Behind the China Missile Hype

Bltizo said:

Err I suppose there's no reason DF-21d couldn't be based on DF-21A with a warhead more like DF-21c's... Or be DF-21c with better range

And despite all of sinodefence's wrongs it is certainly higher in rank on credibility than missile threat.

Click to expand...

If I were siting Fox News that may be true, but that's debatable

The problem more or less comes from trying too much. You can have good range, or good payload, or good accuracy, but you can rarely have more then 2 at the same time. In the case of the DF-21D, a 500 kg warhead is probably enough.

Today the USN released an update on the railgun prototype now under development for future ships of the fleet. With a range of 50 to 100 miles and the stated goal of shooting several shots per minute, the railgun could become an excellent defensive weapon against an incoming ASBM warhead or lurking low earth orbit sea surveillance satellite.

Firing a grapeshot type canister round, the railgun could lay a cloud of steel pellets in the path of the ASBM warhead leading to its destruction.

Now that the Navy has an actual prototype railgun to shoot, the plan is to hook it up to sensors and cameras to test its performance at 20 and 33 megajoules’ worth of energy. Its goal is produce accurate shots from 50 to 100 nautical mile distances, which the Navy wants by 2017.

Click to expand...

In artillery, a grapeshot is a type of shot that is not a one solid element, but a mass of small metal balls or slugs packed tightly into a canvas bag. It was used both in land and naval warfare. When assembled, the balls resembled a cluster of grapes, hence the name. On firing, the balls spread out from the muzzle, giving an effect similar to a giant shotgun.

Click to expand...

As can be seen in the illustration below the idea was first thought of in the Starwars defense program of the 1980s. So all it needs is a brief update and you have instant ASBM defense for the fleet



---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 PM ----------

In case there is any question as to where the power will come from for these energy hungry railgun weapons. consider what the USN is considering for their new classes of ships:

"......abstract

In recent years, the Congress has shown interest in powering some of the Navy's future destroyers and amphibious warfare ships with nuclear rather than conventional (petroleum-based) fuel. In this study, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the difference in life-cycle costs (the total costs incurred for a ship, from acquisition through operations to disposal) between powering those new surface ships with nuclear reactors and equipping them with conventional engines.

The U.S. Navy plans to build a number of new surface ships in the coming decades, according to its most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan. All of the Navy's aircraft carriers (and submarines) are powered by nuclear reactors; its other surface combatants are powered by engines that use conventional petroleum-based fuels. The Navy could save money on fuel in the future by purchasing additional nuclear-powered ships rather than conventionally powered ships. Those savings in fuel costs, however, would be offset by the additional up-front costs required for the procurement of nuclear-powered ships."

This is an interesting article that points out several issues that are not much discussed about the Chinese AShBM. One is the direct threat to the flattops of Korea and Japan that do play a role in the regional struggle for exploitation rights of natural maritime resources. These ships have far less protection against the Chinese threats than the mighty US carriers and can for this reason be considered rather the targets of opportunity in order to diminish US-allied sea-control.
Futhermore, the author points out that China is vulnerable to conventional US strikes that could destroy their nuclear delivery capability. That's an issue that frequently surfaces and China is very lucky that Russia always saves them by declaring that such conventional strikes could be misconceived as nuclear starts or that a correspondingly strong missile defense would threaten their own capabilities. Part of these conventional strikes could be US AShBM adaption in order to strike at Chinese flattops & Co.

Kurt said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is an interesting article that points out several issues that are not much discussed about the Chinese AShBM. One is the direct threat to the flattops of Korea and Japan that do play a role in the regional struggle for exploitation rights of natural maritime resources. These ships have far less protection against the Chinese threats than the mighty US carriers and can for this reason be considered rather the targets of opportunity in order to diminish US-allied sea-control.

Click to expand...

the AShBM has been primary designed to deal with USN carrier not again japan and korea flattops.

Futhermore, the author points out that China is vulnerable to conventional US strikes that could destroy their nuclear delivery capability.

Click to expand...

huh, is he serious? has he considered all the implications that may arise from such attempt?

Kurt said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is an interesting article that points out several issues that are not much discussed about the Chinese AShBM. One is the direct threat to the flattops of Korea and Japan that do play a role in the regional struggle for exploitation rights of natural maritime resources. These ships have far less protection against the Chinese threats than the mighty US carriers and can for this reason be considered rather the targets of opportunity in order to diminish US-allied sea-control.

Click to expand...

There's no reason the why ASHBM couldn't be used against non american flattops, but if they're close than 500 km then it may be easier to use long range cruise missiles instead.

Futhermore, the author points out that China is vulnerable to conventional US strikes that could destroy their nuclear delivery capability. That's an issue that frequently surfaces and China is very lucky that Russia always saves them by declaring that such conventional strikes could be misconceived as nuclear starts or that a correspondingly strong missile defense would threaten their own capabilities. Part of these conventional strikes could be US AShBM adaption in order to strike at Chinese flattops & Co.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how this is relevant to the previous paragraph.

That's an old article. I put that in the category of, "No duh!" The only people making it seem like the ASBM is just to counter US carriers are Americans. It amazes me the narrow thinking and level of narcissism involved here. No wonder China gets a bad rap is because fear born out of ignorance is about looking at themselves and seeing everyone else as worse to comfort them from reality.

s002wjh said:

there are fundenmental difference between anti-ship cruise missile vs AsBM. lesser range, speed, multiple sensor. cruise missile can use various sensor not just RF. ir uv visual etc. speed/distance is different too. the fact is lower speed, closer distance, more sensor type give the anti-ship missile better chance to track the target than AsBM. slower speed mean the real time processor doesn't has to be realtime. also AsCM its not design only hit carrier, which mean it can use passive sensor.

also those challenges is not solved, it never test under heavy jamming condition if its use RF sensor. its not like its go up against a single ship no jamming etc. its against an CVBG

Click to expand...

That is true, but not entirely.

Long range cruise missile ranges: 3000-4000 km
CEP of precision strike cruise missiles: 10 m
Supersonic cruise missile speeds: Mach 3-4.5

The thing is, real time processors have to be real time; even sidewinder heat seekers are analog real time. The response rate of supersonic missiles even if they are 1/3 as fast as terminal ballistic missiles needs to respond in milliseconds. I believe modern fly by wire controls for supersonic fighter jets makes around 200 adjustments per second or a system response rate of 5 millisecond, a supersonic cruise missile might need a response rate of 1 millisecond, while BrahMos II mach 7 cruise missile.... will probably need a 0.1 millisecond response rate.

So range wise, a 3000 km to 4000 km AsCM missile need more or less the same over the horizon tracking stations as a AsBM would need.

Why do you think that a AsBM can only rely on RF terminal sensors? technically you can use other sensors such as IR as well.

And why is the AsBM only against carriers? you can still use it to sink oil tankers; just saying.

Lezt said:

That is true, but not entirely.

Long range cruise missile ranges: 3000-4000 km
CEP of precision strike cruise missiles: 10 m
Supersonic cruise missile speeds: Mach 3-4.5

The thing is, real time processors have to be real time; even sidewinder heat seekers are analog real time. The response rate of supersonic missiles even if they are 1/3 as fast as terminal ballistic missiles needs to respond in milliseconds. I believe modern fly by wire controls for supersonic fighter jets makes around 200 adjustments per second or a system response rate of 5 millisecond, a supersonic cruise missile might need a response rate of 1 millisecond, while BrahMos II mach 7 cruise missile.... will probably need a 0.1 millisecond response rate.

So range wise, a 3000 km to 4000 km AsCM missile need more or less the same over the horizon tracking stations as a AsBM would need.

Why do you think that a AsBM can only rely on RF terminal sensors? technically you can use other sensors such as IR as well.

And why is the AsBM only against carriers? you can still use it to sink oil tankers; just saying.

Click to expand...

well for IR to work properly the radiation has to be lower than its target/ambient temperture, which when the missile is travelling much higher than the speed of sound which make it impossible. due to fraction of air, and enclosure compartment. its not only the IR sensor generate heat, but also other system in the missile. and those heat has to dissipate/aborb somehow.

i'm assuming AsBM gonna hit high value targets, carrier, in that case it needs ID the ship and track it, the ID part require more sophiscate algorithm in the real time processor, thus the performance processor has to be top notch to do real time.

A missile seeker might be given a bottle of liquid nitrogen to be used to cool the seeker and its window. Just shape the head so that not too much heated air streams over that window so looking out is not too difficult.

delft said:

A missile seeker might be given a bottle of liquid nitrogen to be used to cool the seeker and its window. Just shape the head so that not too much heated air streams over that window so looking out is not too difficult.

Click to expand...

the missile head is not gonna made with glass type material. i don't think any ballistic missile has a glass type nose in front for good reason, i could be wrong. also vibration, g-force is not an ideal environment for puting LN2 in a enclosed cone. the LN2 will evaporate into a gas form upon contact with heat. IR will have the same issue as RF, which is how to ID the carrier vs other ships, the algorithms gotta be pretty advanced to do that.

either way its better to use RF active seeker than IR, RF usually has further range/better resolution compare to IR, active emitter with frequency hopping, pulse modulation, pulse on pulse technique are diffcult to jam.