Clever Chinese strategy to deplete US naval defensive missiles

[Martian2]

Exposed: China's Super Strategy to Crush America in a War | The National Interest

"Exposed: China's Super Strategy to Crush America in a War
Think missiles. Lots and lots of missiles. Welcome to Shock and Awe, Chinese-style.
Harry J. Kazianis
February 18, 2015
...
Consider the below when we apply the Chinese missile threat to just naval assets and get a little creative: if Beijing was really slick it could fire off older missiles that were not as accurate towards allied naval vessels— almost like decoys— just to shrink the number of available interceptors:

Think about it — could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?"

 

[Hell hound]

when that day will come america wont be needing missile any more. they would have far more advance laser tech and with extreme high velocity far more devastating guided rail gun rods which will be smaller then today's shells let alone missiles because they don't need propellers or gun powder to launch hence reducing there size.so which means running out of ammo won't be america's problem soon.

 

[Martian2]

when that day will come america wont be needing missile any more. they would have far more advance laser tech and with extreme high velocity far more devastating guided rail gun rods which will be smaller then today's shells let alone missiles because they don't need propellers or gun powder to launch hence reducing there size.so which means running out of ammo won't be america's problem soon.

You can't use a laser against a fast-moving target. The focusing mechanism does not yet exist against a supersonic target flying a somewhat unpredictable path. Also, it would take forever to burn through a missile with a thin layer of Space Shuttle tile on its exterior.

Rail guns are useless against missiles. The rail gun is too heavy and cannot be used to aim at an incoming missile.

The United States canceled the Zumwalt, because its prospective rail gun was deemed useless in modern warfare.
----------

Navy cancels new ships, says they are vulnerable | The Los Angeles Times

"WASHINGTON — The Navy took the unusual step of abruptly canceling construction of its expensive new class of destroyers last month because the ships lack abilities that top commanders believe are necessary to protect U.S. interests, according to the service's senior officer.

Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer does not have crucial missile and air defense capabilities and defending it against submarines would be difficult. The last ship in the class will cost $2.6 billion.

'I started looking at the DDG-1000. It has a lot of technology, but it cannot perform broader, integrated air and missile defense,' Roughead said in his first interview since the controversial move to cancel the destroyer program.
...
The Zumwalt class was designed to operate in coastal waters close to shore, but the Navy is developing a less costly ship for that.

Roughead also noted that design compromises resulted in the removal of some of its torpedoes, making it more vulnerable to submarines.

'Submarines can get very close, and it does not have the ability to take on that threat,' Roughead said.

The destroyer was originally designed as a ship that could move close to shore and fire its guns in support of ground forces. But Roughead said there is little call for the Navy to fire guns on shore."

 

[C130]

if china needs such a strategy then that's kinda sad. i'm pretty sure they got some good modern anti-ship missiles that are just as good as Harpoon, plus supersonic Russian anti-ship missiles as well like moskit/sunburn.

 

[Martian2]

if china needs such a strategy then that's kinda sad. i'm pretty sure they got some good modern anti-ship missiles that are just as good as Harpoon, plus supersonic Russian anti-ship missiles as well like moskit/sunburn.

I think China builds 10,000 modern missiles per year.[1]

However, the proposal is a clever use for the arsenal of older anti-ship missiles.
----------

Citation.

1. China says it will be world’s biggest missile producer | China Daily Mail

 

[atatwolf]

when that day will come america wont be needing missile any more. they would have far more advance laser tech and with extreme high velocity far more devastating guided rail gun rods which will be smaller then today's shells let alone missiles because they don't need propellers or gun powder to launch hence reducing there size.so which means running out of ammo won't be america's problem soon.

The US is always one step ahead. They are developing new tech that China will begin to develop 50 years from now(if it will exist by then). The US has enough firepower to devastate the Chinese army multiple times.

 

[Martian2]

The US is always one step ahead. They are developing new tech that China will begin to develop 50 years from now(if it will exist by then). The US has enough firepower to devastate the Chinese army multiple times.

Obviously, you haven't bothered to listen to a single speech by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.[1]

You're ignorant.
----------

Citation.

1. Robert Gates Worries About China’s Growing Military | The Diplomat
"Gates’ memoirs conform to the general idea within the U.S. strategic community that China is a rising military threat."

 

[Sage]

Chinese too will have rail guns by the time ....you know their reverse-engineering skills !

Exposed: China's Super Strategy to Crush America in a War | The National Interest

"Exposed: China's Super Strategy to Crush America in a War
Think missiles. Lots and lots of missiles. Welcome to Shock and Awe, Chinese-style.
Harry J. Kazianis
February 18, 2015
...
Consider the below when we apply the Chinese missile threat to just naval assets and get a little creative: if Beijing was really slick it could fire off older missiles that were not as accurate towards allied naval vessels— almost like decoys— just to shrink the number of available interceptors:

Think about it — could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?"

What you say is actually a Chinese Strategy ...They have everything in large numbers ...and well-coordinated too ...they are very professional as well ...they won't give any quarter to the US !

 

[Gufi]

A good out of the box solution to a problem whether it is effective or not depends on various circumstances but it is good to see a use for older slower missiles which can not penetrate through any proper defences but still can find a use

 

[ptldM3]

You can't use a laser against a fast-moving target. The focusing mechanism does not yet exist against a supersonic target flying a somewhat unpredictable path. Also, it would take forever to burn through a missile with a thin layer of Space Shuttle tile on its exterior.

That is completely untrue the technology has existed for many decades, there is video of lasers shooting down rockets. Particular the Lockheed Martin ADAM ground based laser. The Tunguska although not a laser can also track, engage and destroy fast moving and maneuverable targets with its high rate of fire twin cannons. This is all completely automated.

 

[Martian2]

That is completely untrue the technology has existed for many decades, there is video of lasers shooting down rockets. Particular the Lockheed Martin ADAM ground based laser. The Tunguska although not a laser can also track, engage and destroy fast moving and maneuverable targets with its high rate of fire twin cannons. This is all completely automated.

The Boeing Airborne Laser required two minutes to burn through the thin skin of a liquid-fueled ICBM.

A Mach 2 supersonic terminal-phase cruise missile will traverse one mile in about three seconds.

The effective range of a laser is currently about a mile at sea level (with dense atmosphere). You have three seconds to locate, target, and burn through a C-803 Mach 2 warhead.

Additionally, good luck trying to target a YJ-18 maneuverable warhead.

When you say "rocket," do you mean RPG? An RPG doesn't move very fast.

When I say "fast moving target" (e.g. supersonic cruise missile), I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.

I just assumed everyone knew that I meant a Mach 2 target. Not a stupid RPG (e.g. 115 meters per second).
----------

If you disagree with me, show me a video or a reputable citation of a laser burning through a flying Mach 2 warhead in three seconds or less.

 

[SipahSalar]

They should change their name from "National Interest" to "Permanently belongs in the trash"

 

[ptldM3]

The Boeing Airborne Laser required two minutes to burn through the thin skin of a liquid-fueled ICBM.

And you have a source for that? From a video the ADAM takes just a few second to destroy a rocket/missile.

A Mach 2 supersonic terminal-phase cruise missile will traverse one mile in about three seconds.

So what? The Rocket that Lockheed destroyed easily exceeded mach 1.

The effective range of a laser is currently about a mile at sea level (with dense atmosphere). You have two seconds to locate, target, and burn through a C-803 Mach 2 warhead.

You are citing the ADAM, there are plenty of other laser platforms such as the MLD and the laWS.

Additionally, good luck trying to target a YJ-18 maneuverable warhead.

When you say "rocket," do you mean RPG? An RPG doesn't move very fast.

When I say "fast moving target" (e.g. supersonic cruise missile), I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.

I just assumed everyone knew that I meant a Mach 2 target. Not a stupid RPG (e.g. 115 meters per second).

No i do not mean an RPG:

 

[Martian2]

And you have a source for that? From a video the ADAM takes just a few second to destroy a rocket/missile.









So what? The Rocket that Lockheed destroyed easily exceeded mach 1.









You are citing the ADAM, there are plenty of other laser platforms such as the MLD and the laWS.







No i do not mean an RPG:

Come on. That's baloney.

Show me a real world test.

Cruise missiles do not come flying at you sideways.

Take a good look at the Lockheed Martin video. The rocket was laid out length-wise. That will never happen in the real world. A contrived test. They might as well shoot it down on a laboratory bench.

Show me a video where they destroyed a rocket warhead coming at you.

Also, the Qassam rocket had just launched. It was not supersonic.

 

[AMDR]

No i do not mean an RPG:

Wow that is pretty small for what it did. In a few years I could see a bigger version system like that being installed on a Burke-class that is cued by the SPQ-9 FCR. Or just put a Mk.15-type radar on on it like this prototype: