Will Super Anti Ship Missile change who controls the oceans?
This is a discussion on Will Super Anti Ship Missile change who controls the oceans? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by weasel1962
What is important is that the Chinese can hit a moving target with a suspected DF-21-derived ...
What is important is that the Chinese can hit a moving target with a suspected DF-21-derived missile. Read ASAT test. That test proved that the chinese:
(a) can do mid-course guidance.
(b) can whack a moving target.
A satellite moves at far greater speed than a CVN ever will. The only difference is that a satellite is far more easily tracked than a CVN.
An ASAT test in space has no relevance to attacking a target in atmosphere using a guided projectile at velocities > 5 km/sec. Target speed is irrelevant if the target is on a predictable path [orbit] in a uniform media [vacuum] and clearly visible to the terminal homing system in order to refine the information from ground based sensors.
Targeting a ship moving in an evasive pattern, buffeted by high level winds in and steadily increasing air density, and with your sensors obscured by a reentry fireball, plus clouds and precipitation, is totally different.
Don't you think in terms of an anti-access strategy it makes more sense to threaten a carrier rather than an amphibious ship though? I'm only guessing here, but I suspect amphibs aren't going anywhere near the coast with air superiority first being established. A landing force isn't going to have a hope of success if they attempt an opposed landing without air superiority, are they? Not only does does it seriously compromise their ability to address air, surface and sub-surface threats, but it would greatly diminish their flow of battlefield information. So if you destroy their capacity to gain air superiority I doubt you'd have to worry about their amphibs at all...
I'm saying that a CVN is a priority target but its not the only feasible target.
The phibs will have to be somewhere at somepoint in time pending air superiority being established. But at some point in time, even with air superiority, it will be in a detectable location off Taiwan's coast if the USN or USMC needs to reinforce Taiwan by sea.
The attainment of air superiority does not restrict mobile launchers. US had air superiority in desert storm but could not prevent scud launchers from launching. The area covered is significantly larger wrt China compared to Iraq.
Having air superiority is no guarantee either. China has 27+ land airbases within 500nm the Taiwan strait. US has 1.
An ASAT test in space has no relevance to attacking a target in atmosphere using a guided projectile at velocities > 5 km/sec. Target speed is irrelevant if the target is on a predictable path [orbit] in a uniform media [vacuum] and clearly visible to the terminal homing system in order to refine the information from ground based sensors.
Targeting a ship moving in an evasive pattern, buffeted by high level winds in and steadily increasing air density, and with your sensors obscured by a reentry fireball, plus clouds and precipitation, is totally different.
If someone claimed that aircraft-detecting radar will one day cook food in your home, one might laugh but that's exactly what happened with the microwave.
One needs to look at capability differently. China already has workable ICBMs that has been tested over the past few decades ie heat shielding and terminal homing etc isn't going to be an issue. Moving target homing, that's another issue but as the ASAT test demonstrates, that's not going to be a problem either.
The question is to what extent china can handle terminal targeting in a specified target space. This would be a target that moves at 0.015 km/s compared to the target they hit in space eg 1-3+ km/s?
Ultimately, its still a question of detecting the CV, forming an adequate firing solution and ensuring the missile follows that. Agreed, the ASAT test does not mean China has a workable ASBM. The challenges are there. No doubt about it. I don't think its beyond China though. Matter of time.
If someone claimed that aircraft-detecting radar will one day cook food in your home, one might laugh but that's exactly what happened with the microwave.
This is totally non-sequitur. It is like claiming the ability of some birds to use tools proves that they understand quantum theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962
One needs to look at capability differently. China already has workable ICBMs that has been tested over the past few decades ie heat shielding and terminal homing etc isn't going to be an issue.
The terminal homing system in question is inertial. It cannot ‘see’ through the heat shield or the plasma bow wave created by reentry, nor does it have any need to. Nor is the heat shielding transparent on any wavelength that could be used by a homing system, active or passive. Demonstrations of unrelated homing system capabilities have only minor value at best, something completely new needs to be developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962
Moving target homing, that's another issue but as the ASAT test demonstrates, that's not going to be a problem either.
The ASAT test is as relevant to the design of an ASBM homing system as it is to one for a torpedoe, i.e. NOT. The principle problem is not the relative velocity of the target and the missile, but the ability to produce a sensor that can see through the heat shield and past the plasma bow wave. Currently nobody has even a working theory of how to do that.
The terminal homing system in question is inertial. It cannot ‘see’ through the heat shield or the plasma bow wave created by reentry, nor does it have any need to. Nor is the heat shielding transparent on any wavelength that could be used by a homing system, active or passive. Demonstrations of unrelated homing system capabilities have only minor value at best, something completely new needs to be developed.
The ASAT test is as relevant to the design of an ASBM homing system as it is to one for a torpedoe, i.e. NOT. The principle problem is not the relative velocity of the target and the missile, but the ability to produce a sensor that can see through the heat shield and past the plasma bow wave. Currently nobody has even a working theory of how to do that.
totally agree re plasma and sensors
all the talk about plasma shielding on aircraft (or weapons) means absolute squat until someone works out how to drive the sensor systems through the shield/plasma boundary layer. It is abject nonsense no matter what the more enthusiastic supporters of plasma shielding etc try to espouse.
at this stage you either hand off part of your sensor/shooter combo or you hand off your weapons sensor to a 3rd party FCS.
Forcing your principle weapons set to be dependant on 3rd party managers/shooters is just plain stupid.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
all the talk about plasma shielding on aircraft (or weapons) means absolute squat until someone works out how to drive the sensor systems through the shield/plasma boundary layer. It is abject nonsense no matter what the more enthusiastic supporters of plasma shielding etc try to espouse.
at this stage you either hand off part of your sensor/shooter combo or you hand off your weapons sensor to a 3rd party FCS.
Forcing your principle weapons set to be dependant on 3rd party managers/shooters is just plain stupid.
Actually, you cannot even hand off targeting to a '3rd party FCS', because you cannot drive a useful communications signal through the plasma designate the target. The communications receiver is just a specialized type of sensor.
Actually, you cannot even hand off targeting to a '3rd party FCS', because you cannot drive a useful communications signal through the plasma designate the target. The communications receiver is just a specialized type of sensor.
TDL is in bytes, you don't need a continuous data stream, you need approp bursts.
it can be an issue of exactly where you set the transmitter, or transponder.
plasma doesn't cover the entire aircraft - in oversimplified terms, its a boundary layer effect..
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
So you can have an orbital (or slow descent) section of the weapon with sensors relaying targeting information via the upward facing base of the attack vehicle?
So you can have an orbital (or slow descent) section of the weapon with sensors relaying targeting information via the upward facing base of the attack vehicle?
notionally you place the transmitter/transponder away from the immediate boundary layer effect. - but that only deals with physical issues, there are obviously sensor/signal impact issues.
my main point is that TDL is not like video streaming, you send bursts of data in very very small packets and you can still have something useful to act and acquire with.
it's within the realm of the possible - not the impossible. we've already seen what is possible with sensor management of hyoersonic payloads in australia and the US
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
TDL is in bytes, you don't need a continuous data stream, you need approp bursts.
it can be an issue of exactly where you set the transmitter, or transponder.
plasma doesn't cover the entire aircraft - in oversimplified terms, its a boundary layer effect..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampanviking
So you can have an orbital (or slow descent) section of the weapon with sensors relaying targeting information via the upward facing base of the attack vehicle?
While the plasma is generated in the boundary layer, the plasma and the boundary layer do not automatically cease to exist when you reach the end of the vehicle. Rather the a hypersonic vehicle is designed so that a shock wave causes the boundary layer, and the plasma, to separate from the vehicle at a point near the front, leaving a vacuum between the boundary layer and vehicle. The vacuum in turn sucks the boundary layer, and plasma, inward until the inner walls of the boundary layer meet, enclosing the vehicle in a teardrop shaped bubble of plasma with the vehicle at the tip.
Sorry, but there is no hole at the rear to send a signal through.
The fact that the majority of the vehicle is in vacuum also makes it impossible to steer using fins.
While the plasma is generated in the boundary layer, the plasma and the boundary layer do not automatically cease to exist when you reach the end of the vehicle.
yes, have said that
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents
Rather the a hypersonic vehicle is designed so that a shock wave causes the boundary layer, and the plasma, to separate from the vehicle at a point near the front, leaving a vacuum between the boundary layer and vehicle. The vacuum in turn sucks the boundary layer, and plasma, inward until the inner walls of the boundary layer meet, enclosing the vehicle in a teardrop shaped bubble of plasma with the vehicle at the tip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents
Sorry, but there is no hole at the rear to send a signal through.
again, we currently do it with hypersonics, and have done it with ballistics.
signals can and do get through. plasma/boundary layers do not act like a tempest event. the endstate is signal quality relative to the size of the packet and the speed at which it can be repeatedly burst. TDL sized packets can and do get through. a video stream would not. Note that I am not talking about transmission at the generation point or in the immediate plasma shield
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents
The fact that the majority of the vehicle is in vacuum also makes it impossible to steer using fins.
we currently do it with hypersonics. except we don't call it plasma, the boundary layer is closely related to fluid mechanics and super cavitation. aerodynamics and fluid mechanics are kissing cousins. at the cavitation junction we have a boundary layer - and we're steering that system as well
happier to discuss this offline as its borderline for an open forum
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Last edited by gf0012-aust; August 31st, 2010 at 06:35 AM.
If someone claimed that aircraft-detecting radar will one day cook food in your home, one might laugh but that's exactly what happened with the microwave.
One needs to look at capability differently. China already has workable ICBMs that has been tested over the past few decades ie heat shielding and terminal homing etc isn't going to be an issue. Moving target homing, that's another issue but as the ASAT test demonstrates, that's not going to be a problem either.
The question is to what extent china can handle terminal targeting in a specified target space. This would be a target that moves at 0.015 km/s compared to the target they hit in space eg 1-3+ km/s?
Ultimately, its still a question of detecting the CV, forming an adequate firing solution and ensuring the missile follows that. Agreed, the ASAT test does not mean China has a workable ASBM. The challenges are there. No doubt about it. I don't think its beyond China though. Matter of time.
China is aware of these problems what makes you think they not workin on the problem. China really tired of a CBG pushing it weight around in the ocean. You much remember they alway said if they have to they will takeover Taiwan. China is building there Armed Forces for this conflict. A CBG is the main problem in there goals to takeover Taiwan. This to me is the overall plan of China is to keep a CBG at bay. China Naval build up is amazing and its growing at alarming rate. Yes they have some problems to work out but it will overcome these problem if they can put a man in orbit they on there way in solving this problem with a CBG.
A CBG is the main problem in there goals to takeover Taiwan. This to me is the overall plan of China is to keep a CBG at bay. China Naval build up is amazing and its growing at alarming rate. Yes they have some problems to work out but it will overcome these problem if they can put a man in orbit they on there way in solving this problem with a CBG.
sorry, thats just nonsense. Carrier led task forces are not the threat that counts, this is just silly posturing. There are other assets that will do far more damage to chinese strategic nodes than what a task force will do.
this focus on the carrier as the symbolic threat is plainly idiotic and makes you wonder how smart the people are who are promoting it....
china might have put a man in orbit but that has no relationship to track and target management for a ballistic weapons system
lets not dumb down the debate via nationalistic posturing.....
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
That subject is an ASBM not a ACBM and there are plenty of things that an army needs to transport in large ships that are just as tempting a target and maybe be more critical to the success or failure of a campaign than just Carriers.
If one missile can sink a ship transporting all the Heavy Weapons of an Armoured Division, you would have to regard it as money very well spent. I would remind people of the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands.
sorry, thats just nonsense. Carrier led task forces are not the threat that counts, this is just silly posturing. There are other assets that will do far more damage to chinese strategic nodes than what a task force will do.
this focus on the carrier as the symbolic threat is plainly idiotic and makes you wonder how smart the people are who are promoting it....
china might have put a man in orbit but that has no relationship to track and target management for a ballistic weapons system
lets not dumb down the debate via nationalistic posturing.....
If look at every conflict the U.S. been in the last 20 years they always sent a CBG to the area. I already know that not the only thing to worry about they also know that to. Now everyone who been watching or been in U.S. Military know there alway a CBG in the area somewhere that just way it is buddy. If some kind of fighting start between Taiwan and PRC a CBG will be sent to area that common sense you know this if you been paying attention for the last 20 years. You added this other stuff into it all that gonna happen anyway but a CBG is something you have to take care immediately that common sense. I'm not a fan of China so let get that straight. Just don't put them down they came a long way. Listen to what PRC say about Taiwan and you understand what there goals are. The U.S. is only country with over 10 aircraft carriers that why they rules the waves right now no one can match that. The truth hurts having this many aircraft carriers you rule the ocean. Name a country that can match up to that !!!!! I dont know what you thinking about a CBG is no joke. I really see that you must take out a CBG and then get to the next issue you will have in a conflict with the U.S. . Being able to take a CBG down with change the whole situation in a naval conflict.
