Chinese DF-21D for India

[Feroz Alam Khan]

@Kiss_of_the_Dragon have a look

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160809/1044104057/arms-india-modi-vietnam.html
http://rbth.com/blogs/continental_d...etnams-new-killer-indo-russian-missile_604759

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

@Kiss_of_the_Dragon have a look

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160809/1044104057/arms-india-modi-vietnam.html
http://rbth.com/blogs/continental_d...etnams-new-killer-indo-russian-missile_604759

What is the big deal about that when we can make India navy-less with our DF-21D

 

[Feroz Alam Khan]

What is the big deal about that when we can make India navy-less with our DF-21D

Don't dare to do that ... or else you will be committing are greatest blunder of your nation. Vietnam is more than enough for you. Go and try to mimic,steal and copy other IP products and technologies.
Do you know here in India a class First kid wrote "china" as antonym of word ORIGINAL.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Don't dare to do that ... or else you will be committing are greatest blunder of your nation. Vietnam is more than enough for you. Go and try to mimic,steal and copy other IP products and technologies.
Do you know here in India a class First kid wrote "china" as antonym of word ORIGINAL.

Woo....we're so scare, what you gonna do nuke us?, a navyless India mean peace on Indian Ocean, everyone there such Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives and Pakistan will jump of joy.

 

[Feroz Alam Khan]

Indian submarines burn on its own, indian aircraft crash on its own, no wonder india as an enemy is seen by China as a joke.

Thats the reason we are going to build ships for you.

Woo....we're so scare, what you gonna do nuke us?, a navyless India mean peace on Indian Ocean, everyone there such Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives and Pakistan will jump of joy.

I have gone through your earlier posts ..... some body suggested I.Q. is reflection of the dietary habits.... so kindly spare me... my sincere apologies to you.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

I have gone through your earlier posts ..... some body suggested I.Q. is reflection of the dietary habits.... so kindly spare me... my sincere apologies to you.

what an IQ argument

 

[zebra7]

1- DF-21D is sure ready for India

2- we have real time tracking, we have Sat imaging and we have GPS, and the DF-21D is self homing...what else we need more

Next time don't quote be with some nonsense Logic. I have already mentioned everything above what is needed. And what is this B.S of GPS. For targeting the moving target, you need the precise location of the target, and the continous monitoring plus, real time update of information mechanism. And GPS is the technology, to get the Global positioning refrence which you get in the GPS Reciever, so before you write those Crap read above what I have written.

Bragging , India might operate carrier longer than China but you use Harrier VTOL but now India and China both use conventional landing and ski jump take off, you claim to have more experience than us? and please don't try to push yourself down by comparing a light weight Mig29K to Heavy weight fighter J-15, you're just not on our league

Harrier is not only VTOL, but also could take off like the conventional way, and second before Harrier, INAF have opperated the Carrier. MIG-29K is an operational Ski Jump, arrestor recovery naval fighter Plane, an excellent plane. And the J-15, which you took off from the Ukraine aka Su-33, is now giving you the real bonner, when you realizes that it is the same problem, which Russia is facing with their Su-33, which is Under power and now left that project, and going for the MIG-29K route. Light wt or Heavy wt, what makes the difference, when it won't be able to take off with the much needed weapon load, and till now it could only fly with the A2A armament only.

And yes keep dreaming of your Rafale-M. the day you finish the negotiation, we will have our J-31 on 001A carrier , And your relation with Japan, US..NATO or Aliens will help your clause against China DF-21D?

India have many options if they wants aka Rafale M, F-35 and we don't dream, that is going to happen in reality. On the otherhand, keep bragging the propaganda of the State Controlled information of the Blogs made by the PRC serving officers. And for the Japan, US, NATO, and other South Eastern countries, Yes Indian Navy will soon start combine petrolling the so called South China Sea, which you claimed as yours, and soon get ready to vacate those man made island.

 

[Penguin]

The DF-21D is so yesterday, now try with the DF-26 and DF-ZF.

Doesn't matter how general consensus see our DF-21D because we're the user and the one with the press button and not them. And you should tell your defense ministry that DF-21D is overrate and leave us alone when we deploy this in Tibet

All untried systems, with many potential weaknesses. Besides, there is a very simple deterrant: use any of these and face nuclear retaliation. Then see who does the best game of chicken.

Besides:

Military leaders in the U.S. Navy and Air Force, however, do not see it as a "game changer" to completely count carriers out. First, the missile may not be able to single-handedly destroy its target, as the warhead is believed to be enough to only inflict a "mission kill" to make a carrier unable to conduct flight operations. Secondly, there is the problem of finding its target. The DF-21D has a range estimated between 1,035 to 1,726 mi (899 to 1,500 nmi; 1,666 to 2,778 km), so a carrier battle group would need to be located through other means before launching. Over-the-horizon radars cannot pinpoint their exact locations, and would have to be used in conjunction with Chinese recon satellites; recon aircraft and submarines could also look for them, but they are vulnerable to the carrier's defenses. Finally, although the DF-21D has radar and optical sensors for tracking, it has not yet been tested against a ship target moving at-sea at up to 55 km/h (30 kn; 34 mph), let alone ones using clutter and countermeasures. The "kill chain" of the missile requires processing and constantly updating data of a carrier's location, preparing the launch, programming information, and then firing, a chain the U.S. military's AirSea Battle concept involves disrupting. Some U.S. analysts believe that the DF-21D doesn't fly any faster than Mach 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D

The Dong-Feng 26 (DF-26) is a Dong Feng-series missile that is a development of the DF-21, with range increased to 3,000–5,000 km (1,900–3,100 mi),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26
i.e. same vulnerabilities (if not more, since longer range demands even more external sensors and a longer - and hence more vulnerable - kill chain)

The DF-21D reentry vehicle appears to bear similarities to the American Pershing II missile's RV, which was withdrawn from service in 1988. The Pershing II's RV weighed 1,400 lb (640 kg) and was fitted with four control fins to perform a 25-G pull-up after reentering the atmosphere, traveling at Mach 8 and then gliding 30 nmi (35 mi; 56 km) to the target to pitch into a terminal dive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D

If this is true, in terms of weight and dimensions, let me remind that already in WW2 carrier took dozens of hits by 250 and 500kg bombs, sometimes also torpedoes and were not automatically lost.

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire

Even the old CV-2 USS Lexington (commissioned 1927), which took 2 torpedoes and 2 bombs in combat and subsequently suffered at least three massive internal explosions due to ignition of gasoline vapors from the cracked avgas tanks, continued with flight deck operations, although the refueling system was shut down. More internal explosions followed later, after the ship had flown off surviging aircraft, lost propulsion and the order to abandon ship was given. The destroyer USS Phelps was then ordered to sink the ship and had to fire a total of five torpedoes before the USS Lexington finally went down and sank.

So that's 7 torpedoes (2x Japanese aerial torp @ 330kg HE, 5x US heavyweight torp @ 300-500 kg HE depending on type) and 2x 500kg bombs. Plus probably some 10 internal fuel and ammo related internal explosions.

Go figure.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

All untried systems, with many potential weaknesses. Besides, there is a very simple deterrant: use any of these and face nuclear retaliation. Then see who does the best game of chicken.

DF-21D is conventional, this like to say that if US dare to hit our ships in SCS, we will nuke their carrier battle group or systematically nuke US...what a loser mentality , if that's the case every country should equipped with nuke to deter US or western convention strike.

 

[Penguin]

DF-21D is conventional, this like to say that if US dare to hit our ships in SCS, we will nuke their carrier battle group or systematically nuke US...what a loser mentality , if that's the case every country should equipped with nuke to deter US or western convention strike.

No, it is not like that at all. And even if it were, you'ld still have to deal with it. There was a time when Russia was ready to nuclear strike China, and this was stopped by US saying "if you nuke China, we will consider it the start of WW3". Border wars between China and Russia stopped. Go figure.

 

[Beast]

No, it is not like that at all. And even if it were, you'ld still have to deal with it. There was a time when Russia was ready to nuclear strike China, and this was stopped by US saying "if you nuke China, we will consider it the start of WW3". Border wars between China and Russia stopped. Go figure.

As if Russia stop nuke China is pure due to US interference? In 1967, China demonstrated capabilities of hydrogen bomb of 3 megaton. Serious, do Russia is really confident none of the China hydrogen bomb cant reach Russia if nuke exchange started? That is in 1969 where China basically has a few hydrogen bomb.

No sane human will try to nuke China.

 

[GURU DUTT]

And what India is waiting for to have arm race with China like USSR? .

why should india indulge in arms race with china ... we cannot match it as china has more money and men but having said that china tends to loose more than india if ever it try to do what it did in 1962 cause we are preapiring for two front war for quite some time and even without an arms race we have enof to contain china as we are not the only one's watching it or china to be worried about

 

[pikkuboss]

Hahaha

 

[Penguin]

As if Russia stop nuke China is pure due to US interference? In 1967, China demonstrated capabilities of hydrogen bomb of 3 megaton. Serious, do Russia is really confident none of the China hydrogen bomb cant reach Russia if nuke exchange started? That is in 1969 where China basically has a few hydrogen bomb.

No sane human will try to nuke China.

The first of China's nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964, and its first hydrogen bomb test occurred in 1967.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

I suggest you look up the year 1965 and 1970 here. Also look at 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/4/77

In 1965, China had maybe 5 nuclear weapons, a number that rose to 75 by 1970. By comparison, Russian in those years had 6,129 and 11,643 respectively, while the US had 31,139 and 26,008 respectively.

Whether a few bombs could hit Russia is irrelevant in this context. Indeed,

During 1968, the Soviet Army had amassed along the 4,380 km (2,738 mi.) border with China — especially at the Xinjiang frontier, in north-west China, where the Soviets might readily induce Turkic separatists to insurrection. Militarily, in 1961, the USSR had 12 divisions and 200 aeroplanes at that border; in 1968, there were 25 divisions, 1,200 aeroplanes, and 120 medium-range missiles. Moreover, even though PRC has more manpower available than the USSR, and it had already tested its first nuclear weapon nuclear weapon (the 596 Test in October 1964, at Lop Nur basin), the People's Liberation Army was militarily inferior to the Soviet Army as far as equipment was concerned. Yet, the Chinese adopted a asymmetric deterrence strategy that threatened a large-scale conventional “People’s War” in response to a Soviet counterforce first-strike. China’s superiority in sheer numbers of troops was the cornerstone of Beijing’s strategy to deter a Soviet nuclear attack. Since 1949, Chinese military strategy as articulated by Chinese leader Mao Zedong continually emphasized the superiority of “man over weapons.” While weapons were certainly an important component of warfare, Mao argued that they were “not the decisive factor; it is people, not things, that are decisive. The contest of strength is not only a contest of military and economic power, but also a contest of human power and morale.” In Mao’s view, non-material qualities, including subjectivity, creativity, flexibility, and high morale, were critical determinants in warfare.”The Soviets were not confident they could win such a conflict. A large-scale Chinese incursion could threaten key strategic centers in Blagoveshchensk, Vladivostok, and Khabarovsk, as well as crucial nodes of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. According to Arkady Shevchenko, a high-ranking Russian defector to the United States, “The Politburo was terrified that the Chinese might make a large-scale intrusion into Soviet territory. A nightmare vision of invasion by millions of Chinese made the Soviet leaders almost frantic. Despite our overwhelming superiority in weaponry, it would not be easy for the U.S.S.R. to cope with an assault of this magnitude.” Given China’s “vast population and deep knowledge and experience in guerrilla warfare,” if the Soviets launched a major attack on China’s nuclear program they would surely become “mired in an endless war.” In fact, concerns about China’s strength in manpower and its “people’s war” strategy ran so deep that some bureaucrats in Moscow argued the only way to defend against a massive conventional onslaught was to use nuclear weapons. Some even advocated deploying nuclear mines along the Sino-Soviet border. By threatening to initiate a prolonged conventional conflict in retaliation for a nuclear strike, Beijing employed an asymmetric deterrence strategy intended to convince Moscow that the costs of an attack would outweigh the benefits. China had indeed found a potent threat. While most Soviet military specialists did not fear a Chinese nuclear reprisal, believing that China’s arsenal was so small, rudimentary, and vulnerable that it could not survive a first strike and carry out a retaliatory attack, there was great concern about China’s massive conventional army. Nikolai Ogarkov, a senior Soviet military officer, believed that a massive nuclear attack “would inevitably mean world war.” Even a limited counterforce strike on China’s nuclear facilities was dangerous, Ogarkov argued, because a few nuclear weapons would “hardly annihilate” a country the size of China, and in response China would “fight unrelentingly.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-...lude_to_a_nuclear_crisis_and_a_people.27s_war

The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to Chinese historian Liu Chenshan, the author of a series of articles that chronicle the five times China has faced a nuclear threat since 1949
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/re...ented_soviet_nuclear_attack_on_china_in_1969/

Also @Kiss_of_the_Dragon:
In 2014 both the US and Russia had over 7,000 nuclear weapons, compared to China's 260. When considering a first strike, between which two countries the MAD theory (mutually assured destruction) would most likely hold?

The DF-21D reentry vehicle appears to bear similarities to the American Pershing II missile's RV, which was withdrawn from service in 1988. The Pershing II's RV weighed 1,400 lb (640 kg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D

If this is true, in terms of weight and dimensions, let me remind that already in WW2 carrier took dozens of hits by 250 and 500kg bombs, sometimes also torpedoes and were not automatically lost.

DF-21C has a the following warhead
RV Warhead Type / Mass [-/kg]
1 x 250 kT / 600.0

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Ballistic-Missiles.html

So, that makes this quite likely.

Of course, even an inert high velocity projectile would have potential to inflict damage. Nevertheless:

"Though much is made of the DF-21D's damage infliction ability based solely on velocity and kinetic energy, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has calculated that the energy of an inert 500 kg (1,100 lb) RV impacting at Mach 6 had similar energy to the combined kinetic and explosive power of the American subsonic Harpoon anti-ship missile, which is one-quarter the energy of the Russian supersonic 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) Kh-22 missile traveling at Mach 4 with a 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) warhead"

And concerning numbers of DF-21 of all types:
"The U.S. Department of Defense in 2008 estimated that China had 60-80 missiles and 60 launchers; approximately 10-11 missiles can be built annually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

So that would make 80+(8x11)= 168 missiles today, only some of which would be DF-21D. This today is hardly the inventory needed to effectively salvo fire at one or more a carrier US task forces. (Salvo firing being the most potent threat, saturating capable but limited USN ABM capabilities)

DF-21D is conventional, this like to say that if US dare to hit our ships in SCS, we will nuke their carrier battle group or systematically nuke US...what a loser mentality , if that's the case every country should equipped with nuke to deter US or western convention strike.

Oh, so now there also is a ballistic missile that can nuke a moving US naval target? If DF-21D is conventional, which ballistic missile would that be, exactly? And mentality is totally irrelevant in this context.

 

[Majet Raha]

Explain few reasons @Kiss_of_the_Dragon or @Beast why china will use this weapon FD-... against India?