China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[Luftwaffe]

Vassnti you are reported..

 

[dbc]

Vassnti you are reported..

Busted by the Baron!

 

[gambit]

I'm not sure I like your tone, I assumed the thread starter (you) wanted to discuss real scenarios, which prompted my question.

I have no interest in wasting my time on childish fantasies like scramjet "bombers"

What you asked is usually discarded. A 'real scenario' would not even have this speculative ASBM weapon since even the USNI commentary is filled with 'could' and 'may be' and 'possible'. For these gents, a 'real scenario' is highly selective.

 

[gambit]

Let me address the point that China's ASBM is "speculative" by an alleged military professional.

Yes...We will examine in details.

Firstly, why would the U.S. Naval Institute address China's ASBM in at least three separate publications if it was a mere flight of fantasy? Obviously, the U.S. Naval Institute believes that China's ASBM is a dangerous and credible threat.

The USNI is NOT an official branch of the US Navy. The USNI is, and I have NO problem calling it so, very much a 'fanboy' organization, much like the Air Force Association, of which I am member. Both of these organizations offer former active duty personnel, officers and enlisted, a social and political platform after their time in service to continue to support their services. So of course the USNI would offer to make their 'worst case' scenario to the public, just like how former leaders of these services did when they were active duty.

Secondly, what are the technical challenges of developing an ASBM in comparison to China's technological capabilities? An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means it's really big, can carry about 100 planes, and has a relatively long runway. An aircraft carrier can move at a slow 35 knots (65 km/h) along the 2-dimensional surface of the ocean.

You really have no idea, do you?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/773713-post38.html

Finding that aircraft carrier is one thing but tracking it in real time is another. At 30kts or higher for 30 minutes, the ship's maneuverings to launch and recover aircrafts can have it anywhere inside a several hundreds square mile area. Increase that air operation time to 90 minutes and the area enlarges to several thousands square miles. That is not counting the carrier's heavily armed escorts ringing that air operation perimeter. If the need is a high speed dash to beat the sh!t out of some loudmouth fool, if this fool takes his eyes off the ship for one day, the distance displacement approaches 800 nm from the previous sighting.

When I read from you this bit...'An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means it's really big...'...I know I am reading from someone most likely have never been at sea beyond visual shore range. You have no idea how difficult it is to find anything, no matter its size, in open ocean. Even with several acres of real estate, we are talking about this being amidst several HUNDREDS of square km from the time of detection, if even possible, to the time when a single DF-21 reached apogee. Look at the floor of your living room and throw down a toothpick. That is what an aircraft carrier look like in open ocean IF you can distinguish it.

Do you think the weather god will accommodate China? Over-the-horizon radars operate in the HF/UHF/VHF bands and they must use ionospheric reflections to even GUESS the location of what they are looking for. The HF/UHF/VHF bands are vulnerable to 'brown-outs' when the sun rises and sets...

Radio propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radio propagation is affected by the daily changes of water vapor in the troposphere and ionization in the upper atmosphere, due to the Sun.

If you respond to me that OTH radar is not the same as radio propagation, the reading public will know that the label 'fanboy' is very much appropriate to you. And a scientifically ignorant one at that.

In comparison, let's examine the complex challenge of destroying a weather satellite. China's FY-1C was approximately the size of a small refrigerator with dimensions of 4 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet. It was traveling at 8 km/s or 22,000 miles/hour at more than 500 miles above the Earth in a 3-dimensional spatial orbit. China's ASAT technology successfully destroyed the tiny and fast-moving orbiting satellite. Most people reasonably conclude that China's demonstrated technological prowess in its ASAT test is in excess of the far-simpler requirements of hitting a slow-moving man-made island (i.e. aircraft carrier).

Furthermore, China has also demonstrated that it can successfully hit a fast-moving missile with its mid-course ground-based interceptor (i.e. GBI).

Bad comparison.

In an head-on collision course, as far as the sensor-guidance section goes, as long as the two objects do not have lateral acceleration, aka displacement, the sensor-guidance section will be able to maintain target lock, be it infrared or radar guidance. The problem is getting a valid target lock as early as possible, which equal to distance, and the interceptor is able to align itself to the target. That is not what will happen against an aircraft carrier because the ship does have lateral displacement, forcing the descending warhead to compensate. But in order to compensate, the descending warhead must slow down. That was not possible in an orbital head-on collision course. The orbital interceptor and the target was approaching each other at a so high a closing velocity that the only way for China to be successful was to tightly schedule the entire interception scheme to give the interceptor the maximum possible time to orient itself against the target. That one-time interception proved to me that China was testing sensor-guidance, nothing more.

So if the descending warhead must slow down from the time it reenter atmosphere, it will be vulnerable to ECM via chaff/flare discharge.

Given China's ASAT and GBI capabilities, I think it is reasonable for the U.S. Naval Institute to conclude that China probably has a functional ASBM and to treat it as a serious threat.

No...You only assume that the USNI made such a conclusion...

On the Verge of a Game-Changer - U.S. Naval Institute

This suggests the possibility that China may be closer than ever to mastering such a system...

Look at the sentence and see the uncertainty for yourself: 'suggests', 'possibility' and 'may be'. Sorry...But only a 'fanboy' would jump to the conclusion that the sentence constitute a conclusion.

What else...

While Chinese ASBM capability remains uncertain, relevant U.S. government sources state consistently that Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on a variant of the 1,500 km-plus range DF-21/CSS-5 solid propellant medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). According to the Department of Defense, if supported by "a sophisticated command-and-control system," e.g., accurate real-time target data, from China's growing family of terrestrial and space-based sensors, ASBMs could hold U.S. carrier strike groups at risk in the Western Pacific. Further, China's use of submunitions might render a carrier operationally ineffective without sinking it, thereby achieving its objectives with a (perceived) lower risk of escalation.

Fine...There is absolutely nothing there to say that US intelligence sources concluded that China does have a deployed ASBM weapon system. What does '...if supported...' mean?

You do not like the label 'fanboy'? Then do not act like one. But if you do act like one, then support your arguments with credible analysis, not sources that upon a careful reading revealed nothing more than speculative opinion, even if said sources came from US.

 

[gambit]

Folks...

Here is an old but relevant explanation...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/527412-post36.html

Can a missile with 300-400 CEP (circular error probable) hit a ACC of 300m length which is moving at 30knots?

can anyone enlighten?

In weapons testing, we test against three target MODES:

- Stationary
- Moving
- Maneuvering

Just in case anyone is curious about 'moving' versus 'maneuvering'...A train is a moving target but not a maneuvering one.

An aircraft carrier is not merely a moving target but a maneuvering one. When a carrier is conducting flight operations, it will try to maintain an against-the-wind condition to assist its aircrafts in take-offs and landings. It will make unpredictable, not erratic, maneuvers in doing so. Make no confusion between 'unpredictability' and 'erratic' behaviors.

Granted, this is a ship and any maneuvers will require time and large areas of the sea to do so. But if this wishful 'carrier killer' ballistic missile is launched from about 1,000 km or more distance, the ship can move several km from its original position by the time the warhead begins its descent. Using over-the-horizon (OTH) radars can only give positional, not maneuvers, changes as long wavelengths have poor target resolutions. By the time the warhead begins its descent, the entire fleet will be alerted to the threat and in less than five seconds, enough chaff and IR flares will be launched to totally blanket the warhead's electronic view. This severely complicate the CEP figure -- the shaded circle.

 

[Martian2]

What you asked is usually discarded. A 'real scenario' would not even have this speculative ASBM weapon since even the USNI commentary is filled with 'could' and 'may be' and 'possible'. For these gents, a 'real scenario' is highly selective.

According to your fundamentalist approach, the U.S. concern about China's ASAT capability was pointless until China shot down a weather satellite in space. Once again, according to your logic, the U.S. concern about China's mid-course ground-based-interceptor (i.e. GBI) was also baseless until China shot down a missile in mid-flight.

For myopic fundamentalists like you, you believe that the U.S. government, U.S. think tanks, and U.S. media are all fools because they are wasting their time discussing China's non-existent and non-imminent ASBM. You will only be satisfied after-the-fact when China destroys an U.S. carrier. You will always be looking in the rear-view mirror. According to you, the world is wrong and you're right. You are free to believe that you have better information than the retired Major General that is the head of the U.S. Naval Institute. The forum members and guests will have to decide whether they agree with you.

Here's a picture of the "speculative" ASBM shown at China's 60th anniversary parade.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/d...admiral-willard-testimony_chinese-article.png

The picture is from this article. According to you, you are better informed than Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). Since Admiral Willard says that China is "testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers," that means China's ASBM is real and not speculative. With all due respect, I prefer to believe Admiral Willard and not you.

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

"March 29, 2010

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced (.pdf) to the stage of actual testing.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier (click to open pdf file) strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Willard’s disclosure should come as little surprise: China’s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead — have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development “has progressed at a remarkable rate.” In the span of just over a decade, he said, “China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.… China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.”

When someone of Bray’s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.

Equally intriguing has been the depiction of this capability in the Chinese media. A lengthy November 2009 program about anti-ship ballistic missiles (video) broadcast on China Central Television Channel 7 (China’s official military channel) featured an unexplained — and rather badly animated — cartoon sequence. This curious 'toon features a sailor who falsely assumes that his carrier’s Aegis defense systems can destroy an incoming ASBM as effectively as a cruise missile, with disastrous results.

The full program is available in three segments (parts 1, 2, and 3) on YouTube. Skip to 7:18 on the second clip to view this strange, and somewhat disturbing, segment.

Likewise, Chinese media seem to be tracking PACOM’s statements about this more closely than the U.S. press. The graphic above is drawn from an article on Dongfang Ribao (Oriental Daily), the website of a Shanghai newspaper.

Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China’s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China’s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress.

U.S. ships, however, will not offer a fixed target for China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. Military planning documents like the February 2010 Joint Operating Environment (.pdf) and Quadrennial Defense Review (.pdf) clearly recognize America’s growing “anti-access” challenge, and the QDR — the Pentagon’s guiding strategy document — charges the U.S. military with multiple initiatives to address it.

In a world where U.S. naval assets will often be safest underwater, President Obama’s defense budget supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine. And developing effective countermeasures against anti-ship ballistic missiles is a topic of vigorous discussion in Navy circles. The United States is clearly taking steps to prevent this kind of weapon from changing the rules of the game in the Western Pacific, but continued effort will be essential for U.S. maritime forces to preserve their role in safeguarding the global commons."

 

[gambit]

According to your fundamentalist approach,...

Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?

...the U.S. concern about China's ASAT capability was pointless until China shot down a weather satellite in space. Once again, according to your logic, the U.S. concern about China's mid-course ground-based-interceptor (i.e. GBI) was also baseless until China shot down a missile in mid-flight.

Show the readers a credible source that said the US dismissed China's intentions on testing in space.

The forum members and guests will have to decide whether they agree with you.

I have no fear of the readership and their judgments. Anyone can call me any names he want but I only ask that he rebut me in similar manner when I challenge their delusions on technical grounds and that when I back up my arguments I expect him to do the same. So far I have yet to see the same from you. Surprise...???

You are free to believe that you have better information than the retired Major General that is the head of the U.S. Naval Institute.

I have not disputed what the good general said. I have never said that what China attempts is technically impossible. But technical possibility is not technical probability.

Here's a picture of the "speculative" ASBM shown at China's 60th anniversary parade.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/d...admiral-willard-testimony_chinese-article.png

The picture is from this article. According to you, you are better informed than Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). If Admiral Willard says that China is "testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers," that means China's ASBM is real and not speculative.

No...It mean exactly that -- testing. Until anyone present to the public more than just pictures, we are free to dispute any claims -- on technical grounds.

 

[Martian2]

Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?


Show the readers a credible source that said the US dismissed China's intentions on testing in space.


I have no fear of the readership and their judgments. Anyone can call me any names he want but I only ask that he rebut me in similar manner when I challenge their delusions on technical grounds and that when I back up my arguments I expect him to do the same. So far I have yet to see the same from you. Surprise...???


I have not disputed what the good general said. I have never said that what China attempts is technically impossible. But technical possibility is not technical probability.


No...It mean exactly that -- testing. Until anyone present to the public more than just pictures, we are free to dispute any claims -- on technical grounds.

This is very simple.

Either Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), "Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead" and "Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China" are correct that the U.S. face a grave threat from China's ASBM or internet guy "gambit" is correct that China's ASBM is speculative on his personal assessment of technical grounds.

You choose.

[Note: I refer to "internet guy 'gambit'" in the third person. The "You" in "You choose" should obviously refer to the forum reader (i.e. forum member or guest). Real threat or speculative waste of time? What do you think?]

 

[gambit]

This is very simple. Either Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), "Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead" and "Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China" are correct that the U.S. face a grave threat from China's ASBM or internet guy "gambit" is correct that China's ASBM is speculative on his personal assessment of technical grounds.

You choose.

No...The readership will chose.

Like I said, I have never dispute the technical possibility of an ASBM weapon. But what I do dispute is its technical probability and more importantly its efficacy. What those officers testified contains nothing more than the typical 'worst case' scenario, which they are obliged to do.

If such a weapon is deployed, is it a threat? Of course it is.

If such a weapon is deployed, do we know its efficacy?

Efficacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the power to produce an effect

What is the effect? To either severely damaged a US aircraft carrier or even sink it.

How do we produce this effect?

Am still waiting...

 

[Martian2]

No...The readership will chose.

Like I said, I have never dispute the technical possibility of an ASBM weapon. But what I do dispute is its technical probability and more importantly its efficacy. What those officers testified contains nothing more than the typical 'worst case' scenario, which they are obliged to do.

If such a weapon is deployed, is it a threat? Of course it is.

If such a weapon is deployed, do we know its efficacy?

Efficacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the power to produce an effect

What is the effect? To either severely damaged a US aircraft carrier or even sink it.

How do we produce this effect?

Am still waiting...

You can produce this effect by spending fifteen years of research and development, billions of dollars, and putting your best scientists on the job. After the production of the desired ASBM, you keep the hard-earned technologies a secret from the world, including internet guys.

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’ | Danger Room | Wired.com

"Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China’s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China’s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress."

 

[gambit]

You can produce this effect by spending fifteen years of research and development, billions of dollars, and putting your best scientists on the job. After the production of the desired ASBM, you keep the hard-earned technologies a secret from the world, including internet guys.

All the money and efforts could be for naught, as explained by a bunch of 'internet guys'.

One of the mean to produce the desired effect is over-the-horizon radar. Technically speaking, the idea and its deployment are nothing new. This type of radar have been around for decades. What those officers testified contains nothing about OTH vulnerabilities but their ECM officers would certainly know about them. They did not lie or even conceal anything. They were asked about China's attempt at producing such a weapon and they responded with an overall picture of what an ASBM weapon system could mean, in the worst case scenario, to a US carrier fleet and eventually to US foreign policy regarding Asia.

This is an open forum where there is no time limit. A bunch of 'internet guys' are free to dispute or support any ideas, no matter how loony. From a technical perspective, can any of you 'internet guys' dispute what I said about OTH vulnerabilities and therefore offer an aircraft carrier a tactical advantage?

 

[below_freezing]

even if the ASBM is fake, how will USN deal with 3000 J-6 and J-7 drones?

they do not even need to be maneuvering, only programmable to move towards surface targets with a large RCS.

 

[Martian2]

All the money and efforts could be for naught, as explained by a bunch of 'internet guys'.

One of the mean to produce the desired effect is over-the-horizon radar. Technically speaking, the idea and its deployment are nothing new. This type of radar have been around for decades. What those officers testified contains nothing about OTH vulnerabilities but their ECM officers would certainly know about them. They did not lie or even conceal anything. They were asked about China's attempt at producing such a weapon and they responded with an overall picture of what an ASBM weapon system could mean, in the worst case scenario, to a US carrier fleet and eventually to US foreign policy regarding Asia.

This is an open forum where there is no time limit. A bunch of 'internet guys' are free to dispute or support any ideas, no matter how loony. From a technical perspective, can any of you 'internet guys' dispute what I said about OTH vulnerabilities and therefore offer an aircraft carrier a tactical advantage?

You fail to understand that no one, except the Chinese experts, can give you a technical overview on building an ASBM. You keep demanding a conceptual explanation of how an anti-ship ballistic missile will work in principle. It took China's best minds (backed by massive resources) fifteen years to answer that question. The Pentagon doesn't know the answer to the technical questions of how to build a functional ASBM. "The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship [ballistic] missiles."

U.S. intelligence agencies have been watching Dalian like a hawk. Do you really believe that they're delusional and trying to collect data on a speculative waste-of-time non-existent missile? Come on, be real. "U.S. intelligence agencies for the past several years have been closely monitoring China's northern port of Dalian, where past anti-ship missile tests were carried out, for the first flight test of the new ASBM."

Washington Times - Inside the Ring

"China's anti-carrier missiles

China is moving ahead with development of an aircraft-carrier-killing ballistic missile that is likely the first step in a major new Chinese strategic missile program, according to a forthcoming report by Mark A. Stokes, a retired Air Force officer and former Pentagon China specialist.

The report provides new details on efforts by the Chinese military to convert DF-21 medium-range ballistic missiles into aircraft-carrier-killing weapons, viewed by the Pentagon to be key asymmetric warfare weapons in Beijing's military buildup.

The report identifies numerous Chinese military and technical writings that show the development of anti-ship ballistic missiles is well advanced.

It states that China is ready to conduct a flight test, perhaps timed to future elections in Taiwan.

Mr. Stokes is director of the Project 2049 Institute, an Asia policy research group in Arlington that will release the report, "China's Evolving Conventional Strategic Strike Capability," in the next several days.

Disclosure of the report comes as China's state-run newspaper Global Times reported Wednesday that the Chinese military on Oct. 1, during a parade marking the 60th anniversary of the communist government, will showcase for the first time five types of missiles, including nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, conventional cruise missiles and medium-range and short-range conventional missiles.

U.S. intelligence agencies for the past several years have been closely monitoring China's northern port of Dalian, where past anti-ship missile tests were carried out, for the first flight test of the new ASBM.

The new conventionally armed ballistic missile test, if successful, is expected to be strategically comparable to Beijing's January 2007 anti-satellite missile test.

The report by Mr. Stokes states that fielding the anti-ship missile "could alter the strategic landscape in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond."

The current missile being developed, the DF-21, has a range of about 1,500 miles, enough to threaten and deter U.S. aircraft-carrier strike groups that would be used by the Pentagon to defend Taiwan from a mainland attack or to respond to other conflicts in Asia.

The new missiles are expected to fly in the upper atmosphere or near space and thus "negate" current U.S. Navy-based missile defenses, the report says.

Beyond Asia, the report states that using missiles to hit ships as sea is the first step in China's plan for conventional long-range attack capability across the globe.

The U.S. military is developing a similar capability called prompt global strike that would enable commanders to hit targets anywhere in the world in less than an hour. The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship missiles.

The report states that a review of Chinese military writings reveals that anti-ship ballistic missiles are part of a "phased approach for development of a conventional global strike capability by 2025."

The phases include extending the targeting range of precision guided conventional warhead missiles from 1,240 by 2010 to 1,860 miles in 2015, up to 5,000 miles by 2020, and globewide missile capabilities by 2025 using a hypersonic cruise vehicle.

The missile programs include maneuvering re-entry vehicles and warheads with on-board sensors that are accurate enough to attack ships in the ocean moving at up to 35 knots at sea.

For targeting and tracking, China is developing a comprehensive system of space, ground and sea radar and sensors, including a "near-space" vehicle that would be deployed out of range of most surface-to-air missiles.

In addition to using it during a conflict over Taiwan, China also could use its long-range missiles in any conflict in the South China Sea or in response to threats to close sea lanes used to transport oil to China.

"China's success in fielding a regional and global precision-strike capability could extend the threat envelope to military facilities in Hawaii, and perhaps even space-related and other military facilities in the continental United States that are likely to be involved in a Taiwan-related contingency," Mr. Stoke said.

U.S. allies in Asia rely on aircraft-carrier strike groups, which are outfitted with both strike aircraft and long-range cruise missiles, to maintain security.

China's ability to attack the carriers will undermine stability by preventing carriers from moving within 1,500 miles of China, the report says.

The report mentions a new Chinese missile threat that is a an advanced hybrid ballistic missile that skims the Earth's atmosphere and then converts to an air-breathing cruise missile before reaching the target.

Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said China is rapidly developing the space surveillance and navigation system for its long-range missiles.

"This threat deserves very serious consideration, as it would clearly, if true, necessitate a major new American initiative in the area of missile defenses," Mr. Fisher said.

Jeffrey Lewis, a strategic analyst at the New America Foundation, said the Chinese military seems very interested in conventionally armed ballistic missiles "largely, I suspect, out of a desire to increase the service's profile and autonomy."

Mr. Lewis, however, has been wrong in the past in his assessment of Chinese military developments. He stated on his blog in July 2005 that the Pentagon had "no evidence" for published claims China was working on a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile.

A year and half later, in January 2007, China conducted its first successful test of a direct-ascent ASAT missile after several failures.

Chinese Embassy spokesman Wang Baodong did not address the new missile directly.

"As a peace-loving country that pursues the national defense policy of self-defense nature, China's military modernization, including its navy building, is solely for self-defense," Mr. Wang said in an e-mail."

 

[gambit]

even if the ASBM is fake, how will USN deal with 3000 J-6 and J-7 drones?

they do not even need to be maneuvering, only programmable to move towards surface targets with a large RCS.

First...

ITT VIS

As well as being constrained to the broad frequency band necessary for ionospheric propagation, an OTHR must also allow for the fact that the ionosphere is a highly variable and unpredictable medium. For acceptable OTHR performance, continuous real-time ionospheric assessment (sounding) is necessary, as is the ability for the radar system to adapt to the changes. The day-night variability of the ionosphere requires, typically, a 5:2 change in frequency for comparable operational range but imposed on this diurnal ionospheric cycle are both longer term sunspot-related effects and short-term disturbances.

This is to show the readers that OTH vulnerabilities and weaknesses are not something made up.

Second...

OTH stations are large and usually non-movable, making them vulnerable to air strikes, such as from B-2s.

Now...

As long as there are AWACS, the fleet can deploy chaff/flare defense. Against such a saturation attack, ECM will not distract them all but enough will be misled that the fleet will not be disabled. Thousands of cruise missiles...This is the typical argument that borderline on the fantasy.

 

[gambit]

You fail to understand that no one, except the Chinese experts, can give you a technical overview on building an ASBM. You keep demanding a conceptual explanation of how an anti-ship ballistic missile will work in principle. It took China's best minds (backed by massive resources) fifteen years to answer that question. The Pentagon doesn't know the answer to the technical questions of how to build a functional ASBM. "The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship [ballistic] missiles."

The Pentagon have a much longer 'wish list' than our defense budget could allow. Look at what have been revealed recently, from lasers to 'pain ray', that are under testing. But here you are telling the public that for a country that has MIRV-ed ICBMs, we do not know how to install maneuvering mechanisms to compensate for a moving target.

XM982 Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile

The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is a fire and forget, smart munition.

Now...Am willing to admit I do not know much about ballistic gunnery. I do know a little bit about sensor-guidance. But if the US Army is developing smart artillery rounds, I do not see how you can say that the US cannot develop an ASBM if we really put our efforts into the program.