And those links will get promptly jammed. Any more ideas?
The eternal battle of ECM vs ECCM, let's not get smug here.
And what exactly will be doing the jamming when the missile's flying in near space? the CVBG? or other satellites? Wut?
Not to mention actually knowing which satellites to jam not to mention back up data relay sats.
The issue we have been discussing is how advanced obscurants (smoke) like referred to below will be used to mask the CVN. You will notice that the discussion is directed towards ASBMs like the DF-21
And you will notice that these obscurants are designed to defend against terminal homing systems. Like those that would be used by DF-21
Take note of the bold portion of the quote:
"......The application of obscurants on the modern battlefield has been widely examined by U.S. Army strategists and operators for over a decade and a half; (2) obscurants are firmly imbedded in U.S. Army doctrine. (3) Moreover, the effectiveness of obscurants against a panoply of terminal homing systems, from the visual to the millimeter-wave spectrum, is proven. In simple terms, the particles suspended in the medium of smoke can be adjusted in size to absorb and diffuse radar waves emanating from the seeker heads of incoming antiship missiles, thereby denying any homing information to the missile. In the modern naval battle space, where antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) are a principal threat, adapting obscurant systems and developing tactics and operational schemes for their use at sea is prudent. Given the stark potential of antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), this adaptation may be essential....."
Goodness, I was replying to your talk about weather not smoke, inhibiting DF-21D's terminal guidance. At least reply to my correct reply... -__-
As for a counter to smoke based counter measures, I assume adopting a type of multi mode sensor head and/or radar working in bands to see through such obscurants. Easier said than done of course but hardly undo able I imagine -- it's like the battle of radar vs stealth, neither can claim total victory.
---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------
Good let him maneuver. Now the warhead has to somehow get back on track and find the carrier. Actually to be fair there would be multiple SM-3 interceptors just to make things hard for the DF-21.
It would get back on track by data relay satellites guiding it... And to be fair let's say there are multiple DF-21's as well. And let's MiRV them as some analysts have claimed for the DF-21C.
Surely you do not think the CVN will make things easy for the ASBM. The more he maneuvers the more he will have to use active sensors to search for the carrier. And going active helps the CVN and her escorts
I dont' think you get the AShBM's kill chain, its active sensors only go active in the terminal phase.
1: Sensor assets find/track carrier, sends data back to AShBM launch.
2: Confirm target etc etc, fire missile.
3: Midcourse flight in near space conducting evasive maneuvers. Sensor assets keeps tracking carrier, sends data back to AShBM, mid course correction -- yes yes ECM/jamming etc. I want to add that mid course correction by data link from other sensor assets is one of the main reasons AShBM can work -- if the missile was fired at the location the carrier is where sensor assets identifies it, the carrier would be dozens, or even hundreds of kilometers away. I assumed you knew this, otherwise you wouldn't think evasive maneuvers of AShBM would need to be "corrected" -- even without evasive maneuvers AShBM would need to be "corrected" anyway! And how exactly do you think AShBM will use its own (relatively weak compared to satellites) sensors from near space flight would search for a carrier anyway? It's ridiculous!
4: Terminal phase. Once guided over the CVBG from near space, AShBM's own sensors go active and descends.
