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

[Vergennes]

@Hamartia Antidote @gambit

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074990887803985920

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

@Hamartia Antidote @gambit

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074990887803985920

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.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Vergennes @BON PLAN

@jhungary @Signalian @LeGenD

 

[Vergennes]

@Vergennes @BON PLAN

View attachment 527549

@jhungary @Signalian @LeGenD

Well,still waiting for Chinese trolls to come here with claims the French Navy's Chief of Staff knows jack sh*t about naval systems.

 

[randomradio]

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.

India's newest long range ballistic missiles are already near-zero CEP.

@Hamartia Antidote @gambit

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074990887803985920

It depends on the capability of the warhead though.

If the warhead cannot manoeuvre, then there's no point.

 

[BON PLAN]

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.

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.

@Vergennes @BON PLAN

View attachment 527549

@jhungary @Signalian @LeGenD

China needs some Rafale M ?

 

[jhungary]

@Vergennes @BON PLAN

View attachment 527549

@jhungary @Signalian @LeGenD

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..

Well,still waiting for Chinese trolls to come here with claims the French Navy's Chief of Staff knows jack sh*t about naval systems.

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.

 

[T-123456]

@Hamartia Antidote @gambit

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074990887803985920

Bs,you can calculate the targets actual position in 6 minutes and send the missile to that point.
@jhungary?

 

[Kompromat]

He should be.

 

[Nilgiri]

China needs some Rafale M ?

Yes...among some other things lol.

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

Bs,you can calculate the targets actual position in 6 minutes and send the missile to that point.

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

 

[Broccoli]

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.

 

[MilSpec]

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

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.

 

[Broccoli]

Like wouldnt they just invest massively into DF missiles and skip the useless easily destroyed expensive CBG stuff?

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.

 

[T-123456]

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?

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.

 

[SQ8]

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

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.