Article about Chinese DF-21D "Carrier Killer"

[Der Zeitgeist]

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog ... er-killer/

[mikeCK]

Interesting. If there is no "terminal guidance" and the warheads simply follow a ballistic path programmed at launch, I don't see how it would be effective. Once launch is detected, the carrier would simply change course and accelerate. At 30 knots, it doesn't take but a minute or so to clear the area.

Does anyone know if there is a guided component? Doesn't seem so. Even if there was, it would be exceptionally difficult to guide a weapon moving at Mach 10. I would think the key for the US would be to make sure launch is detected as early as possible. Either way, I just don't see how a non-terminally guided (active) warhead can strike a moving target.

[thewood1]

Isn't type of system vulnerable to the SM3 ABM systems?

[mikeCK]

It is technically vulnerable, but the reliability of that system is suspect. That's not to say there is something wrong with it, just that it's a complex technology. Even in controlled tests, there has been around a 40% hit rate if I recall.

I just doubt that a ballistic missle can hit a moving target. There must be some type of guidance to do that and some type of stabilizers or control find to allow for that. I would guess that almost any correction at Mach 10 would result in an uncontrolled maneuver.

[Maromak]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Interesting. If there is no "terminal guidance" and the warheads simply follow a ballistic path programmed at launch, I don't see how it would be effective. Once launch is detected, the carrier would simply change course and accelerate. At 30 knots, it doesn't take but a minute or so to clear the area.

Does anyone know if there is a guided component? Doesn't seem so. Even if there was, it would be exceptionally difficult to guide a weapon moving at Mach 10. I would think the key for the US would be to make sure launch is detected as early as possible. Either way, I just don't see how a non-terminally guided (active) warhead can strike a moving target.

Wikipedia doesn't explicitly state that the missiles or MIRVs have onboard SAR guidance. The only guidance referred to on the page is from off board systems including SAR satellite, OTH radar, and UAVs.

Link for the lazy

[ExMachina]

I think its use as a tactical nuke could be an implied threat. It sounds like it's both highly mobile and able to engage targets of opportunity--how many ballistic missiles have that capability?

[LuckyJim1010]

In the event of a US-China war I would hope that the Chinese would not use Ballistic Missiles in this role.

A Ballistic Missile launch event, even a single launch, has incredible 'Nuclear Strike' connotations with all the horrors that could unleash.

There's probably a reason the Soviets never developed or at least claimed to have developed this sort of attack capability.

I like to think that Ivan quickly realised a ballistic missile launch during time of War is not something you want to do as part of your General Non-Nuclear War Plan.

I know there is probably better impact prediction now, but the unknowns of War will always play a part.

For a great fictional example of this see here http://The Bedford Incident

[JRyan]

I am in the camp of it being Chinese...good copiers and such, poor workmanship and quality, not a good history of producing even fair military equipment. That being said, same boat as Japan in the 60-70's and now look at them...

[ExMachina]

I am in the camp of it being Chinese...good copiers and such, poor workmanship and quality

Careful now ...I work with a few Chinese scientists and I am continually impressed-by and jealous-of the current state of Chinese science R&D. China currently outpaces us when it comes to government resources committed to and social status gained by basic scientific research. While the US has slowly and steadily de-funded science over the past decade, China is just getting warmed up. Moreover, every Chinese professional I've interacted with has proven to be an extremely HARD worker.

So while Japan came around after a few decades, I think China is already close to being "there" (at least in terms of the top shelf products its factories are capable of turning out). So while this current missile may be a paper tiger, if I were a defense analyst I would not dismiss it based upon the country or origin (not any more, anyway)

[smudge56]

Scary prospect.

[mikmykWS]

Something to think about

The Chinese have already successfully used Ballistic Missiles as a blockade weapons and these certainly didn't have the capability to target a ship or battle group.

Look a the details of the 1995 Crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis

The PRC conducted tests from July 21 to 26 in an area only 60 kilometers north of ROC-held Pengjia Islet.

The U.S. government responded by staging the biggest display of American military might in Asia since the Vietnam War.[4] President Clinton ordered additional ships into the region in March 1996. Two aircraft carrier battlegroups, Carrier Group Seven centered on USS Nimitz, and Carrier Group Five centered on USS Independence, were present in the region, and have been publicly claimed to have entered the Taiwan Strait. The Independence battle group was homeported in Japan at the time, and was in the area during the crisis, but reportedly remained outside of the effective exclusion zone delineated by Chinese weapons tests, posing no challenge to what some have interpreted as a de facto Chinese blockade of the strait.[citation needed] There is no evidence that the Nimitz battlegroup ever reached the vicinity of Taiwan.

In terms of the tech behind the DF the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but you can't hang your hat on the "cheap copy" hubris of the past. The world is a different place now and the playing field is more equal than it ever has been.

Mike

[smudge56]

Yep nations of old are regaining there might again but this time its not a great wall.

[JRyan]

I deal with modern Chinese equipment in an industrial aspect, you get what you pay for....I have yet to be impressed by any Chinese manufactured goods...but as always price rules..

[smudge56]

Mate I'm slightly relieved to here that but I'm sure that after time they will eventually perfect things.

ORIGINAL: JRyan

I deal with modern Chinese equipment in an industrial aspect, you get what you pay for....I have yet to be impressed by any Chinese manufactured goods...but as always price rules..

[mrfeizhu]

Anti ship ballistic missiles, armed without nukes, most likely have little value other than for propaganda purposes. With nukes they become more effective. However, if a country nukes a carrier group from land based missiles, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle the other country will respond with a nuclear attack against the place where the missiles were launched. If launched at sea nuclear exchanges may, or may not be limited to the oceans. During the cold war most U.S. navy ships carried nuclear weapons. ( those were the days, no WMD's, just special weapons and NBC warfare)

Ballistic missiles when launched have a very noticeable signature, compare that to a torpedo of a an SSM . If you really want to win a battle which would you use? if you are trying to scare your neighbors a Anti ship ballistic missile system is the way to go.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mrfeizhu
Anti ship ballistic missiles, armed without nukes, most likely have little value other than for propaganda purposes.

Depends on the accuracy achieved. If the Chinese have managed to copy the Pershing-2's terminal radar homing (as has been frequently claimed) then the accuracy would be enough to provide a reasonable probability if direct hits on a CV deck.

[smudge56]

Very scary prospect.

[VIF2NE]

SOVIET ANTI-SHIP BALLISTIC MISSILES

http://translate.google.ru/translate?sl ... o.ru/brpk/