PDA

View Full Version : China's anti-carrier missiles



Ordie
09-03-2009, 06:38 PM
China's anti-carrier missiles
Bill Gertz
Washington Times
China is moving ahead with development of an aircraft-carrier-killing ballistic missile that is likely the first step in a major new Chinese strategic missile program, according to a forthcoming report by Mark A. Stokes, a retired Air Force officer and former Pentagon China specialist.
The report provides new details on efforts by the Chinese military to convert DF-21 medium-range ballistic missiles into aircraft-carrier-killing weapons, viewed by the Pentagon to be key asymmetric warfare weapons in Beijing's military buildup.
The report identifies numerous Chinese military and technical writings that show the development of anti-ship ballistic missiles is well advanced.
It states that China is ready to conduct a flight test, perhaps timed to future elections in Taiwan.
Mr. Stokes is director of the Project 2049 Institute, an Asia policy research group in Arlington that will release the report, "China's Evolving Conventional Strategic Strike Capability," in the next several days.
Disclosure of the report comes as China's state-run newspaper Global Times reported Wednesday that the Chinese military on Oct. 1, during a parade marking the 60th anniversary of the communist government, will showcase for the first time five types of missiles, including nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, conventional cruise missiles and medium-range and short-range conventional missiles.
U.S. intelligence agencies for the past several years have been closely monitoring China's northern port of Dalian, where past anti-ship missile tests were carried out, for the first flight test of the new ASBM.
The new conventionally armed ballistic missile test, if successful, is expected to be strategically comparable to Beijing's January 2007 anti-satellite missile test.
The report by Mr. Stokes states that fielding the anti-ship missile "could alter the strategic landscape in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond."
The current missile being developed, the DF-21, has a range of about 1,500 miles, enough to threaten and deter U.S. aircraft-carrier strike groups that would be used by the Pentagon to defend Taiwan from a mainland attack or to respond to other conflicts in Asia.
The new missiles are expected to fly in the upper atmosphere or near space and thus "negate" current U.S. Navy-based missile defenses, the report says.
Beyond Asia, the report states that using missiles to hit ships as sea is the first step in China's plan for conventional long-range attack capability across the globe.
The U.S. military is developing a similar capability called prompt global strike that would enable commanders to hit targets anywhere in the world in less than an hour. The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship missiles.
The report states that a review of Chinese military writings reveals that anti-ship ballistic missiles are part of a "phased approach for development of a conventional global strike capability by 2025."
The phases include extending the targeting range of precision guided conventional warhead missiles from 1,240 by 2010 to 1,860 miles in 2015, up to 5,000 miles by 2020, and globewide missile capabilities by 2025 using a hypersonic cruise vehicle.
The missile programs include maneuvering re-entry vehicles and warheads with on-board sensors that are accurate enough to attack ships in the ocean moving at up to 35 knots at sea.
For targeting and tracking, China is developing a comprehensive system of space, ground and sea radar and sensors, including a "near-space" vehicle that would be deployed out of range of most surface-to-air missiles.
In addition to using it during a conflict over Taiwan, China also could use its long-range missiles in any conflict in the South China Sea or in response to threats to close sea lanes used to transport oil to China.
"China's success in fielding a regional and global precision-strike capability could extend the threat envelope to military facilities in Hawaii, and perhaps even space-related and other military facilities in the continental United States that are likely to be involved in a Taiwan-related contingency," Mr. Stoke said.
U.S. allies in Asia rely on aircraft-carrier strike groups, which are outfitted with both strike aircraft and long-range cruise missiles, to maintain security.
China's ability to attack the carriers will undermine stability by preventing carriers from moving within 1,500 miles of China, the report says.
The report mentions a new Chinese missile threat that is a an advanced hybrid ballistic missile that skims the Earth's atmosphere and then converts to an air-breathing cruise missile before reaching the target.
Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said China is rapidly developing the space surveillance and navigation system for its long-range missiles.
"This threat deserves very serious consideration, as it would clearly, if true, necessitate a major new American initiative in the area of missile defenses," Mr. Fisher said.
Jeffrey Lewis, a strategic analyst at the New America Foundation, said the Chinese military seems very interested in conventionally armed ballistic missiles "largely, I suspect, out of a desire to increase the service's profile and autonomy."
Mr. Lewis, however, has been wrong in the past in his assessment of Chinese military developments. He stated on his blog in July 2005 that the Pentagon had "no evidence" for published claims China was working on a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile.
A year and half later, in January 2007, China conducted its first successful test of a direct-ascent ASAT missile after several failures.
Chinese Embassy spokesman Wang Baodong did not address the new missile directly.
"As a peace-loving country that pursues the national defense policy of self-defense nature, China's military modernization, including its navy building, is solely for self-defense," Mr. Wang said in an e-mail.
China surveillance
The Pentagon has rejected a demand by China to halt air and naval surveillance of the country.
Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said the recent demand made by Chinese officials at a meeting in Beijing under the auspices of the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement was rejected.
"We have given the PRC that position numerous times, most recently at the MMCA," Mr. Morrell told Inside the Ring.
He went on to state: "Without commenting on intelligence operations that may or may not be taking place, I can say that the U.S. Navy operates in international waters all over the world, including off the coast of China. We are perfectly within our rights to do so, just as the Chinese or any other navy would be. Such missions should not be viewed as a security or economic threat to anyone."
China's Defense Ministry issued a statement last week blaming U.S. air and sea surveillance for "military confrontations between the two sides."
"The way to resolve China-U.S. maritime incidents is for the U.S. to change its surveillance and survey operations policies against China, decrease and eventually stop such operations," the statement after the two-day military meeting said
Source:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/03/inside-the-ring-23008574//print/

bd popeye
09-03-2009, 07:00 PM
Ordie..a problem with what I call these magical PLA missiles. They have never been spent against a harden target like a CVN. Or anything similar. maybe when the "test" occur we shall see what really happens.

A ballistic missile that can hit a moving target at a range of 1,500 to 5,000 miles would be quite spectacular.

Ordie
09-03-2009, 07:13 PM
I have many doubts.
The article and the author seems a bit hawkish. I'm sure if I fact check the think tanks sourced within the write up, I could come up with some conclusions.

Even if it is true, it stresses the need for the need and deployment of more 'tin cans' to provide screening for the carriers.

Many in this forum had dismissed the use for the smaller LCS or FFG vessels. But I think they play a good role as a defensive escort.

Bro Jangles
09-03-2009, 07:16 PM
Maybe the Varyag will finally get some use. as a target.

Universals
09-03-2009, 07:22 PM
I know the congress were worried about the sizzler missile a few year ago and they don't have the kind of range in this article.

INAT
09-03-2009, 07:35 PM
In 2000 the US passed the "Russia Anti-Ship Missile Proliferation Act" to deter Moscow from selling China the SS-N-22 which can be nuclear armed but with a range of only 65 nautical miles.
Now with this domestic produced missle China is sure to continue to be a big headache to Foggy Bottom.

GazB
09-03-2009, 08:02 PM
A ballistic missile that can hit a moving target at a range of 1,500 to 5,000 miles would be quite spectacular.

Ballistic missiles with terminal guidance are not new. A carrier can move quite quickly but you can draw a box that would define what the boundaries of its maximum range within a certain time period. These missiles will be relatively fast so the carrier wont have more than 10 minutes or so to move so the box wont be too big at all.

I doubt these missiles would be of much use against a small vessel but against a nice big carrier it should be able to get a hit.

Elbs
09-03-2009, 10:57 PM
Ballistic missiles with terminal guidance are not new. A carrier can move quite quickly but you can draw a box that would define what the boundaries of its maximum range within a certain time period. These missiles will be relatively fast so the carrier wont have more than 10 minutes or so to move so the box wont be too big at all.

I doubt these missiles would be of much use against a small vessel but against a nice big carrier it should be able to get a hit.

Tracking a carrier under EMCON with China's limited maritime patrol assets and satellite capability... not so easy.

First find the bug before you step on it. Doesn't hurt the bug's chances if he can fire SM-3s to defend itself.

MichaelF
09-03-2009, 11:19 PM
Mobile and fixed AShM batteries are likely to be serviced (read: "destroyed") the same way AD grids are:

SOF, cruise missiles, attack choppers, stealth a/c.

The USN/USAF (and Army) are the world's experts at such activities.

That's not to say that the batteries are useless, as every resource devoted to attriting them is one that isn't being used in the main effort, and they do threaten the Fleet. If the defending force (PLA/PLAN/PLAAF, in this case) can maintain some form of air parity (not dominance or supremacy, just parity will do), I don't see us taking surface combatants within range of the batteries.

We managed Iraq's AD grid (in 1991) so well because the Iraqi AF was unable to meet us in the air (to any effect). If the PLAAF (and PLA/PLAN AD elements) can hold a line....anything can happen. We certainly shouldn't contemplate putting CVBGs or amphibious groups into the littoral, if we aren't positive we've disrupted the Coastal Artillery grid. It's just too expensive if they get one through and plink a Carrier or assault ship.

As Elbs (and Popeye) indicated, China has a ways to go (with sat/maritime recon and theatre support assets) before they can be reasonably sure of engaging a US force with any real effect.

bd popeye
09-03-2009, 11:34 PM
Tracking a carrier under EMCON with China's limited maritime patrol assets and satellite capability... not so easy.

So true. I dare anyone to find an CVN in certain ECM conditions are set. And I wonder if those missiles will ever get off the ground with Growlers and Prowlers emitting an array of ECM to which there may be no counter effect.

TR1
09-04-2009, 01:24 AM
Not sure why the Chinese are testing such an absurd concept. Go the traditional way, make/licence produce/steal a long range (700km)super sonic antiship missile, make a crap load of them, and spam from shore batteries at any closing carrier.

Russianlynxy
09-04-2009, 01:34 AM
Not sure why the Chinese are testing such an absurd concept. Go the traditional way, make/licence produce/steal a long range (700km)super sonic antiship missile, make a crap load of them, and spam from shore batteries at any closing carrier.

well you gotta learn to read between the lines "stepping up missile development" actually means "stepping up our technological reconaissance capabilities" in Russian and American research institutes...

bet you won't see anything of this sort in China until either Russia or the US at least make a functional prototype.

TheMiddlePath
09-04-2009, 01:51 AM
Source:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/03/inside-the-ring-23008574//print/


Quote:
He went on to state: "Without commenting on intelligence operations that may or may not be taking place, I can say that the U.S. Navy operates in international waters all over the world, including off the coast of China. We are perfectly within our rights to do so, just as the Chinese or any other navy would be. Such missions should not be viewed as a security or economic threat to anyone."
End Quote

Here is United States interpreting a law of the sea that has not been rectified by its congress....to its advantage.

Elbs
09-04-2009, 02:05 AM
Quote:
He went on to state: "Without commenting on intelligence operations that may or may not be taking place, I can say that the U.S. Navy operates in international waters all over the world, including off the coast of China. We are perfectly within our rights to do so, just as the Chinese or any other navy would be. Such missions should not be viewed as a security or economic threat to anyone."
End Quote

Here is United States interpreting a law of the sea that has not been rectified by its congress....to its advantage.

The Soviets ran fishing trawlers chock full of ELINT equipment off US coasts for decades. The US and Soviets both had special intelligence ships off each others coasts frequently during the Cold War.

Nothing is stopping China from sending intelligence ships off American shores. Except maybe their lack of experience sustaining far off deployments.

GazB
09-04-2009, 03:36 AM
Tracking a carrier under EMCON with China's limited maritime patrol assets and satellite capability... not so easy.

Actually it is. I doubt the Chinese are interested in tracking US carrier groups in the Atlantic. If they limit their area of search to the sea within the range of the missiles they are developing.. lets say 2,000 miles or so, that is a perfectly manageable area for an IIR satellite to cover quite easily. Whether the carriers are emitting radar or not they will be keeping aircraft in the air. A steam catapault generates an enormous IR signature that can easily be detected. Considering the weapon they are using they really don't need a warhead... a couple of 2 metre long rods of DU coming in at 10 times the speed of sound would not be stopped by any sort of SAM. A bundle of 20 or so per missile and it could do serious damage to anything it hits.

Obviously not unstoppable, but certainly something for USN carrier commanders to think about. When you are in EMCON you can't see it coming from a long way off.


First find the bug before you step on it. Doesn't hurt the bug's chances if he can fire SM-3s to defend itself.

Any defencive missile carried by a bug will be rather smaller than any foot that could be used to crush that bug. A single satellite can scan the entire land mass of Russia for ICBM launches, then it could do a similar job looking for carriers at sea. Not easy, but certainly not impossible.

Elbs
09-04-2009, 03:59 AM
Actually it is. I doubt the Chinese are interested in tracking US carrier groups in the Atlantic. If they limit their area of search to the sea within the range of the missiles they are developing.. lets say 2,000 miles or so, that is a perfectly manageable area for an IIR satellite to cover quite easily. Whether the carriers are emitting radar or not they will be keeping aircraft in the air. A steam catapault generates an enormous IR signature that can easily be detected. Considering the weapon they are using they really don't need a warhead... a couple of 2 metre long rods of DU coming in at 10 times the speed of sound would not be stopped by any sort of SAM. A bundle of 20 or so per missile and it could do serious damage to anything it hits.

How would these rods from god be guided to their target? No terminal homing? IR would be difficult to implement... maybe electro-optical.

Even if a rough locatiion for the CVN was estimated, you'd still need to get some sort of fix on the target. An MPA or a lurking submarine. The submarine is more likely, since China has a very small maritime patrol force and those would be dead meat without long-range fighter escort.


Obviously not unstoppable, but certainly something for USN carrier commanders to think about. When you are in EMCON you can't see it coming from a long way off.The CVBG itself may be under EMCON, but that's not to say it'll be sailing blind. There would be supporting EW platforms (EC-135s, missile detecting satellites, UAVs, etc). It's definitely another threat, but not the end of the CVN as many seem to think.



Any defencive missile carried by a bug will be rather smaller than any foot that could be used to crush that bug. A single satellite can scan the entire land mass of Russia for ICBM launches, then it could do a similar job looking for carriers at sea. Not easy, but certainly not impossible.The US and Russia may have such satellites, but right now, China's RORSAT capabilities are very limited.

SM-3 and SM-6 are being developed to defeat missile threats. Lockheed has also suggested a version of Patriot PAC-3 for the anti-missile role. The PAC-3 could be quad-packed into a VLS cell like the ESSM.


Still, these launchers are big, and although mobile, would be target numero uno for the USAF and USN in any first day scenario.

Elbs
09-04-2009, 04:07 AM
Not sure why the Chinese are testing such an absurd concept. Go the traditional way, make/licence produce/steal a long range (700km)super sonic antiship missile, make a crap load of them, and spam from shore batteries at any closing carrier.

x2.

One other point that I don't think has been mentioned. This Chinese missile will run into the same problem as the fabled "Global Strike" the US has been wanting. A conventional tipped Trident screaming towards a target looks exactly the same as a MIRV'd Trident.

Would China risk an American nuclear response by firing volleys of DF-21s at a CVBG when they could easily be confused for a nuclear strike?

ren0312
09-04-2009, 04:10 AM
Mobile and fixed AShM batteries are likely to be serviced (read: "destroyed") the same way AD grids are:

SOF, cruise missiles, attack choppers, stealth a/c.

The USN/USAF (and Army) are the world's experts at such activities.

That's not to say that the batteries are useless, as every resource devoted to attriting them is one that isn't being used in the main effort, and they do threaten the Fleet. If the defending force (PLA/PLAN/PLAAF, in this case) can maintain some form of air parity (not dominance or supremacy, just parity will do), I don't see us taking surface combatants within range of the batteries.

We managed Iraq's AD grid (in 1991) so well because the Iraqi AF was unable to meet us in the air (to any effect). If the PLAAF (and PLA/PLAN AD elements) can hold a line....anything can happen. We certainly shouldn't contemplate putting CVBGs or amphibious groups into the littoral, if we aren't positive we've disrupted the Coastal Artillery grid. It's just too expensive if they get one through and plink a Carrier or assault ship.

As Elbs (and Popeye) indicated, China has a ways to go (with sat/maritime recon and theatre support assets) before they can be reasonably sure of engaging a US force with any real effect.

There is also the assumption that sinking an aircraft carrier will be enough to knock the US out of a war due to pressure from the home front.

RIPTIDE
09-04-2009, 04:38 AM
Guys. Try not to swamp the thread with zooming out and talking about Large Scale CHina vs US ZOMG scenarios.

PANKRASTIS
09-04-2009, 05:30 AM
I would have have thought that in any such esculation were an such an exchange becomes proberbal, and having actionable intelligence that this missile may be used, having due regard to their limited (current) blue water surveillnace abilities sans use of satellites.
Use SM-3/6 & take out the satellites, blind them from the top down..

Holycrusader
09-04-2009, 05:56 AM
Use SM-3/6 & take out the satellites, blind them from the top down..

Is this even possible? How high are spy sattelites?

Elbs
09-04-2009, 06:03 AM
Is this even possible? How high are spy sattelites?

With SM-3, probably not. With a longer booster, it shouldn't be a problem. The trickiest part is getting the hit, which SM-3 demonstrated by the kill vehicle being tweaked to hit the USA 193 satellite.

RIPTIDE
09-04-2009, 06:08 AM
Is this even possible? How high are spy sattelites?
They vary. Many spy satellites have highly elliptical orbits and big differences between their Apogee's and Perigees. Others are very low, but orbit fast. Low meaning ~200 miles. Others are geostationary... but they would be communication satellites.

I'm a bit of satellite tracker myself...... :D

http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3D.html

Hit "J-Track3D" on left of page" then 'US Defense>StrV 1B' and see its 3D orbit plan.

PANKRASTIS
09-04-2009, 06:32 AM
The Chineese shot down one of their own innactive satelites in a missile test earlier this year, to prove the world they had reached a new stage in missile development.

An SM-3 can do it, an SM-6 (when deployed) deffinately, but i would think an air launched version would be the ideal platform.

NASA already has the locationof evry satelite & peice of space junk, its just setting the co-ordinates, the tech exists & has been tested.

wicked_hind
09-04-2009, 08:25 AM
Does anyone think an SM-6 missile would be able to intercept such a threat in its terminal phase?

Blackwater28
09-04-2009, 09:05 AM
Every time you buy something that says Made In China you might as well be putting that money in their military programs instead which they'll be using against you someday. If you want to get an idea of how a country will treat other nations just look at how it treats its own citizens.

GazB
09-04-2009, 09:42 AM
How would these rods from god be guided to their target? No terminal homing? IR would be difficult to implement... maybe electro-optical.

Accuracy comes from the delivery bus, though some sort of seeker and side thruster manouvering rockets would be possible too.

BTW I doubt Athiest China would call them rods of god.


Even if a rough locatiion for the CVN was estimated, you'd still need to get some sort of fix on the target.

The Chinese can make playstations, making an equivelent of Legenda would not be beyond them. It wouldn't even need to be a full system as the Chinese will only be interested in the northern Pacific ocean.


The US and Russia may have such satellites, but right now, China's RORSAT capabilities are very limited./quote]

They don't need 24/7 coverage and nor do they even need global coverage. Their patch of ocean every three hours would suffice.

[quote]SM-3 and SM-6 are being developed to defeat missile threats. Lockheed has also suggested a version of Patriot PAC-3 for the anti-missile role. The PAC-3 could be quad-packed into a VLS cell like the ESSM.

As I said a kinetic based weapon would not be hugely effected by HE warheads.


Still, these launchers are big, and although mobile, would be target numero uno for the USAF and USN in any first day scenario.

I doubt Japan or South Korea would like the US attacking China from their airspace so it might just be the USN. An attack on these weapons might result in an escalation to nuclear weapons. ie say Taiwan declares independance and China states that it is about to invade. If the US moves in carriers then the Chinese are bound to activate their anti carrier missile units. If the US attacks chinese satellites then the Chinese might start smacking down important US satellites... which the US has rather more to lose than the Chinese.

Don't think of it as war, think more a game of chess because I really don't think either side wants to end up wiped off the map or seriously damaged for Taiwan.
An attack on Chinese large missiles might result in the Chinese thinking that the US is going for all its missiles... so it had better use them or lose them.
You mention a launch of a 2,000 mile range missile potentially being mistaken for a strategic nuclear launch, the GBI in Europe have a longer range and a similar size.


Would China risk an American nuclear response by firing volleys of DF-21s at a CVBG when they could easily be confused for a nuclear strike?

If USAF or USN assets somehow miraculously take out all the anti carrier missiles before they could launch do you really think the Chinese will not then go to a nuclear response, even if just against the carriers?

A dozen half ton Du penetrators through all the levels of a Nimitz carrier will likely put it out of action for a while but it is not the same as the old soviet technique of a 15 KT torpedo set to detonate within the carrier group.


There is also the assumption that sinking an aircraft carrier will be enough to knock the US out of a war due to pressure from the home front.

Do you not think that losing more people than were lost during 11/9 in one hit might make America think about why it is interfering in the first place?
Is Taiwans war really americas war?


Guys. Try not to swamp the thread with zooming out and talking about Large Scale CHina vs US ZOMG scenarios.

Pretty hard to think of another realistic scenario where China would need such anti carrier weapons.


Use SM-3/6 & take out the satellites, blind them from the top down..

The problem there is that if you are going to take the war into space then the US has rather more to lose than the Chinese do.


NASA already has the locationof evry satelite & peice of space junk, its just setting the co-ordinates, the tech exists & has been tested.

Actually there is a limit to how small the pieces are that can be tracked. Both the Russians and the Americans are tracking space junk, with the Russians able to track more and smaller items down to the size of paint chips. Attacking satellites in space will create and exponential increase in junk in space and may create problems for centuries to come for future satellites.


If you want to get an idea of how a country will treat other nations just look at how it treats its own citizens.

Is the US the exception to this rule? Because there was a distinct difference in the way they treat US and non US citizens. Ie look at Guantanimo.

Blackwater28
09-04-2009, 10:42 AM
"Is the US the exception to this rule? Because there was a distinct difference in the way they treat US and non US citizens. Ie look at Guantanimo."

Gitmo was an improvement in living standards for those islamist savages. Much better than they deserved.

dc_b4.mc
09-04-2009, 11:08 AM
There are unlimited incrediblely awesome threads in Chinese military forums boasting PLA's ability to sink CVNs, daily basis...Just no need to take similar articles seriously, they are mental marijuana for extreme-nationalists

Lt-Col A. Tack
09-04-2009, 11:51 AM
This Brings to mind a previous defense program whose unconfirmed existence prompted concern:

Soviets Flight Testing Nuclear Bomber

The 1 December 1958 issue of Aviation Week included an article, Soviets Flight Testing Nuclear Bomber, that claimed that the Soviets had made great progress in their own nuclear aircraft program.

This was accompanied by an editorial on the topic as well. The magazine claimed that the aircraft was real beyond a doubt, stating that "A nuclear-powered bomber is being flight tested in the Soviet Union. Completed about six months ago, this aircraft has been flying in the Moscow area for at least two months.

It has been observed both in flight and on the ground by a wide variety of foreign observers from Communist and non-Communist countries." Unlike the US designs of the same era, which were purely experimental, the article noted that "The Soviet aircraft is a prototype of a design to perform a military mission as a continuous airborne alert warning system and missile launching platform."

Photographs illustrated the article, along with technical diagrams on the proposed layout. They were so widely seen that one company produced a plastic model aircraft, a surprisingly faithful rendition of the diagrams in the article.

Concerns were soon expressed in Washington that the "the Russians were from three to five years ahead of the US in the field of atomic aircraft engines and that they would move even further ahead unless the US pressed forward with its own program". This led to continued funding of the US's own program, for a time.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft#Soviet_programs)

I read various articles regarding the development of a "carrier-seeking" Chinese missile based on the DF-21. I don't think it's impossible that the Chinese have such a weapon. Just unlikely.

LS1 Miata
09-04-2009, 03:06 PM
Tracking a carrier under EMCON with China's limited maritime patrol assets and satellite capability... not so easy.


Actually it is.


Not easy, but certainly not impossible.

I'm confused. Is it easy, or is it hard?:|

Elbs
09-04-2009, 03:09 PM
This Brings to mind a previous defense program whose unconfirmed existence prompted concern:


I read various articles regarding the development of a "carrier-seeking" Chinese missile based on the DF-21. I don't think it's impossible that the Chinese have such a weapon. Just unlikely.

x2 If China wants to close the straits to a CVBG, there are cheaper, easier ways to do this. SSNs, mines, stealthy and fast missile boats, shore batteries, etc.

Lt-Col A. Tack
09-04-2009, 03:49 PM
x2 If China wants to close the straits to a CVBG, there are cheaper, easier ways to do this. SSNs, mines, stealthy and fast missile boats, shore batteries, etc.

Quite right. The Soviet/Russian approach was to develop really large, really fast anti-shipping missiles.

My thinking was that all this talk about a carrier-killing ballistic missile could be a ruse intended to cause us to waste time and money.

Mastermind
09-04-2009, 04:51 PM
First, I do not think it is all that difficult with modern tech to find any large surface ship(s) on a military basis. I have questioned that latest search for the missing "Lumber ship"...but that thing was not exactly a military CV group, either, emitting all kinds of radiations.

There can be no doubt the US Navy has (probably for at least a few decades) concerned itself quite heavily with this sort of technology coming into reality and have likely devised all sorts of counter measures to it.

I now suspect the carrier task forces have adequate hardware to counter this thing from China and although it is just one more thing to worry about, it is hardly a CV group stopper.

One thing the Navy planners probably do every morning they get up out of bed is utter a curse on Bill Clinton who authorized advanced missile tech to be handed over to the Chinese under his watch. I bet they are also going over the tapes of the briefings they gave to that ChiCom intelligence Colonel Clinton insisted be included in the briefings.

GlassHarp
09-05-2009, 01:03 AM
Thought this might be useful.

GazB
09-05-2009, 03:12 AM
Gitmo was an improvement in living standards for those islamist savages. Much better than they deserved.

Even the ones from Australia and Britain?
Your contempt for people held without charge is amusing.
How long have you been a supporter of Joseph Stalin and his policies towards those that don't conform?


This Brings to mind a previous defense program whose unconfirmed existence prompted concern:

Actually that was found to have existed and it failed for exactly the same reasons the US system failed. The weight of the shielding and the fact that they couldn't guarantee safety in the event of a crash meant the unlimited range was not worth it. Of course if you could find some way of giving it unlimited payload that might be different...


I'm confused. Is it easy, or is it hard?

It can be both. I doubt they will spend money developing an IRBM designed to hit aircraft carriers and not bother developing assets to find and track those targets too. Without the satellites you need third party platforms to find and track the targets. Survivability would be an issue so using civilian vessels or space based platforms would probably be the safest bet.


x2 If China wants to close the straits to a CVBG, there are cheaper, easier ways to do this. SSNs, mines, stealthy and fast missile boats, shore batteries, etc.

Why put all their eggs in one basket? If we are talking about deterring the US from interfering in the first place the most threats a US carrier can face the better as far as China is concerned.

IRBMs are not that expensive as they are like UAVs that don't require training. They also don't need nuke warheads though a few might be fitted with some just in case... and airburst could be used as a warning they mean business and an airburst in the upper atmosphere would disrupt radar and radio communications for a couple of hours.


The Soviet/Russian approach was to develop really large, really fast anti-shipping missiles.

Their approach included a wide range of systems and weapons and included the Legenda satellite system... a system they currently keep in low rate operational capability.


Thought this might be useful.

Keeping in mind the flight range of an F-18, this will effect the range a carrier can sucessfully support operations in Taiwan and will effect where the carrier group can be positioned to operate there. To be brutally honest against Su-30MKKs and ground based radars in China I think US carriers will have a much harder time than they have ever had anywhere with or without this IRBM.

Elbs
09-05-2009, 03:19 AM
Keeping in mind the flight range of an F-18, this will effect the range a carrier can sucessfully support operations in Taiwan and will effect where the carrier group can be positioned to operate there. To be brutally honest against Su-30MKKs and ground based radars in China I think US carriers will have a much harder time than they have ever had anywhere with or without this IRBM.

Agree with some of your other points. IMO China's submarines would be a much greater threat than her air force in a hypothetical scenario. Slowly but steadily they've been getting better platforms (new Kilos, new SSNs) and probably better training.

In day one of any conflict, you can bet those airfields will be hit hard by anything lurking in the area. Despite the upgrading of the Chinese air arms, China still has much less resources than the Soviets had for taking a crack at a CVN.

LIke you said above, why put all the eggs in one basket? Mines, missile-shooting subs, fast attack craft with supersonic missiles, and fighter-bombers make more sense than a wunderwaffe like the ballistic missile.

If anything, the development of this threat would further motivate the USN to invest more money in UCAS-N and other long-range UAVs to provide a loitering presence against mobile missiles.

4ezapriduri
09-05-2009, 04:14 AM
Agree with some of your other points. IMO China's submarines would be a much greater threat than her air force in a hypothetical scenario. Slowly but steadily they've been getting better platforms (new Kilos, new SSNs) and probably better training.

In day one of any conflict, you can bet those airfields will be hit hard by anything lurking in the area. Despite the upgrading of the Chinese air arms, China still has much less resources than the Soviets had for taking a crack at a CVN.

LIke you said above, why put all the eggs in one basket? Mines, missile-shooting subs, fast attack craft with supersonic missiles, and fighter-bombers make more sense than a wunderwaffe like the ballistic missile.

If anything, the development of this threat would further motivate the USN to invest more money in UCAS-N and other long-range UAVs to provide a loitering presence against mobile missiles.

Hardly a wunderwaffe.

If you think about it, all that needs to be done is create a warhead / missile attachment for the IRBM that will be able to guide itself to the carrier / other ships. Using the IRBM may just be a way to shorten the attack time (less flight speed) and get over missile defenses with a higher rate of success.

GazB
09-05-2009, 04:47 AM
In day one of any conflict, you can bet those airfields will be hit hard by anything lurking in the area. Despite the upgrading of the Chinese air arms, China still has much less resources than the Soviets had for taking a crack at a CVN.

Anything lurking in the area will have to contend with S-300PMU2s and of course a rather large force of aircraft which admittedly consist of a wide range of platforms from mediocre to pretty good with quite a few unknowns in there too. The real question is how much blood is the US going to accept to defend Taiwan. I suspect Japan and South Korea will play an enormous role in either participating and forming and unsinkable carrier like the UK did in WWII or they might decide to opt out of this conflict which will make it rather harder for the US. I can't see the Russians interfering at all.


Mines, missile-shooting subs, fast attack craft with supersonic missiles, and fighter-bombers make more sense than a wunderwaffe like the ballistic missile.

But it is another arrow in the quiver. It is potentially a very potent arrow and the sort of thing the US was planning a decade ago for itself, though not in the anti carrier role of course. When not being used for the task at hand they could certainly use such rockets to insert small satellites into orbit so it is not a total waste of money either. High up front costs, low maintainence and operational costs and a use for them just before they expire and become useless. Sounds like overall a cheap enough idea if they could get it to work.


If anything, the development of this threat would further motivate the USN to invest more money in UCAS-N and other long-range UAVs to provide a loitering presence against mobile missiles.

Such systems will be developed anyway, and would be more effective in uncontested airspace like Yemen and Iraq and Afghanistan.


Using the IRBM may just be a way to shorten the attack time (less flight speed) and get over missile defenses with a higher rate of success.

Exactly and it wouldn't be new. The Kh-15 was a rocket powered anti radiation missile that climbed to 40,000 m and dived on the target at mach 5. Even the old AS-6 had two flight profiles, one was very low and fast and the other was very high and fast. The high profile was calculated to take it above the interception altitude of the AIM-54 Phoenix missile carried by the Tomcat.
With carriers developing their defences they other side is just going to go higher and faster to defeat the new defences... quite natural actually.

DS73
09-05-2009, 07:40 AM
There is also the assumption that sinking an aircraft carrier will be enough to knock the US out of a war due to pressure from the home front.
:cantbeli:. I see old japanese crap is still alive.
An attack on american ship is the attack on american soil.

Any speculation that americans would abort efforts if attacked have exactly the same "quality" as japanese speculations about Pearl Harbour. Most probably the same origin: cluelessness about how America works.



I read various articles regarding the development of a "carrier-seeking" Chinese missile based on the DF-21. I don't think it's impossible that the Chinese have such a weapon. Just unlikely.
It is next to impossible due to forces necessary for sufficiently quick and omnidirectional maneuvering at ballistic speeds. Correction distances can and will be on a scale of few kms from ballistic trajectory impact point, because of carrier's speed, distance to pass, and target acquisition delay.

You have to decelerate rocket first to at least M8(very very optimistically), but doing so, you make it just another air target.

National Research Council did a study on this (hypersonic rocketry) subject. Ballistic rockets as means to destroy maneuverable targets=Dead end.

btw. those to suggest "easiness" of a sinking a big carrier, consult first with the results of sea nuclear tests. There is sufficient information published.

warick
09-05-2009, 10:52 AM
What's the lack of anti-ship TBM ? It is possible ?

Mastermind
09-05-2009, 09:45 PM
All this tech against ultra expensive battle organizations is getting totally out of hand...that is, beyond human control. To defend, it must be fully automated. To offend, it must be fully automated. Side with best tech will win.

That, my friends, is the future of modern warfare...until the after-modern warfare. Then, high tech will be a club, a bow a sword a shield and a sling.

Funny how that works out, huh?

GazB
09-06-2009, 06:35 AM
Any speculation that americans would abort efforts if attacked have exactly the same "quality" as japanese speculations about Pearl Harbour. Most probably the same origin: cluelessness about how America works.

Except an aircraft carrier sailing towards China with the aim of interfering in a conflict between China and Taiwan is hardly a dastardly stab in the back like Pearl Harbour was. A carrier going to support one side in a war gets damaged by the other side is not so much a rallying point for the US as a big question mark as to why did we get involved in the first place sort of thing.


btw. those to suggest "easiness" of a sinking a big carrier, consult first with the results of sea nuclear tests. There is sufficient information published.

Only because operational US carrier groups are depicted as all seeing all hearing yet silent and with extended reach. A bit like Battleships were seen before WWII. Except it was the aircraft that changed that and the most powerful sea based power moved from the Royal Navy to the US Navy.

TORA
09-06-2009, 07:40 AM
The real question is how much blood is the US going to accept to defend Taiwan. I suspect Japan and South Korea will play an enormous role in either participating and forming and unsinkable carrier like the UK did in WWII or they might decide to opt out of this conflict which will make it rather harder for the US. I can't see the Russians interfering at all.


I think Japan would probably play a determining role indeed if it would intervene with the United States in the defense of Taiwan.
On the other hand I think a South Korean involvement in such a conflict could be an inviting move for North Korea to massively invade the South, supported this time by China. South Korea is in a more exposed and critical position, I think will probably try to avoid any tensions and keep it's attention still at North.
While China could inflict considarable damages to regional countries considering it's large short/medium range balistic missile arsenal, for today and in the foreseeble future, China has a way much to loose in a strait cross all out war. A potential escalation would may well invite radical geopolitical changes in the region nonetheless, something that China does not want hope for.
A Russian involvement could welcome as well a flashpoint in the islands reclaimed by Japan close to Hokkaido, opening a wider crisis something that Moscow does not want hope for as well, but as you said Russians would probably just sit and watch any crisis that could spark in East Asia.
Anyway, considering latest political changes in the region I do not think anything will happen on the short term, at least 10 ~ years.

Mastermind
09-06-2009, 04:58 PM
For most nations thinking about going to war over anything, the economic costs are probably the primary consideration, second the political costs, then...and probably lowest of any other consideration is the cost in human blood.

That's just the way it works out.

So, I don't believe either China or the US would want such an encounter...in modern economic terms....just way too costly.

Vintendo
09-07-2009, 08:33 PM
There is also the assumption that sinking an aircraft carrier will be enough to knock the US out of a war due to pressure from the home front.

Quite the contrary. I think most Americans would be extremely pissed off and want revenge.