Are Aircraft Carrier any use against against a military like CHINA or RUSSIA ?

[Syed Asif Bukhari]

I wouldn't write the aircraft carrier's obituary just yet. Yes, something that falls on you out of the sky at Mach 10 is pretty damn tough to dodge or shoot down. But targeting systems would be its vulnerability.

The DF-21D appears to be guided by over-the-horizon radars which bounce radar pulses off the ionosphere and back down to Earth to extend their range. Those radars would be vulnerable to electronic countermeasures, chaff, and to HARM missiles and other ordnance. The other major source of guidance would be Chinese spy satellites, but those can be shot down with RIM-161 missiles, and they can't see through cloud cover, allowing the carriers to dart into range under cloud cover to launch their strikes, then withdraw before the skies clear. Smoke screens could also be developed to hide the carriers from satellites. The signals to the DF-21D's maneuverable reentry vehicle could also be spoofed.

So far, it appears the DF-21D has only been tested against a carrier-flight-deck-sized target in the desert. It has not been tested against a ship at sea maneuvering at 30 knots doing this:

You need a pretty damn small CEP to hit a target that's doing that; it has yet to be proven that the DF-21D is up to the task in the face of full-blast ECM, chaff, and other deception measures.

The DF-21D is the greatest threat to U.S. carriers I've yet seen. We would be foolish to take it lightly. But we shouldn't assume it's unbeatable.
Written Nov 24 • View Upvotes

 

[Established_1965]

I don't think carriers travel alone :-/ (especially the US Navy carriers).

 

[flamer84]

No they are not.Americans build them just for fun and because they like to waste hundreds of billions of dollars because,as Chinese/Russian netizens constantly tell us ,Americans are dumb and weaklings with puny ,ineffective weapons against sooper dooper Chinese/Russian missiles.The US is the premiere superpower which has won two world wars,the Cold War and has a choke hold on the world economy with military bases all over the globe just out of sheer luck......They are so useless that the Soviets and the Chinese struggled to build ones but when faced with the difficult task of catapult technology and other niceties that they couldn't grasp they "decided" that they are useless.Just like me deciding that it's useless to become a billionaire.

 

[James David]

No they are not.Americans build them just for fun and because they like to waste hundreds of billions of dollars because,as Chinese/Russian netizens constantly tell us ,Americans are dumb and weaklings with puny ,ineffective weapons against sooper dooper Chinese/Russian missiles.The US is the premiere superpower which has won two world wars,the Cold War and has a choke hold on the world economy with military bases all over the globe just out of sheer luck......They are so useless that the Soviets and the Chinese struggled to build ones but when faced with the difficult task of catapult technology and other niceties that they couldn't grasp they "decided" that they are useless.Just like me deciding that it's useless to become a billionaire.

You said it all @flamer84 !!!

 

[asad71]

Carriers always operate in Carrier Groups. Composition would depend on whether it is Carrier Strike Group or a Carrier Battle Group. Normally when we talk of a carrier, we assume the integral elements are inclusive.

 

[Dash]

Carriers always operate in Carrier Groups. Composition would depend on whether it is Carrier Strike Group or a Carrier Battle Group. Normally when we talk of a carrier, we assume the integral elements are inclusive.

What's the difference between the carrier strike group and a battle group? And how a DF 21 will know which group it is and then decides to descend on the Carrier?

 

[risingsinga]

No they are not.Americans build them just for fun and because they like to waste hundreds of billions of dollars because,as Chinese/Russian netizens constantly tell us ,Americans are dumb and weaklings with puny ,ineffective weapons against sooper dooper Chinese/Russian missiles.The US is the premiere superpower which has won two world wars,the Cold War and has a choke hold on the world economy with military bases all over the globe just out of sheer luck......They are so useless that the Soviets and the Chinese struggled to build ones but when faced with the difficult task of catapult technology and other niceties that they couldn't grasp they "decided" that they are useless.Just like me deciding that it's useless to become a billionaire.

As per my limited knowledge, Aircraft carriers were developed much before these missile systems with multiple sophisticated radars and highly developed navigation and guidance. If a ship is moving at 30 kts and the missile is launched from 1000 km total distance, it will take less than 5 min to reach while the ship, and the ship will have moved only by 4.5 km at full throttle which I guess the people who can design a mach 10 missile would have taken in account. But of course both sides are improving and measures vs counter-measures in an ending race.

 

[asad71]

What's the difference between the carrier strike group and a battle group? And how a DF 21 will know which group it is and then decides to descend on the Carrier?

There are several versions of the Dong-Feng-21. The strategic op commander handling this will decide on the target and feed appropriate readings into it. I recommend you google for exhaustive info on both carrier groups and the DF-21.

 

[Providence]

No they are not.Americans build them just for fun and because they like to waste hundreds of billions of dollars because,as Chinese/Russian netizens constantly tell us ,Americans are dumb and weaklings with puny ,ineffective weapons against sooper dooper Chinese/Russian missiles.The US is the premiere superpower which has won two world wars,the Cold War and has a choke hold on the world economy with military bases all over the globe just out of sheer luck......They are so useless that the Soviets and the Chinese struggled to build ones but when faced with the difficult task of catapult technology and other niceties that they couldn't grasp they "decided" that they are useless.Just like me deciding that it's useless to become a billionaire.

Well the sarcasm is almost palpable

 

[UKBengali]

No they are not.Americans build them just for fun and because they like to waste hundreds of billions of dollars because,as Chinese/Russian netizens constantly tell us ,Americans are dumb and weaklings with puny ,ineffective weapons against sooper dooper Chinese/Russian missiles.The US is the premiere superpower which has won two world wars,the Cold War and has a choke hold on the world economy with military bases all over the globe just out of sheer luck......They are so useless that the Soviets and the Chinese struggled to build ones but when faced with the difficult task of catapult technology and other niceties that they couldn't grasp they "decided" that they are useless.Just like me deciding that it's useless to become a billionaire.

Actually the Soviets were 40% complete into building a nuclear super-carrier as large and capable as the US ones when the USSR disintegrated in 1991.

As another poster mentioned, the carriers were designed before the advent of modern sensor systems that could both track and manoeuvre in order hit these relatively large targets in the open Ocean.

When many dozens of manoeuvrable ballistic missiles, when combined with salvos of distraction cruise missiles and decoys, are launched at one carrier group, then the carrier itself would be under real threat of being severely damaged if not sunk outright.

 

[KAL-EL]

No they are not.Americans build them just for fun and because they like to waste hundreds of billions of dollars because,as Chinese/Russian netizens constantly tell us ,Americans are dumb and weaklings with puny ,ineffective weapons against sooper dooper Chinese/Russian missiles.The US is the premiere superpower which has won two world wars,the Cold War and has a choke hold on the world economy with military bases all over the globe just out of sheer luck......They are so useless that the Soviets and the Chinese struggled to build ones but when faced with the difficult task of catapult technology and other niceties that they couldn't grasp they "decided" that they are useless.Just like me deciding that it's useless to become a billionaire.

I've actually seen some members here in the past bash American carriers, and then in their next breath, heap lavish praise on any future built Chinese carrier like they are going to be the best thing since sliced bread.

As if only American carriers can be targeted

 

[C130]

I'd trade each of our carriers for 4 next gen SSBN each with 32 Trident D5 missiles, and let Russia and China police the world with their own future aircraft carriers.

or next gen SSGN with 224 Tomahawks

 

[Penguin]

No they are not.Americans build them just for fun and because they like to waste hundreds of billions of dollars because,as Chinese/Russian netizens constantly tell us ,Americans are dumb and weaklings with puny ,ineffective weapons against sooper dooper Chinese/Russian missiles.The US is the premiere superpower which has won two world wars,the Cold War and has a choke hold on the world economy with military bases all over the globe just out of sheer luck......They are so useless that the Soviets and the Chinese struggled to build ones but when faced with the difficult task of catapult technology and other niceties that they couldn't grasp they "decided" that they are useless.Just like me deciding that it's useless to become a billionaire.

It's all just pork-barrel spending!

Carriers always operate in Carrier Groups. Composition would depend on whether it is Carrier Strike Group or a Carrier Battle Group. Normally when we talk of a carrier, we assume the integral elements are inclusive.

You can also rest assured that if the kaka hits the ventilator for real, you're talking multiple carrier groups. Besides, even if they use for striking on land were limited, they still are vital for control at sea, denying the other parties options. Not to mention the investments they trigger with opponents to lessen their vulnerabilities and devise what to strike back at carriers: that's money not spent on other things.

As if only American carriers can be targeted

True, but since you run out of targets far quicker then, it may not be worth the investment (in similar means of destruction, I mean).

 

[gambit]

What's the difference between the carrier strike group and a battle group? And how a DF 21 will know which group it is and then decides to descend on the Carrier?

The US Navy does not have a carrier strike group and a carrier battle group. We redesignated all carrier fleets to 'strike' back in 2004. The difference is not merely labeling but includes battle doctrines, administration, and command structures.

WW II was the first time naval fleets fought each other without seeing each other -- thanks to airpower, specifically naval airpower. The label 'battle' was used to signify fleet vs fleet actions, essentially, large formations of ships uses naval air arms to fight each other. Under this concept of naval warfare, there are associated battle doctrines, administration, and command structures.

But given the expense of building and maintaining a carrier fleet, not to mention having a national strategy to justify building such fleets, WW II could be the last time fleets will fight each other at all. At the end of WW II, as far as naval fleets goes, as in a navy capable of supporting a national strategy, the US Navy was the only one capable of supporting a national strategy, as in power projection and protection of overseas national interests. Yes, other powers do have navies, but they were so weak that they were little more than coast guard entities. The 1942 Battle of Midway was the last time aircraft carriers fought each other.

The Cold War did not fared much better for the US Navy. Most operational battle plans involved against land more than against other navies. The only serious threat to the US Navy was the Soviet submarine fleet but subs cannot hunt because they are not fast enough to shadow a destroyer, let alone to chase a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier. A submarine is an 'ambush predator', meaning a sub must preposition itself in as favorable position as possible ahead of its target before launching a strike. A carrier fleet have its own anti-submarine warfare unit and its own escort submarine to make life difficult for any enemy sub.

So after Desert Storm demanded and proved that the US Navy must be flexible to support land based war interests, and the Soviet Union collapsed, the US Navy decided there must be high level changes to how our carrier fleets are used, hence the label change to 'strike' to denote increased support to the Army in its land based strategies and tactics. The relabeling and command structure realignment means the local Navy commander would be more responsive to immediate combat situations as planned by the local overall theater commander, which pretty much mean the Army general.

Hope this cleared up any confusion.

 

[Spectre]

I do have a question though as to it's place in the force demonstration hierarchy. We all know they that any direct conflict b.w Russia, China and US would involve heightened risk of nuclear exchange and which is the precisely the reason that since WW2 while there have been multiple skirmishes by way of proxies - each party has time and again stepped back from the brink.

So while AC might be great for strategic purposes like force projection, controlling or denying SLOC, bombing far off smaller countries with minimal logistics and can be considered as extension of deterrent measures - they are unlikely to see any real action which might leave them vulnerable.