Forum: Air Power

Imagine the total WTF moment I had when I read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-facts ... eal-with-8

The 'source': https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp

I'm skeptical about the capabilities, but assuming the thing exists as advertised, does the Navy have a plan (perhaps using the F-35 and its superior sensors) to defeat this threat?

Meanwhile I'm still WTF

F-16.net Sponsor

Hmmm...2000 km (1200 nm) range. Mach 10 speed. LO properties. Big enough bang to sink a 90,000 ton vessel. Sounds cosmic, but color me skeptical:

1) With a 2000km (1200 nm) range, it's probably land-based and located near the coast. If things broke down to the point where they're thinking about engaging a carrier, our space based snoopers would surely have already been looking at the Chinese mainland unless someone is severely behind the power curve. Concurrently, because of the high political tensions, any assets we'd have in those waters will more than likely have raised their alert postures.

Like most ballistic missiles, it's gonna have a boost phase. Odds are our BMEWS or other such gadget will see the launch and key on it before it starts it's jinking deal (using methods that are prolly best left undiscussed. Whistle

). From there they can calculate an initial impact area. Can they alert assets in that area fast enough for them to start evasive action and assume a higher defensive state? Dunno, but let's assume so.

2) Can it's LO properties even survive re-entry or the atmospheric heating of double-digit Mach speeds?

3) It would probably use a kinetic kill type warhead with some HE thrown in to make it interesting because stuffing enough HE alone to sink a carrier (even some new radical composition) into a package that can do what's claimed and then throwing it 1200 nm would make it prohibitively huge, IMO. KKVs depend on high terminal velocities to do their job. That said, what kinda flight control system lets it do the aggressive maneuvers needed to avoid tracking yet still maintain a lock on an albeit slow moving target while not bleeding off the energy gained from an upper atmospheric re-entry that the kinetic warhead needs to effectively kill the target? <crickets>

I could go on but forgive me if I Rolling Eyes

. The ChiComms are not above throwing a little misinformation out there just to see whose cage it rattles. And even if the Navy did have a plan to defeat this thing, I doubt they'll be telling anyone. Wink

I agree it is unlikely the Chinese have a missile like that described here. However they are indeed working on ballistic "carrier killer" missiles. Hopefully SM-3, NCADE, and ship mounted laser/directed energy weaponry can provide an effective defense against these by the time these missiles pose a serious threat.

A nuclear variant of such a missile could be extremely devastating, but in this day and age it is possible they could land an IRBM or similar less specialized design close enough to a CBG to do some damage. Yet I doubt they could get away with even such a "tactical" nuclear strike without starting a full blown nuclear exchange.

While we hopefully aren't seeing a Pacific/Asian-wide arms race creeping (to keep up with the joneses), or won't ever see such hypothetical future armed clash between any side, USN is imo going about the wrong Carrier-related doctrine with regards to a standard deterrence capability based around F-35C. Arguably, increased stand-off and remote blue-water surface fleet projection/deterrence are more and more the reality going forward, not closer-in littoral imho. (with exception of some limited, semi-permissive spec ops or UN intervention mission).

My gut is saying the well intentioned mid-90s conceived F-35C (JSF) doctrine is just obsolete already and in need of a critical doctrine rethink and intervention at the highest levels. My view for some time now has been to evolve the existing CVN capability into a platform for extended stand-off roles employing aviation such as a joint service USAF/USN FB-22x type platform as well as the anticpated long range UCAV type systems being developed/studied.

Yet then again, one could also ponder other Asian militaries would develop similar counter-Carrier systems too, if certain future navies are cruising 250nm off other peoples coast with let's say J-11 packed decks. Hopefully though, pan-asiatic navies will be joint patrolling in formation in the future, not racing in opposition.

Here is an update on the 'carrier killa':

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

http://missiledefense.wordpress.com/201 ... %E2%80%99/

"Admiral Robert Willard, PACOM commander, disclosed that China was “developing and testing a conventional… [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.” While the system had been heard in rumor and speculation for sometime, this was the first official acknowledgment of its existence. If deployed, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier from a long-range. This would almost certainly shift the balance of power in the Pacific.

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced to the stage of actual testing.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Willard’s disclosure should come as little surprise: China’s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense and National Air and Space Intelligence Center reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead — have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development “has progressed at a remarkable rate.” In the span of just over a decade, he said, “China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.… China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.”

When someone of Bray’s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.

Equally intriguing has been the depiction of this capability in the Chinese media. A lengthy November 2009 program about anti-ship ballistic missiles broadcast on China Central Television Channel 7 (China’s official military channel) featured an unexplained — and rather badly animated — cartoon sequence. This curious ‘toon features a sailor who falsely assumes that his carrier’s Aegis defense systems can destroy an incoming ASBM as effectively as a cruise missile, with disastrous results.

The full program is available in three segments (parts 1, 2, and 3) on YouTube. Skip to 7:18 on the second clip to view this strange, and somewhat disturbing, segment.

Likewise, Chinese media seem to be tracking PACOM’s statements about this more closely than the U.S. press. The graphic BELOW is drawn from an article on Dongfang Ribao (Oriental Daily), the website of a Shanghai newspaper.

Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China’s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China’s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress.

U.S. ships, however, will not offer a fixed target for China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. Military planning documents like the February 2010 Joint Operating Environment and Quadrennial Defense Review clearly recognize America’s growing “anti-access” challenge, and the QDR — the Pentagon’s guiding strategy document — charges the U.S. military with multiple initiatives to address it.

In a world where U.S. naval assets will often be safest underwater, President Obama’s defense budget supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine. And developing effective countermeasures against anti-ship ballistic missiles is a topic of vigorous discussion in Navy circles. The United States is clearly taking steps to prevent this kind of weapon from changing the rules of the game in the Western Pacific, but continued effort will be essential for U.S. maritime forces to preserve their role in safeguarding the global commons."

We Will Repel You

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20100330.aspx

"March 30, 2010: After years of rumors and speculation in the media, the U.S. Department of Defense has officially announced that it is aware of Chinese efforts to build a ballistic missile system that can hit warships, particularly carriers, at sea. The Pentagon says it is prepared for such a weapon, with anti-missile systems deployed in the Pacific (on land and at sea) to deal with such a weapon. The U.S. is apparently expecting China to test this new weapon soon, and is deploying spy ships, aircraft and satellites, to capture as much data as possible.

The general idea is that the Chinese DF-21 ballistic missile has been equipped with a high-explosive warhead and a guidance system that can find and hit a aircraft carrier at sea. The DF-21 has a range of 1,800 kilometers and normally hauls a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead. It's a two stage, 15 ton, solid fuel rocket that could instead carry a half ton penetrating, high-explosive warhead, along with the special guidance system (a radar and image recognition system).

It is believed that the Chinese have reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s seeker technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometer range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. This kind of accuracy made the Russians very uncomfortable, as it made their command bunkers vulnerable. The Russians eventually agreed to a lot of nuclear and missile disarmament deals in order to get the Pershings decommissioned in the 1980s.

The Chinese have long been rumored to have a system like this, but there have been no tests. If the Chinese do succeed in creating a "carrier killer" version of the DF-21, the U.S. Navy can modify its Aegis anti-missile system to protect carriers against such attacks. This sort of work is apparently already underway. There are also electronic warfare options, to blind the DF-21 radar. Another problem the Chinese will have is getting a general idea of where the target carrier is before they launch the DF-21. This is not impossible, but can be difficult. The Chinese have apparently been working on this as well.

For the last three years, at least, China has been developing an over-the-horizon (OTH) radar that can spot large ships (like American aircraft carriers) as far as 3,000 kilometers away, and use this information to guide ballistic missiles to the area,. Such radars have long been used to detect ballistic missile launches, and approaching heavy bombers. Some OTH radars have been modified to take advantage of the flat surface of an ocean, to pick up large objects, like ships. Cheaper and more powerful computers enable such OTH radars to more accurately identify ships thousands of kilometers away. OTH radars are large and fragile beasts, easily disabled or destroyed by missiles or smart bombs."

Well....glad we cleared that up. Threat abated, phew! Smile

What opinion do you guys have on the spiraling rockets that we've been seeing lately (Russian Bulava in Norway and Falcon 9 near Australia)? You think their flight patterns were accidental or Russians and American military flexing their muscles? Russia: "We have maneueverable LEO rockets that you won't be able to shoot down" America: "So? who doesn't?".

If they were both failed tests then its a hell of a coincidence that they both happened to be seen in the early sunrise over populated areas. Its pretty funny that crazies worldwide are still waiting to welcome our new alien overlords who arrived through these "wormholes".

Visual seeker on the missile is sufficient. Do you know how big a carrier group at sea is? And the biggest wake in the group is the...? Simply punching one through to the hanger deck would put the carrier out of the show. On a good day you'd catch half the aircraft on the deck anyway. You'd probably get launch warnings via satellite but I don't know about intercepting an missile moving that fast with what gets carried around by a carrier group. If they're serious it won't be just one.
Interesting scenario: http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf

Last edited by g3143 on Jun 22, 2010 - 04:46 AM; edited 1 time in total

sm-3 and the future NCADE should be able to handle the threat. along with Phalanx CIWS, Rolling Airframe Missile, Sea Sparrow, and sm-2/sm-6. Its not like our carrier strike groups are defenseless out there. We get new and better weapons too. Don't under estimate the u.s.

The missile will work all right, but there's a very good reason while a missile like this has not been developed even those the technology has existed for some time. Its use requires the nation to trust you when you say its got a conventional warhead. As soon as that thing starts to go into launch position, Navy and Air Force missile crews start receiving coded messages and grabbing launch keys from the safe.

Is this scenario where the carrier gets attacked with all her aircraft on the flight deck (like the movie, "The Sum of All Fears")? What are the A-6 Prowlers or EA-18G Growlers supposed to be doing during this period of time? Control of the RF spectrum will make the carrier and its defenses difficult to penetrate.

If the carrier is so vulnerable why is the PLAN planning and building a new carrier?

avon1944 wrote:

Is this scenario where the carrier gets attacked with all her aircraft on the flight deck (like the movie, "The Sum of All Fears")? What are the A-6 Prowlers or EA-18G Growlers supposed to be doing during this period of time? Control of the RF spectrum will make the carrier and its defenses difficult to penetrate.

If the carrier is so vulnerable why is the PLAN planning and building a new carrier?

I forgot where i read this but now there is new competition between raytheon and Boeing for a design off 100kw free electron laser the is for the navy. my guess is to protect the carrier from a variety of fast missile. it will replace the Phalanx CIWS if gets put in to service. it will be prity cool if our carriers are protected by lasers. Cool

We all know what happened when the Deceptacons crashed into a CVN the last time around.. ripped it to shreds.

Last edited by g3143 on Jun 24, 2010 - 07:29 PM; edited 1 time in total

we should be worry about Chinese diesel subs. If the expensive carrier strike that is suppose to protect the carrier from everything could not detect the Chinese sub. There is a problem here.

avon1944 wrote:

Is this scenario where the carrier gets attacked with all her aircraft on the flight deck (like the movie, "The Sum of All Fears")? What are the A-6 Prowlers or EA-18G Growlers supposed to be doing during this period of time? Control of the RF spectrum will make the carrier and its defenses difficult to penetrate.

No, those were supersonic cruise missiles. Something like SS-N-19 "Shipwrecks". These new things would be intermediate range ballistic missiles with seeker heads designed to attack the biggest wake in a group of ships (look for the big V). The "Shipwrecks" use a combination of active radar/IR and anti-radar homing. Don't know what the new things would use but that's probably a good starting point, so "control of the RF spectrum" may not be as useful as you hope. SS-N-19s come in at around mach 2, these new things come in at mach 10.

avon1944 wrote:

If the carrier is so vulnerable why is the PLAN planning and building a new carrier?

...because you dont have intermediate range ballistic missiles re-tasked to sink aircraft carriers.

g3143 wrote:

we should as worry about Chinese diesel subs. If the expensive carrier strike that is suppose to protect the carrier from everything could not detect the Chinese sub. There is a problem here.

Too right. The RAN "sank" enough US carriers during exercises that the US Navy went out and bought themselves a couple of diesel electric subs so they could get more practice finding and killing them.

Forum: Air Power

China has a 'superweapon' that can kill carriers?