What's new

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

.
Interesting, the discussion of this thread has been changed from "how scary a Indian missile is", to "how insignificant a Chinese missile would be".

Yeah have the look at the nationality of the person who brought in discussion of the DF series.

It didn't take long did it?
 
.
Interesting, the discussion of this thread has been changed from "how scary a Indian missile is", to "how insignificant a Chinese missile would be".
No one said the DF-12D is insignificant. It is a threat and as representative of the US military on this forum, I take that threat seriously. But I am confident that the USN does have a working plan to counter this threat. The problem for China is that our countermeasures are proven and just need to be modified to meet the DF21D, whereas the DF-21D itself is yet to be proven to handle itself against the full defensive capabilities of an American carrier fleet.
 
.
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.
It means they are adapting to the evolving threat.

I don't see a lot on the radar and optical sensors for terminal phase tracking aboard the DF-21D. USN ships, including carriers, are fitted with six-barrel MK36 decoy launchers, which deploy not only infrared flare and chaff to disrupt the sensors of incoming missiles but also the Nulka active missile decoy.

Nulka is a rocket propelled, disposable, offboard, active decoy designed to ″seduce″ anti-ship missiles away from their targets. It has a unique design in that it hovers in mid air while seducing the incoming anti-ship missile.This decoy weapon system can be commanded automatically or manuallyby the ship's EW system or weapons control system. The decoy payload simulates a radar return from a large ship overlapping the “target" signal. The decoy provides a larger, more attractive target to the missile consistent with the ASM’s range and angle tracking and moves slowly away from the ship, thus defeating the threat.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...cuments/electronic-warfare/Nulka-Brochure.pdf

Where reaction time gets extremely short, one might need a modification of the decoy to more quickly separate ship and false radar return.

(During the Falklands conflict, the Brits used helicopters to act as decoys, to deflect sea-skimming missiles away from surface ships. This tactic was sometimes combined with the dumping of chaff ('window') to provide an alternative radar target for missiles. I could see the use of rotary wing UAVs for this purpose, but getting them up in the air in time would be a critical issue to solve)

Of course, these is also shipborn jamming. Notably the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) which replaces the existing SLQ-32 hardware and technology in an evolutionary fashion. These with lasers are the necessary carrier borne defences.

As for the escort group: shipborne BMD is progressing, but still lmited in many ways (as discussed in the wiki)

Long distance jamming/ECM to disrupt the reconnaissance assets and their communications would seem the fastest, most effective way forward. Or even getting the launchers (hardkill, or credible threat causing them to have to hide) or getting the commanders/leadership (e.g. by the threat of nuclear retaliation in case of a ballistic missile attack of this sort on any carrier).

Just some thoughts. You have to go up the kill chain as far/high as you can for best protection and most layers.
 
Last edited:
.
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? :lol:

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?
Ok lets for a minute belive whatever stuff you cooked up in your wok is true. There are just too many holes in the theory.

1. How will you find your targets? (I hope you donn want to loose any LEO birds)

2. How will you target what you want to target? (A usual fly by takes around 90 t0 120 mins, you need terminal guidance to place your warhead anywhere near your target.)

3. Cost benefits of using a salvo to sink A ship?

4. Isn't a balistic launch the detectable? The enemy may lose a ship (that is if we trust you), but wouldn't you lose the entire higher ground and may as well invite enemy to just target your homeland with similar balistic missiles?

5. Won't ship based ABM system will have higher success rate? They just have to protect the small area from those warhead. They will ignore the rest. And it will be difficult to deploy all your warheads so they stike your target withing 10m CEP.

6. Now two of the above point assumes that your missile can even hit a moving target. Is there any proof of that happening? The last proof you gave was a stationary ship with a fireball on its deck. A Mach 10 warheads would do much more damage than that. Even without an active explosive I side it. There is no proof of actually a balistic missile warhead finding a moving ship and target it.

AsBM is something of a myth as of now. I don't say can't be done but till now has not been done. What we have seen is a bullet. And a fireball. You say that the fireball is caused by the bullet. But there is no proof of that this bullet was fired 1000s of Km away, found the target, killed it and hence the fireball. Then again you would miss the finding target part.
 
.
Have you heard anything that any Chinese dub as "India Killer"?

Plenty of your countrymen have said plenty of things along that line. Insert PH, Vietnam, Japan and US too.

It means they are adapting to the evolving threat.

I don't see a lot on the radar and optical sensors for terminal phase tracking aboard the DF-21D. USN ships, including carriers, are fitted with six-barrel MK36 decoy launchers, which deploy not only infrared flare and chaff to disrupt the sensors of incoming missiles but also the Nulka active missile decoy.

Nulka is a rocket propelled, disposable, offboard, active decoy designed to ″seduce″ anti-ship missiles away from their targets. It has a unique design in that it hovers in mid air while seducing the incoming anti-ship missile.This decoy weapon system can be commanded automatically or manuallyby the ship's EW system or weapons control system. The decoy payload simulates a radar return from a large ship overlapping the “target" signal. The decoy provides a larger, more attractive target to the missile consistent with the ASM’s range and angle tracking and moves slowly away from the ship, thus defeating the threat.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...cuments/electronic-warfare/Nulka-Brochure.pdf

Where reaction time gets extremely short, one might need a modification of the decoy to more quickly separate ship and false radar return. Of course, these is also shipnborn jamming. Notably the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) which replaces the existing SLQ-32 hardware and technology in an evolutionary fashion. These with lasers are the necessary carrier borne defences.

(During the Falklands conflict, the Brits used helicopters to act as decoys, to deflect sea-skimming missiles away from surface ships. This tactic was sometimes combined with the dumping of chaff ('window') to provide an alternative radar target for missiles. I could see the use of rotary wing UAVs for this purpose, but getting them up in the air in time would be a critical issue to solve)

As for the escort group: shipborne BMD is progressing, but still lmited in many ways (as discussed in the wiki)

Long distance jamming/ECM to disrupt the reconnaissance assets and their communications would seem the fastest, most effective way forward. Or even getting the launchers (hardkill, or credible threat causing them to have to hide) or getting the commanders/leadership (e.g. by the threat of nuclear retaliation in case of a ballistic missile attack of this sort on any carrier).

Just some thoughts. You have to go up the kill chain as far/high as you can for best protection and most layers.

Great informative summary. @PARIKRAMA
 
.
Plenty of your countrymen have said plenty of things along that line. Insert PH, Vietnam, Japan and US too.



Great informative summary. @PARIKRAMA
Its always a pleasure to read @Penguin and @gambit comments and its nice that they came here in this thread.. Normally penguin will remember his last DF comments got him tagged Indian

upload_2016-9-6_14-3-37.png


But as usual Brahmos gets sidelined and "Artillery from Tibet" is enough for Indian Aircraft carriers logic crops up.

++
The focus should have been Brahmos improved Blocks and what it brings to the table.. sadly it has to be for some other thread in future..
 
.
Normally penguin will remember his last DF comments got him tagged Indian

I have personally seen him hounded in a previous forum for being an Indian by a whole bunch of people many moons ago....because of his strict discipline to logic and evidence. Eventually he prevailed and the main moderator guy that was attacking him left that forum in a huff.

I supported and enjoyed his posts then, I enjoy them a lot now too.
 
. .
I have personally seen him hounded in a previous forum for being an Indian by a whole bunch of people many moons ago....because of his strict discipline to logic and evidence. Eventually he prevailed and the main moderator guy that was attacking him left that forum in a huff.
My, that IS a long long long time ago
(surprised anyone has even been here long enough to remember ;-)

Brahmos improved Blocks and what it brings to the table.. sadly it has to be for some other thread in future..
Smaller size, reduced weight ... more platforms able to launch ... more compact VLS > more shipborn applications. Export potential increased

;-)
 
.
My, that IS a long long long time ago
(surprised anyone has even been here long enough to remember ;-)

Yep in a galaxy far far away ;)

That was back when I was in an earlier alter ego over there hehe....mostly observing and gathering info....and talking to people like you via pm.

It was the virus on that forum more recently that made me look for another forum...and I came across this one.....often disparagingly referred to in that previous one for obvious reasons.
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom