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

[Grand Danois]

No, because no turbo engine on anti-ship missle can suffer an 10mach, and to slow it donw means it can be easily shoot down by defence missle. The kinetic energy is a gift to ballistic missile and why waste it(even a 10 mach brick can sink a ship) . To let a ballistic missile hit a moveing playground is not as difficult as building NMD system,but the problem is also focus on how to control a 10 mach missle in last 5km. maybe a tougher empennage or more
accurate thrust pulse control. I believe this kind of tech can be developed in 10 years.When carriers can not find a secure shelter anywhere in the world.Just Imagining: push a button , and enemy vessel sink 20min later . It s really a good investment .More promising thing is 1000 that kind of ballistic missile will still cheaper than a carrier and it won t cost soldier s life.

That the PRC is actively building such a system is well known and it will be deployed sooner than 10 years, if it hasn't been deployed. It does not, however, work as you described.

 

[ever4244]

That the PRC is actively building such a system is well known and it will be deployed sooner than 10 years, if it hasn't been deployed. It does not, however, work as you described.

Well, i just guessing it based on the limitation of my knowledge.So how does that work?

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, i just guessing it based on the limitation of my knowledge.So how does that work?

Here is some.

China develops anti-ship missile

By Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent
Virginia, US

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles.

The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009.

PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.

However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some to the current missiles' re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea."

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw060118_1_n.shtml

For more see this thread.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5516

Cheers

 

[ever4244]

t

thanks alot.
but it is not conflict with my guess, because you see, the ballistic missile now hasn t empennage ,so the most difficult part is not radar but how to control it.And the high speed may tear apart any control rudder.

 

[KGB]

then the time for commencing overhaul should have been triggered 12-18 months ago after the event off of Angola.

its a failure then of process and craftwork - not of capability per se. if the former, then its an indictment on the TF commander.

So what happened at Angola?

 

[goldenpanda]

thanks alot.
but it is not conflict with my guess, because you see, the ballistic missile now hasn t empennage ,so the most difficult part is not radar but how to control it.And the high speed may tear apart any control rudder.

I think this is a good observation. I imagine the controls surfaces must be very small and cannot use ordinary hydraulics--otherwise the plasma will seep inside. On the other hand I think radar is not an easy problem but it may already be solved. The problem is the cone section must tolerate re-entry temperatures while at the same time pass through radar signal. Do you have some guess how this was solved?

I want to take a wild guess and say they create a "counter jet flow" in front of the cone to separate the incoming air to keep it cool.

 

[goldenpanda]

The discussion here has got me wondering, in the most extreme form will ballistic missiles make obsolete almost every other technology? No ship can move, no plane can fly if they can be destroyed by BM's anytime, anywhere. Then SSM, sat, and asat will be the only decisive weapons left.

 

[goldenpanda]

The retaliation that would come if a US aircraft carrier was damaged or even sunk, would be horrendous...

Considering the countries will already be at war, and both try not to use nukes, just what kind of horrendous retaliation do you have in mind for us?

I just see a lot of wishful thinking (a lot coming from aussie's) things will be somehow more difficult for Chinese. Chinese have a *whole lot* more capability than any USA ally like Australia, including the ability to develop new concept weapons and space systems.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The discussion here has got me wondering, in the most extreme form will ballistic missiles make obsolete almost every other technology? No ship can move, no plane can fly if they can be destroyed by BM's anytime, anywhere. Then SSM, sat, and asat will be the only decisive weapons left.

Definitely not. Counter measures for Ballistic Missiles already exist. They will only get more effective and...CHEAPER. DEWs are faster and have potentially limitless payloads. The expensive prototype DEWs of today like ABL cost ~$5000 a shot. Compare that to the cost of a Ballistic Missile. Do you still think BMs will make other technologies obsolete?


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

In a word no

1) Ballistic missiles have limited manouvreability - especially at the peak of the bell curve. Last minute flight adjustments at terminal velocity are not going to be enough to do it. The further the BM is down the curve. the less likely she can intercept an evading target - irrespective of how dynamic the targetting updates are.

2) An ESSM is capable of intercepting a BM - the issue is what other defensive measures are in play concurrently

gf I'd like to apologize for my part in the closing of the other thread. I appreciate how this forum has been moderated to keep things at a high quality.

I take issue with your idea about BM though. A carrier at top speed can move about 20 kilometers from time of IRBM launch at maximum range. The atmosphere exerts re-entry effects at 120km. Considering the ballistic path, at 120km altitude the missile is hundreds of km's away. This is plenty distance to correct for 20 kilometers.

ESSM is hard pressed to intercept a supersonic missile. Even very large, very complex NMD systems do not place their reliance on terminal interception. What makes you say a ship borne system can handle a BM?

 

[goldenpanda]

Definitely not. Counter measures for Ballistic Missiles already exist. They will only get more effective and...CHEAPER. DEWs are faster and have potentially limitless payloads. The expensive prototype DEWs of today like ABL cost ~$5000 a shot. Compare that to the cost of a Ballistic Missile. Do you still think BMs will make other technologies obsolete?
DA

Then why is NMD spending billions on conventional interceptors? Currently DEW has trouble compensating for atmospheric distortion at long range. It's not considered powerful enough to reliably penetrate a missile fuel tank at launch, let alone a re-entry warhead.

 

[goldenpanda]

the obvious solution for chinese to cripple the CVBG (at least to the point of send them back limping to port) is to overwhelmed the CVBG defences with massive missile attack from all point of compass. i wonde if chinese military could scrounge up enough missiles to be truly effective.

Submarine is the other potent weapon against the Carrier but the challenge is to penetrate the ASW pickets surrounding the carrier. depend on the technology employed by the current US ASW forces, the attacking sub need the latest quietning measures. despite the formidable ASW wall around the carrier, there's bound to be some small temporary windows the skilled Sub commander can exploit to penetrate and survive at least long enough to launch the salvo towards the carrier.

One idea that's been floating around is the existence of a deep sea submarine communications network. The idea is that subs can receive location information provided by surface systems, then maneuver to attack position under protection of thermal layer. One possible way to implement this is a grid of prepositioned comunications nodes, linked together with fiber. The submarine only needs to sail close by and link up with an electromagnetic signal. It would take quite a bit to maintain this network during peace time though, since they're always laying and repair civilian undersea cables.

 

[DarthAmerica]

gf I'd like to apologize for my part in the closing of the other thread. I appreciate how this forum has been moderated to keep things at a high quality.

I take issue with your idea about BM though. A carrier at top speed can move about 20 kilometers from time of IRBM launch at maximum range. The atmosphere exerts re-entry effects at 120km. Considering the ballistic path, at 120km altitude the missile is hundreds of km's away. This is plenty distance to correct for 20 kilometers.

ESSM is hard pressed to intercept a supersonic missile. Even very large, very complex NMD systems do not place their reliance on terminal interception. What makes you say a ship borne system can handle a BM?

They already do. Take a look at SM-3. Also, GF is right, It would take very advanced design to allow a BM to maneuver in the terminal phase against a moving target. This is why some of the contemporary concepts employ hybrid flight profiles rather than purely ballistic.


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

They already do. Take a look at SM-3. Also, GF is right, It would take very advanced design to allow a BM to maneuver in the terminal phase against a moving target. This is why some of the contemporary concepts employ hybrid flight profiles rather than purely ballistic.


DA

The Russians have demonstrated maneuverability, although not hitting a moving target:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051120-115514-2217r.htm

 

[DarthAmerica]

The Russians have demonstrated maneuverability, although not hitting a moving target:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051120-115514-2217r.htm

OK, and that has what to do with hitting a moving target? Your talking apples and oranges now.


Apple: MARV-

PRE-PROGRAMMED slight alterations in course to avoid the ballistic trajectory of an interceptor.

Oranges: Hitting a target with a BM in the terminal phase-

Such a missile will have a "basket", very small, that the target has to be in and it will only allow for slight changes in POI.



DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Then why is NMD spending billions on conventional interceptors? Currently DEW has trouble compensating for atmospheric distortion at long range. It's not considered powerful enough to reliably penetrate a missile fuel tank at launch, let alone a re-entry warhead.

Because they want a multi-tiered solution to the problem. Boost, Mid-course and terminal. You have to look into this stuff a little for it to make sense. Also, DEW has no problems with atmospheric distortion at the right wavelength and with advanced adaptive optics. Thats an old issue.


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

OK, and that has what to do with hitting a moving target? Your talking apples and oranges now.


Apple: MARV-

PRE-PROGRAMMED slight alterations in course to avoid the ballistic trajectory of an interceptor.

Oranges: Hitting a target with a BM in the terminal phase-

Such a missile will have a "basket", very small, that the target has to be in and it will only allow for slight changes in POI.

DA

Didn't I already say it was NOT a demonstration of hitting a moving target? You just repeated what I said about ten different times. I don't want to speculate with you whether it was "slight alterations" or not--even though you seem to take that as a fact.

Clearly DEW can only be ONE tier of the solution because it cannot solve the problem all by itself. And this is the reason BM will "definitely not" be the decisive future weapon?

Hey I just threw the question out there. It's up to you whether to step your foot down and insist you're safe, or to explore possibilities in the future.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Didn't I already say it was NOT a demonstration of hitting a moving target? You just repeated what I said about ten different times. I don't want to speculate with you whether it was "slight alterations" or not--even though you seem to take that as a fact.

Clearly DEW can only be ONE tier of the solution because it cannot solve the problem all by itself. And this is the reason BM will "definitely not" be the decisive future weapon?

Hey I just threw the question out there. It's up to you whether to step your foot down and insist you're safe, or to explore possibilities in the future.

If its(Russian MARV) not relevant to hitting a moving target, why bring it up?


Also, DEW is not limited to one phase. DEW can attack in boost, mid-course or terminal. Boost phase is simply the most vulnerable and safest phase since debris fall back on the offending party.

Ballistic Missiles are already a decisive weapons and have been for half a century. Today they post similar risk in the hands of rogue states. In the case of the PRC, they are a cheap alternative to expensive strike aircraft. But DEW technology is maturing to the point that rockets, bombs, artillery, mortars, missiles, aircraft, space craft and even personnel on the ground are becoming vulnerable to various DEWs.

In the context of this thread, DEWs take away the speed and cost performance advantage of ballistic missiles vs kinetic systems. You get a speed of light response with enough "ammo" to deal with saturation attacks. In other words, the solution to the ballistic missile threat is here and soon to reach mainstream operational maturity between 2015 and 2030. Until that time missile based defense systems exist that have proven effective at countering the types of ballistic missiles that exist today.

DA

 

[tphuang]

They already do. Take a look at SM-3. Also, GF is right, It would take very advanced design to allow a BM to maneuver in the terminal phase against a moving target. This is why some of the contemporary concepts employ hybrid flight profiles rather than purely ballistic.


DA

sure, but looking at PAC-2's performance in ODS and PAC-3's performance in OIF, I don't feel all that confident about BMD.

 

[goldenpanda]

I remember DEW was demonstrated against missiles even back in the 80's. Today the ABL is a giant giant system and seems to have trouble penetrating a rotating missile body. Fundamentally radiation weapons are susceptible to hardening and reflective surfaces. I'd be interested to see how the MTHEL turns out for Israel.