Nuclear-tipped DF-21D ASBM video

[Dimitris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-cEunmqXM8

[Primarchx]

So did I see that reentry vehicle maneuver against incoming BMDs? Hope the PRC likes trading Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong for a US carrier if they go nuclear.

As an aside I'd like to see the US and Japan develop some ASBMs, too. If the Chinese can (steal the necessary tech to) do it, there's no reason we can't as well.

[AlmightyTallest]

Someone took their own Computer fantasy and spliced it in with the Northrop Grumman AMDR video.

Link to AMDR Radar video for comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE858lxGrRs

The DF-21 has a unique flight profile, and the terminal phase may have an IR seeker.

Looking at the surmised DF-21 flight profile shown online, it would seem that it is following a ballistic trajectory up to the mid-segment burn. After said burn, I'm guessing it returns to a ballistic trajectory until its terminal guidance mode kicks in and it starts final maneuvering to target. I'm guessing that it would be at its most vulnerable to interception by SM-3 for the first ballistic phase outside the atmosphere and via SM-2 during the second ballistic phase which would be at a lower altitude. Just my guess though..

Since the Aegis has demonstrated an ability to Shoot down low altitude satellites, is it possible to do so with these systems in Command? In my opinion, breaking the targeting chains of Chinese systems is the key to keeping the CVBG safe from the DF-21 threat.

If your curious as to what the U.S. is up to. Google "Falcon Hypersonic missile."

[ExNusquam]

That maneuvering by the RV was straight BS. An RV with an (I)IR seeker isn't going to be able to see and dodge SM-3s. It can maneuver, yes, but I'd assume that a light weight kill vehicle would be able to maneuver better than it.

In my opinion, breaking the targeting chains of Chinese systems is the key to keeping the CVBG safe from the DF-21 threat

That opinion is shared by many US defense analysts. ASATs kill the satellites and BARCAPs keep the Y-8's outside range of their radars. Unless the Chinese can get a good targeting solution at long range, the DF-21 is useless.

[AlmightyTallest]

Yea, my thoughts exactly ExNusquam. A vehicle reentering at hypersonic is extrememly unlikely to have an IR seeker, the special requirements to have a germanium or Silicon window that can survive reentry, along with the heat and stresses sort of defies physics. Having a window at all in the vehicle creates a weak point in the frame.

If it's Millimeter Wave, maybe you have a better chance, but now it's susceptible to ECM, and decoy systems.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest
Since the Aegis has demonstrated an ability to Shoot down low altitude satellites, is it possible to do so with these systems in Command?

Yes (for ASBMs).

In my opinion, breaking the targeting chains of Chinese systems is the key to keeping the CVBG safe from the DF-21 threat.

Probably so. Possibly easier than shooting down the ASBM warheads, too.

If your curious as to what the U.S. is up to. Google "Falcon Hypersonic missile."

US research on such vehicles goes way back, to the days of Lockheed's AXE, HGV, Martin Marietta's CAM etc. And even further back to Dyna-Soar.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
That maneuvering by the RV was straight BS. An RV with an (I)IR seeker isn't going to be able to see and dodge SM-3s. It can maneuver, yes, but I'd assume that a light weight kill vehicle would be able to maneuver better than it.

These maneuvers may be pre-programmed rather than determined on the fly. It's not very hard to estimate the altitude band at which the RV is vulnerable to interception by ABMs and instruct it to "dance" randomly while in this band.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest
If it's Millimeter Wave, maybe you have a better chance, but now it's susceptible to ECM, and decoy systems.

Depends on the seeker smarts. The Pershing 2 seeker was supposed to include ECCM & filters as the Soviets were known to sow corner reflectors by the bucketload, and had plentiful & powerful mobile jammers. Have the Chinese acquired that tech (either through their own R&D or through industrial espionage)? Who knows.

[AlmightyTallest]

Thanks for the info Sunburn, so if I have a scenario set up where for example I have Chinese satellites, and an Aegis BMD ship, how do I make it engage the satellite? What are the requirements in the sim for an attempt to happen against the satellite?

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest
Thanks for the info Sunburn, so if I have a scenario set up where for example I have Chinese satellites, and an Aegis BMD ship, how do I make it engage the satellite? What are the requirements in the sim for an attempt to happen against the satellite?

Sorry, I thought you meant to engage the ASBMs. We haven't tested the SM3 against satellites but feel free to do so. (IIRC the official USN position is that the SM3 used in the USA-193 shootdown had unique ASAT modifications that are not present in fleet-deployed SM3s.)

First you have to place the satellite (through ScenEdit mode), then position the ship under its orbital path and do a manual SM3 allocation to see if it can or cannot be used. If it cannot, the allocator will tell you why.

Thanks!

[AlmightyTallest]

Okay, I'll definately try that.

I think my problem is that mostly I stay in quiet EMCOM, so don't turn on the Aegis systems very much.

[AlmightyTallest]

Looks like the maneuvering part has been improved for the SM-3, according to Wikipedia

The SM-3 Block IA version provides an incremental upgrade to improve reliability and maintainability at a reduced cost. The SM-3 Block IB, due in 2010, offers upgrades which include an advanced two-color infrared seeker, and a 10-thruster solid throttling divert and attitude control system (TDACS/SDACS) on the kill vehicle to give it improved capability against maneuvering ballistic missiles or warheads. Solid TDACS is a joint Raytheon/Aerojet project, but Boeing supplies some components of the kinetic warhead. With Block IB and associated ship-based upgrades, the Navy gains the ability to defend against medium range missiles and some Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles. SM-3 Block II will widen the missile body to 21 in and decrease the size of the maneuvering fins. It will still fit in Mk41 vertical launch systems, and the missile will be faster and have longer range. The SM-3 Block IIA will add a larger diameter kill vehicle that is more maneuverable, and carries another sensor/ discrimination upgrade. It’s currently scheduled to debut around 2015, whereupon the Navy will have a weapon that can engage some intercontinental ballistic missiles.[16]

Looks like the U.S. Navy has this well planned out with incremental upgrades.

There's also an interesting article from the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled "Aegis as ASAT" where it shows the ranges for the various SM-3 blocks vs. LEO satellites.

Link here to the study: http://allthingsnuclear.org/aegis-as-asat/

And here: https://www.fas.org/pubs/pir/2011winter/2011Winter-Anti-Satellite.pdf

The interception, at an altitude of 240km vividly demonstrated the ASAT capability of the U.S. Aegis sea based missile defense system. The intercept required only modification of the system software, and could have been done from any of the 5 cruisers or 16 destroyers equipped with the Aegis system at the time.

It lists SM-3 Block IA Burnout Velocity 3.0 km/s and 600km reachible altitude
Block IIA(Lower range) Velocity 4.5km/s and 1450km altitude
(upper range) 5.5km/s and 2350km altitude

However, the latter phases of the PAA envision more capable Block II interceptors. Even using a conservative estimate of the burnout speed (4.5 km/s), SM-3 Block IIA interceptors would be able to reach the vast majority of satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) (see Figure 1). Interceptors with burnout speeds at the high range of estimates for the SM-3 IIA (5.5 km/s) would be able to reach any satellite in LEO, as would the ground-based midcourse interceptors in Alaska and California.

[Primarchx]

I tried using an SM-3 against a satellite early on but had no joy in being able to even select the missile as an appropriate weapon for ASAT use. Also tried the US F-15 ASAT missile, which had an incredibly small engagement envelope and seemed to work, though at the time it crashed the game at the point the sat was hit.

[AlmightyTallest]

I'm using two different SM-3's on a BMD capable Aegis, the Block IA, and the Block IB, but unable to select them against Chinese satellites, and my scenario typically soft crashes with a "Command has stopped working" as the satellites move in orbit.

Ship is the USS Mahan DDG 72, the ship northern most from the Task group. Could this be because the SM-3's aren't listed as being capable vs. Satellites?

Attached is the Autosave before the sim stops.

I'm using 1.03 Beta with Build 501

[Dimitris]

Thanks for the save! We'll take a look.

[AlmightyTallest]

No problem, glad to help.

Also, for reference, you can look up the Congressional Research Service "Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

Link here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

Aegis BMD System8
Aegis ships are given a capability for conducting BMD operations by incorporating changes to
the Aegis system’s computers and software, and by arming the ships with BMD interceptor
missiles. In-service Aegis ships can be modified to become BMD-capable ships, and DDG-51s
procured in FY2010 and subsequent years are to be built from the start with a BMD capability.
Versions of Aegis BMD System
Currently fielded versions of the Aegis BMD system are called the 3.6.1 version and the newer
and more capable 4.0.1 and 4.0.2 versions. MDA and Navy plans call for fielding increasingly
capable versions in coming years; these planned versions are called 5.0, 5.0 CU (meaning
capability upgrade), and 5.1. Improved versions feature improved processors and software, and
are to be capable of using improved versions of the SM-3 interceptor missile (see Table 1).
Aegis BMD Interceptor Missiles
The BMD interceptor missiles used by Aegis ships are the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and the
Standard Missile-2 Block IV (SM-2 Block IV). The SM-2 Block IV is to be succeeded in coming
years by a BMD version of the new SM-6 interceptor.

MDA and Navy plans call for fielding increasingly capable versions of the SM-3 in coming years.
The current version, called the SM-3 Block IA, is now being supplemented by the more capable
SM-3 Block IB. These are to be followed by the even more capable SM-3 Block IIA.
Compared to the Block IA version, the Block IB version has an improved (two-color) target
seeker, an advanced signal processor, and an improved divert/attitude control system for adjusting
its course.
In contrast to the Block IA and 1B versions, which have a 21-inch-diameter booster stage at the
bottom but are 13.5 inches in diameter along the remainder of their lengths, the Block IIA version
is to have a 21-inch diameter along its entire length. The increase in diameter to a uniform 21
inches provides more room for rocket fuel, permitting the Block IIA version to have a burnout
velocity (a maximum velocity, reached at the time the propulsion stack burns out) that is greater
than that of the Block IA and IB versions,9
as well as a larger-diameter kinetic warhead. The
United States and Japan have cooperated in developing certain technologies for the Block IIA
version, with Japan funding a significant share of the effort.10
Until recently, a more capable missile called the SM-3 Block IIB was also planned. Compared to
the Block IIA, the Block IIB version was to include a lighter kill vehicle, flexible propulsion, and
upgraded fire control software.11 On March 15, 2013, however, the Department of Defense
(DOD) announced that it was
• “restructuring” (i.e., canceling) the SM-3 Block IIB program;
• shifting funding from SM-3 Block IIB program to other BMD efforts
(specifically, the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) BMD program in Alaska and
to earlier versions of the SM-3); and
• dropping Phase IV of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (or EPAA—see
discussion below), which was to feature the deployment of the SM-3 Block IIB
missile.1

• Aegis Ashore in Poland with SM-3 IIA interceptors in the 2018 timeframe (Phase 3),
and
• SM-3 IIB interceptors and early intercept capability in the 2020 timeframe (Phase 4)
The United States will also pursue phased adaptive approaches in the Asia Pacific and the
Middle East by building on current efforts.13
On March 15, 2013, DOD announced that it is
• “restructuring” (i.e., canceling) the SM-3 Block IIB program;
• shifting funding from SM-3 Block IIB program to other BMD efforts
(specifically, the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) BMD program in Alaska and
to earlier versions of the SM-3); and
• dropping Phase IV of the EPAA, which was to feature the deployment of the SM-
3 Block IIB missile.14
Each Aegis Ashore site in the EPAA is to include a structure housing an Aegis system similar to
the deckhouse on an Aegis ship and 24 SM-3 missiles launched from a re-locatable Vertical
Launch System (VLS) based on the VLS that is installed in Navy Aegis ships.
Although BMD-capable Aegis ships have deployed to European waters in the past, the first
BMD-capable Aegis ship officially deployed to European waters as part of the EPAA departed its
home port of Norfolk, VA, on March 7, 2011, for a deployment to the Mediterranean that lasted
several months.15

SM-3 missile procurement (annual quantities)
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Block IA 23 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block IB 0 14 46 52 72 72 72 72
Block IIA 0 0 0 0 22 0 12 16
Total 23 28 46 52 94 72 84 88

[NakedWeasel]

My understanding was, the seeker is supposed to be radar in the terminal phase. Where it gets dicey is, the speed and height of the RV when it is trying to acquire it's target. It's an extremely long range for a radar small enough to be carried in a ballistic missile. This would all be made even more difficult if it is a mechanically steered radar.

Ill start worrying about the DF-21, when the US Navy does.

[AlmightyTallest]

And the navy isn't worried, going by the multiple missile types listed above, and the upgrades meant for special maneuvering warheads, looks like they're ready for the expected threat.


I'm beginning to think the cost of these SM-3's is more than worth it when you consider it to have an ASAT capability, the bonus is multiple missile types that can engage a threat in multiple phases of flight, if you have to do so.

[NakedWeasel]

TBH, I've always thought, (and still do) that the concept of the DF-21 was a bit far fetched and reeks of deceit. It's just too difficult to pull off in the real world. I was a carrier sailor, and my job was propulsion. I wont get into exactly how fast a nuclear carrier can go, but, I will say, that when she's out in the deep blue and she's making flank you can water ski behind her, and she will eventually out run her escorts. 35+ knots without breaking a sweat.

The key for defeating this weapon is:
1. Don't let them target you. They can't kill what they can't see.
2. Don't let them hit you, either by speed and maneuver, soft kill, or hard kill.
3. Kill them before they kill you. Take out the missile before it's launched.
4. Kill them all, IF they kill you. We would turn China into a super enriched glass ashtray for sinking a carrier. And while we would certainly lose a little in a nuclear exchange with China, they would stand to lose EVERYTHING. It's definitely Assured Destruction, but at this point, it's hardly Mutual.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
I wont get into exactly how fast a nuclear carrier can go, but, I will say, that when she's out in the deep blue and she's making flank you can water ski behind her, and she will eventually out run her escorts. 35+ knots without breaking a sweat.

Some sources disagree: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm