China, Iran and Russia can easily attack US aircraft carriers with new technology

[BoQ77]

According to the narratives, the 11000 ton ship was penetrated through by the war head, it didn't sink and was towed back to the shipyard.

1. We know Yuanwang 4 assigned to be target ship but
2. what's your opinion about the damage level on the Yuanwang 4 as posted photos ?
I believe it ( the damage as pictured ) is not by an IRMB like DF-21D hit at Mach 10+ and weight some hundred kilograms of warhead.

 

[Tiqiu]

Photo1 shows the damage of collision with another vessel.
#2 shows the damage of a fire breaking out during the initial attempt of repair, at this point of time, it became unrepairable and was used as a target ship.
#3 was supposedly be taken before dissembling, I don't think the authorities want to release the photo of that impact yet.

 

[BoQ77]

Photo1 shows the damage of collision with another vessel.
#2 shows the damage of a fire breaking out during the initial attempt of repair, at this point of time, it became unrepairable and was used as a target ship.
#3 was supposedly be taken before dissembling, I don't think the authorities want to release the photo of that impact yet.

In Nov.2011, DF21D hit the target ship Yuanwang 4 in a sea test trial, even without ammunition, the warhead of DF21D pierced through all layers of the ship's haul by its sheer kinetic force.
After the damage of a collision accident, Yuanwang 4 tracking ship became the target ship of DF21D trial and was disassembled in the following month

I see.
Anyway, it's still surprise that ship not to sink when getting hit by that DF-21D warhead.
Even it could be towable to the port after that hit surprised me.

 

[Ewok6102]

Sure. They didn't apply it so far.
The designers don't need our advices on its features, if you want, email your ideas to the developers.

I am not asking for advice or giving ideas. I was seeking your answers. You were the one implying that the lasers can stop missiles coming at mach 5-6.
You also claimed that destroying mach speed missiles is not an issue so long they have high power lasers. So my questions to you were of its effectiveness in various climatic and weather conditions? Will it work under water? If installed on aerial platforms, how effective it would be? Coverage, blind spots etc.

If you are unsure, then how can you convince readers that they are indeed capable and are effective to be used in real war, as opposed to a drilled environment?

 

[jammersat]

they won't the real answer lies within Russia and their monopoly on the so called 5th gen fighter

 

[haviZsultan]

It would be fun to watch one of those American machines go down to a Russian, Chinese or Iranian missile. Saying that I also know that the only way for countries that are weaker than the US like Iran to bridge the gap is to seek nuclear weapons. These weapons ensure the survival of any state and that was the case with Libya and Iran. The invasion of Libya could not have happened if Gaddafi had the force of nukes behind him. No one would have invaded Libya. Iran probably saw the same thing but now seems to have abandoned its nuclear program.

US knows countries are trying to bridge the technological and related gaps and are thus so stubborn when it comes to only having select, allied states like Israel having the right to have nukes even though no one of Israels enemies including Iran and arab nations has a nuke. I really wish Iran had gotten the nuke, even if it was to snub the US, the second largest nuclear armed nation in the world.

 

[Arminkh]

I'm sure the engineers will figure something out.



Lasers are becoming more potent as technology matures. Even other countries like Russia and China are developing them for its use. Lasers that can shoot down aircraft in almost an instant? Multiple lasers on a carrier battle group that can destroy multiple missiles in seconds?

They indeed are but as I mentioned in the presence of atmosphere, lasers are limited due to laws of physics. Diffraction will prevent it from being focused on small enough spot to decrease the melting time and scattering caused by aerosols will reduce its effectiveness in specially fogy weather.

Of course you can always dial the power up to overcome these losses but the power plant that can do that can't be mounted on any vessel and definitely not an F-35.

laser powered weapon don't care Mach 5 or Mach 10 incoming, as long as it has enough energy.
100-150kW on the way, until 2020.

While 100-150 kW may seem a lot,here are some calculations to show you why even that is not enough:

150 kW=128,977 kCal/hour = 36 kCal/second

Lets assume you want to melt through the warhead of an incoming missile and let's say for the sake of the argument it is made of aluminum. The thermal capacity of Aluminum is 0.22 Kcal/kg C, meaning it takes 0.22 Kcal to increase the temperature of 1 kg of Aluminum by one degree. Melting point of Aluminum is 663 degrees. Again for the sake of argument let's say the warhead is already heated up to 200 degrees due to friction at Mach 5. You need to increase its temperature by 463 degrees for it to start to melt.

So you need 463/0.22=2104 kCal of energy to be delivered. At 150 Kw and assuming that you can deliver all that power to a point 10 km away (which is absolutely false) you need 2104/36 = 58 seconds to melt 1kg of aluminum.

Now lets say you don't necessarily need to melt 1kg of aluminum to punch a hole in the body of the missile but only punching a hole can not destroy the missile you need to get to the guidance or explosive materials to do that so you need to melt at least 0.1 kg of Aluminum. That still requires 5.8 seconds.

Now let's see how long an ASBM can go at Mach 5 in 5.8 seconds? 9.5 km. Now according to below, the samples at work have an effective range of only 1.6 Km. An ASBM can fly that distance in less than a second.

Laser Weapon System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now I know there are even 300 Kw lasers to be made but remember all my calculations are based on the assumption that the warheads are made of Aluminum. Use steel and you need triple the time to punch a hole. Use ceramic coating and you should forget about doing any damage with laser.

In Nov.2011, DF21D hit the target ship Yuanwang 4 in a sea test trial, even without ammunition, the warhead of DF21D pierced through all layers of the ship's haul by its sheer kinetic force.

Yuanwang 4 tracking ship

After the damage of a collision accident, Yuanwang 4 tracking ship became the target ship of DF21D trial and was disassembled in the following month

This is what one with a real warhead can do. Iran's Khalije Fars ASBM:

Do that to a real aircraft carrier and it will be out of commission for at least a couple of years if not sank immediately.

 

[Ewok6102]

This is what one with a real warhead can do. Iran's Khalije Fars ASBM:

Do that to a real aircraft carrier and it will be out of commission for at least a couple of years if not sank immediately.

Sinking it would be the ultimate goal, but I think some people put too much importance on the complete destruction of the thing. A mission kill can be just as, if not more, effective. It can really wreak havoc, creating a lot of panic and confusion in the mid of battle.

 

[Arminkh]

Sinking it would be the ultimate goal, but I think some people put too much importance on the complete destruction of the thing. A mission kill can be just as, if not more, effective. It can really wreak havoc, creating a lot of panic and confusion in the mid of battle.

True. I also agree that sinking is overrated. An explosion like the picture above on a real carrier would probably start a chain explosion by nearby jet fighters and their ammunition or fuel adding more to the destruction. Bottom line, its deck won't be able to be used as a runway anymore and with that all of the aircrafts on board will render useless.

On the other hand just damaging it and not sinking it might prove more beneficial as in case of total destruction, its escort can leave their post and carry on independent missions. While if only damaged, they need to stay with it and escort it out of danger. That way, they are out of the equation too.

 

[Tiqiu]

This is what one with a real warhead can do. Iran's Khalije Fars ASBM:

Iran, Pakistan should look into the developing the conventional AIP sub of Chinese 032 type with SLBM/ Cruise missile VLS. India is going to have its ballistic missile sub in service soon.

 

[gambit]

True. I also agree that sinking is overrated. An explosion like the picture above on a real carrier would probably start a chain explosion by nearby jet fighters and their ammunition or fuel adding more to the destruction. Bottom line, its deck won't be able to be used as a runway anymore and with that all of the aircrafts on board will render useless.

On the other hand just damaging it and not sinking it might prove more beneficial as in case of total destruction, its escort can leave their post and carry on independent missions. While if only damaged, they need to stay with it and escort it out of danger. That way, they are out of the equation too.

There is no comparison between the aircraft carriers of WW II and the carriers of today.

Back in WW II and earlier, aircraft carriers were converted hulls from oilers, tankers, and cruiser class warships. WW II was then it was the first time fleets can fight each other without seeing each other. Before the aircraft carrier, naval forces can only deliver destruction to a few kms from shore, with naval air power, the enemy can be engaged to deep inside his area of control. That made the aircraft carrier the premier ship of desire for any navy. Too bad not every country can afford it.

Because of the above, the modern aircraft carrier came with unique design features and engineering that make the modern carrier highly resistant to sinking. Assuming a sub can launch a salvo of torpedoes to actually sink an aircraft carrier, that sub will also be dead. Many would feel that is an acceptable trade.

For what you said, the USS Enterprise suffered a disaster similar...

Enterprise Remembers 1969 Fire

But here is what most people do not realize, that if it was war time, the Enterprise would have been able to continue to fight. A lot of WW II carrier veterans believe that air operations would have been limited, but feasible. No one have more experience at aircraft carrier operations than US, in peace and war times. What we learned in WW II have been dissected to all ends. New technologies means new potential disasters that our war time veterans could not have imagined, but precisely because we have a large working fleet of these modern ships, we have a store of possible responses to hypothetical situations that many do not realize. Our WW II veterans led the way for us to be creative on how to deal with disasters.

I will put it to you this way...When I was on the F-111, for a time I taught Aircraft Battle Damage Repair (ABDR)...

Robins instructors provide aircraft battle damage repair training to allies > U.S. Air Force > Article Display

If necessary, I can use a broomstick and aluminum from soda cans to repair a part of the jet's flight control system to make it flyable again, even all the way to Moscow and back. People who tout the DF-21D this and DF-21D that have no idea on what we can do.

 

[jhungary]

Last time I was in a firing range, I shot 250 rounds M4 M855A1 munition, I score a hit of 204 and 180 of those are kill shot.

Last time I was in war, I fired over 10,000 to 12,000 round, (About that much, maybe more, did not count them out exactly) with my 23 months deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I go on to the figure I trained with, I should have killed between 7000-8000 Iraqi insurgent and Taliban, however, I only ever killed 6 confirmed (7 if you count the one I did not bother to check.)

If only war fought by the stuff you train with. To us, the actual people who were fighting in war, there is a gap between what you trained for and what's happening in reality. To most other people, for them reality does not exist. You look at some data, some test, some exercise, and instantly you have become an expert in that field.

I am not going to discuss how "useful" DF-21D was, it's mechanism and kill chain have been discussed to death here, not hard to find a discussion on DF-21D. Just one thing tho. If you are talking about killing a Carrier with a missile. Well, I will say, if the carrier have to get within your missile range, then it deserved to be dead. They are AIRCRAFT carrier, emphasis on the aircraft part. You can literally launch them anywhere you want, you can launch them on mission to Asia in pearl harbor if you want and using mid-air refuelling to extend your flight group range.

@gambit @Hamartia Antidote @C130 @Desertfalcon

 

[C130]

Last time I was in a firing range, I shot 250 rounds M4 M855A1 munition, I score a hit of 204 and 180 of those are kill shot.

Last time I was in war, I fired over 10,000 to 12,000 round, (About that much, maybe more, did not count them out exactly) with my 23 months deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I go on to the figure I trained with, I should have killed between 7000-8000 Iraqi insurgent and Taliban, however, I only ever killed 6 confirmed (7 if you count the one I did not bother to check.)

If only war fought by the stuff you train with. To us, the actual people who were fighting in war, there is a gap between what you trained for and what's happening in reality. To most other people, for them reality does not exist. You look at some data, some test, some exercise, and instantly you have become an expert in that field.

I am not going to discuss how "useful" DF-21D was, it's mechanism and kill chain have been discussed to death here, not hard to find a discussion on DF-21D. Just one thing tho. If you are talking about killing a Carrier with a missile. Well, I will say, if the carrier have to get within your missile range, then it deserved to be dead. They are AIRCRAFT carrier, emphasis on the aircraft part. You can literally launch them anywhere you want, you can launch them on mission to Asia in pearl harbor if you want and using mid-air refuelling to extend your flight group range.

@gambit @Hamartia Antidote @C130 @Desertfalcon

for you first part.

I've read how it takes about on average 100,000 to 250,000 bullets for 1 KIA

US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

we need better intelligence gathering on the enemy to find and direct our fire.


also self aiming rifles would be helpful as well. turn even a child into a marksman

and for the DF-21D and other ASBM, if they work they would be devastating, but the U.S and it's allies have eyes in the sky that would detect these carrier killers the moment they launch. whether we can stop them is to be seen.


but if war was to happen between the U.S and China it wouldn't just be a small war you can expect entire cities to be vaporized.

don't think either side wants that.

 

[BoQ77]

Yeah
North Korea would also want to be in the list.
The class of defenders by land-based ballistic missiles ( and want to blow up US facilities ).

China seem to have some bigger missiles than Scud-D.

 

[jhungary]

for you first part.

I've read how it takes about on average 100,000 to 250,000 bullets for 1 KIA

US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

we need better intelligence gathering on the enemy to find and direct our fire.


also self aiming rifles would be helpful as well. turn even a child into a marksman

and for the DF-21D and other ASBM, if they work they would be devastating, but the U.S and it's allies have eyes in the sky that would detect these carrier killers the moment they launch. whether we can stop them is to be seen.


but if war was to happen between the U.S and China it wouldn't just be a small war you can expect entire cities to be vaporized.

don't think either side wants that.

100,000 per soldier is on average. Most people don't look at what they are shooting at in war, you spray when you hear something, see something. I got a SAW gunner empty half of his belt (that some 100 rounds 556) on a cow in a few second. Most of those bullet ended up in the wall, or door or simply no where.

If we all operate on Call Of Duty level accuracy, then I guess war will be quite cheap, to a point it does not quite making an impact...

Everything if they were to work "According to Plan" would be devastating. But can anything in war, actually work the way they are supposed to?

There are more than 1 way to kill DF-21D, as we have actually discussed it to death. Really no point keep on talking about DF-21D. I have seen way too many "golden nugget" turns out to be McNugget in war to know nothing works according to their description on the operation menu...