General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mister Fork on March 23, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
Title: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Mister Fork on March 23, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
Heard about the new DF-21D today and being bit of a sceptic of it being used as a 'anti-carrier' missile from some of the sites of where I got this information from, is this weapon even capable of hitting a carrier fleet? I'm thinking SKUD-D quality and build tech. Am I wrong on this? :huh
I'm thinking it's more snake oil as I don't think anything the Chinese has can be as fast and accurate from launch. Heard a report it goes Mach8 on re-entry requiring input from satellite to improve it's target accuracy. So far, China has 4 in orbit to assist...apparently...
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 23, 2017, 05:08:21 PM
Its not as advanced as the DF-26...
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Meatwad on March 23, 2017, 05:34:14 PM
Im skeptical of any missile that is named DONG
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: DaveBB on March 23, 2017, 06:09:30 PM
Is China preparing for a war with the U.S.?
Also, a carrier is a huge target. They have to get pretty close to shore with the short-ranged aircraft they use. A missile coming in at mach 8 would be hard to intercept, due to time and tracking. Of course you know where the incoming missile is headed, but can you fire in front of it in time? Phalanx is definitely out of the question. Sea Sparrow is only mach 3 IIRC.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: FBKampfer on March 23, 2017, 10:30:31 PM
China isn't the second rate country it used to be. I'm sure they're perfectly capable of engineering and producing a ballistic missile capable of hitting a fishing trawler if they wanted to throw the money at it.
And in any major conventional conflict, stopping US carriers is going to be priority number one. They stop the carriers, they've effectively pulled our teeth.
And more to point, I think it's indicative of the primary problem. What if they can sink our carriers? The United States has operated on assumed impunity for approaching the past three decades.
China should be assumed to be a peer adversary anywhere within land based air coverage. If we don't make that assumption, we're going to get some kind of black eye if push comes to shove.
And India is going to start flexing their muscles sooner rather than later...
The point being, if we can't afford to lose a carrier (and lets be honest, it would be a significant financial loss, and a crippling propaganda defeat), why are we still structuring our navy, and operational strategy around a carrier that is assumed to be invulnerable?
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 24, 2017, 02:10:27 AM
This is a way for China to project its power in the region. They don't have the fleet to challenge the U.S but with Ballistic missiles that can threat both carriers and also bases like Guam they can still force the U.S to keep its air and naval forces too far out to be 100% effective. Instead of building a large navy that can meet the U.S Navy in combat they put their money on missiles. Probably cheaper and you don't have to risk the lives of thousands of sailors (and their ships), disadvantage is that the missiles are stationary canthus ineffective if you want to project power in another part of the world.
China also have the WU-14/DF-ZF, a hypersonic glide vehicle that have been tested successfully, while not yet operational it prob will within a decade or so and will greatly increase the effectiveness of the anti-ship ballistic missiles.
The point being, if we can't afford to lose a carrier (and lets be honest, it would be a significant financial loss, and a crippling propaganda defeat), why are we still structuring our navy, and operational strategy around a carrier that is assumed to be invulnerable?
Because it seems like in the mind of many top military leaders in the U.S the U.S Military will never again meet an enemy that is on the same or even better technological level. Carriers are also so deeply rooted as a symbol of a superpower that it would be very hard to to say that they are obsolete (we are not at that point yet though)
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: FLOOB on March 24, 2017, 04:50:08 AM
The mainstream media seems to want us to believe that china and russia are on the brink of invading the USA.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 24, 2017, 09:46:56 AM
SM-3 and SM-6 are the most advanced ABM missiles we have along with the Aegis system. There is a huge difference between hitting a ground target and hitting a carrier moving at 30+ knots. The only success the Chinese have had with these things is ONE test where they hit a carrier diagram etched into some sand at a test range, or so they say.
Ive had a lot of people ask me why America doesnt have this super sonic crap yet, most of all super sonic ASMs. These are the reasons. 1, They are very large and platforms can only carry a small number. 2, They move so fast they cant make course corrections and other computations in a timely manner which makes them inherently more inaccurate. 3, For the same reasons they are more susceptible to ECM and defensive weaponry. Again they move so fast they cant adjust and can be defeated by ECM and decoys and such.
And a carrier group is loaded with such stuff. I think the Chinese are more interested in sea denial then they are in actually sinking a carrier. Ive never understood why so many people put so much faith in a weapon and theory that has never even been realistically tested.
Also, a carrier is a huge target. They have to get pretty close to shore with the short-ranged aircraft they use. A missile coming in at mach 8 would be hard to intercept, due to time and tracking. Of course you know where the incoming missile is headed, but can you fire in front of it in time? Phalanx is definitely out of the question. Sea Sparrow is only mach 3 IIRC.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 24, 2017, 12:10:17 PM
U.S doesnt have such weapons because they don't need them, there is no fleet that will sail up to the U.S coast, and if someone does they can be dealt with in more conventional ways.
The true capabilities of the missiles is of course unknown but I guess that in case of a strike on a cv group there will be a volley of missiles to saturate the area and hopefully score a hit. And with a HGV like the DF-ZF the accuracy will be greatly increased. But we will probably never know their true capabilities until they are used for real. However their presence will force the U.S Navy to adapt to the threat so they are in a way already successful.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: FBKampfer on March 24, 2017, 12:31:57 PM
SM-3 and SM-6 are the most advanced ABM missiles we have along with the Aegis system. There is a huge difference between hitting a ground target and hitting a carrier moving at 30+ knots. The only success the Chinese have had with these things is ONE test where they hit a carrier diagram etched into some sand at a test range, or so they say.
Ive had a lot of people ask me why America doesnt have this super sonic crap yet, most of all super sonic ASMs. These are the reasons. 1, They are very large and platforms can only carry a small number. 2, They move so fast they cant make course corrections and other computations in a timely manner which makes them inherently more inaccurate. 3, For the same reasons they are more susceptible to ECM and defensive weaponry. Again they move so fast they cant adjust and can be defeated by ECM and decoys and such.
And a carrier group is loaded with such stuff. I think the Chinese are more interested in sea denial then they are in actually sinking a carrier. Ive never understood why so many people put so much faith in a weapon and theory that has never even been realistically tested.
I don't believe that they have "faith" in a weapon they've never seen used, but are simply being pragmatic.
The weapon has the POTENTIAL to sink the whole carrier fleet if it happens to be in range, regardless of whether real capability of doing so is latent or extant. Which, as you noted, gives it utility as a sea denial platform.
However, you also noted that that the missile's capabilities will likely remain uncertain until it's used. And throughout the course of our modern military, we've proven to be capable of shockingly wrong predictions. Estimations over Soviet nuclear progress, the number of bombers they had, the scare over the Mig 25, the Soviets and their "inferior missiles" that we didn't match until 14 years later...
Estimates of an enemy's capabilities are exactly that. Estimates. Can we be crazy ungodly accurate? You bet your sweet arse we can. But we can also be worlds away from reality because we don't have complete information and make assumptions.
Billions of dollars and potentially thousands of lives aren't something you risk on a "we think" without anything to back it up.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 24, 2017, 02:42:01 PM
Actually I think we know exactly what the chances are of a carrier being hit by them. I'm far more concerned about submarines.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 24, 2017, 03:18:17 PM
I think your assumption is wrong, and it doesn't really matter either, the chance is not Zero and that means that the threat has to be considered.
But the thing is that even with a rather simple guidance system a volley of ballistic missiles can be a real threat to a carrier. If we assume that you can detect and track the cv at 1000km and have a guidance system that can adjust the course of the warhead up until the last 30 seconds of the flight and after that the warhead just falls in an area in front of the cv. In 30 seconds a cv doing 35 knots moves just over 500 meters. So the target area for the warheads to aim at will be less than that. Now imagine a volley of 10 warheads falling into that area and things can get really ugly really fast since its enough that one of them hits the Carrier..
Even a hit rate of 1% is way to big when the target is a carrier..
It's a hypothetical scenario but it's plausible..
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: DaveBB on March 24, 2017, 03:59:17 PM
If the missile is doing Mach 8, then a 30 knot carrier for all practical purposes is stationary. A simple on-board guidance computer can predict where the carrier will be with no problem.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Vulcan on March 24, 2017, 04:29:42 PM
Will it even require a direct hit?
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 24, 2017, 04:38:03 PM
With a conventional warhead it will need to be pretty close at least, with a nuke, not so...
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: icepac on March 24, 2017, 07:37:52 PM
If the missile is doing Mach 8, then a 30 knot carrier for all practical purposes is stationary. A simple on-board guidance computer can predict where the carrier will be with no problem.
Well since IRBMs can be made by about anyone then you have to wonder why this one is being made by no one except the Chinese. I guess you think the carriers speed is its only defense? The SM-6 missile was just successfully tested against just such a missile, a threat missile that was able to change course in flight, only this time the SM had an HE warhead which means we dont have to hit a bullet with a bullet anymore.
And that incoming IRBM, and associative radars and guidance assist assets, will be hit with waves of ECM and interference of all kinds. And at Mach 8 to go 100 miles it takes a missile almost a minute. Even without fighting back how easy is that? And you have to wonder why with a system supposedly operational the Chinese never sent an old useless tanker of some type off shore and tested this thing?
No doubt they are scared of a big fat "fail". Besides we will shortly have air refueling stealth drones droning all over the place extended the range of our carrier based strike aircraft by a factor of 2 or 3. Add to that an ever expanding arsenal of long range standoff badabooms, ending eventually in a hypersonic one that really works, and you see where all this is going.
The bottom line is the Chinese have never fought a modern techno-war. NEVER!
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 26, 2017, 12:16:39 PM
The Russians developed an ASBM in the 1970s. Since it was based on an existing SLBM it was cancelled due to the SALT agreements. During the Cold War these missiles were considered strategic weapons since they could carry nuclear warheads. Today nations like China, India and Iran are developing ASBMs because they now have the technology to do so and are not bound by any treaties not to.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: DaveBB on March 26, 2017, 01:09:35 PM
Don't worry, Rich has it figured out. These anti-carrier missiles don't stand a chance!
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 26, 2017, 03:01:30 PM
Well at least I'm not stupid enough to believe Chinese propaganda about a weapons system that has never even been tested against an actual target in a realistic test. We seem to do exactly that with every weapons system we develop, let alone deploy. So why dont the Chinese do so?
Then again I'm not stupid.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rino on March 26, 2017, 03:12:30 PM
I realize that I'm no expert, but am I the only one who thinks that China hitting strategic US assets like carriers is a marvelous way to the flush the Chinese economy down the toilet?
Maybe the Chinese are trying to copy the German master plan in 1940-41 of attacking your biggest trading partners. Of course the Germans intended to invade France and the USSR. Somehow I don't see them storing artillery and MBTs in the carry on luggage to get over here.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 26, 2017, 03:16:23 PM
... Add to that an ever expanding arsenal of long range standoff badabooms, ending eventually in a hypersonic one that really works, and you see where all this is going.
The bottom line is the Chinese have never fought a modern techno-war. NEVER!
A hypersonic weapon like the DZ-KF? The Chinese also have them..
To be honest, neither have the U.S, Iraq and A-stan was not a modern techno-war, that would mean that the opponents also have the modern techno stuff.
China is catching up fast in technology and will very soon be a formidable enemy in case of a war, do not underestimate them.
I realize that I'm no expert, but am I the only one who thinks that China hitting strategic US assets like carriers is a marvelous way to the flush the Chinese economy down the toilet?
Maybe the Chinese are trying to copy the German master plan in 1940-41 of attacking your biggest trading partners. Of course the Germans intended to invade France and the USSR. Somehow I don't see them storing artillery and MBTs in the carry on luggage to get over here.
Yes, and thats why a war is unlikely, China and USA is too entangled economically. China have no intentions to invade the U.S. But they are pretty aggressive in their neighborhood and that could in a worst case scenario lead to a major conflict. My guess however that "might is right" even in this case and that they gets what they want without a war.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 26, 2017, 07:29:15 PM
Quote
To be honest, neither have the U.S, Iraq and A-stan was not a modern techno-war, that would mean that the opponents also have the modern techno stuff.
Actually Iraq was, as much as needed, we clobbered the hell out of it with precision weaponry. Anyway we were talking Pacific naval and Iraq has nothing to do with it. Nor Afghanistan.
China's strategy is to bluff their borders out. Those waters around them are choke full of mineral resources and are very important sea Lanes for them. Do remember they are heavily reliant on imports by sea. Also they are adopting a strategy of defense in depth thru geography in the same way the Japanese did in WW2 in a manner of speaking. They want to extend their defensive perimeter as far as possible while we pursue the strategy of containment we did in The Cold War thru alliances and naval power.
In this the so called IRBM ASHm is a good weapon. Its cheap and easy to build, low tech, and gives a lot of bang for the buck in that as a terror weapon you cant beat it. Even if it doesnt work on moving ships they will threaten land targets and we have all to few important bases in the region. They are bully weapons and the Chinese can bluff their way to concessions and increase their hegemony without ever pushing the buttons.
Anyway that seems their obvious strategy. Not much different from the one the Germans had with the V2, to terrorize and gain concessions even if as a military tool it wasnt all that useful.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 27, 2017, 12:10:12 AM
A mach 8, 2000+ mile range missile with satellite mid-course guidance and active radar terminal homing cannot be called "low tech". Probably not "cheap" either. And they have tested the missiles against simulated targets in the Gobi desert.
If the missile is doing Mach 8, then a 30 knot carrier for all practical purposes is stationary. A simple on-board guidance computer can predict where the carrier will be with no problem.
and the Aegis Cruiser right next to it knows just where to launch the Standard Missiles too because at Mach 8 you are not making any turns.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 27, 2017, 09:18:08 PM
A reentry vehicle can do pretty extreme G-maneuvers at those speeds.
https://youtu.be/p-cEunmqXM8
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: FBKampfer on March 27, 2017, 09:42:52 PM
Also assuming it's just one missile they launch, for which would have to be just as incompetent as Rich thinks they are.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: ghi on March 27, 2017, 10:31:32 PM
Every time i see China vs USA stories in news, the "Tu Bei Tu" prophecies comes into my mind; http://www.euro-tongil.org/swedish/english/LeeChung-FengChineseFutureProphecies.htm
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: DaveBB on March 28, 2017, 05:16:09 AM
and the Aegis Cruiser right next to it knows just where to launch the Standard Missiles too because at Mach 8 you are not making any turns.
Does it? Where did they get the data points for a Mach 8 intercept. Just as a casual example, the F-16 has no data points for Mach 1 bombing. Many times in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the plane would accidentally go supersonic while bombing, and would miss the target widely. Lack of data points due to lack of funding.
Does anyone want to cite the horrific record of Patriot missile intercepts?
It would not be hard to sink a 6 acre barge full of fuel and airplanes.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 28, 2017, 09:03:09 AM
Meanwhile almost 30 years later the SM-3 and SM-6 programs have shown an excellent record of intercepts in very realistic tests including one against a course correcting warhead bus.
Also assuming its just one SM missile we launch. Also assuming its the only way we have of defending the carrier, which it isnt. Again tho I must ask why anyone would believe the Chinese when they have never once tested it in an even close to realistic way? I'm afraid scratching out the outline of a CV in the sand and saying you hit it doesn't cut it.
BTW the last IRBM we made the Pershing ll which the Chinese copied, cost about $700,000 which is much less, about 1/2, then the most modern Tomahawk cruise missile. So yes they are "cheap" and no doubt cost much less in Chinese funny money and low wages.
As well; you all act like were going to let them sit on the beach in their lounge chairs sipping margarita's while they push buttons for these things. The fact is we are going to hit them with about a thousand precision munitions at once at their entire CnC chain and communications node on the very first night. Our submarines are going to severely restrict their ability to move their ships anywheres and a satellite isnt capable of guiding an IRBM into a moving target.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Mister Fork on March 28, 2017, 10:01:36 AM
With a conventional warhead it will need to be pretty close at least, with a nuke, not so...
If the Chinese ever threw a nuke at a CV group in the pacific, I think whether or not it hits the carrier group is the least of our worries...
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 28, 2017, 10:31:19 AM
Agree, and it will not happen either. The point with this weapons is after all to not start a nuclear war
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 28, 2017, 11:47:00 AM
The U.S. Army bought 21 Pershing II missiles in 1982 for $194 million. More than $9 million per missile, and that's only the missile itself. The total program cost of the Pershing II system was $10.9 billion, or $39 million per missile. And that's in 1980's Dollars...
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 28, 2017, 01:14:42 PM
A ballistic missile isnt that expensive, Its a tube with rocket fuel and a nozzle in the back. What cost in this case is the warhead/guidance system. Its requires satellites and/or over the horizon radar that can provide the warhead with guidance data during the Terminal phase.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 28, 2017, 01:42:42 PM
What use is a ballistic missile without a warhead and guidance system? Fireworks. And the word you're looking for is "terminal".
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Zimme83 on March 28, 2017, 01:54:00 PM
typo, sorry.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Mister Fork on March 28, 2017, 02:29:44 PM
The U.S. Army bought 21 Pershing II missiles in 1982 for $194 million. More than $9 million per missile, and that's only the missile itself. The total program cost of the Pershing II system was $10.9 billion, or $39 million per missile. And that's in 1980's Dollars...
Gebuz. You could of gotten 5-6 Nimitz class carriers for that. And at $39M per missile, that's $90M today. Almost the price of one F-35 fighter.
And the carrier groups are portable/mobile strike platforms compared to a missile that's an end-game solution.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 28, 2017, 03:16:01 PM
Plutonium costs around $4,000 per gram. Nuclear weapons are rich kids toys.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 28, 2017, 03:30:59 PM
I don't have exact figures but the missile itself was probably in the $4-5 million later in the production run. Add about $20 million for the warhead and another $5 million for mobile launchers, equipment and parts for a round $30 million per pop.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 28, 2017, 08:25:29 PM
Our super missile. http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1679499-missile-defense-agency-sm-6-breakthrough (http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1679499-missile-defense-agency-sm-6-breakthrough) Even realistically tested.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rash on March 28, 2017, 08:31:09 PM
I don't think the big players want to test each other capabilities in this area.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 28, 2017, 08:51:28 PM
I don't think the big players want to test each other capabilities in this area.
A good point. You start touching off IRBMs and other countries are going to get real twitchy fingers. China has no illusions of our capability in this area. Its a no winner for everyone, especially them. Another thing about any kind of super sonic missile, they leave IR signatures that are huge. Which is part of the reason we never deployed a sea skimmer one yet. Those sneaky subsonics are very difficult to detect which is why were developing a variant of LRASM based on the JASMM-ER. Its sneaky, and stealthy, and smart, and might have a range approaching 1,000 miles. Like the Tomahawk ASM.
And a single B1 Bomber can carry 2 dozen LRASMs. Fire and forget, the missiles themselves will decide what and how they will attack, talking to each other thru data link. And once they do they go silent and use passive sensors when they go terminal.
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 28, 2017, 11:20:28 PM
The Tomahawk ASM was retired in the 1990s, and the terminal phase of a ballistic missile where it is in the atmosphere and is heated by it is measured in seconds.
https://youtu.be/1WagAKBuc_o
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Rich46yo on March 29, 2017, 02:30:14 PM
https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021 (https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/02/18/report-u-s-ships-and-subs-to-receive-anti-ship-tomahawk-cruise-missiles/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/02/18/report-u-s-ships-and-subs-to-receive-anti-ship-tomahawk-cruise-missiles/) No, its measured in minutes and starts when the satellite detects the launch. A ballistic missile is very easy to track, actually I was talking about any super sonic missile. Most of all the SSASMs.
The Tomahawk ASM was retired in the 1990s, and the terminal phase of a ballistic missile where it is in the atmosphere and is heated by it is measured in seconds.
https://youtu.be/1WagAKBuc_o
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: Mister Fork on March 29, 2017, 02:39:37 PM
Looks like the ICBM warheads may be entering at mach 8 but air friction looks like it's slowing them down. I'm curious as to the speed it travels before PDA (programmed detonation altitude)?
Title: Re: DF-21D anti-carrier missile
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 29, 2017, 10:53:04 PM
No, its measured in minutes and starts when the satellite detects the launch.
A warhead is cold in space and any sensor except radar would be hard pressed to track it. I was specifically referring to your IR tracking comment and these Chinese BMs.