More on Chinese Ship Killer

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: More on Chinese Ship Killer

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Marco_Trigo » Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:53 am

What Chuck might be saying is, the USA could easily take out Monaco, Switzerland and a couple of Pacific Islands that rely on banks alone.

But China is a bit bigger in every respect.

You need a strong economy and the military to defend it and you need a strong military and the economy to feed it. A strong military without the money to sustain a war is a paper tiger.

Marco

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by chuck » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:13 am

Dave Wooley wrote: This is an interesting angle. Which is the most important economic or military power? .....
Dave Wooley
If military power is sufficiently overwhelming, and is backed by a sufficiently ruthless will to use it to settle the issue NOW, then military power can trump any economic power in influencing the final outcome.

If the military power is merely superior but is either physically incapable of settling the issue definitively in a reasonably short amount of time, or is not back by a sufficiently ruthless will to use it to that end, then economic power can become more important in influencing the final outcome.

I would say the US is in the latter situation.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Marco_Trigo » Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:27 am

Building economic power is easy, but creating the technology for military power and then the proceedings and protocols to use them properly probably takes a while longer.

As Chuck pointed out, we owing them money isn't enough to keep them safe, although some of Chuck's assumptions do not hold true: it's different for China to export products and for China to contro lthe money in our banks which it does now. The USA would require one hell of a financing to go to war anytime soon and the loan would most likely come from China.

Anyway, I would agree China is indeed doing that: getting some money, becoming the world's greatest credor, and preparing a modern military... in the meantime they will be bluffing a bit. This missile may be one such bluff although the idea appears to have merit. It does: we are just not agreeing on the execution.

Marco

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Dave Wooley » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:22 am

Charlestonguy wrote:Chuck
There are many ways to track radar is only one.
I agree with Marco the only way they would attack is if the US were being aggressive to start with. We owe China so much money; over the last 7 years we sold most of our prime mortgage debt to them, it would be foolish for all concerned for any such attack by either side.
China has been around for 4000 years, I have a feeling they will be around for a lot more. However, they do want respect, and the government sees aircraft carriers and ballistic missiles as symbols of a super power. Honestly, they are going to be a super power by owning all the banks, these symbols of power are worthless compared to the economic power they will be able to wield.
Can�t we all just get along? Build models not missiles :woo_hoo:
This is an interesting angle. Which is the most important economic or military power? It could be concluded that China has no need to build carriers or project military might. Presently it is engaged in quietly buying countries around the globe, using its economic might to influence events and of course acquiring the natural resources it needs with out costly military commitments . Chinese pragmatism at work.
Dave Wooley

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by MichelB » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:19 am

Jack Ray wrote: Why not the GAU-8?

Jack
Oh, you mean, like, the Goalkeeper?

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Jack Ray » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:32 am

chuck wrote:Without further information I would credit the Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile with a miss rate in engaging ship comparable to the miss rate of the patriot mission in engaging Chinese missiles.

I would imagine the problem of a anti-ship ballistic missile warhead looking down against surface clutter trying to pick out ships with state of the art ECM plus shaff and flares is at least as difficult as that of a anti-air missile looking up against a clear background trying to pick out a conspicuous incoming warhead protected by decoys and chaff. I also imagine that chaff and decoys would only work at high atmosphere where the thin air would not quickly separate a heavy warhead from a light decoy. Once the ballistic missile warhead is lower down and separated from its decoys, it could be engaged with large caliber Gatling style guns much more effectively than a sea skimming missile because where as a sea skimmer would not be visible to the gunnery radar until 3 NM out, a ballistic missile warhead will be continuously visible to the ship all the way down, allowing the ship's guns to engage the warhead from much further out.

So perhaps in the future warships might be equipped with 57 or 75mm Gatlin guns with very high elevation, designed to engage incoming ballistic missile warheads 6-8 miles up.
Why not the GAU-8?

Jack

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Gone Asiatic » Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:43 am

Charlestonguy wrote:Can�t we all just get along? Build models not missiles :woo_hoo:
....Can we build missile models?

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by chuck » Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:01 pm

Without further information I would credit the Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile with a miss rate in engaging ship comparable to the miss rate of the patriot mission in engaging Chinese missiles.

I would imagine the problem of a anti-ship ballistic missile warhead looking down against surface clutter trying to pick out ships with state of the art ECM plus shaff and flares is at least as difficult as that of a anti-air missile looking up against a clear background trying to pick out a conspicuous incoming warhead protected by decoys and chaff. I also imagine that chaff and decoys would only work at high atmosphere where the thin air would not quickly separate a heavy warhead from a light decoy. Once the ballistic missile warhead is lower down and separated from its decoys, it could be engaged with large caliber Gatling style guns much more effectively than a sea skimming missile because where as a sea skimmer would not be visible to the gunnery radar until 3 NM out, a ballistic missile warhead will be continuously visible to the ship all the way down, allowing the ship's guns to engage the warhead from much further out.

So perhaps in the future warships might be equipped with 57 or 75mm Gatlin guns with very high elevation, designed to engage incoming ballistic missile warheads 6-8 miles up.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by bengtsson » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:38 pm

Charlestonguy wrote:
I agree 100% And in modern times the dismal success rate of the Patriot Missile system in the Gulf War is another example. Weapons systems are never stable, for every system there will always be a counter sooner or later.
Yes, and the performance of the Patriot against V-2 style missiles ought to serve as a warning to everybody who think all we need do is get a radar contact on a Chinese ballistic anti ship system and simply shoot it down. It isn't that easy.
I still remember the big celebration over patriot's shoot downs, only much later did it come out that it had no shoot downs.
The modern missile will arrive with decoys and evasion. Just google some of the modern Russian systems, they are equipped to produce decoys and take evasive action. We can't ever know our defensive systems are going to work against foreign systems till we have to use them. Like Patriot. Lots of hype little performance. You just never know till the war comes along. Like WWII, great faith had been placed in AA gun systems, none of it panned out once the shooting started.

Bob B.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by G. Shoda » Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:49 pm

Interesting idea. It does gives rise to thought. I hope our navy leaders are giving serious thought to the implications and not betting our naval future solely on a blind faith in the supercarrier. The US may have invested too much of our naval future in the atomic submarine and super carrier. Both, while enormously sophisticated and potent, could become obsolete with advances in other technologies.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Charlestonguy » Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:24 pm

Chuck
Great study on China, thanks for sharing.
I can understand the feeling they may have; however, I do not think we want to awake a sleeping giant.
China will need more services to build up their infrastructure, construction projects and other needs that face them as they convert from rural farming to industrial. They face a mountain of problems at a staggering pace. The last thing either the US or China needs is to engage in an arms race which will draw away from other programs. China has a long memory, and those conceptions you pointed out will not go away anytime soon. China biggest virtue is patience, we need to control our sometimes-overzealous nature when dealing with them.
Getting back to Jack�s post I still do not know if they have a viable missile system or not. You can bet �we� here on this forum will not know the truth. It�s great to debate but with so little to go on what good is it? The points you raised would seem to support the assessment by Marco, that such a system would be defensive in nature. Such a system in the hands of North Korea would be very different story.

bengtsson wrote:
Remember the BB admirals all said that exercises where aircraft hit BBs with torpedoes and flour sacks were not realistic because the AA guns would divert the attackers. Didn't work that way! Bob B.


I agree 100% And in modern times the dismal success rate of the Patriot Missile system in the Gulf War is another example. Weapons systems are never stable, for every system there will always be a counter sooner or later.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by bengtsson » Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:04 pm

The ballistic missle gets the warhead to the target area fast and from long range. It certainly is easier than getting a submarine or aircraft into anti ship missile range of the Carrier group. I don't see this as such a big deal, many kinds of warheads can sit atop a missile and be put inside a package able to survive re entry and then deploy. It's not like it will be a dumb bomb warhead that had to come into the atmosphere with the proper trajectory to score a hit.
I too am fascinated by what this final terminal warhead would be like. But there is no sense firing a ballistic missle into the target area without a warhead that can lock on and then correct it's course to hit. That is where the technology comes in. Hitler could hit London with quasi ballistic missiles in 1944!
It also would be likely that a Carrier group would be worth a multiple launch. Remember the BB admirals all said that exercises where aircraft hit BBs with torpedoes and flour sacks were not realistic because the AA guns would divert the attackers. Didn't work that way! Multiple launches and very imperfect counter measures. Remember too that the Russians,'who sell a lot to China, are big fans of passive systems. In other words they like to use what signatures the target is giving out to make the kill. Radar tracking is one big sign saying "here I am, come get me". Ask the North Vietnamese radar operators in the closing years of our Naval Air Campaign over North Vietnam.
Bob B.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by chuck » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:29 pm

The debt issue is much more complex than it has been portrayed in the west, and are indeed more complex than could be grasped from economic or financial perspective alone.

For one thing, China's current role as the leading creditor nation to the world's dominant military power is actually nothing new. It has happened before, between 1700-1840, and China drew a lesson from its previous occurrence to the effect that its role as a leading creditor nation does not confer security because powerful debtor nations are likely to assault China in order to cancel the debt through force of arms.

Between 1700 - 1840, China assumed exactly the same role to most of Europe as it does now to the US. During this period China imported almost nothing from the west, but exported a vast amount of very high value goods to the west, including porcelain, silk, and tea to the west. If one were to do a historic study of the flow of bullion in the world, one finds that the total supply of gold and silver in the west expanded greatly with the discovery of new silver mines in America. But much of the additional silver ended up in China by 1800 because while China exported a lot to the west, the west exported nothing to China and had to pay for Chinese export in precious metal.

Throughout the early 1800s, western powers sought a way to address this staggering trade imbalance between China and Europe. This was the origin of the Opium war, which started because the British finally found something valuable which many Chinese would be willing to pay lots of money for. The Chinese government was not pleased that this thing happen to be a narcotic and tried to ban it. The British then used force of arms to force the Chinese government to accept it.

Between 1840 and 1900, China lost a succession of wars against various European powers and Japan. If one were to add up the total indemnity that China was forced to pay in silver to the victorious powers, one finds China effectively gave back all the silver that it had collected through favorable balance of trade between 1700-1840.

SO to China, a relationship where the US is militarily overwhelmingly more powerful, but owes China a lot of money, is not a situation which in itself brings China security. To the Chinese, the situation appears to increase the temptation for the US to launch a war against China. China suspects that at some time in the future, the US would attempt to find some pretext, or set some trap for China, so as to justify an assault on China in order to rip up the ledger. Deep down, China suspects that the US is angling to use Taiwan as such a pretext because the US knows that no Chinese government can survive losing Taiwan.

So this is probably why China and the US would never see eye to eye on exactly what a level of force sufficient for China's defensive needs happen to be. US sees China as facing no grave external military threat - because we don't admit we threaten anyone in a way that deserves a reply although we do often like to brag that we can hit anyone at anytime - and is therefore spending excessively on defense. China sees the US as a very grave potential military threat that is facing increasing temptations to attack China, that must be proactively prepared against, and thinks it must spend very diligently on defense to secure itself.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Charlestonguy » Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:27 am

Chuck
There are many ways to track radar is only one.
I agree with Marco the only way they would attack is if the US were being aggressive to start with. We owe China so much money; over the last 7 years we sold most of our prime mortgage debt to them, it would be foolish for all concerned for any such attack by either side.
China has been around for 4000 years, I have a feeling they will be around for a lot more. However, they do want respect, and the government sees aircraft carriers and ballistic missiles as symbols of a super power. Honestly, they are going to be a super power by owning all the banks, these symbols of power are worthless compared to the economic power they will be able to wield.
Can�t we all just get along? Build models not missiles :woo_hoo:

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Timmy C » Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:45 am

Ah right, that part.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by chuck » Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:39 am

Timmy C wrote:
Admiral John Byng wrote:
A ballistic anti-ship missile is an interesting idea but presumably the target would need to be illuminated by external radar because of the missile's speed?
Why would the missile's speed affect radar function? Compared to the speed of light at which radar waves travel, the missile might as well be stationary.
A missile warhead during reentry travels so fast that its friction ionizes the air around it. Radio signals generated by any on board radar will not be able to penetrate this ionization layer. This is the reason why any spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere experienced a prolonged period of radio communication blackout. This is also why an ballistic missile warhead would not be able to use its on board radar until it has bled off most of its speed and is in low atmosphere.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Timmy C » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:50 pm

Admiral John Byng wrote:
A ballistic anti-ship missile is an interesting idea but presumably the target would need to be illuminated by external radar because of the missile's speed?
Why would the missile's speed affect radar function? Compared to the speed of light at which radar waves travel, the missile might as well be stationary.

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by Marco_Trigo » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:30 pm

Chuck, maybe the Chinese are worried about keeping the launch stealthy or not. In what I'm concerned, their mere launching is half the job done. No matter if the "targets" have time or not, they might be faced with the only option of engaging... or sitting it out. Either way there will be a 900 miles radius around China that exceeds present carrier strike range, and the missiles may hit or drop to the ocean that they will might be one hell of a "we know you're comming", especially if - as I've said and you also - they can launch a couple hundreds of these babies.

As for your second paragraph, I agree, but there's a very serious implication in it an that is that this is an anti-ship missile and launched from land it's pretty much a defensive weapon. They are just saying "this is our turf", creating an umbrella if you may, although with the added problem that such umbrella can hit the Japanese navy in port and clearly creates a real problem around Taiwan. So far so good, but your suggestion of using ICBM's to go after the launch sites turns the tables and while China is telling "don't get too close", you're possibly telling "we're going in after you first".

But tell you what: considering how much money the USA owe China right now, Chinese are probably more into bluffing to extend their influence in the neighbouring countries, than actually thinking of doing anything to provoque the USA anytime soon, while the USA are not going to strike first anytime soon either.

Marco

Re: More on Chinese Ship Killer

by chuck » Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:32 pm

It doesn't matter how high the missiles go, a ballistic missile launch will be spotted early during the boost stage by satellites. Even if the Chinese knock out us early warning satellites, the ballistic missile will still become visible to surface radar when it is still in early part of its flight. So unless the Chinese manage to find a way to mask the IR signature of the missile exhaust plume or make the missile booster stealthy, the missile will come with ample warning. To reduce reaction time at the carrier, the ballistic missile should depress its trajectory as much as possible. So, no, I doubt the missile will come down from directly overhead either.

Now it is possible that the Chinese will deploy quite a lot of these missiles. They have 900 ballistic missiles deployed in support of any strike against Taiwan, so they could deploy a comparable number for carrier hunting. But this will not necessarily deescalate the seriousness of any situation the Chinese may face. The reason is where as previously the US might have restricted itself to going after Chinese ships and assault forces going towards Taiwan, the US might now be tempted to use B-2, submarine launched cruise missiles, or, heaven forbid, conventionally armed ICBMs to go after the lunch sites within China prior to deploying carriers within striking range. So with strikes into Chinese home territory, the war becomes quite a bit more serious.

Top