PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

the best way to defeaT a carrier is to isolate it from its escorts. mutiple fleets can decoy. but there isn one way to deafeat a cvbg other than nuke it. im not saying its invincible. a variety of methods combined can take it on.
'
a cvbg is impossible to sink, so why not rmove it from the battle instead? lure it away, or set upo certain obstacles to force it on a certain route. let it get lost when a typhoon hits. thats what the americans did to overly foirtified jap islands in ww2. rather than invade, just isonlate the garrison

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

eveything takes time and money. wehich is why the plan nneds to get a carrier now!!! india got a carrier working in a few years, so china can too.

construction probably pends on: political situation, engine aquisition, weapons aquisition, system aquisition, and aircraft aquisition.

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

MIGleader said:

eveything takes time and money. wehich is why the plan nneds to get a carrier now!!!

Click to expand...

Agreed. If they intend to become proficient at carrier operations of any type, the sooner they begin, the sooner they will gain some degree of proficiency.

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

MIGleader said:

the best way to defeaT a carrier is to isolate it from its escorts.

Click to expand...

Not going to happen, unless you destroy those escorts. They will operate as a team with the principle goal of defending the carrier. The configuration and position of the group is designed to be mutually supportive and layerd in protecting the carrier. The cost to destroy them and then get through to the carrier would be great indeed.

MIGleader said:

so why not rmove it from the battle instead? lure it away

Click to expand...

The Japanese effectively did this during the Battle of Leyte Gulf and achived their goal of letting their principle surface combatants in another task force to get very near the US anchorage off Samar (where the completely botched the opportunity when small American escort carriers and a few destroyers drove them off-that is a great story to read and can be found in Samuel Eliot Morison's, "The Two Ocen War".)

But the "lure" was four of their carriers, with only 116 aircraft...opposed to Halsey's large carrier task force with over 700 aircraft on board. But it was still enough to get the US carriers to come out to confront them.

The "lure" worked...but at horrific cost to the Japanese. The outcome was obvious. All four of the principle carriers were lost, along with many of their escorts.

I do not believe the PLAN has that type of lure to offer, or to risk.

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

Jeff Head said:

The Japanese effectively did this during the Battle of Leyte Gulf and achived their goal of letting their principle surface combatants in another task force to get very near the US anchorage off Samar (where the completely botched the opportunity when small American escort carriers and a few destroyers drove them off-that is a great story to read and can be found in Samuel Eliot Morison's, "The Two Ocen War".)

But the "lure" was four of their carriers, with only 116 aircraft...opposed to Halsey's large carrier task force with over 700 aircraft on board. But it was still enough to get the US carriers to come out to confront them.

Click to expand...

But even with that lure, Halsey still could and should have (and indeed some American admirals including Nimitz thought he actually had) dispatched his battleships to cover the San Bernardino straight. Had he done that, the Japanese force would have been met by four modern battleships, each with blindfire radar fire control.

Given the very poor performance of the Japanese against the CVE escorts (a mere six destroyers and four destroyer escorts fought on the American side) it seems rather likely that 16 inch gunfire would have totally defeated them.

The "lure" worked...but at horrific cost to the Japanese. The outcome was obvious. Three of the carriers were lost, along with many of their escorts.

I do not believe the PLAN has that type of lure to offer, or to risk.

Click to expand...

All four carriers got sunk, and the rout was so complete that a number of Japanese ships got caught and sunk by American cruiser gunfire.

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

The best possible anti carrier weapon is probuabbly the Soviet R-27K/ NATO designation SS-NX-13 ballistic anti ship missile. A modification of the R-27/ SS-N-6 missile carried by Yankee class submarines, it incorporated a radar terminal guidance system that could track a moving naval target (or hit a fixed land target with high accuracy, if it had sufficient contrast on radar). Combine this with its 1-megaton warhead, and the destruction of the carrier was more or less assured, especially since the launch vessel could potentially launch 16 of them.

The missile was tested in the mid 1970’s, but it was not deployed because the first arms limitation treaty was signed. That treaty counted every single SSBN launch tube as a strategic weapon ,and the Soviets didn’t want to waste any of them by putting what was mainly a tactical nuclear system in them.

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

Sea Skimmer said:

But even with that lure, Halsey still could and should have (and indeed some American admirals including Nimitz thought he actually had) dispatched his battleships to cover the San Bernardino straight.

Click to expand...

The Iowa class battleships were dispatched and arrived at San Bernadio Strait three hours after Kurita's force had passed back through.

Sea Skimmer said:

All four carriers got sunk, and the rout was so complete that a number of Japanese ships got caught and sunk by American cruiser gunfire.

Click to expand...

The four main carriers were sunk. My bad, However, the Ise, which was a battleship conversion, survived the battle and was not sunk until July 28, 1945 at her mooring.

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

Sea Skimmer said:

1-megaton warhead...destruction of the carrier more or less assured

Click to expand...

Any resort by the PLAN to nuclear weapons would lead to confronting the US in an area where it has an even greater advantage (in nuclear forces) and would prove the destruction of all of China.

As to conventional forces...they would have to expend virttually their entire surface, air, and submarine force to have the potential of sinking a single US CBG. That is, unless they secretly develop an asymetric weapon (say an operational and effective super-cavitator) that the US is not prepared for. I am not doscounting that possibility...and neither, IMHO, is the USN.

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

Jeff Head said:

Any resort by the PLAN to nuclear weapons would lead to confronting the US in an area where it has an even greater advantage (in nuclear forces) and would prove the destruction of all of China.

As to conventional forces...they would have to expend virttually their entire surface, air, and submarine force to have the potential of sinking a single US CBG. That is, unless they secretly develop an asymetric weapon (say an operational and effective super-cavitator) that the US is not prepared for. I am not doscounting that possibility...and neither, IMHO, is the USN.

Click to expand...

The US would never use nuclear weapons unless its own territory is nuked first. Generally, the US does not want to create human suffering on such a large scale.

Re: Anti-Carrier Trump Card

FriedRiceNSpice said:

The US would never use nuclear weapons unless its own territory is nuked first.

Click to expand...

I believe you are wrong. If the US were attacked at sea or elsewherew with nuclear weapons, it would respond overwhelmingly. Not targeting civilians per sey...but targeting the nuclear launch facilities and platforms, naval basses, air bases, and manufacturing capability which would unavoidably destroy maillions of civilians as well.