What It Would Really Take To Sink a modern Aircraft Carrier

[The Accountant]

This means the target is moving. A saturation attack is intended to create an accidental hit.

There is an algorithm -- that I will not say of the details -- for the defense against such an attack. The problem for the attacker is that the moving target's predictability is low, unless we are talking about a moving train, a vehicle that travels on a fixed medium -- rail tracks. The locomotive's predictability is high in heading, speed, and future locations.

Most people have the misconception that a saturation attack against a moving warship -- under combat alert -- is no different than an artillery barrage where all shells are to land simultaneously or near so. That is not true. If you are to launch 10 missiles against a moving ship and you know there is no guarantee that one missile will hit, you have to guess on where the ship is supposed to be, then launch the second missile at that time, and so on for the next and next missiles. This is not considering the defense can launch countermeasures such as flares (against IR sensor) or chaff (against radar sensor).

What the algorithm does is compute the ship's heading and speed, then calculate the necessary predictive countermeasures, which includes an interceptor missile, in other words, all countermeasures are mathematically husbanded. No need to launch countermeasures on where you have been, only where you are heading, correct ? And even then, no need to launch when you detect nothing, correct ?

Still think the DF-21D can go against a moving ship ?


The AEGIS can engage multiple targets. That is known for decades.

Yes right but by the nature of antiship missile DF21D must be active homing it means it do not have exact predictable path ... So a maneuvering projectile with the speed of Mach10 plus is extermely difficult to intercept ... Like you said DF21D have to guess aircraft carrier possible location after the launch with the aid of different sensors including satellite imagery etc etc but this is also the vice versa ... but the difference is projection on part of DF21D is for a huge aircraft carrier at a speed of 30 knots at best ... whereas missile has to project exact path of a manuvering projectile to the accuracy of few meters at a given point of time with the accuracy of micro seconds as speed is Mach 10 ... even a fractional change in few degree and projectile is programed to attack at an angle of 89 degree at terminal phase rather than 90 degree means that intended path of missile of 100s of miles away before entering into terminal phase ...

There are lot of variables ... like I said DF21D has to defeat the system once whereas SM-3 have to always defeat DF21D ...

Furthermore, there is no argument about the capability of AEGIS ... It can surely take out multiple targets but there are always limits ...

Furthermore, in all these discussions we are assuming that US is the attacking force and China is defending hence China have mutiple options to retaiate for example can use a saturation attack by using stand-off smart bombs so that they force US to use its air defence missile and then cruise missiles whereas DF21D came in the end as we know stand-off weapons and cruise missile even is successful can cripple the aircraft carrier but cant destory but DF21D can ...

The only point I am trying to make carriers are far from home and in open sea are alot more vulnerable then the defending forces which have options from air sea and land ...

 

[randomradio]

This means the target is moving. A saturation attack is intended to create an accidental hit.

Also meant to overwhelm defences.

Still think the DF-21D can go against a moving ship ?

We are yet to see the DF-21D's payload. It isn't likely to be just a simple warhead.

 

[gambit]

Yes right but by the nature of antiship missile DF21D must be active homing it means it do not have exact predictable path ...

And jammable.

So a maneuvering projectile with the speed of Mach10 plus is extermely difficult to intercept ...

How ?

People think just because the sales brochures says 'maneuverable', the warhead can move like a jet fighter and the misconception is compounded by silly cartoon drawings. The problem here is that the higher the speed, the more difficult it is to execute multiple maneuvers. How is the DF-21D able to execute these jet fighter-like maneuvers ? Aerodynamic exploitation ? Asymmetric thrusters ? How ?

...whereas missile has to project exact path of a manuvering projectile to the accuracy of few meters at a given point of time with the accuracy of micro seconds as speed is Mach 10 ...

And I have said this before -- in the ship vs missile engagement, if the missile failed by just one meter, the ship win.

A few meters is not good enough. The prediction has to be perfect.

There are lot of variables ... like I said DF21D has to defeat the system once whereas SM-3 have to always defeat DF21D ...

And if we can hit a bullet with a bullet, we can defeat the DF-21D.

Furthermore, there is no argument about the capability of AEGIS ... It can surely take out multiple targets but there are always limits ...

The problem with your arguments is that you rely solely on generalities -- like the highlighted words.

What are those limits ? Do you understand the technical issues involved ?

 

[ayesha.a]

To understand me you require more knowledge on how the airship carriers are designed and how they work. The biggest problem regarding Air craft carriers is weight distribution and that is why Indian purchase of old soviet chassis was a wrong move and the carrier can fall victim to single missile that strikes at the right location thus taking down the entire carrier. If you are trying to save face then best of luck but the Baku was a helicopter carrier which was converted in an Aircraft carrier and has weight distribution issues you can check the info on Baku and will find me true. The intel info is not available online but you can find info with Australian defense report analysis. just research Baku class soviet carrier and you will get the desired info.

I think I have my answer.

 

[BHarwana]

I think I have my answer.

I think you have what you believe

 

[The Accountant]

And jammable.

Not conclusive as we dont know how many sensors they have ... it suerly must have two way data link and hence might also get feedback from satellite ,,, so it might or might not be jameable ...

How ?

People think just because the sales brochures says 'maneuverable', the warhead can move like a jet fighter and the misconception is compounded by silly cartoon drawings. The problem here is that the higher the speed, the more difficult it is to execute multiple maneuvers. How is the DF-21D able to execute these jet fighter-like maneuvers ? Aerodynamic exploitation ? Asymmetric thrusters ? How ?

Agreed, but with Mach 10 even change of a fraction of a degree means that flight path is going to change by miles than what it was expected a moment before ,,, so not impossible to counter but really really difficult to counter specially when speed of warhead is much higher than interceptor ...

And I have said this before -- in the ship vs missile engagement, if the missile failed by just one meter, the ship win.

Again agreed but still achieving acuracy of a target size of aircraft carrier moving at 30 knots is way too easy than intercepting Mach 10 interceptor with fractional size of warhead of ballistic missile ... just one question when you can develop tech for intercepting Mach 10 speed projectile with kill ratio of lets say 60% than it is lot more easier to develop a ballistic missile capable of targetting a moving ship as there are lot less variables ...

Sir I do respect American technology but you need to acknowledged other achievements from realistic point of view ... We are here discussing possible scenarios whereas we all knows that this is not going to happen and if happen it will be endof civilisation ... So lets be open and lets understand possible scnarios with the believe that whatever knowledge we have is correct ...

A few meters is not good enough. The prediction has to be perfect.


And if we can hit a bullet with a bullet, we can defeat the DF-21D.


The problem with your arguments is that you rely solely on generalities -- like the highlighted words.

What are those limits ? Do you understand the technical issues involved ?

Agreed I am discussing generalities as in pure technical there are 1000s of dependencies ... you know that I know that and we do not have the data and resources to predict the exact outcome ... But what you are suggesting that your system is perfect and it will work 100% time no matter how complex the requirement are but others system will not work not even once ... that wrong assumption ...

 

[jhungary]

And how do you suggest that at one point of time only one can be prepared ... As per my knowlede DF21D is to be fired from TEL so you are telling me that at given base Chinese has just one TEL to launch DF21D ... If this is than sounds like a flawed strategy ...

Are you serious ? all SM-3 to be launched on sametime ... Last time I read each radar has some limitations with respect to tracking and engaging target but you are suggesting that in case of SM-3 its none ... must be hell of a system ... Kindly share your source ...

I am not saying China can only have 1 transport launcher shooting at a carrier at one time, but how many tracker you can place to shoot at one point of location? In mathematically sense, the target is at tangent to the range of the missile. How many launcher can you place at different location so they all overlap the same target?

From mathematics, the longer the distance between the target and the DF-21D launcher, the less overlapping it can have, meaning at maximum range, if it was deployed along the coast at the straight line, there are only 1 overlapping to the target (As there can only be one point you can draw a line between the target and the launcher), the closer the target get, the more overlapping.

As I said, I was saying if the Carrier is far away from the coast, that mean the distance will be at maximum range.

SM-3 Block 3 are GPS aided mid-course, where the launch ship feed data to the missisle and the last stage turn in onboard active LWIR seeker

so unless you are saing the AGEIS system can only track one or two target at a time, whatever you read is wrong

Agreed, but with Mach 10 even change of a fraction of a degree means that flight path is going to change by miles than what it was expected a moment before ,,, so not impossible to counter but really really difficult to counter specially when speed of warhead is much higher than interceptor ...

manoeuvrable is not the same aspurely fast speed.

What you said is akin to something like this.

Since a TOW Missile can be wired guided and a lot quicker than me, I cannot escape the TOW missile because if it changed by a small degree, the course it alter will be huge. In fact, course change in a high velocity object is not optimum. Because A.) The aim will be throw off. And B.) Because of the speed, you cannot correct the trajectory.

Say you aim a missile at me, I can run left, right and stop if you fire when I run right, and you alter the course so the missile alter to the right and the target stopped, stopping at 32 knots is easy (well, not easy actually, but correcting a missile when you are going 10 Mach is hard. meaning you need to stop swing right and swing back to the left to follow me. All in the while you only get a few second to do that

 

[gambit]

Not conclusive as we dont know how many sensors they have ... it suerly must have two way data link and hence might also get feedback from satellite ,,, so it might or might not be jameable ...

This is purely speculative.

Agreed, but with Mach 10 even change of a fraction of a degree means that flight path is going to change by miles than what it was expected a moment before ,,, so not impossible to counter but really really difficult to counter specially when speed of warhead is much higher than interceptor ...

HOW ?

If you think this is a test, you are correct. I know how, I want you to show the forum what you know or what you think you know of interception solutions. In what way does the warhead's speed make it difficult to intercept ?

Sir I do respect American technology but you need to acknowledged other achievements from realistic point of view ...

From your arguments, I can see that you have a high emotional investment the DF-21D. It is understandable as you are Pakistani.

 

[Gomig-21]

What It Would Really Take To Sink A Modern Aircraft Carrier

Impossible. "Sinking" is not realistic. It means to actually penetrate the hull with some offensive system, allowing the sea water to flow in and overwhelm the ship's floating ability and the entire carrier ends up at the bottom of the ocean. It's probably easier to travel to mars than accomplish this.

If one's intention is to "disable" it, that's a different goal but still difficult. That's not sinking it. Many ships of all types are hit and make it back to port to be repaired, and they're much smaller and less protected than modern carriers. They're only temporarily disabled.

In order to "sink" one, you basically have to compromise the hull BELOW the water line. If it's from the top with some form of missile, it has to get through all the carrier's defensive layers (an almost impossible task,) be powerful enough to penetrate the height of the carrier itself and puncture the hull to sink it.

Even if the hull is punctured, whether it be from a deck hit and through to the hull, or from a direct hit below the waterline by a submarine, the design of these structures are so that the individual, affected bulkheads seal off to isolate the compromised areas. Sealing off bulkheads used to be a manual command but might even be automated responses in some cases, such as the reactor's compartment. Sealing bulkheads are the final defensive layer beyond all the interception capabilities mentioned already, making 'sinking' a carrier an almost impossible proposition.

There was a theory that a two-stage attack would work; the first being a way to disable the exterior portion of the propulsion system (i.e. the propellers but getting to those is very difficult as mentioned,) get the carrier to stop and make it a non mobile platform to make targeting it easier. But then even if you got to the propulsion system, you've created a much more heightened defensive stand.

Another one was to get it during replenishing periods where the carrier is connected to a fuel ship to supply the jet fuel and other essential supplies and if you hit the fuel ship, the connected line from ship to ship would carry the fire over and explode the fuel storage. The problem with that is the replenishing ship would destruct sooner than the carrier and stop-gap measures for fire suppression would be implemented through all the layers, even the hoses.

Something that would split the hull in half would be the only way to sink it, but then that weapon has to reach it.

 

[randomradio]

I am not saying China can only have 1 transport launcher shooting at a carrier at one time, but how many tracker you can place to shoot at one point of location? In mathematically sense, the target is at tangent to the range of the missile. How many launcher can you place at different location so they all overlap the same target?

From mathematics, the longer the distance between the target and the DF-21D launcher, the less overlapping it can have, meaning at maximum range, if it was deployed along the coast at the straight line, there are only 1 overlapping to the target (As there can only be one point you can draw a line between the target and the launcher), the closer the target get, the more overlapping.

As I said, I was saying if the Carrier is far away from the coast, that mean the distance will be at maximum range.

If the carriers are far away, out of the range of most of the carrier killers, then it has done its job because the carrier fighters won't be able to traverse that distance.

manoeuvrable is not the same aspurely fast speed.

What you said is akin to something like this.

Since a TOW Missile can be wired guided and a lot quicker than me, I cannot escape the TOW missile because if it changed by a small degree, the course it alter will be huge. In fact, course change in a high velocity object is not optimum. Because A.) The aim will be throw off. And B.) Because of the speed, you cannot correct the trajectory.

Say you aim a missile at me, I can run left, right and stop if you fire when I run right, and you alter the course so the missile alter to the right and the target stopped, stopping at 32 knots is easy (well, not easy actually, but correcting a missile when you are going 10 Mach is hard. meaning you need to stop swing right and swing back to the left to follow me. All in the while you only get a few second to do that

Missiles follow proportional navigation. They don't follow the target. Against a mach 10 missile, a 32 knot large ship hasn't really moved.

Let's say the warhead is 100Km away, that will give the ship only 30 seconds to maneuver. And in that time, the 300m carrier has moved only 500m. Even if the carrier has moved only 250m in 15 seconds, the warhead is still 50Km away and has time, 15 seconds, for course correction. So maneuverability is not useful against such super high speed.

But this completely depends on what the DF-21D warhead really is. All we know is it can perform high G maneuvers. But there have been no known public tests against maneuverable targets.

 

[The Accountant]

This is purely speculative.


HOW ?

If you think this is a test, you are correct. I know how, I want you to show the forum what you know or what you think you know of interception solutions. In what way does the warhead's speed make it difficult to intercept ?


From your arguments, I can see that you have a high emotional investment the DF-21D. It is understandable as you are Pakistani.

Ok so when it comes to DF21D its highly speculative but when it is about SM-3 it is based on some out of the world tech that cannot be failed ... You are biased and therefore cannot be reasoned with ...

 

[patero]

Ok so when it comes to DF21D its highly speculative but when it is about SM-3 it is based on some out of the world tech that cannot be failed ... You are biased and therefore cannot be reasoned with ...

Maybe there is some basis for the belief in the SM-3s effectiveness, more so than the DF-21. The SM-3 has been successfully tested and evaluated against its intended targets, ballistic missiles. Even the Russians have independently verified this:

"Russian Defense Ministry research centers have simulated how US ballistic missile defense system elements can be used in a battle," Poznikhir said at the Xiangshan Security Forum in Beijing.

"They found out that the US SM-3 antimissile could intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles not only at the middle stage of their flight path, as the United States has stated, but also at the initial phase of their trajectory," he added.

"This poses a more serious threat to the nuclear potentials of Russia and China as antimissiles of this type will be able to intercept Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles before the separation of their warheads," the general said.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.ph...llistic-missiles-at-initial-flight-stage.html

It is far less evident that hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile is possible.

 

[jhungary]

If the carriers are far away, out of the range of most of the carrier killers, then it has done its job because the carrier fighters won't be able to traverse that distance.

The only problem is, Fighter Bomber can be refuelled, be it Buddy refuel or refuelled by tanker. Like this



Operation Blackbuck see British Bomber refuelled 7 times to bomb Argentinian force in Falkland Island, and it have a round trip of 14,000 mile. DF missile series have a range of 2000-4000 Km.

Fighter will still be able to touch those missile even if they are out of range.

Missiles follow proportional navigation. They don't follow the target. Against a mach 10 missile, a 32 knot large ship hasn't really moved.

Let's say the warhead is 100Km away, that will give the ship only 30 seconds to maneuver. And in that time, the 300m carrier has moved only 500m. Even if the carrier has moved only 250m in 15 seconds, the warhead is still 50Km away and has time, 15 seconds, for course correction. So maneuverability is not useful against such super high speed.

But this completely depends on what the DF-21D warhead really is. All we know is it can perform high G maneuvers. But there have been no known public tests against maneuverable targets.

The first thing is, DF-series is not a OTH missile, it have to go up in the atmosphere and perform the terminal guidance, it does not shoot like a normal ground to ground missile

Secondly, you forgot the operational delay coming from the Missile Guidance to the Target, before terminal guidance kick in, target information have to feed into the missile by other means, and for China to locate the carrier, you will need to have real time surveillance on target. Each second the target information did not update would mean the missile can be travelling on a wrong direction.

Also, you are using the extreme close range as an example, really doubt the carrier will intentionally go within 100 km (60 miles) within Chinese coast when their bomber can reach at least 1000 mile without refuelling.

 

[The Accountant]

I am not saying China can only have 1 transport launcher shooting at a carrier at one time, but how many tracker you can place to shoot at one point of location? In mathematically sense, the target is at tangent to the range of the missile. How many launcher can you place at different location so they all overlap the same target?

From mathematics, the longer the distance between the target and the DF-21D launcher, the less overlapping it can have, meaning at maximum range, if it was deployed along the coast at the straight line, there are only 1 overlapping to the target (As there can only be one point you can draw a line between the target and the launcher), the closer the target get, the more overlapping.

As I said, I was saying if the Carrier is far away from the coast, that mean the distance will be at maximum range.

SM-3 Block 3 are GPS aided mid-course, where the launch ship feed data to the missisle and the last stage turn in onboard active LWIR seeker

so unless you are saing the AGEIS system can only track one or two target at a time, whatever you read is wrong



manoeuvrable is not the same aspurely fast speed.

What you said is akin to something like this.

Since a TOW Missile can be wired guided and a lot quicker than me, I cannot escape the TOW missile because if it changed by a small degree, the course it alter will be huge. In fact, course change in a high velocity object is not optimum. Because A.) The aim will be throw off. And B.) Because of the speed, you cannot correct the trajectory.

Say you aim a missile at me, I can run left, right and stop if you fire when I run right, and you alter the course so the missile alter to the right and the target stopped, stopping at 32 knots is easy (well, not easy actually, but correcting a missile when you are going 10 Mach is hard. meaning you need to stop swing right and swing back to the left to follow me. All in the while you only get a few second to do that

I agree with your first point that a saturation attack is only po

Maybe there is some basis for the belief in the SM-3s effectiveness, more so than the DF-21. The SM-3 has been successfully tested and evaluated against its intended targets, ballistic missiles. Even the Russians have independently verified this:

"Russian Defense Ministry research centers have simulated how US ballistic missile defense system elements can be used in a battle," Poznikhir said at the Xiangshan Security Forum in Beijing.

"They found out that the US SM-3 antimissile could intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles not only at the middle stage of their flight path, as the United States has stated, but also at the initial phase of their trajectory," he added.

"This poses a more serious threat to the nuclear potentials of Russia and China as antimissiles of this type will be able to intercept Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles before the separation of their warheads," the general said.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.ph...llistic-missiles-at-initial-flight-stage.html

It is far less evident that hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile is possible.

So what you are suggesting that China is mass producing a missile without testing? I think this assumption is wrong as it is a deployed missile ...

Furthermore, if you have read my post I have never questioned the credibility of SM-3 but what I am saying that even in best of the performance it do not have 100% kill ratio so in case of a real war (assuming USA attacked China) ,,, China will definitely fire multiple warheads so SM-3 has to successfully intercept it all the times but DF21D have to beat defenses just a single time ...

 

[Fledgingwings]

Alot.