CHINA vs U.S.A. defeating anti-Ship Ballistic Missles

[Reality Check]

This thread was started for speculation on how the United States might defeat the Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile.

Specifically defeating one fired to destroy a carrier.

[Marc]

The best way might be through a "Manhattan Project" of sorts to develop an ultra-sophisticated, high-energy-beam weapon that can take these menaces out. Some impressive strides toward such a thing have been produced as per what's been posted, but much more work remains to be done. However, maybe in three to five years, a super-intense organization of research efforts can get us there. Thanks for the very militarily relevant question. —Best regards, Marc

[Reality Check]

This post is just one ( speculative ) scenario for defeating a Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile when fired at a U.S. carrier.

The United States has been moving forward with implementation of a nuclear missile shield for Europe to protect it against Medium Range, and Intermediate Range, Nuclear tipped Ballistic missiles fired by Iran from somewhere in Iran, or from Iranian ships, or from territory held by Iran's allies in Lebanon, Israel ( Gaza ), Iraq or Syria.

This missile shield was President Obama's decision after he rejected the shield being built by President George W. Bush, and President Obama replaced it with one based on the more limited and older capabilities of U.S. Navy Ships to perform nuclear missile defense.

Protecting Europe with this ABM system is challenging because the geographic area from which Iran can fire missiles is expansive and Europe provides thousands of potential targets spread over an even larger geographic area.

The ABM system must locate the launch point, wait and watch the nuclear missile climb to calculate the course and then launch an interceptor toward space at the correct point to intercept the missile to be destroyed. The ABM launcher could be a long way from the perfect point on earth to launch the interceptor from. The farther it is away from the perfect point, the longer it takes the interceptor missile to reach the nuclear missile's path.

Conventional wisdom ( and most talking head experts ) say the Chinese anti-ship missile can not be shot down ABM style because it has an extremely short maximum range for a ballistic missile. The shorter the maximum range the faster it will reach it's target, all other things being equal.

If the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile does indeed have a maximum range of 933 miles, that would make it just a little longer ranged than the 620 mile range of a short range ballistic missile ( SRBM ) and much less than the maximum range of a medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) at 2,200 miles.

All MRBM ballistic missiles spend a substantial portion of their flight time in outer space.

With most ABM systems the most reliable places to shoot down an incoming missile is in it's boost phase, or in space after the boost phase while the missile is still ascending, or when the missile is near the top of it's arc moving at it's slowest.

With most ABM systems they must wait and watch the trajectory of a just launched missile for a while to determine where it is headed before they can calculate the mid-way point and launch an interceptor.

The U.S. Navy may look at these same facts and say the Chinese anti-ship missile is much easier to shoot down.

First a U.S. ABM capable ship ( a cruiser or destroyer ) assigned to protect the carrier will know the exact heading and location of the carrier at all times, and the ABM ship will know the path of an anti-ship missile aimed at the carrier as soon as the anti-ship missile is launched, it will be from the launch point to the carrier. So it can launch the interceptor immediately. The key point is the assumption at launch the Chinese missile is attacking the carrier so there is no need to see where it is headed, the interceptor is launched immediately so that, if it is headed for the carrier, it will be intercepted. The carrier is still safe if the missile was headed somewhere else. Either way, mission accomplished from the ABM ship's point of view.

Second, U.S. ABM capable ships will know all the possible angles Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles might approach from so they can distribute themselves between those angles and between the carrier and China so that one, or more of the ABM ships, is in, or near all the perfect places to launch ABM interceptors from.

Finally, the ABM ships, which will be substantially closer to China than the carrier, could be covered by long range 4 engine and 8 engine bombers carrying long range anti-ship missiles and covered as well by land based fighters ( supported by refueling tankers ). U.S. attack submarines with anti-submarine destroyers, anti-submarine frigates and anti-sub planes could provide protection from Chinese submarine attack.

Just speculation - the assumptions it is based on may be wrong.

[Reality Check]

The best way might be through a "Manhattan Project" of sorts to develop an ultra-sophisticated, high-energy-beam weapon that can take these menaces out. Some impressive strides toward such a thing have been produced as per what's been posted, but much more work remains to be done. However, maybe in three to five years, a super-intense organization of research efforts can get us there. Thanks for the very militarily relevant question. —Best regards, Marc

Interesting thoughts, I was thinking a little more along the lines of capabilities that already exist, but are not being talked about, but your post is food for thought.

[John]

The U.S. Navy may look at these same facts and say the Chinese anti-ship missile is much easier to shoot down.

What if ten anti-ship missiles are launched at once?

[Marc]

The U.S. Navy may look at these same facts and say the Chinese anti-ship missile is much easier to shoot down.

What if ten anti-ship missiles are launched at once?

Indeed, that's a relevant strategic/technological question, John. Any successful tech that's developed to counter the Chinese ASBM would really need to be able to handle this, in a similar vein to, say, the US Air Force being able to shoot down a crapload of nukes aimed at the American homeland. There will need to be some rather foxy technology developed to be able to do this. Thanks for the good question. Thanks also, Reality Check, for the affirmative reply. —Best regards, Marc

[Reality Check]

The U.S. Navy may look at these same facts and say the Chinese anti-ship missile is much easier to shoot down.

What if ten anti-ship missiles are launched at once?

Indeed, that's a relevant strategic/technological question, John. Any successful tech that's developed to counter the Chinese ASBM would really need to be able to handle this, in a similar vein to, say, the US Air Force being able to shoot down a crapload of nukes aimed at the American homeland. There will need to be some rather foxy technology developed to be able to do this. Thanks for the good question. Thanks also, Reality Check, for the affirmative reply. —Best regards, Marc

If I understand the underlying point, it goes back to: "The best defense is a strong offense".

Using bullets to shoot bullets may not be the best way to stop somone from shooting at you. Killing the shooter might both stop the shooting and deter the next guy from picking up the gun.

Or maybe I misunderstood the point...

[Reality Check]

,,, develop an ultra-sophisticated, high-energy-beam weapon that can take these menaces out .... a super-intense organization of research efforts can get us there. ,,,,. being able to shoot down a crapload of nukes aimed at the American homeland. … will need … some rather foxy technology developed to be able to do this

“ultra-sophisticated high-energy-beam weapons” and “super-intense organization” and “foxy technology” sounds more like a witch doctor telling the people to ignore the guys with spears on the hill coming to kill them because the “gods will save us” than any form of reality.

We, the people of the United States demonstrate a form of arrogance. We refuse to engage in reality and yet we say the other side is “not rational” and the other side is “arrogant with recent success”. We say “everybody knows”, “we will win in the end” because the other guy is not rational and the other guy is arrogant and we always win.

Maybe the other side is arrogant because they are succeeding. They have taken most of our manufacturing base, and we continue to ship it over to them. They are obtaining our cost effective military technologies by receiving them as gifts to their “peaceful civilian space program”, and, by buying it from people who control it ( but did not pay for it and do not value it ), and by stealing it when all else fails.

China is the second largest economy in the world. They passed Germany and Japan to get there. China is debt free while Japan has a debt of over 200% of GDP and Germany and the United States are both approaching 100% of GDP.

Usually when arrogant upstarts challenge the established power base they lose. That may or may not happen this time. But sometimes the upstart wins. Greece against the Persian Empire. Rome against Greece. A German Tribe against the Western Roman Empire. A small Turkish tribe against the Eastern Roman Empire. England against the Spanish Empire. All those are examples of arrogant upstarts who should not have won who did win.

China has environmental problems, and social problems and political problems. China, even if it wins, may also lose because it can not capitalize on the defeat of the United States because of it’s own problems. But none of that means the U.S. can not lose.

Again, statements to the effect that they are irrational, and they are arrogant and we always win, tells us more about our arrogance than theirs.

Refusal to engage in the real world maybe suicidal for the United States.

The clash of civilizations war is almost certainly going to happen as predicted, but the outcome of that war is far from certain.

[Marc]

“ultra-sophisticated high-energy-beam weapons” and “super-intense organization” and “foxy technology” sounds more like a witch doctor telling the people to ignore the guys with spears on the hill coming to kill them because the “gods will save us” than any form of reality.

Thanks again for the follow-up comments. I'm respectfully not really sure what you're ultimately alluding to in regards to your comments, however; I kindly don't see how what most expert military strategists would regard as highly rational and organized research in the service of countering legitimate military threats is akin to witch-doctor-like advice, or how it is ignoring the enemy. Perhaps you feel the way you do due to anti-ballistic-missile technology being relatively new in military history; in the past, I agree it would have mostly been futility to try to shoot a bullet with a bullet.

As per your comments about China being debt-free and perhaps implicitly economically healthier than the USA and the West, you may wish to review many of the comments posted by John and others in the GD Forum; I think you may be surprised regarding the creaky economic foundation that China rests upon (which, if and when it really starts to cave in, may make us glad that we have next-generation ABM systems if we can develop them). However, you do acknowledge, and are certainly correct, that China has environmental, social, and political problems, which are, of course, all enough to make China worrisome to the USA, the West, and other countries. Thanks again for the comments. —Best regards, Marc

[Reality Check]

I agree it would have mostly been futility to try to shoot a bullet with a bullet.

Not sure who you believe you are agreeing with here. The ability to shoot a bullet with a bullet has existed as a proven weapon system technology for decades now. I believe the only point I made is that it may not be the most cost effective way to defend against a ballistic missile by trying to shoot a bullet with a bullet during the terminal phase.

One of several important lessons the U.S. learned, or perhaps re-learned, during World War II was that both cost and numbers matter when building weapon systems.

Dive bombers do kill aircraft carriers and all the trained pilots and airplanes on them if you have enough pilots in torpedo planes, and enough pilots in dive bombers willing to die attempting, and failing, to destroy the aircraft carrier, before a few dive bombers get through to kill the target. Dive bombers, torpedo planes and pilots are much cheaper and faster to build, train & deploy than aircraft carriers. The battle of Mid-Way drove that point home.

Another lesson we should not forget is you go to war with the weapons you have. Replace President Bill Clinton with a pro-technology and pro-defense President and you might have a much different military today. But we are stuck with the weapon systems that survived Bill Clinton and Obama.

Finally, I believe you did understand my comments. We, in the United States are arrogant fools if we believe that just because the Chinese are arrogant upstarts, the United States could not lose a war against China. I provided plenty of historical examples of that happening in my previous comment and based on you ability and willingness to correctly use big words I believe you have the intellectual capacity to understand all the points I was making.

China does not have to be better than the United States in every respect for China to defeat the United States in a war. The United States just has to find a way to be worse in some respects and at the wrong time in history. Frankly, I believe many of your dismissive comments demonstrate the type of arrogance that could lead to a defeat of the United States by China. During a crisis war the very existence of the nation and it's people is at stake so a defeat could mean the deaths of tens of millions of Americans.

I do admire you ability to make things sound polite though.