JonesyA lone pair of destroyers 300nm from the rest of the group, AND they’re emitting? Great way to lose a pair of expensive destroyers. Exactly how many of them do you plan to sacrifice?
The concept of outer pickets is nothing new so do try not to sound quite so scandalised!. Yes there would be danger to the decoy group – this would be mitigated by offboard support of course as all effort would, naturally, be made to arrange ahead of time.
The point was raised that a US peer-state with a comprehensive offshore ISR net could detect, track and engage a US CV group at a range which made the F-35C’s inadequate to task. My point here was that there are techniques to defeat ISR that call that statement into doubt.
JonesyDJ
BAMS has some extremely interesting surface target detection modes. If the CVBG is EMCON out of fear of being found by enemy ESM, the BAMS could fly orbits around it and remain undetected while data linking ship IDs and vectors. I don’t think for a minute that an adversary couldn’t develop a similar capability in 10-15 years.
How many years is it going to take the US to get BAMS fully implemented?. At what cost?. How does a BAMS platform detect the CVBG in the first place in order to orbit it?. Without using an active sensor first?. If its firing off RF datalink updates is it beaconing for shipboard ESM gear?.
When the US has BAMS running properly and can reliably detect, track and engage its own carrier groups then you might have a point. Until then the advantage is with the battlegroup and the -35C’s range is more than adequate.
It’s not rocket science to figure out that if you are losing UAVs or other assets in an area – the enemy’s navy is likely nearby.
The enemy navy yes – a carrier group not necessarily. If you are going to chase down every missing UAV you will need a lot of recon assets to do it. A detached pair of AAW destroyers 300nm from the main group could be tasked to pot a few UAV’s. A fighter sweep could be staged to sanitise a sector 300nm on the opposite beam simultaneously. Where do you concentrate your ISTAR in that case etc?
JonesyBecause of, I know you hate this word, the consequences of using Nukes. That opens the door for the other side to use them as well.
Use them where?. How?. Apart from nuclear ordnance deployed in ASW roles, IF the USN could even bring operational stocks to readiness and deploy them, the list of suitable retaliatory targets would be a very small one. From the PRC perspective well worth the gain of removing US forces from theatre.
Times have changed a tad since the height of the cold war. The US and China are not blood enemies and both sides still fully expect and want to go back to doing business as usual after a spat. That all changes as soon as you bring nukes into the fray.
I think you may be underestimating the reaction of the US to having a couple of carriers and many thousands of its service personnel perforated. A nuclear airburst, fused correctly, could actually mission kill a carrier group with less casualties than a conventional penetrating unitary or cluster warhead.
US involvement in any cross strait conflict is a political commitment and hardly an ironclad guarantee. Its one thing for the US to commit to war knowing they have overwhelming chances of winning it with minimal losses, but its entirely a different matter to wage a war of choice when thousands of American lives are likely to be lost and untold economic damage done to the US as a result.
As opposed to the, say, US involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan in which thousands of US servicemen have been lost and untold billions committed to the cause. I think, again, you are constructing a very contrived set of circumstances to try and make this ASBM ‘valuable’.
If a US military commander goes to the white house and reports that any carriers the US sends to the aid of Taiwan will be sunk unless the US starts a space war that might make near earth space inaccessible to everyone for generations. Do you still think there is a good chance the US president will sign off on your war plans?
Why wouldnt he?. The USN would be hitting a discrete and specific number of orbital targets. If the PRC, as you theorise, were then to start firing ASATs in every direction (though at what I’m not sure – there aren’t hundreds of US satellites overflying China to be targets in the first place!) and polluted LEO to a saturation level then the compensation demands would be put at Beijings door not Washingtons!.
Not much of a stretch to say they could. Once you break the atmosphere going further out becomes exponentially easier. If an SM3 sized missile could reach NEO sats, is it that difficult to imagine an DF21 sized missile being able to reach GSO?
Not so the intercept problem is very much different and different hardware is required to make the attempt. You move from direct intercept to in-orbit interception.
The PLAN has also been investing heavily in a large array of specialist Y8 models call the ‘high new’ series. Might be worth taking a look at them.
When, If, Maybe!. People seem very sure of the ASBM but there are still no signs of the operational MPA squadrons etc to provide the kind of sea surveillance necessary to support it. I’ve never understood that leap of faith!.
JonesyWolf
China nukes USN carries. Game over. Not very realistic is it?
Why is that not realistic – it was precisely the Soviet solution. It is still very definitely the best solution to the removal of US carrier groups from the equation. Of course the targetting problem still exists to use nukes so the game is most definitely not over!.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot escape reality no matter how convenient it is as doing so will render any conclusion meaningless.
You are talking about political reality though. Scarcely an absolute is it?. The simple fact is that the USN possess the capability to negate space-based surveillance of its warships and deny targetting information essential to supporting ASBM operations.
Now that China has an proven ASAT ability, as soon as the US shoots one Chinese sat, China will start to systematically take out all US space based assets it can reach. It doesn’t matter if the US responds in kind as China will be better off if both sides loose access to space.
Bit of a stretch to say Chinese ASATs can force the US to lose access to space isnt it?. Can China’s ASAT even reach targets in geo-sync orbit?. If not then US satcomms are intact which are the key assets that denial of would hurt US theatre operations. PRC ASAT efforts would, surely, be able to knock back US imagery and ELINT capability which would be a problem for the US, but, the loss of potentially the primary targetting source for its ‘vaunted’ anti-access anticarrier missile system I would consider vastly more significant.
This may be what China is expecting and why they are not bothering to develop a space based search and tracing system and is instead relying on terrestrial assets for search and targeting.
…but isnt close to fielding the terrestrial assets to actually do the job?. Where are the MPA’s, where are the production HALE UAV’s etc, etc.?. IF the PRC does look at the SM3 and decides not to field reconsats in support of a ‘notional’ ASBM then there is an answer to the original question of how you offset the system. Make it hard to use!.
TPhuang,
You are missing one element in your analysis. Who benefits from the existence of a new ‘missile gap’ in the South China Sea?. Can you conceive of a reason why the USN might want to raise the profile of a wonder-weapon able to deny theatre access to its carriers?. Can you conceive of a reason that it might suit the PRC to be cryptic and mysterious about the existence and value of such a weapon?.
JonesyRegardless of any other condition the simple fact is that the ‘limits’ you are theorising on here are all artificial. The USN has a proven ability to engage satellites from surface escorts. It CAN remove any space-based targetting element from any nation attempting to use such systems against them.
The rest is politics and threat level based. Which is pointless to discuss as it becomes ever more obscure and contrived to do so.
The bottom line is that, to fire an ASBM shot, needs theatre targetting capability. Satellites, thanks to the USN SM-3 capability, are not a surviveable means to deliver that targetting capability against USN warships.
JonesyNow that China also has an operational ASAT weapon, do you really think its a good idea to go down that road?
Before China had ASATs, the US could have, and most likely, would have taken out Chinese sats at its leisure in times of conflict. And that was one of the main reasons for China to develop an effective ASAT weapon to achieve satellite M.A.D and thus create a deterrent against US attacks on Chinese satellites.
Did you really think the Chinese thought they could conducted a live fire ASAT test without anyone else noticing it? That test was done for the benefit of the Americans as much as it was for China’s own generals.
Satellite MAD?. You think that the US are going to allow its primary theatre entry capability to be tracked for fear of Chinese reprisals against their own sats?. Not a chance – any more than China would tolerate, in time of elevated threat, US Keyholes touring over its territory when it had the means to prevent it!?.
Of course the Chinese ASAT shot was a declaration of intent – just as the SM3 shot was a statement of intent by the US that it could not only take down sats, but, could do so from anywhere it could park a destroyer.
JonesyHow do you assymetrically defeat an assymetric system such as an ASBM?
Simple. Poke it in its eyes.
Same as always with this topic – lots of talk about missiles and warheads and nothing about the sighting system. If is based on reconsats well there’s the first target for the SM-3’s. If its backed by Skywave radar there is a target for saturation CALCM/TLAM/Fasthawk-derivatives or for good old sensor oversaturation.
JonesyTo be honest I’m not sorry to say I’m as jaded and cynical as Arthur is.
People I can relate to I feel loss for, people I know I feel grief for, but, whilst it is sad to hear of any of these tragedies in far flung locations, where do you stop with your ’emotive outpouring’ and how much of it really is pandering to ones own self-image as a good and caring member of the human race?!.
I mean isn’t the plight of murdered IDP’s in Grozny’s camps equally as tragic as Perm or how about the deaths of the 60 South Africans killed in internal unrest in the townships a few months back?. How about the numerous street children of the Philipines that are preyed upon and perish every month utterly unregarded?. Is it only worth your empathy and sympathy when the tragedy is spread over the global media?. Or do you just accept a default position and weep uncontrollably for the whole sorry mess?!.
….or do you sigh, wonder what the hell the sense is in any of it, and crack on with the important things in your life that you can influence.
Maybe crocodile tears is a touch patronising of Arthur but it does seem to fit doesnt it?!.
JonesyTo be honest I’m not sorry to say I’m as jaded and cynical as Arthur is.
People I can relate to I feel loss for, people I know I feel grief for, but, whilst it is sad to hear of any of these tragedies in far flung locations, where do you stop with your ’emotive outpouring’ and how much of it really is pandering to ones own self-image as a good and caring member of the human race?!.
I mean isn’t the plight of murdered IDP’s in Grozny’s camps equally as tragic as Perm or how about the deaths of the 60 South Africans killed in internal unrest in the townships a few months back?. How about the numerous street children of the Philipines that are preyed upon and perish every month utterly unregarded?. Is it only worth your empathy and sympathy when the tragedy is spread over the global media?. Or do you just accept a default position and weep uncontrollably for the whole sorry mess?!.
….or do you sigh, wonder what the hell the sense is in any of it, and crack on with the important things in your life that you can influence.
Maybe crocodile tears is a touch patronising of Arthur but it does seem to fit doesnt it?!.
JonesyOne that doesnt have many crocodile tears in it – you would hazard a guess!
JonesyOne that doesnt have many crocodile tears in it – you would hazard a guess!
JonesyYou don’t need Type 45s for counter-narcotics work or fishery patrolling and anti-piracy missions. A basic OPV (H) could do those jobs at a cost of around €25 million per unit.
In local waters yes. Those roles could be undetaken by a very inexpensive hulls like the Mexican evolved-Serviola’s or the Chilean vessel pictured. That is not the kind of hull that we are looking at a requirement for though.
We need an Oceanic Capable Patrol Vessel not an Offshore Patrol Vessel. There is a very clear gulf in capability between the two as the former needs to ability to undertake a wider range of missions unsupported. This means bigger hull, more stores, greater bunkerage, more/specialised mission equipment stowage, more comprehensive sensors and armament fit for purpose but, strictly, no more than purpose.
As a guideline compare the Danish Thetis and Dutch Holland class boats with the Chilean ship pictured and that gives you the right kind of feel for the gradient involved.
JonesyLived there for two years, save for one better-than-fair kebab shop, it does make you wonder what material there is there for a film?.
Anyway we’ve since moved to Tilehurst so we can be all snotty and superior when watching it anyway. 😀
JonesyLived there for two years, save for one better-than-fair kebab shop, it does make you wonder what material there is there for a film?.
Anyway we’ve since moved to Tilehurst so we can be all snotty and superior when watching it anyway. 😀
JonesyA vastly over simplistic view. and almost wrong.
I described a major conflict in two sentences…the intent was to be simplistic!.
You’ll probably find the truth is that poodle Blair sent us in there to keep his mate GWB happy and we all know that the American political system is financed by armaments manufacturers, so they have to have a shooting match going on to keep the manufacturers in business.
Idiotic drivel.
The sooner the coalition realise Afghanistan is not winnable and get their forces home the better.
Of course Afghanistan is winnable. We stay there for long enough that the concept of the homogenous nation-state with a centralised political leadership takes hold with the populace then we’ve won. It will take two generations or so to happen, but, to say its unwinnable is plain wrong.
Besides what hope have we got against people who, in the absence of anyone else to fight, will fight among themselves?
See above point – we need to get them to a position where they develop their own authorities and institutions to reach a better standard of living. The alternative is that we pull out, tail tucked firmly between the legs, leave the same leadership vacuum that the Soviets did and watch while history repeats itself. The Taleban come back, declare a victory over NATO that eclipses the Mujahadeen’s defeat of the Soviets, and throw the door open for Al Qaeda to get back in the terrorist training business full time. Who do you think pays the price when that happens Mike?.
Sign In
