When I mentioned the 747, it was meant to be an example of runway repair strong enough to handle large aircrafts, not that such materials are aboard an aircraft carrier simply because such large aircrafts are not usually on aircraft carriers. Are you that bereft of logical thought processes? You are telling the readers that you are unable to use the web browser and keywords I presented in my previous reply to verify for yourself other aspects of combat runway repair? You are telling the readers that techniques using steel platings over concrete runway on land is inapplicable to steel runway on an aircraft carrier? You are telling the readers that even though the PLAN is a 'brown water' navy and has literally no aircraft carrier experience, China knows exactly how aircraft carrier operations works.
If you are that helpless with the web browser and keywords I will indulge you this one time to show the readers what handholding a baby looks like...
What NAVAIR Lakehurst Does For The Carrier
The AM-2 matting system has been proven to be sufficient for up to C-130 class aircrafts.
This is a bomb hole on the USS Forrestal...
Now take a look at this source below...
OPFOR: 24 MEU SOC In AFGHANISTAN
See how the Marines are laying out the AM-2 mats to create a working runway?
You are telling the readers that even though China has no aircraft carriers,
YOU know that it is impossible for US, a country that wields dozens of aircraft carriers over decades, to repair an aircraft carrier damaged flight deck.
I mentioned the USAF's Red Horse units. You are too incompetent with the web browser and keywords to find out this...
202nd Red Horse Squadron
I do not need to show you the exact type of matting to support a 747 or a C-5. I only need to show you the general direction so you can find out for yourself lest I be accused of misleading people. You should have been able to deduce that since this is an aircraft carrier, no 747 class aircraft is going to land on it, and if the USAF and the USN fly similar class aircraft, they are going to use the same runway repair systems and techniques.
Aircraft Carrier Photo Index: USS YORKTOWN (CV-5)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020511.jpg
WW II era aircraft carriers had wooden decks and they carried wood with them. But it is absurd that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier would carry steel plates to repair battle damages on deck...!!!
Yup...You and your Chinese compats here are just like the Iranians and their boastings. If China cannot do <something> no one else can.
Fine...You are wrong. It is based upon your assumption that the ship is damaged and that while it is damaged, it is vulnerable to enemy fighters. The DF-21 is presumably a ballistic weapon, meaning it is to be used against a target beyond the reach of manned aircrafts. So if you want Chinese fighters to attack at the same time as a DF-21 launch against a target at 1000km+ distance, the fighters will be on a one-way mission and if they use afterburners they will not have any fuel to reach the target. Do you even know anything about jet fighter operations?
What is there to 'dispute' regarding your calculations? You are arguing in the abstract so of course it is possible to develop ballistic weapon against a moving ship. But here is why arguing in the abstract can make one look utterly foolish...
This is what the DF-21 look like...
File
F-21A TEL - Chinese Military Museum Beijing.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
This is what a MIRV-ed warhead look like...
Each nuclear warhead is about the size of a human being.
Now...What do we know about the size of the submunitions carried by the DF-21? May be not man-size but certatainly should be large enough to carry a credible explosive charge. Not only that...If the DF-21's warhead is supposed to have sensors and maneuvering capability, the nosecone must contain those devices, reducing volume space for those submunitions. What is the release altitude? These are not questions on how the DF-21 works but about
EFFICACY...As influenced by subsystems such as sensor suites and submunitions...
Efficacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The effect is to severely damage a ship. The delivery method is a ballistic enclosure and approach. Therefore submunition size, shape and release altitude do matter a great deal...
Subsonic Wind-Tunnel Tests on a Series of Bomblets with Canted Fins
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD909473
Look at the above deck layout of a US aircraft carrier.The only way to deny air operation is to have multiple hits across the entire flight deck. Your claim is that a US aircraft carrier could be showered with hundreds of submunitions covering a large area. Fine...I have no dispute with that. But the engineering reality is that given what we know of the DF-21's nosecone dimension, that submunition size shape and release altitude affect efficacy, it would require China to launch hundreds, if not thousands, of DF-21s against one ship and hopefully there will be so much damages that it would force a retreat. This is assuming the target will be stationary, aka the proverbial 'sitting duck', just for China's benefit. Do you have any idea how laughable that is?
My point...??? Below...
THE LOST AMERICAN AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
It took forty minutes to control the fire. Since this was peacetime, the ship was compelled to return for repairs. Why would anyone want to deploy a weakened ship in peacetime? You want to present the strongest possible image
ESPECIALLY at peacetime to preserve the peace. But if this was wartime and there is a need to have naval air support the Enterprise would have effect damage control to logically remove that 50 yds from operations and press on to the next battle. To 'logically' remove something is to physically have it but not use it. Her air operations and deployment rate would be reduced by not entirely stopped.
The above is the 'flush deck' fire suppression system. It uses a mixture of sea water and 'aqueous film forming foam' (AFFF).
Fire Suppression Substitutes and Alternatives to Halon for U.S. Navy Applications
The foam is effective enough to be used by 25 largest US civilian airports. It reduces firefighting time by 2/3 so structural repair crews can move in to restore the flight deck to resume air operations, no matter how limited. In figure 53, a sample is taken to measure assure a proper percentage of AFFF to sea water. Do show the readership how much experience does China have at this kind of large ship operation for you to say that the US Navy does not know how to repair a battle damaged ship.
The DF-21 is a desperate attempt by China to put on a defense, no matter how weak, against a possible US naval incursion into what China believe to be territorially significant -- Asia. The mechanics of the DF-21 are
NOT in dispute. I never said China does not know how to install sensors or how to make the DF-21 dispense submunitions. But DF-21's efficacy as a
SYSTEM is the question.
The US is the world's most experienced aircraft carrier operator since even before WW II and never ceased to be so. You seriously think that China can really detect, track and target such a ship in real time? The South China Sea is about %5 of the Pacific Ocean but is still over one million square mile. Now try to find even as large a ship as an aircraft carrier in that vastness, even with OTH radar.
Finding that aircraft carrier is one thing but tracking it in real time is another. At 30kts or higher for 30 minutes, the ship's maneuverings to launch and recover aircrafts can have it anywhere inside a several hundreds square mile area. Increase that air operation time to 90 minutes and the area enlarges to several thousands square miles. That is not counting the carrier's heavily armed escorts ringing that air operation perimeter. If the need is a high speed dash to beat the sh!t out of some loudmouth fool, if this fool takes his eyes off the ship for one day, the distance displacement approaches 800 nm from the previous sighting. That is a one-way flight distance for fighters who would encounter defenses by the mentioned escorts before they make it to that air operation ring.
While a ballistic missile does radically reduces the transit time between launch and target points, that transit time plus a ballistic missile's sensors being blinded by a plasma shield, if it is from suborbit, is still sufficient for the ship to deploy passive/seductive/distraction defenses and displace itself from its previous location and that displacement will be enough to reduce the weapon's efficacy.
Time, Speed and Distance Calculator
Using the calculator above, if we insert 15 minutes as the DF-21's launch prep time, the US aircraft carrier would have displaced roughly 15km from the moment of the decision to launch. Since I have to hold your virtual hand with the web browser, the DF-21's launch prep time is estimated here...
Chinese Ballistic Missiles
So to assuredly destroy a single US aircraft carrier, China would have to launch hundreds, if not thousands, of DF-21s to cover a few hundreds square km. Or go nuclear.
Against a
LITTORAL navy like the PLAN, as long as a US aircraft carrier remain outside the estimated 200nm range of the enemy's best ship, that aircraft carrier is immune from attacks while its air wing with its 600nm range can conduct air strikes against those ships, weakening and eventually removing them from the war, allowing the carrier to move closer to shore, but still maintaining that 200nm distance.
Yours is the typical attitude of someone who refuses to admit his ignorance and inexperience no matter how much evidences, direct or indirect, are presented in front of him.
lets wait for some anti-chinese hollywood movie we can then see what could happen when this carrier killer will be launched. and this all should also be posted in how to sink a aircraft carrier?? thread.
F-21A TEL - Chinese Military Museum Beijing.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
