hard to do).
4th due to ASBM high speed in an atomsphere and heat, there are certain effect on missile sensors.

its different scenario when hitting something thats outside of atomsphere, with known position, potential difference in velocity vs BM terminal speed, clutters from atomsphere and ground clutters.

you really think with such advance ASBM tech, china will be so confident that they won't even do some test? its like design an ipod then send to production after few test, not even commerical company do that. let along a complex/advance tech such as ASBM. if i send some report to my customer and said well we did few test, and we are confidence it will work. what do you think the customer will say. there are specfic process when design something this complex. a good sophisticate test can sometime take longer than the actual design of the product. just another example, J20 just came out, and why do you think US say the plane will not be operational in another decade or so. its because its still in performance and testing phase to get rid of all the bugs/errors etc, and maybe add some extra performance etc etc.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Quickie said:

Without a base to land, the U.S. fighter jets will be engaged differently. The Chinese fighters will fake engagement and then just shoot off or they'll fire their MRAAM at the longest range just to make their opponents' jet make a run from it and running out of fuel and forced to land.








China is not Iraq or Libya. Most of U.S. weapons rely on satellite intelligence and GPS. This is where China's ASAT weapons are so significant. Some of the U.S. precision weapons are basically blind without these satellites.






Your statement here smell awful of you just trying to troll. No, Russia will not nuke China, neither will China nuke Russia, because where do the remaining one billion Chinese go if their country is nuked by the U.S? Russia, of course, since it happens to be its nearest neighbour with the longest border, and also a neighbour with lots of nukes that can be used either under coersion by the half a billion Chinese army or by cooperation dictated by survival of both nations.



Yeah, anybody can write a winning script. The fact is it'll be a bloody mayhem for a lot of nations.

Click to expand...

like i said before china can damage some base, but without addtional attacks, it will be fixed very soon. +if you think china can total destory multipler carrier group + multiple bases surrounding china, you are very naive. the CVG and Bases is not a toothless tiger.

china maybe able to destroy some US sat, but same can be said for Chinese Sat. china does not have the ability to eliminate ALL us sat networks. and it certainly won't be able to stop US force advancement, only slow down.

like popeye said i'm tired with all you fanboys who bring up non-fully tested/operational weapon system, and think US force is a joke. if US force can be destroyed with a single barrage of missiles, then i would think every country should just invest in missile tech instead navy, airforce etc.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

1st china know exactly where the sat is at, and the trajectory of the. the carrier group has to be detect and locate it in an open sea 1st, i think china has about 9km coast(CVG can be anywhere from 50mi out to hundreds miles out, which make it very diffcult to find due to large area)

Click to expand...

Detecting ship in open sea is an old technology dating back to 1970 US pioneer with NOSS system

.Other country has catched up since then. Over the horizon Radar has a coverage of 3000 Km and they can be use to first cue the ship with confirmation come from NOSS and other SAR and Electro Optic Satellite, Long range UAV, Spy sip,Even J20 . The Chinese has 10 Yaogan SAR and electro optic satellite in place, NOSS, Data relay Satellite, Beidou GPS about 10 more lesser Maritime surveillance satellite.

2nd china has to identify which one is the carriers, and believe me its not an easy task to differentiate a carriers vs a cruise with RF or other type of beyond visual range sensors.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me a 400 m hunk of hot metal against the background of cold sea, All kind of radio frequency traffic, Radar beam all over place
The day that Carriere can hide in the sea is gone for good with WWII

3rd the due to unknow CVG travel path/position, the missile has to adjust its path in REAL TIME(this is very hard to do).

Click to expand...

China has very developed ground launched ABM missile system that scucesfully hit the target at mid flight A feat that US doesn't even have one

The flight of Intercontinental ballistic missiles has three stages in air, the boost phase (the 1st phase), the mid-course phase (the 2nd phase), and the final reentry phase (also known as terminal phase).[1] The Chinese test targeted on the mid-course phase when the target was out of the atmosphere[4]. The test was said to be successful.[1][4] The full name of the test is called the Test of the Land-based Mid-course Phase Anti-ballistic Missile Interception Technology (simplified Chinese: 陆基中段反导拦截技术试验). However, the exact launch sites and types of these two missiles are not clarified in Chinese news

According to The Pentagon, Beijing did not inform the test in advance.[3] And the statement "We detected two geographically separated missile launch events with an exo-atmospheric collision also being observed by space-based sensors", by The Pentagon spokeswoman Major Maureen Schumann, also proves the profile and results of the test.[3].

4th due to ASBM high speed in an atomsphere and heat, there are certain effect on missile sensors.

Click to expand...

This argument is the easy to shoot down. China has a thriving Manned space program that encountered exactly the same problem.Serial produce 2 or 3 different ICBM. Where were you all this time?

For you information China has recently succesfully test launched a guided Rocket system similiar to Excalibur. Now figure it out the acceleration and heat that the guidance electronic had to survived in such environment

its different scenario when hitting something thats outside of atomsphere, with known position, potential difference in velocity vs BM terminal speed

Click to expand...

.

Hitting a moving target the size of refrigerator at the speed of 18000 mile/hr is more difficult than hitting 400 m long cold object moving at 35knot with no ground clutter Ever heard of IIR?

you really think with such advance ASBM tech, china will be so confident that they won't even do some test? its like design an ipod then send to production after few test, not even commerical company do that. let along a complex/advance tech such as ASBM. if i send some report to my customer and said well we did few test, and we are confidence it will work. what do you think the customer will say. there are specfic process when design something this complex. a good sophisticate test can sometime take longer than the actual design of the product. just another example, J20 just came out, and why do you think US say the plane will not be operational in another decade or so. its because its still in performance and testing phase to get rid of all the bugs/errors etc, and maybe add some extra performance etc etc.

Click to expand...

As I say before they leverage the technology from even more demanding requirement to be used in easier application. Whatever special requirements for hitting the carrier they can performed partial test. And that is where the rotating concrete table come. As Quickie said it not the translation move rather than the rotational move of the carrier that need to be tested!

And Gates was quoted to say that he is not going to see Chinese 5th generation fighter until 2020. And that is why the Chinese test the sucker when he come to Beijing. As if they were saying REALLY? Yeah you are off by 10 years. They were caught with their pant down when
China test ASAT and ABM. Underestimating is the hallmark of DoD when it come to China's capability

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

like i said before china can damage some base, but without addtional attacks, it will be fixed very soon. +if you think china can total destory multipler carrier group + multiple bases surrounding china, you are very naive. the CVG and Bases is not a toothless tiger.

china maybe able to destroy some US sat, but same can be said for Chinese Sat. china does not have the ability to eliminate ALL us sat networks. and it certainly won't be able to stop US force advancement, only slow down.

like popeye said i'm tired with all you fanboys who bring up non-fully tested/operational weapon system, and think US force is a joke. if US force can be destroyed with a single barrage of missiles, then i would think every country should just invest in missile tech instead navy, airforce etc.

Click to expand...

I'm not underestimating anybody. I'm just saying it's going to be one very bloody war if it ever breaks out, and with no winners.

And talking about satellites, how many are there in the vicinity of China. China will only need to destroy a few of the GPS sats and a number of the recon sats around China.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

i.e. said:

Unfortunately using an AShBM for a naval interdiction role is far beyond China's economic ability. It's easier to just do what the Germans did.

Click to expand...

You do realise that PRC has the world's largest reserves (estimated at more than US$3 trillion) at the moment? It is also the world's 2nd largest economy and is still growing at impressive rates. If any country has the economic ability to solve this problem, it will be the PRC.

bd popeye said:

Don't you know that right now the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) CSG and before that the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) have been operating in the South China sea with virtual impunity?

Has the the PLAN come out to challenge them? Just like the Soviets did during the Cold War? I've seen no reports...

Click to expand...

pops, this isn't the Cold War anymore. There is less of a need for Cold War type challenges unless 1 side feels their sovereignty (or core interests) are threatened.

However, having said that, the PLA has reacted to US military assets that come too close for comfort. The EP-3 incident and USNS Impeccable are the more serious examples. With regard to CBGs, there hasn't any further incidents following the Kitty Hawk one, although diplomatic clearance for a CBG to go into Hong Kong was denied a few years back.

As for the South China Sea, it is used by a large number of warships by any number of countries. Just as the PLAN uses the Malacca Straits on their way to and from Gulf of Aden. I don't think it is a big issue for US CBGs to operate in South China Sea unless they go too close to PLA bases/facilities.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Quickie said:

China is not Iraq or Libya. Most of U.S. weapons rely on satellite intelligence and GPS. This is where China's ASAT weapons are so significant. Some of the U.S. precision weapons are basically blind without these satellites.

Click to expand...

I did say somewhere on this forum that Chinese ASATs can't reach the MEO altitude of the NAVSTAR GPS constellation.

Spartan95 said:

You do realise that PRC has the world's largest reserves (estimated at more than US$3 trillion) at the moment? It is also the world's 2nd largest economy and is still growing at impressive rates. If any country has the economic ability to solve this problem, it will be the PRC.

Click to expand...

Do you know how much a ballistic missile cost? Let alone supporting equipment? Not to even mention the satellites it'll need.

Hendrik_2000 said:

For you information China has recently succesfully test launched a guided Rocket system similiar to Excalibur. Now figure it out the acceleration and heat that the guidance electronic had to survived in such environment

Click to expand...

LOL. FYI, the Excalibur is a gun-launched munition. You're thinking about the M-30 GPS-guided rocket that is fired from the M270 MLRS. The difference between gun and tube arty the latter goes slower than the former.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper said:

Do you know how much a ballistic missile cost? Let alone supporting equipment? Not to even mention the satellites it'll need.

Click to expand...

And the point of this is?

That the 2nd largest economy, which also happens to be 1 of the fastest growing economy on earth, is unable to pay for ballistic missiles and all the necessary supporting equipment? This does not even take into account their financial reserves of US$3 trillion, which also happens to be the world's largest.

Another factor to consider is that of purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, a PRC engineer costs the PRC government much less than what a US engineer costs the US (or any other developed country) government. This is true at all levels, which translates into massive costs difference for the PLA and their military industrial-base as compared to that of another developed countries. This is the single biggest reason why developed countries don't seem to understand how the PRC is able to modernise rapidly despite what others consider to be an under-declared defence budget.

The simple example will be that of a GI. How much does a GI cost the Pentagon a month? And how much do you think a PLA infantry man cost a month? The difference in pay alone is quite staggering, not to mention the difference in the cost of military hardware. Afterall, US military hardware are manufactured by unionised labour with nice pension benefits paid for by the Pentagon in the form of acquisition costs.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Spartan95 said:

And the point of this is?

That the 2nd largest economy, which also happens to be 1 of the fastest growing economy on earth, is unable to pay for ballistic missiles and all the necessary supporting equipment? This does not even take into account their financial reserves of US$3 trillion, which also happens to be the world's largest.

Another factor to consider is that of purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, a PRC engineer costs the PRC government much less than what a US engineer costs the US (or any other developed country) government. This is true at all levels, which translates into massive costs difference for the PLA and their military industrial-base as compared to that of another developed countries. This is the single biggest reason why developed countries don't seem to understand how the PRC is able to modernise rapidly despite what others consider to be an under-declared defence budget.

The simple example will be that of a GI. How much does a GI cost the Pentagon a month? And how much do you think a PLA infantry man cost a month? The difference in pay alone is quite staggering, not to mention the difference in the cost of military hardware. Afterall, US military hardware are manufactured by unionised labour with nice pension benefits paid for by the Pentagon in the form of acquisition costs.

Click to expand...

As cheap as Chinese products are, their high end, advanced products are equally as expensive as that of the American counterpart. That combined with their reported military budget limits the number of ballistic missile they can buy.

Seriously guys, if you think DF-21D is going to topple the US naval power in the region, you aren't looking at the bigger picture.

When war breaks out, China will be forced to bring out DF-21Ds near the coasts, in predictable locations for optimal reach. Problem with this is that they become extremely vulnerable to air attacks. you can guarantee that US will not park their carriers along China's coast until virtually all ballistic missile launchers are destroyed.

Further, the countermeasures for such a weapon is exactly the same as countermeasures for any other Anti-ship weapon. Decoys, EW, maneuvers, and preemtive strikes.