DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[Scott Kenny]

I would not consider that deployment to indicative of a 7th fleet CSG during hostilities. The only reasons to disperse are 1) to complicate opponent scouting / targeting 2). ASW and 3). nuclear weapons. Those may or may not be relevant in the Pacific theater: overhead surveillance is likely ubiquitous, submarines likely are thin on the ground at the range the USN could reasonably strike PLAN assets (~1000 miles), and tactical nuclear escalation may seem unlikely, at least initially. In fact, pre conflict, it can be assumed all units are continuously tracked, so dense packing of surface units with an ABM capability (and likely ASAT capability by extension) seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The challenge is those DF21 YJ21 AShBMs. As reported on this forum, any bunching up in a wargame is extremely dangerous.

In any case, I wouldn’t assume the Fords formation typical: I thought it was relatively unheard of for the SAM boss to be more than 3000 yards from the CV, and I think it often acts as the plane guard as a result. But I never was the service so my info is generally third hand.

That's what I thought, too, and yet the Ford was miles away from any other ship in all those satellite photos.

 

[asVAL]

DF21 YJ21 AShBMs

FTFY.
DF21 is actually borderlining a legacy asset in PLARF and is being phased out by DF26. YJ21 on the other hand is a newer variant and I think will be the mainstay of PLAN shipborne BMs for the near future.

Biconical gliders are much easier to intercept comparing to depressed wedge gliders. PAC-3 already did that against HERA in the mid 2000s or so, and it was essentially Pershing II.

The real problem is the hundreds of batteries worth of IRBMs and HGV-tipped missiles in PLARF service that can target Guam plus another thousand or so supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FTFY.

Thanks!

DF21 is actually borderlining a legacy asset in PLARF and is being phased out by DF26. YJ21 on the other hand is a newer variant and I think will be the mainstay of PLAN shipborne BMs for the near future.

Biconical gliders are much easier to intercept comparing to depressed wedge gliders. PAC-3 already did that against HERA in the mid 2000s or so, and it was essentially Pershing II.

The real problem is the hundreds of batteries worth of IRBMs and HGV-tipped missiles in PLARF service that can target Guam plus another thousand or so supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles.

As big as HGVs are, I'm not sure how many missiles have HGVs versus standard ballistic tips. There's reasons to want both, after all. Look at how big the Russian Avangard HGV is. The same missile that can launch 10 ballistic RVs with dozens of penetration aids can only carry a couple Avangards.

 

[kqcke for you]

Thanks!


As big as HGVs are, I'm not sure how many missiles have HGVs versus standard ballistic tips. There's reasons to want both, after all. Look at how big the Russian Avangard HGV is. The same missile that can launch 10 ballistic RVs with dozens of penetration aids can only carry a couple Avangards.

Well Avangard is supposed to weight 2t and i think only worth for the big Satan and SARMAT. As they can Take with no problem more than 10.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well Avangard is supposed to weight 2t and i think only worth for the big Satan and SARMAT. As they can Take with no problem more than 10.

Most RVs, even for a 500kt warhead, are under 500kg. I think the 475kt Mk5 on the Trident 2 is only about 275kg, but that's a very compact warhead.

And I know the Russians can do the math necessary to make a compact warhead, they're probably the best pure mathematicians on Earth.

 

[kqcke for you]

Most RVs, even for a 500kt warhead, are under 500kg. I think the 475kt Mk5 on the Trident 2 is only about 275kg, but that's a very compact warhead.

And I know the Russians can do the math necessary to make a compact warhead, they're probably the best pure mathematicians on Earth.

Yeah. SARMAT could Take 24 Avangard or 186 MK.5. But then again your limited on warheads so making heavier with more capabilitys makes sense.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah. SARMAT could Take 24 Avangard or 186 MK.5. But then again your limited on warheads so making heavier with more capabilitys makes sense.

SARMAT has a 50 ton throw weight?!?

 

[kqcke for you]

SARMAT has a 50 ton throw weight?!?

48t. But then again range could be reduced with that armament. Afterall SARMAT is 208.1t heavy. More than 3 Times heavier than Trident 2. 5,89 Times the weight of minutemann 3

 

[bobbymike]

48t. But then again range could be reduced with that armament. Afterall SARMAT is 208.1t heavy. More than 3 Times heavier than Trident 2. 5,89 Times the weight of minutemann 3

Could you post your source for that? I’m getting 10t payload everywhere I’m reading.

 

[Josh_TN]

Well Avangard is supposed to weight 2t and i think only worth for the big Satan and SARMAT. As they can Take with no problem more than 10.

Weight wise maybe, but volume wise would you be able to fit them? I believe all Avangard currently are mounted singly on SS-19 Stiletos.

 

[kqcke for you]

Weight wise maybe, but volume wise would you be able to fit them? I believe all Avangard currently are mounted singly on SS-19 Stiletos.

Yes theoretical weight wise. Only SS-19 carry them and even that are (i think) Like 8 or so. Not Like they say anything about it as its mostly the same old Shit over and over again.

 

[kqcke for you]

Could you post your source for that? I’m getting 10t payload everywhere I’m reading.

Let me look for it so it may take some time

 

[Josh_TN]

The challenge is those DF21 YJ21 AShBMs. As reported on this forum, any bunching up in a wargame is extremely dangerous.

Bunching up might be marginally more dangerous for the escorts, but it probably greatly reduces the threat to a high value unit (generally a CV). More defensive firepower and countermeasures are concentrated and more actual valid targets are presented to systems that likely have little ability to ID targets by themselves. I could see CSGs bunching up for the opening of a conflict and only spreading out once local persistent ISR assets (surface vessels, HALE, etc) were removed. Tactics will be driven by the threat. Early pacific war, fleet carriers tended to operate separately to decrease their chances of detection. Later in the war, defensive firepower increased to the point that bunching up was more practical. Future formations will be determined by relative risks of detection and the relative capability of the defense.

 

[kqcke for you]

Let me look for it so it may take some time

Also i max have to say the 48t are a guess from myself from the Statement that 24 can be carried Ala 2t for Avangard. So i correct my Standpoint to in theorie it can carry 24 Avangard glide vehicles which thanks to there Said 2t weight is 48t.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Bunching up might be marginally more dangerous for the escorts, but it probably greatly reduces the threat to a high value unit (generally a CV).

It greatly increases the threat to the HVU/CV, because it reveals its position, both in terms of revealing the position of the CSG, and the position of the carrier within the CSG's formation.

More defensive firepower and countermeasures are concentrated and more actual valid targets are presented to systems that likely have little ability to ID targets by themselves. I could see CSGs bunching up for the opening of a conflict and only spreading out once local persistent ISR assets (surface vessels, HALE, etc) were removed.

I expect the complete opposite to happen, for the exact same reasons you cite below. Once persistent ISR assets are gone, and stocks of DF-26s, YJ-21s & YJ-18s have been run-down, I expect the CVN and it's escorts could be closer together (it may even be desirable to reveal the carrier's position to bait limited-size attacks that the CSG's defences can defeat, to further run-down the enemy's PGM stocks).

Tactics will be driven by the threat. Early pacific war, fleet carriers tended to operate separately to decrease their chances of detection. Later in the war, defensive firepower increased to the point that bunching up was more practical. Future formations will be determined by relative risks of detection and the relative capability of the defense.

 

[Josh_TN]

It greatly increases the threat to the HVU/CV, because it reveals its position, both in terms of revealing the position of the CSG, and the position of the carrier within the CSG's formation.



I expect the complete opposite to happen, for the exact same reasons you cite below. Once persistent ISR assets are gone, and stocks of DF-26s, YJ-21s & YJ-18s have been run-down, I expect the CVN and it's escorts could be closer together (it may even be desirable to reveal the carrier's position to bait limited-size attacks that the CSG's defences can defeat, to further run-down the enemy's PGM stocks).

If the location of a CV is obvious, which to me seems more likely than not (especially at the beginning of a conflict), dispersal serves little purpose. We can likely presume that at the start of a conflict, the CV is detected and tracked by aircraft or surface ships that are following it. Furthermore, PRC satellite constellations (SAR, ESM, EO) are so prolific* it may or may not be possible to obscure the CVS position even after local snoopers have been removed. I don’t know how that game will play out but I assume formations will change based on the perceived threat, and if it is likely the CV can continue to be identified and tracked; dispersion doesn’t buy much.


*PRC satellite infrastructure has doubled in the last five years and only will continue to increase. There are now dozens each of SAR, NOSS, and EO/IR platforms. ECM may mitigate this or it may not; shear quantity seems to imply a direct ASAT effort would be ineffective even assuming the political cost was deemed acceptable.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

If the location of a CV is obvious, which to me seems more likely than not (especially at the beginning of a conflict), dispersal serves little purpose.

If the location of the CV is obvious, then either it's going to be sunk, or it is far out into the Central or West Pacific where it is beyond any Chinese means to attack it with the exception of SSNs.

 

[sferrin]

If the location of the CV is obvious, then either it's going to be sunk, or it is far out into the Central or West Pacific where it is beyond any Chinese means to attack it with the exception of SSNs.

Or it's not going to be sunk. It's not like the USN hasn't ever been faced with threats before. I just roll my eyes every time someone rolls out another proclamation that because a ship is in range it is doomed. Ships have been going into harm's way for centuries. Some get sunk. Some don't. That's war.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Or it's not going to be sunk. It's not like the USN hasn't ever been faced with threats before.

The USN response to such threats is to ideally not be detected in the first place.

I just roll my eyes every time someone rolls out another proclamation that because a ship is in range it is doomed.

If a ship is in range and has been detected, then it will very likely be sunk.

Ships have been going into harm's way for centuries. Some get sunk. Some don't. That's war.

You don't want to throw your CVNs away on day one though, in the same way that Britain didn't send the Grand Fleet inshore to do a close blockade and get it picked apart by submarines and mines in 1914. Taking risks in war and suffering losses is not the same as being suicidal.

 

[sferrin]

You don't want to throw your CVNs away on day one though, in the same way that Britain didn't send the Grand Fleet inshore to do a close blockade and get it picked apart by submarines and mines in 1914. Taking risks in war and suffering lossesis not the same as being suicidal.

So what you're saying is it's no different than any other time in history.

 

[Kat Tsun]

So what you're saying is it's no different than any other time in history.

The USN's historic record is to be sunk near completely during the open salvos of any major military adventure originating in WESTPAC. I doubt it will be any different this time around, but losing two carriers is survivable in a very marginal sense, as long as no others are lost.