Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

[Thumper]

This thread has really gone off topic. I thought we where debating PRC invasion of ROC and PRC's ability to hurt a CSF.

So to sum up.

Ballistic missiles seem to be a bad choice for attacking carriers. You need to find the carrier, track the carrier during the flight of the missile and then hit the carrier. Current CEPs seem to indicate this really is not feasible unless you go nuclear.

PLAF attains air superiority over straight of Taiwan and attacks CSF. Possible but what admiral in their right mind plants his carrier between ROC and PRC.

PLAN subs somehow find CSF, track CSF, get in to a position for a succesful firing solution and execute. Most likely of all scenarios however still pretty unlikely.

Is there anything I missed?

 

[DarthAmerica]

The ASAT by itself is not likely to be the decisive factor in any China-US conflict.

That's a grave misunderstanding. Space control could definitely be the deciding factor. If the PRC doesnt have access to space, they have no hope of winning against Taiwan or a CSF. Without control of space, the USA could lose up to 1/3 to 2/3 of its effectiveness and would not have the numbers to make up for the lack of situational awareness.

DA

 

[goldenpanda]

ok.

I understand your frustration

 

[goldenpanda]

This is completely inaccurate. DSP satellites would easily detect and hand off a launch like this. Moreover, a Direct Ascent launch is very limited in the types of orbital slots it can attack vs air launched which can enter almost any orbital slot and is much harder to detect.

a kill vehicle does not need to enter orbit, which requires much higher energy than just impacting the target. So orbital plane hardly matters.

Also, we aren't just talking China. We are talking US and China. A certain person took offense to me referring to the PRC ASAT test as primitive. Now, we are finding out why.
DA

you can trash talk all you want. but no asm-135 or derivative system will EVER hit anything in GEO orbit. in fact it's not a huge deal to put something higher than 550km, you just lose some resolution. the chinese system will scale up all the way to GEO

 

[goldenpanda]

The DF-21 is a two-stage MRBM. The missile is inaccurate, but as the warheads separates from the missile body, you can replace the warhead with an accurate kill vehicle. The DF-11/DF-15 do not do this, so the payload inherits the accuracy of the missile itself.

I don't understand why you say the missile body makes it inherently inaccurate. Do you assume the body has some wobble? Ok it's more susceptible to wind but that's what the terminal guidance is for, to keep it on track. I can't imagine control surfaces cannot overcome wind. If the body was a problem they'd have separated the warhead!

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't understand why you say the missile body makes it inherently inaccurate. Do you assume the body has some wobble? Ok it's more susceptible to wind but that's what the terminal guidance is for, to keep it on track. I can't imagine control surfaces cannot overcome wind. If the body was a problem they'd have separated the warhead!

The missile (bodies) were never designed for that kind of precision. Not only are they old, but also not the optimal design. The Americans use separate kill vehicles even for newer rockets like GMD interceptors and IIRC also THAAD. Much more manageable and easy to do.

I'm afraid I can't offer more convincing material than what I have put forward.

 

[DarthAmerica]

a kill vehicle does not need to enter orbit, which requires much higher energy than just impacting the target. So orbital plane hardly matters.

Sigh...Panda. It would be really nice if you stopped making commentary on things you do not understand. A KE-kill vehicle MUST be able to reach AT LEAST the orbit of its intended target as a minimum. If its not in a co-orbit it must also have the energy to maneuver as well. This is simple physics and it applies regardless of nationality.

With regard to orbital plane. It matters above all else for ground based systems. A spacecraft cannot be directly launched into an orbit with an inclination less than the latitude of the launch site which is why ground based ASATs are limited when conducting LEO/GTO/MEO. Again, it doesn't matter who you are or what flag you salute. This is physics. A lot of things you read here and on the internet seem simple but there is a lot more to it and if you are a casual observer chances are you will not know these things.

To address your allegation that I said ASM-135 could intercept a target in GEO. Please go back and read my statement again. There is a huge difference between GTO and GEO. You should study the differences and review what I said.


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

Sigh...Panda. It would be really nice if you stopped making commentary on things you do not understand. A KE-kill vehicle MUST be able to reach AT LEAST the orbit of its intended target as a minimum.

do you understand the difference between being at some height, and entering orbit?

To address your allegation that I said ASM-135 could intercept a target in GEO. Please go back and read my statement again. There is a huge difference between GTO and GEO. You should study the differences and review what I said.
DA

I'll give it to you only GTO is needed to hit something in GEO. In either case ASM-135 won't do it. I never said you claimed it would. But you suggested a system that hit higher, that can scale better is more "primitive" than ASM-135. Yeah that and half your links don't actually support anything you say.

 

[DarthAmerica]

do you understand the difference between being at some height, and entering orbit?

Yes I do. Which is why I explained it to you. In vain it seems. Again, go back and read what I said. Especially the part where I say "directly" and try again. You will get it eventually.

I'll give it to you only GTO is needed to hit something in GEO. In either case ASM-135 won't do it. I never said you claimed it would. But you suggested a system that hit higher, that can scale better is more "primitive" than ASM-135. Yeah that and half your links don't actually support anything you say.

Again, you misunderstand. GTO means GeoSync-Xfer-Orbit(GTO). Its how you get to GeoSync-Orbit(GEO). If you have the ISR capability and the mobility, you can get a good shot at objects ON THEIR WAY to GEO. Once they get there. Attacking them via KE becomes much more difficult because of the energy required to physically move an interceptor to that orbit.

Ground based launch facilities have limits on the orbital inclinations they can send spacecraft to. Thats why spacecraft are launched from different locations, including at sea, based on mission requirements. If you are able to monitor these locations in real-time. You can prepare an ambush for a spacecraft in LEO or GTO in the antipodal zone.

The method of the PRC ASAT launch is primitive for the reasons I mentioned. There are targets the PRC simply can't even attempt to attack due to geography. And the targets they can attack would cause undesirable debris. Those methods are as primitive as swords are to modern infantry combat. Anyone with the ability to google and reason or other people familiar with the physics will confirm what I am telling you. Also, get away from the "widget" comparisons. Look at capabilities. Air launched ASATs can threaten any LEO object anytime. Further, the most modern ASAT techniques do not lend themselves to easy detection or create debris. I've gone over this enough that any reasonable reader can understand these concepts enough to constructively participate in the debate. If for whatever reason you do not then I'm afraid I'll have to move on to elaborating how this affects the original thread topic.

Without the ability to use space, the situational awareness of either side would diminish enough that it would seriously challenge the possibility of mission accomplishment. In the case of the PRC, this means near complete blindness outside littoral environments and beyond GCI. Moreover communications would grind to a halt and cripple the coordination of widely dispersed units. A CSF could exploit this advantage the way F-117s exploit low RCS against an enemy IAD. Sure, luck and espionage could compromise a CSF. But not reliably enough to affect the outcome. The CSF would have the flexibility to mass firepower along vulnerable PRC avenues of approach and against critical infrastructure. The PLAN would be defeated in detail and probably would not survive more than a few days under this condition.

If the CSF found itself in the position of not having access to space based assets. It would have to rely on organic recon assets and operate them at a tempo that would reduce the sustained effectiveness of operations. Firmly established doctrine and training would help to mitigate some of the disadvantages. Also organic assets like the E-2 would at least offer local ISR. But overall, mission effectiveness would be reduced back to 1970's-1980's levels. If the fight was over Taiwan, the CSF could still greatly contribute to the defense. But it would be at far greater risk of casualties.

When I look at the relative spacewar capabilities of both sides. I see that while China has the ability to be a threat in space. It isn't likely that it could deny space to the USA or deny space based asset support to the CSF. On the US side. I see the ability to threaten PRC space platforms anytime, anywhere with the PRC having very little if any capability to stop it. Clearly the USA enjoys the battlefield advantage of space in this conflict. In fact, the CSF enjoys advantages in the air, both on and under the sea outside of the littorals.


DA

 

[crobato]

What are you talking about? Im not arguing anything except that the PRC ASAT launch and kill mechanism was primitive and not as versatile or capable as modern techniques. Also, why are you posting space craft weights? I only posted EKV and XSS-11 weights to show how far a small fighter could toss one into orbit or intercept.

DA

Primitive? More like convenient and cost effective. A KT-1 is only as big as any SRBM or Scud. Put it in a truck or launch it anywhere. You can put the darn thing on any cargo ship and launch it.

How is the kill vehicle itself primitive? I've shown you that the KKV itself can only weigh as much 30 to 35kg based on the payload of the KT-1. That's small or smaller than your EKV.

The fact remains that the PRC has DONE it. The EKV is only ABM system and that works in the upper atmosphere, very different ranges. The F-15 Vought ASAT was only demonstrated as far as 550km despite the paper potential for even higher altitudes. You can mention all the *potential* you want but potential vs. actual are still two different things.

With a bigger launcher like the KT-2 based on the DF-31 missile, it can spew 5 to 10 of these KKVs into GTO or two to three towards GSO. Long March rockets would can dump a dozen or more into GSO.

Its not as if the PRC is also working on an air launched concept of themselves, a model of which has been shown last year and incorporates the use of an H-6 bomber (which does not have the weight of a B-52). So that's friggin small, if you launch it from an Tu-16 derivative. When the PRC shows a model, there is always a good chance it appears in working or prototype form in the near future, based on the historical record of PRC weaopns introduction. That means by the time they're showing concepts in public, such projects are already long underway.

Without the ability to use space, the situational awareness of either side would diminish enough that it would seriously challenge the possibility of mission accomplishment. In the case of the PRC, this means near complete blindness outside littoral environments and beyond GCI. Moreover communications would grind to a halt and cripple the coordination of widely dispersed units. A CSF could exploit this advantage the way F-117s exploit low RCS against an enemy IAD. Sure, luck and espionage could compromise a CSF. But not reliably enough to affect the outcome. The CSF would have the flexibility to mass firepower along vulnerable PRC avenues of approach and against critical infrastructure. The PLAN would be defeated in detail and probably would not survive more than a few days under this condition.

Sorry but the PRC does not rely on satellites as much as the US. The US has nearly 300 satellites out there, while the PRC has a few dozen. The PRC need not concern itself with control outside of littoral and brown water environments in the mean time as they need to have some other kinds of capability to match that, and which they currently don't. By the way, Beidou has a communications capability on its own.

You have also forgotten that the PRC can also send microsats using the same cheap solid fuel boosters, and suddenly you have a sat natwork again. But of course, the US can also rebuild its network through microsats (they call them tacsats). GSO satellites however, will take much longer to replace.

 

[goldenpanda]

Yes I do. Which is why I explained it to you. In vain it seems. Again, go back and read what I said. Especially the part where I say "directly" and try again. You will get it eventually.

I quote "A KE-kill vehicle MUST be able to reach AT LEAST the orbit of its intended target as a minimum." You put out a lot of sentences, half are extraneous put downs, the rest don't go together in any logical way.

PRC simply doesn't NEED to attack anything in LEO that doesn't overfly China? Also I've already pointed out the interceptor doesn't need to be in the same orbital plane, or even be in orbit at all for LEO targets. For GEO of course the target is just a fixed point in the sky, you can reach it from anywhere.

 

[Schumacher]

That's a grave misunderstanding. Space control could definitely be the deciding factor. If the PRC doesnt have access to space, they have no hope of winning against Taiwan or a CSF. Without control of space, the USA could lose up to 1/3 to 2/3 of its effectiveness and would not have the numbers to make up for the lack of situational awareness.

DA

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that this PLA test only demonstrated LEO kill capability which as I mentioned is only a subset of US sats. He did however also say that it shows the pieces seems to be in place for PLA to aim for higher sats like comm sats & those used for weapons guidance. No 'slam-dunk', his word, but the pieces are there.
Are u aware any US demonstrated capability to kill sats higher than LEO ones ?

 

[Schumacher]

.......

Sorry but the PRC does not rely on satellites as much as the US. The US has nearly 300 satellites out there, while the PRC has a few dozen. The PRC need not concern itself with control outside of littoral and brown water environments in the mean time as they need to have some other kinds of capability to match that, and which they currently don't. By the way, Beidou has a communications capability on its own.

You have also forgotten that the PRC can also send microsats using the same cheap solid fuel boosters, and suddenly you have a sat natwork again. But of course, the US can also rebuild its network through microsats (they call them tacsats). GSO satellites however, will take much longer to replace.

This is a good point. Forget for a moment how the PLA ASAT or US counter-measures will work in a conflict. If this inexpensive PLA ASAT can force the US to look for counter measures which I think will be very expensive given the large number of US sats & the costs of higher weight from extra fuel, instruments to make the sats more maneauverable for example, then it's money very well spent for the PLA.
Sounds a lot like what they call 'asymmetric' tactics.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that this PLA test only demonstrated LEO kill capability which as I mentioned is only a subset of US sats. He did however also say that it shows the pieces seems to be in place for PLA to aim for higher sats like comm sats & those used for weapons guidance. No 'slam-dunk', his word, but the pieces are there.
Are u aware any US demonstrated capability to kill sats higher than LEO ones ?

PRC ASAT vs GEO targets could best be described as limited and very difficult for targets within proper launch inclinations and the critical sats all have on orbit back ups. Moreover, once a PRC vs USA conflict escalates to the point of open space warfare. The PRC launch sites would be targeted for destruction. Possibly even preemptively. In short yes its possible, but it would not be easy and would not be likely "on the fly". It would have to be a preplanned attack on a scale that would not be likely to go unnoticed. Long March rockets would be needed for this.

The USA has demonstrated several times technologies that could degrade or destroy GEO targets since the 1960s and as recently as 2005/2006. With proper warning, the USA could go after these sats while they are in GTO on their way to GEO. Once a PRC sat actually gets to GEO. Killing it would take considerably more effort with KE/PAR methods and they aren't as timely. Soft kill methods are much more effective against these targets in time critical scenarios.

Bottom line is that if you can reach GEO, no matter how limited, you have at least some GEO ASAT potential.


DA

 

[Thumper]

The entire ASAT discussion is pointless. China may degrade US capability but there is no way they are going to be able to destroy or disable all the known and unknown birds currently in orbit much less any that get launched during war. For every bird out there that is emitting and is known there is another sitting passively unknown to China.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The entire ASAT discussion is pointless. China may degrade US capability but there is no way they are going to be able to destroy or disable all the known and unknown birds currently in orbit much less any that get launched during war. For every bird out there that is emitting and is known there is another sitting passively unknown to China.

It's relevant if we want to know who would win. Ignoring space and the electromagnetic spectrum would be like ignoring the high ground on a WW II battlefield or Air Superiority in the 1990's. ANY large scale conflict between modern powers on land, in the air, on the sea and under the sea could be decisively influenced by space and EM spectrum control. These disciplines represent the ultimate high ground.


DA

 

[crobato]

Satellites are not that hard to find, not even supposedly "hidden" ones. You can't hide a satellite no matter what. The PRC has enough satellites whose stated roles may be dubious, and in fact can be described as "multirole" that they may be doing things other than what they're declared to be. Some of their orbits are said to be close to some US sat orbits, so hard to say if there is any sleeper capability hidden within.

The Shenzhen spacecraft for example, is a shining example of this multipurpose, and for being vastly overengineered just to take a man into space. Its got 3 times the solar power supply of a Soyuz, can carry 3 people, and consists of a three modules, one of which is like a mini space lab, which may support the crew for an extended period, and the other for whatever reason stays in orbit months after the original capsule has returned.

Microsat ability on both sides means its impossible to take down the entire satellite network since you can potentially replace as fast as you can destroy. You're talking of satellites as small as 30 to 40kg, as big as each KKV, which can be air launched or using solid fuel boosters from a truck.

Bottom line is that if you can reach GEO, no matter how limited, you have at least some GEO ASAT potential.

And if you have been following recent events, China has launched the first satellite of its Beidou 2/Compass satellite navigation system. So yeah, they can easily manage GEO orbits, since 2000.

Also for a 30 to 40kg microsat to reach GEO orbit, a Long March rocket is vastly overkill, and in which case would be sending a massive swarm of such vehicles in a single launch. Long March rockets are known to deliver up and over 7 tons (Shenzhen spacecraft).

The KT-2 solid booster already in development can reach GTO with a 300kg payload, and its not hard to see that it can send two or three 30kg KKVs into GEO. The KT-2 is based on the DF-31A ICBM, which is mobile and can be truck lunched. And there is a sub launched equivalent to it too.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Satellites are not that hard to find, not even supposedly "hidden" ones. You can't hide a satellite no matter what. The PRC has enough satellites whose stated roles may be dubious, and in fact can be described as "multirole" that they may be doing things other than what they're declared to be. Some of their orbits are said to be close to some US sat orbits, so hard to say if there is any sleeper capability hidden within.

Thats an utterly incorrect assertion. The US has operated several generations of Stealth Sats one which went public. The US also maintains a vast network of on orbit back ups and monitors in real time each and every launch or man made object that enters space.

Microsat ability on both sides means its impossible to take down the entire satellite network since you can potentially replace as fast as you can destroy. You're talking of satellites as small as 30 to 40kg, as big as each KKV, which can be air launched or using solid fuel boosters from a truck.

Again, this isn't true. The USA have very rapid launch capabilities and is not restricted from inserting payloads into any orbit. Also, the USA has the capability to destroy/degrade enemy SATs almost with impunity. The USA also has the ability to strike any launch facility in the world with a high probability of destruction. When ABL/FALCON/IRSLBM comes on line, LEO sats and any possible mobile launchers as well.


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

"the USA has the capability to destroy/degrade enemy SATs almost with impunity"

Very nice another meaningless statement.

Hey if you blow up Long March, ISS is fair game then?

No you can't find the mobiles. Also let's see you put ABL in central china.

 

[tphuang]

I'm very, very doubtful that you could do that with INS/GPS. The Americans use radar or IR for terminal homing. It was also not fired in a ballistic trajectory. It is an entirely different thing. There aren't the same requirements to such a shot.

With the ASAT kill, they knew the location of the satellite relative to the ASAT vehicle all the way, and could adjust. You don't have that luxury with the tactical use of ballistic missiles.

well, they did mention that China was attempting to put seeker on their Anti-ship BM project, I'm sure if they could do the same for the SRBMs. Also, they know the exact location of the Taiwanese airports.

Nope.They hit the missile (body), but wanted to make sure to kill the warhead, which could potentially be a WMD. This was because it used a homing mode for aircraft where the center is the aimpoint. If you want to destroy the warhead you aim for that. This they do now. And this is why several missiles where fired. They also substituted the PAC missile warhead with one more appropriate for destroying warheads instead of aircraft fuselages.

considering the damage it caused in Tel Aviv, I don't think that much of the missile was destroyed. But that's just me. Compared to OIF where they actually did destroyed the few scuds that were fired.

It's unguided rocket artillery. You can't design your way out of that. During the rockets path through the atmosphere they are exposed to natures whims. which you cannot adjust for.

0.17% for rocket artillery is quite exceptional.

And I used a circle for ease of calc of that 601m CEP. The pattern is an ellipse. Substituted the major axis with the minor. So it is bigger than this.

but domestic systems are more accurate for obvious reasons.
the number of WS-2 salvos is not as limited as the number of BMs. Again, you have to ask a PLA watcher for the PLA doctrine on MLRS.

As for OHP not being stealthy I still don’t see stealth as only factor that makes ships modern… Those ships have quite good air defense capability, rather standard package of SSMs and probably better ASW capabilities then any ship in PLAN inventory.
And when ROC finally decides to start proposed upgrade program for Kang Ding class they will be capable as any frigate PLAN has…

it doesn't matter OHP have better ASW capabilities than PLAN frigates, sub on sub is a better option, that's exactly where ROCN's lack of modern diesel subs really show up.
I don't think ROC can upgrade Kang Ding to the level of 054A currently considering what they have to work with.

Actually I was using them as examples of various forms of cooperation between ROC and US... If we know that Sky Bow family is based on Patriot why it would be so impossible to believe that they too could have ABM capability?I personally wouldn't discount possibility that Sky Bow III system has ABM capability so easily like you do i

well, HQ-9 is supposedly based on S-300 and PAC-2 guidance, yet it doesn't have any kind of proven ABM capability. I just don't think Taiwanese defense industry has that kind of capability.

Making two-engined version of J-10 is a bit more complex then redesign JF-17 received. I will be skeptic until I see more proof then currant rumors...

that was a huge modification that they pulled on JF-17. At the same time, twin engined J-10 project has far higher priority and have been worked on for much longer.

Even whit complete air superiority there is no guaranty's that they will destroy Taiwanese ground assets. Look at Kosovo operation for example... Few survived ground based SSM batteries could decimate invasions amphibious assets... As for civilian ships they would be practically useless until invasion forces are controlling harbors...

well, you have ships with air defense like 052B/C and 054A for a reason. Once those SSM batteries get spotted, they are going to be facing KD-88/63.

Actually thanks to you and few other posters I have gained much respect for J-10. I believe that is one of the better 4 gen fighters but I still wouldn't put it in the same league whit Typhoon and Rafale... Also US DOD has annoying habit; they tend to overestimate capabilities of potential opponents since that is safest way to get additional founds from Congress...

I wouldn't either, but if DoD is willing to put it in the same league as typhoon and rafale, then that represents a far higher assessment for J-10 than their previous designation of block 30 F-16. I think they've also caught up to some of the results between flankers and J-10.

Has the US cleared AEGIS for sale to Taiwan yet? I may have missed this so apologies if this question has already been answered. My understanding was that it was rejected earlier this decade because of protests by China. AEGIS, though, has been cleared for some time for sale to a number of other Pacific nations including Japan, South Korea and Australia.

no, it's not just an issue of US, the Taiwanese parliament itself is holding up half of the defensive packages.

Please, no one at the DoD is comparing J-10s to ECDs except maybe to say they are canard delta wing aircraft. Other than that you would be hard pressed to make that comparison. At best, the J-10 is roughly comparable to a 1990's era F-16/Mig-29.

actually, they did. Turn to page 4 of the pdf file on China military power 2006 by DoD, they had a nice little section on J-10. It said similar weight + performance.

a summary of J-10's achievements:
1. scoring 10:1 kill ratio vs su-30mkk in plaaf exercises involving different scenarios. Scoring similarly lopsided kill ratio vs su-27.
2. China stopped purchasing su-30s, stopped license production of J-11A and SAC increased the requirements to J-11B as a result of J-10's success
3. Pakistan picking J-10 as its next generation (plus one) fighter ahead of F-16 and Gripen.

So, all the PRC sats in the world wouldn't create a cloud dense enough to stop threat spacecraft. You are clearly speculating and incorrectly so.

Americans were the ones that were complaining about the debris possibly colliding their LEO satellites, not me.

As for this entire ASAT stuff, while US does have far superior ASAT capability, that does not mean China's ASAT capability stops at KT-1. Many of its other ASAT ventures are quite well documented.