Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 251

Thread: China is Testing DF-21 Anti-ship Ballistic Missile to Target US Aircraft Carriers:USA

  1. #226
    Defense Moderator
    Defense Professional
    Lei Feng Protege
    xinhui's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 06
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Xinhui,
    I think you may have misread my comment. It was meant to mean the "Budget" Bogeyman. Raise the alarm and ask for more funding.
    Thanks Dreadnought

    Just my opinion, the chance of a shooting war between the USN and PLAN is nonexistent. each side is trying strengthen it position and that is the nature of the military. There will be periods of ups-and-downs, but the idea of a single weapon or a new found capability will lead to someone wanting to take a direct fire-fight with the USN is crazy.

    It was meant to mean the "Budget" Bogeyman.
    Looking at Sec Gate's recent cuts and the OpEd from People's daily, Cooler heads are still in charge.


    Interesting timing, isn't it?



    The Defense Secretary Closes a Command

    The Defense Secretary Closes a Command - Politics - The Atlantic


    Aug 9 2010, 2:15 PM ET | Comment
    Yes, we're in a recession and all, and yes, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has a mandate to cut at least 10 percent from the non-contingency defense budget over ten years. But the news that Gates has asked Gen. Ray Odierno to stand down on one of the Pentagon's major organizational groupings is a sign that Gates wants deeper changes. In the military, you're not supposed to shut down an entire command.

    Officially the Joint Forces Command, JFCOM has nine directorates and 6,000 dedicated employees, and claims under its umbrella more than 1 million soldiers and civilians. Its HQ budget exceeds $240 million. Based in and around Norfolk, Virginia, it is known, primarily, for two major war-fighting-related tasks: it administers the Joint Personnel Recovery Office, or JPRA, which, in turn, administers the Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) program, which was reversed engineered during the Bush administration to help interrogators treat detainees more harshly. It also oversees the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command, which runs ad hoc task forces like Joint Task Force 425, which administers detainee operations at Parwan in Afghanistan, and the very important Joint IED Defeat Organization, which saves lives of soldiers and helps make sure that warfighters get IED countermeasures very quickly.

    The Special Operations Command is a likely candidate to draw in JPRA, mainly because its soldiers use their SERE training more than those in other commands. The capacity to run task forces might be absorbed by the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs.

    But to save money, JFCOM's functions need to be cut. And that means, probably, that the Pentagon will streamline a large number of professional development mini-colleges that officers attend in the latter stages of their careers. JFCOM is known for PowerPoints and studies; there will be fewer of those. It has served as sort of an in-house think tank for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No longer.

    "Jointness" is a PowerPoint phrase, but it is ubiquitous in the Defense Department of today. It's hard for colonels and captains to advance without having served in some "Joint" role. Recently, the commander's post has been a stepping stone to some of the top jobs in the whole of the military. The departing commander, Gen. James Mattis, is now the head of the U.S. Central Command. In May, Gen. Odierno, then the commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, was chosen to head JFCOM. Closing a command is not a small assignment, and Odierno's star will continue to rise if he's successful.

    Congress will fight the Pentagon over the loss of thousands of jobs, particularly Virginia military jobs. Already, state and local elected officials are banding together to press the Pentagon to reconsider.
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  2. #227
    Patron
    Join Date
    23 Oct 08
    Location
    backwoods of arkansas
    Posts
    238
    yeah i need to stop and set back and think about what i am reading sometimes.use some commen sense,what you all say makes sense.i dont know if i am allowed to tell this or not, i dont know how to post a link,but i read it on waff.

  3. #228
    Dirty Kiwi
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    17,205
    Three threads merged
    Socialism is simply the Collective denial of responsibility.

  4. #229
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,082
    Quote Originally Posted by biteasaur View Post
    yeah i need to stop and set back and think about what i am reading sometimes.use some commen sense,what you all say makes sense.i dont know if i am allowed to tell this or not, i dont know how to post a link,but i read it on waff.
    Posting a link? That's pretty easy. Just copy the address in your browser address bar, and then paste it to where you normal reply to posts.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #230
    Contributor
    Join Date
    31 Aug 09
    Posts
    430
    Made-in-PRC Marvel Comics.
    Full version is here.
    ??????--?-?-??

    Name:  1.jpg
Views: 3089
Size:  48.8 KB
    Name:  3.jpg
Views: 13240
Size:  44.4 KB

  6. #231
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    24,002
    Horse puckey.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 14 Aug 10, at 16:34.
    Chimo

  7. #232
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Horse puckey.
    Can make a good Transformers movie though sir .

  8. #233
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 07
    Location
    Alexandria and Everett and various other locations.
    Posts
    132
    Why send carriers to attack China when the USAF and USN can use HAARP to fry their electronic infrastucture at a distance and cyber/electronic warfare assets to take out China's C4ISR capabilities. After that the PLAAF Strategic Rocket Forces will be blind, deaf and dumb the USN Carrier Strike Groups, supported by the Air Force could steam in and finish off whats left of the Peoples Liberation Army Navy and Peoples Liberation Army Air Force. With their entire western electric grid gone, the Chinese would be back in the dark age overnight and would take decades to recover. All the US would have to do is replace any satellites lost to the HAARP energy spike and replace any ships and aircraft lost in final assault in the Strait of Taiwan. If the Communist Chinese leadership is dumb enough to launch nuclear ICBMs at US targets, Pacific Based USN Trident SSBN's could wipe out China within ten minutes.
    Last edited by JMH; 15 Aug 10, at 16:11.

  9. #234
    New Member
    Join Date
    16 Aug 10
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    14
    DF-21 Delta: Some Early Thoughts
    Dr. Geoffrey Forden

    The so-called DF-21D is much in the news recently, mostly because it hasn’t shown up yet. It is reputed to be the anti-ship version of China’s short-range workhorse, the DF-21. (China uses some version or other of the DF-21 for short-range ballistic missiles, anti-satellite weapons, and ballistic missile defense.) I thought I’d start the analytical discussion of this virtual missile by making some simple calculations about what sort of transverse accelerations its terminal phase guidance and control systems are going to need.


    The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warhead’s trajectory as it reenters the Eearth’s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier—the only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario China’s military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something China’s military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriers—the only targets worth shooting at—can zig and zag at anytime.

    Thrusters vs. Fins

    The answer is, of course, both if you got ‘em. But each mechanism for changing the warhead’s trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensors—putting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a moment—then it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.

    At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusters—little rocket engines—to change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a “bus” that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 km—the minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three G’s (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for China’s ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.

    If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can “safely” extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.

    If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earth’s surface for really effective control. Let’s assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earth’s surface before the warhead’s fins “bite.” Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.

    At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 G’s. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.

    Is a DF-21 Anti-Ship Missile Possible?

    These rather simple calculations have shown that both types of guidance and control for an anti-ship ballistic missile are possible. But both would be pushing China’s technology considerably. For instance, China can most likely build mid-infrared detectors for military space applications. These might be used for their missile defense interceptor, even though they are barely applicable for anti-satellite weapons. Could they be used for an anti-ship application? Possibly. They could certainly see through most clouds so cloud cover is not an issue. But it would take more thought than I have given it to know that it could discriminate between a ship and the ocean. Radars, which with their limited range would require aerodynamic maneuvering, seem even more problematic because of the need to control large accelerations.

    So, while I cannot rule out the DF-21D on first principles, it would need a sustained test and evaluation program no matter what technology it used. I, for one, am unaware of China undertaking such an extensive test program

  10. #235
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,832
    If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something China’s military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriers—the only targets worth shooting at—can zig and zag at anytime.


    *The above is a rather BIG assumption itself, further proving that China doesnt understand the capabilities of what she is trying to target. 13NM at their max range for launch is the distance they estimet the CVN can run? A CVN can put 13 nm behind her very very quickly if either she chose to do so or needed to do so. China has no firm estimation of the carriers top speed and neither do anyone else for that matter. How likely it would hit would depend upon (a) them finding one first and foremost (b) how the USN deals with it once the missle is inbound.

    You could readily bet though that the reprisal is already on well its way from any SSN or SSBN or other platform as well and China's CV's in building will never leave port afloat. Its pretty safe to assume those vessels and subs have already made the hit list from any platform in the area.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 16 Aug 10, at 18:52.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  11. #236
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,423
    Assuming that China has any carriers then. You can't sink something that doesn't exist.

  12. #237
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    13,044
    Reports vary from the PLAN will eventually build some to the PLAN has already started building 2 that will be completed in 2015. You'll also notice that Dread said that "any CV's in building will never leave port afloat."
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  13. #238
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    Aren't you assuming these OTH radars are not fooled themselves? What if they couldn't tell the decoy from the real McCoy and fed false positives to the missile?
    I don't intend to spend any more time on this discussion, I'm too busy and I think I've learned all I want about the whole thing, but just to answer this question, the OTH radar is intended just to identify possible targets. Not enough resolution to pin down the location better than within a few miles, let alone make a positive ID. Tracking and identification would be (if the system exists or will exist at all, even in part, of course) by other means, generally thought to be the numerous recon sats China has launched in recent years.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  14. #239
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,082
    Here's a funny thread on how China could destroy US carrier battle groups using saturation attacks centered on ASBM technology. The guy seemed pretty convinced that it's easy to locate a carrier at sea and overwhelming her defenses.

    :roflmao:

    China's Blitzkrieg On American Carrier - Pakistani Defence Forum

    I know...I know...it's PDF...I needed some amusement...
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  15. #240
    Senior Contributor Dago's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 06
    Location
    San Diego, Califonia
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    1. To maneuver it needs to way slow way down. From 150 miles up they are at 792,000 feet. At 8300mph miles an hour* that is 233 miles a second. At those speeds the warhead has just over a second to find, aim and move to hit the target. Computers are fast, but not that fast. Is it a carrier, an island, a tanker or amphib?

    2. US 193 was traveling at 15,000mph almost twice the speed of a DF-21 and the SM-3 hit where it aimed.

    The slower the warhead, the easier the intercept solution for the proven SM-3.

    I am not sure the DF-21 would reach reentry speeds which are much faster, so I used the speed of the launch vehicle.

    Question 1


    How long would it take to reach point of impact of 200 miles away? Rough estimate with various altitude and the trajectory of the missile.

    Question 2

    For arguments sake, if the US developed the same time of package, adopting a ABM in the role of Anit-ship, what would it take for it too be succesful? Internal, external sensors? Is it possible?

    To further elaborate on your post though, I must say, this isn't an argument of missile on missile engagment. Where hundereds of miles can be passed by both missiles with any slight change of direction. We are talking about a Carrier. And, you said in a matter of a second, from that formula of trajectory, it can travel 233 miles. How far can a Carrier travel in that amount of time? In a matter of speaking, if everything went right, with the correct location to sustain the sensor, wouldn't it be essentially hitting the same thing as a stationary target? It's pretty awing, that in a matter of a second, from 792,000 feet (assuming it's going straight down..which most likely wouldn't cause it wouldn't be able to make that type of angle in that amount of time and trajectory hence where the formula isn't entirely accurate) it would strike within a second.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sino-US Relations, General Discussion.
    By Shuimo in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 215
    Last Post: 05 Dec 10,, 19:24
  2. Fighter Radar Ranges
    By canoe in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08 Oct 10,, 10:33
  3. Remembering 1962 China war heros.
    By lmar in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 29 Nov 08,, 11:34
  4. Most needed in US NAVY
    By Praxus in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 345
    Last Post: 18 May 08,, 01:36
  5. Carrier killers (an article from JED online)
    By lurker in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 28 Dec 06,, 04:39

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •