New Concern Over Chinese "Carrier-Killer"

[booo]

A typical cost of Nimitz class carrier is 4.5billion. A Df-21 is about $0.82mil each. Catalog For simplicity, let it be 1mil each as China is becoming more costly. If PLA launch $1billion worthy of missiles (1000), 500 will be within the circle, 5 will hit the vital spot. That pretty sure is enough to make warlords cry. Economically, 1:4.5 is not a bad business, though it’s pathetic compared with our Wall Street alligators’ maneuver, but political and military impact will be far more profound than what those alligators and warlords combined can do. So actual value (to PRC) is far beyond. Thus I don’t doubt PRC may have prepared 5000 or more for carriers.

aha... if you want to play with numbers why dont you put up the preperation time for each missile and the trajectories that they will take and the overall time required to launch 1000 missiles in to your equations? also which countries would be below the trajectories of these 1000 missiles etc... etc... (i could go on)

and you are expecting the carrier to stay put at a single spot all this time like a sitting duck and not uses any counter measures.

lets see how strong is your understanding with statistics.

 

[gpit]

...

and you are expecting the carrier to stay put at a single spot all this time like a sitting duck and not uses any counter measures.

lets see how strong is your understanding with statistics.

Obviously, it's you who expect a launched missile behaves like a dead rock moving passively along a fixed trajectory… Only those with sub-threshold IQ or otherwise pre-high schooler would be hyper on that.

Booooo...

Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[booo]

Obviously, it's you who expect a launched missile behaves like a dead rock moving passively along a fixed trajectory…

yeah, I went braindead after banging my head when I read that china will launch 1000 missiles at once.

while you are calculating about how much time will it take to launch 1000 missiles; I want you to read

NAVY
Raytheon Co., Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $7,674,946 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5454) to increase the ceiling amount for the additional guidance section design verification testing to the System Design and Development of the Block 2 upgrade to the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System. The RAM Guided Missile Weapon System is co-developed and co-produced under a NATO cooperative program between the United States and Federal Republic of Germany. RAM is a missile system designed to provide anti-ship missile defense for multiple ship platforms. This ceiling increase is for additional guidance section design verification testing to ensure the Software interfaces with the Hardware guidance section of the missile. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by August 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea System Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

DefenseLink: Contracts for Friday, October 16, 2009

and Ballistic Missile Early Warning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[applesauce]

meh, this shouldn't be such a big deal, there is a chance the chinese has made a so call "carrier killer" but how well it works no one knows, but the us likes to take threats seriously(as it should) thus the military want to come up with defenses under the assumption that this carrier missile works under the best of circumstances for it. at the end of the day the defense will not be perfect and neither will the missile.

 

[funner]

The process is probably the case.

 

[gambit]

Hope it helps a little bit.

It helped those who are gullible enough. But that is not what I asked, which is how can ONE warhead whose 300-400 meters CEP is considered an effective weapon against a maneuvering target. The only thing you can bring to the table is first 40 warheads then 200 and finally 1000 warheads. Why not just simply say it is not effective therefore the Chinese will have to engage in a saturation attack? This is absolutely ludicrous since it would be far cheaper and with near certainty to station a suicidal diesel sub in the path of the carrier. The damages will be below the waterline and if not sink then the ship would be dead in the water for days.

 

[gambit]

Obviously, it's you who expect a launched missile behaves like a dead rock moving passively along a fixed trajectory… Only those with sub-threshold IQ or otherwise pre-high schooler would be hyper on that.

Booooo...

Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And HOW is it going to be maneuverable? The greater the descent velocity, the greater the force required for lateral acceleration to make the warhead 'maneuverable'. Ballistic descent on a fixed land target is already difficult enough. With any course deviation due to aerodynamic influences, the sooner the course deviation is detected the less force required, but still there exists CEP figures in the tens of meters for these nuclear ballistic warheads. With the DF-21, it has to deal with a maneuvering target whose latest location could be tens of nm from its original programmed location and still translating. There is no information as to when the warhead's sensors will be effective due to heat.

At double digit Mach, the logical choice would be bang-bang guidance...Unlikely to be proportional guidance.

Laser Guided Bombs - Smart Weapons

The guidance canards are attached to each quadrant of the control unit to change the flightpath of the weapon. The canard deflections are always full scale (referred to as "bang, bang" guidance).

So the warhead has to deal with two sets of course deviations: self and target. The time when the sensors are able to find the target will determine the amount of lateral force required to make course correction. If the method is reaction thrusters, what is the amount of fuel carried to compensate? More fuel less warhead payload. Less fuel and there is a decrease odds of the warhead able to make sufficient course correction. If the method is aerodynamics such as usage of deflective surfaces then these flight control surfaces and their supporting mechanics must be extremely robust, possibly at the expense of explosive payload.

Looky here...All the Chinese government has to do is published unsupported claims and like flies on shyt people eagerly land on these claims and uncritically suck them up. The military is responsible for the defense of the country, be it the American military or Chinese military or Russian military, it does not matter, and this is about life and death so these chiefs have to take these claims at their best and try to create responses for them. The closer the claims are to current available technology and practical engineering, the greater the urgency to create those responses. There is nothing to say that these claims are impossible to achieve but based upon valid analysis, we can say that it is improbable that China achieved them. All the Chinese participants here have are 'classified'...oooohhh....aaaahhh...by the PLA.

Give me a break...

 

[gpit]

And HOW is it going to be maneuverable? ...
...

Give me a break...

You’ve given more than one break, but you are still dashing in your pre-defined direction… who to complain?

I was refuting to Booo’s claim, which is probably also your emotional inclination as well since this is a PLA missile, asserting that the hit is impossible. Just by a simple math, I have demonstrated that the hit is possible, not impossible. I have quantized an underestimated probability that is about 6%, if the target is static and 400CEP is considered.

Now you start to rant about an “effective weapon against a maneuvering target”. Frankly, there are no facts to support your claim nor refute that, unless a bad thing happens. (Well, the “bad” that is to ordinary people, be ordinary Chinese or ordinary Americans, maybe “good” to interest groups and warlords on both sides.)

“HOW is it going to be maneuverable?” How not to be maneuverable? I bet, you're even not bothered to click the link that I provided. Let it show you how to:

” There are several types, of which examples include:
· the version designed for the Trident missile, which had to be able to evade Soviet anti-ballistic missile systems.
· the active radar terminal-guidance version with pinpoint accuracy for the MGM-31C Pershing II missile
· the high hypersonic land-based anti-ship ballistic missile variant of the DF-21
· the warheads used by the Russian Topol-M missile which are designed to defeat any US ABM systems. “

As long as it is maneuvable, surely feul comsuption will be considered in its operation range. Why that is an issue?

I assume we limit the talk solely to missile attack of a carrier. To be off topic, there are numerous other conceivable ways to sink a carrier. Suppose a submarine can endure lurking under the sea, and is lucky enough to encounter an enemy carrier passing by, why would a sane commander crank up his submarine to scare his enemy and drive towards the heavily guarded carrier with 0 initial speed to deliver a physical impact that yields only a smaller damage? Torpedoes will deliver a much better result from a greater distance. My understanding is, yes PLAN sucks as is now, yet it has spent a lot on those carrier sinking tactics.

Do you need an additional break? Just listen to this statement pronounced in late November 1950: "You can tell [the soldiers] when they get up to the Yalu, they can all come home. I want to make good on my statement that they will get Christmas dinner at home,"