What has been said cannot be unsaid; once in a thicket, it is very difficult to quietly back out. Via Asahi.At the top of my programming guide for Midrats, I have in big red letters "REMEMBER CLASSIFICATION" as sometimes I forget where I am.Q [Yoichi Kato]: Let me go into China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. What is the current status of China’s anti-ship ballistic missile development, and how close is it to actual operational deployment?
A [Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command]: The anti-ship ballistic missile system in China has undergone extensive testing. An analogy using a Western term would be “initial operational capability,” whereby it has—I think China would perceive that it has—an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it. It will continue to undergo testing, I would imagine, for several more years.
Q: China has achieved IOC?
A: You would have to ask China that, but as we see the development of the system, their acknowledging the system in open press reporting and the continued testing of the system, I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC.
Q: Has China already perfected the technology to fly that missile and also the sensor systems for targeting? Has the entire system integration been completed?
A: Typically, to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large.
Q: But they have not conducted the actual flight test or the test to attack moving ships yet, have they?
A: We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system.
Q: But do you believe they already have that capability?
A: I think that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested.
The fact that we think they are IOC didn't come from thin air or the New York Times. I balked when I read this, but I'm just a retired CDR - I think ADM are a tad smarter than I am, so this was intentional.
PRC ASBM IOC is big news. The interesting question is; why bring it up now?
No shock to regular readers of CDRSalamander --- and neither should this.
Wait; let me read that again - "Anti-access/area denial" is recently coined? Huh? Did today's teenagers just discover s3x?Q: Is it a bigger threat to the United States than submarines in terms of their A2/AD capabilities?
A: No, I don’t think so. Anti-access/area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities and capacities that China has developed and that other countries have developed.
That make me sad. Maybe PACOM's Aide needs to make sure he gets more sleep. One less person on the CNO short-list, I guess.
Hat tip Andrew S. Erickson.
UPDATE: Oh, can't believe I forgot to add this. Visuals are good, they tend to focus the mind.
65 comments:
As I have commented on numerous occasions, my concern with this weapon is it's ability to destabilize the current response posture(s) and possiblt cause one side to cross the nuclear threshold.
By that I mean that this ICBM would be indistinguishable from a nuclear-armed ICBM. Once it is launched, the target MUST assume it is being attacked with a nuclear weapon and respond accordingly. There is simply no way to tell the difference between a conventionally-armed ICBM and one with a nuclear payload.
This is what was so distressing to hear the current administration propose rearming our own SLBM's with hi-cao conventional warheads, It isn't that we can't do it, or that it wouldn't be a good system given modern targeting capabilities.
It's that the other guy will never know what sort of warhead is inbound, and if it accepts that it could be a nuclear package, then odds are that genie will be let lose and we'll all be the worse for it.
I saw this in Drudge this morning and was surprised it had been printed as such. Why would China want to fight us? Let's be adults and say they could just crush us economically w/o ever firing a shot. Rather Sun Tzu-ish, I'd imagine. Do you think they are taking what we did to the Soviets and using it against us via debt and Walmart? oooo, look!! Lindsey Lohan is in rehab! Americans keep looking at the shiny object and missing the scary darkness in the corner.
who needs wikileaks with admirals like that?
since no testing over open seas took place, humint is only reliable source of info
therefore someone who works for US intelligence in PRC HAS JUST BEEN COMPROMISED
last but not least, anti access-area denial is around since at least WW1 and submarines combat debut
well, by crushing US economically they would shoot themselves in the foot since their economy is so dependant on exports... still US is financing the very economy that is powering up their new weapons development
well, but isnt it fascinating that while US proposed conventional ICBM draws a choir of protests from the assorted "defenders of peace", chinese ones go unnoticed by the same people/groups
nope. there are other means of collecting technical data that do not rely on HUMINT.
nope. there are other means of collecting technical data that do not rely on HUMINT.
the idea is to win the peace. that part of the world responds very well to hegemony. Right now, we are the hegemonic power. If we keep making comments about not sending in aircraft carriers into the south china sea, we will quickly lose Vietnam, Singapore, and Thailand. We will then see North Korea act up even worse and Japan start to rearm. India will respond, and try to become the premiere power in the Indian Ocean (read Monsoon by Kaplan). God knows what the Russians will do, remember Vladivostok is not too far north to not be part of the mix. Simply thinking that China will not pull the trigger on us and burying your head in the sand is NOT an answer to this--nor do I think that is what LT B is recommending.
But when your solution to DF-21D is a $33M missile, it is time to find a new solution. The economies of scale need to be reversed. I will be sending PROCEEDINGS an article shortly on this...
AW 1, this is NOT an ICBM. It is an MRBM. The flight trajectories are very distinguishable. While we would detect the plume of the launch (and given that since China has no treaty responsibilities to inform us prior to any ballistic launch), we could rule out an ICBM strike on Honolulu or LA pretty quickly. If this were not the case, every time China did a ballistic missile test (and they do them often), we would be in a shooting war.
Vietnam has about as much love for China as Poland for Russia... this should be used as opportunity. Japan rearming itself can be a boon yet. Russia worries me the most, as it is a power in decline, and can be perceived as weak and ripe for conquest....Yet is still very strong in nukes. If China ever ventures north to Siberia, Russians would use every warhead in the stockpile to stop them. And when Russians are fighting they mean business, not sending messages.
I think this is more of a statement, "Please accelerate Aegis BMD and make sure it works against maneuvering targets."
Here in the US, a system would not be considered anywhere close to IOC until several end-to-end tests had been done.
AEGIS BMD is a WASTE OF MONEY. $30M missiles, fired in volley, to hit a $1.5M missile that will likewise probably be fired in volley? Let's ask ourselves the question: how many of you think we will be filled to the gills with SM-3 IIA's when they cost that much? You don't win this war by hitting every DF-21 that comes over the horizon...accelerating AEGIS BMD will NOT win. Nor will it deter. It will eat money and inrease our debt. Mike M, get out of the box!
Doesn't matter if they like the country or not. IF Poland gets I&W that we are giving up on Georgia and the Caucuses, do you think they will fall on their sword just to spit in the face of Russia? I think not. Game theory and Prisoner's Dilhemma dictate that they will do whatever best serves their interests. If they lose faith in us, they will go elsewhere. The opportunity with Vietnam only presents itself so long as we are the premiere power in the Pacific. Russia is not ripe for conquest with Putin in charge, I personally think you are misreading those tea leaves. We are the big kid on the block who cries crocodile tears...an inviting target for any puny bully with a penchant for kicking in the crotch.
Is that you, "Chairman?"
China is buying up all the areas with resources so all the high tech stuff we dig is built out of a lot of stuff that is mined and pulled out of Africa, for instance. Plus the link into petroleum producers, the control of the Panam Canal etc. They are completely out competing us. It is hubris to think they do not perceive us as a rival and that they are not positioning themselves to start controlling our economy and thus politics.
For instance:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/28/china-shrinks-rare-earths-export-quota/#
Skippy makes some good points in another comment but I find this particulasr logic flawed.
<span>"...$30M missiles, fired in volley, to hit a $1.5M missile..."</span>
Keep in mind, that this gold plated salvo is in defense of a Flattop and her air group. If it works then the cost bennefit is still with AEGIS. Also: the cost of having carrier airpower available...priceless.
Oops. That was me.
<span>"$30M missiles, fired in volley, to hit a $1.5M missile"</span>
Keep in mind that this expensive salvo is defending a carrier and her air group. The cost beneffit analysis is a bit different then.
LT B - while there is certainly a strategic element in that, buying hard assets is also an inflation hedge against what "might" happen to the US $ (given out deficits I can't blame them).
Poland has done something akin to falling on its sword, in 1939, when it defied Germany and Russia combined. By doing that it has drawn France (for what it was worth) and the UK into the war. Nations dont always behave in the ways predicted by games theory. Russia is in terrible demographic situation, and worst of it is in the Siberia opposing China. Already millions of Chinese immigrants are there, an easy pretext for war if needed. Plus any conventional Russian reinforcements are limited by single transcontinental railway.
But sure, if resolve is counted, Russia is much less appealing target than US.
btw, what about the tacair/air launched ASCMs? anyone knows what is the status of the Chinese developments in those areas?
That is what worries me about the Chinese subs, that they can shadow and target,
Well they have bought the SS-N-22 Sunburn's when they bought some of the Sovernmyns. They are a little longer ranged then the standard Harpoon on any of the current surface ships. I would bet that they are reverse engineering it to put western electronics and western engines into it. Plus they have bought copies of the SS-N-27, been home brewing improved versions of thier own ASCM missiles. Heck even though it is based on an almost 50yr old missile design now, they current versions of the Silkworm ASCM are still pretty dangerous to someone not paying attention.
We call them useful idiots. The same ones that told us a generation ago that the Polish people were just fine under the Communist boot.
You loved it - didn't you?
P.S. If Willard is not on the CNO short list-well that's a plus. Fair Winds and all that-and don't let the door hit you on the way out of PACOM....................
Can you defend the entire battle group against a volley of multiple missiles-problematic. But that's not the point. If the volley comes-and we don't defend against them, then we immediately move up to the more risky options-like bombing the Chinese Mainland to make them go away. Depending on the circumstances-that's an option that has frightening consequences. Possession of a BMD capability would at least provide some options that don't inlcude an Air Force Officers B-2 wet dream.
"Oh, can't believe I forgot to add this. Visuals are good, they tend to focus the mind."
So now we need to focus on a cost effective system to defeat DF-21 AND prehistoric, metal aliens camped out in Jupiter's moons?
Sadly, Hollywood can put together some good visuals.
Maybe the most cost effective deterrent is 3 more converted Ohio invisbile (when we want them to be) aresenal ships.
<span>"Oh, can't believe I forgot to add this. Visuals are good, they tend to focus the mind."
So now we need to focus on a cost effective system to defeat DF-21 AND prehistoric, metal aliens camped out in Jupiter's moons?
Sadly, Hollywood can put together some good visuals.
Maybe the most cost effective deterrent is 3 more converted Ohio invisbile (when we want them to be) arsenal ships.</span>
(fixed for sPellInG)
yep, that would be the same that cried havoc over Pershing2/GLCM deployment while ignoring SS-20s...
One of the prime factors for my dislike of this weapons system is the thought that the Iranians or dozens of others could get them. Change that to Will get them if not now in a decade or so. Hopefully we will have mwatt capable BMD lasers and rails for CIWS.
What worries me is that we don't even react to a Chinese missile launch 30 miles off the west coast of LA. We can't detect the Chinese subs and our ASW stinks to high heaven.
I will believe my former Skipper, VADM Sandy Winnefeld, when he says it was just a contrail, rather then what you tinfoil hat brigade folks are believing and saying
Considering that the only way the Soviets could think of cracking the defenses of a CVBG was by a constant streaming attack that left no breathing room for the defenders. According to this former Yugoslavian Naval Officer in his book on thier tactics, they would run Aircraft, Surface raiders, and submarines at a NATO CVBG. All in an attempt to roll back enough of the defenses so that some of the weapons would get through and that in turn would lead to either a mission kill or an outright kill. If you study your history, you would see that this was how the VS/VB units of American carriers were able to roll overhead of the IJN carriers. A series of rolling attacks combined with an attempt of the Japanese to put thier own stirke packages together eventually lead to not enough airplanes and not enough warning before the death blows came.
So I would assume the ChiComs have studied the same books and the same history. Seeing that this would be the ways to crack the CVBG nut, would be a combo of thier submarine forces, thier own carrier air power, the DF-21, and other ASCM's would effectively limit the USN's ability to project power into the water near the Chinese Mainland. The only question is which of these portions of the fire triangle are we studying to lessen or prevent from appearing on the battlefield?
I appreciate the counterbattery that was just fired at me from Skippy-san and Ewok. The capability that Aegis BMD presents is compelling; however, the economics of scale are against us (cost per interceptor vs cost per DF-21D), the numbers of ships required to put up a real defense are against us, the geometry is against us (it's all about location, location, location), you're still working with 1970s radar technology at the end of the day (no matter how much you can supe it up, you don't have the breakthrough technologies that you were hoping to get from CG(X) or even DDG1000 back when the VSR was on the table). You are not achieving a counter-option to the Air Force wet dream that skippy san spoke of. You are basically committing to a very large science project with a minimal return on investment when it comes to DF-21D. Now, Aegis BMD is very relevant towards Iran, North Korea. But if we're talking DF-21D, we need to look at other options. EW is a great place to start...
No, it is not. Here is why: HOW MANY MISSILES DO YOU THINK WE HAVE IN THE INVENTORY? HOW MANY GET DEPLOYED, EVEN ON BMD SHOOTERS? THE ANSWER IS CLASSIFIED, BUT DISTRESSING.
One thing notably absent is the heavy bomber (Backfires or equivalent)... Maybe they think Flanker derivatives are better?
I think that "combined arms" approach can work with a bit of luck, if one weapon fails to work (torpedo bombers at Midway) it can make openings for others or just disorganize the defence. At Midway single US sub, while ineffective in its attacks, proved decisive as the single destroyer IJN dedicated to hunting it down was a homing beacon for Mac Clusky's dive bombers. At Marianas, US subs killed most of the sunken IJN carriers.
I think we need to remeber, every SM-2 slot needed to fend off ASCMs and TACAIR is 4 less SM-3s to deal with DF-21, and every ship from the escort taken off by torpedo is one ship less in the defence structure of the CVN...
Subs doing the targeting can be tricky, they lack wide area sensors other than sonar - not a very precise tool, and would have to risk breaking stealth to radio their findings. Historically, it was when German Condors located the convoy that the wolfpacks gathered with greatest efficiency.
Note that all is not as bleak as we see it, Chinese are certainly having limited numbers of DF-21, and they certainly do cost more than 1,5mln$ apiece, ballistic missiles with modern terminal guidance are probably costlier, by how much I cannot estimate.
What I can see as game breaker is that even 50% chance of losing CVN would be enough to deter US from running gauntlet in the Chinese "arms range" unless in very critical situation, something on a scale of, maybe Chinese invasion of Japan?
And then some moonbat on a formerly right center well known blog, gave me crap about saying the push to cut National Defense $ in the light of China's military and particularly the Naval component, was a reason to not do it. He responded that "china is not expansionist and the biggest threat we needed to consider for our National Defense was global warming. So I went back with: They are about to be able to control the SLOCs and use that to control the resources (yes, mentioned in Africa) with such a military, as they could also head towards enegy hegenomy...then how would he consider them? Dead air....
I choose to believe that it was evaluated by NORAD and the President chose to declare it as a contrail or ignore it for political reasons. The timing of the "contrail" appearance tends to give it credance as a real missile fired to affect a political visit to India by the President. India is an enemy of China. The Navy continues to be politically blind to the threat of China's submarines.
Yawn.
I know the exact answer-but this too will get better over time. And even if the numbers were greater, you still need a combined arms approach as you suggested earlier.
However-think about it. The Chinese don't really need to shoot these weapons, just having them causes us to react. Furthermore, I can only think of one scenario where the Chinese would actively attack a CV. And that;s going to be a nightmare anyway-without this extra added bonus.
I would think that China, even now, could shut down the Straits of Malacca, at least for awhile, if they so chose.
Take off your tin foil hat dude. I can attest to working under Skipper Winnefeld when he was the skipper of the Big E, that he never, never, lied to us. Never hid the truth with any of us in the crew.
If you don't want to take off your tin foil, then keep up with your failing. The rest of us can just keep face palming as you fail.
SG,
We need to figure out how they are doing the targeting. If we can beat the targeting then we can probably beat the DF-21. Just like when we started to beat the fear of the Backfire/Badger and the AS-6 and AS-4 back as we started to figure out how to beat the Bear/Blinder threat that was being combined with the space based sensors.
As to the future of radar tech, the problem is how much performance do you need and how much power can your array handle. To really reach out and find some one you need a large array and a powerful enough beam to carry enough data back to the array to provide enough intelligence. There is a really complex equiation that explains it all and by tweaking a few of the numbers can lead to what you need to do for the purpose your looking for.
Concur. The missile itself is useless without precise targeting. Defeat the targeting and you render the missile useless. With that in mind, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not getting serious again about ASW...my money says the ASW is primarly going to be from a submarine.
Partial concur, some of what you said is inaccurate (can't get into it here), and you don't have to have precise location of where the fleet is when you fire this missile (again, I can't go much further from here).
Very familliar with the radar equation. Equally familliar with the capabilities and limitations of our current radars and the variables that play (array size, power, cooling, digital beam forming, etc).
I think that the video misses the point. No need to destroy the carrier.
Just get an airburst close enough, and the ship is mission killed....
Indeed, an opponent may well want that to happen, as then you can bet whatever offensive capabilities left will be turned into supporting a monster rescue operation.
Gone are the days of whole groups of CVE's bringing up new aircraft and crews to easily repaired wooden deck "big" carriers...And the fight against the enemy continuing on.
The video is from "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" - but it makes a point, methinks - one with a ASBM that is important. You don't need a warhead. At those speeds you should use all the available realestate in the "warhead" for guidance and if needed countermeasures/decoys. The E=MC2 nature and the almost vertical nature of the attack would make even a single hit through-and-through a mission kill at least, a sinking probable. Two or three hits with a kinetic only warhead - that would be about it.
A serious threat that needs serious answers.
To your point, blowing away the missile may just create a terrible shrapnel storm...
Point I was trying to make (poorly), is that while there is all kinds of focus on survivability of the carrier, there is next to none on the deck borne aircraft and people.
In 1945, there were, "more ships and planes than the enemy has bullets", as Nimitz opined. And in the nuke years, it just didn't matter.
But now, when there is likely to only be one carrier in theater with all planes and people to be had in time to make any difference, then its another game entirely.
It looks like the Chinese have that figured out...
I think that in that video clip there is more than meets the eye! ;)
Please, as it is not a photon, its kinetic energy is E=m/2*v^2.
Not this crap, again. That myth has been debunked so many times it's not funny any more. If nothing else the simple fact that the "missile plume" was only seen at very specific locations & angles should be a big, fat, honking clue. If it were a genuine missile launch it would have been visible for a hundred miles along the California coast.
As for what you choose to believe, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own reality.
I seem to recall that Sandy wrote something rather odd about the Chinese Navy in Proceedings.
with reentry speed of mach 10 or more the effect is still formidable...
negative. terminal velicoity. reentry is not rocket assisted and therefore subject to terminal velocity!
I'm going to stop commenting on this because it is too frustrating to do in an unclassified setting. Having previously done a lot of work in BMD, and this threat in particular, there are a lot of misconceptions here about the threat, the guidance, the capabilities and the limitations of both us and the enemy. That being said, there are a lot of good points that are being made on all sides. The bottom line is this: the threat isn't going away and we better have an affordable plan to deal with it that doesn't involve sacrificing the pacific as one of our great lakes.
I don't agree w/ all the guest is saying. For one, I disagree w/ the guest's assessment that it was a missile. I believe a contrail. BUT, they are correct in that our ASW skills suck a$$ now and we have let our basic skill sets erode.
I SOOOO have to find the cable to my camera.
I took a pic with the exact same aspect as the one off California.
But I had a buddy at work verify the aircraft was an AAL headed to Cancun.
I have said this before, I would HATE to be a Tactical Action Officer on a Carrier these days. IF you survived the attack, you would get an invitation to the green table cloth and that is not the worse of it, you would have to live with the fact that you could have done little to prevent the attack that would make your Ship a missile sponge. So many reasons why internally to fix blame but the stragegic overview is out of the TAO hands.. it lies on policy makers.. and Big Navy.,.. who DONT GET IT.
A semi-quote from Red Storm Rising... Officer says to wife over the phone that his ship, the CVN is best protected ship in the fleet. Then he reflects on what she wouldnt want to know: why - because it is the biggest sweetest target enemy has in the fleet.
what order of reduction by atmosphere reentry is there? to mach 5-6?
Like others, I have to wonder about the integrity of the targeting scheme.
And, the missile idea against ships is really nothing new.
As early as 1960, the USN was concerned about Soviet missiles possibly being deployed the 6th Fleet CVA assets poised to blow black holes into their southern periphery..
(count the number of A-3's on those decks)
Of course, their solution to targeting was going to be massive megatonnage.
And another thought...
The only historical really sure fire ship killer (as much as it pains me to say it) is a torpedo. Gunfire, guided missiles, aircraft, all have demonstrated mixed results in any single attack.
But as recently as proven by the Cheoan, a torpedo nearly always does the trick if you can sucessfully deliver it.
(that was first boat taking one for the team...congenitally afflicted with an early model 1200 psi plant, she was smokin' black to the end...)
if there ever was ship killer , that award goes to the Long Lance, at Java Sea, Savo, Tassassfaronga... cutting heavy cruiser in half is no mean feat
I wonder how would fare the 65cm Soviet one in todays environment...
Salty at that speed and with that warhead agaisnt modern ships it simply doesnt matter.
just mine the heck of it and add a couple of subs...
Post a Comment