 |
| via Air Power Australia. |
If the Chinese decided to go after a US carrier how would they do it? From this ground guys perspective they would put 100 SU-27's in the air loaded with KH-35's. They would split the force and attack from all four directions on the compass and with each SU-27 carrying 4 of these missiles, they would be aiming for a time on target attack with 400 missiles in the air.
Now remember I'm being conservative. That doesn't include Badger/Xian H-6K's, subs or anti-ship ballistic missiles. It doesn't include J-10's and it doesn't include any Chinese stealth aircraft.
My point is this. If the fleet commander is being conservative and only launches two missiles in defense against every inbound vampire then he's still going to be in a hurt locker.
More simply put.
We need more anti-missile missiles than we currently carry aboard ship.
PS. Also note that the KH-35 is probably one of the easier missiles to kill. It flies at high subsonic speed. The number of attackers was kept relatively small. You can bet body parts that with over 5000 Sailors aboard a carrier, with basically a small air force aboard each carrier and with the pride of a nation floating on each carrier that it will be a MAXIMUM effort target. I just don't think that our current defense will be able to stand up to a concerted effort to kill one. Oh and if you want this to go from being a bad dream to being an outright nightmare, horrific enough to keep the Chief of Naval Operations up at night then think about the same scenario with the real beast of the Sukhoi design bureau...the SU-34. Replace the SU-27's with SU-34's and even as jingoistic as I am, I'd start laying bets on the Chinese getting the kill.
And yeah. More than the PAK-50, more than the SU-27/30/33 the SU-34 sends chills my way. It carries a payload that would make the wings on an F-15E droop, has legs that almost challenge a B-1 and has the speed to outrun almost any plane in our inventory. Plus its a deep striker. The SU-34 is one bad mother.
I can think of something worse... Instead of Kh-35's they use Kh-15's. Not sure of the warhead size but it has about the same range and has a speed above mach 3. Your decision time just went down into the low digits.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15_(missile)
yeah and in my little scenario everything is working spot on and they still get clobbered. what happens when you have seconds and you're waiting for the weapons free order?
ReplyDeleteI'm not tech guy, but in major wars carriers get dropped.
ReplyDeleteDo we even have carriers patrolling the South China Sea anymore, after China objected?
I don't think China would risk 100 of their best fighters, as most of their inventory consists of older fighters. Rather, I think it would be more likely that we will see older aircraft like the J-7 modified to be RC'd. Then mass kamikaze attacks like those near Okinawa circa mid-1945.
ReplyDeleteBut if you really want to scare the CNO, use P-800s or the SS-N-27, you will have zilch in the way of reaction time. But, to get more SAMs on ships you probably want the RAM, or an arsenal ship loaded with SM missiles. There is no way you are going to be able to cram the number of SAMs you need to protect against a ASCM attack onboard a Burke, a Tico, a Perry, or anything. We need a dedicated platform just to carry the missiles.
You realize Russia turned China down over purchasing the Su-35 right? And as much as Russia might like to, they can't export the Su-34 yet, as production is getting up to speed.
The reason why Russia turned China down over purchasing the Su-35 is over the amount of units China wants to purchase. China wants only 27 units. Russia then pulled back and asked themselves this, "Why 27 units only?"
DeleteThen the light bulb moment came. China did not want 27 units to fly. China wants 27 units to COPY.
So Russia said, Nyet. You buy triple-digits units or no deal. End of story.
Potential solution that benefits all the services (and allies), not just the Navy:
ReplyDelete1. Continue work on the NGM (formally JDRADM) and base it on the General Dynamics version (traditional rocket with a TV booster - think mini-Standard SAM).
GD Aim-152
2. Since it's booster is adaptable, create one that allows for long range and narrow enough to 8-pack in a Mk-41 VLS.
Mk-41 specs
3. Not sure if possible to stack them, but the Mk-41 Strike VLS is long enough. This could get you to 16 per VLS.
4. More Rim-116 RAM, but with a 9x IIR-type seeker.
Rim-116 RAM
5. Swap out any Gatling based CIWS and put in the Millenium Gun. Add a few extra for insurance. Since there is no thru-deck penetration needed, they can be welded up to the hull on as as-needed basis.
Millenium Gun
the aim-152 and mk-41 sound like possible solutions but i've lost faith in close in weapon systems. they work well against subsonic and small missiles...i'm talking harpoon class. but when you get into the large supersonic ones then even if you get a kill, your ship will be splashed with burning fuel and wreckage from the missile. structures will be damaged, arrays will get crushed and that just makes you setup for the next strike.
ReplyDeleteoh and let me ask everyone this. would you risk a loss rate of 50 percent if you sent out 400 airplanes knowing that you could sink a carrier? i'd risk a 90 percent loss rate if i knew i could kill a carrier. for at least a decade i will have mortally wounded the capital ship of a mortal enemy. the price in terms of nation state vs. nation state is cheap. think about it like this. i killed a carrier and an airwing for the loss of 300 plus fighters. i can reconstitute in a year if i push industry. it'll take the US at least 3 or more if they're rushing.
public opinion will turn, the politicians will eat each other, the JCS will point fingers and the president will probably be up for impeachment. 300 planes for the price of shattering a nations psyche and crippling its war machine? yeah i'd pay it.
You forget, Japan tried that in 1941. 4 years later 2 of their cities had been nuked, and the American fleet was anchored in Tokyo Bay. When someone kicks America in the nuts, we rip out their spine and choke them with it, however long it takes. Losing a carrier would be painful in men and material for a couple years, after that China will be in a heap of trouble.
ReplyDeleteRemember the words of Admiral Yamamoto:
In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.
Yamamoto failed because of dumb blind luck and backwards thinking. he went after battleships instead of carriers. additionally Japan didn't press its assault against the US. the rest of Asia was ravaged but when it came to killing is most formidable foes...the Brits, Australia and US, it was a near run but he never really brought the fight to essential US or allied territory.
ReplyDeletethink about Pearl Harbor as a combined arms assault and not just a glorified raid (which it really was). if they had landed Imperial Marines on the islands and just captured the bases and left the rest of the islands alone then the US would have been permanetly crippled in the Pacific.
he was a pure Navy man and couldn't think about controling land. all he could think about was the sea with islands (land) basically being a bypass point.
by the way thats the same problem with Air Sea battle as its currently being formed. no one is thinking about controlling land except the Japanese and China. guess what they're talking about doing?
garrisoning islands. the US Army should be front and center offering to do the same but they can only see Korea when it comes to the PacRim.
Remember, Yamamoto was looking for the carriers and was disappointed to find out they were missing. And you refer to it as a glorified raid, well it crippled the Navy for a year because of those losses. Also, remember the island-hopping strategy? Don't bother taking every little speck of land, skip the minor ones and take what's really important, and leave the rest to wither on the vine. Rabaul is a case in point. Islands are important, granted. However, if you control the sea you can squeeze the life out of those islands. Don't forget that most of the islands that the Japanese and Chinese are garrisoning are close to home, for us the nearest important islands are 1000 miles away. Two different situations, if you want to control land, you must control the sea.
ReplyDeleteIt would be smarter for China to attack sub bases rather than carriers, as subs can cut off their oil supply, carriers not so much. It would be foolish to bring a carrier the South China Sea, or anywhere nearby. Stage aircraft out of Okinawa or Japan, and you get the same capability with better survivability. Carriers will become mostly obsolete if they don't evolve, which they can, but it is rather expensive. Carriers are great but they can only be used where they have a large number of escorts, and make great targets. Subs on the other hand can quietly sneak up on the enemy and stab them in the back. China could easily take out a carrier, your right. However, the Japanese made the mistake of concentrating on battleships (and dreadnoughts), the source of national prestige, and ignoring the subs pens, oil farms, and drydocks. All of which came back to haunt them. It's the subs and small carriers (America-class) which will be the workhorses for the first years of WWIII.
better survivability on Okinawa? on Japan? those airfields will be smoldering 5 minutes after hostilities are announced. tactical ballistic missiles will take them out with ease. besides i would bet money that Okinawa and the Japanese mainlands have been so infiltrated by spies that they'll be able to .... say poison water supplies to the bases and i'm sure some Chinese spies are working on those bases posing as Japanese nationals. and lets not forget special ops raids by the chinese against those bases. if carriers are vulnerable then fixed bases are just Chinese Dragon bait.
ReplyDeletesubs strangling China's oil supply? might be hard to do if they lay claim and actually garrison the Spratly islands. oil rich area and hard for subs to operate in those waters. additonally its being developed by exxon and bp as we speak.
my main thing is that everyone is thinking about the Pacific in service specific ways and the Navy and Air Force are on the rise because of a certain think tank. the solution is to grab land and hold it. wherever their is an American Soldier or Marine you have US territory that must be taken by force. all the Navy and Air Force can do is circle for a while and then return to base to refuel, rearm and do it again. only the ground forces can take and hold territory.
About China's oil supply:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH
http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=SCS&trk=c
http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=WOTC&trk=c
And a post I wrote about the subject:
http://general-quarters.blogspot.com/2012/04/chinas-jugular-vein-straits-of-malacca.html
I agree and Okinawa and Japan would be hit hard, but where else is there? The Philipines? Vietnam? Guam would be pulverized in the first few minutes as well.
Exactly how well does the PLAAF operate with the PLANAF? Does the PLAAF train for maritime strike? Maybe a better scenario has the C-802 carriers with just PLANAF aircraft with maybe PLAAF Su-27's flying cover?
ReplyDeleteIn any case I'd suggest we'd know such a strike was coming (satellite coverage, communications monitoring, etc.) and that not only would the task move be moving away from the threat axis but would probably be operating east to southeast of Taiwan assuming this is a Taiwan scenario.
Some of the variables would include degree of satellite support and how well both sides do taking each others out, how many carriers are in the task force, where the task force is operating, any additional air cover being provided and from where, etc.
Depending how one draws up the scenario heavily influences the outcome. It's obviously not a bolt from the blue Taiwan invasion or the carriers are probably not there. The main issue probably isn't whether 100 or 120 strike fighters are launched with anti ship missiles but how well they operate with their supporting aircraft and fighter cover vs US fighter coverage.
Also it's worth pointing out that if China is striking US bases with ballistic missiles, including US Territory like Guam, that our SSN's are clearly going to be hitting their air bases with cruise missiles along with other assets.
China might be better off concentrating it's air power against Taiwan than going after USN task forces. If they really needed to go after the carriers why not coordinate the subs, ballistic missiles, and aircraft together as well as possible. Even in this scenario it's worth remembering the mobility of the carriers means such coordination isn't as easy as it sounds.
Guam with it's hardened aircraft shelters, THAAD, Patriot, and possible Aegis coverage isn't necessarily getting pulverized in 5 min. It's also a direct attack upon US territory and a significant escalation. At this point we are talking WWIII. China losing it's ability to export equals an economic collapse which is far greater threat to regime survival than anything having to do with Taiwan.
The wild card in this scenario is whether it's far enough in the future with China acting aggressive enough that we're back at Clark. China seems to be doing a good job pushing it's neighbors closer to us and the Philippines are key in this scenario.
you hit another nail on the head Lane.
ReplyDeleteits the myth of Joint Operations. even if the Air Force and Navy are acting independently (talking on the Chinese side) that just increases the pressure. you talk about sat coverage? they don't need a hardkill, remember they've been hacking our computer systems for years. we've been buying computer parts and things for years...they could easily have a trojan horse or horses throughout our systems. additionally everyone wants to fall back on the economic issue to say that a war could never happen. but what are we doing that is actually going to push a future conflict on us even sooner? we're asking that the Chinese become a more consumer nation. once that happens then they won't need to worry about exports to sustain there growth. additionally you have to remember that they might NEED a war. if the population becomes restless then how does a communist government react? by diverting attention away from home troubles. the Chinese are two things right now. extremely nationalistic and extremely displeased by their government officials. that my friend is a bad mix.
but back to the surprise attack. how would you do it? i personally would rile up the N. Koreans..get the world involved in a shooting war on that strip of land and then come craashing down on us while we have 3 carriers off the coast providing air support to the 2nd Infantry Division.
China plays a long game. a real looong game. we play checkers. we're gonna get whacked and we both know it. even if you don't want to say so outloud.
Exactly, they realize they are dependent on us, so they are currently looking to Africa and South America to end that. Once they no longer have the financial incentive, and they have the capability - look out.
ReplyDeleteIt's trying to get inside their regime's head. I don't think they want a confrontation and that they believe they can get what they want through political, military, and economic pressure. Further economic stability is key to their regimes survival and I'm not sure I'd want to risk that if I'm them.
ReplyDeleteThe three likely military confrontations for China are Taiwan first and foremost, Korea, and some dispute over some South China Seas island with take your pick of players. If they actually believe they need a war to divert pressure off domestic unrest, which is a questionable scenario in my opinion, then what I'd suggest is a bolt from the blue invasion of Taiwan where they do not strike anything but Taiwanese targets and go for the quickest possible take down of Taiwan with a concentration of overwhelming force.
I don't think China can get away from the central importance of exports to their economy in less than twenty years. They should not want a conflict with the US. If the US stops buying Chinese goods, let alone is at war and actively cuts their merchant traffic, then China's economy implodes and the regime is in very serious danger. If they're going to go to war over Taiwan they should attempt to do so before there is serious involvement with the US.
That of course doesn't happen in a Korean scenario. China has signaled it wants to occupy North Korea if that regime collapses and the only way there's any conflict over that is if South Korea wants to fight over it and in my view South Korea might in fact breathe a sigh of relief that China has to deal with the economic basket case in the north. North Korea is a total wild card. That said it's been that way for years and it's still there. They could still be around in twenty years depending on what the new regime does.
Indeed for South Korea the best scenario is North Korean economic reform, which is what China is pushing, and reducing the disparity in education and wealth between the two Korea's. South Korea really doesn't want to have to pay to fix that disparity with a rapid unification.
China does play a long game but they're in fact being rather clumsy over any number of issues. They're pretty much forcing South Korea and Japan into closer ties and pushing Vietnam, India, the Philippines, and others closer to the US and almost doing all the leg work on an anti Chinese coalition for us.
They're also moving too soon. In my view until China can counter US SSN's and our allies SSK's any real conflict sees their economy shut down. Strategically China can hurt us far less than we can hurt them. They lose a long war. They have to fight a short one and win quickly before involving the US. Maybe in twenty or thirty years that dynamic changes.
To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. Sun Tzu.
While I agree with your assessment that the US Navy likely needs more missiles at sea, I think they are needed more for endurance against multiple attacks than to counter a single, overwhelming raid. When you look at the extremely short detection range against sea skimming missiles, a destroyer will have less than a minute to detect, classify, and engage even subsonic missiles.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this, I think that you did not mention the most import part of air defense, the carrier's airwing. Not only can fighters engage attackers far from the carrier, for every plane they shoot down, four missiles are destroyed instead of one.
the carriers airwing Fencer????
ReplyDeleteif i was attacking an aircraft carrier i wouldn't give a rats ass about whatever combat air patrol they're able to get up...i'd be aiming straight for the carriers. you sink a carrier you kill the airwing. besides once missiles are in the air then the thought isn't about killing airplanes, its all about killing missiles.
the fighters will be trying to lock on missiles to try and thin the herd...the naval fly guys understand the issue better than you and i ever could. but that just presents the carrier with a bigger issue. what happens if they're able to launch follow on strikes.
yeah, the carrier as we know it is screwed.
The point is that the CAP could intercept attacking planes before their missiles are launched. If the defending fighters are ignored, with modern missiles they should be able to get multiple kills each and each enemy plane destroyed means multiple missiles eliminated. As far as I can tell, until Aegis came along the Navy saw interceptors as the only reliable defense against missile attacks. Now that the threat has become even faster and lower flying this may be becoming true again.
DeleteSol in your scenario using C-802's the strikers have to get within 100nm and thus exactly how many aircraft do get past the carriers fighters is rather central to the entire scenario. It was an entirely different story when the Soviets had hundreds of long range naval bombers able to launch missiles with hundreds of miles range vs our F-14's trying to either get far enough out to intercept them before launch or nail the rather large missiles post launch.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why I mentioned the importance of how well the strikers operate with their supporting aircraft especially their escorting fighters. The task force is going to see the strike package hundreds of miles out, is going to have CAP in the air, with additional birds ready to go on deck, and there could very well be additional land based fighters in support.
Once upon a time the USN planned on fighting and winning against coordinated saturation missile attacks fired by very long range aircraft in large numbers together with mass strikes by SSGN's. This when there were only two AEGIS cruisers per carrier when today every DDG has AEGIS.
The Chinese don't have a fleet of Backfire's, they don't have decent SSN's yet, and they might have converted one older boat into an SSGN. I'm far more worried that in twenty years China is operating decent SSN's than I am about their naval aviation.
The best the PLANAF can probably do with a mass attack would be launching from about 250km with YJ-12's in conjunction with other longer range supersonic anti ship missiles with heavy fighter escort to get them close enough to launch. All this is theory. In practice it takes time assembling a strike package and those first up are burning fuel. Exactly how many aircraft the PLANAF can practically put up in a large anti ship package isn't readily apparent to me.
Worry about them getting decent SSN's and/or first class ASW. Consider how long it takes them to assemble a large anti ship package near their bases, how much warning time we get monitoring them forming up, check the flight path they have to go around Taiwan (if they can overfly Taiwan then Taiwan is toast and our carriers are not around), note where they think the carriers are, where are decoys are, where the carriers actually are, and where they are after moving 30+ knots for the 2+ hours it takes for China to launch, assemble, and fly out and then note the layers of fighters and AEGIS ships between them our carriers. Our carriers aren't screwed in this scenario the PLANAF is and hard.
There's a reason China is investing so much in anti ship ballistic missiles and constantly evolving their sub designs.
dude. i used the KH-35 to try and give our guys a chance.
ReplyDeleteif i was being a devious bastard i would have picked the KLUB missile. supersonic. 300 km range. the Russians claim that one (that's right my friend 1!) can sink a carrier.
i don't know. but i can tell you this. if the Chinese ever decide to go after a carrier. they will do it in a big way.
me talking about 100 fighter was also being generous. if i was a Chinese Admiral, i'd max out to take the chance of sinking a nuclear powered carrier! i would send everything i had, pull stuff out of mothballs and even use commercial airplanes to do what some claim is impossible.
the amount of prestige that the US attaches to carriers is the very reasons why they're such juicy targets. I'd get after one and wouldn't stop till it was sunk.
The YJ-12 is supersonic and going in low has an estimated range of 250 to 300km and 400km on a high attack profile which you don't want to do vs AEGIS. China doesn't operate the Klub and it's not an air launched missile although they do operate other missiles. The YJ-12 is probably derived from the SS-N-22 which for some reason China bought 500 for it's 4 Sovremenny class or 15 reloads per tube.
ReplyDeleteWhile I totally agree with you if they go after a task force they do it big I entirely disagree focusing on prestige matters. What if they go all out after a task force and sink two carriers while gutting their naval aviation? We've got 8 more active carriers with a few more in reserve. Short term prestige isn't often worth losing a war.
Moreover, they sink one carrier and kill thousands of American's, especially in a bolt from the blue surprise attack and they're long term dead. Every war we've ever had where we could chant remember something as in remember the Alamo, Maine, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, has gone horribly wrong for the other side. Note two of those are ships. Don't wake the sleeping giant, it's not good for your health.
China can not defeat the USN. Could they sink a carrier to two? Very possibly. Unless doing so advances their war aims it might be a bad idea to try. The cessation of conflict is one of those less studied aspects of military theory. China can not now nor for the foreseeable future defeat the USN and the USN SSN force alone can shut down their overseas trade and collapse the Chinese economy in short order.
They shouldn't want a long war with the US as it's not in their interests. If they ever take the military route with Taiwan they probably plan to take down Taiwan before the US can intervene significantly and thus escalate the conflict. If they thought Taiwan was going to be that easy they might have done so by now.
Even small attack aircraft like the A-4 with free fall bombs can be dangerous as the the brits found out in the falklands/malvinas conflit...their ships were supost to deal whith the tu-22m/as-4 combo and were unable to deal with the A-4/mk 84 combo and the super entendar/exocet...makes you think doesn t ? But finding the ships in a big ocean is also very difficult for the attackers...
ReplyDeleteI disagree here. The Type 42's were in no way designed to deal with large Soviet bombers; moreover, the system was immature in 1982 and did not work very well. The RN task force commander was also the first CO on the first Type 42 and he's on record that the ship never worked a single day during his command and that during the conflict all the British SAM systems did not live up their hype.
DeleteAll the other RN ships had very limited AA capability other than a few with Sea Wolf, a point defense system which again was still working out the kinks, and thus were vulnerable to bombing. Extrapolating this to today would be extremely dangerous. Almost every modern warship today at least has a reliable point defense air defense missile system.
Super Etendard firing Exocet was entirely about the lack of RN AEW otherwise they'd not have gotten in range. They only sank one warship with it and the merchant ship sunk was after that missile was decoyed away from another warship. Indeed the Falklands indicate counter measures are quite effective and that AEW is critical.
remenber Lane that the argies only had 5 or 6 exocet missiles... if their stock was bigger...I agree whit the AEW observation that you made...But why not use towable decoys for ships ? I agree whit Solomon s idea of missile barges,and if we ad towed decoys the chances of survival whould increase ...Bigger fire power(more missiles,rail guns,lasers,CIWS ,etc),better ECM and different approaches are needed against a peer state like China...And Lane the point of my post is that even fierce pilots whit obsolete equipment(the A-4 whit drop bombs)can be a real pain in the ass...the brits were lucky that the bombs were drop so low that there was no time for arming ...
ReplyDeleteHappy to agree that the Argentinian's did not fight as smart as they might have, didn't have enough Exocet's, had issues with bomb fusing, etc. I'd agree determined pilots can be effective with older kit; however, we're way past the point where aircraft are going to overfly a modern task force and drop bombs. Guided glide bombs dropped outside SAM range fine but the Falklands were 30 years ago and there are far too many reliable anti air systems on almost every ship to see more brave A-4 attacks like 1982.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly what you mean by "towed decoys for ships". The USN does use decoys for ships including carriers. We've used towed torpedo decoys for decades. If we have towed electronic emitting decoys isn't public information. Almost the entire range of how electronic warfare exactly works isn't public information.
One might be willing to bet we have systems that mimic a carriers emissions, or in fact retransmit them, and might have had such systems for decades but it's not public information. It's extremely difficult to make judgements vis a vis comparative electronic warfare but I don't think China is near US capabilities. As a subset of this there's also electronic attack. AESA radars can themselves defeat aerial targets. Some fighters will be able to shoot down enemy missiles with their radars among varied other capabilities. Some probably already can.
Lane,you have a very educated opinion...it s very nice to exchage ideas whit you...Now,the problem is that you assume that todays fleets are better protected than before...not true.The brits whent to war in libya whit only four SAMs in one of their ships...budjet cuts...they no longer have the Sea Harrier...modern destroyers will be less in number and will pack less SAM(not because of capability but because of money avalable)...The US Navy lost the F-14...no replacement,but you can say that the super bug fills that role and that the AIM-54 was not as effective as advertised...No specialised tankers,so the F/A-18 as to lose numbers to fill that gap whit the BUDDY system...NO long range fixed wing ASW whit the retirement of the S-3 Viking.And while Solomon wrote about SU-35s attacking we all know that it will be a diesel/ellectric submarine that gets the best chance at destroying a CV...the only plus 30 years later is the new missiles and radars(i.e AEGIS in ships AESA/AMRAAM in planes)but they are crippled whit lower numbers and whit lost capabilities...sorry for the bad english but remmenber that i am portuguese...
ReplyDeleteP.S-I agree whit you that todays tech.will render direct strikes almost impossible,but i will bet you that some crazy pilot in a future war will try it out...or worst : not hard to imagine a small boat whit 2 iranians inside and a 7,62 mm machine gun triyng to attack o modern vessel...you know how its gonna end but some people just have to try it out..lol
Thanks for the kind words. I agree with you that the most serious threat are submarines and that's exactly why China's SSN development is very important to track but they're not near Western capabilities as far as I know and are only just starting to do real deployments and begin to really learn what they need to be doing.
ReplyDeleteI might be wrong but I though that 4 missile report was for an old Type 42 they were soon taking out service anyway? It's not indicative of most modern vessels.
While I agree the loss of capability in the S-3, KA-6, ES-3, etc., is significant the USN made a choice to operate a smaller and cheaper to operate wing post Cold War. The current wing is still very capable, additional aircraft can easily be operated if needed, and the USAF often can provide tanker support, etc. In around ten years the carrier wings will begin to operate with 24 F/A-18E/F's, 20 F-35C's, and 4-6+ X-47B follow on fighter sized UCAS plus EA-18G and E-2D support. If the UCAS works out expect to see the detachment go to a squadron of 10 to 12. That's a very capable air wing. The long range ISR capability of the UCAS is potentially a larger capability improvement than adding the F-35.
USN does have plenty of emitting decoys for it's warships, something that is rarely taken into account in these "doomsday" missile exchange v missile exchange scenarios.
ReplyDeleteOne of which is known as Nulka:
http://youtu.be/RkwlPtVxPDE
It's not all about physically shooting down incoming missiles guys. There's engaging the enemy aircraft at range, engaging their takeoff and landing facilities, degrading the enemies ability to maintain sortie rate, degrading the enemies targetting capabilities and so on.
No-one said it's easy, but no-one ever said it's impossible either. USN planned, structured and trained for similar types of threats mounted by the Russians, during the Cold War too.
Every single time the Russo-Sinophiles within APA or similar "institutions" come up with this sort of scenario, everyone starts predicting the end of something. Doomsday is just over the horizon. Funny however it NEVER works out the way these sorts of groups predict.
At the same time, our theoretical capabilities are discounted based on "real world experience" whilst their theoretical capabilities are granted mystical powers not at all effected by "real life".
If the imbalance really is as great as they like to make out, it would be addressed. Pure and simple.
The observable historical fact is that every single time "our" forces enter a battlespace, they completely dominate it.
I see very little in that changing.