Anti-ship Ballistic Missile

[Das Kardinal]

Is it so easy? What kind of sensors is this warhead going to have that it can see out of? You can't install optics thru the heat shield and expect them to survive. Rentry will make the warhead so hot she would be blind. Unless the targeting system knows EXACTLY where the target will be via GPS coordinates how will it know where to go?

I know optics are a no-go on a reentry vehicle, that's why I said "imaging radar". Though there may be issues with plasmas during the reentry : would the warhead have time to acquire the target and make final course corrections ?
Also, another idea would be a datalink updating the location of the target... but apart from the technical challenge you would need to keep said target under continuous observation.
Either way I was merely trying to find how such a system could work, no way implying it would be easy to make it work...

Moreover, such a system would provide a big incentive for theater missile defence !

 

[Big-E]

Seeing how it is a moving target, bomblets seem like a better idea, spreading small scale destruction over a wide area, especially with multiple missiles launched. Damaging sensors on the ship would be quite enough.

Why waste time with bomblets... make the warhead nuclear. It doesn't have to be very accurate for that and take out the whole fleet in one blast.

 

[Totoro]

Why waste time with bomblets... make the warhead nuclear. It doesn't have to be very accurate for that and take out the whole fleet in one blast.

Because I worry about response to the use of nuclear weapons of any kind and in any situation. Doesn't matter if its a fairly small nuke used just on a ship - it may lead to bigger nuke retaliation. That's a road no country should, in my opinion, venture out on. End of discussion on that particular idea, on my part.

 

[Big-E]

The point being bomblets are usless trying to cover an area as vast as the open oceans...the same as making this weapon nuclear for political reasons. If you hadn't picked up on the sarcasm let me just say if you can't get direct coordinates don't waste your time.

 

[Totoro]

The point being bomblets are usless trying to cover an area as vast as the open oceans. If you can't get direct coordinates don't waste your time.

If you take a note of the first sentence in my post, you will notice I am talking about tracking the target. To me, tracking means knowing where the target is and where it is going at all the time. Once that is achieved, one interprets the info into coordinates, then feeds (and keeps feeding) those coordinates into the ballistic missile. Depending on technology and/or tactical situation, that data may be available throughout the whole flight of the missile, or through most of the flight but not when its too close to target (being too far away from units feeding the data or too close to enemy jammers or whatever). And in that case, where the last 200 or so km may be travelled without new info, one can use guidance on the missile itself to get closer to target (We are no longer talking about vast surface of the ocean but at approximately 8x8 km area. -for target accelerating to 35 knots and a 2.5 mach missile) Theoretically, one doesn't even need bomblets, but since the target may be just 20-30 meters wide and constantly moving, plus if one adds possible inprecision of the guidance itself, i would think bomblets are still a safer bet to incapacitate the enemy.

No one here is talking about just getting a glimpse of enemy's position and launching the missile in fire and forget style. That would surely lead to a wide miss.

 

[Distiller]

You don't need to put a long-range sensor pack on a ballistic ASM. Target information could come from other orbital assets and datalinked over to the kill vehicle, and only needs a limited on-board sensor capability, probably a radar. And the warhead itself - provided the throw weight of the missile is really 500kg+ - could be just a slug of steel or DU. No need for explosives at those energy levels.

 

[Totoro]

You don't need to put a long-range sensor pack on a ballistic ASM. Target information could come from other orbital assets and datalinked over to the kill vehicle, and only needs a limited on-board sensor capability, probably a radar. And the warhead itself - provided the throw weight of the missile is really 500kg+ - could be just a slug of steel or DU. No need for explosives at those energy levels.

Well, true, if you happen to have orbital assets (space based radars?) or even just a comm relay network for datalinking the radar info from the other assets (awacs or the like, 400km from the target) and if all those are working so well that you can have CEP of under 10 meters - yeah, then no guidance on the missile may be needed. Same goes for warhead. if one indeed can score a direct hit, i agree that half a ton slug going mach 2.5 is quite enough to obliterate any destroyer and heavily damage even carrier sized targets.

 

[alexsa]

IR-guided might have a problem with the heating of the re-entry vehicle.

Trying to locate a target in the middle of the ocean with sufficient accuracy to drop a ballistic missile on it will be a challenge. If you are tracking the target wiht such accuracty it is likley:

1. You should be engaging wiht more convnetional weapons rather than waiting for the coordinates to be fed into a BM and then have it fired; and
2. You are like to be the subject of a pretty vigours response while tracking.

Finally if anybody fires a BM without warning they are likley to be the subject of a pretty vigorous response on the launch site, even if it is a convnetional warhead, as I suspect nobody will wait to find out it was an anti ship missile.

 

[dioditto]

Finally if anybody fires a BM without warning they are likley to be the subject of a pretty vigorous response on the launch site, even if it is a convnetional warhead, as I suspect nobody will wait to find out it was an anti ship missile.

This is a curious quote, since I am wondering, does that include americans? I have read that americans are converting their ballistic missiles (Trident?) to be strip of nuke and arm with conventional warhead. So, isn't this going to be happen to america.. getting nuked for launching a conventionally armed warhead? (Since Russia and China isn't going to wait to find out if it's conventional or not)

 

[Big-E]

You don't need to put a long-range sensor pack on a ballistic ASM. Target information could come from other orbital assets and datalinked over to the kill vehicle, and only needs a limited on-board sensor capability, probably a radar. And the warhead itself - provided the throw weight of the missile is really 500kg+ - could be just a slug of steel or DU. No need for explosives at those energy levels.

This would have to be the case. You can't put imaging radar in a warhead traveling at hypersonic speeds and have enough time to alter the trajectory to hit the target. The satellite and software would have to extrapolate a kill zone for the initial trajectory of the missile. If the fleet somehow moved out of this area there would be no hope of achieving a hit. It is much like the space shuttle coming out of orbit... it has to hit it's window but the window and maneuverability of an RV is much smaller. Once launched the missile trajectory is on a fixed path until the RVs renter the atmosphere. They will only have a matter of seconds to alter trajectory, the higher in the entry stage this happens the more maneuver time they have. If it was installed with an imaging radar they would have practically no time to change course as radar fitted into the warhead would have no range. They must have a GPS downlink so they can alter course from high altitude so they have enough time.

The KE will be so great a DU slug will go right thru the deck and out the bottom of the hull. You need an HE round with a timed fuse. 1000lbs of HE detonated in the center of the ship will split it in two.

 

[alexsa]

This is a curious quote, since I am wondering, does that include americans? I have read that americans are converting their ballistic missiles (Trident?) to be strip of nuke and arm with conventional warhead. So, isn't this going to be happen to america.. getting nuked for launching a conventionally armed warhead? (Since Russia and China isn't going to wait to find out if it's conventional or not)

Have a look at Dealge in respect to this conversion. It is not a case of converting BM bur removing them and adapting the boat to a tactical role with tomahawks. This conversion is being carried out on the first 4 Ohio boats.

http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/SSGN_a000494002.aspx

If you are in a conflict with another country and you launch a BM, even if you have managed to develope an ani-shipping version, I doubt the other party is going to sit back and wait to see what sort of missile it is.

 

[swerve]

If you are in a conflict with another country and you launch a BM, even if you have managed to develope an ani-shipping version, I doubt the other party is going to sit back and wait to see what sort of missile it is.

You mean, like the USA & the Israelis nuked Iraq when Saddam started throwing ballistic missiles around in 1991? Oh, wait . .. . .

I would expect alerts, but nothing more, until the trajectory was plotted. Not quite sitting back, but yes, waiting to see what sort of missile. And once it was discovered to be heading for the sea, fingers would be a bit further from triggers - except, of course, SAM triggers.

Of course, if it turned out to be a nuke, even if aimed at warships, I would not be at all surprised if a nuke hit near the launch site. But there would also be frantic diplomacy trying to avert an all-out nuclear exchange. Messages like "We're firing one nuke because you've fired one. If you don't want us to destroy your country, don't fire any more. But this is not an all-out attack".

 

[.pt]

In any case, firing a BM without warning, i.e. the case of a test fire, etc etc, so that everyone concerned can know what to expect and verify it by tracking the missile, is a very dangerous proposition, risking retaliation. I´m not sure, but i think all the powers with BM and space programs notify the UN ora UN body of these launches, just for this purpose, to avoid wrongful interpretations of these launches. Everything else is likely to be treated as hostile launch of BM, and responded to acordingly.
Such a weapon if feasible would be great to atack USN carrier groups, without hope of defense.
As for nukes, regardless of target, isn´t it the policy of US to reataliate disproportionally to any nuclear detonation by any country, except perhaps Russia and China? nukes really should be out of the equation when, as Big-E pointed, you can use far less expensive (in $$ and political capital) HE warhead, and achieve your aim.
.pt

 

[alexsa]

You mean, like the USA & the Israelis nuked Iraq when Saddam started throwing ballistic missiles around in 1991? Oh, wait . .. . .

I would expect alerts, but nothing more, until the trajectory was plotted. Not quite sitting back, but yes, waiting to see what sort of missile. And once it was discovered to be heading for the sea, fingers would be a bit further from triggers - except, of course, SAM triggers.

Of course, if it turned out to be a nuke, even if aimed at warships, I would not be at all surprised if a nuke hit near the launch site. But there would also be frantic diplomacy trying to avert an all-out nuclear exchange. Messages like "We're firing one nuke because you've fired one. If you don't want us to destroy your country, don't fire any more. But this is not an all-out attack".

To focus on the question at hand..... we are talking about China developing an BM for anti ship attack. If this weapon were to be used it would be in a conflict situaion. Flight time of you ballistic misile would only be in te order of 10 to 15 minutes maximum depending on range.

If China launched BM (and I am not suggesting they will) in a conflict situation I would expect a rapid response. firing any sort of BM in a conflict situation will esculate it so it would not be a weapon you wouel use if you were trying to keep things local, quite appart from the accuracy issues.

The reference to Isreal is unrelated to thsi issue as we are talkinga bout anti ship BM,s. To add this this the IDF were pretty certain a nuclear warhead ahd not been developed for the Scud ... chemical and biological warheads were the amin concern.

 

[Distiller]

I wonder if there is a way to track a nuclear powered (surface) warship by *some* signature of its reactor (except IR).

 

[swerve]

To focus on the question at hand..... we are talking about China developing an BM for anti ship attack. If this weapon were to be used it would be in a conflict situaion. Flight time of you ballistic misile would only be in te order of 10 to 15 minutes maximum depending on range.

If China launched BM (and I am not suggesting they will) in a conflict situation I would expect a rapid response. firing any sort of BM in a conflict situation will esculate it so it would not be a weapon you wouel use if you were trying to keep things local, quite appart from the accuracy issues.

The reference to Isreal is unrelated to thsi issue as we are talkinga bout anti ship BM,s. To add this this the IDF were pretty certain a nuclear warhead ahd not been developed for the Scud ... chemical and biological warheads were the amin concern.

Of course there would be a rapid response. But a conventional rapid response, unless the missile exploded with an unusually large bang, or was clearly an ICBM. China has several hundred conventionally-armed ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan (& the USA knows that), & I think it's almost certain that in a war over Taiwan, China would use them. In the hypothetical conflict we're discussing, & the hypothetical use of anti-ship ballistic missiles, we can safely assume that the first reaction of the USA to ballistic missiles being fired from SE China in the general direction of Taiwan & any nearby US ships, would be to treat them as conventional. Exactly as they reacted to Saddams ballistic missiles.

You implied that there would be a nuclear reaction, & you're still, despite historical precedent, insisting that the use of any ballistic missiles would lead to escalation, which I presume means nuclear. Why? Before answering, I suggest you consider 1) the Chinese conventional BM arsenal I've already mentioned, 2) the fact that very soon after launch, the approximate trajectory of a BM can be determined - so the USA will know that anti-ship BMs are not aimed at the USA, & 3) the fact that cruise missiles can be nuclear-tipped (do you think the USA would refrain from using conventional TLAMS in case an enemy assumed them to be nuclear?).

BTW, the USAF didn't have much success hunting down Iraqi mobile missile launchers in 1991. Sensors are better now, but Chinese defences are also a lot better than Saddam had back then, & they have both more territory to hide in & much better terrain for hiding.

 

[alexsa]

You implied that there would be a nuclear reaction, & you're still, despite historical precedent, insisting that the use of any ballistic missiles would lead to escalation, which I presume means nuclear. Why? Before answering, I suggest you consider 1) the Chinese conventional BM arsenal I've already mentioned, 2) the fact that very soon after launch, the approximate trajectory of a BM can be determined - so the USA will know that anti-ship BMs are not aimed at the USA, & 3) the fact that cruise missiles can be nuclear-tipped (do you think the USA would refrain from using conventional TLAMS in case an enemy assumed them to be nuclear?).

BTW, the USAF didn't have much success hunting down Iraqi mobile missile launchers in 1991. Sensors are better now, but Chinese defences are also a lot better than Saddam had back then, & they have both more territory to hide in & much better terrain for hiding.

No I stated ther would be a respone. the Scud missile fired by Iraq did not carry a nuclear warhead but there was concenrn that it could carry chemical and biological warheads. The DF-21 being discussed here is a medium range ballistic missile (which is currnetly nuclear tipped) wiht a range of 1800km. As such it is a vastly diffent item compared to the scud.

I maintain that if you start lobbing these at a carrier battle group expect a vigours response. To that end why bother, once the warhead is on the way down it ahs no mid course guidance, so there is a good chance of a miss.

Why bother esculating a situation when a convnetional SSM could be more effective, particualry as your surveilance would have to have been pretty good to try the BM option the first place.

On a second note if China started lobbing MRBM at Taiwan I doubt the US (or a number of other contries for that matter) would limit its response to a strongly worded diplomaitc note.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[swerve]

No I stated ther would be a respone. the Scud missile fired by Iraq did not carry a nuclear warhead but there was concenrn that it could carry chemical and biological warheads. The DF-21 being discussed here is a medium range ballistic missile (which is currnetly nuclear tipped) wiht a range of 1800km. As such it is a vastly diffent item compared to the scud.

I maintain that if you start lobbing these at a carrier battle group expect a vigours response. To that end why bother, once the warhead is on the way down it ahs no mid course guidance, so there is a good chance of a miss.

Why bother esculating a situation when a convnetional SSM could be more effective, particualry as your surveilance would have to have been pretty good to try the BM option the first place.

On a second note if China started lobbing MRBM at Taiwan I doubt the US (or a number of other contries for that matter) would limit its response to a strongly worded diplomaitc note.

Feel free to disagree.

I don't disagree with most of that, but your dark warnings about a response read very much as if you meant something stronger than the normal, conventional response to the use of normal, conventional weapons. You were very strongly suggesting that the response to the launch of any ballistic missile would be much stronger than to the use of other weapons. Why?

I've not said at any point that the USA (or anyone else) would not react to China attacking Taiwan, or firing on US (or any other) ships. All I've said is that the response would not be of a higher order if ballistic missiles were used. But you have repeatedly put them into a special category.

As for "why bother, once the warhead is on the way down it ahs no mid course guidance, so there is a good chance of a miss.

Why bother esculating a situation when a convnetional SSM could be more effective," - well, the first part is what this whole thread is about: CAN they be made accurate enough to be effective? The second is the thing you keep failing to justify, the idea that ballistic missiles are a special category of weapon, the use of which constitutes an escalation of some kind. Frankly, I find that baffling. Whether your ship is hit by a lump of metal coming down from the sky, something which slams into it after skimming across the sea, or something which remains underwater the whole time, makes no difference whatsoever. It's a conventional weapon, which will elicit a conventional response. It's that word "escalating": it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Energy Jobs]

If Beijing creates a working missile, and “the U.S. fails to develop counters to it, operating carriers within range of this system, which the DoD [Department of Defense] gives as in excess of 1,500 kilometers, could become a highly risky proposition,” said Cliff, who wrote “Entering the Dragon’s Lair” about China’s anti access strategies.
China has other options beyond a ballistic missile. Its Su-30, JH 7 and H-6 naval strike aircraft have unrefueled combat radiuses of 1,500 and 1,800 kilometers. A Chinese Song-class submarine surfaced near the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in October 2006 in waters near Okinawa. There is still debate on whether the submarine surfaced intentionally, possibly as part of a political message, or whether it was an accident.
All this could mean that the U.S. Navy might be willing to get close to the conflict area, “but that would probably be true only until the first carrier got hit,” Cliff said. The remaining carriers would move out of range, reducing their effectiveness, “until we had significantly degraded China’s ability to find and target them.”

 

[Transient]

The USN already has a defense to this threat that doesn't even exist yet. Ironical, isn't it?