@Gambit
Here there is a article which provide a interesting overall analisis:
hXXp://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/03/plan-asbm-development.html]Information Dissemination: PLAN ASBM development
I have not read this particular one, but there are several other Internet sources predated this one that essentially carried the same information. You have nothing new.
Did you read the Pentagon Chinese Military Capability Report 2009?
Yes I have. Figure 4 of the report have a very simplistic diagram of the differences between guidance types of this mythical Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile. It is technically lacking as the report was meant to give the reader 'the big picture'. Only alarmists, the gullibles and those desperate to minimize US military technology would take Figure 4 and its brief explanation on page 21 as anything remotely resembling a credible threat.
And what makes you think that chinese source are not credible?
How about a few tests?
You know the propaganda is always multilateral, here in Europe we also dout a lot about your american propaganda claims.
Do not care about any propaganda claims not relevant to military technology. If anything, the US military prefers to be underestimated.
The low resolution of long wavelengh radar is nothing new. Chinese officials are aware of that too. Indeed, the major part of the work must to done by the terminal guidance.
Am willing to wager that it is new to you. Initially, you brought on over-the-horizon (OTH) radar as if it was some kind of technical hurdle that only the very best technologically savvy would possess. I suggest you read up on the Chain Home and Chain Home Low radar systems of Battle of Britain fame. Atmospheric deflections of the HF freqs were already known, only primitive data processing and video integration/display of some OTH detections prevented the British from fully exploiting this phenomenon.
Indeed you need a costellation of satellites. Otherwise you can go for UAV, which have a higher survivebility.
Among the PLA's generals and admirals, at least one of them must have said the Donald Rumsfeld's version of going 'to war with the Army you have'. So until China is able to wield an orbital sensor system that has the same level of constancy and resolutions as the US, the argument that this mythical Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile can receive target position updates via satellites and be effective against an American aircraft carrier battle group is pointless. It is speculative at best.
There is various speculation about this. Some PLA officials said that the warhead has little time to do correction manouvers before the atmosphere rentry, so I bet it will use image sensing guidance to aim at the carrier and then dive straight. Other western sources says it will use Ative/Passive Radar guidance+MaRV tecnology.
So now we have still more uncertainty and doubts about the technical feasability of this mythical Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile.
Well, don't worry for the payload. The DF-25 missile is a smart example, they sacrificed the range in favor of the payload. (2000 kg of warhead at 1800km). And no one said they will launch only one missile to attack the CV group, in a real war scenrio, a saturation attack is needed anyway.
In a real war scenario, the entire carrier battle group will be under strict emission control (EMCON) protocols, EMCON Alpha. Back in 1986, the USS Ranger left the California coast and became the 'stealth' carrier. For weeks, the Ranger conducted ground strikes against land targets while other US ships and aircrafts attempted to find her. All air operations were conducted through visuals. In this same real world scenario, a US aircraft carrier battle group will deploy electronic decoys and the low resolutions limitations of OTH radar will be conducive to seduction. This is not jamming. The Chinese will wasting their missiles.
Sorry, but you can not repair your deck quickly and in loco, in a real war scenario, your CV group will be soon attack by a swarm of air lauched cruise missile, so if your FA-18 can not take off to intercept the launching platform, I don't know if your DDGs can stand up to a saturation attack.
That is a blanket charge you cannot support. I do not know what is your country of origin, but the US have 11 aircraft carriers. How many aircraft carriers does your country deploy at any time in the calendar year? No one in the world have more experience than we with this type. In my 10yrs in the USAF, I did a stint as Aircraft Battle Damage Repair (ABDR) instructor. I can guarantee you that if there is a mechanical flight control system, with a broomstick and aluminum from a soda six-pack, I can get the damaged flight control system flight worthy in two hours.
What makes you think the US force can strike successfully what they want?
Recently? How about Iraq?
And what makes you think that chinese forces are defenceless?
To be 'defenceless' mean to have no defense at all. Nowhere have I said that the Chinese are 'defenceless'. Whether the PLA can be successful or not is a different issue.
Cruise missiles can be intercepted, their launching platforms too.
A cruise missile is just another type of aircraft. But the first problem with trying to shoot down an aircraft is detection. Do not confuse 'can' with 'will'.
Plus GPS guidance system will not work in a real war scenrio vs China or any other major military power. They can be easily disrupted. So, say good-bye to all sort of GPS-guided munition. From the chinese side they also know that any Beidou-1 or Beidou-2 system will not work on US forces.
Did you forget that the GPS system is created by the US? The system originally had a feature called Selective Availability. Under SA, there was an intentional error margin induced designed to give military usage of GPS a tactical advantage. The feature was ordered deactivated by President Clinton and future GPS satellites will not have SA, however, the US still can manipulate the clock timing signals of one or a few satellites temporarily over an area of conflict to give US forces the same advantage under SA. Yes...Civilian GPS usage will be affected during the time of the conflict but it will be temporary.
So, when you say something like "just strike their asset" please remeber that PLA is not a third world military, and they can strike back with their own cruise missile.
Please read "Rand Study: Air Combat Past, Present and Future", at nearly the end, they appointed that too much US land based assets are too close to China to be safe and too unprotected compared to those of the Chinese side.
I have read many of those papers. Some of them have hard facts like these:
* Nuclear aircraft carriers (CVN)
U.S. = 11 China = 0
* VSTOL/helicopter carriers (LHA/LHD)
U.S. = 11 China = 0
* Guided missile cruisers (CG)
U.S. = 22 China = 0
* Destroyers (DDG/DD)
U.S. = 60 China = 27
* Frigates (FF/FFG)
U.S. = 30 China = 48
* Ballistic missile submarines (nuclear)(SSBN)
U.S. = 14 China = 3
* Attack/cruiser missile submarines (nuclear)(SSN/SSGN)
U.S. = 57 China = 6
* Attack submarine (non-nuclear) (SS/SSK)
U.S. = 0 China = 55
It was Stalin who said, loosely translated, that 'quantity has a quality all of its own'. This is a two-way street and the side that is numerically inferior is already at a disadvantage. Such a condition does not guarantee a defeat, but it is a factor that cannot be dismissed by the war planners. For a speculative US-China conflict, not only does the US holds the numerical advantage but also the technological advantage. It is only with the ground troops that China is superior and precisely because the US is able, with our aircraft carriers and long distance bombers, to carry the shooting war on Chinese soil, the ground troop numerical advantage hold by the PLA will not matter much.