Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Vassnti you are reported..
What you asked is usually discarded. A 'real scenario' would not even have this speculative ASBM weapon since even the USNI commentary is filled with 'could' and 'may be' and 'possible'. For these gents, a 'real scenario' is highly selective.I'm not sure I like your tone, I assumed the thread starter (you) wanted to discuss real scenarios, which prompted my question.
I have no interest in wasting my time on childish fantasies like scramjet "bombers"
Yes...We will examine in details.Let me address the point that China's ASBM is "speculative" by an alleged military professional.
The USNI is NOT an official branch of the US Navy. The USNI is, and I have NO problem calling it so, very much a 'fanboy' organization, much like the Air Force Association, of which I am member. Both of these organizations offer former active duty personnel, officers and enlisted, a social and political platform after their time in service to continue to support their services. So of course the USNI would offer to make their 'worst case' scenario to the public, just like how former leaders of these services did when they were active duty.Firstly, why would the U.S. Naval Institute address China's ASBM in at least three separate publications if it was a mere flight of fantasy? Obviously, the U.S. Naval Institute believes that China's ASBM is a dangerous and credible threat.
You really have no idea, do you?Secondly, what are the technical challenges of developing an ASBM in comparison to China's technological capabilities? An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means it's really big, can carry about 100 planes, and has a relatively long runway. An aircraft carrier can move at a slow 35 knots (65 km/h) along the 2-dimensional surface of the ocean.
When I read from you this bit...'An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means it's really big...'...I know I am reading from someone most likely have never been at sea beyond visual shore range. You have no idea how difficult it is to find anything, no matter its size, in open ocean. Even with several acres of real estate, we are talking about this being amidst several HUNDREDS of square km from the time of detection, if even possible, to the time when a single DF-21 reached apogee. Look at the floor of your living room and throw down a toothpick. That is what an aircraft carrier look like in open ocean IF you can distinguish it.Finding that aircraft carrier is one thing but tracking it in real time is another. At 30kts or higher for 30 minutes, the ship's maneuverings to launch and recover aircrafts can have it anywhere inside a several hundreds square mile area. Increase that air operation time to 90 minutes and the area enlarges to several thousands square miles. That is not counting the carrier's heavily armed escorts ringing that air operation perimeter. If the need is a high speed dash to beat the sh!t out of some loudmouth fool, if this fool takes his eyes off the ship for one day, the distance displacement approaches 800 nm from the previous sighting.
If you respond to me that OTH radar is not the same as radio propagation, the reading public will know that the label 'fanboy' is very much appropriate to you. And a scientifically ignorant one at that.Radio propagation is affected by the daily changes of water vapor in the troposphere and ionization in the upper atmosphere, due to the Sun.
Bad comparison.In comparison, let's examine the complex challenge of destroying a weather satellite. China's FY-1C was approximately the size of a small refrigerator with dimensions of 4 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet. It was traveling at 8 km/s or 22,000 miles/hour at more than 500 miles above the Earth in a 3-dimensional spatial orbit. China's ASAT technology successfully destroyed the tiny and fast-moving orbiting satellite. Most people reasonably conclude that China's demonstrated technological prowess in its ASAT test is in excess of the far-simpler requirements of hitting a slow-moving man-made island (i.e. aircraft carrier).
Furthermore, China has also demonstrated that it can successfully hit a fast-moving missile with its mid-course ground-based interceptor (i.e. GBI).
No...You only assume that the USNI made such a conclusion...Given China's ASAT and GBI capabilities, I think it is reasonable for the U.S. Naval Institute to conclude that China probably has a functional ASBM and to treat it as a serious threat.
Look at the sentence and see the uncertainty for yourself: 'suggests', 'possibility' and 'may be'. Sorry...But only a 'fanboy' would jump to the conclusion that the sentence constitute a conclusion.This suggests the possibility that China may be closer than ever to mastering such a system...
Fine...There is absolutely nothing there to say that US intelligence sources concluded that China does have a deployed ASBM weapon system. What does '...if supported...' mean?While Chinese ASBM capability remains uncertain, relevant U.S. government sources state consistently that Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on a variant of the 1,500 km-plus range DF-21/CSS-5 solid propellant medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). According to the Department of Defense, if supported by "a sophisticated command-and-control system," e.g., accurate real-time target data, from China's growing family of terrestrial and space-based sensors, ASBMs could hold U.S. carrier strike groups at risk in the Western Pacific. Further, China's use of submunitions might render a carrier operationally ineffective without sinking it, thereby achieving its objectives with a (perceived) lower risk of escalation.
In weapons testing, we test against three target MODES:Can a missile with 300-400 CEP (circular error probable) hit a ACC of 300m length which is moving at 30knots?
can anyone enlighten?
- Stationary
- Moving
- Maneuvering
Just in case anyone is curious about 'moving' versus 'maneuvering'...A train is a moving target but not a maneuvering one.
An aircraft carrier is not merely a moving target but a maneuvering one. When a carrier is conducting flight operations, it will try to maintain an against-the-wind condition to assist its aircrafts in take-offs and landings. It will make unpredictable, not erratic, maneuvers in doing so. Make no confusion between 'unpredictability' and 'erratic' behaviors.
Granted, this is a ship and any maneuvers will require time and large areas of the sea to do so. But if this wishful 'carrier killer' ballistic missile is launched from about 1,000 km or more distance, the ship can move several km from its original position by the time the warhead begins its descent. Using over-the-horizon (OTH) radars can only give positional, not maneuvers, changes as long wavelengths have poor target resolutions. By the time the warhead begins its descent, the entire fleet will be alerted to the threat and in less than five seconds, enough chaff and IR flares will be launched to totally blanket the warhead's electronic view. This severely complicate the CEP figure -- the shaded circle.
What you asked is usually discarded. A 'real scenario' would not even have this speculative ASBM weapon since even the USNI commentary is filled with 'could' and 'may be' and 'possible'. For these gents, a 'real scenario' is highly selective.
Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?According to your fundamentalist approach,...
Show the readers a credible source that said the US dismissed China's intentions on testing in space....the U.S. concern about China's ASAT capability was pointless until China shot down a weather satellite in space. Once again, according to your logic, the U.S. concern about China's mid-course ground-based-interceptor (i.e. GBI) was also baseless until China shot down a missile in mid-flight.
I have no fear of the readership and their judgments. Anyone can call me any names he want but I only ask that he rebut me in similar manner when I challenge their delusions on technical grounds and that when I back up my arguments I expect him to do the same. So far I have yet to see the same from you. Surprise...???The forum members and guests will have to decide whether they agree with you.
I have not disputed what the good general said. I have never said that what China attempts is technically impossible. But technical possibility is not technical probability.You are free to believe that you have better information than the retired Major General that is the head of the U.S. Naval Institute.
No...It mean exactly that -- testing. Until anyone present to the public more than just pictures, we are free to dispute any claims -- on technical grounds.Here's a picture of the "speculative" ASBM shown at China's 60th anniversary parade.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/d...admiral-willard-testimony_chinese-article.png
The picture is from this article. According to you, you are better informed than Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). If Admiral Willard says that China is "testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers," that means China's ASBM is real and not speculative.
Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?
Show the readers a credible source that said the US dismissed China's intentions on testing in space.
I have no fear of the readership and their judgments. Anyone can call me any names he want but I only ask that he rebut me in similar manner when I challenge their delusions on technical grounds and that when I back up my arguments I expect him to do the same. So far I have yet to see the same from you. Surprise...???
I have not disputed what the good general said. I have never said that what China attempts is technically impossible. But technical possibility is not technical probability.
No...It mean exactly that -- testing. Until anyone present to the public more than just pictures, we are free to dispute any claims -- on technical grounds.
No...The readership will chose.This is very simple. Either Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), "Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) 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 (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead" and "Scott Bray, ONIs Senior Intelligence Officer-China" are correct that the U.S. face a grave threat from China's ASBM or internet guy "gambit" is correct that China's ASBM is speculative on his personal assessment of technical grounds.
You choose.
No...The readership will chose.
Like I said, I have never dispute the technical possibility of an ASBM weapon. But what I do dispute is its technical probability and more importantly its efficacy. What those officers testified contains nothing more than the typical 'worst case' scenario, which they are obliged to do.
If such a weapon is deployed, is it a threat? Of course it is.
If such a weapon is deployed, do we know its efficacy?
Efficacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the power to produce an effect
What is the effect? To either severely damaged a US aircraft carrier or even sink it.
How do we produce this effect?
Am still waiting...
All the money and efforts could be for naught, as explained by a bunch of 'internet guys'.You can produce this effect by spending fifteen years of research and development, billions of dollars, and putting your best scientists on the job. After the production of the desired ASBM, you keep the hard-earned technologies a secret from the world, including internet guys.
All the money and efforts could be for naught, as explained by a bunch of 'internet guys'.
One of the mean to produce the desired effect is over-the-horizon radar. Technically speaking, the idea and its deployment are nothing new. This type of radar have been around for decades. What those officers testified contains nothing about OTH vulnerabilities but their ECM officers would certainly know about them. They did not lie or even conceal anything. They were asked about China's attempt at producing such a weapon and they responded with an overall picture of what an ASBM weapon system could mean, in the worst case scenario, to a US carrier fleet and eventually to US foreign policy regarding Asia.
This is an open forum where there is no time limit. A bunch of 'internet guys' are free to dispute or support any ideas, no matter how loony. From a technical perspective, can any of you 'internet guys' dispute what I said about OTH vulnerabilities and therefore offer an aircraft carrier a tactical advantage?
First...even if the ASBM is fake, how will USN deal with 3000 J-6 and J-7 drones?
they do not even need to be maneuvering, only programmable to move towards surface targets with a large RCS.
This is to show the readers that OTH vulnerabilities and weaknesses are not something made up.As well as being constrained to the broad frequency band necessary for ionospheric propagation, an OTHR must also allow for the fact that the ionosphere is a highly variable and unpredictable medium. For acceptable OTHR performance, continuous real-time ionospheric assessment (sounding) is necessary, as is the ability for the radar system to adapt to the changes. The day-night variability of the ionosphere requires, typically, a 5:2 change in frequency for comparable operational range but imposed on this diurnal ionospheric cycle are both longer term sunspot-related effects and short-term disturbances.
You fail to understand that no one, except the Chinese experts, can give you a technical overview on building an ASBM. You keep demanding a conceptual explanation of how an anti-ship ballistic missile will work in principle. It took China's best minds (backed by massive resources) fifteen years to answer that question. The Pentagon doesn't know the answer to the technical questions of how to build a functional ASBM. "The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship [ballistic] missiles."
Now...Am willing to admit I do not know much about ballistic gunnery. I do know a little bit about sensor-guidance. But if the US Army is developing smart artillery rounds, I do not see how you can say that the US cannot develop an ASBM if we really put our efforts into the program.The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is a fire and forget, smart munition.