What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?

[trap144]

Does the USA have the equivalent?

[Primarchx]

I'd like to see Japan develop one.

ORIGINAL: trap144

Does the USA have the equivalent?

[vettim89]

I would think with the high terminal speed the aim point would have to be pretty precise. Even at a relative shallow angle of reentry (gamma) of 45 degrees would only give the vehicle about 18 seconds of terminal phase. Roughly that gives you an engagement radius of about eleven NM. An CVTF would cover that in about 20-25 minutes. Now that assumes a real-time communication between the C&C entity and the launcher. Every minute of delay increases the area of uncertainty by 0.5 nm. I am not saying this weapons aren't a real threat but the physics alone make a single hit difficult and multiple hits unlikely.

Just my $0.02 worth

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

I can almost guarantee you that US CVBGs would change course and speed after ever Chinese satellite pass. PIM would probably still be fairly easy to figure out given general trends (i.e. the battle group moved 100 miles west in 6 hours), but I don't know if that's accurate enough to put weapons on the target.

[mikmykWS]

Nothing like it at all.

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: trap144

Regardless of whether a US carrier is sunk by way of torpedo, or missile, conventional ASBM, or nuclear warhead, the response from the United States would be the same.

You sure? ... The Chinese military disagrees, anyhow.

I am TOTALLY sure. There's 5000 men and women aboard that ship, about $5,000,000,000 invested in it, and more than 50 fixed wing aircraft. Would we nuke China, or any other nation over a carrier? Are you kidding me?

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: trap144

Equivalent to saying your carrier is safe as long as nobody knows where it is. Always true, no matter what weapon is in question, and to boot, never reliable as a strategy. Not even close.

Generally, it is true. This is the reason so much money, technology, and secrecy is invested in stealth and submarines.

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

But maybe he's trying to secure funding for something haha

Don't laugh. They did this all throughout the cold war... hyping the bad guys in order to scare funding out of congress. Very effective, particularly as the eventual discovery that they over-stated the threat brings mostly sighs of relief.

JD

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: trap144

fas thinks 500m CEP's are perfectly reasonable, so unless the carrier reacts pretty quickly in the event of a launch to change course and speed up, an unguided BM volley would be pretty threatening without guidance and with conventional warheads.

The problem is getting the guidance info to the shooters in enough time to be accurate enough. DF-21 compensates with radar (so shoot into box, radar goes on hunts for target then guides). You don't have that capability with a standard ballistic missile.

Honestly not sure why the Soviets never pursued this that far during the Cold War.

Mike

This is one of my primary reasons for doubting the Chinese claims. Why indeed, did the Soviets not develop this weapon decades ago when they had the technological capability, and the doctrinal methodology to employ it? And now, suddenly, almost overnight, the Chinese pull this rabbit out of the hat, and it's supposed to be the lynchpin to saving their eggrolls from American CSGs? Nah.... I'd bet against it.

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: trap144

Does the USA have the equivalent?

Well, before now, we've had the TASM and the Harpoon. The United States has pursued sea-skimming, low-speed, long range ASM's that when combined with moderately high-survivability and large numbers, could overwhelm enemy ships defences. These weapons packed enough firepower in each missile to mission kill most vessels with a single hit, if not sink them outright.

Probably the greatest threat to the Chinese and Russian carriers, (such as they are) is the American fast attack submarines which no doubt shadow these ships every minute they are deployed out to sea. Even our older 688i's are more than enough sub to kill an entire PLAN battle group with a couple salvos of ADCAPs. When one considers the capabilities of our newer Seawolf, and Virginia-class subs, the need for a guided ASBM melts away. These sharks are very much the silent killers of the deep, and we have enough of them in our inventory to ruin the PLAN or Russian Federation's Navy entire day.

Now, we are standing at the edge of the future, and looking down the road at ultra-stealthy, highly intelligent, network integrated ASM's like the JSM/NSM, and LRASSM. It's a very different type of ship killing, and in my opinion, much more likely to achieve results because it builds upon techniques and technologies that we have already seen proven in battle.

Beyond these new ASMs we are starting to see development of hypersonic strike weapons like the hypersonic glide vehicle, and the railgun. It is unknown if these weapons could mature into anti-ship weapons, but if I were involved at all in acquiring weapons for the US DOD, it's definitely a course I'd probably be working towards

[mikmykWS]

This is one of my primary reasons for doubting the Chinese claims. Why indeed, did the Soviets not develop this weapon decades ago when they had the technological capability, and the doctrinal methodology to employ it? And now, suddenly, almost overnight, the Chinese pull this rabbit out of the hat, and it's supposed to be the lynchpin to saving their eggrolls from American CSGs? Nah.... I'd bet against it.

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I would think with the high terminal speed the aim point would have to be pretty precise. Even at a relative shallow angle of reentry (gamma) of 45 degrees would only give the vehicle about 18 seconds of terminal phase. Roughly that gives you an engagement radius of about eleven NM. An CVTF would cover that in about 20-25 minutes. Now that assumes a real-time communication between the C&C entity and the launcher. Every minute of delay increases the area of uncertainty by 0.5 nm. I am not saying this weapons aren't a real threat but the physics alone make a single hit difficult and multiple hits unlikely.

Just my $0.02 worth

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

I can almost guarantee you that US CVBGs would change course and speed after ever Chinese satellite pass. PIM would probably still be fairly easy to figure out given general trends (i.e. the battle group moved 100 miles west in 6 hours), but I don't know if that's accurate enough to put weapons on the target.

Probably the most concise and well-stated argument in this entire conversation. Do some research into the types of seeker heads this thing would employ, and their range and accuracy limitations, and then add the complexities involved because of the extreme speed and environment all this is supposed to be happening in. The chance of hitting a carrier moving at 20+ knots, and maneuvering as they typically do, make hitting it from outer space ridiculously difficult to achieve. It's like tossing a BB into a moving shot glass from one side of a circus tent to the other. Impossible? No. Highly improbable? You betcha.

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

Relatively, it was almost over night. As to their "successes" with ballistic missiles against a carrier, I believe it was a non-moving target silhouette. That's a success at hitting a relatively small CEP- not a realistic target, in a real-world environment.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... report.jpg

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I would think with the high terminal speed the aim point would have to be pretty precise. Even at a relative shallow angle of reentry (gamma) of 45 degrees would only give the vehicle about 18 seconds of terminal phase. Roughly that gives you an engagement radius of about eleven NM. An CVTF would cover that in about 20-25 minutes. Now that assumes a real-time communication between the C&C entity and the launcher. Every minute of delay increases the area of uncertainty by 0.5 nm. I am not saying this weapons aren't a real threat but the physics alone make a single hit difficult and multiple hits unlikely.

Just my $0.02 worth

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

I can almost guarantee you that US CVBGs would change course and speed after ever Chinese satellite pass. PIM would probably still be fairly easy to figure out given general trends (i.e. the battle group moved 100 miles west in 6 hours), but I don't know if that's accurate enough to put weapons on the target.

Probably the most concise and well-stated argument in this entire conversation. Do some research into the types of seeker heads this thing would employ, and their range and accuracy limitations, and then add the complexities involved because of the extreme speed and environment all this is supposed to be happening in. The chance of hitting a carrier moving at 20+ knots, and maneuvering as they typically do, make hitting it from outer space ridiculously difficult to achieve. It's like tossing a BB into a moving shot glass from one side of a circus tent to the other. Impossible? No. Highly improbable? You betcha.

Yeah everybody else's posts are dumb.[:)] Very clever, I get it.


Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

Relatively, it was almost over night. As to their "successes" with ballistic missiles against a carrier, I believe it was a non-moving target silhouette. That's a success at hitting a relatively small CEP- not a realistic target, in a real-world environment.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... report.jpg

I agree that is likely a test of that system but I doubt it's the only one. Fact the others are probably what is leading the US, Japan, SK to spend millions defending against it.

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

Hey, that's not at all what I meant. It was a sincere compliment towards a chap that was able to describe the entire reasoning behind my doubts re. the ASBM's capabilities, even better than I could. There's no reason to get nasty. I'm just trying to have a logic-based discussion about a subject I find very interesting, with a few like-minded individuals. No belligerence intended from me at all, I can assure you.

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike

Relatively, it was almost over night. As to their "successes" with ballistic missiles against a carrier, I believe it was a non-moving target silhouette. That's a success at hitting a relatively small CEP- not a realistic target, in a real-world environment.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... report.jpg

I agree that is likely a test of that system but I doubt it's the only one. Fact the others are probably what is leading the US, Japan, SK to spend millions defending against it.

Mike

Agreed. It was a test of the DF-21D, according to Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-c ... ame-2013-1

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Hey, that's not at all what I meant. It was a sincere compliment towards a chap that was able to describe the entire reasoning behind my doubts re. the ASBM's capabilities, even better than I could. There's no reason to get nasty. I'm just trying to have a logic-based discussion about a subject I find very interesting, with a few like-minded individuals. No belligerence intended from me at all, I can assure you.

Passive aggressive is what I was thinking actually[:)]

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel





Relatively, it was almost over night. As to their "successes" with ballistic missiles against a carrier, I believe it was a non-moving target silhouette. That's a success at hitting a relatively small CEP- not a realistic target, in a real-world environment.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... report.jpg

I agree that is likely a test of that system but I doubt it's the only one. Fact the others are probably what is leading the US, Japan, SK to spend millions defending against it.

Mike

Agreed. It was a test of the DF-21D, according to Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-c ... ame-2013-1

Yes I saw[:)]

[DWReese]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond to my question. Your insight and level of expertise is amazing. Your comments aided me, and others, in being able to understand what is actually involved in using a weapon such as this while attempting to strike a US carrier.

I just recently completed Tom Clancy's book, Threat Vector, where the subject is mentioned. This was the basis for my question.

Thanks again. All of your thoughts and comments were sincerely appreciated by me, and others.

Doug

[mikmykWS]

Geography could play a role in defense as well. The Philippines or Japan for example could play a huge role from additional dispersal bases or masking the approach of US CSGs.

Mike