The PLA's modernization and its implications - Part I: Anti-ship ballistic missiles

[serenity]

Yes but it seems that @LeGenD here and others thinks the DF-21D or DF-26 cannot strike a moving carrier or destroyer sized target even under ideal circumstances (with no electronic or ABM countermeasures), which I believe to be completely incorrect. The deniers of the Chinese ASBM threat seem to be honed on the fact that since no other country has ASBM missiles like the DF-21D in operation and since we do not have concrete proof it ever hit a moving naval target, it is therefore some extremely hyped up weapon like the Brahmos with little substance .

Some people want to be more sensible maybe. It doesn't matter what people think when it comes to military equipment. Especially people at our level. Maybe Legend has some reasons for it or he is being demanding of evidence which will never be shown at this level.

For the other types of deniers, denial is not a weapon or an ability. If we're talking military weapons then denial is poisonous. It doesn't help American politics and propaganda but the people who really access the true information know well. If someone denies at this low level and we get angry, it is of no consequence to anyone in higher echelon on any side.

If the American can counter it, we don't know and they won't tell. If they can't again the same. The rest on this level is Indians favorite activity. You can apply some thinking and realize what the truth must involve.

 

[LeGenD]

The image could just be one of the test targets, meant exactly for static testing. More than likely, the Chinese have ship sized moving targets they have struck on in the same area. Just because there is an absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. It would make sense for us to not have any indication of the moving tests. Also I'm not sure why you say the target is huge; it's the same size as an aircraft carrier, one of the primary targets these ASBMs are meant to strike.

There is footage of an Iranian ASBM striking a designated target in the ocean emulating a ship. This target was barely moving however. Perhaps China have demonstrated this much?

If, or when, an ASBM will succeed in engaging and sinking an actual warship in a realistic test and otherwise, please be assured that this development will receive lot of attention and will be openly discussed.

There is a trade-off between SPEED and MANEUVERING - a 'weapon system' can have both but cannot be EXCELLENT in both (Physics).

If you argue that a Chinese sea-skimming cruise missile can engage a moving ship, nobody will object to this statement because there are ample case studies of cruise missiles engaging moving ships. Cruise missiles are a different theme from ballistic missiles and well-suited for engaging challenging targets.

A comprehensive defense philosophy is supposed to be grounded in a complex of mix of weapon systems and strategies which are specialized in different ROLES. It is important to understand these ROLES instead of overhyping a largely unproven strike platform.

The links which I have shared - I am sure that you did not even bother to read them. The timing of your response to mine was in seconds.

 

[Figaro]

There is footage of an Iranian ASBM striking a designated target in the ocean emulating a ship. This target was barely moving however. Perhaps China have demonstrated this much?

Once again, they definitely have performed these tests on actual moving targets on land before. And considering an Iranian ASBM can strike a very slow moving target, do you really think China, with its massively more advanced ballistic missile arsenal (indeed the basis for the Iran ballistic missile program was in many parts Chinese) cannot do the same? And besides, why would it want to shoot a DF-21D out into the sea on a moving target when its data would be recorded by US ELINT and cause a major uproar among neighboring countries?

 

[serenity]

There is footage of an Iranian ASBM striking a designated target in the ocean emulating a ship. This target was barely moving however. Perhaps China have demonstrated this much?

If, or when, an ASBM will succeed in engaging and sinking an actual warship in a realistic test and otherwise, please be assured that this development will receive lot of attention and will be openly discussed.

There is a trade-off between SPEED and MANEUVERING - a 'weapon system' can have both but cannot be EXCELLENT in both (Physics).

If you argue that a Chinese sea-skimming cruise missile can engage a moving ship, nobody will object to this statement because there are ample case studies of cruise missiles engaging moving ships. Cruise missiles are a different theme from ballistic missiles and well-suited for engaging challenging targets.

A comprehensive defense philosophy is supposed to be grounded in a complex of mix of weapon systems and strategies which are specialized in different ROLES. It is important to understand these ROLES instead of overhyping a largely unproven strike platform.

The links which I have shared - I am sure that you did not even bother to read them.

There may be some day when we get to witness this strike platform succeed or fail. But without the opportunity to show and witness, we cannot say for sure how well it works except that these weapons are developed and have been tested to unknown level.

Physics does not tell man to choose only speed or movement. I am unfamiliar with such physics and I studied a lot of physics. Delta rho and delta x do not apply to this.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Why do you assume that Americans will not make noise?

The BOOGEYMAN Factor

Take a good look at following graphic:

Investment on that level (RED bar) demand/scream JUSTIFICATION and necessitate search for BOOGEYMAN in "works of others."

...

So ASBM is useless? Absolutely not.

This:

"ASBMs (anti-ship ballistic missiles) may not need to produce mission kills against the surface fleet to complicate U.S. plans. They only need to reach the fleet’s defensive envelope for the Aegis to engage the incoming threats, thus forcing the defender to expend valuable ammunition that cannot be easily resupplied at sea under combat conditions. Even inaccurate ASBMs, then, could compel the Aegis to exhaust its weapons inventory, leaving it defenseless against further PLA actions." - Harry Kazianis

- make sense.

Further PLA actions could be in the form of standoff munitions utilized by PLAAF and/or cruise missiles utilized by PLAAN to engage USN vessels in the seas.

Therefore, Americans have no choice but to divert some of their precious assets towards neutralizing ASBM (both TEL and missiles) while responding to PLAAF and PLAAN in a hypothetical conflict.

Mission Complication and Deterrence - both are important considerations in the matters of defense. China would want to make it difficult for USA to defeat its forces in a hypothetical conflict - ASBM have a meaningful role in this game.

it also means that they have ineffective spending. Spending does not guarantee results (output), it only guarantees resources (input).

Proof: US healthcare system. Does not yield the best results by any metric (infant mortality, life expectancy, maternal mortality, obesity, cancer survival rates) but costs the most.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=true
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country
https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#cancer-survival-rates-across-the-world

if ASBM cannot target moving ships then why would target ships expend any munitions at all? They'll just let the weapons uselessly splash down in open ocean. They only need to expend munitions if there is a potential threat.

Proof: A aircraft carrier 50 m x 400 m has area 20000 m2 or 0.02 km2.

let's look at some maneuvers that a ship can take: https://www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/different-types-of-manoeuvres-of-a-vessel/

a ship can have 2 speed maneuvers. The ship reverse screw or steam forward, then left or right turn. at cruising speeds at 30 kt (15 m/s) it can travel 4500 m in 5 minutes of descent. That means in 1 dimension it can travel +/- 9 km from starting point. in addition, the ship can maneuver in either direction.

Tactical diameter has to be at most less than five times the ship length for any standard merchant ship or passenger service vessel. Td < 5*Length of Ship

This means that the ship can be 2 km starboard or port within the maneuvers. Roughly speaking, the ship can be anywhere within a 36 km2 square during a 5 minute descent time. Unguided, unmaneuvering projectiles have a 0.05% chance of hitting, and this assumes no trajectory detection to change course.

This constitutes a demonstration of why ASBM either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, they don't have to do anything.

 

[LeGenD]

Iranian ASHBM have been tested on sea against floating barges and moving ships. I have no doubt that Chinese ASHBM also work as advertised.

Are ASHBM the only solution to CBG's? No, it just adds another, albeit very powerful and perhaps decisive layer to the A2/AD bubble made of various other layers.

Floating barges and/or decommissioned ships, not true moving ships.

In any case, there is no possibility for (any) country to conduct a test that is a true representation of an American warship.

 

[serenity]

If ASBM fail, we will also not know if they failed because of American ways of defeating ASBM. For certain now, I am sure Chinese ASBM work very well in test conditions and simulated counter environment. However the test conditions in simulated counter environment surely also does not equal American real counters. They may be much more or much less. This is unknown.

 

[Figaro]

Floating barges, not true moving ships.

In any case, there is no possibility for (any) country to field a test that is a true representation of an American warship.

It is said that the latest Chinese DF-26 test two weeks ago struck a moving decommissioned supply ship. Maybe that's why the Pentagon was especially forceful with its statement this time.

 

[serenity]

I think at this point this conversation is over. There is nothing more to say about this based on things we know.

 

[triangle]

Floating barges and/or decommissioned ships, not true moving ships.

In any case, there is no possibility for (any) country to conduct a test that is a true representation of an American warship.

Would you as a ships captain rely solely on your countermeasures (passive and active) to enter the engagement zone of these missiles (and other missiles as well)? Or would you rather stay out of reach until the threat of these missiles have been eliminated or severely degraded?

 

[sinait]

All that is needed is to test whether the missile can manuever at great speeds using final target acquisition and accurately hit target that had moved a short distance.

I don't see the need to must test it on a moving target.
It can be simulated.
Let B be the final target position of a moving target that started off at A and had moved a short distance to B.

Missile is programmed to initially strike at A.
When missile is near target, accurately determine the final position of target at B using target acquisition and be able to manuever at great speeds to strike at target B.

That is to test whether missile after reentry, can attain final target position accurately and be able to deviate from its original trajectory at great speeds to hit final target at position B that is a short distance away from initial target position at A.
That rectangular shape in the desert would be target B in this case.
Initial target position A can be randomly selected to be a short distance away from final target(stationary) position B.

Final target acquisition could be using image recognition or other available communication.
.

 

[Team Blue]

There's nothing magical about an AShBM that makes it completely invulnerable to various kinds of deception and attack, but I believe that enemy countermeasures can be largely mitigated through the following steps:

1. First, the missiles are not launched until the presence of a carrier is confirmed through multiple lines of corroborating evidence. Meaning that several systems have independently verified the presence of a carrier at a particular location through multiple modes, i.e., visual/electro-optical, IR, RF, etc.
2. Once a target is detected and confirmed, the missiles are launched in such a way as to maximize chances of a successful strike no matter what evasive manoeuvres the target makes. The best analogy to this is the "no escape zone" concept of BVR aerial warfare.
3. While this is not essential, the NEZ can be further optimized by having the target continuously tracked throughout the missile's midcourse flight by various datalinked platforms communicating new coordinates to the missile and altering its course. Note that such alterations, given the missile's range and speed, would be very minor.
4. During the descent, the missile would release its onboard sensor for terminal tracking of the target until impact. Again, most of the flight path would have been baked in from the moment of launch, and given the relative speeds of a carrier and an AShBM, the alterations to the warhead's course would probably be no more than fractions of a degree.

Okay this makes sense. That's a clever system setup.

Also, I'm Real_Working over on the other site. Thanks for the awesome posts on there too.

 

[somsak]

ASBM can work against groups of movingtargets in a single shot.Just rain many bomblets.

 

[Figaro]

ASBM can work against groups of movingtargets in a single shot.Just rain many bomblets.

I don't think those would do enough damage to surface warships ...

 

[somsak]

I don't think those would do enough damage to surface warships ...

But carrier deck is expose. Planes on the deck is very weak against any small hole.

For warships,
With hypersonic nature of missile, the impact should have large momentum. This need physic scientist to calculate the bomb structure.Warships may not sink by bomblets, but many of the subsystems might malfunction.
Ships are slow. It take many hours from getting in the range of DF26 to the.battle field.Plenty of time to continue many wave of iron rains from the sky.Well Given the tracking is good.