PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

AndrewS said:

What does that have to do with a Taiwan Straits scenario?

Click to expand...

Why do you steer every discussion into a Taiwan Straits scenario?

The discussion I am interested, and that several other people were also interested in, is the advantages and disadvantages of supersonic ASCMs vs subsonic VLO ASCMs.

AndrewS said:

In the Taiwan Straits, you already know the exact location of a 50km box which contains a huge concentration of Chinese ships.

I would expect at least 10 destroyers with CEC and overlapping SAM coverage, with AWACs and fighter support.
Once we see quad-packed missiles on ships, I reckon there would be a minimum of 2000 defensive SAMs available.
Plus there will be at least 20 fighter jets overhead, picking off LRASMs as they come in.

So I just do not see enough LRASMs arriving to overwhelm the defenders.

Click to expand...

I don't want to discuss this scenario, sorry. It's too complicated.

AndrewS said:

Plus each LRASM costs $4M.
Whilst we don't know the cost of Chinese SAMs, we do know the cost for American defensive SAMs can be a lot less eg. SeaRAM, ESSM, SM-2

Click to expand...

Once the production rate picks up, the costs will go down to about $3.5M. Australia alone is buying 200 of them. ESSM Blk II is about $1.75M per missile. SM-6 is more expensive than LRASM. I don't see a problem there.

AndrewS said:

After all, the defending ships have a 99% probability of shooting down the incoming LRASMs after detection at the radar horizon.

And if LRASMs are flying high during the mid-phase, it just makes them easier to detect and kill.

Click to expand...

I showed you the results from CMO: even when flying high, E-3C detects them at just 17.5-18nm. Likewise, when they cross the radar horizon they are unlikely to be immediately tracked by X-band horizon search radars. They will first be detected by Type 317 EWR: but this radar has a low scan rate, and is not accurate enough to guide missiles to target.

In CMO, when fired against the Type 052D that's exactly what happens. The missiles are detected soon after crossing the radar horizon by the Type 317, but not by X-band horizon search radars. The next radar that detects them is the Type 346A. The engagement typically starts when the missiles are 7nm-8 nm from the ship. The Type 052D takes out about 20 of the incoming LRASMs, but is still sunk by a salvo fired from a single B-1.

AndrewS said:

So I just do not see enough LRASMs arriving to overwhelm the defenders.

Click to expand...

It becomes a bit offtopic, but I guess once it is worth it.

Quite a while ago I made a few rough calculations for various US CG strikes(LRASMs can also arrive from B-1s and F-15s, but this is more complicated to calculate). The calculation is valid for the typical mid-2020s airgroup (i.e. with MQ-25).
1. LRASMs almost 100% don't come alone - and actually constitute ~half of the package;
2. Strike can(will) be supported by AEW, both standoff(EA-18G, F-35C) and stand in(MALD-J);
3. Airstrike can be supported by TLAM strike(new blocks are anti-ship capable). Roughly can add 1-2 dozens per escort ship - their range allows them to fly together with the package. Tico can add substantially more while remaining fully viable(but their days are pretty limited), Constellations - less.

Throwing in full calculation will be redundant(at least, not in this topic), but for 3 strike packages I've personally estimated - results were as follows:
1. 8 ARM(AARGM-ER), ~6 MALD(including MALD-J), 12...24 LRASM. 1...2x EA-18G, 4xF-35C dedicated to electronic attack duties.
2. 8 ARM(AARGM-ER), 6...12 MALD(including MALD-J), 20...40 LRASM. 1...2x EA-18G, 4xF-35C dedicated to electronic attack duties.
3. 16 ARM(AARGM-ER), 16...24 MALD(including MALD-J), 24...48 LRASM. 2...4x EA-18G, 8xF-35C dedicated to electronic attack duties.

All 3 options include various degrees of commitment and in-flight refueling of carrier strike wing, as well as the degree of remaining self-defense capability of CSG (CAP&reserve on the deck). lower values - longer range of strike(and the 3rd one is inherently relatively shorter-ranged "all in", with huge disruption of the deck handling ops).

p.s. just to make it less offtopic - this is an illustration of a simple thing - every time you're working with any significant air-launched ASCM strike - you need to keep in mind that it typically won't come alone. Or, to be precise - the main variants where the only thing that comes is ASCMs is either long-range bomber strike, or armed patrol-type missions. Otherwise - always expect a mix. The more capable the force in question is - the more complex a mix.

Indeed, the US air strike packages are very dangerous and China has no guarantee to be able to intercept them to prevent damage to its own SAGs. Same applies to the USN as well.
Without future weapons like lasers and railguns that can guarantee the destruction of incoming missiles at visual range with little cost, the attacker always stands to win.

The best way to defeat US strike packages is still Dongfeng'ing their bases and carriers the crap out at stand-off distances and shooting down their tankers and support crafts that they rely upon.

Insignius said:

Indeed, the US air strike packages are very dangerous and China has no guarantee to be able to intercept them to prevent damage to its own SAGs. Same applies to the USN as well.

Click to expand...

Sort of. For example, J15D&J-16D probably are more significant strike multipliers than newer missiles themselves.

nlalyst said:

Why do you steer every discussion into a Taiwan Straits scenario?

Click to expand...

Because that is the most difficult scenario for the Chinese Navy or any Navy.
The ships in the Taiwan straits can't disappear or manoeuvre.
They have to stay in a fixed kill box and expect large numbers of incoming missiles.

And you may not want to discuss a scenario where surface ships, aircraft and AWACs form a combined defensive complex - but that is what both the Chinese Navy and US Navy are doing. You can't discuss the effectiveness of any antiship missile without this context.

nlalyst said:

In CMO, when fired against the Type 052D that's exactly what happens. The missiles are detected soon after crossing the radar horizon by the Type 317, but not by X-band horizon search radars. The next radar that detects them is the Type 346A. The engagement typically starts when the missiles are 7nm-8 nm from the ship. The Type 052D takes out about 20 of the incoming LRASMs, but is still sunk by a salvo fired from a single B-1.

Click to expand...

Why does the engagement only start at 7-8nm? That is only 13km versus the radar horizon of 30km

Defensive SAMs could be launched with mid-course guidance, then the X-Band picks up the LRASM for final targeting.
It makes absolutely no sense to leave defensive SAM launches to 7nm (13km)

Plus before the outcome of the first SAM engagement is known, I would expect destroyers to throw speculative missiles into the air with mid-course retargeting . AEGIS has been doing this for decades now.

So if you only expect a 70% pK for your defensive SAMs, you already have enough new SAMs which are halfway to the LRASMs which survive. That gets you even more engagement rounds.

Thought id share this video of the Swedish RBS 15 antiship missile. Its some of the best footage i have seen of an inbound missile. The sea state is very calm but it shows just how low they can fly.
Subtitles are available, the action starts in the second half of the video.

AndrewS said:

Why does the engagement only start at 7-8nm? That is only 13km versus the radar horizon of 30km

Defensive SAMs could be launched with mid-course guidance, then the X-Band picks up the LRASM for final targeting.
It makes absolutely no sense to leave defensive SAM launches to 7nm (13km)

Click to expand...

You can't shoot at something you don't see. CMO has a somewhat different take on the nature of the Type 346A radar and HHQ-9A missiles: it models them as SARH/TVM, which means that they require that the Type 346A radar establishes first a firm track on the LRASM. Then there is something called an OODA loop that kicks in, before the ship can respond with missiles in the air.

AndrewS said:

Plus before the outcome of the first SAM engagement is known, I would expect destroyers to throw speculative missiles into the air with mid-course retargeting . AEGIS has been doing this for decades now.

Click to expand...

There's no speculative throwing of missiles: AEGIS ships have 3 or 4 target illuminators, which sets a hard limit on the number of targets the missiles can engage simultaneously. However, terminal illumination is only needed for the last few seconds of missile flight: the SPY-1 radar tracks all the targets, and puts many more missiles on intercept trajectories with time of arrivals adjusted so that the illuminators have time to switch between targets. Every missile that's in the air is destined to a known and tracked target, not a speculated one.

nlalyst said:

You can't shoot at something you don't see. CMO has a somewhat different take on the nature of the Type 346A radar and HHQ-9A missiles: it models them as SARH/TVM, which means that they require that the Type 346A radar establishes first a firm track on the LRASM. Then there is something called an OODA loop that kicks in, before the ship can respond with missiles in the air.

Click to expand...

Well, that is a huge and faulty assumption.
We've seen the UHF radar on the E-2D provide mid-course guidance to Arleigh Burke SAMs to shoot down cruise missiles in real-life.
So why can't the UHF radar on a Type-052D provide mid-course guidance for SAMs? It is so much easier in comparison.

Oh wait, it's because Arleigh Burkes don't have a shipboard UHF radar, so of course the Chinese can't use their shipborne UHF radars to guide SAMs.

If an LRASM is detected at the radar horizon (30km), an immediate HHQ-9 SAM launch will see something like the following full-length engagement cycles

1st intercept at 24km
2nd intercept at 19km
3rd intercept at 15km
4th intercept at 12km

Then you're looking at 3 full-length engagement cycles from the HHQ-10 SAMs
Then the CIWS

If you have a pK of 70% for SAMs, you only need 4 engagements to shoot down 99.1%+ of incoming LRASMs. And there are 7 in total here.

And even if you accept the CMO model of SAM launch at 13km, you still end up with 3-4 full length SAM engagements.
3 engagements should see 97% of all LRASMs destroyed.
So on average, you might see 1 LRASM survive to CIWS range.

It argues for the CMO model of LRASMs versus Type-052D to be really flawed and biased.
After all, CMO wouldn't sell as many copies if the US couldn't easily sink Chinese ships

nlalyst said:

There's no speculative throwing of missiles: AEGIS ships have 3 or 4 target illuminators, which sets a hard limit on the number of targets the missiles can engage simultaneously. However, terminal illumination is only needed for the last few seconds of missile flight: the SPY-1 radar tracks all the targets, and puts many more missiles on intercept trajectories with time of arrivals adjusted so that the illuminators have time to switch between targets. Every missile that's in the air is destined to a known and tracked target, not a speculated one.

Click to expand...

Think about it.

There's nothing to stop AEGIS being programmed to launch additional missiles in the air, which then receive mid-course guidance and their final target when they are already underway. We see this happening with all sorts of other missiles.

So SAMs can be retargeted in flight.

---

Yes, the Arleigh Burke X-band mechanical target illuminators do set a hard limit on how many targets you can engage simultaneously, if your SAMs are SARH. But if you haven't reached that limit, why can't you send up a few more SAMs on a speculative basis, knowing that they will eventually have a target? As long as you have enough SAMs, the small chance of wasting a few SAMs is better than the risk of LRASMs getting closer. HHQ-9 or HQ-10 SAM are $1-2? million. An LRASM costs a lot more at $4M. A Type-052D destroyer costs like $550M.

---

The other point is if you also have ARH SAMs, you can engage a lot more targets simultaneously.
Theoretically, you could have SARH and ARH SAMs in the air at the same time, all receiving mid-course guidance until final target acquisition.

And if you have CEC, a ship can launch ARH SAMs with mid-course guidance provided by another ship/plane
Then you can start shooting down LRASMs from beyond the radar horizon (30km)

@AndrewS come down. You are dithering so much that I fail to see any focus in your arguments other than a preconceived idea that LRASM is a failure.

In CMO, none of the VHF radars are able to provide a targeting solution. That’s certainly credible for SARH missiles. Maybe not for ARH, and CMO gets that wrong, but there is no bias against Chinese platforms. Have you actually played CMO or do you get that from 2nd hand sources?

Out of all the missiles 052D fired, about 55% scored a hit against the LRASM. Some missed, others were spoofed by its DECM.

In reality, there might be stand-off jamming aircraft and stand-in drone jammers dramatically reducing the ability of the ship’s radars to detect LRASMs. Plus expendable decoys like MALDs, etc. But that’s a whole different pair of shoes and frankly too complex to discuss without simulation.

nlalyst said:

@AndrewS come down. You are dithering so much that I fail to see any focus in your arguments other than a preconceived idea that LRASM is a failure.

Click to expand...

No, I actually started out years ago looking for arguments as to why LRASMs would be successful.
The reason being that if LRASMs were be so effective, that would be to the advantage of the China, because the US is way more dependent on maritime access than China.

But the more I looked at LRASMs, the more I saw them as not very useful.

nlalyst said:

In CMO, none of the VHF radars are able to provide a targeting solution. That’s certainly credible for SARH missiles. Maybe not for ARH, and CMO gets that wrong, but there is no bias against Chinese platforms. Have you actually played CMO or do you get that from 2nd hand sources?

Out of all the missiles 052D fired, about 55% scored a hit against the LRASM. Some missed, others were spoofed by its DECM.

In reality, there might be stand-off jamming aircraft and stand-in drone jammers dramatically reducing the ability of the ship’s radars to detect LRASMs. Plus expendable decoys like MALDs, etc. But that’s a whole different pair of shoes and frankly too complex to discuss without simulation.

Click to expand...

I haven't played computer games for a long time.

And VHF cueing should be possible. With a VHF/UHF radar, you're looking at an angular error of <1%.
That would be good enough to send down a ARH SAM on the same bearing with mid-course guidance, until the X-Band picks up the LRASM.

Yes, there may be other aircraft and jammers, but if we're specifically looking at a Taiwan Straits scenario, I don't see other aircraft getting closer than 200km to the defending ships in the Taiwan Straits.