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

[Nilgiri]

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.

Yep now we're talkin!

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.

Doubt it....a CBG is long term investment commitment. Its not "just" the carrier.

Chinese Admirals and top military researchers obviously think very different to global times verbage (not that there is anything inherently wrong with this dissonance btw - I just think people should look up the numbers and details of the Chinese military strategy long term as well - it is quite the counter to the uni-logic being used by some!)

 

[KAL-EL]

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..



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.

They definitely have a really good circle jerk Echo chamber going on over there. To be fair though, some do venture out.

 

[Nilgiri]

They definitely have a really good circle jerk Echo chamber going on over there. To be fair though, some do venture out.

@Viva_Viet and few others sure stick it to them nice haha....the lone warriors against the vested powers of this forum give me much amusement.

 

[jhungary]

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

If you have enough data, you can calculate the position in 6 seconds, not 6 minutes. But consider this

1.) Its impossible to provide actual real time data without delay (or in the field, we call it lag) to feed into calculation under the current ISTAR regime.

2) Even if you do, at Mach 6, changes can do with the missile is minimum, and potentially the change will destroy the ballistic missile, as I point out before, any small angle changes on a missile doing mach 6 will incur 1000+ G on the missile. So either the missile would have to slow down some how to move which is then open to intercept, or miss the target altogether, because it would be sure the carrier will not be in the same location when the missile is launch and coord was put on it.

3.) The range of missile is limited, and carrier can simply sit outside the range and still launch aircraft for mission that gradually clear inland via air/sea support and move closer, what the missile does is simply delay the attack, but would not stop an attack. Modern day aircraft have almost unlimited range with mid-air refuelling.

They definitely have a really good circle jerk Echo chamber going on over there. To be fair though, some do venture out.

They do, but not a lot of them willing to travel far outside Moderator protection. A few that did is the one that constantly get banned.

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

This is actually debated to death on the other thread (Many of those DF-Whatever series thread going around) and I have summarised the point above, so I am not going to talk about it again.

But bear in mind, ASBM is not a new concept, US and Russia both studied that in the 70s, and both went separate way, where US goes with sub-sonic air/sea launch water skimming cruise missile. Russia gone with high-alt supersonic anti-ship missile.

Both concluded ASBM have too many inherit flaw and cannot be effectively deploy. Also, launching such missile would risk trigger a thermonuclear war with each other (and now with China) hence both did not develop one.

 

[Nilgiri]

But bear in mind, ASBM is not a new concept, US and Russia both studied that in the 70s, and both went separate way, where US goes with sub-sonic air/sea launch water skimming cruise missile. Russia gone with high-alt supersonic anti-ship missile.

Yep I talked about this at some point in a thread somewhere too. I think with @nang2 and cpl others but I forget who.

Anyway there is lot of deluded bunch of ppl in Chinese defence subforum, so I have given up mostly on any such conversation. Though I will bring some information to subforum outside like this one where appropriate. @Vergennes (OP) is a good smart and reasonable guy and good humoured. Lets see if this goes anywhere.

 

[Akasa]

No one should overhype the DF-21D threat.

But this Navy Commander's argument isn't very strong.

 

[randomradio]

Russia gone with high-alt supersonic anti-ship missile.

A mix of supersonic, subsonic and hybrid actually. Oniks/Granit, Uran and Klub.

 

[The Accountant]

If you have enough data, you can calculate the position in 6 seconds, not 6 minutes. But consider this

1.) Its impossible to provide actual real time data without delay (or in the field, we call it lag) to feed into calculation under the current ISTAR regime.

2) Even if you do, at Mach 6, changes can do with the missile is minimum, and potentially the change will destroy the ballistic missile, as I point out before, any small angle changes on a missile doing mach 6 will incur 1000+ G on the missile. So either the missile would have to slow down some how to move which is then open to intercept, or miss the target altogether, because it would be sure the carrier will not be in the same location when the missile is launch and coord was put on it.

3.) The range of missile is limited, and carrier can simply sit outside the range and still launch aircraft for mission that gradually clear inland via air/sea support and move closer, what the missile does is simply delay the attack, but would not stop an attack. Modern day aircraft have almost unlimited range with mid-air refuelling.





They do, but not a lot of them willing to travel far outside Moderator protection. A few that did is the one that constantly get banned.



This is actually debated to death on the other thread (Many of those DF-Whatever series thread going around) and I have summarised the point above, so I am not going to talk about it again.

But bear in mind, ASBM is not a new concept, US and Russia both studied that in the 70s, and both went separate way, where US goes with sub-sonic air/sea launch water skimming cruise missile. Russia gone with high-alt supersonic anti-ship missile.

Both concluded ASBM have too many inherit flaw and cannot be effectively deploy. Also, launching such missile would risk trigger a thermonuclear war with each other (and now with China) hence both did not develop one.

If it is so difficult to attack such a huge and slow moving target like carrier then how could anti ballistic missile targets ballistic missiles moving at trumedous speed...

 

[Nilgiri]

If it is so difficult to attack such a huge and slow moving target like carrier then how could anti ballistic missile targets ballistic missiles moving at trumedous speed...

Compare max turn rate of a Cessna 152 to say an F-22 (at max speed) and you will start to get the answer.

 

[jhungary]

If it is so difficult to attack such a huge and slow moving target like carrier then how could anti ballistic missile targets ballistic missiles moving at trumedous speed...

Physics 101 - Fast moving object cant turn. The world acts like a giant force wall, under fluid mechanic, you push the medium, the medium will applies a equal but opposite amount of force to push you back. And when you detract from the reaction force, you also would have angular momentum applies to your object as well, couple with the gravitational pull, any fast travel object changing course would be subject to the reaction force + torque + gravity. So the more the angle (the turn) the more the counter torque the object will be subject to. Which couple with the other element, you are talking about a missile turn at mach 6 + would be subject to 1000 to 2000 G.

Also, while object moving at tremendous speed is fast, but their trajectory is also predictable because they cannot alter their course significantly to avoid being intercept. Which mean as long as you can find course for the ASBM, you will be able to know where it will appear exactly and launch countermeasure accordingly when you can calculate an exact flight time and exact course for your missile to intercept.

That is the reason why US and Russia both studied ASBM in their height of Missile Development during the 60s and 70s and both not interesting in it, because both countries cannot change Physics, and unless the Chinese can alter physical properties, DF-Whatever missile would be a dud.

 

[Brainsucker]

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.

 

[Beast]

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.

1 warhead with cluster bomb. 10 warhead with cluster bomb. You can imagine the area coverage.

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.

Indeed.. Has french possess the technology of ICBM mid course interception? No.. so what would he know?

 

[jhungary]

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.

Actually, it would not be possible because unless you launch 10 missile at once, your chances of getting hit would diminished, and launching 10 missile would most definitely give away your position and not be able to shoot and scoop. That is if you can launch 10 missiles at once.

And even so, 10 missile cover not a very large area, which mean from launch to arriving at target in about 6 to 10 minutes from maximum range, you are looking at an object travelling 30 knots per hour (which is the minimum top speed we know, actual top speed of an aircraft carrier is classified), which make about 60 km per hour, 6 minutes would mean the aircraft carrier would have been 6 km off any direction. Which would mean a 12km x 12km hit box, which means the hit box would have been 144km2 big. And if the missile took 10 minutes to reach the carrier, then the hit box diameter would be increased to 20km x 20km which would be 400 km2 hit box. Even if a single DF-21 missile have 1 km blast radius (and it is very large), you would need 144 missile to shoot at the same time to cover the whole target area if the missile took 6 minutes, and 400 missile to cover the hit box if it need 10 minutes to reach the target.

On the other hand, each carrier support group would have 5 destroyer and 2 cruiser, combine you will have around 800 SM2 missile interceptor.

There is a reason why ASBM was not considered AT ALL with the US military and Russian military, both are leading missile developer

 

[The Accountant]

Physics 101 - Fast moving object cant turn. The world acts like a giant force wall, under fluid mechanic, you push the medium, the medium will applies a equal but opposite amount of force to push you back. And when you detract from the reaction force, you also would have angular momentum applies to your object as well, couple with the gravitational pull, any fast travel object changing course would be subject to the reaction force + torque + gravity. So the more the angle (the turn) the more the counter torque the object will be subject to. Which couple with the other element, you are talking about a missile turn at mach 6 + would be subject to 1000 to 2000 G.

Also, while object moving at tremendous speed is fast, but their trajectory is also predictable because they cannot alter their course significantly to avoid being intercept. Which mean as long as you can find course for the ASBM, you will be able to know where it will appear exactly and launch countermeasure accordingly when you can calculate an exact flight time and exact course for your missile to intercept.

That is the reason why US and Russia both studied ASBM in their height of Missile Development during the 60s and 70s and both not interesting in it, because both countries cannot change Physics, and unless the Chinese can alter physical properties, DF-Whatever missile would be a dud.

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 ...

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 ...

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

 

[Feng Leng]

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