Can US stop Chinese DF-21D ASBM or YJ-18 ASCM? No.

[HariPrasad-1]

China’s Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) Reaches Equivalent of “Initial Operational Capability” (IOC)—Where It’s Going and What it Means

"Jul 12, 2011 - Top U.S. Navy officials state that China's anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) has reached the equivalent of Initial Operational Capability (IOC)."

It is an opinion of one so called expert. 5 years have past since then. What is the official news? Has china inducted it or got IOC or FOC? Pl prove it.

 

[Martian]

It is an opinion of one so called expert. 5 years have past since then. What is the official news? Has china inducted it or got IOC or FOC? Pl prove it.

He's not an expert. The Abdoulifa guy has never worked in the aerospace industry. He's only an anti-China journalist, like Gordon Chang. He doesn't know anything about stealth fighters.
----------

China’s Anti-Carrier Missile Now Opposite Taiwan, Flynn Says | Bloomberg

"April 18, 2013 - The Chinese military has deployed its new anti-ship ballistic missile along its southern coast facing Taiwan, the Pentagon’s top military intelligence officer said today."

 

[HariPrasad-1]

He's not an expert. The Abdoulifa guy has never worked in the aerospace industry. He's only an anti-China journalist, like Gordon Chang. He doesn't know anything about stealth fighters.
----------

China’s Anti-Carrier Missile Now Opposite Taiwan, Flynn Says | Bloomberg

"April 18, 2013 - The Chinese military has deployed its new anti-ship ballistic missile along its southern coast facing Taiwan, the Pentagon’s top military intelligence officer said today."

Your article quotes american saying that it is an initial development and what ever is said about taiwan specific DF 21 are surface to surface missile and not anti ship missile. Read a paragraph from your article.

Flynn’s reference to the DF-21D follows one made by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, in congressional testimony on April 9. He highlighted the “initial deployment of a new anti-ship missile that we believe is designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers.”

So as per this article, DF 21 was in initial development test in 2013. So within 3 years, has it become operational?

 

[Yumdoot]

China is not going to show you the real-world tests on a moving ship. Such disclosure would reveal the terminal flight characteristics of the DF-21D ASBM.

The land-based tests are the most that we will see.

However, my point stands. It is erroneous to claim China has not conducted sea-based tests. It is strongly likely that China did. They do it for all of their missiles to meet spec.

Gh&ta.

Every reasonable man who is willing read up data in open source already knows about the so called terminal flight characterstics. What will the chinese achieve by not having this known to lay people?

In fact for the so called slow moving target tests, the pictures of decommissioned PLAN ships with radar reflectors were released.

Do you even have any real info about your own country or are you here just to impress people don't care much.

 

[Martian]

Your article quotes american saying that it is an initial development and what ever is said about taiwan specific DF 21 are surface to surface missile and not anti ship missile. Read a paragraph from your article.

Flynn’s reference to the DF-21D follows one made by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, in congressional testimony on April 9. He highlighted the “initial deployment of a new anti-ship missile that we believe is designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers.”

So as per this article, DF 21 was in initial development test in 2013. So within 3 years, has it become operational?

Your timeline is wrong.

Dec. 2010: Admiral Locklear says China's DF-21D ASBM has reached IOC.

April 2013: Pentagon says China's DF-21D ASBM has been deployed opposite Taiwan.

When I first wrote a post about China's DF-21D ASBM, it had been in development for 13 years. Today, the total development time is about 16 years.

 

[AnantS]

And Aegis cannot do anything about DF-21D. Even if DF-21D was to slow down to 1/3rd its normal entry velocity.

SM-3 can target DF 21 during mid course correction. Then there is ECM. China has yet to demonstrate hit capability against Moving ship. DF 21 does not completely tilt the balance in favor of China, but only makes plans of US Air defense bit more complicate. US has been preparing ABM defense for quite many years. Its has many tricks under its pocket.

US Generals tend to make exaggerated noise just like Indian or any other country, because only a crying baby gets a toy. That is to say, to make bean counters release more money.

 

[AnantS]

China is not going to show you the real-world tests on a moving ship. Such disclosure would reveal the terminal flight characteristics of the DF-21D ASBM.

The land-based tests are the most that we will see.

However, my point stands. It is erroneous to claim China has not conducted sea-based tests. It is strongly likely that China did. They do it for all of their missiles to meet spec.

China cannot show something which it does not posses. Simple. China believes in deterrence via propaganda. If China did conduct sea test, US would know. They are closely monitoring your airspace. Your unannounced BGRV tests were also detected by US

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Your timeline is wrong.

Dec. 2010: Admiral Locklear says China's DF-21D ASBM has reached IOC.

April 2013: Pentagon says China's DF-21D ASBM has been deployed opposite Taiwan.

When I first wrote a post about China's DF-21D ASBM, it had been in development for 13 years. Today, the total development time is about 16 years.

Ohhhhh Guy please understand. The DF 21 aimed at Taiwan are not anti ship version. They are simple Surface to surface missiles. So called anti ship DF 21 is derivative of that S to S DF 21.

From Article.

The missile, designated the DF-21D, is one of a “growing number of conventionally armed”

 

[Yumdoot]

@AnantS

The DF-21D is obviouly meant to deter USA. And off course it can target others too. So doubting that capability is not a serious attempt at finding any solution. And if that is the purpose then the IOC will happen only if DF-21D can do at least the basic mission right.

Here is the FAS link which quotes the US govt sources about how they see it all and obviously the US scientist community will mention it only if they see it useful:

SM-3 is only a theoretical defence.

Reality also is that Aegis has only recently managed to intercept something like a Brahmos in any serious manner. Chances are even Brahmos (as it is currently deployed), cannot be stopped by Aegis (as it is currently deployed/tested).

Aegis can also intercept IRBMs but only in outerspace and that too with a lot lot lot of support and that too without being able to manage salvo attacks. I doubt if its going to work against even the MARVs.

Here's something for your usage:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/sm-6-can-now-kill-both-cruise-and-ballistic-missiles/

Cdr. Bryan Clark, a former top advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations. In order to engage incoming missiles above the atmosphere, he said, “the SM-3 interceptor has to be large and is expensive, about $10 million, versus $4 million for the SM-6.”

As a result, Clark went on, “SM-3 can defend a large area against ballistic missiles, but can’t defeat a large number of missiles”: We simply can’t afford enough of them to stop a Chinese Second Artillery-style “salvo.” On the other hand, he said, SM-3 is perfect when you have relatively few incoming missiles to worry about but a large area to protect — say, defending Japan against North Korea.

And currently the Chinese are developing the DF-26 which will still have MARV but with a 4000 km range. Chances are the MARV would be coming in at Mach 12 (SM-3 latest blocks do Mach 4.5) and from an atmospheric re-entry from well outside the envelop of SM-3.

It is basically much much easier to attack than to defend.

But this kind of capability may already also exist with USA and Russians. MARV have been extensively studied by all major military nations. At times I used to wonder why India went in for MARV first instead of MIRVs. But if the 6th major military nation has also chosen MARV over MIRV then there must be something in the end for all these countries.

Here's an illustration by a newspaper that tracks the Indian Defence scene in a somewhat better manner. Notice how the K-15 may well be used in future. The correspondent does not have brains enough, which is to be expected in Indian context, but that also implies that he was being fed information.

 

[AnantS]

You are correct In India's case, its going to be K-15/Shaurya or K-4 modified for that role. Once we have enough Real Time Surveillance Satellites. India right now does not have ABM system deployed.

I agree there is no 100% defense. But US will be able to overcome it more effectively in future and currently it does have few tricks in sleeve. Granted US fears a swarm attack. But what this article mentions, gives us ample of hint, that US is not without any defense plans. And remember best defense is offense. In China-AMerica conflict, America will first defang China via long range weapons. And only then they will deploy CVN.
Read this: https://warisboring.com/america-s-f...pons-freak-out-russia-e95ac401a516#.klf95z5gk

 

[HariPrasad-1]

You are correct In India's case, its going to be K-15/Shaurya or K-4 modified for that role. Once we have enough Real Time Surveillance Satellites. India right now does not have ABM system deployed.

I agree there is no 100% defense. But US will be able to overcome it more effectively in future and currently it does have few tricks in sleeve. Granted US fears a swarm attack. But what this article mentions, gives us ample of hint, that US is not without any defense plans. And remember best defense is offense. In China-AMerica conflict, America will first defang China via long range weapons. And only then they will deploy CVN.
Read this: https://warisboring.com/america-s-f...pons-freak-out-russia-e95ac401a516#.klf95z5gk

Guys, Wait for a decade and let more powerful laser may come in. There shall be no need of missiles in ABM role.

 

[Yumdoot]

@AnantS, that is what everybody imagines will happen -
1) that India will develop K-15 & K-4 as AShBM.
2) that US will be hitting out with longer ranged conventionally armed ICBMs.
3) that after that USN CBG will come in.

But as things are :
1) the Americans have not budgeted for even the endo atmospheric targets that can represent the DF-21D MARV.
2) Modi ji has already postponed Agni-V tests multiple times to appease the US govt.
3) There are more then enough idiots within Indian strategic community that will sell out national interest by siging LSA. To ultimately turn India into another UK / France.

So 'can do' and 'has done' is a great chasm that can only be filled by a great Tapas. And China has done it. And USA has turned out armed forces leadership into its lieutenant. US is not going to risk itself, it will risk India instead.

 

[Yumdoot]

Guys, Wait for a decade and let more powerful laser may come in. There shall be no need of missiles in ABM role.

Yaar misslies to mahangi lag rahi hain US military ko.

Lasers kya sasti lagengi?

 

[AnantS]

@AnantS, that is what everybody imagines will happen -
1) that India will develop K-15 & K-4 as AShBM.
2) that US will be hitting out with longer ranged conventionally armed ICBMs.
3) that after that USN CBG will come in.

But as things are :
1) the Americans have not budgeted for even the endo atmospheric targets that can represent the DF-21D MARV.
2) Modi ji has already postponed Agni-V tests multiple times to appease the US govt.
3) There are more then enough idiots within Indian strategic community that will sell out national interest by siging LSA. To ultimately turn India into another UK / France.

So 'can do' and 'has done' is a great chasm that can only be filled by a great Tapas. And China has done it. And USA has turned out armed forces leadership into its lieutenant. US is not going to risk itself, it will risk India instead.

Yumdoot, rest assured, US is already working on plan. And its not just plain ICBM, but swarm of 1000 Mach 20 Hypersonic standoff missiles they are talking about. And about disappointment on Modi completely tilting to US side. I guess India had few options when Russia went South(towards China) and started seeking out Paki slut for services. But yeah Modi did crawl, when asked to bend. LSA is idiotic decision, especially when Indian govt is saying one thing and US is saying other thing

Agni 5 was reportedly cancelled because of some issue detected in Canister. They said that they will debug and launch shortly. Quite understandable, since Canister launch for Heavy missiles is new area for our scientists.

 

[Yumdoot]

I agree, DF-21D above all is a deterrent weapon. So a counter-deterrent is the right response, not a defence.

And I don't care if American lose the fight against the Chinese. Will be good for us Indians.

But chances are they won't fight among themselves and US will actively prevent India from developing like technologies and give us a jhunjuna like MTCR membership instead, which our people will tom-tom like 'iske bagair guzara hi nahi'.

And pls canister wanister is all bahana. So many tests have happened with K-15, K-4, Shaurya, Brahmos. In fact Christopher sahib must have mentioned canister to show clearly that the R&D community has no better bahana left to not test. IOW, the bahana is to get the political pressure off their backs.

 

[sayareakd]

A few years ago, the US government declared China's DF-21D ASBM had reached IOC (ie. initial operational capability).

In China, weapons can reach IOC only after meeting the design specifications.

Also, we have seen the land tests of the Chinese ASBM. It is illogical and against Chinese government procurement procedures to deploy a weapon that does not meet its specifications. The specifications for the DF-21D ASBM clearly says it has to hit a moving ship.

Simulated ASBM strikes on aircraft carrier deck mock-up on land in China's Gobi Desert.

That pic above i have seen so many times. Frankly that does not look like hit from RV doing mach 10. More like RV dropped from helicopter. Look at the angle of the crater created. It has hit vertically. Thats not worse part. That RV has to be removed by heavy lift crain and trucks but no markings on the area of any sort of tyres or tracks shows its lifted with helicopter.

Remember we too fool uncle in shakti tests. Chinese are practising art of war, which says defeat the enemy even before start if war, specially strong enemy.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Yaar misslies to mahangi lag rahi hain US military ko.

Lasers kya sasti lagengi?

Laser are really cheap. They can bring down a drone at USD 1.

 

[Martian]

That pic above i have seen so many times. Frankly that does not look like hit from RV doing mach 10. More like RV dropped from helicopter. Look at the angle of the crater created. It has hit vertically. Thats not worse part. That RV has to be removed by heavy lift crain and trucks but no markings on the area of any sort of tyres or tracks shows its lifted with helicopter.

Remember we too fool uncle in shakti tests. Chinese are practising art of war, which says defeat the enemy even before start if war, specially strong enemy.

The DF-21D warhead is only 600kg or 1,300 pounds. It carries less explosive than a 2,000 pound bomb.

The crater size looks about right.

An explosion at ground-level deflects most of the blast upwards. Thus, the crater looks small. When it impacts against the deck of a ship, it will rip a giant hole.

Dirt (or sandbags) are great at deflecting the blast. In contrast, the thin deck of a ship will not have the same effect.

 

[airtel]

Can China’s anti-ship ballistic missile really hit an American aircraft carrier zigzagging at 30 knots in the Taiwan Strait? That remains unclear as there is no record of China successfully testing its growing suite of “carrier killer” missiles on a moving target at sea.

This uncertainty leaves the door open to the possibility that Beijing’s ASBM hype is merely a Sun Tzu ruse to prod America into spending countless billions on new weapons to defend against a chimera.



In reality, there are four basic ways to neutralize China’s ASBM threat, and these “four corners” of an American ASBM defense are not mutually exclusive.

Strategy #1: Interceptor Missiles

The US and its allies have been rapidly moving ahead in the development of interceptor missiles. Some poster children for the interceptor missile response are growing up in the “Standard Missile” series being fathered by Raytheon.

For example, the SM-3 is geared towards “mid-course defense” – hitting an ASBM early in its trajectory at longer distances and higher altitudes and possibly even in space. In contrast, the SM-6 Dual specializes more in “terminal defense” should an ASBM break through the SM-3 perimeter – and it is equally potent against incoming cruise missiles.


Strategy #2: Outranging China’s Carrier Killer

In a seminal report published by the Center for a New American Security in October of 2015, Dr. Jerry Hendrix documented the deadly decline in the range of American aircraft carrier strike groups since the end of World War II. The problem here is not with the carriers themselves but rather with their air wings, which now feature shorter-range fighters.

To see the historical problem framed by Hendrix, consider that the average unrefueled combat range of an American carrier has shrunk from over 1,200 nautical miles in 1958 and over 900 nautical miles in 1986 to less than 500 nautical miles today. In contrast, the range of China’s DF21-D antiship ballistic missile is between 800 and 1,000 nautical miles.

The obvious strategy here to save aircraft carriers as a viable fighting platform is to focus once again on range. To Hendrix, one way to work this problem is to develop “a new long-range, deep strike asset in line with the A-3 Skywarrior and A-6 Intruder of the past that could take off from a carrier, fly more than 1,500 nm, penetrate a dense anti-air network of sensors and missiles, deliver multiple weapons on target, and then return to the carrier.”

In Hendrix’s vision, the most logical means to do this is through “an unmanned platform” along the lines of the X-47B that was cancelled in 2006. The plane remains on life support as a test vehicle that has successfully completed carrier landings, but it is literally “waiting in the wings.”

Strategy #3: Destroy China ASBMs On Their Launch Pads

This option immediately brings to mind the contentious AirSea Battle vs. Offshore Control debate that has raged for years over whether it is prudent to strike the Chinese mainland should China launch an attack on American carriers or forward bases. Suffice it to say that any strike on the Chinese mainland would invite possible strikes on the American homeland, possibly nuclear strikes.



Strategy #4: Force Restructuring

The most common form of the force restructuring argument goes like this: “If China’s ASBMs can sink our carriers, we should rely more on submarines.”

http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...issiles_vs_americas_four_corners_defense.html

 

[airtel]

oh CHINI , do you know anything about RAILGUNS ??

http://www.wsj.com/articles/enemy-cruise-missile-meet-the-u-s-rail-gun-1429479652