Does Ballistic Missile Can Attack Aircraft Carrier Successfully?

^^
The possibilities for space warfare are innumerable and very ineresting in terms of simplicity.
But anything that hints towards weaponisation of space, will be not taken nicely by the world, and it will jumpstart a race to fill earth orbit with all kinds of weapons and coutner weapons..

BASE............ BASE........... all your BASE............

Originally posted by chinawhite
Well im no computer expert but i know 14mhz compared to 3000mhz is a lot more processing power, I think this is the only way raw processing power is measured. increased processing power is what programs our computers. What in your opinoin would be needed to increasing the processing speed of the missile?

Mhz, is a measure of the clock speed, one hertz is one cycle. The difference is what the CPU does in that one cycle, a civilian processor may perform 4 instructions per cycle whilst a military CPU may do 10,20 etc.
Also, military chips are probably RISC chips and don't need the versatility that civilian ones do.

You said in this thread somewhere that a MRBM travels at mach three and a ICBM travels at mach 7. the Brahmos is a mach 3 missile is is roughly comparable in the need of processing power. The brahmos is also different because with its sensors it will also manuver to the target which will also need more processing power and other missiles like the moskit also have that capability.

I said that an IRBM's RV has sppeds of 3-3.5 km/s and an ICBM's RV is 7km/s. Ehich in mach numbers is Mach 10 and 21 respectively. So you can see that the speeds are vastly superior to an air breathing missile.

The minuteman warheads use GPS, not just inertial guidance, earlier versions also used stellar/inertial guidance. BTW, you're talking about US missiles not Chinese.

According to FAS it uses inertial guidance only while i couldn't find plans where it would be fitting GPS to it. But i was wrong off the mark it was 100m max with a improved inertial guidance system. But thats what you get for getting it off your head.

I can't find any information about Minuteman GPS guidance, I'm sure I read it somewhere though. I'll have a look around.

The actual test was conducted with a D-15A which has a CEP of 30~50m. If you think about a explosion and the distance a bullet can go 30~50m CEP is not bad for that type of situation. Imagine a massive claymore mine attached to the top of a 1 ton warhead filled with tungsten pellets. Massive circle

The missile has an accuracy of 300 m CEP for older models and 30-45 m CEP for the newer GPS upgraded systems. The missile is 9.1 m in length with a diameter of 1.0 m and a launch weight of 6,200 kg.

missilethreat.com...

It has a high degree of accuarcy only when using American GPS guidance. In any time of war you can expect the US to block Chinese GPS usage in theater. This would probably be done by altering the timing of the GPS signals, allowing only the US and her allies to use the GPS system with any degree of accuracy.

IRBM and SRBM are the same?. Yes i was reading the links posted before. But i highly doubt the missiles the US were thinking about were more than scub missiles or enlarged scud missiles without any countermeasures but bumb missiles which fly in a strait path that dont have flares or anything else

IRBM's and MRBM's are the same. IRBM's are generally considered to hvae a range of about 4-5000 km's.

The very earliest the Chinese could possibly deploy a ASBM is 2009, providing they can actually build enough surveillance assets.

While china has two spy sateillies up and half a dozen ELINT AWACS in building and testing. Like i said before it states in the chinese white paper that a system has been tested already and thats where the conclusion about ASBM comes from.

I would hate to think how vulnerable Chinese aircraft would be, if they had to search for the US fleet. These planes would be detected well before detecting the carrier, considering the US would have her carrier based airborne radar planes up, increasing the US fleets radar covergae out to hundred of miles.

I read that the Chinese ASBM if entered into service would need 4 electro-optical and 4 radar sats to have effective coverage.

A system has been tested already ? I can find no information on this. Have a link.

What KH satellites have to do with this, I have no idea, maybe you'd care to elaborate.

You said spy satellites and i thought you were thinking of the KH-11. How many DSP satellites are there in orbit anyway?


Yes I did say spy satellites, which includes the full plethora, such as ELINT, SIGINT etc. the KH series are elctro-optical and SAR ( Synthetic Aperture Radar ) satellites.

As for DSP satellites, I'm not sure how many there are, but one can cover a huge area.

PS. Here's a patent of a Chinese designed anti-ballistic missile warhead which seem to be using the same concept that they are talking about on the ASBM. I think you'll find it interesting reading.

Chinese Shrapnel Warhead patent pdf - 1Mb

[edit on 9-2-2006 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by mad scientist

I would hate to think how vulnerable Chinese aircraft would be, if they had to search for the US fleet. These planes would be detected well before detecting the carrier, considering the US would have her carrier based airborne radar planes up, increasing the US fleets radar covergae out to hundred of miles.
[edit on 9-2-2006 by mad scientist]

arnt the chinese building anti-radiation missiles like the ft-2000 they where designing and also the harpy anti-radar drones they got from israel.

sinodefence.com...

the ft-2000 is the anti-radiation version of the hq-9 missiles by china and also not mentioned in that site but i read somehwere else they where also making an air-launched version of it. the ground version has something like 200km range and i dont know the range of the air launched version. wouldnt this make american early warning systems very vunrable.

Originally posted by iqonx
arnt the chinese building anti-radiation missiles like the ft-2000 they where designing and also the harpy anti-radar drones they got from israel.

sinodefence.com...

Well the Isaeli harpy anti-radiation UAV is for attacking ground targets only and are useless against planes.
The FT-2000 may seem impressive, but an E-2 Hawkeye or E-3 AWACS radar has a far greater range than the missile and would probobly never come into range from the SAM variant. The same applies to an aircraft launched version, they attacking aircraft would be spotted well before coming into range.
Also with ARM's, an easy way to defeat them is to turn all your emitters off.

Also, the fact that the CHinese are only offereing it for export doesn't seem to imply that they have that much confidence in the system.

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by iqonx
arnt the chinese building anti-radiation missiles like the ft-2000 they where designing and also the harpy anti-radar drones they got from israel.

sinodefence.com...

Well the Isaeli harpy anti-radiation UAV is for attacking ground targets only and are useless against planes.
The FT-2000 may seem impressive, but an E-2 Hawkeye or E-3 AWACS radar has a far greater range than the missile and would probobly never come into range from the SAM variant. The same applies to an aircraft launched version, they attacking aircraft would be spotted well before coming into range.
Also with ARM's, an easy way to defeat them is to turn all your emitters off.

Also, the fact that the CHinese are only offereing it for export doesn't seem to imply that they have that much confidence in the system.

i think you're missing the point that i was trying to get accross but it's probably my fault for not getting my message accross properly in my previous post what i was trying to get at is they have the technology for anti-radiation devices so its only sensible that the chinese can use this for whatever weopons they like. you can be sure the chinese are trying to make missiles hat can engage american awacs/sentry systems also i read from a report cant rember but i think it was janes not sure though but the chinese where trying to buy a russian anti-radiation/AAM from russia with a range between 300-400kms which can fit onto the aircraft they already have cant remebr the name of the missile.

^^ As I said before, the AWACS detection range far exceeds the range of the missile. The AWACS simply shuts down it's radar and moves, if a missile were to get close enough. This isn't a new threat at all, long range air-to-air missiles with active radar guidance would hvae a far better chance.
There is a reason the Chinese are trying to sell them to export markets and not use them themselves.

Also, the other missile you're talking about is the Russian AS-17/Kh-31p ramjet powered missile. There is talk about a possible anti-radiation version for AWACS, but it would only have a range of 200km. The version being used now is an ARM version for use against ships and has a range of about 120km.

As an interesting aside, the US Navy actually fixed many of the bugs and increased its range for the the AS-17 in return for basic versions being delivered to them as use for super sonic sea skimming targets. Before the US help, many AS-17's blew just after launch.

Originally posted by chinawhite

ORIEguy,

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

-------------

Bottom line is chinas SRBM or MRBM will be fitted with improved guidence to allow them to see and hit a moving carrier. Its been tried and called a "sucess" according to a chinese white paper about chinas military moderizationa and effects on the region by the authors of "unresticted warfare"

OK seriously while that's a right nice doctrine you've looked up, we're analyzing the adaptability of ballistic missiles to maritime attack.

You have to understand that somehow, you're going to have a way for these systems to search for ground based targets actively in order to guarantee a real warhead kill. Forget the battle group defenses, it's going to be hard enough to hit the damn things.

The fact you need a RV limits you in many ways.
First, the payload has to be large enough to be shielded for reentry.
Second, it will need sensors.
Third, you need to be able to guide the RV into the target, which is a time/sensor/processor problem.
Fourth, you need to achieve a saturation effect(multiple targets).

Solve problem 3 by slowing the payload down. OK, that works. Parachutes, and all, been there done that.
Move on to problem 4, which you can solve by using submunitions which get dumped out after slow down. Except that doesn't work since a large RV that's slow is a sitting duck for interception by SAMs.
So let's make the submunitions release early on.
Again, no go. You hit problem 1, which requires shielding, which requires size.
Already, this concept is not looking to healthy, and we haven't even gotten into sensors yet.

A mass bomblet saturation would work well against even the most sophisticated AEGIS-like systems. The issue is getting the bomblets to the target. And ballistic systems are obviously not the ideal solution. Stealthy high flying units have a much better chance at getting to the target.

If you can knock the battle group blind, you've gone from suicide attack to excellent chance of success.
Why waste all those military assets? Don't forget that there also electronic solutions to radar guided missiles. We have yet to properly see how those factor into this equation. And the picture already is pretty ugly for an attacking force as long as AEGIS+SM-2+ESSM is up and running. That's an absolute asston of missiles that are locked cocked and ready to shoot down inbounds.

Originally posted by ORIEguy

OK seriously while that's a right nice doctrine you've looked up, we're analyzing the adaptability of ballistic missiles to maritime attack.

You have to understand that somehow, you're going to have a way for these systems to search for ground based targets actively in order to guarantee a real warhead kill. Forget the battle group defenses, it's going to be hard enough to hit the damn things.

the russian iskander ballitic missile can hit moving targets and has cep of 20-30m. so yes it can be done. becuase most aircraft carriers in the us navy have surface which is big enough for an isknader to hit accuratly.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
The fact you need a RV limits you in many ways.
First, the payload has to be large enough to be shielded for reentry.
Second, it will need sensors.
Third, you need to be able to guide the RV into the target, which is a time/sensor/processor problem.
Fourth, you need to achieve a saturation effect(multiple targets).

Solve problem 3 by slowing the payload down. OK, that works. Parachutes, and all, been there done that.
Move on to problem 4, which you can solve by using submunitions which get dumped out after slow down. Except that doesn't work since a large RV that's slow is a sitting duck for interception by SAMs.
So let's make the submunitions release early on.
Again, no go. You hit problem 1, which requires shielding, which requires size.
Already, this concept is not looking to healthy, and we haven't even gotten into sensors yet.

A mass bomblet saturation would work well against even the most sophisticated AEGIS-like systems. The issue is getting the bomblets to the target. And ballistic systems are obviously not the ideal solution. Stealthy high flying units have a much better chance at getting to the target.

If you can knock the battle group blind, you've gone from suicide attack to excellent chance of success.
Why waste all those military assets? Don't forget that there also electronic solutions to radar guided missiles. We have yet to properly see how those factor into this equation. And the picture already is pretty ugly for an attacking force as long as AEGIS+SM-2+ESSM is up and running. That's an absolute asston of missiles that are locked cocked and ready to shoot down inbounds.

ballistic missiles dont actually have to go almost to the edge of earth/space and then back down this is just how they have been working for a long time russia made a ballistic missiles that actually doesnt go that high in altidude.

we are making to many assumptions for these missiles that they have to performe like a tradional ballistic missiles thats not true they can get the missile to do what they like.

the missile for all we know could just go 75% of the altidude of a normal ballistic missile or even less while still having a ballitic flight pattern which will produce significantly less heat . also note china has already mastered stearing a re-entry vehicle as demonstrated by some of its ballistic missiles and it already posses iskander(CEP of 20-30m) and SCUD-D(CEP of 50m) and the iskander can hit moving targets. it doesnt really need much modifications to the design to ge it to hit aircraft carriers. all it would really need is sub-launched capability and you could technically fire it from a submarine at ships/aircraft carriers.

i think the problem here is people are always trying to dismiss chinese technology by mocking it and trying to say if america doesnt have it then it cant be done attidude.

also i would like to add people put too much faith into the aegis system for some reason it seems to be invincible from everything including wrath of god according to americans, when it actually proves itself then americans can say its good but until it actually faces a real battle against a decent millitry or even a few hundred incoming missiles then people can say its good but if its never faced battle then its no good or better then any other modern battle ship system.

I wonder if people hear have read the penetration abilities of the Topol M using reentry boosters (not the boosters on the delivery system, but boosters on the warhead), countermeasure, does multi vector evasive maneuveurs, are RAM coated and are designed to survive all American ABM under developement.

The Chinese warhead as I said before also uses the reentry boosters like the Topol M but is fitted with a active radar seeker. You guys are arguing about things I've stated already. Active radar homing eliminates anything about inertial guidance and things like that. Proximity fuse is unknown but for something like this, is it even necessary? Just the impact of the warhead with a mass of steel at Mach 7 or 10 should provide more than enough heat and friction to ignite whatever explosive is in the warhead. Infact, if its just a lump of metal in that warhead with not explosives, would it be able to puncture say a destroyer's hull and make a big hole from one side to the other?

SM-3 will only make kills outside the atmosphere, nothing in, it CANNOT hit planes. Russians and Chinese militaries have examined the use of BMs to fly at the thresh-hold of atmosphere and space therefore evicting both conventional SAMs and ABMs in the form of SM-3 and ABM, at least thats what I've read on GS.

The balistic missile for antishipping could be REVOLUTIONARY. Period, for the current areas of possible conflict, it would only take less than 10 sattelites to provide real time inteligence covering the whole Chinese coastal areas and areas of Japan and south China Sea (its not a very big geographical space, we don't need GLOBAL coverage).

[edit on 10-2-2006 by COWlan]

Originally posted by iqonx
also note china has already mastered stearing a re-entry vehicle as demonstrated by some of its ballistic missiles and it already posses iskander(CEP of 20-30m) and SCUD-D(CEP of 50m) and the iskander can hit moving targets. it doesnt really need much modifications to the design to ge it to hit aircraft carriers. all it would really need is sub-launched capability and you could technically fire it from a submarine at ships/aircraft carriers.

An inertial guidance system would probably give an accuracy of 200 m CEP while inertial coupled with either a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equivalent system would provide about 50 m CEP. The use of the inertial navigation, GPS and optical correlation provides an accuracy of 10 to 30 m CEP

missilethreat.com...

As you can see, thismaccuracy you talk about is primarily due to the US GPS sytems, which China wouldn't hvae access to in time of war.
As for putting them on submarines, they'd be even less accurate, mainly due to the position of the submarine wouldn't be known accurately without GPS, not to mention Chinese subs are notoriously noisy.

OK I absolutely refuse to get dragged into a 3 page argument, so here's the quick and dirty:

First off, on AEGIS. AEGIS is a system based on an extremely powerful radar with fully automated fire control. Right? OK, so when I say AEGIS, I really mean any ship based defense of ANY nation that can provide that capability. It's not nationalism, but it's a nice short word so I'm going to generalize.

Using radar terminal guidance isn't always the best idea. All warships can put out very powerful jamming. That's why a lot of the new proposed systems offer IIR guidance. It's pretty much impossible to decoy a properly targeted IIR unless you can conjure up a false IIR profile matching yours.

Now, ballistics in general. Yes, you don't have to put the thing into orbit to be a ballistic missile. Technically, bullets from a gun use "ballistics." But the nice thing about shooting them up that high is that they tend to come down fast. Real fast. The hard to intercept type of fast.

If you're diving down at just M3-4 it's just another high supersonic cruise missile. In fact, for the AEGIS, that's standard fare.
You see, supersonic seaskimmers are a different story...the response time is DRASTICALLY reduced. That's why it had the US more worried.
For a BM system targeted at you, you've got this thing that's going UP UP UP, slows to a halt, then starts coming back down. A damn long time to see and respond to a threat.

Any reason SM-3 can't engage aircraft? And even then, there's SM-2IV which has plenty of range on its own.

And active radar seekers eliminating the need for inertial guidance? Well see that depends. What's the flight time? What's the effective range of the radar? How well will it resist jamming? In a land based battle, yeah, lob Iskanders at the field CPs and such, and pretty much nothing will stop them. At sea, you've got much more powerful toys working against you.

Heres the rumoured and reported guidence systems on this new missile assuming its in the D-15 class

The seeker involes a infra-red seeker. inertial guidance guidence as on most ballistic missiles which most likey be a improved model. One of the GPS systems in service and a TVM system found on Sams and some anti-ship missiles. And a possible passive seeker

Infra-red is self explaintory, and inertial guidance is also well known type. A GPS type type is also self explaintory. But what im really interested in is the TVM system which uses a data link and radar and information from AWACS or even the M400 on the Su-30MK2. The really good thing about this is a noraml AWACS system can find a fighter at roughly 200-400km while a ship can be tracked even further away. What all the talk is about is a datalink on the ballistic missile even radar updates by a AWACS aircraft or even long range ground based or land based systems.

The payload of the D-15 is 500kg. assuming the guidence systems are 150kg the shielding is 100kg and the rest is just the little tungsten balls and explosives. It cold shoot it up to 600km at mach 10. What i really think is the main advantage is the speed it travels. Mad scientist said a figure of 3.5km/s. assuming this is correct, it could reach 70km in 20 seconds and 140 in 40sec. The ABM system is being designed to intercept missiles not aiming for itself by aiming for other targets like bases or cities. Im not to sure if its been tested for this situation but this would be a shock for any carrier.

Also assuming that the americans enter with-in 400km of chinas borders and attacks chinese ships or planes. China could fire 5-10 missiles combined with the situation i said before to try overwhelm there defences.

One of the most important advantages of this is the RV is increadbly hard to intercept compared to a anti-ship missile. And the SM-III only has a limited ability to intercept one. Like someone mentioned before, This system if fitted with something like what the Topol M has could manuver even with the slightest angle make the SM-III miss because at that altitude and at that distance is very hard to manuver back for a kill.

China already has a very low flying anti-ship cruise missile which i am thinking could turn a engament into something like midway. The see the ballistic missiles first and go for them. and a few seconds later bang they get hit from all over by submarines low-low missiles

Here is the YJ-62

Originally posted by mad scientist
The difference is what the CPU does in that one cycle, a civilian processor may perform 4 instructions per cycle whilst a military CPU may do 10,20

Whats hyper threading?. I got a 64 bit system. how many cycles can i perform

It has a high degree of accuarcy only when using American GPS guidance. In any time of war you can expect the US to block Chinese GPS usage in theater.

I think they were refering to a GPS system not the american GPS system. Whilst china has the choice of GLONASS instead of GPS china still is not commited to GLONASS simply because GLONASS is not reliable as well as the russians and two china does not use foriegn GPS systems on any of its important systems. espically a ballistic missile in the taiwan strait.

All systems china is using is connected to the BeiDou-1 of 2 sateillites. I highlighted 2 on purpose because that is all that is needed for a regional system to have the asia region covered. GPS is only 24 because it covers the globe while china does not yet need that capability and only needs two for its military requirements

I would hate to think how vulnerable Chinese aircraft would be, if they had to search for the US fleet.

Chinas coastal systems have a range of more than 400km while chinas airborne AWACS and AEW would have more than the 200+km search range of the N001VEP radar. so if the US is planning on helping taiwan it would need to be at least near the area because the longer you are the less sorties you are going to make.

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. It would also have patrol aircraft and wouldn't be flying around by itself. These aircraft could paint targets with their radars and wait for other systems to come along

4 electro-optical and 4 radar sats to have effective coverage.

Sounds a little overkill to me. For a dumb bast warhead just being within your CEP would be just fine and having all these system wouldn't be needed since the aim is not for pin-point accuracy but only get within your CEP

A system has been tested already ? I can find no information on this. Have a link.

No link but its somewhere in china-defense or centurychina forums. This was published at least half a year ago on chiense forums. Im still wondering why this is still such a hot issue. Beats me really, since i thought most people would have read it.

Theres also another book/article(very long) that these guys wrote its called unrestricted warfare and its a chinese white paper.

I think the carrier one is called ballistic warheads and implications for carriers or the taiwan strait. sorry but i cant really remember after half a year

Originally posted by chinawhite
I think they were refering to a GPS system not the american GPS system. Whilst china has the choice of GLONASS instead of GPS china still is not commited to GLONASS simply because GLONASS is not reliable as well as the russians and two china does not use foriegn GPS systems on any of its important systems. espically a ballistic missile in the taiwan strait.

All systems china is using is connected to the BeiDou-1 of 2 sateillites. I highlighted 2 on purpose because that is all that is needed for a regional system to have the asia region covered. GPS is only 24 because it covers the globe while china does not yet need that capability and only needs two for its military requirements.

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.

Chinas coastal systems have a range of more than 400km while chinas airborne AWACS and AEW would have more than the 200+km search range of the N001VEP radar. so if the US is planning on helping taiwan it would need to be at least near the area because the longer you are the less sorties you are going to make.

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, before contact could be made with the main fleet. US Carriers have their own AWACS which would extend the coverage hundreds oif miles rfom the fleet. The CHinese would probably see the Hawkeyes, but would't be able to get close enought to spot the fleet.

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. It would also have patrol aircraft and wouldn't be flying around by itself. These aircraft could paint targets with their radars and wait for other systems to come along

As above, if the Chinese wanted any hope of spotting the fleet, they would be well within the kill envelope of US air defences.

4 electro-optical and 4 radar sats to have effective coverage.

Sounds a little overkill to me. For a dumb bast warhead just being within your CEP would be just fine and having all these system wouldn't be needed since the aim is not for pin-point accuracy but only get within your CEP.

Well that's what your Chinese friends say they need. Obviously they don't hvae much faith in your AWACS idea.

A system has been tested already ? I can find no information on this. Have a link.

No link but its somewhere in china-defense or centurychina forums. This was published at least half a year ago on chiense forums. Im still wondering why this is still such a hot issue. Beats me really, since i thought most people would have read it.

There is no information anywhere, because the system hasn't been tested. In fact the Chinese have huge problems to overcome with their system, especially the sensors used. You can say " oh, but they are going to use this and this ", but saying something is far different than implementing it. It seems like the same with the US and their Star Wars system in the 80's, they thought they could do all these things and they coudn't.

Originally posted by mad scientist
I would hate to think how vulnerable Chinese aircraft would be, if they had to search for the US fleet. These planes would be detected well before detecting the carrier, considering the US would have her carrier based airborne radar planes up, increasing the US fleets radar covergae out to hundred of miles.

If I had a misunderstanding please correct me. But I have to tell you, China does have some newer AWACS which I am sure have already get superior process sine J-8 crashed dawn a US P-3. In China, our militory fans all know that KJ-2000 carried a Radar that a new one was totally different from Russia, although the platform just is a Il-76.
Before the KJ-2000, China has run a AESA AWACS

These two AWACS used totally different system that US AF will hard to revolvining.

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by iqonx
also note china has already mastered stearing a re-entry vehicle as demonstrated by some of its ballistic missiles and it already posses iskander(CEP of 20-30m) and SCUD-D(CEP of 50m) and the iskander can hit moving targets. it doesnt really need much modifications to the design to ge it to hit aircraft carriers. all it would really need is sub-launched capability and you could technically fire it from a submarine at ships/aircraft carriers.

An inertial guidance system would probably give an accuracy of 200 m CEP while inertial coupled with either a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equivalent system would provide about 50 m CEP. The use of the inertial navigation, GPS and optical correlation provides an accuracy of 10 to 30 m CEP
missilethreat.com...

As you can see, thismaccuracy you talk about is primarily due to the US GPS sytems, which China wouldn't hvae access to in time of war.
As for putting them on submarines, they'd be even less accurate, mainly due to the position of the submarine wouldn't be known accurately without GPS, not to mention Chinese subs are notoriously noisy.

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?

No INS is really accurate too, over short distances. The longer you fly, the more it drifts off. Of course the drift also isn't a huge number. It might be several miles after you fly 2000 miles. It's just that where INS gives you a target area of 1 mile, GPS gives you a target area of 1 FOOT.

chinawhite, be realistic.

"But what im really interested in is the TVM system which uses a data link and radar and information from AWACS or even the M400 on the Su-30MK2. The really good thing about this is a noraml AWACS system can find a fighter at roughly 200-400km while a ship can be tracked even further away. What all the talk is about is a datalink on the ballistic missile even radar updates by a AWACS aircraft or even long range ground based or land based systems."

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...suddenly down low isn't so safe anymore. As it is...it's currently pretty much impossible without GPS. How do you get an AWACS to tell the BM where it is relative to its target? Yeah Tom Clancy wrote about it in one of his books, but nobody's fielded it yet.

"The ABM system is being designed to intercept missiles not aiming for itself by aiming for other targets like bases or cities. Im not to sure if its been tested for this situation but this would be a shock for any carrier. "

As for ABM systems tracking targets targeting the launching platform:
Actually it is MUCH easier to calculate a firing solution. You see, when the target RV is headed straight at you, you get an incredibly easy firing solution.

One of the things I find rather amusing is how everyone ignores the fact that Taiwan is part of the battle as well. It is pretty well established that a CSF could just park on the far end of Taiwan and launch sorties and provide coverage from there. In addition, there's the Patriot batteries that no doubt would be shipped over from Japan/Korea as well.

"One of the most important advantages of this is the RV is increadbly hard to intercept compared to a anti-ship missile. And the SM-III only has a limited ability to intercept one. Like someone mentioned before, This system if fitted with something like what the Topol M has could manuver even with the slightest angle make the SM-III miss because at that altitude and at that distance is very hard to manuver back for a kill."

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...we don't have fuses capable of detonating the warhead before the RV just goes right down. It's very difficult for the RV to maneuver at the speed it comes in. Somebody mentioned reentry boosters.
And SM-III has proven itself recently in tests.
And if you come in slower, traditional SAMs like SM-2IV work fine. Unless you're screaming in at exoatmospheric speeds, it is JUST ANOTHER HIGH SPEED ANTI SHIP missile. Deadly, yes. But not invincible.

"China already has a very low flying anti-ship cruise missile which i am thinking could turn a engament into something like midway. The see the ballistic missiles first and go for them. and a few seconds later bang they get hit from all over by submarines low-low missiles"
The problem, again, is that you are for all intents and purposes NOT fighting a human enemy. We don't have eyes that'll turn up to the sky and shut out peripheral vision. AEGIS is fully computerized, will detect sub missiles, and will fire accordingly. It's literally as simple as telling another VLS cell to fire its missile at the inbound vampire.

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

"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. "

Wow, no they wouldn't. Super Bugs use LO technology. And again, we'd probably use Taiwan as a buffer zone.

Finally, there's another issue...the enemy doesn't stand still. 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. All that for a CSF killer? Will it still be as good even then? Our F-22 is still a great aircraft, but with the UAV revolution, we're asking if it was the most cost effective solution.
For example, it is VERY possible that by that time USN ships will be outfitted with laser based defenses. Suddenly coming in from high is stupid, and you have to go under the horizon again.

And for our next trick, I give you the SM-6 ERAM. SM2 Standard Block IV, with the AMRAAM seeker head, capable of datalinking and hitting over the horizon targets, over land cruise missiles, and lots of other targets.

The Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), tentatively designated SM-6, will add an extended range, overland cruise missile defense capability. The Navy's recommended strategy, based on a market analysis, is to pursue a sole-source acquisition through Raytheon Missile Systems. This low-risk approach relying on Non-Developmental Items will support an FY 2010 IOC. This approach will utilize the existing production active seeker from AMRAAM Phase III, utilize the existing production airframe from the Standard Missile-2 Block IV, leverage multi-service investments in future technology growth path, and leverage existing production infrastructures and workforces.

A robust extended range (ER) anti-air missile with engage-on-remote capability is key to providing flexible firepower throughout the battle space using a variety of targeting platforms. To that end, we are developing the Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), which uses an SM-2 Block IV propulsion stack with an active Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) seeker to provide enhanced capabilities. ERAM is an active missile that can use the full kinematic capability of the missile to greatly expand the battlespace. ERAM will leverage the significant investment made by the Defense Department in the AMRAAM seeker.

ERAM is the evolution of the Extended Range Standard Missile airframe and propulsion stack into an active seeker TAMD interceptor with the ability to engage on remote tracks not held on the firing ship’s radar or covered by the firing ship’s fire control illuminators.

www.globalsecurity.org...