Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

[ze100]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

I would be warry of this information. Especially since it comes from the US military.

In this world of disinformation, and in this particular situation, I would suggest to get the news source from a 3rd country, and not the Chinese nor the US media.

[flintlock]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Anyone who sleeps better at night because of the US "missile defense system" is just kidding themselves. At best its value lies against marginal powers. This is nothing but another venue to continue the arms race in, with one measure after another negating the existing technology. The fact is, if just one nuke gets through, the world as we know it will never be the same. We'd be far better served to work at avoiding the need for these weapons in the first place. That would make me sleep better.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

I'm calling bullsh!t on this weapon system.

IF it's a tactical nuke armed ballistic missile tied in to a real-time maritime surveillance system, it's simply a question of putting a salvo of these missiles into a pattern to attempt to destroy the battle group.

The problems with this are:

That would mean gloves off total war...bringing to bear other US military assets to attrit Chinese offensive capabilities

The US Navy possesses some limited ABM capability within each battlegroup

The US Navy has extensive experience in countering advanced Soviet ocean/maritime surveillance that would be relevant including scenarios theoretically using nuclear armed ballistic missiles.

----------------------

IF it's a bleeding edge weapon system...that is, conventionally armed....I'd like to know exactly how the delivery system is able to effectively receive mid-flight guidance updates, as well as what form of terminal guidance is used to locate, discriminate, and target a MOVING carrier in an extremely heavy ECM environment?

As I understand it, communicating with or targeting from anything on upper atmosphere re-entry is next to impossible......and terminal guidance along the lines of the retired Pershing II system was terrain radar model matching....NOT against moving targets with extensive active and passive defensive capabilities.

-----------------------

Could this just be an effort to not outrun the bear(likely defense cuts), but to outrun the other campers(other defense projects likely to also be on the chopping block)?

Who is behind the "discovery" of this "advanced" weapon system that would require continued investment in Anti-Ballistic-Missile capability?

[WildspitzE]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Interesting quote from the article that started this thread: "In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions."

I can't comment on the technology. I'm good up to my LWRCs, the sci-fi MAD stuff I leave to the pros.

That said, from a strategic perspective, it makes total sense to me that China would seek to develop these capabilities. Not because they intend to use them against US carrier groups, but because it allows parts of their nascent (and expanding) Navy to be deployed in other engagements (as deterrents or in a standoff situation) away from the mainland.

This isn't all about Taiwan. They are taking cues from the US play book.

China is asserting itself around the globe as it builds partnerships and invests in its resource, commodity, and energy pipeline. Someone may try to mess with their new partners in Africa or Latin America, and that someone may need a reminder that such partner has a big brother. Partners may be more easily swayed to enter into deals with China, at better terms, if they know that they can count on some protection. That last sentence made me think of the Godfather.

Anyway, just some initial thoughts that popped into my head while reading the article.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Did my attempt at an explanation in layman's terms make sense?

Yes, Thanks. It made total sense.

[mfyahya]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

tombat, sounds like you could be right. If US sonar couldn't detect a nuclear powered US attack sub it would be even less likely to detect a diesel/electric. they're quieter, right?

If an enemy electric sub is so quiet it could sneak right along side so it could fire a torpedo, even a conventional one at point blank range, it renders the ballistic missile unnecessary.

Here's an interesting article on how the Soviets (and perhaps Chinese) may have obtained quiet propeller technology:
http://www.japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

A network of seabed listening devices and ships around Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom follow Soviet submarines, but the milling machines have made the propellers thinner and quieter. No less than Prime Minister Nakasone and MITI minister Tamura have admitted that the sales of the milling machines by Toshiba Machinery were responsible for the lower propeller noise in Soviet submarines. In July 1987 Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone blasted Toshiba Machine for betraying Japan. (Engineers of Toshiba Machine admitted that they had assembled the devices in Leningrad shipyards.)

...

Under the new legislation, if Toshiba were to do the same thing again, i.e. make a $17 million sale to the Soviets and inflicting $30 billion in damages to American security, the company would be subjected to a fine of 2 million yen ($14,000).

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

I would not worry about this weapon system, even if it exist. First off it would have to include the most maneuverable MARV in the world, far in excess of anything we or the Russians put on a ballistic missile. Second the article mentions it was to have some sort of terminal guidance, there are only 2 options, Radar or IR. Radar won't work because there is no raydome material that can survive reentry and and IR seeker won't work either, since the damn thing will reach about 3500 degrees on reentry and couldn't see anything. Also trying to use satellite to track sea-going vessels has been tried before, while feasible from a optical resolution stand point, it eventually proved impractical due to the large area need to be searched at fairly high resolution. Both the US and Russia tried this in the early 80's. Thirdly or maybe fourthly the supposed maneuverability of the ASBM would also mean that at terminal approach that it would have to reduce its velocity by orders of magnitude from its reentry speed of about 15,000mph to less than 2000mph. Doing this requiring either braking rockets, velocity scrubbing maneuvers like the space shuttle. making it much easier to shoot down. If it carried A tactical nuke it would have to have a c.e.p of less than 500 yrds at best, but you would still be going nuclear. Kinda defeats the purpose. Not to mention it would be ruinously expensive to keep the 3 separate surveillance system and the offensive weapons system operational. All in all a wholly impractical weapons system.

I would be much more cost effective and militarily effective to develop a sub-launch version of the ss-n-22 sunburn from a diesel elective sub. both are proven technologies and available Which is why the US is building the virginal class subs, they are very good at finding diesel/electric subs.


I would be much more worried if the chinese announced that they had a ship mounted Rail Gun system that fired 15 rounds per minute at 10% the speed of light. That would in fact be the end of the power of Carrier Battle Groups. TILL that day comes Carriers will only have to worry About subs.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Radar won't work because there is no raydome material that can survive reentry ...

Remove the protective shield after re-entry?

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

even at the slower speed it would be going after reentry(roughly 2000mph) the wind would rip the radar dish off.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

even at the slower speed it would be going after reentry(roughly 2000mph) the wind would rip the radar dish off.

So I guess then that the SR-71 did not use radar, as it flew at such speeds :rolleyes:?

Something's not making sense to me in your conclusions.

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

The heat generated a supersonic speed is much less than the heat generated at the hypersonic speeds of reentry, which require special carbon heatshields such as the ones on the shuttle which require replacement quite often and are not radar friendly . Which is why ICBM nukes don't have terrain mapping radar, there heat shield is ablative, for 1 time use.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

The heat generated a supersonic speed is much less than the heat generated at the hypersonic speeds of reentry, which require special carbon heatshields such as the ones on the shuttle which require replacement quite often and are not radar friendly . Which is why ICBM nukes don't have terrain mapping radar, there heat shield is ablative, for 1 time use.

Highly accurate CEP<100ft Radar Mapping terminal guidance has been available for decades.

However, it's usefulness and practicality against a high value, maneuvering target, using extensive countermeasures and ABM defense capability is highly questionable.

IF the Chinese are able to successfully and continuously geolocate a USN carrier group with a high degree of accuracy in an environment just short of war, simply develop a MIRV bus that instead of carrying a couple nuclear weapons, carries a couple hundred small tungsten or deplected uranium kinetic energy sabots that can shotgun a couple grid squares.

Getting hit by even a handful of small tungsten darts traveling at 1-4km a second is going to be very, very bad news.

[Jay]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Highly accurate CEP<100ft Radar Mapping terminal guidance has been available for decades.

However, it's usefulness and practicality against a high value, maneuvering target, using extensive countermeasures and ABM defense capability is highly questionable.

IF the Chinese are able to successfully and continuously geolocate a USN carrier group with a high degree of accuracy in an environment just short of war, simply develop a MIRV bus that instead of carrying a couple nuclear weapons, carries a couple hundred small tungsten or deplected uranium kinetic energy sabots that can shotgun a couple grid squares.

Getting hit by even a handful of small tungsten darts traveling at 1-4km a second is going to be very, very bad news.

I have always wondered about the prospects of this approach. Caveat, I know nothing about warfare. Does this work, or is it on the drawing board?

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

The Tungsten Kinetic Energy Weapons system have been Design, Developed, and Scrap as far as my knowledge goes.


I would be bad news indeed since each one would have enough energy to level 8 city blocks provided that they weight approx 1 ton. Although they would be a pain in the ass from the stand point of the arms control treaties for the U.S. It's not easily verified if there are nukes on the missile or tungsten rods.

"Highly accurate CEP<100ft Radar Mapping terminal guidance has been available for decades."- for cruise missiles, not ICBM or MRBM.

Plus if this is such a great idea why didn't the Russian try and develop it decades ago to counter U.S. carrier dominance, Which they would have very much loved to do.

I will believe this weapon system exist when I see it test fired against a moving at sea test target. Photos won't do the since it is suppose to use an in production MRBM.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

The Tungsten Kinetic Energy Weapons system have been Design, Developed, and Scrap as far as my knowledge goes.


I would be bad news indeed since each one would have enough energy to level 8 city blocks provided that they weight approx 1 ton. Although they would be a pain in the ass from the stand point of the arms control treaties for the U.S. It's not easily verified if there are nukes on the missile or tungsten rods.

No need to be that big....the size of off the shelf 105-120mm sabot rounds would do ...except traveling several times faster

"Highly accurate CEP<100ft Radar Mapping terminal guidance has been available for decades."- for cruise missiles, not ICBM or MRBM.

incorrect...Pershing II possessed this exact capability in the early 80's

Plus if this is such a great idea why didn't the Russian try and develop it decades ago to counter U.S. carrier dominance, Which they would have very much loved to do.

the Soviets invested significantly in counter-carrier weapon systems.....some capabilities existing since the 80's, such as swarms of supersonic and networked missiles designed to kill carriers are only coming into open source in recent ears.

I will believe this weapon system exist when I see it test fired against a moving at sea test target. Photos won't do the since it is suppose to use an in production MRBM.

If you can actively/passively track a formation of ships spread over a large area, you can extrapolate it's likely location in 15 minutes.

A conventional warhead bus with a heap of small penetrators in a good dispersal pattern, possessing decent inertial nav, and a quick boost phase could lay down a respectable beaten zone with a reasonable likelihood of steel on target.

Ulimately this argument is academic......it's likely far less about GENUINE military capability and more about saving ABM $$$ programs.