Defending against anti-ship balistic missiles

[1st503rdsgt]

Ark,

I never said that IRBM launches=nuclear war (though it could mean that in a tense situation). I'm saying that sinking a carrier=all-out war, which between nuclear powers, means nuclear war.

Second, when have the Chinese ever demonstrated this weapon? They seem quite eager to disseminate pictures and videos of their J-20 prototype as exposition of their technical prowess. As for that US demonstration: not ballistic and no target (moving or otherwise), a very poor comparison.

Third, radar doesn't run on magic. With an IRBM's flight profile, your costly Chinese mini-shuttles would need transceivers an order of magnitude more powerful and larger than anything a MARV could carry. Pershing II's MARV carried radar, but that was only for fine tuning it's trajectory at the very end of its flight to a stationary target; one still had to tell the inertial guidance system where the target was because there simply isn't time for an IRBM warhead to dick around looking for it.

[mor10]

LM-Built Systems Successfully Destroy Multiple Targets in Test of BMDS

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and the Missile Defense Agency successfully conducted a multifaceted operational test of the ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) that resulted in the successful intercepts of multiple air and missile targets launched within moments of one another.

In the test, the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Weapon System and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System aboard the USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) received support from a sensor command-and-control architecture that included an AN/TPY-2 radar, and the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications ( C2BMC ) suite.

The event, called Flight Test Operational-02 Event 2 (FTO-02 E2), was conducted at Wake Island and surrounding areas. The event stressed the ability of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and THAAD Weapon Systems to defeat a raid of three near-simultaneous air and missile targets, consisting of one medium range ballistic missile, one short range ballistic missile and one cruise missile target.

As the test began, the AN/TPY-2 radar detected the target and relayed track information to the C2BMC system to cue defending ballistic missile defense system assets. The THAAD system destroyed both the medium range and short range ballistic missiles, and the Aegis system defeated the air-breathing target. Preliminary data indicate all Lockheed Martin systems were successful.

The live-fire operational test demonstrated the integrated, layered, regional missile defense capabilities that have become the hallmark of the system. Soldiers, sailors and airmen from multiple Combatant Commands operated the systems and were provided a unique opportunity to refine operational doctrine and tactics while increasing confidence in the execution of integrated air and missile defense plans.

“Today’s successful intercepts proved once again that the capability and maturity of the Lockheed Martin missile defense systems are unequaled,” said Richard McDaniel, vice president and program manager for THAAD at Lockheed Martin. “This realistic and complex operational test demonstrated that a multi-tier layered defense is essential in the protection of nations from current and emerging air and missile threats.”

“In this test, we see BMDS as it would operate in a real-world scenario, where layers of sensor data and BMD assets work seamlessly to recognize and eliminate threats,” said Paul Klammer, director for Aegis BMD Programs at Lockheed Martin. “This interoperability of these systems is a testament to the engineering that has built these programs and our partnership with the U.S. Navy and MDA.”

The THAAD system, using a second AN/TPY-2 radar, tracked the target. THAAD developed a fire-control solution, launched a THAAD interceptor missile and successfully intercepted the short-range ballistic missile and the medium-range ballistic missile. THAAD was operated by soldiers from the Alpha Battery, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment.

Meanwhile, USS John Paul Jones, utilizing Aegis Baseline 9’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capability, successfully engaged the “air breather” cruise-missile target.

More at the link:
http://www.asdnews.com/news-64483/LM-Built_Systems_Successfully_Destroy_Multiple_Targets__in_Test_of_BMDS.htm

[tincansailor]

Iran would not need that... put 100 truck-launched CMs in the sky at once and the carrier is a virtual goner.

You have no idea how difficult it would be to do what your talking about. Coordinating so many launches would be almost impossible. Iran most likely doesn't have 100 CMs. Also all these scenarios assume the U.S. has no warning, all their ships just sail into a trap, with no escorts, or CAP, and just line up for target practice. Dream on.

Back in the 80s a U.S. Battleship passing through the Straights of Hormuz was painted by the FC radar from Iranian CM Batteries. The Battleship sent a radio message that if they didn't shut off their radar they would be destroyed. They shut their radar off. Our forces are allowed to defend themselves, and they can dish out more then Iran can put out.

[tincansailor]

If you can put a nuclear warhead on the missile, the missile can destroy multiple ships at once without needing to be particularly accurate.

And didn't China have an old submarine surface right in the middle of a group of American surface ships a few years ago?

When deployed ships operate several miles apart. One nuke would take out only one ship. Each ship is equipped with NBC warfare gear, and the crew is trained to deal with that kind of attack. Any country dumb enough to use nukes against us better know they would be subjected to a massive nuclear retaliator attack. Every base they have that we think has nukes stationed on them would be destroyed. In effect they would be committing suicide.

Yes we do get subs getting dangerously close to our carriers. What you don't see is that at least 2 SSNs are operating with each carrier sanitizing the area. In a time of real tension any hostile subs that were trying to maneuver into a position for a torpedo attack would disappear. "Why no mister ambassador, we have no information about any missing submarine in area X."

[tincansailor]

Combining the guidance and targeting difficulties to be overcome by such a system, attacking carriers with conventionally-armed IRBMs is like trying to shoot bats on the wing at night with a .22 and a flashlight. I seriously doubt China really has this capability as we've yet to see an actual demonstration of the thing; they're probably just trying to goad us into a panic as we did with the Soviets and Star Wars. Even if China overcomes the technical problems, it's not exactly exportable because none of China's clients have the ISR assets necessary to use it; without extremely advanced targeting, the DF-21 is just an expensive bottle-rocket.

What if they use a satellite that can get a visual fix on the target, and update the targeting for the RV second to second? It isn't particularly exportable in that form, but China may not want to sell it to anyone -- they are planning on deploying their own carriers.

Recon Satellites don't work quite the way most people think. Rather then a birds eye view it's more like looking down through a straw. They work best at finding fixed targets on land. Ships at sea are actually hard to find. In parts of the world with major shipping lanes there are thousands of ships passing though the large areas that a Battle Group can operate in. The same is true for both sides.

It's not like WWI & II were after the first few weeks all merchant ships were funneled into narrow shipping lanes and battle fleets mostly operated in voids. At the start of any major conflict today separating merchant shipping from naval forces would be a tough job. That's why the USN puts so much effort, and resources into it. China better be careful they don't end up hitting a Supertanker, possible one of their own. Things are never as easy as they may seem.

[popcorn]

The Navy is confident that it's investment in the SEWIP Blocks 1,2 and 3 will allow it to detect, identify and jam incoming hostiles.
By next decade, Lasers and railguns should help the Navy win the battle of salvoes.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/navy ... are-sewip/
What does this all mean militarily?

“In layman’s terms,” said Capt. Small, who overseas the program for Naval Sea Systems Command, “with SEWIP Block II and the SEWIP Block I [upgrades], I don’t think there’s anything out there we can’t detect any more, and detect at ranges where they need to be detected. With SEWIP Block III, there will not be anything that we know of that we can’t jam and jam effectively."

[tincansailor]

503 - I don't get your, and many other commentators, insistence on ballistic missile launch(!) --> nuclear war. That linkage had no serious basis. If the country is salvo-ing ballistic missiles towards a target, and that target isn't a US missile field, than the US has NO REASON to launch nuclear weapons in response. Especially if that country has a well developed and publicized arsenal of conventional ballistic missiles. I do not understand how that can be otherwise. Why assume a launch on warning posture, when the nuclear missiles are not threatened?

Second, the Chinese have done it, very few public military commentators seriously doubts the existence of this weapon system, nor have I seen many doubts about the technological feasibility of the warhead. And if you're wondering about that system's flight profile, its already been done, ableit in a different form. There's a picture online of an alleged US test of such a re-entry vehicle flight path. Heck, the US army tested a similar weapon quite recently.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/11/18/ ... e-vehicle/

As for the homing methods, people have questioned the systems radar foot-print, but I don't recall reading many questions about the ability to mount such a radar on the re-entry vehicle itself. Just because the US hasn't had a need to do it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. And, I may add, the USN is acting as if it is very much possible. It could be the case that the ASBM is a boutique weapon, one which works only in the most narrowly defined circumstances, but that is hardly a new circumstance in military history.

Finally, I agree with you in that the vulnerability of the system will probably lie in its attached recon component. Given that such a network is already needed for the Chinese military, we can assume that they're pursuing that technology quite aggressively. Also, recon technology has advanced dramatically since the end of the cold war. Microsats and long range UAVs give a different form of ocean recon, forms which can supplement the traditional RORSAT constellation. But, all those nodes are vulnerable to attack and will be a target in wartime. The vulnerability of those nodes does not mean that an ASBM is impossible. It only suggests that it is vulnerable.

The Chinese have never tested the system against a moving ship. All I've ever seen is tests against the out lines of ships in a desert. That's a far cry from a maneuvering ship, using active jamming, defended by THAAD, and Aegis systems.

[count_to_10]

The Chinese have never tested the system against a moving ship. All I've ever seen is tests against the out lines of ships in a desert. That's a far cry from a maneuvering ship, using active jamming, defended by THAAD, and Aegis systems.

I'm pretty sure the THAAD is a land only system. Are you sure you don't mean the Standard Missile that is rated for ballistic missile defense?

[sferrin]

The Chinese have never tested the system against a moving ship. All I've ever seen is tests against the out lines of ships in a desert. That's a far cry from a maneuvering ship, using active jamming, defended by THAAD, and Aegis systems.

I'm pretty sure the THAAD is a land only system. Are you sure you don't mean the Standard Missile that is rated for ballistic missile defense?

He probably meant SM-3, though to be fair LM (the makers of the Mk41 VLS and THAAD) have looked at the idea of installing THAAD in those cells. PAC-3 as well.

[tincansailor]

The Chinese have never tested the system against a moving ship. All I've ever seen is tests against the out lines of ships in a desert. That's a far cry from a maneuvering ship, using active jamming, defended by THAAD, and Aegis systems.

I'm pretty sure the THAAD is a land only system. Are you sure you don't mean the Standard Missile that is rated for ballistic missile defense?

He probably meant SM-3, though to be fair LM (the makers of the Mk41 VLS and THAAD) have looked at the idea of installing THAAD in those cells. PAC-3 as well.

I mentioned THAAD because attacking missiles my well pass in range of land based THAAD Batteries. The navy has been doing tests with the army integrating land and sea based systems. Yes when I said Aegis Systems I meant SM-3 Missiles. No I've never heard about a proposal for putting THAAD in MK-41 VLS Launchers. I don't see why you'd want to put PAC-3 in to replace SM-3. Do you think they would be more effective? SM-3 can intercept targets in space, which I admit makes THAAD the second line of defense, and PAC-3 third.

I've read about the Israeli Stunner Missile possible becoming the Patriot PAC-4. It provides improved performance, at 20% the cost of the PAC-3, and can be used against aircraft and cruise missiles as well. No more need for Patriot Batteries to deploy with two types of missiles and launchers. I'd also like to see the U.S. look into using the jointly developed Israeli Arrow-3 System. It may have some advantages over our THAAD System.

[popcorn]

THAAD nicely fills the middle gap between the endoathmosphere-capable PAC-3 and exoatmosphere-capable SM-3. This would make it the missile of choice to counter threats like Iskander or even DF-21D. It's versatility allows it to intercept targets outside of and within the earth's athmosphere. You lose that versatility with Arrow-3, which seems to duplicate what you already get with SM-3.

[sferrin]

I mentioned THAAD because attacking missiles my well pass in range of land based THAAD Batteries. The navy has been doing tests with the army integrating land and sea based systems. Yes when I said Aegis Systems I meant SM-3 Missiles. No I've never heard about a proposal for putting THAAD in MK-41 VLS Launchers. I don't see why you'd want to put PAC-3 in to replace SM-3. Do you think they would be more effective? SM-3 can intercept targets in space, which I admit makes THAAD the second line of defense, and PAC-3 third.

You wouldn't replace SM-3 with PAC-3 as they have completely different missions. PAC-3 (which can fit four to a cell) would supplement SM-3, much like ESSM supplements SM-2.

I've read about the Israeli Stunner Missile possible becoming the Patriot PAC-4.

No, Raytheon is pimping it as "PAC-4". It's a marketing gimmick.

It provides improved performance, at 20% the cost of the PAC-3, and can be used against aircraft and cruise missiles as well.

"Improved performance" over what? PAC-3? PAC-3 MSE? "Improved" in what way? PAC-3 (even the original) has shot down maneuvering Pershing II RVs. Stunner has never been tested against anything nearly that difficult. PAC-3 can also be used against cruise missiles and aircraft. As for 20% the cost, I'll believe it when I see it.

No more need for Patriot Batteries to deploy with two types of missiles and launchers.

They'd still have to. PAC-2 out ranges both Stunner and PAC-3. Why would you want to give that up? Also, PAC-2 and PAC-3 use the same launcher. A PAC-3 cell simply has 4 smaller missiles in it instead of one big one.

I'd also like to see the U.S. look into using the jointly developed Israeli Arrow-3 System.

Why? It's basically SM-3 lite.

It may have some advantages over our THAAD System.

None that I can think of. THAAD Block II now. . .

[popcorn]

The Navy is enhancing it's multi-layer defensive scheme via Pandarra Fog which will screw with threat radar seekers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... ing-ducks/

The capabilities of China’s Wrecker and DF-21 missiles, for example, are far from being ignored. On June 21st the navy carried out sea trials of a new countermeasure to anti-ship missiles called Pandarra Fog. Slated to be deployed as part of a warship’s defensive armament, the Pandarra Fog system creates radar-absorbing carbon-fiber clouds that prevent a missile’s seeker from finding its target. It is a simple but effective means of blinding the radar target acquisition system of anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles and ballistic missiles like the Wrecker and the DF-21.

“This isn’t just smoke or chaff, this is a high tech obscurant, which can be effective against an array of missile homing systems,” said Antonio Siordia, U.S. Seventh Fleet’s science adviser.

[hornetfinn]

I wonder if towed decoys might be usable for ships against such a threat? Naturally the mechanisms would be different than for aircraft, something like towed blimp or very slow UAV. It would need to have very long endurance while moving slowly for flying object if used for ship self defense. If such a system could be created, it could bring the countermeasures higher and further away the ship but closer the flight path of the missile.

[popcorn]

I wonder if towed decoys might be usable for ships against such a threat? Naturally the mechanisms would be different than for aircraft, something like towed blimp or very slow UAV. It would need to have very long endurance while moving slowly for flying object if used for ship self defense. If such a system could be created, it could bring the countermeasures higher and further away the ship but closer the flight path of the missile.

Nulka already serves that function and IIRC can even be quad-packed into a VLS tube.
Re Pandarra Fog, aside from inferfering with RF, I wonder how feasible it would be to add oher ingredienfs to the soup to spoil IR sensors as well? It already would interfere with optical targeting systems by blocking visual acquisition.