Chinese Cruise missiles vs. US Pacific Fleet

[phavoc]

The latest Aviation Week had an interesting article on the Chinese investing heavily in cruise missiles (both naval and land attack versions) to offset the power of the US fleets. Most have heard of their supposed carrier-killer DF-21 ballistic missile, which has yet to be proven as an effective weapon, but this article talked about their growing capabilities to engage targets over the horizon.

Their intent is to attack naval forces from multiple directions and force the ships to exhaust their anti-missile rounds (Standard missile and Sea Sparrow) that are in their VLS launchers. Re-arming them currently requires the ship to return to port because they aren't capable of re-arming at sea. The article also points out that defenses against cruise missiles cost more than the missiles - approximately 9 times as much.

As I see it a ship would mount its missile armament either in an internal launcher (no turret required, but essentially it functions the same) or an internal launcher with launch cells that allows for a greater number of missiles to be launched at once. Giving a ship the ability to rapidly launch a large salvo from would mean it has a greater punch, but once those cells were exhausted it's offensive capabilities would be greatly reduced (assuming the ship had a large amount of tonnage dedicated to its VLS system). So there would be a natural trade-off of a large opening punch or the capability to stay engaged with the enemy for longer periods.

 

[Rick]

There is also another factor that would need to be addressed - a single ship can only track and engage a certain number of targets - which effectively limits the number of controlled missiles it can have in the air at any time; remember these are not 'fire and forget' missiles, they have to be guided to a point where their own guidance will 'see' a target.

Having said that, I think it is possible that Chinese missiles could overwhelm a US Surface Action Group, but unlikely. US naval war planners have been aware of missile 'swarm' tactics since at least the 1970's and have been busy trying to find ways to counter them.

 

[sideranautae]

Having said that, I think it is possible that Chinese missiles could overwhelm a US Surface Action Group, but unlikely. US naval war planners have been aware of missile 'swarm' tactics since at least the 1970's and have been busy trying to find ways to counter them.

Correct as that was the Soviet anti US Carrier group strat as well.

 

[Infojunky]

US naval war planners have been aware of missile 'swarm' tactics since at least the 1970's and have been busy trying to find ways to counter them.

Roll Back is the term for said types of attack. And yes it has been in the Naval combat Lexicon since the late 60s early 70s.

 

[Reynard]

And this is why we created Aegis escorts.

 

[phavoc]

US carrier groups in the Soviet era also had the advantage of Phoenix-armed F-14's. There is no airborne equivalent today.

A 2nd generation Tico class cruiser has 122 VLS cells. They carry a mix of Standard missiles, Tomahawk and ASROC rounds. Burke's have a 96 cell VLS system and it, too, carries a mix. Nimitz class carries about 24 Sea Sparrow missiles. And carriers have 4 CIWS mounts, and the cruisers / DD's carry 2 CIWS apiece.

Assuming a 100% accuracy intercept rate, a Tico could take down around 100 cruise missiles on it's own, and a Burke around 75 (this assumes their loadout is heavily in favor of standard missiles).

Chinese would most likely launch land, air, ship and submersible-based attacks from multiple angles. With Aegis and a VLS, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference in direction when intercepting from a distance. However, once the ships used up their cells they would have to retreat to port to reload.

As the article said, cruise missiles are cheap. ECM is going to come into play, as are the CIWS. But it's not a stretch to think that a typical salvo of missiles at a carrier task force would be in the hundreds. Assuming a CSG comprised of 1 CV, 2 CG's and 2 DD's this means that a salvo of 500 cruise missiles would mostly exhaust the defenses of the CSG.

Russian doctrine called for overwhelming a carrier group, though once it's sub's and surface groups exhausted their missiles they would have to rely upon their bombers to launch a 2nd salvo. The Chinese are going to be operating on a much smaller area of ocean, giving them the ability to launch all four classes of missiles. If the CSG tries to defend Taiwan in the straits and intercept the missiles destined for land-based targets, they'll have even fewer of their own missiles for defense. And they'd have to withdraw to Japan to safely reload.

It's possible the Chinese have the right idea. They have an advantage over the Russians because of the short distance and the ability to quickly resupply combatants with additional cruise missiles - something the Russians wouldn't have engaging carrier groups in the North Atlantic.

But, who knows which side would prevail. The US has a big tech advantage at present. Hopefully this will remain a philosophical argument.

 

[Reynard]

Chinese will never fire a shot. They already own this country and readily have access to our technology now that it's not really a crime for companies to sell or 'accidentally' lose it to their largest customer. With Russia kissing those gas craving butts, no enemy there either.

Besides, missile attacks on american soil reduces the property values all those wealthy Chinese business men are scooping up.

 

[sideranautae]

China has only ONE viable way to ship its products. Container ships from its ports. That traffic can be brought to a COMPLETE standstill without Carriers.

China would collapse quickly under its screaming middle and upper classes as the factories came to a standstill and they couldn't sell to anyone. Including its largest customer.

 

[dragoner]

Chinese will never fire a shot.

Not at us, no; China and the US have a long tradition of friendship. Japan and China, however ... different story.

 

[locarno24]

It's not really intended to attack a US carrier force aggressively - land based medium-ranged missiles and cheap dinky diesel-electric subs can't pursue a carrier which doesn't wish to engage out into the open sea, nor can they threaten US territory (even Hawaii).

What they can do, is make it very, very risky for the US to get involved in a war. It's referred to as "anti-access" - the PRC is fine with not going to war with the US, but there are several credible local wars it might end up involved in in the medium term, either Taiwan, or various resource-rich and disputed island groups in the South China Sea (e.g. Spratley islands).

What it wants, therefore, is to be able to close the region to effective US carrier group intervention. Hence things like the DF-21. Whilst hitting a carrier at max chat with a ballistic missile is difficult, forcing said carrier to go to its top speed would limit its ability to conduct flight ops, which is about the same thing. In noisy, confused, shallow water, a diesel SSK is not much less dangerous than a nuclear boat.

And yes, there is always a trade-off in 'maximum throw weight' versus 'sustained firepower'. You can do this in Traveller terms, too - I think the most extreme throw weight design I've yet managed is a capital ship packing docking clamps holding SLAM pods - http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?t=46124 - which can literally empty hundreds of torpedoes at the expense of having next to no sustained fire capability whatsoever.

 

[sideranautae]

What it wants, therefore, is to be able to close the region to effective US carrier group intervention. Hence things like the DF-21. Whilst hitting a carrier at max chat with a ballistic missile is difficult, forcing said carrier to go to its top speed would limit its ability to conduct flight ops, which is about the same thing. In noisy, confused, shallow water, a diesel SSK is not much less dangerous than a nuclear boat.

Won't work. If they cut off the area the US just also uts off the area AROUND that. Thus, they die on the vine and can't reach the rest of the world. The US has had that problem figured out for decades.

 

[locarno24]

Depends on your goals. If the scenario is 'win a war with the US', no, it won't work.

If it's 'persuade the US not to get involved as you fight Vietnam/The Philipines over a relatively local island chain', it may work just fine. Anti-access doctrine is much like guerilla warfare - it doesn't beat a superior military (although it can hurt it), it just makes it sufficiently risky/expensive/annoying/costly for the perceived return that the US decides not to get involved in the first place.

 

[rust]

What it wants, therefore, is to be able to close the region to effective US carrier group intervention.

From China's point of view it is just sensible to develop the ability to defend
the adjacent ocean region against any potential intruder, this is not necessa-
rily directed against the USA. With the ability to seriously damage the USA's
currency by selling some or all of the 1,200+ billion USD owned by the Chi-
nese government China already has sufficient non-military threat potential
to convince the USA to keep out of its regional affairs ...

 

[sideranautae]

Depends on your goals. If the scenario is 'win a war with the US', no, it won't work.

That depends on US political stance as you correctly state. Most people won't be wiling to risk war with China over what it does with Vietnam & Philippines.

The Philippines probably should have kept Subic as US Mil base. If there was a Darwin Award for countries, they would be a candidate. :lol:

 

[sideranautae]

With the ability to seriously damage the USA's
currency by selling some or all of the 1,200+ billion USD owned by the Chi-
nese government China already has sufficient non-military threat potential
to convince the USA to keep out of its regional affairs ...

They started selling that debt in 2009. Over 50% has now been sold. It is a symbiotic relationship. If the US stops buying their goods, the Chinese econ collapses. But, if everything keeps going without war, the US econ will go under first. The Fed is printing so much useless paper that it'll make the inflation of the Weimar Republic look like good times.

 

[Infojunky]

The Philippines probably should have kept Subic as US Mil base. If there was a Darwin Award for countries, they would be a candidate. :lol:

Funny thing that, the Philippines just asked us back..... Under their terms this time.... I don't get the reference to them needing a Darwin Award over said decisions, their choice as a contry made perfect sense at the time...

 

[sideranautae]

I don't get the reference to them needing a Darwin Award over said decisions, their choice as a contry made perfect sense at the time...

Because. At that time they made the decision China was making back channel diplomatic noise about taking Philippine territory in the form of unpopulated islands. The Philippine gov was warned that this was in the offing.

 

[phavoc]

The US is set to return to Subic Bay bases on a non-permanent basis. It's against the law for the Philipines to offer a permanent base, but "temporary" ones are just fine.

As far as jet engine missiles, we actually do have them. They are called scramjet, or ramjet's. They seem to tend to fall apart in flight a lot as we are still learning the flight dynamics and aero-structures of them. Scramjets have a higher specific impulse than rockets, but a much lower thrust to weight ratio.

I would imagine most Traveller missiles are of the solid-rocket propellant variety rather than liquid fueled.

 

[locarno24]

Scramjets are an in-atmosphere only thing, though.

Dunno what powers traveller missiles; solid fuel boosters packing 10+ G for half an hour is impressive but you can always wave the 'future chemistry' badge. Alternatively, one-use M-drives that push themselves to and beyond burnout might work....

 

[dragoner]

Fuel cell and mini m-drive is what I use for propulsion on the standard missile.

Red Storm Rising has a pretty good battle scene with this sort of massed surface to air sort of naval battle proposed in the op. Even the threat of battle can be used as a sort of area denial, plus, for the PRC, they are only looking at defending their coast and taking Taiwan.