China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[Martian2]

Range of China's DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM)

[Note: Thank you to EastWind for the picture.]

----------

US Naval War College: China's DF-21D ASBM costs $5 to $10.5 million per missile

A Chinese DF-21D ASBM costs only $5 to $10.5 million. China can afford to build hundreds of them.

Out of the 100 DF-21D ASBMs fired at a single aircraft carrier, China only needs one or two hits to achieve a "soft kill" (e.g. knocked out of combat). If there are more impacts, the carrier might sink.

I have suggested China may fire 100 DF-21D ASBMs to arrive near-simultaneously and attack an aircraft carrier. However, is this economically feasible? As shown in the citation below, each DF-21D ASBM costs between $5 to $10.5 million per missile.

We'll pick the upper range and say each DF-21D ASBM costs $10 million. A bombardment of 100 DF-21D ASBMs will cost a total of $1 billion. This is a cost-effective way to attack a $5 billion aircraft carrier.

Anyway, in a war, costs don't really matter. China will attempt to sink the aircraft carrier with sufficient numbers of DF-21D ASBMs regardless of cost.

----------

From the third page at the following link from the US Naval War College:

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/...9d27/The-Strategic-Implications-of-Obscurants

"While it is problematic to estimate accurately the cost of the DF-21, sources place the unit price, in U.S. currency, between $5,000,000 and $10,500,000 per missile.[7] This seems a reasonable estimate in light of the cost of a similar weapon, the U.S. Pershing II, which adjusted for inflation would be roughly twelve million dollars per missile. In comparison, the ballistic-missile-defense-capable SM-3 costs roughly ten million dollars per missile. At first blush, the nearly equal prices of interceptor (SM-3) and ASBM (DF-21) suggest near parity in cost ratio, but a “shoot two to kill one” doctrine means a differential of nearly ten million dollars per exchange. However, even this is misleading, as the launch platform—essentially a big truck—of the DF-21 is far less expensive than that of the SM-3, a warship. This estimate also ignores the operational and developmental challenges of intercepting an ASBM; nor does it fold in the things like purchasing power disparity, labor costs, and government controls, which all favor China. Nonetheless, this simple cost comparison is striking."

 

[Mercenary]

Dumb question but can the Gatling Gun shoot down these China's DF-21D ASBM missiles or are they simply too fast to be picked up and tracked by those guns?

And what counter-measures is the US building against these missiles?

 

[longyi]

And you Chinese boys...???

Boys? I'm old enough to be your father.

 

[Martian2]

Dumb question but can the Gatling Gun shoot down these China's DF-21D ASBM missiles or are they simply too fast to be picked up and tracked by those guns?

And what counter-measures is the US building against these missiles?

CIWS cannot shoot vertically. CIWS is useless against a Mach 10 incoming Chinese DF-21D IRBM.

The counter-measures are obvious.

1. Stay out of range (see orange section of map in my prior post).

2. Destroy the detection and guidance support network for the DF-21D.

If neither condition is met, saying your last prayer is a good idea.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Darn....US will never fight China in China's Fight. US will Fight China in US's fight. They wont engage you in brown waters....they will drag you out in the open to fight you.

 

[gambit]

Dumb question...

No such if you ask honestly.

...but can the Gatling Gun shoot down these China's DF-21D ASBM missiles...

The current version cannot because of physical limitations, as in the design is pretty much to be against aircraft type target in a 'horizontal' approach. But there is nothing to prevent US from developing one that can shoot straight up although the danger of projectiles falling back down on our heads would discourage such a design.

...or are they simply too fast to be picked up and tracked by those guns?

As far as sensors goes, there is nothing to say we cannot pick up any descending warheads, despite what 'Chinese physics' may say.

And what counter-measures is the US building against these missiles?

There several inherent difficulties for a ballistic missile going against a moving target, even as slow as a ship, and assuming this is non-nuclear.

- A ballistic warhead is non-powered, meaning it has no means of acceleration to compensate for target deviation from track. Understand that speed is not acceleration. Any changes in heading will result in speed loss with no regaining of it. So if closing speed is vital in surprising the target, then any loss is a reduction in odds of that. Structurally speaking, the greater the speed, the greater the structural stresses will be if there is a heading deviation. This mean the warhead must be robust and that take room away for explosives.

- A non-nuclear ballistic warhead going against a moving target require on-board sensors. Which type ? This will take more room away for explosives.

- If radar is used, a chaff bloom can be deployed that is several thousands square km in electronic view, completely blinding the warhead's radar. The warhead's radar can see the radar effect from chaff and can even see the distinct area compared to calm sea, but under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view.

- If over-the-horizon radar is used to detect the fleet and to provide initial directional guidance, OTH radar arrays are large and usually not mobile. And we are talking several hundreds meters of array size, either from a single antenna or from an array of discrete antennas working together. These large arrays can -- and will be -- destroyed by B-2s.

The DF-21D is neither the tactical nor technical cure for a carrier threat as the Chinese members here would like to have people believe. The idea itself is a theoretical threat -- yes. No one is denying that. But making it an viable weapon is something we have yet to see while there are current working countermeasures against it already.

 

[gambit]

Boys? I'm old enough to be your father.

I doubt that. I lived thru the 1968 Tet Offensive in Saigon. In effect, I know what real war is like before the Chinese boys here were even borned.

 

[antonius123]

There several inherent difficulties for a ballistic missile going against a moving target, even as slow as a ship, and assuming this is non-nuclear.

- A ballistic warhead is non-powered, meaning it has no means of acceleration to compensate for target deviation from track. Understand that speed is not acceleration. Any changes in heading will result in speed loss with no regaining of it. So if closing speed is vital in surprising the target, then any loss is a reduction in odds of that. Structurally speaking, the greater the speed, the greater the structural stresses will be if there is a heading deviation. This mean the warhead must be robust and that take room away for explosives.

- A non-nuclear ballistic warhead going against a moving target require on-board sensors. Which type ? This will take more room away for explosives.

You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right?

You know nothing! DF-21D may not be like conventional ballistic missile as you are describing above. Thats why it is so called "quasi ballistic missile".

- If radar is used, a chaff bloom can be deployed that is several thousands square km in electronic view, completely blinding the warhead's radar. The warhead's radar can see the radar effect from chaff and can even see the distinct area compared to calm sea, but under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view.
....
while there are current working countermeasures against it already.

Tell us how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

If it is true as you said that ship could be hidden from EM view effectively by chaff, then we dont need stealth ship, no need phalanx, etc, just rely on chaff

 

[dbc]

You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right?

You know nothing! DF-21D may not be like conventional ballistic missile as you are describing above. Thats why it is so called "quasi ballistic missile".

'Quasi' what the what now?

 

[Juice]

Like quasimodo...

 

[amalakas]

'Quasi' what the what now?

ahhh you haven't been keeping up with current events..

this is our resident magician. His favourite trick is writing like that.

Don't worry you will see this alot. He probably got it from a wikipedia page. It is his only source.

You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right?

You know nothing! DF-21D may not be like conventional ballistic missile as you are describing above. Thats why it is so called "quasi ballistic missile".



Tell us how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

If it is true as you said that ship could be hidden from EM view effectively by chaff, then we dont need stealth ship, no need phalanx, etc, just rely on chaff

How about you telling us where this modern radar will be housed! because if it is housed inside the quasi ballistic missile of yours .. a butterfly flapping its wings is equally reliable with chaff! if it is on land then let me laugh some more..

 

[j20blackdragon]

- If over-the-horizon radar is used to detect the fleet and to provide initial directional guidance, OTH radar arrays are large and usually not mobile. And we are talking several hundreds meters of array size, either from a single antenna or from an array of discrete antennas working together. These large arrays can -- and will be -- destroyed by B-2s.

Are these B-2s flying in unescorted?

 

[j20blackdragon]

- A non-nuclear ballistic warhead going against a moving target require on-board sensors. Which type ? This will take more room away for explosives.

Who says the DF-21D can't also acquire targeting information for an off-board sensor, like the J-20 for example?

 

[amalakas]

Who says the DF-21D can't also acquire targeting information for an off-board sensor, like the J-20 for example?

no one says it can't. But does it?
With conservative estimates, from launch to hit at maximum range will take 14 minutes and approx 8 minutes for a carrier near taiwan. in both cases the carrier would have travelled ~13km and ~9km to any direction! and it is going to take less than 20 seconds for the missile to hit water, that means it has to find the target and lock on after re entry in that amount of time! How does that sound?

 

[danger007]

US carriers are nuclear powered..... will china dare to attack it in SCS??? hmmm USN must withdraw all of it's carriers. by the way IF chinese can sunk USN super carriers... why chinese are making and planning for new carriers....