PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles


SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
In light of the recent photos of possible ASBM or HGV or HCMs, I got curious enough to see what US Navy is doing about it because I read some interesting stuff like this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I found the entire confidence in there to be quite puzzling, so I took some further look into it. Now, SM-3 is the primary interceptor for US Navy against long range ballistic missiles like ICBMs, but they are purchased in small numbers and probably available in small numbers also. It seems like SM-6 is the main interceptors against IRBM with US Navy. It does seem like SM-6 had some successful tests against ballistic missiles. Although, the most recent one with 4 SM-6s against 2 SRBM may not have destroyed both of them
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Which brought me to look at HGVs, which are a lot harder for AAW ships to track and intercept, since they are not following the traditional ballistic flight path.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Looking at the current USN plan on how they intend to deal with HGV, it doesn't really ring a lot of confidence since they are mostly dependent on satellites to detect HGVs at launch or earlier part of the flight. It seems like these solutions would be in a lot of trouble if anti-satellite weapons or really aggressive jamming or countermeasures are used against the surveying satellites or if they find ways to decrease HGV's general detection from satellite (maybe some kind of materials that would be harder to identify). Once you get to the terminal phase, these missiles get a lot harder to intercept.

And there is also the scenario of hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, which would seem like the hardest to track and to intercept.

It definitely seems like we have this race going where the anti-ship missile technologies are improving and becoming harder to track and intercept, but the defense technologies are also improving. ASBM was probably fully ready 5 years ago. The goalpost has been moving pretty rapidly since. I'm not too sure why the US naval intel head is hoping China would spend more money in this area. This seems like the best way for them to overwhelm carrier group air defense network. It is quite different to be handling a few ASBM vs handling 50 anti-ship missiles of different hypersonic and supersonic variety. PLAN/PLAAF inducting a large number of these types of missiles and lowering their production costs is pretty much bad news for everyone else.
Nothing but bluffing… otherwise you cannot explain why USN is spending so much resources in Aegis updating and all 4 US military branches are spending every coin they can find to build their own ASBM/HGV.
Don’t forget (based on MDA) there’s no confident capability for HGV interruption in service until 2028(with satellites), but DF-17 had been in service in 2010s. Even no interrupting test until FY2023, maybe 2024 in calendar.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nothing but bluffing… otherwise you cannot explain why USN is spending so much resources in Aegis updating and all 4 US military branches are spending every coin they can find to build their own ASBM/HGV.
Don’t forget (based on MDA) there’s no confident capability for HGV interruption in service until 2028(with satellites), but DF-17 had been in service in 2010s. Even no interrupting test until FY2023, maybe 2024 in calendar.
At the same time, it’s hard to imagine any USN leader publicly claiming their vulnerability to ASBM, after all they have a huge surface fleet and there’s a lot of politics and money surrounding this fleet. Even minor revolutions such as replacing CVN with smaller ones would be an political earthquake.
 

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
The other thing when it comes to air launched anti-ship missiles is the need for a hypersonic version of that which can be carried by J-15s or even J-35 externally. It would be similar to Brahmos with Su-30MKI, except probably being larger. A H-6J would be able to carry 4 of them. If USN has plans for hypersonic missiles from F-35, it should be expected that PLA would also want its air wing to be able to carry and fire hypersonic missiles that are really hard to intercept.
 

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
This is probably the right place to post this USNI article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A lot of crazy people in that comment section. But I think the Western punditry is doing a huge disservice to the entire discussion by elevating ASBM above other form of anti-ship missiles. At this point, I think it's a given they can hit stationary target from far away. It's probably a given they can hit moving targets from far away also. Whether they can hit moving carrier group with EW presence is a bigger question here. I would assume it's harder to hit targets with ASBM than a supersonic anti-ship missile even with all the advancement they've made in improving the seekers. I also think that a US carrier group would be forced to intercept with multiple SM-6 missiles regardless of whether or not the ASBM would be hitting the carrier, since they can't take that chance. Ultimately, US carrier groups will continue to get better at intercepting ballistic missiles and PLA will continue to produce harder to track/intercept hypersonic missiles. At some point, USN may just decide it's too risky for them to get within a certain range of China's coast and that would be the most optimal scenario for PLA.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
I would assume it's harder to hit targets with ASBM than a supersonic anti-ship missile even with all the advancement they've made in improving the seekers.
any tech reasons? I would appreciate. After all an IR seeker have been in ASBM for 10 years and it’s a little bit weird to claim it’s worse than any hypersonic AShM seekers.
At some point, USN may just decide it's too risky for them to get within a certain range of China's coast
afaik, it happens in all(or almost?) US official simulations after 2018.
and that would be the most optimal scenario for PLA.
No, CBGs can go back once the supporting system is degraded. That’s why long range platforms such as H-20 and 095 is so important.
 
Last edited:

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
I will explain more about EW vs. seekers.

1) For some tech reasons (too many details to explain), current EW platforms perform poorly to jam missiles come from vertical direction. Even with future improvements, it’s hard(imo impossible) to work as good as jamming horizontal threats.

2) IR or any optical imaging seekers benefit from the high altitude and sufficient space of ASBM warheads. Technically it’s possible to track a CVN >1000km away with an ASBM seeker sized lens/mirror but none sea skimmer can detect >30km targets with optical seekers.
Another thing about imaging seekers is that they are immunized from all jamming and decoys except laser. I believe that’s why USN was so urgent to equip their DDGs with laser dazzlers since those lasers are almost (yes they can interrupt but almost) meaningless for CM and far away from mature.
 
Last edited:

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
I will explain more about EW vs. seekers.

1) For some tech reasons (too many details to explain), current EW platforms perform poorly to jam missiles come from vertical direction. Even with future improvements, it’s hard(imo impossible) to work as good as jamming horizontal threats.

2) IR or any optical imaging seekers benefit from the high altitude and sufficient space of ASBM warheads. Technically it’s possible to track a CVN >1000km away with an ASBM seeker sized lens/mirror but none sea skimmer can detect >30km targets with optical seekers.
Another thing about imaging seekers is that they are immunized from all jamming and decoys except laser. I believe that’s why USN was so urgent to equip their DDGs with laser dazzlers since those lasers are almost (yes they can interrupt but almost) meaningless for CM and far away from mature.
Now we’re talking about laser. The laser in US DDGs can destroy IR seekers in a short range, but can only blind them far away. That’s important because if you cannot destroy the seeker, one dazzler only works for a single missile at once. That’s why I believe those lasers may interrupt 1-3 seekers aiming at the DDG itself, but only 1 missile for protecting CVNs and other ships.
Considering the lack of convincing Aegis anti-salvo test (only one test but failed) and all those EW/laser reasons, the upper bound of ASBMs one US DDG can handle in 2022 is <=5 imo. For HGV the number may be <=1, considering Aegis still haven’t conduct its first interruption test against HGV.
 
Last edited:

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
I just found some very interesting things and it may provide us a rare viewpoint for DF-21C/D, this paper mentioned a seeker tested in J-8B platform. Since it is publicly published in 2003, I assume the test was before 2000.
v2-0fea6be007d57218b76df9924828cc8b_r.jpeg
v2-f27b41e844c19c3b50162a5d3f8b7f90_720w.jpeg
The speed in 12,000m is 1300m/s with 42°, landing speed is 810m/s with 80°. Final deviation is 10m.
 

Top