New Recruit
An Exocet-type missile defense against aircraft carriers is only as effective as the missile's effective range. There is a great difference between effective and maximum range of any aircraft that rely on finite fuel quantity, and yes, a missile is an aircraft. The actual Exocet's range is about 70km. Say an Exocet-type missile has a maximum range of 100km but if this missile is programmed to execute evasive maneuvers in its flight path, effective range could be as short as 50km. Maneuvers consumes fuel and increases flight time.
Absolutely. Low intensity conflicts usually involves technologically unequal adversaries. The aircraft carrier becomes more of staging platform than an active combat participant.
Already happened. WW II Battle of Midway was when major aircraft carrier fleets never came within each other's artillery range.
See missile's effective versus strike aircraft's effective range. Advantage: aircraft carrier.
New Recruit
No credible evidences for this claim, other what the Chinese chose.
Over-the-horizon radar is nothing new. The problem is the frequency in which this method rely upon: HF 3-30 mhz. The wavelength is about 1-100 meters. Basic radar detection principles have anything below 1ghz to be unreliable regarding target resolutions, such as range and aspect angle respect to transmission source. Any radar operating in this freq range can at best deduce that there is <something> there and perhaps moving with very coarse target velocity information. So yes, even though the target is large, an aircraft carrier, the target is 'there' and that is all this freq range can tell us.
Satellites move, just in case you do not know, and could move out of the desired detection area.
What is the method of sensor? Radar or infrared or both? Each method has a countermeasure. For radar, a ship can launch several chaff canisters that can produce a radar target electronically thousands of square km, totally blanketing the sensor's radar field of view. Same for IR flares. What is the method of the terminal guidance response for the descending warhead of this mythical Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile? Reaction jets or aerodynamics? The descending warhead has no chance to reacquire the target because it is...descending.
A ballistic warhead has limited space for the explosive device, be it nuclear or otherwise. Cluster munitions can mean any number of individual explosive units. The larger the individual explosive device, aka 'bomblet', the less the warhead can carry, and the problem is evident for the missile designer. What should be the release altitude? The higher the release altitude, the larger the spread area and therefore increased odds of a miss for any individual explosive device. To compensate the missile designer can use smaller bomblets but the smaller the bomblet the less damage it can produce. And do not forget that decks can be repaired.
Over-the-horizon radars are usually large arrays, as in tens of meters in array diameter, and are not very mobile. The US will have them already targeted in different attack methods, cruise missiles, for example. Destroy them and the Chinese defense will be blind.
New Recruit
Did you read the Pentagon Chinese Military Capability Report 2009?
The low resolution of long wavelengh radar is nothing new. Chinese officials are aware of that too. Indeed, the major part of the work must to done by the terminal guidance.
Indeed you need a costellation of satellites. Otherwise you can go for UAV, which have a higher survivebility.
There is various speculation about this. Some PLA officials said that the warhead has little time to do correction manouvers before the atmosphere rentry, so I bet it will use image sensing guidance to aim at the carrier and then dive straight. Other western sources says it will use Ative/Passive Radar guidance+MaRV tecnology.
Well, don't worry for the payload. The DF-25 missile is a smart example, they sacrificed the range in favor of the payload. (2000 kg of warhead at 1800km). And no one said they will launch only one missile to attack the CV group, in a real war scenrio, a saturation attack is needed anyway.
What makes you think the US force can strike successfully what they want? And what makes you think that chinese forces are defenceless? Cruise missiles can be intercepted, their launching platforms too.
New Recruit
I have not read this particular one, but there are several other Internet sources predated this one that essentially carried the same information. You have nothing new.
Yes I have. Figure 4 of the report have a very simplistic diagram of the differences between guidance types of this mythical Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile. It is technically lacking as the report was meant to give the reader 'the big picture'. Only alarmists, the gullibles and those desperate to minimize US military technology would take Figure 4 and its brief explanation on page 21 as anything remotely resembling a credible threat.
How about a few tests?
Do not care about any propaganda claims not relevant to military technology. If anything, the US military prefers to be underestimated.
Am willing to wager that it is new to you. Initially, you brought on over-the-horizon (OTH) radar as if it was some kind of technical hurdle that only the very best technologically savvy would possess. I suggest you read up on the Chain Home and Chain Home Low radar systems of Battle of Britain fame. Atmospheric deflections of the HF freqs were already known, only primitive data processing and video integration/display of some OTH detections prevented the British from fully exploiting this phenomenon.
Among the PLA's generals and admirals, at least one of them must have said the Donald Rumsfeld's version of going 'to war with the Army you have'. So until China is able to wield an orbital sensor system that has the same level of constancy and resolutions as the US, the argument that this mythical Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile can receive target position updates via satellites and be effective against an American aircraft carrier battle group is pointless. It is speculative at best.
So now we have still more uncertainty and doubts about the technical feasability of this mythical Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile.
In a real war scenario, the entire carrier battle group will be under strict emission control (EMCON) protocols, EMCON Alpha. Back in 1986, the USS Ranger left the California coast and became the 'stealth' carrier. For weeks, the Ranger conducted ground strikes against land targets while other US ships and aircrafts attempted to find her. All air operations were conducted through visuals. In this same real world scenario, a US aircraft carrier battle group will deploy electronic decoys and the low resolutions limitations of OTH radar will be conducive to seduction. This is not jamming. The Chinese will wasting their missiles.
That is a blanket charge you cannot support. I do not know what is your country of origin, but the US have 11 aircraft carriers. How many aircraft carriers does your country deploy at any time in the calendar year? No one in the world have more experience than we with this type. In my 10yrs in the USAF, I did a stint as Aircraft Battle Damage Repair (ABDR) instructor. I can guarantee you that if there is a mechanical flight control system, with a broomstick and aluminum from a soda six-pack, I can get the damaged flight control system flight worthy in two hours.
Recently? How about Iraq?
To be 'defenceless' mean to have no defense at all. Nowhere have I said that the Chinese are 'defenceless'. Whether the PLA can be successful or not is a different issue.
A cruise missile is just another type of aircraft. But the first problem with trying to shoot down an aircraft is detection. Do not confuse 'can' with 'will'.
Did you forget that the GPS system is created by the US? The system originally had a feature called Selective Availability. Under SA, there was an intentional error margin induced designed to give military usage of GPS a tactical advantage. The feature was ordered deactivated by President Clinton and future GPS satellites will not have SA, however, the US still can manipulate the clock timing signals of one or a few satellites temporarily over an area of conflict to give US forces the same advantage under SA. Yes...Civilian GPS usage will be affected during the time of the conflict but it will be temporary.
I have read many of those papers. Some of them have hard facts like these:
