Forum: Air Power

jeffb wrote:

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

A seeker on the missile will NOT be sufficient. Try researching the subject. China even FINDING a Carrier battle group will be the problem, not attempting to engage it...

The thing about CBG's is that they move. Constantly. Think about the limitations in ISR assets held by China and just how much Ocean they have to try and cover...

F-16.net Sponsor

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

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

A seeker on the missile will NOT be sufficient. Try researching the subject. China even FINDING a Carrier battle group will be the problem, not attempting to engage it...

The thing about CBG's is that they move. Constantly. Think about the limitations in ISR assets held by China and just how much Ocean they have to try and cover...

I don't think it'd be that hard. A carrier group stampeding around the western pacific or within 2000km of the chinese coast at 30+ knots makes alot of noise. Half a dozen subs should be able to triangulate a carrier group nicely, certainly close enough to put a ASBM in the box.

You shot off prematurely though, you should have done the math instead. At mach10 the kinetic energy of a projectile is about the same as an equivalent mass of TNT. If they get the velocity up over mach 12 though it works much better.

jeffb wrote:

I don't think it'd be that hard.

Don't you? Remember what happens to a vehicle when it re-enters the atmosphere do you? There's a pretty significant heat build up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlbLp0sKOdw

I imagine a EO/IR seeker wouldn't have a problem seeing through that vast orange glow or plasma build-up, though would it?

And any "pull up" maneuver designed to avoid these issues is going to significantly effect your kinematics, whilst rendering your weapon more vulnerable to counter-measures.

It's a technical challenge for the weapon designer alright and that is simply the weapon itself...

Quote:

A carrier group stampeding around the western pacific or within 2000km of the chinese coast at 30+ knots makes alot of noise. Half a dozen subs should be able to triangulate a carrier group nicely, certainly close enough to put a ASBM in the box.

Sounds easy doesn't it? Of course it does. You've never had to try and do it.

As I said, try RESEARCHING the issue first, before shooting off.

Here's a help...

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/bdcf ... lopments-a

Speaking of plasma and re-entry didn't the whole "plasma stealth" thing originate when shuttles re-entered they'd be communication black outs (though i heard this hasn't been an issue since around 83). Sorry to get off topic. Anyways The Navy has had countermeasures for Supersonic sea skimming maneuvering missiles. Most notably is the RIM-162 ESSM though it's certainly not build to shoot down missiles going Mach 10.

jnt11593 wrote:

Speaking of plasma and re-entry didn't the whole "plasma stealth" thing originate when shuttles re-entered they'd be communication black outs (though i heard this hasn't been an issue since around 83). Sorry to get off topic. Anyways The Navy has had countermeasures for Supersonic sea skimming maneuvering missiles. Most notably is the RIM-162 ESSM though it's certainly not build to shoot down missiles going Mach 10.

Can't really speak to the "plasma stealth" thing but shuttle comms:
"Unlike the Apollo missions, the shuttle never normally endures a period of radio silence. The enclosure of the vehicle by plasma is never complete : there is always a window at the tail through which a signal can be beamed out. Nowadays there are satellites to receive it too, and so a continuous transmission returns to earth. Cockpit communication is a small part of this broadcast; by far the biggest volume of data is the telemetry stream from the avionics system"

Anti-ship ballistic missile... to kill aicraft carriers. What a stupid concept!

Sea skimming supersonic cruise missiles with "zigzag" maneuverability and torpedos are able to do this job much better.

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

I don't think it'd be that hard.

Don't you? Remember what happens to a vehicle when it re-enters the atmosphere do you? There's a pretty significant heat build up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlbLp0sKOdw

I imagine a EO/IR seeker wouldn't have a problem seeing through that vast orange glow or plasma build-up, though would it?

And any "pull up" maneuver designed to avoid these issues is going to significantly effect your kinematics, whilst rendering your weapon more vulnerable to counter-measures.

It's a technical challenge for the weapon designer alright and that is simply the weapon itself...

Quote:

A carrier group stampeding around the western pacific or within 2000km of the chinese coast at 30+ knots makes alot of noise. Half a dozen subs should be able to triangulate a carrier group nicely, certainly close enough to put a ASBM in the box.

Sounds easy doesn't it? Of course it does. You've never had to try and do it.

As I said, try RESEARCHING the issue first, before shooting off.

Here's a help...

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/bdcf ... lopments-a

Sorry, can’t get to your linked document. Do appreciate the “help” though. Your link to the shuttle re-entry at mach 30 isn’t really a fair comparison to a mach 10 projectile though. The shuttle is a vast object deliberately orienting itself to produce as large a cross-section as it reasonably can while remaining stable. This necessarily produces a huge shock wave and considerable plasma heating as it slows down in the upper atmosphere. A projectile re-entering in a manner designed to minimise drag except for what would be necessary to generate some course correction effect is a very different beast. Whilst there are bound to be plasma effects of one sort or another involved with high hypersonic flight through the atmosphere, predicting exactly what those effects would be and their impact on sensors carried by said hypothetical projectile are much more difficult to predict.

I’m sorry again, I just threw out the subs idea, because frankly it would work. But of course the chinese have a number of means of detecting a carrier group from their own NOSS constellation right down to mark one eyeballs on “fishing” boats. With a flight time of 15 minutes and comms turnaround of say another 5 the carrier group can move (assuming 60 knots surface speed) about 35km. That puts it in a box 80km to a side. That doesn’t sound too big a box to me.

Sure....hit a carrier maybe even two if they are close enough....then suck it up because your going to be sitting under radiation for the next two hundred years...

jeffb wrote:

(assuming 60 knots surface speed) about 35km.

I haven't read the whole thread through but were you thinking a carrier can move at 60 knots?

Read this Stuart Slade piece on the subject.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

From the very good archive here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm

shep1978 wrote:

jeffb wrote:

(assuming 60 knots surface speed) about 35km.

I haven't read the whole thread through but were you thinking a carrier can move at 60 knots?

Read this Stuart Slade piece on the subject.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

From the very good archive here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm

No, I was being conservative. A navy guy I used to work with said he watched a US carrier transit Bass Strait on radar at a speed in excess of 40 knots (back in the 70's) so I added 50% to be safe.

[quote="jeffb"]

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

I don't think it'd be that hard.

Sorry, can’t get to your linked document. Do appreciate the “help” though. Your link to the shuttle re-entry at mach 30 isn’t really a fair comparison to a mach 10 projectile though. The shuttle is a vast object deliberately orienting itself to produce as large a cross-section as it reasonably can while remaining stable. This necessarily produces a huge shock wave and considerable plasma heating as it slows down in the upper atmosphere. A projectile re-entering in a manner designed to minimise drag except for what would be necessary to generate some course correction effect is a very different beast. Whilst there are bound to be plasma effects of one sort or another involved with high hypersonic flight through the atmosphere, predicting exactly what those effects would be and their impact on sensors carried by said hypothetical projectile are much more difficult to predict.

I’m sorry again, I just threw out the subs idea, because frankly it would work. But of course the chinese have a number of means of detecting a carrier group from their own NOSS constellation right down to mark one eyeballs on “fishing” boats. With a flight time of 15 minutes and comms turnaround of say another 5 the carrier group can move (assuming 60 knots surface speed) about 35km. That puts it in a box 80km to a side. That doesn’t sound too big a box to me.

The link works fine for me. Of course it completely shoots down your argument, so I'm not surprised you "can't get to it".

Same old argument as the PAK-FA. If it's designed by the Russians or Chinese, it's infallible. If the realities of the situation are pointed out, they are conveniently ignored...

jeffb wrote: "No, I was being conservative. A navy guy I used to work with said he watched a US carrier transit Bass Strait on radar at a speed in excess of 40 knots (back in the 70's) so I added 50% to be safe." Probably a notorious UFO often seen over Bass Strait where many an aircraft/ship have disappeared over the years. Very Happy

If the Chinese are going to shoot this at us, that means we're pretty much already at war, or about to be at war with them. Obviously we'll detect the launch, but how will we know what kind of missile it is? If the Chinese launch one of these, they might scare the US into launching nukes. I know trajectories can be calculated, but what if a CG was near Japan. We and Japan might take it as a nuclear attack (we can't tell what kind of warhead is in one of these things until after it goes boom) on one of our bases there. China runs the risk of US nuclear retaliation in the event they fire one of these at our carrier groups.

Last edited by squirl on Jun 24, 2010 - 06:39 PM; edited 1 time in total

Spazsinbad linked to an article that talked about China's development of over-the-horizon radar that could detect large ships 3,000 km distant. In the same breath the article says they're "large and fragile beasts," but I imagine the Chinese could be assured that it would be destroyed only in retaliation by the US. Small price to pay if they managed to track a carrier and launch something at it.

edit: Just read the pertinent section of Conan's article, and it says China already has such a system, with a tracking error of 20-40 km. Don't need to indulge hypotheticals, but there doesn't seem to be an insurmountable challenge here. The author writes about "C4ISR," and how some of China's networks are underdeveloped, before proceeding to dissect each component to show its deficiencies. However, the USAF defines aerospace power as "The synergistic application of air, space, and information systems to project global strategic military power." The "synergistic" part means that, by definition, a nation's aerospace power will look less impressive when split into pieces. And further, while China might not have the best "C4ISR," others here have written how China could leverage different parts of the alphabet soup (fishing boats, etc.). Individual pieces may be of lesser quality or of entirely different concepts, but the synergy may still be respectable, especially with regard to tracking a non-stealthy monstrosity such as a carrier.

jeffb wrote:

No, I was being conservative. A navy guy I used to work with said he watched a US carrier transit Bass Strait on radar at a speed in excess of 40 knots (back in the 70's) so I added 50% to be safe.

The guy was either pulling your leg for fun or bulling just to make himself feel good. The transmission drivetrain and hull design won't allow those type of speeds.
Anyway feel free to believe that guy or not as i'm not fussed either way.

Forum: Air Power

China has a 'superweapon' that can kill carriers?