What's new

China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the burden is on professor Arthur Ding to clearly explain the details behind his claim. I have not read a similar claim by other experts.
Right...That mean just because YOU have no relevant experience and does not exercise critical thinking skills, therefore these technical problems does not exists...:rolleyes:

The challenge seems pretty straightforward. A sensor provides targeting data for an incoming warhead. A giga-hertz computer processor (that can execute a billion instructions per second) makes continuous minute adjustments to the steering fins of the warhead and guides it to its target. What exactly is the problem?

We already know that modern flight computers make continuous adjustments to keep an unstable airplane in the air. Similarly, a modern computer should easily be able to make continuous adjustments to the "air fins" of a warhead.

Professor Ding gave us a conclusion. He needs to provide details and connect the dots if he wants to make a persuasive case. Currently, I am not persuaded.

Computers in Aviation

"The General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin) F-16, which entered service in the late 1970s and has been built in large numbers, was the first operational jet fighter to use an analog flight control system. The pilot steers the rudder pedals and joystick, but these are not directly connected to the control surfaces such as the rudder and ailerons. Instead, they are connected to a "fly-by-wire" flight control system. Three computers on the aircraft constantly adjust the flight controls to maintain the aircraft in flight and reply to the commands from the pilot. The F-16 is inherently unstable by design, meaning that it would fly out of control if the computers failed (which is why there are three of them). The designers made it unstable in order to improve its maneuverability. The computers constantly readjust the flight surfaces to keep the plane flying. Initially, pilots often referred to the F-16 as "the electric jet." But computer control systems have become so common that they are no longer unusual."
You are making a fool out of yourself. The reason why the F-16's flight control system able to control a negative stability aircraft is NOT of processing power, although such power is important, but about the response mechanisms that made up a 'flight control system'. The A/B models were analog. The FCLS computer sends commands to the flight control hydraulics, which operate with 3000lb/psi, to motivate flight control surfaces that weighs anywhere from tens to hundreds of lbs.

This is what a warhead container look like...

mirv_assembly_009.jpg


There is no room in EACH warhead to hold a hydraulic generator to produce that kind of pressure. The F-16 analogy is also inappropriate in that the aircraft was design with negative stability but nuclear warheads are NOT so design. These things do not have their own power. A warhead descends because of gravity and that speed, its shape demands positive aerodynamic stability to maintain consistent trajectory. An aircraft has the ability to return to any spatial point, as long as its fuel holds out. A nuclear warhead is unpowered, other than what gravity provides, therefore its spatial translation is ONE-WAY. An aircraft has the ability to control its velocity in either direction. A solely gravity powered nuclear warhead can only lose, not gain, velocity, that mean a nuclear warhead has only one chance to hit a moving target.
 
df21c2007072406a.jpg

DF-21C

Form follows function. The DF-21C has the same distinctive nose as the Pershing II. The DF-21C appears to be a convergent-engineered Pershing II.

SgForums :: Singapore's Online Community - Jane's: China deploying Anti-ship ballistic missile by 2009

"Jane's: China deploying Anti-ship ballistic missile by 2009

There's no effect way to intercept ballistic missile (BM) currently. If the Jane's report really predicts the deployment of Anti-ship ballistic missile in 2009 correctly, then the US aircraft carrier battle group which is at the core of the US global intervening power will be serious threatened because the current shipborne SAMs like SM2 are not capable to intercept such BMs. The weakening of the big uncle's military power will in turn weaken his political demands. That will have dramatic effect on the political map of East Asia.

China develops anti-ship missile

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw060118_1_n.shtml

By Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent
Virginia, US

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles.

The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009.

PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.

However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some [of] the current missiles' re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea."

217 of 577 words

[End of non-subscriber extract.]"
 
Look gambit, I don't really care if some people are willing to believe your extremely-biased China-hating arguments. They have a choice. They can believe Jane's and the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence or you. If they are dumb enough to believe you then that's their problem.

By the way, why are you showing a picture of a MIRVed warhead when I am discussing MARV technology?
 
Look gambit, I don't really care if some people are willing to believe your extremely-biased China-hating arguments.
Of course you do care. All of you do care. Else you would not bother to rehashed the same news items over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum...Without a technical clue of what they say.

They have a choice.
Yes they do. And it really does not look good for you.

They can believe Jane's and the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence or you. If they are dumb enough to believe you then that's their problem.
On the contrary...They are smart enough to see the generalized descriptions made by those sources versus the valid technical issues I brought up. They are smart enough to see the words 'could' or 'may be' or 'potential' for what they are -- uncertainties. Unlike you and your fellow Chinese fanboys who exaggerates their meanings.

By the way, why are you showing a picture of a MIRVed warhead when I am discussing MARV technology?
If you have to ask this question, this tells me you are out of your league in this discussion. Clue -- Visually speaking, you cannot tell the differences. At least not until you are up close and personal with one of these.:D
 
Read last bold paragraph at the bottom of the article.

admiralrobertfwillard1.jpg

Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command

China Testing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM); U.S. Preparing Accordingly–Updated With Latest Analysis & Sources|Andrew S. Erickson

"On 24 August 2010, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made the following statement to Japanese media in Tokyo:

“To our knowledge, [China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.”

A 16 August 2010 background briefing by a Senior U.S. Department of Defense official indicates that China still needs to successfully integrate its ASBM with C4ISR in order to operationalize it:

“We continue to be concerned about their efforts to development this—this particular system. I would say the primary area… where we see them still facing roadblocks is in integrating the missile system with the C4-ISR. And they still have a ways to go before they manage to get that integrated so that they have an operational and effective system.”

“But nonetheless, this is an area that, for all the obvious reasons, remains, you know, of great concern for us.”

The just-released 2010 U.S. Department of Defense Report on China’s Military offers a general background:

“Augmented by direct acquisition of foreign weapons and technology, [defense industry] reforms have enabled China to develop and produce advanced weapon systems that incorporate mid-1990s technology in many areas, and some systems—particularly ballistic missiles—that rival any in the world today.” (p. 43)

“Production trends and resource allocation appear to favor missile and space systems….” (p. 44).

“China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes.” (p. 1)

“China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km, is armed with a maneuverable warhead, and when integrated with appropriate command and control systems, is intended to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.” (p. 2)

“The PLA is acquiring conventional MRBMs to increase the range at which it can conduct precision strikes against land targets and naval ships, including aircraft carriers, operating far from China’s shores out to the first island chain.” (p. 31)

“The PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with Sky Wave and Surface Wave OTH radars. OTH radars could be used in conjunction with imagery satellites to assist in locating targets at great distances from PRC shores to support long range precision strikes, including by anti-ship ballistic missiles.” (p. 2)

“Over the long term, improvements in China’s C4ISR, including space-based and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track, and target military activities deep into the western Pacific Ocean.” (p. 37)

Based on sophisticated organizational analysis, Mark Stokes and Tiffany Ma suggest that the Second Artillery may be constructing ASBM missile brigade facilities in the northern Guangdong Province municipality of Shaoguan (韶关):

“Last week, China’s state-run media quietly announced the construction of facilities for a new Second Artillery missile brigade – the 96166 Unit – in the northern Guangdong municipality of Shaoguan… the province is already home to a Second Artillery short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) brigade (the 96169 unit in Meizhou)….”

“Although the introduction of the 1,700km range solid fuelled, terminally guided DF-21C ballistic missile into Guangdong is possible, the brigade is also a candidate to be the first unit equipped with the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The DF-21C, first introduced into the active inventory in 2005, is designed to attack fixed targets on land. If an ASBM is successful in passing the necessary design reviews and a sufficient sensor network is in place, the Shaoguan brigade could become the first in the PLA to field a lethal capability against moving targets at sea out to a range of 1,500-2,000km or more from launch sites.”

“The Second Artillery planned to finalize the design of the DF-21D by the end of 2010 and the establishment of a permanent deployment location often coincides with the design finalization of a new missile. However, an initial operational capability is likely a ways off, as a follow-on testing of a prototype design may be needed prior to certification for full-rate production.”

Shaoguan’s location near Hunan Province, with the inter-provincial Nanling mountains and tunnels through them that complicate satellite surveillance (under construction since at least 2008), offers significant advantages:

“Whether the unit is equipped with the DF-21C or the more advanced DF-21D maritime variant, the establishment of a conventionally-capable medium range ballistic missile brigade in Guangdong would decisively expand the Second Artillery’s striking radius. More specifically, it would enable the Second Artillery to support the Central Military Commission to enforce territorial claims in the South China Sea, or strike targets in a Taiwan-related contingency without having to overfly Japanese territory.”

Other recent indications of Chinese ASBM development progress include the reported completion of a DF-21D rocket motor facility in 2009 and the recent launch of 5 advanced Yaogan satellites, three of which were apparently placed in the same orbit on 5 March–thereby perhaps offering better coverage of critical areas along China’s maritime periphery. Another possible indication is a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit “slow-moving targets” with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters. Mark Stokes, a noted expert at the Project 2049 Institute on this and related issues, stated on 4 June 2010 that 'odds are what you’re seeing now in terms of testing is… flight tests of the [DF-21D] motor itself and the airframe… the final step would be most likely going against a target at sea in a realistic environment.'”
 
Last edited:
I believe aircraft carriers are too large and susceptible to destruction by a technologically-advanced military (e.g. China or United States). I don't believe American aircraft carrier battle groups are survivable in Chinese waters. Similarly, I do not believe the Shi Lang is survivable in American waters. Eventually, American carriers will have to stay east of Hawaii and Chinese carrier(s) will have to stay west of Hawaii.

Here are my latest thoughts on anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) and aircraft carriers.

----------

Multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM

An efficient method to attack an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is to use an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) with multiple MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) warheads.

With multiple MARV warheads, a ballistic missile will have reduced range. This can be fixed by building a larger missile to accommodate the larger number of warheads.

My original proposal was to use a simultaneous attack on each capital ship with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, torpedoes, stealth cruise missiles if available, and mix of subsonic (with supersonic terminal phase if available) and supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

I want to elaborate on the anti-ship ballistic missile discussion. It is more efficient and effective to arm each ASBM with multiple MARVs. Let's say each DF-21D ASBM is armed with three MARVs. Firing 25 ASBMs at each destroyer within a five-minute window would total 75 MARV warheads or an incoming warhead every four seconds.

I had proposed launching 50 ASBMs at each aircraft carrier. That is a total of 150 MARV warheads within a five-minute window. This means an incoming warhead will attempt to strike the carrier every two seconds for five minutes non-stop.

We would have to run computer simulations, but another option is to time the arrival of all 50 ASBMs within a ten-second window by using computerized coordination. Basically, the sky will drop down on the carrier with 150 warheads in ten seconds.

With an intense ballistic missile bombardment coupled to an equally intense simultaneous cruise missile and torpedo attack, I don't think an aircraft carrier battle group will survive in Chinese waters.

Feel free to create your own attack plan, such as an initial EMP warhead to fry the carrier group's electronics and a follow-up of 150 MARV warheads in a short time-frame.

EJYqP.jpg

It is logical to equip Chinese DF-21D ASBMs with multiple MARV warheads by reducing the range or building a larger ballistic missile.

0MJRx.jpg

A MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) is basically a warhead with thrusters.

Idpbp.jpg

Multiple warheads (MIRVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile. Similarly, multiple warheads with thrusters (e.g. MARVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile.

[Note: Thank you to Dr. Somnath999 for the composite images of China's ASBM.]
 
I believe aircraft carriers are too large and susceptible to destruction by a technologically-advanced military (e.g. China or United States). I don't believe American aircraft carrier battle groups are survivable in Chinese waters. Similarly, I do not believe the Shi Lang is survivable in American waters. Eventually, American carriers will have to stay east of Hawaii and Chinese carrier(s) will have to stay west of Hawaii.

Here are my latest thoughts on anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) and aircraft carriers.

----------

Multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM

An efficient method to attack an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is to use an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) with multiple MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) warheads.

With multiple MARV warheads, a ballistic missile will have reduced range. This can be fixed by building a larger missile to accommodate the larger number of warheads.

My original proposal was to use a simultaneous attack on each capital ship with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, torpedoes, stealth cruise missiles if available, and mix of subsonic (with supersonic terminal phase if available) and supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

I want to elaborate on the anti-ship ballistic missile discussion. It is more efficient and effective to arm each ASBM with multiple MARVs. Let's say each DF-21D ASBM is armed with three MARVs. Firing 25 ASBMs at each destroyer within a five-minute window would total 75 MARV warheads or an incoming warhead every four seconds.

I had proposed launching 50 ASBMs at each aircraft carrier. That is a total of 150 MARV warheads within a five-minute window. This means an incoming warhead will attempt to strike the carrier every two seconds for five minutes non-stop.

We would have to run computer simulations, but another option is to time the arrival of all 50 ASBMs within a ten-second window by using computerized coordination. Basically, the sky will drop down on the carrier with 150 warheads in ten seconds.

With an intense ballistic missile bombardment coupled to an equally intense simultaneous cruise missile and torpedo attack, I don't think an aircraft carrier battle group will survive in Chinese waters.

Feel free to create your own attack plan, such as an initial EMP warhead to fry the carrier group's electronics and a follow-up of 150 MARV warheads in a short time-frame.

EJYqP.jpg

It is logical to equip Chinese DF-21D ASBMs with multiple MARV warheads by reducing the range or building a larger ballistic missile.

0MJRx.jpg

A MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) is basically a warhead with thrusters.

Idpbp.jpg

Multiple warheads (MIRVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile. Similarly, multiple warheads with thrusters (e.g. MARVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile.
Hey Martian have you seen the latest j-20 vid I put up its awesome it named j20 2002 public test flight video :D
 
A triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM will only be 3 meters in diameter

Let's calculate the size of my proposed devastating triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM.

The diameter of the DF-21 ballistic missile is 1.4m (or 0.7m in radius; see citation below).

ZNDx0.jpg

We want to build a triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM.

The radius of a triple-MARVed ASBM is (see formula in second citation below):

R = B * (1 + 2 / Sqrt(3))

R = 0.7m * (1 + 2 / (1.732)) = 1.5m (or 3 meters in diameter)

In conclusion, by only doubling the diameter of the DF-21D from 1.4m to 3m, we can pack three times as many MARVs onto the ballistic missile.

----------

References:

1.4m diameter for DF-21 missile: MissileThreat :: CSS-5 (DF-21)

Formula for calculating a circle to circumscribe three inner circles:

BLOG.CSHARPHELPER.COM: Draw a large circle that circumscribes three smaller tangent circles in C#

"Draw a large circle that circumscribes three smaller tangent circles...

UQqN5.png


The dashed triangle has corners at the inner circles' centers. If the radius of the inner circles is r, then the sides of the triangles have length 2 * r. Because all three sides have the same lengths, this is an equilateral triangle. That means all of its angles are 60 degrees.

The orange triangle's smaller angle is half as large as the angles in the dashed triangle so it is 30 degrees. That makes the orange triangle is a 30-60-90 triangle (the angles are 30, 60, and 90 degrees). One of the properties of the 30-60-90 triangle is that C/A = 1/2 and C/B = 1/Sqrt(3). Rearranging you can get A = 2 * C and C = B/Sqrt(3).

The distance B is the radius r of the smaller circle. The radius of the outer circle is R = r + A = B + A. You can use the previous equations to substitute for A to get:

R = B + A
= B + 2 * C
= B + 2 * (B / Sqrt(3))
= B * (1 + 2 / Sqrt(3))

Solving for B gives B = R / (1 + 2 / Sqrt(3)).

This gives you the radius of the inner circles in terms of the radius of the outer circle. To make the outer circle just fit the form, we need R to be half of the smaller of the form's available width or height."
 
Revision: China won't build a triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM

My revised analysis is due to AntiTerror13's astute observation. He said a triple-MARVed ASBM would be four times heavier. He is correct and my hoped-for cost-savings just went up in smoke.

I was trying to build a more cost-efficient ASBM. From a volume perspective, placing three MARV warheads on a missile with twice the diameter looks appealing. However, from a weight perspective, three warheads on a four-times heavier missile is inefficient.

A missile is basically a cylinder with a tapered end. Its volume is "pi*r^2" (the area for a circle) multiplied by the length "h". When the radius is doubled, the overall volume is quadrupled. This means more material is needed to lift three MARVs on a single missile than three separate missiles.

It's possible "h" can be reduced due to the larger total volume of fuel, but the combined total liftoff weight is higher and a significant reduction in length is unlikely.

If I wanted to be clever, I can argue it requires fewer highly-trained personnel to operate and guard the ASBM. Also, I can note fewer mobile launchers (TELs) are required.

However, in a balanced analysis, the big cost-savings do not exist. Therefore, a triple-MARVed ASBM is unlikely to be built. It turns out that thermonuclear-tipped ballistic missiles can be efficiently MIRVed or MARVed, but not ballistic missiles with conventional warheads.

When a single megaton-class thermonuclear warhead is replaced with a cluster of smaller 100-kiloton-class warheads, it can maintain devastating strike power. We cannot replace a conventional 600kg HE (high explosive) warhead with three little ones. It wouldn't cause sufficient damage.

----------

Reference for 600kg warhead on DF-21D ASBM: MissileThreat :: CSS-5 (DF-21)
 
Martian, as you have said earlier (that I'm in agreement with), the DF21 ASBM is a strategy asset that should never be used, shouldn't China limit the number actually deployed? I suppose if China can manage to conceal the actual number of missiles deployed and demonstrate the use of a few, would that achieve the strategic goal? Thus we won't be needing triple-MARVed DF21s or thousands of single warhead versions, but a few hundred.

After all nobody knows how many nuclear missiles China have, the certainty that China do have them is sufficient.

Though this was an interesting read, I'm sorry your design failed :).
 
and you think US cant do combined attack? :rofl: Please be brave to show your flags .
 
Martian, as you have said earlier (that I'm in agreement with), the DF21 ASBM is a strategy asset that should never be used, shouldn't China limit the number actually deployed? I suppose if China can manage to conceal the actual number of missiles deployed and demonstrate the use of a few, would that achieve the strategic goal? Thus we won't be needing triple-MARVed DF21s or thousands of single warhead versions, but a few hundred.

After all nobody knows how many nuclear missiles China have, the certainty that China do have them is sufficient.

Though this was an interesting read, I'm sorry your design failed :).

Even if it worked it be a total failure from the beginning because it would be deemed as a nuclear launch and you be seeing dozens of Trident missiles with MIRVs heading their way.
 
Even if it worked it be a total failure from the beginning because it would be deemed as a nuclear launch and you be seeing dozens of Trident missiles with MIRVs heading their way.

The U.S. knows it's a conventional warhead, because China has a no-first-use (NFU) policy of using nuclear weapons. Plus, the Chinese DF-21D ASBM has been advertised to death. Whatever ballistic missiles are being shot at an aircraft carrier, it's a conventional DF-21D. In the worst case scenario, China can call the U.S. on the hotline and tell them it's the DF-21D.

Anyway, if the U.S. goes nuclear then China will go nuclear too. If the U.S. wants to find an excuse to start global thermonuclear war, I'm sure China will oblige the Pentagon. There are hawks on both sides, who are more than ready to go at it.
 
The U.S. knows it's a conventional warhead, because China has a no-first-use (NFU) policy of using nuclear weapons. Plus, the Chinese DF-21D ASBM has been advertised to death. Whatever ballistic missiles are being shot at an aircraft carrier, it's a conventional DF-21D. In the worst case scenario, China can call the U.S. on the hotline and tell them it's the DF-21D.

Anyway, if the U.S. goes nuclear then China will go nuclear too. If the U.S. wants to find an excuse to start global thermonuclear war, I'm sure China will oblige the Pentagon. There are hawks on both sides, who are more than ready to go at it.

So you want the end the China (for sure), US (probably) and the planet as we know it in the quest to sink an AC, great :yahoo:
 
You have completely failed to grasp what Martian was saying.

But be assured, although the US can destroy the planet 100 times over, china can perhaps only do it ONCE. So it's not 'end china (for sure), US (probably)', it's the end of EVERYBODY (CERTAINLY).

That's what nuclear strategic asset means, sad but true. Now do you understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom