New Concern Over Chinese "Carrier-Killer"

[gambit]

Did you even care to know where this article came from ?

Its from US Naval Institute

You think some Mr. dumass like you know more ?

What a bunch of cheap jealousy LOSSER.

Go and challenge US Naval Institute !!

P.S. Come back to talk to me when you Indians finally figure out how

to make a simple DECENT RIFLE for your army boys !!

Just because it is published by the US Naval Institute, it does not mean the US Navy itself unconditionally agreed with the contents. I know the concept of freedom of speech can be difficult to grasp in some corners of the world, but do try to understand that even our military is open to constructive criticisms, new ideas and unconventional thoughts and are not afraid to publish them.

 

[Iggy]

I dont know if its true but is it US policy that it will take an attack against its carrier as a nuclear attack on her homeland and retaliate as its under nuclear attack?? I heard this from a documentary in some channel about the making of US carriers..any one can verify it??

 

[gambit]

G'day guys,
Sorry to start with a negative note.
Yes you are right 'Growler' the post you quoted has nothing to do with this topic; is a typical troll.

Before i can contribute to this very thread, i would like to discuss one thing from the thread starter (greyboy) that, is he really support all the facts mentioned in that article and others those who have thanked the same?

Prior to 1976, the USAF was under the impression that the Soviet Air Force was at least at parity with US, if not enjoying a slight advantage. After Sept 1976 when we finally had a chance to examine the MIG-25, the Soviet's best at that time, we found out we have been grossly overestimated the Soviets all that time. While we did not hesitate to give Soviet engineers credits when they were due, overall, the Foxbat was a piece of junk compared to the F-15. The comparatively deficient Foxbat gave US valuable insights into the Soviet system and technological foundations and how behind they really were compared to the West.

There is clearly a dearth of technical information about this 'carrier killer' missile from the Chinese side. So here is what we know for certain...

Is it possible to install sensors into a ballistic missile warhead? Yes, it does. Even artillery shells have guidance and limited controllability...

M712 Copperhead

The M712 Copperhead projectile was the first smart artillery round ever developed. Its accuracy is measured in centimeters, and its lethality is impressive. Copperhead is a cannon-launched, 155mm artillery projectile which guides itself to a laser-designated target. The munition is capable of defeating both armor and point targets at ranges of over six kilometers, and provides the battlefield commander with the unparalleled capability of utilizing artillery to the same effect as direct fire weapons and close air support. The system was employed during Operation Desert Storm, during which it met with great success. Copperhead projectiles were used to destroy observation and border guard posts and forward radar installations during the first week of artillery attacks.

But when the distances are measured in hundreds and even thousands of km, these distances introduces new variables and effects that even we with our current inventory of missiles and space vehicles do not presume our knowledge to give us perfect deliveries.

What is happening here with the DF-21 and the forum's Chinese participants is similar but in the opposite direction. Prior to the F-117, if anyone in any military's top hierarchy said that their radars will not be able to detect an American aircraft, he would be demoted on the spot. Now not only is the F-117 retired, but while the world's air forces struggled with their own 'stealth' programs, the US leapt ahead with our B-2, F-22 and F-35. So the Chinese here are under the impression that if the Americans can do <something> the Chinese military can do the same as well. Despite the fact that more problems arises out of system integrations than from concepts, problems that have halted many developments, the Chinese here operate more on faith than from facts.

Guidance imply controls and steerage. So is it possible to install some kind of flight controls system into a descending warhead? Yes...But what type?

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Missile Control Systems

We have no idea on how the warhead steer itself for course correction when the sensor said the target has moved from the original programmed location. Is it bank-to-turn or skid-to-turn or thrust vectoring? Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. So just as how the Americans assumed about the technological capabilities of the Soviets back then, people are jumping to conclusions today about the DF-21 as the 'carrier killer', not based upon China's true technological capabilities but based upon US technological capabilities. The Americans assumed the best about our adversary based upon ignorance. The Chinese members here assumed the best about the Chinese government's claims on the DF-21 based upon the same ignorance.

 

[gambit]

I dont know if its true but is it US policy that it will take an attack against its carrier as a nuclear attack on her homeland and retaliate as its under nuclear attack?? I heard this from a documentary in some channel about the making of US carriers..any one can verify it??

Yes....The reasoning is that if the enemy is willing to use nuclear weapons against battlefield forces, it will have even less or even no hesitancy against one's own cities. Send a nuclear warhead against a US aircraft carrier fleet and China will be repaid many times over. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) works only when there is a parity of forces between adversaries like how US and Soviet nuclear forces were similar. China have nowhere the same nuclear weapons capability as the US has.

 

[booo]

To anticipate a 300 feet ACC you need one such missile above mentioned! ?

CEP (meters) 300-400

Can a missile with 300-400 CEP (circular error probable) hit a ACC of 300m length which is moving at 30knots?

can anyone enlighten?

 

[gambit]

Can a missile with 300-400 CEP (circular error probable) hit a ACC of 300m length which is moving at 30knots?

can anyone enlighten?

In weapons testing, we test against three target MODES:

- 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.

 

[EjazR]

What about the mach10 claim? Does that sound reasonable?

If I'm not mistaken NASA and USAF were just testing out experimental versions of a mach10 jets so I would be highly skeptical of chinese having developed a mach10 guided missile

 

[gambit]

What about the mach10 claim? Does that sound reasonable?

If I'm not mistaken NASA was just testing out experimental versions of a mach10 scramjet so I would be highly skeptical of chinese having developed a mach10 guided missile

No need for skepticism. That is the descent, meaning gravity accelerated, velocity.

 

[oceanx]

The only way we'd know for sure is through "publicized" tests - or a hot "situations" that develop across South China Sea. But the quiet dropping of the USN's "littoral" hype also gives some hint ...

Frankly, given PRC's habits - back in the 60s most Chinese inside China only found out about the nuclear tests through VOA ...

Anyhow, there have been oblique references to "ballistic missiles launched inland against moving targets in &#28196;&#28023;". There was nothing about the speed/size of the target, number of missiles, distance of the tests, counter-measure environment ...

At the mean time, as a Military/technical illiterate (as are the majority of the participants/baby-sitters around here), I defer to partial interpretation by forum "experts" such as Gambit for the time being - until some PLA armament honcho does a "leak" through a "reputable" blog. Even then ...

Keeping mum while doing the work is a time-honoured strategy on surviving an asymmetrical situation. Let the Yanks speculate and then debunk if they wish. Whether they think it was the "Firefox" from the movie or the "Foxbat" of the real world is frankly, the Yanks' business.

Wait a few years, and it might be clear.

This thread, IMO, is only marginally more useful than the so-called Agni-5.

 

[gambit]

The only way we'd know for sure is through "publicized" tests - or a hot "situations" that develop across South China Sea. But the quiet dropping of the USN's "littoral" hype also gives some hint ...

We have satellites over Chinese territories. It is not impossible, but difficult to hide any missile launches. Sometimes test launches must be performed under certain environmental conditions to verify the missile's robustness, for example.

Keeping mum while doing the work is a time-honoured strategy on surviving an asymmetrical situation. Let the Yanks speculate and then debunk if they wish. Whether they think it was the "Firefox" from the movie or the "Foxbat" of the real world is frankly, the Yanks' business.

Wait a few years, and it might be clear.

I look at it this way...The US is a far more open society than the PRC. We publish more technical journals, engage in more seminars or share more information than professionals in oppressive regimes. The lack of credible technical information about the DF-21 could be construed as upon comparing the DF-21's test results versus what is publicly available on the West, may be it is best to keep the world guessing to hide its less than spectacularly presented performance claims.

But the military cannot afford the luxury of being wrong. Military chiefs have to assume the best of potential adversaries, especially if they are living in an open society like ours where technical information are usually not state secrets. In that, I see no problems with ordinary folks like myself to openly question these claims while our military chiefs asserted their worst case scenarios to the public. On the other hand, when a country is well known for spectacular scientific and technical accomplishments, even the mere speculation of a new weapon system would be just cause for strategic concerns by our adversaries -- Star Wars.

 

[Sinnerman108]

G'day guys,
Sorry to start with a negative note.
Yes you are right 'Growler' the post you quoted has nothing to do with this topic; is a typical troll.

Before i can contribute to this very thread, i would like to discuss one thing from the thread starter (greyboy) that, is he really support all the facts mentioned in that article and others those who have thanked the same?

That which can not be proved numerically is not scientific. To be optimistic is good thing but to work some thing practically is another. I will try to share more information on that; if we can discuss it out if such development is contemporary or futuristic.

Furthermore, to kill a carrier one has to increase its vulnerability. Vulnerability is proportional to cube root of displacement. But displacement is roughly proportional to three dimensions of Length,Beam and draft thus the cube root reduced to 1(one).

To anticipate a 300 feet ACC you need one such missile above mentioned! ? configuration if it is true/ feasible (will discuss later). For every additional 100 feet another such missile has to strike in intact physicality.

The question i would like to ask how many such missiles are required to sink Nimitz Class with Propulsion of Two nuclear reactors (not diesel), four shafts,1092 feet (332.85 meters) in length, Beam of134 feet (40.84 meters), 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load of displacement and Speed of 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour) (Operational ACC are ever stationery?).

The stats are representing very basic physical configuration, the technology part?; to follow on further discussion please.

Regards

What ever has been mentioned here is very very true...
Just imagine the processing power required to self correct a missile at Mach 10 ?

It requires super conductors, optic based circuitry that is just not available as yet !

Leave alone the processing, the gyroscopes are not accurate enough.

Then the control surfaces of the missiles can not handle that kind of accuracy !

Get real please !

Mathematics is your friend ....

 

[booo]

New Concern Over Chinese "Carrier-killer"
April 01, 2009
U.S. Naval Institute

 

[gambit]

I am going to elaborate a little on the graphics above, just on figure 2 and 3.

For figure 2: Low accuracy, High precision...

Say I have an inertial navigation system (INS) and reaction thrusters for the flight control system. Due to material defects in manufacturing, the INS has a slight self-induced drift rate that I failed to detect. The result would be that if I fire ten missiles against a target, all ten INS would have the same drift rate that resulted in the same flight control signals. All ten warheads would impact in a very tight group but all would missed the same target. This is taking into account slight aerodynamic influences per warhead.

For figure 3: High accuracy, Low precision...

Say I have a sensor, method is irrelevant for now, an INS and a reaction thruster system. But during assembly, an incorrectly calibrated tool induced an extra millisecond per thruster. As the warhead descends, the sensor tells the flight control system to make a correction but the FLCS overshoot because of that extra millisecond. The sensor sends another course correction command the other direction and the FLCS properly respond but also with the same extra millisecond. The result is all ten warheads spread out in a uniform pattern around the target but missed. May be one might get lucky and hit center.

These are not speculative but 'real world' situations that all developments suffers. An aircraft is expected to return and often does, but a missile is essentially a throwaway weapon. At some point someone in the leadership must make a decision and stop developments and deploy the weapon system as is or not deploy at all if the results indicate no strategic or tactical gain FOR THE COUNTRY, not for over any potential adversary. The country has reached its technical limits and more money spent in trying to correct or improve would be for nothing.

Is it impossible for the Chinese to develop a 'carrier killer' ballistic missile? Not impossible at all. Is it feasible -- is a different question. I suggest the readers take a more critical examinations of these claims.

 

[Speeder]

I look at it this way...The US is a far more open society than the PRC. We publish more technical journals, engage in more seminars or share more information than professionals in oppressive regimes. The lack of credible technical information about the DF-21 could be construed as upon comparing the DF-21's test results versus what is publicly available on the West, may be it is best to keep the world guessing to hide its less than spectacularly presented performance claims.

But the military cannot afford the luxury of being wrong. Military chiefs have to assume the best of potential adversaries, especially if they are living in an open society like ours where technical information are usually not state secrets. ....

"We"? Gimme a break. The US is de facto "the United Nation" with immigrants from all corners of the world. So stop using "we" to hide your embarrasing orgin (Yes, I know that. The bragging habit die hard no matter what flag you hide under), and try to take credit from others of "we" who really makes that country great, in some areas.

By the way, grab me some material science info of F22A since in "your" country "technical information are usually not state secrets" before you start bragging the next topic, will you?

... Star Wars? yeah yeah, do you also watch Lion King and Spiderman?

 

[Speeder]

I look at it this way...The US is a far more open society than the PRC. We publish more technical journals, engage in more seminars or share more information than professionals in oppressive regimes. The lack of credible technical information about the DF-21 could be construed as upon comparing the DF-21's test results versus what is publicly available on the West, may be it is best to keep the world guessing to hide its less than spectacularly presented performance claims.

But the military cannot afford the luxury of being wrong. Military chiefs have to assume the best of potential adversaries, especially if they are living in an open society like ours where technical information are usually not state secrets. ....

"We"? Gimme a break. The US is de facto "the United Nation" with immigrants from all corners of the world. So stop using "we" to hide your embarrasing orgin (Yes, I know that. The bragging habit die hard no matter what flag you hide under), and try to take credit from others of "we" who really makes that country great, in some areas.

By the way, grab me some material science info of F22A since in "your" country "technical information are usually not state secrets" before you start bragging the next topic, will you?

... Star Wars? yeah yeah, do you also watch Lion King and Spiderman?