Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?
- Thread starter Superbug
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Anything's possible. Australian F-111's have scored successful (notional) Harpoon missile hits on US aircraft carriers using a combination of high speed and an extremely low level ingress, during a number of exercises off the coast of Australia.
RAN Collins Class submarines are also rumoured to have penetrated the USN's defences and scored torpedo hits on US carriers on a number of occasions.
This does not mean however that it is easily done, a fact that should be obvious given that no-one has even come close to damaging a US carrier since WW2. US carriers are extremely well protected by their own aircraft and their supporting platforms.
I think China would find it very difficult to cripple or otherwise disable a US Aircraft Carrier, but I wouldn't say it would be impossible for them to do it... It would have to be a fully thought out operation though. The retaliation that would come if a US aircraft carrier was damaged or even sunk, would be horrendous...
RAN Collins Class submarines are also rumoured to have penetrated the USN's defences and scored torpedo hits on US carriers on a number of occasions.
This does not mean however that it is easily done, a fact that should be obvious given that no-one has even come close to damaging a US carrier since WW2. US carriers are extremely well protected by their own aircraft and their supporting platforms.
I think China would find it very difficult to cripple or otherwise disable a US Aircraft Carrier, but I wouldn't say it would be impossible for them to do it... It would have to be a fully thought out operation though. The retaliation that would come if a US aircraft carrier was damaged or even sunk, would be horrendous...
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
China would have a chance like almost any country with a fair amount of modern technology. My thoughts would be:
a) Where would the engagement take place?
b) How many vessels would the Chinese commit?
c) Would it be a sneak attack, a public sortie or an accident?
-----------
a) If the engagement occured at a point where China's newest jets were out of range, then it would be more difficult without air cover. Equally if they had far to travel, they might be discovered long before they reached the carrier group.
b) If the Chinese threw everything they had at the Yanks, then they might overwhelm them by sheer numbers. But if they didn't want to risk the majority of their fleet, then that would make things less certain.
c) If it was public, then China could mobilise all of its assets and launch a combined attack. A submarine-only attack could work, but it would depend on the skill of the captains, the number and class of subs, etc.
I also wonder what it would be like if a Royal Navy taskforce was engaged, with the new Type 45s instead of the Type 42s - and perhaps even a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier instead of the Invincible-class.
a) Where would the engagement take place?
b) How many vessels would the Chinese commit?
c) Would it be a sneak attack, a public sortie or an accident?
-----------
a) If the engagement occured at a point where China's newest jets were out of range, then it would be more difficult without air cover. Equally if they had far to travel, they might be discovered long before they reached the carrier group.
b) If the Chinese threw everything they had at the Yanks, then they might overwhelm them by sheer numbers. But if they didn't want to risk the majority of their fleet, then that would make things less certain.
c) If it was public, then China could mobilise all of its assets and launch a combined attack. A submarine-only attack could work, but it would depend on the skill of the captains, the number and class of subs, etc.
Well I think that's a bit of a red herring, as the US hasn't really had to take on a high/medium tech navy since WWII. Also we haven't had a proper naval engagement of this type since the Falklands - even that was not a useful example, because anti-missile technology and radar was less sophisticated than it is now. Until we see how modern radar and defence systems can cope with multiple incoming missiles and fighters (even torpedoes) I don't think we can be sure either way. It will basically take a naval engagement of some type between navies with fairly decent technology to see how the equipment performs.Aussie Digger said:
I also wonder what it would be like if a Royal Navy taskforce was engaged, with the new Type 45s instead of the Type 42s - and perhaps even a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier instead of the Invincible-class.
Salman78 said:
There is an opinion you don't see everyday!! I must respect you for your courage to say that.
Anyways, the answer to superbug's question would be no. Ballistic missiles are a very poor choice when engaging targets on the ocean surface. It can make very little adjustment in mid-flight and the accuracy is questionable. Furthermore, you have to know the sea routes that a CSF will be travelling in order to set the a course for the missile.
Last edited:
In a word noSuperbug said:
1) Ballistic missiles have limited manouvreability - especially at the peak of the bell curve. Last minute flight adjustments at terminal velocity are not going to be enough to do it. The further the BM is down the curve. the less likely she can intercept an evading target - irrespective of how dynamic the targetting updates are.
2) An ESSM is capable of intercepting a BM - the issue is what other defensive measures are in play concurrently
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I think we're drifting away from the original topic - which was if the PLAN could take on an American carrier group with its new missiles, fighters and vessels.
Number1azn365
New Member
I Believe the PLAN could be able to take on a CVG, but it would not be easy. IMO they would have to saturate the CVG with hundreads of missiles because the Aegis ships and Phalynx would probably take out a lot of the missiles. Since China has a bunch of new Submarines like the updated 039G, Yuan, 093 and Kilo, they should also throw in a few submarines for support. Im not sure if China has any long range bombers yet, but they could use their su30, 27 and J10, J7's. I still think it would be really hard to destroy a whole CVG, but its not impossible. Worse come to worse just get a nuclear tipped Sunburn missile.
I don't think so. The USN was training against N-Tipped Mach 5-6 SLCM's 40 years ago, they weren't a overwhelming threat then, and they certainly aren't a threat now.Number1azn365 said:
The whole "supersonic cruise missile threat" is a bit of a new PR campaign without substance. It makes people at home feel good about technology, but it's an old old threat that's been dealt with before and can be dealt with now.
Frankly, the whole business about the lethality of supersonic cruise missiles being the new bogey is outright fabrication. The current supersonic CM's are slower than the past, and the threat respondents are more sophisticated.
Last edited:
the obvious solution for chinese to cripple the CVBG (at least to the point of send them back limping to port) is to overwhelmed the CVBG defences with massive missile attack from all point of compass. i wonde if chinese military could scrounge up enough missiles to be truly effective.
Submarine is the other potent weapon against the Carrier but the challenge is to penetrate the ASW pickets surrounding the carrier. depend on the technology employed by the current US ASW forces, the attacking sub need the latest quietning measures. despite the formidable ASW wall around the carrier, there's bound to be some small temporary windows the skilled Sub commander can exploit to penetrate and survive at least long enough to launch the salvo towards the carrier.
Submarine is the other potent weapon against the Carrier but the challenge is to penetrate the ASW pickets surrounding the carrier. depend on the technology employed by the current US ASW forces, the attacking sub need the latest quietning measures. despite the formidable ASW wall around the carrier, there's bound to be some small temporary windows the skilled Sub commander can exploit to penetrate and survive at least long enough to launch the salvo towards the carrier.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I thought the whole point of the CVNs were that they were regionally based - so if you take one out, the USN loses the centre of its naval power in that area.ajay_ijn said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Musashi_kenshin, US forces are grouped together in task forces as required for the situation at hand. If the US were poised for potential operations against China you can bet that at LEAST 3 carriers would be deployed for such a situation, if not more. The Chinese Navy wouldn't stand a chance against a US Navy task force deployed against it, it's as simple as that.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Sure I accept that. I thought that we were talking about an attack on a single carrier group that might just be in the area - just like when Clinton deployed the 7th Fleet in 1996. That kind of scenario is more realistic for there being a P.L.A.N. attack on the USN in my opinion. If there was an engagement, it would be over an invasion of Taiwan - the US wouldn't have time to redeploy other carrier groups, surely.Aussie Digger said:
If tensions increase between Both Countries,USN would deploy 2 to 3 CVN's even before any start of conflict and the Carriers would ave 10 times better Defences.
Like they will be under constant cover by P-3 and other Air defence Fighters.
I imagine something like 2 Cruisers,6 Destroyers,4 Frigates,4 SSN would protect CVN against PLAN.
I think nothing in PLAN can Challenge the US SSN Force leave alone the Aegis Class Ships considering that PLAN has very limited ASW Capability.
PLAN Ships will be a Sitting ducks before the Sea Wolf Class SSNs.
On the Top of it USN Will Divert some of its SSBN's.
In Indian Culture,A god when becomes angry will open his Third Eye which will turn everything into ashes.
I believe US will open its Third Eye if anything happens to its CVNs.The retaliation from US will be a disaster to China.
Even a Powerful Navy like IJN(1941) which literally destroyed the Complete USN Pacific HQ pearl habour thought that they made a Big Mistake by
Awakening Sleeping Giant.
Every One knows Why they called "Giant".
Last edited:
doggychow14
New Member
Yea i agree. I believe a couple months back the US had a military exercize with 7 CVBGs to test rapid response and operation readiness. No Navy in the world can stand up the the USN. China has at most the capbility of dealing with 2 CVBGs.
The USN is never going to make one CSF vulnerable in current circumstances. (especially under the current administration). There will always be two CSF's if deployed, and the surge requirement is to have another 4-5 on station within a month.Musashi_kenshin said:
The Clinton philosophy of "derestricting" the sale of advanced US technology to China, and emasculating the US military are well gone.
- Status