AEGIS/SM-3 vs. DF-20

Once you break out of the atmosphere, going further out become progressively easier. If you have the sensors to accuratetly hit something in LEO, you have the sensors to accurately target something in GEO, the only question would be if you had a rocket big enough to reach GEO, which the Chinese do.

Compared to the level of advancement needed to make the direct assent ASAT hit in the first place, stepping from LEO to GEO is childsplay.

I’m not sure that any experienced rocket or missile engineer would agree with you.

As with everything relating to the PLA, there is a great deal of secrecy so numbers and deployment are never anything you are likely to get.

I used to have to keep track of some Chinese developments, and don’t recall that numbers and limited deployment details were that hard to find.

Its a weapon, ideally it will scare the USN into not getting involved, but at the end of the day, its primary purpose is to put a hundred meter crater in a carrier and send it to be the bottom of the ocean. That is its primary purpose. If it achieves that, it hardly matters if the carrier was sunk a hundred or a thousand miles from the Chinese coast.

It is a bit difficult to put a 100 m crater in a ship only 70-80 m in beam. And what sort of warhead would you use? You only have a maximum of about 500 kg of throw weight to exploit, and some of that has got to be allocated to a seeker and steering system The goal of the Chinese ASBM is more likely to go for a mission kill using bomblets, flechettes or even an EMP payload.

In return, you have the USN diverting billions into research on anti-BM defense, and very likely that in the near future, all USN carrier escorts will be required to give up a sizeable number of their valuable VLS cells for ABM optimised missiles that will be all but useless against conventional AShMs and aircraft.

The existing Standard 2s should be able to down any maritime-patrol aircraft or long-endurance UAVs trying to locate the carriers. That should help to ‘put out the eyes’ of any ASBM force.

China’s Haiyang series satellites and some of the Yaogan series have an ocean-surveillance role, but I don’t think these are in the performance class of the Soviet-era RORSATs. Since their orbits are known, during a limited conflict it should be possible to jam them if they were thought to be a threat.

what makes you think they need to actually put birds in the air to practice with?

UAV pilots are desk jockies to start with, to them, it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference if the images on their computer screens are fed to them via datalink or 100% computer generated. They get the same experience and training provided the simulations are accurate, which I think it will be safe to assume that they will be.

As I have already pointed out, they can do exercises perfectly well without having to send any UAVs up at all.

Once the hardware has been tested and certified as operational, its only about pilot training, which is done at a terminal. There is no need for actual physical assets to fly in order to train as with manned aircraft.

It’s only by building up flying hours that you ‘debug’ the platform and find out how it copes over a long period with different tactical and environmental conditions. And taking repeated part in large-scale exercises teaches the user what can or cannot be done in practice, especially if the ‘friendly enemy’ does not play according to your rules. Then there is the problem of ensuring that ground crew have the skills needed to handle, maintain and repair the UAV.

If your concept that simulation is sufficient for the training of ground-based operators is correct, why do armed forces spend money putting SAM crews through live-fire practice sessions?

How many times now have the PLA shown something at parades or other such events something new that they have fielded in large numbers that no-one on the outside had the slightest clue about?

A few examples would strengthen your argument. And does your ‘no-one’ include the intelligence community?

There is a third party interest at stake here, the Russians. They will not let the Chinese develop a strategy that removes them as a theater threat without launching a counter move. How long can the Chinese develop nuclear missiles with their hands tied to a treaty with Europe and the U.S.? I don’t think Russia will be able to stay honest in nuclear treaties with NATO when they have a neighbor working against any such limit. And with Russia’s Navy in such small numbers, will they allow a similar imbalance in this arena?

When there is a report from the japanese, taiwanese, philippines etc about chinese ocean recon uav’s or a single article on a coherent wide area maritime surveillance system THEN i’ll be interested,

Until then this looks more like the chinese missile team have gotten ahead of the targeting team and are declaring a capability based on the ISTAR they do have. Which technically is perfectly legitimate.

The US are taking this currently limited system and blowing it up to monstrous proportion to get their latter day missile gap and secure funding on the back of it. This of course feeding the prides of a multitude of chinese internet warriors and all those who have the ill educated views on the supposed vulnerability of aircraft carriers in the missile age.

A lot of words saying nothing pla.

You’re continually stating that my requirement for evidence is unrealistic. That the chinese wont arrange a display to satisfy my whim. Fair enough, but, without that kind of evidence you have no foundation for your assertions. You are guessing. You may try logical extrapolation but its still a guess at the end of the day!.

And your unreasonable demands look more than a little self-serving than any real attempt to gauge the likely reality.

You cant answer the simplest question after 5 years of such confident predictions of the obvious capability of chinese industry. Where are the UAV’s?

So you would rather have us believe what? They sat on their hands and did nothing for 5 years?

A scattering few is not a capability. To service the requirement for ASBN would require dozens actually airborne at any one time. That is noticeable so why hasn’t anyone reported it?

What possible reason do they have for actually lofting that many? As I have already pointed out, they can do exercises perfectly well without having to send any UAVs up at all.

Once the hardware has been tested and certified as operational, its only about pilot training, which is done at a terminal. There is no need for actual physical assets to fly in order to train as with manned aircraft.

Given China’s manufacturing capabilities and the resources they have available, do you really think they would have issues making UAVs in numbers once they have a suitable model?

Prototypes sat on obscure airbases are reported but not a dozen operationally deployed monitoring the South China sea?. Lets not be silly PLA.

So what would count under you book then? Them lining up dozens of UAVs for you? Oh wait, you already admitted that was unrealistic.

The comment that there ‘must be’ a targeting system because they’ve built the missile is just self-reinforcing nonsense.

A far less silly notion than suggesting that the PLA knows they have a critical shortcoming, have the technology, time and resources to do something fundamental to improve upon that situation, yet deciding to sit on their hands for 5 years while apparently pouring vast amounts of resources into a component of the weapons system that would be all but useless without said search and targeting capabilities.

What is more likely and what is more reasonable?

The Soviets did just that. The missiles were built independent of the targeting system. The chinese are apparently following the same model.

The Soviets made do with the best they can and had to wait while the technology for what they wanted had to be developed. Today, China has that technology readily available. All they needed to do was put a modest amount of resources into obtaining it.

By all accounts, they have put a lot more than just a modest amount of resources into UAVs, and you are insisting that ALL of China’s aerospace firms, between them, in 5 years, could not come up with something suitable for a not all that challenging role?

Is that more likely or that they have developed and fielded something and its only that they have either not chosen to allow them to be photographed, and/or planespotters are not interested in such projects as the ‘sexy’ big ticket items like new J10s or the J20?

How many times now have the PLA shown something at parades or other such events something new that they have fielded in large numbers that no-one on the outside had the slightest clue about?

It is hardly unprecedented or even unexpected that the PLA has the means and motivation to keep things from the public eye.

It cannot be denied that the PLA has devoted quite considerable resources into UAV resource in the last 5 years and more, it is a mightily tall claim to suggest that they have nothing to show for it.

As i’ve said targeting platforms for ASBN exist. They are just not surviveable. Is the ASBM operational? Possibly – is it likely to be effective in its current configuration?. I wouldn’t expect so. [/QUOTE]

A lot of words saying nothing pla.

You’re continually stating that my requirement for evidence is unrealistic. That the chinese wont arrange a display to satisfy my whim. Fair enough, but, without that kind of evidence you have no foundation for your assertions. You are guessing. You may try logical extrapolation but its still a guess at the end of the day!.

You cant answer the simplest question after 5 years of such confident predictions of the obvious capability of chinese industry. Where are the UAV’s?. A scattering few is not a capability. To service the requirement for ASBN would require dozens actually airborne at any one time. That is noticeable so why hasn’t anyone reported it?. Prototypes sat on obscure airbases are reported but not a dozen operationally deployed monitoring the South China sea?. Lets not be silly PLA.

The comment that there ‘must be’ a targeting system because they’ve built the missile is just self-reinforcing nonsense. The Soviets did just that. The missiles were built independent of the targeting system. The chinese are apparently following the same model. As i’ve said targeting platforms for ASBN exist. They are just not surviveable. Is the ASBM operational? Possibly – is it likely to be effective in its current configuration?. I wouldn’t expect so.

Pla,

You are making two fundamental mistakes here. First is misunderstanding the scale of the ISTAR tasking. Again a few images of a couple of prototype UAV’s doesn’t cut it. I’ve yet to see any image of HALE UAV’s in squadron service or a single report of chinese uav sea surveillance operations. These ops, by definition, would not be concealable even by those with the mastery of secrecy you give the chinese.

And you are also making some fundamental mistakes here. The first is dismissing images of multiple HALE UAVs in combat camo at a front line operational, not testing, operational, air base as prototypes. That is as good as it gets as the PLA sure as hell isn’t going to line all their UAVs up for you to inspect.

Second, what makes you think they need to actually put birds in the air to practice with?

UAV pilots are desk jockies to start with, to them, it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference if the images on their computer screens are fed to them via datalink or 100% computer generated. They get the same experience and training provided the simulations are accurate, which I think it will be safe to assume that they will be.

As for co-ordinating other assets, again, this can easily be done virtually, and it has the added benefits of being cheap and does not risk showing your capabilities to potentially hostile powers.

Thirdly, there has been plenty of reports of PLAN assets exercising with off-board targeting. What the offboard asset was has never been named but always assumed to be AWACS. Does the USN send AWACS aircraft to
monitor all PLAN exercises closely enough to positively identify UAVs that may well incorporate some degree of RCS reduction?

If the USN does monitor all PLAN drills that closely, do they give you detailed reports on all their findings? You of all people should know that no-one ever tells the public everything they know.

Here your comments about the apparent new fighter design are helpful in explaining your second error. Do you think that China now possess an air defence capability based on that new fighter design?. Until there are several hundred built and deployed, with a fully worked up training and logistic infrastructure supporting it the answer is no. For years to come that fighter, if it even gets to operational service, does nothing for china’s air defence potential. Likewise these prototype uav’s do nothing for ASBM targeting until they represent a fully worked up and deployed capability.

Very clever, but you are not ducking the question that easily. Based on your sky high requirements for proof, how far would you honestly have said a working J20 prototype was off by just a few weeks ago?

The J20 pictures were allowed to be taken because the PLA decided to allow it. Had they wanted to keep it a secret, no one would have been able to say for sure whether it was ready until maybe years later.

UAVs generate a lot less interest and are a lot easier to hide away.

Right now the commentry is that ASBM has reached initial operational capability, as an anti access weapon, yet it has no targeting system that the opponent it was designed to counter cannot defeat or exploit. Dumb.

Right, all those people working in China at all those companies and all those generals, strategist, analysts and advisors are all dumb and only Jonesy here is smart enough to foresee this potential targeting issue when they were drawing up the plans for the ASBM, not to mention the foundation of the PLA’s entire anti-carrier strategy that they could not have the IQ to figure out that they would need the means to find and target carriers in order to sink them.

I mean that makes so much more sense than some silly suggestion that the PLA is not showing us all their toys. I mean that would be completely unprecedented and completely not smart at all.

Riddle me this, is kit-bashing something like a Reaper or Global Hawk more or less difficult than coming up with a working 5th gen prototype? Hell, is it more or less difficult than designing a decent 4th gen fighter?

Now we know that every single one of China’s main aerospace companies are heavily involved in UAV work, so what are the odds that between all of them that they could not come up with a HALE design suitable for China’s needs in all the years since when we first had pictures of videos of advanced jet powered designs doing high speed taxi trails?

I mean, its not like the Chinese are any good at volume manufacturing are they, so once they do come up with suitable design, they cannot possibly be able to mass produce them in any quantity they want, right?

Its all about motivation, capabilities and probabilities.

The Chinese have the motivation to develop HALE UAVs, they have the capabilities and resources and they have devoted huge amounts of resources to the pursuit of suitable UAVs and UCAVs.

So which is more likely? That the entire Chinese defense industry and PLA strategic command and procurement departs are so ‘dumb’ they cannot figure out, between them, that they need to sort of location and targeting issues.

Or that the quite considerable resources and time they have devoted to that field has yielded fruit that the PLA is not ready to parade in front of the world on the interwebs?

Pla,

You are making two fundamental mistakes here. First is misunderstanding the scale of the ISTAR tasking. Again a few images of a couple of prototype UAV’s doesn’t cut it. I’ve yet to see any image of HALE UAV’s in squadron service or a single report of chinese uav sea surveillance operations. These ops, by definition, would not be concealable even by those with the mastery of secrecy you give the chinese.

Here your comments about the apparent new fighter design are helpful in explaining your second error. Do you think that China now possess an air defence capability based on that new fighter design?. Until there are several hundred built and deployed, with a fully worked up training and logistic infrastructure supporting it the answer is no. For years to come that fighter, if it even gets to operational service, does nothing for china’s air defence potential. Likewise these prototype uav’s do nothing for ASBM targeting until they represent a fully worked up and deployed capability.

Right now the commentry is that ASBM has reached initial operational capability, as an anti access weapon, yet it has no targeting system that the opponent it was designed to counter cannot defeat or exploit. Dumb.

So no evidence and lots of assumption, supposition and leaps of faith?.

I already pointed you to an operationally deployed HALE UAV, and solid evidence of across the board comprehensive efforts by every single major Chinese aerospace player for the past several years.

If you want to dismiss that as assumptions, suppositions and leaps of faith, that’s your prerogative, but you may wish to find an interest in something else if you demand such levels of openness.

Just out of curiosity, how much solid evidence that would meet with your exacting standards did we have that CAC would have a J20 working prototype nearly ready to fly before the year-end before all the pictures started showing up?

Honestly, based on all the solid, verifiable evidence we had before hand, what were the odds you would have said the very same thing about the J20 as you are about Chinese UAVs had anyone suggested that there might be a working prototype built and ready to fly before the end of 2010 just a few short weeks ago?

And the J20 was a high profile project that had intensive interest for years and we only got to see so much because it was deliberately allowed. UAVs don’t attract anywhere near the same level of interest – ergo, we get a hell of a lot less info reported on them. But that does not mean the Chinese are not working on them or that no progress has been made.

The ASBM is an anti access weapon. The whole point of it is to keep opposing strike groups at sufficient distance that they cannot achieve strategic goals. If it cant do that its a failure before it starts.

And who set those goals? Its a weapon, ideally it will scare the USN into not getting involved, but at the end of the day, its primary purpose is to put a hundred meter crater in a carrier and send it to be the bottom of the ocean. That is its primary purpose. If it achieves that, it hardly matters if the carrier was sunk a hundred or a thousand miles from the Chinese coast.

Before you go accusing me of china bashing I actually like the implication of what the ASBM says of chinese intentions.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I accuse you of China bashing exactly?

Its what makes me laugh so hard about american attempts to demonise it. Its a solely defensive weapon. You dont build such a weapon if you intend to fight someone on their doorstep!

Exactly, good point.

My problem is with the weapon as a system. Its inherent weakness is huge and China just doesn’t give the appearance of making the effort to sort it.

Again, you should know better than to judge something by appearances alone, especially when it comes to China, since they are so fond of leaving important details out.

China’s position is one of deliberate ambiguity. If the have an operational ASBM weapon, they are not going to pi$$ away that advantage for the sake of bragging rights. They are going to keep that face a secret so there will always be opposing voices in the USN and congress when the USN wants to ask for money to develop a counter.

OTOH, China may also drop hints for non-existent weapons or systems they have no intention of actually fully deploying as a means to distract the US so they cannot tell the real threats from the fictional ones and ends up spreading their resources trying to cover all their basis.

Don’t you see, the Chinese have been looking at the cold war very closely, and are not happily using the same tricks the US used to win the cold war on them.

I have said it before and I will say it again here, the ASBM programme could be real, or it could easily be a giant smokescreen with hollow fiberglass missiles and live fire drills with old missiles designed to look like an extensive test firing programme.

In return, you have the USN diverting billions into research on anti-BM defense, and very likely that in the near future, all USN carrier escorts will be required to give up a sizeable number of their valuable VLS cells for ABM optimised missiles that will be all but useless against conventional AShMs and aircraft.

However, if there is one element about the entire ASBM programme that is going to be real, then that is the search and targeting system.

I have given you real world examples where the PLAN has been reported to have used elements of the search and tracking system.

You have reinforced what i’ve said about the chinese HALE UAV projects. Operationally they dont exist

So you are just going to ignore the HALE UAVs photographed in combat camo at operational bases?

and, as Pinko points out, we’ve been flogging this issue 5 years!. 5 years how much further on are they?. Where is the Chinese globalhawk that was predicted?

Again, this silly insistence that the PLA obligingly show you all their toys. Its not going to happen. You can insist that the PLA don’t have it, but we both know that that is a silly position to take considering how many times the Chinese have managed to pull operational platforms ‘out of the blue’.

The Chinese are not desperate to sell you their wares, so they don’t tell the outside world what they are tinkering with. Its no accident that the UAV projects you heard the most about are those by small, new firms independently developing new models and who are shopping for customers. The big players who have PLA funding, they often don’t let out a peep.

Where is Chinese SURTASS?. China is imaging ships in chokepoints and calling that an achievement?. I tell you PLA finding ships at sea is lots easier when only have to scan a ten mile wide strait!. For theatre entry denial you need to be scanning tens of thousands of square-mile’s continuously. Thats the gap that needs to be crossed. I see no evidence that gap has been crossed so i’m wondering where your faith comes from to support your comments?

And what are the odds that the PLA will obligingly demonstrate such a capability to the world?

They are not going to tell the Americans how they intend to track and target their carriers so the Americans can develop counters or put the necessary assets top of their attack list.

If the PLA can make the USN think they are invisible when they have them in a great big flashing neon crosshairs, well that’s the best outcome the PLA could want as that makes it so much easier to kill those carriers when needed.

If you are looking for the ‘smoking gun’, you will never see it till after it has shot you.

I am basing my assumptions on overall capabilities, priority, timing and real world events.

Does the Chinese have the technological know-how to develop high-end HALE UAVs and manufacture them? Almost certainty. Even you much vaunted global hawk is hardly cutting edge stuff. In fact, one of its main selling points is that it is mostly a kit-bash of existing off-the-shelf parts to reduce cost and speed up development time. That is hardly technology out of reach of the Chinese when they are able to roll out a fifth gen prototype.

From the vast amount of literature and the breath and depth of the work every single Chinese aerospace company has been doing on UAVs, you can be sure they recognise their significance and are not neglecting them.

Resources are hardly going to be a problem for the Chinese, and they have been hard at work on UAVs for many years.

That’s all the ingredients you need for a successful UAV industry, and the only question is time. How long it will take for the Chinese to roll out suitable UAVs, and the money is on it being sooner rather than later.

You can keep your head in the sand and demand unrealistic levels of proof, so you can keep convincing yourself that the Chinese have no means of finding and targeting USN carriers. That’s fine by me, and if the head of the USN thinks like that as well, I’m sure some important people in the PLA will be cracking open a bottle to celebrate.

Just don’t be too surprised when the Chinese drop more ‘J20 bombshells’ in the future.

I don’t see the USN being disuaded from going about doing business as usual, specially since the DF-21 has yet to show it can live up to the hype in realistic tests. Not to mean that they aren’t taking steps to ensure a capability to counter a AsBM. Its the prudent thing to do.

So no evidence and lots of assumption, supposition and leaps of faith?.

The ASBM is an anti access weapon. The whole point of it is to keep opposing strike groups at sufficient distance that they cannot achieve strategic goals. If it cant do that its a failure before it starts.

Before you go accusing me of china bashing I actually like the implication of what the ASBM says of chinese intentions. Its what makes me laugh so hard about american attempts to demonise it. Its a solely defensive weapon. You dont build such a weapon if you intend to fight someone on their doorstep!.

My problem is with the weapon as a system. Its inherent weakness is huge and China just doesn’t give the appearance of making the effort to sort it.

You have reinforced what i’ve said about the chinese HALE UAV projects. Operationally they dont exist and, as Pinko points out, we’ve been flogging this issue 5 years!. 5 years how much further on are they?. Where is the Chinese globalhawk that was predicted?. Where is Chinese SURTASS?. China is imaging ships in chokepoints and calling that an achievement?. I tell you PLA finding ships at sea is lots easier when only have to scan a ten mile wide strait!. For theatre entry denial you need to be scanning tens of thousands of square-mile’s continuously. Thats the gap that needs to be crossed. I see no evidence that gap has been crossed so i’m wondering where your faith comes from to support your comments?

Irrelevent. Chinese engagement of US satellites is limited to those passing into the engagement window of the Chinese ASAT system. The only crucial systems that the US would need for theatre entry are GPS and comms. Comms is geosync and if China’s ASAT has got up there I’ve not heard of it.

That seems like a self-serving requirement that the Chinese ‘demonstrate’ the ability to send an ASAT weapon into geosync orbit.

Once you break out of the atmosphere, going further out become progressively easier. If you have the sensors to accuratetly hit something in LEO, you have the sensors to accurately target something in GEO, the only question would be if you had a rocket big enough to reach GEO, which the Chinese do.

Compared to the level of advancement needed to make the direct assent ASAT hit in the first place, stepping from LEO to GEO is childsplay.

GPS you could play merry hell with I imagine, but, that would be about the limit of the impact Chinese ASAT’s could have. The impact of China losing satellites while trying to stop a USN CSG theatre entry is proportionately much greater for obvious reasons. The USN dropping of Chinese satellites therefore could trigger a shooting war in space, but, its one with very much greater rewards than risks for the US side.

That is a very narrow minded and unrealistic view to take.

Firstly, theater entry is not an ends in itself. Once a CBG has achieved entry, it is going to be very reliant on space assets for communications, intelligence, targeting and damage assessment just to name a few obvious ones.

If denied access to space, your CBG is going to have to start using its own sensor platforms, be it AWACS or even ship-borne active sensors. That is not something you want to do when half the PLA is actively hunting you.

Secondly, it is naive and irresponsible to thing that the damage and threat from ASAT weapons comes only from direct weapons impact with satellites. Space is an unique battlefield in that all the mess stays up there for decades or centuries after. Satellites have already been lost to space junk impact, and when you are talking about space warfare, you are talking about multiplying the number of dangerous rouge objects in space by magnitudes almost overnight. You are going to loose birds from all the new junk all over the globe, and that’s just the start. Read up on the Kessler effect if you are not familiar with it.

This is the point. The US fixed-target list supporting CSG theatre entry is onerous enough on its own. It doesnt really NEED realtime space-based imagery to support its deployment. Nice to have, but, not crucial. That isnt really the case the other way around.

Well, where did this unrealistic theater entry only requirement come from? Do you think the CBG is going to break out the bubbly and beach brollies and have a merry picnic once they achieve theater entry?

Getting into position is only the first step, and once that is gone, a CBG is heavily reliant on space based assets to operate the way they would like, have done some and are used to. As soon as you force someone to operate outside their comfort zone, you increase the difficulty for them and also the likelihood of errors and mistakes, especially under pressure.

Absolutely. HALE UAV’s will very definitely be key systems in the ISTAR battle…I’ve said so frequently. Apart from a few prototypes imaged every now and again where are the Chinese examples you speak of PLA?. How many are in squadron service?. Where are they deployed?. What is their range and endurance?. I’m not suggesting China cant field a Globalhawk clone, but, I am saying that there is precious little evidence for you to base your confident predictions on!.

Maybe you want to look up on Giant Eagle.

That may not be global hawk size, but it is more than big enough for at least second island chain operations, and these have been spotted in combat camo and in operational bases. That means they are way past the prototype stage and has achieve IOC at least a year ago when these pictures first appeared.

There are also direct global hawk and reaper like UAC projects which have reached at least high speed taxi tests, again this is years old as the info was first released officially at one of the ZhuHai airshows. Think it was 08, but my memory is a bit spotty there.

As with everything relating to the PLA, there is a great deal of secrecy so numbers and deployment are never anything you are likely to get. Since these UAVs are not considered ‘sexy’ enough, the normal channels of finding such information out are not available as most spotters in China don’t care enough to report them when they see them.

The main issue here is how much importance the PLA places on something. The Chinese have the technology, money and enough trained people to develop the kinds of UACs that they need. The only issue is whether there is enough recognition of the need and prioritization, but from all the literature and the sheer scope of the Chinese UAV development work, it seems pretty obvious that they recognize how important UAVs are, and have invested quite considerable resources towards their development. Every major Chinese aerospace firm as well as a plethora of newcomers are working on every UAC project imaginable, and some are already baring fruit.

It would unrealistic to demand that level of evidence before acknowledging this work, as I suspect even the likes of the CIA would dearly love to get their hands on that level of information.

Thing is though PLA subs, OTH radars and satellites have tried to keep track of carrier battlegroups in the past and been found wanting.

And the PLA has been briefing you on their efforts?

OTOH, a PLAN Song has been consistently reported as having surfaced within sight of the Kitty Hawk, no mean feat with a slow SSK.

I also remember interesting Japanese comments about how the PLA seemed to be able to keep good track of their ships during an encounter not too long ago when a PLAN flotilla was passing between some Japanese islands in international waters and the Japanese were whining that the PLAN ships were ‘tailing’ some of their warships or similar nonsense. What piqued my interest were have you said the PLAN were using space based assets to track their ships and direct their own fleet movements. Thats well into the second island chain, and we were talking about destroyer sized targets here.

Make of that what you will.

Now they need to actually provide target discrimination, identification and MAINTAIN tracking resolution sufficient to target a missile off.

Considering a IRBM can hit a target several thousand miles out in around 10 minutes or so, thats not as long as you might think.

For a target as important as a carrier, the PLA will happily reposition as many ‘birds’ as needs be to see the job done.

Quite the opposite pal. The search and targetting element is the absolute hardest part of the whole setup and its very, very rarely been achieved by anyone before. There will have to be a lot more demonstrated than a couple of satellites in orbit, a few pictures of prototype HALE UAV’s and flotilla of aged SSK’s before this becomes believeable as an operational capability.

My point is that it is the only important, because the PLA’s entire ability to challenge USN carrier ops against the Chinese mainland will depend on their ability to find, track and target the carries, no matter what means they ultimately use to attack the carrier with.

That means that the search and targeting element of the ASBM programme will be its most important and highest priority.

The PLA can afford to let any other element of the ASBM project fail, but it cannot and will not stint on this critical element.

My point was that even if there was some technical bottleneck big enough to kill the ASBM project, the search and target element of that project will still be kept alive.

You are also being a little melodramatic and being a little less than fair or objective in your insistence that there are only prototypes of HALE UAVs (they have been operationally deployed for at least a year now, and I seem to remember pointing that out to you some time ago during another discussion, although the actual name as not known then) and that the PLAN’s SSK fleet is ‘aged’.

Lets not let emotion get the better of us shall we? 🙂

OK this is probably a very silly question that has been answered many times in the past, but would it not be possible to try to locate the carrier group by whatever means (perhaps when they are visiting a port) and then simply use a nuclear sub to track them?

Not a silly question. Has been tried plenty of times. Story goes the Soviets had a Victor III on the Hermes group all the way to Ascension in 82. We had the Argentines carrier group tailed back to port. So it can be done if the target is switched off or has no ability to counter detect!.

Problem is that the USN CSG is well provided for in ASW with attached cutting edge SSN’s and SURTASS support. If it is tasked for theatre entry in the chinese sphere of interest the group will be at a high alert state for a long time before engagement range.

Putting a trailer on a Carrier group, surface or otherwise, is a long established tactic. Dealing with unwanted snoopers is also a long practiced task – be it by tasking an escort to ‘shove’ the shadower away while the fleet manoeuvres clear or by sending a chopper to wave bottles of whisky at the snooping crew as a distraction!.

OK this is probably a very silly question that has been answered many times in the past, but would it not be possible to try to locate the carrier group by whatever means (perhaps when they are visiting a port) and then simply use a nuclear sub to track them?

Jonesy the great, what a dream turns true, after 5 years debate on this board;)

Partly the point though isnt it Pinko?. 5 years down the track and this still looks more like US desperation to find a new ‘missile gap’ and build the Chinese up to be the new ‘Evil Empire’ than it does to be a real operational threat!.

Jonesy the great, what a dream turns true, after 5 years debate on this board;)

Radar

The satellite back in 2008 was shot down at an altitude of 240 km. does this proof that they can handle a satellite at 500 km (e.g. sar-lupe) or 700 km (lacrosse) or 1100 km (yaogan 9 series)? i’m not sure.
afaik the chinese asat-systems are based on a df-21 missile which is significant bigger than sm-3. for the chinese systems engagement altitudes of 600, 800 and 1000+ km (depending on asat type and source).

Publically quoted altitude limit for the SM-3 is 310 miles or about 500km. How accurate that is I have no idea and wouldn’t expect to find out with any degree of confidence. It does put the interceptor in the ballpark of the orbital altitude that imaging sats use though – I’d not expect that finding an extra hundred km or so in altitude would be necessarily difficult even IF 310 miles was the current hard ceiling!. The Yaogan 9’s are ELINT birds and their higher orbital altitude is of no consequence…again, like OTH, they are cueing assets and not targeting platforms.

PLA

And once the USN starts a shooting war in space, you think the Chinese will hold back? The US is far more reliant than China on Space based assets, and China has already demonstrated a viable ASAT capability.

Irrelevent. Chinese engagement of US satellites is limited to those passing into the engagement window of the Chinese ASAT system. The only crucial systems that the US would need for theatre entry are GPS and comms. Comms is geosync and if China’s ASAT has got up there I’ve not heard of it. GPS you could play merry hell with I imagine, but, that would be about the limit of the impact Chinese ASAT’s could have. The impact of China losing satellites while trying to stop a USN CSG theatre entry is proportionately much greater for obvious reasons. The USN dropping of Chinese satellites therefore could trigger a shooting war in space, but, its one with very much greater rewards than risks for the US side.

At the end of the day, both the US and Chinese now know that they need to share the use of space in the event of hostilities, or no-one gets to use it.

This is the point. The US fixed-target list supporting CSG theatre entry is onerous enough on its own. It doesnt really NEED realtime space-based imagery to support its deployment. Nice to have, but, not crucial. That isnt really the case the other way around.

Besides, satellites are far from the only, or probably the main search and targeting method for finding carriers. The PLA has invested significantly in UACs in recent years, and that focus looks set to only intensify. The PLA already have several long-range, long-endurance UACs that would be well suited to long range volume search

Absolutely. HALE UAV’s will very definitely be key systems in the ISTAR battle…I’ve said so frequently. Apart from a few prototypes imaged every now and again where are the Chinese examples you speak of PLA?. How many are in squadron service?. Where are they deployed?. What is their range and endurance?. I’m not suggesting China cant field a Globalhawk clone, but, I am saying that there is precious little evidence for you to base your confident predictions on!.

and these combined with subs and OTH radars and supplemented with satellite support should give the PLA a good foundation to try and locate USN CBGs.

Thing is though PLA subs, OTH radars and satellites have tried to keep track of carrier battlegroups in the past and been found wanting. Now they need to actually provide target discrimination, identification and MAINTAIN tracking resolution sufficient to target a missile off.

If there is a single element about the ASBM programme you can bet is most likely to be working as intended, then that is the search and targeting element.

Quite the opposite pal. The search and targetting element is the absolute hardest part of the whole setup and its very, very rarely been achieved by anyone before. There will have to be a lot more demonstrated than a couple of satellites in orbit, a few pictures of prototype HALE UAV’s and flotilla of aged SSK’s before this becomes believeable as an operational capability.

The US Pershing(L) and its illegitimate Chinese offspring, the DF-15 (M) and the alleged DF-21(R) AsBM.

Utter baseless nonsense.

The DF15 and DF21 are no more illegitimate offspring of the Pershing than you are the creation of one of mine indiscreet adventures. 😛

OTH radar at theatre entry range doesnt have the resolution to target a missile off…..thats not picking on the Chinese its simple physics. OTH is a cueing asset for a higher resolution platform.

The message that the SM-3 ASAT shot, very clearly, gave out was of the pointlessness of trying to target USN warships from LEO satellite platforms. Very little need to shoot down the missiles when you can poke out the eyes of the sighting system!.

And once the USN starts a shooting war in space, you think the Chinese will hold back? The US is far more reliant than China on Space based assets, and China has already demonstrated a viable ASAT capability.

The sky is pretty crowded with junk already, a shooting war between two space powers may just be the tipping point to make the Kessler theory a reality.

The significance of China demonstrating its ASAT capability is as much to signal to the US of China’s ability to achieve MAD in space, and thus help to safeguard Chinese space assets against possible attack.

It is no accident that there has been a marked increase in Chinese military satellite launches after the ASAT test. Before the Chinese have always had to temper their desire for more and better space based assets with the probability that these very same expensive assets may well be take out in the opening stages of hostilities. Thus there has always been some degree of reluctance to invest too heavily or become too dependent on such vulnerable systems.

With the new found security, that is now changing.

At the end of the day, both the US and Chinese now know that they need to share the use of space in the event of hostilities, or no-one gets to use it.

Besides, satellites are far from the only, or probably the main search and targeting method for finding carriers. The PLA has invested significantly in UACs in recent years, and that focus looks set to only intensify. The PLA already have several long-range, long-endurance UACs that would be well suited to long range volume search, and these combined with subs and OTH radars and supplemented with satellite support should give the PLA a good foundation to try and locate USN CBGs.

Focusing on targeting as the ‘weak link’ is missing the point. The PLAN will need to find and generate useful targeting information no matter if they are using ASBMs, torpedoes, AShMs or even iron bombs, any method of attack would pre-requisite the ability to find, track and target the carriers and escorts and so that is not something the PLA is likely to overlook.

If there is a single element about the ASBM programme you can bet is most likely to be working as intended, then that is the search and targeting element.

The message that the SM-3 ASAT shot, very clearly, gave out was of the pointlessness of trying to target USN warships from LEO satellite platforms. Very little need to shoot down the missiles when you can poke out the eyes of the sighting system!.

the satellite back in 2008 was shot down at an altitude of 240 km. does this proof that they can handle a satellite at 500 km (e.g. sar-lupe) or 700 km (lacrosse) or 1100 km (yaogan 9 series)? i’m not sure.
afaik the chinese asat-systems are based on a df-21 missile which is significant bigger than sm-3. for the chinese systems engagement altitudes of 600, 800 and 1000+ km (depending on asat type and source).

If i were in charge of Chinese defense, i would build my own SOSUS right away.