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

[nahtanbob]

There is no rule that limit China to shoot more than 1 DF-21D to their enemy Aircraft Carrier. Maybe a single DF-21D can miss. But what if they use 10 DF-21D to destroy a single Carrier. Even if 9 miss, there is always a better chance for the last missile to hit the enemy carrier, and it's more than enough to sink them.

you want a one single missile with a 1000 pound warhead to sink an aircraft carrier
What is the cost of 10 ICBMs ?? it is starting to get expensive.

 

[Nilgiri]

When it is time to spill blood with our ASBM, then we will spill blood. Big mouths will not stop the blood from spilling.

Chicom princeling no. 1 has surfaced. Anymore to follow?

 

[KAL-EL]

Chicom princeling no. 1 has surfaced. Anymore to follow?

We will nuke you! We will destroy you!
It's a video game, so we don't have to worry about getting nuked back!!

 

[jhungary]

Ok i agree that change in direction is extremely difficult but not impossible ... there is no need of an absolute directional change only a change of .01 degree for a second can have impact of several kms ...

Furthermore we already have manuvering anti ship supersonic missiles like brahos, onix, akg ... they have active seekers ... so this is difficult but not impossible ...

But then how you change back?

The problem is, when your target move, it does not just move in one directional. Yes, an Aircraft Carrier may have been big and slow, but they can move left or right, forward and backward, which mean to catch the aircraft carrier, your missile have to be able to do that too.

Also supersonic missile is not the same as hypersonic missile. As mentioned, even a slight move at Mach 6 would induce thousand of Gs on the missile, now, would the missile be able to withstand that with multiple changes of course?

Secondly i disagree that ballistic missile trajectory is so predictable that interception missile do not require cost correction ... if i launch a missile and its fuel keep on burning for 3 minutes then it will have a different target from missile with fuel burning of 3 minutes 2 seconds ... and the difference will be of cities ... so anti ballistic missiles must have some sort of course correction method that can also be used on antiship ballistic missile ...

Question is, you would still have the trajectory calculated timely, because once the missile reach its terminal velocity, they don't and can't alter the course much, and it does not really matter if multiple missile is cities away, because only the missile that are in your vicinity will be able to damage you. And you will know which one when the missile is in their re-entry into earth.

Also, I do not say ABM does not need course correction, the question is, ABM can have a significant course correction mid-course, while ASBM cannot, due to its high speed.

Furthermore if something was not achieveable by russians or americans in 70 doesnot means it cant be achieve now ... in 70s computers were not capable enough ... nowadays metallergy and computing power has completely transformed ...

Russians and indians are already working on hypersonic antiship missile and theoritically it is possible so if a course correction is achieveable at mach 6 and 7 ... then ballistic missile can also achieve it

You need to know how missile work.

I remember the first thing when I was training on a Stinger launcher. The instructor told me one thing is always on top of everything, and that is

"For a missile to work and hit its target, your missile need to out manoeuvre your target"

Which mean 2 things.

1.) My missile have to be faster and more agile than my target.
2.) My missile have to know where to lead the target.

So if I fire a stinger on a plane or chopper (I will just call it the target), the target will change course constantly trying to dodge the missile I fired. So, first things first, my missile have to travel faster than my target in order to catch up to it, otherwise it is no point. Secondly, I will have to know where and how the target move, so I can get an angle that I can fire the missile and make sure the target is always kept in my missile lock as possible, traditionally speaking, you shoot when you have the broadside of your target in sight. The third thing I need to do is to lead the target, I have to shoot in front of the target and predict where the target is going to go, so I fire at what we identify as "Intercepting Course" you don't fire dead centre at your target, you fire where you think your target is going to be.

Now, how that or what that have to do with Ballistic missile (Anti-ship or otherwise) and ABM interceptor?

First of all, unless you are shooting at a stationary target, your target can move, which mean to be able to "Chase" down the target your missile need to outturn and outrun your target. And as physical principle dictate, an object that travel fast would have a limited turn than an object that travel slower. because of the reaction force + counter torque and gravity concern. Which mean while a carrier is slow, but it can constantly on the move, to which it's fairly common for an aircraft carrier to make a zigzag course, and with a mach 6 missile, a zigzag course is all but impossible to do, because if I bank one side on the missile at march 6, and then turn the other side at the same speed, your missile will be subject to 2 counter forces instead of one. Which mean by then if the missile can somehow survive the 1st turn which would be about 1000Gs, the second turn would be 2000Gs, and the third turn would be 4000Gs and so on (Notice the value is hypothetical) and that is where metal fatigue come from.

So, by that definition, a ASBM would never be able to catch an aircraft carrier doing a zigzag course, because that would mean the missile also going to need to do a zigzag course too.

And then how are you going to predict your target movement when you were not able to even monitor it in real time?

Those are the parameter that plagued the effectiveness of ASBM, and unless someone come along and hand down a solution that contradict modern physical principal, this can never be solved. This is not about trajectory or computing power, but simply because it is mathematically, and physically impossible to ask a missile travelling at Mach 6 to outturn and out-manoeuvre your target.

 

[Brainsucker]

you want a one single missile with a 1000 pound warhead to sink an aircraft carrier
What is the cost of 10 ICBMs ?? it is starting to get expensive.

as long as they are not as expensive as a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier, it is a good trade off. Btw, DF-21D is not an ICBM, isn't it?

 

[The Accountant]

But then how you change back?

The problem is, when your target move, it does not just move in one directional. Yes, an Aircraft Carrier may have been big and slow, but they can move left or right, forward and backward, which mean to catch the aircraft carrier, your missile have to be able to do that too.

Also supersonic missile is not the same as hypersonic missile. As mentioned, even a slight move at Mach 6 would induce thousand of Gs on the missile, now, would the missile be able to withstand that with multiple changes of course?

Question is, you would still have the trajectory calculated timely, because once the missile reach its terminal velocity, they don't and can't alter the course much, and it does not really matter if multiple missile is cities away, because only the missile that are in your vicinity will be able to damage you. And you will know which one when the missile is in their re-entry into earth.

Also, I do not say ABM does not need course correction, the question is, ABM can have a significant course correction mid-course, while ASBM cannot, due to its high speed.

You need to know how missile work.

I remember the first thing when I was training on a Stinger launcher. The instructor told me one thing is always on top of everything, and that is

"For a missile to work and hit its target, your missile need to out manoeuvre your target"

Which mean 2 things.

1.) My missile have to be faster and more agile than my target.
2.) My missile have to know where to lead the target.

So if I fire a stinger on a plane or chopper (I will just call it the target), the target will change course constantly trying to dodge the missile I fired. So, first things first, my missile have to travel faster than my target in order to catch up to it, otherwise it is no point. Secondly, I will have to know where and how the target move, so I can get an angle that I can fire the missile and make sure the target is always kept in my missile lock as possible, traditionally speaking, you shoot when you have the broadside of your target in sight. The third thing I need to do is to lead the target, I have to shoot in front of the target and predict where the target is going to go, so I fire at what we identify as "Intercepting Course" you don't fire dead centre at your target, you fire where you think your target is going to be.

Now, how that or what that have to do with Ballistic missile (Anti-ship or otherwise) and ABM interceptor?

First of all, unless you are shooting at a stationary target, your target can move, which mean to be able to "Chase" down the target your missile need to outturn and outrun your target. And as physical principle dictate, an object that travel fast would have a limited turn than an object that travel slower. because of the reaction force + counter torque and gravity concern. Which mean while a carrier is slow, but it can constantly on the move, to which it's fairly common for an aircraft carrier to make a zigzag course, and with a mach 6 missile, a zigzag course is all but impossible to do, because if I bank one side on the missile at march 6, and then turn the other side at the same speed, your missile will be subject to 2 counter forces instead of one. Which mean by then if the missile can somehow survive the 1st turn which would be about 1000Gs, the second turn would be 2000Gs, and the third turn would be 4000Gs and so on (Notice the value is hypothetical) and that is where metal fatigue come from.

So, by that definition, a ASBM would never be able to catch an aircraft carrier doing a zigzag course, because that would mean the missile also going to need to do a zigzag course too.

And then how are you going to predict your target movement when you were not able to even monitor it in real time?

Those are the parameter that plagued the effectiveness of ASBM, and unless someone come along and hand down a solution that contradict modern physical principal, this can never be solved. This is not about trajectory or computing power, but simply because it is mathematically, and physically impossible to ask a missile travelling at Mach 6 to outturn and out-manoeuvre your target.[/QUOTE]

First of all does a ballistic missile requires a multiple course correction to target a carrier which is moving at snail pace in comparison to a ballistic missile? Let's assume that a carrier starts to move in zigzag direction than do the ballistic missile has to do the same just like an anti-air missile where there is a need of active seeker to follow the aerial vehicle on every move?

One degree change in angle of ballistic missile 100kms above the target can change the final trajectory by several kms and it will have an impact time of mere 10 to 15 seconds, how much maneuvers an aircraft career can do in this lead time of 10 to 15 seconds ?

The probelm with 70s tech was no live feed data, no active seekers, not fast enough computers to recompute the position in seconds ... You are still evaluating the system based on the tech of 70s ...



The way I see it if a car is going towards a snail at whatever speed it is it needs not to change direction on every zig-zag move of snail but it has to do maximum 2 to three maneuver to take out snail ... And if these two maneuvers are accurately controlled by computers than chances of hitting the snail are very high ... If a hit probability is 50% then on average I require 2 missiles per aircraft career ...

The example of the stinger is further strengthening my point ... With your experience you know that how effective a stinger could be against a heavy transport helicopter v/s an attack helicopter vs a commercial plane vs a supersonic fighter aircraft ...

A heavy transport helicopter is a simple and easy task for stinger as compared to against supersonic fighter aircraft as maneuverability and speed of transport aircraft is limited against air to air missiles similarly maneuverability of aircraft career is ignorable in front of aircraft career ... The missile is moving 1000s time faster than aircraft career, therefore, missile has alot of distance to react and is not required to do course correction every now and then ... with few adjustments that too at terminal stage will be enough to counter all the maneuverability of aircraft career ...

My point is simple, that if anti-ballistic missile system works than an anti ship ballistic missile is much lower tech ... Modern ballistic missiles do self-course correction on predefined rules (not known to anti-ballistic missile system) but still anti-ballistic missile systems do take care of all those changes in course and have active seekers for the terminal stage ... Using the same principle ballistic missiles taking aircraft careers is a much easier job ...

The reasons why US and Russia did not do it as they already tried them back in the 70s but were limited by the tech of that time but now China using today's tech has done it ...

Why US don't need it ? Because they don't have any credible threat from any aircraft career even till to date ... China and Russia fleet are only for the defensive purpose ... The Chinese navy is working to become a true blue water navy but in comparison to NATO Chinese are nothing ... The moment US feel threaten to be attacked at the mainland by aircraft carrier they will develop similar weapons ... Right now focus of US is on offense at anti ballistic missile defence ... No attack from sea on US mainland is under threat perception (except in the form of missiles)

China probably is strong enough to defend themselves but can't attack US mainland ...

you want a one single missile with a 1000 pound warhead to sink an aircraft carrier
What is the cost of 10 ICBMs ?? it is starting to get expensive.

The cost of aircraft career is 5billion ... You add the aircraft and sellers it will not be less than 10 billion dollars ...

Lets assume that cost of a missile is 10 million dollars then I wouldn't mind spending 100 million on taking out 1 carrier ...

So if I can take out all aircraft careers of US at a cost of US 1 to 2 billion then I would be really happy man ...

 

[nahtanbob]

The cost of aircraft career is 5billion ... You add the aircraft and sellers it will not be less than 10 billion dollars ...

Lets assume that cost of a missile is 10 million dollars then I wouldn't mind spending 100 million on taking out 1 carrier ...

So if I can take out all aircraft careers of US at a cost of US 1 to 2 billion then I would be really happy man ...

you are assuming your ICBMs work. it is not hard to test it against a large slow moving naval vessel

 

[jhungary]

You need to reformat your answer because I cannot see where my comment end and yours begin, I may have left out something I did not answer, simply because I did not see it

The way I see it if a car is going towards a snail at whatever speed it is it needs not to change direction on every zig-zag move of snail but it has to do maximum 2 to three maneuver to take out snail ... And if these two maneuvers are accurately controlled by computers than chances of hitting the snail are very high ... If a hit probability is 50% then on average I require 2 missiles per aircraft career ...

Problem is, aircraft carrier is not a snail, nor would a missile is a car in this comparison.

Say I want to shoot a Mach 2 missile on a car. A car can turn less agile than a missile, and a car is most definitely slower than a missile, but when you are talking about sudden turn which mean a missile have to correct its course practically before it hit the target, because it is travelling very fast, hence even if I shoot missile at a car, I would still miss, and probably missed a lot, and now that is before a car can shoot back and shoot down your missile.

Now, going back to ASBM, you are talking about a missile that over shoot for 1 second you will be about 10 to 20 km out of your target, and in this case, speed work against homing in the target, because

A.) You are too fast, any overshoot and undershoot will be miles off target, and if you compound it with the "frequency" you need to correct your course, that just going to be a lot more error margin. And that is, most important of all, you can make that many correction.

B.) You are too fast, the reaction time will not allow you to make that many correction anyway.

The example of the stinger is further strengthening my point ... With your experience you know that how effective a stinger could be against a heavy transport helicopter v/s an attack helicopter vs a commercial plane vs a supersonic fighter aircraft ...

A heavy transport helicopter is a simple and easy task for stinger as compared to against supersonic fighter aircraft as maneuverability and speed of transport aircraft is limited against air to air missiles similarly maneuverability of aircraft career is ignorable in front of aircraft career ... The missile is moving 1000s time faster than aircraft career, therefore, missile has alot of distance to react and is not required to do course correction every now and then ... with few adjustments that too at terminal stage will be enough to counter all the maneuverability of aircraft career ...

First of all, anything flying and dodging is hard to shoot down, I don't know where your "Heavy Transport Helicopter" is simple and easy task. If they don't move, then yes, but if they move violently and the pilot know what they are doing, they can still dodge it, there are numerous Blackhawk dodging missile video on youtube you can go check it out.

As for how to dodge it, I am not a pilot so I wouldn't know.

Second of all, missile do not have many distant to react because missile flight time is quick. You can make a few course change, but as a slower object, you can always out manoeuvre a faster object, that is the physical properties it follow, and to intercept something which mean you have to out-manoeuvre them, and til now you still failed to adjust this point

And finally a Mach 2 AA missile is not a Mach 6 ballistic Missile, my example is to show you how difficult to line up a target with a mach 2 AA missile, if you are shooting a Mach 6, it would be a lot harder, because then, there are more adjustment you need to make but you have less reaction time and physical constrain to make them.

My point is simple, that if anti-ballistic missile system works than an anti ship ballistic missile is much lower tech ... Modern ballistic missiles do self-course correction on predefined rules (not known to anti-ballistic missile system) but still anti-ballistic missile systems do take care of all those changes in course and have active seekers for the terminal stage ... Using the same principle ballistic missiles taking aircraft careers is a much easier job ...

How? Change in course in a Mach 2 or 3 ABM is a lot easier than on a Mach 6 ASBM, that is for starter, then pile up with the fact that your target would be able to move more frequent and more constant than you in a Mach 6 missile, and your target can shoot back, all in the while, as a ASBM controller, you do not actually see the target because as I point out, there are no true 'Real Time" guidance system in the world, which mean you have a lag between control time and actual inflight time. Unlike I am looking down at the launcher of a Stinger missile.

So how exactly it is much easier for a ASBM to target a Ship like aircraft carrier? It would be lucky if they can actually find it to begin with, because depends on your lag time, your are going to face a different hit box for your missile when it reaches target area. And while I cannot tell you what is the ISTAR lag time for US Military, I can tell you this, even if we shoot a US missile with all the ISTAR asset in place, if you fire blind (as in had not acquire a target when you fire) you are looking at a hit box over 100 km2, and I don't think China have a better ISTAR lag time than the US.

You still think a Mach 6 missile can change course or alter course as easily as a Mach 2 ABM, the answer is, it does not, and physically cannot be. Because of the physical properties such as Reaction Force, Counter Torque and Gravity.

The reasons why US and Russia did not do it as they already tried them back in the 70s but were limited by the tech of that time but now China using today's tech has done it ...

Why US don't need it ? Because they don't have any credible threat from any aircraft career even till to date ... China and Russia fleet are only for the defensive purpose ... The Chinese navy is working to become a true blue water navy but in comparison to NATO Chinese are nothing ... The moment US feel threaten to be attacked at the mainland by aircraft carrier they will develop similar weapons ... Right now focus of US is on offense at anti ballistic missile defence ... No attack from sea on US mainland is under threat perception (except in the form of missiles)

China probably is strong enough to defend themselves but can't attack US mainland ...

The reason US don't need it is because it is outright useless, because ASBM can only be, by definition, a short range missile, because flight time would mean the gap between target acquisition and follow up and hitting the target would have increased, mean the longer the range the missile, the less accurate it would get. And since Fighter launch from aircraft carrier could theoretically have unlimited range via mid-air refuelling, and physically a fast missile could not be able to catch up with a slow target. That is the reason why US don't need them.

I don't know why Russia don't need it.

And you failed to see in my point of view that how much of a nightmare situation ISTAR on a offshore missile.

The cost of aircraft career is 5billion ... You add the aircraft and sellers it will not be less than 10 billion dollars ...

Lets assume that cost of a missile is 10 million dollars then I wouldn't mind spending 100 million on taking out 1 carrier ...

So if I can take out all aircraft careers of US at a cost of US 1 to 2 billion then I would be really happy man ...

The question is, can you just spend 100 millions and 10 missile on a carrier?

For starter, what if I stay out of the missile range and launch aircraft outside the range of the missile and push your up inland? I don't care how many missile you have, if you are out of range, you can't touch me even if you have 10,000 of them lying in wait, and I can send up fighter and refueller loiter outside your range and I can still do my job.

Even if I venture into your AO for whatever reason, can you still shoot me down? There are 5 kill chain a missile have to meet before making a kill. And you need to make all 5 to have the kill, but I only need to break 1 to break off the attack. The kill chain are

1.) OTH Radar pick up the target
2.) Communication between Satellite and Controller
3.) Launching the missile
4.) Keep the ISTAR on target by either Drone and Satellite
5.) Passing thru the AA Defence of the Carrier and its support group.

Every one of them can be broken, I can spoof the OTH radar and it pick up the wrong target, I can jam the communication between Satellite and controller, I can use sub launch or fighter launch cruise missile to deal with the Launcher before the missile is launch, I can shoot down the drone or satellite that feeding ASBM missile the location of the target. And finally I can intercept the missile either mid or terminal course.

Now, until all these are solved, ASBM is not much of a use for targeting, because it is a passive weapon, which mean you have to wait until the target appear in your range, but your target, can launch their sorties outside your range anyway to begin with and still finish the job.

And yes, of course, if everything work as it should, then yes, I will say 100 millions for a carrier is very much an advantage, however, anyone would know, things NOT ALWAYS work as it should. If so, I can also argue, if ASBM work as it should, then ABM also should work as it should and the two factor would still be even out.

 

[serenity]

All DF top attack missiles don't work. They are all chicom fakes. Don't worry guys. Sleep well at night. We should close this thread. Even French admiral confirmed it. Anyone who says maybe there's a chance it actually works is paid troll. Only those circle jerk chinese guys in the other forums will tell you this works all the time. We can laugh and convince each other it is impossible to work. We are all Physics PHDs here after all. Much smarter than those chicom fake scientists who can only copy.

 

[gambit]

First of all does a ballistic missile requires a multiple course correction to target a carrier which is moving at snail pace in comparison to a ballistic missile? Let's assume that a carrier starts to move in zigzag direction than do the ballistic missile has to do the same just like an anti-air missile where there is a need of active seeker to follow the aerial vehicle on every move?

Yes, the descending warhead must CONTINUOUSLY calculate a projected collision course regardless of how fast the target is moving, whether the target is moving in a steady state condition or alternately changing heading.

Proportional Navigation (PN)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

...Is the foundation of most intercept computation.

If the target is stationary, the difference between projected collision heading and target location is zero. As the target moves, depending on the speed, that difference increases. The problem now for the PN laws is to calculate a projected zero point. If the interceptor cannot match the target in speed and/or changes in heading, the PN laws can never calculate that projected zero point.

The interceptor's sensor package can 'look ahead' and that capability is a component of the PN laws, but the interceptor's own capabilities are also components of those laws. One of those capabilities is the flight controls system (FLCS). The PN laws must know that the FLCS can alter the heading of the interceptor faster than the the target can make changes. Remember, the projected collision point is ALWAYS ahead of a moving target.

In a non-nuclear scenario, between the interceptor and the ship, if the interceptor missed by one meter, the ship win.

Maneuvers are not the only countermeasure the ship can do. Against radar, the ship can deploy chaff of various materials and dimensions, creating an EM blanket that can cover several hundreds of square km. Against infrared, the ship can deploy flares that can out contrast the ship. For both countermeasures, their airborne time duration will be longer than the time duration of the descending warhead.

All we need is just one meter...

When it is time to spill blood with our ASBM, then we will spill blood. Big mouths will not stop the blood from spilling.

I doubt you have the guts to back up your tough talk about spilling blood. The most physically harmful thing that happened to you was a paper cut and I bet you cried.

 

[The Accountant]

Yes, the descending warhead must CONTINUOUSLY calculate a projected collision course regardless of how fast the target is moving, whether the target is moving in a steady state condition or alternately changing heading.

Proportional Navigation (PN)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

...Is the foundation of most intercept computation.

If the target is stationary, the difference between projected collision heading and target location is zero. As the target moves, depending on the speed, that difference increases. The problem now for the PN laws is to calculate a projected zero point. If the interceptor cannot match the target in speed and/or changes in heading, the PN laws can never calculate that projected zero point.

The interceptor's sensor package can 'look ahead' and that capability is a component of the PN laws, but the interceptor's own capabilities are also components of those laws. One of those capabilities is the flight controls system (FLCS). The PN laws must know that the FLCS can alter the heading of the interceptor faster than the the target can make changes. Remember, the projected collision point is ALWAYS ahead of a moving target.

In a non-nuclear scenario, between the interceptor and the ship, if the interceptor missed by one meter, the ship win.

Maneuvers are not the only countermeasure the ship can do. Against radar, the ship can deploy chaff of various materials and dimensions, creating an EM blanket that can cover several hundreds of square km. Against infrared, the ship can deploy flares that can out contrast the ship. For both countermeasures, their airborne time duration will be longer than the time duration of the descending warhead.

All we need is just one meter...


I doubt you have the guts to back up your tough talk about spilling blood. The most physically harmful thing that happened to you was a paper cut and I bet you cried.

Counter measures are something else ... i am not saying that that anti ship ballistic missiles are the end but i also dont agree that anti ship ballistic missiles are totally useless stuff ... if the hit probablity is even around 50% that can be reduced 5 times due to manuvering and counter measures still it is best bet as on statistical principle i can take out one carrier per 10 strikes and given the low cist of ballistic missiles and given the lethal power of a carrier which is a full base itself i think its a good deal ... and a real potent threat to a CBG which is currently almost even not attackable other than by a suicide attack by a submarine ...

 

[gambit]

Counter measures are something else ... i am not saying that that anti ship ballistic missiles are the end but i also dont agree that anti ship ballistic missiles are totally useless stuff ... if the hit probablity is even around 50% that can be reduced 5 times due to manuvering and counter measures still it is best bet as on statistical principle i can take out one carrier per 10 strikes and given the low cist of ballistic missiles and given the lethal power of a carrier which is a full base itself i think its a good deal ... and a real potent threat to a CBG which is currently almost even not attackable other than by a suicide attack by a submarine ...

This...

...Is what a descending warhead has to contend with.

Most would think that the first image -- High Accuracy High Precision -- is what desired. One shot, one kill. That is not feasible in this scenario. A descending warhead is nowhere 1/10th close to being like a sniper. Further, in this scenario, the target is fully aware of its vulnerabilities and have countermeasures readied, whereas with the sniper, the target is nearly always surprised all the way to the end.

A sniper have the luxury of patience and time. A descending warhead does not. Whatever predictive calculations the warhead can perform, eventually it has to make a decision on the final path. Target maneuvers plus countermeasures ruled out the first image.

This leave the third image -- High Accuracy, Low Precision -- as the best option for a volley of DF-21D warheads. The warheads cannot descend to the area at the same time, because obviously, the target cannot be in multiple places at the same time. The shaded area in the 3rd image can represent an area of 1,000 square miles for one hour of maneuvers by the target. So how many DF-21D would it take to cover that area?

 

[jhungary]

Counter measures are something else ... i am not saying that that anti ship ballistic missiles are the end but i also dont agree that anti ship ballistic missiles are totally useless stuff ... if the hit probablity is even around 50% that can be reduced 5 times due to manuvering and counter measures still it is best bet as on statistical principle i can take out one carrier per 10 strikes and given the low cist of ballistic missiles and given the lethal power of a carrier which is a full base itself i think its a good deal ... and a real potent threat to a CBG which is currently almost even not attackable other than by a suicide attack by a submarine ...

l think 50% is WAYYYYYYYYYYYY to optimistic my friend.

A traditional missile with relative good fire control system is anywhere between 11 to 20%, BVR engagement usually even less than that. Ballistic missile is even less. And your hit percentage become an instant 0 if they are not in your range of either weapon and/or OTH radar.

There is a reason why despite all that, China still burn their money and building their aircraft carrier, that is because the pros outweigh the cons which make you wonder what does the Chinese Government think about their own weaponry.

 

[GeraltofRivia]

Congratulations to US to successfully fire SM3 Block IIA recently, which’s a fanatic technology. It finally provides it a creditable defense against some useless ballistic missiles.

French, well, surely they don’t need SM3 Block IIA and Aegis Baseline 9.C2 as they are defended by plenty of courage!

After consecutive failures, watch US Navy intercept test missile with SM-3 weapon
By: Aaron Mehta   October 26, 2018

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon intercepted a test ballistic missile with the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA system, the second time that weapon has been successfully tested — a relief for the department following two consecutive test failures.

The SM-3 Block IIA is a co-developmentbetween the U.S. and Japan, and is expected to be equipped on both the U.S. Aegis Ashore stations in Romania and Poland and the future Aegis Ashore stations in Japan — making it a keystone to America’s short- and intermediate-range missile defense strategies.

The system can be launched from sea or land via the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system. The IIA variant comes with enlarged rocket motors and a bigger kinetic warhead, according to industry lead Raytheon.

The intercept occurred off the west coast of Hawaii, when an SM-3 launched by the guided-missile destroyer John Finn destroyed a target launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai.

“This was a superb accomplishment and key milestone for the SM-3 Block IIA return to flight," Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said in a statement. "My congratulations to the entire team, including our sailors, industry partners, and allies who helped achieve this milestone."

This second intercept for the SM-3 Block IIA is a success we share with the Missile Defense Agency and the country of Japan, our cooperative development partners,” Taylor Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president, said in a statement. “Together, we are building the most advanced solutions for ballistic missile defense.”

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...s-navy-has-successful-sm-3-missile-intercept/

 

[BON PLAN]

French, well, surely they don’t need SM3 Block IIA and Aegis Baseline 9.C2 as they are defended by plenty of courage!

We (GB, Italy, France) have a perfect missile to do so : ASTER.
The Horizon frigates, and the future Belharra frigates will have the radar capacity to fired medium range missile thanks to ASTER.

Facts is that the chinese carrier killer missile wasn't tested really against a moving target....