VBAM Games Forums

But without any indications of a successful live test, I remain dubious that it could actually maintain tracking on a carrier from 2000km away and still hit the target.

Charles Lewis wrote:But without any indications of a successful live test, I remain dubious that it could actually maintain tracking on a carrier from 2000km away and still hit the target.

If they stuck a nuke for a warhead, they'd just have to get close. And the Chinese subs have been playing "hide and seek" with USN carrier groups in recent years, the subs could give the launch site updated data (theoritically).

The "no defense vs. ballistic missiles" comment puzzles me as this is what the modified AEGIS cruisers are supposed to be able to do (intercept ballistic missiles).

-Mark

Yeah, there's that, too. Supposedly, the counter ballistic capability is the main reason we shared the technology with Japan.

MarkG88 wrote:The "no defense vs. ballistic missiles" comment puzzles me as this is what the modified AEGIS cruisers are supposed to be able to do (intercept ballistic missiles).

Aren't the AEGIS cruisers really meant for the interception of guided missiles, and not ballistic missiles per se?

I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but the articles there on AEGIS made it sound like the AEGIS hardware that can counter ballistic missile weapons isn't widely deployed yet, but is limited to a small number of cruisers and destroyers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball ... nse_System

If this is all true then, depending on deployment, there might not be enough of these units at any one location to effectively counter a precision ballistic missile strike against an aircraft carrier.

-Tyrel

Tyrel Lohr wrote:

MarkG88 wrote:The "no defense vs. ballistic missiles" comment puzzles me as this is what the modified AEGIS cruisers are supposed to be able to do (intercept ballistic missiles).

Aren't the AEGIS cruisers really meant for the interception of guided missiles, and not ballistic missiles per se?
-Tyrel

I think they are refering to the Aegis 2. The recent and/or planned upgrade to the Aegis system. I do not know much about it, but remember hearing it before.

In general it sounded to me like the usual early sabre rattling "don't cut my budget because..." or "I need more money than [air force/army/navy] because..." but I know more than I want to about the appropriations process so I'm probably cynical.

Tyrel Lohr wrote:

MarkG88 wrote:The "no defense vs. ballistic missiles" comment puzzles me as this is what the modified AEGIS cruisers are supposed to be able to do (intercept ballistic missiles).

Aren't the AEGIS cruisers really meant for the interception of guided missiles, and not ballistic missiles per se?

I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but the articles there on AEGIS made it sound like the AEGIS hardware that can counter ballistic missile weapons isn't widely deployed yet, but is limited to a small number of cruisers and destroyers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball ... nse_System

If this is all true then, depending on deployment, there might not be enough of these units at any one location to effectively counter a precision ballistic missile strike against an aircraft carrier.

-Tyrel

Wikki does a better job on some of this stuff than most people realize (the benefit of constant updating/editing). It is true there are a limited number of the AEGIS-BM (my abbreviation) cruisers. But they'll all get the upgrades eventually, now with this new "silver bullet" on the horizon to threaten the carriers, it will be sooner rather than later. The littoral warfare modular frigates will be trimmed back/delayed is my guess.

Chyll wrote:
I think they are refering to the Aegis 2. The recent and/or planned upgrade to the Aegis system. I do not know much about it, but remember hearing it before.

In general it sounded to me like the usual early sabre rattling "don't cut my budget because..." or "I need more money than [air force/army/navy] because..." but I know more than I want to about the appropriations process so I'm probably cynical.

That's my take on it as well, simply as an outside civilian with lifelong family contacts in the military.

thought I'd comment some just to get my post count up

read a bit about SM-3 missiles and global security says it needs a second ship with some spiffy radar to help with target tracking.

15 DDG and 2 CG with the capability is pretty impressive

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/sys ... deploy.htm

Here's strategypage.com's take on the Chinese missile:

INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS: The Annual Magic Missile Announcement

April 3, 2009: In what has become an annual event over the last few years, there are another batch of rumors out of China that the DF-21 ballistic missile has been equipped with a high-explosive warhead and a guidance system that can find and hit a aircraft carrier at sea. The DF-21 has a range of 1800 kilometers and normally hauls a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead. It's a two stage, 15 ton, solid fuel rocket that could carry a half ton penetrating, high-explosive warhead, along with the special guidance system (a radar and image recognition system).

As the story goes, the Chinese have reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s seeker technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometer range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. This kind of accuracy made the Russians very uncomfortable, as it made their command bunkers vulnerable. The Russians eventually agreed to a lot of nuclear and missile disarmament deals in order to get the Pershings decommissioned in the 1980s.

The Chinese have long been rumored to have a system like this, but there have been no tests. If the Chinese do succeed in creating a "carrier killer" version of the DF-21, the U.S. Navy can modify its Aegis anti-missile system to protect carriers against such attacks. There are also electronic warfare options, to blind the DF-21 radar. Another problem the Chinese will have is getting a general idea of where the target carrier is before they launch the DF-21. This is not impossible, but can be difficult. But first, the Chinese have to conduct some of tests of this wondrous new weapon. So far, there have been no tests.

And the Air Force seems to have a solution at hand as well (another strategypage article going along with this topic).....

AIR DEFENSE: Air Launched Patriot PAC-3

April 9, 2009: The U.S. Department of Defense is spending $137 million to develop an air launched version of the Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile missile. The $3.3 million PAC 3 has a shorter range (about 20 kilometers) than the 70 kilometers for the PAC 2 anti-aircraft version. A PAC 2 missile weighs about a ton, a PAC 3 weighs about a third of that. The PAC-3 is 17 feet (5.2m) long and 25cm (10 inches) in diameter. At 700 pounds, it is smaller than some of the bombs usually carried by fighter bombers. The flight control software will be modified for launch from F-15 fighters, and attachments designed so the PAC-3, inside a canister, can be hung from the fuselage of the F-15, where a fuel tank usually is, and fired by the pilot.

Launched from the air, the PAC-3 would have a longer range, and be able to knock down ballistic missiles during their launch phase (before they left the atmosphere, turned, and plummeted back to their target below.) The air launched PAC-3 would also be useful against cruise missiles. The air launched PAC-3 should be ready for service within three years.

launched from a centerline canister? I hope there will be a test fire soon Iit'll be fun if the F-15 get its belly/nose burned I dubt it thouth but there's always hope

echoco wrote:launched from a centerline canister? I hope there will be a test fire soon Iit'll be fun if the F-15 get its belly/nose burned I dubt it thouth but there's always hope

That's the same kind of configuration they used with the anti-satellite missile shot in the 1980s so this is just an extension of something they know the F-15 can do.

MarkG88 wrote:

echoco wrote:launched from a centerline canister? I hope there will be a test fire soon Iit'll be fun if the F-15 get its belly/nose burned I dubt it thouth but there's always hope

That's the same kind of configuration they used with the anti-satellite missile shot in the 1980s so this is just an extension of something they know the F-15 can do.

There is a good story about that in Red Storm Rising too.

-Jay

"Under-employed" Cold War winning Minuteman IIIs seeking new line of work:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07 ... nic-boost/

I'm sure China and Russia's strategic early warning system operators will love having to factor in this in the future....