DF-21D anti-carrier missile

[Mister Fork]

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? 

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...

[Zimme83]

Its not as advanced as the DF-26...

[Meatwad]

Im skeptical of any missile that is named DONG

[DaveBB]

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.

[FBKampfer]

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?

[Zimme83]

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)

[FLOOB]

Is China preparing for a war with the U.S.?

The mainstream media seems to want us to believe that china and russia are on the brink of invading the USA.

[Rich46yo]

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.

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.

[Zimme83]

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.

[FBKampfer]

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.

[Rich46yo]

Actually I think we know exactly what the chances are of a carrier being hit by them. I'm far more concerned about submarines.

[Zimme83]

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..

[DaveBB]

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. 

[Vulcan]

Will it even require a direct hit?

[Zimme83]

With a conventional warhead it will need to be pretty close at least, with a nuke, not so...