Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[locutus]

Revised Estimate?

China fails the multiple P test of warfighting (there are 5 discrete tests)

The US has just fired a borer at a meteor in space - and hit the target. (subst borer with weapon and you see the inference) China has not done anything remotely similar - in fact she has not hit any of the space milestones achieved by Russia and the US in the 1960's. The US can track meteors, space debris and other assorted space junk and has done so for years - China cannot. Read into the lines about capability.

Gf0012-aust,

Should we be revising our estimate of their ability given their ASAT test earlier this year? Are they advancing more rapidly than we expected? Which is more technologically demanding - taking out a satellite with a predictable orbit but high speed vs. taking out a carrier with an unpredictable course but slow speed using a ballistic missile? It seems to me in the case of the carrier, you need constant target updates and I don't know how the Chinese would do that without satellites. From the information I found on spacetoday.org, China has photo-recon, comm, and sigint satellites. I don't see how any of these could be used to provide target updates. I guess other ways could be used but they would be much more vulnerable to detection and destruction.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Should we be revising our estimate of their ability given their ASAT test earlier this year? Are they advancing more rapidly than we expected? Which is more technologically demanding - taking out a satellite with a predictable orbit but high speed vs. taking out a carrier with an unpredictable course but slow speed using a ballistic missile? It seems to me in the case of the carrier, you need constant target updates and I don't know how the Chinese would do that without satellites. From the information I found on spacetoday.org, China has photo-recon, comm, and sigint satellites. I don't see how any of these could be used to provide target updates. I guess other ways could be used but they would be much more vulnerable to detection and destruction.

I think the biggest danger is underestimating china at a "will and intent" level. If you look at the progress she has made since basically redefining the way forward post 1991, then she's made extraordinary steps.

There are other ways to target a moving platform without having access to satellites. But, I don't see any indication that China has demonstrated competency in the relevant sensor disciplines. (She's still buying scottish made transducers for harbour protection)

can she do it? yes, no doubt, but the issue is time. the other issue is when the US suddenly decides that she is no longer going to motor along at a civilised speed and ramp up all the current developments into deployable and fieldable weapons systems. If that occurs, then she is generations ahead of china at one fell swoop.

eg, the US has had space based laser targetting since 1969 - china still doesn't have anything remotely capable or deployable.

there are some who will quote the chinese sat shootdown as an indication of capability - I don't. It was their own satellite, it was on a predictable decayed orbit and it was thus going to be easy to predict a targetting solution. For china to kill military satellites she's going to have to demonstrate better reach than that - and significantly further out. eg to kill a constellation of tactically specific satellites would mean that every launch sensing system and detection asset that the US has would be woken up - now at that point what do you think the US reaction will be to an ICBM launch. China has to kill more than one US satellite - there are estimated to be in excess of 110 military satellites up there. A mass launch will look like a mass first strike response. I can guess what the US reaction will be, and the fact that China does't want a Hotline installed means that they won't have the failsafe fallback that the Soviets and the Americans had during the Cold War. If I was an american president, I wouldn't be waiting for someone to call me while multiple ripples were being detected.

The reason why I talk about this in detail is because if china is going to demonstrate other targetting capability, then its closely related to this dicussion.

 

[locutus]

I think the biggest danger is underestimating china at a "will and intent" level.

That is my biggest fear but not of underestimating China's but of the US not having any will or intent. I've never felt is was about our capability or lack of but whether we would choose to use our capability to its fullest, if at all.

the other issue is when the US suddenly decides that she is no longer going to motor along at a civilised speed and ramp up all the current developments into deployable and fieldable weapons systems. If that occurs, then she is generations ahead of china at one fell swoop.

I don't see that happening unless the US was engaged in a major war for her own survival. I'm not sure our government would consider Taiwan such a scenario. If war does come, I hope like hell I'm wrong.

eg, the US has had space based laser targetting since 1969 - china still doesn't have anything remotely capable or deployable.

Fascinating, I had no idea at all.

A blog question - how do you get it to display 'quote: originally posted by xxx'

Also, let me say thank you for taking the time to answer all of my questions.

 

[swerve]

... the fact that China does't want a Hotline installed means that they won't have the failsafe fallback that the Soviets and the Americans had during the Cold War. ....

They announced last Monday (Nov 5th) that it had been agreed to open a hot line.

 

[Firehorse]

link

I found this link and arguments presented very interesting-
The Large Aircraft Carrier Midway Myth: is it, fatal?
http://www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger/midwaymyth.htm

It confirms what I've heard from one USN submariner: "carriers & their escorts are just targets!" With up-to-date survailance systems even a moving CVN won't be that hard to spot, even in the far-off open ocean.
What do you guys think about this article?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I found this link and arguments presented very interesting-
The Large Aircraft Carrier Midway Myth: is it, fatal?
http://www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger/midwaymyth.htm

It confirms what I've heard from one USN submariner: "carriers & their escorts are just targets!" With up-to-date survailance systems even a moving CVN won't be that hard to spot, even in the far-off open ocean.
What do you guys think about this article?

the expression is actually:

"you're either a submarine - or you're a target"

as for the article, as in any opinion, its just opinion. you only have to have been a member of this forum in the last year or so to have seen personal inalienable mantras thrown out about the superiority of the "M113 (aka "gavins" to LAV's", nuclear subs to conventionals, the end of WVR, dogfighting etc.....

Believe it or not, Carrier Task Forces still cannot be found even today - and thats with all the ISR tech available to a modern military power. Stating that up to date surveillance will find them ignores the reality that even today "up to date" technology does not always work as the manuals and brochures tell us.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They announced last Monday (Nov 5th) that it had been agreed to open a hot line.

I guess that was a moment when I was caught in a temporal flux....

 

[Firehorse]

Well, to mission kill a CSG, some or all of these should be used:
1. deploy mines, subs & long range aircraft with supersonic missiles to keep it farther away;
2. attack land-based arial tankers & AWACs (& their bases) that will have to be used by carrier aviation;
3. attack sattelites that provide IC3R to CSG,
to name a few!

As others pointed out, a mission kill is easier and enough to equal outright sinking!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, to mission kill a CSG, some or all of these should be used:
1. deploy mines, subs & long range aircraft with supersonic missiles to keep it farther away;
2. attack land-based arial tankers & AWACs (& their bases) that will have to be used by carrier aviation;
3. attack sattelites that provide IC3R to CSG,
to name a few!

As others pointed out, a mission kill is easier and enough to equal outright sinking!

always nice to hear an expert solution to a tactical problem for everyone tasked with killing the strike force....

so, can you identifty which military has a package competency to deliver this solution model against any CTF in a bluewater theatre? Hint: The US, and only if they end up in another civil war.

other countries might think that they have it - but at a "don't tread on me" level of response, the harsh reality is that no one else does.

I'm curious as to which countries have actual attack satellites in play? (and able to provide a prosecution capability against a Carrier. Attack satellites (bless that term) are designed to kill other satellites. Do you seriously think that any nation has the capability to dislocate over 130 US military satellites in LEO, and "deeper" space orbits? That implies also that killing the constellation(s) will render the ISR elements of the US deaf and dumb. Tac planning includes fighting without the benefit of satellites. Thats why the US has redundancy options.

I'm also curious as to what IC3R is? There are a few countries that have C4i - less than 2 that have it an autonomous "don't tread on me" capability in any theatre response sceanrio, and only 1 that has C5i (guess who that is)

As for the throw away comments about killing satellites etc... The US has more military satellites in loop then every other nation combined. To knock out the constellation would require a volleyed shot, and as I patiently pointed out, if the US sees anyone rippling over 30 missiles to knock out a segment of a constellation (note the use of singular), then for all intents and purposes that will look like a declared and considered strike (its a bit hard to tell whether those rockets are designed to kill a satellite or kill a city). My guess is that the offending country would discover the magical properties of silicate pretty quickly.

Supersonics? They've been discussed here before. They're a threat to a nation that doesn't have adequate sensor and reaction capability - but I can think of over a dozen modern militaries that have the capacity to react and destroy supersonics. Look at the history of LO combat solutions and you'll discover that the countries with significant technical resources abandoned supersonics in favour of subsomics - and thats directly tied to research on LO platforms in the 60's.

Sure, any vessel can be tactically killed - but to make it sound so easy (and to use your examples without serious qualification) represents a degree of reactive but enthusiastic disagreement than an example of coherent and considered judgment.

I would add, that all of the countries that decried the tactical longevity and benefit of Carriers are falling over themselves to build their own. Apparently their own Naval cadre aren't thinking about the "obvious" (/sarcasm on) downsides.

 

[surya]

sinkin a carrier

i think the best would be america f-111.however we have to take into account of the radars and the destroyers protectig the carrier.launching from a aircraft is equal amount to suicide.probably submarine would be better choice.however anti-sub missiles are a threat

 

[McTaff]

Unfortunately, Firehorse has hit the button on how to kill a CV in a CBG.

The primary weapon is intel.

The secondary weapon is intel.

The tertiary weapon is your launch platform for your weapon.

-

To me, a submarine 'lying in wait' is one of the better bets. If Mr Carrier goes thundering overhead and your sub can throw a handful of torps to the stern, that'll damage shaft seals and flood gearbox or engine rooms, or tears off rudders. Typically that sort of disable would put a carrier out of the picture for a fair while, regardless of whether you sink it or not. If she can't move, then air operations become exceedingly difficult.

-

To be quite honest, I'd not be comfortable sending waves of aircraft at a CV with a full combat air wing, unless you could launch at max standoff range and limit CAP aircraft to a very short comabt fuel load.

I'd be just trying to get small, fast missiles onto the deck. Missiles with a pop-up terminal phase would smash into the deck, which although well armoured and wouldn't result in a kill would punch holes in the deck which needs to be nice and flat. If you're lucky, it'll damage a couple of airframes on the deck, and necessitate clean-up ops.

Would something like a Penguin drilling into the side have much of an effect?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Unfortunately, Firehorse has hit the button on how to kill a CV in a CBG.

The primary weapon is intel.

The secondary weapon is intel.

The tertiary weapon is your launch platform for your weapon.

I wholeheartedly agree on intel, but the principle issue is that you still have to break the screen - and the issue then is how active the screen is - and thats a political issue. If the US decides that an enemy is basically at a warfighting attitude vis a vis the 1960's and mid 1980's, then the fleet stance and footprint will be very different.

I'd suggest that if the USN suddenly decides that playing nice with the PLAN is no longer effective, that those ARG/ESG's will rapidly convert to the old ASW Killer Teams. ie undertake the tactical role of USS Randolph et al.....

The CTF will get much bigger and the passivity that they currently display will change considerably.

If we can get EW3 (our resident ex USN Ewarfare member) to wake up and respond, it would be interesting to get his view, as in his time, everything unidentified was an enemy and ASW patrolling was "aggresive and robust"

I'd reinforce that a CSF/CTF in a non wartime patrol mode is a very benign presence. Its akin to partial prosecution mode in ASW training events. Once the attitude changes then so does asset commitment and prosecution levels "go real"

 

[AegisFC]

think the best would be america f-111.however we have to take into account of the radars and the destroyers protectig the carrier.launching from a aircraft is equal amount to suicide.probably submarine would be better choice.however anti-sub missiles are a threat

The US doesn't have F-111's any more.
Also the US carrier would have 1 or 2 subs of her own as escort, subs with highly trained and motivated crews. So in addition to the sub having to get past her serface escorts it will have to avoid 2 LA, or Virginia subs as well, good luck with that!
Oh and PLEASE learn to spell better, it makes things easier for all of us here!

 

[barra]

Quote: Originally Posted by Firehorse
I found this link and arguments presented very interesting-
The Large Aircraft Carrier Midway Myth: is it, fatal?
http://www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger/midwaymyth.htm

It confirms what I've heard from one USN submariner: "carriers & their escorts are just targets!" With up-to-date survailance systems even a moving CVN won't be that hard to spot, even in the far-off open ocean.
What do you guys think about this article?

Flicked through this link and found it "interesting". Particularly enjoyed the part about the fourth reich being nuked in Antarctica in the 50's!!, hadn't heard about that before. Pity it can't give more detail other than some fanciful conspiracy theories.

There is one paragraph that gives examples of Diesel Electric subs getting the better of nuke subs and carriers. Plenty of mentions for Collins class subs to. Can't say how acurate it is though!

It does refer to Dr Carlo Kopp as an excellent source of information though, so be warned.

Barra

 

[harryriedl]

Flicked through this link and found it "interesting". Particularly enjoyed the part about the fourth reich being nuked in Antarctica in the 50's!!, hadn't heard about that before. Pity it can't give more detail other than some fanciful conspiracy theories.

There is one paragraph that gives examples of Diesel Electric subs getting the better of nuke subs and carriers. Plenty of mentions for Collins class subs to. Can't say how acurate it is though!

It does refer to Dr Carlo Kopp as an excellent source of information though, so be warned.

Barra

SPARKY strikes again please this is the one of the best works of fiction of a derange mind. On other notes its been withdrawn and the link is dead

 

[Firehorse]

gf0012-aust:
I meant "to attack SATs" by any means avilable, including EMP, not just by killer SATs that may or may not exist now;
IC3R stand for Intell, Communication, Command & Control, Reconnasaince; & I forgot to include Computers & Survailance in that acronym. So, it should have been:
IC4SR

I agree, having your own CV/N group would even the playing field!
Aside from that, a sworm of ASh and BMs, supersonic or not, would overwhelm a CSG. There are plenty of old fighters that could be used as unmanned flying bombs against it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

gf0012-aust:
I meant "to attack SATs" by any means avilable, including EMP, not just by killer SATs that may or may not exist now;
IC3R stand for Intell, Communication, Command & Control, Reconnasaince; & I forgot to include Computers & Survailance in that acronym. So, it should have been:
IC4SR

The acronym I think you're searching for is: C4ISR

I agree, having your own CV/N group would even the playing field!
Aside from that, a sworm of ASh and BMs, supersonic or not, would overwhelm a CSG. There are plenty of old fighters that could be used as unmanned flying bombs against it.

Really?

Damn, well the USN had better hurry up and disband ALL their carriers and surface action groups then, due to their helplessness hadn't they?

Oh wait, maybe they HAVE thought about a mass missile attack before and can counter it?

Could that be a possibility???

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust:
I meant "to attack SATs" by any means avilable, including EMP, not just by killer SATs that may or may not exist now;
IC3R stand for Intell, Communication, Command & Control, Reconnasaince; & I forgot to include Computers & Survailance in that acronym. So, it should have been:
IC4SR.

My question about your abuse of the correct acronym was meant to be facaetious. But, the correct term is C4ISR.

It would pay to actually get the terms right if you're going to present qualified arguments.

I agree, having your own CV/N group would even the playing field!
Aside from that, a sworm of ASh and BMs, supersonic or not, would overwhelm a CSG. There are plenty of old fighters that could be used as unmanned flying bombs against it.

Lets see, the USN went up against the Soviet Union in its halcyon days. Thats when they expected to have to deal with 3-4 regiments of bears, backfires, blinder and blackjacks (per battle group), thats when the Soviets had a submarine fleet that was a real blue water operation, and where they had more subs than the USN and NATO sub fleets put together. They trained against real supersonic threats and mass volley launches. The USN was running Drones in the late 40's (so know about unmanned fighters converted to ASH roles. I can recall the USAF discussing the issue of dealing with QF-CM's 3 years ago.

To use an example. comparing the PLAN to the Soviets is like comparing the RAN to the USN

I think the USN may be on the ball, things you discuss are not revelations to them. They've had to deal with a much more robust, aggressive and capable adversary (with real ewarfare, real aviation threats and real subwarfare skills)

 

[tphuang]

Believe it or not, Carrier Task Forces still cannot be found even today - and thats with all the ISR tech available to a modern military power. Stating that up to date surveillance will find them ignores the reality that even today "up to date" technology does not always work as the manuals and brochures tell us.

how difficult would something like this be? I'm just wondering this, because the same source that said the Song incident happened also claimed that Song was at the right place due to China's ISR rather than being informed which route Kitty Hawk was taking.

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust:
I meant "to attack SATs" by any means avilable, including EMP, not just by killer SATs that may or may not exist now;

So, are you assuming that you're operating this pretend shootout in a temporal flux where the US suddenly decides that it will suspend its own weapons development programs, suspend space command from its 5 year plan, suspend continental hypersonic weapons delivery etc etc....?

btw, an attack sat is a killer sat - its designed to manouvre and kill an enemy satellite.