Chinese Carrier

[longeyes]

Giggles snort.

1. Carriers are not castles, or any other kind of static defensive position.

2. Modern war games do actually include "Castles", or rather defense of fixed positions.  They don't have stone walls and catapults, but the concept is alive and well.  Play some war games: 1-888-550-1769

3. Several people with actual strategic knowledge have pointed out that the professionals think you're overestimating the ease of sinking a CVN.  If you choose to remain uneducated that's on you.

4. Until the Chicoms can realistically neutralize a US Carrier Strike Group AND have ASW assets capable of finding a Seawolf or Virginia class SSN, the only thing their Carrier is projecting is impotence and fuel bills.

Strategic knowledge should be based on actual wartime experience, not computer-generated war game scenarios and hypotheticals.  This "knowledge" is theory, nothing more.  Yes, carriers are moving castles--at 30 knots--very astute of you to point that out, but it doesn't change the basic point.  When the balloon goes up, you are free to hunker down on a carrier, but I won't be joining you there.

Underscore this: I didn't say it would be easy to sink a carrier, I said in a real war between major powers not holding back any carrier would be extremely vulnerable.  I'll stick with that view.

[De Selby]

Seriously, vulnerable to what?  I would like to hear what you think is a realistic scenario for sinking one of those beasts

[RoadKingLarry]

Actually, you don't have to sink it, just stop it. If a carrier can't make speed it becomes difficult to impossible to launch planes.

[230RN]

^ Or hole the deck?  (My strategic knowledge comes from sitting on my couch and reading these things.)

[dogmush]

  Yes, carriers are moving castles--at 30 knots--very astute of you to point that out, but it doesn't change the basic point. 

Which you completely missed. A CVN is not a defensive asset in any way, shape or form.  It has nothing to do with a Castle, or any of the modern versions of one.  A CVN exists to control vast areas of ocean and deny them to the enemy and/or quickly bring offensive assets to places outside the reach of the Army and Air Force's tactical assets prior to deployment.  If you absolutely have to use a comparison, It's a first generation BOLO, not a keep.

In an all out, nuclear involved war, there's nowhere that's great to be but an armored, CBRN hardened, mobile and armed platform inside a ring of the worlds best AA/AM platforms and guarded from below by the worlds best fast attack SSN's is one of the better places.

You're just mistaken on this one.

PS: and they're way quicker than 30 kts.

[longeyes]

I do know what the purpose of a carrier or carrier fleet is.  I was not arguing that a carrier is meant to be a purely defensive modality; obviously it is anything but.  But neither was a castle, it was a base, and so is a carrier, albeit a moving one.  

You're right, in an all-out nuclear-involved war there's no good place to be--we agree on that much--but some places are more obvious targets than others.  Certainly carriers or carrier groups will be prime in such a scenario.

I recognize you have more technical background in this area than I do, but maybe, just maybe, your superior knowledge of the technology and specifications are blinding you to the obvious.

[roo_ster]

Which you completely missed. A CVN is not a defensive asset in any way, shape or form.  It has nothing to do with a Castle, or any of the modern versions of one.  A CVN castle exists to control vast areas of ocean land and deny them to the enemy and/or quickly bring offensive assets to places outside the reach of the Army and Air Force's tactical assets prior to deployment. the greater mass of warriors dispersed in their feudal holdings   If you absolutely have to use a comparison, It's a first generation BOLO, not a keep.

In an all out, nuclear involved war, there's nowhere that's great to be but an armored, CBRN hardened, mobile and armed platform inside a ring of the worlds best AA/AM platforms and guarded from below by the worlds best fast attack SSN's is one of the better places.

You're just mistaken on this one.

PS: and they're way quicker than 30 kts.

dogmush, I mostly agree with your point, but you are missing the obvious similarities.  Castles were not mere defensive strongholds.  When maneuver is limited to hoof & foot, forward emplacement of warriors is an offensive action. 

I suspect William the Conqueror could give us a fine explanation of the use of castles as offensive weapons.

[RevDisk]

I thought the "star wars" ABM program was shot down...?

How fast does an ICBM go ... Mach 10 ++ 

Don't think a carrier can move that fast 

Besides, you wouldn't have to sink the carrier - just disrupt things enough to mess up defenses so that other attacks could get through.

Flight time, even at high velocity of an ICBM, from interior of China or Russia to a random point in some random ocean is 15-45 minutes. It's going fast, but it's a friggin long distance. The Enterprise has a top speed of 38.7 mph, which I bet they'd beat when they saw inbound nuclear warheads en route. If the nuke was dead on, they could get 9.7 miles from impact in a worst case scenario, 29 towards best case scenario. Both distances are acceptably survivable in the open against a ≤350 kt warhead, let alone in an armored warship.

Unless they saturation nuke the entire area, the boats have the option of picking the direction in which they want to go. ICBMs are area effect weapons, optimized against fixed targets. They're accurate, but not cruise missile accurate. I don't know the level of course correction in flight, so maybe it is possible to retask the MIRVs onto the moving task force.

No one is saying it is not possible to successfully do so. Everyone is saying, it's possible but not easy. Both the US and Soviet experts, as well as those on APS, pretty much agreed on that point.

[AJ Dual]

The other problem is that the enemy has to know where the CVN is, and the surrounding battlegroup to actually hit it. Even if it's a matter of, F-it, the balloon has gone up, it's full on WWIII lets launch ballistic nukes at it!

Perhaps this seems silly to say, but it's a big ocean. And unless sub, aircraft, or satellite has a position on the carrier group, and keeps it updated, even the biggest nukes, or a Hail-Mary spread of MIRV's could be nothing more to that CVN than some glow on the horizon. And presumably, the battle group will be scanning aggressively for aircraft and subs. Probably doing a few things that aren't done in peacetime, even in the most stringent of exercises.

And as to satellites, they don't turn on a dime, fuel is limited, and when one is diverted, it's something like another 90 minutes before it can fly over it's target again. At which point, the CVN could be as much as 45-55 miles "somewhere else" within a circle with a diameter of 90-110 miles. That may not be an insurmountable issue for an airstrike and anti-shipping missiles (not counting the battle group and air cover), but is likely to be a problem for an ICBM/IRBM.

And considering that an Aegis shot down a re-entering satellite as an exercise, granted one that was known to be re-entering, and planned months beforehand. I still have to wonder what our undeclared abilities are in regards to Space War, and God knows what else, when failing to use those no-such-assets is more costly than not using them.

ETA: Rev made the exact same point 1 minute ahead of me.   

[roo_ster]

All the above skepticism is mostly warranted, but for a CVN to be of any use, it has to be within round-trip (& possible mid-air refuel) range of its attack planes of targets worth bombing(1).  This is not a "boundless big ocean" problem, it is a "defined, known max distance from coast and/or target" problem. 

Much more likely to get eyes on the CVN in a whole lot smaller area to maneuver.  One thing I have learned doing computer-aided analysis is that a decent human brain can make a computationally impossible problem merely difficult and difficult problem relatively simple.  I don't think we can count on the Chinese to be stupid on this issue.


Break out a map and ask a few questions, at first:
* What might we want to protect?
* What might we want to attack?
* What is the effective range of our aircraft+in air refueling+high dollar munitions?
* What is the effective range of our aircraft+no in air refueling+dumb munitions (after we ran out of high dollar munitions, but still have targets that need servicing)?
* Have we been able to get any of the military or commercial airfields (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Guam) back into operation after the Chinese turned them into rubble and then bounced the rubble with their short & mid-range ballistic missiles?
* Where is the nearest un-destroyed base at which a CVN can re-arm after tossing every last missile & bullet at Chinese targets?

This bounds the problem a whole lot.  If the Air Force still allowed the Navy use of "medium" bombers, it would be a lot harder for the Chinese.  On that note, the Air Force will be sucking hind teat and most of our strike aircraft useless after all the airfields are rubbled in allied countries.




(1) A CVN in the Atlantic Ocean is pretty much immune from any Chinese attack.  It is also useless to us in a conflict with China.

[RevDisk]

Much more likely to get eyes on the CVN in a whole lot smaller area to maneuver.  One thing I have learned doing computer-aided analysis is that a decent human brain can make a computationally impossible problem merely difficult and difficult problem relatively simple.  I don't think we can count on the Chinese to be stupid on this issue.

If the PRC starts lobbing ICBMs, sadly, the CVNs are going to be pretty much an afterthought unless they can deliver ordinance to take out the launch sites. Which isn't likely. I always wondered the minimum range on most classes of ICBMs.

SLBMs, I'd wager even money on the AEGIS being able to handle.

[roo_ster]

If the PRC starts lobbing ICBMs, sadly, the CVNs are going to be pretty much an afterthought unless they can deliver ordinance to take out the launch sites. Which isn't likely. I always wondered the minimum range on most classes of ICBMs.

SLBMs, I'd wager even money on the AEGIS being able to handle.

I am not assuming nukes.  From Iran, maybe.  But, the Chi(sorta)coms are not religious zealots, who'll press the Big Red Button and holler "Marx is Great!"

Here is a terrific graphic as to the relative numbers of which type of missiles and their range.  Clicking a missile type will show roughly how far out to sea it can reach.  Educational and fun!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/chinese_missile_ranges

Much of China's missile power effectiveness would depend on how far away our carriers could operate away form mainland China.  I think anything that tried to sail between China & Taiwan could expect to be toast on a stick.

[AJ Dual]

I wonder what kind of sub launched, torpedo/horizontal, or vertical stealth cruise missiles we've got.

I bet the Chinese are wondering too.  

Stuff even better than the AGM-129A, that we don't get to know about. Or the "Cormorant" concept, or the "Fasthawk" and other hypersonic stuff.  

Total ballpark shot in the dark, but I figure that 50% of the stuff shown in Pop Sci, Pop Mech. Av & Space etc. actually does exist, and/or is actually more advanced than the speculation about it.

I am not assuming nukes.  From Iran, maybe.  But, the Chi(sorta)coms are not religious zealots, who'll press the Big Red Button and holler "Marx is Great!"

Here is a terrific graphic as to the relative numbers of which type of missiles and their range.  Clicking a missile type will show roughly how far out to sea it can reach.  Educational and fun!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/chinese_missile_ranges

Much of China's missile power effectiveness would depend on how far away our carriers could operate away form mainland China.  I think anything that tried to sail between China & Taiwan could expect to be toast on a stick.

I wonder if this is the "old data" before some higher end image analysis and ground penetrating radar data showed the Chinese nuclear tunnel system being several times larger than previous public estimates.

Which means the ICBM "blue" category in that chart might be a bit more than the 0-20 figure gives.

[MicroBalrog]

I am not assuming nukes.  From Iran, maybe.  But, the Chi(sorta)coms are not religious zealots, who'll press the Big Red Button and holler "Marx is Great!"

Here is a terrific graphic as to the relative numbers of which type of missiles and their range.  Clicking a missile type will show roughly how far out to sea it can reach.  Educational and fun!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/chinese_missile_ranges

Much of China's missile power effectiveness would depend on how far away our carriers could operate away form mainland China.  I think anything that tried to sail between China & Taiwan could expect to be toast on a stick.

What's the accuracy/CEP of these?

[AJ Dual]

What's the accuracy/CEP of these?

I dunno, but way better after the whole Loral/Clinton thing. 

[roo_ster]

What's the accuracy/CEP of these?

Some are terminally guided, others not so much.  Cheaper, simpler SRBMs are intended to turn our bases in Taiwan & such into rubble with numbers.

Also not listed: cruise missiles and more usual anti-ship missiles, of which there are many.

[Tallpine]

What would be the effect on a carrier groups electronic defenses after a nuke air burst within say, 10 or 15 miles ?

Not to mention morale 

[RoadKingLarry]

I suspect both would be sucking on high.

[Waitone]

Perhaps the best way to engage a US carrier task force is to attack it with diving T-bills.  Recently I've seen articles indicating the US has finally started gaming financial situations in strategic war games.  Good thinking particularly when a future bad guy has the US by the financial short and curlies.

[MechAg94]

If it comes to the point of a country lobbing nuclear missiles at our carriers, I would think that a whole bunch of other nuclear assets would be put into play that would make losing a carrier group the least of our concerns. 

Thinking of what AJ Dual said, stuff like the hypersonic missile we just tested would make great delivery vehicles for taking out known launch sites maybe before the enemy could react.  I think that would partly depend on how the conflict started and if US leaders had the will to do it. 

[RoadKingLarry]

if US leaders had the will to do it.

Aye, there's the rub!

[MicroBalrog]

Thinking of what AJ Dual said, stuff like the hypersonic missile we just tested would make great delivery vehicles for taking out known launch sites maybe before the enemy could react.  I think that would partly depend on how the conflict started and if US leaders had the will to do it. 

The best ABM weapon is a missile impacting the enemy's launch site before launch, or alternatively a special forces team landing near the site. A serious combatant in WW3 must have these teams and weapons to contend.

[just Warren]

Perhaps they have it to eventually have a floating uprising extinguisher for their coastal areas. 

[BobR]

If a carrier can't make speed it becomes difficult to impossible to launch planes.

Not really. Even way back in the early to mid 70's we were able to launch planes off the pointy end and recover them on the flat end while we were anchored. We did it a bit in the Med during the "fuel crisis" of the 70's.

bob

[MicroBalrog]

Perhaps they have it to eventually have a floating uprising extinguisher for their coastal areas. 

If your uprisings require an aircraft carrier to extinguish, you're probably already screwed.