escobar
Brigadier
He didn't talk specifically about Electronic countermeasures...
Doubts about the effectiveness of China's second strike capability come from the nuclear policy itself.
Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
He didn't talk specifically about Electronic countermeasures...
Doubts about the effectiveness of China's second strike capability come from the nuclear policy itself.
I think it is all speculation at this point, and much more of personal bias.
The author makes the claim that the warhead the size of a large dust bin traveling at mach speed can be intercepted while it is challenging to hit a massive ship travelling at flank speed... well both is challenging, but I reckon that to hit a very fast moving small target is much harder to hit than a slow moving big target.
The US will evolve her tactics to minimize the threat posed by the DF21, and the Chinese will continuously improve the strike capabilities. -> it is not like one is a sitting duck to the next.
So what is only known is even if the missile is a complete hoax is that, CVBG entering the perceived strike range of the missile will be on high alert the entire duration of their stay. This will burn men out quicker, this will cause the US to sink a lot of money to defeat these threats.
This is like the war in Afghanistan, the US spent billions to buy mine resistant vehicles against IEDs which only need to get bigger to defeat the vehicle. War is always a drain on the economy and there is only so much appetite for a war that doesn't really concern the citizens.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
This article like so many of "feel good article" is nothing but sheer fantasy. It could contain a lot of factual error like Gen Chen Bingde said the missile in not operational yet. Wrong he said the missile is operational but it face many challenged in its development. Not that we don't know.
Another thing this article said China only has 3 naval satellite surveillance wrong Yaogang Weisxing series alone has 19 satellites not to count Shjian and other dual purpose satellite which most of them are
SM3 is not perfected yet far from it It is still undergoing testing. The much larger THAAD has miserable track record of hitting only 50% of their target . Now this is is ground based system with much larger radar and facilities Now how can we be sure that SM3 a ship based system with limited space and weight can have a better result?. As I said before there is test and there is rigged test to assure continue funding. They don't even has surrogate for Mach4 supersonic cruise missile how can they assure that the test is realistic.We are talking about mach 10 missile which for all purpose make the argument of 34 knot CBG moving target moot. As far as the DF21 the CBG is stationary
Hitting a missile with known orbit in the space is easier than hitting a maneuverable warhead with plenty of decoy.
The missile need not to be guided all the way. It only need to give the general location of the CBG using inertial guidance. Then as it close to the CBG, it will lit up their own radar and other sensor I am sure they have multiple sensor to bypass any counter measure. As to disrupt communication you might as well forget about it , China is mid of developing jam proof satellite communication. the sad truth there is no antidote against DF 21 in US arsenal. That is why they try to use the hammer tactic of Air Sea battle to try to destroy the Chinese sensor as much as possible again this is fantasy it will lead to nuclear holocaust!
China Reveals First Space-Based Quantum Communications Experiment
The “Chinese Quantum Science Satellite” will launch in 2016 and aim to make China the first space-faring nation with quantum communication capability
Pentagon May Hasten Missile Intercept Retest After Latest Failure
July 17, 2013
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
Technicians prepare a U.S. Ground Based Interceptor for placement at an Alaska launch facility in 2012. The Defense Department might soon schedule a new test of a GBI variant that missed an intercept target in a trial launch earlier this month, a high-level Pentagon official said on Wednesday (U.S. Missile Defense Agency photo). Technicians prepare a U.S. Ground Based Interceptor for placement at an Alaska launch facility in 2012. The Defense Department might soon schedule a new test of a GBI variant that missed an intercept target in a trial launch earlier this month, a high-level Pentagon official said on Wednesday (U.S. Missile Defense Agency photo).
Mr. Coyle said there had been no successful tests of the ground-based, midcourse missile-defense system, like the one launched Friday, in five years. Pentagon officials acknowledge that the interceptors had a mixed record, hitting dummy targets just 50 percent of the time.
Last edited:
Isreal I nukes are not the first nukes in the world, nor does it have to use technology untried in similar nukes elsewhere in the world. Israeli nuclear technicians often had experience working for other nuclear programs that has already demonstrated successful warheads.
DF-21 anti ship missile would be the first In the world, and would have to use technologies untried in similar operating environment. It is reasonable to assume Chinese technicians working on DF-21 did not have similar level of access to any nearly comparable foreign efforts, themselves not crowned with successful tests, as Israeli nuclear technicians had to comparable foreign nuclear programs.
DF-21 anti ship missile would be the first In the world, and would have to use technologies untried in similar operating environment. It is reasonable to assume Chinese technicians working on DF-21 did not have similar level of access to any nearly comparable foreign efforts, themselves not crowned with successful tests, as Israeli nuclear technicians had to comparable foreign nuclear programs.
I think you really ought to read the article in AFM, it is well written and presents an "informed" opinion that a thinking man would not dismiss as a "feel good" article, but, if it makes you "feel good" to dismiss it off hand????? be my guest..... brat
Great Article Brumby, thanks for posting, I would remind all that the AirForceMag has a very high editorial standard, has been the primer for the AFB, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. brat
Jura The idiot
General
Lezt, Hendrik_2000, Air Force Brat, I just read your posts again and I wish I knew when you're right or wrong and why, but of course I don't; a thought occurred to me (and I'm sorry if anybody had posted something similar before): that missiles travels for less than two minutes before reentering the atmosphere, then decelerates (nobody told me how -- in principle it could be decelerated to subsonic speeds) and at some point the reentry vehicle has to start using the sensors to lock on the target, OK, so? So even performing the test would also help the US Navy
(launching from the middle of China would be noticed and tracked by the US and Russia; aiming at sea with an empty, lonely ship on it, as any traffic around would have to be stopped, would likely cause an increased surveillance of the area all around, especially the airspace)
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
... and as to the article itself, I read it twice, but still don't know what to think about the sentence "In addition to the active jammers, destroyers escorting the carrier could deploy off-board radar-reflective decoys that could deceive the missile into aiming at a balloon floating over empty ocean." I mean its last part, is it baloney?
As far as I know, balloons have been used on top of the WWI convoys, almost one hundred freaking years ago, and can be taken down by any anti-aircraft weapon since then, I guess LOL
... and as to the article itself, I read it twice, but still don't know what to think about the sentence "In addition to the active jammers, destroyers escorting the carrier could deploy off-board radar-reflective decoys that could deceive the missile into aiming at a balloon floating over empty ocean." I mean its last part, is it baloney?
Good job Jura, you have demonstrated that you are a thinking man, the balloon is a "decoy" designed to "fake out" the missile as it re-enters the atmosphere, launched by a destroyer defending the CBG, the missile would lock-on to the decoy, and the carrier and escorts would take evasive action moving away at Flank. If you read it in the Air Force Magazine, it is peer reviewed, and the readers would also be incensed as the audience for AFM are mostly retired/active duty Air Force, who are members of the Air Force Association, they do not tolerate "feel good articles". In truth people would like to defend the viability of their future weapons, and don't want to contemplate that their potential adversaries might have an effective counter.. perhaps bd or Jeff might weigh in on the viability of the decoy???? brat
Equation
Lieutenant General
... and as to the article itself, I read it twice, but still don't know what to think about the sentence "In addition to the active jammers, destroyers escorting the carrier could deploy off-board radar-reflective decoys that could deceive the missile into aiming at a balloon floating over empty ocean." I mean its last part, is it baloney?
Yeah but by doing this would give out the CVBG general vicinity and location? The first volley could be just a decoy missile as well, sort of a waiting for a response to see where they are. In a large vass area of ocean not too many cargo ships and commercial fishing boats had this capability, therefore diminishing the search for the CVBG to a certain area much easier to look for by satellites and drones.