Sea-Based Terminal BMD vs ASBM in SCS scenario

[Araner]

Hello,
I've been trying to put together a version of the "South China Sea Clash 2013" scenario which would take place in 2020 and would include new and projected military developments for all sides. I've added more details about the scenario at the bottom of this post but first I need some help in addressing an issue which may or may not realistically reflect conditions in the future.

My problem is my flagship, a Flight III DDG keeps getting sunk by DF21D ASBMs in the opening shots. If this is an accurate depiction of the weapons'capabilities then there's nothing which need be changed (though the USN better start worrying!)... However, I have a suspicion that the problem comes down to the way I'm using the SM-3s, ESSMs and SM-6s as they seem to have no effect on the MIRVs when in terminal phase. This stands in stark contrast to another scenario when I deployed far larger numbers of ASBMs in a realistic depection of force deployments in the East China Sea. In that scenario, at least four DF21D brigades targeted the CV 78 and none were able to penetrate the outer ring of BMD capable DDG 51s and CG-47s. There were several major differences however... In the ECS scenario, the CBG was station behind the Ryuku Islands which was not only well covered with land-based radar stations, but also had a well established integrated BMD system in place through which missiles had to make it past forward positioned Atago Class DDGs, land-based THAAD interceptors and even land-based SM-3s before even making it to the BMD capable CBG escorts. Furthermore, the CBG also had AEW assets of its own and throughout the region to draw from.
In the SCS scenario, the only radar capable of detecting the incoming missiles is that of the DDG 51 Flight III itself. Yet again and again, multiple ASBMs glide past the SM-6 and SM-3 interceptors with ease while the ESSMs don't even seem to fire at all? I understand that terminal-phase BMD is one of the main reasons for deploying electromagnetic railguns and solid state lasers in this role, but with no railgun yet available in the database I could only add the LaWs laser to the DDG 1000 and Flight III Burke. This did actually take out half the missiles, but the ship still ends up getting hit... I then tried bringing back the SM-2 Block IV which has been serving in the sea-based terminal BMD role up to the present but this too seemed to have little effect. AFAIK, sea-based terminal BMD is supposed to be handled by the SM-6 Blk II, for which a test was successfully completed just this year. However, I don't see any option for a Block II SM-6 in the database either...
So my first question is whether or not there really are entries for an EM railgun and/or SM-6 Blk II in the database? If not, then my next question would be what I could use in their place to realistically fulfill the terminal BMD mission as of 2020? The unit firing the ASBMs is AFAIK a real unit already deployed in the Guangzhou MR as of 2014, so the scenarios realism would be seriously compromised if I simply remove it.

For those interested in learning more about the scenario I'll explain a little more about which units I'll be deploying for each side...

For the PLAN side this would include the artificial island air bases, Type 052D Destroyers, and at least one confirmed ASBM unit + kill chain including 4 OTH-SW radars, 1 OTH-B station and the Yaogan Sateliite constellation. The Phillipines have added a squadron of Golden Eagle fighters, a Pohang Class Corvette and a new Incheon Class Frigate from South Korea. Finally, the USN will be deploying its proposed doctrine of "Distributed Lethality" with the USS Zumwalt, DDG 123 (the as-yet-unnamed Flight III Burke) and two "Fast Frigate" variants of the LCS. While no CBG is in the region, elements from the USS America's Air Wing are on rotational deployment at the Puerto Princesa airport under the EDCA agreement of 2014. This includes a squadron of F35Bs, several Osprey's with aerial refueling, maritime and ASW strike packages and 3 KC130Js of which two are equipped with strike kits and one reserved as a tanker. Clark airbase also hosts a squadron of P8 Poseidons and MQ9 Tritons and serves as a reserve hub for various older UCAVs including RQ-4s and various MQ-1s of which all have been upgraded to carry weapons and jamming equipment in the event of hostilities. To compensate for the lack of information on the LRS-B program, which would in theory be deployed by the time of the scenario, I have predeployed small numbers of RQ-170s and RQ-180 over mainland China.

Assuming I get the terminal BMD issue squared away, I'd be happy to share the .scen file to anyone who is interested.

[Dimitris]

We did have a bug appear which was related to ABM engagements (see here: tm.asp?m=3976925 ) but it was resolved in Build 757.11 . Which version are you running?

[Araner]

It looks like its build 757.10... As I am using the Steam version can I assume this means the update hasn't made it to Steam yet? If not I'll go ahead and update manually and see if it makes any difference.

[Araner]

Much Better! The initial engagement now produces the following report (While the Pentagon breathes a heavy sigh of relief...)

SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
1x AGM-114R Hellfire II
30x AGM-158C LRASM
4x CPU-123 Paveway II GPS/LGB
8x Laser COIL Shot
14x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
40x RGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
1x RIM-156A SM-2MR Blk IV [Anti-ASBM Mod]
8x RIM-161C SM-3 NTW Blk IB
28x RIM-161E SM-3 NTW Blk IIA
10x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6MR Blk I
112x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
7x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]



SIDE: Philippine Navy
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x PCC 756 Po Hang [Flight II]
1x PF 15 Gregorio del Pilar [Hamilton Class]
1x PS 35 Emilio Jacinto [Peacock]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
94x 76mm/62 Compact HE Burst [4 rnds]
2x Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]
2x MM.38 Exocet Blk I
4x Protean Chaff



SIDE: PLAN
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x HQ-12 Twin Rail
1x Radar (China OTH-SW Receiver)
1x Radar (China OTH-SW Transmitter)
1x Radar (China YLC-2V)
1x Structure (Launch Pad)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
4x C-802 [YJ-82, CSS-N-8 Saccade]
4x C-803 [YJ-83]
16x DF-21D [ASBM, Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-4]
11x DF-21D RV [ASBM, CSS-5 Mod-4]
1x HQ-16A [SA-17 Copy]
3x HQ-7 Crotale [FM-80] Naval
3x SA-N-12 Grizzly [9M317]

The numbers also appear to answer my question as to whether or not I need to retain SM-2 Block IVs or if the SM-6 BLK-I can provide adequate terminal-phase BMD... Is it being assumed that the SM-6 already has the Block II "Dual Mode" capability or will the newer version be added to the database later?
Also, I wasn't sure which solid-state-laser entry reflects the most recent version so I added mounts for both the generic "Laser Gun" and the "LaWS Laser Weapon System". I suppose I can keep both as one can substitute for a railgun? Or is there another database entry that can more accurately simulate a railgun?

[AlanChan]

Some comments:
1.The ASBM missile is wrong, DF-21D can only target "large slow moving target". That is CV and maybe the LHDs. The newly revealed DF-26 is able to target "large and medium sized moving target." Thus, only DF-26 could aim at DDG sized targets. Or someone said that the Wu-14 is carried by kuaizhou-1, the civilian model of DF-26. IF that is true, DF-26 brigades can also launch Wu-14.

2.The oob is wrong. Because 2nd art stress on ‘Sádˆæ(full land coverage, currently limited to mainland China), current DF-21 and DF-26 brigades can fight anywhere in mainland China. Thus in a sustained fight, you will see some DF-26 fire at 1st day, then see more DF-26s moving in from other part of China in the following few days, assuming only one brigade is a underestimate.

3.Why do you assume SM-3 can do night intercepts? IIRC, all SM-3 tests were done when targets were illuminated by sun. This hints that SM-3 RV might not able to fight incoming RVs in the night as good as it does during the day. And 2nd art demoed capacity to launch at night.

[Hongjian]

AFAIK ESSMs werent designed to engage MIRV/MARV reentry vehicles in general. SM-6 is also only capable of engaging in the last few seconds of the flight, which is within its maximum engagement envelope:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-mili ... H720150803

The SM-6 missile intercepted a ballistic missile target in its final seconds of flight on July 28, followed by three more tests over the next days.

Same would apply to the advanced variants of the SM-2 capable of terminal BMD.

Your best bet would be the SM-3, which is capable of engaging during mid-course phase, but not terminal stage. As it is mainly an exoatmospheric kill vehicle.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 765?page=2

“The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

Personally, I think that the ASBM is kinda well portrayed, or even a bit nerfed in CMANO, as it doesnt have any terminal maneuvering and an easily to jam radar (1970s era, for some reason).

I needed roughly 150+ DF-21D ASBMs to sink an unsupported US peacetime CVBG (2 Tico, 3 AB Flight IIA, maximum SM-3/SM-6 loadout, which would be kinda unrealistic IRL) and most RVs were spoofed by ECM, actually.

[Hongjian]

ORIGINAL: AlanChan

Some comments:
1.The ASBM missile is wrong, DF-21D can only target "large slow moving target". That is CV and maybe the LHDs. The newly revealed DF-26 is able to target "large and medium sized moving target." Thus, only DF-26 could aim at DDG sized targets. Or someone said that the Wu-14 is carried by kuaizhou-1, the civilian model of DF-26. IF that is true, DF-26 brigades can also launch Wu-14.

2.The oob is wrong. Because 2nd art stress on ‘Sádˆæ(full land coverage, currently limited to mainland China), current DF-21 and DF-26 brigades can fight anywhere in mainland China. Thus in a sustained fight, you will see some DF-26 fire at 1st day, then see more DF-26s moving in from other part of China in the following few days, assuming only one brigade is a underestimate.

3.Why do you assume SM-3 can do night intercepts? IIRC, all SM-3 tests were done when targets were illuminated by sun. This hints that SM-3 RV might not able to fight incoming RVs in the night as good as it does during the day. And 2nd art demoed capacity to launch at night.

Andrew S. Errickson has done a terrific work in translating an official Chinese paper about the DF-26:

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2015/12/a ... sis-links/

The best feature for the DF-26 is its ability to launch everywhere, not needing any pre-surveyed launch-pads. The DF-21 series (on which the DF-26 is based) shares this feature, reportedly.

Also, where did this information come from, that the DF-21D can only target 'large slow moving targets"? AFAIK it was successfully used to sink the decommissioned Yuanwang-4 satellite tracking ship in 2010 as test. Even if it had RCS enhancing radar reflectors, it is still a cruise-liner sized ship, not a CVN.



And more recently, it hit a decommissioned Jianghu Frigate, which is even smaller.

[Sigma8510]

This is some good conversation!!![:)]

I feel like I'm back in TAO school!![X(][X(]

[ppitm]

Everything I've read about the DF21 suggests that current missiles can only target it in the boost phase. Bu in CMANO the Burkes knock 'em down no problem. Who is wrong here?

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ppitm
Everything I've read about the DF21 suggests that current missiles can only target it in the boost phase.

Pray tell.

[ppitm]

I probably remembered incorrectly, because here's this:

“The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

I can't post the link thanks to the wonderful forum settings. It was an article in the National Interest.

IIRC in CMANO I was knocking them down with SM-3s in the terminal phase, no problem. Not too much different from a Kitchen.

[Dimitris]

Interesting detail, thanks. We'll see what we can do about this.

[DeSade]

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Andrew S. Errickson has done a terrific work in translating an official Chinese paper about the DF-26:

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2015/12/a ... sis-links/

Also, where did this information come from, that the DF-21D can only target 'large slow moving targets"? AFAIK it was successfully used to sink the decommissioned Yuanwang-4 satellite tracking ship in 2010 as test. Even if it had RCS enhancing radar reflectors, it is still a cruise-liner sized ship, not a CVN.
And more recently, it hit a decommissioned Jianghu Frigate, which is even smaller.

Very solid job by Erickson, as usual - thanks for sharing Hongjian As for those tests, I'm not sure that ships were moving at all, not to mention maneuvering.

My impression regarding DF-21D is that it is mostly psychological warfare weapon and technological demonstrator with limited combat value. It could explain why by some good estimates after 5 years since IOC there is still less then handful of them. That would be similar to other PRC weapon programs, where we can see short series production run followed by few years evaluation period and another iteration, for as long as it finally satisfies military.
Time will tell if DF-26 will meet that requirements, 2 regiments by the end of 2016 would be good indicator of it

[ExNusquam]

3.Why do you assume SM-3 can do night intercepts? IIRC, all SM-3 tests were done when targets were illuminated by sun. This hints that SM-3 RV might not able to fight incoming RVs in the night as good as it does during the day. And 2nd art demoed capacity to launch at night.

It's an IR seeker. Things going as fast as ballistic missiles have massive IR signatures. Why do you think the US Missile warning sats are IR based? They wouldn't be up there if they didn't work half the time.

I needed roughly 150+ DF-21D ASBMs to sink an unsupported US peacetime CVBG (2 Tico, 3 AB Flight IIA, maximum SM-3/SM-6 loadout, which would be kinda unrealistic IRL) and most RVs were spoofed by ECM, actually.

I think this is actually pretty realistic. There was a paper posted on the forums recently that pointed out that soft-kill measures have been extraordinarily effective against ASMs. Every time they've been used they've been successful. A target environment of multiple ships, all maneuvering, with Nulkas, chaff and jamming would be a difficult target for pretty much any seeker.

but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

Papers I've seen on hitting spiraling BM targets seem to use 5-7 Gs as the frame of reference for the RV maneuvers. I've seen discussion of Iraqi SCUDs hitting 10 Gs on their reentries, but some of them were breaking up. The modern SM-2's can likely do 20+ Gs of lateral acceleration (based on the SM-1 being able to do 18 Gs). This makes it a simple numbers game; the interceptors can likely change their velocity much faster than the RVs.

Interesting detail, thanks. We'll see what we can do about this.

IMHO the best solution would be to model the SM-3 like you've modeled existing BMs- have it separate an EKV once it's reached burnout or the mesosphere.

[Dysta]

My simple response is, I don't think ASBM is a single-entity weapon to be used in such scenario. It is more likely acted as intimidator (like Machine-gunner in Army squad) that forcing the enemy focusing on it instead of other low-value threats.

Anyone tried the saturation attack against CVBG with both 052D's YJ-12/100, submarines' YJ-82s, and H-6G's YJ-62 combined into the same time of DF-21D/26's arrival? More to think about it, the AI whom play the offense also should implement the 'saturation strike' attack doctrine rather than fire-in-range in random orders.

[Hongjian]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

My simple response is, I don't think ASBM is a single-entity weapon to be used in such scenario. It is more likely acted as intimidator (like Machine-gunner in Army squad) that forcing the enemy focusing on it instead of other low-value threats.

Anyone tried the saturation attack against CVBG with both 052D's YJ-12/100, submarines' YJ-82s, and H-6G's YJ-62 combined into the same time of DF-21D/26's arrival? More to think about it, the AI whom play the offense also should implement the 'saturation strike' attack doctrine rather than fire-in-range in random orders.

Yes, and reportedly, it would work even better in reality (if you can pull off the logistical and operational feat of coordinating these huge numbers of diverse assets, that is), as the Aegis combat system as of today will be fully occupied with BMD-search and track alone, making the interception of sea-skimmers and other threats very hard, if not impossible. This is also one of the main reason for the Aegis AMDR modernization programme, which would feature two sets of radars, each capable of taking their share of the workload during multi-dimensional saturational attacks.

As I see it, the ASBM is a strategic weapon in its purest sense. The mere presence of this weapon will prompt the enemy to undertake different measures to ensure survivability. Hence, they will either go full EMCON and even switch off datalinks with off-board detection assets in fear of China's increasing SIGIN/ELINT assets, and face a surprise barrage, or go in fully blasting with all radars in BMD mode and light up like christmas trees. Also, a fleet facing the ASBM would store up greater numbers of SM-3/SM-6 and other BMD and missile defense-capable missiles, taking up valuable cell-space that could be used for strike weapons like Tomahawks/LRASM and ASROCs, hence lowering their power-projection/ASW capability, or carry on with a balanced loadout and face saturation by either enemy weapon system.

In my own playthroughs, the best synergy is provided with ASBM is the wolf-pack of 093B/G SSGN with YJ-18 lurking infront of the US CVBG and launching their sea-skimmers from safe distance (well away from USN hunter-killers) before the Aegis ships detect the ASBMs. With the four existing 093B SSGNs in current service/sea-trials committed into the anti-carrier operation, I could reduce the ASBM needed from 150 to about 100. With H-6Gs with YJ-12s, YJ-100s from 052Ds, the numbers of ASBM could be further reduced.

[FTBSS]

ORIGINAL: ppitm

I probably remembered incorrectly, because here's this:

“The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

I can't post the link thanks to the wonderful forum settings. It was an article in the National Interest.

IIRC in CMANO I was knocking them down with SM-3s in the terminal phase, no problem. Not too much different from a Kitchen.

Don't believe this to be accurate as the SM-3 has demonstrated already to intercept manuevering RV in actual testing seperated from the booster. I think the SM-3 can intercept anywhere beyond its own boost phase of flight.

Edited:
Ok doing more research it can only do exo atmospheric intercepts using the SM-3

The SM-6 is due for 2 upgrades that will make it the navy's terminal BMD interceptor the range of this missile will be 230 miles. it will have the processing power to engage very high speed targets.

I also think the Vessels capable of ABM need to have a flag for longer range sensors specific to Ballistic missiles the SM-3 Block IIa and Block IIb missiles have range in excess of 1100 miles but can not launch until targets are within 250 miles seems unrealistic.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: FTBSS

I also think the Vessels capable of ABM need to have a flag for longer range sensors specific to Ballistic missiles the SM-3 Block IIa and Block IIb missiles have range in excess of 1100 miles but can not launch until targets are within 250 miles seems unrealistic.

This.

Really need the 'launch-beyond-range' option or some sort in WRA, and the ability to estimate the BM's approach to make it able to intercept at the maximum range/flight duration.

[strykerpsg]

ORIGINAL: Araner

Hello,
I've been trying to put together a version of the "South China Sea Clash 2013" scenario which would take place in 2020 and would include new and projected military developments for all sides. I've added more details about the scenario at the bottom of this post but first I need some help in addressing an issue which may or may not realistically reflect conditions in the future.

My problem is my flagship, a Flight III DDG keeps getting sunk by DF21D ASBMs in the opening shots. If this is an accurate depiction of the weapons'capabilities then there's nothing which need be changed (though the USN better start worrying!)... However, I have a suspicion that the problem comes down to the way I'm using the SM-3s, ESSMs and SM-6s as they seem to have no effect on the MIRVs when in terminal phase. This stands in stark contrast to another scenario when I deployed far larger numbers of ASBMs in a realistic depection of force deployments in the East China Sea. In that scenario, at least four DF21D brigades targeted the CV 78 and none were able to penetrate the outer ring of BMD capable DDG 51s and CG-47s. There were several major differences however... In the ECS scenario, the CBG was station behind the Ryuku Islands which was not only well covered with land-based radar stations, but also had a well established integrated BMD system in place through which missiles had to make it past forward positioned Atago Class DDGs, land-based THAAD interceptors and even land-based SM-3s before even making it to the BMD capable CBG escorts. Furthermore, the CBG also had AEW assets of its own and throughout the region to draw from.
In the SCS scenario, the only radar capable of detecting the incoming missiles is that of the DDG 51 Flight III itself. Yet again and again, multiple ASBMs glide past the SM-6 and SM-3 interceptors with ease while the ESSMs don't even seem to fire at all? I understand that terminal-phase BMD is one of the main reasons for deploying electromagnetic railguns and solid state lasers in this role, but with no railgun yet available in the database I could only add the LaWs laser to the DDG 1000 and Flight III Burke. This did actually take out half the missiles, but the ship still ends up getting hit... I then tried bringing back the SM-2 Block IV which has been serving in the sea-based terminal BMD role up to the present but this too seemed to have little effect. AFAIK, sea-based terminal BMD is supposed to be handled by the SM-6 Blk II, for which a test was successfully completed just this year. However, I don't see any option for a Block II SM-6 in the database either...
So my first question is whether or not there really are entries for an EM railgun and/or SM-6 Blk II in the database? If not, then my next question would be what I could use in their place to realistically fulfill the terminal BMD mission as of 2020? The unit firing the ASBMs is AFAIK a real unit already deployed in the Guangzhou MR as of 2014, so the scenarios realism would be seriously compromised if I simply remove it.

For those interested in learning more about the scenario I'll explain a little more about which units I'll be deploying for each side...

For the PLAN side this would include the artificial island air bases, Type 052D Destroyers, and at least one confirmed ASBM unit + kill chain including 4 OTH-SW radars, 1 OTH-B station and the Yaogan Sateliite constellation. The Phillipines have added a squadron of Golden Eagle fighters, a Pohang Class Corvette and a new Incheon Class Frigate from South Korea. Finally, the USN will be deploying its proposed doctrine of "Distributed Lethality" with the USS Zumwalt, DDG 123 (the as-yet-unnamed Flight III Burke) and two "Fast Frigate" variants of the LCS. While no CBG is in the region, elements from the USS America's Air Wing are on rotational deployment at the Puerto Princesa airport under the EDCA agreement of 2014. This includes a squadron of F35Bs, several Osprey's with aerial refueling, maritime and ASW strike packages and 3 KC130Js of which two are equipped with strike kits and one reserved as a tanker. Clark airbase also hosts a squadron of P8 Poseidons and MQ9 Tritons and serves as a reserve hub for various older UCAVs including RQ-4s and various MQ-1s of which all have been upgraded to carry weapons and jamming equipment in the event of hostilities. To compensate for the lack of information on the LRS-B program, which would in theory be deployed by the time of the scenario, I have predeployed small numbers of RQ-170s and RQ-180 over mainland China.

Assuming I get the terminal BMD issue squared away, I'd be happy to share the .scen file to anyone who is interested.

Please let us know when this scenario is readily available. I love the newer tech in the 21st century, including ASBM and the USN answer to this. Does Russia have a similar counter to ASBM?

Thanks.

[Dysta]

Just right at the moment when US and Israel conducted ASM testes, a Chinese news about the 'Questionable Effectiveness of Chinese SRBM and ASBM'. I just briefly read both images and article, and that proves that DF series are not giving total deterrence against US bases nor the CVBG.

http://tuku.military.china.com/military ... 233393.htm (Simplified Chinese)

As Hongjian said, it is a 'Stragedic' weapon, intended to be part of the naval warfare involved with Chinese combatants, either warships or jet fighters. It is not designed to instantly terminate the incoming naval threat by its own. The real question is, how exactly it works with Chinese units to make ASBM as effective as possible.