Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Tashtego -> Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/23/2016 2:33:46 AM)

From the Center for a New American Security.

http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-us-aircraft-carriers#.VsvDD0CMc8C



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/23/2016 2:43:22 AM)

Every ships from a ducky to a uber-massive container freighter are sharing one single characteristics: all can be sunk under numerous circumstances.

The point is not posturing the dangerousness of big and high-value vessel, but the absolute needs to acquire as many defensive measures into it as possible. Nimitz and Ford are big, but surely big enough to add and perform some countermeasures against threats of many kinds, and not just about ASB/CM or torpedo.



Gunner98 -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/23/2016 6:30:58 PM)

Nice, thanks for sharing.

B



jimcarravall -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/23/2016 9:32:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Eslin

From the Center for a New American Security.

http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-us-aircraft-carriers#.VsvDD0CMc8C


Interesting that the board of directors and the board of advisers are all defense industry executives or lobbiests.

Brings to question whether the "threat" involves security of aircraft carriers, or a reduced business because Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the military acquisition community research and development operations aren't allocating enough resources to keep all the vendors profitable.

Having worked defense acquisition, I can say that the vendors, some of whom were my vendors, were very patriotic and concerned about "threats" when there was cash around to pay them to chase new projects, but pretty dismissive of "threat" when design design solutions needed to be changed at their expense because they would cause more harm than good to the military personnel using them.



magi -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/24/2016 6:12:41 PM)

Yes... This is so...



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/25/2016 3:49:28 AM)

That is why I avoid reading the first-hand report about military. As a Chinese self, I get both news from original source, and the redistributed report/article with analysis in it. See what the original media being hyped about, and then the analysis's response to know what's behind the news.

It is usually a pro when you have a person in a middle of both sides, to read both of their perspectives. Rather than a single-sided bias I usually confronted. But for some languages other than English and Chinese, they still get the best of me.



jimcarravall -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/25/2016 1:24:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

That is why I avoid reading the first-hand report about military. As a Chinese self, I get both news from original source, and the redistributed report/article with analysis in it. See what the original media being hyped about, and then the analysis's response to know what's behind the news.

It is usually a pro when you have a person in a middle of both sides, to read both of their perspectives. Rather than a single-sided bias I usually confronted. But for some languages other than English and Chinese, they still get the best of me.


You need to consider the source.

There is information put out to inform (news), information put out to influence (opinion on news, some "think tank" reports, and political lobbying reports), and information put out to market (vendor press releases).






Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/25/2016 1:31:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


You need to consider the source.

There is information put out to inform (news), information put out to influence (opinion on news, some "think tank" reports, and political lobbying reports), and information put out to market (vendor press releases).



Still nowhere more accurate than a real war demonstrated their actual capabilities and weaknesses.

Though, let's be thankful when we find some sources, low or expertized, to learn about military for now. I may not be contented, but still worth to read what's people in their mind, more than just military equipment. Good for scenario backdrops, but not helpful for improving DB3000.



SSN754planker -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/25/2016 5:55:01 PM)

I still dont think the Chinese military would stand up very long against a full CVBG thats pissed off, aware, and ready to fight.



AdmiralSteve -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/25/2016 10:26:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SSN754planker

I still dont think the Chinese military would stand up very long against a full CVBG thats pissed off, aware, and ready to fight.

I'm curious though if the current US Navy ECM could defeat current ASM threats, such as the Sizzler, BrahMos or DF-21D?
Time for a CMANO test scenario.



BrianinMinnie -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/25/2016 11:18:57 PM)

I’m looking for input.
“Conclusion
No longer will aircraft carriers and their associated air wings be able to operate with impunity?”

Why would they think that they would be operating with impunity?

Why would they sailing there in the first place?

War with China?

I’ve always assumed that if we’re in a shooting war with China, the gloves are off. Not the Middle East Type intervention or police actions in the Baltic’s, but a World War type situation.

How come we’re always to assume US carriers are just going to go sailing into harm’s way without the many variables accounted for?

I’ve assumed also that the only way it’s going to start is an attack on a US ally or friend and that all diplomatic efforts have been crushed and now a state of war exists with China.

That being said let’s talk about what that possibly means.

Most US Naval Fleets and possibly NATO, will be sailing or already sailed from all around the globe to join the Party, Check.

The Air Forces are spooled up, check.

Massive cruise missile attacks to so called knock the door down while massive cyber and anti space or denial attacks will have the Mainland China isolated from forces abroad from most of their communications and targeting satellites. (I also assume China will be doing similar attacks against the US and or its allies)

Weapons free tasking for all submarine’s against China’s assets from Ships, Airfields, CC, to Ports, to Refineries to even Pipelines deep inside the mainland itself.

At this point the US will assume that the all armed forces including the Carrier forces are at war and will do all that possible to assure its survivability

The US would attempt to not allow for any Naval Fleet to be destroyed without massive degradation of attacking forces.

With Chinese satellites degraded (i.e. X-37’s maybe could be released from conducting space “experiments”….), how’s that whole ABM/Over the Horizon targeting thing going to work out?

The Chinese are becoming very capable but the sheer weight of numbers of weapons arrayed against them in waves from all directions appear daunting.

When was the last time Chinese forces were under fire? How good are damage control and repair forces? Simulations are great, history teaches better techniques.

So to “win” what will be the options?

Nobody is going to want to invade mainland china to throw out the people’s party.

Any enemy should remember that only the US has used nuclear weapons in a fight, and depending on the situation, I assume could crazy enough to use them again, Hoping "cooler" heads would prevent a full exchange.

Now that sounds stupid right? But with the bullets flying over Taiwan or Japan or the Philippines or India, or wherever, Massive casualties will already be occurring. So to force a “quick” lets negotiate attitude, a “tactical” strike could be considered.

What would China want to “win” anyways?

A smoking Island that used to be Taiwan, from what I can see, they’re not rolling over or giving up, period and so would have to be bombed into submission right? Not much to “win” left over.

Clear sailing lanes for the movement of oil and commerce, not much chance of that.

What? To poke the decadent\crazy West in the eye? Show us who’s Boss? Who’s going to buy and sell the healthy portions of the goods the Chinese people want or need?

The US seems like a fractured mess nowadays but nothing like a war to eliminate petty differences.

It doesn’t make any obvious sense to the avg joe and while I’ve greatly oversimplified the situation I've laid out, I did start out this out reading about
“Red Alert: The Growing Threat to US Aircraft Carriers” Right?

Click bait, I know

Simple. Not so much

What think you all?



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 12:38:32 AM)

The most simple answer is: MAD.

Someone still forget China can still use nuclear weapon for 'testing' in their own territory (I don't add quotation mark here again). If it breaks out, China will no longer care about their current campaign, and rebalance the world with Plutonium and Uranium.

But l agree, a massive click bait for this article. 100KT of Diplomacy can cruise all the corner of sea, and so does the 500KT of Economy. It is only matters to these countries what they want to achieve behind all these threat-mongering and anti-globalization agendas. If it's not, and the modern world decided to replicate the Punic Wars, then diplomacy and economy aren't matters anymore.

The only issue is the 'Fouth Punic War' surely not fighting with stones and sticks, though.



ThornEel -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 1:06:09 AM)

About degrading satellites, I'll have two words: Kessler syndrome.

X-37 and the like wouldn't be enough to seriously threaten the Chinese satellite net : you would need a fleet of them, and they would need to already sit right next to their targets, orbit-wise (they wouldn't have the fuel to manoeuvre close to them otherwise - plane change, in particular, take a ridiculous amount of fuel).
To take satellites down, they would need missiles. A capability both sides demonstrated, so there would probably be retaliation.
Meaning that we would end up with a sky full of debris occupied at blowing satellites up to create more debris until there is nothing but debris in orbit and we can't launch anything but big, armoured (read: hideously expensive) crafts for the next months, years or maybe even decades.
And the few of those Ford-carrier-priced satellites would probably be debris cleaners anyway.

A Kessler cascade is depicted in the film Gravity, caused by one satellite blowing up. This is considered credible enough that there was an uproar when the Chinese blew one of their satellites up to test their anti-satellite missile. I'm pretty sure the word "irresponsible" was used.
But with dozens of satellites blowing up, an immediate Kessler cascade would be pretty much certain.

By the way, is Command able to simulate the loss of satellite support? For example, can GPS guidance stop working?

Then again, if I was the US and had a few months, I would blockade maritime traffic from outside of Chinese range. Given how much China is depending on sea trade, it would bring them to their knees. (For the slightly more time-constrained, a few key strikes on their industrial and energy infrastructure may speed is up a bit). Assuming the US can resist the world economy going low enough to discover exciting new geology.

Then again, right now Internet is about as sturdy as a bridge made of matches (as anyone working in the field will tell you), and the kind of cyber-actions they would start are akin to flamethrowers...



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 1:16:59 AM)

... And mass illegal immigrants are like a forest fire.



SSN754planker -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 1:48:36 AM)

The last time the Chinese military did any fighting was in 1979 in a border war with Vietnam and they pretty much got their asses handed to them by Vietnam. This was a land war, the navy was not involved, so to really draw conclusions from that is moot.



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 2:04:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SSN754planker

The last time the Chinese military did any fighting was in 1979 in a border war with Vietnam and they pretty much got their asses handed to them by Vietnam. This was a land war, the navy was not involved, so to really draw conclusions from that is moot.

But that doesn't mean land based warfare cannot be conducted for somewhere else. 12 countries neighboring with China same as Russia from land, and that makes Australia, United States and Japan are Elysiums because the sea are big enough to surround nearly all the countries (if counting on Canada is also work with US).



Aivlis -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 8:50:07 AM)

Please don't use Gravity as an indication for anything to do with orbital mechanics; it's a pretty and enjoyable film but has close to no relation to the real world in that regard.

The rest of this thread looks like it's degenerating into a pissing contest (-My cruise missiles can beat your CVBG! -Well, my dad can beat yours up!) Out of all the actors on the world stage right now, the one with the best grasp on the unpredictability of a military approach to geopolitics seems to be China. They have a lot to gain by slowly growing into a superpower while avoiding overt confrontation, and much to lose they get entangled in open conflicts. For all the sabre-rattling around Taiwan, they have huge resources invested in a soft-power approach to annexing the island. This tells me the PLAN is quite aware of it's capabilities and shortcomings when it comes to conducting an operation of that magnitude.
In short: I don't expect China to go starting wars as of yet. It's much more likely we'll see a growing trend of deployments to hot zones around the world to test their equipment and doctrines and find out what works and what not; all while trying not to sour their relations with other major powers too much.



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 10:22:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aivlis

I don't expect China to go starting wars as of yet. It's much more likely we'll see a growing trend of deployments to hot zones around the world to test their equipment and doctrines and find out what works and what not; all while trying not to sour their relations with other major powers too much.


Maybe PLA is still playing chess with a pigeon. But I am sure when they are ready, the pigeon will no longer making rules over a real battleground. Only the problem is, will China ended up a hunt down a pigeon, or get hunted like a mealworm?

"Learning is stealing.", as China will always behind the others if they are only learning what superior already innovated and discovered. It is not a lie that China wants the latter, to innovate and discover their own characteristics, militarily and technologically. Yet peace and prosperity contradict their military power, while social inequality and barbarism hindering their technological applications. It won't be improving fast enough to make world believe China is getting more powerful, but still better than stuck and learn nothing.

Enough of the figure of speech, don't we remember the 1996? The apex of tension to Taiwan and US caused China make no choice but to take all the shortcuts and ludicrous measures to build up their military. It is receding after 10 years, as ballistic missiles and missile boats will eventually find little use than their new destroyers and sea-skimming cruise missiles.



Rudd -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 11:47:31 AM)

This linked report basically says range is the only thing that matters and I think a lot of their facts based on range are wrong anyway.

It implies that a 1000nm radius A-6 is better than F-18E/Fs, what would you rather have going into a fight?

It says a J-10 has a 600nm combat radius, does a J-10 have a longer range than say a F-16? I doubt it.

It says the J-20 has a 1000nm combat radius. Really?

It raises concern about a swarm of harpy uav within 215nm. Doesn't seem too scary to me.

And that is just a few points that are flawed.

Even if the above stated ranges are correct, there is so many other factors as was stated earlier, I feel dumber after reading this report






Rudd -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 12:02:00 PM)

Subarines are and always will be a threat.

ASBM are/will be a threat, if they work how say but I don't think they are to that point yet.

If AEGIS ships work as designed, than there is a counter to all these "threats" anyway, they could be overwhelmed but so could everything else, including China's offensive and defensive forces on the mainland.

These reports saying aircraft carriers are obsolete are ridiculous



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 12:03:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rudd

It says a J-10 has a 600nm combat radius, does a J-10 have a longer range than say a F-16? I doubt it.

It says the J-20 has a 1000nm combat radius. Really?


I counted it based on CMANO's database, J-10A's empty loaded combat radius range is 433 nautical miles. That's not including external fuel tank or any weapon.

But reaching to 600nm is possible, when H-6H and/or IL-78 is/are nearby.

As for J-20, they said it has the same room of weapon bay as F-22, but it's 10% bigger than latter. So based on J-11B, which have barely 900nm combat radius unarmed and no external tanks, might be... enough I think?

EDIT: I miscalculated the J-11B's CR. Also, I calculated J-20 in DB3000, the result is 1022nm.



Rudd -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 12:17:38 PM)

quote:

But reaching to 600nm is possible, when H-6H and/or IL-78 is/are nearby.

That's part of my point!

There is always tankers around, blue and red



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 12:38:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rudd

quote:

But reaching to 600nm is possible, when H-6H and/or IL-78 is/are nearby.

That's part of my point!

There is always tankers around, blue and red

Sadly there's no such loadout in DB that stripped all the fuel tanks for extra missiles to J-10. I mean, CR is definitely shorter, but after refueling and dispensing AAMs, it might still have enough range to come back.



Rudd -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 1:18:16 PM)

Say they had a 2000nm radius, and there is no blue land based aircraft support, how big would the strike package have to be to overwhelm a CVBG on the defense, with say half the air wing available on cap and a Tico and 2-3 Burkes with full typical VLS loadouts (these need to be added in CMANO)

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the cost would be crazy.

Range isn't the biggest factor, there is too many variables.

Who knows and I hope we never find out.





Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 2:53:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rudd

Say they had a 2000nm radius, and there is no blue land based aircraft support, how big would the strike package have to be to overwhelm a CVBG on the defense, with say half the air wing available on cap and a Tico and 2-3 Burkes with full typical VLS loadouts (these need to be added in CMANO)

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the cost would be crazy.


Indeed is crazy, but I am trying it right now. A full 7th fleet of:

-- A CVN-73
-- 7 AB2s
-- 2 Ticos
-- 1 Seawolf
-- 1 Virginia
-- 4 regiments of Hornets (half-ready)
-- 1 regiment of Growlers (half-ready)
-- Standard naval AEW and ASW packages
-- All default loadouts for ships
-- All Standard CAP for fighters

Versus

-- 48 DF-21D ASBMs (12 TELs)
-- Set Awareness to Omniscient

I am very certain that four salvo of DF-21Ds will not be enough.



SeaQueen -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 3:48:35 PM)

The submarines in a carrier strike group don't help you much versus ASBMs, so they don't count. Neither do the fighters. If anything, their operational radius determines where you need to put the aircraft carriers in order for them to be relevant. Therefore they might help you determine what the goal is for a scenario.

There are a few things to play with in a ballistic missile defense scenario for a carrier strike group. First, is how far out can you detect the incoming missiles? SM-3s can fly a long way in the game so somehow, to take full advantage of their enormous range, you need to figure out how to detect them a long way out. Longer detection range means more opportunities to take a shot. Second, is your inventory. When you're deciding what to put on the ships, you have to balance a lot of different things. SM-3s are only useful against targets in space, so a missile slot used for them makes you stronger against ASBMs, but weaker against ASCMs. Other standard missile incarnations make you stronger against ASCMs but maybe aren't as good against ASBMs. ESSM is good against ASCMS and aircraft but useless against ASBMs. TLAMs enable your ship to strike targets on land, but don't protect it against anything except perhaps in so far as they can destroy things which might attack you. TLAMs, though, should be thought of as basically offensive weapons. Furthermore there's an ASW threat. VLS slots are also taken up with VLA. Regardless, I only have so many ships with so many slots. Thirdly ASBMs are only as effective as the scouting that passes them targets. What are some ways for the player in a scenario to frustrate the enemy sensors while still protecting itself?

A good scenario will balance higher level command's desire to attack the enemy with TLAMs and strike aircraft from the CSG, with the need to defend it against ASBMs, ASCMs, strike aircraft and submarines. That balance manifests itself in the ship's inventory and the scenario ought to invite people to tweak the ship's VLS load in an attempt to determine what the best balance between the different requirements. If I load everything up with TLAMs and nothing else, I'll probably be able to damage the land targets in the scenario, but I'll be a sitting duck against everything else. What is the best mix? Even if I'm loaded with the "best" mix, I still only have so many defensive missiles. How long can I hold stay in striking distance for my aircraft before my missiles are exhausted and I have to withdraw? It'll also give the player leeway to experiment with different options for frustrating the systems which will allow ASBMs to strike in the first place.

So... the issue as I see it is not whether not the CSG can defend itself against one raid, but against multiple raids over a long period of time, as the enemy develops a firing solution against it, fires off a raid, assesses whether the raid was effective, fires off another raid, all the while forcing the CSG to expend defensive missiles, making it weaker and weaker. Can the CSG get within striking distance and stay there for a long enough period of time while being forced to protect itself against successive raids with finite resources? That's a good scenario, in my mind.



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/26/2016 4:24:53 PM)

It will be a new big scenario if I count these things in, so I just keep it simple and experimental.

Well, even SM-3/6 aren't protecting them as many as they can, the sea however, will have some mercy to the fleet. 2/3 of DF-21D are hitting waters, and only pathetic scoring from 48 shots.



AlanChan -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/27/2016 11:53:29 AM)

IF your thinking is true, the US defense posture need a huge rework-forward deployed naval, air, marine unit must be pulled back and US army units should leave ROK.

And US force will not protect Japan and ROK targets until mainland China's unit is significantly soften up.

Current problem for US defense planners is that they are forced to protect some targets at point blank range (of missile range) with a enemy getting more and more units (translated to both fire power and staying power). And they are forced to split their force strategically (forward deployment) but concentrate their force locally in a few bases. That is not a so good decision.





ExNusquam -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/27/2016 2:24:58 PM)

quote:

First, is how far out can you detect the incoming missiles? SM-3s can fly a long way in the game so somehow, to take full advantage of their enormous range, you need to figure out how to detect them a long way out. Longer detection range means more opportunities to take a shot.

This is one of my biggest issues with modeling the "ASBM vs CSG" scenarios. The US (and Russia) spent lots of money during the cold war developing the ability to detect missile launches. With the DSP and SBIRS constellation, somebody in the US will know about the missile launch basically as soon as it clears the launcher. The only question is how quickly does that information filter down to the relevant commanders.

There are a couple other sticking points on the discussion that I rarely see raised:
1. No ASM that has enountered a target employing active/passive countermeasures has ever hit it's target. You read that correctly. I currently think Command underestimates the effectiveness of EW. (Reference this paper, which was posted on the forum a few months ago) While missile seekers have become more advanced, EW capabilities have advanced along the same line. This graduate thesis lays out a good history of US Naval application of EW and deception against the USSR, and how similar techniques would complicate the PRCs ability to develop a firing solution.

2. There's evidence out there that the DF-21D employs a submunition warhead. In the leaked (or Released, considering it's availability) The Science of Second Artillery Campaigns the PRC lays out it's nuclear and conventional doctrine. It lists various attack strategies against a CSG, involving either light, harassing attacks, demonstration launches into the water, and possibly using EMP against C2 systems. The only strategy that mentions a direct attack on the CSG is the following:
quote:

Concentrated fire assault” (集火突击), which entails targeting the carrier
as a center of flight operations: “When many carrier-borne aircraft are used
in continuous air strikes against our coast, in order to halt the powerful air
raids, the enemy’s core carrier should be struck as with a ‘heavy hammer.’
The conventional missile forces should be a select group carrying sensitive
penetrating submunitions and, using the ‘concentrated firepower assault’
method, a wide-coverage strike against the enemy’s core carrier should be
executed, striving to destroy the enemy’s carrier-borne planes, the control
tower [island] and other easily damaged and vital positions.”


This has interesting implications for the US. For one, it means that the DF-21Ds CEP isn't as important, since the submunitions would spread out. It also gives the Chinese excellent escalation control; as they would mission kill the carrier with several hits, but likely wouldn't sink it or cause egregious loss of life.



Dysta -> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. (2/27/2016 2:35:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

This has interesting implications for the US. For one, it means that the DF-21Ds CEP isn't as important, since the submunitions would spread out. It also gives the Chinese excellent escalation control; as they would mission kill the carrier with several hits, but likely wouldn't sink it or cause egregious loss of life.

But the US then can condemn China using WMD (sub-munition isn't just a main focus to cluster bombs), and will escalate much higher political and military measure than the single RV strike.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125