Let's say that an American carrier group from the '60s or '70s suddenly materializes in the South China Sea, and it's mad commander is hell-bent on striking Chinese targets, be they vessels, artifical reef bases, or potentially even the mainland. If we assume the Chinks are only slightly bullshitting the abilities of their current tech, how might the carrier group prevail? I could just give them Arpeggio-style handwavium alien weapons and defenses, but calibrated for better balance, but I'm more interested in seeing if there are tactics that could be employed by a force with (on paper) inferior technology and numbers to at least give as good as they get.
>>62140441no, none70s is pre-Ticonderoga and Ticos were a complete fucking step change in the anti-missile gamea 70s cruiser like say California would likely be overwhelmed by say a dozen YJ-83s
>>62140441I’m talking out my arse but from what I understand the Chinese should be able to conventionally take on CSG that’s 60/50 years behind them, however I believe that said out of date CSG will have tactical nuclear weapons and Weteye’s so the Chinese are going to lose a fair few of their artificial islands before they are able to overwhelm the CSG with missile spam.
Unless the Chinese are making everything up, the American carrier group would be destroyed by about 1000 anti-ship missiles
>>62140441Anything vietnam-era would get shafted, but a 1980's gulf-of-sidra era carrier group could probably do it
>>62140441Even a modern carrier group would be sunk in an hour, one from the last century wouldn't stand a chance
>>62140441>it's mad commander is hell-bent on striking Chinese targets60s-70s carrier group will have (multiple) thermonuclear weapons availableLet 'er rip, tatter chip.
i'm pretty sure even the houthi's are capable of attacking a 60's era battlegroupwe're still using ww2 era aa guns for air defense at this point
>>62140441Obviously not to scale, uploaded by a Chinese national in 2015.Anyone have period data?Still, that is a lot of firepower, but legacy tech would be woefully absent of quality and quantity of AA missiles.
>>62140441Is there a Washington, Lafeyette, Madison, Allen or Franklin boomer attached?>41 4 Freedom
>>62140575SALT ('72) limits to 656 tubes. How many MIRVs and megatons is that?
>>62140506>>62140514I would admit blown to hell but do the chinks have missile depth to outright sink that many vessels before they can deal damage?
>>62140592Real question is; Can you be a Chad on an Oerlikon or Bofors and take out an en route ASBM?
>>62140605Only a lucky true Chad. Thousands of rounds per prop plane, even factoring Kamikaze in Pacific And most AA kills where the analog 5." I admit average is a shot metric.Anti-Ship is too fast for intercept with 60s tech. Which really means 50s tech because it has to be designed, tested, approved, built and installed.We are still fielding vacuum tubes at that point.
>>62140581Enough to end the Soviet Union x2
>>62140480>>62140506What made the Ticonderogas and the other contemporary electronic improvements such a big deal? I am a EWARlet.
>>62140720massive accuracy improvements, simple asthe AEGIS radar system and SM-2 missile brought true long-range anti-missile capability to the Ticonderogas, able to engage supersonic and sea-skimming antiship missiles with high accuracyprevious systems just were not capable of doing sopeak 70s tech was the two California class cruisers, and in the 70s they were equipped with SM1 missiles, good enough for shooting down aircraft, but only able to hit even small high subsonic missiles with luck. after the Californias came the New Threat Upgrade, and THEN the SM2 missile, and THEN the AEGIS system.OP's 70s carrier group is two generations behind what is feasible for shooting down a massed antiship missile attack
>>62140843So if I'm getting this right, in the '60s the threat was still perceived as enemy aircraft, and since then it's shifted more towards the missiles they, their ships, or their surface installations can lob at us. Do I have that right?
>>62140491You really don't need 1000 AshMs against a 60/70's CBG. We're talking Spruance-class DDs 1-2 decades before they got VLS refits and possible some Adams-class, and California- or Virginia-class cruisers.Basically: No VLS cells, 1-2 low-ROF deck launchers for SM-1 per hull, and a couple Sea Sparrows for backup. No AEGIS either.
>>62141053>in the '60s the threat was still perceived as enemy aircraftnot really, because AEGIS, believe it or not, was a project begun in the 60s, so at least since then, intercepting missiles was the end goal.and USS Ticonderoga was only commissioned in 1983. which is why it's said that the USSR still had a good chance of winning the conventional war up to the mid-80s>since then it's shifted more towards the missilesopposite; now the game is about "counter-battery", finding and killing enemy launch assets. we know our current systems, AEGIS, Sea Viper, Aster, Patriot, Iron Dome, and the various super top secret EW kit can efficiently kill high supersonic missiles. which is why VLS magazine depth has been less emphasised in the past 15 years, and ballistic missile defence pursued instead.although hypersonics are changing the game yet again.
>>62141053Aircraft themselves are not the threat though, it is about preventing their ordnance from striking.Intercept after launch was beyond tech capability six decades ago though.
>>62140441Bruh. The smol A-4 Skyhawk carries the same bomb load as a B-17. One US carrier, even from the 60s carries more planes than entire nation's airforces. Those Phantoms will raep the Chink air defences. Bear in mind, in the 60s many of the pilots have WWII, Korean and Vietnam wars on their hats. These were hardened battle tested veterans. The Chinks will be overrun by numbers alone, at the quality of pilots would be telling.
>>62141232I see, that's clearer.So how is this form of counter-battery accomplished? I assume at the earliest stage it gets to intel assets and spy satellite images giving info on where they are and where they might be going, but what sort of tools and techniques are used to detect enemy platforms once the battle is joined?
>>62141303Trying too hard.
>>62140441Honestly the biggest issue here are the A-5's and nukes. If they set out to cause the maximum damage without warning, there is a good chance they could nuke Beijing. Peacetime forces, regardless of the nation, are usually not prepared to deal with an unexpected nuclear strike bomber. And countless wargames over the years have shown that. IRL the A-5 never really got it chance to shine. But here it probably could succeed.
