Re: China Tactics Against USN Carrier Groups

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 19:41:59 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <s7rv2213cjub2ookcclkth96nulljivkpv@xxxxxxx>, PaPaPeng
<PaPaPeng@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Cite: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm The
Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) is the Navy’s primary surface-to-air fleet
defense weapon. .......SM-2 range extended 65-100 nautical miles
(75-115 statute miles) .
(PPP: From the pictures its a high altitude, high speed weapon with a
HE warhead of perhaps 50 to 100 lbs. It will be quite useless against
surface skimming anti ship cruise missiles.

No, it'll just have its range limited by the radar horizon. (Engagements
can be cued from offboard, but the last step of locking a SPG-62 on and
firing needs line of sight). If our (much older) Sea Dart can be adapted
to take sea-skimming targets, then SM-2 should certainly be no less
capable.

Or at a pinch, we can provide escort for the USN :)

It has no capabilitiy to
stop a surface object.

I suggest you investigate the fate of the Iranian corvette Joshan;
engaged by a volley of SM-1s and a Harpoon missile. The SM-1s did so
much damage that the Harpoon missed, there being too little of the
Iranian corvette left above the waterline for the Harpoon's seeker to
lock onto.

Pretty definitively 'stopped', wouldn't you say?


A quick check on PLAN warships put them at 2000 tons and under. It
will be suicidal for one to challenge a USN ship let alone a carrier
group. They are not meant for that anyway. In a shooting war their
function will be to guard coastal waters where they will supplement
and be protected by onshore facilities. Any attack on a USN ship or
group will be via sea skimming cruise missiles. There's plenty where
that came from. Easily manufactured, cheap, nasty and does the job
at no risk to personnnel. Even if it doesn't hit anything by acting
as bait for ship defences it has already more than paid for itself.
If they keep the USN from getting near enough (high risk factor) to
interfere with a PLA operation they have already served their purpose.

100 lbs of HE is laughable against a ship

When it arrives at nearly Mach 3, it's not the target who's laughing.
The reason the RN never put Exocet or Harpoon on the Type 42 destroyers,
was simply because Sea Dart is very effective as a SSM: semiactive
guidance making it very hard to jam, and a quarter-ton of missile
arriving at multiple Mach numbers wreaks very impressive havoc.

(Don't forget all that unburned fuel, in such a relatively short-range
engagement. How exactly do you extinguish solid rocket propellant?)

Can't win them all. But see my above rebuttal about not using PLAN
ships for ship to ship challenges. The PLAN has too few warships to
waste them on quixotic quests.

Compared to a ship a missile is cheap. Its easy to make unjammable
targeting circuits to pick out a floating piece of iron.

It's amazing how a handful of metallised glass-fibre can look like
floating iron, isn't it?

I am not quite sure about your technical argument. A ship sized
metallized GRP vessel is not something that is easy to haul around in
a battlegroup. Furthermore many of the smaller USN ships have a large
GRP component or aluminium hulls and superstructures. Hit a decoy or
a real ship its the same. There are plenty more cruise missiles than
there are ships, decoys included. Its simple enough to install
multi-spectrum targeting sensors. A TV sensor can easily distinguish
a ship-like object in the ocean. Software can make the necessary
measurments and integrate their data to decide on the authenticity of
the target.


Its small profile makes it hard to intercept and hit.

Provided you can give it a small profile from the required aspects (hint
- co-altitude head-on is not really the problem). The desire for an
unjammable seeker might conflict with 'small profile', but that's one of
the designers' minor problems...

No pilot's life is
risked. Other nasty properties is that one can also include decoys
coming in at the sweet spot for SM2 interception.

The problem here is that by the time you've produced a sea-skimming
decoy with the required range, performance, and profile... you've got
something that's approaching the cost, size and weight of the missiles
it's meant to be simulating. (Unless you send your aircraft through the
heart of the SM-2 envelope and hope enough survive to launch a few
decoys, that is...)

A decoy needs only to imitate the radar and (other) sensor signature
of a full sized cruise missile. There is no HE payload to penalize
performance. One idea I haven't tossed out for discussion yet is to
have several signal generators in "model airplanes" tethered to the
cruise missile. They will be far back enough of the decoy and out of
the lethal range of an intercept explosion. Each will contain the
necessary electronics to holler "Woohoo, I'm here, I'm here" to the
defenders. Miniature wind driven generators in each will provide all
the necessary power. It doesn't take much to swamp the defenders.

There is nothing to say that the defenders will not use decoys too.
It boils down to to cost and numbers. And how do you hide something
the size and performance of a ship?

An Aegis can store
perhaps 20 (40?) SM-2s.

A DDG-51 has 96 cells for vertically launched missiles, a CG-47 has 128
such cells. (Some may be down by six, if they still have the strikedown
cranes). Attempting to defeat them by running them out of birds will
likely be a lengthy process.

Note that SM-2 is only one air defence option: if saturation attack by
sea-skimmers seems likely, then ESSM can be carried, with the helpful
benefit of being carried four per cell.

Yeah, when there is a mass attack your battle management computers
will be able to pick the attackers one by one, tell the decoys from
the real McCoys and hit them one for one. You have less than a minute
to make up your mind. Since you know more about shipborne missiles
than I ever will how many missiles can be in airborne intercept at any
one time?

Furthermore grow up. What is to a cruise
missile other than a simple airframe, an engine and a guidance-
targeting system. And a HE warhead of course. Take a look at all
your guy toys. Bet they are "Made in China." China is par excellence
at making by the millions cheap functional gadgets of reasonable
sophistication.

Like the Seersuckers that Iraq fired at the WISCONSIN group in 1991? One
failed and ditched, the other was taken by HMS Gloucester's Sea Dart.



Simple airframe, engine and guidance: failed dismally to do more than
create some fireworks.

I can only roll my eyes whenever I read reports of arab armies. Their
political philosophy is medieval and their military even more so. All
that fancy hardware and they can't maintain them, deploy them or
whatever. They are born designated victims.

Your B1 fleet was never much to start with and I believe it has been
retired.

Nope, still flying for some time to come, and while the Bone may never
have fully delivered on the wilder claims it's ended up a respectable
aircraft.

Jeeze. Who uses paratroops these days?

We've got a few battalions of them in the UK, and the US keeps them
handy as well.

Try dropping them among an enemy that has modern transportation,
communications and heavy weapons.

Anyway do everyone a favor. A war between giant nations such as the
US, China, Russia and India isn't something a crazy gun collector
amateur should be speculating on. The political reasons should be
clear first. Fighting a nuclear war for a Taiwan that isn't even
enthusiastic about fighting for its own independence isn't it. If you
are going to deploy carrier groups and fire missiles on the mainland
the chances are that there will be an accidental nuclear exchange.

.

Loading