What happened to Chinese Navy Frigate 514, ASBM Test?

[Dungeness]

Before:

After:

 

[Pangu]

I think that kind of damage is too light for an ASBM strike, I would expect the missle to plunge into & detonate inside the ship, the damages looks to be only top side...

 

[Dungeness]

I think that kind of damage is too light for an ASBM strike, I would expect the missle to plunge into & detonate inside the ship, the damages looks to be only top side...

There is no any sign of explosion, which indicates a dummy warhead might have been used.

 

[Pangu]

There is no any sign of explosion, which indicates a dummy warhead might have been used.

If indeed it was a dummy warhead ASBM test on the moving frigate, then I'm well pleased! Looking forward to the next test.

 

[Beast]

There is no any sign of explosion, which indicates a dummy warhead might have been used.

The U.S fully observed the whole ASBM test by their spy satelite and were fully astonished by success of it. But they never released this news in fear of US public knowing USN has no solution to multi salvo attack of DF-21 to defend their CVN.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

This pic is old, and the test was likely the YJ-12, and the warhead was only a mini one.

A single DF-21D will create the impact force strong enough to blow a 3000 tons frigate into thousand of pieces.

 

[Dungeness]

This pic is old, and the test was likely the YJ-12, and the warhead was only a mini one.

A single DF-21D will create the impact force strong enough to blow a 3000 tons frigate into thousand of pieces.

Really? I thought it is new, just read a post in Wenxuecity. If it was YJ-12, shouldn't it attack the side of ship, instead of from the top?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Really? I thought it is new, just read a post in Wenxuecity. If it was YJ-12, shouldn't it attack the side of ship, instead of from the top?

Only the bridge has been blown off, while the funnel is still undamaged.

Here is the impact created by the DF-21D even without using the warhead on the hard rock.

 

[Dungeness]

Only the bridge has been blown off, while the funnel is still undamaged.

Here is the impact created by the DF-21D even without using the warhead on the hard rock.

View attachment 272716

I am not sure YJ-12 could take the entire bridge off without warhead. It doesn't sound right, somehow.

 

[Akasa]

Want to Know What It's Like To Be Blown Up By A Chinese Missile? Ask This Ship. | Popular Science

 

[Dungeness]

Want to Know What It's Like To Be Blown Up By A Chinese Missile? Ask This Ship. | Popular Science

Holy cow! If an anti-ship cruise missile can cause this kind of damage with only kinetic energy, what would have happened with a explosive warhead?

Interesting point in this article:

YJ-12

The YJ-12 is perhaps China's most deadly antiship missile, seen here on a H-6 bomber for testing. The YJ-12 is usually air launched, can travel at a speed of over Mach 3.5 at a range of 400km.

These numbers would make BraMos like a toy, wasn't which supposed to be "the deadliest missile in the world" with M3 and 280 km?

 

[herono1]

Hitting a parked ship in test is easy. But long range ASBM will not work when ship is moving.

 

[Beast]

Hitting a parked ship in test is easy. But long range ASBM will not work when ship is moving.

The ship is moving when hit. Looks like you know nothing.

The US knows DF-21 is the silver bullet and it works. But they keep mute about it including the success of the test. They do not want the US public to panic.

 

[Economic superpower]

The ship is moving when hit. Looks like you know nothing.

The US knows DF-21 is the silver bullet and it works. But they keep mute about it including the success of the test. They do not want the US public to panic.

Not the US public, the global public especially its allies. The US want to present a front to everyone that its military is untouchable.

 

[gambit]

Hitting a parked ship in test is easy.

Actually, it is not.

For example...In a ballistic descent, the warhead's speed has vulnerabilities that may affect its course.

High speed decreases response time by the target, but if there are any influences on the warhead's flight, even strong wind can be a factor, real time accuracy can be negatively affected.

Lower descent speed will allow the warhead to make course compensation, if necessary, but will increases target response time.

Controlled ballistic descent testing is matured, but that does not mean it is technically and operationally easy by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, it took yrs of development and a lot of money from all the major powers just to field ballistic missiles against fixed targets like cities.

But long range ASBM will not work when ship is moving.

Yes, it can. I have said it before here -- that there are no technical barriers that will prevent a ballistic descent against a moving target.

The problem is on the warhead's side. On the descent half of the ballistic arc, the warhead must begin to assess target position as a variable. Target position as a variable is not new. Air-air missile does it. But the advantage is that the air-air missile have much greater control over its flight than a descending ballistic warhead. The air-air missile have propulsion and means of controls to change its course at will. The target is predicted to be at a spatial coordinates and the missile fly to that point.

The ballistic warhead have no means of propulsion. Its forward momentum is gravity driven. It has limited means to affect its descent course. The 'maneuverable' aspect does not mean the ballistic warhead can make 'Top Gun' movie style maneuvers. It means the warhead can make minor course changes to compensate for anything that would make it deviate from its original predictive course.

Against a fixed target, position as a variable is still a mathematical factor, but because the target is fixed, that variable remains a zero, so the ballistic warhead have to compensate only for factors that can affect its flight. But against the moving target, target position as a variable is never a constant zero. Essentially, the warhead now have its workload doubled. This is assuming that the warhead have a sensor package that will give it real time target information.

Science is one thing, tactic is another.

Detecting the target is science. What the target does in defense is tactic. If the warhead uses radar as sensor, how does it compensate for EM jammers ? If the warhead uses infrared as sensor, how does it compensate for flares ? Both EM and IR defensive measures can deploy shields that are literally hundreds and even thousands of km in area coverage. We do not know the extent of testing against defensive tactics in the DF-21D program.

The comment that the US was 'astonished' is hyperbolic intended to boost the morale of the Chinese members here. The US does not have a similar weapon because of arms limitation treaties with the Soviet Union, which Russia is inheritor of them. We know the math and the mechanics of the idea. The US was not 'astonished' in anyway.