Time to end the nonsense and slap the dogshit out of those that think that we're ready to deal with a max effort being tossed at our nation's pride.
So with that, lets put into this mix a small surface combatant. The Chinese version of our streetfighter concept the Houbei Class Fast Attack Craft. Specs are from Wiki.
| General characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Displacement: | 220 long tons (224 t) full load |
| Length: | 42.6 m (139 ft 9 in) |
| Beam: | 12.2 m (40 ft 0 in) |
| Draught: | 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) |
| Propulsion: | 2 diesel engines @ 6,865 hp (5,119 kW) with 4 waterjet propulsors by MARI |
| Speed: | 36 knots (67 km/h; 41 mph) |
| Complement: | 12[2] |
| Sensors and processing systems: | Surface search radar: 1 Type 362 Navigational radar: 1 Electro-optics: HEOS 300 |
| Armament: | • Anti-ship missiles: 8 C-801/802/803 in friction stir welded aluminium missile launch containers[3] or • Land-attack missiles: 8 Hongniao missile-2 long range land attack cruise missiles.[4] • Surface-to-air missiles: FLS-1 surface-to-air launcher with 12 QW class MANPAD missiles • 1 × licensed copy of KBP AO-18 6-barrel 30 mm gun (AK-630) by ZEERI |
| Notes: | Details remain speculative |
Can't find an estimated range for the boat but it doesn't have to range far. Its missiles will make up for any short legs it might have and 36 knots is'nt anything to sneeze at.
Speaking of missiles.
8 anti-ship missiles per ship. If we can expect the Chinese to modernize and upgrade the current fit then those vaunted one missile carrier killers can be expected in the near future...but even wthout them, the Chinese have 89 of these boats at 8 missiles a piece which puts another 700 plus missiles into the air combined with the 400 that were launched by our mythical SU-27's in this exercise.
1100 plus missiles and we only have two systems involved. A couple of Regiments of SU-27's and some fast attack missile boats.
We still aren't including subs, bombers, J-20's or J-10's. We also haven't added any friction to the equation by having mines being laid in the area, the threat of anti-ship ballistic missiles, hacking or space warfare aimed at taking out communication relays and ISR assets.
1100 anti-ship missiles are streaking toward one of our carriers in this mythical exercise and the heavy hitters haven't even shown up yet.
Do you think our carriers could withstand this attack?
UPDATE:
Because Aussie Digger is being an asshole, let me fast forward this little series. But first let me say that it was suppose to build up to including Xian Bombers, subs, and a mythical regiment of J-20's and J-10's. The whole point of it was to say that instead of building a navy to fight in the littorals the US Navy has a responsibility to continue to build towards winning the blue water fight. In light of that fact which I hoped to illustrate over the course of a few more posts, I was saying that the naval equivalent of land based counter insurgency (littoral warfare) is past its sell by date and by extension the LCS too. Thanks Aussie Digger and Company for ruining what was building to be an enjoyable little exercise. Hope you're happy. 
"Do you think our carriers could withstand this attack?"
ReplyDeleteThey have a snowball's chance in hell.
However, this scenario assumes that the Chinese are willing to expend a pretty good chunk of the cruise missile stocks. Like you say, they play the long game, and while it's great short term, it's going to bite them in the butt down the road, (assuming we're talking about an out-of-the-blue attack). If you want to give the carrier's a better chance of survival then add more CIWS, R2-D2, Rolling Airframe Missile, Sea Sparrow, heck even a Bofors 57mm cannon if possible.
We faced this same scenario in the waters off Okinawa, Japan, Iwo Jima, and the Philippines, with Japanese kamikazes. The solution was to increase CAPs, add more AA guns,and the use of radar pickets (see the USS Laffey). Same thing here, except much faster. Here add CIWS on carriers, develop a arsenal ship with SM missiles or RAMs, and use the LCS as radar pickets.
Either way you will never have total security from swarm attacks, we almost lost the USS Franklin and Bunker Hill to kamikazes, and several others damaged. It is, and always has been merely a question of how many can we take down before they hit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm being an arsehole am I? It's your language and attitude that's the issue here "mate". Not mine. I haven't insulted you once and if you weren't deleting all the posts, everyone else would see that. It was you who asked for our thoughts on this APA inspired rubbish afterall, wasn't it?
DeleteI thought this, "Do you think our carriers could withstand this attack?"
Was a question afterall...
I disagreed with your post that A) The Chinese could get 1100 missiles in the air at once and B) That the USN hasn't planned for such an event, given it's the same scenario AGAIN, that they planned for in Blue Water engagements against the Soviets during the Cold War.
And it's not "1 photo". This APA inspired theme has been posted what, 3 times now? Just so everyone is clear, you didn't post these on your own blog?
1. Could a carrier battlegroup survive a Chinese alpha strike?
2. Carrier navy. Meet your enemy.
3. This thread.
Want to sit around discussing ridiculous scenarios, whilst imagining one side (the stronger one) will have it's hands tied behind it's back and won't fight as it's always done?
Sure. Whatever. Enjoy your ivory tower here "mate"...
thought you were done. carry your ass. oh and the tower ain't ivory ... its camo and its called a hide.
DeleteHaven't left the site yet, but I will after this.
DeleteAs for your "hide", whatever. I hope you enjoy it, because carrying on like this, will see this place become just like one.
A quiet and lonely place.
AD
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEven if the CBG's Aegis, RAM, and CIWS work perfectly and have a 100% success rate, would we have enough ammo/missiles to take out that many missiles?
ReplyDeletethank you Patrick. that's the point. add to it that almost 1/4 of our fleet is about to be comprised of ships that have almost no combat utility and you're getting to my point!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNuclear weapons never enter the equation in these scenarios. The only way I see this happening is if the Chinese drew a line in the sand, and we ignored it. Given the fact that we have backed off our carriers in the past, wouldn't we do so again? Let's say we didn't and their was an attack. Whether we successfully defended it or not, it would likely be nuclear war - am I right?
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should discuss conditions that would lead to such a scenario, rather than the scenario itself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete