DF-21D anti-carrier missile

[icepac]

Maybe the sprint missile should make a return.

0 to mach 10 in 5 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA

Now the Hibex had 400G of acceleration and later had maneuvering of 300 lateral Gs.

Pretty sure something as powerful exists today.

[Rich46yo]

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!

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[DaveBB]

Don't worry, Rich has it figured out. These anti-carrier missiles don't stand a chance!

[Rich46yo]

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.

[Rino]

     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.

[Zimme83]

... 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.

[Rich46yo]

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-carrier-killer-missile-test-proves-df-21d-lives-up-to-name-2013-1?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&r=US&IR=T&IR=T

[EagleDNY]

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. 

[PR3D4TOR]

A reentry vehicle can do pretty extreme G-maneuvers at those speeds.




https://youtu.be/p-cEunmqXM8

[FBKampfer]

Also assuming it's just one missile they launch, for which would have to be just as incompetent as Rich thinks they are.

[ghi]

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

[DaveBB]

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.

[Rich46yo]

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.