# Is There Any Defense Against The Chinese Ant-Ship Ballistic Missile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 13, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082 "2013-01-13T18:57:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/101 "2013-01-16T04:20:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There are self-guided missiles that don’t need to receive directions from back at their base or from orbit. You just need enough information about the location of a target in order to launch a missile in the right general area. Then the missile itself finds the target and steers in on it. And those are spoofable. My brother, who was a Navy radar tech at the time (late '80s), was telling me about that. I hit on _how_ they do it. He shut up, because, unlike me, he’s prohibited saying anything about it. I’m not. He shut up _fast_ when I mentioned a specific _method_ of ‘frequency agile’ radar, and mentioned that it would automatically give you ‘range gating’. It used an ‘analog delay line’. Those terms are apparently classified in military radar technology, although they’ve been known publicly since the '60s. And I was playing with electronics that would do that in the late '70s to early '80s. You can probably find details on those terms on Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/102 "2013-01-16T04:24:45Z")
> [@Namkcalb](#): > > @Chesire Human - you misunderstand my point, I am saying constant surveilence would render evasive action futile as their every move would be watched, I am assuming the Chinese missile will have real-time course correction. Good point, but even the US doesn’t have the capability of keeping _constant_ satellite surveilance of a naval force. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/103 "2013-01-16T05:39:40Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Tread on it? > [@chacoguy](#): > > I would burn them off with a magnifying glass. No, it indicates that the missile is manned by the feared [Myrmidons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrmidons)–ant people–commanded originally by no less than Achilles. A late addition that just popped in my mind (now that no one gives a shit…:)). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/104 "2013-01-16T05:41:36Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > The radar on an Aegis cruiser or destroyer is easily able to detect spy satellites, minutes before they’re in a position to see the CVBG. Assume a CVBG speed of 30 kts for the following: > > 1. Detect spysat, let the spysat see your course and speed. > 2. After the 2-4 minute detection window, when the spysat can no longer see you, turn 90 degrees. Pick a direction. > 3. They’ve targeted where you _would_ be in 10 minutes, if you hadn’t turned. Or else they have two _more_ choices where you _might_ have turned, each 7 nm _away from_ the first choice, and 14 nm away from each other. And that’s only if you limit yourself to a 90 degree turn. A 180 would take you even farther away, depending only on your turn rate, and how far it takes you to the side of the track they predicted for you. _Only_ “Tzar Bomba” wouldn’t have had a problem taking out naval vessels, designed to take a reasonable near miss from a nuke, and _it_ wasn’t practically deliverable against anything but a target that doesn’t move, like a city. > > Your post shows a bit of a lack of understanding of time/motion physics and ballistic calculations. Or it assumes a _collection of_ Chinese spysats can be put up that will not be detectable by _any_ other nation. The problem is that _amateur_ satellite watchers notice these things. And have [websites](http://heavens-above.com/) devoted to anything visible by the naked eye. Which would include _all_ spysats that could detect, and then target, something like a CVBG. > > Result is that you’ll miss. Unless the admiral directing that fleet was an idiot. _Most_ of them aren’t. Well if the Aegis can detect a moving spy satellite it out to do a pretty good job of detecting one that isn’t moving.. Same with fishing boats, airplanes, drones, submarines and any other craft capable of shadowing a convoy. You can’t hide a carrier fleet. Knowing what is out there is not the same as hiding from it. We don’t own the oceans and cannot compel another ship to stay away. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/105 "2013-01-16T07:24:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well if the Aegis can detect a moving spy satellite it out to do a pretty good job of detecting one that isn’t moving.. Same with fishing boats, airplanes, drones, submarines and any other craft capable of shadowing a convoy. You can’t hide a carrier fleet. Knowing what is out there is not the same as hiding from it. We don’t own the oceans and cannot compel another ship to stay away. Precisely correct (except possibly the submarines). Nothing can exist on the surface or in the air, within 250 nautical miles of a CVBG, where they won’t know it’s there. And destroy it at will. Possibly excepting satellites in orbit. And even including submarines, nothing does exist that they can detect, but can’t destroy, at will, again, with the possible exception of satellites. But they’re working on that one, and have achieved some successes. But knowing where the CVBG is, within a couple of hundred miles, will _not_ give you targeting info, sufficient to sink any ship _in_ that battle group, at all, no matter how big your nuke. You have to narrow it down to within a few miles, at least. And actually _deliver_ your nuke to that point. While there’s actually a ship there. That’s not as easy a task as you seem to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/106 "2013-01-16T07:39:36Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Precisely correct (except possibly the submarines). Nothing can exist on the surface or in the air, within 250 nautical miles of a CVBG, where they won’t know it’s there. And destroy it at will. Possibly excepting satellites in orbit. And even including submarines, nothing does exist that they can detect, but can’t destroy, at will, again, with the possible exception of satellites. But they’re working on that one, and have achieved some successes. > > But knowing where the CVBG is, within a couple of hundred miles, will _not_ give you targeting info, sufficient to sink any ship _in_ that battle group, at all, no matter how big your nuke. You have to narrow it down to within a few miles, at least. And actually _deliver_ your nuke to that point. While there’s actually a ship there. That’s not as easy a task as you seem to believe. You seem to be under the impression there is a 250 mile zone of exclusion around a carrier group. There isn’t. They are routinely shadowed by all manner of boats, satellites and planes. there are no trees to hide behind on the open sea. The presence and location of any fleet is easily tracked by any other nation. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/107 "2013-01-16T09:23:32Z")
My alternative to a nuke ss-19 attack would be a 350-kiloton ICBM re-entering at 30,000mph. No ship-borne defense system can stop that. But it will have to be a smart ICBM, maybe a MARV. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/108 "2013-01-16T10:08:43Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > No, you’d start it as soon as the spysat can’t see you any more. No need to even _assume_, let alone _detect_ a launch. Don’t be where they _might_ be targeting. You don’t have to know that a nuke will actually _arrive_ there. Well I think it’s fair to assume that Chinese spysats passed within viewing range of American carriers a few times last night. Did those ships take the evasive action you proposed? > [@](#): > > A whole hell of a lot closer than 7 nautical miles. Roughly what distance? And have you considered that 1 missile can contain multiple warheads and that multiple missiles can be launched? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/109 "2013-01-16T18:58:43Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > And those are spoofable. My brother, who was a Navy radar tech at the time (late '80s), was telling me about that. I hit on _how_ they do it. He shut up, because, unlike me, he’s prohibited saying anything about it. I’m not. > > He shut up _fast_ when I mentioned a specific _method_ of ‘frequency agile’ radar, and mentioned that it would automatically give you ‘range gating’. It used an ‘analog delay line’. Those terms are apparently classified in military radar technology, although they’ve been known publicly since the '60s. And I was playing with electronics that would do that in the late '70s to early '80s. You can probably find details on those terms on Wikipedia. I’d imagine you know roughly what kind of sensor the maneuverable RV will have, it might not even be that much trouble to produce low cost, but convincing decoys of a carrier, at least as far as the sensors are concerned. Some sort of inflatable thing that duplicates a carrier’s radar signature perhaps? Beyond that, there’s chaff and any number of electronic warfare methods that could probably be used to throw the RV off it’s target- keep in mind that they’re probably only accurate to 100m or so at best, and that’s against a stationary target. I have a feeling that if a ballistic anti-ship missile was a really useful thing, the Soviets would likely have had a battery of them on the North Cape for use if the Cold War turned hot, or the US would have had some for use as well. There has to be something deeply unattractive about the concept, or the leaders in missile and computer technology for the past 50 years would have probably at least tried them out. The fact that China has fielded a system in the 2009-ish era doesn’t imply that it’s a world-beating breakthrough at all. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/110 "2013-01-17T01:50:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You seem to be under the impression there is a 250 mile zone of exclusion around a carrier group. There isn’t. They are routinely shadowed by all manner of boats, satellites and planes. there are no trees to hide behind on the open sea. The presence and location of any fleet is easily tracked by any other nation. And possibly except for the satellites, the CVBG can destroy them at will, if they detect them. The argument seems to be about how big a nuke you can put down on them _if_ they have ten minutes warning that it’s coming. And unless the nuke has a guidance system that will make it _much_ closer, or is _far_ bigger than anything anyone can effectively deliver, they can get a safe distance (at least in terms of maintaining combat effectiveness) away in that amount of time. I’m not terribly sober right now, although I was when this argument started. I’ll have to look at it tomorrow to see if I’m not blowing smoke up my own ass. Sorry. See ya tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/111 "2013-01-17T04:07:48Z")
How about this? I’m the bad guy. You manage to blind all of my sats, planes, subs, ships and fishing boats. I shoot up a missile in your general direction - no warhead - just a bunch of self-inflating balloons with radar units tied to GPS (all 4 known systems). Do I now have real-time tracking until your sailors shoot down the balloons with small arms? the balloon is transparent, made of a plastic skin. The electronics are about the size of a lunchbox. Who wins? ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/112 "2013-01-17T04:35:02Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > How about this? > > I’m the bad guy. > You manage to blind all of my sats, planes, subs, ships and fishing boats. > > I shoot up a missile in your general direction - no warhead - just a bunch of self-inflating balloons with radar units tied to GPS (all 4 known systems). > Do I now have real-time tracking until your sailors shoot down the balloons with small arms? > the balloon is transparent, made of a plastic skin. The electronics are about the size of a lunchbox. > > Who wins? That’s too easy. Determine the frequencies that your balloons are communicating at and jam it. With balloons floating like that it would have to be HF, VHF, or UHF. A pin-point LOS, microwave system, is possible but highly unlikely. And, as someone who was an ET in the Navy who has worked on everything from HF to EHF, that equipment is already on board US ships as well as every other UN/NATO country ship. It’d take me like 3-5 minutes on a bad day to accomplish this task. Also, you could determine the frequency of the radar and have the ships each tune to that frequency and “turn-and-burn” at full power. Where is each ship? Kinda hard to tell at that point as you will get no returns with a saturated system. Oh, and while we do that, lets just go in the opposite direction that the wind is blowing the balloons at full speed. Also, that’d have to be a pretty beast balloon as even with a synthetic aperture radar there is going to be some weight from the radar itself, GPS equipment, C2C, communications gear, and it’s power supply. So, that’s a pretty big balloon to carry that payload. Pretty big and pretty obvious. So… I win? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/113 "2013-01-17T05:02:40Z")
> [@electronbee](#): > > That’s too easy. Determine the frequencies that your balloons are communicating at and jam it. With balloons floating like that it would have to be HF, VHF, or UHF. A pin-point LOS, microwave system, is possible but highly unlikely. And, as someone who was an ET in the Navy who has worked on everything from HF to EHF, that equipment is already on board US ships as well as every other UN/NATO country ship. It’d take me like 3-5 minutes on a bad day to accomplish this task. Better hope it’s not a real bad day and they launch one at you every thirty seconds. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/114 "2013-01-17T05:07:09Z")
How soon do you know the balloons are there? You saw a missile come up… and… nothing. Musta been a dud… Hold on - we’re picking up new signals… a shitload of new signals In the 3-5 minutes you spend finding the frequencies I’m using (let’s assume we both know to vary the frequency) - you don’t know where the next beep is coming on - I do. I may spend a few seconds analyzing the few beeps I do get - but if my boxes last long enough to say “I’m here - large objects that way” and I can collect 3 such beeps, I have you. If I’m lucky, I’ve sent enough balloons over a 100 mile radius of your last known position - enough to triangulate well enough to send a couple of mirvs (that term still used?). Again - something this crude costs next to nothing - I can throw several dozen at a time - and time again. ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/115 "2013-01-17T07:28:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Better hope it’s not a real bad day and they launch one at you every thirty seconds. We are assuming that each balloon has its own frequency. You are also assuming that I can only counter one frequency at a time, that’s _silly_. > [@](#): > > How soon do you know the balloons are there? You saw a missile come up… and… nothing. > > Musta been a dud… When you transmit radar, the other guy knows. It’s just the way it works. Marco… Polo! Also, if you shoot a bunch of missiles at someone how do you know they won’t shoot them down before they even get close? I mean… that just makes sense to shoot them down. > [@](#): > > Hold on - we’re picking up new signals… a shitload of new signals > > In the 3-5 minutes you spend finding the frequencies I’m using (let’s assume we both know to vary the frequency) - you don’t know where the next beep is coming on - I do. The term would he frequency hopping and might as go with spread spectrum while you are at it ([FHSS](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrequency-hopping_spread_spectrum&ei=R6D3UIi8IoqW0QGX74DoBA&usg=AFQjCNHv9_SmfwdeRdcugR-HIgp0LSj4MA&sig2=RtHMFOnMgH4sIpYndhgE4A&bvm=bv.41018144,d.dmQ)). At least, that is what I would do. But, back to tracking your FHSS. Maybe in the 70’s or something this would have been difficult but not today. Yes, you do have the advantage of knowing which frequency is next, that is, until you transmit. You can get an ICOM handheld scanner that can track it’s entire spectrum in milliseconds and lock onto a defined signal type. The one I had, not a handheld, was only available to law enforcement and the military. So, take that handheld capability and turn it up to _11_. Or, I could use the trusty ol’ spec’an and set it’s spectrum width to encompass it all. I don’t need to “hunt” for it as when you transmit a spike will show. In theory, you can get a spectrum analyzer, connect it to a computer, which controls an RF amp(s). As each time you transmit the spectrum analyzer tells the comp, which tells the amp to transmit at that exact frequency. Half-second at most. This is not inconceivable at all and is totally within the realm of technology that is at least 20 years old. > [@](#): > > I may spend a few seconds analyzing the few beeps I do get - but if my boxes last long enough to say “I’m here - large objects that way” and I can collect 3 such beeps, I have you. > If I’m lucky, I’ve sent enough balloons over a 100 mile radius of your last known position - enough to triangulate well enough to send a couple of mirvs (that term still used?). Uhmm… do you know how this works? Let me explain to help. 1. Beeps? I might need more on this. But, you will need a decent transmitter to get any range. To be realistic, with FHSS, I’d say 30W to keep cost (as this crud is cheap, right?), weight, and power within reasonable means. Hopefully, that 30W will work as, depending on the frequency, I could have anywhere from 100 watts to kilowatts at my disposal. 1. You are going to launch balloons. They are not exactly stable in their natural state. Are you expecting no wind currents in the air? What’s is to stop the balloon from spinning out of control? It will have to be stabilized in order to keep it orientated in a known direction so that once your radar finds a target you actually know which way the target is. This adds weight, this adds power requirements, this adds complexity, this adds cost. 2. Radars, this relates to (1). a) They have both a vertical and horizontal beam width. This will be very small, like a degree or so. So, the radar has to “spin” on at least the horizontal axis for your balloon mission. So, lets say you get a target at 30 degrees, 30 degrees relative to what, exactly? Therefore, you need (1). b) If you want range you will need a bigger radar. But, to keep it simple and cheap, we can go with a synthetic aperture radar used for pleasure/coastal craft. Has a range of about 35NM or so. Hopefully, your balloons, which are floating away, will be in range long enough. c) This adds weight, this adds power requirements, this adds complexity, this adds cost. 3. Power. You are gonna need a whole bunch of it even for a crap shoot like this. Even if you use LiPo it will still add weight, and especially with LiPo, a lot more money. [/QUOTE] Again - something this crude costs next to nothing - I can throw several dozen at a time - and time again. [QUOTE] Sure about the technology required being crud? Sure about this costing next to nothing? But, it depends on your budget. If you go the DIY route with an Arduino for stabilization, synthetic aperture radar, 30 FHSS radio, LiPo, balloon… probably $5k not counting the missile, the shore side equipment, and related incidentals. This does not cover R&D which would take like a year and much more money as you will certainly have some duds. You go pro and it will be like $50k probably per balloon and three to seven years in development. In conclusion: your balloons better be AWESOME. And, they better work the second they are deployed. Anything less than awesome and anything more than a second and it’s pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/116 "2013-01-17T12:20:22Z")
Just a few words on radar and radio jamming. The little I do know about the subject suggests that there is a lot of naivety here about the way a lot of this works, and what the countermeasures available are. Currently US carriers can deploy [aircraft](http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/prowler/) whose only job is to selectively wipe out radio communications in an area of engagement. They can stand off to the side of the area and simply soak targets with broad band hash. Radar can a lot more stealthy than you might imagine. The generic term is noise radar. Spread spectrum techniques can be made that cannot be tracked with any equipment currently existing, or ever will ever exist. Simply because the frequency hopping is controlled by pretty much the same mechanisms as current cryptographic systems. If you don’t know the seed values, you can never latch onto the frequency movements. Further, you can spread the emissions across enough bandwidth, and tweak the pulse profile, to essentially make the radio emission indistinguishable from thermal noise. The radar transmitter and receiver do not need to be the same device, or in the same location. A set of omni-directional transmitters, each transmitting its own spread spectrum signal, and physically spread around, with a receiver system that knows the spread seed values and the location of the transmitters can correlate any reflected signals to the point where it can derive the location of any reflecting object. This works more like GPS than radar, but the end effect is similar. Real time location of targets by radio. There is never a perfectly invisible system, but these systems are described generally as Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) systems, and are very real. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/117 "2013-01-17T18:59:37Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well I think it’s fair to assume that Chinese spysats passed within viewing range of American carriers a few times last night. Did those ships take the evasive action you proposed? They did if they didn’t want the Chinese to know precisely where they were. If they didn’t care what the Chinese knew, then they didn’t. Simple, really. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/118 "2013-01-17T20:42:37Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > They did if they didn’t want the Chinese to know precisely where they were. If they didn’t care what the Chinese knew, then they didn’t. Simple, really. And how exactly do they know whether to care or not? I am a little unclear on that part of the system as you describe it. > [@](#): > > A whole hell of a lot closer than 7 nautical miles. Roughly what distance? And have you considered that 1 missile can contain multiple warheads and that multiple missiles can be launched? ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/119 "2013-01-17T21:13:15Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > Just a few words on radar and radio jamming. The little I do know about the subject suggests that there is a lot of naivety here about the way a lot of this works, and what the countermeasures available are. > > Currently US carriers can deploy [aircraft](http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/prowler/) whose only job is to selectively wipe out radio communications in an area of engagement. They can stand off to the side of the area and simply soak targets with broad band hash. > > Radar can a lot more stealthy than you might imagine. The generic term is noise radar. Spread spectrum techniques can be made that cannot be tracked with any equipment currently existing, or ever will ever exist. Simply because the frequency hopping is controlled by pretty much the same mechanisms as current cryptographic systems. If you don’t know the seed values, you can never latch onto the frequency movements. Further, you can spread the emissions across enough bandwidth, and tweak the pulse profile, to essentially make the radio emission indistinguishable from thermal noise. The radar transmitter and receiver do not need to be the same device, or in the same location. A set of omni-directional transmitters, each transmitting its own spread spectrum signal, and physically spread around, with a receiver system that knows the spread seed values and the location of the transmitters can correlate any reflected signals to the point where it can derive the location of any reflecting object. This works more like GPS than radar, but the end effect is similar. Real time location of targets by radio. There is never a perfectly invisible system, but these systems are described generally as Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) systems, and are very real. TOTALLY forgot about support aircraft. But, yes, there are more advanced radar systems but the guy was referring to a cheap and easy deployable “balloon” system in which I was combatting. And, I was discussing unclassified equipment as I could not discuss the classified systems which are, in fact, much more robust and superior in jamming. In all reality, unless something happened to the gear that the “spooks” use then I would not have to use any of mine. Either way, his idea is toast, at least at the price point of “cheap” is concerned. In theory, I guess you could have each balloon emit RF and then use receiving stations elsewhere. But, There is a quesion of how well this will work over-the-horizon as carriers usually stay away from land, they have a 50 draft and the coastal shelf can extend quite a ways in some areas. Plus, factor in safety from land based missle system and they will probably be 100 if not 200 miles away. Definately OTH. Which brings in, why not use OTH radar in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/120 "2013-01-17T22:39:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Which is certainly a possible strategy. But transport ships are a lot cheaper than aircraft carriers. China can build a bunch of transport ships and disperse them. The loss of ten transport ships vs the loss of ten carriers? As long as the response stays proportionate China wins the numbers game. Except, what exactly are the war aims of both parties? The only plausible scenario is that China is trying to invade Taiwan, and the US Navy is trying to stop them. So we send a carrier group to show the flag, and China nukes the carrier group. I agree that if China lobs nuclear missiles at our carriers as an opening move, a very large fraction of the carrier group is going to end up on the bottom of the ocean. Then what? They proceed with the amphibious invasion? The nuke that took out our carrier group isn’t going to take out our attack subs. We don’t need to nuke troop transports one by one, a simple torpedo will do. And you can’t disperse troop transports, because the object is to deliver a fighting force to the target. One troop ship can’t straggle up to Taiwan, unload a bunch of marines, and take over the island. Taiwan is totally outclassed by the Chinese military, but they can handle a couple hundred guys trying to swim for shore. Plus there’s the land based Taiwanese air force, which can sink any unescorted troop ship they can find. Obviously, the point that we don’t maintain a 250 mile exclusion zone around our carriers is true. So if a country decides to start WWIII with a nuclear suicide boat attack, it’s very likely we’ll lose a very expensive and irreplaceable carrier group. And then what? What’s the end game? What are the war aims of the country that sinks a carrier? Convince America to pull back and run for home? That isn’t going to happen. Not with thousands of American sailors dead, not with the first use of nuclear weapons since WWII. Let’s stipulate that we’re not going to drop city-busters on every enemy population center in retaliation for the “tactical” nuclear strike against our navy. We’re just going to nuke their military. And if it’s China, they can absorb ten times the casualties we can. So what? How does China accomplish it’s war aim of conquering Taiwan by nuking a US carrier group and then absorbing the resulting American bombardment? If the war aim is simply to survive as a country after the war, then China can withstand anything except a full scale city-busting nuclear holocaust. But so what? They aren’t going to lob a nuclear sneak attack against America where their only goal is national survival, because an even better method of national survival is to not launch nuclear sneak attacks against countries with thousands of nuclear weapons. But if your goal is to conquer Taiwan, you can destroy the American carrier group with a nuclear strike, but can you then go on to conquer Taiwan? You’ve still got to move your troops across the straits, you’ve still got to deal with the rest of the American military, you’ve still got to deal with the political and economic and literal fallout due to your breaking the nuclear barrier. What happens to your economy when you nuke your largest trading partner? How do Russia and Japan and India respond to your nuclear attack? Of course, you can still sink US ships with conventional attacks, and this is still going to be a big deal. And any time a shooting war breaks out, there are all kinds of surprises where countries and tactics and weapons that people thought were strong turn out to be weak and the weak turn out to be strong. Sometimes the evil overlord’s invasion goes off like Germany vs Poland, other times it’s more like Russia vs Finland. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082.md?page=7)