The Chinese Navy have been studying how to deal with the US Navy, and decided that the cheapest way to deal with it is to deny the US Navy safe operation in the seas around China. So they are developing a truck-launched Surface-Surface BM. As I understand it, the Chinese would track a S carrier or ship via satellite, and the satellite would send the location to the missile-it would be launched on a high ballistic course, and come down at 3000 MPH. It will have a 1500 pond warhead, but that would be just icing on the cake-this thing would cut a carrier in half-break the keel, and send a $5 billion carrier (plus its aircraft) to the bottom in minutes.
The question is: if such a missile were detected in flight, are there any means to destroy it? Would the Vulcan anti-missile gun be of any use?
We’ve shot down missiles with other missiles. As I understand it, these are accurate enough to hit the incoming missile in specifics spots. I would assume a Chinese missile would suffer a similar fate.
If I was China, I’d worry more the US ballistic missile subs fleet than the Aircraft carriers.
Here is an article which may be of interest:
Are U.S. Navy surface ships sitting ducks to enemies with modern weapons?
Tread on it?
If you’re thinking of the Scuds in the first Gulf War, it appears that those were all actually just failures of the Scud itself (which was a notoriously unreliable weapon). I don’t think we’ve ever actually shot down a hostile missile with another missile.
I would burn them off with a magnifying glass.
I’m skeptical that you can do anything about an object falling on you at 3000 MPH. Assuming that you could even hit it (which I doubt), you might disable the warhead, but you’d still have a cloud of debris landing on you at thousands of miles per hour.
You’d have to hit it early in it’s flight. Given the speed that means detecting it, targeting it, launching a missile, and hitting it, all within a few minutes or less.
I’m no expert, but it seems infeasible, especially since any enemy with the knowledge and resources to launch such an attack would know to launch several missiles at once to overwhelm any attempted defense.
You may be right on the US wrt Scuds but Israel has been scoring some solid hostile intercept numbers with their system developed in part with the US:
Not too sure about that article. A lot of his arguments are “But how are carriers 'sposed to defend against 20,000MPH ICBMs from the heavens? Answer me that, smarties. Or just use Exocets till their defensive ammo runs out. Pfft, pretty obvious.”
Is this part true? Only one day’s worth of aircraft fuel on the carrier?
I’m not either. Here’s a quote I found from Wikipedia 
[former Nimitz sailor] Your skepticism is well founded. That’s hogwash. Underway replenishment is not a daily event.
Depending upon exactly what you mean by a missile, I’m sure you will have done. A Royal Navy ship shot down a missile that was headed to the USS Missouri during the first gulf war.
Seems to me that these two things are pretty good proof that the US Navy is taking this threat seriously:
Aegis Anti Ballistic Missile System
Basically it’s an upgraded radar/software suite and an upgraded variant of the normal missile carried by most cruisers and destroyers specifically intended to intercept ballistic missiles.
Of course, the noise surrounding it is about SCUDs and what-not, but I’m sure that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles were a major consideration as well.
I’m not sure which is more frightening, the Ant-Ship or the truck-launched BM.
The incoming “missiles” in that case are home-made Hamas rockets fired from a small strip of land over which the Israelis have radar coverage. I don’t think its really equivalent to Chinese landbased missiles fired at US ships.
Eureka! You’ve found it!
the Chinese have surfaced twice in the middle of a carrier fleet undetected.
The question is a non-sequitur because carrier groups are designed to fight 3rd world countries. They have been useless against modern navy’s since the invention of nuclear warheads which can be airborne or seaborne. We were one person away from this happening during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
But it works both ways. China can’t exert it’s navy against allies of the United States for the same reason.
No, that’s never been conclusively proven. No one can say with any easy certainty what really happened to most of the Scuds in the Gulf War. We had serious problems in that three different groups (American military, Saudi Arabia, Israel) were reporting on success and two of those groups had reasons to interpret the data most positively for the Patriot system. There also was simply no photographic record with enough quality to accurately analyze the results of interactions between Patriots and Scuds, making a truly informed analysis almost impossible.
You get into a quagmire about what “hits” are or are not. Theodore Postol is probably the most cited author of a study suggesting we had no hits, but it’s based on methodology. The President during the Gulf War claimed a very high (like 41 in 42) success rate, which was simply untrue by any metric. But Postol’s methodology did not really make sense either.
At the end of the day in the Gulf War we can say that at least a few times, patriot missiles impacted a Scud in flight in some manner. But after that it gets complicated. Because of the design of the Patriot system and the design of the Scuds, a Patriot missile could hit a Scud but the warhead could still land and detonate. If it happened over a populated area, how do you consider that result? Do you consider it a hit because the Patriot’s detonation took out the tail of the Scud and knocked it off its trajectory, or do you consider it a miss because the warhead still killed people?
The biggest Scud killer were the Iraqis, though. The Scud was really ill suited for the distances they wanted to use it for, so they made some after-market modifications so to speak that made it lighter. These changes caused the Scud to have a very high likelihood of just breaking apart in flight, but sometimes the warhead would still get to its destination despite that. Also, some of the Patriot missiles appear to have hit Scud debris after Scuds had broken up in mid-flight, but not necessarily the piece of debris containing the warhead. So you have to consider if that is a miss/hit or success/failure.
But if you move out of Gulf War I I find your claim we’ve never hit a hostile missile to be quite bizarre. It is widely accepted we shot down Al-Samoud 2 missiles in the second Iraq war. Most famously a Patriot intercepted an Al-Samoud 2 headed for Camp Doha in Kuwait. This was widely reported on at the time Link. In total I believe at least 9 Al-Samoud 2s were destroyed by Patriots during the war. I also believe the Patriot installation at Camp Doha was responsible for shooting down two allied planes and killing the pilots, so there is that black mark on their record.
Cite, please?
I found one reference to 2006 when the Chinese sub was 9 miles away - apparently still in torpedo range, but far from “in the middle of.” Hopefully procedures have been changed in the intervening 6 years.
Sorry no cite. If you read up on diesel subs you’ll know that they routinely spank the nuclear subs in war games. The US took it seriously enough to rent a Swedish sterling sub and crew for a year to work on it.
I am in the position of having worked closely, as an editor, with Postol to publish a long article on the Scud performance in Gulf I, as well as being on the receiving end of some of those missiles.
I agree his conclusions have a touch of zealotry, despite the eminent quality of his work. The argument of “well, they’ll just lob so many that it will overwhelm any system” is trotted out as a trump card by many people to deny pursuing ABM technology whatsoever. A silly move.