"CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES, SAYS ONI
Mike
liberals at work)
CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES, SAYS ONI
An ongoing modernization effort has provided China with an
increasingly sophisticated and proficient naval force, the U.S. Office
of Naval Intelligence (ONI) said in a new assessment (large pdf).
Notably, China has "developed the world's only anti-ship ballistic
missile," which ONI said was "specifically designed to defeat U.S.
carrier strike groups" in the event of military conflict over Taiwan.
"China's modernization efforts have principally focused on preparing
for a Taiwan conflict, with a large portion directed at developing
capabilities to deter, delay, and if necessary degrade potential U.S.
military intervention," the ONI report said.
Although China has recently deployed naval vessels far from its shores
to protect Chinese shipping from piracy, "it is important to note that
none of these operations indicate a desire on the part of the PRC to
develop a constant global presence," ONI said. "Beijing's ambition
appears to remain focused on the East Asian region, with an ability to
protect the PRC's maritime interests in distant seas when required."
See "The People's Liberation Army Navy: A Modern Navy with Chinese
Characteristics," Office of Naval Intelligence, released November 2009
(17 MB PDF file).
The new ONI analysis was first reported by Tony Capaccio in "China’s
New Missile May Create a 'No-Go Zone' for U.S. Fleet," Bloomberg News,
November 17, 2009.
A marked increase in Chinese submarine patrols last year was reported
by Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists in the FAS
Strategic Security Blog.
The Congressional Research Service provided additional information in
"China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities --
Background and Issues for Congress" (pdf), updated October 21, 2009.
deem...@aol.com
> fromwww.fas.org, all reports mentioned below also atwww.fas.org(The
Is it budget time already?
David E. Powell
Hooking the Taiwanese up with some nice stuff they can pay for, or
mostly pay for with a little help from us, is a bit cheaper and more
direct.....
eatfastnoodle
> fromwww.fas.org, all reports mentioned below also atwww.fas.org(The
So the whole anti-ship ballistic missile thing actually is real? Not
smoke and mirror? There was quite some talk about it a few years ago,
but I'm always doubtful, hitting a moving ship with a ballistic
missile with range going up to thousands of miles seems to be require
a bit more than what current technologies can provide. Anybody has any
comment on the technical feasibility of this whole anti-ship
ballistic missile thing?
PaPa Peng
>
> So the whole anti-ship ballistic missile thing actually is real? Not
> smoke and mirror? There was quite some talk about it a few years ago,
> but I'm always doubtful, hitting a moving ship with a ballistic
> missile with range going up to thousands of miles seems to be require
> a bit more than what current technologies can provide. Anybody has any
> comment on the technical feasibility of this whole anti-ship
> ballistic missile thing?
I recall reading somewhere that antiship ballistic missiles must not
exceed 400 miles range. Any further it becomes a strategic ballistic
missile (correct descriptions?), an ICBM to wit. and therefore such a
launch that can be misinterpreted as ........nuclear war.......
400 miles out seems reasonable as this will be at the extreme range of
carrier based aircraft.
Alexander
Satellite targeting?
Jack Linthicum
They cite Over the Horizon radar. This IEEE paper has one Chinese
author.
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICASSP.1994.389926
and
http://www.zmne.hu/tanszekek/ehc/konferencia/may/kovacsildiko.htm
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
and
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=327904
Alexander
> On Nov 22, 6:35 am, Alexander <Alexan...@thegreat.org> wrote:
>> PaPa Peng wrote:
>>>> So the whole anti-ship ballistic missile thing actually is real? Not
>>>> smoke and mirror? There was quite some talk about it a few years ago,
>>>> but I'm always doubtful, hitting a moving ship with a ballistic
>>>> missile with range going up to thousands of miles seems to be require
>>>> a bit more than what current technologies can provide. Anybody has any
>>>> comment on the technical feasibility of this whole anti-ship
>>>> ballistic missile thing?
>>> I recall reading somewhere that antiship ballistic missiles must not
>>> exceed 400 miles range. Any further it becomes a strategic ballistic
>>> missile (correct descriptions?), an ICBM to wit. and therefore such a
>>> launch that can be misinterpreted as ........nuclear war.......
>>> 400 miles out seems reasonable as this will be at the extreme range of
>>> carrier based aircraft.
>> Satellite targeting?
>
> They cite Over the Horizon radar. This IEEE paper has one Chinese
> author.
400 miles? That is impressive.
Eunometic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Getting an inertially guided ballistic missile to within 100-200mm or
so over 1000km is no big challenge anymore, it used to be expensive
but not impossible, now it is no longer expensive. Terminal homing I
assume would be radar based scanning, perhaps millimetric radar or
infrared immaging with scene correlation or invariant object
recognition. (the technology of robotic vision has advanced) so that
the missile can recognise individual ships (eg destroyer, aircraft
carrier). I would assume some kind of satelite based navigation (the
Chinese are building their own system called Bajou I think) I would
assume some kind of mid course up date. I would immagine some kind of
missile to missile co-opperation to either saturate a target or select
different targets.
These ballistic missiles surely must be not much more expensive than a
F-35 dropped JDAM or a cruise missile.
Jack Linthicum
And it accounts for atmospheric variations how?
Andrew Swallow
Or copy artillery spotting by infantry men. Use spotter aircraft or
put a couple of marines in a small boat.
Andrew Swallow
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
Something tells me, that unless it's a surprise strike, the life
expectancy of either would be quite short.
Ray O'Hara
"eatfastnoodle" <d12s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:279eb773-9e12-4a63...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
======================================================================
a ballistic missile would be defeated by just altering course a few degrees.
it would take a guided missile to hit anything moving.
if it can be mid-course corrected its not a ballisrtic missile
"A ballistic missile is a missile only guided during the relatively brief
initial powered phase of flight and its course is subsequently governed by
the laws of classical mechanics."
Jack Linthicum
> "eatfastnoodle" <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote in message
There was something in one of these Chinese promos that said it would
wipe out aircraft on deck. Some idea like a multi-warhead I guess.
PaPa Peng
against a large ship the size of a carrier after watching the YouTube
video of the 1967 onboard accident on the USS Forrestal. All those
bombs and planes, fuel etc. blowing up on deck and the ship still
managed to stay afloat and sail to port under her own power.
7. How beneficial is this system?
That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage
would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system
can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep
carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its
purpose.
http://airpower.callihan.cc/blog/file.axd?file=China+missile.doc
I love this book "A Modern Illustrated Military History SEA POWER"
ISBN 0-89673-011-5 as it covers all aspects of the evolution and
development of modern naval power and not get bogged down in the
minutae of heroic actions. I appreciate the authors analyses of what
worked and what didn't, why and what solutions were tried. I finally
got down to read up the chapter on unglamorous mine warfare.
Surprise. Mines are certainly far more cost effective than shellfire
and bombs in sinking ships. Its known or suspected presence very
effective in tieing down critical resources needed to counter them.
Its the naval equivalent of IED warfare in Iraq Af-Pak.
My assessment now is now guided missiles are useful against frigate
sized ships and therefore have a place in the navy. But to defend
against a carrier group what is needed is an arsenal ship that can lay
a barrage of long range rocket launched mines to two to three miles
ahead of a CVBG. At that distance of separation (2 to 3 miles) they
are very difficult for shipboard defenses to counter. Yet the
distance is too close for the CVBG to avoid altogether. The BG cannot
even take evasive measures without the risk of collisions. There is a
good likelihood that quite a few ships will be damaged, damaged beyond
operational capability or even sunk as it sails into the minefield.
Even if no CVs are lost the formation integrity and operational
efficiency of the CVBG is in tatters.
These rocket mines need only be capable of splashing down within tens
of yards accuracy to form a scatterfield of mines. Therefore they do
not need expensive fancy intelligent guidance, target identification
and on-course correction control systems. The amount of explosive
needed is a lot less than a regular anti-ship missile's which as noted
above is ineffective against a CV sized ship. This plain vanilla
rocket is all rocket and max explosive content. The thin wall of the
rocket body is the explosive container since the destructive power of
a mine is not a contact explosion but an underwater explosion below
the ship. The giant bubble caused by the explosion lifts the ship and
causes structural damage to the hull and shakes up violently whatever
is inside the hull. The mines can be preset to 20 to 40 feet for best
effect. They self destruct at the preset time to prevent them
becoming a shipping hazard.
Do I have something here?
deem...@aol.com
> I did have my doubts about the efficacy of an anti-ship missile
> against a large ship the size of a carrier after watching the YouTube
> video of the 1967 onboard accident on the USS Forrestal. All those
> bombs and planes, fuel etc. blowing up on deck and the ship still
> managed to stay afloat and sail to port under her own power.
>
> 7. How beneficial is this system?
> That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage
> would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system
> can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep
> carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its
Why do you think the BG couldn't turn 45-90 degrees without
ramming each other? The ships are not THAT close together and the
crews are fairly competent. Now, laying the field in the middle of
other attacks might be an idea...but mines are more of a surprise or
denial of a chokepoint type of weapon.
Ray O'Hara
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:afade229-d8ab-4bc5...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
a call for right or left "standard rudder" will prevent any collisions.
PPP is deluded.
hcobb
> So the whole anti-ship ballistic missile thing actually is real? Not
> smoke and mirror?
Just in case, let's upgrade our aircraft carriers escorts with BMD,
build more of those and upgrade the Hawkeyes for BMD.
You know, like the US Navy is already doing.
-HJC
Eunometic
wrote:SNIP
>
> > These ballistic missiles surely must be not much more expensive than a
> > F-35 dropped JDAM or a cruise missile.
>
>
JDAM and GPS guided bombs use inertial guidance with GPS updates.
Should jamming or atmospherics effect GPS the inertial guidence system
takes over degrades accuracy from say a few meters to a few tens of
meters. Inertial easily compensates for wind. A SRBM or IRBM will
use the same guidence system; The only difference is that the greater
range and transit time degrades accuracy somewhat more.
Terminal homing takes care of the rest. Radar is best due to its
abillity to penetrate cloud but infrared imaging should work as well.
Sensor will be looking at a particular part of the ocean as the
missile arcs through its final 30km and 20 seconds of flight. A ship
will stand out like silver testicles on a black dog in infrared
contrast. A few succesive imagages will allow the seeker to calculate
the ships velocity and calculate a collision course. Remember due to
the missiles inertial guidence it knows elevation, azimuth, altitude
to seal level and target when the images were taken. Atmospherics
will distort optics however a series of succesive images should allow
this to be filtered out. Atmospheric distoriton should be negligable
in the final few seconds. I see no problem with duel mode infrared
and optical immaging. Optical needs to cope with shadows. Active
radar and laser are other means to this end.
PaPa Peng
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
Sure you can turn on a dime. But for the whole BG that dime has a
larger turn radius than two or three miles. That means the BG sails
over the minefield. If you can turn in less miles than that its easy
enough to splash those rocket mines closer. Now that may or may not
sink and ships. But for sure there will be a lot of bent props, prop
shafts, rudders, hulls, shaken equipment and men, etc. As I said the
CVBG cohesion will be in tatters. A second barrage should cinch it.
There goes the CVBG charge with flags aflutter. Your rebuttal is
unconvincing.
Ray O'Hara
"PaPa Peng" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f88c26ff-381a-4ca2...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
====================================================================
do you know what '"standard rudder is? all the ships turn simultaneously
making a turn of the same radius.
and how many mines do you think these rockets can carry and how many
rockets. you've drifted into fantasyland.
PaPa Peng
> other attacks might be an idea...
Aw. Why be subtle. An arsenal ship can be any superannuated 60,000
ton container ship. It can carry lots of ammo with room to spare. So
splash plenty much rocket mines to surround the CVBG on all sides. If
your CVBG can turn on a dime it can't stop on one. Try to argue your
way out of this one.
deem...@aol.com
You're also supposing it can sneak up on the BG?
PaPa Peng
> You're also supposing it can sneak up on the BG?
You must be in desperate denial to put out such trivial objections.
There's nothing complex in what I proposed. There is no need to sneak
up on anything. The BG can be easily detected at long range. If your
navy is any good the USN should be able to detect a PLAN frigate
accompanied by its arsenal ship. Say "Hello." Else...
400 miles out is at the extreme range of both carrier aircraft as well
as "legal" anti-ship missiles. Hostilities at this distance is
unlikely. More likely it will be 250 mile range rocket mines with a
300 lb HE warhead, the mine size that can take out a an armored
battleship of WWII. The good old SCUD fits this specification
neatly. There's plenty of deck space on a 60K ton containership to
park more than a hundred ready to launch SCUD sized missiles. The
arsenal ship can be sacrificed if necessary. Its cheap and already
paid for. There is more where that came from.
William Black
We've been here before with the cruise missile armed Soviet submarines
of the 'sixties and 'seventies.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Ray O'Hara
you are in fantasy land.
any ship trying to do what you suppose would be sunk in minutes.
once a rocket lifted off the ship firing it is toast.
you make false assumptions to make your plan work.
deem...@aol.com
> > You're also supposing it can sneak up on the BG?
>
> You must be in desperate denial to put out such trivial objections.
> There's nothing complex in what I proposed. There is no need to sneak
> up on anything. The BG can be easily detected at long range. If your
> navy is any good the USN should be able to detect a PLAN frigate
> accompanied by its arsenal ship. Say "Hello." Else...
"Trivial"? Your whole plan needs stealth or surprise.
>
> 400 miles out is at the extreme range of both carrier aircraft as well
> as "legal" anti-ship missiles. Hostilities at this distance is
> unlikely.
Non-refueled aircraft...and don't forget the missile ranges.
More likely it will be 250 mile range rocket mines with a
> 300 lb HE warhead, the mine size that can take out a an armored
> battleship of WWII. The good old SCUD fits this specification
> neatly. There's plenty of deck space on a 60K ton containership to
> park more than a hundred ready to launch SCUD sized missiles.
Which would be hard to hide.
The
> arsenal ship can be sacrificed if necessary. Its cheap and already
> paid for. There is more where that came from.
Don't forget the SSN which is part of the BG. Also, any kind of
war with China would see the Chinese coast interdicted with bombers
from Guam and the continental US as well as a couple dozen or more
SSNs.
Another thing, launching ballistic missiles is very
risky.......someone might get the wrong idea about their warheads.
That's one reason why conventional warheads on SLBMs aren't that
useful.
Dean
Jack Linthicum
another word for that is "unbelievable"
Jack Linthicum
Ray O'Hara
"Dean" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd8620d8-b79d-49f0...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
100-200mm accuracy is phenominal
================================================================
like shooting the eyelashes off an ant.
Ray O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ed625b1a-cb22-4aaa...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
=========================================================================
I think typo is the correct term. I'm sure he meant m for meters.
Richard Casady
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Getting an inertially guided ballistic missile to within 100-200mm or
>so over 1000km is no big challenge anymore,
Especially since there is no such thing as a guided ballistic
anything.
Jack Linthicum
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:35:13 -0800 (PST), Eunometic
>
> >Getting an inertially guided ballistic missile to within 100-200mm or
> >so over 1000km is no big challenge anymore,
>
> Especially since there is no such thing as a guided ballistic
> anything.
Not from my point of view. I sat down with a Rocketdyne guy in Anaheim
in 1967 and got the description of the bus system of multiple warhead
delivery.
From Encyclopedia Britannica,
Soon after adopting MRVs the United States took the next technological
step, introducing multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles
(MIRVs). Unlike MRVs, independently targeted RVs could be released to
strike widely separated targets, essentially expanding the footprint
established by a missile’s original ballistic trajectory. This
demanded the capacity to maneuver before releasing the warheads, and
maneuvering was provided by a structure in the front end of the
missile called the “bus,” which contained the RVs. The bus was
essentially a final, guided stage of the missile (usually the fourth),
that now had to be considered part of the missile’s payload. Since any
bus capable of maneuvering would take up weight, MIRVed systems would
have to carry warheads of lower yield. This in turn meant that the RVs
would have to be released on their ballistic paths with great
accuracy. As stated above, solid-fueled motors could be neither
throttled nor shut down and restarted; for this reason, liquid-fueled
buses were developed for making the necessary course corrections. The
typical flight profile for a MIRVed ICBM then became approximately 300
seconds of solid-rocket boost and 200 seconds of bus maneuvering to
place the warheads on independent ballistic trajectories.
The first MIRVed system was the U.S. Minuteman III. Deployed in 1970,
this three-stage, solid-fueled ICBM carried three MIRVs of an
estimated 170 to 335 kilotons. The warheads had a range of 8,000 miles
with CEPs of 725–925 feet. Beginning in 1970 the United States also
MIRVed its SLBM force with the Poseidon C-3, which could deliver up to
14 50-kiloton RVs to a range of 2,800 miles and with a CEP of about
1,450 feet. After 1979 this force was upgraded with the Trident C-4,
or Trident I, which could deliver eight 100-kiloton MIRVs with the
same accuracy as the Poseidon, but to a distance of 4,600 miles. Much
longer range was made possible in the Trident by adding a third stage,
by replacing aluminum with lighter graphite epoxies, and by adding an
“aerospike” to the nose cone that, extending after launch, produced
the streamlining effect of a pointed design while allowing the larger
volume of a blunt design. Accuracy was maintained by updating the
missile’s inertial guidance during bus maneuvering with stellar
navigation.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1357360/rocket-and-missile-system/57339/Multiple-warheads