Clever Chinese strategy to deplete US naval defensive missiles

[Martian2]

I already know what his counter argument is. He will declare that China has never tested a HGV against a moving target and thus doesn't work at all. It's pointless having a debate with these people.

1. If China had conducted a successful test, the Pentagon would keep it classified. It is not something that is provable for years to come.

2. I don't see why they keep making the same ridiculous objection. Target sensors have been reliably shown on ballistic and anti-ship missiles. The control mechanisms (whether regular fins or the mesh-design for a hypersonic missile) are also well-proven. There is no really new technology. The HGV missile simply happens to travel a little faster.

In comparison to a DF-5B (or DF-41) Mach 25 ICBM with MIRVed or MARVed warheads, the Chinese ASBM or HGV are traveling pretty slowly. Thus, the technological envelope is far below China's known capability.

If China claimed a new Mach 35 missile then I believe it is reasonable to doubt its reliability. However, an ASBM or HGV are only about Mach 10. Mach 10 is far below the threshold of currently known Chinese technology. China conducted 10 tests with the Mach 25 DF-5 in the 1970s.

Compared to the DF-5, a Mach 10 ASBM or HGV is well within China's capabilities after 40 years of technological progress.

JL-1 SLBM
JL-2 SLBM (Mach 23 to 25)
DF-5 (Mach 23 to 25)
DF-5A
DF-5B
DF-31
DF-31A
DF-41 (Mach 23 to 25)
----------

TEN CONSECUTIVE SUCCESSFUL DF-5 ICBM TEST FLIGHTS

DF-5 Chronology | Encyclopedia Astronautica

 

[j20blackdragon]

2. I don't see why they keep making the same ridiculous objection. Target sensors have been reliably shown on ballistic and anti-ship missiles. The control mechanisms (whether regular fins or the mesh-design for a hypersonic missile) are also well-proven. There is no really new technology. The HGV missile simply happens to travel a little faster.

The Mach 8+ Pershing II with maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) and active radar guidance already existed by the 1980s.

 

[airuah]

So china exhausts the US counter measures. But what about the offensive US weapons? Surely US is not going to come to Chinese shores to show off their counter measures.

 

[Martian2]

So china exhausts the US counter measures. But what about the offensive US weapons? Surely US is not going to come to Chinese shores to show off their counter measures.

US ships have a limited number of space.

If you know China will throw all of its old missiles at you and follow up with modern missiles, that creates a dilemma.

Do you fill most of your ship with defensive missiles? Will that do any good? China produces 10,000 modern new missiles per year.

If a ship is mostly armed with offensive missiles, how do you defend against the swarms of old Chinese missiles and the follow-up modern missiles?

The core question is: How does the United States deal with the problem of unlimited (e.g. old and new) anti-ship missiles from China? If you can't solve this problem, are US naval ships survivable within range of Chinese missiles?

 

[gambit]

A truck doesn't move much compared to a supersonic missile.

The problem is the seconds lost in target acquisition and tracking of a supersonic warhead. Just to move the servo-motors to align the laser with a target will take time. The other problem is maintaining beam coherence on the same spot for a supersonic target.

Shooting a laser against a defenseless target is meaningless. They have to show that the laser will work against a likely laser-resistant missile. Obviously, the other side won't just sit there and leave their missiles defenseless. They'll add a heat-resistant coating. Additionally, a layer of ablative armor is likely to be added. Until these issues are addressed, I do not find the laser demonstration convincing.

For a Chinese YJ-18 anti-ship missile, it travels at Mach 3 during the terminal phase. You only have two seconds. The YJ-18 also conducts evasive maneuvers. Good luck trying to hit a weaving Mach 3 target.

And THAT is why your arguments will usually be intellectual dishonest.

For US, you expect everything to be proven NOW, else it is technically impossible. But for China, the possible mean China have 'defeated' US, even if China never made a single step towards proving whatever it is that China supposedly can do.

The US will have a functional laser defense against missiles and aircrafts either by the time China field these fantastic missiles or before.

 

[Martian2]

And THAT is why your arguments will usually be intellectual dishonest.

For US, you expect everything to be proven NOW, else it is technically impossible. But for China, the possible mean China have 'defeated' US, even if China never made a single step towards proving whatever it is that China supposedly can do.

The US will have a functional laser defense against missiles and aircrafts either by the time China field these fantastic missiles or before.

I never said it is technically impossible. I implied it is unlikely. Especially the problem of overcoming laser-resistant counter-measures within a two second (or less) window.

The truck demonstration didn't prove anything. Everyone knows the laser works. The question is whether you can move the servo motors quickly enough to align the laser emitter with a supersonic target.

A stationary laser beam shooting a "stationary" truck didn't tell us anything new. We want to know if servo motors can be adjusted quickly enough to maintain beam focus on the same spot on a terminal-phase supersonic warhead (that would be evading in the case of the YJ-18). To date, none of these challenging engineering questions regarding the servo motors have been answered.
----------
You can't just say that you BELIEVE in laser defense. You have to admit that Boeing gave up on its Airborne Laser when it became impossible to overcome the limited range.

Similarly, I'm arguing that it is almost impossible to overcome laser-resistant measures in two seconds or less.

 

[gambit]

I never said it is technically impossible. I implied it is unlikely. Especially the problem of overcoming laser-resistant counter-measures within a two second (or less) window.

The truck demonstration didn't prove anything. Everyone knows the laser works. The question is whether you can move the servo motors quickly enough to align the laser emitter with a supersonic target.

A stationary laser beam shooting a "stationary" truck didn't tell us anything new. We want to know if servo motors can be adjusted quickly enough to maintain beam focus on the same spot on a terminal-phase supersonic warhead (that would be evading in the case of the YJ-18). To date, none of these challenging engineering questions regarding the servo motors have been answered.
----------
You can't just say that you BELIEVE in laser defense. You have to admit that Boeing gave up on its Airborne Laser when it became impossible to overcome the limited range.

Similarly, I'm arguing that it is almost impossible to overcome laser-resistant measures in two seconds or less.

The LM laser test on the truck proved plenty. Your criticisms are intellectually dishonest, as they often are, and they revealed your lack of experience in R/D and manufacturing industries where most things are of incremental progress.

First...The Boeing laser was to prove that an airborne laser platform was feasible and the program succeeded beyond expectations. Why it was cancelled is irrelevant.

Second...The Lockheed laser has a different goal, which was to improve on the power level, and Lockheed succeeded.

Both programs, at different times and with different organizations, proved the same goal: That directed energy weapons are no longer the stuff of science fiction but of real world inevitability. So I cannot be say I believe in laser weapons ?

Yeah...I believe in laser weapons, pal.

Please do not try to sound like you know what you are talking about with that 'servo motors' language. You do not know the slave mechanisms between tracking and laser. If Boeing can do it on an airborne platform tracking and hitting moving targets, Lockheed can do it as well.

But to lighten things up a bit...

Turning Up The Heat: Latest Evolution Of Lockheed Martin Laser Weapon System Stops Truck In Field Test · Lockheed Martin

Check out the last paragraph...

It is not that difficult to envision a pair of Bones flying low level across the oceans, penetrate Chinese airspace undetected, and in a single pass over a PLAAF airfield burned holes in every PLAAF fighters on the ramps. Damn good servo motors, eh ?

Yeah...I definitely do believe in laser weapons. Do you ?

 

[j20blackdragon]

It is not that difficult to envision a pair of Bones flying low level across the oceans, penetrate Chinese airspace undetected, and in a single pass over a PLAAF airfield burned holes in every PLAAF fighters on the ramps. Damn good servo motors, eh ?

Never heard of a hardened aircraft shelter?

Hardened aircraft shelter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jhungary]

Never heard of a hardened aircraft shelter?

Hardened aircraft shelter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you do know that hardened aircraft hanger is concrete hanger reinforced by steel cross rebar right? laser can burn thru rebar...

 

[gambit]

Never heard of a hardened aircraft shelter?

Hardened aircraft shelter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was in the USAF for ten yrs, son. What do you think ?

What I said was only one scenario out of many on how to attack the deny the enemy the use of his own air assets on his home turf.

 

[english_man]

Ok.......been following this thread with interest, so i'll put in my 2 cents worth.

Wouldn't it be wise for an attacker to fire 2 or more supersonic anti-ship missiles at the same time..............i mean a laser can only take out one target at a time?

Plus.........surely at today's level of laser technology, the strength of the laser would be severely be weakened by the extreme long distance that the laser would have to engage the missile in the first place to have any chance of destroying the missile.............taking into account the distance of the missile could cover towards the target in such a short time.

I'am still not convinced here that the targeting system of a laser weapon, and its rotating mechanism would be good enough to first, lock onto a supersonic missile and then continually follow the missile...........ie is the laser moved by an electric or mechanical mounting device?

and lastly..........wouldnt the over horizon distance of an incoming missile, negate the laser system being able to track and destroy a missile until it is too late..............i mean you cant bend a laser beam over the horizon can you?

 

[wiseone2]

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."

they want more money for defense budget