Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Skywatcher · Mar 31, 2013

Umm, you do realize that a KEI ABM interceptor doesn't have to worry about drag and actually has manuvering jets?

ABM and ASnBM are not remotely the same thing.

And I wouldn't count too much on subcomponent testing. It's pretty hard to simulate the terminal speed of a DF-21 on a smaller missile (guess the relative speed of a SRBM to an IRBM).

Hendrik_2000 · Mar 31, 2013

Umm, you do realize that a KEI ABM interceptor doesn't have to worry about drag and actually has manuvering jets?

And you think that the MARV doesn't have manuvering jet?

ABM and ASnBM are not remotely the same thing

.

Right in fact it is easier to hit slow moving target then fast moving target

And I wouldn't count too much on subcomponent testing. It's pretty hard to simulate the terminal speed of a DF-21 on a smaller missile (guess the relative speed of a SRBM to an IRBM).

Why not ? I am talking about missile seeker and not guidance system. China have prove itself able to hit bullet by bullet that is what ABM And detecting object the size of refrigerator over a long distance. Now logic would tell us is easier to hit 300 m large body of mass than to hit 1m2 object

Let see how they test a new concept Jet fighter . They test the engine separately by mounting the intended engine on test platform. The missile is test by using different fighter . the same with radar and avionic. In Fact PLAAF have special built Y8 to test radar and avionic. The same thing with ship. They have built specially design ship to test radar and weapon

Skywatcher · Apr 1, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
And you think that the MARV doesn't have manuvering jet?

.

Right in fact it is easier to hit slow moving target then fast moving target

Not if you can't find the slow moving target, genius.

And guess what, at the high terminal speed of the AShBM, plasma effects will make it nigh impossible to guide the thing (you don't have to worry about that in the atmosphere)

Ballistic warheads travel on trajectories, they can't just zig and zag and reverse direction the way that a carrier group can and will. In the twenty or ten minutes it takes the AShBM to get to the position of the CVNG at launch, the CVNG could be anywhere in at least a 16 square mile grid.

Why not ? I am talking about missile seeker and not guidance system. China have prove itself able to hit bullet by bullet that is what ABM And detecting object the size of refrigerator over a long distance. Now logic would tell us is easier to hit 300 m large body of mass than to hit 1m2 object

The missile seeker is the key part of the guidance system! Unless you've somehow trained the 2nd Artillery to be prescient.

Because in space, you don't have to deal with the jamming and EW power coming from a carrier and its escorting destroyers, not to mention clutter from other maritime traffic.

duskylim · Apr 1, 2013

Skywatcher said:
Not if you can't find the slow moving target, genius.

And guess what, at the high terminal speed of the AShBM, plasma effects will make it nigh impossible to guide the thing (you don't have to worry about that in the atmosphere)

Ballistic warheads travel on trajectories, they can't just zig and zag and reverse direction the way that a carrier group can and will. In the twenty or ten minutes it takes the AShBM to get to the position of the CVNG at launch, the CVNG could be anywhere in at least a 16 square mile grid.

The missile seeker is the key part of the guidance system! Unless you've somehow trained the 2nd Artillery to be prescient.

Because in space, you don't have to deal with the jamming and EW power coming from a carrier and its escorting destroyers, not to mention clutter from other maritime traffic.

Yet it seems to me that even if the carrier battle group moved 4 miles (say 6.5 kilometers) away from it's initial position in that time span (implied from the 4x4 grid you deduce), from the point of view of re-entering missile descending from the upper atmosphere say from an altitude of 100+km, the actual amount of trajectory correction is quite small.

Lets see, if the altitude is 100 km and the side opposite is 6.5 km, then the angle of correction is at most 3.72 degrees - not really overwhelming control input course correction.

And because of the widely disparate relative velocities between the incoming missile and the carrier, any subsequent evasive maneuver by the carrier will always be on a smaller and smaller angular and time scales - requiring smaller and smaller proportional corrections for each.

Its sort of like a turtle trying to outrun an arrow - except the arrow can adjust it's trajectory and the turtle has friends that can shoot back.

Once you have solved the technical problem of hitting a satellite or ballistic missile warhead hitting a carrier is a much easier proposition.

The course corrections needed are trivial.

It really all boils down to acquiring and tracking the target and feeding the updated current location to the missile's seeker.

Hendrik's overwhelming point is if the Chinese have solved the problem of designing and deploying a system that can track and make a direct hit a relatively tiny target like a ballistic missile warhead which is moving at very high velocities - the challenge of striking an aircraft carrier underway is kinetically and dynamically much less.

s002wjh · Apr 1, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
We know that the people who work on the Anti Ballistic Missile system are the same people working on the ASBM and I repeat again if they can hit missile flying at 6000 mile/hour Aircraft carrier with speed of 30 knot is just stationary to me Yup child play

China’s anti-missile test successful: govt
Global Times | 2013-1-29 1:18:01
By Xu Tianran

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's second ground-based mid-course missile interceptor successfully completed an anti-missile test within Chinese territory on Sunday, hours after the US conducted a test flight of its own missile interceptor.

There were no details available on China's test except for the official announcement that "the test has reached the preset goal" and is "defensive in nature."

It was the second time that China announced such an anti-missile test. A similar test was successfully conducted on January 11, 2010.

Ground-based mid-course anti-missile tests, which involve highly complicated technology in detecting, tracking and destroying a ballistic missile flying in space, have only been attempted by China and the US.

The success of the test, together with a series of other military equipment achievements including China's first aircraft carrier and the maiden flight of the Y-20 large transport aircraft on Saturday, has demonstrated the country's fast-growing ability to defend its own national security and deter any possible threats, the Xinhua News Agency commented Monday.

A ballistic missile's mid-course phase begins after its engines burn out and the warhead begins coasting in space. After mid-course, the warhead of long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles will re-enter the atmosphere with a velocity of about 20 times the speed of sound, making it very difficult to intercept with current terminal-phase interception systems, according to Lan Yun, a military observer and editor with Modern Ships magazine.

Shao Yongling, a senior colonel from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Second Artillery Command College, told people.com.cn that China's ground-based mid-course interception test was aimed at intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the test's technical requirements were much higher than that of short- to medium-range missile defense systems.

and as i said before there is a big difference between det/tracking in the air vs det/tracking something with significant background clutter . also the terminal speed of ASBM is much higher. another issue is during terminal guidance, the missile sensor has to distinguish multiple ships from background clutter, the anti-missile doest have to worry about EW interference but the ASBM has to penetrate the CVBG EW, det/track carrier, distinguish the difference between carrier vs cruiser/ddg/or other in real time @ mach7+, provided if china can detect/track US cvbg in the 1st place under combat condition.

s002wjh · Apr 1, 2013

duskylim said:
Yet it seems to me that even if the carrier battle group moved 4 miles (say 6.5 kilometers) away from it's initial position in that time span (implied from the 4x4 grid you deduce), from the point of view of re-entering missile descending from the upper atmosphere say from an altitude of 100+km, the actual amount of trajectory correction is quite small.

Lets see, if the altitude is 100 km and the side opposite is 6.5 km, then the angle of correction is at most 3.72 degrees - not really overwhelming control input course correction.

And because of the widely disparate relative velocities between the incoming missile and the carrier, any subsequent evasive maneuver by the carrier will always be on a smaller and smaller angular and time scales - requiring smaller and smaller proportional corrections for each.

Its sort of like a turtle trying to outrun an arrow - except the arrow can adjust it's trajectory and the turtle has friends that can shoot back.

Once you have solved the technical problem of hitting a satellite or ballistic missile warhead hitting a carrier is a much easier proposition.

The course corrections needed are trivial.

It really all boils down to acquiring and tracking the target and feeding the updated current location to the missile's seeker.

Hendrik's overwhelming point is if the Chinese have solved the problem of designing and deploying a system that can track and make a direct hit a relatively tiny target like a ballistic missile warhead which is moving at very high velocities - the challenge of striking an aircraft carrier underway is kinetically and dynamically much less.

for interceptor, the anti-missile is guided by shipborne/satelite base on a KNOW trajectory, so the system can calcuate the point of impact before the missile reach that point.
for ASBM the area is small but it require real time processing. during terminal speed, communication between sat/asbm could be down, the real time delay cannot exceed seconds, otherwise its a miss, it has to constant update the position every few sec. putting a complex processing system in a warhead is always complicated when trave several G+, cooling is also a issue, the processor cann't exceed 80 degree C. there is alots issue need to be solved then just theoritical study on how the thing work. there is a reason a project include, system, software, hardare, firmware, mechnical, and other engineers. otherwise judging by that paper, we just need mathmatician, then we are all set.

suffice to say there is alot thing need to worked for the ASBM to find the target.

Skywatcher · Apr 1, 2013

duskylim said:
Yet it seems to me that even if the carrier battle group moved 4 miles (say 6.5 kilometers) away from it's initial position in that time span (implied from the 4x4 grid you deduce), from the point of view of re-entering missile descending from the upper atmosphere say from an altitude of 100+km, the actual amount of trajectory correction is quite small.

Lets see, if the altitude is 100 km and the side opposite is 6.5 km, then the angle of correction is at most 3.72 degrees - not really overwhelming control input course correction.

And because of the widely disparate relative velocities between the incoming missile and the carrier, any subsequent evasive maneuver by the carrier will always be on a smaller and smaller angular and time scales - requiring smaller and smaller proportional corrections for each.

Its sort of like a turtle trying to outrun an arrow - except the arrow can adjust it's trajectory and the turtle has friends that can shoot back.

Once you have solved the technical problem of hitting a satellite or ballistic missile warhead hitting a carrier is a much easier proposition.

The course corrections needed are trivial.

It really all boils down to acquiring and tracking the target and feeding the updated current location to the missile's seeker.

Hendrik's overwhelming point is if the Chinese have solved the problem of designing and deploying a system that can track and make a direct hit a relatively tiny target like a ballistic missile warhead which is moving at very high velocities - the challenge of striking an aircraft carrier underway is kinetically and dynamically much less.

Umm, no. Firstly, you're talking about a ballistic warhead, which at the very high speeds it's going at, won't have much in the ways of wing surface area or propellant to have much terminal maneuverability.

The area that the ASBM would have to adjust would be at least a circular area of over 700 square miles (1.15(5^2 X 3.14)), assuming that the carrier is going at 30 knots per hour and that it's ten minutes from launch to impact.

Now you could try to make some adjustments using midcourse corrections, but a ballistic missile doesn't have very much room for that, and its certainly not going to be enough to realistically cover a 700 square mile area that the carrier group could be anywhere in after ten minutes).

jobjed · Apr 1, 2013

Skywatcher said:
Umm, no. Firstly, you're talking about a ballistic warhead, which at the very high speeds it's going at, won't have much in the ways of wing surface area or propellant to have much terminal maneuverability.

The area that the ASBM would have to adjust would be at least a circular area of over 700 square miles (1.15(5^2 X 3.14)), assuming that the carrier is going at 30 knots per hour and that it's ten minutes from launch to impact.

Now you could try to make some adjustments using midcourse corrections, but a ballistic missile doesn't have very much room for that, and its certainly not going to be enough to realistically cover a 700 square mile area that the carrier group could be anywhere in after ten minutes).

That still only requires a 5.63 degrees adjustment from a 100km altitude. Steering 6 degrees in any direction shouldn't be a difficulty for the DF-21D considering that's its job. The DF-21D is especially designed to manoeuvre while reentering the earth's atmosphere and turning 6 degrees is not a very radical change at all.

Hendrik_2000 · Apr 1, 2013

Not if you can't find the slow moving target, genius.

And guess what, at the high terminal speed of the AShBM, plasma effects will make it nigh impossible to guide the thing (you don't have to worry about that in the atmosphere)

Ballistic warheads travel on trajectories, they can't just zig and zag and reverse direction the way that a carrier group can and will. In the twenty or ten minutes it takes the AShBM to get to the position of the CVNG at launch, the CVNG could be anywhere in at least a 16 square mile grid.

Apparently you didn't follow this thread closely go back couple of pages and read all the discussion about how to find carrier

MARV is a proven technology and In case you didn't know they have micro thruster that can adjust their path and directed to their target. Ballistic missile has 20-50 m accuracy Now how can they achieve this accuracy if they don't have guidance. So do your homework and not just blurted statement

The missile seeker is the key part of the guidance system! Unless you've somehow trained the 2nd Artillery to be prescient.

Because in space, you don't have to deal with the jamming and EW power coming from a carrier and its escorting destroyers, not to mention clutter from other maritime traffic.

They have update from satellite and UAV and the Chinese know how to harden their data link and CCEW is common practice in any missile design

Hendrik_2000 · Apr 1, 2013

s002wjh said:
and as i said before there is a big difference between det/tracking in the air vs det/tracking something with significant background clutter . also the terminal speed of ASBM is much higher. another issue is during terminal guidance, the missile sensor has to distinguish multiple ships from background clutter, the anti-missile doest have to worry about EW interference but the ASBM has to penetrate the CVBG EW, det/track carrier, distinguish the difference between carrier vs cruiser/ddg/or other in real time @ mach7+, provided if china can detect/track US cvbg in the 1st place under combat condition.

What kind of BS are you talking about cluttering what kind of cluttering you mean sea cluttering. They can be filtered out.I already post an article by Chinese scientist how to filtered out sea background go find it yourself You think that China doesn't know how to counter EW only US know how to do it you must be very naive. It is everyday problem in the world of data link and missile technology. You can make your frequency jump or add phase shift . That is how cell phone work

Carrier has very specific silhouette that distinguished it from other ships you can program the heat profile of the carrier into the seeker and program the seeker only to find those silhouette as soon as it reenter the atmosphere.

All this discussion is moot ASBM is already in operation period

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Skywatcher

Captain

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Skywatcher

Captain

duskylim

Junior Member

s002wjh

Junior Member

s002wjh

Junior Member

Skywatcher

Captain

jobjed

Captain

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General