China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[ougoah]

A LEO satellite is 100% on a ballistic trajectory though so once you have the orbit fixed there's very little lateral movement of the target you have to account for.

A manoeuvring AShBM warhead is going to be all over the place just from the fact that it's constantly adjusting its trajectory to home in on the target, never mind if it's doing any active avoidance.

It's not a problem that can't be overcome, but I suspect at this time there's no platform with the right mix of performance charaistics because no one took it seriously enough until now. To fill in this hole will require many years, in the mean time what are you going to do in the western pacific?

And that's not taking into account wild cards like DF-ZF. Who's to say there won't be an AShBM version of DF-17, if it's not already capable of being used this way.

Yep a steerable moving warhead of course makes it harder to impossible as the software cannot possibly compute new interception points fast enough. I understand this but I was referring to the argument from speed. Maneuvering warhead is the next conversation and I believe if that's genuine, it really places the likelihood of intercepting with traditional missiles impossible. They'll need some sort of new age flak CIWS approach to cover vast swathes of airspace or really serious proximity warheads.

Lower speed does not always mean it cannot intercept something flying faster. S-400, HQ-9 etc all have some ballistic missile interception abilities even though the warheads they intercept are much faster. Even smaller point defence AD systems can do this to warheads in ballistic trajectories where the calculated interception point is within reach and within the reaction and flight timeframes. WRT SM-6 terminal phase interception attempts (so no SM-3 mid-course interception), it is theoretically possible when someone previously said it is an impossibility because of speed. It isn't a matter of pure speed but the fact that the payload carried maneuvers around. Missiles continuously update interception points and usually the trick with defeating them is to bleed them of energy. In the case here, the strategy is to use a combination of hypersonic speeds (>Mach 10) with the trick of constantly getting the missile to turn as it updates interception points. These AShBM will undoubtedly be used with HGV anti ship missiles. Ballistic and wave riding hypersonics along with saturation wave attacks. The USN would need 200 AEGIS and thousands upon thousands of SM-6 and ESSM to stand half a chance.

I think the Americans saw this coming and aren't dumb enough to stand still or counter with greater numbers. Apparently they've got something called NEMESIS which F-16 forum and Drive Warzone fanboys hype up like some extraterrestrial technology lol. Who knows, the Americans are no Indians after all.

 

[horse]

Speed only matters when the approaches differ. For example if the interceptor is trying to catch its target then it needs obviously to have superior speed and range at the very least. Here the case is entirely different and more similar to let's say an ASAT missile destroying a LEO satellite traveling MANY times faster than the kinetic kill warhead. How is that done if there is such a variance in speed. Because velocity allows for interception. So with SM-6 and AShBM, it is far from impossible just considering speed and the trajectory of the warhead.

I am not an engineer, but I think I can say this will full confidence.

The higher the speeds, the lower the margin for error.

With razor thin margins for errors, expect many unsuccessful intercepts. This is rocket science after all.

When Iran attacked Saudi oil facilities, everything got through.

I cannot believe that the Americans have something that can intercept a Mach 10 target, that their interceptor can go further, and faster, and be more accurate. That is just not believable at the moment.

If the kill rate is 50%, then that is kind of useless missile defense against AShBM.

 

[ougoah]

On the conversation of killing CBGs, without any secret super weapon, the dozens of cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles in saturation attacks by PLAN, PLAAF, and coastal units is probably more than enough for the USN. The only issue is they will be launching all those fighters and outranging Chinese launch platforms. So they will be forcing PLAN and PLAAF into an air war while they attack those Chinese launching platforms. Virginia and Seawolf are also going to be a real headache for PLAN the entire time they're fighting off F-35s and F-18s while PLAAF is kept busy in the air. This situation really demands the PLA have something that can supplement the existing forces while PLANAF + PLAAF is being built up.

 

[ougoah]

I am not an engineer, but I think I can say this will full confidence.

The higher the speeds, the lower the margin for error.

With razor thin margins for errors, expect many unsuccessful intercepts. This is rocket science after all.

When Iran attacked Saudi oil facilities, everything got through.

I cannot believe that the Americans have something that can intercept a Mach 10 target, that their interceptor can go further, and faster, and be more accurate. That is just not believable at the moment.

If the kill rate is 50%, then that is kind of useless missile defense against AShBM.

I'm aware the near vertical attacks from these AShBM and their immense speed certainly add to making them difficult/impossible to intercept with meaningful success (I assume PLA will throw dozens at each carrier along with hundreds of missiles and dozens of HGVs lol).

Just saying speed! so it's almost impossible, is worthy of responding to though. If speed and lower margins for error were this difficult to overcome, how did China perform a kinetic kill ASAT on its very first attempt... in 2007 something never before done by any nation as well (Soviet nuclear proximity warhead isn't quite comparable to KE kill with those relative velocities). The American F-15 delivered ASAT is actually quite impressive in the interception as well being a kinetic kill so the mathematical envelope makes it impressive.

Razor thing margins were overcome decades ago with very pathetic computing, software, and radars by today's standards and the US has already publicly announced they are developing counters to HGVs and presumably AShBMs as well now they know for a fact they work properly... and have known for about 10 years. I worry what they'll do once they are confident in countering ballistic missiles and HGVs. Will PLA have the next step ready by then? In fact if it were me and my shaky nerves lol I'd have attacked the USN the next time they're within reach and just invent a justification or false flag like they always do. If they escalate, they are escalating without their long stick and nuclear annihilation is certainly something they'll avoid particularly if I have thousands of warheads to return. I'd have done this as soon as AShBM and HGVs are ready to destroy whatever USN fleet is in the area. It certainly changes everything but this is that moment.

 

[no_name]

Fun mental exercise:

Is it harder to hit a maneuvering aircraft carrier with a ballistic maneuverable re-entry warhead or to intercept said warhead with another missile?

You can't argue first one is hard but take it for granted the second would just work out.

 

[Max Demian]

China will have SSKs out there ready silently waiting to sink every ship that comes by before they get into range. And what about Chinese subs that could launch an ASBM and YJs? There will be nowhere within carrier strike range of China that is safe. THAAD will be pointing towards China. All the action will be behind it.

SSKs with AIP are great for laying ambushes in choke points, but they cannot hope to intercept a carrier strike group in the vast stretches of ocean 2000+ km from the mainland. They just don’t have the speed and endurance. They would need to know perhaps days in advance where the enemy will be to position themselves, and even then they might only get within missile launch range. Given the small number of tubes per SSK, you would need a very large number of subs in range to pose a credible threat (20+?) against AEGIS. That makes the prospect of such an attack even less plausible.

But as I said before, if you are able to track a carrier strike group then you have already defeated it.

 

[Max Demian]

Fun mental exercise:

Is it harder to hit a maneuvering aircraft carrier with a ballistic maneuverable re-entry warhead or to intercept said warhead with another missile?

You can't argue first one is hard but take it for granted the second would just work out.

SM-3 interceptor will attempt an exoathmospheric kill using IR terminal guidance. It is so accurate in those conditions that it doesn’t even need an explosive warhead: it kills by collision.

A HV glider could make that more difficult since it can travel farther within the atmosphere where it is presumably safe from SM-3. However, the latest variant of SM-3 can engage targets at 2500km range, which is well beyond the glide segment of the BM flight trajectory. It might just come down to who has more missiles, and that exchange favors China.

 

[Totoro]

Raytheon, maker of SM-6, states one of its intended roles is anti ballistic missile capabilities. SM-6 performed successful intercepts of medium range ballistic missile in its terminal stage, there are 3 such tests known. I would wager that's the only plausible role for it, though. Only terminal stage interceptions.

But that's block IA. Block IB will feature the same wide missile body that SM-3 block 2 uses, increasing speed and reach. SM-3 block 2 is in production and deliveries may be ongoing.

Initial SM-3 variant has 8.8 mach top speed, while the block 2 will increase that to mach 13.
While SM-6 shares the booster, overall propulsion on missile itself may not be the same. But is likely not a slow missile nevertheless. And the block IB will likely be even faster.

ESSM block 2, with a wider rocket motor, is also sometimes mentioned as having limited anti ballistic capabilities. Even if DF-21D is mostly out of its reach, smaller stuff like air launched ballistic missiles or VLS launched ones might be interceptable to some degree.

 

[Karthi]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ougoah]

Raytheon, maker of SM-6, states one of its intended roles is anti ballistic missile capabilities. SM-6 performed successful intercepts of medium range ballistic missile in its terminal stage, there are 3 such tests known. I would wager that's the only plausible role for it, though. Only terminal stage interceptions.

But that's block IA. Block IB will feature the same wide missile body that SM-3 block 2 uses, increasing speed and reach. SM-3 block 2 is in production and deliveries may be ongoing.

Initial SM-3 variant has 8.8 mach top speed, while the block 2 will increase that to mach 13.
While SM-6 shares the booster, overall propulsion on missile itself may not be the same. But is likely not a slow missile nevertheless. And the block IB will likely be even faster.

ESSM block 2, with a wider rocket motor, is also sometimes mentioned as having limited anti ballistic capabilities. Even if DF-21D is mostly out of its reach, smaller stuff like air launched ballistic missiles or VLS launched ones might be interceptable to some degree.

Tor M1, HQ-17, HQ-16 are all mentioned to have anti ballistic capabilities. ESSM certainly does as well. All of these are in excess of mach 4 max speed. If the geometry of the trajectory works, then intercepts are entirely possibly. The AShBM just make it hard by approaching from the top which means interceptors need to basically climb the whole time and lose energy for climb and serious turning because of the maneuvering warhead.