China missile shifts power in Pacific

[Jigs]

link your source for this?

Untitled<<Link

In the past several years, both US and allied forces have been dismayed to have their ships &#8220;sunk&#8221; (including an aircraft carrier) by small but new diesel-electric submarines such as Sweden&#8217;s &#8220;Gotland&#8221; playing the enemy in exercises.

 

[scuthan]

Even if the DF-21 works as advertised. From the diagrams I have seen it simply lacks a warhead large enough to sink a Nimitz or Ford class carrier. Plus it would have to overcome an Aegis defense shield designed to shoot down ballistic missile warheads.

China's best naval asset is Subs, these are the biggest threat to Carrier task forces. The U.S. did get a shock not long ago when a Chinese sub surfaced inside a carrier group. However it proved to be an important wakeup call. The U.S. Navy has been working hard since then learning to better overcome the dangers of diesel/electric subs. It now leases them from Nato countries to train agianst.

DF-21 is hyped by American military reports and mass media not chinese. china didn't say a single word about it. i didn't know DF-21 if can be used for anti-ship purpose. but i do know being a ballistic missile, DF-21 is several times heavier and faster than anti-ship missiles. if you presume a ballistic missile doesn't suffice to sink a AC, you are implying modern anti-ship missiles are useless.

 

[gambit]

Is it true that the US regards a hit on an AC as equivalent to a nuclear attack?

If so, then this missile is as impractical as a nuclear weapon. It is only useful in the doomsday scenario.

Not true. Else we would have responded with nuclear weapons for 9/11.

 

[gambit]

DF-21 is hyped by American military reports and mass media not chinese. china didn't say a single word about it. i didn't know DF-21 if can be used for anti-ship purpose. but i do know being a ballistic missile, DF-21 is several times heavier and faster than anti-ship missiles. if you presume a ballistic missile doesn't suffice to sink a AC, you are implying modern anti-ship missiles are useless.

I do so presume...

Look at the image above. Now...How many warheads can one DF-21 carries? Make that NON-NUCLEAR warheads.

bigEfire.com Ordeal of the USS Enterprise

The USS Enterprise came within a step of dying on 14 January, 1969. Exploding weapons on the flight deck blew the ship apart all the way down to the waterline. Flaming jet fuel from the thirty two aircraft involved cascaded down through those many great wounds firing the interior of the ship.

And yet the Enterprise did not sink. If this was war time, the Enterprise would have effect deck repairs and continue to prosecute the war. Air operations would have been limited, but able nonetheless.

The US learned much from WW II in how to design compartmentalized ships, particularly large ones like an aircraft carrier. It would take much more than the cluster of warheads in the image to actually sink an Enterprise class ship and in a missile versus ship engagement, if the missile or ballistic warhead failed by just one meter, the ship win.

 

[gambit]

A possible scenario of DF-21D attack on US carrier group from Korean media.

I regret I have no Photochop skills but if I do, I could wipe out all the sensors that make possible the DF-21 operation in the first day of the war. Remember...We did the same thing against Iraq.

 

[Thomas]

DF-21 is hyped by American military reports and mass media not chinese. china didn't say a single word about it. i didn't know DF-21 if can be used for anti-ship purpose. but i do know being a ballistic missile, DF-21 is several times heavier and faster than anti-ship missiles. if you presume a ballistic missile doesn't suffice to sink a AC, you are implying modern anti-ship missiles are useless.

the missile may be large, but the warhead that actually hits is not large enough.

it would take many hits from modern anti ship missiles. and then agian those missiles must make it through the Aegis defenses as well.

 

[Jigs]

Not true. Else we would have responded with nuclear weapons for 9/11.

That doesn't make sense. Who would it respond to with Nuclear weapons ? Terrorists ?

Seeing as if a specific country attacked and destroyed a aircraft carrier with 5,000 men and women on it. A nuclear response could potentially be justifiable.

On the greater topic it seems the U.S. is losing the military capability to keep China in check when it comes to U.S. interests in that region.

 

[monitor]

Chinese DF-21D ASBM (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile): Will it Obsolete U.S. Aircraft Carriers?
By David Crane
defrev@gmail. com

December 28, 2010

Looks like the &#8220;D&#8221; version of the Chinese DF-21 medium-range anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is moving into the deployment phase, although an &#8220;over the water&#8221; flight test has reportedly not yet been conducted. If the DF-21D ASBM ends up working as advertised, however, it may (potentially) effectively obsolete U.S. Navy aircraft carriers in the event of a future direct conflict with China over Taiwan. It will mean that the Chinese can essentially sink our aircraft carriers at will, turning them into huge, massively-expensive above-the-water targets (multi-billion-dollar targets, when accompanying aircraft are taken into account) for the taking&#8211;easy pickins, if you will. At the very least, the DF-21D, once operational, will change the way the U.S. Navy deploys its carriers in a crisis situation around China.

The kicker is that the DF-21D ASBM (Dong Feng-21D ASBM) doesn&#8217;t fully represent the extent of China&#8217;s anti-ship, carrier-sinking capability. In recent years, China has expanded its submarine force, and those submarines carry torpedoes. In the future, they will most likely carry supercavitating torpedoes. Also, it would seem logical that China would also be developing their own supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, just like Russia and India. Anti-ship missiles are relatively inexpensive compared to aircraft carriers.

Some military strategists may argue that the Chinese wouldn&#8217;t risk a full-scale war, or even a nuclear exchange, with the United States by sinking one or more of our carriers. Really? Would we (the U.S.) risk a large-scale war or nuclear exchange with China by threatening or initiating a full conventional attack or nuclear strike in response to a lost carrier? Which country can afford to lose more people? Are we willing to trade Washington D.C. and/or Manhattan/New York City (NYC), Los Angeles, or San Francisco for Beijing or Shanghai in a nuclear exchange?

The point is, we can&#8217;t rely on our nuclear armament deturrent against China, particularly if they&#8217;re willing to sacrifice Beijing and/or Shanghai and millions of their people in an exchange. We have to be able to beat them conventionally.

The irony is that China doesn&#8217;t necessarily even need the latest, super-advanced missiles and torpedoes to sink our carriers. Lietenant General Paul K. Van Riper proved this when he sank two-thirds of the U.S. fleet during the Millenium Challenge 2002 naval warfare exercise. While U.S. ship defense systems have advanced since 2002, so have anti-ship weapon systems.

It&#8217;s going to be pretty tough for U.S. ship defense tech to keep pace with anti-ship weapons tech. Even if it can, all the enemy really has to do is overwhelm ship defenses with sheer numbers of missiles and torpedoes&#8230;with one caveat: for above-the-water-ship defense, it&#8217;s possible that anti-missile laser and guidance disruption or jamming technologies could potentially work. If there&#8217;s a viable/deployable method of distrupting torpedoes (including supercavitating torpedoes) besides traditional countermeasures, DefenseReview (DR) isn&#8217;t aware of it.

 

[gambit]

That doesn't make sense. Who would it respond to with Nuclear weapons ? Terrorists ?

Terrorists cannot exist and perform without state sanctuary, be it official state sponsorship or from ignorance. If we wish to respond with nuclear weapons for 9/11, Afghanistan would have been the target. And the entire ME, including Iran, would have been shaken much more than we know.

Seeing as if a specific country attacked and destroyed a aircraft carrier with 5,000 men and women on it. A nuclear response could potentially be justifiable.

A nuclear response, as far as I know, would be justifiable against a nuclear attack. Or a large scale radiological attack.

On the greater topic it seems the U.S. is losing the military capability to keep China in check when it comes to U.S. interests in that region.

No...This is not about military capability. There is nothing the US can do to 'check' China in the military front. There is only one-upmanship and in that the US is still the superior, albeit somewhat waning.

 

[monitor]

Anti-ship capabilities

China's missile technology has always been the pointy edge of its spear, ever since Qian Xuesen, the gifted rocket scientist who was kicked out of the United States during the McCarthy period in the 1950s, returned to China.

U.S. government scientists have been impressed by China's capabilities. On Jan. 11, 2007, a Chinese missile traveling at more than four miles a second hit a satellite that was basically a box with three-foot sides, one U.S. government weapons expert said. Over the past several years, China has put into orbit 11 of what are believed to be its first military-only satellites, called Yaogan, which could provide China with the ability to track targets for its rockets.

China is also trying to fashion an anti-ship ballistic missile by taking a short-range rocket, the DF-21, and turning it into what could become an aircraft-carrier killing weapon.

Even though it has yet to be deployed, the system has already sparked changes in the United States. In September, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said China's "investments in anti-ship weaponry and ballistic missiles could threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific - particularly our forward bases and carrier strike groups." The U.S. Navy in 2008 cut the DDG-1000 destroyer program from eight ships to three because the vessels lack a missile-defense capability.

But the challenge for China is that an anti-ship ballistic missile is extremely hard to make. The Russians worked on one for decades and failed. The United States never tried, preferring to rely on cruise missiles and attack submarines to do the job of threatening an opposing navy.

U.S. satellites would detect an ASBM as soon as it was launched, providing a carrier enough warning to move several miles before the missile could reach its target. To hit a moving carrier, a U.S. government weapons specialist said, China's targeting systems would have to be "better than world-class."

Wu Riqiang, who worked for six years at the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation as a missile designer, said that while he could not confirm that such a missile existed, he believed weapons such as these were essentially "political chips," the mere mention of which had already achieved the goal of making U.S. warships think twice about operating near China's shores.

"It's an open question how these missiles will do in a conflict situation," said Wu, who is now studying in the United States. "But the threat - that's what's most important about them."

 

[gambit]

Would people stop posting the same thing in different words but does not really say anything new? Is it too much to ask for the participant to actually READ before posting the article not of/from his own thoughts to see if said article has anything new?

 

[Brotherhood]

I regret I have no Photochop skills but if I do, I could wipe out all the sensors that make possible the DF-21 operation in the first day of the war. Remember...We did the same thing against Iraq.

Yes, Admiral gambit, China=Iraq? dream on, BTW, please post something new, how many times did you post with the same so-called pictures and remarks?
Please stop using "WE" John mccain will be really piss.
PS, that "Photochop" scenario picture was from a pretty reputated Korean media, can you read Korean?

 

[gambit]

Yes, Admiral gambit, China=Iraq? dream on, BTW, please post something new, how many times did you post with the same so-called pictures and remarks?
Please stop using "WE" John mccain will be really piss.
PS, that "Photochop" scenario picture was from a pretty reputated Korean media, can you read Korean?

The images I used here helps explain basic principles...ya know...REAL physics? REAL objects that works?

 

[scuthan]

the missile may be large, but the warhead that actually hits is not large enough.

it would take many hits from modern anti ship missiles. and then agian those missiles must make it through the Aegis defenses as well.

accoring to wikipedia:

Anti-ship missile C802 weighs 715kg. its warhead weights 165kg. its attacking speed is 1.6M

DF21 weights 15tonne, speed is 10Mach. I failed find the record of warhead weight for DF-21D, which is reportedly to be "AC killer". the payload of old DF-21A is 600kg.

Being a ballistic missille, it's far more destructive and faster than any anti-ship missiles, and surely much more difficult to intercept. AC, though large in size, however is a smart target, for ballistic missile to handle indeed.

but of course, you are free to believe AEGIS can take all of them

 

[Brotherhood]

The images I used here helps explain basic principles...ya know...REAL physics? REAL objects that works?

Adm. Robert F. Willard VS Adm. gambit, who should you believe? please pick your choice

Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.

"An analogy using a Western term would be 'initial operational capability (IOC),' whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it," Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. "I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC."
China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says - Washington Times