China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[Martian2]

In case anyone missed it, here's my blitzkrieg assault on a carrier force. The converse is also true. A defender can use the same strategy and tactics on a future Chinese carrier battle group. The strategy is to overwhelm the limited defense capabilities of a carrier group and to give them little time to react.

"If I were a Chinese general, I believe that I can sink the U.S. Navy if they come within range of my weapons.

I would use a combined attack. All attacks will be coordinated to arrive near-simultaneously at the target. I would designate a salvo of 50 ASBMs (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missiles) per carrier and 10 ASBMs per Aegis destroyer. I would simultaneously send swarms of CJ-10 cruise missiles at the U.S. ships. I would also deploy salvos of Chinese Exocets (i.e. C-802s). On the sea, I would send groups of "Type 022 (Houbei Class) Fast Attack Missile Crafts." Finally, I would also send swarms of attack submarines (i.e. Type 093 Shangs, Yuans, Songs, and Kilos) to fire Yu-6 (i.e. Mark 48-class) torpedoes at the U.S. ships.

If the U.S. Navy can survive a concentrated bombardment from space, air, sea-skimming missiles, and underwater torpedoes then they truly are the best in the world. If not, the U.S. Navy will be at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. If the U.S. wants to bully China, they can expect China to hit the U.S. Navy with everything in the Chinese arsenal. The U.S. has never been tested by a massive combined attack. There is a good chance that the U.S. Navy will not survive."

As soon as they are available, China's Tomahawk-class CJ-10 cruise missiles will be supplemented by stealthy HN-2000 cruise missiles. Notably, the HN-2000 has a "supersonic terminal flight phase" to apply even more pressure on the target carrier group.

http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."

 

[Martian2]

One more thing, as soon as China's UAVs (i.e. unmanned aerial vehicles) and/or stealth UAVs with air-to-surface missiles are ready, I would throw them into the mix as well. This will continue the strategy of creating maximum pressure, complexity, and chaos within a small time-window.

China plans to export Advanced UAV, carrying with air-surface missiles|China Military Power Mashup

"China plans to export Advanced UAV, carrying with air-surface missiles
Posted on 31 January 2010 by admin

Feb.01 (China Military Power Reporting by Johanthan Weng) — Recently, Xi’an Modern Control Technology Institute was successfully passed a design review of missile and parts used by an unmanned reconnaissance and attack aircraft, by the Project Management Department of AVIC. This event tells a truth that the Xi’an Modern Control Technology Institute have made a major breakthrough in the field of Attacking UAV development.

The institute self-financed and carried out three projects development. Especially, the distinguished performance of UAV in counter-terrorism, targeted killings, maintaining border stability has been dig out. At present, the reconnaissance-attack UAV made by this institute has successfully air-launched missile and hit the target for the first time in China. The unmanned surveillance attack aircraft for PLA will be formally engineering projected. The variant type of similar UAV has been signed exportation agreement for expanding overseas market."

 

[Martian2]

Another problem that carrier battle groups have to worry about is submarine-launched cruise missiles. A submarine can "sneak up" and get close to a carrier flotilla and launch its cruise missiles. There would be very little time to react. A simultaneous multi-directional cruise missile attack by many submarines will pose a challenge.

China's Submarine Forces

"The Song-class submarine is expected to be the first Chinese submarine capable of firing a submerged-launch anti-ship cruise missile. ..."

In the following video, we see a picture of a SS N 27 submarine-launched "anti-ship cruise missile."

 

[gambit]

Here we go again......Another 'fanboy' raving and exaggeration of China's military capabilities.

 

[zagahaga]

Here we go again......Another 'fanboy' raving and exaggeration of China's military capabilities.

here we go with an american fanboy..... MY NAVY SOO INVINSABEL... MY AIRFORCE IS SO UNSTOPABLE... MY ARMY IS SO UNBREAKABEL...

 

[Martian2]

Here we go again......Another 'fanboy' raving and exaggeration of China's military capabilities.

The U.S. Naval Institute disagrees with you.

Take China?s ASBM Potential Seriously|Andrew S. Erickson

"Take China’s ASBM Potential Seriously
Journal Articles

Andrew Erickson, “Take China’s ASBM Potential Seriously,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 136, No. 2 (February 2010), p. 8.

If developed and deployed successfully, a Chinese antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) system of systems would be the world’s first capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers that could make defenses against it difficult and/or highly escalatory.

Some assume that because the engineering problem proved unsolvable for the Soviet Union in the 1970s, it must remain unsolvable for China in the 21st century. The Soviets’ failure to solve a similar problem using vacuum tube and early transistor technology illustrates the difficulty of successfully attacking a carrier with a ballistic missile, but is by no means predictive. China enjoys the latecomer’s advantage in employing technology, has mastered ballistic missile technology, and has better satellite capabilities now than the Soviet Union had then. …"

 

[Moorkh]

the scenario does not talk about one critical tactical concern. how does the PLA PLAN and PLAAF bring all these forces into action against the CBG without the CBG being aware of their actions. one of the advantages of the CBG is that it can move. it can theoretically move out of the trap the chinese might be setting up.

it shows that a carrier group can be sunk, presumably the one defending taiwan. this will allow for a window of opportunity in which the chinese forces can conquer taiwan. however it in a way ignores the consequences and a possible retaliation by the US. US has more carrier groups all over the world.

sinking a carrier group is an act of war. US will respond in kind. it will have willing and ready bases in japan and taiwan if taiwan survives. the other CBGs will move in. this is the least response by the US. what will the chinese do then?

the CBG is not enough to defend taiwan. infact if china so chooses, it has the ability to get rid of it and move on towards taiwan. what is defending taiwan is the implication that it is under the US umbrella and acting against taiwan is same as acting against US

 

[applesauce]

the scenario does not talk about one critical tactical concern. how does the PLA PLAN and PLAAF bring all these forces into action against the CBG without the CBG being aware of their actions. one of the advantages of the CBG is that it can move. it can theoretically move out of the trap the chinese might be setting up.

it shows that a carrier group can be sunk, presumably the one defending taiwan. this will allow for a window of opportunity in which the chinese forces can conquer taiwan. however it in a way ignores the consequences and a possible retaliation by the US. US has more carrier groups all over the world.

sinking a carrier group is an act of war. US will respond in kind. it will have willing and ready bases in japan and taiwan if taiwan survives. the other CBGs will move in. this is the least response by the US. what will the chinese do then?

the CBG is not enough to defend taiwan. infact if china so chooses, it has the ability to get rid of it and move on towards taiwan. what is defending taiwan is the implication that it is under the US umbrella and acting against taiwan is same as acting against US

meh all that these weapon do is to create a no go zone around china which is all they need for Taiwan, there are no other possible/plausible war scenarios with USA, so it goes like this, taiwan declares independence, china launches missiles destroying their airfields and navy yards, plan keeps the landing force mostly free from harassment by enemy ship(taiwan ships) the plaaf creates a local air superiority for the landing(easy considering enemy airfield should be destroyed) taiwan is estimated to be taken in under a month(you can look this up), all the while the job of these weapon(anti-carrier) is not to actually sink a carrier but to keep them far away from the fight complicating matters greatly for the USN while the congress debates a month goes by then pla is firmly established, debate dies down end of story(aside from the political firestorm that is surly to follow).

 

[Martian2]

the scenario does not talk about one critical tactical concern. how does the PLA PLAN and PLAAF bring all these forces into action against the CBG without the CBG being aware of their actions. one of the advantages of the CBG is that it can move. it can theoretically move out of the trap the chinese might be setting up.

it shows that a carrier group can be sunk, presumably the one defending taiwan. this will allow for a window of opportunity in which the chinese forces can conquer taiwan. however it in a way ignores the consequences and a possible retaliation by the US. US has more carrier groups all over the world.

sinking a carrier group is an act of war. US will respond in kind. it will have willing and ready bases in japan and taiwan if taiwan survives. the other CBGs will move in. this is the least response by the US. what will the chinese do then?

the CBG is not enough to defend taiwan. infact if china so chooses, it has the ability to get rid of it and move on towards taiwan. what is defending taiwan is the implication that it is under the US umbrella and acting against taiwan is same as acting against US

Every carrier battle group is vulnerable to a concentrated bombardment from ASBMs/space, cruise missiles/air, Chinese "Exocets" C-802s/sea-skimmers, and torpedoes/underwater. If the carrier groups are within 1,000 miles of China's coastline, I believe they can all be sunk.

It is only a question of the extent of Chinese casualties. If the Americans know that you're coming then more Chinese submarines will become casualties. However, I don't think the carrier group will survive.

The bigger worry is that current American thinking is to threaten nuclear retaliation if China sinks an American carrier by conventional means.

Doesn't it seem like common sense that the U.S. won't just sit and watch China sink one U.S. aircraft carrier after another? Do you really believe that the U.S. will be indifferent to China sinking the U.S. Navy and destroying a proud symbol of the United States and American power? Most people would say "of course not."

America will escalate and engage in dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. The smart money is betting that the hyperpower won't go quietly. Americans are very touchy when it comes to China, their only perceived rival. Shatter that American psyche by destroying their aircraft carrier battle groups and you run the risk of all-out (nuclear) war.

These are from the U.S. Naval Institute.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/...p?STORY_ID=1856

"Issue: May 2009 Vol. 135/5/1,275

On the Verge of a Game-Changer
By Andrew S. Erickson and David D. Yang

A Chinese antiship ballistic missile could alter the rules in the Pacific and place U.S. Navy carrier strike groups in jeopardy.

Chinese leaders and strategists have been thinking of using land-based missiles to hit threatening sea targets for more than three decades. Today, the discussion is increasingly widespread, technical, and operationally focused. This suggests the possibility that China may be closer than ever to mastering such a system—with perhaps a strategically publicized test sometime in the future—or even to using it in the event of conflict. Indeed, the mere perception that China might have an antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) capability could be a game-changer, with profound consequences for deterrence, military operations, and the balance of power in the Western Pacific.

While Chinese ASBM capability remains uncertain, relevant U.S. government sources state consistently that Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on a variant of the 1,500 km-plus range DF-21/CSS-5 solid propellant medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). According to the Department of Defense, if supported by "a sophisticated command-and-control system," e.g., accurate real-time target data, from China's growing family of terrestrial and space-based sensors, ASBMs could hold U.S. carrier strike groups at risk in the Western Pacific. Further, China's use of submunitions might render a carrier operationally ineffective without sinking it, thereby achieving its objectives with a (perceived) lower risk of escalation.1
...
Utility and Feasibility

The generalist literature is broadly consistent concerning the operational effects of ASBMs and their potential value for Chinese maritime strategy. ASBMs are promoted as a means to overcome conventional inferiority by exploiting technological asymmetry, deter intervention to give China more maneuvering space, and offer both escalation control and a "trump card" for victory if deterrence fails. Skeptics writing in a China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation journal, however, charge that ASBMs offer limited power-projection capabilities, are highly escalatory if employed, and might trigger nuclear retaliation.5"

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/...p?STORY_ID=2313

"Issue: April 2010 Vol. 136/4/1,286

'Get Off the Fainting Couch'
By Craig Hooper and Christopher Albon

Have fretful descriptions of China's medium-range antiship ballistic missile endangered America's strategic standing in the Pacific Basin? Its time to stop worrying and start managing the Chinese ASBM threat.
...
A year later, in January 2007, Jane's Navy International broached the news that China was focusing on "soft kill" warheads for the DF-21, developing electromagnetic pulse generators and warheads capable of releasing a "cluster of non-explosive flechette penetrators, designed to shower a vessel with high-speed metal. The flechettes would kill unprotected crew and, more importantly, strip the ship of its radar, communications, and other sensor arrays."3
...
Identify Options

By overlooking the potential impact of PGS, naval strategists forfeited an interesting opportunity to engage China on the underlying hazard of nuclear ambiguity, or the employment of known nuclear-strike platforms for the delivery of conventional munitions. That dialogue must begin soon. The U.S. Congress, deeply concerned about the misinterpretation of a conventionally armed ballistic missile launch, has restrained American development of conventional PGS platforms. But a confirmed entry of Chinese ASBMs into the Pacific theater by way of a functional demonstration would put Congress under enormous pressure to fully fund a range of PGS projects.
...
Precise, conventionally armed ballistic missiles are poised to become important components of the global arsenal. They are very dangerous. As no-notice, first-strike enabling weapons, these missiles raise the specter of a disproportionate nuclear response or an unwarranted nuclear retaliation from an untargeted third party. Responsible countries of the Pacific Basin have an opportunity to begin discussing these weapons before they arrive and destabilize the region. If ASBM fear-mongering leads to a regional effort to slow the proliferation of conventional ballistic missiles in the Pacific, then all the embarrassing hand-wringing will have been worthwhile."

 

[Moorkh]

^^^ so u support my POV ??

 

[Martian2]

^^^ so u support my POV ??

Not quite. Looking objectively at the advanced weapons in China's arsenal today, I believe China can sink all U.S. carrier battle groups that are within range of China's ASBMs, cruise missiles, Chinese C-802 "Exocets," and torpedoes. By using large numbers near-simultaneously and in combination, I don't see how any large naval surface ship can survive that kind of concentrated bombardment.

Unfortunately, I don't believe for a second that the U.S. will keep the conflict to a conventional war. The U.S. is the current champion and China is the contender. The U.S. will fight dirty to keep China in her place. We have previously seen the U.S. become bogged down with China in a conventional conflict and resort to nuclear threats.

The bottom line is that China can most likely sink U.S. carriers. However, the ASBM weapon and combined conventional lightning attack cannot be used. We all know the U.S. is a sore loser and will go nuclear. Final verdict: China's ASBM is a technological marvel, but it can't be used.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/chi...lear/index.html

"History

China's efforts to develop a nuclear weapons program came in response to nuclear threats from the United States. In July 1950, at the very beginning of the Korean War, U.S. President Harry Truman ordered ten nuclear-configured B-29s to the Pacific, and "warned China that the U.S. would take 'whatever steps are necessary' to stop Chinese intervention and that the use of nuclear weapons 'had been under active consideration.'" In 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight Eisenhower publicly hinted that he would authorize the use of nuclear weapons against China if the Korean War armistice talks continued to stagnate. In 1954, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, General Curtis LeMay, voiced his support for the use of nuclear weapons if China resumed fighting in Korea. LeMay stated, "There are no suitable strategic air targets in Korea. However, I would drop a few bombs in proper places like China, Manchuria and Southeastern Russia. In those 'poker games,' such as Korea and Indo-China, we... have never raised the ante—we have always just called the bet. We ought to try raising sometime." Not long after, in January 1955, U.S. Navy Admiral Arthur Radford also publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons if China invaded South Korea.

These threats prompted the Chinese to begin developing nuclear weapons in the winter of 1954. The Third Ministry of Machinery Building (renamed the Second Ministry of Machinery Building in 1957 and then in 1982, the Ministry of Nuclear Industry) was then established in 1956. With Soviet assistance, nuclear research began at the Institute of Physics and Atomic Energy in Beijing, and a gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant in Lanzhou was constructed to produce weapons-grade uranium. On 15 October 1957, the U.S.S.R. agreed to provide China with a sample atomic bomb and manufacturing data. From 1955 to 1959, approximately 260 Chinese nuclear scientists and engineers went to the Soviet Union, while roughly the same number of Soviet nuclear experts traveled to China to work in its nuclear industry. However, by 1959 the rift between the Soviet Union and China had become so great that one year later in 1960 the Soviet Union discontinued all assistance to China. After 1960, China was forced to go it alone.

China successfully tested its first atomic bomb on 16 October 1964—with highly enriched uranium produced at the Lanzhou facility—and just 32 months later on 17 June 1967, China tested its first thermonuclear device. This achievement is remarkable in that the timespan between the two events is substantially less than the other nuclear powers. By way of comparison, 86 months passed between the United States' first atomic test and its first hydrogen bomb test; for the U.S.S.R., it was 75 months; for the U.K., 66 months; and for France, 105 months."

http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml

"Korean War FAQ

Copyright© , 1998, All rights reserved.

31. What did Mao say about US after the Korean war?

"American imperialists are very arrogant, they are very unreasonable whenever they can get away with it, if they became a little bit reasonable, it was because they had no other choice."

32. Did US consider the use the A-Bomb in Korea?

US generals actively considered the use of Atomic Bombs from the very beginning, even before China intervened. US presidents considered the use of the A-Bombs after PVA entered.

[From Blair]

On June 1950, Eisenhower met with Collins, Haislip, Ridgway, Ike suggested use of two atomic bombs in the Korea area.

In July 1950, MacArthur suggested plan to use atomic bombs to 'isolate the battle fields".

[From Hastings]

On November 30 1950, President Truman said in a press conference: "There had always been active consideration of its[Atomic Bomb's] use...".

On December 24 1950, MacArthur submitted a list of 'retaliation targets' in China and North Korea, requiring 26 atomic bombs.

In January 1953, US tested its first tactical nuclear weapon, and the JCS considered its use "against military targets affecting operations in Korea."

In February 1953, in a NSC meeting, President Eisenhower suggested the Kaesong area of North Korea as an appropriate demonstration ground for a tactical nuclear bomb--it "provided a good target for this type of weapon".

On May 19 1953, the Joint Chiefs recommended direct air and naval operations against China, including the use of nuclear weapons. The National Security Council endorsed the JCS recommendation the next day.

Dulles, the Secretary of State was visiting India and told Nehru to deliver a message to Zhou Enlai: if peace was not speedily attained, the United States would begin to bomb north of Yalu, and US had recently tested atomic shells.

33. As a side question, did US threaten China with nukes after the Korean war?

Yes.

US threatened China with nuclear weapons again in 1959.
From recently declassified documents, President Kennedy considered using nukes to bomb Chinese nuclear facilities in early 1960s , when China was on the verge of exploding its own bomb, but JFK was assassinated and the plan was dropped by President Johnson.

Facing nuclear threat, Chairman Mao said:"we need to have some atomic bombs too". In 1964, China exploded its first A-Bomb, 30 months later, in 1967, it exploded its first H-Bomb, since then, China has developed a variety of strategic and tactical weapons, China also produced missiles of various ranges, initially targeting US bases at Japan and Philippines, and eventually the North America continent. Mao also said:"We must have nuclear submarines even if this would take us ten thousand years". China tested its nuclear subs in early 1970s and tested SLBMs later. The exact size of PLA nuclear stockpile is unknown, but reasonable estimate put it in the range of 2000-4000 warheads.

In March 1996, PLA conducted an exercise in the Taiwan Straits, President Clinton sent two carriers to the straits, PLA responded by dispatching its nuclear attack submarines and the US fleet stayed 300 nautical miles off Taiwan, in the meantime, PLA SAF (Secondary Artillery Force) conducted exercise to retaliate against enemy strategic strikes, PLA Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. Xiong Guangkai reportedly hinted that US cares more about LA than Taiwan.

34. How many civilians were killed by US forces in Korea?

About 3 million. (To be detailed)

35. What was the lesson China learned from the Korean war?

Chinese learned that united as a nation, they can defeat any enemy.

36. What is the future outlook of Sino-US relations?

China and US historically had fewer and less severe conflicts during the humiliating 100 year Chinese history since the Opium war. Chinese and Americans need not and should not be enemies, they should cooperate with each other to build a world of peace and prosperity."

 

[Donatello]

Does it matter?

I mean, the rate at which Chinese firms are developing their own weapons, in this decade, we will see their firepower increase no matter what. They may not have good anti-ship missiles today, but sooner or later they will have them. Just a matter of time

 

[KS]

Definitely China has the capability to sink - but only the first CBG because it has the weapons nd more importantly the element of surprise.
But once that is done then China will be sunk...make no mistake abt it..because it is the stated policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland nd do u think US will have any qualms at all in launching a massive retaliatory on PRC..?

 

[Sanchez]

Before China shot satellite or intercepted exoatmospheric missile who expected that? Anti-ship BMs are already inducted in a few units of PLA after more than 20 years R&D. They will fully function when Chinese Beidou navigation system is completely set in place. This tech is actually not very difficult for US to develop and it could be the reason why many in the US believe it.

The art of this weapon is that it only needs to drill holes on the carrier's deck, instead of sinking it.

 

[Martian2]

Definitely China has the capability to sink - but only the first CBG because it has the weapons nd more importantly the element of surprise.
But once that is done then China will be sunk...make no mistake abt it..because it is the stated policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland nd do u think US will have any qualms at all in launching a massive retaliatory on PRC..?

Can you provide a link to an U.S. government website that states the "policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland"? I would like to read the details. Thank you.