China's anti-ship missiles and Gorshkov

[Spitfighter]

This is a laughable argument. The US under Raygun began the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka 'Star Wars', only in the R/D stage, which is the most time and money consuming part of any project, and the Soviets nearly had a heart attack. The scientific divide was split quite even inside the Soviet scientific circle, not about if the US has the technological capability to do it, but whether or not the US is willing to devote the necessary finance and technological resources to achieve the program within their lifetime. The technological hurdles were great but no one was willing to put his diploma on the line by using the word 'impossible'. The examinations of the details did of course would swayed some scientists to the 'nyet' camp, but only if there was a time constraint. But once those time constraints were removed, all agreed that between the US and the USSR, it would be the US who would rendered all Soviet nuclear ballistic missiles financially worthless. When Gorby could not convinced Raygun to stop the program, the Soviet Union collapsed and SDI, even as an R/D project, contributed to that collapse.

Please...Stop believing in 'Chinese physics'.

In your professional opinion, how much of a threat do these missiles pose?

 

[gambit]

In your professional opinion, how much of a threat do these missiles pose?

Which? The ballistic missile or its anti? Put it this way, SDI was technically a far far far fffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrr more ambitious project than the current SM-3 or Patriot program.

 

[Spitfighter]

Which? The ballistic missile or its anti? Put it this way, SDI was technically a far far far fffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrr more ambitious project than the current SM-3 or Patriot program.

I meant the Chinese missile. Seems like it would render our AC useless in battle.

 

[gambit]

I meant the Chinese missile. Seems like it would render our AC useless in battle.

All weapons are threats but their degrees of efficacy determine their credibility. Let us take a look at this oft repeated argument that consistently exaggerate the DF-21's efficacy...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/929656-post29.html

Detection. Pessimists claim that carriers are too small relative to the potential search area to be detected by satellite images. Optimists maintain that CSGs—with their massive electromagnetic footprints—can be detected, e.g., with space-borne sensors.

The USS Ranger entered strict emission control (EMCON) Alpha protocols in an exercise that began when the carrier left San Diego...

Enterprise’s EW Module Stays Below the Radar

Since enemy ships also have the ability to detect the carrier’s electronic emissions, the EW Module is also responsible for limiting their effectiveness. To keep Enterprise from being detected, the EW Module can enact emissions control (EMCON) procedures.

EMCON starts at level Delta for normal underway sailing. There are no emissions restrictions in Delta, and the ship can transmit from any mission-essential radiation.

EMCON Charlie doesn’t hide Enterprise, but it does disguise it. By turning off any emitter unique to an aircraft carrier, they can keep an enemy from identifying what is considered the mission essential unit.

“What we’re trying to do is look like everybody else,” said Craven.

EMCON Bravo further limits the ship’s electronic emissions, but still allows for communication and data transfer. EMCON Alpha is the most restrictive form of emissions control and is called when the ship absolutely doesn’t want to be found. During EMCON Alpha, no emissions are permitted at all. Because of the difficulty in achieving missions without the use of radar, a modified condition, EMCON Alpha 1, is put into effect when necessary. Alpha 1 also limits electrical emissions, but can be modified to allow any radar necessary for flight operations or other mission-oriented needs.

For about two weeks, the Ranger conducted 'attacks' against Hawaii and no one was able to find her.

Next...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/929656-post29.html

Tracking. Skeptics maintain that requisite satellite coverage is unattainable, as are sufficient naval and surveillance craft and overseas bases for signals intelligence. They believe that China's other tracking methods are inadequate, even in combination. Strangely, they seem to overlook the possibility of China possessing relevant land-based over-the-horizon radars.

Strangely, no one seemed to assess the vulnerability of large and immobile OTH radar stations. No one except the USN, that is. The problems with OTH radars are well known. No...Am not saying that atmospheric deflections do not work. The technique works very well for decades. But here is the problem that WILL induce target errors...

Earth's atmosphere

At night the F layer is present while the ionization in the E- and D-layers is extremely small. During the day, a D and an E.layer form and the F layer becomes much stronger and often appears a deformation in its profile that is called F1. F2, however, is by day and night the main Maximum in the F-region and is crucial for the transmission of radio waves.

Ionization is what make some radio stations, AM or FM, have varying reach between day and night time broadcasting. This behavior is also well known for decades in broadcasting. Radar transmissions that exploit atmospheric deflections are NOT immune to this effect. Radar transmissions are -- radio transmissions...!!! OTH radars already have a difficult time distinguishing an aircraft carrier from an pleasure ocean liner to an oil tanker, especially if the carrier and escorts are spread out inside a busy sea lane. Now add in target tracking uncertainty between day and night. Against US, we can send B-2 strikes against these OTH stations to either destroy them or create so much coverage gaps that it would drastically reduce this ASBM efficacy as an offensive system.

Next...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/929656-post29.html

Target defense penetration. Skeptics, with their claims that slowing the warhead for terminal guidance makes it prohibitively vulnerable to interception, seem relatively unpersuasive. Optimists advocate multi-axis saturation attacks to overwhelm CSG defenses, without appearing to acknowledge the difficulty of coordinating them.

Saturation attacks will overwhelm any defense over time. Remember...A missile is essentially a throwaway weapon. You are discarding the launch aircraft along with the warhead. The question is whether China has the requisite numerical stock to make effective any saturation attack. If China determine that saturation attacks are the only viable mean for this ASBM weapon system, then the delivery burden is now shifted to finance. If China cannot deliver then the entire scheme is rendered ineffective.

Next...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/929656-post29.html

Hitting a moving target. How to strike a CSG that moves during location, data transmission, and ASBM delivery? Skeptics contend that ballistic missiles are less accurate than cruise missiles because the former's trajectory is relatively fixed. But optimists maintain that as long as the initial ASBM trajectory is reasonably accurate, appropriate homing corrections can be made. They suggest improving precision with passive radiation homing and activating terminal guidance at higher altitude to allow the seeker to scan a larger area, and selecting opportune moments for attack, e.g., when tailwinds or at-sea replenishment preclude significant mobility.

First...In order to have an effective passive detection system, the warhead cannot descend at double-digit Mach. The current level of technology does not allow it. The sensor must be able to distinguish the target through clouds if necessary. Second...The descending warhead WILL be detected the moment it broke horizon line-of-sight (LoS). The fleet will engage ECM and in less than five seconds, chaff blooms and IR flares can create appropriate signatures thousands of km in square area.

Next...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/929656-post29.html

Causing sufficient damage. Several experts detail CSG damage-control equipment. But the conventional wisdom seems to be that multi-axis saturation attacks (to defeat defenses) and/or submunitions (to distribute damage), delivered accurately, can achieve a mission kill by targeting critical exposed areas (e.g., the carrier's aircraft, island, and C4ISR equipment).

People should look at the damages the USS Enterprise suffered on deck...

bigEfire.com : Ordeal of the USS Enterprise : Photo Gallery

The USS Enterprise came within a step of dying on 14 January, 1969. Exploding weapons on the flight deck blew the ship apart all the way down to the waterline. Flaming jet fuel from the thirty two aircraft involved cascaded down through those many great wounds firing the interior of the ship.

If this was an actual war time condition, the Enterprise would still be able to conduct flight operations. Limited, yes, but able still.

The deception here is that the Chinese members and gullible believers of this ASBM consistently demand that we place the most optimistic allowance on still an unknown weapon system while dismissive that we have fully established and effective defense methods for every stage that this ASBM system relied upon, from source to end stage. Nothing is %100 certain and it is the amount of uncertainty that prompted US to raise our attention. What it does mean is that we will review the defense methods at each of those stages, update them and operationally refine them to increase our odds of survival.

 

[genetic-nomad01]

helluva enlightening post gambit. Thank you

 

[Kinetic]

helluva enlightening post gambit. Thank you

hey dude r u the same old one in mk2 version? what happened?

 

[genetic-nomad01]

hey dude r u the same old one in mk2 version? what happened?

yeah dude. i think i might have annoyed an admin here (although I apologized right away). so keep getting IP and ID bans.

 

[Kinetic]

yeah dude. i think i might have annoyed an admin here (although I apologized right away). so keep getting IP and ID bans.

Unfortunate!!! OK keep posting, dude. We really like your posts. I am also going for a vacation due to work.

 

[Spitfighter]

Thanks Gambit, extremely informative post.

If I may ask, what exactly did you do in the military?

 

[SBD-3]

this is C802 not DF-21

here'z the real beast

 

[SBD-3]

We have to build up anti Ballistic missile defence as well as stealth capabilities in our AC.

are you refering to AAD?

India fails to test-fire AAD missile
Updated at: 1110 PST, Monday, March 15, 2010 ShareThis story

NEW DELHI: India could not test-fire its Interceptor missile, as it encountered a coordination problem and failed to take off from Integrated Test Range along Orissa's coast.

The India defence sources said the test-fire of India's indigenously built Advanced Air Defence (ADD) interceptor missile was put off on Sunday due to a technical snag in the sub-system according to sources.

The ADD interceptor missile, capable of destroying hostile in-coming ballistic missiles. The test is to be held at Integrated Test Range Island off the Orissa coast.

As planned earlier, the test-fire is proposed to be carried out from two different launch sites of ITR, they said.

The target missile, a modified indigenously built Prithvi would first lift off from a mobile launcher from the ITR's launch complex at Chandipur-on-sea, 15 km from Balasore, Orissa.

Minutes later the interceptor missile would blast off from the Wheeler's Island, about 70 km across the sea from Chandipur, to intercept it at an altitude of 15 to 20 km in mid-air over the waters.

Yet to get a formal name, the new hypersonic interceptor missile is only called 'AAD' and is meant to be used in 'endo-atmospheric conditions'.India fails to test-fire AAD missile

2- are you referring to MCA?
well even kaveri for LCA is 5 years away from now and the same engine is used (as MCA will be using kaveri) MCA has quite a long time to come

Kaveri Engine Project update
[IDRW] In a months’ time Joint venture by GTRE and Snecma will be bring enhance thrust to the Kaveri Engine and new engine will be available in four to five years from now on , new joint venture most likely will be signed when French President Nicholas Sarkozy will come to India in April 2010.

Since Kaveri engine has been separated from Tejas Project which is currently powered by Ge’s F-404-GE-IN20 engine and further batches (Tejas MKII) will be powered by either GE F-414 or Euro jet EJ-200 engines. GTRE still considers that new engine still has a chance to power Tejas MKII, but the development time for Kaveri MK-2 of four to five years will clearly delay the development of Tejas MK-II so wisely new engine will be selected from the two types which are been evaluated .

So which Aircraft will Kaveri MK-2 power? Most likely AMCA (Advance Medium Combat Aircraft) which ADE and DRDO will be developing , Kaveri Mark -1 may still be integrated with a Tejas PV-1 aircraft by year end once successful trails have been completed in Russia on a Flying Test Bed in a modified IL-76 aircraft which are currently is taking place . With dry thrust of 52 kn and 85 kn in reheat Kaveri Mark-1 is still good enough to power a locally developed Advance jet Trainer (AJT) or even a Tejas Trainer ,GTRE is also working on using Kabini core to develop small turbofan engine for UMCA (Unmanned combat aircraft) or High flying UAV’s which DRDO is developing ,ADE which is main developer of Tejas program is also contemplating idea of a Unmanned Tejas which may be powered by Kaveri-Mark-1 or 2 ,but there is no development currently taking place at this time .

Marine Kaveri has been successfully tested in a Indian Naval dock yard Facility in Vishakhapatnam, which will power Rajput class of ships, Marine Kaveri engine was able to generate 12 MW (16000 hp) at sea level under 35 degree Celsius , GTRE is ready working on 3 or 4 test engines which will be tested onboard within next three years and cost for each engine is expected to be below 25 crores ,which is cheaper than the Western imported engines , Navy will order around 40 of this engines for powering warship in a years to come

Two decades ago GTRE was authorized to launch a programme to develop an indigenous power plant for the countries Indigenous built Light combat aircraft known as Tejas. Kaveri Engine Program from its start till date only four core engines and eight Kaveri engines have been manufactured even after repeated success in Indian condition where engine was able to generate 4774 kgf (dry) and 7000 kgf (reheat) thrust ,failed most of time in High altitude reheat tests conducted in Russia from 2001 onwards.
Kaveri Engine Project update

I usually don't provide links....but I do hate to hear "link plz"

 

[Dark Angel]

are you refering to AAD?

India fails to test-fire AAD missile
Updated at: 1110 PST, Monday, March 15, 2010 ShareThis story

NEW DELHI: India could not test-fire its Interceptor missile, as it encountered a coordination problem and failed to take off from Integrated Test Range along Orissa's coast.

The India defence sources said the test-fire of India's indigenously built Advanced Air Defence (ADD) interceptor missile was put off on Sunday due to a technical snag in the sub-system according to sources.

The ADD interceptor missile, capable of destroying hostile in-coming ballistic missiles. The test is to be held at Integrated Test Range Island off the Orissa coast.

As planned earlier, the test-fire is proposed to be carried out from two different launch sites of ITR, they said.

The target missile, a modified indigenously built Prithvi would first lift off from a mobile launcher from the ITR's launch complex at Chandipur-on-sea, 15 km from Balasore, Orissa.

Minutes later the interceptor missile would blast off from the Wheeler's Island, about 70 km across the sea from Chandipur, to intercept it at an altitude of 15 to 20 km in mid-air over the waters.

Yet to get a formal name, the new hypersonic interceptor missile is only called 'AAD' and is meant to be used in 'endo-atmospheric conditions'.India fails to test-fire AAD missile

2- are you referring to MCA?
well even kaveri for LCA is 5 years away from now and the same engine is used (as MCA will be using kaveri) MCA has quite a long time to come

I usually don't provide links....but I do hate to hear "link plz"

Indian BMD test success, third time in a row


Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has flight tested a Ballistic Missile Interceptor for the third time on 06 March 2009 at 1624 hrs from Wheeler Island, Integrated Test Range (ITR) successfully achieving the mission objectives set. The two stage Interceptor Missile fitted with advanced systems has neutralized the target, enemy missile at 75 Kms altitude. Click For Pictures

To mimic the incoming enemy’s ballistic missile trajectory Dhanush missile went to an altitude of 120 Km and was launched from ship about 100 km away from Coast. The Interceptor missile was launched using mobile launcher located on Wheeler Island Launch Complex.

This is the second test flight of the Exo atmospheric Kill Vehicle called PAD. This was a direct hit.

The third consecutive interception of Ballistic Missiles once again demonstrated the robustness of the Indian BMD system. DRDO in past has conducted two interception trials, first in Exo-atmospheric region at 48 Kms altitude on 27th November 06 and second in endo-atmospheric region at 15 kms using AAD missile on 06 Dec 07.

 

[SBD-3]

Indian BMD test success, third time in a row


Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has flight tested a Ballistic Missile Interceptor for the third time on 06 March 2009 at 1624 hrs from Wheeler Island, Integrated Test Range (ITR) successfully achieving the mission objectives set. The two stage Interceptor Missile fitted with advanced systems has neutralized the target, enemy missile at 75 Kms altitude. Click For Pictures

To mimic the incoming enemy’s ballistic missile trajectory Dhanush missile went to an altitude of 120 Km and was launched from ship about 100 km away from Coast. The Interceptor missile was launched using mobile launcher located on Wheeler Island Launch Complex.

This is the second test flight of the Exo atmospheric Kill Vehicle called PAD. This was a direct hit.

The third consecutive interception of Ballistic Missiles once again demonstrated the robustness of the Indian BMD system. DRDO in past has conducted two interception trials, first in Exo-atmospheric region at 48 Kms altitude on 27th November 06 and second in endo-atmospheric region at 15 kms using AAD missile on 06 Dec 07.

My source
Updated at: 1110 PST, Monday, March 15, 2010
Your source
06 March 2009

 

[Speeder 2]

...India should start thinking more global now then regional scale.

For India, perhaps thinking local , such as to build a nationwide sewage system, and...yes, I am forced to mention to build a toilet system for God's sake in all honety since humanity is not at 14 century anymore, and to think where to feed stomach tonight ( I know, i know that they are all very ambitious goals), could be slightly more realistic than thinking global, or not?

 

[Kinetic]

are you refering to AAD?

Read the news carefully, its the target missile that failed not AAD. But we are developing other solutions than AAD. There are lots of options, navy should decide which one suite them better. Than DRDO can come up with its naval version. I guess AAD or AD-01 will be the best. India should seriously think about ABM on ships due to Chinese ASBM.

We are waiting for another higher altitude BMD test by the end of this month or early next month.