Will Super Anti Ship Missile change who controls the oceans?

[pith]

Does anyone know of a specific counter measure to this new Chinese threat? Have our guys been working on something I hope, because if we haven't it seems to me we're in a world of hurt? pith

P.S. Thanks kato, I guess we've been in this position before with the Soviets, but Korea, and the Taiwan problem come to mind right now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

The last SINKEX on a small carrier took 3 Harpoons and sustained naval gunfire from 3 ships to sink it.

there is a need to separate spin from capability. 3 satellites means an inconsistent race track on a small surveillance area with limited redundancy.

unless they load a nuke, a full size carrier at flank will be 15k's away from initial track - the missile then has to constantly update and acquire to do its job.

if they load a nuke, then welcome to their own nightmare as the US can outpunch at will - she has more SLACM and SLBM's available than china could ever hope to track manage and neutralise.

eg the 3 most powerful ships in the USN navy are not CVN's and they each have close to 150 CM's as a potential load out.

does it have potential? - yes

is it a game changer? - IMO no.

china has none of the companion systems deployed that you would expect to see accompany this capability.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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]

The Chinese do not have the maritime surveillance capability infrastructure required to reliably track a carrier battle group.

The big issue is that a carrier battle group moves. It has extensive capabilities for it's own self defense, but simply, reliably tracking the group is going to be the biggest issue in attempting to employ such a weapon.

It will also spurn counters, defensive and offensive to nullify such a capability...

It is a threat. It is not the 'end' of anything.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Does anyone know of a specific counter measure to this new Chinese threat? Have our guys been working on something I hope, because if we haven't it seems to me we're in a world of hurt? pith

P.S. Thanks kato, I guess we've been in this position before with the Soviets, but Korea, and the Taiwan problem come to mind right now.

Longer ranged fighters, operating off the carriers. By being able to operate at greater distances, the area one needs to search increases proportionately.

If your existing C4ISR infrastructure is already insufficient to reliably employ such a weapon, no matter how capable the missile itself might be, then increasing the search area such a user has to try and cover, offers the easiest method by which to nullify the effectiveness of this weapon.

 

[localhost127]

i tried doing some research but am only finding radar-based search/track on the fleet/support assets/defense umbrella. is this true? is it only the weapons (eg SM-3) that have IR tracking (multi-mode) seeker?

in the case of high-altitude ballistic missile launch, which would be seen well over the horizon, where would initial detection come from? IR-based sats seeing heat-plume from launch? onboard sensors (radar) within the fleet? is there any IR based volume searching performed on the fleet? or is that only for terminal guidance on onboard missile seekers only? especially regarding massive heating due to surface/air friction upon reentry.

it was also mentioned how active/passive sensors (onboard the missile) would be able to operate during periods of sustained/massive heating of the outer surfaces. at what temperature does it become an issue for EM radiation (radar, in this case) to pass through?

 

[pith]

Thankyou gf0012, and Digger. pith

 

[gf0012-aust]

these satellites need to be considered in the context of surveillance, targetting and track management

3 satellites in a tailgate configuration do not constitute a threat when matched against the 3 separate requirements above.

add in the fact that there is an absence of companion technology required to make any satellite constellation (which to be global needs to be 11 minimum) - and you can start to see how limited the utility is for 3 satellites

 

[Sampanviking]

As previously stated, the PRC is busy launching satellites at the moment at quite a rapid rate (guess they can afford too).
China launches military satellite YaoGan Weixing-10 | NASASpaceFlight.com

Continuing what is expected to be a launch surge for the second half of 2010, China has launched a new remote sensing satellite on Tuesday, the sixth Chinese launch this year.

Now obviously I could not possibly know how many Satellites you need to cover an ocean and find/target a Strike Carrier, but then as their are still a limited number of destinations that a Carrier could be sent to be perceived as a threat to Core Chinese National Interests, they possibly only need to cover a relatively compact area of Ocean to create an effective kill zone.

I would also point out that nearly all of the "facts" on the DF21D have come from the Western Media via US military analysts ie people not exactly the most likely to be at the top of the PLA factsheet distribution list, so the type and capability of this missile is still largely unknown.

Personally I wonder if an HE warhead would really be the most effective as I believe that a specifically crafted kinetic weapon, with very precise impact and fragmentation characteristics; possible even custom built for individual Carriers, would be far more deadly.

 

[Thiel]

Personally I wonder if an HE warhead would really be the most effective as I believe that a specifically crafted kinetic weapon, with very precise impact and fragmentation characteristics; possible even custom built for individual Carriers, would be far more deadly.

On the other hand, to do that, the PLA would have to be on the USNs factsheet distribution list.

 

[justone]

The Chinese do not have the maritime surveillance capability infrastructure required to reliably track a carrier battle group.

The big issue is that a carrier battle group moves. It has extensive capabilities for it's own self defense, but simply, reliably tracking the group is going to be the biggest issue in attempting to employ such a weapon.

It will also spurn counters, defensive and offensive to nullify such a capability...

It is a threat. It is not the 'end' of anything.

It seem like China trying to claim the South China Sea where this weapon could be effective with other Chinese anti-ship missiles. It seems to me it wants keep the U.S. aircraft carriers or task force at bay further from the mainland. China already has enough Silkworm on the coastline but not anything that can hold U.S. from coming closer. Right now no one know what this weapon can do. Is China being secretive about this weapon if this is so then it either not ready to be deployed or they don't want anyone to know about this weapon kind of like having something to fall back on. I think it was strange that the media would show this when U.S./S. Korea operation was going on. My opinion China would be the only country in Asia to be able to produce a weapon like this. If they can sent someone to space they have the technology to do it on the ground that all I'm sayin. It not to many nation that send people into space in there own rockets. They have the capacity to do it.

 

[Todjaeger]

IIRC discussion of AShBM (Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles) has been done elsewhere here on DT. Usually involving the PRC infact.

The general consensus that I recall was that such a weapon might (yes, MIGHT) be a threat, but such a weapon runs into some fairly significant technological and infrastructure-based limitations.

In the case of a AShBM being employed against a CV and/or CBG (the same thing, really) such an attack needs to be conducted OTH, against a mobile platform(s). This means that the attacking country (PRC in this case) would need to be able to get OTH target-quality data, and then relay the needed information and updates to the missile or warhead.

Given that a USN CBG has itself an organic OTH sensor footprint, then attempts to use an MPA equipped with long-range sea search radar could be completely shutdown by a CAP. If a sub was lurking nearby to relay the data, that could also be intercepted/negated. Either by reception of the comms broadcast, by the CBG ASW assets, or the 1-2 escorting SSN's which usually operate with or near a CBG. This then leaves reliance on either something like OTHR based in the mainland, or some form of satelite-based detection and tracking system. Of the OTHR systems I am aware of, while they are capable of providing a great deal of information, and make excellent 'tripwire' detection systems, they are not (currently) capable of providing target quality information. For a satelite-based system, I am again unaware of a satelite system that is currently capable of providing target quality data. There are indeed satelites which can detect an object at a location with the needed degree of accuracy, but they are not capable of doing so in 'real-time'. The US is only just now starting to deploy systems which might enable satelites to either provide or relay target quality data in real-time.

The above paragraph just covers some of the issues which would be involved in detecting, tracking and targeting a CBG. There an additional set of issues which exist with using a ballistic missile against a moving target. Amongst these issues, there is the question of whether or not a ballistic missile or its warhead could maneuver sufficiently to compensate for target movement. There is also the question of how the warhead could get the targeting updates once it has launched. This is of course assuming that the required sensor/datalink system are in place to provided the updates as needed.

In the end, it is possible that such a weapon system might be viable, but there are significant hurdles which need to be overcome first.

-Cheers

 

[justone]

IIRC discussion of AShBM (Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles) has been done elsewhere here on DT. Usually involving the PRC infact.

The general consensus that I recall was that such a weapon might (yes, MIGHT) be a threat, but such a weapon runs into some fairly significant technological and infrastructure-based limitations.

In the case of a AShBM being employed against a CV and/or CBG (the same thing, really) such an attack needs to be conducted OTH, against a mobile platform(s). This means that the attacking country (PRC in this case) would need to be able to get OTH target-quality data, and then relay the needed information and updates to the missile or warhead.

Given that a USN CBG has itself an organic OTH sensor footprint, then attempts to use an MPA equipped with long-range sea search radar could be completely shutdown by a CAP. If a sub was lurking nearby to relay the data, that could also be intercepted/negated. Either by reception of the comms broadcast, by the CBG ASW assets, or the 1-2 escorting SSN's which usually operate with or near a CBG. This then leaves reliance on either something like OTHR based in the mainland, or some form of satelite-based detection and tracking system. Of the OTHR systems I am aware of, while they are capable of providing a great deal of information, and make excellent 'tripwire' detection systems, they are not (currently) capable of providing target quality information. For a satelite-based system, I am again unaware of a satelite system that is currently capable of providing target quality data. There are indeed satelites which can detect an object at a location with the needed degree of accuracy, but they are not capable of doing so in 'real-time'. The US is only just now starting to deploy systems which might enable satelites to either provide or relay target quality data in real-time.

The above paragraph just covers some of the issues which would be involved in detecting, tracking and targeting a CBG. There an additional set of issues which exist with using a ballistic missile against a moving target. Amongst these issues, there is the question of whether or not a ballistic missile or its warhead could maneuver sufficiently to compensate for target movement. There is also the question of how the warhead could get the targeting updates once it has launched. This is of course assuming that the required sensor/datalink system are in place to provided the updates as needed.

In the end, it is possible that such a weapon system might be viable, but there are significant hurdles which need to be overcome first.

-Cheers

Thanks for the help I see things more clearly. I still think China trying keep CBG away from there mainland or Taiwan. I see the problem this missile will have in hitting a CBG. Thank for the information

 

[Aussie Digger]

Now obviously I could not possibly know how many Satellites you need to cover an ocean and find/target a Strike Carrier, but then as their are still a limited number of destinations that a Carrier could be sent to be perceived as a threat to Core Chinese National Interests, they possibly only need to cover a relatively compact area of Ocean to create an effective kill zone.

I would also point out that nearly all of the "facts" on the DF21D have come from the Western Media via US military analysts ie people not exactly the most likely to be at the top of the PLA factsheet distribution list, so the type and capability of this missile is still largely unknown.

Personally I wonder if an HE warhead would really be the most effective as I believe that a specifically crafted kinetic weapon, with very precise impact and fragmentation characteristics; possible even custom built for individual Carriers, would be far more deadly.

Some serious people do study the issues involved in these types of threats... It is not simply a case of building a ballistic missile, attaching a seeker head and all of a sudden the US Carrier force is obsolete.

Here is a PDF document which goes into the problems in some detail. It is dated December 2009 too...

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/...-s-Antiship-Ballistic-Missile--Developments-a

 

[Sampanviking]

Sorry Digger but your link is not working, my OS is giving the message "document broken and cannot be fixed".

China Daily is carrying an article on the subject

China developing carrier-destroying missile

Most of it follows the Chinese media's bizarre habit of reporting on Western Media reports of such issues, but the fact that such a story is being carried without as named official giving a detailed rebuttal, suggests that either the facts are as stated are accurate enough or that the PRC is happy enough for the world to believe that they are.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry Digger but your link is not working, my OS is giving the message "document broken and cannot be fixed".

China Daily is carrying an article on the subject

China developing carrier-destroying missile

Most of it follows the Chinese media's bizarre habit of reporting on Western Media reports of such issues, but the fact that such a story is being carried without as named official giving a detailed rebuttal, suggests that either the facts are as stated are accurate enough or that the PRC is happy enough for the world to believe that they are.

Right click and save target/link directly on the link. works fine for me...

 

[kato]

Most of it follows the Chinese media's bizarre habit of reporting on Western Media reports of such issues

That's not really bizarre, that's a classic propaganda thing. Recently read a German newspaper from World War 1 that did a similar thing using selective quotes from Entente media back then.

 

[Sampanviking]

Right click and save target/link directly on the link. works fine for me...

Thanks its working now. maybe the hosts server was down when I first tried. It is though a little older than I would have preferred and some of the assumptions they make are questionable. Some issues are I think now regarded as settled, but I will finish the article before making any comment.

That's not really bizarre, that's a classic propaganda thing. Recently read a German newspaper from World War 1 that did a similar thing using selective quotes from Entente media back then.

Actually I do understand it is almost the perfect form of plausible deniability. It is bizarre though and reminds me of old British cold war satire, where Government Ministers want to get hold of KGB assessments as they are regarded as far more accurate than information held by the British Government itself.

 

[kato]

Btw, West and East Germany actually played that game on TV for 30+ years.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_schwarze_Kanal"]Der schwarze Kanal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/Fileer_schwarze_kanal.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Der_schwarze_kanal.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/7/73/Der_schwarze_kanal.jpg[/ame]

 

[localhost127]

could someone please explain to me the context of using a ballistic missile or ballistic kinetic warhead?

i was under the impression that conventional weapons are *not* used on ballistic transport mediums, simply because of the lack of transparency for opposing forces in knowing whether the payload is indeed conventional, and not strategic...

how would china circumvent this scenario?

if such a scenario unfolded and a ballistic weapon was launched, what would be the decision logic by US forces? would they literally have to "wait and see" if it was strategic or not?

what is limiting US forces from deploying localized/intra-continent ballistic missiles in cases where high KE is required (structure penetration)? land-based or ship/sub-based?

 

[kato]

i was under the impression that conventional weapons are *not* used on ballistic transport mediums, simply because of the lack of transparency for opposing forces in knowing whether the payload is indeed conventional, and not strategic...

Yes, but several countries are re-evaluating their options in that direction (for the past 10 years or so) - not just China, but the USA and UK too. See e.g. "Conventional Trident Modification Program".

what is limiting US forces from deploying localized/intra-continent ballistic missiles in cases where high KE is required?

The INF treaty prevents the USA from possessing IRBMs with a range of 500 to 2500 km. At least armed IRBMs, there is at least one such missile in production as a target vehicle for SM-3 and other ABM.