I was taken aback by one of the questions that came my and Toshi Yoshihara’s way last week at the Center for the National Interest: isn’t China’s much-discussed DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), an “easy” problem for U.S. Navy surface warships, which boast high-tech shipboard defenses like the Close-In Weapons System (CIWS)?
The gentleman who posed the question appeared especially taken with CIWS, a super-fast Gatling gun installed on board American and many allied combatants. And it’s certainly a nifty piece of technology, disgorging radar-guided projectiles at a rate of 4,500 rounds per minute. But impressive technology isn’t always superior. A CIWS magazine only holds enough rounds to sustain that rate of fire for about 20 seconds. More importantly, the system is aptly named. “Close-in” means an effective firing range of “a couple of miles” according to one open-source estimate. This is truly a last-ditch defense considering the hypersonic speed of the threat.
Think about the scope of the problem. Terminal velocity for the DF-21 family of missiles is estimated at Mach 10 to Mach 12, on the order of 8,000 to 9,000 miles per hour. That means the missile covers up to 150 miles each minute, or 2.5 miles per second. At such speeds, CIWS gets around a second to engage a maneuvering target, correct its stream of projectiles onto the target, and make the kill. That’s tough even for a computer-controlled weapon system. And even if the engagement succeeds, detonating the warhead, the debris from the explosion keeps coming along roughly the same trajectory. In all likelihood, some of the debris peppers the ship. Metal shards traveling at hypersonic velocities retain enormous kinetic energy, more than enough to penetrate the lightly armored hulls of modern warships and inflict all manner of havoc within. That’s why CIWS was the subject of much gallows humor when I was a weapons officer—and that was during the pre-ASBM days when the threat consisted “only” of manned aircraft and anti-ship cruise missiles.
That such a question came from such a distinguished group of policy and academic experts suggests that knowledge about naval technology and tactics remains rudimentary among even learned audiences in Washington. By no means do I mean to counsel despair about challenges like the ASBM. There are no permanent victories in peacetime strategic competitions like the one unfolding in the Western Pacific. I fully expect our navy to prosecute the strategic competition with China vigorously, and indeed certain promising hardware is already in the works.
Extended-range missiles like the ‘Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile’ currently under development would let the U.S. Pacific Fleet hold the Chinese surface fleet at risk at distances that would attenuate the missile threat to U.S. vessels. CIWS itself is undergoing improvements, including an extended-range “SeaRAM” destined for use aboard the navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships. And exotic technologies like electromagnetic “railguns” and high-energy lasers hold considerable promise over the longer haul, both as self-defense systems and for offensive functions.
But no, the ASBM threat will be far from easy to counteract if the technology pans out. True, the ASBM or its associated sensors may not live up to their hype. The Soviet Union tried—and conspicuously failed—to field such a system. I remain agnostic myself. If Chinese rocketeers can loft ASBMs toward U.S. carrier or amphibious groups, though, the laws of physics will be on their side—and decidedly against shipboard defenders.
James Holmes is an associate professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College. The views voiced here are his alone.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Darren P
Mr. Holmes-
Wouldn’t the same difficulties that apply to intercepting such a warhead also hold true for that same warhead to hit a moving target?
Patrick
Not really because the Air-craft carriers will be traveling at around 30 knots, which gives the Dongfeng missile more than enough time to correct its trajectory and hit the target (assuming the missile is as good as the Chinese military say it is)
yang zi
Correction: China never said it is great, actually only say it is developing and need more technology knowhow.
John Chan
ASBM is an USA invention to hype the “China Threat”. It is a standard practise from the Westpac Black Information Network, put words in others’ mouth then attack the alleged relentlessly as a given truth.
Brad
Looks like John Chan forgot to take his pills again.
John Chan
@Brad,
I either can return the kind to you like “Brad has forgotten to take his pills again” or I can lecture you to make some meaningful contribution in order to keep this discussion useful. I guess you won’t understand the second advice; it is too noble for graduates form Dick Cheney School of Dark Vader.
Mazo
There is no “Westpac Black Information Network”. It is China that acts like a thief in the night by secretly building up its military, by not revealing its intentions, by not disclosing its military activities and by not being open and transparent in its military modernization like any civilized country. China behaves like a rogue state by using propaganda and deception to run its military activities, it is then not the fault of the West to assume ALL its intentions are hostile and ALL its capabilities are real that need to be countered. AS to the DF-21, this is a real development that has been observed by US intelligence and also by sources within the PLA.
yang zi
@Mazo, don’t be so dramatic and naive, if China has some weapon can kick your ass, it will tell you when it kicks you.
John Chan
@Mazo,
China has told everybody in the world that it wants to rise peacefully, but due to the predatory imperialist Westpac’s aggressive and provocative activities along China’s cost, China said it needed to build up its military strength to defend its sovereignty.
For the moment China’s strength is no enough that even small nations like Philippines and Vietnam dare to occupy China’s land inside the nine-dotted line in the South China Sea, China needs to build up more strength in order to evict those squatters.
Is the above intention clear and transparent enough for the rogue states like Philippines and the Westpac?
Kevin Foster
Wouldn’t the use of a ballistic missile mean that we would have to retaliate in kind immediately? Since we have no way of knowing if the ballistic missile is being launched at a ship or if it is a nuclear missile being launched at a US site we would have to launch our own ballistic missiles. This alone is a deterrent for the Chinese to launch any ballistic missile.
John Dewitt
The best deterrent is to sign a non aggression treaty with each other.
Then both sides can scale down their military expenditure and redirect it towards their manufacturing sectors, job creation and infrastructures maintenance.
But, I will put my money that the USA, an overgrown, oversize gorilla will have non of it, as it is bedevilled by its military might and drowning in its own Pride.
a_canadian_observer
The only issue: How do you trust the CCP will do as they sign? Historically that wasn’t the case.
Mr. Black
Its interesting to consider the ramifications of using a ballistic missile in the tactical theatre of conventional non-nuclear operations. How will commanders in theatre be able to distinguish the ASBM (theoretically tipped with a conventional ordinance package) from a standard land launched nuclear ballistic missile? If the US makes the statement that any ballistic missile launch will be automatically assumed as nuclear in nature and will consequentially respond with nuclear force in kind, how likely would the Chinese use that weapon in the face of the prospect of escalating a conventional conflict into nuclear war? (Assuming the US and China come into some type of conflict that is theoretically centered on contested Taiwan, much like the Taiwan Straits crisis in the 90s where carriers were used.)
The US wanted to use conventionally tipped Minuteman ballistic missiles for its Prompt Global Strike (PGS) program initially. It was stopped because there were calls from others that a launch may be mistaken for a preemptive nuclear first-strike. This propagated further investment into the PGS hypersonic missile technology development because while it is able to travel just as far as traditional ballistic missiles very quickly, it does not have ballistic missile trajectory and would not alarm other powers into responding. What happens if the same is applied in policy to China?
China has made a promise not to be the first one to use nuclear weapons, despite having the capability to do so. However, the US already has issues with China’s lack of military transparency, and US claims that Chinese military doctrine is almost 4,000 years old, using deception as one of its fundamental tools. Wouldn’t that leave grounds for the US to make the argument to the global community, establish a nuclear response to the ASBM, and almost effectively neutralize the ASBM’s relevance as a tactical asset?
John Chan
It is most likely all nations will set their default nuclear strike policy to no-first-strike policy regardless they declare it or not. Only madman and Hollywood will strike nuclear pre-emptively.
Besides if USA cannot determine the direction and likely ground zero location of a launched ballistic missile in real time, who else can? I thing Mr. Black is insulting American capability in science and technology.
There is no way USA will be mistaken an ASBM aiming at an aircraft carrier as an ICBM aiming at White House.
coincidence
What if they really mistaken!
There is nothing impossible
coincidence
Especially when predict any move.
There are so much unknown infomation.
John Chan
@coincidence,
There is not such thing called mistaken when it comes to ballistic missiles. Long range rockets(missiles) are launched all the time for military, commercial and scientific purposes all the time, it USA, China, Russia, etc. nations do not have means to determine their directions and trajectories, the globe has gone up in smoke long time age.
Mr. Black
It seems that my statement is not fully understood by some. Policy is a weapon. It does not matter whether the US can tell scientifically or technologically where a ballistic missile is going, or what payload it carries. If China threatened to launch the ASBM, the US may announce that its policy is that during conflict with China any ballistic missile launch by them will be assumed as nuclear in nature and the they can respond immediately in kind. Not necessarily to escalate the conflict to nuclear war, but to prevent China from freely using the ASBM without the generating the possibility of nuclear conflict
It does not matter whether China would launch a nuclear first-strike. What matters is that by launching the ASBM, it could reasonably appear that way. Especially during an armed conflict. In peace time, rockets for space exploration and satellites, and missile tests are announced ahead of their launch dates and are scheduled to avoid misunderstandings. This will not strictly apply in war time.
Also nuclear weapons can be used tactically, such as in a theoretical Pacific theatre of operations. Nuclear weapons do not have to be used on a nation’s capital, such as Washington DC (the White House) or Beijing. Their use, however, opens a metaphorical “Pandora’s Box” i.e., mutually assured destruction.
John Chan
@Mr. Black
If with a piece of announcement, the USA can null China’s decades of investment with untold amount resources, and if I cannot call it delusional, I don’t know what else I can call.
ASBMs are fired on land in China. How can USA’s nuclear retaliation hitting China’s homeland and does not start an all out nuclear exchange, it is beyond me, perhaps you has a magic wane from God.
Expecting tactical nuclear strike not ending with ‘Pandora’s Box’ surely needs a lot of wishful thinking.
Would USA stop using its B-2 or F-22 during a hostile confrontation with China because China announces a policy against the use of such weapon? By the time China fires ASBM, other than all out nuclear retardation, there is nothing can scare China off, but would USA be prepared for the nuclear holocaust for a floating tin can in the middle of an ocean?
A lot of ill faith anti-China bloggers advocate such irresponsible statement, perhaps they do not live in the USA, the nuclear exchange between USA and China will bring them unprecedented amount of benefits, therefore they push USA to make such announcement relentlessly. Fortunately USA government is responsible enough and never falls into such trap.
The smartest thing USA can do is never put itself into such awkward position to face a possible ASBM strike.
Darren P
Assuming this sustem works (and that’s a VERY big if)- the carrier is going to be moving. Maybe not fast, but it is going to move. And hitting a moving target is much more difficult than hitting a stationary one.
I’ll wait to see if China can actually back up the hype for this before raising any alarm bells.
yang zi
it is simply too fast to have time to adjust course after the reentry blackout. however, I am glad the prof. agrees with me that hypersonic cruise missile is the biggest threat to navy and only death ray or rail gun can defend it.
I believe for China’s objectives, it is too costly to develop a blue water navy, it is not going to survive well in future warfare against hypersonic weapons.
yang zi
also, you guys are always saying China is hyping this thing. China never hyped anything. it is you guys’ imaginary creation, i know it is fun but…
james_001
Darren if it would be true none of Anti ship missile will work Yet every major country in the world has Anti Ship missile. The French has Exocet. The American has Harpoon. The Chinese has YJ83 or C-802A. The Russian has KH 35
Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCeTYbMty1U
People forgot that it only took the ASBM approximately 30 minute from detection to hit and in this 30 minute how far can the carrier move at 30 mile/hr 15 mile at most and each of the Anti ship missile I did mention has 200 mile range using Semi active radar or fully autonomous radar
Patrick
No arguments there Darren. The main problem is that they keep their military cards so close to their chest no one really knows for certain how reliable or advanced their weaponry is. As a result the US can only assume the worst case scenario and prepare accordingly.
In my opinion you can see China following the USSR trajectory. During the Cold War the strength and quality of the Soviet Armed forces was exaggerated to a great extent which caused a lot of heart burn and hand wringing in US and other NATO members. When their aircrafts and tanks were finally examined (case in point the Mig-25 or the T-72 tank) it turned out their capabilities were rather underwhelming.
I would not be surprised if something like that might be happening in China as well since most of their weapons are reverse engineered copies of Russian weapon systems
a_canadian_observer
@Patrick: On the other hand, the chinese may have learnt from the USSR and the situation is different now. It’s better to over-estimate them.
yang zi
@observer, I thought China can only steal and copy Russia technology.
Vietnam is a great country with hard working people. their independence is won by hard work and sacrifices. under current Vietnamese leadership, Vietnam’s economy is booming too. too bad S. Vietnamese exiles can only watch with jealousy. because they lost and can’t do anything about it.
It’s like watching from outside through a restaurant window, while others are eating a great thanksgiving meal inside the restaurant. the only thing you can do is to shout how best to eat it.
james_001
I doubt it. At its height Soviet Union GDP is only 1/10 of American with most of the budget allocated to Defense spending(50% of goverment spending) starving the civilian economy of funding and talent which in turn weaken the civilian economy.eg soviet can make good missile but make crappy car Lada anyone?
Eventually the strength of the civilian economy will reflect in the country armament
China now has gone from RE Russian armament to independent design of their own. And in Shipbuilding and electronic china already exceed Russia Eg J20,JF17,J10 AESA radar,Type 054A frigate, LPD 071.Type 052C. Because China has booming electronic and shipbuilding industry
John Chan
The other problem regarding Phalanx is it is nearly impossible to reload, it may stop the first missile, but only can watch the following missiles helplessly.
dylanjones
What is the evidence that the Soviets “tried and conspicuously failed” to field an ASBM The SS-NX-13/R27K was never fielded to be sure – but is that because it did not work or because of arms control agreements or changing procurement priorities? I’d like to see the evidence you’re using to back up this rather dramatic claim.
Darren P
@Patrick- I apologize if I came across as argumentative earlier; that was not my intent. IMO, I just think people need to step back and see if this concept gets validated before judging it a threat.
@james-001- You seem to be under the impression that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are interchangable, and can be used interchangably. That is simply not the case.
In terms of operational concept, cruise missiles are more akin to aircraft (to be used against moving targets); while a ballistic missile warhead is more like a free-fall bomb, or an artillery shell- it is designed for use against fixed targets.
Even manoeuverable warhead technology introduced within the last thirty years has been used to enhance the ability to hit FIXED targets.
Ballistic missiles are simply impractical for use against moving targets.
Until the Chinese demonstrate a way to turn a warhead into (for all practical purposes) a miniature airplane, and still manage to keep it small and light enough to pack a useful punch and fit inside a ballistic missile, I will continue to doubt the threat posed by this system.
james_001
I have no need to convince you but the technology is feasible and has been proven so many time.
The guidance is the same you probably need a faster processor to take account of the faster response time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance
Guidance systems are divided into different categories according to what type of target they are designed for – either fixed targets or moving targets. The weapons can be divided into two broad categories, Go-Onto-Target (GOT) and Go-Onto-Location-in-Space (GOLIS) guidance systems.[4] A GOT missile can target either a moving or fixed target, whereas a GOLIS weapon is limited to a stationary or near-stationary target. The trajectory that a missile takes while attacking a moving target is dependent upon the movement of the target. Also, a moving target can be an immediate threat to the sender of the missile. The target needs to be eliminated in a timely fashion in order to preserve the integrity of the sender. In GOLIS systems the problem is simpler because the target is not moving.
The difference is the final control element In the atmosphere you can use control surface but in space because lack of air you use micro thruster. But even some high G AAM now use micro thruster
That technology have been demonstrated in the latest rendezvous of Tiangong and Shenhou8 where they have to guide high speed vehicle at 8km/sec within 2o cm tolerance using micro thruster
Darren P
@james-001- WHEN has the technology been proven? Do you have any credible links showing when a BALLISTIC missile was used to destroy a MOVING target, either on a testing range or during an actual war?
I am under the impression that you have guided missiles (like cruise misiles and air-to-air weapons) confused with ballistic missiles. These are two separate entities.
The Soviets tried to develop an ASBM back in the sixties; called the SS-N-13 IIRC. It was tested for almost a decade before being phased out.
Given the lack of reference material available for this Soviet missile, it would be reasonable to conclude that the concept did NOT work, and that is why the missile was not deployed.
james_001
Read this statement from admiral Dorsett the chief intelligence of the navy
The Taiwanese intelligence chief as well confirm the existence of the ASBM
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DWG/Documents/2011/January%202011/010511dorsett.pdf
The Chinese have tested the BF-21B missile system over land a sufficient number of times that the missile system itself is truly competent and capable. The entire weapon capability, they have ISR, they have sensors on board ship that can feed into the targeting aspect of it. So could they start to employ that and field it operationally? Yes, I think so. It gets back to that question of proficiency. How proficient are they, though, in the end-to-end employment of that capability? Their 2nd Artillery‟s been around for over five decades, so they have a competent missile system, or missile command and control capability. But the question of fusing all the information to use it in targeting, I think there‟s still some questions of how proficient they would be to fully employ that at this point. But are they at the initial operational capability? Yes, I think so.
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=37695&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=228&cHash=935bd75162f111718eb3ac405984ff88
Tsai also reasserted the claim he made back in August 2010 that the PLA has already tested and is now deploying the “carrier killer” DF-21D, which in February was confirmed by a report in a State-sponsored media (China Review News, August 20, 2010; Global Times, February 18). According to one military intelligence source cited by Taiwan-based Liberty Times, the estimated range of the DF-16 may be somewhere between 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers (km), and the target area would cover the U.S. military base on Okinawa (Liberty Times [Taiwan], March 17).
Darren P
@james_001- Did you read THIS part of the first link you provided?
“Yes. The technology that the Chinese have developed and are employing in their BF-21B missile system has increased their probability of being able to employ a salvo of missiles to be able to hit a maneuvering target. How proficient they are, what that level of probability is, we don‟t know. Frankly, I‟m guessing that they don‟t know. I‟m assessing that they don‟t know. The reason I say that is they‟ve probably simulated this in laboratories. They‟ve certainly test-fired it over land. But to our knowledge they have not test-fired this over water against maneuvering targets. If you‟re an engineer and you‟ve developed a weapon system, you pretty much want to make sure that you use the entire weapon system and employ it in an operational environment to understand how really competent and effective it is.
But to answer your question, yeah, they‟re demonstrating the technology to be able to hit maneuvering targets. A few years ago our assessment was no one had a capability.”
Okay, granted- they seem to be demonstrating the technology. But they have NOT TEST FIRED THIS OVER WATER AT MANOEUVERING TARGETS.
That’s a far cry from being an effective deployed system, don’t you think?
Furthermore, the article says that this thing would probably have to be employed in salvos- which would make sense. Again, assuming the actual overwater tests do NOT invalidate the concept- this looks like it will be used as a shotgun rather than a “magic bullet”…
james_001
I definitely make progress from Paper Tiger to quibble about magical weapon :}
Nobody said ASBM is magical weapon It is just one of the many PRC weapon in their anti access arsenal.
Hmm you don’t like salvo firing are you? Let me give you pointer on cost benefit ratio Each of the Nimitz class cost about 4.5 Billion dollar and typical ballistic missile cost 50 million So who care if you need salvo firing
And just like good burlesque You don’t reveal every thing enough to give a peep. And left the rest to imagination
John Chan
If one reads PLA reports, one could find that PLA always reports different ways of tandem missile firing as well as anti-aircraft cannon tandem firing, and the effectiveness of different arrangements. It is amazing they could figure out so many ways to fire guns and missiles to kill an enemy.
John Chan
An extremely fast processor will make ASBM technology very feasible. China invests heavily in the Nano technology, and is in the leading position in Nano technology. If China can apply Nano technology to ASBM, then the intelligence portion of the maneuverable warhead will be so small that makes multiple maneuverable warheads in ASBM entirely possible.
Darren P
@james_001- I stand by my “paper tiger” statement.
You keep speaking in the present tense about this missile, as if it is already deployed in large numbers. Yet, the evidence overwhelmingly points out that this is still in development (probably for another decade), and hasn’t come close to being able to demonstrate the stated goals of hitting a moving target at sea; much less being deployed operationally.
As far as the “magic bullet” statement goes- you, and others have bought in to the hype about a system that is claimed to be able to destroy a carrier quickly, and that there’s no defense against it. It is being hyped as a single shot kill type of weapon. Yet there has been NO proof of it’s capabilities in these regards; just a lot of speculation and fear mongering.
You are assuming that the Chinese will be able to overcome the following problems to make this work:
Fitting a seeker onto the warhead and being able to make that seeker work quickly to acquire the target after passing thru the atmospheric ionization phase;
Be able to maneuver the warhead sharply at speeds from Mach 4 to Mach 10 during descent onto target (oh yeah, good luck on that one- you might want to read up on the SR-71 and it’s turning rate while traveling in excess of Mach 3- and it had much better aerodynamics than a ballistic missile warhead does);
Accomplish all of the above, be able to marry it to a useful payload package, and still make it fit inside the limited confines of a ballistic missile.
And that’s not even taking into account that the sensor platforms that this missile would have to rely on for guidance/targeting updates (during the boost and midcourse phases) will be taken out very early in any conflict. Nor does it take into account the fact that the USN will develop new technologies/refine existing ones to deal with this threat (if said threat ever pans out).
Like I said before- this missile is one of those things that sounds cool in theory, yet is impractical in the real world. PAPER TIGER.
Ryan Chan
In my point of view, the U.S. Navy must develop a well air defense system for its fleet. At this moment we do not know whether the Chinese has the so-called Anti-ship Ballistic Missile yet, but we do all know that the Chinese must have some anti-access weapons against the U.S. Navy. It may not be ASBM but also supersonic anti-ship missiles – just like the Russia.
In fact, for the U.S. Navy, it should have a complete air defense system for the carrier strike group, from SM-6, SM-3, SM-2ER, ESSM to CIWS. These weapon systems can guarantee the security of the fleets.
John Chan
There is no unstoppable spear; also there is no impenetrable shield. Bragging USA’s shield is impenetrable and hopping China does not have unstoppable spear is hiding the head in the sand.
Tom Tran
OK, it is not easy to kill a ballistic missile, but it is not easy to aim such missile to a moving target of a few hundred foots thousands of kilometers away. Until one really sees it works, there is no need for too much hype over a hypothetical weapon. Even if the weapon has some capability, how many do you need to disable, needless to say to sink a carrier? Probably firing some dozen, if not hundreds, missiles to get a few hits, I bet no sailor is going to be scared to death.
nirvana
If it is used in salvo, it does not need to be very accurate. If each missile has 1/2 chance of a hit then 10 of them gives 99.9% chance of success. If each has only 1/3 of a hit then you need exactly 18. And if each has only 1/5 of a hit, 18 of them still achieve over 98% success rate.
Firstly what it is an extremely fast war head that may fan out into many bomblets to cover, say a 0.5 mile circle dead zone. Remember the kinetic energy is enough to make the bomblets lethal. So, secondly, it will be simple and low-cost. Thirdly, you have to hide them somewhere so that the preparation time for launch can be concealed. I think the Chinese solution have all three conditions above.
Now, somebody made a very relevant remark. Would the simultaneously launch of 10-18 ballistic missiles automatically trigger a second (in fact first) nuclear strike from the US? The answer is very probably yes, and the Chinese generals have already foreseen that: they have already publicly declared (2005, general Zhu) that they are prepared “for the destruction all the Chinese cities East of Xi’an”! This means, at the same time the ASBMs are launched, the commanders of the Chinese undersea deterrent force in the South China Sea would have already received the code for China second-strike nuclear response. Apocalypse is closer than we thought!
Reason
China doesn’t have a viable undersea nuclear deterrent….
?
nirvana
@Reason,
Correct. I just wanted to point out that the SCS, the ASBM, the Underground Great Wall, the declarations of the generals, all seem to fit in a general line of thinking for “work in progress”.
John Chan
@nirvana,
Nuclear strike is for national survival; sinking an aircraft carrier thousands miles away from the USA homeland is not endangering USA’s national survival, it is just a collateral loss in a hostile action like all other military adventure, it is a part of the costs that carry out imperialism. Exaggerating sinking an aircraft carrier to the trigger of nuclear exchange is fear mongering.
nirvana
@John Chan,
We are talking about a salvo of 10-18 ballistic missiles. Unless the PLAN has a means to make them distinguishable from a nuclear strike, to the early detection network of the US (assuming they have its blueprint!?), the chance is big that such an attack is AUTOMATICALLY detected as a first strike. Can you imagine China leaders reassuring the US: no,no, don’t misunderstand us, we are just shooting at your carrier group.
John Chan
@nirvana,
Your ignorance does not mean USA and China do not have the capability to know exactly each ballistic missile is going. It is nothing worse than the ignorant are fear mongering relentlessly like a bad LP repeating the awful track over and over.
nirvana
@John Chan
No problem admitting my ignorance of the capability of the US to track ballistic missiles. I would think that the number of missiles that would saturate such a capability is a highly classified parameter. If you say that China has a good guess at that number and will use its salvo of ASBMs in a way that it can not be misinterpreted by the US, fine.
Nevertheless, I think it is a dangerous gamble to use a weapon system that looks like a MAD attack and rely on the opponent’s sophistication to avoid an accidental escalation. Factor into this the human factor and the fact that it will, in all likelihood, be an exceptional use of new weapon system, during a very tense conflict.
In summary, I think that, with the proliferation of ballistic missiles, we are moving closer each day to an accidental MAD. Irresponsibly or voluntarily, the generals are blurring the frontier between conventional and nuclear warfare.
james_001
Tran
The day that CBG can hide in ocean is over for good. The technology has advance. China has 3 over horizon radar that can peer far into western pacific(approx 3500km rang) similar to Jindelle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar
Sean blog IMINT use to have very good information on china OVH but he in the process of converting it to PDF format
CBG emmit all kind of radio frequency with specific characteristic I can think of the constant take off and landing of plane to perform CAP
A very discrimination surveillance radar can pick this tell tale sign of CBG but OVH radar doesn’t have accuracy so They will cue in surveillance satellite like Yaogan series 9 that specially design to locate CBG. It is constellation of 3 satellites Read this
http://www.sinodefence.com/space/military/yaogan9.asp
China has 20 dedicated military satellite for that purpose Yaogan series and Shijan series out of 70 satellites now in orbit
http://www.sinodefence.com/space/military/yaogan.asp
Then you need to confirm your finding. You can use long range UAV or even stealth fighter, Submarine,Marine patrol aircraft, Spy ships, Fishing trawler,
Once detected the information is fed into INS guidance system of ASBM it will be launch to approximate location of CBG and at midcourse it get update information from the satellite. Until it get close to the target,then the onboard synthetic aperture radar will be activated.
It will pick up the outline of the carrier compare it to stored image that was saved in its processor. When match is found. It will fire the weapon
John Wen
I think this kind of missile technology is not real at least in present days. China is not as advanced as many people think. If there is one country first makes this technology into a practical product, it should be USA not China.