I read through those, including some of the referenced articles. My opinion is that the DF-21 is overhyped, as is the vulnerability of CVBGs to satellite detection. I'm on my phone right now, so I'll circle back to details later.
The best toys are not really widely known or battle tested. However, consider people have had a long time to prepare for aircraft carriers without a direct conflict between major powers and aircraft carriers are easily tracked in real time by satellites. Further, they might as well be sitting still in terms of a high mach (AKA 10+) missiles.
PS: Remember, we where doing optical recognition for missiles twenty years ago. So, reasonably close is going to be a hit most of the time.
The best toys are not really widely known or battle tested.
I know, I worked on some of them.
However, consider people have had a long time to prepare for aircraft carriers without a direct conflict between major powers and aircraft carriers are easily tracked in real time by satellites.
As I mentioned in another reply, it isn't as easy as some people seem to think to find and track a CVBG by satellite. As I also mentioned, I'll go into more detail when I'm not on my phone.
Further, they might as well be sitting still in terms of a high mach (AKA 10+) missiles.
I'm not aware of any hypersonic cruise missiles in that range, and those that approach it have relatively short ranges. I would need to look at this further.
PS: Remember, we where doing optical recognition for missiles twenty years ago. So, reasonably close is going to be a hit most of the time.
Longer, I believe. Image recognition for terminal guidance is not foolproof, though. Plus, as with any weapons system the countermeasures groups have not been sitting still.
In terms of satellite tracking, even 10 meter resolution is enough to vastly reduce the search space. This can then be further refined though various means. Further, the search space is generally limited to how far they can travel from the last known location and they are not that fast.
But the real problem is more basic. They are very high value targets an can be taken out for vastly less money than they cost to produce.
If your tactical analysis involves nuclear weapons, there's no point in doing a tactical analysis, because most everything dies. Everyone knows this, which is why everyone is still building conventional weapons.
Why would China be working on conventional ship-to-ship missiles if they expected a nuclear war? They'd just use ICBMs / long-range missiles.
Comments
I would like to see the details if your tactical analysis on that.
I'd recommend these as an interesting starting point ([2] has videos):
[1] http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-military-balance-of-...
[2] http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/09/balance-of-power-in-wes...
I read through those, including some of the referenced articles. My opinion is that the DF-21 is overhyped, as is the vulnerability of CVBGs to satellite detection. I'm on my phone right now, so I'll circle back to details later.
The best toys are not really widely known or battle tested. However, consider people have had a long time to prepare for aircraft carriers without a direct conflict between major powers and aircraft carriers are easily tracked in real time by satellites. Further, they might as well be sitting still in terms of a high mach (AKA 10+) missiles.
PS: Remember, we where doing optical recognition for missiles twenty years ago. So, reasonably close is going to be a hit most of the time.
I know, I worked on some of them.
As I mentioned in another reply, it isn't as easy as some people seem to think to find and track a CVBG by satellite. As I also mentioned, I'll go into more detail when I'm not on my phone.
I'm not aware of any hypersonic cruise missiles in that range, and those that approach it have relatively short ranges. I would need to look at this further.
Longer, I believe. Image recognition for terminal guidance is not foolproof, though. Plus, as with any weapons system the countermeasures groups have not been sitting still.
In terms of satellite tracking, even 10 meter resolution is enough to vastly reduce the search space. This can then be further refined though various means. Further, the search space is generally limited to how far they can travel from the last known location and they are not that fast.
But the real problem is more basic. They are very high value targets an can be taken out for vastly less money than they cost to produce.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-10/china-warns-washing...
Taken with a grain of salt: China might not actually be 'there' yet, but they are progressing toward that goal.
I take everything from ZeroHedge with a block of salt...
Anyway, I would need to look into that. Chinese claims have a tendency to be blown out if proportion, particularly by the media of their neighbors.
Nuclear weapon. I'd give it 20 minutes tops.
If your tactical analysis involves nuclear weapons, there's no point in doing a tactical analysis, because most everything dies. Everyone knows this, which is why everyone is still building conventional weapons.
Why would China be working on conventional ship-to-ship missiles if they expected a nuclear war? They'd just use ICBMs / long-range missiles.