Here Is Why the US Military Is Not In Panic Mode Over China's Carrier-Killer Missiles

[gambit]

Despite your claim of miltary or other experience this or that blah blah blah how fast you think an massive aircraft carrier can sail on an open sea? 30 - 40 knots per hour? How can the speed be translated into km per hour?
That is less than 75 km per hour. and the deck is as big as 3 to 4 football fields

Who told you the test must be done in the sea?

We can do the test on a fast moving unmanned vehicle driving at over 100 km per hour, changing speeds and changing directions on windy desert hi-ways and even during extreme thunderous weather

Does the PLA need to test our missile on an open sea to ascertain our accuracy?
And we are talking about the the test of just one missile shot each time

The problem with your argument, stemming from your lack of military experience which is typical of the PDF Chinese, is that your argument contradict what the Chinese government actually does.

Tell us, what is the point of this desert simulated aircraft carrier...

If the DF-12D is equipped with its own radar seeker, real physics, not 'Chinese physics', tells us that water have a different radar signature than land.

Here is something else that you most likely do not know...

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

High sea state, or scale, have been known to mask surface vessels, even when the radar view is from directly above.

The DF-21D is supposed to rely on over-the-horizon (OTH) radar to initiate detection and tracking of surface vessels.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1435924/?reload=true&arnumber=1435924

Abstract:

The unwanted radar echoes from the ionosphere are collectively called ionospheric clutter. It has proved to be the greatest impediment to achieving consistently good performance in long-range detection of surface vessels and sea state monitoring for HF surface wave radar (HFSWR). Ionospheric clutter can mask target/sea echoes having similar Doppler shifts. Main characteristics of sporadic-E ionospheric clutter (Es-layer clutter) are described. A new time domain coherent side-lobe cancellation (CSLC) algorithm based on subarrays is proposed to suppress this type of ionospheric clutter. Experimental results confirm that the general algorithm can achieve effective ionospheric clutter suppression while not decreasing the strength of the first-order sea echo using the data recorded by the OSMAR2003 (ocean state monitor and analysis radar, manufactured in 2003), located near Zhoushan in Zhejiang China.

Do you see that 'sea state' item again ?

So now you have to deal with at least two problems and both involves sea state monitoring. The first problem is that ionospheric clutter is a common problem involving any kind of atmospheric 'bouncing' of radar signals. The second problem is that in order to distinguish any surface vessel from varying sea state, you must be able to distinguish out the sea state in the first place. Do you understand the basics, for now ?

Note that unlike you PDF Chinese, I actually provide technical sources for my arguments.

Land does not change its surface features over a matter of a few hours. The sea does. Real physics says you must account for those unexpected changes and do it in real time.

You've tried so hard all the time to impress but I have to tell YOU, you cant earn any bit of respect here
What a pity

The few Americans on this forum have represented the Army, Navy, and Air Force ( me ). We have done out of proportions in educating this forum in many things military in ways that only those who have served could do. A lot more than you PDF Chinese have done. Your respect means shit to me, kid.

 

[Beast]

The problem with your argument, stemming from your lack of military experience which is typical of the PDF Chinese, is that your argument contradict what the Chinese government actually does.

Tell us, what is the point of this desert simulated aircraft carrier...

If the DF-12D is equipped with its own radar seeker, real physics, not 'Chinese physics', tells us that water have a different radar signature than land.

Here is something else that you most likely do not know...

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

High sea state, or scale, have been known to mask surface vessels, even when the radar view is from directly above.

The DF-21D is supposed to rely on over-the-horizon (OTH) radar to initiate detection and tracking of surface vessels.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1435924/?reload=true&arnumber=1435924

Do you see that 'sea state' item again ?

So now you have to deal with at least two problems and both involves sea state monitoring. The first problem is that ionospheric clutter is a common problem involving any kind of atmospheric 'bouncing' of radar signals. The second problem is that in order to distinguish any surface vessel from varying sea state, you must be able to distinguish out the sea state in the first place. Do you understand the basics, for now ?

Note that unlike you PDF Chinese, I actually provide technical sources for my arguments.

Land does not change its surface features over a matter of a few hours. The sea does. Real physics says you must account for those unexpected changes and do it in real time.


The few Americans on this forum have represented the Army, Navy, and Air Force ( me ). We have done out of proportions in educating this forum in many things military in ways that only those who have served could do. A lot more than you PDF Chinese have done. Your respect means shit to me, kid.

DF-21D has tested on real decommission jiangwei class frigate and score a bullseye on the bridge. It was never declassify and never declared public but Chinese forum manage to leak out a few photo of the test result. If it can hit a frigate on open sea. I am sure it will not have problem hitting a carrier. USN all the while keep numb of the test despite fully tracking and observe the whole process from their spy satellite. I guess they do not want the panic mode from US public over their impotency.

 

[gambit]

DF-21D has tested on real decommission jiangwei class frigate and score a bullseye on the bridge. It was never declassify and never declared public but Chinese forum manage to leak out a few photo of the test result. If it can hit a frigate on open sea. I am sure it will not have problem hitting a carrier. USN all the while keep numb of the test despite fully tracking and observe the whole process from their spy satellite. I guess they do not want the panic mode from US public over their impotency.

We have no reasons to place any credibility on that alleged test, especially if it came from Internet forums. Note that the Americans on this forum do not resort to that.

 

[yantong1980]

nationalinterest.crap.org. Yeah, why is American should panic? Their should worried, much worried to their BS mass media flooding their brain with none sense than DF-21D missiles.

 

[Beast]

We have no reasons to place any credibility on that alleged test, especially if it came from Internet forums. Note that the Americans on this forum do not resort to that.

You think China is Iran? Put oil drum on truck to fake as S-300 missile clone or use RC plane as stealth fighter initial flight? You really think DF-21D is untested on real situation just becos your sugar daddy US intel wouldn't release the successful flight test of DF-21D on sea?

See how the bridge flatten by high mach impact? If the tested warhead is loaded with explosive, it will sure create a massive hole on deck or detonate inside the hangar. You can imagine the result

When China parade some new weapon on important occasion, it means its fully operation and tested proven. China is no Iran.

 

[gambit]

You think China is Iran? Put oil drum on truck to fake as S-300 missile clone or use RC plane as stealth fighter initial flight? You really think DF-21D is untested on real situation just becos your sugar daddy US intel wouldn't release the successful flight test of DF-21D on sea?

See how the bridge flatten by high mach impact? If the tested warhead is loaded with explosive, it will sure create a massive hole on deck or detonate inside the hangar. You can imagine the result

When China parade some new weapon on important occasion, it means its fully operation and tested proven. China is no Iran.

Real situation ? That is a --

A truly 'real situation' would mean the DF-12D would have to successfully prevail over US countermeasures, of which I doubt your China have any real intelligence about that.

Assuming that those photos are genuinely from a DF-21D test, and that is being real generous. From personal experience, all tests are rigged tests. So if China cannot test the DF-21D against US countermeasures, that mean this test was rigged to see if the warhead can make contact with the target. We do not know if the target ship was maneuvering and under what environmental conditions. All you have is whatever your sugar daddy forum tells you what those pictures mean.

The standard nuclear warhead mass of a DF-21 is about 600 kg. If the DF-21D is non-nuclear and must have some maneuverability to track a moving ship, the mechanisms add-on weight could be as high as several hundreds more kg, so let us round off to 1000 kg for the DF-21D.

Mach is roughly 1200 km/hr. Mass is roughly 1000 kg.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergykenetic/kenetic_energy_equation.php

That mean if that little ship was the target ship for a real DF-21D test, it would have been broken in half by the impact energy alone, not counting explosive power.

A Nimitz class carrier would survive and even continue to conduct air operations. But the little ship that you brought on ?

 

[Three_Kingdoms]

The problem with your argument, stemming from your lack of military experience which is typical of the PDF Chinese, is that your argument contradict what the Chinese government actually does.

Tell us, what is the point of this desert simulated aircraft carrier...

If the DF-12D is equipped with its own radar seeker, real physics, not 'Chinese physics', tells us that water have a different radar signature than land.

Here is something else that you most likely do not know...

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

High sea state, or scale, have been known to mask surface vessels, even when the radar view is from directly above.

The DF-21D is supposed to rely on over-the-horizon (OTH) radar to initiate detection and tracking of surface vessels.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1435924/?reload=true&arnumber=1435924

Do you see that 'sea state' item again ?

So now you have to deal with at least two problems and both involves sea state monitoring. The first problem is that ionospheric clutter is a common problem involving any kind of atmospheric 'bouncing' of radar signals. The second problem is that in order to distinguish any surface vessel from varying sea state, you must be able to distinguish out the sea state in the first place. Do you understand the basics, for now ?

Note that unlike you PDF Chinese, I actually provide technical sources for my arguments.

Land does not change its surface features over a matter of a few hours. The sea does. Real physics says you must account for those unexpected changes and do it in real time.


The few Americans on this forum have represented the Army, Navy, and Air Force ( me ). We have done out of proportions in educating this forum in many things military in ways that only those who have served could do. A lot more than you PDF Chinese have done. Your respect means shit to me, kid.

You are becoming a huge joke of the forum
Let me ask you these

Have you read the article jointly authored by the Academians Wan Xianrong, Cheng Feng and Ke Hengyu? Thoroughly?
Who are they from? Vietnam or usa?
How is that wikipedia material on "Douglas sea scale" related to the Wang, Cheng and Ke article? Quantify it if you can?
Which is more difficult to ID, the unmanned vehicle runningat over 100km per hour in the desert hi way or the us aircraft carrier that sails at 30 to 40 knots per hour in an open sea?

 

[Beast]

Real situation ? That is a --

A truly 'real situation' would mean the DF-12D would have to successfully prevail over US countermeasures, of which I doubt your China have any real intelligence about that.

Assuming that those photos are genuinely from a DF-21D test, and that is being real generous. From personal experience, all tests are rigged tests. So if China cannot test the DF-21D against US countermeasures, that mean this test was rigged to see if the warhead can make contact with the target. We do not know if the target ship was maneuvering and under what environmental conditions. All you have is whatever your sugar daddy forum tells you what those pictures mean.

The standard nuclear warhead mass of a DF-21 is about 600 kg. If the DF-21D is non-nuclear and must have some maneuverability to track a moving ship, the mechanisms add-on weight could be as high as several hundreds more kg, so let us round off to 1000 kg for the DF-21D.

Mach is roughly 1200 km/hr. Mass is roughly 1000 kg.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergykenetic/kenetic_energy_equation.php

That mean if that little ship was the target ship for a real DF-21D test, it would have been broken in half by the impact energy alone, not counting explosive power.

A Nimitz class carrier would survive and even continue to conduct air operations. But the little ship that you brought on ?

If i used your standard. So as your anti ballistic missile defence shield. Has it tested on multiple salvo target or strong ECM? No. It was tested on just one missile interception. Do you think the Chinese will be so nice to fire just one DF-21D at your CVN? No. Same as your SM-3 which is never tested on real situation.

 

[Three_Kingdoms]

in addition, this photo which goes wild on the net was made some years ago

It was just one small part of our series of tests and the shot was showing the object inflicted with 2 craters was static That was what's about it
Dont repeatedly quote it as your BIBLE when you have nothing to offer

 

[nang2]

stupid title. why would anyone be in panic mode?

 

[gambit]

If i used your standard. So as your anti ballistic missile defence shield. Has it tested on multiple salvo target or strong ECM? No. It was tested on just one missile interception. Do you think the Chinese will be so nice to fire just one DF-21D at your CVN? No. Same as your SM-3 which is never tested on real situation.

This is just another screw up in a looooooong chain of screw ups from the PDF Chinese when they do not perform basic research.

https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf

Ballistic Missile Defense Intercept Flight Test Record (as of September 9, 2016)

Note the date -- recent.

Overall Test Record

 74 of 91 hit-to-kill intercept attempts have been successful across all programs since the integrated system began development in 2001 o Includes Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3

 49 of 62 hit-to-kill intercept attempts have been achieved for THAAD, Aegis BMD, and GMD test programs since 2001

So for nearly twenty yrs, US ballistic missile defense have conducted far more testings than your DF-21D and its success records -- public information that China can see -- have made the PLA more nervous about the US BMD program than we are about the DF-21D.

Base on my personal experience, I do not need to know the details of those tests to be abso-f-cking-lutely confident that some of those tests have taken into consideration ECM and multiple attackers. I can be that confident for ours while you cannot be equally confident for yours. I have confidence while you have faith. Big difference.

Finally...There are technical and tactical difficulties in deploying multiple attackers against a single target that will actually decrease the odds of success. This is not artillery and even artillery barrages will take care to avoid these difficulties. I will leave that to you guys to see if you can figure out why.

 

[Beast]

This is just another screw up in a looooooong chain of screw ups from the PDF Chinese when they do not perform basic research.

https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf

Note the date -- recent.


So for nearly twenty yrs, US ballistic missile defense have conducted far more testings than your DF-21D and its success records -- public information that China can see -- have made the PLA more nervous about the US BMD program than we are about the DF-21D.

Base on my personal experience, I do not need to know the details of those tests to be abso-f-cking-lutely confident that some of those tests have taken into consideration ECM and multiple attackers. I can be that confident for ours while you cannot be equally confident for yours. I have confidence while you have faith. Big difference.

Finally...There are technical and tactical difficulties in deploying multiple attackers against a single target that will actually decrease the odds of success. This is not artillery and even artillery barrages will take care to avoid these difficulties. I will leave that to you guys to see if you can figure out why.

You are avoiding the question. How was it tested under real condition? You claimed 1000 successful interception but just by handling one with warhead with no decoy , ECM?

You think the Chinese are so kind to fire only one DF-21D on one major target with no decoy or strong ECM to make USN life difficult?