Pakistan again test-fires Babur Missile with range 700km

[Dazzler]

Nabil---is the post I replied to by you or Najamkhan.

Stop putting the spin---. None of the items that you talked about would reach the aircraft carrier---it is too well protected by support vessels, aircraft and air sentries---and the aftermath won't be drastic as you would think in case of nuc strike----.



The oceans are the only place left that you may use indescretion to use nuc against the enemy---either through torpedoes---ie---submarine launched----or through aircraft-----aircraft carriers have too much protection surrounding them for the conventional weapons to reach them.

How many 802 /803 a jf 17 can carry---1-----how many missiles do you think you need to launch at that aircraft carrier battle group to get through the perimeter setup to protect it from such attacks------.

Now do I need to teach the THINK TANK that the aircraft carrier does not ride the waves on its own----it has a carrier battle group surrounding it----. A whole flotilla of ships----aircraft----awacs---submarines----.

The first issue with the jf 17 would be to reach within launch distance of the carrier battle group----which will be impossible----then it would have to launch atleast 50 ---802/803 missiles at the carrier group of which. Pak navy won't have 50 jf 17's to spare for a one way trip----they won't even have 25 jf 17's to spare for this trip---because all of them would be taken out by the enemy----either before launch of the missile.

So---for the 25 missiles launched maybe maybe 1 will reach the aircraft carrier----most of the others will be taken out---some will fall short----. But the bottomline is that this scenario won't happen---because paf doesnot have any air superiority fighters to intercept the aircraft carrier groups planes from intercepting the jf17's in the first place.

Don't put your thoughts on the paper because you want to----they are flawed----do some research---read some books on the subject---understand the significance of how the war can be fought with the carrier battle group----.

There is only one way pakistan can reach it----your diesel electric air propulsion submarine, submerged, lying in wait for the carreir battle group launched a nuc tipped cruise missile for an air burst right on top the aircraft carrier. A sudden surprise attack would take out all the communications----destroy smaller ships and make the aircraft carrier impotent----.

Paf cannot reach any aircraft carrier group on their own in numbers.

Hypothetically or realistically? no asset no matter how well protected, is invincible. The aspect of strategic long range weapons has changed the doctrine and tactics as well as allowed more options hence increasing a chance of rendering a AC vulnerable to some extent. I have attended defense conferences where different scenarios are discussed to achieve just that so i know what i am talking about. These strikes are well prepared and all aspects are taken care of. This does not include a single missile or aircraft, rather a bunch. A proper brief of the target(s) is conducted and all possible options are discussed. I do not feel the need of going further but the main target (AC), other ships in battle group, air cover etc are all deeply discussed and solutions to eliminate them are repeatedly checked. And last but not least, your assumption that only JFT will be implied is far from truth as i said plenty of options in such a scenario will applied taking all the aspects and strengths of battle group including AWACS, air cover, destroyers in to equation. Will discuss more in detail.

 

[regular]

Yes! it is true that nothing is invincible. There are limits to the human protections. ACC can be protected very well but are vulnerable to attacks from many angles. Yes this is true that it is not an easy target....

 

[MastanKhan]

Hypothetically or realistically? no asset no matter how well protected, is invincible. The aspect of strategic long range weapons has changed the doctrine and tactics as well as allowed more options hence increasing a chance of rendering a AC vulnerable to some extent. I have attended defense conferences where different scenarios are discussed to achieve just that so i know what i am talking about. These strikes are well prepared and all aspects are taken care of. This does not include a single missile or aircraft, rather a bunch. A proper brief of the target(s) is conducted and all possible options are discussed. I do not feel the need of going further but the main target (AC), other ships in battle group, air cover etc are all deeply discussed and solutions to eliminate them are repeatedly checked. And last but not least, your assumption that only JFT will be implied is far from truth as i said plenty of options in such a scenario will applied taking all the aspects and strengths of battle group including AWACS, air cover, destroyers in to equation. Will discuss more in detail.

Sir,

Aiyain----Baain----Shaain-----keep on trying---.

Whomsoever gave the example of USS stark and cole---that was a bad example---.

DBC gave a good example of explosion on an ACC------.

First of all--we need to see how far the JF17 would have to fly to get to the target---then we have to assess what assets the opponent has in the air to keep an eye on the jf17 and from what distance----thirdly what air superiority fighters does the opponent have to confront the jf17's and at what distance----fourthly----knowing that the jf17's are based on a certain base----would the opponent had taken out the base including its assets before they were launched----.

We need a higher standard of postings by the TT members---it would have been better to discuss the positioning of acc battle groupd, deployment and launching of your assets and how they will get there using what resources----how many missiles will be launched and how many will get throug and what kind of sensors the missiles have that they can capture just the acc----.

I am not talking about single missile scenario----you guys were talking about it----I talked about maybe from 25---50 missiles being launched at the battle group----how would that happen and under what conditions----.

Please don't try to impress by telling us about your attending defence conferences---tell us how it will be done----. Right now the concensus is that the aircraft carrier cannot be targeted just by conventional missiles----.

You ought to have a large number of air assets just to get close-----and be able to suffer major losses just to take out the surface fleet---please discuss in form of real battle scenario. Thank you.

 

[MastanKhan]

funny is the ACC in pacific ocean that PAf cant reach it!!!!!
if its within 1000 km any PAf aircraft and jf-17 can reach it fire 2 atleast (3 possible if sacrifying long range air to air missles). so 15 odd can fire 45 and having a chance to hit atleast 10%.it can give 4-5 hits which are possible to disable the carrier to carry its operation.


p.s
there are photos of jf-17 models showing 2 c-802 missles..just like before it was speculated that jf can carry only two sd-10 that was shown wrong with original photos . i am pretty sure once naval version comes in you would see 2 c-802

Hi,

The question is IFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF they can reach it-----at max range---you will have 1 maybe 2 missiles---so---you have 20 aircraft taking off at one time on a one way trip-----so the opponent is supposedly blind---seemingly it has no assets in the air to keep an eye on these aircraft taking off---what do you think---is it the pakistan millitary general headquarters that can be breached by a few terrorists----.

 

[VCheng]

Even assuming that it is somehow possible, what does attacking a US Carrier Group actually achieve? An open act of war? A repeat of Pearl Harbor, followed by the inevitably vicious US response?

 

[A.Muqeet khan]

well usa was never the opponent it was the india and india alone usa well we cant even think about it and this is a fact whether we deny it or not

 

[LeGenD]

Some basics:

An example:

The Power of the Carrier Strike Group:

Of the world’s great powers the United States is unique in having benefitted from the presence of two oceans between the homeland and foreign threats. Yet, this blessing also places the burden on this country to project its power overseas and to ensure freedom of passage in the global commons. U.S. naval forces are uniquely suited to projecting U.S. diplomatic strength and military power globally. Operating in the freedom of the world’s oceans, naval forces can move where they are needed and remain on station nearly indefinitely. These same forces can project power and influence not only over the immediate sea area around them, but along the sea lines of communication that circle the globe, onshore and into the skies overhead.

The most powerful and capable expression of U.S. naval power is the carrier strike group (CSG). The CSG can project unequalled offensive and defensive power against a wide range of threats ashore, on the seas and in the air. The CSG is also able to exert influence and control over an enormous volume of sea and air space, ensuring the free flow of goods and people across the global commons. As has been demonstrated repeatedly from Haiti to Indonesia, the CSG is also a potent force in the execution of humanitarian assistance/disaster relief operations. A critical aspect of the CSG’s ability to provide unparalleled support in humanitarian crises is its ability to deploy anywhere in the world and operate from international or territorial waters. Another feature of the CSG is its ability to use the broad ocean area to disappear from sight while still performing its assigned missions.

The carrier strike group is also possibly the most complex military organization ever to exist. There is the aircraft carrier (CVN) itself, a 90,000-plus ton nuclear powered goliath with 50 aircraft nominally and a crew of more than 4,000. The CVN is supported by its own fleet of escort ships and submarines able to conduct air, surface and subsurface warfare simultaneously. Of course there is the air wing that deploys with the CVN. The air wing consists of a combination of strike aircraft (currently F/A-18s but soon also F-35s), helicopters, airborne surveillance, and long-range resupply aircraft. Networked together, the combination of ships, submarines and aircraft/helicopters in the CSG can respond to the broadest possible spectrum of missions. The power of the CSG is scalable with the Navy able to deploy as many as nine CSG’s in a single theater given sufficient warning.

The value to the United States of the Navy’s ability to deploy CSGs anywhere in the world’s oceans cannot be underestimated. During Operation Enduring Freedom, the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) was initially deployed to the North Arabian Sea to serve as a platform from which helicopters and Marine Corps units could be inserted into Afghanistan. Subsequently, the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) with an eight ship and submarine task group, followed by the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) with nine other ships and submarines deployed to support operations in Afghanistan. Naval strike aircraft provided near-continuous air support to deployed U.S. forces. No other Navy in the world could have undertaken this mission.

The countermeasures against missile based threats:

Cruise and ballistic missiles are challenges the Navy is preparing to address. Its Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) system is a system-of-systems that will link sensors, aircraft, ships and even land-based air defense missiles into a capability that can neutralize large numbers of targets at long-ranges and all altitudes. When coupled to the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, off board sensors and weapons systems such as Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), NIFC-CA has the capacity to provide area defense against both airborne and ballistic threats.

The cornerstone of the NIFC-CA capability will be the E-2D, an advanced version of the venerable E-2 Hawkeye family of carrier-capable, airborne sensor platforms. The E-2D will not only expand the Navy’s surveillance capability, but also will enable naval and joint forces to conduct effective defenses against advanced cruise missile threats.

The E-2D now in production with a 2015 initial operational capability will have a new solid-state, electronically steered ultra high frequency radar capable of conducting surface as well as airborne surveillance, integration of multiple sensors, an advanced tactical cockpit and software to support theater missile defense engagements. It will have better networking/processing power than earlier models and planning is ongoing to integrate the ability to do Internet-based networking. The E-2D plans to add in-flight refueling, enabling the Hawkeye to stay airborne twice as long as before.
The E-2D can draw threat data from its own sensors and other surveillance and reconnaissance systems, establish engagement priorities and match available weapons to targets. Demonstrating this capability in the Arabian Gulf could be a significant deterrent to Iranian aggression.

The E-2 fleet is evolving from a primary Airborne Early Warning system to airborne command and control, providing information, connecting other platforms and making decisions. With their data links, they will be coordinating various assets from the tactical air controller on the ground while communicating with the Combined Air Operations Center and ships at sea and also reaching back to the United States with direct satellite feeds to the Pentagon.

Main source: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/l...Defense/Enabling_The_Carrier_Strike_Group.pdf

NOTE: Most of these capabilities are already operational, if we get in the depth of US Naval technologies.

 

[unicorn]

Conventional attack will be ineffective, in 1969 nine 500 lb bombs roughly the destructive force of 12 cruise missile accidentally exploded inside the USS Enterprise killing 27 sailors and injuring 300. The carrier resumed its strike mission one hour after that catastrophic event. Attacking a CBG with nuclear weapons isn't easy either the biggest challenge is detecting the ship and tracking it in order to guide a nuclear missile. The act of tracking the ship will expose the enemy radar, in 30 seconds a E/A-18 G will be in the air anticipating an attack, prepared to render the hostile emitter ineffective as soon as a missile launch is detected.

This is the easiest option to get the job done...

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online

 

[VCheng]

This is the easiest option to get the job done...
.................[/SIZE]

Excuse me, but that will merely be the first step of a whole 'nother job, that won't get done until the US has given a fully satisfying response to the perpetrator. Right?

 

[SQ8]

Excuse me, but that will merely be the first step of a whole 'nother job, that won't get done until the US has given a fully satisfying response to the perpetrator. Right?

That incident was apparently "allowed" by the American forces to get congress to "DO more"..
According to most.. the US knew the sub was coming, even the Carriers own sonar had it picked up.
Most Chinese subs have a long way to go when it comes to sound.. they sound like washing machines under water.

However, we have allowed the Chinese to take a look at our agosta's some time before.. what they learnt from that.. they expanded upon.. priority for this new anechoic tiling and construction had been given to their Ballistic missile force. Perhaps that will filter down to the Qings.

The best way to sink a carrier is to break its back... however. for that you need a very large underwater explosion right underneath the keel. The Russians had planned on using a nuclear torpedo to that effect. But the formidable ASW screen close to a CVBG made that next to impossible. So they planned for launching massed cruise attacks, nothing less than 30 missiles in that air, so that at least two or three would get past the SAMs and CIWS.
Not only would this attack be from long range maritime strike (tu-22M2).. and SSGN's.(Oscar class of Kursk accident fame).
Staying out of the CVBG's protective grid and launching a swarm of weapons.

In effect, to kill a carrier.. the Russians had planned a strike force of no less than 5 large bombers, 1 SSGN..and 2 escorting SSN's.

How will Pakistan achieve the same with its limited resources..
The much touted incident of PAF Mirage VPA3's getting a drop on a USS carrier is evidence that given the right sea state, tactics and weather.. a dedicated low level fighter force can penetrate a carrier's fighter screen.
The Russians planned to use supersonic missiles capable of hypersonic speeds, the C-803 is subsonic .. if detected is easy prey for a SAM.. or is it?
3 to 5 meters above sea level, a SAM will have to be extremely accurate and its approach in targeting that missile.
However, being subsonic.. it still is easy prey for CIWS.. unless it takes extreme maneuvers before impact.

In the slight chance that it does manage a hit on the superstructure of the Carrier's bridge, or perhaps a strike into the hangar bay(unlikely).. it may end up disabling flight ops for a certain time.

Again, scenario's can be laid up for the best case for any side but the reality is, best case scenario for the US are far more plentiful and likely.

Ironically, an excellent weapon to disable a US carrier is the Indian Brahmos, albeit much improved with sea skimming ability and evasive maneuvers.. four or so brahmos launched withing 160 km .. there is a fair chance that one will cause damage to the carrier.

 

[VCheng]

.....................................

The best way to sink a (US) carrier is to break its back... .....................................

Okay, let's assume it is done. Now what happens next?

 

[Secur]

Okay, let's assume it is done. Now what happens next?

Nothing happens next ... We are just discussing scenarios to sink Aircraft Carriers ...

 

[maverick1977]

one very common diversion tactic used is to have 3 to 4 squardons of jets flying into the vicinity of a battle group to engage enemy figthers and AAM ships, and another wave of 2 to 3 squardons of anti ship carrying fighters coming in off an opposite direction.... there are way too many tactics available to strike battle groups...

 

[regular]

Hi,

The question is IFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF they can reach it-----at max range---you will have 1 maybe 2 missiles---so---you have 20 aircraft taking off at one time on a one way trip-----so the opponent is supposedly blind---seemingly it has no assets in the air to keep an eye on these aircraft taking off---what do you think---is it the pakistan millitary general headquarters that can be breached by a few terrorists----.

I don't think that PAF even have gutts to attack the aircraft carrier. Upto now they couldn't shoot down a small drone how they gonna attack the biggest and the highest tech system within the US arsenal. We will believe when we will see it. Other than that everything is crap I guess. Right now the big claims to taking down the Aircraft carriers especially by us is mere exaggeration or to fool the public, yeah if we bring China into the equation,Yes! then we can do that

 

[Last Hope]

^^^
Please be formal. We have the ability for drones but it is political mess.
Not the topic.


Whatever we may argue, the result would be N.Capable missiles would be used to kill A/C/C and its support.
Nothing less, nothing more.

Right on target.