Author Topic: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability  (Read 7577 times)

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2018, 07:11:17 PM »
Good question. Nice to see that that private cruise missile project is still up  :)

Cruise missiles are indeed an easier technical challenge than ballistic missiles. Even if we ever made it all the way to developing indigenous ballistic missile technology, cruise missiles will still have a role to play. It need not be an "or" situation, it really ought to be an "and".

Cruise missiles are easier to build. They are also easier to destroy. This was true as far back at the original cruise missile: The Nazi V-1 "buzz bomb"

https://youtu.be/sY8bsNYhU-4

https://youtu.be/76E82QVE0cg

The V-2, on the other hand, was virtually unstoppable . . . then.

Development of ballistic missile defense technology has since reduced its edge. But that also highlights how cruise missiles are even more vulnerable, which can be engaged by both fighters as well as SAMs.

That being said, imagine a scenario where Chinese Panganiban Reef installations could be neutralized by a combination of Philippine missiles. Ballistic missiles to take out SAM installations and the main runway, and comparatively cheaper cruise missiles taking care of the rest.

PLAN frigates within the atoll, however, means that its defenses are not completely static.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 07:17:13 PM by adroth »

mamiyapis

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2018, 01:03:57 AM »
If what I've read is accurate, we could conceivably create a cruise missile project using professional grade COTS equipment, and if done quietly enough, none would be the wiser. They could be launched from Palawan and used to strike stationary base infrastructure of China... things that couldn't be moved quickly. Like aircraft hangars or fixed radar installations.

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2018, 01:43:03 AM »
If what I've read is accurate, we could conceivably create a cruise missile project using professional grade COTS equipment, and if done quietly enough, none would be the wiser. They could be launched from Palawan and used to strike stationary base infrastructure of China... things that couldn't be moved quickly. Like aircraft hangars or fixed radar installations.

Exactly  :)

Looking to turn the various threads about Chinese installations as open source targeting data

sirius

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2018, 02:17:37 PM »
I just feel like ballistic missile development is a huge red flag for the rest of the world, even when done under the guise of a space program. A ballistic missile launch would put the entire region, if not the world, on notice. I'm not sure if the Philippines has the political capital to burn on a ballistic missile attack. Though I suppose if the Philippines wants to make a statement, then a ballistic missile launch is a good way to do so.

Curious how a war of attrition, saturation attack style scenario would play out. Chinese obviously has a lot more resources, but policing and resupplying islands relatively far away from the mainland with a nascent blue water navy will get expensive fast. China could have a top of the line cruise missile defense and Philippines could have the most crude cruise missiles, but if China's island defenses runs out of bullets before Philippines does, then they lose. Though I wonder too if China would be willing to attack launch sites on the undisputed portions of Philippine archipelago in order to prevent such attacks.

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2018, 12:20:01 PM »
Vietnam acquired its own ballistic missile systems in the wake of the Mischief Reef incident in 1995

From the SIPRI database





https://www.scribd.com/document/99567766/Thayer-Vietnam-Bares-Scud-Missile-Force

< Edited >

In May Vietnam lifted theveil of secrecy on its Scud missile force when the military journal, Tap Chi Quoc Phong Toan Dan ( All People’s National Defence )printed a single page of photos of Missile Brigade 490.

The following month the Vietnamese‐language newspaper Bao Dat Viet (June 11,2012) released the same photograph as show pictured above right and identified themissile as the R‐17E/9K72 or SS‐1 Scud B missile.




tagalacion

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2018, 06:43:09 PM »
Is it possible PN (or at least DND) is already considering developing just such a deep retaliatory strike capability via the enhanced Kilo submarines offered by Russia?

DND and PN has been talking about having a great 'deterrent'.  Well, a 'black hole' armed with those land-attack Kalibr cruise missiles would constitute a great deterrent for anyone.  And we're not just talking about a capability to strike at artificial islands, either.  With this kind of a weapon system, the Philippines can conceivably even conduct deep strike missions into China itself.  And I think it's this capability, more than us dealing with Russia or us getting submarines, that's gotten the American's worried.


https://www.news.com.au/technology/a-russian-submarines-recent-antics-have-revived-a-cold-war-fear/news-story/4dfdc08d92548f26875fd81c36006ac0

Quote
...out of the blue on May 29, a series of cruise missiles tore through the air towards targets around Syria’s besieged city of Palmyra.

...

“The Russians have usually ‘cheated’ in exercises with prearranged midpoint missile guidance updates from a ground unit, a surface ship, or a helicopter. This time it didn’t happen, which means she must have received far more accurate data. With all the world watching, the Russians must have been very sure that the everything would work.” Dr Clarke says.

“More importantly, Krasnodar didn’t surface to communicate or to fire

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2018, 11:06:59 PM »
To be fair, the term “deterrent” applies to and and all use of force. So the SND’s use of the term cannot automatically be equated with “missiles”.

LionFlyer

  • Timawan
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2018, 12:45:27 PM »
Vietnam acquired its own ballistic missile systems in the wake of the Mischief Reef incident in 1995

The question here is how Vietnam intends to use their ballistic missiles versus how Philippines intents to use such as similar capability. My view is Vietnam intends to use their ballistic missiles to hold hostage Chinese cities, and possibly target military facilities in areas such as Sanya. It's a political statement as much as a military threat.

Those missiles won't be accurate enough to target specific islands (or you will end up using a barrage). They have the advantage/disadvantage of geographical proximity.

But for the Philippines where does that lie? Targeting their mainland cities? Or military targets on the islands? It's a question to answer first as it would determine the type of technologies and options. Practically speaking, there is a vast stretch of water and small islands. If we are talking about Hainan, it's easily 1000+km in range.

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2019, 08:39:07 AM »
Older discussion

Any marathon runner . . . or long distance walker . . . knows that there are two types of goals that you set for yourself:

- The finish line
- Landmarks that divide the journey into manageable chunks

It's a mental game designed to help you stay the course and balance your reserves of strength.

This technique has applications even outside sports. Technology pretty much works the same way. Setting your goals in this realm further out offers the side benefit of establishing organizing principles for acquiring pre-requisite technologies that -- all by themselves -- actually already have their own benefits.

Case in point . . . Teflon was developed because the Manhattan project needed a substitute for grease to reduce friction both in manufacturing equipment and the dynamic component of the bomb itself. See here.

As the Philippines stands on the precipice of what is arguably the most significant boost in R&D focus in a generation . . . it deserves one of these medium-term goals around which it can not only organize resources but also educational institutions.

Why not this?



By Eberhard Marx (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

This is one area of military technology for which we will never get help from our allies. In fact international treaties actually prohibit the proliferation of technologies in this regard. This is one area where we would need to develop on our own.

Quote
OBJECTIVES OF THE MTCR

http://mtcr.info/deutsch-ziele/

The aim of the MTCR is to restrict the proliferation of missiles, complete rocket systems, unmanned air vehicles, and related technology for those systems capable of carrying a 500 kilogram payload at least 300 kilometres, as well as systems intended for the delivery of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The Regime’s controls are applicable to certain complete rocket systems (to include ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles (SLVs), and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicle (UAV) systems (to include cruise missiles, drones, UAVs, and remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs)). Partners also recognize the importance of controlling the transfer of missile-related technology without disrupting legitimate trade and acknowledge the need to strengthen the objectives of the Regime through cooperation with countries outside the Regime.

But before we get there . . . a lot of supporting capabilities need to happen. The journey to get to the point of building rockets could very well allow us to achieve enabling capabilities. Potential side benefits for a project like this:

- This will draw attention to the state of Philippine metallurgy and the efforts of the Metals Industry Research and Development Center (MIRDC) of the DOST.

- Promotes the development of rocket motors, both solid and liquid, that could then be put to good use developing our own MLRS or substitutes for 2.75inch hydra rockets, and similar weapons

- Rejuvination of applied physics programs in institutions of higher learning as it creates in-country applications for their graduates

- Serves as a catalyst for a standards-centric engineering culture that possess both the skills and disciplines required to pursue fault-intolerant projects like this

- Support the Philippine Space Agency.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2019, 10:43:55 PM by adroth »

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2019, 03:05:41 PM »
The longest-range weapon system in the AFP inventory will be the missiles on the Jose Rizal class ships.

Administrator's note: See also Frigate Acquisition Project thread index for this, and other, sub-systems

=====


PN requirements as per SBB# PN-FAP-16-01



adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2019, 02:22:21 PM »
Low-hanging fruit for retaliation

Distance from Pagasa Island



sirius

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2019, 04:27:04 PM »
Low-hanging fruit for retaliation

Distance from Pagasa Island



That is practically artillery range... doesn't seem like anything in the inventory can quite reach, though the Soltam M-71 155mm towed howitzer almost reaches it

Manokski

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2019, 09:33:16 PM »
Extended range ammunition can extend that to 30km.

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 8848
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Developing a long-range retaliatory strike capability
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2019, 11:24:36 PM »
Reportedly, there was a reason for this demonstration at Balikatan a few years ago. With a range of 45km, all of Subi would be within reach.

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System