Hypersonic missile threat ('Carrier killers' could destroy U.S. Navy's supremacy at sea)

Winnipeg Free Press ^ | 01/8/2011 | Tom Simko

[sukhoi-30mki]

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Hypersonic missile threat

'Carrier killers' could destroy U.S. Navy's supremacy at sea

By: Tom Simko

Posted: 01/8/2011 1:00 AM | Comments: 0

In a replay of cold war rivalries, a new missile race is shaping up but this time America and Russia are joined by India and China. All of these countries are rushing to develop hypersonic anti-ship missiles that threaten to reshape naval warfare and alter global balances of power.

It's all about who can design the fastest missiles with the latest engine technology.

American Tomahawk cruise missiles are powered by conventional turbofans, which are essentially compact versions of passenger jet engines. These propel the missiles at 880 km/h -- 70 per cent the speed of sound, or Mach 0.7.

Much faster speeds can be reached with a ramjet, which has no moving mechanical parts. Travelling at supersonic speed, air is rammed into the engine. This heats the air to ensure more powerful combustion with fuel further down the engine. Since ramjets only work at high speeds, however, they must first be accelerated by another system.

The Brahmos missile, co-developed by India and Russia, is a good example of the capabilities of ramjet-powered missiles. The Brahmos starts off with a conventional rocket, which falls away when the missile gets up to speed. Then the ramjet-powered stage with the warhead takes over, cruising at Mach 2.8 (3,400 km/h) for 290 kilometres. It can fly at an altitude of 15 kilometres, or just meters above the waves. This weapon is already in service with the Indian navy.

The high speeds of supersonic missiles leave little time for ships to deploy defensive countermeasures. This increases the likelihood of a missile slipping past a vessel's screen of defences -- but supersonic weapons can be stopped.

However, there is presently no reliable defence against the much faster next generation of anti-ship missiles. These weapons are designed to travel at hypersonic speeds -- greater than Mach 5, or 6,100 km/h -- and therefore present a much more lethal threat.

Hypersonic speeds can be attained with scramjets, which are similar to ramjets but with combustion occurring at supersonic rather than subsonic speeds. They are designed to ensure the high-speed air flow doesn't blow out the flames. The U.S. Air Force compares running a scramjet to "lighting a match in a hurricane and keeping it burning." Once again, the missile must first be boosted to operational speed by a conventional rocket.

India and Russia are working on the hypersonic Brahmos II, which is expected to be in service by 2013. Cruising at about Mach 6 (7,300 km/h), this scramjet-powered missile will carry six times more kinetic energy than a similar weapon at Mach 1.

It would, therefore, pack a much larger punch if used to slam through hardened bunkers or underground nuclear or biological weapons facilities. It can also be used against ships.

China is developing its own hypersonic anti-ship missile, the Dong Feng 21D. This isn't a cruise missile but rather a ballistic missile launched toward space and arcing back to Earth. The DF-21D is capable of hurtling down at speeds of about Mach 10 and covering a range of 1,500 kilometres.

Dubbed the "carrier killer," it is believed this new weapon would be used against American aircraft carriers to destroy U.S. naval supremacy in the western Pacific and block America from coming to the defence of Taiwan.

The technology behind the DF-21D is nothing new -- the weapon is a variant of a proven Chinese medium range ballistic missile. What is new -- and a potential game-changer -- is the possibility of precisely striking ships at long range with non-nuclear warheads. China, however, has yet to prove it can accurately hit a moving vessel with a ballistic missile falling at Mach 10.

The chief of India's navy is dismissive of China's anti-ship missile program. As reported by the Indian Express, Adm. Nirmal Verma said "Targeting ships on the high seas is not an easy task ... There are limitations in terms of maritime reconnaissance and long-range searches."

He added that it was a "complex problem" to use a conventional missile against a moving target on the high seas.

With enough time and resources, however, China could overcome these technical challenges and threaten America's crucial carriers with the DF-21D.

"China's ability to bypass America's robust air-defence capability and strike ships at sea with ballistic missiles could severely limit American naval power," according to Abraham Denmark and James Mulverson of the Center for a New American Security.

Newsweek quotes retired U.S. rear admiral and defence attaché to Beijing Eric McVadon as describing China's anti-ship weapons as "pretty daunting."

To counter these new weapons, America will need to rely on ballistic missile defence systems. The U.S. has invested heavily in such technology but it is still in its infancy and not fully reliable.

Directed-energy beams such as lasers can be countered with reflective materials and, for a slowly spinning ballistic missile, there would be little effect on any one spot. Furthermore, hypersonic cruise missiles and ballistic warheads are hardened with materials capable of withstanding the scorching heat from high speed flight.

The most practical defensive measure is to strike the incoming weapon with another hypersonic missile, the proverbial "hitting a bullet with another bullet." The United States has proven it can do this, albeit in controlled tests and with inconsistent results. Further ballistic missile defence research could be applied to dealing with threats posed by the DF-21D and hypersonic cruise missiles like the Brahmos II. However, a dependable missile defence system is a long way off.

The United States has its own hypersonic missile development program. The X-51A Waverider is designed to demonstrate scramjet technology for missiles and spaceplanes. The first test took place last May and lasted only about 200 seconds. The US Air Force, however, notes this marked the first flight of a practical hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet (the engine runs on a special jet fuel).

With this confirmed success, America appears to have taken the lead in the hypersonic missile race. The competition, however, isn't far behind and the stakes are high for America's position in the global balance of power. This was clearly explained by U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates in his address to an Air Force Association Convention in 2009.

"When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China," Gates said, "we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically -- fighter to fighter or ship to ship -- and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options. Their investments in... anti-ship weaponry and ballistic missiles could threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific -- in particular our forward air bases and carrier strike groups."

The race is on to develop the next generation of anti-ship missiles and reshape naval warfare -- and possibly dictate who will rule the waves.

Tom Simko is an engineer living in Brockville, Ont. He writes about aerospace for the Winnipeg Free Press.

[Last Dakotan]

I can’t think of a faster way for China to be destroyed than to take out one of our carriers.

One word - Cheonan.

[jim macomber]

Dragon’s Fury redux, Jeff?

[central_va]

You are way behind the times. DADT is out, the new anachronism is GIMP - Gays In the Military Program.

[mkmensinger]

” It can fly at an altitude of 15 kilometres, or just meters above the waves.”

Those are some mighty big waves.

[AnalogReigns]

As I recall the warship USS Cole was hit by Yemen with a hole big enough to sink it (had it been a bit lower)with a number of sailors killed too, yet President Clinton didn’t have the guts to respond.

I certainly wouldn’t expect more guts from Obama even over a hit on a carrier.

[B4Ranch]

I too use to have these over energized feelings about the US Navy. Then I started to accept reality. Remember last June when our Fleet was out on some War Games and a damn Chinese diesel boat pops up a couple of thousand feet off to the side of a carrier?

Here everyone on this ship is at top level readiness and the Chinks slide right in and hand the skipper a note that says, “Boss, You suck at protecting your men.”

Never underestimate your enemy!

[B4Ranch]

Got the date wrong. It was 10 November, 2007 when they came to our party uninvited.

[AnalogReigns]

Japan surrendered when they knew we could blow them off the map—AND they could do nothing to stop us.

Russia/the Soviets never surrendered because they knew we could blow them off the map, BUT they could do something about it, namely blow US off the map. Hence MADD (Mutually Assured Destruction Deterrence) was born. We have now, and under any foreseeable arms treaty, will continue to have, over 10 times the nuclear weaponry and launch systems China has.

China’s leadership is not crazy or stupid.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

It’s always possible Obama would do nothing after China takes out our carrier, but then again, if China thinks they can take out our carriers with no repercussions whatsoever, why don’t they do so? Anything is possible. What is likely, however, is Obama and the Democrats would get slaughtered in ‘12. The military and other institutions would turn on him. Sane Democrats probably know this. So there’s no guarantees Obama would do nothing.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

“Directed-energy beams such as lasers can be countered with reflective materials and, for a slowly spinning ballistic missile, there would be little effect on any one spot.

That idea has been debunked so many times it’s pathetic. “

No kidding. They said this 10 years ago. Truth is, anything you do to laser-proof a missile only makes it easier to kill some other way, and makes it even harder to make the missile work in the first place. Make it reflective so radar gets a nice, early and long look at it...our military would like that, actually. Make the missile spin, as if it’s not hard enough to make a supersonic missile work. Make it reinforced, because heavier helps, right? Jeez, do some thinking.

The forces at work on a supersonic missile actually help you to destroy it - the stresses on the missile are already very high so it’s like popping a balloon. Directed energy works and has been proven in the field now, and I know the navy is keen on this because high power lasers are getting smaller and cheaper these days.

[Ronin]

No kidding. They said this 10 years ago.

More than 20 years ago, actually. I liked the description that Clancey used in "The Cardinal of the Kremlin" when he had Major Gregory snicker at the idea saying "a ballet dancer can pirouette in front of a shotgun and it will do just about the same amount of good".

It's not the "burn" per-se that kills, it's the energy transfer. You smack a missile with 100 kW of energy, that energy has to go somewhere. Even if it doesn't kill the bird outright, it's going to screw up sensors and guidance systems.

Oh well...

[Flag_This]

"Despite the new missile technology, anyone stupid enough to take a shot at one of our Aircraft Carriers would meet their own end pretty quickly. Firing on a Capital warship is a overt act of war, and is equivalent to firing on US soil..."

So is over-running an embassy and holding the embassy staff hostage for over a year - yet nothing happened to Iran because of the "leadership" of Carter. If we lost a carrier under this current administration, they would find a way to do nothing meaningful about it. Even worse, the MSM would portray the loss as the result of U.S. "aggression."

[dusttoyou]

Not knowing if a fat quiet sub packed with ICBMs and CMs, is a great deal more potent than anyone’s ram or scram missile. The Chink “falling from space” missile would only work when they have spy sat superiority and because it can be seen for a long period of time makes it very vulnerable to countermeasures.

Would imagine the Navy has contingents which would probably not put a big Carrier in harms way. Carriers have proved most usable in situations like Iraq where you need a base for attach aircraft.

[dusttoyou]

Respectfully.... and definitely not defending nobama.... I get so tired of all the doom and gloom about him letting us get attached and doing nothing.

First of all, historically the dems have been much quicker to pull the trigger (for reasons which are baffling) in spite of their “Peacenik” facade.

Second, if nobama let us lose a Carrier and does nothing, the next thing we'll hear is the Joint Chiefs will have taken custody “for his safety” of the slurpy-dude and will have proceeded per long standing plan.

[Jeff Head]

This DF-21D weapon has never had one single operational test...not one.

it is a lot of talk...and IMHO, it is a red herring in hopes we will "think" they have it and thereby limit our operations out of fear of it. Pure Sun Tsu.

As it is, the us has developed, tested, and fielded a successful anti-ballistic missile defense on our AEGIS vessels already. So even if they do ultimately make one of these...or several...it will be charging into the teeth of our most effective defense.

And that defense is getting better. In April of this year (2011) we successfully tested an anti-missile laser weapon system. Not deplyed yet...but the new Ford Class carriers, the new Zumwalt Destroyers, and the new Burke Flight III destroyers (should we develop them) will all ultimately have these weapons on them as well.

Here's how that would work (in addition to the AEGIS BMD missiles already deployed: