Post #2819 styx, Today at 1:07 PM was a comment to the recent possible ASBM test. Is your quotation related or limited to this subject? If yes, I think neither lower altitude nor underwater equivalent of GPS are relevant, ASBM does not use GPS type of MEO satellite for guidance or communication.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
i think that an irbm or mrbm have a time of flight to a target of about 10 15 minutes, if a carrier goes at 30 knots in this time from detection by sat or uav or submarine or ugv etc it will be in a circle of about 20 km of diameter, i think abundantly within the range of an active search radar on the tip of the warhead so this asbm doesn't need mid course updates. I'm wrong? So the mitical "kill chain" is quite simple and a cvbg is quite an easy target for this type of weapon.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
In theory yes but in practice it is more complicated than that First of all the radar has to overcome the hot plasma generated by the reentry into the atmosphere Than it has to slow down a bit to give the radar view of the surrounding area Then it has to guide to the target within error of 10 all the while moving at blinding speed of mach 10
Taxiya article give a clue how they do it
I would not be as sure about that. It used to be there were communication blackouts when talking with manned reentry vehicles like capsules.
Then someone had the idea to put an antenna on the backside of the reentry vehicle, i.e. the side opposite to the plasma shroud, then bounce the signal around with the aid of a satellite in an upper orbit. A couple years back I think I read someone had solved the issue completely, namely that there was a specific frequency band which could be transmitted through the plasma. Sorry but I can't remember where I read this.
This NASA paper talks about the communications blackout problem but I don't remember where I read about the new research.
Then someone had the idea to put an antenna on the backside of the reentry vehicle, i.e. the side opposite to the plasma shroud, then bounce the signal around with the aid of a satellite in an upper orbit. A couple years back I think I read someone had solved the issue completely, namely that there was a specific frequency band which could be transmitted through the plasma. Sorry but I can't remember where I read this.
This NASA paper talks about the communications blackout problem but I don't remember where I read about the new research.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Well I posted the article and if I remember correctly with careful shaping of the bluff body you can get around the blackout and position the antenna properly. Add to that using ablative material it can cooled off the bluff body to allow for communication. But missile is in the form of cone and not bluff body there is not getting around being engulfed by hot plasma
But I am sure the Chinese solved the problem somehow
antiterror13
Brigadier
China would never do that (sinking CBG) unless no other choices ... it is meant for one of many deterrents to the US NAvy to not get close to China's shore, now any US CBG will be far away from China's shore (>1,500 kms), no sane admiral would risk it
A carrier is very difficult to sink, particularly with ASBMs.
But it's a lot easier to effect a mission kill with a cluster warhead of ball bearings like in the CGI video.
The catapults, arresting wires, the island, and landing strip come to mind.
Plus the carriers will have to dash inside ASBM range for missions, otherwise their aircraft are useless.
Hyperwarp
Captain
The sheer speed of the ASBM warhead is the issue when it comes to hard-kill. Slightest deviation results in a large margin of error even on fixed targets. When the carrier starts making evasive maneuvers plus launching countermeasures not just by the carrier but the whole battlegroup a hard-kill is not an easy thing to do. Not impossible, but there are so many things that can go wrong.
Soft-kill / Proximity detonation, on the other hand, is another thing altogether. As AndrewS already pointed out, damage to catapults, arresting wires, landing strip and other parts will render those F-35 and F/A-18E/F useless for a certain period of time. There is also the added benefit of minimizing casualties compared to a Hard-kill which could potentially kills thousands in one shot.
Soft-kill / Proximity detonation, on the other hand, is another thing altogether. As AndrewS already pointed out, damage to catapults, arresting wires, landing strip and other parts will render those F-35 and F/A-18E/F useless for a certain period of time. There is also the added benefit of minimizing casualties compared to a Hard-kill which could potentially kills thousands in one shot.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Those battleships were sunk because the opposing aircraft carrying bombs as well as submarines armed with torpedoes could get within striking range. A US aircraft carrier never sails alone. There is a reason why a carrier battlegroup is required (Destroyers, Cruisers, submarines, Aircrafts, and more). If it was just the carrier, then no need of fancy ASBM. A bunch of JH-7 and H-6 armed with anti-ship missiles and a few 039 SSK can sink it. Sinking a carrier requires bypassing multiple layers of countermeasures those old battleships did not have.
- Status