Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I would think with the high terminal speed the aim point would have to be pretty precise. Even at a relative shallow angle of reentry (gamma) of 45 degrees would only give the vehicle about 18 seconds of terminal phase. Roughly that gives you an engagement radius of about eleven NM. An CVTF would cover that in about 20-25 minutes. Now that assumes a real-time communication between the C&C entity and the launcher. Every minute of delay increases the area of uncertainty by 0.5 nm. I am not saying this weapons aren't a real threat but the physics alone make a single hit difficult and multiple hits unlikely.

Just my $0.02 worth

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

I can almost guarantee you that US CVBGs would change course and speed after ever Chinese satellite pass. PIM would probably still be fairly easy to figure out given general trends (i.e. the battle group moved 100 miles west in 6 hours), but I don't know if that's accurate enough to put weapons on the target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I would think with the high terminal speed the aim point would have to be pretty precise. Even at a relative shallow angle of reentry (gamma) of 45 degrees would only give the vehicle about 18 seconds of terminal phase. Roughly that gives you an engagement radius of about eleven NM. An CVTF would cover that in about 20-25 minutes. Now that assumes a real-time communication between the C&C entity and the launcher. Every minute of delay increases the area of uncertainty by 0.5 nm. I am not saying this weapons aren't a real threat but the physics alone make a single hit difficult and multiple hits unlikely.

Just my $0.02 worth

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

I can almost guarantee you that US CVBGs would change course and speed after ever Chinese satellite pass. PIM would probably still be fairly easy to figure out given general trends (i.e. the battle group moved 100 miles west in 6 hours), but I don't know if that's accurate enough to put weapons on the target.

Probably the most concise and well-stated argument in this entire conversation. Do some research into the types of seeker heads this thing would employ, and their range and accuracy limitations, and then add the complexities involved because of the extreme speed and environment all this is supposed to be happening in. The chance of hitting a carrier moving at 20+ knots, and maneuvering as they typically do, make hitting it from outer space ridiculously difficult to achieve. It's like tossing a BB into a moving shot glass from one side of a circus tent to the other. Impossible? No. Highly improbable? You betcha.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

Relatively, it was almost over night. As to their "successes" with ballistic missiles against a carrier, I believe it was a non-moving target silhouette. That's a success at hitting a relatively small CEP- not a realistic target, in a real-world environment.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/510294ab6bb3f78f5000001a/china-successfully-tests-carrier-killer-missile-in-the-gobi-desert-report.jpg

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

Relatively, it was almost over night. As to their "successes" with ballistic missiles against a carrier, I believe it was a non-moving target silhouette. That's a success at hitting a relatively small CEP- not a realistic target, in a real-world environment.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/510294ab6bb3f78f5000001a/china-successfully-tests-carrier-killer-missile-in-the-gobi-desert-report.jpg

I agree that is likely a test of that system but I doubt it's the only one. Fact the others are probably what is leading the US, Japan, SK to spend millions defending against it.

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Hey, that's not at all what I meant. It was a sincere compliment towards a chap that was able to describe the entire reasoning behind my doubts re. the ASBM's capabilities, even better than I could. There's no reason to get nasty. I'm just trying to have a logic-based discussion about a subject I find very interesting, with a few like-minded individuals. No belligerence intended from me at all, I can assure you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

Relatively, it was almost over night. As to their "successes" with ballistic missiles against a carrier, I believe it was a non-moving target silhouette. That's a success at hitting a relatively small CEP- not a realistic target, in a real-world environment.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/510294ab6bb3f78f5000001a/china-successfully-tests-carrier-killer-missile-in-the-gobi-desert-report.jpg

I agree that is likely a test of that system but I doubt it's the only one. Fact the others are probably what is leading the US, Japan, SK to spend millions defending against it.

Mike

Agreed. It was a test of the DF-21D, according to Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-carrier-killer-missile-test-proves-df-21d-lives-up-to-name-2013-1

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

quote:

Regardless of whether a US carrier is sunk by way of torpedo, or missile, conventional ASBM, or nuclear warhead, the response from the United States would be the same.

You sure? ... The Chinese military disagrees, anyhow.

I am TOTALLY sure. There's 5000 men and women aboard that ship, about $5,000,000,000 invested in it, and more than 50 fixed wing aircraft. Would we nuke China, or any other nation over a carrier? Are you kidding me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

fas thinks 500m CEP's are perfectly reasonable, so unless the carrier reacts pretty quickly in the event of a launch to change course and speed up, an unguided BM volley would be pretty threatening without guidance and with conventional warheads.

The problem is getting the guidance info to the shooters in enough time to be accurate enough. DF-21 compensates with radar (so shoot into box, radar goes on hunts for target then guides). You don't have that capability with a standard ballistic missile.

Honestly not sure why the Soviets never pursued this that far during the Cold War.

Mike

Facebook
Twitter

quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

quote:

Regardless of whether a US carrier is sunk by way of torpedo, or missile, conventional ASBM, or nuclear warhead, the response from the United States would be the same.

You sure? ... The Chinese military disagrees, anyhow.

I am TOTALLY sure. There's 5000 men and women aboard that ship, about $5,000,000,000 invested in it, and more than 50 fixed wing aircraft. Would we nuke China, or any other nation over a carrier? Are you kidding me?

And you base this on? Just emotions you feel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

NW: The 1950s called, and they want their doctrine of massive retaliation back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

So is there a scenario for people to play based on what we're talking about in the thread? Probably should post the name here if there is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

NW: The 1950s called, and they want their doctrine of massive retaliation back.

Imagine, if you will, the headlines and reaction of the American people, following the sinking of a US CVN. 9-11 would look like a frat prank in comparison. Perhaps you live in a part of the country where people aren't so passionate, but I can't imagine a reality that would not involve a nuclear response over such an act.

quote:


But that was indeed a cute reply. Typical snarkiness notwithstanding.

Facebook
Twitter

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

NW: The 1950s called, and they want their doctrine of massive retaliation back.

Imagine, if you will, the headlines and reaction of the American people, following the sinking of a US CVN. 9-11 would look like a frat prank in comparison. Perhaps you live in a part of the country where people aren't so passionate, but I can't imagine a reality that would not involve a nuclear response over such an act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

NW: The 1950s called, and they want their doctrine of massive retaliation back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

NW: The 1950s called, and they want their doctrine of massive retaliation back.

Imagine, if you will, the headlines and reaction of the American people, following the sinking of a US CVN. 9-11 would look like a frat prank in comparison. Perhaps you live in a part of the country where people aren't so passionate, but I can't imagine a reality that would not involve a nuclear response over such an act.

NakedWeasel,

I think it would be very context specific.

An out-of-the-blue "surprise" attack that did sink a US carrier might garner a nuclear response, but even that is iffy.

In a prolonged period of rising tension -- I just don't see it. A carrier, after all, is a combat ship that always has the potential to be damaged/sunk even if the other guy is playing "fair."

I think it would be more problematic if an SSBN or two got sunk. Take out part of the triad, and I suspect red lights would start spinning and might force and unfortunate decision.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

NW: The 1950s called, and they want their doctrine of massive retaliation back.

Imagine, if you will, the headlines and reaction of the American people, following the sinking of a US CVN. 9-11 would look like a frat prank in comparison. Perhaps you live in a part of the country where people aren't so passionate, but I can't imagine a reality that would not involve a nuclear response over such an act.

NakedWeasel,

I think it would be very context specific.

An out-of-the-blue "surprise" attack that did sink a US carrier might garner a nuclear response, but even that is iffy.

In a prolonged period of rising tension -- I just don't see it. A carrier, after all, is a combat ship that always has the potential to be damaged/sunk even if the other guy is playing "fair."

I think it would be more problematic if an SSBN or two got sunk. Take out part of the triad, and I suspect red lights would start spinning and might force and unfortunate decision.

Regards,
Feltan

While I tend to agree that the "nuclear option" is remote I am concerned that the Western World in general and the United States specifically has become so risk adverse that it may be put on the table sooner if another truly global conflict were to start. For non-Americans the angst over the 4400 deaths in Iraq may not be familiar but trust me it is a very real phenomenon. For pity sake one of our Sunday morning talking heads shows ends every episode with a list of every person lost in Iraq/Afghanistan this week. I am by no means demeaning the sacrifice of those who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice but putting it into historical precedence is a bit disturbing. The USMC lost 1500 men in a single day at Tarawa. The USN lost 2500 in one night as a result of the Battle of Savo Island. Deaths from the Battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were 6800 and 12000 respectively. So the US lost nearly the entire casualty toll of the Iraq war over two days in 1942 and 1943 and nearly five times that casualty count in four months of 1945 in one theater of operation. That is not even considering the cost of the Vietnam War was nearly eight times that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Since the end of WWII the lethality of conventional weapons systems has increased by several orders of magnitude. If a general war were to break out now, the casualty count would likely be extraordinary. So my concern is that the American public has become so insulated from the realities of war and equally entrenched into the concept that "there must be an easier solution" that for many the "nuclear option" may be more palatable than a prolonged armed conflict with millions of casualties.

Here in "the States" we had an ad campaign a few years ago by an office supply retailer (Staples) that featured an Easy Button which was a giant red push button that a customer could push to get exactly what they needed. I fear that our American culture might be a little too distanced from the realities of war and might reach for our "Easy Button" a little too quickly in a future global conflict.

So yes, the possibility of a CSG being obliterated with heavy loss of life is a scary proposition considering we could equal the Iraq/Afghanistan casualty count in a few minutes. If the response to 9-11 was disproportionate (a subject of debate in other places not here, please) the fear that the US might respond disproportionately to that event is not without a logical and historic precedence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

NW,

I'd certainly appreciate a copy of a scenario involving this topic.

Having worked in government for the past 30 years, I feel comfortable to say that the government often responds by implementing knee-jerk reaction as opposed to well-thought out plans, or a consideration of consequences.

In other words, if situation "A" occurs, refer to the manual to determine what the response should be. If no direct answer exists, then wing it. Ask someone who you trust what the response should be, and then make a choice based upon what your "advisor(s)" has/have told you to do. Often, this might not be what's in the best interest of "the people."

Government tends to "feel" that if something happens, then some response is necessary. You have to respond, otherwise you look weak. Too often, however, the response is an over-reaction; and this can be to any situation, not just nuke use. No leader wants to appear to be weak.

I can certainly see a situation whereby the US responds to the destruction of a carrier/group with a limited nuclear strike. It might not make perfect sense, but the elected people calling the shots are often more clueless about situations involving the military than any of us are who play simulations. If the aide suggests it, then it must be good. <vbg>

Doug

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

As the DF-21 ASBM is derived from the typical DF-21, the same weapon systems used to destroy tactical theater ballistic rockets/missiles should be effective. Currently, these would include the RIM-161 (SM-3), and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). What is unknown, however, is the actual "threat" the DF-21 might bring to the table. The concept might look feasible on paper, but the employment of the concept in reality is probably far more difficult to achieve than all the fanboi hype would have you believe. It's been discussed here before, but I have real questions about the PRC's ability to successfully target a carrier (supposedly the ASBM's primary target) steaming and maneuvering far out to sea in a blue water environment. And then, I have more questions about the ASBM's sensor and guidance package to successfully engage a ship. It is supposed to be equipped with a terminally active radar seeker, and I would have to assume would also include INS and possibly GPS. But given the time of flight, the issues of exiting and re-entering the atmosphere, and the size/weight/technological complexities of such a seeker would make the weapon's success rate a very farfetched number indeed.

The missile is not going to be able to use it's seeker radar until after it re-enters the atmosphere. The radar is going to be limited by range, mechanical sweep/slew, and it's ability to successfully discriminate a vessel's radar signature. The problem will be extremely compounded due to the high mach numbers the re-entry vehicle is traveling in the terminal phase. It just doesn't have a lot of time for the radar seeker to find the target at it's maximum range, and then adjust it's flight path to achieve an impact. This would be a difficult prospect for any nation's defense agencies to accomplish, and I have seen no evidence that China's best scientific minds could do the near-impossible, thus far.

What they've done, is broadcast a hypothetical capability, and an intent, versus the United States proven ability to project force, and defend against ballistic missile threats. Until I see some evidence that China has successfully carried out a real-world live fire exercise against a similar target in a realistic environment, I have no choice but to regard such claims as bluster, and propaganda/hyperbole. I'm not completely discounting the PRC's ample technological capabilities, or underestimating them outright, but I just don't see any empirical evidence to suggest they have gone from ox-cart to Buck Rogers in less than a decade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

I tend to think you can't hide a carrier these days when the fighting starts. You can make it costly to find at best. This is something we could probably game out and see in Command :)