My biggest problem with the ASBM is the fact that the target is MOVING. Even though the carrier is only moving at 30kt, the warhead is at around 12,000 km/h. So the margin for error is extremely small. I mean seriously small. Some of the examples I posted Pershing-II, Agni-RV, Topol-M are nuclear armed and for fixed-targets.
Varying warheads, especially submunition type, would allow for a larger margin of error/CEP.
But yes, obviously hitting a moving target is different to a fixed target. But terminal guidance in high mach re entry vehicles has proven effective/viable (against fixed targets, yes), so the theory would be to optimize your sensor for moving targets and give your warhead some MaRV capability to home in on the moving target. Easier said than done I suppose, but it's hardly ground breaking technology -- it's only tying up existing technology in a new way.
I mean, supersonic AShMs work with their active radar seekers against moving targets, right? AShBM will operate at a higher speed of course. But where's the break off point speed of the projectile which will render the active seeker ineffective?
And there's also the interesting question of how far the carrier can get with its 30 knots, when the missile's terminal phase begins with its own mach 10. Basically how long will it take for the missile to reach "sea level" from where the terminal phase begins and what distance can the carrier cross in that short time and whether that distance can effectively avoid the missile. Therefore the terminal guidance I imagine would be used with MaRV to compensate for that slight distance which the carrier can cross. Because the missile's moving so fast and the carrier so comparably slow, I imagine only a slight change in the missile's "angle"(?) needs to be compensated by the terminal guidance/MaRV. Yes, mach 10 is fast but it's a hell of a lot slower than the speed of light from the warhead's sensor (say, active radar).
(inb4 the whole plasma problem thing. We've solved that about one page ago, so don't bring it up again plox!!)
This whole ASBM idea sounds exceptionally complex. It could work if everything goes well I guess, but aren't the better ways to hit a carrier?
Yes, but none of the existing ways provide as long or fast a reach, nor are they as easy to defend against imho. Long range super sonic AShMs is possibly one way of going about long range fast response anti carrier duties, but most modern air defence systems are suited to defending against sub sonic and super sonic saturation attacks whereas ABM is a less tested and thus a "more vulnerable" system. Maybe in future the PLA will adopt a hypersonic long range cruise missile to replace AShBM, but at the moment AShBM has the prime "strategic" deterrence role.
And remember AShBM is just one component of the A2AD strategy. YJ-62, 022, SSKs, JH-7/A are all weapons along with AShBM in this doctrine.
Plus: Officially is there an ASBM? I think all the PRC said was "They have potential game changer"....
Well there was this:
While there has been debate over the actual legitimacy of the range quoted, the fact that general chin bingde said
“The missile is still undergoing experimental testing and will be used as a defensive weapon when it is successfully developed, not an offensive one,” says Chen. “It is a high-tech weapon and we face many difficulties in getting funding, advanced technologies and high-quality personnel, which are all underlying reasons why it is hard to develop this.”
when asked about AShBM, basically admits its existence.
Whether the challenges he stated are actually serious bottlenecks, or just a continuation of the whole "hide our true capabilities" doctrine is up for discussion. But the weapon has been admitted to exist by the PLA. I think escobar posted an excerpt of the actual interview with Chen Bingde on the subject, if anyone cares to find it.
