top attack on retired 514 : anti-ship ballistic missile, ship test

[yusheng]

Edge: the picture 514 ships can certainly be "through the top attack"!

Note that the bridge was side cracked and collapsed, the mast was gone. If the attack weapon really has no charge, kinetic energy is so large that can only be a ballistic missile.

second, you can see there is great water blisters, rising from the sea, forming protrusions and drum kits, shows that the ship has been penetrated, great gas has been discharged from the bottom hull.

third, the hit location is the mast and the bridge, if the side hull was hit, the mast is at most crooked , has now been strongly hit and plucked up by the roots, can not a cruise missile make such effect.

fouth, hull structure under bridge has to bulge outward, only the power from the top pressure can cause such projections and with tremendous power.

I did a picture, you can refer to the pictures.

the United States navy, a cruiser is hit by the cruise missile , "own mistakenly hit" , with not charge, you can see the ship body after impact results and status.



If this warhead fully charged hit a carrier, no mater what position is, one can estimate the result,Hei hei!


刀口谈兵：贯顶攻击退役514舰测试反舰弹道导弹_汉唐归来_新浪博客

 

[cnleio]

I was suppost to post this pic, but i think twice "Damn, it's our secret !"
U can imagine the American's face when they see this top-attack pic... China is serious !

 

[Imran Khan]

nice shot. pin point kill always satisfy commanders abut their weapons in hands

 

[SvenSvensonov]

A question,

Why are we to believe that this was a top-down attack? And why does the OP state that the kinetic energy had to come from a ballistic missile? True, a target drone or sub-sonic missile would lack the kinetic energy to cripple a ship in such a manner, but an ss-n-22, P-800, or similar super-sonic missile would cripple a ship of a cruiser-type with or without a warhead. What leads us, or should convince me and others that this test involved a ballistic missile and not a bomb, super-sonic or sub-sonic missile. Are there any details beyond these pictures? I'm not wholly convinced that a ballistic missile was used, especially one of the df-21d class, where a missile that large moving at super-sonic speeds would cause much, much more damage that what the pictures being presented offer. If my suspicions are wrong and a ballistic missile was actually used what type of missile was tested?

SvenSvensonov

 

[Arsalan]

nice shot. pin point kill always satisfy commanders abut their weapons in hands

They makes them feel that much more confident going into operation.
I reliable weapon is something every on duty officer will cherish and these live fire exercises and the way to prove the reliability of the weapon systems and give the soldiers confidence going into a war.

What are you mentioning in the below picture @yusheng i did not get that, what is this?

 

[Imran Khan]

They makes them feel that much more confident going into operation.
I reliable weapon is something every on duty officer will cherish and these live fire exercises and the way to prove the reliability of the weapon systems and give the soldiers confidence going into a war.

What are you mentioning in the below picture @yusheng i did not get that, what is this?

janab ship attacked on naval station runway

 

[yusheng]

They makes them feel that much more confident going into operation.
I reliable weapon is something every on duty officer will cherish and these live fire exercises and the way to prove the reliability of the weapon systems and give the soldiers confidence going into a war.

What are you mentioning in the below picture @yusheng i did not get that, what is this?

in fact, the land test has been many time, the picture is from old analysis of such missile
Just to mention that it can not appear just in one day.

A question,

Why are we to believe that this was a top-down attack? And why does the OP state that the kinetic energy had to come from a ballistic missile? True, a target drone or sub-sonic missile would lack the kinetic energy to cripple a ship in such a manner, but an ss-n-22, P-800, or similar super-sonic missile would cripple a ship of a cruiser-type with or without a warhead. What leads us, or should convince me and others that this test involved a ballistic missile and not a bomb, super-sonic or sub-sonic missile. Are there any details beyond these pictures? I'm not wholly convinced that a ballistic missile was used, especially one of the df-21d class, where a missile that large moving at super-sonic speeds would cause much, much more damage that what the pictures being presented offer. If my suspicions are wrong and a ballistic missile was actually used what type of missile was tested?

(an would some more established member provide me with the link to the new members introduction page? I'm new to this site and am still learning to navigate it.)

SvenSvensonov

sorry, i am afraid i can not give you more information, good luck.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

in fact, the land test has been many time, the picture is from old analysis of such missile
Just to mention that it can not appear just in one day.

View attachment 134238 View attachment 134239 View attachment 134240



sorry, i am afraid i can not give you more information, good luck.

No problem, I understand that little would be offered if any existed, especially for a sensitive test and weapon. However, I hope you can understand my skepticism. Anti-ship ballistic missiles are a great theory, the US was thinking about using the Pershing II in such a manner. But to the best of my knowledge the ASBM concept remains just a concept. Land testing is great and all, the land presents a plentiful and willing target, but to date no known shore to ship tests have been conducted. That new details are emerging, ones that don't seem to add up to the ASBM profile, does fill me with doubt. Still, the Chinese have proven many wrong before and I have no doubt they can prove us wrong again.

SvenSvensonov

 

[GR!FF!N]

@yusheng

your point about US ship is wrong.it was a small drone which hit the US ship.you can see CIWS was spraying bullets..

plus,the picture you've posted,it looks like it got stuck in the front by either some air launched missile or ASHM.I guess a Top Attack hit would make much more destruction.plus,

@SvenSvensonov is right.see what a subsonic missile can do to a ship...

Video: Norway military blows up ship in long range missile test - Telegraph

a supersonic missile makes it more deadly.

@SvenSvensonov

one point you're wrong.both China and Iran claimed to have conducted Ballistic missile test against Static Ship.but again,against static target,not the dynamic one.

 

[xunzi]

one point you're wrong.both China and Iran claimed to have conducted Ballistic missile test against Static Ship.but again,against static target,not the dynamic one.

Why don't you ask our American friend to donate us one of their AC so we can test it. We accept the decommissioned JFK carrier which is currently dock at Philla! LOL

 

[GR!FF!N]

Why don't you ask our American friend to donate us one of their AC so we can test it. We accept the decommissioned JFK carrier which is currently dock at Philla! LOL

Lame..test your weapon on your own ship.you've quite a few to retire.

 

[xunzi]

Lame..test your weapon on your own ship.you've quite a few to retire.

We are very poor. Our American friend is richer and has more ships than us. They can afford to donate to us.

 

[GR!FF!N]

We are very poor. Our American friend is richer and has more ships than us. They can afford to donate to us.

why don't use it against static carriers which China have for now??

why always begging??

 

[cnleio]

why don't use it against static carriers which China have for now??

View attachment 134432



why always begging??

It is now a Five-Star Hotel ... in TianJing city

Did Indian sink ur Five-Star Hotel before ?

 

[GeHAC]

It can‘t be hitted by a ballistic missile.Ballistic missile has much more kinetic energy.