Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on March 31, 2009, 03:07:18 PM
-
Oops. Wonder if we'll see another Taiwan standoff with Fearless Leader in the White House, given this new knowledge.
Would Aegis be useful against this, or is Mach 10 just too damned fast?
https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.
After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.
First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.
The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.
The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.
Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.
Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.
The ASBM is said to be a modified DF-21
While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.
If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.
Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.
After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.
As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:
"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."
In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.
I especially love this part:
A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.
That's like me saying, "A recent show of strength by me led to a draw-down between a 7 year old girl and myself at the neighborhood swingset." :rolleyes: How is that a show of strength?
-
I love the sensationalism in the name. Ooh, a "kill weapon" how scary. Sounds like the international version of "cop killer bullets." :rolleyes:
-
Ballistic missiles are difficult but not impossible to shoot down because they move so freaking fast. The task can be likened to trying to shoot a bullet down with another bullet. Humans just don't have what it takes but computers do.
Aegis, SM2, SM2ER etc can do it albeit not with current targeting software. Both would need targeting software upgrades to do the job but I believe they could do it.
Or the Navy might be able to develop a shipboard version of the Patriot which does, I believe, have an ABM capability.
It really is rocket science but not beyond the ability of extant weapons systems.
-
Ballistic missiles are difficult but not impossible to shoot down because they move so freaking fast. The task can be likened to trying to shoot a bullet down with another bullet. Humans just don't have what it takes but computers do.
Aegis, SM2, SM2ER etc can do it albeit not with current targeting software. Both would need targeting software upgrades to do the job but I believe they could do it.
Or the Navy might be able to develop a shipboard version of the Patriot which does, I believe, have an ABM capability.
It really is rocket science but not beyond the ability of extant weapons systems.
Wouldn't our aircraft carriers have one of these in their fleet?: Aegis Cruiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System)
Wouldn't one of these suffice for that job?
-
The Patriot system is nearly 20 years old.
We've come a long ways since then with respect to anti-missile defenses.
Your taxpayer dollars are already hard at work fielding systems more advanced...
-
Ballistic missiles are difficult but not impossible to shoot down because they move so freaking fast. The task can be likened to trying to shoot a bullet down with another bullet. Humans just don't have what it takes but computers do.
Aegis, SM2, SM2ER etc can do it albeit not with current targeting software. Both would need targeting software upgrades to do the job but I believe they could do it.
Or the Navy might be able to develop a shipboard version of the Patriot which does, I believe, have an ABM capability.
It really is rocket science but not beyond the ability of extant weapons systems.
First off, I guess I just assumed that the Russians and the Chineese have had the ability with their existing nuclear ballistic missiles for years now. The ocean is a "big place" and without ground or structures to vaporize and irradiate, fallout is pretty limited to just the mass of the bomb itself.
The article implies that it's a conventional warhead, I'd think it would have mentioned a nuclear warhead if that's what it was, no? If so, I'd see this as a de-escalation, with the exception that it gives the Chinese to take out a carrier group without breaking the nuclear "MAD envelope" I guess.
I'm not sure if the ABM missiles have demonstrated the ability to hit a warhead that's actively manuvering, or much less what to do about a MIRV that deploys 1-2 real warheads, and 4-8 decoys.
-
Wouldn't our aircraft carriers have one of these in their fleet?: Aegis Cruiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System)
Wouldn't one of these suffice for that job?
The targeting algorithms used by contemporary AAW missile systems were designed to track aircraft which fly at about 1/14th or slower of the speed of a typical ballistic missile. To the best of my knowledge the tracking algorithms along with the targeting algorithms cannot currently handle targets moving at the speed of BM's. Those algorithms have to be adjusted to work. It's all about the math, radars that can track objects moving that fast and the interfaces between the radars, missiles and control systems. There may even be some hardware issues with delay lines too (its been awhile since I messed with this stuff so I might be behind the times).
-
The task can be likened to trying to shoot a bullet down with another bullet. Humans just don't have what it takes but computers do.
Mach 10 missile (710mph assumed mach) is moving at 10,400 feet per second.
That's 4x faster than a .308 cartridge and it isn't slowing down.
How fast does an SM-3 or Patriot missile fly? Wiki has no info.
-
Mach 10 missile (710mph assumed mach) is moving at 10,400 feet per second.
That's 4x faster than a .308 cartridge and it isn't slowing down.
How fast does an SM-3 or Patriot missile fly? Wiki has no info.
Don't know about the SM3 or Patriot but IIRC the SM2 series punch out at around 2800 MPH or so. That is considerably slower than a ballistic missile (see below).
The ballistics problem is less about the speed of the interceptor (though fast is good) and more about the speed of the target. It's all about resolution.
An aircraft moving at 600 mph moves 880 fps. A BM moving at 14,000 mph (which is what I recall being taught the reentry speed of a BM being) moves 20,553 fps. In other words it moves 20 feet in one millisecond. That's a long ways when one considers that the PRR of most radars is such that the BM will have moved a hundred or so feet between pulses. In other words the permissable tracking errors for a plane are much larger than those allowable if one expects to hit/stop a BM. So the tracking algorithms used to track a 14K mph object have more to do than just know where the BM is. It must be able to calculate where the BM will be and do it with a very, very high degree of accuracy. Off by even a few miliseconds and the SM2 or SM3 (which are proximity weapons) probably won't be effective. In order to get the PRR necessary to accurately track a BM you're talking Ghz radars and those have limited range. UHF radars will give longer range but less resolution hence the need for some pretty sophisticated targeting algorithms to get the SM or Aegis missiles on target.
The Phalanx system in use when I was in the Navy used a high PRR GHz radar to track incoming anti-ship missiles. It had a limited range of around 4500 yards or so and could track targets out to around 6000 yards. It shot 20mm depleted uranium bullets at the incoming missile. During training I never saw a phalanx take less than 2 or 3 seconds to shoot down its target and they were moving in the 1000 to 2000 mph range. That's a lot easier tracking/targeting problem than shooting down a 14,000 mph missile.
Shooting down BM's can be done - may already have been done by the Navy - but not with any standard AAW system installed today.
-
The use of ballistic missiles in the anti-ship role (with conventional or nuclear warheads) has been discussed for decades. The biggest issue has always been how do you let the other side know that you are using it tactically rather than strategically? Are you trying to take down one ship with a conventional warhead, a task group with a nuke, or an entire base?
The same problem is one of the biggest obstacles to the conventional Trident program. Yes, we can have a weapons system that will take out a major facility within minutes of the go order, but how would China, Russian, et al react to an SLBM being launched and (likely) heading in their general direction?
-
The guidence system is probably the one Clinton sold to the Chinese for a campaign contribution. :rolleyes:
-
It not just targeting the Bm either. in some cases the fragments from an anti-ballistic missile are going slower than the BM which means they can never catch up with the BM.
-
Early-model Patriots in Desert Storm were connecting with SCUDs moving at Mach 5. With the Patriot's Mach 3+ velocity, the closure rate between interceptor and target was closer to Mach 7 in a head-on engagement. The newer Patriot PAC-2 scoots along at Mach 5+. I haven't found references to the velocity of the latest Patriot PAC-3 variant.
Those Desert Storm models were primitive systems, reprogrammed from Patriot batteries originally intended and designed to intercept aircraft. They were launched with some assistance from satellite radar tip-off, which allowed them enough flight time to intercept closer to the SCUD's point of origin vs. point of impact.
For the most part, they did quite well, although the last SCUD launched slipped through the Patriot battery because of a software timing error that got worse the longer the system's software ran. It missed the SCUD by about 1/3 second, and the unmolested SCUD killed 27 U.S. GIs at Dhahran. Ironically, the software patch arrived the very next day.
The fact they worked at all against theater ballistic missiles (TBMs) is rather impressive.
The Japanese are tired of North Korea's posturing, and are employing the latest generation (PAC-3) Patriot system:
http://closingvelocity.typepad.com/closing_velocity/patriot_pac3/
The submarine-launched Shkval 200-knot torpedoes (The same ones that sank the Kursk during their test-firing) would be more of a problem to the U.S. fleet, IMHO.
-
Shooting down BM's can be done - may already have been done by the Navy - but not with any standard AAW system installed today.
IIRC, the ship launched ABM's that have have intercepted the test ICBM launches, and intercepted the defunct spy satellite, were modifications of the SM3. And I thought the payload was just a straight kinetic intercept. I'd guess there's no point in a proximity warhead at those closing speeds. The target would outrace any blast wave or fragments other than a direct hit. IIRC the payload is just an IR camera with X-Y RCS thrusters. At that speed you could hit the warhead with a cotton ball, and it would destroy it.
The use of ballistic missiles in the anti-ship role (with conventional or nuclear warheads) has been discussed for decades. The biggest issue has always been how do you let the other side know that you are using it tactically rather than strategically? Are you trying to take down one ship with a conventional warhead, a task group with a nuke, or an entire base?
The same problem is one of the biggest obstacles to the conventional Trident program. Yes, we can have a weapons system that will take out a major facility within minutes of the go order, but how would China, Russian, et al react to an SLBM being launched and (likely) heading in their general direction?
Yes, that is the sticking point. Any ballistic activity, especially sub-orbital and inter-continental in distance has always been seen as a sign of the opening strike in wide scale strategic warfare, and not just limited tactical action. There's been several conventional warhead ICBM proposals, and other nifty things that deploy a UAV, even a rapid reaction force of Marines (!) etc. but they've all stalled for this very reason.
What does the POTUS do? Get on the red-phone and say: "Hey, uhh.. yah it's ours... That's an ICBM, but it's not a nuke, m'kay?" =D
I suspect we have A LOT of undeclared UAV capability, and that they involve high degrees of stealth, long loiter times, and perhaps even acting as carriers for stealth cruise missiles, guided GPS munitions etc. When you take pilot comfort and endurance out of the equation, what you can do in the sky opens up a great deal.
-
After spending billions in trying to develop an adequate brown water capability (to deal with the Chinese for example), we "suddenly" find out our prized easter eggs are vulnerable to a weapon system we've heard about but not seen.
I suspect this is an effort to prepare the legislative battleground in the upcoming budget war, a war in which our CIC plans to slash DoD budgets.
It is all politics. Someone inside DoD just tried to preempt the president's budget priorities.
-
That is probably true. Honestly, our aircraft carrier fleet has been the major conventional threat to our rivals for decades now short of full blown invasions. To assume that our enemies are not looking for any possible way to neutralize that threat is nuts.
I agree on the torpedoes. China has also been building a bunch of submarines from what I have read in the past.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was Admiral Hyman Rickover who once commented,
"There are only two types of naval vessels: Submarines....... and Targets!" =D
-
2oo knot? is that the one that takes advantage of cavitation to fly in an underwater bubble?
-
Yup.
Gas bubble generator reduces skin friction between the water and the torpedo.
Not a lot one can do against a 200-knot torpedo, save for eliminating the sub before it launches one...
-
I suspect we have A LOT of undeclared UAV capability, and that they involve high degrees of stealth, long loiter times, and perhaps even acting as carriers for stealth cruise missiles, guided GPS munitions etc. When you take pilot comfort and endurance out of the equation, what you can do in the sky opens up a great deal.
We're just starting to get good UAV capability. We had larger UAV's for a while now. It's quite recently that we've gotten unit level UAV assets, which are pretty friggin awesome and rather cost efficient compared to traditional aerial support assets. So, believe it or not, the US don't have a ton of black UAV programs at the moment. Pretty much all of our UAV technology you can see on CNN watching footage from Iraq. The current Iraq occupation is what spawned significant advances in small scale UAV's. Combat robots are the next thing. Some nifty things coming down the pipeline.
Std Disclaimer: I am not speaking for my employers, who happen to sell UAV's to the US govt. My opinions are solely my own, etc, etc.
-
Russians played with high speed torpedoes for a while now. One fly in the ointment. Almost impossible to communicate with them (steer). So for now using one of those weapons is like using an underwater rifle.
-
Std Disclaimer: I am not speaking for my employers, who happen to sell UAV's to the US govt. My opinions are solely my own, etc, etc.
My employer probably sells yours software. =D
-
i imagine something going 200 knots is noisey but at that speed who cares
-
Not a lot one can do against a 200-knot torpedo
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha - THRUST!"
-
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha - THRUST!"
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ficanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F03%2Frobinani.gif&hash=81559c0ea7b9d7ec436e2120886a4bdcf5f43132)
=D
-
Here is an article from November 2006 warning of similar threats. These threats seem to have been around for a while.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=953
-
Thanks AZ, I spent a half hour trying to find that. :laugh:
-
Cavitating torpedoes.... actually, seems to me that a strong enough pressure wave from an underwater explosion (depth charge) would collapse all or a part of the bubble. That's a hell of a G load to put on anything, I doubt the torpedo would survive a decavitation at speed unscatched.
And besides, with the tech common knowledge now, how long would it seriously take to develop a countermeasure? Even something as "off the wall" as a supercavitating sea-entering missile?
-
Mach 10 missile (710mph assumed mach) is moving at 10,400 feet per second.
That's 4x faster than a .308 cartridge and it isn't slowing down.
How fast does an SM-3 or Patriot missile fly? Wiki has no info.
Err, isn't the complexity of this dependent on the angle of attack? I mean, if the missiles coming straight at the gun then... the missiles speed just increases velocity at impact, no? I'd thought this was one of the reasons for phalanx...
-
It would also be highly dependent on proper aim. Going that fast, it needs to know exactly where the target is.
-
One question I had. If a war were to break out between high tech adversaries, what is the likelihood that satellite imaging and GPS would be available and accurate? Wouldn't we or others go to great lengths to jam them or take out the satellites? I ask this partly because the article said that missile was dependent on having satellite surveillance to target the ship. Even a carrier is a small target on a big ocean when talking about ballistic missiles.
-
If I was still riding a haze grey missile magnet I'd be more concerned about a SS-N-22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit)zipping my way. Especially if there were several of them and had been preceded by a wave of slower anti-ship missiles to deplete the point defenses. We have good countermeasures but they are not impervious.