Why China is worried about BrahMos ? and Why next variant will give it nightmares .

[wiseone2]

DF-21D is the world's very first operational "anti-ship" quasi-ballistic missile. Known as the world's first carrier killer ballistic missile.

And the DF-26 is the extended version with a 5000 km range.

Please don't compare it to your 1970's Shaurya tech, it's a completely different platform, ours is intended to sink moving ships.

using ballistic missile against ships is unproven in real warfare

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

True, DF-21D is a deadly missile against cargo ships, battleships will easily track and destroy this ballistic missile though...but that doesn't take away the credit for China's ability to destroy cargo ships.

using ballistic missile against ships is unproven in real warfare

So apparently you think your battleships can survive much easier than the cargo ships used for testing, maybe you can tell me how you can intercept 20+ of these DF-26 being fired at a carrier with a terminal velocity of over Mach 10?

According to the US Defence department, even a single one of these warheads can sink an entire carrier, and there is no "current" defensive system that can reliably intercept it. Do you really think you can intercept an entire salvo of them, when even America doesn't think they can do it?

 

[dray]

So apparently you think your battleships can survive much easier than the cargo ships used for testing, maybe you can tell me how you can intercept 20+ of these DF-26 being fired at a carrier with a terminal velocity of over Mach 10?

According to the US Defence department, even a single one of these warheads can sink an entire carrier, and there is no "current" defensive system that can reliably intercept it. Do you really think you can intercept an entire salvo of them, when even America doesn't think they can do it?

US experts actually don't think so, they have this habit of exaggeration of risk to justify their massive defence budget. Your DF21 will be tracked on launch, and intercepted.

 

[wiseone2]

So apparently you think your battleships can survive much easier than the cargo ships used for testing, maybe you can tell me how you can intercept 20+ of these DF-26 being fired at a carrier with a terminal velocity of over Mach 10?

According to the US Defence department, even a single one of these warheads can sink an entire carrier, and there is no "current" defensive system that can reliably intercept it. Do you really think you can intercept an entire salvo of them, when even America doesn't think they can do it?

are you firing nukes at aircraft carrier group ? you might as well fire them at los angeles or new york

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

are you firing nukes at aircraft carrier group ? you might as well fire them at los angeles or new york

Are you nuts?

These are the world's very first "anti-ship" quasi-ballistic missiles, they do not use nuclear warheads, only conventional ones.

And according to the US Department of defence, even a single warhead can destroy a carrier, with no defense systems currently able to intercept it.

Don't tell me you are on a defence forum and you have never heard of the world's very first carrier killer ballistic missile, the DF-21D and the later variant, the DF-26?

 

[Nilgiri]

And according to the US Department of defence, even a single warhead can destroy a carrier, with no defense systems currently able to intercept it.

Where did the US DoD say the latter half of your assertion?

@Penguin @gambit

 

[gambit]

Where did the US DoD say the latter half of your assertion?

@Penguin @gambit

Let us see what he can dig up...

Quite often, the PDF Chinese will pull shit out of their butts and tried to pass it off as legitimate information.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Where did the US DoD say the latter half of your assertion?

@Penguin @gambit

Here, chase up the link yourself:

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

The United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized.

The original source for the Wiki link, from the United States Naval Institute website:

http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon

Quote from the United States Naval Institute website link:

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Took about 5 seconds for that.

 

[Nilgiri]

The original source for the Wiki link, from the United States Naval Institute website:

http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon

Quote from the United States Naval Institute website link:

So the UNSI = DoD?

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

Have you ever read their standard releases during the cold war regarding Soviet weapons?

This includes the iteration of a carrier killer ballistic missile the Soviets were developing and then shelved for some very key reasons regarding actual effectiveness of the platform.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So the UNSI = DoD?

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

Have you ever read their standard releases during the cold war regarding Soviet weapons?

This includes the iteration of a carrier killer ballistic missile the Soviets were developing and then shelved for some very key reasons regarding actual effectiveness of the platform.

You're right I mixed up the UNSI and the DoD, my point remains the same though.

Unless that is not a good enough source for you?

 

[Nilgiri]

Unless that is not a good enough source for you?

I was promised a DoD statement....no fair!

Anyway a single UNSI article (and I have many in the archive I have from way back in the cold war using the same language) is quite different from asserting:

no defense systems currently able to intercept it.

because that assumes a level of C4I and tracking the Chinese simply do not have currently (you can look up the host of papers dealing with this subject). In the future when China does achieve this capability (at much cost and time), the US will also have developed significant countermeasures (many already in operation right now). In fact both sides are probably already hedging and doing the CBA the best they can regarding the future of the tech and its counters. There is no cheap all-powerful super-weapon I am afraid....especially when you factor in operational doctrine and strategy as well.

 

[gambit]

You're right I mixed up the UNSI and the DoD, my point remains the same though.

Unless that is not a good enough source for you?

No, it is not.

While members of the US Naval Institute are respectable in their own rights, they are essentially an opinion oriented organization. Informed opinions, yes, but that does not mean the opinion makers have access to all information relevant to the issues. They are essentially well informed reporters and some may even have technical experience to back up their opinions.

Here is a contradiction in said opinion that you missed...

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time,...

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble.

How is it a 'panic' if the subject have been under discussions, surely from technical to tactical employment issues, for 'quite some time' ?

That opinion put forth what everyone know to be a worst case scenario, which in a tactical situation, mean the US aircraft carrier pretty much sit still and let physics do the job. In that case, of course the DF-21D is indeed lethal.

I doubt that you have done any hunting. There are plenty of hunter's stories on bear hunts that a black bear took a hit in the heart and continued to live a few more minutes to terrorize the hunter. Autopsies of grizzlies and kodiaks have been found to carry scars on their hearts from bullets.

Here is a bear hunter joke...

Q: How can you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly bear ?

A: Climb a tree. If the bear climb up the tree after you and kills you, it is a black bear. But if the bear knock the tree down and kills you, then it is a grizzly bear.

An American aircraft carrier is like a crossbreed between a grizzly and a kodiak. But unlike the real bears, this beast has human intelligence, combat experience, know how to hide, and can strike back.

 

[Penguin]

Where did the US DoD say the latter half of your assertion?

@Penguin @gambit

United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized. The United States Navy has responded by switching its focus from a close blockade force of shallow water vessels to return to building deep water ballistic missile defense destroyers.

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

The footnote with this refers to: http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon
This says:

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

IMHO, a warheads ability to 'inflict significant damage' is not the same as the ability to 'destroy'. It would think 'one strike' here does not mean 1 hit by 1 warhead, but rather several hits (i.e. salvo fired missiles).

A reader from the above discussion conveniently ignores another relevant bit of the wiki page

The emergence of the DF-21D has some analysts claiming that the "carrier killer" missiles have rendered the American use of aircraft carriers obsolete, as they are too vulnerable in the face of the new weapon and not worth the expense.

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.

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. Army training manuals about the missile are available on the internet and public open-source literature extensively describes it; the DF-21 has a comparable range and payload. 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

 

[Nilgiri]

No, it is not.

While members of the US Naval Institute are respectable in their own rights, they are essentially an opinion oriented organization. Informed opinions, yes, but that does not mean the opinion makers have access to all information relevant to the issues. They are essentially well informed reporters and some may even have technical experience to back up their opinions.

Here is a contradiction in said opinion that you missed...


How is it a 'panic' if the subject have been under discussions, surely from technical to tactical employment issues, for 'quite some time' ?

That opinion put forth what everyone know to be a worst case scenario, which in a tactical situation, mean the US aircraft carrier pretty much sit still and let physics do the job. In that case, of course the DF-21D is indeed lethal.

I doubt that you have done any hunting. There are plenty of hunter's stories on bear hunts that a black bear took a hit in the heart and continued to live a few more minutes to terrorize the hunter. Autopsies of grizzlies and kodiaks have been found to carry scars on their hearts from bullets.

Here is a bear hunter joke...

Q: How can you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly bear ?

A: Climb a tree. If the bear climb up the tree after you and kills you, it is a black bear. But if the bear knock the tree down and kills you, then it is a grizzly bear.

An American aircraft carrier is like a crossbreed between a grizzly and a kodiak. But unlike the real bears, this beast has human intelligence, combat experience, know how to hide, and can strike back.

He literally thinks the US navy didnt analyse this threat back when the Soviets tried it out....I mean even with the advancements since in ballistic launch tech, CEP and so on...its not like the US would not have been been projecting this after the Soviet failure....say during the 80s and 90s. No capable large military has "lost years" where they just rest on their laurels because someone gave up on developing some version of asymmetric tech.

The grizzly/black bear reference is too funny hah. I saw a black bear up a tree hounded by a grizzly when i was out west in BC....coz little guy kept trying to pick off from a kill the grizzly had made.

Plan to do a spring bear hunt next spring....got myself a nice 250 lb one the last time cpl years back...I've wanted to do a fall bear hunt but Im always too busy.

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

The footnote with this refers to: http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon
This says:


IMHO, a warheads ability to 'inflict significant damage' is not the same as the ability to 'destroy'. It would think 'one strike' here does not mean 1 hit by 1 warhead, but rather several hits (i.e. salvo fired missiles).

A reader from the above discussion conveniently ignores another relevant bit of the wiki page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

What are your impressions on the countermeasures the US has like electronic countermeasures, clutter tactics + outright interception capability from their BMD groups?

They are developing even more I heard (laser + UAV based)

I feel Chinese C4I just isnt there and is still quite vulnerable to the US navy as well.

 

[Penguin]

(Reposted from https://defence.pk/threads/chinese-df-21d-for-india.443401/page-5#post-8562004 )

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.

Incidentally, aside from having the most experience with fire and damage control aboard carriers, and incorporating that experience in design and procedures, the USN is the only navy in the world to have expended a CV supercarrier (CV-66 America) in a life fire exercise. The experiments lasted approximately four weeks. At the time, no warship of that size had ever been sunk, and effects were closely monitored; theoretically the tests would reveal data about how supercarriers respond to battle damage. The lesson from that surely have been incorporated in the design of the new Ford class. I would think they have a pretty good idea of what it can take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)#Post_decommissioning_service