It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PLAN 2005

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
Gentlemen you are welcome to you delusions of grandure...but I suggest you start to be more realistic about power projection and risks involved. The most resent example of how easy it is to over come USN carrier defence was high lighted in that Millinium challenge back in 2002.General Ripper lead the red forces and sank the carrier with unconventional tactics. You can read more here but there were numerous articles in the past.

www.rense.com...


This may be true, but I have one big rule. NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING ON RENSE!




posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
gentlewomen this is the epitome of grandiose delusion is the para below from the article link given above..


Astutely and very covertly, Van Riper armed his civilian marine craft and deployed them near the US fleet, which never expected an attack from small pleasure boats. Faced with a blunt US ultimatum to surrender, Force Red suddenly went on the offensive: and achieved complete tactical surprise. Force Red's prop-driven aircraft suddenly were swarming around the US warships, making Kamikaze dives. Some of the pleasure boats made suicide attacks. Others fired Silkworm cruise missiles from close range, and sunk a carrier, the largest ship in the US fleet, along with two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines. The sudden strike was reminiscent of the Al Qaeda sneak attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Yet, the Navy was unprepared. When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.


1. No carrier fleet (don't know abt USN) will ignore ANY kind of vessel deployed within its awareness field.. ESPECIALLY not when it is deployed in a war-like situation...lol..cruise boats.. prop driven aircraft..sure the carrier would just allow such vessels to mingle with the fleet..
I don't know about the USN but atleast for IN carriers the awareness/strike zone extends to 1000km while the clean zone extends to 200-250km..
The clean zone is devoid of ANY unauthorised activity..
And I'm sure, wartime radii are extended to 300km..(to incorporate firing ranges of anti-ship missiles).
e
2. Abt loading cruise boats with cruise missles..I'd like to see a schematic/blueprint of that!!..The missiles would have to be launched from the hull.. any surface structure would give it all away..
And launching CRUISE MISSILES from the hull of a CRUISE BOAT is well an engg. feat in its own.
The size of those silkworm cruise missiles and those cruise boats would be nice to know..
Again just a single or couple of cruise missiles will not sink a carrier.. only incapacitate it...
You need to destroy at least 40% of all buoyancy devices to overwhelm the anit-sink measures/drills/procedures in place..


What is this absence of common sense prevalent on ATS nowadays??
tsk tsk..


[edit on 18-4-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
psteel it helps to think outside the box but some of the things you'r suggesting are jut not going to happen. And No one is saying that a carrier battle group is invincible, it just that its very hard to defeat one, let alone two.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
We could go round and round countering each other's moves but the simple fact is you are not going to get close to a carrier in blue water, or in port for that matter.

We pulled in to Boston for Patriot Days several years ago (before 9/11, before the Cole, before the Khobar Towers bombing even). It was a big deal to have a Navy ship for Patriot days. There were fireboats spraying water into the air on either side of us. There were TONS of small boats in the harbor and as people tried to get up close to us in thier boats they were warned off by us and by the Coast Guard. As I said, this was before 9/11 and the Cole, and pulling into an American port for an American celebration.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
We could go round and round countering each other's moves but the simple fact is you are not going to get close to a carrier in blue water, or in port for that matter.

We pulled in to Boston for Patriot Days several years ago (before 9/11, before the Cole, before the Khobar Towers bombing even). It was a big deal to have a Navy ship for Patriot days. There were fireboats spraying water into the air on either side of us. There were TONS of small boats in the harbor and as people tried to get up close to us in thier boats they were warned off by us and by the Coast Guard. As I said, this was before 9/11 and the Cole, and pulling into an American port for an American celebration.



There was a point when USA analysis was alot more realistic and sober in its assessments. It seems to have fallen off the deep end wrapping it's self in the flag, of late. Needless to say this has lead to some disasterous mistakes. I can see by this thread that trend will continue at high speed.
Besides exploring the weakness further might be considered 'aiding and abetting' . It might be better to let you bury your head in the sand


Good luck, you sure are going to need it



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
psteel WTF are you talking about? Has an American carrier been sunk by enemy action since the end of WWII
60 without one loss and all of a sudden we need help? You should really stop daydreaming because farmers in banana boats are getting no where near a carrier.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
psteel WTF are you talking about? Has an American carrier been sunk by enemy action since the end of WWII
60 without one loss and all of a sudden we need help? You should really stop daydreaming because farmers in banana boats are getting no where near a carrier.


Okay, if there is anything I'm gonna call stupid, it's that comment you made above. There are no such things as banana boats (boats made of bananas wouldn't be good boats). Even if they did exist, I doubt they would be capable of going onto the high seas.

You're the one who needs to stop daydreaming because China doesn't use farmers in banana boats for naval warfare. Nor would they be stupid enough to. That's like saying an American SUV can take on a T-72.

See why everyone "hates on you?"


[edit on 20-4-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Hehe..
I'm sure he mant "banana boats" as a figure of speech..
Or maybe as a pun..
Boats from the PRC which is "banana republic"..??



[edit on 20-4-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Hehe..
I'm sure he mant "banana boats" as a figure of speech..
Or maybe as a pun..
Boats from the PRC which is "banana republic"..??



[edit on 20-4-2005 by Daedalus3]


Still a real stupid way to get his point across. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should legitimize himself. By making stupid comments aimed at only finding ways to insult somebody or a country is only degrading to himself.


Bananas are good, BTW. LOL



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by WestPoint23
psteel WTF are you talking about? Has an American carrier been sunk by enemy action since the end of WWII
60 without one loss and all of a sudden we need help? You should really stop daydreaming because farmers in banana boats are getting no where near a carrier.


Okay, if there is anything I'm gonna call stupid, it's that comment you made above. There are no such things as banana boats (boats made of bananas wouldn't be good boats). Even if they did exist, I doubt they would be capable of going onto the high seas.

You're the one who needs to stop daydreaming because China doesn't use farmers in banana boats for naval warfare. Nor would they be stupid enough to. That's like saying an American SUV can take on a T-72.

See why everyone "hates on you?"



Gawd, you seem to lack the brain power to grasp the obvious - ever heard of sarcasm lol.
And you have written some stupid stuff in the past, I hardly think you should be the one critisizing.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by WestPoint23
psteel WTF are you talking about? Has an American carrier been sunk by enemy action since the end of WWII
60 without one loss and all of a sudden we need help? You should really stop daydreaming because farmers in banana boats are getting no where near a carrier.


Okay, if there is anything I'm gonna call stupid, it's that comment you made above. There are no such things as banana boats (boats made of bananas wouldn't be good boats). Even if they did exist, I doubt they would be capable of going onto the high seas.

You're the one who needs to stop daydreaming because China doesn't use farmers in banana boats for naval warfare. Nor would they be stupid enough to. That's like saying an American SUV can take on a T-72.

See why everyone "hates on you?"



Gawd, you seem to lack the brain power to grasp the obvious - ever heard of sarcasm lol.
And you have written some stupid stuff in the past, I hardly think you should be the one critisizing.


i think westpoint23 was trying to say that if a american carrier was in a chinese habour (very unlikey) the Security around the boat would be very tight and a chinese boat couldn't get near it.

rogue1 stfu. what stupid things has he written? any quotes. any information you post has no back up



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Why the heck would they sent farmers in banana boats against carriers. Maybe some third world country would, but the PLA possesses something called the anti-ship missile
. It is capable of flying many hundreds of km autonomously towards an enemy ship then blow itself up.

On a more serious note, if the PLA is really going to go up against a US CVBG, they would try overwhelming its Aegis systems with a large barrage of anti-ship missiles and also some of those J-5-turned-suicide-UAVs.

Maybe send a whole squadron of JH-7s and Su-30MK2s. The J-5-turned-suicide-UAVs will first move in to distract fighters flying CAP. The Su-30 MK2s will take on the fighters. At the same time, the JH-7s can launch their YJ-82 missiles or maybe even YJ-12 missiles (if they are developed by that time). The CVBG will be forced to engage the incoming anti ship missiles, but at the same time, the Su-30MK2s will launch their Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles, so the CVBG will be faced with a difficult choice: to continue engaging the YJ-82s and get the radar blown by the very fast Kh-31Ps, or turn off their radars to spoof the Kh-31Ps but allow the slower YJ-82s continue approaching until they're dangerously close, and then engage (by then it would be difficult). Or they can engage the Kh-31Ps if they detect them, which would also be very difficult. Any surviving J-5-turned-suicide-UAVs also carry out their suicide attacks.

Hell, there are coutless tactics the PLAN or PLAAF can use. Why in the world would they resort to using farmers in bananna boats when they got all those advanced weapons at their disposal. It doesn't take a general to think of something smarter.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Actually YJ-12 is already developed but its not in mass production because only two ships are supposed to have it, currently. The 170 and 171 are supposed to have YJ-12s.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Those Su-30Mk2s and J-(?) have a refueling non refueling range of how much??
Also we must consider that those Js esp are being loaded with heavy anti-ship missiles so that'll reduce their range to much lesser..

Still the point being made here is no vague scenarios as mentioned in that rense article should be considered..
I found that passage to be riddled with inconsistencies and engg. impossibilities

An aerial attack on a carrier, a swarm type thing as mentioned by taishyou, may work if co-od properly and esp if the attack plan is kept flexible (no fixed orders, so tactics maybe changed based on onsite battle conditions).
Fixed tactics on such daring missions tend to not go according to plan and if there's no central co-od party then the pilots may go into disarray.
This requires the aerial attack force to have continuous comm either with one or more tactical ground stations and/or an airborne AWACS platform.
The problem with this is that the USN may intercept these comms before hand thus the PLAAF/PLANAF losing its surprise edge..
Summary: Very tricky to have a flexible attack strat and keep it secret at the same time..

Nevertheless even if this works, I can't imagine more than half dozen jets (the Js and not the Su30s) getting into range to take a shot at the carrier..
Which means sinking it will again be extremely difficult..
Incapacitating the deck and or the propulsion may be achievable.. but sinking a carrier is still IMHO v.v. difficult



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
Actually YJ-12 is already developed but its not in mass production because only two ships are supposed to have it, currently. The 170 and 171 are supposed to have YJ-12s.


I think taishyou is talking about the air launched versions..
A seaborne attack on a carrier would be suicide..
Are the air-launched versions ready?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
of km autonomously towards an enemy ship then blow itself up.

On a more serious note, if the PLA is really going to go up against a US CVBG, they would try overwhelming its Aegis systems with a large barrage of anti-ship missiles and also some of those J-5-turned-suicide-UAVs.

Maybe send a whole squadron of JH-7s and Su-30MK2s. The J-5-turned-suicide-UAVs will first move in to distract fighters flying CAP. The Su-30 MK2s will take on the fighters. At the same time, the JH-7s can launch their YJ-82 missiles or maybe even YJ-12 missiles (if they are developed by that time). The CVBG will be forced to engage the incoming anti ship missiles, but at the same time, the Su-30MK2s will launch their Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles, so the CVBG will be faced with a difficult choice: to continue engaging the YJ-82s and get the radar blown by the very fast Kh-31Ps, or turn off their radars to spoof the Kh-31Ps but allow the slower YJ-82s continue approaching until they're dangerously close, and then engage (by then it would be difficult). Or they can engage the Kh-31Ps if they detect them, which would also be very difficult. Any surviving J-5-turned-suicide-UAVs also carry out their suicide attacks.


Well this all supposes that these planes can even get within range of a carrier. Let's see, there would be what 4 fighter wings and hundreds of SM-2/3 SAM's on the carrier escorts. These attacking planes and UAV's would be engaged hundreds of km from the carrier. The Chinese would lose far too many aircraft to make it worth their while and even then they wouldn't be guaranteed of causing significant damage to the carrier itself.

The US counterattack would be interesting possibly an immediate wave of Tomahawks and Slammers to hit the airbases where the surviving planes may try and land



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
One other thing to keep in mind is that just because an aircraft may get in rage to launch a missile against a carrier doesn't mean its going to hit it. Read up on the anti-missile systems protecting a carrier and you’ll see what I mean.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Read up on the anti-missile systems protecting a carrier and you’ll see what I mean.

Which is exactly why I added the Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles.

Anyway, my point is just that yes the PLA does have weapons and there are smarter tactics they can use with those weapons than sending suicide bananna boat farmers. My example of such a strategy is just a basic example. I'm sure the PLA generals can come up with much craftier tactics.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The most sensible way for the PLAN to engage a carrier would be by using it's SSK's. A Kilo class sub sitting on the bottom is very difficult to detect no matter how good your ASW capabilities are, and if there's any area where budget cutbacks have hurt the USN, it's in ASW. In exercises, several NATO countries' SSK's have been credited with CVN "kills".

An air attack would definately be a tougher proposition, unless the Russians start selling them Backfires, which were specifically created to engage CVBG's from outside their AAW envelope.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
An insanely massive air assault would be able to get to a carrier. The ships only carry so many missiles.

However, zoom out from the carrier battlegroup a minute and look at the theater as a whole. How many resources will China really have to throw at a carrier battlegroup?

If it actually came to war between the US and China, there would be more than one US Battlegroup. They'd be all over the place. We'd be launching air raids from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia, Australia, etc. We'd be launching naval attacks along the entire coastline of China. Not to mention the other countries who would come to Taiwan's aid. China would be stretched too thin to devote the massive amount of resources needed to succeed in such a raid.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join