Yuanwang 4 Sunk by Carrier killer missle DF21 in One test?

[Obambam]

China would probably prefer a method that can put a carrier out of operations without sinking it.

Would it be possible for a solid penetrator coming in from reentry speed put a carrier out of operation? What some kind of runway disabling munition?

Exactly.

Just like in infantry warfare, there are times when injuring and crippling is better than killing. For everyone injured it would take three or more men to take the injured away from battle and to tend to their injuries.

Would the battle group still sail in towards China when the potential to launch an attack deep into Chinese airspace is in doubt? It would only endanger the rest of the battle group, leaving them open to Submarine, planes, ship and land based missile attacks.

 

[amalakas]

China would probably prefer a method that can put a carrier out of operations without sinking it.

Would it be possible for a solid penetrator coming in from reentry speed put a carrier out of operation? What some kind of runway disabling munition?

A warhead coming from re-entry without some means to slow down, even without explosives on board, would break the carrier in two on kinetic energy alone.

 

[Obambam]

A warhead coming from re-entry without some means to slow down, even without explosives on board, would break the carrier in two on kinetic energy alone.

I am sure it will have to slow down and readjust its position and targeting on reentry. Afterall the carrier group will be on a constant move. It will only go in for the kill at up to mach 10 speed when it is nearing its target (if it works as intended). Either way, the damage will be enough to take it out of operation.

 

[CardSharp]

Exactly.

Just like in infantry warfare, there are times when injuring and crippling is better than killing. For everyone injured it would take three or more men to take the injured away from battle and to tend to their injuries.

Would the battle group still sail in towards China when the potential to launch an attack deep into Chinese airspace is in doubt? It would only endanger the rest of the battle group, leaving them open to Submarine, planes, ship and land based missile attacks.

Well I was thinking more if the DF-21D can disable a carrier with a mininal loss of life, it would be more of a credible threat (read Kennedy's Flexible response doctrine)

I am sure it will have to slow down and readjust its position and targeting on reentry. Afterall the carrier group will be on a constant move. It will only go in for the kill at up to mach 10 speed when it is nearing its target (if it works as intended). Either way, the damage will be enough to take it out of operation.

Slow is relative in this situation, a slowed ICBM reentry vehicle will still be going damned fast.

 

[amalakas]

Well I was thinking more if the DF-21D can disable a carrier with a mininal loss of life, it would be more of a credible threat (read Kennedy's Flexible response doctrine)




Slow is relative in this situation, a slowed ICBM reentry vehicle will still be going damned fast.

minimal loss of life ? a carrier has about 5500 people on board !!! how many is a minimal loss of life and the carrier is still out of operations ?

can the two meet somewhere.. i don't think so ...

 

[Markus]

Attack on an carrier is the last resort.

Dosen't US have a stated policy to retaliate with nukes if any of its carriers are attacked even with conventional weapons ?

DF-21 should be be optimized for usage on carriers's escort ships rather than on the carrier itself.

 

[CardSharp]

minimal loss of life ? a carrier has about 5500 people on board !!! how many is a minimal loss of life and the carrier is still out of operations ?

can the two meet somewhere.. i don't think so ...

Yeah that's the problem with the weapon, using it would be akin to using a nuclear weapon (China already has a credible nuclear deterrent. It would be a mega escalation.

Some people have suggested "warning shots" aim at the stern or bow but that just seems stupid/impracticable.

 

[Brotherhood]

Attack on an carrier is the last resort.

Dosen't US have a stated policy to retaliate with nukes if any of its carriers are attacked even with conventional weapons ?

DF-21 should be be optimized for usage on carriers's escort ships rather than on the carrier itself.

Oh come on, how many of you is still buying such urban legends?
Please read this, US won't even retaliate with nuclear weapons if being attacked by bio or chemical weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

 

[amalakas]

Yeah that's the problem with the weapon, using it would be akin to using a nuclear weapon (China already has a credible nuclear deterrent. It would be a mega escalation.

Some people have suggested "warning shots" aim at the stern or bow but that just seems stupid/impracticable.

Maybe, but if you could target one of the escort ships and sink her, to demonstrate that you can indeed hit the carrier, then you are effectively deny the carrier the space, it has to withdraw ..

 

[Markus]

Oh come on, how many of you is still buying such urban legends?
Please read this, US won't even retaliate with nuclear weapons if being attacked by bio or chemical weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

From the link.

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Dosen't cover China.

 

[Brotherhood]

From the link.

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Dosen't cover China.

I live in US myself, my next door neighbor was a retired army officier, we been discussing such nonsence before, he told me there are no such thing as attacking an aircraft-carrier equal to a nuclear attack.
Don't take my words, do some google if you can find any source regarding such..
BTW, my link was intended to show you whats US nuclear policy is about, its had nothing to do with any particular country.

 

[Markus]

I live in US myself, my next door neighbor was a retired army officier, we been discussing such nonsence before, he told me there are no such thing as attacking an aircraft-carrier equal to a nuclear attack.
Don't take my words, do some google if you can find any source regarding such..
BTW, my link was intended to show you whats US nuclear policy is about, its had nothing to do with any particular country.

Ok, if you say so......oops.... I mean... the retired US army officer says so...

 

[Brotherhood]

Ok, if you say so......oops.... I mean... the retired US army officer says so...

Show me a "source to support your "urban legends" or Check with gambit then, i ain't falling in your trap, nice try anyway.

 

[gambit]

China would probably prefer a method that can put a carrier out of operations without sinking it.

Would it be possible for a solid penetrator coming in from reentry speed put a carrier out of operation? What some kind of runway disabling munition?

Take a look at this...

For the above nuclear ICBM, each warhead is actually smaller than a man.

The DF-21 is purportedly a single warhead missile. If the warhead is to be maneuverable, even if it is a single event maneuverable, meaning because of its high descent speed, it has time to execute only one attitude change, the warhead would still need some internal space to accommodate the necessary hardware for it. So whatever 'payload' specs that are in the public domain -- discard them. To truly disable the ship, not necessarily sink it, to remove it from the mission, the impact would have to be spot on the middle of the deck. The explosion would have to be a few microseconds from impact fused to maximize below deck damages.

The main technical hurdle will be the sensor package. Assuming radar for now, the warhead will most likely have as narrow a nosecone as above, which will limit its radar antenna, which will limit its view, which will make it vulnerable to countermeasures, specifically radar view saturation. Yes...I read your source on how far a carrier can maneuver with the time alloted but like I said before, in a ship versus missile engagement, if the missile or warhead failed by one meter, the ship win. All the carrier and its escorts has to do is deploy whatever countermeasures combinations and sharp maneuvers to cause that failure. In a single attack, there will be more countermeasures available than there could be missiles launched.

And no...The American retaliatory option is not nuclear.

 

[amalakas]

Take a look at this...

I find it extremely difficult that the hurdles associated with targeting a ship with a ballistic missile have been overcome.
The reaction times are tiny, the onboard space is tiny, the target is tiny, the forces are enormous.

hard