Sinking an Aircraft carrier
- Thread starter corsair7772
- Start date
- Status
nah,Nautilus said:Give us your scenario
but there is a military maxim which says:prior planning prevents pi$$ poor performance.
warfighting is about logistics, persistance, projection, protection, political will and intent, precision, planning and a few other variables
question for gf0012-aust
Have read every post in this thread, it provided for some interesting reading... but it still didn't say what it would take to sink a nimitz class carrier in realistic war situation. Yes, it'd agreed it'd require a monumental effort but it's also agreed that it's possible. So i'm asking gf0012-aust, as he seems knowledgeable about the issue:
What would it take for a chinese sized armed forces, at the technological level that chinese have today (or in the very very very close future) to sink a carrier. So, i'm not asking how unlikely it is to happen, i'm asking what does it take? Could you please write a scenario of air (and possible combined with sea, if you find that more likely) chinese attack on a USN carrier group resulting in the sinking of the carrier?
Assume that everything is realistic, a first couple of days taiwan war scenario if you will. You can use the quantity of chinese weapons however large you want, even use the quantity of delivery platforms. Because, again, question isnt could chinese sink the carrier with what they have now but what would it take (what tactic, in which numbers, with how great losses) for them to sink the carrier, with current technology.
Thank you.
Have read every post in this thread, it provided for some interesting reading... but it still didn't say what it would take to sink a nimitz class carrier in realistic war situation. Yes, it'd agreed it'd require a monumental effort but it's also agreed that it's possible. So i'm asking gf0012-aust, as he seems knowledgeable about the issue:
What would it take for a chinese sized armed forces, at the technological level that chinese have today (or in the very very very close future) to sink a carrier. So, i'm not asking how unlikely it is to happen, i'm asking what does it take? Could you please write a scenario of air (and possible combined with sea, if you find that more likely) chinese attack on a USN carrier group resulting in the sinking of the carrier?
Assume that everything is realistic, a first couple of days taiwan war scenario if you will. You can use the quantity of chinese weapons however large you want, even use the quantity of delivery platforms. Because, again, question isnt could chinese sink the carrier with what they have now but what would it take (what tactic, in which numbers, with how great losses) for them to sink the carrier, with current technology.
Thank you.
Re: question for gf0012-aust
1) isolation of a CSF from support
2) absolute domination of the air sea gap between China and Taiwan
3) absolute persistence of forces
4) rapid seizure of the outside islands without dilution of the "force de main"
if anything, the principle weakness of any US response is over-confidence and whether they commit sufficient protective resources to a fight. platform to platform, force againts force, I can't see China gathering sufficient leverage to not alert the US that something is about to happen.
The 11 x US Carrier strike forces, and 10 x ESF's are not the only force that the US can bring to bear - and everyone focusses on CSF's as they are the traditional symbolic extension of US power.
I would not want to be in any naval force crossing the straits.
Writing a scenario is a bit difficult, but generally I'd say that the following conditions would need to be met.Totoro said:
1) isolation of a CSF from support
2) absolute domination of the air sea gap between China and Taiwan
3) absolute persistence of forces
4) rapid seizure of the outside islands without dilution of the "force de main"
I really don't see it as something that is readily achievable by the PLAN/PLAAF. The US has absolute dominance in the ELINT/SIGINT spectrum, she has assets that can be managed from space to a scale that even the Soviets could only dream about.Totoro said:Assume that everything is realistic, a first couple of days taiwan war scenario if you will. You can use the quantity of chinese weapons however large you want, even use the quantity of delivery platforms. Because, again, question isnt could chinese sink the carrier with what they have now but what would it take (what tactic, in which numbers, with how great losses) for them to sink the carrier, with current technology.
Thank you.
if anything, the principle weakness of any US response is over-confidence and whether they commit sufficient protective resources to a fight. platform to platform, force againts force, I can't see China gathering sufficient leverage to not alert the US that something is about to happen.
The 11 x US Carrier strike forces, and 10 x ESF's are not the only force that the US can bring to bear - and everyone focusses on CSF's as they are the traditional symbolic extension of US power.
I would not want to be in any naval force crossing the straits.
I'm sorry, i wasn't clear enough. The taiwan invasion i mentioned is there just as backdrop, if you need a realistic reason why a chinese attack on a carrier group would happen in the first place. But please try to disregard the crossing the strait part. My question is: what would it take to sink a carrier. I'm not saying that would ever happen, chinese would probably deem it way too costly and that they'd lose way too much forces even trying to sink it and US forces would still be almost as powerful, even without that one carrier. But that's irrelevant for my question. I'm simply asking what sort of force, tactic and what sort of losses would be needed for locating, targeting and sinking a carrier. Not a lone carrier, but one that's a part of greater network of US forces, meaning in a realistic war scenario from the US side. Of course from the chinese side it can't be realistic as they'd never do such suicide attacks but thats beside the point there - assuming thats the only thing chinese want, at ANY cost, what would it take for them to sink a carrier?
If it was the Chinese? The only tactic that would even be slightly effective was a swarm attack requiring many aircraft, ships and missiles. The aircraft would proceed to maximum engagement range and fire the stand off and cruise missiles. The ships would do the same. Getting subs into the defensive net would be overly risky as their subs are primative.
Even if they sank the carrier our response would cause more destruction to them than would have ever made it worth it in the first place.
Re: question for gf0012-aust
Those points btw, are the ones that have regularly come up in articles submitted to military journals such as Proceedings. Outside of that, if you think carefully, it is common sense.
It's also based on a paper that was submitted by two chinese colonels in 1999 about what was required to retake Taiwan.
actually, I'm not here for a conversation, I'm here to hilight the salient points, everything else is just wordy "fluff". Ever been to a briefing/debriefing? It's as dry as a desert storm passing through a tent.ajay_ijn said:sometimes i think gf sounds too theoritical and technical.
Those points btw, are the ones that have regularly come up in articles submitted to military journals such as Proceedings. Outside of that, if you think carefully, it is common sense.It's also based on a paper that was submitted by two chinese colonels in 1999 about what was required to retake Taiwan.
Re: question for gf0012-aust
point no.2 if some how achieved than Idnt think it would be hard for China to take over Tiwan.
pointno.4..I think China can do that but the problem would be presistance of ground troops there.
I see Air Power as the major role player. China may have the quantity but Tiwan & US Carrier ACs beat that with their quality. China's only hope out there is Su-30 but I doubt it can stand against Tiwanese & US AirDefence + China cant afford all out attack.
Hence China's best attack would missile system (Cruise Missiles aswell as ballestic). I think US has already evaluated this step thats why Pentagon asked US government to make changes in War Doctorine regarding the use of Nukes. They said US should be allowed not only to take out Nukes of enemy & rouge nations but also use Nukes against them. (Note: This was reported on GEO Tv in Pakistan...I have yet to come across this news from international source)
My believe is that China might use Nuke Missiles to clear up the sea between MainLand & Tiwan after that it can take to the skies with only Air Defence from Tiwan left to face.
Point no.1 would be tough work for chinese.gf0012-aust said:
point no.2 if some how achieved than Idnt think it would be hard for China to take over Tiwan.
pointno.4..I think China can do that but the problem would be presistance of ground troops there.
I see Air Power as the major role player. China may have the quantity but Tiwan & US Carrier ACs beat that with their quality. China's only hope out there is Su-30 but I doubt it can stand against Tiwanese & US AirDefence + China cant afford all out attack.
Hence China's best attack would missile system (Cruise Missiles aswell as ballestic). I think US has already evaluated this step thats why Pentagon asked US government to make changes in War Doctorine regarding the use of Nukes. They said US should be allowed not only to take out Nukes of enemy & rouge nations but also use Nukes against them. (Note: This was reported on GEO Tv in Pakistan...I have yet to come across this news from international source)
My believe is that China might use Nuke Missiles to clear up the sea between MainLand & Tiwan after that it can take to the skies with only Air Defence from Tiwan left to face.
No disrespect to the good Doctor, but thats a load of bollocks. The Russians were using missiles that had 5-8 times the yield of Brahmos and they always felt that it would take a saturated strike of at least 8-10 of them to do the job. Brahmos does not have anywhere near the yield of the old Russian ASh missiles. It's got nothing on Shipwreck (as one example).PJ-10 BrahMos said:"two missiles(PJ-10 BrahMos
http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_227427.php
They'yre certainly not going to do much damage to a 100,000 tonner - maybe a 20-30 thousand tonner like the Argentinians or the Thais - but 2 Brahmos would not do much damage to a larger one like the CdG.
I suspect he's talking about smaller fleet carriers, otherwise he's conveniently ignoring some simple pre-existing facts.
You might want to read this: its the proposed doctrine the news was about.
http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/docs/3_12fc2.pdf
The Taiwan Strait isnt really that wide. Therefore any nuclear option would mean significant collateral damage on one or both sides (depending on wind and weather) of the strait. Chinas intentions with invading Taiwan are to reclaim a part of their country and their people, not taking out an enemy. Thats the same reason I think why use of SRBM against Taiwan would not result in an all-out attack reducing the island to ashes.
As for isolating the CSF, I'd say thats certainly the most important point. The chance to achieve that would very much depend on the kind of engagement of the US-forces. As I was saying on a different thread, this may not be a rhetoric question, since I dont think the US would automatically grant full military support (including combat assistance) to Taiwan in any case. So should the US-CSF be limited to sea control in the sense of a blockade of PLA forces, such an isolation might be achieved much easier by the PLA than under more aggressive rules of engagement. So I think it would very much be the intention of the PRC to create such a scenario in the first place.
One thing that has been overlooked so far, is that the US Navy/Air Force would not be operating in a geo-political vacuum. The US government has allies that have a vested interest in ensuring that the status quo is maintained. The Japanese, Austrailians, S. Koreans, Canadians and perhaps even the Indians are not likely to sit still and allow the PLAN to sack Taiwan or destroy an American carrier task force. The consequences throughout the region would be too great. It's a fact that these nations have operated as a part of US naval task forces in the past. They train alongside the USN in naval exercises, either as a part of the battlegroup and/or as the OPFOR. These relationships are maintained for good reason, and speak to mutual benefits for all concerned.
Even if they weren't acting as an integral part of the carrier battle group's defences, they would likely be formed into smaller task forces of their own, each with the capacity to share intelligence, and targeting data with the American theater commander. And of course, they could also be expected to prosecute targets in conjunction with the American forces.
Quite simply, the ends would not justify the means for the PLAN. Even in the unlikely event that the PLAN could achieve the unthinkable, and cripple or sink an American CVN- such an attack would be equivilant to attacking a US airbase, or any other territory.
The result would be an axe falling swift and hard on something the PRC does not want to lose.
In addition to fielding the world's most capable naval force, the US military represents the world's most effective long-range strike and interdiction capability.
The PRC can use cruise missiles, SRBM's, and TBM's to attack fixed land targets, with the possiblity of achieving hits at great cost to their own assets, with little possiblity for follow-up attacks.
That said, it is reasonably assured that the US military would be able to cause a great deal of wide-scale damage, with very little to no risk of losses to it's own assets, and yet still maintain the capacity to follow through with repeat attacks again, and again.
That is the effect of fielding those incredibly expensive, fifth-generation, low-observable platforms. The returns are well worth the production costs, as long as the assets are truly effective, and the leadership is willing to deploy them as a force multiplier.
Even if they weren't acting as an integral part of the carrier battle group's defences, they would likely be formed into smaller task forces of their own, each with the capacity to share intelligence, and targeting data with the American theater commander. And of course, they could also be expected to prosecute targets in conjunction with the American forces.
Quite simply, the ends would not justify the means for the PLAN. Even in the unlikely event that the PLAN could achieve the unthinkable, and cripple or sink an American CVN- such an attack would be equivilant to attacking a US airbase, or any other territory.
The result would be an axe falling swift and hard on something the PRC does not want to lose.
In addition to fielding the world's most capable naval force, the US military represents the world's most effective long-range strike and interdiction capability.
The PRC can use cruise missiles, SRBM's, and TBM's to attack fixed land targets, with the possiblity of achieving hits at great cost to their own assets, with little possiblity for follow-up attacks.
That said, it is reasonably assured that the US military would be able to cause a great deal of wide-scale damage, with very little to no risk of losses to it's own assets, and yet still maintain the capacity to follow through with repeat attacks again, and again.
That is the effect of fielding those incredibly expensive, fifth-generation, low-observable platforms. The returns are well worth the production costs, as long as the assets are truly effective, and the leadership is willing to deploy them as a force multiplier.
i doubt if india would support the independence of taiwan.there are several reasons for this:Wild Weasel said:
1)india's passivgfe nature,india would try to avoid confrontation with china.
2)india is against 3rd party intervention,and involving in china -taiwan conflict would encourage other countries (china)to get involved with the kashmir.
3)india will support the integration of taiwan with china,since taiwan's independence will encourage the seperatist forces in india(they may be encouraged by china as an act of revenge)
4)the growing friendship and economic relationship between india and china any support to taiwan will effect them which the government of india wouldnt want,india's economic relationship with china is more than that with taiwan and hence india lose considerably if china gets angry.
india will definitely make diplomatic statements but i believe they would either be neutral or in favour of china. :coffee
Well, really, international alliances weren't the topic. I appologize for going OT before. I was just pointing out the Americans wouldn't necessarily be operating alone, and the nations I mentioned have capabilities which would make sinking a carrier even more unlikely.
stephen weist
New Member
Hello, the jury is still out on Hoods destruction, it has never been proven that a hit sunk Hood, Hood may have blown herself up. no theory can be proven right. so we will never know what caused her loss.
It's started. Note current news about how Taiwan is dragging it's heels over the arms purchase? And most of the weapons are to defend the straits - destroyers, submarines etc. Without those weapons, the Chinese can have a easier approach at Taiwan proper itself. There is even some encouragement of a fortress mentality. I lay my bets that it is created by the Chinese - once the Taiwanese have the notion of a fortress mentality, "Fortress Formosa", that's it. They will have been successfully isolated. Then the Chinese can freely approach the straits, and with persistence, storm Taiwan itself. By that stage, even if there were more then one CSF, what can it achieve? Reading from past history, the Americans and Europeans will judge Taiwan a foregone conclusion and throw in the towel.turin said:
Do not underestimate the willingness for the US and her people to defend Taiwan. It is current US law to come to her assistance, and barring a very liberal administration coming into the White House (which may be exactly what the PRC is waiting for and working towards), that law will be followed.driftder said:
The US is currently basing more attack submarines and aircrft on Guam. There is serious talk about forward deploying another carrier to the Western Pacific. There is only one rason such things are happening. The US is making a statement to the PRC about its willingness to defend Taiwan.
Even the Kitty Hawk on her own, laying off to the East of Taiwan with her strike group and using the island as a natural defense, would be a very tough nut to crack. Two carrier task forces (strike groups), IMHO, would not be in the current capability of the PRC to have a hope of cracking...without the use of WMDs which would play to an even greater strength of the US in nuclear capability.
Let's all pray it never comes to anything like that.
The only way I see of the PRC overcoming the US in this scenario in the next ten years or more, short of some very secret, very effective, asymetrical weapon that no one is aware of, is to influence a very liberal American administration that gets elected.
I agree on the question of a purely confrontational approach. However it remains to be seen, to what degree any US CSF would become active against PLAN forces. In an all out confrontation already one CSF would cause the PLAN quite a headache and the use of an own carrier to counter such a thread is actually the last thing I would recommend to the Chinese. Except maybe in a situation, where they would use such a carrier to lure the US CSF away from other invading forces. Wether the US would fall for such a move, is another question of course.
Last edited:
Agree 100%turin said:
Sort of like the Japanese did at Leyte? It resulted in the final fatal stroke to their ability to wage any kind of carrier war...and they still lost at Leyte...although the action off Samar was very lucky for the US...mainly due to the valient fight the escort carriers and their DDs and DEs put up..turin said:
I believe the PLAN would either keep their carrier well to the north, under very heavy land based air cover...hoping the US would try and get at it anyway and hoping to inflict heavy damage on the US air wing...or they might try and use is as a lure further south, under the same air cover, to do the same.
Either attempt may not save their carrier should hotilities break out.
Again, let's pray it never comes to that.
Until the PLAN has a substantial protective fleet in place, I'd agree that in a conflict she is not going to move out of heavy air cover. The Argentinians went through the same issues during the Falklands. They had no hope of contesting the RN and realised that the Carrier was the most significant moving target available if the RN decided to replicate Conquerors efforts a la Belgrano.Jeff Head said:
A carrier is a damocles sword without proper support.
- Status