I readily admit it is theoretically possible, that does not mean the same thing as workable. There are a lot of issues at play here, and I will cover just a few of them. The US generally uses drones where the air threat is low, and the opponent generally fairly unsophisticated. And that means limited to no Air Defense capability. Using drones in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is fairly simple, because their abilities in Surface to Air or Air to Air warfare is limited at best, Using them against a country like China is much harder, and almost impossible against Russia unless it is operating in an entirely passive mode (capturing photographic data only - flying pre-programmed with no 2 way data link). This is because of Electronic Emissions. Radio can be detected and homed in upon, RADAR is even easier to detect and home in on. The use of things like burst transmission can lower detection, but not eliminate it and the other side will still know he have something up there and a general location, just not enough to target on. For this to work, you would have to have a drone flying almost directly overhead, with a solid passive lock against a carrier. AQnd this might give a good firm location at the time of launch. All of which becomes obsolete within 2-3 minutes of launch. Now the flight time of such a missile is roughly 16-18 minutes. And in that time, the US fleet is not going to be passively waiting to be hit. Every AEGIS RADAR in the fleet is going to be blazing away at maximum power, trying to locate anything within the area (and at full power these things can cook birds in flight). Also there will be so much ECM thrown up that no signals between drone and command center (or command center and missile) will be able to get through. And finally, the carrier will be making drastic course changes, making any bearing they had at time of launch completely useless. You can't guide a missile if your "eyes" are suddenly blinded - or if you can't even talk to the missile through all of the interference being thrown up. Now do I think such a missile is theoretically possible? Yes, against an unarmed target that does not have the detection and defensive capability of a carrier fleet. But a carrier fleet would get more then enough warning and defenses to neutralize this threat against any conventional warhead. Heck, remember the CEP and the width of the flight deck. Even under ideal conditions against a perfectly stationary target, this thing would have only a 50-50 chance of hitting the flight deck. Against a twist and turning moving target, even with no capability of blocking any signals I give it a very slim chance to hit a moving target.
That is a nice analysis, but I have one question: how the USN will know they are under attack? It is not like the chinese are going to post "omg lol we just launched df-21d at you, prepare to die, lol" on Facebook. And if you were going to say "sattellites" - they would be the first one to be targeted if a conflict occurs.
Launch detection works from a great many sources. First of all, there are satellites. This is typically the "first reaction" source. But targeting these would be a declaration of war in and of themselves. Targeting one of these would be foolish, since it would put minds to thinking "first strike" was in the works, and DEFCON 2 (or 1) would result. Not even the US and USSR at the worst of their tensions considered taking out the early warning capability of the other for fear that it would be seen as the opening of a pre-emptive strike (they however did plan on taking out C&C and recon birds). And there is also RADAR. While not really useful for targeting, OTH RADAR works great for launch detection, like the US DEWLINE, and the Soviet/Russian DNESTR/DARYAL and the future VORONEZH systems. All of these can spot BM (MRBM/IRBM/ICBM) launches without any satellites at all. As well as the AN/SPY systems on the Ticonderoga Cruisers and Burke Destroyers, which will also see them the moment they rise above the local horizon. Remember, we are talking Medium/Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, operating in a parabolic curve. Not flat trajectory missiles like a Cruise Missile. The moment they go above a few miles in altitude, they will be spotted instantly, satellite coverage or not. And in this event, shooting down a satellite before hand will only heighten fears it is a nuclear payload and not a conventional one. Plus it will reduce the chances of making an early terminal trajectory impossible, placing many more nations on high alert. I will not try to get into how many birds are circling at any time over one area of the planet, but there are a lot of them. Are they going to shoot down all of them? India, Russia, Japan, US, Taiwan, France, etc, etc, etc? And does anybody think that say Russia would not warn the US if it detected such a launch first? I am betting they would, to prevent any kind of "blowback" upon them in the SHTF.
KGB....you are not talking to a bunch of 5 year old kids who you can fool with all your EDITEDI can see you are annoying other members again as you will state such B.S. and then when I or others who might actually KNOW what the REALITIES are post something that PROVES you are IN FACT AGAIN EDITED you pull your old....DENIAL, ACCUSATION, INSULT, CHANGE THE SUBJECT ROUTINE....which for any member here that has seen you do this many times is your...M.O. Why don't you just TRY to talk about FACTS AND REALITIES as I am sure others here as well as myself get TIRED of CONSTANTLY having to post the facts to refute your continued posting EDITED INSULTSAboveAlpha
You are RIGHT! China...understanding it cannot counter a U.S. Carrier Group in any conventional sense is concentrating upon...DETECTION....TARGETING....and then using LARGE NUMBERS OF MISSILES OR DRONES in an attempt to attack a Carrier or Carrier Group. Currently the Chinese do NOT yet have the capability to adequately target and attack a U.S. Carrier Group as they might be able to FIND a U.S. Carrier Group but a Carrier Group...MOVES....thus REAL TIME monitoring is necessary as just flying up to 65,000 feet only to get shot down is not going to cut it. Thus the Chinese have been trying to plant listening devices on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean but we have counter measure for those. Right now any Chinese Aircraft of Missile Attack would be detected WELL IN ADVANCE and EASILY shot down by a variety of U.S. Navy methods. Since the a U.S. Navy Carrier Group has 2 Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers LOADED with SM-3 ABM/ASAT's which are currently the most accurate Ship Launched/Orbital Distance Capable/Hypersonic Cruise or Ballistic Missile or Satellite Interceptor existing on the PLANET as an SM-3 can be guided by a variety of means...IR-Detection....Visual Guidance....Laser Guidance...Radar Guidance....and a few other methods that can't be mentioned....and an SM-3 has already been tested as it intercepted a tank on a failing U.S. Satellite at Orbital Distance traveling at a velocity between 14,500 and 18,000 mph....and since such a distance and a velocity both FAR EXCEED the distances and speeds that any incoming Anti-Ship Missile of any country can travel or velocity it could obtain....THE ONLY thing a U.S. Carrier Group would have to worry about is NUMBERS. NUMBERS...is something the FEL or Free Electron Laser which is already operational on serveral land locations and several non-carrier group ships but will soon be operational as the FIRST Carrier and Cruisers equipped with Nuclear Reactor Power Generated FEL's will be the USN. CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford Stealth Carrier Group which will very soon be at Sea Trials. AboveAlpha
Not my fault you don't know the terminology. Still trying to foist that imaginary '4000 km/hr @ sea level' miracle missile, huh? When you actually build one, let me know. In the mean time, lets use the P-800 as a model. Published speed is Mach 2.5 (3085 km/hr = 857 m/s) @ 10 meters altitude [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks. Radar horizon for missile and sensor at 10 m altitude is 26083 m [http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm. 26083 m/857 ms = 30.4 s. 30 kts/hr = 15.5 m/s. 30.4 s X 15.5 m/s = 471 meters. No, missile won't hit it's target. Yes, guidance will be the first thing destroyed, glad we agree on that. Of course, it will be jammed even before that.
Hitting a carrier with a missile will probably be very difficult. But there can be other ways for the Chinese to stop a carrier from getting close to the combat. Imagine the Chinese detonating a very small tactical nuclear weapon well ahead of the carrier group. Say 150 miles. Nobody gets hit. The Chinese simply say "we care about you." Will the group stop, turn around, or continue?
First of all a U.S. Carrier Battle Group conducts operations at a distance well away from any range of any nations Aircraft of Missiles....and because U.S. Aircraft can operate at virtually unlimited ranges due to larger fuel tanks, better conservation of jet fuel due to better jet engines and of course MID-AIR REFUELING...no USN. Carrier Battle Group is going to get anywhere near within 500 to 700 miles of a coastline. As for China to use a Tactical NUKE....this would just be STUPID....as a Single U.S. Carrier Group carries with it more Nuclear Weapons than the entire Chinese Military has! AboveAlpha
There is one other thing at play here when you are talking about a missile such as this. When you move at such high speeds, you give up 2 things. First is maneuverability. The faster an object travels, the harder it is to navigate with accuracy. Even our own ABM systems work with this in mind, sacrificing speed for accuracy. Yes, we can make missiles like PATRIOT and THAAD faster, but then we give up the high degree of accuracy that these systems have. We save this for point defense systems, where speed quickly becomes more important as a "last ditch" defense effort. Then secondly, you have the detectability of such a weapon. TOMAHAWK by virtue of it's low speed makes it hard to detect, as well as highly accurate. The US could make a faster cruise missile, but then that greatly magnifies it's heat signature. One of the major drawbacks of ONIKS is that it has a heat signature that blazes like a bonfire on a winter night. Even at MACH 2.5, the thing screams at all IR systems like a Christmas Tree. Systems like the RIM-116 would have no problem targeting this missile, because it's heat signature screams it is on it's way. And finally, this system is an Over The Horizon fully autonomous (fire and forget) system. It has to be programmed with a great many things to find and hit it's target. It is both passive (HARM mode) and active RADAR homing. And for it's terminal flight it needs to find it's specific target or it flies overhead and does nothing. A course change between launch detection and terminal phase is going to see the carrier both "go silent" (turning off all active RADAR), change course (to present as small a RADAR cross-section as possible), and have every escort once again blazing away with every RADAR system they possess. This may be a great system for a lightly defended ship, or even a small flotilla. But I do not see it as a major threat against something like a carrier group unless fired in huge volleys. And even then, it would have to find the carrier from all the other ships, and escape the IR missiles that will be targeting it with no RADAR emissions at all.
Taxcutter says: It's hard enough to hit a carrier with a subsonic (read "maneuverable") Harpoon. A hypersonic missile can't maneuver much. Only way you kill a carrier is with nukes. Then, it's mushroom season in China.
Even though the FEL will be the ultimate Anti-Missile...Anti-Aircraft...Anti-Sub...Anti-Satellite...Anti-Ship and Anti-Target of any kind system....CURRENTLY U.S. Carrier Groups are in fact protected from ALL currently existing Anti-Ship Missiles be they Cruise...Hypersonic Cruise....Air to Sea...Ship to Ship....Surface to Ship...etc...etc...Missile or Aircraft of ANY KIND. As I posted that link to Operation Burnt Frost it shows the Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruiser USS. Lake Erie launching an SM-3 ABM/ASAT which then as you watch the video this SM-3 which is not using a warhead....is guided to and intercepts and strikes then explodes a Hydrazine Tank which is JUST A SINGLE PART of a failing U.S. Satellite and the SM-3 intercepts this tank at ORBITAL DISTANCE and the satellite the Hydrazine Tank is a part of is traveling at between 14,500 and 18,000 mph. So...what does this say about U.S. Naval Capability to defend a Carrier Group? Well...for one that Satellites Hydrazine tank was in ORBIT....so that shows the DISTANCE we can intercept a missile....the Hydrazine Tank is in SPACE thus it is cold and since we were able to DIRECTLY TARGET JUST THE TANK....and directly hit JUST THE TANK and not the rest of the satellite....it tells us that an SM-3 is capable of A DIRECT STRIKE of any part of any incoming Missile or Aircraft or Satellite. So what does THAT mean? It means that we can DESTROY an incoming missiles WARHEAD....and unlike the OLD Patriots which have been VASTLY IMPROVED...as in Desert Storm we could intercept a SCUD with a Patriot ABM....but we at the time could not directly impact and detonate the warhead in air or space thus not allowing a falling missile to explode on impact even if it is not on target. What else does hitting that Hydrazine Tank is orbit mean? It means we DON'T NEED AN IR-SIGNATURE to intercept a Missile or Aircraft or Satellite as that tank was in the dead cold of space. It also means we can track, target and directly impact anything we aim at using a VARIETY OF DETECTION TECHNIQUES....and do so even if a target is traveling at 14,500 to 18,000 mph....far faster than any Carrier Killer Hypersonic Missile be it Cruise, Ballistic or other. So....for the time being until the FEL Laser Systems are installed on all U.S. Navy Carriers and Aegis Cruisers...it is safe to say our Carrier Groups are SAFE. AboveAlpha
He is right....one area the U.S. Military excels at in the Extreme is Highly Advanced Electronic Warfare Countermeasures. Admittedly after the Russian's determined that most Russian Built SAM's and other Missiles launched at both U.S. Aircraft and the smaller number launched at Tanks and other U.S. Weapon Systems had their guidance systems BURNED OUT well before they ever had a chance to hit their target....the Russian's went on a Crash Program to develop both Material and Electronic Shielding from such U.S. Electronic Warfare Countermeasures. But by the time Russia had developed such things to counter what happened in the Gulf War, Bosnia and Invasion of Iraq....the U.S. had already moved several levels or steps beyond such newer Russian Missile Shielding. AboveAlpha
Kh-22. Yes, MACH 4.5+, air to surface missile. Long range, 600km and glat trajectory, flying most of it's way at high altitude at MACH 1. Then it "pops-up" to between 10-25km altitude and then ramps up to MACH 4.5 as it drops for it's final approach, traveling at around 500 meters until right before it hits. This is an interesting bird, but it dates to the early 1960's, and it's threat has long since been negated by a modern carrier escort group. YJ-12, basically a Chinese backward-engineered P-800. But morphed into multiple configurations and purposes, including Air to Air and HARM (ABM is also proposed). KH-31, a MACH 3+ air to surface sea skimming HARM missile. This is designed to go after escorts, not carriers since carrier EM would be almost nill during an engagement. Irrelevant, since we are talking about a surface naval group. However, Australia does have the Jindalee EWS system. But the "detection range" of the AN/SPY RADAR? That depends, how far is it to the horizon, and at what point does the item rise above the horizon? Remember, we are talking about a ballistic missile. With a 15 minute or so flight time. And within 2 minutes it will be in excess of 100km altitude, easily visible because it will be above the horizon. Remember, we are talking about a 6+ megawatt RADAR. I am not kidding when I say they normally operate at a lower power for fear of cooking birds. The AN/MPQ-65 RADAR I worked with had only 160-200 kilowatts, and you could feel the cooking from 100 meters away. But we were still able to detect launched from another country over 350 miles away once they traveled over the horizon. I did not say shooting down a satellite would result in a nuclear war directly, but it is the wrong move towards one. Because if that was done by any country to any country (for a target of anything other then C&C and reconnaissance birds), the automatic response is to go to the highest levels of alertness. Trust me, we know what all of the birds over our are are, and they know the same thing. There is a difference between an Early Warning bird and a Communications bird. You do not go around shooting satellites, especially not missile detection ones unless you are planning a nuclear strike. That will be the automatic assumption. And after such happens, everything (including all Strategic forces) will go on high alert. Snapcounts will begin, SSBNs will move into launch preparations. And then you are literally minutes away from somebody with a jumpy trigger finger pressing the button. Tell me, what do you think the Soviet reaction would have been if in October 1962 the US decided to destroy the DENSTR Radar system? They would rightfully have assumed an attack was imminent, and likely reacted by launching their own missiles and bombers. Oh, and guiding weapons via satellite, that is stuff of science-fiction. Weapons are guided by inertia and GPS, not satellites. And if they want to take down the GPS grid, they are going to have to hit dozens of them. Of not just the US. Russia has it's own GPS system, and we can tap into that as easily as we can tap into our own. Is China going to declare war against the Russians by shooting down their satellites? And GPS is only used for precise targeting. We can still launch our weapons (including ICBMs) without them, the only difference is that the inbound missile is back at a 500 meter accuracy instead of a 10 meter accuracy. When you are talking about a 300kt nuclear warhead, that does not matter at all.
KGB said to me.... In your case I obviously do. And stop talking like you represent somebody. You do not. Now, back to your pit, animal.[/QUOTE] You know....you just have no idea just how much of an animal I can revert to...except I keep my rational thinking ability....very unlike you. If I represent anyone it would be the members who are interested in having an enjoyable intelligent debate and be able to have such an enjoyable debate both with people they are and disagree with. YOU...on the other hand act and post in a manner that is disrespectful to other members, disrespectful to this forum and it's Mod's....and you even disrespect yourself....as no person should allow others to view them as in as much a negative light as you allows yourself to be viewed. Say what you will about me.....it only makes YOU look bad. AboveAlpha
Off-topic, but thanks to some new communications technologies those 'old tech' telephone lines now have a new importance for real time GPS and satellite applications, and the beauty of the tech is it's not important whose lines they are, as controlling and operating them has nothing to do with using them; there was an article in The Economist some time back on it, so I assume its okay to mention it in a public forum. Nobody is going to tear out their land lines to keep enemies from using them, so its a very sweet deal.
I've originally meant Kh-32, which supposingly has low-altitude flight regime, but since there is little info on that metter, i'll leave it to you. No, it is not. They couldn't backward-engineer it since they never had original missile. Moreover, if you take a closer look they have completely different air intakes. YJ-12 is more likely to be a smaller version of P-270 or blown out of proportion Kh-31, judjing by that criteria. It might be their own design as well. Yep. And Exocet missile, which failed to detonate, still sanked HMS Sheffield. Taking into account how many vulnerable systems are installed in the aircraft carrier, a succesful hit would be able to disable it, though almost unlikely to sink it. In other words, you'll have to rely solely on sattelites (and they will be shot down) and naval group own radars. Well ,it is not. First of all, it is naive to assume that this won't be done to GPS and navigation sattelites. It is an ultimately stupid move to allow the enemy guide his precision weapons on your territory. In fact, these will be the main target. While you do have a point with such actions endangering early warning capability complicates the situation, I assume it might be hard to dustinguish one type of the sattelite from the other. Of course GPS sattelites have their own orbit height, but how you are going to sort out which one is early warning and which one is spying? Most importantly, the Chinese do have their own guidance sattelites to support their anti-ship capabilities...arn't you going to shot them down or just let them guide their ASBM at you? Not exactly fits our discussion, does it? We were talking about destroying early warning sattelites, not stationary early warning radars. And I don't think the Chinese will do it. ....so...the weapons are guided by GPS and it is based on sattelites. For a moment, isn't it what I was talking about? Not sure what is the problem with destroying "dozens" of them since only 31 is in service. Moreover, if you shot down a portion of them, that will effectively create windows in timeline, when you won't be able to recieve GPS signal. Nope, you can't. We'll be able to shut down a transmittion of GLONASS sinal to the region. And that is the main region Russia have originally developed this system and the reason why China is developing it's own. Also you might require severe modernesation of all equipment so it will be able to recieve it's signal. So - no - not happening. But it does matters for precision weapons like cruise missiles or guided bombs. Weapon, which was sufficient to destroy a target with a direct hit will be impotent if it will only be able to hit 100 meter circle with 50% probability.
Most of this I am going to pass over - not really relevant. Uhhh, China uses the exact same GPS systems to target their weapons. And this is largely meaningless. Weapons that use GPS also use inertial navigation. It is not an "or" issue, they use both (or even more) systems to navigate. And these systems were plenty precise even in Gulf War I, when GPS was first being deployed and the vast majority (if not all) of the weapons used were still using non-GPS navigation technology. No, weapons have multiple navigation systems. Inertial is the primary one. GPS is another. Others use a variety of on-board sensors, like IR, RADAR, RADAR detection, and other ways to get to their target. One of the most fascinating to me is the TOMAHAWK. One system they use is DSMAC - Digital Scene-Mapping Area Correlator. Literally they compare digitized photographs with objects on the ground and use that to find and hit their targets. If you watch videos taken of TOMAHAWK in flight, they are usually following roads. This is because a road is a flat high-contract surface, and easy for a missile to follow. Check out Youtube, there are a slew of videos of people on the ground and in the air tracking TOMAHAWK missiles, both in 1990-1991 and in 2003. And they all behave the same way, following roads to get to their target, using their pre-programmed DSMAC data. GPS is just a back-up. In fact, I can't think of a single weapon that relies solely (or even primarily) upon GPS. Inertial is still the main system, along with RADAR and IR. And if a country is willing to shoot down some GPS birds, do you think they will not destroy all of them? Oh, and with their own birds, there is really nothing stopping us from using them as well. And as I have shown you, weapons like a cruise missile do not need GPS. TOMAHAWK was in use for over a decade before they even put GPS into it, and it had a pretty good record for accuracy. Oh, and let's talk about where this has gone, shall we? Strategic weapons. Minuteman Missile, the US land-based missile. 300-350kt nuclear yield. 100% Inertial guidance, no GPS at all. TRIDENT II Missile, the US sub based missile. 300-350kt nuclear yield. 100% inertial guidance, no GPS at all. Now I have no idea why you are thinking that GPS is the "be all end all" for military ordinance guidance. Very few weapons even have them in the first place, and it is only used for correction and verification of the inertial guidance system anyways. It is not their primary means of reaching a target.
The distance is not really the point here. The objective for the Chinese is not to start a nuclear war but to stop the carrier. Using a nuke against a carrier will be stupid. My point is that they can detonate a very small one well ahead of the carrier group so that nobody gets hurt. Once that happens the brass will either react like general Buck Turgidson in Doctor Strangelove or remain calm and see that this is a warning from China. It is no longer a military decision but a political one. Who wants to enter a war in which the opponent is ready to use nuclear weapons and has the ability to potentially hit one's cities?
Trust me, if China (or any country) actually launched a nuke anywhere near any fleet, it would more then likely trigger a nuclear war. Nukes are not military weapons, they are political weapons. They are the ultimate in terror weapons, intended to force the other side to capitulate rather then face total destruction (or to be totally destroyed if they are foolish enough to use one first). There is little "military" about them or their use. Personally, I think the appropriate word for the next nation to use one in combat will be "Charcoal". They will become an International pariah nation, and likely be attacked on multiple sides.
All the details and speculation aside, I do think we may have the most likely of "next big war" scenarios. China vs Japan and/or South Korea and/or Taiwan. With this scenario you have the combustible mixture. Big-league industrial powers which have the economic power to prosecute high-level war for more than a month. Economic rivalry. Historic animosity. Close geographical proximity. By comparison, nobody in southwest Asia has the capability of waging modern war at a high level for any meaningful period of time (I choose 30 days). Maybe Israel but even that is a long shot. China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all Top Ten economies. There is nothing between them but less than 500 miles of salt water. The US pulling back would create a power vacuum. Somebody will move to fill it. Everyone else will resist.
I am not saying they detonate it anywhere near the carrier group but well ahead of it. The point is not to inflict damage but to reach a political solution. I agree that nukes are political and not military weapons. That was my point Yes, the pariah label will definitely be used. But I doubt that China is going to attack Japan. It has very little to gain from it. Perhaps we will see a new series of proxy wars in Africa...?
Let us try again. The Chinese detonate a very small nuclear weapon in the path the carrier group will take. Far away from it. Only casualites are some fish. Their message is 'we really, really, really want you to start out of this." How is The White House going to react? There is a treaty with Japan but there is suddenly also the very real risk that a war could affect the West coast in a very bad way. How will a president react to this. Reagan would problably go in with guns blazing but would Obama do the same thing if it happened a week from now? I am not so sure.
Well, anything like that will kill more then just fish, I can promise you that. Merchant vessels and Fishermen come immediately to mind. That entire region is a major maritime highway, with ships from all over the world transiting through it. The same with fishermen, from Australia, Indonesia, Japan, US, India, and every other country in the region. Then you have the radioactive fallout, which will cover every nation downwind, from Philippines and Taiwan to Indonesia, Singapore, and others. Can you say "International incident due to mass radiological contamination"? Not to mention everybody else who will then have their fingers on the trigger, from the US and Russia to the UK, France, India and Pakistan? Each of which has had issues with China in the past, and will see this as nothing but a threat of thermonuclear war. Of course, this would largely be irrelevant, because China's economy would be imploding at this point, as every nation on the planet stopped dealing with them. Not even Iran and North Korea would want to be seen dealing with a nation that launched a nuclear weapon under anything but as a response to the use of a nuke. And I already said how the US would react. Snapcount would begin, DEFCON 1, and the movement of all strategic nuclear forces into the region. If China even twitched, it would be all over but the bodycount on all sides. Thankfully, I do not think anybody in here believes that China is as stupid as you are making them out to be.
