Will Super Anti Ship Missile change who controls the oceans?

[Todjaeger]

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?

Not quite true, a number of ballistic missiles are still in service with conventional warheads. The Scud and FROG series missiles come immediately to mind. However, the general trend is that long-ranged ballistic missiles (i.e. ICBMs and IRBMs) are generally armed with a nuclear warhead, since it is typically a strategic vs. tactical weapon. There has been some suggestions within the US/USAF to re-equip some ICBMs with a conventional warhead to allow a worldwide rapid strike capability. The very serious downside to such a development or capability is that other, potential targets for US nuclear weapons, have no way of knowing if a launched ICBM is carrying a conventional warhead to blow up some specific target, or if it is part of a nuclear first strike.

In the case of the PRC having a fairly long-ranged AShBM specifically intended to eliminate a CV/CBG as a threat (and the possibility that such an AShBM would be carrying a tactical nuclear warhead) then the US might need to adopt the posture of a potential AShBM launch being a nuclear first strike. This would then lead to mainland targets getting 'dialed in' for either a first strike or counterstrike by US nuclear weaponry, and the US might not have the available decision window to prevent (or halt) a nuclear exchange if for some reason such a weapon appeared to launched at a CBG.

-Cheers

 

[justone]

I know the U.S. has plan for this new type of threat. This will be something the U.S. has to think about when near the Chinese coastland or near China. The Chinese might have something else plan for the missile like for defense type weapon to keep a CBG some distance away. This gonna make any CBG think and take measurement on how it will aproach PRC.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know the U.S. has plan for this new type of threat. This will be something the U.S. has to think about when near the Chinese coastland or near China. The Chinese might have something else plan for the missile like for defense type weapon to keep a CBG some distance away. This gonna make any CBG think and take measurement on how it will aproach PRC.

1. It has already been explained that no matter how deadly the missile might be, without the ability to target it, it is strategically useless.

2. There are REAL issues with terminal homing guidance for a conventionally armed ballistic missile. Consideration of a nuclear armed missile for this role is futile. The last thing anyone should want to do is get into a nuclear war with the United States and firing of a nuclear armed ballistic missile at US forces has to be the fastest way to achieve this...

As to the issues, one is heat build up on re-entry combined with the speed the weapon re-enters the atmosphere. Google the Space Shuttle re-entering the atmosphere some time. The heat build up is enormous and will eliminate the possibility that imaging infra-red or an electro-optical guidance payload could be used.

The other is the build-up of plasma caused by flying at such tremendous speeds through the Earth's atmosphere. A plasma shield is so often touted by French and Russian fanboys as "active stealth" that will defeat radar surveillance systems and yet funnily enough they will quite happily go ahead and state that the opposite is not true, that a radar guidance package would not be equally affected by such a plasma shield...

Basically they want their cake and want to eat it too. Unfortunately reality says otherwise...

So some effort has to be included into slowing the missile. It's speed is what is touted as making it so effective, but the reality is that such speed is a "killer" when trying to engage a moving or relocatable target, such as a carrier.

Furthermore, the USN has plenty of defence options available for just such a weapon too. Patriot PAC-3 SBMSE and AMRAAM NCADE as hard kill systems spring to mind....

 

[IronsightSniper]

Well, to be honest, I'm not well read in regards to the DF-21D, but from what I know, they have a series of SAR and Optical satelites in orbit to designate the targets for the DF-21D. Terminal guidance wise, again, not much I know, but the variant before the DF-21(variant C), had an accuracy of about 40 m CEP, which would make it quiet accuracte against a carrier-sized target. As for speed v.s. a moving carrier, the moves at about 55 kmph? Don't know the flight times of the DF-21D also, but it can be long enough for the carrier to make too much of a difference. Also, the DF-21D uses a MaRV, which means they could track and follow the carrier.

Eh, Patriot and AMRAAM defeating the DF-21D? I'd say a dream to be honest. The Patriot had an abismile performance in the Gulf Wars, and those were slow slow Scuds, these move way faster. Although I haven't lost full confidence in our point-defense systems, and maybe one or two DF-21Ds get hit, but they're not gonna send only one.

 

[Bonza]

Well, to be honest, I'm not well read in regards to the DF-21D, but from what I know, they have a series of SAR and Optical satelites in orbit to designate the targets for the DF-21D. Terminal guidance wise, again, not much I know, but the variant before the DF-21(variant C), had an accuracy of about 40 m CEP, which would make it quiet accuracte against a carrier-sized target. As for speed v.s. a moving carrier, the moves at about 55 kmph? Don't know the flight times of the DF-21D also, but it can be long enough for the carrier to make too much of a difference. Also, the DF-21D uses a MaRV, which means they could track and follow the carrier.

Currently China can't achieve real-time satellite guidance - and this is what's necessary for weapons track on a moving target. In addition, if hurdles in satellite guidance were overcome then you'd still need persistence - that is, a substantial number of satellites with the necessary sensor systems to give you guidance. It's no good having a capability you can only target for a few hours at a time before you lose satellite coverage.

The CEP of previous DF-21 variants really has no bearing on the DF-21D's capability to hit a carrier, because that accuracy is relevant only to static targets, which in no way describes a carrier undertaking combat operations.

Eh, Patriot and AMRAAM defeating the DF-21D? I'd say a dream to be honest. The Patriot had an abismile performance in the Gulf Wars, and those were slow slow Scuds, these move way faster. Although I haven't lost full confidence in our point-defense systems, and maybe one or two DF-21Ds get hit, but they're not gonna send only one.

Go google what AD's talking about specifically (PAC-3 SBMSE and AMRAAM NCADE), because I think you've got the wrong idea as to what he means. These are weapons being developed for the purpose of addressing ballistic missile threats. And for the record, using the performance of the Patriot in 1991 as a basis for gauging current capabilities isn't going to achieve much, given there has been substantial work put into developing the system.

 

[localhost127]

The very serious downside to such a development or capability is that other, potential targets for US nuclear weapons, have no way of knowing if a launched ICBM is carrying a conventional warhead to blow up some specific target, or if it is part of a nuclear first strike.

i can understand the limit/lack of use or deployment of such weapons with intentions of being used towards countries that possess nuclear weapons...(for your reason stated above).

but what about forces we are currently engaged with today? would any of the forces where these might be used,,,do they even posses OTH radar or tracking capabilities, to even know an IRBM was launched and/or inbound? if they have no way of knowing if an IRBM was inbound, it doesn't matter if it was strategic or conventional...there is no down-side except for neighboring countries who possess nuclear weapons. (who might get a little anxious until flight-path/trajectory is calculated).

i guess it's the same as "if a tree falls in a woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound" .... saying, if a force has no detection capability to determine an ICBM/IRBM is inbound, than why can't you use it (the unknown variable of whether it's strategic or conventional is null/irrelevant).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, to be honest, I'm not well read in regards to the DF-21D, but from what I know, they have a series of SAR and Optical satelites in orbit to designate the targets for the DF-21D. Terminal guidance wise, again, not much I know, but the variant before the DF-21(variant C), had an accuracy of about 40 m CEP, which would make it quiet accuracte against a carrier-sized target. As for speed v.s. a moving carrier, the moves at about 55 kmph? Don't know the flight times of the DF-21D also, but it can be long enough for the carrier to make too much of a difference. Also, the DF-21D uses a MaRV, which means they could track and follow the carrier.

You are honestly stating that China has real time targetting capabilities across thousands of kilometres, when the US struggles to do it in one single theatre alone, in a smaller place like Afghanistan?

Okay...

And you think USN is just going to sit there and try and evade ballistic missiles raining down upon them and not target the means by which these missiles themselves are employed?

Okay...

If the USN came under attack by a ballistic missile threat such as this, it will do multiple things simultaneously, that I can think of off the top of my head to avoid or eliminate this threat.

1. It will employ hard and soft kill measures against the weapons targetting them, their launch systems, bases and infrastructure.

2. It will employ hard and soft kill measures against the communications links used to provide non-terminal guidance to these weapons.

3. It will employ hard and soft kill measures against the sensor and C4I systems being employed to target these weapons at non-line of sight ranges.

4. It's battlegroups will conduct evasive maneuvers designed to minimise the capability of these weapons.

To think otherwise is being naive and if I can think of these measures, then I am certain that smarter people than me, have thought and practiced even more...

I don't mean to diminish the threat, but that is simply ALL the DF-21 is. A threat. USN already has defences in place for such a threat and it's not even in-service yet.

To believe that they've "missed" this capability and are some how playing catch up, does an enormous disservice to the most powerful military force on the planet.

As one isolate example, USN has recently demonstrated it's ability to quickly shoot down a satellite from within it's own resources...

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKQ-YSBv058&feature=related[/nomedia]

Eh, Patriot and AMRAAM defeating the DF-21D? I'd say a dream to be honest. The Patriot had an abismile performance in the Gulf Wars, and those were slow slow Scuds, these move way faster. Although I haven't lost full confidence in our point-defense systems, and maybe one or two DF-21Ds get hit, but they're not gonna send only one.

The Patriot did not have "abismile" performance in the Gulf War. It did exactly what was expected of it. It provided an area air defence capability. It wasn't designed to shoot down ballistic missiles, it was designed to shoot down aircraft, but was employed in the role of shooting down Ballistic missiles anyway (because there was no other choice) and actually achieved some effect.

The most important effect it achieved, was political (keeping Israel out of the war) but it had some tactical success too. The biggest problem however, was that Patriot was intercepting Scud missiles OVER Israel townships.

The Patriot missiles were hitting the Scuds, but they weren't destroying them and debris and warheads were still raining down on the areas where the Patriots were intercepting them, providing a propaganda benefit to the Iraqis in much the same way that Palestinian rockets achieve a propaganda benefit whenever they land in Israel.

They might not achieve ANYTHING tactically, but they can spruik through the media of their missiles raining down on whomsoever...

However the defences the USN are putting in place with AMRAAM NACDE (if chosen) and Patriot SBMSE are completely different to that the US possessed in 1991. They ARE designed for ballistic missile defence, as is SM-3...

 

[Sampanviking]

I think you need to be a bit more circumspect Aussie despite your obvious adulation.

1) Just because one country has not been able to do something do not automatically assume that another cannot either, especially when that other country has been especially interested in that area for a very long time.

2) The Strike Carrier has been the defining symbol of US Power for the last sixty years and nobody designs a system that can undo their own Defining glory. That is a task left to others, which it appears has been duly and obligingly done.

3) If the system is so flawed and/or the US so close to an effective counter measure, why is the DOD (all the media is coming from the States, not from China after all) so concerned about it?

 

[AegisFC]

3) If the system is so flawed and/or the US so close to an effective counter measure, why is the DOD (all the media is coming from the States, not from China after all) so concerned about it?

Dog and pony show to get or maintain funding for various BMD projects.

 

[kato]

As one isolate example, USN has recently demonstrated it's ability to quickly shoot down a satellite from within it's own resources...

We already discussed that one in this thread. Known target on very well known course, intercept at the satellite's perigee, an altitude half the apogee of a DF-21 (the SM-3 isn't built for mid-course IRBM interception anyway !), no cluttering through decoys or other CM, and the SM-3 kill vehicle doesn't start on its interception course until it clears the atmosphere - any maneuvering RV with decent threat prediction routines has a chance at evading that.

Sprint and Spartan would probably have been able to do it back in the 70s, at least if that neutron bomb on Spartan was replaced by something with a bit more *boom*. SM-3 though? Wouldn't trust that at intercepting anything beyond a souped-up SCUD.

The part regarding targeting, evasive maneuvers and preemptive destruction or intervention of threat infrastructure i can fully agree with.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The question the chinese will be asking is...

Assuming the basic concept is validated ie possible, can there be improvements to ensure an accurate hit?

If one looks at the issue from that perspective, I do not expect the basic concept to remain basic, going forward.

 

[Todjaeger]

The question the chinese will be asking is...

Assuming the basic concept is validated ie possible, can there be improvements to ensure an accurate hit?

If one looks at the issue from that perspective, I do not expect the basic concept to remain basic, going forward.

AFAIK the concept has yet to be validated against a moving target, nevermind against a target that is as able to potentially evade and/or engage as a USN CBG. One question which does keep coming to mind, is if this concept has as much potential as the PRC seem to think, why was there never any real movement on the part of the Soviet Union or the US to develop their own AShBM systems? I suspect part of the reason is that the concept itself is flawed.

With regards to SM-3 BMD... The US is currently working on adapting versions of the Standard Missile (SM) into anti-ballistic missile interceptors. From the chatter I have been hearing, there is a possibility that should the version be successful, the missiles would be carried aboard BMD-equipped area air defence vessels as well as operated by land-based SAM batteries in place of PAC-based SAM systems. While the missile might not remain designated as the SM-3, I would not yet disregard a CBG from having some form of BMD.

i can understand the limit/lack of use or deployment of such weapons with intentions of being used towards countries that possess nuclear weapons...(for your reason stated above).

but what about forces we are currently engaged with today? would any of the forces where these might be used,,,do they even posses OTH radar or tracking capabilities, to even know an IRBM was launched and/or inbound? if they have no way of knowing if an IRBM was inbound, it doesn't matter if it was strategic or conventional...there is no down-side except for neighboring countries who possess nuclear weapons. (who might get a little anxious until flight-path/trajectory is calculated).

i guess it's the same as "if a tree falls in a woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound" .... saying, if a force has no detection capability to determine an ICBM/IRBM is inbound, than why can't you use it (the unknown variable of whether it's strategic or conventional is null/irrelevant).

The concern (that I am aware of...) is not about whether a potential target for a conventional ballistic missile would detect the launch and evade or respond, instead the concern is how other nuclear-armed states would respond if/when they detected the ICBM launch. For example, if the USAF launched a conventionally armed ICBM at a target located located in a remote are of Afghanistan, presumably the Russian, French and UK sensor networks tasked with detecting ballistic missile launches would detect the launch. What they might or might not successfully do it also identify the point of origin for the missile launch, as well as the Ground Zero for the missile impact. Now if Russia suddenly were to see a BM being launched for a site within the continental US (or even more unlikely the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific) with a heading that is towards it, Russia might not have a great deal of time to make the decision on whether or not the launch is a nuclear attack on Russia or not, and if Russia should launch their ballistic missiles. As I attempted to give an example of, the concern is whether or not the other nuclear powers which are also capable of ICBM attacks would launch in response to a US launch that is not directed at them, or even nuclear in nature.

-Cheers

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The easiest method to validate anything is to test it. That's exactly what the chinese intend.

The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - China to Test-Fire New Anti-Ship Missile

As to BMD capable ships, the USN is already way ahead. There is a trade off. BMD missiles are significantly expensive.

 

[Aussie Digger]

We already discussed that one in this thread. Known target on very well known course, intercept at the satellite's perigee, an altitude half the apogee of a DF-21 (the SM-3 isn't built for mid-course IRBM interception anyway !), no cluttering through decoys or other CM, and the SM-3 kill vehicle doesn't start on its interception course until it clears the atmosphere - any maneuvering RV with decent threat prediction routines has a chance at evading that.

Sprint and Spartan would probably have been able to do it back in the 70s, at least if that neutron bomb on Spartan was replaced by something with a bit more *boom*. SM-3 though? Wouldn't trust that at intercepting anything beyond a souped-up SCUD.

The part regarding targeting, evasive maneuvers and preemptive destruction or intervention of threat infrastructure i can fully agree with.

I wasn't talking about SM-3 intercepting DF-21, but rather satellites...

Anyone who thinks that the USN won't be knocking out Chinese satellites, should it come to war between the 2 is deluding themselves...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think you need to be a bit more circumspect Aussie despite your obvious adulation.

I disagree, but then, that's why we're here. Robust debate and all that...

1) Just because one country has not been able to do something do not automatically assume that another cannot either, especially when that other country has been especially interested in that area for a very long time.

And I think you are missing my point in your obvious adulation of this alleged "wonder weapon".

My point is that this system is no game changer at all. It is a threat, but is one that is countered significantly, before it has even begun serious testing, let alone provide an operational capability...

1. It hasn't been tested as yet.

2. It isn't in-service.

3. There are REAL issues with it's reported capability that can not be easily dismissed out of hand.

4. No other Country has tried to build ASBM, despite facing the same latent threat that China does, from USN Carrier Battle Groups.

The hysterics about this weapon are unjustified. Especially given the US's likely response should it ever, even be employed against US forces...

2) The Strike Carrier has been the defining symbol of US Power for the last sixty years and nobody designs a system that can undo their own Defining glory. That is a task left to others, which it appears has been duly and obligingly done.

Nothing of the sort has "appeared". The weapon has yet to demonstrate ANY capability whatsoever. All that has been "done" is to raise a veritable mountain of hyperbole based on little more than ill-informed speculation.

3) If the system is so flawed and/or the US so close to an effective counter measure, why is the DOD (all the media is coming from the States, not from China after all) so concerned about it?

How does a defence bureaucrat gain more funding? By describing loudly the terrible, terrible threats facing our brave men and women today...

That's how...

 

[Sampanviking]

The easiest method to validate anything is to test it. That's exactly what the chinese intend.

The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - China to Test-Fire New Anti-Ship Missile

As to BMD capable ships, the USN is already way ahead. There is a trade off. BMD missiles are significantly expensive.

I read from the link that the Chinese website simply says

Internet China National Radio said the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation will soon test-fire "a weapon under an important state weapons project."

The only mention of an ASBM comes from the Korean authors. Had a ASBM launch been on the cards or happened in the current media glare, trust me, I would have heard by now.

What has been tested over the last few days has been a cold launch JL2 from a type 094 sub, which is big news in its own right.

I think you are missing my point in your obvious adulation of this alleged "wonder weapon".

Ohh that's not true I simply keep an open mind and know from previous experience that the Chinese are good at delivering key systems that they really want and that when they do, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

The knockabout argument of "yes they can - no they can't" could go on for a long time and not really produce much light, not at least until some hard evidence comes into the public domain..

My main interest at the moment is rather more personal, as I am just a little taken aback by views of yourself and other Aussies here that seem to automatically think that China is somehow your enemy and America somehow your friend.

Its a rather bizarre position, to which I have already alluded to on another thread. China has not to my knowledge threatened or made claim to any Australian territory or announced any animosity towards your nation. It is however your biggest trading partner and Inward Investor and the biggest reason for Australia's current and foreseeable prosperity.

Why endanger that for the benefit of a country that seems determined on doing a repeat of the Soviet Union's implosion within the next decade or two?

Seriously it makes absolutely no sense and I really do not understand

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Rather than selectively quoting from the article, you might want to post what the article stated as well to support its headline...

Internet China National Radio said the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation will soon test-fire "a weapon under an important state weapons project."

Although it did not specify what this project was, it carried a photo of a Dong Feng 21C medium-range ballistic missile, the same series as the Dong Feng 21D, and an artist's drawing of such missiles attacking an American aircraft carrier.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ohh that's not true I simply keep an open mind

I totally agree.

 

[meat_helmet]

My main interest at the moment is rather more personal, as I am just a little taken aback by views of yourself and other Aussies here that seem to automatically think that China is somehow your enemy and America somehow your friend.

I realise this is off-topic, however, I do feel the need to reply this comment as I am an Australian. I can see no point at which Aussie Digger refered to any any enemies or allies of Australia within this thread.

I can not say for all other threads, however, regarding others I have read involving the ADF, I do not feel there is an attitude from Australian members that China is our enemy.

The USA is not 'somehow' our friend, they are our friend and long standing ally. There are certain obligatioins that come from being allied with another nation, and I feel most Australians take that quite seriously and wish to honor those friendships.

Its a rather bizarre position, to which I have already alluded to on another thread. China has not to my knowledge threatened or made claim to any Australian territory or announced any animosity towards your nation. It is however your biggest trading partner and Inward Investor and the biggest reason for Australia's current and foreseeable prosperity.

China is not allied with Australia, at least in military terms. Yes, they are our biggest trading partner. There is a mutual benifit from this - we have vast resources that China needs, but it is trade, and it is a far cry from the level of cooperation we have with the United States government.

There are a wealth of other issues to consider when discussing relations between countries beyond trade, any 'announced animosity' or any claims to territory.

Why endanger that for the benefit of a country that seems determined on doing a repeat of the Soviet Union's implosion within the next decade or two?

Your opinion of what will happen to the USA in the comming decades is up to you. The fact is we have been allies with high levels of cooperation for a long time, so why should we see them as anything other than friends?

As for China being our 'enemy', it is not. And I do not believe Australians feel this way.

China is, however, a rising superpower both economically and now militarily [just look at the increase in spending]. Of course other nations are going to take notice of this build up and show a degree of caution towards such an increase.

It is also due to this build up that many are 'hypothesizing' a large conflict between the USA and China - not helped by weapons built to attack a particular type of force such as a USN CBG. It should come as no suprise that if such a conflict did develop that Australia would likely side with their long standing ally rather than a trading partner. China is alot more of an 'unknown' in terms of military and their intensions than USA; where there is so much more transparency.

I find it quite shocking that you feel that a long standing allied relationship between two countries should be abandoned should one country find another it can gain from more in trade, if that is you position.

"Our biggest trading partner" does not suffice as a reason to ally ourselves with China instead of the USA, and that really seems to be what your saying. You seem yourself to regard the USA and China as enemies, which I personally do not agree with.

Also remember, China and America are far bigger trading partners than Australia and China.

 

[pith]

This is a very interesting topic, but in the real world I wonder what the response to China would be if they did managed to sink a super carrier. I'm thinking it might appear to be a counter productive move to them shortly after.pith

 

[Bonza]

My main interest at the moment is rather more personal, as I am just a little taken aback by views of yourself and other Aussies here that seem to automatically think that China is somehow your enemy and America somehow your friend.

As an Australian I'd ask that you extend myself and others the courtesy of not automatically assuming the reasoning behind my opinions comes from national bias, and I'll endeavor to do the same for you and hope that others will, too. Debating the capability of the DF-21D, as I believe was AD's intent, has nothing to do with nationality - but instead with the very real questions there are surrounding real-time targeting capabilities and other practical issues. It's a fascinating topic, so let's not get caught up in accusing one another of prejudice.

As a moderator, I'd also request that you please stay on topic, as this sort of thing is going to do nothing but derail the thread. Nothing personal, but this is not the place for such a discussion, and I hope you understand and can appreciate this.