Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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?
    Doesn't the warhead have to track the carrier in order to have any shot at hitting it? Or, is the concept that the missile would get mid course guidance updates from some off board source, and then just hope that the non-maneuvering warhead gets close enough to shower the carrier with bomb fragments or maybe hypersonic darts?

    I guess a third possibility is that the warhead could deliver an aerodynamic vehicle that then goes in for the kill. Sounds more and more complicated.
    Last edited by citanon; 31 Mar 10,, 20:59.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by citanon View Post
      But wouldn't the anti-carrier warheads be maneuvering once their seekers start tracking the carrier? I suppose the deviation from a purely ballistic trajectory could be small but I wonder if the Aegis system can reliably intercept something like that.

      The latest block of SM-3s have a IR seeker head. Aegis gets them close, terminal guidance from the missile

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by citanon View Post
        Doesn't the warhead have to track the carrier in order to have any shot at hitting it?
        We've got proof that it's nowhere accurate enough. Check the two pics I linked it. Terminal guidance is NOT a carrier killer.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          We've got proof that it's nowhere accurate enough. Check the two pics I linked it. Terminal guidance is NOT a carrier killer.
          Col, initially looking at the pictures I thought that the CEP could have been from accumulation of inertial guidance errors, but the paragraph below the CEP pictures state:

          All of the impacts can be contained within a circle having a 100 meter radius. This indicates that the CEP of the weapon is approximately 50 meters. Given the fact that the target site is 580 kilometers from Shuangchengzi, it is possible that a DF-15C test series resulted in the HE impacts on the pad. The DF-15C is reported to have a 600 kilometer range and terminal homing. The inclusion of a dual GPS and active radar terminal homing system on the DF-15C allows for an accuracy reportedly between 30 and 50 meters CEP, matching what is visible at the impact site......
          If this information is reliable then I concur with you.

          However, am I right in thinking that the warheads are accurate enough to force the Carrier battle group to intercept them? If so, could a AShBM launch coordinated with other attacks significantly complicate the battle picture for the carrier group?

          Comment


          • #20
            Would work well with small yield tacnuke warheads. Although the Chinese have a no first use policy so that wont happen.

            I see the threat as being credible. The Chinese see it as something worth developing, the US sees it as a threat worth investing time and funds into defending against, who are we to write it off?

            Maybe with todays tech they may not be able to hit a moving carrier consistantly but it doesnt mean that in five years the tech wont be at an advanced enough level to be able to do so.

            One for the experts here. If the Chinese manage to improve the guidance technology to the point that hitting a carrier more often than not is accomplishable then what are the chances of the PLA refitting the warhead and guidance package onto something like a DF-31A (or later variant) and developing a near global anti carrier capability?

            Would the guidance technology to hit a carrier with an IRBM be similar/the same to guidance technology used to hit the carrier with an ICBM?

            Im assuming here that finding the carriers and general targeting is done by recon satellites for targets at extreme ranges.
            The best part of repentance is the sin

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by chakos View Post
              Would work well with small yield tacnuke warheads. Although the Chinese have a no first use policy so that wont happen.

              I see the threat as being credible. The Chinese see it as something worth developing, the US sees it as a threat worth investing time and funds into defending against, who are we to write it off?

              Maybe with todays tech they may not be able to hit a moving carrier consistantly but it doesnt mean that in five years the tech wont be at an advanced enough level to be able to do so.

              One for the experts here. If the Chinese manage to improve the guidance technology to the point that hitting a carrier more often than not is accomplishable then what are the chances of the PLA refitting the warhead and guidance package onto something like a DF-31A (or later variant) and developing a near global anti carrier capability?

              Would the guidance technology to hit a carrier with an IRBM be similar/the same to guidance technology used to hit the carrier with an ICBM?

              Im assuming here that finding the carriers and general targeting is done by recon satellites for targets at extreme ranges.
              *To complicate matters here, as I read nobody has even taken into mind the carriers umbrella of protection by her escorts nevermind her own defensive measures which have carried them through every conflict without any strike since the Vietnam war (which was by our own accidents). They dont rely on old hardware to protect the carriers themselves, they carry quite an array of protective measures. To assume a carrier on her own is helpless is to far too much. They are not helpless by any means and anyone who is foolish enough to attack one will no doubt find out first hand that they know full well how to protect themselves and survive. Finding one alone on the open sea is a feat all in itself first and foremost.
              Last edited by Dreadnought; 01 Apr 10,, 05:21.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by citanon View Post
                However, am I right in thinking that the warheads are accurate enough to force the Carrier battle group to intercept them? If so, could a AShBM launch coordinated with other attacks significantly complicate the battle picture for the carrier group?
                Possibly but the only AshM threat will be from what ever subs survive. The USN in the most realistic setting will have Taiwan between it and the mainland so there won't be any cruise missiles from China. The Klub-S is a good missile, but coordination of a combined strike with the US having shot down Chicom recon stats and planes with weapons with such vastly different speeds and each sub at a different location.....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Dreadnaught,

                  Im leaving the argument of missile vs defences on purpose. We simply dont know. The anti-ship ballistic missile is a new kind of threat and defences may or may not work.

                  Even if the US could shoot down 80% of all incoming ballistic tracks (a feat thats by no means small). And even if the missiles had a 50% chance of hitting the target then your looking at a 1/10 chance of a carrier burning.

                  How many warheads can be fitted on an ICBM?

                  IF the Chinese could develop a decent guidance system.
                  IF the kill chain was short enough and data could be collated, decisioned and actioned in time, and;
                  IF the you could either use multiple warheads or multiple missiles (or both) per target

                  It would make for a devastating weapon even if the CBG had working defences. Unless you could defend against 100% and there is no 100% in war.

                  It would have the effect of putting a loaded gun to the back of the head of any CBG within up to 10000km of the Chinese mainland. Thats a very large chunk of the globe.

                  And its not like you would go nuclear if they did hit you with the missiles because you would be retaliating with WMD against a conventional military attack. If in a confrontation with the Chinese over Taiwan, the loss of three or four carriers would be an instant win for the Chinese regardless if their navy gets chewed and their air force goes down in flames. How could you conventionally go after all the silos in China if the main platforms for launching the attacks couldnt get anywhere near the targets or worse, heavily listing or sinking?
                  The best part of repentance is the sin

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    We Will Repel You
                    March 30, 2010: After years of rumors and speculation in the media, the U.S. Department of Defense has officially announced that it is aware of Chinese efforts to build a ballistic missile system that can hit warships, particularly carriers, at sea. The Pentagon says it is prepared for such a weapon, with anti-missile systems deployed in the Pacific (on land and at sea) to deal with such a weapon. The U.S. is apparently expecting China to test this new weapon soon, and is deploying spy ships, aircraft and satellites, to capture as much data as possible.
                    The general idea is that the Chinese DF-21 ballistic missile has been equipped with a high-explosive warhead and a guidance system that can find and hit a aircraft carrier at sea. The DF-21 has a range of 1,800 kilometers and normally hauls a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead. It's a two stage, 15 ton, solid fuel rocket that could instead carry a half ton penetrating, high-explosive warhead, along with the special guidance system (a radar and image recognition system).

                    It is believed that the Chinese have reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s seeker technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometer range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. This kind of accuracy made the Russians very uncomfortable, as it made their command bunkers vulnerable. The Russians eventually agreed to a lot of nuclear and missile disarmament deals in order to get the Pershings decommissioned in the 1980s.

                    The Chinese have long been rumored to have a system like this, but there have been no tests. If the Chinese do succeed in creating a "carrier killer" version of the DF-21, the U.S. Navy can modify its Aegis anti-missile system to protect carriers against such attacks. This sort of work is apparently already underway. There are also electronic warfare options, to blind the DF-21 radar. Another problem the Chinese will have is getting a general idea of where the target carrier is before they launch the DF-21. This is not impossible, but can be difficult. The Chinese have apparently been working on this as well.

                    For the last three years, at least, China has been developing an over-the-horizon (OTH) radar that can spot large ships (like American aircraft carriers) as far as 3,000 kilometers away, and use this information to guide ballistic missiles to the area,. Such radars have long been used to detect ballistic missile launches, and approaching heavy bombers. Some OTH radars have been modified to take advantage of the flat surface of an ocean, to pick up large objects, like ships. Cheaper and more powerful computers enable such OTH radars to more accurately identify ships thousands of kilometers away. OTH radars are large and fragile beasts, easily disabled or destroyed by missiles or smart bombs.


                    Air Defense: We Will Repel You

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      And its not like you would go nuclear if they did hit you with the missiles because you would be retaliating with WMD against a conventional military attack. If in a confrontation with the Chinese over Taiwan, the loss of three or four carriers would be an instant win for the Chinese regardless if their navy gets chewed and their air force goes down in flames. How could you conventionally go after all the silos in China if the main platforms for launching the attacks couldnt get anywhere near the targets or worse, heavily listing or sinking?

                      If 3-4 US CVN's were sunk in this day and age, just how long do you think their capital and nuclear sites and infastructure would stand? Your talking about the loss of 3-4 capital ships, their air wings and approximately 5-6000 sailors per carrier. Personally I would give China a 1/10 chance of survival after that. And China's 2 CV's and sub bases certainly would not survive this encounter. The US has far to many assests that could deny China any import of fuel oil for ships,subs,planes and basic transportation among several other things into their ports. At that point its only a matter of time before the stangulation takes effect, ask the Japanese how long it took during WWII for it to make its effects evident to their war machine.

                      *The subs, where as China doesnt have eyes on all US sub bases, the US pretty much has theirs covered the same way they did to Russia during the Cold War via sat surveilence,eyes and at sea. Its a game of cat and mouse the US has played for decades where as China hasnt played for that many.

                      It would be far wiser for China not to attack Taiwan. The US is bound by law and obligation to protect Taiwan and unless this President changes this policy (In place since Nixon) then you can bet it will due just that no matter the cost.
                      Last edited by Dreadnought; 01 Apr 10,, 13:29.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by chakos View Post
                        One for the experts here. If the Chinese manage to improve the guidance technology to the point that hitting a carrier more often than not is accomplishable then what are the chances of the PLA refitting the warhead and guidance package onto something like a DF-31A (or later variant) and developing a near global anti carrier capability?
                        Nope, won't work for the very reason that the Chinese don't have eyes across the globe. Even with the Taiwan theatre, they're concentrating their eyes on very specific stations, ie they can do nothing if the Americans decided to attack Shanghai instead of defending Taiwan. The Chinese don't have eyes there.

                        And the DF-31x could only fit one warhead.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post

                          It would be far wiser for China not to attack Taiwan. The US is bound by law and obligation to protect Taiwan and unless this President changes this policy (In place since Nixon) then you can bet it will due just that no matter the cost.
                          Umm, there's nothing in the TRA explicitly requiring America to come running to the ROC's aid.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                            If 3-4 US CVN's were sunk in this day and age, just how long do you think their capital and nuclear sites and infastructure would stand? Your talking about the loss of 3-4 capital ships, their air wings and approximately 5-6000 sailors per carrier. Personally I would give China a 1/10 chance of survival after that.
                            Nuclear war between China and U.S, that's interesting to see, 1.3 billion vs .3 billion people

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by stealthh View Post
                              Nuclear war between China and U.S, that's interesting to see, 1.3 billion vs .3 billion people
                              Less than 200 Chinese nuclear warheads against a the US with over 10,000.

                              Let's also count fissible materials, China has enough for 600 more warheads, the US enough for over 50,000.

                              Get smart or get lost.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by stealthh View Post
                                Nuclear war between China and U.S, that's interesting to see, 1.3 billion vs .3 billion people
                                Actually, checking over your posting history, go away, fanboy. You're not bringing anything here and you're an idiot trying to pretend to know things you know nothing about.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X