Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 2/27/2016 4:41:01 PM   
AdmiralSteve


Posts: 264
Joined: 3/28/2011
From: Red Bluff, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rudd

Say they had a 2000nm radius, and there is no blue land based aircraft support, how big would the strike package have to be to overwhelm a CVBG on the defense, with say half the air wing available on cap and a Tico and 2-3 Burkes with full typical VLS loadouts (these need to be added in CMANO)

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the cost would be crazy.


Indeed is crazy, but I am trying it right now. A full 7th fleet of:

-- A CVN-73
-- 7 AB2s
-- 2 Ticos
-- 1 Seawolf
-- 1 Virginia
-- 4 regiments of Hornets (half-ready)
-- 1 regiment of Growlers (half-ready)
-- Standard naval AEW and ASW packages
-- All default loadouts for ships
-- All Standard CAP for fighters

Versus

-- 48 DF-21D ASBMs (12 TELs)
-- Set Awareness to Omniscient

I am very certain that four salvo of DF-21Ds will not be enough.

I would doubt as well that a few battalions of ASBM's would be all that the PLAN/PLAAF used if they seriously considered taking a CVN out of action. A CVSG with a 2 CG/4 DDG mix will all be targets as it's the cruisers and destroyers that will have the SM-3's to eliminate the inbound ASBM threat. AEW, ECM and SEAD strikes even before launching the DF-21D's is an awful lot of hardware to hide.
I would imagine that a US and Chinese conflict would be weeks in the making. The US, South Korea, Japan, Australia and Russia all have AEW platforms and probably a few of them are up and hot at any one time, let alone the few OTH radars that are in the region as well just on a routine day.

If China were to put a 100 A/C in the air over Taiwan or the South China Sea, their would be so much radiation from Chinese radar and ECM suites that the eggs in my refrigerator in California would be cooked in three minutes.

_____________________________

“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959


(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 31
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 2/27/2016 6:43:16 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1894
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe

If China were to put a 100 A/C in the air over Taiwan or the South China Sea, their would be so much radiation from Chinese radar and ECM suites that the eggs in my refrigerator in California would be cooked in three minutes.

Does that mean ARM will becomes more effective and dangerous than other missiles?

_____________________________


(in reply to AdmiralSteve)
Post #: 32
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/1/2016 11:31:29 PM   
ThornEel

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/23/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aivlis

Please don't use Gravity as an indication for anything to do with orbital mechanics; it's a pretty and enjoyable film but has close to no relation to the real world in that regard.


Indeed, they did ... take liberties with orbital mechanics for film-making's sake - little things like putting Hubble on the same freaking orbital plane as the ISS, or the dreaded "point and burn" many fledgling Kerbal Space Program players learned to unlearn the hard way.
I thought about suggesting to at least play the free version of KSP to get an idea of orbital mechanics and why the X-37 would be unable to reach more than (optimistically) a few satellites before running out of propellant (if using chemical engines) or being a few months late (if using electric drive). After all, KSP probably taught orbital mechanics to more humans that everything else together.

Nevertheless, it shows pretty effectively what a Kessler cascade is, can happen and will do. A few details may be wrong, but the overall picture is correct.
The biggest flaw in their portrayal, in fact, is that debris would actually go so fast they wouldn't be visible, but again, film-making...

So, no way to model the loss of satellite networks on military capabilities in Command?

< Message edited by ThornEel -- 3/1/2016 11:32:27 PM >

(in reply to Aivlis)
Post #: 33
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/2/2016 12:42:05 AM   
Schr75


Posts: 684
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

So, no way to model the loss of satellite networks on military capabilities in Command?


No, but please don´t use KSP as a source of real science.
If you want to learn about orbital mechanics this is where to go:

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/index.html

This is the real space sim.

S

(in reply to ThornEel)
Post #: 34
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/2/2016 3:50:50 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1894
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
So far the solution for satellites and orbital vehicles is treating them as extremely high altitude of 'aerial unit'. Even there is no air, or the characteristics of gravitational orbiting, and treating like a 'nuclear-powered unit' which can turn course and reentering back to atmosphere without the use of fuel.

_____________________________


(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 35
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/5/2016 4:38:08 AM   
AdmiralSteve


Posts: 264
Joined: 3/28/2011
From: Red Bluff, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe

If China were to put a 100 A/C in the air over Taiwan or the South China Sea, their would be so much radiation from Chinese radar and ECM suites that the eggs in my refrigerator in California would be cooked in three minutes.

Does that mean ARM will becomes more effective and dangerous than other missiles?

I think that if China was going to attack a US CSG, SEAD would be likely the first strike. And what good is a SEAD mission without ECM hampering one's early warning capabilities. Just think though if the CSG had 200+ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles that the PLAAF would have to put up a pretty good amount of A/C just to defeat the picket ships around the carrier. With that many A/C needed to attack the group, wouldn't Taiwan, South Korea and Japan detect the attack with their own AEW or surface ship radar let alone the 3 Hawkeye's that are on a carrier air wing?

I just don't see how it could happen on a large scale. Is it possible to "sneak in" a missile traveling at Mach 10?

_____________________________

“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959


(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 36
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/5/2016 5:25:15 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1894
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
I mean if they keep their eyes (radars) on them, wouldn't they just 'stab' them with Anti-Radiation missiles? The more they put them on, the more dangerous themselves are.

Maybe ECM could put the trick, but nobody would disregard the incoming threat to evade or shut the radar down, even if ARM can be jammed.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 3/5/2016 5:27:51 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AdmiralSteve)
Post #: 37
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/5/2016 1:32:34 PM   
AlmightyTallest

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline
Well, for one when your going up against a force of well networked advanced systems, the use of ARM's isn't as threatening as it might first seem.

Each ship can use their radar in an intermittent setting, timing them so when one ship/aircraft/etc. stops emitting to prevent an ARM from hitting it, another ship/plane/etc. turns it's on to keep track of the threats.

Bonus if the arm's are not advanced and decide to maneuver to the new emitter, then back to the original, then to a 3rd one, each time expending fuel and losing the kinetic energy to possibly reach the target, which by the way is probably a maneuvering set of targets geographically spaced just to make it more interesting for the arms.

Don't forget false target emitters, deception repeaters and other decoys as well.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part11.htm


Warning, link below has enough math to kill a man...
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/Navy%20handbook/EW_Radar_Handbook.pdf

http://www.google.com/patents/US6624780

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/slq32/

quote:

The SLQ-32(V) is the principal EW system carried by major US Navy surface ships, with more than 450 systems produced to date. The (V)1 and (V)2 suites are passive, providing early warning, identification and direction finding capability for simultaneous multiple threats. The (V)3 suite provides an additional active response for simultaneous jamming of multiple threats. The (V)4, an expanded version of the (V)3, is used on aircraft carriers. The (V)5, used on destroyers and frigates, integrates a passive (V)2 with an active jammer called "Sidekick." The SLQ-32(V) system has been in operation around the globe since the 1980s, and ongoing efforts to restore and upgrade older systems will extend the life of the SLQ-32(V) well into the 21st century.

The system achieves EW objectives by providing full threat band frequency coverage, instantaneous azimuth coverage, 100 percent probability of intercept and simultaneous response to multiple threats. It can detect aircraft search and target radars well before they detect the ship. The system's rapid response time ensures that jamming protection is enabled to prevent long range targeting of the ship and to deceive missiles launched against the ship. The system has an on-line library of emitter types for rapid identification.

Raytheon recently teamed with Lockheed Martin to compete for the U.S. Navy's Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 3 program. SEWIP Block 3 will upgrade the fleet's capability to electronically attack anti-ship missiles with the AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare system.


< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 3/5/2016 2:10:26 PM >

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 38
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/5/2016 2:54:20 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1894
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
Ooooh, so is just make missiles 'dance', rather than actually spoofing and make it completely blind.

Well, someday we will see the obsolete ARM suddenly do the half loop and fly back toward the launcher. It'll be the most epic countermeasure.

_____________________________


(in reply to AlmightyTallest)
Post #: 39
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/5/2016 6:48:35 PM   
AdmiralSteve


Posts: 264
Joined: 3/28/2011
From: Red Bluff, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I mean if they keep their eyes (radars) on them, wouldn't they just 'stab' them with Anti-Radiation missiles? The more they put them on, the more dangerous themselves are.

Maybe ECM could put the trick, but nobody would disregard the incoming threat to evade or shut the radar down, even if ARM can be jammed.

And that's just the tactic that nobody knows (outside the carrier strike group) for sure. If you're a CSG with a carrier and 7 surface vessels, are you going to have all 7 with active radar or just the 3 Hawkeyes that may or may not be airborne? I would guess that the CSG would be established in such a way to have 1 or 2 CG's or DDG's as radar pickets with the CVN 150-200 miles away and all the other surface vessels set to passive EMCON's. The primary radar would have to be the E-2 Hawkeyes around 150NM from the carrier.
An anti-radiation missile is not a sure thing, just as ECM's may not always defeat an incoming missile. I've tried attacking a modern CSG in Command and I found that their would have to be so many Chinese aircraft airborne at one time to neutralize the radar picket ships and any E-2/E-3 AEW aircraft that someone, somewhere whether its Russian, Japan, South Korea or the US, would have to see the approaching wave.
I personally don't believe that the DF-21d is as much of a threat as it's made out to be in the press. It's not a one and done tool. So much else has to go into an attack before China even launches the ballistic anti-ship missile.

_____________________________

“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959


(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 40
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/6/2016 12:36:12 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe]
Just think though if the CSG had 200+ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles that the PLAAF would have to put up a pretty good amount of A/C just to defeat the picket ships around the carrier.


I think you're thinking in too limited a way. Sure a CSG has lots of missiles and can probably knock down a raid, but in the process they expend missiles which can't be replaced at sea. What about the next one? And the next one? The whole exercise is a numbers game of how many SAMs do I have versus how many anti-ship missiles do you have? How much risk are you willing to accept that after the first raid you'll be able to survive the next one? If you're not confident enough then even after a raid where you knock all the missiles down, you have to withdraw to someplace more safe. The question is not if they will reach that point, but how quickly. Once ships start emptying their magazines of SM-3s and SM-6s, you need to consider withdrawing the carrier or risk taking a hit.

(in reply to AdmiralSteve)
Post #: 41
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/6/2016 6:49:36 PM   
jimcarravall

 

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen


quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe]
Just think though if the CSG had 200+ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles that the PLAAF would have to put up a pretty good amount of A/C just to defeat the picket ships around the carrier.


I think you're thinking in too limited a way. Sure a CSG has lots of missiles and can probably knock down a raid, but in the process they expend missiles which can't be replaced at sea. What about the next one? And the next one? The whole exercise is a numbers game of how many SAMs do I have versus how many anti-ship missiles do you have? How much risk are you willing to accept that after the first raid you'll be able to survive the next one? If you're not confident enough then even after a raid where you knock all the missiles down, you have to withdraw to someplace more safe. The question is not if they will reach that point, but how quickly. Once ships start emptying their magazines of SM-3s and SM-6s, you need to consider withdrawing the carrier or risk taking a hit.


You reflect a perspective of military operations that even professional military commanders ignore.

As a former Army acquisition logistics specialist, I would be a rival of Trump's wealth if I had a dime for every time I heard a professional military acquisition manager (captain through general) pooh pooh the impacts of logistics when it came to realisticly testing the operational suitability of new designs for combat platforms.

The gee whiz of how the design could shoot, scoot and communicate with "the force" always superseded the logistician's "how quickly can it conduct the next fight after its last combat operation?" concern.



_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 42
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carr... - 3/6/2016 7:10:40 PM   
AdmiralSteve


Posts: 264
Joined: 3/28/2011
From: Red Bluff, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen


quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe]
Just think though if the CSG had 200+ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles that the PLAAF would have to put up a pretty good amount of A/C just to defeat the picket ships around the carrier.


I think you're thinking in too limited a way. Sure a CSG has lots of missiles and can probably knock down a raid, but in the process they expend missiles which can't be replaced at sea. What about the next one? And the next one?
That's what I had suggested at my original post. PLAAF would have to put a bunch of SEAD and ECM aircraft just to get the 1st wave rolling which would be a huge blip on somebody's radar screen. And then what? Do you send another wave of SEAD aircraft to finish off the screening vessels or do you fire a salvo of Mach 10 ASBM's? Would the CSG be even within range?
The whole exercise is a numbers game of how many SAMs do I have versus how many anti-ship missiles do you have? How much risk are you willing to accept that after the first raid you'll be able to survive the next one? If you're not confident enough then even after a raid where you knock all the missiles down, you have to withdraw to someplace more safe. The question is not if they will reach that point, but how quickly. Once ships start emptying their magazines of SM-3s and SM-6s, you need to consider withdrawing the carrier or risk taking a hit.
I even question the feasibility of attempting an attack onto a CSG in the first place. I ran a simple 100 aircraft attack onto a CSG with a carrier and 5 cruisers and destroyers and it was difficult enough just to get the anti-radiation missiles on target. I was only able to neutralize 1 vessel and had 4 more to deal with. As for speed, hit them hard and fast I believe was once said by a US Navy Admiral in the Pacific. That would work for China too but again it brings up my original question; would an an attacking force send up that many aircraft at once and expect not to be detected?


_____________________________

“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 43
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148