Does Ballistic Missile Can Attack Aircraft Carrier Successfully?

Originally posted by emile
According to that youve said the GPS is the only way to posite target. But I wondered how can Panshring II and MX ballistic missile make so small CEP even less than 50m before we even dno't know what GPS is?

Well, the MXmissile used stellar/inertial navigation. Stellar navigation supplements inertial navigation by using the position of certain stars as well, to guide the missile. The SR-71 Blackbird used a version of his when navigating.
The 50m CEP for the MX is at the lower end of the estimates as well.

The Pershing II used INS and an active terminal radar guidance system called RADAG (?) to hit stationary targets.

here's the article from janes on a asian site :

www.war-sky.com...#

here it states it might state smaller missiles like the B-611(iskander style) missiles with 150km range as well with the more complex long/mediam/short range missiles with 300-600-2000km ranges.

so there probably going to go for a range of missiles for different applications. it also states they are maybe designing long range/long endurance UAV's for the targeting and are working with russia making survalience radars sattelites and electro optical sattelites.

also they will use manuverable warheads with infrared/radar seekers to improve accuracy.

in my personal opinion i think this may have european galaleo(GPS) system with russian glonas system combo just in case 1 of them tries to cut there system of or 1 signal is jammed it would make sense altough this is just my opinion and nothing more.

Originally posted by iqonx
in my personal opinion i think this may have european galaleo(GPS) system with russian glonas system combo just in case 1 of them tries to cut there system of or 1 signal is jammed it would make sense altough this is just my opinion and nothing more.

I have hear this mentioned before, with a different system.

Glonass is junk, literally and can't even provide accurate readings over most of Russia and Gallileo has a long way to go before it approaches the effectiveness of the US GPS constellation.

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well 2 GPS type satellites wouldn't be accurate at all, civilain use of US GPS satellites use at least 3 whilst the miitary uses up to 5 and 6. The more satellites you hvae the more accurate your positional data will be.

24 or so sateillites for the whole world. If you equate how much area a sateillite covers 2 is enough for the asia region. And this is not something in theory it is being used in service since 2000. The GPS system gets a accurate distance of 0.5m and only gives a commerical figure of something like 5m. China only needs to be accurate with-in 50m of the missiles CEP to be effective. This has already been done and put inot practice 6 years ago

As I've already said, the US would hvae fighters up hundreds of km's from the battle group which would engage any Chinese AWACS type aircraft

How far do american fighters patrol away from their carriers?. If its under 400km than a chinese awacs can spot them. America does not have AWACS killer missiles and would have to engage the AWACS escorts before they can engage the AWACS

The Y-8 balance beam radar search range is about 300km for fighters and 450km for ships. The KJ-2000 is a much large plane with a much more powerful radar so im just assuming it can at least go 50km more so about 500km.

The Superhornet has a range of 150 nm from aircraft carrier doing maritime air superiority. and 410nm escorting with 4 AAMs. The carrier has to come with-in 500km to be useful in a conflict since there are only a limited number of them and they have to perform a lot of sorties to help them out. So yes chinas AWACS aircraft can see them witthout getting itself in danger

Well that's what your Chinese friends say they need.

My chinese friends?

There is no information anywhere, because the system hasn't been tested.

I dont really care if you dont believe me

Its your lost that you cannot find it its not my lost

Originally posted by ORIEguy
TVM sounds absolutely wonderful...but if it was that easy, trust me we'd have it working by now. Want an example? Use AWACS to extend the firing range of SARH missiles like SM-2 against sea skimmers.

Your first lines went something like this. If america doesn't have this technology neither could you. Correct me if im wrong but america doesn' need this technology because no one else is making a ABM system or needs to use it to kill a carrier

Your example is for a target going around mach 1 and a very low stealthy target while mine is a 100,000ton carrier going at 30knots. Difference in that?. This TVM (track via missile) has already been fielding and service in the pariot system and the russians have put it in their S-300. This is not new technology its tested and proven technology.

You might have read my previous post and thought i was a lunatic but i have researched this technology and how it can be implemented and they all are proven systems and most of them are at least 2 decades old already so this is not new or cutting edge but putting pieces together

One of the things I find rather amusing is how everyone ignores the fact that Taiwan is part of the battle as well.

Theres numerous chinese white papers which have finished off the chinese defences in 7 days. The reason for this is to stop american intervention because by the time american forces arrive in number taiwans forces should have been destroyed or surrendered according to chinese white papers. If you dont believe me just go look around some american defense websites which you can download them freely.

All the chinese wargames are aimed at making chinas military more efficent and to practice a invasion of taiwan. Peace mission 2005 was aimed at that. in 1999 there was a 500,000 man wargames aimed at that. the 700 missiles aimed at taiwan is for that. the airforce moderization is aimed at that. chinas submarine moderization is aimed at that.

Here is what i think the PLA might do. A surpirse missile and airstrike involing chinas ballistic missiles and some cruise missiles plus the ground attack and air superioty aircraft to knock out taiwans airforce and radar stations with anti-radation missiles. This in the hope of crippling taiwans air defence and gaining air superioty. remember taiwan only has 120 Arraams and 100 or something PAC-2/3s. This is not airdefence this is a joke.

All this time china has been buying up LGB and ATG missiles to attack taiwans fighter bunkers and if you look at chinas air doctrime its eerily similar to americas. China airforce use to practice soviet style air defence with ait intridiction now its more similar to americas air superioty doctrime. This to me signals a different PLAAF one where it is not just to deny the other force the air but control the air.

Depends on the RV. Exoatmospheric RVs are very hard to intercept because they're SO FAST. That's why we go for the kinetic kill.

Well the Topol M has been designed to manuver in the astomphere at those speeds using re-entry boosters. Its pretty safe to assume that this is not new technology since its not extremely difficult to add manuvering capaibilty to a warhead. And yes china does have that technology to manuver with sateillites

AEGIS is fully computerized, will detect sub missiles, and will fire accordingly.

But what you cannot see you cannot hit. American forces still have trouble hitting the Moskit missile and that is why the evoled sea sparrow is being developed or is alrady developed. Making a missile which is much smaller than any LO aircraft would be alot easier because it does not need complex shaping for the cockpit or the air intakes it needs its front section shaped and maybe its bottom section. FOr low down missiles you need look down radars and if one is not in the area a normal radar would be very difficult to track a sea-skimmer

I have no doubt that if a missile was detected the AEGIS system would destroy it but thats only if it was detected. AEGIS was develop for the cold war where the Soviets would lanuch massive amounts of super fast and super long range missiles but they were easy to spot because they were flying high and they were massive. China deploys lots of cruise missiles and has now recently got the Club-S which is 220-300km range missile and almost flys on the top of the water. Its terminal speed is mach something and the US would have a hard time hitting it

And you also completely are ignoring the fact that we have more subs, and would use them.

No one is talking about a protected war. If i was i would be talking about nukes. The US does have more subs than china but in a task force you only have 2 submarines

"Chinese aircraft would in no way be venuble because they will detect a superhornet hundreds of kilometres away if this system is comparable to the A50I which is 80s technology which it is no using hence the different confiruratioin. "

Super Bugs use LO technology

And how much improved is the superhornet vs a F-16?. It wouldn't be a F-22 class or in my opinoin a F-16 class RCS. Yeah you slap some RAM paint here or there but it is not a stealth platform and cannot hope to go undetected at 100km

A system like this would take at least 10-15 years to properly test and mass produce...and it would have to probably take huge precedence over everything else.

10-15 years?. China already has the platform and already has the warhead. the sensors can be adapted from another system.

This is not only for a CSF this is also being developed to hit air bases which a system is already deployed. Its the D-15/A missile which has a CEP of 35-50 meters and has already been developed. Its just a procedure of fitting new sensors in or changing the warhead

Originally posted by chinawhite
24 or so sateillites for the whole world. If you equate how much area a sateillite covers 2 is enough for the asia region. And this is not something in theory it is being used in service since 2000. The GPS system gets a accurate distance of 0.5m and only gives a commerical figure of something like 5m. China only needs to be accurate with-in 50m of the missiles CEP to be effective. This has already been done and put inot practice 6 years ago

Your telling me you can place an ICBM within 50 metres of a carrier group?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Your telling me you can place an ICBM within 50 metres of a carrier group?

you read it that way didn't you

Originally posted by chinawhite
you read it that way didn't you

Just asking why would you use an ICBM against a carrier group?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Just asking why would you use an ICBM against a carrier group?

My opinoin is that are faster and harder to shoot down compared to cruise missiles. I dunno but the chinese military seem to be mightly interested. And its not just for killing carriers but also attacking airfields.

Imagine a very big claymore....*KaBooM*

Originally posted by chinawhite
My opinoin is that are faster and harder to shoot down compared to cruise missiles. I dunno but the chinese military seem to be mightly interested. And its not just for killing carriers but also attacking airfields.

Imagine a very big claymore....*KaBooM*

Well imagine a very big claymore with the most advanced S2A systems of over 10 ships combined firepower going against 1 very expensive missile....kinda waste of a missile I'd say.

Your exact question had been answered beforehand in this very thread

This is not just ment to send one or a couple of SRBM or MRBMs to attack a carrier fleet its about flooding the defenses combined with air lanuched anti-ship missiles and submarine lanuched anti-ship missiles. The russians in the cold war would hook up their backfires with mach three kitchens to saturate the US carrier defense which were meant to be effective

chinas doctrime is a little similar to the saturating bit but doing that with stealthy missile attacks. Chinas purchases of Kilo submarines with the Klub cruise missile system. china has 12 of them right now. 2 877 and the rest 636 ones armed with the klub system. and producing the Song class with chinese missiles with about one dozen in service or sea trials. But im not saying all of them will be concentrated on a carrier group but the figure of 24 modern submarines kind of hits you in the face pretty hard

The surface fleet is the soverny class with moskit missiles. the first ones 956 has the 120km moskit missiles and the improved 956EM has the improved moskit with a range of about 200km. Plus chinas own destroyers with 280km range YJ-62 missiles and a lot of other missiles but i cant be bother going over all of them at this momment.

Chinas air component is the Su-30MK2 which is a Su-30MKK optimized for naval combat with the N001VEP radar firing KP-31 missiles. Fly low and fly fast to the target. Chinas JH-7/A fighters which are purpose built for naval strikes along with ground strikes but anyway was built to go low and fire their missiles. then there are the the H-6 missiles which are also being equiped with cruise missiles. old but still flying

Anyway what im getting at is china is not going to just throw some missiles at them and hpe the problem goes away but a co-ordinated assult involing all arms of chinas military. Most probaly chinas submarines will fire the first shots then all of a sudden a hail of pellets come from the sky then some low flying aircraft. all assuming america enters within 200km of chinas coast or first interfers in the taiwan strait

Originally posted by chinawhite
Your exact question had been answered beforehand in this very thread

This is not just ment to send one or a couple of SRBM or MRBMs to attack a carrier fleet its about flooding the defenses combined with air lanuched anti-ship missiles and submarine lanuched anti-ship missiles. The russians in the cold war would hook up their backfires with mach three kitchens to saturate the US carrier defense which were meant to be effective

Yes I am familiar with that strategy but nethier the above nor the other part of your post answers my question.
Why waste a ICBM on a carrier group?

Because it just adds to the threat. One more threat you have to cover

Originally posted by chinawhite
24 or so sateillites for the whole world. If you equate how much area a sateillite covers 2 is enough for the asia region. And this is not something in theory it is being used in service since 2000. The GPS system gets a accurate distance of 0.5m and only gives a commerical figure of something like 5m. China only needs to be accurate with-in 50m of the missiles CEP to be effective. This has already been done and put inot practice 6 years ago

You need at least 3 satellites so you can triangulate your position, 2 just doesn't cut it.

How far do american fighters patrol away from their carriers?. If its under 400km than a chinese awacs can spot them. America does not have AWACS killer missiles and would have to engage the AWACS escorts before they can engage the AWACS

You talk as though it would be a problem for the Americans to swat, the escorting fighters from the sky.

The Y-8 balance beam radar search range is about 300km for fighters and 450km for ships. The KJ-2000 is a much large plane with a much more powerful radar so im just assuming it can at least go 50km more so about 500km.

Bollocks, you don't have any information about that, you're just making it up. How high does your plane fly 60 000 feet or something ? That's how high it would need to be to have a coverage of 500 km . The is such a thing as a radar horizon, just because it maybe a more powerful radar does not mean that it's range increases correspondingly.

I dont really care if you dont believe me

Its your lost that you cannot find it its not my lost

Well if you want any credibility, you should post your sources, rather than making things up. Are you held to a different standard than everyone else ?

Originally posted by chinawhite
Because it just adds to the threat. One more threat you have to cover

But the fact is you wont have enough intel to hit it.

Originally posted by mad scientist
You need at least 3 satellites so you can triangulate your position, 2 just doesn't cut it.

You tell that to the commerical market which has been selling it since 2001.

You talk as though it would be a problem for the Americans to swat, the escorting fighters from the sky.

hmmm.........

Mad scientist, really you should do some research on chinas airforce as of now and look where they are deployed.

Bollocks, you don't have any information about that, you're just making it up. How high does your plane fly 60 000 feet or something ? That's how high it would need to be to have a coverage of 500 km

Im not making anything up because its my opinoin. I even said i was asuming not that it was a fact. Well ill settle on a figure of 450km it it suits you. It doesn't really matter to me since 450km is roughly the same at the distances im talking about.

Are you sure about 60 000 feet?. because the Phalcon is reported to hvae a rnage of 500km and that was what i was basing it off

Well if you want any credibility, you should post your sources, rather than making things up. Are you held to a different standard than everyone else ?

I am not seeking credibility because its very hard to change someones mind. Im presenting the other view.

And im not going to look though archieves which are over 1000 post long and would take me at least 2 hours to go though half a year of post. And no im not going to spend 2 hours looking at my computer screen

Originally posted by devilwasp
But the fact is you wont have enough intel to hit it.

devilwasp,

Do you reply on impulse?. Read the last two pages of post because its already been discussed. And in future if you reply please mkae sure it was not already asked beforehand

Originally posted by chinawhite
devilwasp,

Do you reply on impulse?. Read the last two pages of post because its already been discussed. And in future if you reply please mkae sure it was not already asked beforehand

Why not? Is not going over the same questions over and over not an efficient way of getting the right answer?

BTW I have read over the thread and you still havent answered why you would use it!

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

?.

I said it just a few post up

"One more threat you have to cover "

Originally posted by chinawhite
?.

I said it just a few post up

"One more threat you have to cover "

But why? Its got near enough 0 chance of hitting it, its designed to hit a base, not a moving target.