Saturday, November 22, 2008

Forum :: Equipment :: Vunerablity of a US Carrier Battle Group

Page 1 of 1 Vunerablity of a US Carrier Battle Group
Author	Oldest to Newest
Sickle1001 Joined: 06 June 2005 Posts in this thread: 2	Posted on 13 July 2005 7:09 PM I was wondering people's opinions on what the vunerablity of a US Carrier Battle Group in the Strait of Taiwan. Say a conflict may arise in this decade? Post Reply
Silver1003 Joined: 14 July 2005 Posts in this thread: 1	Posted on 14 July 2005 12:43 AM The fact that Chinese Anti ship missiles are much more effective than american missles and the lack of distance between them and a hell of a lot of chinese aircaft dosent put them in a good poisiton Post Reply
Nimrod1001 Joined: 04 February 2005 Posts in this thread: 2	Posted on 14 July 2005 7:18 AM Well, they'd be a little insane to sit a CBG in the strait to start with. Far more likely it would sit at the edge of its effective strike range and wait until precision guided weapons had taken out enough defenses to make it safe to aproach closer. The prime advantage a CBG has over any adversary is its mobility. It will never, never be able to win a slug it out contest with conventional airbases, simply because a single hit could take out the cariers ability to launch aircraft, while it is corespondingly hard to take out airbases, some of which are absolutely huge. The prime advantage of a CBG is that it can pick and choose where and when it fights, and use that to stay out of best range of its opponents, while an airbase can only sit there and get pounded. Time is on a carriers side, and I think that surrendering that critical advantage by actually having the carrier right where the enemy wants you would be insane. As to the nitty gritty of what weapons can harm a CBG? It depends on how many fast inbound targets an AEGIS system can handle. If we go off actual tested, as aposed to theoretical, it isn't that many. But I doubt any data published on the internet is reliable for the newer versions of that system. Older versions had hard limits on how many targets could be engaged at once, and the Soviets thought that about 20 supersonic missiles arriving simultaneously would overwhelm mid 90's AEGIS systems. The US has of course now tested against similar targets purchased on the open market, so you'd have to think that more than 20 would be needed to do the same job now unless they did something special. Then of course there are subs. Always a wildcard against surface ships. Are we thinking that the Chinese are firing first? If so, I think that US sub forces could keep Chinese Subs bottled up in port. Post Reply
Sickle1001 Joined: 06 June 2005 Posts in this thread: 2	Posted on 07 August 2005 6:38 PM After a little reasearch I discoveed that the Chinese themselves have stated that it would take 100 missiles coming from all different sorts of platforms to destroy an American Carrier Battle Group. If as you say it only takes 20 missile to overwhelm Aegis defenses does it really take 80 missiles to sink maybe the twenty or less ships in the group? Four missiles a ship is a little over kill don't you think? Post Reply
Nimrod1001 Joined: 04 February 2005 Posts in this thread: 2	Posted on 16 August 2005 5:53 AM The mid '90's numbers were for the earlier revisions of the system, and against missiles whose cinematic characteristics were designed in to defeat the AEGIS stystem, and get into the inner defense zone before a missile could be guided onto the incomming warhead. I don't doubt the newer figures, especially considering the AEGIS data they stole! But without knowing what type of missiles, and whether the AEGIS systems have good ofboard targeting (This was always the best thing about AEGIS, not the radar, but the idea that you could take sensor data from anywhere, and have the ship lauch at targets it couldn't see yet. In the beginning it didn't work very well, but they have had 25 years of updates to get it right!). Post Reply

Hydra1005 Joined: 03 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 1	Posted on 09 April 2006 1:16 AM Hey Nimrod, speaking of the US tests of foreign anti ship missiles, did the US navy use them in question when they test fired and sank the USS America last year? The tests remain strictly confidential, but I heard it took more than a dozen missiles to sink her off Virginia. The America and maybe the Indy will be perfect test beds of new Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles. Post Reply
Orion1005 Joined: 25 June 2006 Posts in this thread: 1	Posted on 19 July 2006 7:08 AM This is Nimrod001 replying. I don't think my old account works anymore :( I'm quite sure they didn't use the KH-31 as part of the sink-ex on the America. For one, I think they had all been used or handed back to the Rusians as being unsuitable by the time the America was sunk. Also, the missiles were delivered as nothing more than empty shells, with no guidance (Which really annoyed the US. They'd sort of expected to be able to test out ECM on them) or warheads. From the point of view of damage control, it is the size of the warhead that is important, not the speed of the missile, so I think that a harpoon could easily stand in for a KH-31, especially because it can adopt a diving profile or a sea skimming one, just like the Kh-31. As for sinking large warships, it's quite difficult, as they are heavily compartmentalised and have more bouyancy than they need, and this is especially true of a carrier. However, the goal isn't to sink it, just to cause enough damage to stop it launching aircraft, so a large fire or flooding beyond the capability of the liquid (Fuel, oil, ballast water) system inside the ship to correct would be enough. Post Reply
1

Copyright © 2003 - 2008 deagel.com. All Rights Reserved.