Behind the China Missile Hype

[delft]

If an ASBM is misled and destroys an AB instead than the next ASBM has less chance to be misled.

 

[i.e.]

They might as well use composite homing techniques.

active radar, IR, Imaging, and home on Emissions.

you can have a warhead that use all of these techniques. or selectively use on one or two out of the spread in a salvo.

pretty hard to beat all at same time.

heck you can even probablly design a warhead that drops a 533mm wake homer torpedo near the battle group.

that would make it really interesting.

 

[plawolf]

Just give it a rest guys.

If someone came out and claimed that the new US global prompt strike system will have an anti-ship function, none of the guys who has so much trouble believing a Chinese AShBM will have any trouble believing it, and many may well become strong defenders of the idea that the US will have such an ability if someone raises any questions about technical feasibility.

Their main problem is not that there could be an AShBM, but rather that the world's first AShBM could be Chinese.

 

[NikeX]

Just give it a rest guys.

If someone came out and claimed that the new US global prompt strike system will have an anti-ship function, none of the guys who has so much trouble believing a Chinese AShBM will have any trouble believing it, and many may well become strong defenders of the idea that the US will have such an ability if someone raises any questions about technical feasibility.

Their main problem is not that there could be an AShBM, but rather that the world's first AShBM could be Chinese.

Your statement is pure bunk. No one, and I repeat no one has demonstrated a system were an IRBM is able to hit a moving target. I do not care if it is Prompt Global Strike or the DF-21D. It just has not been demonstrated.

And to try to tie this into an anti-China bias is pure foolishness

You need to understand that the laws of physics are color blind and not dependent upon the culture of the user. Certain physical laws are consistent throughout the universe. Period

Dry your tears and try again

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

@i.e. "......heck you can even probablly design a warhead that drops a 533mm wake homer torpedo near the battle group. "

You stole that idea from me !

 

[Blitzo]

Your statement is pure bunk. No one, and I repeat no one has demonstrated a system were an IRBM is able to hit a moving target. I do not care if it is Prompt Global Strike or the DF-21D. It just has not been demonstrated.

And to try to tie this into an anti-China bias is pure foolishness

You need to understand that the laws of physics are color blind and not dependent upon the culture of the user. Certain physical laws are consistent throughout the universe. Period

Dry your tears and try again

I'm not saying the disbeleif to the chinese developing AShBM is purely down to prejudice, but like plawolf said if it was the US which were developing an AShBM like weapon there would be far less doubt.

there is difference between ABM vs AsBM operation
1 ABM is not jammed by hostile force, its not in hostile defense area, AsBM is in the sphere of CVBG, EW, defense area, and the entire CVBG is try to protect the carrier vs nothing is protecting the AsBM.
2. ID,tracking for ABM is done by other platform, it doesn't worry about jamming from BM or other source, so its datalink is secure. also i'm not sure SM3 has any sophiscated active sensor onboard since majority of information are calculate by other platform, then upload to missile or maybe just calculate the trajectory of ballistic missile and lunch the ABM toward the path of that trajectory.
3 find something in the air vs in the ocean is different. for starter there are much more clutter due to ocean, ships is diffcult to track. which mean the AsBM terminal sensor system has to be more powerfull, sophiscate than ABM.
4. AsBM become independent during terminal phase agains entire CVBG EW/SM3, ABM never has this issue, US can upload new info if necessary.

1: We're leaving jamming out of this for the moment, and only talking about the idea of hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.
2: I'm not sure what your point is. ABM tracking is indeed done by other platforms. But AShBM's tracking will be done by other platforms until the terminal phase too. Seeing as ABM supposedly doesn't have to worry about its datalink being jammed shouldn't the same logic work for AShBM lol...
3: But AShBM won't be searching the entire ocean will it? The ocean might be 1000x1000 squares large, but offboard guidance/datalink will send it to the 10x10 square where the CVBG is. Then it will be up to the terminal seeker to look for the 1x1 square large CVN.
4: What's stopping C4ISTAR loading "new info" into the RV during terminal phase? For instance, instead of targeting the 100k ton CVN with fighters, command the RV to go for the 40k ton LHA laden with marines instead?

My point wasn't that ABM and AShBM were directly comparable, but rather that saying "it's not been demonstrated to hit a moving target with an IRBM!!!111one!" would be far more credible if ABM hadn't demonstrated hitting a ballistic missile with what is effectively another ballistic missile. Like I said, ABM is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. So AShBM will be like hitting a barn with a bullet.

Btw I don't think DF-21A has an active seeker (100-300m cep). It is used for nuclear strike anyway. It is DF-21C which was said to first field an active seeker -- it has a conventional warhead meant for targetting bases and high value assets etc (30-40m cep)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[NikeX]

jaming from DDG or other platform has pretty long range, its not necessary a ship per say, could be a plane or UAV etc. lets assume china able to detect, ID, and track the CVBG in real time. The problem with terminal guidance to a moving target under EW, combat condition does has its diffculties.

so if mid-course correction location is stored during blackout.
after bloackout the missile will essentially be on its own. and its still pretty far from carrier, there are other ships around.
now the missile must ID the carrier, continue track it when carrier is dead silent and all other ships/plane try to jam the missiles.
for stationary target this does not matter, no active RF sensor is required, just store coordinate of the target, so EW won't able to stop the missiles. for a moving target which require detection, ID, tracking algorithm and a RF sensor, EW become a obstacle. also the sensor must know which ships is the carrier and track it in real time, adjust the missile course, probably something in the us/ms accuracy due to speed of missile. the algorithm has to be sophiscated, and the sensor has to be powerfull and compact. stationary target don't require these changes, just GPS coordinate is enough.

there is difference between ABM vs AsBM operation
1 ABM is not jammed by hostile force, its not in hostile defense area, AsBM is in the sphere of CVBG, EW, defense area, and the entire CVBG is try to protect the carrier vs nothing is protecting the AsBM.
2. ID,tracking for ABM is done by other platform, it doesn't worry about jamming from BM or other source, so its datalink is secure. also i'm not sure SM3 has any sophiscated active sensor onboard since majority of information are calculate by other platform, then upload to missile or maybe just calculate the trajectory of ballistic missile and lunch the ABM toward the path of that trajectory.
3 find something in the air vs in the ocean is different. for starter there are much more clutter due to ocean, ships is diffcult to track. which mean the AsBM terminal sensor system has to be more powerfull, sophiscate than ABM.
4. AsBM become independent during terminal phase agains entire CVBG EW/SM3, ABM never has this issue, US can upload new info if necessary.

This post here clearly states the challenges faced by DF-21D ASBM in a straight forward and succinct manner. It is refreshing to see someone with an understanding of the technologies needed for the DF-21 or any ASBM to be successful in its mission

 

[Blitzo]

This post here clearly states the challenges faced by DF-21D ASBM in a straight forward and succinct manner. It is refreshing to see someone with an understanding of the technologies needed for the DF-21 or any ASBM to be successful in its mission

The challenges he stated (first paragraph) are more or less the same challenges what a long range anti ship cruise missile would face, only it's a ballistic missile instead.

EW, IDing carriers, mid course correction challenges, whatever. These "challenges" have already been solved decades ago through the more primitive AShMs of the cold war. Of course as time went on countermeasures have grown in potency but so have counter-countermeasures.

As for the second paragraph, I've already illustrated my intention was not to say ABM and AShBM was the same, but rather that hitting a slow moving target at sea with a ballistic missile is a few steps down in complexity from hitting a ballistic missile in flight with another missile. We can talk EW and such later, but first this sentence must be acknowledged, especially as you've mentioned the supposed potency of ABM many a time in previous posts, yet the idea of hitting a slow moving target is somehow inconceivable to you.

 

[NikeX]

I'm not saying the disbeleif to the chinese developing AShBM is purely down to prejudice, but like plawolf said if it was the US which were developing an AShBM like weapon there would be far less doubt.

The best that Prompt Global Strike has been able to demonstrate to date is a gliding vehicle that has been semi successful in altering its trajectory during flight.

And judging by the difficulty of achieving just these goals in Prompt Global Strike tests, the challenges remain daunting.

You have high speed materials to develop, weapon separations, methods of guidance, and a whole host of other difficult questions to answer before Prompt Global Strike can even remotely be considered a weapon's system

And I should add that in order to achieve the goals of the DF-21D ASBM hitting the carrier, China will have to develop a delivery vehicle not very different than that proposed by Prompt Global Strike.

It should be kept in mind that Prompt Global Strike is designed to take out FIXED targets. So if the Prompt Global Strike program is having this much trouble developing its concepts, what does that tell you about an ASBM trying to hit a moving target that is fighting hard to defend itself?

This is why I remain highly skeptical of the claims that DF-21D is an "operational weapons system" ready to threaten a carrier

Goals of Prompt Global Strike: The Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) would be able to fly 9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km) in 2 hours with a payload of 12,000 lb (5,500 kg). It is to fly at a high altitudes and achieve speeds of up to Mach 20.

 

[Blitzo]

^ You didn't understand the point of my post at all.

I'm not saying anything about PGS that is. I'm saying that if the US came out and said they were developing a system whereby they could use a ballistic missile to target ships, there would be far less skepticism compared to the flak DF-21D is getting, because it's from china.

Kind of like the whole J-20 deal, where before it came out everyone was thinking J-XX would be a "semi stealth" fighter, probably uncapable of supercruise, or a tech demonstrator, equipped with inferior avionics or whatever. It's prejudice, whether it's justified or not.

 

[NikeX]

The challenges he stated (first paragraph) are more or less the same challenges what a long range anti ship cruise missile would face, only it's a ballistic missile instead.

EW, IDing carriers, mid course correction challenges, whatever. These "challenges" have already been solved decades ago through the more primitive AShMs of the cold war. Of course as time went on countermeasures have grown in potency but so have counter-countermeasures.

The only "primitive ASBMs" has been the SS-NX-13 created by the Russians to deal with the carrier battle group. And it dealt with the problem of lack of precision targeting by using a nuclear warhead.

Other than SS-NX-13 there have been no other ASBMs or even IRBMs that have attempted to engage a moving target at sea or on the land.