amphibulous
Banned
Technically, IRBMs, not ICBMs.
Actually the terminal package is probably trivial to swap between the two types - and most people don't know what an IRBM is.
Whether the system is actually operational yet is unclear, but it certainly hasn't seen mass deployment.
We're not clear on the date of the war either, but it probably won't be next week, so its reasonable to assume wider deployment.
And the yanks' do actually have systems capable of countering it mounted on the escorts that will inevitably be with the carrier (SM-3 is specifically designed for ABM use, some models of SM-2 have a degree of ABM capability).
That would be correct if you wrote "ATTEMPTING to counter it." ABMs have a very poor track record, are never 100% effective, and are easily overwhelmed by sending more missiles: even if you have a 90% success rate against each missile, that means that there is a 75% chance that 1 or more missiles in a salvo of 10 will get through.
The maths you've neglected is pretty simple, it's just 1 - p^n, where p is the probablity of a successful single intercept and n is the salvo size; this simple equation is fundamental to the chances of success of ABMs and CIWS and is why they are only a good idea if the enemy can't increase his salvo size, or has to pay a high cost to do so - eg when he is launching from an expensive aircraft. Against reasonably resourced opponent with land base missiles, forget it. Even a 20 IRBM salvo is cheap compared to a carrier and that would still give you a 75% hit rate against a ridiculous 95% chance of successful individual interceptions.
And its very unlikely that the success rate would be anything like that high as the terminal packages are known to be capable of high-g evasion, while US ABM peformance has been pretty damn poor.
In practice, even firing multiple interceptors per missile, I'd be amazed at a 50% intercept rate against an evading target.
Oh - and you also have the HUGE problem that carrier groups rely on electronic stealth and give away their position when they use radar, but that ABM defense would mean keeping power radars on all the time...
So, no, an American CBG won't be anywhere near as outmatched as you're suggesting.
If you forget basic mathematics and don't understand how carrier groups operate, yes.
And if there's been an SSGN sent ahead to work over the Chinese radars etc. with Tomahawk cruise-missiles before hand, then it'd be doubtful the CBG would be outmatched at all.
It's a lot easier to defend against cruise missiles than it is IRBMs. They're great against enemies who don't have modern air defense nets, but against people with fighters, sams and radars they're just particularly dull-witted sub-sonic aircraft. They're slow moving and they require expensive launch platforms, limiting your ability to "zerg rush" a defense system.
And more importantly, the Chinese can build extra radars that they never switch on until a carrier is in the area and they are at war. Even worse, you will never know how many they have built, so can never be sure you have removed the risk.
Sounds a lot like you're riffing from the China-wank Popular Mechanics article that was discussed on here back in 2010.
It sounds to me like you didn't bother reading the source I actually used and linked and that no one ever explained the basic maths to you. Which isn't surprising - I bet there are 100 times as many people on this sight who could tell you what an SU30 is than who know what Lanchester's equation.
...But things are still desperate for the Chinese because of the US submarine blockade.
Last edited: