It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Ballistic Missile Can Attack Aircraft Carrier Successfully?

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I finally found that site.



Housed in the top part of the warhead is an active radar guidence system and the other systems are sensors and the computer pact. The outer panels are a datalink type system

New improved DF-15



Compared to the older version


Link

Ballistic missiles attacking aircraft carriers were first mentioned in "Unrestricted warfare" and based on internet photos were part of chinas assains mace program to develop secret weapons to defeat the enemy



Missile barrage on advancing carrier battle groups
A few seconds after the "blackout", literally hundreds of short and medium-range ballistic missiles (DF7/9/11/15s, DF4s, DF21X/As, some of which are maneuverable) pre-positioned on the Chinese mainland, and stealthy, sea-skimming and highly-accurate cruise missiles (YJ12s, YJ22s, KH31A/Ps, YJ83s, C301s, C802s, SS-N-22s, SS-NX-26/27s, 3M54s & HN3s) delivered from platforms on land, sea and air race toward their respective designated targets at supersonic speed.

Aircraft carriers are allotted a barrage of more than two dozen cruise missiles each, followed by a barrage of short and medium-range ballistic missiles timed to arrive in rapid succession.

www.atimes.com...




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Bump this one up since you didn't asnwer it beforehand


Originally posted by rogue1
Gee no sources yet you claim it has a detection range of 500 km
sigh.


Did i claim something? . Wait a second, I said assuming
. Oh wait, If i assume something i must be claiming it



Posted by ChinawhiteKJ-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


Funny attempt . As i remember it you were the one claiming with out any sources



Consider this the Chinese wouldn't be tring to aquire the Phalcon if it wasn't superior to anything the Chinese have.


You might want to consider the timeframe of this
. The deal was made in 1996. Thats 10 years about. This was more of a space filler because chinese radar at the time was still primary platter arrays and not yet advanced. Considering the small purchase of only 1 plane while a further 3 could be possible this was more of a capability filled since china did not as of yet have a ESA radar.

Since then china has developed and mechanical phased arrays and electical phased array radars. So from the 1996 to now that is 10 years and in those ten years china went from dish radars to Phased arrays

Do you think china was planning on only having 1-4 AWACS aircraft. Even now there are around 3-4 in testing. with about 5 more smaller Y-8 in testing also. those radars were only intended as capabilty fillers. So dont compare different time scales

And considering the Phalcon is not the newest of technology and is 13 years old. It is not the most advanced technology either. And considering both are different technoloies this is surprising you trying to say one is inferior to the other


Ahem, once again you forget what you say. You said that they would use AWACS type aircraft as one of the sensors to find CBG's for targetting by this so called anti-ship ballistic missile.


No i was talking to mad scientist while you brought up the issue of chinese aircraft being with-in the limits of US fighters or US radar.

Difference.


Look inot a technology called TVM. Its used on sams. The guiding radar paints the target and keeps radar lock on it until it hits the target. THe AWACS will be flying some distance away and wouldn't be under immident danger from US fighters because its such a large distance away.

What the downside of this technology used on SAMs is they SAM radar has to keep radar locked on it unitl it hits and this leaves room for anti-radation missiles. While the AWACS is not under pressure from Anti-radation missiles because of the sheer distance away. And a ballistic missile can travel a lot faster than any fighter i know



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Rouge1 I thought you wanted the link so you could reply. For the whole time posting you kept on calling me BS. I provided it now you dont want to post anymore?


The funny thing is, Rouge1 keeps on saying i post BS but never says what

Keep on saying rogue1, you might start to believe it



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Look inot a technology called TVM. Its used on sams. The guiding radar paints the target and keeps radar lock on it until it hits the target. THe AWACS will be flying some distance away and wouldn't be under immident danger from US fighters because its such a large distance away.





What the downside of this technology used on SAMs is they SAM radar has to keep radar locked on it unitl it hits and this leaves room for anti-radation missiles. While the AWACS is not under pressure from Anti-radation missiles because of the sheer distance away. And a ballistic missile can travel a lot faster than any fighter i know

Question is though, can the PLA fire a ballistic missile system before the AWACS is shot down and can it be done before the carrier moves?

After a little searching all I found was the DF-5 ICBM which has a CEP of :500 - 3,500 meters, not exsactly the sword needed to hit a carrier battle group.

Also its a one shot device not MIRV (or so I have read on the net.) , thus reducing the effective chance of hitting the target.

One question I pose to you chinawhite: Can an ICBM/SRBM/MRBM be reprogrammed in its final stage or even in its mid phase to account for an ever shifting target?



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
An ICBM RV reenters at speeds of 7km/s whilst and IRBM is only 3.5km/s. As for a Glonass/GPS system, this seems a bit far fetched that it can achieve accuracies of 3-4m for and IRBM. The US uses GPS on their latest Miunuteman warheads and can't achieve an accuracy close to that. The US military GPS is far more accurate than what the Chinese would be using, which would be the commercial version, combine this with the US ability to detune GPS over certain areas and Chinese missile accuracy would be woeful.
As for GLONASS, it has very limited coverage and is far less accurate than GPS.


3.5km/s
that means a missile only need 3min to hit its target within 600km range
and I suppose during a future with US, china will switch to so other positioning system

but the mean problem here is that I don't think ICBMs and other types of missiles are very effective again air craft carriers, because they don't have enough penitrate powers.
Unless they go nuclear, but i doubt they will use that during a possible war over taiwan



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   


but the mean problem here is that I don't think ICBMs and other types of missiles are very effective again air craft carriers, because they don't have enough penitrate powers.


I disagree. A ton of warhead going about Mach 7 has a lot of penetrating power.

And guided maneuverable warheads on IRBM's have been done before, by the US in the Pershing II. I see no reason a guidance system couldn't handle a moving vessel, if a CVN is moving 30 knots, given a 5 min flight time, the ship is going to be somewhere within a three mile radius of it's position at launch.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Five minute flight time? A bit optimistic aren't we? There will be more time than that between finding out where the carrier is and when the missile actually hits. BTW how is China going to find out the exact position of a US carrier 300-400 miles offshore? And last but not least I would like to see how an active guided IRBM will react to an airspace coved with Chaff and other radar enhancing countermeasures.


[edit on 1-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Five minute flight time? A bit optimistic aren't we?

Depends on the range, but for an IRBM it would be between five and twelve minutes.


There will be more time than that between finding out where the carrier is and when the missile actually hits.

Let's be generous and call it 20 minutes, that still means the carrier is going to be somewhere within a ten mile radius.


BTW how is China going to find out the exact position of a US carrier 300-400 miles offshore?

Aerial, satellite, or subsurface recon, same ways we would.


And last but not least I would like to see how an active guided IRBM will react to an airspace coved with Chaff and other radar enhancing countermeasures.

Same way any other missile would. Only considering that the IRBM will be coming in from high altitude, looking down at the deck - well a big, flat CVN deck is kind of a hard radar target to miss when you're looking right down on it it, no matter how good it's countermeasures are.

Of more concern would be the SM-3/Aegis systems on the CG's escorting the carrier, but it'd be foolish to assume a 100% pk for them. And I doubt we'd be talking about a single missile, more likely a salvo of dozens.

IRBM's IMHO represent a much more dangerous threat scenario for a CVN than sea launched or air launched cruise missiles, given that those systems would have to be launched much closer to the carrier, and their launch platforms would likely be engaged by the carrier's air wing before getting into firing range.

Fortunately the only countries likely to be able to pull this off would be China or Russia, and we'd be fools to pick a fight with either anyway. They are opponents that can take out our cities if they want to, let alone our carriers.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Aerial, satellite, or subsurface recon, same ways we would.


I’d think in a war we’d have an advantage in terms of electronic warfare and denial of information over the Chinese.


Originally posted by xmotex
Same way any other missile would. Only considering that the IRBM will be coming in from high altitude, looking down at the deck - well a big, flat CVN deck is kind of a hard radar target to miss when you're looking right down on it it, no matter how good it's countermeasures are.


Coming in at a 45 degree angle and at very high speed its going to have to search a 10 mile radius which by itself isn't easy but when that area is covered to an extent with chaff and countermeasures capable of generating a carrier size RCS its going to have to decide which one to go after real quick. Personally I see a lot of problems with this means of attack and I don't think its as capable against moving targets as some do.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
At the end of the day, if we're talking about a 5 minute flight time we're talking about a job that might as well have been done by a cruise missile.

Using a ballistic missile to hit an aircraft carrier basically gets interesting when you're talking about hitting it with an ICBM, giving you the ability to cripple a Navy anywhere and any time without having to be in position.

You've got to locate it- for the global reach we're talking about here we are talking strictly satellite, right? Rock beats Sat, we've covered that, so there's one weak link.

But then you've got the electronic counter-measure thing to consider, which means you can't have your birds communicating in flight and be completely sure of them, so you've got to put your satellite intel in hardwire, correct? This is not helping your timing any.

Now you've got to have a missile that can adjust in terminal phase by the full distance that the target could potentially move, minus effective radius of the weapon being delivered, and it must be able to do so using passive means. Keep in mind at this point that the more you have to slow it down to make this adjustment possible, the easier your missile is to develop a countermeasure against.

Tall order, and even then your weapon isn't fool proof because the bottom line is that it has to acquire information at some point to adjust for a change in target position, and anything that has to acquire information can theoretically be decieved, especially if it has to make up its mind quickly.


I think the best bet for hitting aircraft carriers with an ICBM is to catch them in predictable locations- Canals and straights mainly. If you can time when an approaching vessel is likely to be in an area you can theoretically hit it then. It would be lamentably limited, but still useful, particularly for keeping certain nations which shall remain nameless from taking action in the Persian Gulf using aircraft carriers.

Now, if I were going to design an unlimited range weapon for taking out ships, I'd take my lead somewhat from Pluto- the nuclear ramjet missile idea that was toyed with back in the 50s. Instead of hitting a target, the missile was intended to act more like an aircraft- running all over the place dropping weapons.

The way I see it, the answer is to use the ballistic missile to deliver a separate tracking weapon, such as a rocket-delivered torpedo with its own launcher, or a cruise missile, to a stationary point, from which the weapon could then detect or be given directions to its target.

The good news is that this eliminates the problem of having to adjust a ballistic missile in terminal phase without getting it screwed up. The problem is that you've still got a component that needs to gather information and therefore can be decieved.


For the most part, I think we'll be destorying aircraft carriers the old fashioned way at least for a while... there'll be an engagement using airborne weapons taking place at a range usually in the hundreds of kilometers.


Of course, for all this talk about shooting down a missile with a laser or a sattelite with what amounts to a well placed rock, I can't help wondering if what's good for the gooser isn't also good for the goosie. Why not hit a carrier with a laser or a rock (in this case by rock I mean something along the lines of sattelite-dropped kenetic energy weapons. A conventional sat might not be able to stand a little gravel, but i'm guessing a big Tungsten rod with a couple of fins and a computer burried in its nose just might be OK against gravel, and may not fare so bad against an aircraft carrier either, since it could theoretically acquire on its own and fire immediately with eyes on target all the way down.

And the laser speaks for itself I suppose. Mount it on anything you dang well please- a sattelite, a hypersonic aircraft that flies higher than most air defenses will reach, a highly trained goldfish, etc... then turn the deck of an aircraft carrier into a Wok.


Edit to add: I was just looking at some of the photo resources here, and I noticed something strange. The Chinese won't allow their missiles to be photographed unless they are errected. Paging Doctor Freud. (who will promptly tell you from experience that sometimes coc aine does that to a person)

[edit on 1-7-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Those are pictures of Chinese IRBMs???

You guys are serious about this??

Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Any of you people have any idea of how a CVN is actually built?? I dont mean what little they show you on the Discovery Channel but where the ship is especially reinforced...verses say the not so reinforced areas. Double hulled...etc etc.

I say this as compared to commercial shipping for those of you who know how comercial shipping is constructed?? Say something like a container ship or a Ocean liner?? Ore carrier.
THe main double hulled ships out there being built commercially today are Oil tankers. As of a certain date they are now required to be double hulled for obvious reasons.
Some of you might want to check this out and then figure out how this compares to the construction of a CVN. THen think it through ..carefully.

THanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I’d think in a war we’d have an advantage in terms of electronic warfare and denial of information over the Chinese.

Advantages, sure. Foolproof 100% supression of their recon capability? I wouldn't bet my life on it.


Coming in at a 45 degree angle and at very high speed its going to have to search a 10 mile radius which by itself isn't easy but when that area is covered to an extent with chaff and countermeasures capable of generating a carrier size RCS its going to have to decide which one to go after real quick.

You're assuming it couldn't accept midcourse updates, for one thing. And chaff is a coutermeasure that's been around since WW2. It's hard to imagine the Chinese won't build some ECCM capabilities into the targeting system, including some tricks to help discern a cloud of EM reflective tape from a 100,000 ton chunk of steel, kerosene, munitions, and flesh.


Personally I see a lot of problems with this means of attack and I don't think its as capable against moving targets as some do.

I don't see why hitting a moving object, especially one that's nearly 1/4 mile long and unstealthed, would be so difficult with even last generation avionics, as long as the information processing system was relatively modern.




Originally posted by orangetom1999

Any of you people have any idea of how a CVN is actually built?? I dont mean what little they show you on the Discovery Channel but where the ship is especially reinforced...verses say the not so reinforced areas. Double hulled...etc etc.

Sure, a CVN is a huge, tough ship. They're the only modern type of warship that still devotes significant tonnage to armor protection. But an IRBM can deliver a ton or so of warhead at hypersonic speed. Imagine a WW2 BB shell, only moving four or five times as fast.

Would a single hit sink a CVN? Certainly not. I imagine it would take dozens of hits. On the other hand, two or three big holes in the flightdeck would almost certainly end flight operations - an effective mission kill.

Which would probably be preferable to the Chinese. Disabling a carrier or three might keep the USN away from China's throat long enough for a situation to work out to China's advantage. Sinking a CVN with 5,000 young Americans aboard, would on the other hand be a significant escalation, and would guarantee large scale US retaliation.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Its going to take a direct hit to do it. Not likely a CVN would be standing still in a big ocean. THe point one poster made about catching one in a canal or such ...is a valid point and one I am sure any skipper would be acutely aware of in a wartime or even peacetime situation.

I dont believe a hit from miles away would do it. Damage yes..but sink no. Also what is seldome told unless you can see the pictures of it being done..and there are a few in circulation ..carriers have a massive sprinkler system all over the flight decks ..both for fire usage but primarily for decontamination. There are other systems specially outfitted for fire ..but also they can be used for decon situations.

Yes ..they are heavily built..much more than most people are aware and much heavier in construction than commercial shipping. Also much of the metals are not standard commercial grade metals. This means special welding/construction proceedures too ..not found in most commercial work. This contributes greatly to the overall costs.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Question is though, can the PLA fire a ballistic missile system before the AWACS is shot down and can it be done before the carrier moves?


A Ballistic missile travels much faster than a ship or plane and once the AWACS has it in range than it will launch and reach the target in about 5 minutes depending on the distance the carrier is away. The only reason the PLA would attack the carrier is if the USAF intervened in a taiwan conflict. That would mean the carrier would be close to the mainland


After a little searching all I found was the DF-5 ICBM which has a CEP of :500 - 3,500 meters, not exsactly the sword needed to hit a carrier battle group.


That is a ICBM and has nothing to do with chians program

We are not talking about a ICBM missile but a SRBM. China has roughly 800 of these missiles next to the coast near taiwan. The stated range of the original missile is 150~500m CEP while the new missile fitted with GPS and a active guidence system is between 35-50m. That is a generous under-estimation since the system has a GPS like system attached

www.sinodefence.com...


Also its a one shot device not MIRV , thus reducing the effective chance of hitting the target.


The PLA is the only force in the world that practises salvo lanuchs. Two 2nd artillery batteries would be assigned to each carrier. That is 5 lanuchers each and about 10 missiles.

Hello general



Can an ICBM/SRBM/MRBM be reprogrammed in its final stage or even in its mid phase to account for an ever shifting target?


Theres no reprogramming. Its a datalink, active guidence. TVM....Like i've been saying that last few pages



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Any of you people have any idea of how a CVN is actually built?? I dont mean what little they show you on the Discovery Channel but where the ship is especially reinforced...verses say the not so reinforced areas. Double hulled...etc etc.


I said my last couple of post that it is not designed to kill a carrier but mission kill it. The warhead being planned is said to be a large claymore that blows up and destroys all the electic gear on top radar, communications etc. Thats why a large CEP is not important being its a area effect weapon

That is part one of chinas Assains Mace program. Take away the head from the body. The rest of the carrier will be left for other missiles like the sunburn, YJ-62 which were designed to kill ships. Using a bunburn againest a carrier on full alert is a waste of a missile. Take its eyes and ears and the jobs much easier


This is the likey senario
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

[edit on 1-7-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Here is the post i made before tha will answer most questions


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

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



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
How many Klub-S missiles does China currently have? I think each Kilo can carry 5 at a time. Also is it the 3M-54E variant or the 3M-54E1 variant of the AShCM?
Note that the Klub-S alos has the 3M-14E variant which is a LACM.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
KLub-S is a whole system, It includes sonar, guidence and three missiles. Anti-ship, Anti-submarine, and land attack cruise missile.

One of the main roles of the kilo submarines in PLAN service is maritne patrol which would suggest they are anti-ship and not land attack. Taiwan is only 100km from the chinese mainland and if a LACM or another missile type weapon were needed it wouldn't be fitted on very expensive submarines



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   
ermm with normal ballistics i dont think so,but with stealth type missiles might do the job




top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join