Will Super Anti Ship Missile change who controls the oceans?

[justone]

Just got information on a big super missile the Chinese developed that can take out Aircraft Carriers. This will change who control the waves. The U.S. Navy will no longer control the waves when this go online. What are U.S. planners going to do about this? This a big development in the new of Naval Warfare. The DF21D Missile the Chinese are working on. "Lt. Gen David[ Deptula, told reporters this week that China's efforts to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend."

 

[Todjaeger]

Just got information on a big super missile the Chinese developed that can take out Aircraft Carriers. This will change who control the waves. The U.S. Navy will no longer control the waves when this go online. What are U.S. planners going to do about this? This a big development in the new of Naval Warfare.

What 'super missile' are you talking about? So far, you have stated that the Chinese have developed such a missile which can take out aircraft carriers, and that it (the missile presumably) will change who controls the waves. Please provide evidence and information about this.

So far, there is not even a name provided for the 'super missile' so people can search for and gather information on the missile. Without that, with no information available, there is no point in attempting to discuss anything.

EDIT: Having done some additional checking, is the missile supposed to be the Dong Feng 21D? If so, then it remains to be seen whether or not it is as capable as some have talked it up. Going off this Yahoo News article, two areas which struck me as being conspicously unmentioned was the nature of the anti-ship missile (in this case, ballistic) and just exactly how the PRC is supposed to be able to detect, track and guide the missile to a maneuvering target 1,500 km away. Nevermind through/past the rather extensive sensor and air defence footprint present in a CBG.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Personally, I love how someone is finally "challenging" U.S. Naval dominance again, that should force us into an arms race, although war is bad, blah blah blah, we all know that when someone points a gun to your head, you're gonna do your best to create a better counter measure. In this case, with China possibly pointing these Dong Feng 21D's at us, it should force us to allocate further ABM research, so, if things goes the way I see it in my head, we should have a far superior energy-based weapon than THEL or that Airborne laser thingy(as Russia's TOPOL-M was already immune to them anyways).

One question, if a CBG manages to detect the launch of the DF-21D, could that same CBG fire a SM-3 to intercept it, or would the DF-21D be too fast?

 

[Sea Toby]

Personally, I love how someone is finally "challenging" U.S. Naval dominance again, that should force us into an arms race, although war is bad, blah blah blah, we all know that when someone points a gun to your head, you're gonna do your best to create a better counter measure. In this case, with China possibly pointing these Dong Feng 21D's at us, it should force us to allocate further ABM research, so, if things goes the way I see it in my head, we should have a far superior energy-based weapon than THEL or that Airborne laser thingy(as Russia's TOPOL-M was already immune to them anyways).

One question, if a CBG manages to detect the launch of the DF-21D, could that same CBG fire a SM-3 to intercept it, or would the DF-21D be too fast?

I am sure if somebody develops and deploy such missiles there will be defensive measures taken to counter it... You can count on it, long before its disclosed to the media...

 

[meat_helmet]

"The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

Source: Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance - Yahoo! News

Note the phrase 'potentially capable'. It makes sense that any serious attempt by a military power to develop a weapon system intended to attack a CBG would have the 'potential' to succeed in its goal. Of course, I am 'potentially capable' of scoring a goal in the World Cup against Spain - but that doesnt take into account the exceptional defence in place to stop me from doing so. The probability of me doing so would be extremely low.

You can bet even China doesn't know how effective these missles would be aginst a CBGs defences in the real world. Just because there is potential there does not mean it will have a game changing effect.

Its not coincidence that these articles are springing up at the exact same time as the US and S.Korea are holding huge military drills in China's backyard. China is flexing its muscles and as Sea Toby said, if these missiles are in development there have been/will soon be measures taken by others to counter them.

 

[Juramentado]

Just got information on a big super missile the Chinese developed that can take out Aircraft Carriers. This will change who control the waves. The U.S. Navy will no longer control the waves when this go online. What are U.S. planners going to do about this? This a big development in the new of Naval Warfare. The DF21D Missile the Chinese are working on. [B]"Lt. Gen David[ Deptula, told reporters this week that China's efforts to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend."/B]

Let's put this into perspective.

For starters - I asked a few questions about this topic elsewhere, including the US Naval War College threads that seemed to start the latest round of "buzz" about the DF-21. So far, no one has directly replied, but likely there are people who do know the answers, they may just not be able to answer. Apologies if people have seen it before:

Strategic or Tactical? A lot of that has to do with it's perceived effectiveness and capabilities. A strategic weapon is usually centralized, with a very structured command-and-control. An tactical weapon means that it has doctrine tied to immediate battlefield use, and is intended to be distributed amongst many units.

Concept of Operations: A strategic deterrence weapon means that decision-making regarding it's use is very limited and inflexible - in other words, it needs more oversight to "unlock" and then "fire." The decision cycle to use the weapon could be overtaken by events so the choice must be deliberate and intended. Think of it like any WMD. A tactical weapon is at the disposal of numerous lower-rated commanders and could be brought into play more nimbly as a response to changes in the battlespace conditions.

Effectiveness: If it's fired singly implies high degree of accuracy, very effective payload and very capable sensor detection. If in in salvos, that implies less accuracy, and not lethal enough for a one-shot/one-kill against a CV sized target. Granted, a near-miss could result in a "mission kill."

The latest news stories quote the Xinghua News Agency stating that three salvos would be fired in order to sink a carrier. Getting past the rhetoric and assuming there's even a shred of truth in it, that answers the effectiveness question.

Unknown Factors: And here is the The Big Question Mark - how do they target against an OTH task force? This weapon cannot be effectively employed as a Line-of-Sight platform. It has to be a stand-off weapon in order to hold a CSG at bay. Very few countries can claim to have OTH targeting that not only works, but works well. This is why the "buzz" around the weapon is so frustrating to informed observers - the BANG is only part of the equation. Getting the BANG to the target is a big gap. Have the Chinese filled it?

Possible Counters: The Chinese have to know that Western doctrine is to attack the C3I layers - a "typical Baghdad template" to quote the original Gulf War I. if the sensor net is deep enough inside the mainland, that should give pause to any proactive attacks - this is a large capable military nation armed with a working ICBM nuclear wing, not just a bunch of free-fall gravity bombs. Question: Where else could we break the kill chain to prevent effective DF-21 use?

 

[sgtgunn]

Let's put this into perspective.

Possible Counters: The Chinese have to know that Western doctrine is to attack the C3I layers - a "typical Baghdad template" to quote the original Gulf War I. if the sensor net is deep enough inside the mainland, that should give pause to any proactive attacks - this is a large capable military nation armed with a working ICBM nuclear wing, not just a bunch of free-fall gravity bombs. Question: Where else could we break the kill chain to prevent effective DF-21 use?

B-2s with precision munitions or sub launched tomahawks knocking out launch sights?

I'm not sure how they would provide targeting information against a CBG that far out - sattelites? Submarines? Aircraft?

What else can the PRC use to look over the horizon?

Aircraft are not going to get close enough to a CBG. Subs maybe - but then they have to be able to transmitt the data, which I would assume involves coming to periscope depth to transmit. And given the USNs ASW and SSN capabilities, I'd think a PRC sub would have to get pretty lucky to get anywhere near a USN CBG and live long.


Not much we can do about sattelites (unless the US has some black program to shoot them down, which wouldn't suprise me) but I can only assume we have a pretty good idea what the PRC has in orbit, where it is, etc.

If the USN is looking at having to start defending against a mach 10+ ASM any time soon, then I think they need to start looking hard at some kind of directed engery CIWS. Can't outrun light.

Adrian

 

[meat_helmet]

Not much we can do about sattelites (unless the US has some black program to shoot them down, which wouldn't suprise me) but I can only assume we have a pretty good idea what the PRC has in orbit, where it is, etc.

If the USN is looking at having to start defending against a mach 10+ ASM any time soon, then I think they need to start looking hard at some kind of directed engery CIWS. Can't outrun light.

Adrian

The USN did shoot down a failing US satellite in 2008 with a modified SM-3. Apparently the closing velocity was about Mach 35, but it succeeded in hitting it. Obviously the tragetory might be quite different with a ballistic missle fired directly at them, but it seems both possible to knock out any low orbit targeting satellites and Mach 10+ objects with a modified SM-3 going by this.

 

[Sampanviking]

I am sure that the DF21D is indeed a real and working system. Its introduction into the public conciousness follows a now familiar path taken by nearly all of the PLA's new major hardware.

If there are obstacles to the system being fully operational, these are likely not to be part of the basic missile technology but of the targeting and navigational networks that are still in the deployment phase. The Beidou Global positioning system; for example. is not due to give full regional coverage until the end of 2012 although new parts of the network are being launched every other month.

I also think that people have for too long considered Asymmetrical Warfare as a cipher for insurgency, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

The earliest Asymmetrical Battle I can think off in Agincourt and Crecy where the French sent their hyper expensive Knights against the cheap and cheerful Longbowmen of England and were slaughtered.

The most recent historic example would have to be in WW2 where the navies of the world sent their hyper expensive Super Dreadnoughts against the lowely Torpedo Bomber. The Torpedo Bomber concept remains to this day but the Battleship is consigned to the museum.

Now it is the turn of that marvel of mid twentieth century technology, the hyper expensive Strike Carrier to face its low cost nemesis with the advent of ASBM.

Personally I think that "Asymmetrical" is a prissy term used to salve the bruised ego's of failing superpowers, often where the term "Obsolete" is probably far more appropriate.

 

[sgtgunn]

The earliest Asymmetrical Battle I can think off in Agincourt and Crecy where the French sent their hyper expensive Knights against the cheap and cheerful Longbowmen of England and were slaughtered.

The most recent historic example would have to be in WW2 where the navies of the world sent their hyper expensive Super Dreadnoughts against the lowely Torpedo Bomber. The Torpedo Bomber concept remains to this day but the Battleship is consigned to the museum.

Now it is the turn of that marvel of mid twentieth century technology, the hyper expensive Strike Carrier to face its low cost nemesis with the advent of ASBM.

Personally I think that "Asymmetrical" is a prissy term used to salve the bruised ego's of failing superpowers, often where the term "Obsolete" is probably far more appropriate.

The English Longbowmen who figured so heavily in the English victories at Crecy and Agincourt, where in the terms of the day, hardly cheap. Sure they didn't have the expensive armorer or warhorses used by french knights and men-at-arms, but what they did have was years and years of very intensive training, which is why the longbow despite it's effectiveness never saw widespread use outside the British Isles. The cheaper, more powerful, and easier to use (though less effective overall due to it's low rate of fire) crossbow filled that role on the continent. A dead Longbowmen was in his own way just as difficult to replace as a dead knight. An English Longbow could have a draw weight of up to around 140-150lbs, and as the arrow was drawn back to the ear, couldn't be aimed in a normal way, but rather had to be aimed by instinct. These two factors meant it was incredibly hard to learn to shoot well, and most English Longbowmen trained from youth before becoming proficient. They were the ultimate specialists, and are more like modern special forces in the level of training they required than anything else.

The battleship fleets of the world were not rendered obsolete by the torpedo bomber, but rather by the equally expensive and complex aircraft carrier (and it's many torpedo and dive bombers - which are expensive when you build 100s or 1000s of them) along with increasingly advanced submarines. Which for the most part were built and fielded by the same navies that built the battleships that they sunk. Nothing Asymmetric there.

Germany's use of U-Boats to strike at the UK's overseas supply lines rather than trying to fight the RN directly or the Japanese use of Kamikazes at the end of the war (because of a lack of anything else effective) would be better examples of Asymmetric warfare.

 

[kato]

Subs maybe - but then they have to be able to transmitt the data, which I would assume involves coming to periscope depth to transmit.

There's comm buoys for that. No need to move the sub itself upwards.

Apparently the closing velocity was about Mach 35, but it succeeded in hitting it.

The relative velocity at intercept was "in excess of Mach 32". In a relative head-on collision, that means the kill vehicle only had a velocity of around Mach 8-10.

The intercept also happened at the perigee of the satellite's LEO path, at less than 250 km height.
A DF-21 has an apogee twice as high; by the time it comes into SM-3 intercept altitude, we'd already be talking about the payload making its way towards the atmosphere at Mach 10+. Considering the way SM-3 works (kill vehicle targetting extra-atmospheric only post-ejection from third stage) i have my doubts about its effectiveness against IRBMs and ICBMs - and that's not what SM-3 was built for anyway.

 

[meat_helmet]

There's comm buoys for that. No need to move the sub itself upwards.


The relative velocity at intercept was "in excess of Mach 32". In a relative head-on collision, that means the kill vehicle only had a velocity of around Mach 8-10.

The intercept also happened at the perigee of the satellite's LEO path, at less than 250 km height.
A DF-21 has an apogee twice as high; by the time it comes into SM-3 intercept altitude, we'd already be talking about the payload making its way towards the atmosphere at Mach 10+. Considering the way SM-3 works (kill vehicle targetting extra-atmospheric only post-ejection from third stage) i have my doubts about its effectiveness against IRBMs and ICBMs - and that's not what SM-3 was built for anyway.

Yes thats what I meant by closing velocity, eg. the speed the two are closing in at each other. I was just trying to illustrate that it is capable of hitting targets at well above Mach 10. You bring up a good point, however, I did not realise the DF-21 would be hitting those altitudes. And a MRIV incoming at that speed is quite a different (and more difficult) target to hit I admit.

 

[IronsightSniper]

The USN did shoot down a failing US satellite in 2008 with a modified SM-3. Apparently the closing velocity was about Mach 35, but it succeeded in hitting it. Obviously the tragetory might be quite different with a ballistic missle fired directly at them, but it seems both possible to knock out any low orbit targeting satellites and Mach 10+ objects with a modified SM-3 going by this.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaogan"]Yaogan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]...SM-3 is gonna have a hard time going 3 times it's service ceiling.

 

[rip]

I am having trouble understanding this whole supper weapon thing? Leaving aside for the moment the initial targeting problems in this scenario, that of finding and correctly identifying the carrier task-force from hundreds of mills away. There are other problems.
We will discard the use of nuclear weapons, because that means nuclear war and if that is the game why bother with going after a task-force.
First I know of know guidance technique that can be used for the terminal phase of an Intermediate Range Ballistic type Missile. You cannot use radar, IR, or optical. At these speeds what material can you think of that can withstand the heat, dynamic pressure of reentry, and is at the same time be transparent to microwaves, or IR, or optical wavelengths? Plus you then need to clearly see through the projectile’s bow shockwave and plasma envelop traveling at these velocities? Pre targeting the ship before launch doesn’t work, ships move and no matter how fast the missile moves, it’s a big ocean and its takes some time.
If this supper weapon is in fact a complicated multi stage devise like a cluster weapon with an ejector buss that releases a kill vehicle after traveling through the roughest part of the troposphere it would have to be very big and how do you eject kill vehicles at mach-seven without the fratricide? If the buss slows down to a speed where theses are not insurmountable problems then the kill vehicles become just more air targets for the task-force. Carriers are very hard to kill. Remember the seen of the accident on the1967 of USS Forestall fire. Five hundred pound bombs, rockets, fully loaded jets burning that were getting ready to launch an ALPHA strike. And they build carriers even tougher now. What kind of warhead would it take and how many would it take.

 

[tphuang]

i think most of the recent articles basically came out after I posted an entry a while ago on a blog I contribute to.
The original blog is here Information Dissemination: PLAN ASBM development
There was a second part for it too. Basically, there is sufficient evidence that China is working on this and they are quite far along on their project. They are at the point where they are no longer denying the project. Now, the part to watch out for is obviously testing it out. And the recent speculation that they fired it in one of the live fire test brought the story back.

As for targeting, they are building a network that will make this possible. It's not ready yet, but it is slowly coming online with more EO satellites and long range UAVs getting commissioned. And it is more than just DF-21D. Once you can develop the technology for ballistic missile to hit moving targets. Then you also have the technology to develop air launched ASBM based on mach 4 to 6 SRBMs. Not as dangerous as DF-21D and certainly much easier for existing ABM system like SM-3 to intercept, but I would say that's still more dangerous than any existing anti-ship cruise missile.

 

[charles34]

Do you guys think is it possible that china would try to put this weapon onto on one of their ships, say an aircraft carrier?

 

[1805]

The English Longbowmen who figured so heavily in the English victories at Crecy and Agincourt, where in the terms of the day, hardly cheap. Sure they didn't have the expensive armorer or warhorses used by french knights and men-at-arms, but what they did have was years and years of very intensive training, which is why the longbow despite it's effectiveness never saw widespread use outside the British Isles. The cheaper, more powerful, and easier to use (though less effective overall due to it's low rate of fire) crossbow filled that role on the continent. A dead Longbowmen was in his own way just as difficult to replace as a dead knight. An English Longbow could have a draw weight of up to around 140-150lbs, and as the arrow was drawn back to the ear, couldn't be aimed in a normal way, but rather had to be aimed by instinct. These two factors meant it was incredibly hard to learn to shoot well, and most English Longbowmen trained from youth before becoming proficient. They were the ultimate specialists, and are more like modern special forces in the level of training they required than anything else.

The battleship fleets of the world were not rendered obsolete by the torpedo bomber, but rather by the equally expensive and complex aircraft carrier (and it's many torpedo and dive bombers - which are expensive when you build 100s or 1000s of them) along with increasingly advanced submarines. Which for the most part were built and fielded by the same navies that built the battleships that they sunk. Nothing Asymmetric there.

Germany's use of U-Boats to strike at the UK's overseas supply lines rather than trying to fight the RN directly or the Japanese use of Kamikazes at the end of the war (because of a lack of anything else effective) would be better examples of Asymmetric warfare.

Or the USN very successful and often overlook submarine campaign against the Japanese merchant marine?

 

[pith]

Actually, I'm a little surprised there hasn't been something before now that could take out an aircraft carrier. I'm hoping that we don't get caught flat footed on this. If this Chinese system is dependent on satellites wouldn't we be able to dispose of those? pith

 

[kato]

Actually, I'm a little surprised there hasn't been something before now that could take out an aircraft carrier.

P-700 Granit and P-500 Bazalt?

 

[lizs]

JL-2 SLBM in commission

June 2003, JL-2 Y1 First ground launch test ( Y ~ remote sensing prototype ?)

Jan. 2004, JL-2 Y2 First flight test

June 2005, JL-2 first successfully launched from a surfaced conventional Type 031 (G class) submarine

2006, first underwater launch test failed

May 2008, first successful underwater launch from Type 031 submarine

Early 2009, first successful underwater launch from Type 094 nuclear submarine

2010 formally in service