link

Jane's report

I know that this is a none-threat to USN ships at all, but this is a serious threat to ROCN and may really suffocate Taiwan's trade in a conflict. Any thoughts?

It's not a non-threat at all, which is to say, their terminally-guided ballistic missile programs represent a very real and very significant potential threat to our ships, as well as to our airfields and other facilities within their range.  Their CSS-5/6/7/ and follow-on programs have been discussed here in many threads over the last few years.

 

I am greatly comforted to see the outstanding success USN has demonstrated with SM-3, and I really hope that somewhere in between their LCS, DDG-1000, etc. programs they have the wisdom to squeeze out the paltry few hundred million bucks it would take to equip a bunch more ships with the missile and radar upgrades required to give us the necessary umbrella of ABM protection we will need very soon.

 

link

Jane's report

I know that this is a none-threat to USN ships at all, but this is a serious threat to ROCN and may really suffocate Taiwan's trade in a conflict. Any thoughts?

DF-21C/DF-25 AShBM system:

OTH radar, SAR/Optical/IR/data relay satellites, underwater SOSUS and nano-machines,  airborne SIGINT assets etc.

mobile launcher, conventional EMP/Cluster/FAE/HE warheads, "M" mid-course trajectory, gliding RV etc.

And neither are your rockets.

Go away, child. You are now consigned to List 2.

Buzzwords don't trump physics.

Herald.

 

Herald, if you're trying to imply that CSS-5/6/7 (and follow-on missiles) sized SRBM/MRBMs with RVs and/or busses having on-board terminal guidance in some form that is sufficent to hit a warship is not fairly possible within the next several years, you are wrong.  That the Chinese will have an operational capability to do it within 10 years is likely.  Of course, that we already have the means to defend ourselves to some extent is obvious, and by 5 to 10 years from now we will undoubtedly develop additional means--through both kinetic and information warfare defenses--such that we ought to be able to alleviate the potential risk it represents.  It is clear to me that this area is and will remain a very serious threat, however we certainly can and I assume will take steps to counter them so as to create a managable level of actual risk.  Your point about who will end up at risk is good, and certainly they could use them to attack shipping.  I think it remains to be seen how good a capability develops against the defenses the ROCN can mount.

 

 

AShBM is specially reserved for USN, for ROCN and JMSDF the mix of JH-7A, Su-30MKK2, Type 022 FAC, Type 039A/B Subs with YJ-83/K, YJ-62, YJ-1X and Club missiles are more than enough.

DJ reply. Onboard sensors need to either proprogate a signal which will return an echo; or see target emissions though an ionized  plasma sheath. I doubt you or I disagree on what that means. To get an object as small as a ship in an RV killbody's so that it can see it in its short depth of field and narrow field of view through a radio blackout layer means the killbody has to decelerate to nullify the radio-opaque plasma sheath that surrounds it so that nit can see. It will be splashed; or spoofed-easily..

They need accurate real-time targeting information before launch, something on the RV bus to make course corrections and initially acquire the target, and then slow down the RV enough to use sufficient final terminal guidance to impact.  I've never said it is an insurmountable threat; far from it, in fact we clearly can defend ourselves if we choose to.  Considering what we've demonstrated on a very much faster target our SM-3 should be a valuable part of our defense, and I'm sure we could develop an even better follow-on system or improve the SM-3.  Since the last I've heard we have about a half-dozen ships capable of ATBM defense, with maybe a couple SM-3s for each, something must change before the PRCs gain an operational anti-ship ballistic missile capability.  We certainly do have time enough to change our numbers.  Now let's see if we do.