Can US carriers survive an all-out attack from China?

[xizhimen]

Can US carriers survive an all-out attack from China?​

The PLA can now use DF-21Ds to “attack ships, including aircraft carriers,” more than nine hundred miles away

By DAVE MAKICHUK
NOVEMBER 5, 2021

Can high-tech lasers, improved missiles, better radar and improved networking better protect US carrier battle groups against advanced Chinese weapons?

We know that carriers will need to operate effectively in extremely high-risk combat environments.

So what are they up against?

China is forever touting the array of guided missiles its weaponeers have devised to pummel US Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs).

Most prominent among them are its DF-21D and DF-26 antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has made a mainstay of China’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) defenses, Kris Osborn of National Interestreported.

Indeed, the most recent annual report on Chinese military power states matter-of-factly that the PLA can now use DF-21Ds to “attack ships, including aircraft carriers,” more than nine hundred statute miles from China’s shorelines.

Then there is China’s Xian H-6 bomber, a direct evolution of the vintage Tupolev Tu-16 BADGER. In its original Soviet guise, the aircraft was seen as a medium bomber, but with a long range.

It was not as large as the Tu-95 BEAR or M-4 BISON bombers, or as fast as the Tu-22M BACKFIRE. And in Russian service it was retired near 30 years ago. But in its Chinese form, it has been transformed into a potent bomber which is still formidable today, Naval News reported.

The current Chinese Navy version of the Tu-16 Badger has a number of basic upgrades besides avionics and weapons. The crew is reduced to three in a remodeled forward fuselage. And they are provided with ejection seats. The glazed nose is replaced by a large radome and the tail gun by an auxiliary power unit.

The most formidable capability seen on the H-6 is believed to be an anti-ship ballistic missile. This massive weapon is the largest air-launched missile in the world.

A single round has to be slung underneath the fuselage. And its primary prey is likely to be enemy aircraft carriers. For this reason, it has been widely dubbed a “carrier killer.” As far as strategic bombers go this capability is unique.

The hypersonic payload is likely to include a maneuvering reentry vehicle which allows it to hit a moving target. And it means that it much harder to counter because its flight trajectory is unpredictable.

Even without an explosive warhead the kinetic energy alone is likely to be enough to destroy a warship.

The concept, writes Osborn, is to stop an attack before it hits by using active defenses — a technological feat that is a huge priority for the Pentagon.

This is why ships, especially US Navy aircraft carriers, are engineered with extensive, layered networks of integrated defenses.

These defenses are integrated and far too many to cite, as they include long-range radar, satellite communications networking and air-surface-drone data-sharing connectivity.

These warships also come with electronic warfare systems to jam the guidance systems steering approaching weapons and also long, medium and short-range interceptors to eliminate threats.

Finally, a carrier’s escorts even have deck-mounted guns to fight off close-in threats.

The Navy is not only preparing a new SM-3IIA longer-range, larger and more precise interceptor for carrier strike groups but has also upgraded the SM-6 with a “dual-mode” seeker enabling it to send a forward ping from the missile itself and change course in flight to adjust to moving targets.

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block II is yet another upgraded weapon which can operate in “sea-skimming” and parallel the surface of the water to take out lower-flying incoming threats.

Laser defenses are no longer “on-the-horizon” but are already here arming surface ships.

DF-21D and DF-26 antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) have become the mainstay of China’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) defenses. Credit: Xinhua.

The problem, however, is that the nine-hundred-mile range cited for the DF-21D far exceeds the reach of carrier-based aircraft. A carrier task force, consequently, could take a heckuva beating just arriving on Asian battlegrounds.

And the range mismatch could get worse. Unveiled at the PLA’s military parade through Beijing last fall, the DF-26 will reportedly sport a maximum firing range of 1,800-2,500 miles.

If Chinese technology continues to progress, PLA ballistic missiles could menace US and allied warships plying the seas anywhere within Asia’s second island chain. The upper figure for DF-26 range, moreover, would extend ASBMs’ reach substantially beyond the island chain.

Therefore, it is not surprising that layered ship defense systems are fast improving to incorporate a wider sphere of weapons, newer applications and an entire generation of new technologies.

Can US carriers survive an all-out attack from China? - Asia Times

It's the $64 question military analysts are pondering. Can high-tech lasers, improved missiles, better radar and improved networking better protect US

asiatimes.com

 

[xizhimen]

The trend of future technological development is not in favor of aircraft carriers, probably aircraft carriers will become obsolete in a couple of decades.

 

[Gary]

Well those missile are only as good if they know what they're hitting at, ground based radar had their limitations and the USN had already defeated satellite based surveillance since at least 1986. Without those satellites those ASBM will have to guess which ship are they hitting.

How to Make an Aircraft Carrier Vanish​

 

[xizhimen]

Well those missile are only as good if they know what they're hitting at, ground based radar had their limitations and the USN had already defeated satellite based surveillance since at least 1986. Without those satellites those ASBM will have to guess which ship are they hitting.

How to Make an Aircraft Carrier Vanish​

A report from 1986 has anything to do with today's technology? but I have to admit I m very impressed that you can find a 1986 aritcle, I thought it won't be extremely hard to find anything before 1990's on the internet.

How to Make an Aircraft Carrier Vanish​

NORMAN BLAC
August 8, 1986

 

[Gary]

A report from 1986 has anything to do with today's technology? but I have to admit I m very impressed that you can find a 1986 aritcle, I thought it won't be extremely hard to find anything before 1990's on the internet.

actually it has everything to do with todays technology. it's naive to think that the US had stagnated since then, on the contrary the US is guaranteed progressing since that day.

and yes this article is from 1986.

 

[xizhimen]

and yes this article is from 1986.
View attachment 35016

Then this is indeed something worth talking about in 1986.

 

[Gary]

Then this is indeed something worth talking about in 1986.

yeah they did this back in 1986, imagine what they could do now ???

============================================================================================

To actually score a kill, those ASBM must first know what they are hitting at, its basically back to basic. There are hundreds if not thousands of ships actively sailing in those water. On radar there's no telling (due to size similarity ) if you're looking at a tanker or an aircraft carrier. in fact the USN could modify those carriers to emit EM signal imitating to that of an aircraft carrier deck.

The Indian navy uses this method way back in 1971 Indo-Pak war when the frigate INS Rajput sailed near Visakhapatnam and emit false radio signals of that of an aircraft carrier to fool the Pakistani into thinking that the INS Viraat is near.

The other method is the satellite surveillance and the USN had already defeated those back in 1986. Here's an excerpt of what actually happened.

And just over a month ago, a much lengthier case of a ″missing″ carrier occurred during an exercise named RIMPAC 86. The USS Ranger, although the target of an intense search that included satellite reconnaissance, escaped detection for two weeks while sailing across the Pacific.

The performance was considered all the more remarkable by an Australian admiral who monitored the exercise because the carrier’s planes were flying sorties throughout the period, staging mock attacks against surface ships, submarines and land targets.

So basically in 1986 a US CV bombarded Hawaii, sunk enemy ships and submarine all the while being invisible the whole time while being searched by satellites , the US tactics and operational procedures had greatly refined since then. imagine what they could do now near Taiwan ????

here's what an ASBM kill chain look like.

Now that radar had its limit and satellites based surveillance had already proven defeated, how are the Chinese going to guide those missile into a US CSG. Unlike a land based airbase an aircarft carrier are constantly on the move, a modern Nimitz or Ford class CVN could reportedly run at a speed of up to 32+ knots, not only that it could change course at will.

Now to make matters worse, the USN will employ all kinds of countermeasures to fool the incoming missile. Add that to the array of destroyers and cruiser escort armed with ABM capable system like the AEGIS combat system.



Now lets say the some of the missile did hit the ship. Is it somehow a proof that AC are vulnerable ??

See this:

USS Enterprise fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1967 USS Forrestal fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

on both occasions the ship continue to float and sail under its own power, and in combat would definitely launch its combat aircraft.

another case study is the USS America CV-66

USS America (CV-66) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2005, the USN uses the ship as a evaluation platform to improve US carrier survivability in combat by putting the ship under an intense 4 week bombardment.

one one occasion the US planted an underwater explosives in the hull an detonated it. To the surprise of many the ship did not sunk.

Here’s why it Took four Weeks to Scuttle USS America, the Only Supercarrier Ever Sunk - The Aviation Geek Club

Here’s why it Took four Weeks to Scuttle USS America, the Only Super Carrier Ever Sunk. On Apr. 19, 2005, USS America left Philadelphia under tow on its final mission

theaviationgeekclub.com

In the end the US navy decided to scuttle the ship on purpose, that means opening all watertight doors and purposefully detonate known weak points of the ship. It took hours to sink.

In real life combat not only a hit from ASBM will be random (means it would not precisely hit the weak point), there will be damage control party to make sure the ship doesn't sink.

If its this hard to sink USS America, one could only imagine the survivability of modern Nimitz and Ford class carrier.

@Nilgiri @Anmdt @Lordimperator @Manomed

 

[xizhimen]

yeah they did this back in 1986, imagine what they could do now ???

I have no interest in looking at things from the 1986 perspectives and point of view. my personal preference is reading data and reports from today and from US military staffer themselves.

 

[Lordimperator]

I have no interest in looking at things from the 1986

“Study the past if you would define the future”

 

[xizhimen]

“Study the past if you would define the future”

To the future, today is the past, in Chinese we say people should always look forward , not backward. maybe we have different societal values.

 

[Quasar]

Pasific ocean is 165,250,000 square kilometers, the problem was and still is finding the target and target identification and this target is making 30+ knots

 

[xizhimen]

Pasific ocean is 165,250,000 square kilometers, the problem was and still is finding the target and target identification and this target is making 30+ knots

Not if they come close to a narrow Taiwan strait.

 

[xizhimen]

BeiDou Global Positioning System:​

The project started providing global navigation services in 2018. The last satellite launched in 2020 was the latest in the series of 30 BDS-3 satellites. Compared with previous generations of the BeiDou, satellites have been providing increased bandwidth and accuracy. The system upgraded its performance after completing its third phase, reaching accuracy at 1 m for public use and 1 cm for encrypted military use.

The system is a two-way communication system, allowing it to identify the locations of receivers.

GPS, GLONASS (Russia), and Galileo (E.U.) mainly act as beacons, beaming out signals picked up by billions of devices using them to determine their precise position on Earth. BeiDou is a two-way communication system, which is different from the other three GPS. According to China’s state broadcaster CCTV, Beidou knows where you are through and tells others where you are through the system. This characteristic is helpful for fishing boats, buses, field staff, and rescuers that wish to send messages and inform of their locations. People trapped in a mountain without a cellphone signal can send a message of up to 1,200 Chinese characters to a BeiDou satellite to get rescued.

In comparison, GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo only send signals from satellites to receivers and have no idea of who and where the receivers are.

 

[Lordimperator]

, probably aircraft carriers will become obsolete in a couple of decade

Then why did you guys design type 3 ++ CV?

If its this hard to sink USS America, one could only imagine the survivability of modern Nimitz and Ford class carrier.

Indeed, unless what beijingwalker said is Iranian Cardboard CV

Alright, hei beijingwalker have you ever read about USS Stark inccident, it got struck by 2 exocet and the frigate still float. That could be aplied to a CV >75.000 tonnes design like Alphamike already said. They design it hard to sunk

Pasific ocean is 165,250,000 square kilometers, the problem was and still is finding the target and target identification

And dont forget the defense of CSG. The airwing. And the intelligence network, US already swallowed bitterpill in Pearl harbour, they dont want it for twice happen again

 

[xizhimen]

Then why did you guys design type 3 ++ CV?

Some old timers still want them for prestige, In China, it's also a very controversial issue, many call it a prestige program: 面子工程

 

[Gary]

Then why did you guys design type 3 ++ CV?

Basically the PLAN is copying "obsolete" USN carrier all the way from design, doctrine, tactics even the way their crew dressed.

Getting close to the crew on China's aircraft carrier (8) - People's Daily Online

en.people.cn

 

[xizhimen]

Basically the PLAN is copying "obsolete" USN carrier all the way from design, doctrine, tactics even the way their crew dressed.

Getting close to the crew on China's aircraft carrier (8) - People's Daily Online

en.people.cn

It's hotly debated in China, I speak for myself, not for the Chinese government. but China indeed invests more money and resources in the technology of beating air craft carriers than air craft carriers themselves.

 

[xizhimen]

This reminded me İranian mind set ''if they come close to narrow Strait of Hormuz''


Guess Chinese satellites are protected by Mao's sprite therefore they should be untoucable.

US ships also need their GPS to guide them, if they take out Chinese satelites, China will take out theirs, they rely on satelites more than we do.

 

[xizhimen]

This reminded me İranian mind set ''if they come close to narrow Strait of Hormuz''

So you think China is Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan? US can just kick in, kill, bomb and leave?

 

[Anmdt]

Just dropping some keywords for people who is interesting in reading further:

Satellite based air defence and early warning radars,
Satellite based network warfare, (Starlink)
Carrier strike groups, Theatrical air defence enabled ships,
Passive sensor networks,

US is far advanced in these, if China launches DF-21s on CVN, US won't be sitting there watch it happening but likely retailate.

Bonus: Zumwalts soon will receive VL Hypersonic missiles.