China's anti-ship missiles may make aircraft carrier unusable

[JBH22]

Indian Navy has expressed delight at the Sevmash Shipyard's progress in refurbishment of Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier towards a delivery in 2012. Unfortunately, being ignored is China's rapid development of its anti-ship (read aircraft carrier) ballistic missile program. In March 2010 Wired reported (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/china-testing-ballistic-missile-carrier-killer/#ixzz0pfPPUA7P) a US Admiral Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) told legislators that China was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.” The report further noted that since its development in 1990s, it is now at a testing stage. Due to the advanced technology in the missile even the U.S. may not have the technology to defend its carriers against such a strike, effectively meaning that aircraft carriers would be sitting ducks. This view was backed up by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates who in Apr 2010 confirmed (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ea_china0431_05_19.asp) that China's heavy investment in anti-ship capabilities will make aircraft carriers obsolete. Adding to the woes is the proliferation in Asian waters of Air-Independent Propulsion submarines as reported by Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Indian-Ocean-Overrun-With-AIP-Boats-5-20-2010.asp).
Back in India, the optimism in the Navy’s stance is visible after the return of a team led by controller of warship production and acquisitions Vice Admiral N.N. Kumar, which had gone to Russia to inspect the progress of work carried out on the much delayed aircraft carrier in May this year.
“The pace of work has picked up significantly in the last six months. This can be attributed to the additional deployment of manpower in refurbishment of the aircraft carrier,” navy spokesperson Commander Satish told 8ak. Adding further he said, “An apex level committee has also been constituted between India and Russia at the highest levels to monitor the progress of work on the Gorshkov aircraft carrier rechristened INS Vikramaditya.”
A top naval officer told 8ak, “The additional deployment of manpower is due to the urgency of India to induct the aircraft carrier in its fleet, as India has been left without an operational carrier after the grounding of its ageing fleet of Sea Harrier aircrafts, which operated from INS Viraat and the recently inducted MiG-29K by the navy from Russia cannot be used from Viraat platform, hence pushing India into a unique position of having a carrier without operational aircrafts and aircrafts which are not compatible with the carrier we have, even the under production indigenous carrier has been delayed.”
Times of India reports (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Gorshkov-to-be-handed-over-to-India-by-Dec-12/articleshow/5995560.cms) a naval officer saying, “There has been substantial progress since the last examination in September 2009. Around 99% of the structural work and almost 50% of the cabling work has been completed on the carrier. Almost all large equipment, like engines, diesel generators and the like, has been installed.”
Admiral Gorshkov had become a bane in the relationship of India and Russia, as the latter asked an additional US$1.5 billion for refurbishment of the carrier from the original price of US$974 million. The hike in price was due to the Russians underestimating the quantum of work required to refurbish the carrier, which was phased out from the Russian navy after it caught fire. The issue was settled this year after several rounds of tough negotiations, which saw the price being fixed at US$2.3 billion. The upgrade on the carrier will make it sea worthy for another three decades.
Also read: China PLAN's ASBM Development (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/03/plan-asbm-development.html) (2009)
http://www.8ak.in/

1 Question is the aircraft carrier an obsolete thing or is this article full of BS??:lol:

[artjomh]

http://www.8ak.in/

1 Question is the aircraft carrier an obsolete thing or is this article full of BS??:lol:

BS. Aircraft carriers never sail alone for this very reason, since they require air defense ships to protects them against anti-ship missiles.

Also, why exactly are people freaking out about a ballistic missile of all things? Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to predict using such novel concept as, you know, mathematics, and hence easy to deal with using point-defense.

[JBH22]

BS. Aircraft carriers never sail alone for this very reason, since they require air defense ships to protects them against anti-ship missiles.

Also, why exactly are people freaking out about a ballistic missile of all things? Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to predict using such novel concept as, you know, mathematics, and hence easy to deal with using point-defense.
Unless its something like Topol-M whose trajectory cannot be accurately predicted but only Russia has it:)

[Hauser]

BS. Aircraft carriers never sail alone for this very reason, since they require air defense ships to protects them against anti-ship missiles.

Also, why exactly are people freaking out about a ballistic missile of all things? Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to predict using such novel concept as, you know, mathematics, and hence easy to deal with using point-defense.

I know nothing about the missile so am purely speculating, but I would imagine that yes, the missile is ballistic, but the reentry warhead would have radar and be able to guide itself precisely onto target. As for point defence, be it guns or missiles, this gravity propelled warhead would be traveling significantly faster than the missiles they are designed to intercept.

Edit: Reentry vehicle is maneuverable and inertially guided with terminal radar guidance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

[artjomh]

Unless its something like Topol-M whose trajectory cannot be accurately predicted but only Russia has it:)

Intercontinental ballistic missile have one significant advantage over every other type of missile: they are insanely fast (on order of 7-8 km/s) in their terminal stage which makes them difficult to shoot down using anything except massive area blasts. But they are also quite imprecise, which makes them hardly useful against a moving target.

Most likely the Chinese are developing a Theater Quasiballistic Missile, like the Russian Iskander-M, which is shorter ranged, but fairly precise and can perform terminal maneuvers. But they are not as fast and can be shot down by saturated point-defense anyway.


I know nothing about the missile so am purely speculating, but I would imagine that yes, the missile is ballistic, but the reentry warhead would have radar and be able to guide itself precisely onto target. As for point defence, be it guns or missiles, this gravity propelled warhead would be traveling significantly faster than the missiles they are designed to intercept.

That's not how ballistic missiles work. They can perform mid-course corrections by inertial stellar navigation, but once the warhead bus reaches the terminal stage, it's pretty much going into free-fall.

Development of a maveurevable warhead bus is supposedly ongoing at the Sary-Shagan test range by the Russians, by the state of that programme is quite top secret.

[Alfacentori]

There was the same question about tanks and ATGMs and Aircraft and SAMs, both are still with us. It's just a matter of an effective defence and the USN has had a lot of practice of the years preparing for at first Soviet supersonic sea skimming ASMs and now Chinese high speed missile attacks. Ballistic missiles could prove a big threat its true, if they can be made accurate enough, but if they are launched how is one to tell the difference between them and a nuclear armed ballistic missile? I would hope China would be reckless enough to test the U.S response, and if they were we would have much bigger problems to worry about than a sunk/damaged aircraft carrier.

Alfa

[JBH22]

There was the same question about tanks and ATGMs and Aircraft and SAMs, both are still with us. It's just a matter of an effective defence and the USN has had a lot of practice of the years preparing for at first Soviet supersonic sea skimming ASMs and now Chinese high speed missile attacks. Ballistic missiles could prove a big threat its true, if they can be made accurate enough, but if they are launched how is one to tell the difference between them and a nuclear armed ballistic missile? I would hope China would be reckless enough to test the U.S response, and if they were we would have much bigger problems to worry about than a sunk/damaged aircraft carrier.

Alfa

hehe that's what i thought the creation of ATGM did not lead to the disappearance of tanks on the battlefield and also if the Chinese thought the aircraft carrier was obsolete they would not built it now...

[Hauser]

That's not how ballistic missiles work. They can perform mid-course corrections by inertial stellar navigation, but once the warhead bus reaches the terminal stage, it's pretty much going into free-fall.

You are correct that this is not how regular ballistic missiles work, but this is supposed to have a MaRV (Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle) that is radar guided all the way to the target.

The DF-31 has MaRVs, so China obviously has the knowhow.

[artjomh]

You are correct that this is not how regular ballistic missiles work, but this is supposed to have a MaRV (Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle) that is radar guided all the way to the target.

The DF-31 has MaRVs, so China obviously has the knowhow.

Radar-guided? Well, that's why people invented anti-radiation missile seekers.

Again, is this a threat? Well, every new weapons system is a threat to be mitigated. Is it an insurmountable threat that cannot be defeated and that will make the modern generation of weapons obsolete? Not by a long shot.

[Hauser]

Radar-guided? Well, that's why people invented anti-radiation missile seekers.

Again, is this a threat? Well, every new weapons system is a threat to be mitigated. Is it an insurmountable threat that cannot be defeated and that will make the modern generation of weapons obsolete? Not by a long shot.

Don't know the exact number, but Reentry vehicle can travel at something like Mach 20 don't they? They are not easy to shoot down at that speed. Also, carriers don't exactly travel at high speed, so the radar would only need to be operated intermitantly making it even harder to get an accurate targeting sollution.

[artjomh]

Also, carriers don't exactly travel at high speed, so the radar would only need to be operated intermitantly making it even harder to get an accurate targeting sollution.

30 knots is slow?

[Euroamerican]

Why bother with a conventional warhead? Once you've attacked US carriers, you've pretty much fully committed yourself. Might as well make sure you kill the primary target.

I think that's the real threat.

[Hauser]

30 knots is slow?
Compared to mach 20, yes. It is not a quick evasive target like an airplane, so the radar would not need to be constantly operating is all I was trying to say, making anti radiation missiles less effective. Knowing where something was even a tenth of a second ago is pretty useless when the target is traveling at high hypersonic speeds.

Unrelated to this, I doubt there would be need for anysort of warhead whatsoever, it would have more than enough kinetic energy and mass to cause instant catastrophic damage.

So to answer you question, yes it is a real threat. Don't get me wrong, there is still a long way to go before they will be able to hit a carrier with this though.

I just remembered, wasn't there a project by the US to do a similar thing, using the reentry vehicle as a pure kinetic energy weapon to make surgical non nuclear strikes? Can't remember the name of it, but it was abandoned as there were concerns over the fact that other countries would not be able to tell the difference between a nuclear and non nuclear strike before the weapon hit.

Edit: Found it, was just called Conventional Trident:


The Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon) proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options, as part of a broader long-term strategy to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed "Prompt Global Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike)".
The US $503 million program would have converted existing Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per submarine) into conventional weapons, by fitting them with modified Mk4 reentry vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentry_vehicle) equipped with GPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS) for navigation update and a reentry guidance and control (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10 m class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used since the reentry vehicle's mass and hypersonic impact velocity provide sufficient mechanical energy and "effect". The second conventional warhead version is a fragmentation version that would disperse thousands of tungsten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten) rods which could obliterate an area of 3000 square feet. (appoximately 280 square meters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter)).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_%28missile%29#cite_note-5) It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time.
The primary drawback would have been establishing sufficient warning systems so that other nuclear countries would not mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_%28missile%29#cite_note-6) Then Russian President Vladimir Putin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin), among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," Putin said in May 2006.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_%28missile%29#cite_note-7)

[artjomh]

I just remembered, wasn't there a project by the US to do a similar thing, using the reentry vehicle as a pure kinetic energy weapon to make surgical non nuclear strikes? Can't remember the name of it, but it was abandoned as there were concerns over the fact that other countries would not be able to tell the difference between a nuclear and non nuclear strike before the weapon hit.

Conventional Trident Modification was abandoned, but Prompt Global Strike, possibly based on a Minuteman III platform, is still ongoing.

[Ambassador]

Consider the economics of war. Ballistic missiles can be produced in greater numbers than the anti-ballistic missiles that are designed to intercept them. They are cheaper to produce, faster to produce, easier to store and maintain, and faster to deploy than ABMs. In all likelihood China's anti-ship ballistic missiles will maintain numerical superiority over USN's SM-2/3/6 missiles if China became serious about using them.

If China ever utilized those ballistic missiles on a US carrier strike group, it will do so through concentrated mass fire. The ballistic missiles will be launched simultaneously aiming for overlapping area of effect, saturating the BM defense and damaging everything within their overlapped killing zone. Dropping 300 missiles on a 500mx500m area simultaneously isn't very beyond China's capability if the intended targets ventured close enough to the launchers. US carriers are also pretty big in size, and they are worthy and expensive enough targets for spending that many missiles.

[SmoothieX12]

Consider the economics of war.

If China ever utilized those ballistic missiles on a US carrier strike group, it will do so through concentrated mass fire.

That is something new. Actually economics of the Aircraft Carrier Task Group is very simple and is described within the framework of such thing as risk avoidance and, inevitably, risk aversion against near-peer or peer opponent. But in general your thought is not without merit exchange of several million dollar missile(s) for the collapse of the mission of the 20-billion dollar Task Group is a good deal, it is asymmetry at its best.

[SmoothieX12]

BS. Aircraft carriers never sail alone for this very reason, since they require air defense ships to protects them against anti-ship missiles.

Also, why exactly are people freaking out about a ballistic missile of all things? Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to predict using such novel concept as, you know, mathematics, and hence easy to deal with using point-defense.

Not if its terminal phase trajectory is near vertical.

[artjomh]

Not if its terminal phase trajectory is near vertical.

Lofted trajectories require significant energy expenditures, are detected faster and for longer amount of time and, finally, are more associated with SLBMs, not ICBMs.

[Pandemonium]

Consider the economics of war. Ballistic missiles can be produced in greater numbers than the anti-ballistic missiles that are designed to intercept them. They are cheaper to produce, faster to produce, easier to store and maintain, and faster to deploy than ABMs. In all likelihood China's anti-ship ballistic missiles will maintain numerical superiority over USN's SM-2/3/6 missiles if China became serious about using them.

If China ever utilized those ballistic missiles on a US carrier strike group, it will do so through concentrated mass fire. The ballistic missiles will be launched simultaneously aiming for overlapping area of effect, saturating the BM defense and damaging everything within their overlapped killing zone. Dropping 300 missiles on a 500mx500m area simultaneously isn't very beyond China's capability if the intended targets ventured close enough to the launchers. US carriers are also pretty big in size, and they are worthy and expensive enough targets for spending that many missiles.

Excellent post, but that counts for everything that China produces, simple, cheap and ready to be made in large quantities, but I do not doubt for one second that the US will overcome this. There is a solution for everything, if China does not start immediatly with mass-production and the distribution of this weapon to other countries. But this might be a turning point in the usage of carriers, the us navby might have to reconsider it's strategy, maybe build more smaller cheaper carriers.

[JoaMei]

Well, isnt SM-3 designed to counter this threat?

[SmoothieX12]

Lofted trajectories require significant energy expenditures, are detected faster and for longer amount of time and, finally, are more associated with SLBMs, not ICBMs.

I do not argue with that, my post is about keeping in mind a reality of the generation of the launch (salvo) data in AD systems. In any case we all are several years away from the hypersonic anti-shipping missiles--that is a game changer.

[Hauser]

Well, isnt SM-3 designed to counter this threat?

Don't think it would be as successful in a point defence role. My understanding was (feel free to correct me though) that it was designed to target the missiles out of the atmosphere, up to the late midcourse/early decent stage. In the case of a missile targeted at a country with the ship in between the launch point and target this is relatively easy. However, if the missile was targeted at a point near the ship (assuming this was a carrier group escort) I would imagine the intercept would have to occur later in the ballistic arc, making it more difficult. Also, would be attacking the maneuvering reentry vehicle head on, and not sure if this was how the intercepts in the successfull tests were achieved.

[TheKiwi]

Carrier targeting requires that the attacker goes through the same find-fix-attack process as with every other weapon. The US still has plenty of capability of making the first 2 parts of that process very difficult. It is the sort of thing that you could do once. After that, recon plaforms aren't going to survive very long. Launching non-nuclear missiles with the principle of "general vicinity" is a formula for wasting your missiles (which is they are terminal course adjusting capable are not going to be cheap to develop or to deploy). Even if you know exactly where a carrier was 2 minutes ago, at full speed it can be almost 2km away from that point by the time something targetted at it arrives.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't think you can ever call an aircraft carrier "obsolete". A carrier battle group is more than simply a collection of ships - it's a political statement. If you sink a US carrier, you'd better have slathered on the SPF-30 because the next thing entering your airspace is gonna provide several megatons of nuclear sunshine. It's a massive escalation to do something like that. Yes, in an all out war between large nation-states an aircraft carrier could indeed have a relatively short lifespan - but then so will so all military assets in that theater of war. For any conflict not raised to that level, a carrier is still indispensable.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Well, isnt SM-3 designed to counter this threat?

Yes, and also the RIM-156A Standard SM-2ER Block IV with the Mk 72 booster



Don't think it would be as successful in a point defence role. My understanding was (feel free to correct me though) that it was designed to target the missiles out of the atmosphere, up to the late midcourse/early decent stage. In the case of a missile targeted at a country with the ship in between the launch point and target this is relatively easy. However, if the missile was targeted at a point near the ship (assuming this was a carrier group escort) I would imagine the intercept would have to occur later in the ballistic arc, making it more difficult. Also, would be attacking the maneuvering reentry vehicle head on, and not sure if this was how the intercepts in the successfull tests were achieved.

Some information for you:


The RIM-156A Standard SM-2ER Block IV with the Mk 72 booster was developed to compensate for the lack of a long range SAM for the Ticonderoga-class of Aegis cruisers. This configuration can also be used for Terminal phase Ballistic Missile Defense.

RIM-67 and RIM-156 SM-2 Extended Range (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-156_Standard#RIM-67_and_RIM-156_SM-2_Extended_Range)



and it has been tested in this role

Standard Missile-2 Block IV Demonstrates Sea-Based Terminal Fleet Protection (http://www.deagel.com/news/Standard-Missile-2-Block-IV-Demonstrates-Sea-Based-Terminal-Fleet-Protection_n000005864.aspx)

I seem to remember reading that the SM-3 can intercept a target inside or outside the atmosphere, so I would assume that it can also be used for terminal. I should review the tests.

I freely admit I'm not expert, but it would appear to me that we have two candidates for ballistic missile interceptors.

[Thugut]

I don't think you can ever call an aircraft carrier "obsolete". A carrier battle group is more than simply a collection of ships - it's a political statement. If you sink a US carrier, you'd better have slathered on the SPF-30 because the next thing entering your airspace is gonna provide several megatons of nuclear sunshine. It's a massive escalation to do something like that.

Yeah, because some forms of conventional warfare just warrant the use of nuclear weapons. Sinking a ship! What a truly horrific action, goes against all practices of war. :roll:


Yes, in an all out war between large nation-states an aircraft carrier could indeed have a relatively short lifespan - but then so will so all military assets in that theater of war. For any conflict not raised to that level, a carrier is still indispensable.

Eh? If an aircraft carrier is not used, then its just a big, expensive "statement".
If it is used, then it's by all means "fair game".

Or are you seriously suggesting that, once an aircraft carrier is used for an attack (e.g. launching aircraft for bombing runs), then attacking said aircraft carrier is an "escalation in the level of the conflict"? :cantbeli:

[BloodyTalon]

Yeah, because some forms of conventional warfare just warrant the use of nuclear weapons. Sinking a ship! What a truly horrific action, goes against all practices of war. :roll:



Eh? If an aircraft carrier is not used, then its just a big, expensive "statement".
If it is used, then it's by all means "fair game".

Or are you seriously suggesting that, once an aircraft carrier is used for an attack (e.g. launching aircraft for bombing runs), then attacking said aircraft carrier is an "escalation in the level of the conflict"? :cantbeli:
Destroying a CBG, especially with a ballistic missile, is tantamount to nuking a standard military base. So yes Mr. "bravery doesn't matter on the battlefield anymore cuz its not like Braveheart", if a nation obliterated a fleet there's a high chance they'll wake up in the morning to find one of their cities gone.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yeah, because some forms of conventional warfare just warrant the use of nuclear weapons. Sinking a ship! What a truly horrific action, goes against all practices of war. :roll:

In reality it's a chess game. A carrier battle group means serious business, and one does not employ it, nor attack it without understanding the consequences. Using numbers I've just pulled from my ass - sinking a US carrier with a ballistic missile attack (conventional or otherwise) would mean the loss of about 6000 lives, the carrier, around 80 aircraft valued around 4 billion total - which means the whole enchilada would be about $8 billion and more dead than we've endured over nearly 10 years of war in Iraq & Afghanistan combined . Of course it's part of a group and there are bound to be other casualties and costs - so yes, I do believe that political pressure could drive a US president to employ nuclear weapons to respond.




Eh? If an aircraft carrier is not used, then its just a big, expensive "statement".
If it is used, then it's by all means "fair game".

Or are you seriously suggesting that, once an aircraft carrier is used for an attack (e.g. launching aircraft for bombing runs), then attacking said aircraft carrier is an "escalation in the level of the conflict"? :cantbeli:

It is indeed fair game, but then as always one must be mindful of the next step. Nuclear weapons are also just a "big expensive statement" if not used. It's crazy, outlandish thinking like this that kept the world from blowing itself up for the last 60 years.

[Thugut]

Destroying a CBG, especially with a ballistic missile, is tantamount to nuking a standard military base. So yes Mr. "bravery doesn't matter on the battlefield anymore cuz its not like Braveheart", if a nation obliterated a fleet there's a high chance they'll wake up in the morning to find one of their cities gone.

Yeah, using a ballistic missile is the same as using nukes, cause, like, nukes are sometimes attached to ballistic missiles.
Also, yes, attacking military targets is the same as nuking an entire city full of civilians. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, you are a moron.

But yeah, that's the type of thinking one would expect in such a case. A 3rd world country manages to sink a carrier fleet, using a weapon costing next to nothing. Said 3rd world country doesn't have any military targets that even come close to what a carrier fleet costs-symbolizes. Yeah I can see how the knee-jerk, asshat reaction would be to nuke a city in retribution.

[Thugut]

In reality it's a chess game. A carrier battle group means serious business, and one does not employ it, nor attack it without understanding the consequences. Using numbers I've just pulled from my ass - sinking a US carrier with a ballistic missile attack (conventional or otherwise) would mean the loss of about 6000 lives, the carrier, around 80 aircraft valued around 4 billion total - which means the whole enchilada would be about $8 billion and more dead than we've endured over nearly 10 years of war in Iraq & Afghanistan combined . Of course it's part of a group and there are bound to be other casualties and costs - so yes, I do believe that political pressure could drive a US president to employ nuclear weapons to respond.

That's very true. Isn't that also a reason against having such fleets if they are such a liability? Consider the case of Iran. Do you think they would refuse the chance of sinking such a (potentially) vulnerable fleet? Would there be anything the US could do and not lose in the bigger picture? Wouldn't it make sense to build weapons that don't depend on M.A.D. for their survival?

[Ambassador]

Think of an example scenario. Assuming that Iran somehow managed to conventionally destroy an attacking US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf in an act of national defense... (as a response to USN Hornets surgically striking Iranian nuclear facilities or something) one step in Operation Iranian Freedom is nuking the hell out of Iran?

Wow. I wonder how that will totally screw up international politics.

[JBH22]

1 question we are talking about supposed ballistic anti-ship missile being developed by china launched in salvos but then why not use usual anti-ship cruise missile in salvos or torpedoes i mean the usual methods besides launched in salvos this will overcome any defense systems..

[Elbs]

The whole idea of a ballistic anti-ship missile is failed by the same trouble that prompt global strike and conventional Trident has. To an opposing country, there is no way of knowing if the ballistic missile has a nuclear warhead or not. A massive salvo of anti-ship ballistic missiles could lead to nuclear escalation.

The same reason why shooting off conventional-tipped Tridents that fly over Russia or China on their way to some ****hole would cause trouble.

[Elbs]

Think of an example scenario. Assuming that Iran somehow managed to conventionally destroy an attacking US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf in an act of national defense... (as a response to USN Hornets surgically striking Iranian nuclear facilities or something) one step in Operation Iranian Freedom is nuking the hell out of Iran?

Wow. I wonder how that will totally screw up international politics.

A nuclear response wouldn't necessarily mean nuking a city like Thugut is saying. i.e: a tactical nuke on an Iranian naval facility.

[Austra]

Yeah, using a ballistic missile is the same as using nukes, cause, like, nukes are sometimes attached to ballistic missiles.
Also, yes, attacking military targets is the same as nuking an entire city full of civilians. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, you are a moron.

But yeah, that's the type of thinking one would expect in such a case. A 3rd world country manages to sink a carrier fleet, using a weapon costing next to nothing. Said 3rd world country doesn't have any military targets that even come close to what a carrier fleet costs-symbolizes. Yeah I can see how the knee-jerk, asshat reaction would be to nuke a city in retribution.
Please tell me you are not talking about China as a third world country, if so you are said moron.

[mashkur]

Consider the economics of war. Ballistic missiles can be produced in greater numbers than the anti-ballistic missiles that are designed to intercept them. They are cheaper to produce, faster to produce, easier to store and maintain, and faster to deploy than ABMs. In all likelihood China's anti-ship ballistic missiles will maintain numerical superiority over USN's SM-2/3/6 missiles if China became serious about using them.

If China ever utilized those ballistic missiles on a US carrier strike group, it will do so through concentrated mass fire. The ballistic missiles will be launched simultaneously aiming for overlapping area of effect, saturating the BM defense and damaging everything within their overlapped killing zone. Dropping 300 missiles on a 500mx500m area simultaneously isn't very beyond China's capability if the intended targets ventured close enough to the launchers. US carriers are also pretty big in size, and they are worthy and expensive enough targets for spending that many missiles. Agree...the main plan is to swarm the target with lot of missile. Plus the anti missile system is not 100% percent accurate...if I am not wrong its something around 60%.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Or are you seriously suggesting that, once an aircraft carrier is used for an attack (e.g. launching aircraft for bombing runs), then attacking said aircraft carrier is an "escalation in the level of the conflict"? :cantbeli:

I was generally under the impression that quickly sinking an American supercarrier would require the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

[BloodyTalon]

Yeah, using a ballistic missile is the same as using nukes, cause, like, nukes are sometimes attached to ballistic missiles.
Also, yes, attacking military targets is the same as nuking an entire city full of civilians. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, you are a moron.

But yeah, that's the type of thinking one would expect in such a case. A 3rd world country manages to sink a carrier fleet, using a weapon costing next to nothing. Said 3rd world country doesn't have any military targets that even come close to what a carrier fleet costs-symbolizes. Yeah I can see how the knee-jerk, asshat reaction would be to nuke a city in retribution.
Again, says the man who thinks bravery doesn't matter in war anymore because we have guns and UAVs and don't charge into each other in an open field while wearing kilts and yelling "THIS. IS. SPARTAAAA!" You don't exactly have the authority to determine whose a moron or not on this forum.

Carriers aren't exactly made of styrofoam and felt. They are designed to take a beating and still remain operational. Furthermore, what everyone from the "herp derp carriers are obsolete!" crowd forget is that all carriers have a sizable fleet of destoryers, cruisers, etc. protecting it at all times from air, surface, and yes missile attacks. The only way a carrier battle group can be sunk through conventional means is if an enemy nation is somehow able to fire hundreds of missiles at it at one time in the hopes of overwhelming their antimissile capabilities, which is hardly the most effective solution nor does it cost "next to nothing."

This is why the Chinese are allegedly developing an anti-missile system relying on ballistic missiles. Just in case it went over your head, most ballistic missiles, especially those trying to destroy an entire fleet, have nuclear warheads. Thus, it only makes sense that if a nation attacks a battle group with WMDs that we respond in kind with our own WMDs.

[Ambassador]

The anti-ship ballistic missile being referred to here is conventional. Conventional anti-ship ballistic missiles are still more economical than their countermeasures.

There could even a very specific reason why China's seeking a conventionally armed anti-ship ballistic missile. It could precisely be to not instigate a nuclear response, or at least lower the chance that it will receive a nuclear response.

[BloodyTalon]

The anti-ship ballistic missile being referred to here is conventional. Conventional anti-ship ballistic missiles are still more economical than their countermeasures.

There could even a very specific reason why China's seeking a conventionally armed anti-ship ballistic missile. It could precisely be to not instigate a nuclear response, or at least lower the chance that it will receive a nuclear response.
But again, a conventional warhead is entirely economical when you have to take into account that it has to go through the defense systems of multiple vessels in the AO. You can't truly have a effective precision strike on a supercarrier that would render the concept obsolete.

[Ambassador]

It's the other way around. Carrier strike groups' BM defenses have to undergo multiple processes to defend against multiple inbound missiles the complexity of which radically increases their procurement, maintenance, and operation cost. The cost-effectiveness gap is especially larger when it's China vs the US or most other potential enemies of China.

Lobbing stones at someone is easier than catching stones thrown at you.

[vryhpyammoadded]

The carrier battle group is a fantastic system to project power during peace time and war and has been proven so for decades. To blabber that they are now or in the near future obsolete because one or two nations are testing weapons systems that could potentially get through the current fleet defenses smacks of ignorance. We are currently not at war with those nations and our own R&D is working on countermeasures. There are also currently over a hundred nations easily threatened or neutralized by current carrier technologies who are not even close to deploying such anti carrier weapons systems.

On the other hand, the US Navy had better bone up on its once spectacular ASW capabilities. The proliferation of relatively cheap AIP subs and even diesel electric is astonishing and a torpedo is a heck of a lot cheaper than an anti ship ballistic missile.
Do you guys have any idea just how many classes and numbers of submarines the Chinese are building? Frankly, you arm chair’s should be talking more about this than missiles.

Have you read anything about the Gotland and its lessons to the USN? Hell, my father was a diesel boat captain through to the late 80’s commanding updated WWII era subs and he has stories that will make you wonder, why carriers?

Still, even this news doesn’t even remotely invalidate the carrier for a long time.

[Antey]

BS. Aircraft carriers never sail alone for this very reason, since they require air defense ships to protects them against anti-ship missiles.

Also, why exactly are people freaking out about a ballistic missile of all things? Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to predict using such novel concept as, you know, mathematics, and hence easy to deal with using point-defense.

Is it ? And have you tried calculating velocity of, say, 1000 pound warhead reached near the end of it's trajectory and, say, 800km range and exactly HOW LONG it will be WITHIN RANGE of those "point-defences" ?
Tracking ballistic missiles is complex enough.


On the subject: people tend to forget, that range of modern, widely available supersonic sea-skimmers is usually under 300km with limited technical ability to increase it. And the launching platform must be within range, that means around 300 km from targeted carrier - that is well within zone that it can be detected and killed. Modern carrier group can easily strike targets 1000+ km away and some 95% of World's GDP is being generated <500km from nearest ocean. That gives almost double range of supersonic SSM as buffer zone for CVBG.
Carrier also has to be tracked and detected - and that's another problem. Most countries are blind regardless to situation beyond horizon, and in more cases the limited means at their disposal can be nullified by carrier and it's strike group.
Many countries can build cruise missiles nowadays - but few has adequate infrastructure (e.g. satellite recon capability for up-to-date and accurate map generation, precise enough satellite navigation) to support such deployments.

Missiles like SS-N-20 Sunburn (Mosquito) could be deadly in Persian Gulf or other "enclosed waters", lunched from air or in-land bases. Near Chinese coast or on the open ocean, it's far less trouble though of course it should be analysed and countered by adequate measures.

The primary concern for USN and other "supercarriers" operators (present or perspective) should be relatively modern, non-nuclear submarine with heavyweight torpedoes (though even light ones may easily immobilize the carrier).

Finally, carrier can be used both as defensive and offensive platform. It isn't possible to project forces far away with sea skimming missiles only.

[jma037]

China will surrender like Japan if we nuke their cities. They have no ability to retaliate. China weak!

[artjomh]

Is it ? And have you tried calculating velocity of, say, 1000 pound warhead reached near the end of it's trajectory and, say, 800km range and exactly HOW LONG it will be WITHIN RANGE of those "point-defences" ?
Tracking ballistic missiles is complex enough.

I haven't, but NPO Vympel and NPO Fakel have in 1960, when they've conducted at least 12 interceptions of ballistic missiles with a non-nuclear ABM system. It was later shifted to nuclear warhead, but the original V-1000 missile had a high-explosive warhead, which meant a fairly precise targeting system.

Again, there is nothing magical about ballistic trajectories (or its lofted/depressed variations), at least since the time of Sir Isaac Netwon and Newtonian laws of motion.

The calculations are complicated, no doubt about it, but with appropriate radar equipment, as well as enough computational capacity, tracking and interception is possible as soon as the ballistic missile clears radar horizon.

[Austra]

China will surrender like Japan if we nuke their cities. They have no ability to retaliate. China weak!
Shut up troll.

[jma037]

The big question is how is China going to locate the carrier with any accuracy?

[Hauser]

The big question is how is China going to locate the carrier with any accuracy?

It will be supported by a network of electro optical, synthetic aperture radar, and clusters of naval ocean surveillance system satellites. China has put one of each type into orbit within the last year.

[HellToupee]

The carrier battle group is a fantastic system to project power during peace time and war and has been proven so for decades. To blabber that they are now or in the near future obsolete because one or two nations are testing weapons systems that could potentially get through the current fleet defenses smacks of ignorance. We are currently not at war with those nations and our own R&D is working on countermeasures. There are also currently over a hundred nations easily threatened or neutralized by current carrier technologies who are not even close to deploying such anti carrier weapons systems.

They said the same of the battleship untill they started getting sunk by cheap planes.

[BloodyTalon]

They said the same of the battleship untill they started getting sunk by cheap planes.
Except a battleship can't do a quarter of the things a carrier can.

[artjomh]

They said the same of the battleship untill they started getting sunk by cheap planes.

True, but battleships survived long after that.

Long after Billy Mitchell (the chap who invented this swell idea of sinking battleships with airplanes) was dead, there was still Iowa and Yamato and Bismarck.

It wasn't really the airplane that did away with big naval ships like battleships and battlecruisers, but rather the invention of compact anti-ship missiles, whereas a smaller ship like frigate or destroyer had as much fighting power as anything with a 16'' gun turret.

[Eventine]

For the US to employ its carriers in battle, in the first place, knowing that they will likely be sunk, is to say something of its own mentality towards a war. The role of an anti-carrier missile system is deterrence - a statement to the US that unless it is willing to escalate the conflict to nuclear levels, it had better not sail its carriers into Chinese waters. Risk assessment is fundamental to conflict planning and the fact that China has anti-carrier weapons will simply make it less likely that the US will commit to any conflict with China due to the potential risks involved, and by this I don't just mean the risk of losing a carrier group or two, but of full-out escalation between nuclear powers.

When you can sail your carriers into a strait and blockade it without any possible response from your opponent, that brings in one set of calculations; when you can't, that brings in another. If the US could freely dominate China's shores with its CBGs, it would be able to impose political solutions with much less cost than it would be able to do otherwise and to a rational agent, at least, that makes all the difference.

The stronger China's deterrence becomes, the less likely it is for the US to engage China in any sort of conflict, and the freer China's hand becomes to do as they will on the international stage. It all comes down to political bargaining power, in the end.

As for the eventual fate of carriers, I'm in the camp that warfare between major powers will increasingly be about assessing the risks of button pressing and increasingly less about boots on the ground. Precision-guided missiles, as well as WMDs, will ultimately take over for men with guns, and drones will take care of the rest.

Of course, the rules of asymmetry suggest that we will still see use in standing armies and men-to-men combat for quite some time to come.

[HellToupee]

True, but battleships survived long after that.

Long after Billy Mitchell (the chap who invented this swell idea of sinking battleships with airplanes) was dead, there was still Iowa and Yamato and Bismarck.

It wasn't really the airplane that did away with big naval ships like battleships and battlecruisers, but rather the invention of compact anti-ship missiles, whereas a smaller ship like frigate or destroyer had as much fighting power as anything with a 16'' gun turret.

battleships were long gone by the time anti ship missiles came on the scene only 1(HMS Vanguard) was finished after the war and was scrapped by 1960. It wasn't that frigates or destroyers got the same fighting power but rather they were a much lesser investment of resources in one package they were more expendable, destroyers did much of the work in ww2 for that very reason while capital ships had to be carefully used.

Billy Mitchel and others were all predicting the end of the battleship from since the end of ww1, it took untill WW2 till this was actually demonstrated, battleships were mostly sunk by aircraft or rendered ineffective as even just damaging them could take out of action for months, there only real use was night operations and shore bombardment and later on as flak batteries

[vryhpyammoadded]

They said the same of the battleship untill they started getting sunk by cheap planes.So you're saying that right now this instant you believe carrier battle groups are obsolete and should all be scrapped?

[HellToupee]

So you're saying that right now this instant you believe carrier battle groups are obsolete and should all be scrapped?

No im saying weapons could exist that render carriers obsolete but it will take an actual war with these weapons for them to drive the point home. There was much invested in battleships being the symbols of pride/power they were.

[Mastermind]

Carriers have that same fatal flaw they have always had...the old "glass jaw". It only takes on small explosive to get a carrier going in a disaster mode. I know, things have changed dramatically since the little Japanese 250 lb bomb destroyed the Princeton. But, in the bottom of it all, carriers are highly technological, designed like Swiss watches, loaded with HE and very volatile flammable liquids and any small thing going wrong can very quickly escalate to a point the machine can not function as it was designed to.

I agree, carriers have the3ir place in moder military and political strategy. I do not advocate carriers are going obsolete. But, let us face the fact that all it takes is one simple and very crude weapon, like a dumb bomb or a multiple launch in over whelming numbers to get one hit in on a carrier. Look what the one Zuni rocket did in VN?

In spite of their vulnerability, carriers are here to stay for the fore seeable future...same as tanks.

[Russian_dude]

I always wondered why the US simply does not build floating concrete runways (kinda like artificial islands). Those will bery slow to position, but almost impossible to sink.

[Ambassador]

In that case I think the floating concrete runways' seaworthiness will be inversely proportional to its invulnerability.

[HellToupee]

I always wondered why the US simply does not build floating concrete runways (kinda like artificial islands). Those will bery slow to position, but almost impossible to sink.

harder than you think, similar idea with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

Cheap Escort carriers built in huge numbers turned out more useful than 1 hard to sink one.

[SmoothieX12]

For the US to employ its carriers in battle, in the first place, knowing that they will likely be sunk, is to say something of its own mentality towards a war. The role of an anti-carrier missile system is deterrence - a statement to the US that unless it is willing to escalate the conflict to nuclear levels, it had better not sail its carriers into Chinese waters. Risk assessment is fundamental to conflict planning and the fact that China has anti-carrier weapons will simply make it less likely that the US will commit to any conflict with China due to the potential risks involved, and by this I don't just mean the risk of losing a carrier group or two, but of full-out escalation between nuclear powers.

.


The disappearing role of the carriers within the framework of nuclearism (doctrine) was understood by US naval elite already in the end of 1950-s. Nimitz predicted a nuclear powered sub as the capitol ship of the Navy, while Arleigh Burke came up with stratagem "we need numbers", later, in early 1970-s it was Elmo Zumwalt who understood the danger of concentrating Navy's strike power on a single platform (which was also immensely vulnerable) hence Sea Control measures. But it is what is known as carrier "trade union" in US Navy which continues to lobby for CVNs despite a very strong opposition and tactical and operational argument, which is irrefutable. Actually, none other than John Friedman called carriers a senile weapon system.

[Mastermind]

In that case I think the floating concrete runways' seaworthiness will be inversely proportional to its invulnerability.

I wonder. Way back, in the middle ages, (early 1980's)when I was working in the oil fields of Oklahoma and Texas. we had a concrete that would float on water and it was pretty darn strong once it set up. It was, admittedly, only slightly lighter than fresh water....it was used for down hole work, where material densities are critical at depth. But, I often wondered what would happen if a boat were built of it. It would allow very thick walls and bottom, while also lightening the ship with voids like hangars and such. Would make repairs easy, too. Of course, i can imagine the troubles of trying to navigate a six million ton vessel. har...But, really, it would be practically unsinkable with conventional arms.

Also, did they not try some sort of "Ice" ship in WWII...made of ice and straw as I remember? It proved to be impractical...but, I seem to remember a TV program that featured it..and the production crew actually tested the product.

[B_706K]

Also, did they not try some sort of "Ice" ship in WWII...made of ice and straw as I remember? It proved to be impractical...but, I seem to remember a TV program that featured it..and the production crew actually tested the product.

I beleive this is the one you mean MM!

http://www.youtube.com/v/99iiGApF4Zc