Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76

Thread: Hague Announces Decision on South China Sea

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Carrier killers - any cruise missile can hit a carrier, isn't it? 6-7 hits can cripple an A/C. So, why this new fascination? And with regard to Chinese ABM capability, is the Brahmos carrier killer justified, or is it just a propaganda sort of thing to keep the enemy anxious.
    One more thing, the anti-ship version is already inducted and operational, so what is the need for a carrier killer?
    Anti-Ship missiles can cripple a carrier with enough hits or just lucky ones. The thing with cruise missiles is that US carrier groups have been training to defeat them for decades. A wave of Brahmos missiles would have to get past multiple layers of defenses. First would be any aircraft in position to intercept them, second would be long range SM-6 missiles, then shorter ranged ESSM missiles, then comes the decoys, countermeasures, and jamming, while CIWS guns go into action against anything that isn't spoofed while the cruise missiles perform terminal maneuvers and try to evade. Anything that survived that onslaught of defenses then has to find a vulnerable spot on a large armored ship with lots of personnel available for damage control.

    The unique thing about the DF-21D is that it uses a ballistic flight profile. This means the incoming warhead approaches from above at about 3x the speed of the Brahmos and carries enough energy to cause a mission kill on a carrier with a single hit while skirting most cruise missile defenses. It appears the DF-21D's RV is essentially a copy of the one used on the now retired Pershing II missile. The Pershing II RV used a reaction control system in space, and control vanes in the atmosphere to pull a 25G pitching maneuver to slow reentry speeds enough to enable the use of radar for terminal guidance. This is all assuming the DF-21D can actually discriminate and hit a moving target, which has yet to be demonstrated.

    Chinese ABM capability is somewhat of a mystery, but considering how hard ABM is in general, I doubt Brahmos would have as much trouble against the Liaoning and it's successors as they would against a US carrier group that's had a lot more practice dealing with things like the 3M-54 Klub.

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    That's all if they can locate and lock the ship in the first place.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  3. #33
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    There is no DF-21D. To date, this is all rumour. In fact, there's not even been a picture of a DF-21D, let alone a live test.
    Chimo

  4. #34
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    That's all if they can locate and lock the ship in the first place.
    The entire concept is stupid.

    The DF-21D relies on a mid-course correction, meaning that something has to find the aircraft carrier in the first place in order to direct the missile onto it. Well, if you can find the aircraft carrier, why don't you launch from that point instead of waiting for the missile to arrive so you can correct its course?
    Chimo

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The entire concept is stupid.

    The DF-21D relies on a mid-course correction, meaning that something has to find the aircraft carrier in the first place in order to direct the missile onto it. Well, if you can find the aircraft carrier, why don't you launch from that point instead of waiting for the missile to arrive so you can correct its course?
    They may be relying on satellites to find the carrier. Although I admit, that would be much harder than it sounds. But they can't rely on anything else right? Any aerial, surface or submarine platform that finds the carrier would be found itself by the carrier's air-wing or its escorts, probably a lot before it finds the carrier in the first place.

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    We've been through this.

    Your sub spots the carrier, sends coordinates several minutes later missiles fly, by then, the CV is mile(s) away in any direction.

    Oh, and you lost your sub and your launch site gets or redecorated.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  7. #37
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,083
    Nothing like getting a reaction when you mention B-1. Can't wait for the bird's nest soup to hit the fan...

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politi...uam/index.html

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The entire concept is stupid.

    The DF-21D relies on a mid-course correction, meaning that something has to find the aircraft carrier in the first place in order to direct the missile onto it. Well, if you can find the aircraft carrier, why don't you launch from that point instead of waiting for the missile to arrive so you can correct its course?
    To play devil's advocate, I think there is an argument to be made for going this route.

    A small stealthed drone has a much better chance of keeping tabs on a carrier group without being discovered than something large enough to launch AShMs. A shore based ballistic missile provides a heavy throw weight, hypersonic terminal speeds, a limited window for interception due to approach angle, and can't be sunk by SSNs.

    Provided the Chinese can get the technical wizardry to work, I can see some definite advantages to exploring such a system. It's no wonder weapon since the kill chain is easily disrupted if whatever is providing targeting information is eliminated, but as a compliment to traditional AShMs I can see how sneaking a drone into the fray to target a carrier and relay info to incoming ballistic missiles could be made to work.

    This really isn't too far off from what the US is already doing with F-35s and cooperative engagement with AMRAAM and SM-6. The fact that the DF-21D is vaporware for the moment, doesn't mean it will remain so, or that it isn't technically plausible.

  9. #39
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    To play devil's advocate, I think there is an argument to be made for going this route.
    700+ cruise missiles are at Diego Garcia meaning the first sign of war, all Chinese eyes and ears (C4ISR) would be targeted and anything else that can throw a signal that big would be targeted next.
    Chimo

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    700+ cruise missiles are at Diego Garcia meaning the first sign of war, all Chinese eyes and ears (C4ISR) would be targeted and anything else that can throw a signal that big would be targeted next.
    700+ Tomahawks on Diego Garcia are great for reloading Destroyers and SSGNs, but they won't even reach Malaysia if fired from the atoll.

    A stealthy drone shadowing a carrier group and passing targeting information to an incoming ballistic RV would be radiating a directional signal towards space, not broadcasting an omnidirectional "shoot me" beacon. The drone itself would presumably be controlled via satellite by a team of guys in China's interior, much the way we do it in Nevada. I think it's fairly safe to assume the Chinese have taken a peek at the RQ-170 in Iran at this point.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Anti-Ship missiles can cripple a carrier with enough hits or just lucky ones. The thing with cruise missiles is that US carrier groups have been training to defeat them for decades. A wave of Brahmos missiles would have to get past multiple layers of defenses. First would be any aircraft in position to intercept them, second would be long range SM-6 missiles, then shorter ranged ESSM missiles, then comes the decoys, countermeasures, and jamming, while CIWS guns go into action against anything that isn't spoofed while the cruise missiles perform terminal maneuvers and try to evade. Anything that survived that onslaught of defenses then has to find a vulnerable spot on a large armored ship with lots of personnel available for damage control.

    The unique thing about the DF-21D is that it uses a ballistic flight profile. This means the incoming warhead approaches from above at about 3x the speed of the Brahmos and carries enough energy to cause a mission kill on a carrier with a single hit while skirting most cruise missile defenses. It appears the DF-21D's RV is essentially a copy of the one used on the now retired Pershing II missile. The Pershing II RV used a reaction control system in space, and control vanes in the atmosphere to pull a 25G pitching maneuver to slow reentry speeds enough to enable the use of radar for terminal guidance. This is all assuming the DF-21D can actually discriminate and hit a moving target, which has yet to be demonstrated.

    Chinese ABM capability is somewhat of a mystery, but considering how hard ABM is in general, I doubt Brahmos would have as much trouble against the Liaoning and it's successors as they would against a US carrier group that's had a lot more practice dealing with things like the 3M-54 Klub.
    Right now, I doubt Chinese capabilities w.r.t almost every country. They over-hype their accomplishments. But over time, they will get better. If we go back a couple of decades, Japanese electronics too was cheap and many Indians considered them to be inferior as compared to US/German products. There are 100s and 1000s of Chinese studying in some of the best universities of US, and many are funded by the CCP. These kids are brilliant and the future of China. So, things will change. IIRC, I did read somewhere that sensitive technologies and labs are not shared with Chinese students. The thing that worries me is China of the future, say another 20 years. I'm fine with the US being the global policeman, I just cannot imagine the Chinese in that position. It would be scary.
    Last edited by Oracle; 04 Aug 16, at 04:08.

  12. #42
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    700+ Tomahawks on Diego Garcia are great for reloading Destroyers and SSGNs, but they won't even reach Malaysia if fired from the atoll.
    The Chinese ain't stupid. There's only one set of targets worth stationing 700 TOMAHAWKS for.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    A stealthy drone shadowing a carrier group and passing targeting information to an incoming ballistic RV would be radiating a directional signal towards space, not broadcasting an omnidirectional "shoot me" beacon. The drone itself would presumably be controlled via satellite by a team of guys in China's interior, much the way we do it in Nevada. I think it's fairly safe to assume the Chinese have taken a peek at the RQ-170 in Iran at this point.
    Any drone that can carry that much transmit power to an extremely small dish on mainland China automatically is a target.

    Once you start thinking things through, it really becomes apparent how stupid the DF-21D actually is. And maybe that's why there's no such thing as a DF-21D.
    Chimo

  13. #43
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Right now, I doubt Chinese capabilities w.r.t almost every country. They over-hype their accomplishments. But over time, they will get better. If we go back a couple of decades, Japanese electronics too was cheap and many Indians considered them to be inferior as compared to US/German products. There are 100s and 1000s of Chinese studying in some of the best universities of US, and many are funded by the CCP. These kids are brilliant and the future of China. So, things will change. IIRC, I did read somewhere that sensitive technologies and labs are not shared with Chinese students. The thing that worries me is China of the future, say another 20 years. I'm fine with the US being the global policeman, I just cannot imagine the Chinese in that position. It would be scary.
    agree in broad terms with this. there's a lot of hype coming out of the chinese bloggers and fan boi sites - but when you look at their systems of systems capability, look at their purple ability, look at each advanced tech and consider how it fits into the broader force construct, then for me at least I think its basically colour and movement over actual capability

    that doesn't meant that they don't deserve respect - as fighting within their home layers of the onion is just idiotic, never fight to a countries strengths - but I look at their sub technology and capability, aircraft developments, ship developments, original tech as opposed to stolen/copied or redundant improved tech - and they're a formidable regional power.

    the navy (skimmers and subs) is nowhere as capable as the japanese, they have a continental army, and they have an airforce that cannot project (which is why the rush to build land based aircraft carriers in the SCS and ECS)

    for me there is a whole lot that doesn't make sense with the DF21 "uber weapon" hysteria. I go back to the late 80's early 90's when US Mil Services over egged what they needed to get through congress, even though they new that the russians/soviets/warpac was a spent force.

    China can carry on as much as she likes about her power, and she can bluff and bully the PACRIM and SCS nations/states, but she's a golden mile away from being able to win a real war. take away her nukes and she's toothless against a major power. she's nowhere near the capability of the soviets and the US was in a constant war tempo accordingly.

    what she does have in spades is "political will and intent" - which is the kind of thing critical to carrying the day

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Any drone that can carry that much transmit power to an extremely small dish on mainland China automatically is a target.
    That's the thing though, the drone doesn't need to try to fight through jamming and interference to talk to a dish 1000 miles away on the mainland, it only has to bounce a signal off the satellite 100 miles above it in LEO. A handheld satphone can do that easily enough.

  15. #45
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    That's the thing though, the drone doesn't need to try to fight through jamming and interference to talk to a dish 1000 miles away on the mainland, it only has to bounce a signal off the satellite 100 miles above it in LEO. A handheld satphone can do that easily enough.
    You still need transmit power. Bouncing a signal up doesn't reduce the distance needed to reach the dish, in fact, it increases it.

    And this does not even read in contention the radar power needed to find the carrier ... which again, makes it a target.
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. China claims they've found 30 Illegal oil platforms in South China Sea
    By cr9527 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 26 Mar 12,, 05:32
  2. China announces new rare earth export quotas
    By Squirrel in forum International Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19 Jul 11,, 17:29
  3. Tensions Rise in South China Sea as Vietnam announces live fire drills.
    By Wayfarer in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Jul 11,, 20:05
  4. China announces $ 586 Billion stimulus package
    By ghatotkacha in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13 Nov 08,, 13:15
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Apr 08,, 11:26

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
  •