Chinese carrier weapon

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.

1. For example the old TLAM had a range of 2500 km. It carried submunition warheads, nuclear warheads (wiki says 200 kt), or fragmentation warheads.

2. Airwings can't take off from 4000 m below sea level.

3. If the duel is modern CBG versus modern SSN, I bet my money on the SSN. Even more money I would bet if the sub is a modern SS and the CBG runs into it. Defending a CBG versus a Gotland or 212 trapping the CBG in transit must be a nightmare.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

1. For example the old TLAM had a range of 2500 km. It carried submunition warheads, nuclear warheads (wiki says 200 kt), or fragmentation warheads.

2. Airwings can't take off from 4000 m below sea level.

3. If the duel is modern CBG versus modern SSN, I bet my money on the SSN. Even more money I would bet if the sub is a modern SS and the CBG runs into it. Defending a CBG versus a Gotland or 212 trapping the CBG in transit must be a nightmare.

I take your point about the below sea level launch platform but still consider an airwing capable of carrying a far superior number of weapons and capable of penetrating closer to the target before launch (less chance of intercepting the incoming and putting all your eggs in one basket........one or two subs as opposed to a few dozen aircraft).

How embarrassing if an old Iranian (ex Soviet/Chinese or whatever) gets lucky and takes out your sub.

Better to get in there with stealth equipped assets or fighter and ecm units, take out the radar and fighters in your path, then sit on the first banger like Dr Strangelove

[Letum]

What kind of tactically achievable objectives might there be after the
ICBM/Submarine strategic exchange is fully complete?

I readily confess ignorance on the topic, but I don't see what is left to do
after the destruction of all major cities on both sides and the depletion
of most strategic weapons.

Isn't anything a carrier could do after that just flogging a dead horse?

[Max2147]

Short of nuclear war, the CVBG is still much more useful than the submarine. A submarine can still only control a small bit of water - its sensors can't detect anything too far away. A CVBG can dominate a large swath of ocean, thanks to its long range aircraft and their radars.

[Skybird]

You guys don't get my point. You always depend on the carrier surviving. Which is not too likely in a war against an equally strong and advanced enemy, like Russia has been, and china is becoming. All the things an airwing can do, is just dust and shadows, if the carrier gets taken out. The threat potential and diversity of mission profiles of a carrier airwing is only an undisputed reality during peacetimes, or in wars against inferior enemies for whom carriers are simply out of reach. In a real tough war, however, carriers are primary targets. If the carrier is on the bottom of the sea, all diversity of mission profiles possible for an airwing is just history.

A submarine is superior in remaining undetected, eventually it has a strategic capability, it has the advantage in duelling with a carrier battle group, it is a great intel gathering platform, and it leaves you the option to deny responsibility for a strike you conducted.

I am aware of all the nice things a carrier airwing can do - as long as the carrier is alive. If there would be a hot war and me being your enemy, I would bring all heaven and hell into motion to take out your carriers at the very beginning, if not even before the beginning. and if my submarines can achieve that, it means they are sophisticated enough to duel it out with your subs on equal terms as well.

What I imagine is a submersible carrier full of autonomous intelligent drones that beat me in chess every time I play against them!

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You guys don't get my point. You always depend on the carrier surviving. Which is not too likely in a war against an equally strong and advanced enemy, like Russia has been, and china is becoming. All the things an airwing can do, is just dust and shadows, if the carrier gets taken out. The threat potential and diversity of mission profiles of a carrier airwing is only an undisputed reality during peacetimes, or in wars against inferior enemies for whom carriers are simply out of reach. In a real tough war, however, carriers are primary targets. If the carrier is on the bottom of the sea, all diversity of mission profiles possible for an airwing is just history.

A submarine is superior in remaining undetected, eventually it has a strategic capability, it has the advantage in duelling with a carrier battle group, it is a great intel gathering platform, and it leaves you the option to deny responsibility for a strike you conducted.

I am aware of all the nice things a carrier airwing can do - as long as the carrier is alive. If there would be a hot war and me being your enemy, I would bring all heaven and hell into motion to take out your carriers at the very beginning, if not even before the beginning. and if my submarines can achieve that, it means they are sophisticated enough to duel it out with your subs on equal terms as well.

You forget the ocean is a pretty big place to look. Even the Soviets had trouble tracking them during the height of their power. And in the event of war, both sides space based assets are not untouchable as they once were.

PD

[Aramike]

Clancy's book, Red Storm Rising had a great tactical assessment of carriers in a relatively modern era.

The difference between a CVBG and a submarine is that a CVBG can actually CONTROL a large area of sea AND land, whereas a sub can only control a small area of sea. Sure, that control is negated if the carrier is destroyed, but so goes the fortunes of any weapon in any war. However, carriers are quite heavily protected and somehow my gut feeling is that the capabilities of this Chinese missile are a bit overstated.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Aramike

However, carriers are quite heavily protected and somehow my gut feeling is that the capabilities of this Chinese missile are a bit overstated.

The point is (IMO) they greatly reduce the effectiveness of the CSG without even being fired. Drawing a 2000KM circle around Chinese ASBM sites and saying a carrier can't go there would render the sortie rate of a carrier pretty near useless for fighting a near peer opponent.

The ASBM may be effective, it may not be. But the same can be said of SM-3, and my bet is we aren't going to gamble with a carrier.

PD