Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[shamsi]

Carrier Group

From the mouth of a Chinese General, they will use missile boat against US Carrier. When laughed at, he said, missile boat with C-80X series missiles.

When further ridiculed, he said, One Hundred boats, firing the ASMs in OTHT mode, virtually saturating every sensor and tracking system, and engaging every hardkill and softkill system to its capacity; and providing enough gaps for these systems to reach inside, and use their MWSs to penetrate the upper or side hulls.

Image a EWO with 400 active emitters in I/J band. Now if this was a better co-ordinated attack, that is, from more than one direction, it would be difficult to defeat.

But this is all theoretical. Actual sea war has a lot of other elements, and Carrier groups are not such sitting ducks, as much as Submariners like to think...

 

[Todjaeger]

From the mouth of a Chinese General, they will use missile boat against US Carrier. When laughed at, he said, missile boat with C-80X series missiles.

When further ridiculed, he said, One Hundred boats, firing the ASMs in OTHT mode, virtually saturating every sensor and tracking system, and engaging every hardkill and softkill system to its capacity; and providing enough gaps for these systems to reach inside, and use their MWSs to penetrate the upper or side hulls.

Image a EWO with 400 active emitters in I/J band. Now if this was a better co-ordinated attack, that is, from more than one direction, it would be difficult to defeat.

But this is all theoretical. Actual sea war has a lot of other elements, and Carrier groups are not such sitting ducks, as much as Submariners like to think...

I see the following problems to such a hypothetical attack.

1. In order for one hundred missile boats an attack in such a manner, they need to be gathered to within approximately the same range from the CBG. This assumes that the attack will be a mass attack to attempt to overwhelm the air defences of the CBG. The US spy satellite constellations and/or ferret flights are likely to notice the activity that would be required to gather that many missile boats. Especially if the decision was made to base them all at the same location.

2. If the missiles are fired in an OTH mode, then another aircraft/vessel/system needs to be involved as the detector of the CBG and needs sufficient targeting information on the CBG to allow any missiles fired to get within self-designation range with the proper vector. Unless satellites are used, any system used to detect a CBG and relay targeting information is subject to detection by the CBG or more specifically the E-2s and/or SSN depending on whether the system is an undersea platform or not. As for using satellites, I do not believe that they can detect and relay sufficient real-time data to allow targeting of a CBG.

3. Giving the presence of E-2 AWACS with a CBG and the situational awareness they can contribute, it would likely prove difficult to overwhelm the sensing capabilities of a CBG. The APS-145 on an E-2 can track in excess of 2,000 targets and at ranges greater than 550 km. That means 400 incoming AShM and/or their launching vessels would be detected with targeting data relayed to the carrier Air Group and escorting surface vessels and allow time for interception. On the other hand, if the missile boats are detected, they could potentially be intercepted before they are capable of firing their AShM.

As has been mentioned before, there are a number of systems and layers to US defences around a CBG that need to be overcome one way or another in order for an attack to be successful. Given the date, of a CBG as an onion and the carrier itself as the centre. In order to get to it, there are a number of layers that need to be peeled back or gotten through. Stating a solution that is appropriate for the final layer (the carrier) but ignores the outer layers (escorting ships, aircraft, milsats, etc) does not demonstrate a potentially successful attack or the scope of thinking needed to plan one.

-Cheers

 

[tphuang]

Before we continue, do you know the difference between detecting and tracking? Optical satellites are already barely adequate as detection assets. They provide time-late detection at best. SAR satellites can provide tracking, provided you have a constellation of US-P and US-A satellites. Of which China has none. All it has is 1 or 2 SAR satellites which are for land surveillance. 1 or 2 SARs do not provide tracking.
Not that they might be working in the event of hostilities anyway. The US already has the Counter Communications System deployed.

There are 3 Yaogans alone. And they are shooting up 2 new ones a year. It does far more than just land surveillance. Also, they got the Ziyuan satellites.

For the purpose of a war scenario. it doesn't need to track every ship, just that the general direction of the fleet. And the area it's scanning is X km around Taiwan in a limited direction. Consider this, Song submarine basically got in the way of Kitty hawk by getting information from Chinese satellites.

Which are reliant on conducive atmospheric conditions to function, and cannot be utilised without broadcasting their position to everybody.

they have active and passive modes. They can give off their position, everyone knows where they will be anyways.

Some vague reference to upgrades means that China has anti-radiation drones with the range and speed to be part of a strike package? Who are you trying to impress?

Who are you trying to impress? You are the one that assumes all China has is Harpies. Point is, both side will have EW assets and counters against that. And both sides practice against it. It's simply arrogance to only talk about the ones from one side.

1. In order for one hundred missile boats an attack in such a manner, they need to be gathered to within approximately the same range from the CBG. This assumes that the attack will be a mass attack to attempt to overwhelm the air defences of the CBG. The US spy satellite constellations and/or ferret flights are likely to notice the activity that would be required to gather that many missile boats. Especially if the decision was made to base them all at the same location.

100 is a lot, but generally the 022s are gathered in groups of 8 to 12 in peacetime.

2. If the missiles are fired in an OTH mode, then another aircraft/vessel/system needs to be involved as the detector of the CBG and needs sufficient targeting information on the CBG to allow any missiles fired to get within self-designation range with the proper vector. Unless satellites are used, any system used to detect a CBG and relay targeting information is subject to detection by the CBG or more specifically the E-2s and/or SSN depending on whether the system is an undersea platform or not. As for using satellites, I do not believe that they can detect and relay sufficient real-time data to allow targeting of a CBG.

They've worked on 022s getting target information from different Y-8s for a while now. The same escorts for attackers will also be escorting the surveillance aircrafts.

3. Giving the presence of E-2 AWACS with a CBG and the situational awareness they can contribute, it would likely prove difficult to overwhelm the sensing capabilities of a CBG. The APS-145 on an E-2 can track in excess of 2,000 targets and at ranges greater than 550 km. That means 400 incoming AShM and/or their launching vessels would be detected with targeting data relayed to the carrier Air Group and escorting surface vessels and allow time for interception. On the other hand, if the missile boats are detected, they could potentially be intercepted before they are capable of firing their AShM.

right, E-2's detection range is greater than that of E-3C. And you really think that sea-skimming missiles with low RCS can be detected that far out with sea waves and other clutters all around?

 

[Transient]

There are 3 Yaogans alone. And they are shooting up 2 new ones a year. It does far more than just land surveillance.

Land surveillance SARs usually take the time they spend over the sea to recharge their batteries. And 3 satellites don't provide any tracking capability at all.

For the purpose of a war scenario. it doesn't need to track every ship, just that the general direction of the fleet.

Wrong. Finding the exact disposition of the fleet is a major part of targeting. You need to know where and what each vessel is to target your missiles.

Consider this, Song submarine basically got in the way of Kitty hawk by getting information from Chinese satellites.

Consider this. The American fleet wasn't implementing any counter-detection measures to hide from surveillance assets, and the Chinese probably just observed the usually routes taken by the KH to the exercise area.

they have active and passive modes. They can give off their position, everyone knows where they will be anyways.

Then they are not going to survive very long to be tracking anything.

Who are you trying to impress? You are the one that assumes all China has is Harpies. Point is, both side will have EW assets and counters against that. And both sides practice against it. It's simply arrogance to only talk about the ones from one side.

Parroting won't make you look smarter in any way. nfloorl: I asked if there is any anti-radiation drone in Chinese inventory that has the speed and range to be a viable part of an anti-carrier strike package. You tried to divert attention with some pathetic mention of some upgrades to the harpy. You won't fool anybody but yourself.

right, E-2's detection range is greater than that of E-3C. And you really think that sea-skimming missiles with low RCS can be detected that far out with sea waves and other clutters all around?

Remember that the E-2D SM-6 combination is expected to provide over-land cruise missile defense. The E-2D's radar range is listed at more than 300nm, with a 300% volumetric coverage improvement over the E-2C radar. In terms of sensitivity the radar also features a 20dB improvement over the current E-2C radar, resulting from its STAP processing and improved power. STAP processing provides much higher clutter rejection capability than the E-2C, with the ability now to even detect periscopes.

 

[Schumacher]

There are 3 Yaogans alone. And they are shooting up 2 new ones a year. It does far more than just land surveillance. Also, they got the Ziyuan satellites.

For the purpose of a war scenario. it doesn't need to track every ship, just that the general direction of the fleet. And the area it's scanning is X km around Taiwan in a limited direction. Consider this, Song submarine basically got in the way of Kitty hawk by getting information from Chinese satellites.

they have active and passive modes. They can give off their position, everyone knows where they will be anyways........

LOL, TP, my suggestion is not to take that Transient kid too seriously.
He's managed to dismiss decades & billions worth of research & deployment of OTH systems by just 2 lines stating the disadvantages of its reliance on 'conducive atmospheric conditions' & that 'They can give off their position' as if there's any magical systems out there that have no disadvantages at all.
Unless you see quickly he's just playing with words to get the last word in at all cost, you'll waste a lot of time & this will become a very long thread.

 

[TimmyC]

Off Topic

OFF TOPIC

There are people on this forum who know a lot regarding the defence industry and those said capabilities, and then there are those (like me) who know little and contribute likewise.
Also I would like to say - no offence to those that don't have an absolute grasp of the English language - peoples general manners are left somewhat to be desired.
I have certainly tried to contribute as relatively as I feel able to with my huge interest but limited knowledge. If people express interest or opinions they shouldn't in my view be overly criticised. People can reply to posts if they feel they want to, or chose not to as they see fit.
Anyway, I shall continue to contribute as I usually do by asking even more questions!
The quite often bitter relationship between China and India is apparent even tho they are soon to enter their first bilateral war games. On a naval context how do people view any future hostilities between the two nations developing? As this is a carrier thread, possibly between the two when they both have CV's up and operational?

 

[Transient]

He's managed to dismiss decades & billions worth of research & deployment of OTH systems by just 2 lines stating the disadvantages of its reliance on 'conducive atmospheric conditions' & that 'They can give off their position' as if there's any magical systems out there that have no disadvantages at all.

I think not even 15yr old paskal believes that a couple of billion dollars can change the law of physics. Somehow you do. By listing out these 2 disadvantages their implications should be apparent. Apparently they are not to you. Well too bad then. You are, after all, limited to worthless sniping from the sidelines.

 

[Schumacher]

I think not even 15yr old paskal believes that a couple of billion dollars can change the law of physics. Somehow you do. By listing out these 2 disadvantages their implications should be apparent. Apparently they are not to you. Well too bad then. You are, after all, limited to worthless sniping from the sidelines.

Ah... speaking of 'worthless sniping', how can one forget abt your impressive performance in the insult trading match with the 15 yr old.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4787&page=21

Impressive display of maturity & knowledge, that's why I think few can 'match' you in a constructive debate.

 

[Transient]

I see that you intend to prove me right. I pointed out how he posted a link that contradicted what he said. If you accuse me of a tendency to ridicule 15 year olds like Paskal and you, then I'm guilty as charged.