Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Hendrik_2000 · Apr 4, 2013

Skywatcher said:
The electrophilic injection is still in research (geez, do you also believe Russian/EU claims of using the MiG-31 and EF-2000 to shoot down F-22s and J-20s?)

And you'll also have to shrink those space comm systems onto the size of a warhead? Has that been done before? And it's pretty obvious that a Space Shuttle is completely different from a ballistic warhead, which is a logical fallacy on your part.

And what the hell does the Tianlian have to do with anything? I didn't say China didn't have a satellite comm network, you nit.

A 4.5 min means 2.25 nautical miles for the radius of the circle. 1.15(2.25) = 2.6. 2.6 X 1.6 = 4.16 km. (4.16^2)3.14 = 54 km2. Guess we were both wrong on that regards.

And this 2013 book from Tsinghua University Press actually talks about communicating with a ballistic warhead during reentry. Chapter 2 states on Page 14 that after leaving the black out phase, there is only 3 secs for remeasurement. They suggest replacing the current PCM-PPK system with a PCM-FM system, which as of this year, has not been tested.

Proceedings of the 26th Conference of Spacecraft TT&C Technology in China:Shared and Flexible TT&C (Tracking, Telemetry and Command) Systems
Chapter Two: "Investigation of a Novel Reentry Telemetry System"
Xingwen Ding, Ming Chen, Xifu Huang and Ling Wu

Chapter 2 states on Page 14 that after leaving the black out phase (note how the complete lack of claim on a plasma sheath proof comm system for a warhead), there is only 3 secs for remeasurement/communications. They suggest replacing the current PCM-PPK system with a PCM-FM system, which as of this year, has not been tested.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So I take it that Ding, Chen, Huang and Wu don't know about "A combination of shape , ablative material will beat plasma sheathing" and satellite relays?

Again you are grasping straw in the wind . This article like so many thousand article has no relation to ASBM program. From the way it is written It is telemetry for garden variety of Ballistic missile that China regularly tested. The article proposed way to improve the telemetry system nothing more. Don't read too much into it

The ablative material might be research program in US because they don't have urgent need for it. It might already in operation in China who know. The point to be made is that so called plasma sheathing is not an impossibility to punch thru. It is a challenge but there are myriad way to overcome it You just have to do your homework.

Given right combination of Shape and material you can punch thru the so called plasma sheathing as proven by the space shuttle.

So the article you posted has no relevance to ASBM program a all. You just read to much simpleton forum to believe the myth. Sorry your argument doesn't hold water

Skywatcher · Apr 4, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
Again you are grasping straw in the wind . This article like so many thousand article has no relation to ASBM program. From the way it is written It is telemetry for garden variety of Ballistic missile that China regularly tested. The article proposed way to improve the telemetry system nothing more. Don't read too much into it

The ablative material might be research program in US because they don't have urgent need for it. It might already in operation in China who know. The point to be made is that so called plasma sheathing is not an impossibility to punch thru. It is a challenge but there are myriad way to overcome it You just have to do your homework.

Given right combination of Shape and material you can punch thru the so called plasma sheathing as proven by the space shuttle.

So the article you posted has no relevance to ASBM program a all. You just read to much simpleton forum to believe the myth. Sorry your argument doesn't hold water

Let me explain this so simply that even you could understand.

What holds for a ballistic missile also holds for AShBMs as well as to other "garden variety ballistic missiles". If it was possible already to communicate during that "blackout phase" there would be no need for Chinese scientists from the top missile research bodies to go and invent a new way to transmit in those last three seconds before impact (because you could just transmit continuously during the blackout phase). They'd just simply use the magical "right combination of Shape and material".

Simple enough for you?

If China has the ablative material, then prove it. The burden of proof is upon you since you made that claim. Or are you too cowardly/pathetic to back it up?

The reason that the space shuttle can communicate during reentry is because it (and the Shenzhou) has a much larger upper body surface area that the plasma sheath will not act upon (or if so, not so extensively). The Space Shuttle Orbiter has at least 314 square meters (which is very conservative, as it treats the upper body as 2-D).

In contrast, the rear of the DF-21D warhead has an area of 1.53 square meters.

Guess what, antenna power and reception is related to its size. And with the DF-21D warhead, you still have to burn through all that ionized plasma washing over it.

Sorry that the laws of physics have taken your pseudo-argument and given it the death of a thousand slices, followed by putting it in a jail cell next to Chen Shui Bian, with an audio book of Gordan Chang's magnum opus playing on a 24/7/365 loop.

Skywatcher · Apr 4, 2013

solarz said:
So now you think the DF-21D exists only in the imagination of fanboys?

The very article you brought up suggests that there is a 3-second window for any final targeting adjustment. The article is proposing how to *improve* that window.

The DF-21D is essentially Marshals Nie and Sundarji's (sp?) warfighting by deterrence (that may be putting it too crudely) applied to long range conventional strike. And a brilliant piece of feeding onto your opponent's fears/directing them away from possibly more potent long term threats. And it most likely can hit a 400 square meter target on say, Guam, or a stationary CVN. Emphasis on stationary.

Sure you could shoot a few hundred DF-21Ds to have a significant chance of sinking a CVN (you'd need at least several hits to make sure you at least get a mission kill).

The idea is to simply make sure that people in places like say, Taipei, won't escalate things because while the DF-21D can't realistically sink a CVN, it is just credible enough that it has raised the threshold of action for the U.S. (or at least in the minds of say, let's say, Hanoi). If people in Asia feel that they are less likely to get U.S. support (regardless of what the USN may plan to do), they are less likely to do things to irritate Beijing that could start wars, thus ceding the strategic initiative to China.

And on that count, it has performed admirably.

Yes, there is the 3 second window, but in the 57 seconds of the black out, you probably won't be anywhere near the CVN's current location by then.

Hendrik_2000 · Apr 4, 2013

What holds for a ballistic missile also holds for AShBMs as well as to other "garden variety ballistic missiles". If it was possible already to communicate during that "blackout phase" there would be no need for Chinese scientists from the top missile research bodies to go and invent a new way to transmit in those last three seconds before impact (because you could just transmit continuously during the blackout phase). They'd just simply use the magical "right combination of Shape and material".

Why don't you ask that question to the Chinese who knows maybe they used it for tracking purpose to verify the missile test. Once again you try to link an article to ASBM when clearly there is no linkage

If China has the ablative material, then prove it. The burden of proof is upon you since you made that claim. Or are you too cowardly/pathetic to back it up?

The article dated from 2006 and the world has move since then. Clearly ONI and Admiral Willard know better than you do to testify that China has workable ASBM. Just a cursory search on Google generate hundred of paper on ablative material and black out and you think that the Chinese are ignorant on this subject . Clearly you are out of touch with this world

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The reason that the space shuttle can communicate during reentry is because it (and the Shenzhou) has a much larger upper body surface area that the plasma sheath will not act upon (or if so, not so extensively). The Space Shuttle Orbiter has at least 314 square meters (which is very conservative, as it treats the upper body as 2-D).

Volume has no relation but body shape does as the article clearly said

I

n contrast, the rear of the DF-21D warhead has an area of 1.53 square meters.

An you are privy to Chinese secret to know exactly the dimension of DF-21D

jobjed · Apr 4, 2013

Skywatcher said:
Sure you could shoot a few hundred DF-21Ds to have a significant chance of sinking a CVN (you'd need at least several hits to make sure you at least get a mission kill).

A few tonnes travelling at mach 10 is more than enough to mission-kill ANYTHING if it hits. Several hits will ensure not just a mission-kill but disintergration of the vessel.

luhai · Apr 5, 2013

This one says it all, it's primarily a deterrence weapon. When in use, it is will be part of a coordinated attack. But then, if it is used in an attack, it means it has failed its primary purpose.
[video=youtube;en_tqlaOeqw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en_tqlaOeqw[/video]

solarz · Apr 5, 2013

Skywatcher said:
Yes, there is the 3 second window, but in the 57 seconds of the black out, you probably won't be anywhere near the CVN's current location by then.

Alright, let's do a bit of calculation.

A carrier's speed is 30 knots, which is 15.4 m/s. In 60 seconds, it will have moved 15.4 * 60 = 924 m. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that the search area of the AShBM is a perfect circle.

(In reality, the carrier would take far longer to turn around, so if the initial intel contains the direction the carrier is facing, the search area will only be a subset of that circle.)

If we assume the terminal velocity of the DF-21D to be Mach 10, or 3 403 m/s, that 3-second window gives a distance of 10,209 m to play with.

The adjustment angle is then the top angle of a right-angle triangle with an adjacent side of 10,209 and an opposite side of 924.

We can use the classic equation: tan(x) = opposite/adjacent = 924/10209 = 0.0905
The angle x is then arctan(0.0905) = 5.17 degrees.

Hardly an impossible shift.

That angle can be further reduced by using multiple missiles each aimed toward an area of the search region using a probability function. Now imagine if those missiles were armed with MIRVs...

Skywatcher · Apr 5, 2013

Hendrik_2000 said:
Why don't you ask that question to the Chinese who knows maybe they used it for tracking purpose to verify the missile test. Once again you try to link an article to ASBM when clearly there is no linkage

A ballistic missile reenters the atmosphere at Mach 10-20 and gets a plasma sheath. What makes an AShBM different from other ballistic missiles?

The plasma sheath affects all communications, whether you're looking for telemetry data or broadcasting last second corrections.

The article dated from 2006 and the world has move since then. Clearly ONI and Admiral Willard know better than you do to testify that China has workable ASBM. Just a cursory search on Google generate hundred of paper on ablative material and black out and you think that the Chinese are ignorant on this subject . Clearly you are out of touch with this world
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Of course China knows about the issues and basic research. That doesn't mean they've developed an application to neutralize the plasma sheath yet. I'll take your lack of evidence (wishful thinking doesn't count as evidence) as a concession.

And so you'll take foreign experts at their word when they talk about the DF-21D, but then you won't accept their word when they talk about the size of China's nuclear arsenal. You can't have it both ways.

Volume has no relation but body shape does as the article clearly said

Given your obvious illiteracy, why are you even bothering to argue? Volume is not the same as surface area.

Furthermore, what in the body shape of the DF-21D allows it to create the "hole" in the ionized air envelope at the tail end of the craft, created by the Shuttle's shape"?

An you are privy to Chinese secret to know exactly the dimension of DF-21D

The diameter of the DF-21D is at most 1.4M to 1.6M (look at the canister on the TEL). It's quite simple really, unless the Zionist-Muslim Brotherhood-CCP-KMT-Freemason-Illuminati-Jesuit-Opus Dei-Homosexual-Reptoid conspiracy has been altering all the pictures on the Internet.

Skywatcher · Apr 5, 2013

solarz said:
Alright, let's do a bit of calculation.

A carrier's speed is 30 knots, which is 15.4 m/s. In 60 seconds, it will have moved 15.4 * 60 = 924 m. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that the search area of the AShBM is a perfect circle.

(In reality, the carrier would take far longer to turn around, so if the initial intel contains the direction the carrier is facing, the search area will only be a subset of that circle.)

If we assume the terminal velocity of the DF-21D to be Mach 10, or 3 403 m/s, that 3-second window gives a distance of 10,209 m to play with.

The adjustment angle is then the top angle of a right-angle triangle with an adjacent side of 10,209 and an opposite side of 924.

We can use the classic equation: tan(x) = opposite/adjacent = 924/10209 = 0.0905
The angle x is then arctan(0.0905) = 5.17 degrees.

Hardly an impossible shift.

That angle can be further reduced by using multiple missiles each aimed toward an area of the search region using a probability function. Now imagine if those missiles were armed with MIRVs...

Um, exactly how can you effect a 5.17 degree shift with a warhead of two tons? Given that the warhead is moving at Mach 10, you're going to need a very powerful maneuvering jet rocket to move it around in the lower atmosphere at an altitude of 10.2 km.

And if you armed the DF-21D with MIRVs (assuming you can shrink the guidance package that far down), it'll do less damage to the carrier (the Nimitzes are very, very resilient).

Skywatcher · Apr 5, 2013

jobjed said:
A few tonnes travelling at mach 10 is more than enough to mission-kill ANYTHING if it hits. Several hits will ensure not just a mission-kill but disintergration of the vessel.

Not something the size of a carrier. They're very compartmentalized, large ships. You'll need several hits at least to mission kill.

Disintegration?

The USS America (CV-66) managed to survive 25 days of explosive testing, and was then scuttled.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And mind you, the USS America is 20% smaller than the Nimitz or Ford CVNs.

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Skywatcher

Captain

Skywatcher

Captain

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

jobjed

Captain

luhai

Banned Idiot

solarz

Brigadier

Skywatcher

Captain

Skywatcher

Captain

Skywatcher

Captain