Military Planners Conclude the Gerald R. Ford And Its Fleet Could Be Destroyed ‘With Certainty’

[SavannahMann]

You are partially correct but you are citing an old or even outdated strategy/dogma. The present strategy is based on an immediate strike capability that due to distance reduction enables to circumvent defense systems and gains precious time - therefore allowing a nuclear first strike capability to knock out respective targets (foremost command & communication structure) and e.g. the enemies known nuclear launch sites. - if successful in regards to destruction and intimidation, it then is meant or thought to prevent nuclear retaliation strikes.

This concept in the meantime is beheld by all nations, especially those with the respective capabilities. China is presently enhancing this 'first strike" capability respectively the intimidation capability of such a first strike possibility.

And due to this known strategy - all nations involved have set a priority towards disabling that particular threat. E.g. there is more or less no possibility or chance left for an enemy sub (Boomer) to leave port without being followed up immediately and being constantly tracked. That is what this whole sub chase is all about.

But anyway - this isn't the tread topic - which was the possible destruction of a US carrier or part or an entire USN Task force roaming in and around the South-China -Sea.

The ability to destroy a Carrier task group has been there for decades. It’s always been there. It’s one of the reasons Nuclear Tipped Torpedoes were developed. Launch one torpedo, and let it damage the ships in the task group. Of course, those torpedoes would be very effective against submarine threats too. And this theory has been in place since the 1960’s, we know now that the Submarines we were hunting around Cuba were armed with Nuclear Torpedoes, with orders to fire if they were attacked. Of course, we also know now, that the defensive troops had short range nuclear tipped missiles to be used if the Enemy stormed the beaches. Either of those would have triggered WW III.

During the last part of the Soviet Union, the attack plan centered around aircraft. Ground based long range bombers that could attack in a wagon wheel with weapons inbound from every angle. Some would certainly get through, and cause significant damage or the destruction to the Carrier and its escorts.

There has always been a threat. In fact, during War Games a couple decades ago, a madman General came up with a way for Iran to actually launch a successful attack against a Carrier.

Millennium Challenge 2002 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was very controversial. As you can imagine. And nothing is changed. It is possible to attack, and even sink a Carrier. It is possible to do that without hypersonic missiles. It’s possible to do that without nuclear weapons. Our allies manage to evade our anti submarine rings during training exercises.

How a cheap Swedish submarine 'ran rings' around a US aircraft carrier and its sub-hunting escorts

The Swedish sub HSMS Gotland didn't actually sink the USS Ronald Reagan, but it showed that it could be done.

www.businessinsider.com

So China saying their Wargames showed they could do it, not surprising nor frightening. Hell we do it to ourselves in training more often than not.

 

[The Duke]

China has an Achilles heel. Break one damn and you wipe out Chinas ability to wage war

I think China's Achilles heel is Chinese-made metal products.

Nobody does metal like Germany, America, and Canada.

 

[DudleySmith]

The short and obvious is Red China and Russia couldn't take the U.S. out. If they could they would do it in a heart beat. The U.S. can take them both out, and do it with conventional weapons, no need for nukes. However, they will use nukes when they can get away with it. Given who has nukes now, it is not a matter of if nukes will fly, but when, and the more politicans cave in to nuclear blackmail from gangster regimes and dictators, the more likely they will fly. Appeasement has never worked in history, and it won''t now, no matter how many times Jane Fonda flashes a peace sign or some loon babbles about 'Da Military Industrial Complex N Stiff' like a good little parrot. Appeasement leads to bigger wars, not peace.

 

[Kruska]

So China saying their Wargames showed they could do it, not surprising nor frightening. Hell we do it to ourselves in training more often than not.

Anyone familiar with the military or involved in staff operations knows this. It's just not admissible/feasible for some overzealous American "Patriots"

The Pentagon due to own war-games had already concluded in 2017 - that a naval confrontation with China in the South-China-Sea can't be won. And in 2022 the Pentagon published this outcome even onto scenarios involving the Pacific. (certainly also in order get more $$ for their budget).

This carrier nimbus originates from WW2 - rightfully - but with many people being unaware of the huge and overwhelming strength of the USN in regards to their primary enemy - Japan. The USN by 1945 accounted for more then a 100 carriers and the USN tonnage, accounted for more then 70% of the world naval tonnage.

Off course war scenarios existed that included a direct naval confrontation between the Soviet-Union and the USA - but this was never intended for the USN carrier policy. With only one "potential" adversary around - the primary function of the carrier task force was to project military power throughout the world - and the USA not being faced by any other adversary that could be considered to be a threat - especially to carriers.

The ongoing rise of China and slowly now also India (the latter maybe by 2050) - places the USN into a vastly different situation then 20 years ago. Money is the biggest issue - since any US or Western military equipment costs around 5 times that, off an equivalent Chinese system. Whilst US companies e.g. Boeing are free to make huge profits - those equivalent companies in China get their prices set by the government. Labor-manufacturing costs in China are at average around a quarter of that in the USA. And this ratio isn't likely to change in the next 10-15 years.

Technology wise, China is already on par with the USA on most aspects - and will have achieved an overall on par - and partially even superior status by 2030. The USA simply missed out to form a serious alliance such as a NATO in Asia. And IMO it might also be impossible to do so, since the main players, Japan, S-Korea, VN and India have their own agendas and are also not willing to risk a war due to US policy - see Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and now Ukraine.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The USA, Kruska, never said that because of war games in 2017 that a naval war can't be won.

You are making up stuff with no facts.

 

[SavannahMann]

The USA, Kruska, never said that because of war games in 2017 that a naval war can't be won.

You are making up stuff with no facts.

It is a serious thing though. To win a war you have to occupy territory. The Navy, even with the Army, can’t really occupy even an insignificant fraction of China. Oh they could, in a stretch, take a couple coastal cities. But that would be horrific for the troops. Under constant attack from a ton of land based artillery and aircraft. Swarmed by troops, and outnumbered ten to one.

Now, best will in the world, the Navy could probably hold their own for a few months. Perhaps as many as five. At that time, they would have a real problem. The ships that survived would be badly beaten up from both battle and the sea, and require extensive repairs, which would take a year or more per vessel, at a repair dock. But munitions would run out much quicker than that.

Most ships have to return to port to reload missiles. They are really not capable of reloading underway. So once they fire their ordinance, they’re out of the game until the return to a Naval base, say Japan, and rearm. China of course, well they know it, and they’ll be certain to bomb the living crap out of the base at Yokohama wouldn’t they?

We can hold Taiwan for a few weeks, we can hold the China Sea for a couple months, but then we’re out of luck.

And putting troops ashore in China? Forget it. It would make Korea look like a cakewalk. The Chinese would lose their minds at the Gwai holding their land. Our troops wouldn’t have seen anything like the artillery and missiles since World War One and the no mans land of constant bombardment.

There are a lot of things to consider. Logistics is always the biggest factor. You can’t believe how fast munitions are burned up in combat. Look at Ukraine, a small military, the Ukrainians are going through thousands of artillery shells every few days. And we can only replace them with eleven thousand a month.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/politics/us-weapons-factories-ukraine-ammunition/index.html

You can’t believe how important supply is. If we put Marines and Soldiers ashore, they would be burning through everything at an unbelievable rate. It takes a veritable lake of Diesel Fuel every day to keep the machines working for just a single Division of troops. Mechanized Troops are not exactly fuel efficient. We used to joke that the Army got Gallons per mile when it came to efficiency. And that was with the obsolete Hummers we went to Iraq with in 91.

Before you put troops ashore, you better have an idea of how the hell you’re going to withdraw them. Because they’re not going to be there long before you’re thinking about how the hell to get them off that beach.

We can launch missiles, drop bombs, and all that. For a while. But we’re going to run low on Missiles before you know it. We’ll be hiring FedEx to carry more missiles over to the bases near the area. I remember reading that it took three days to fly in enough bombs to keep a single squadron in action for a single day.

China has always operated on a modified Soviet position. Quantity over Quality. And to some extent, they still are.

An Interactive Look at the U.S.-China Military Scorecard

To advance the public debate, RAND Project AIR FORCE used open, unclassified sources to compile 'The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power.' Use this interactive graphic to explore the operational areas covered in the report.

www.rand.org

 

[Kruska]

For those "patriots", and one-liner posters, - who will be too lazy anyway to read through such reports - additionally one can click onto the PDF.

If one searches the internet - one also will find enough information in regards to Pentagon run war-games since 2016.

Defeat Is Possible

If the United States is to have a reasonable hope of winning a war, it needs to think about what it would be like to lose. An essential first step could be to start taking the prospect of protracted near-peer conflict seriously.

www.rand.org

In 2019, analyst David Ochmanek of the RAND Corporation remarked that “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.” In November 2018, the National Defense Strategy Commission found (PDF) that “If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency or China in a war over Taiwan…Americans could face a decisive military defeat…Put bluntly, the U.S. military could lose the next state-versus-state war it fights.” These findings suggest that, in a pitched battle with a near-peer adversary such as China, American forces may be defeated even if its commanders don't make any mistakes. Unfortunately, there exists a longstanding taboo in American strategic culture against the contemplation of defeat. To the extent that the possibility U.S. forces might lose on the battlefield is acknowledged at all, prescriptions for dealing with it fail to account for all the ways in which this defeat might transpire. If defeat is to be prevented, U.S. strategy and planning may need to think about all the different forms defeat might take so as to be ready for alternative kinds of conflicts and concepts of operations.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Our naval and air forces, reinforced by those of our regional allies, will keep China on the mainland forever.

 

[Silver Cat]

Well not exactly. The Ballistic Missile Submarines are what is called Second Strike weapons. They are designed to fire between two to three days after the world goes boom. The idea is that if our nation is struck by a sneak attack, and our command system breaks down, the missiles would be fired automatically.

Actually, the submarines may be used both for the first (counter-force) and second (conter-value) strike. It highly depends on the accuracy of their warheads and the type of their targets. While US silos can't move, and the Russian warheads became quite accurate with their new individual satnavs (the Russians pretend that they've never missed for more then 7 meters (21 feet) from the aiming point), their submarines may be (under some circumstances) the perfect weapon for the first Pearl-Harbor like attack. And that's what they actually described in their new military conception of the OSDF (the Operation of the Strategic Deterrence Forces).

 

[AZrailwhale]

It is a serious thing though. To win a war you have to occupy territory. The Navy, even with the Army, can’t really occupy even an insignificant fraction of China. Oh they could, in a stretch, take a couple coastal cities. But that would be horrific for the troops. Under constant attack from a ton of land based artillery and aircraft. Swarmed by troops, and outnumbered ten to one.

Now, best will in the world, the Navy could probably hold their own for a few months. Perhaps as many as five. At that time, they would have a real problem. The ships that survived would be badly beaten up from both battle and the sea, and require extensive repairs, which would take a year or more per vessel, at a repair dock. But munitions would run out much quicker than that.

Most ships have to return to port to reload missiles. They are really not capable of reloading underway. So once they fire their ordinance, they’re out of the game until the return to a Naval base, say Japan, and rearm. China of course, well they know it, and they’ll be certain to bomb the living crap out of the base at Yokohama wouldn’t they?

We can hold Taiwan for a few weeks, we can hold the China Sea for a couple months, but then we’re out of luck.

And putting troops ashore in China? Forget it. It would make Korea look like a cakewalk. The Chinese would lose their minds at the Gwai holding their land. Our troops wouldn’t have seen anything like the artillery and missiles since World War One and the no mans land of constant bombardment.

There are a lot of things to consider. Logistics is always the biggest factor. You can’t believe how fast munitions are burned up in combat. Look at Ukraine, a small military, the Ukrainians are going through thousands of artillery shells every few days. And we can only replace them with eleven thousand a month.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/politics/us-weapons-factories-ukraine-ammunition/index.html

You can’t believe how important supply is. If we put Marines and Soldiers ashore, they would be burning through everything at an unbelievable rate. It takes a veritable lake of Diesel Fuel every day to keep the machines working for just a single Division of troops. Mechanized Troops are not exactly fuel efficient. We used to joke that the Army got Gallons per mile when it came to efficiency. And that was with the obsolete Hummers we went to Iraq with in 91.

Before you put troops ashore, you better have an idea of how the hell you’re going to withdraw them. Because they’re not going to be there long before you’re thinking about how the hell to get them off that beach.

We can launch missiles, drop bombs, and all that. For a while. But we’re going to run low on Missiles before you know it. We’ll be hiring FedEx to carry more missiles over to the bases near the area. I remember reading that it took three days to fly in enough bombs to keep a single squadron in action for a single day.

China has always operated on a modified Soviet position. Quantity over Quality. And to some extent, they still are.

An Interactive Look at the U.S.-China Military Scorecard

To advance the public debate, RAND Project AIR FORCE used open, unclassified sources to compile 'The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power.' Use this interactive graphic to explore the operational areas covered in the report.

www.rand.org

You’ve got it completely wrong. You win a war by achieving your aims and denying your enemy the ability to achieve his. In WWI, the winners didn’t occupy a single foot or German territory. Germany didn’t occupy a single foot of Russian territory. In the Napoleonic wars the British didn’t occupy a single foot of France. If gaining territory is your aim and you do it, you have won the war. If getting trade concessions or reparations are your aim and you achieve them, you’ve won the war. If you want a major Navy to stop searching your ships and kidnapping your sailors, you’ve won the war. If you want pirate city-states to stop seizing your ships and enslaving their crews you’ve won the war.

 

[Mushroom]

If one searches the internet - one also will find enough information in regards to Pentagon run war-games since 2016.

And one needs to understand the actual purpose of "war games".

It is not to predict the actual outcome of a war, it is to both train the leadership on unconventional thinking as well as to give them experience in such battles before they actually happen. It is never about predicting who might win an engagement, as they know that in those cases it is almost always wrong.

Case in point, the war games held by experts before the 1990-1991 Gulf War predicted that it would take about 3 weeks to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and there would be at least 30,000 casualties. Of course, we now know that there were under 1,000 casualties and it was all over in less than 3 days. And in the over 70 years that the Naval War College has been recreating the Battle of Midway, not once have the Americans ever won that battle.

Your problem is that for some reason you seem to actually believe that war games are to done to predict who will win a battle, and that has never been their purpose. No more than playing a game of Axis and Allies will predict the outcome of WWII.

 

[SavannahMann]

And one needs to understand the actual purpose of "war games".

It is not to predict the actual outcome of a war, it is to both train the leadership on unconventional thinking as well as to give them experience in such battles before they actually happen. It is never about predicting who might win an engagement, as they know that in those cases it is almost always wrong.

Case in point, the war games held by experts before the 1990-1991 Gulf War predicted that it would take about 3 weeks to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and there would be at least 30,000 casualties. Of course, we now know that there were under 1,000 casualties and it was all over in less than 3 days. And in the over 70 years that the Naval War College has been recreating the Battle of Midway, not once have the Americans ever won that battle.

Your problem is that for some reason you seem to actually believe that war games are to done to predict who will win a battle, and that has never been their purpose. No more than playing a game of Axis and Allies will predict the outcome of WWII.

You make very good points. The military thinkers who conducted similar attacks as to the Pearl Harbor attack, always focused on the Dry Docks and fuel tanks. They were looking at the logistic question. In the decade leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, Carrier Commanders during wargames had shown what a fast mobile striking force could do. The early World War II attacks, including the British attack at Toranto, showed ships in harbor were vulnerable.

The War College people studying the Pearl Harbor attack realized the screw up the Japanese had made. They utterly ignored the repair facilities, focusing on the ships. They didn’t hit the Fuel tanks, even though if the tanks had been destroyed the Ships would have been trapped for months trying to get enough fuel to make it to San Diego where the next closest fuel supply was.

 

[easyt65]

Hypersonic weapons could be “catastrophic” for the most potent aircraft carrier group in the US fleet, according to war game simulations run by a team of military planners in China.
Over 20 intense battles, Chinese forces sank the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier fleet with a volley of 24 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, in a simulation run on a mainstream war game software platform used by China’s military.
In the scenario, the US vessels are attacked after continuing to approach a China-claimed island in the South China Sea despite repeated warnings.
A paper detailing the war game was published in May by the Chinese-language Journal of Test and Measurement Technology. It is the first time the results of simulated hypersonic strikes against a US carrier group have been made public.

The researchers, led by Cao Hongsong from the North University of China, said almost every US surface vessel was shattered by the attack and eventually sank in the simulation.
The war games suggested the US carrier group – previously regarded as unsinkable by conventional weapons – could be “destroyed with certainty” by a relatively small number of hypersonic strikes, they said.

SOURCE:
Chinese scientists war-game hypersonic strike on US carrier group

Hypersonic missiles aren't 'conventional' weapons.

 

[easyt65]

And one needs to understand the actual purpose of "war games".

It is not to predict the actual outcome of a war, it is to both train the leadership on unconventional thinking as well as to give them experience in such battles before they actually happen.

This 'war game' was more about the effectiveness of a weapons system...

...much like how reported Iran practice bombing runs against a defenseless mock US carrier was not really a 'War Game'.

 

[SavannahMann]

Hypersonic missiles aren't 'conventional' weapons.

Oh good. We are redefining another thing.

Conventional weapon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[easyt65]

Oh good. We are redefining another thing.

Conventional weapon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I was referring to the word 'conventional', not 'conventional WEAPONS'

Conventional:
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Hypersonic missiles are not 'generally done / used' because of their advanced technology that very few nations possess / use at the moment.

Sorry I did not clarify.

 

[Mushroom]

This 'war game' was more about the effectiveness of a weapons system...

...much like how reported Iran practice bombing runs against a defenseless mock US carrier was not really a 'War Game'.

Which is mostly a chimera. And ultimately as applicable to "real life" as that attack by Iran.

People have been going on and on about the DF-21D. But here is the thing, it has never been even close to having a real world test. Most of the targets were literally painted on the ground, and I believe there were one or two others against a stationary target ship. All times they knew exactly where the missile was to hit, and the target did not move.

That is absolutely nothing like a carrier at sea. First, they have to find the carrier. And that is nowhere as easy as it sounds, as no matter how big a carrier is the ocean is even bigger. And that have to be able to locate it with enough accuracy to actually be able to fire at it with a ballistic missile. And only then can we even start to talk about the defensive systems that surround the carrier.

China has not shown the capability to do any of those steps at all, let alone putting them all together into a working weapon system.

So when the 'war game" is based around such a questionable weapon and always has it functioning perfectly with absolutely no defense, of course it is going to be highly skewed. It is propaganda more than anything else.

When we did our 8 times a week war games when I was deployed, the system and umpires threw in a random chance of failure and breakdowns. They even assumed that even though cruise missiles were to be targeted by the fighters in the area some would still always get through. We could have in the simulation 3 fighters for each missile, and some still got through, it was simply realizing that not all plans work perfectly. Sometimes even having some of our own systems fail, to see how the local commanders would adapt to that.

One that actually got high praise was when they sent across that the RADAR system for one of our batteries failed. The Battery Commander immediately ordered two of his launchers to immediately go to radio operation with a link to the RADAR that still functioned, as another two launchers were to load up and move as quickly as possible to the other site. And this is possible as even though the PATRIOT system can handle 8 launchers, 6 is the normal configuration. But by placing an additional 2 under the still functioning Battery the effect of the mechanical failure had less of an impact. And soon in real life they had configured two additional launch sites at each location just for such an event in real life.

This is the kind of thing that war games are really looking for. To give commanders experience in fast thinking and to find new solutions to problems that are outside of our normal training.

 

[Mushroom]

Hypersonic missiles are not 'generally done / used' because of their advanced technology that very few nations possess / use at the moment.

Actually, it is not all that advanced. It was a concept the US played with about 50 years ago.

It is just an air launched ballistic missile, it is nothing special.

 

[easyt65]

Actually, it is not all that advanced. It was a concept the US played with about 50 years ago.

It is just an air launched ballistic missile, it is nothing special.

The US abandoned it.

'Nothing Special'?

Except for the fact that nothing (so far) has been able to defend against / intercept it.

The term 'Carrier Killer' is not exaggerated.

Let's go one step further - imagine a WMD-capable hypersonic missile capable of striking the US.

Iran has reportedly enriched its nuclear material to 80% - 90% is weapons-grade. Iran has also bragged it has long-range hypersonic technology from the sources from which the Biden family reportedly received millions. Even if it isn't Iran, such hypersonic missiles with no chance of intercepting / defending against is a threat to any nation's national security.

 

[Mushroom]

You make very good points. The military thinkers who conducted similar attacks as to the Pearl Harbor attack, always focused on the Dry Docks and fuel tanks. They were looking at the logistic question. In the decade leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, Carrier Commanders during wargames had shown what a fast mobile striking force could do. The early World War II attacks, including the British attack at Toranto, showed ships in harbor were vulnerable.

And there was another major reason why in war games they concentrated on those targets. And that it was believed that the ships were safe from torpedoes.

Torpedoes are a major threat to ships, either launched from submarines or aircraft. And unlike ship torpedoes, aircraft torpedoes require relatively deep water in which to operate. That is because when they hit the water they first do a deep dive simply because of the speed and altitude at which they are dropped, in that era needing 150 feet of water (45 meters) or they would strike the sea floor. And the depth of the water in Pearl Harbor was on average no more than 60 feet (and that is today after extensive dredging, in 1941 the average was 40 feet).

Therefore the only threat they thought was from bombs. And not only are bombs more effective against softer targets like fuel and repair facilities, they would take less damage in striking those lightly defended locations.

And yes, they were aware of the June attack by the British at the Battle of Taranto. However, they also knew that in order to pull that attack off the British used the Fairey Swordfish, a biplane with a maximum speed of only 143 mph (230 kph). This made the dive of the torpedo significantly less. The Japanese on the other hand primarily used the A6M Zero, with a maximum speed of 331 mph (533 kph). So those examining the attack concluded there was a danger, but did not think it significant as Pearl was more shallow than Taranto and the aircraft Japan would use would be much faster so the torpedoes dive even deeper than those of the British.

However, nobody knew that Japan had been working for over a year at modifying their aerial torpedoes to operate in the shallow depths of Pearl Harbor. Therefore, in none of the war games was the attacker ever given such a weapon to use in the attacks. So instead they concentrated primarily on the shore targets like air bases, fuel and munition depots, and the like.