China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Jura The idiot]

I would not be as sure about that. It used to be there were communication blackouts when talking with manned reentry vehicles like capsules.
Then someone had the idea to put an antenna on the backside of the reentry vehicle, i.e. the side opposite to the plasma shroud, then bounce the signal around with the aid of a satellite in an upper orbit. A couple years back I think I read someone had solved the issue completely, namely that there was a specific frequency band which could be transmitted through the plasma. Sorry but I can't remember where I read this.

This NASA paper talks about the communications blackout problem but I don't remember where I read about the new research.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL I knew the time would come when I need to contact
gelgoog
:
what's your "specific frequency band which could be transmitted through the plasma" please

 

[Blitzo]

Those battleships were sunk because the opposing aircraft carrying bombs as well as submarines armed with torpedoes could get within striking range. A US aircraft carrier never sails alone. There is a reason why a carrier battlegroup is required (Destroyers, Cruisers, submarines, Aircrafts, and more). If it was just the carrier, then no need of fancy ASBM. A bunch of JH-7 and H-6 armed with anti-ship missiles and a few 039 SSK can sink it. Sinking a carrier requires bypassing multiple layers of countermeasures those old battleships did not have.

I'm not sure why he talks about the yamato rather than carrier on carrier engagements in WWII when divebombers proved their worth in engaging carriers and their associated escorts and CAPs.

The trajectory of divebomber munitions is much more similar to that of AShBMs as well (compared to say, most anti ship cruise missiles).



Much has also been said of the kinematic difficulty in hitting a moving carrier with a hypersonic projectile, however I do wonder about that.
The relative speed of a 30+ knot surface ship vs a mach 7 MaRV in the terminal stage with its own onboard terminal guidance and presumably an ability to conduct terminal end game maneuvers of its own, makes me question how effective evasive maneuvers of a surface ship at that speed would be.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity because I have yet to see any studies investigating this.

As far as relative velocities go, I think a Mach 7 MaRV vs a 30+ knot ship is much more favourable than say, many of the missile vs moving target match ups that have been demonstrated or tested in other domains such as supersonic AShMs vs surface ships, or even ATGMs vs moving vehicles (trucks and so on).

Instead, I think what is more relevant is the degree of terminal maneuvrability of an AShBM warhead vehicle (along with the fidelity of its terminal onboard guidance). Those two factors will determine the CEP of the warhead and the ability to exploit the massive difference (and I would argue advantage) in speed that the AShBM terminal vehicle has vs a 30+ knot surface ship.

 

[styx]

i think that the example of "chinese asbm vs us carrier" is more like "german guided bomb vs Corazzata Roma" when a two german guided bomb fritz x sinked the best ship in italian navy.

 

[AndrewS]

i don't think that a us carrier is so a difficult target for asbm, they have a terrible kinetic energy and remember that during ww2 americans sinked the yamato (armored battleship) with a dozen 250 kg bomb and six torpedoes.

There are 2 ways that warships are normally destroyed. Flooding or fire.

ASBMs aren't going to hole the waterline and cause significant flooding.

And creating a major fire requires the ASBM to ignite fuel and ordnance already on the carrier.
There may be aircraft parked on the deck, in which case the ball bearing cluster warhead should be sufficient to ignite any aviation fuel and then ordnance.
Plus we've already seen an ASBM with what looks like an armour piercing head, so it may be feasible to penetrate to the hanger deck.

And if you look at the history of US aircraft carrier fires, and the improvements since then, it is a lot more difficult for fires to spread.

 

[Jura The idiot]

i think that the example of "chinese asbm vs us carrier" is more like "german guided bomb vs Corazzata Roma" when a two german guided bomb fritz x sinked the best ship in italian navy.

this thread is hilarious,
styx
Fritz-X guidance was solved by Luftwaffe rather long time ago:

(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

but I'm not sure if the Chinese now would use it in the Dong-Feng AShBM LOL

 

[AndrewS]

I'm not sure why he talks about the yamato rather than carrier on carrier engagements in WWII when divebombers proved their worth in engaging carriers and their associated escorts and CAPs.

The trajectory of divebomber munitions is much more similar to that of AShBMs as well (compared to say, most anti ship cruise missiles).



Much has also been said of the kinematic difficulty in hitting a moving carrier with a hypersonic projectile, however I do wonder about that.
The relative speed of a 30+ knot surface ship vs a mach 7 MaRV in the terminal stage with its own onboard terminal guidance and presumably an ability to conduct terminal end game maneuvers of its own, makes me question how effective evasive maneuvers of a surface ship at that speed would be.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity because I have yet to see any studies investigating this.

As far as relative velocities go, I think a Mach 7 MaRV vs a 30+ knot ship is much more favourable than say, many of the missile vs moving target match ups that have been demonstrated or tested in other domains such as supersonic AShMs vs surface ships, or even ATGMs vs moving vehicles (trucks and so on).

Instead, I think what is more relevant is the degree of terminal maneuvrability of an AShBM warhead vehicle (along with the fidelity of its terminal onboard guidance). Those two factors will determine the CEP of the warhead and the ability to exploit the massive difference (and I would argue advantage) in speed that the AShBM terminal vehicle has vs a 30+ knot surface ship.

Let's give it a try with a back of the envelope calculation.

1. Last guidance in space before plasma sheath appears during reentry

Let's say this starts at 80km, as per the Space Shuttle
A Mach 7 MaRV takes 41seconds to impact
In that time, a carrier travelling at 30knots (55km/h) travels 626m.
But in 41 seconds at full speed, how much can a carrier turn direction? An 8KM turning circle has been mentioned, which is 523seconds.
A carrier travelling at slower speeds can turn faster, but won't travel as far.
That narrows the target area further.

That gets a Mach 7 MaRV close to a carrier, possibly good enough for a wide dispersion cluster warhead to score hits.
I reckon this is a backup mode, if the MaRV can't obtain terminal guidance.

Otherwise the MaRV would go for a tighter dispersion of cluster munitions with terminal guidance.
So there is the armour piercing MaRV body, plus cluster munitions.

2. Terminal Guidance

A Mach 7 MaRV will cover the last 10km in 5 seconds before impacting.
In that time, a carrier could travel 152m, but again the target area is smaller than this because the carrier can't change direction in only 5 seconds.

And an aircraft carrier has a deck width of 76m.
A Peacekeeper warhead has a CEP of 40m, presumably from its attitude control jets and internal inertial guidance.
The Mach 7 Iskander MaRV is supposed to have a 5m-30m CEP with its terminal guidance.
Plus we also see Air-to-Air missiles with attitude control jets for terminal manoeuvres against manoeuvring fighter jets.

2A. Remote Terminal Guidance

Also remember that the space shuttle could communicate with satellites during reentry, because the plasma shroud didn't cover the back of the aircraft.
And we've seen technical diagrams with antenna protruding from the back of a MaRV beyond the plasma shroud.
So theoretically a MaRV could be remotely guided by external sensors to the target point.


2B. Local Terminal Guidance

But external sensors and comms can be jammed or destroyed.
Plus there is the feedback loop and communications lag
So the MaRV should also has its own radar seeker for terminal guidance.
That seeker only has to look at a small target box, and the attitude control jets should be sufficient to adjust the final aimpoint

 

[Jura The idiot]

Let's give it a try with a back of the envelope calculation.

1. Last guidance in space before plasma sheath appears during reentry

Let's say this starts at 80km, ...

... and around this point in time I should've seen an SM-6 on its way, if I had been with the targeted CVGB

 

[Jura The idiot]

here:

..., how much can a carrier turn direction? ...

my bluff is the target would be zigzagging at her max. speed

(because? because this could cause an issue to course-based targeting, it's in Campbell's Naval Weapons of WWOne LOL in the salvo-firing context, not AShBMs context, but the algorithm at some point has to assume something if you know what I'm saying)

 

[Jura The idiot]

here:

...
That seeker only has to look at a small target box, ...

an issue could be to discriminate between the CVGB ships (in short, a carrier has a higher RCS than her escorts, but not THAT MUCH higher, under the circumstances)

but of course, even if they hit a Tico or Burke instead, it'd mean War

cheers

 

[ougoah]

If AshBM are being fired at carriers, it would either have been a state of war or in preparation of an inevitable attack. If the technical problems presented in the last three pages were not solved with plenty enough redundancy and margin of acceptable error, we wouldn't have witnessed PLA pursue and induct several types of AshBMs (perhaps also technology generations) over a decade that we already know of. The very fact that we do, goes far towards proving these technical barriers have long ago been very soundly resolved. The reason the US does not use AshBM is obvious - there are no navies and threats to use them on. A totally reactionary weapon is a complete waste for a belligerent force that carries out the strikes against another acting in defense of a territory.

Of course you'll not find the solutions to these problems online. No one here knows and if any do, they won't be sharing no matter the bluff calling. But exercise some common sense. Why would PLA be spending billions fielding a totally useless weapon. Is PLA known for making expensive and useless purchases? No. Are they known for relative frugality? Yes. Do they cancel and reject plenty of weapons and un-proven/ bleeding edge technologies? Yes. Have they historically behaved in a way where they only purchase and field old tried and tested or at least technically proven weapons and technologies? Yes. Granted this is leaning towards the latter end of the spectrum, but considering it is such a "unique" weapon type, it cannot be as "battle proven" as a common assault rifle.

We can speculate on the how all we want here but in terms of asking whether or not it can hit a moving carrier. The answer is as close to a Yes as questions regarding military equipment can go. Is the F-35 effective? Will Anti-Ballistic Missiles work as designed and tested in real life against enemy warheads that could not be simulated by private interest companies only after profit? The questions go on.