• Thursday, March 21, 2019

French Navy Commander isn’t worried by the threat of the Chinese DF-21/DF-31D

Discussion in 'Naval Warfare' started by Vergennes, Dec 19, 2018.

  1. Vergennes

    Vergennes PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    3,838
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Ratings:
    +54 / 11,501 / -0
    Country:
    France
    Location:
    France
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  2. Hamartia Antidote

    Hamartia Antidote ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    15,316
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Ratings:
    +25 / 11,300 / -4
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Well unfortunately the US is pretty good at hitting a target thousands of miles away (Circular Error Probability was only 400 feet decades ago. You can imagine what it is now). All you would need to do is make a course correction (using a spy satellite) as late as possible at a point leading the target. The only thing you can do to counter this is to implement a random course generator by the carrier as normal SOP that would make leading impossible. However you can always saturate an area and hope to get lucky.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2018
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  3. Nilgiri

    Nilgiri ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    20,881
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2015
    Ratings:
    +57 / 39,461 / -10
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Canada
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. Vergennes

    Vergennes PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    3,838
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Ratings:
    +54 / 11,501 / -0
    Country:
    France
    Location:
    France
    • Thanks Thanks x 9
  5. randomradio

    randomradio BANNED

    Messages:
    6,696
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Ratings:
    +12 / 4,616 / -26
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    India's newest long range ballistic missiles are already near-zero CEP.

    It depends on the capability of the warhead though.



    If the warhead cannot manoeuvre, then there's no point.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  6. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    561
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Ratings:
    +0 / 704 / -0
    Country:
    France
    Location:
    France
    Or the DF21 or DF31 is fitted with a nuclear warhead, and in this case the precision of the missile may not be average.
    Or the warheads are classical, and it remains very difficult to hit a target of 300 meters * 40 meters sailing to 20 knots from a mach 6+ missile. The agility of a mach 6+ head is low, very low.
    And if you slow down to be more agile, then SM2/3/6 or ASTER missile can hit you.

    China needs some Rafale M ?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  7. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +323 / 10,458 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    meh, and then the nice Chinese folk will post the same photo of "test firing" on the sand that make it looks like a deck of a carrier...

    And It have already said time and again, so no point to repeat like a broken recorder..

    They won't come, that's because you post it on the wrong section, mate.

    If you want them to response, you should post it on China and Far-East section, the Chinese PDF member seldom venture out of that forum.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  8. T-123456

    T-123456 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    11,066
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Ratings:
    +11 / 16,854 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Netherlands
  9. Horus

    Horus ADMINISTRATOR

    Messages:
    38,961
    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Ratings:
    +387 / 92,255 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    He should be.
     
  10. Nilgiri

    Nilgiri ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    20,881
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2015
    Ratings:
    +57 / 39,461 / -10
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes...among some other things lol.

    More useful than stronking "carrier missile killer" by longshot.

    If its all that easy and cheap to counter, why is China long term investing in major CBG infra (including carriers themselves)? Wouldn't they follow the logic that its not a good idea to invest into things that only make sense in a conflict among other CBG-owning peers...but can be so easily and cheaply countered? Like wouldnt they just invest massively into DF missiles and skip the useless easily destroyed expensive CBG stuff?

    Root of the problem is always there is a sequence of C4I infra needed for initial detection, launch, mid launch calibration and final target sensing and lock....not to mention the inherent vulnerabilities of ballistic missiles w.r.t detection and counter-targetting.

    Every single part of this sequencing have counter-measures the adversary (who can afford CBG's in first place) can employ. Real world conflict never works in the way the adversary's expenseive asset is sitting in a chair tied up (and alone) and only one arm free...so you can score such an easy hit with just one .308 bullet that costs tiny fraction. It never has been the case, never is the case now and never will be the case.

    @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @jhungary @gambit @Joe Shearer @Oscar @LeGenD @Signalian @randomradio
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  11. Broccoli

    Broccoli FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    779
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Ratings:
    +1 / 700 / -0
    Country:
    Finland
    Location:
    Finland
    I fail to see his logic. Carriers are usually used to attack enemies way from your own shores and missiles can't really do that, and isn't that reason why French have a one carrier? According to his logic no one should buy fighter jets because SAM systems exist.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  12. MilSpec

    MilSpec PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    11,896
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Ratings:
    +41 / 21,551 / -4
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    I would rather reinforce the theory that BM can be potent countermeasure against Aircraft carriers. As we intend operate anywhere between 3 to 5 CBG's in the coming decades, I would much rather have an adversary relying on Ballistic missiles than Sub-surface fleet. :smart:
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  13. Broccoli

    Broccoli FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    779
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Ratings:
    +1 / 700 / -0
    Country:
    Finland
    Location:
    Finland
    If there is an rebellion against pro-Chinese govt in Africa what is better... launch conventionally armed ICBM's against rebel bases or park carrier next to it and use it's planes to trike against enemy when needed? DF-21 has too short range to hit anything in Africa or Middle-East.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  14. T-123456

    T-123456 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    11,066
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Ratings:
    +11 / 16,854 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Netherlands
    My post was for not hitting when moving only.
    The reason for China to go for AC's could be power projection for ''weaker'' countries and India.
     
  15. Oscar

    Oscar ADVISORS

    Messages:
    30,933
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +310 / 56,583 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    The viability of AsBMs has been in my opinion always in question. Not just because of the intricacies of targeting but by their very nature of giving a higher degree of warning than other options to kill a ship; even as large as a carrier.

    It is better to have a hypersonic or even subsonic low observable submarine based sea skimmer pop out in droves 100km out from a carrier versus a ballistic missile that is detectable seconds after launch from miles away and gives a platform enough time to take evasive maneuvers and defend itself.

    I am a greater advocate of the low observable subsonic sea skimmer with both a low baseline RCS and heat signature than I am for hypersonics which are difficult to make highly maneuverable(due to stresses on airframe) and easy heat signature detection.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5