What's new

China’s Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile Now Opposite Taiwan | Bloomberg

Wrong, child.

Over-the-horizon radar systems are large in antenna array sizes, such as tens of meters or even hundreds of meters across, making them easy to target and damaged. No need to destroy, just a few bombs across the array face and the entire system is done for.

As for the warhead itself, not one of you can coherently explain what is 'terminal guidance' despite your casual use of the phrase. So until you conscript rejects can show us a credible source on what is that 'terminal guidance' and steerage mechanism, all you have is a wet dream that the DF-21D is a 'carrier killer'.


Please allow me to intrude in this discussion..

China has the most advanced air-defences in the world along with Russia.

These radars are likely to be very well protected(Fighters, AWACS and both long and short rage SAMs) and will be hundreds of miles deep into China from it's coast.

How will any plane and or bomb/missile penetrate these air defences?

And, surely China will have build up much redundancy into the whole detect/track/kill chain that it would be such a monumental task to degrade it to an extent that the DF-21D is no longer a threat to US Navy.
 
.
China has the most advanced air-defences in the world along with Russia.

Are you world renowned air defense expert? Do you have any evidence too support your statement?
 
. . .
Well please share you 'logic' so I can smack you around some..:coffee:

You seem to have no interest in having a constructive discussion so I won't waste my time.

China's transformation into a peer to the US over the next 10-15 years will make a lot of the US investments into power projection irrelevant. Trillions of US dollars will be wasted for little gain.
 
.
You seem to have no interest in having a constructive discussion so I won't waste my time.

China's transformation into a peer to the US over the next 10-15 years will make a lot of the US investments into power projection irrelevant. Trillions of US dollars will be wasted for little gain.

So you got nothing :rolleyes:. Obvious to everyone you were here brown nosing the Chinese with your claims of 'most advanced...bla bla...'.

I'll ignore the rest of your rant...
 
.
So you got nothing :rolleyes:. Obvious to everyone you were here brown nosing the Chinese with your claims of 'most advanced...bla bla...'.

I'll ignore the rest of your rant...

Please do not try to speak for anyone else here.

If they need to, they are capable of speaking for themselves.
 
.
Please allow me to intrude in this discussion..
No need to beg. This is a publicly available forum. No one can stop you from 'intruding', so no need to be pretentious. :lol:

China has the most advanced air-defences in the world along with Russia.

These radars are likely to be very well protected(Fighters, AWACS and both long and short rage SAMs) and will be hundreds of miles deep into China from it's coast.

How will any plane and or bomb/missile penetrate these air defences?

And, surely China will have build up much redundancy into the whole detect/track/kill chain that it would be such a monumental task to degrade it to an extent that the DF-21D is no longer a threat to US Navy.
Just like how people, probably including you, who criticized the F-22 as never to have been in combat so there is no credible way to gauge its lethality, Chinese air defense have never been tested as well, so there is no credible way to even opine as to its ability to defend the Chinese homeland.

The most combat experience the PLA have gained in the last few decades have been against adversaries that are either not real adversaries, ie the Tibetans, or against one that is nowhere its peer in terms of technology, Viet Nam, and even against that adversary, the PLA got spanked and got spanked because of outdated doctrines, poor training, and shtty leadership.

On the other hand, in the same timespan, the US gained a hundred fold experience in every area of modern warfare, from technology to modernized doctrines to better exploit technology to urban combat to global logistics. We have superior documentation on what we have done to analyze where we were wrong and where we were right. We devastatingly defeated an army -- Iraq -- that the PLA equipped, advised, and could not handle. Militaries wishes to emulate US, not China.

You have nothing in terms of arguments to support China in this.

I doubt the US even has the ability to detect such an advanced missile like the Df-21D. After all that's exactly why they are so petrified. We now have the capability to sink all 11 American aircraft carriers. They are just sitting ducks.
Please see your shift stupor-visor for a better script.
 
.
Just like how people, probably including you, who criticized the F-22 as never to have been in combat so there is no credible way to gauge its lethality, Chinese air defense have never been tested as well, so there is no credible way to even opine as to its ability to defend the Chinese homeland.

Same with B-2 that has never been tested against an advanced adversary.

I think the fact that China tendered the HQ-9 against S-400 and Patriot in Turkey says something at least in China's confidence on the capability of their most advanced SAM.

Also China could buy any SAM bar the S-400 in the Russian arsenal but chooses not to also gives an idea of what level they are at as well.

On the other hand, in the same timespan, the US gained a hundred fold experience in every area of modern warfare, from technology to modernized doctrines to better exploit technology to urban combat to global logistics. We have superior documentation on what we have done to analyze where we were wrong and where we were right. We devastatingly defeated an army -- Iraq -- that the PLA equipped, advised, and could not handle. Militaries wishes to emulate US, not China.

Experience against militaries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia.:omghaha:


Two points:

1. China is relatively more advanced compared to the USA than it was in 1991.

2. No way China would have given Iraq the most advanced equipment that it had at the time - even though they would agree that they were in much poorer shape then than now.

You need to try harder.
 
.
As for the warhead itself, not one of you can coherently explain what is 'terminal guidance' despite your casual use of the phrase. So until you conscript rejects can show us a credible source on what is that 'terminal guidance'

The DF-21D can rely on an off-board sensor for terminal guidance against a moving target.

Examples of off-board sensors include:
- J-10B
- J-11B
- J-15
- J-16
- J-20
- J-31
- UAVs
- surface ships
- submarines

If the entire PLAAF and PLAN can't survive the 8 minutes or so for a mach 10 missile to cover a thousand miles, then you win and the DF-21D splashes into the water. :lol:
 
.
Same with B-2 that has never been tested against an advanced adversary.
That is funny considering the B-2 flew in Yugoslavia where everyone made hay out of a single F-117 loss. :lol:

Experience against militaries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia.:omghaha:
Versus experience against monks? :omghaha:


Two points:

1. China is relatively more advanced compared to the USA than it was in 1991.
And the US military today is more advanced than the US military of 1991. But of course, you have to try to mislead the readers.

2. No way China would have given Iraq the most advanced equipment that it had at the time - even though they would agree that they were in much poorer shape then than now.

You need to try harder.
No. It is YOU who needs to try harder. Look at the PLA today after its leadership were 'shocked' and 'awed' by Desert Storm. You can see 'American' all over. :lol:

The DF-21D can rely on an off-board sensor for terminal guidance against a moving target.

Examples of off-board sensors include:
- J-10B
- J-11B
- J-15
- J-16
- J-20
- J-31
- UAVs
- surface ships
- submarines

If the entire PLAAF and PLAN can't survive the 8 minutes or so for a mach 10 missile to cover a thousand miles, then you win and the DF-21D splashes into the water. :lol:
The PLAAF is able to send those fighters out that far to loiter over an American fleet to provide real time guidance? :lol:

The PLAN is not yet a 'blue water' navy and for the strike distance that you are talking about for the DF-21D, the PLAN must be such a navy.

You lose.
 
. .
The DF-21D can rely on an off-board sensor for terminal guidance against a moving target.

Examples of off-board sensors include:
- J-10B
- J-11B
- J-15
- J-16
- J-20
- J-31
- UAVs
- surface ships
- submarines

If the entire PLAAF and PLAN can't survive the 8 minutes or so for a mach 10 missile to cover a thousand miles, then you win and the DF-21D splashes into the water. :lol:

hahahaha...... i like jokes alot.... If china can take on USN CBG with DF-21d, why PLAAN interested and building AC? these guys becoming delusional and over-estimating them self... by degrading others...
 
.
How far is far?

What is the combat radius of the F/A-18E? :lol:
That is not the point, which is to deny the American aircraft carrier the near enough distance to use the F-18. You cannot even show a credible source that says the DF-21D can accept data links from other platforms in the first place, let alone speculating that the PLAAF can loiter within radar range of the American aircraft carrier with impunity.

And we are to supposed to have the lower IQs? :lol:
 
.
Why do we need to beat monks when we spanked that American arse in the Korean War. What was it....25 countries vs 1. Still got kicked out of North Korea. :lol:

The US thought it would be easy victory and got burnt. Once bitten, twice shy. No wonder the US is scared of going to combat with China.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom