INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

power_monger

New Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
642
Likes
653
Country flag
That is one of the reasons we can be sure that India will be able to mount a serious challenge to any CBG.

But then I assure you when I mentioned the DF-21D it was not meant as a fanboy vs fanboy cat fight.

My working presumption is that whatever is currently being done in missile development, in for example US (who is the leader in R&D with really deep pockets), will quite soon be matched by the Chinese also (equally intelligent and now with deep pockets). You bet the Russians who are simply too innovative for the kind of money they can push in are not going to stay behind. Brits and Frenchies will simply get it for the asking (not doubting their intelligence).

But notice all these countries (except US) don't actually have a real ocean to take care of. Can explain later if need be. India on the other hand has a whole ocean to defend and then after that it has to be able to pose a threat in other seas/oceans, for both tactical and strategic reasons.

In such a situation if you try to figure out what would be the right way forward, considering our limited resources, I am sure you will realize that missilery will be a prime requirement along with the Sonars.

Missiles today are being used to even launch torpedoes. As if the nearly impossible trajectories were already not enough. Changes are coming in fast and we are actually not in the pole position. There are significant limitations. For example the Brahmos Block 3 you mention is obviously the Army version for hitting the reverse side of mountains. You cannot simply presume that the Brahmos Block 1 with IN are also capable of doing that. But even if it was such trajectories for supersonic missiles have already been intercepted, at least by US. And considering the fact that the guidance mechanism for the interceptor was Command Guidance+SARH, you can rest assured there will be others capable of doing that too.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-expanded-defensive-capability-207345421.html

We have got to be able to develop our missiles for Navy also. But how to do that? What is the way forward? What are the constraints in the way forward? What are the possibilities?

When you begin to search for answers you will hit a dumb solution - increase the number of attacking missiles. You also hit a smart yet paradoxical solution / requirement - increase speed, complicate the trajectory.

Ballistic courses, in the boost and mid course, are the solution to this apparently contradictory requirement of increasing speed as well as complicating trajectories to a point where the defender is truly stretched.

As a hard product, my suspicion is the US already has this, China started late but is not very far. Russians don't for the time being care. Brits and Frenchies don't need it. But we Indians need it and have the building blocks in place but still need quite a bit of working upon.

Instead of decrying the development of DF-21D and trying hard to ignore it, we should actually be supportive of such asymmetric weapon systems. DF-21D has forced major updates of strategies even without being completed. Like the Chinese we too should enable our people to think in an asymmetric manner and be supportive of their efforts.

If we persist in ignoring a good idea we will end up cutting domestic support for such weapons when we ourselves have to develop it and instead our money would be used to Import dreams. Does it sound comforting?
Few points which i think worth mentioning.

1) Long range Anti-shipping missile is already in development and was in drawing board stage last year as confirmed by Avinash channder to an interview to Saurav jha.

Read the below linlk

Interview with Dr Avinash Chander, DRDO Chief and Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister

Avinash Chander: Our aim via the 'missile autonomy mission' is to cover a wider space as it were. Let me outline some of the new systems being progressed. A new man portable anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) for which design is over and hardware is getting developed. A Longer ranged SAM with a range of 200-250 km is on the drawing board. A quick reaction SAM which can track on move is well-advanced in the design stage. An anti-radiation missile and a long range anti-ship missile which can prevent aircraft carriers from coming within 1500-2000 km of our shores are also being pursued.

Saurav Jha: What is the status of the anti-radiation missile and the long range anti-ship missile?

Avinash Chander: For the anti-radiation missile design is in progress, in fact hardware is being readied for the first trials. We expect successful trials of this ARM from an aircraft in about the next three years.

The long range anti-ship missile is on the drawing board, and we are confident that in about six years we would be able to get it ready. The long range anti-ship missile is going to be a ballistic missile with a seeker which can hit ships at long range.

Saurav Jha: So this is a rough equivalent of the Chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile? An anti-access/area denial system?

Avinash Chander: Something like that yes. So as you can see almost the entire spectrum of missile capability is being addressed. And addressed to meet state of the art requirements thereby giving full teeth to our armed forces.
2) Even with such missiles possesion its not so easy to destroy aircraft carriers. Because carriers will come with ship based ballistic missile defence systems in near future which can destroy its targets during terminal phase of missiles.The ballistic missile defense which looks so complex while defending land based targets pretty much eases out on sea as we know the target the missile is aimed at.
 

devb

New Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
9
Likes
14
Was going through the replies. Interesting.. Unfortunately most of the claims about DF 21a are quite baseless and its efficacy questionable. Let me put my answer point wise..
1. DF 21a is an anti ship ballistic missile but is it an aircraft carrier killer?
Answer is NO. In navy when the Carrier moves it does not move as a lone wolf. It is supported by 2-3 GMD, 2-3 GMF, 2 SUBS, and a replenishment ship. Now mostly the missile picks up the designated target( the a/c ) by the electronic signal produced by it and upon re entry into the atmosphere guides itself to this ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. But under operational condition one of the other ship mostly the frigate ( less important asset ) mimics the electronic signature of the a/c. There by confusing the missile and forcing it to attack the frigate mistaking it as the a/c.

2. Accuracy.
When a ballistic missile is launched it is guided to its target by either ring laser gyroscope or inertial. There is very very less chance to steer the warhead from its already predesignated target upon re entry. Now if the target is stationary like in land or during test launches it is not a problem. But during war time scenarios the a/c is moving in any arbitrary direction. Rendering the ballistic missiles useless.
Here the cruise missile plays a better role because of mid course and terminal course correction. So when you want to kill an a/c use your cruise missiles. The DF 21 is also equiped with terminal radar guidance but its efficacy questionable.

3. Warhead. Will DF 21 use conventional warhead or nuclear while targeting an A/c? Aircraft carriers are probably the costliest military asset of a nation. They have squadrons of aircrafts on them and sinking one of them will result in huge loss to both life and money. This is why they are also the most well built. They are practically most difficult to sink. A ballistic missile with a conventional warhead can NEVER SINK an A/c. You need a nuclear warhead to BARELY damage an aircraft carrier.
Please refer OPERATION CROSSROAD BY US NAVY. They detonated a nuclear warhead under codename Able to see their effect on the ships including 2 ww2 aircraft carriers. They were USS Saratoga and USS Independence. The resulting detonation was of 21 kt but they missed their targets by barely barely 650 mts and both aircraft carriers didnt sink! Though they suffered extensive damage due to fires caused by oil storage in both ships.
It is calculated to sink an a/c you need a minimum 100 kt warhead and within 500 meters from target. Coupling this with the fact that accuracy against a moving target is dubious, using both conventional warhead or nuclear warhead is waste.

4. Using nuclear warhead against an already nuclear armed state.
Both China and India are nuclear armed state. The act of using a nuclear warhead against an a/c will result in a nuclear war which i hope both countries won't like to happen especially when their is so little to gain and much to lose.

5.Tests of DF21 and operational preparedness.
DF21 is still in research phase though Chinese media claim it is operational. But the lack of repeated test and lack of proper targets for those tests puts the claims into doubt. Chinese media are controlled by the goverment and often helps to propagate messages which are baseless and false.

Thus i feel that DF 21 will never be an aircraft carrier killer.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
Was going through the replies. Interesting.. Unfortunately most of the claims about DF 21a are quite baseless and its efficacy questionable. Let me put my answer point wise..
1. DF 21a is an anti ship ballistic missile but is it an aircraft carrier killer?
Answer is NO. In navy when the Carrier moves it does not move as a lone wolf. It is supported by 2-3 GMD, 2-3 GMF, 2 SUBS, and a replenishment ship. Now mostly the missile picks up the designated target( the a/c ) by the electronic signal produced by it and upon re entry into the atmosphere guides itself to this ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. But under operational condition one of the other ship mostly the frigate ( less important asset ) mimics the electronic signature of the a/c. There by confusing the missile and forcing it to attack the frigate mistaking it as the a/c.

2. Accuracy.
When a ballistic missile is launched it is guided to its target by either ring laser gyroscope or inertial. There is very very less chance to steer the warhead from its already predesignated target upon re entry. Now if the target is stationary like in land or during test launches it is not a problem. But during war time scenarios the a/c is moving in any arbitrary direction. Rendering the ballistic missiles useless.
Here the cruise missile plays a better role because of mid course and terminal course correction. So when you want to kill an a/c use your cruise missiles. The DF 21 is also equiped with terminal radar guidance but its efficacy questionable.

3. Warhead. Will DF 21 use conventional warhead or nuclear while targeting an A/c? Aircraft carriers are probably the costliest military asset of a nation. They have squadrons of aircrafts on them and sinking one of them will result in huge loss to both life and money. This is why they are also the most well built. They are practically most difficult to sink. A ballistic missile with a conventional warhead can NEVER SINK an A/c. You need a nuclear warhead to BARELY damage an aircraft carrier.
Please refer OPERATION CROSSROAD BY US NAVY. They detonated a nuclear warhead under codename Able to see their effect on the ships including 2 ww2 aircraft carriers. They were USS Saratoga and USS Independence. The resulting detonation was of 21 kt but they missed their targets by barely barely 650 mts and both aircraft carriers didnt sink! Though they suffered extensive damage due to fires caused by oil storage in both ships.
It is calculated to sink an a/c you need a minimum 100 kt warhead and within 500 meters from target. Coupling this with the fact that accuracy against a moving target is dubious, using both conventional warhead or nuclear warhead is waste.

4. Using nuclear warhead against an already nuclear armed state.
Both China and India are nuclear armed state. The act of using a nuclear warhead against an a/c will result in a nuclear war which i hope both countries won't like to happen especially when their is so little to gain and much to lose.

5.Tests of DF21 and operational preparedness.
DF21 is still in research phase though Chinese media claim it is operational. But the lack of repeated test and lack of proper targets for those tests puts the claims into doubt. Chinese media are controlled by the goverment and often helps to propagate messages which are baseless and false.

Thus i feel that DF 21 will never be an aircraft carrier killer.


Really a nice post .
I am no expert but in one of the videos on Youtube (will try and look for it) they explained how a missile can be a a/c carrier killer there is weak spot or one can say that the design or structural flaw which is mostly at the center .
The only way to sink the aircraft carrier will be breaking it into half and rest will be done the weight of the structure.

Thats why in the past countries like Russia and China did not favour to build an a/c carrier .

With the a/c carrier moving in a fleet the risk factor has definitely gone down but we cannot under estimate any .....
 

devb

New Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
9
Likes
14
Really a nice post .
I am no expert but in one of the videos on Youtube (will try and look for it) they explained how a missile can be a a/c carrier killer there is weak spot or one can say that the design or structural flaw which is mostly at the center .
The only way to sink the aircraft carrier will be breaking it into half and rest will be done the weight of the structure.

Thats why in the past countries like Russia and China did not favour to build an a/c carrier .

With the a/c carrier moving in a fleet the risk factor has definitely gone down but we cannot under estimate any .....
Thank you.
The chinese have a plan to built a huge number of a/c in foreseeable future.
The Russians though want to build them are severely cash strapped. And will not be building any new carriers in foreseeable future.
India favours building a/c and must abandon its fears and build nuclear powered a/c.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
Thank you.
The chinese have a plan to built a huge number of a/c in foreseeable future.
The Russians though want to build them are severely cash strapped. And will not be building any new carriers in foreseeable future.
India favours building a/c and must abandon its fears and build nuclear powered a/c.
We never had that fear, we have been operating A/C carriers for decades.
Our IAC-2 given the current Navy approach will most probably be nuclear powered.

Though given the cost of nuclear powered as compared to conventional and tech expertise required I would have liked to see one more conventional A/C carrier before we had gone for the nuclear one.

Russians chose to build submarines over a/c carrier as they thought it was a better option to invest money in.
In the era of cold war USSR never thought about funds if they thought it was worth it they wud have built it.
 

indiatester

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
5,915
Likes
20,439
Country flag
Really a nice post .
I am no expert but in one of the videos on Youtube (will try and look for it) they explained how a missile can be a a/c carrier killer there is weak spot or one can say that the design or structural flaw which is mostly at the center .
The only way to sink the aircraft carrier will be breaking it into half and rest will be done the weight of the structure.

Thats why in the past countries like Russia and China did not favour to build an a/c carrier .

With the a/c carrier moving in a fleet the risk factor has definitely gone down but we cannot under estimate any .....
Do you mean something like this?

Its not a ballistic though.
 

Ind4Ever

New Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
197
Likes
118
We never had that fear, we have been operating A/C carriers for decades.
Our IAC-2 given the current Navy approach will most probably be nuclear powered.

Though given the cost of nuclear powered as compared to conventional and tech expertise required I would have liked to see one more conventional A/C carrier before we had gone for the nuclear one.

Russians chose to build submarines over a/c carrier as they thought it was a better option to invest money in.
In the era of cold war USSR never thought about funds if they thought it was worth it they wud have built it.
For sure hope our Navy and government look into shipyard's willingness to build another Vikrant class carrier by 2020 . That's what they said. Since all the systems and technology in place producing another same class won't get an issue . And we must go for it . May be this time around if it's possible to modify rafale for ski jump it would be great. Never the less Mig 29K at sea will like Anti ship supersonic missiles with high turning rate , well controlled multiple warheads .

But we also need to push for credible submarine fleet hopefully SSN program takes shape faster than we can imagine . Submarines and A/C are the fear factors . Just a warning will puzzle our enemy's game . As surprise is the weapon of all SSNs .

If am not too ambitious SSGN is should be our goal when we deal with arrogant Chinese and have greater influence with SCS countries . We have brahmos and soon we will have nirbhay both will evolve with much greater punch . USN used SSGN over Libya which totally destroyed their airdefence systems making objectives very much achievable with less loss.

But who will do it ? Will our establishment look into it ?
 

Ind4Ever

New Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
197
Likes
118
Thank you.
The chinese have a plan to built a huge number of a/c in foreseeable future.
The Russians though want to build them are severely cash strapped. And will not be building any new carriers in foreseeable future.
India favours building a/c and must abandon its fears and build nuclear powered a/c.
Chinese yet to master carrier aircraft technology . Their ripoff j15 is too heavy and under powered . So it gives us some time to out match Chinese in this league .What we must worry is their new frigates designed by Russians and built by Chinese and their new deal with Russians for Nuclear Powered cruisers this is our huge threat for our CBG along with submarines which can out number out defence . These large cruisers destroyers will be armed with maximum SAM systems and sensors .

Better if we do the same with Russians to build new cruisers for carrier battle groups and for our Andaman base . I don't want to underestimate our enemy . That too China which can produce missiles in very large numbers . If the attack on A/C is carried out in large numbers there are high possibilities of these Anti ship ballistic missiles homing into their target .At least 1/2 in 10 or so missiles fired . A/C are worth a target for massive use of resources.
 

Khagesh

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
Wow the discussion seems to have moved quite a bit.

1. DF 21a is an anti ship ballistic missile but is it an aircraft carrier killer?
Answer is NO. In navy when the Carrier moves it does not move as a lone wolf. It is supported by 2-3 GMD, 2-3 GMF, 2 SUBS, and a replenishment ship. Now mostly the missile picks up the designated target( the a/c ) by the electronic signal produced by it and upon re entry into the atmosphere guides itself to this ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. But under operational condition one of the other ship mostly the frigate ( less important asset ) mimics the electronic signature of the a/c. There by confusing the missile and forcing it to attack the frigate mistaking it as the a/c.
What gets detected gets targeted too. There is no way a CBG will not be detected, triangulated and targeted from a combination of Satellites, planes, Subs and Ships. Missile does not have to pick up the CBG by the electronic noise it creates.

Electronic signature is just one solitary part of the kill chain. There are simply too many ways of targeting a CBG. There is a reason why most of the USN-CBGs just stay home, most of the time, while their bete noire mostly disregarded the CBG concept.

Multistatic Sonars work best against the whole circus of ships travelling at very high speeds making the most amount of noise possible. And the Chinese subs, even the ones about to fall off, on account of old age, will be able to carry some cutting edge sonars. There may be some doubt about the capability of these older subs to attack a CBG, but they will nonetheless be able to provide persistence in detection, triangulation and targeting aspects of the kill chain.

Not being alone is the main cause of a CBGs detectability. The paradox of defence and detection. Had the AC traveled alone it would have reduced chances of defence but better chances of stealth given its aircraft ranges. Like the way we hid our own INS Vikrant in 71 which was to be protected from an on-lease PNS Ghazi.

And US Navy has tried the electronic signature reduction in a CBG wide basis. They failed. 10 thousand men, multitude of equipment. Some or the other signal will always slip. And that is what the HALE UAVs would be sniffing out all the while for like 10s of hours of on station flying at say 250 knots an hour to cover at least 100 hours of the CBG travel route at any given point in time.

Then there would always be Satellites and recon aircrafts with radar &/or IR &/or optical sensors, reliant on the line of sight. The horizon to detect a CBG from an aircraft at 30000 ft is around 250 NM. Running at 30 knots the CBG while creating the most amount of sonic and electronic noise will take 8 hours to cover that distance of 250 NM in order to lose the pursuing aircrafts. Unfortunately for the CBG the recce aircraft will itself be flying at 450-750 knots plus, per hour for say say 8 hours of on station time and hand over the bearings to the other assets before retiring from the hunt. How much time will it take to scan the ocean from 30000 ft :). Satellites stay for only a few minutes but from those heights and at the scan rates possible they also can detect much larger swaths of the ocean than any other asset.

Should the AC dare launch its own aircrafts then you don't even have to detect the CBG, you just have to detect the aircraft and the CBG will about 2 hours away.

Then you can also track the underway replenishment ships.


2. Accuracy.
When a ballistic missile is launched it is guided to its target by either ring laser gyroscope or inertial. There is very very less chance to steer the warhead from its already predesignated target upon re entry. Now if the target is stationary like in land or during test launches it is not a problem. But during war time scenarios the a/c is moving in any arbitrary direction. Rendering the ballistic missiles useless.
Here the cruise missile plays a better role because of mid course and terminal course correction. So when you want to kill an a/c use your cruise missiles. The DF 21 is also equiped with terminal radar guidance but its efficacy questionable.
To get the obvious out of the way. Howsoever fast the CBG or the AC moves around, whatever pakdam-pakdai they try they cannot outrun a lousy subsonic cruise missiles, let alone a fast moving steep diving MaRV or Quasi Ballistic PBV. Esp. in a day and age where a foot print of a missile is in 10s of kilometers. Presuming a steep dive right from the 350 km Apogee of Agni-3 (longest vertical distance that an RV can travel) the RV will take 130 seconds (@ ~8 mach). During this time a CBG would have travelled 0.015 km at fastest straight line distance. Do you really think a modern RV will not have that kind of footprint.

On what is possible:
Pure ballistic went out of fashion some decades back. Over the years US has studied about 30000 variations of deliverying a warhead to its target and identified 30 concepts finally. Kalam saab had to look at 180 variations of just Agni-TD he was leading, despite the much better computing resources he had at his disposal. If you are presuming the old wives tales of ballistics that has been going around for about 2 decades now then you cannot be helped.

When a Chinese and an American meet on the net both talk about possiblities based on things already done and disclosed. But when these Chinese and Americans come to talk with Indians they keep quite. Mostly they would like that Indians keep hanging onto the old wives tales.

If a cruise missile can take mid course and terminal corrections what is to stop an RV on a ballistic from taking the same inputs. Only times ballistic courses cannot be corrected are a small window where the RVs are entering the atmosphere. At that point management of thermal and atmospheric shock becomes paramount and things become somewhat difficult to manage.

Multiple MaRVs on ICBMs have already been tested multiple times - these are only the disclosed instances and disclosed only by the US. Most other countries do not even disclose things. We ourselves keep testing Prithvis even today. Somebody has got to explain the surfeit of Prithvi tests. Our own people keep talking about 'single digit accuracy' for Agni-V class, which is suspected to be of 8000 km range by the Chinese who are the prime target of it.

The belief that Ballistic course missiles are not suitable for mobile targets is a belief that stands not because of do-ability of it. The belief stands on a very different reason. Because nobody has expressly disclosed that they have this capability, till the Chinese broke their silence. Prior to the Chinese only the US had disclosed the full capacity of their missiles like Pershing-2, but mind you they disclosed their concepts full 3 decades before the Chinese. Even this disclosure by the US came much after they had already perfected considerably better designs. Are we safe in presuming that the world stood still after Pershing-2. Chinese are being very truthful in stating their capabilities and that is why India is taking their developments seriously. Anti Ship Ballistic missiles have also been tried by the Soviets but they reportedly gave it up to meet treaty constraints and probably because they figure their Kh-22s could be developed to nearly the same exacting requirements - large warhead at 6 machs in steep dive mode. Today the dives of Russian missiles have become so good (65 degrees for Brahmos) that their is little practical difference from a defenders PoV whether he is hit by a cruise or a ballistic or a quasi ballistic hypersonic warhead.

Only difference, for a defender, that really remains is what velocity can be achieved at what ranges with what trajectories. It is in this context that the Ballistics serve the best. Because of mother nature. Even the current hypersonic vehicles that they are talking about are designed for either aircrafts or for Ballistic missiles that can provide a leg up to a post boost vehicle.

This disbelief about ballistics is like the CEP confusion, where the Indians claim single digit accuracy but the others rarely do. Does that mean others cannot our CEPs - off course no. Its just that it was the Indians who broke the silence most vociferously. Prior to us, others just used to mention it in paid articles and closed door seminars.

To be able to understand what most likely is true you will have to challenge your own presumptions and test out your own existing knowledge.


3. Warhead. Will DF 21 use conventional warhead or nuclear while targeting an A/c? Aircraft carriers are probably the costliest military asset of a nation. They have squadrons of aircrafts on them and sinking one of them will result in huge loss to both life and money. This is why they are also the most well built. They are practically most difficult to sink. A ballistic missile with a conventional warhead can NEVER SINK an A/c. You need a nuclear warhead to BARELY damage an aircraft carrier.
Please refer OPERATION CROSSROAD BY US NAVY. They detonated a nuclear warhead under codename Able to see their effect on the ships including 2 ww2 aircraft carriers. They were USS Saratoga and USS Independence. The resulting detonation was of 21 kt but they missed their targets by barely barely 650 mts and both aircraft carriers didnt sink! Though they suffered extensive damage due to fires caused by oil storage in both ships.
It is calculated to sink an a/c you need a minimum 100 kt warhead and within 500 meters from target. Coupling this with the fact that accuracy against a moving target is dubious, using both conventional warhead or nuclear warhead is waste.
OPERATION CROSSROAD is nearly 3 QUARTERS OF A CENTRURY OLD test . Good morning Rip Van.

But more seriously (hope you din't mind the pun above) you are presuming either of the following two:
1) that Nukes will be deployed. But Soviets gave up that route even though they had the best capacity to take the retaliation; or

2)that to take out a CBG the Chinese have to be cooperative with the US Navy. It is a USN scenario that the Aegis will protect the CBG.

My presumption is that the AC and remnants of CBG itself will be engaged by PLANs subs and long ranged cruise missile carrying Harbins under the cover of a large number of their land based or Laoning Sukhois.

All this after the Aegis itself has been taken out by a number of DF-21D. Till now Aegis has shown capability to take out only the Supersonic missiles in dive mode. DF-21D RV will be hypersonic in a very complex trajectory ending in a dive at 8 machs.


4. Using nuclear warhead against an already nuclear armed state.
Both China and India are nuclear armed state. The act of using a nuclear warhead against an a/c will result in a nuclear war which i hope both countries won't like to happen especially when their is so little to gain and much to lose.
About the nukes. I am dead sure nobody has the guts to use it. Ok perhaps the Pakis and Noko. But seriously the Nuke-5+India+Israel+Brazil+Soko+Japan have spend the better part of last half century making sure that they do not end up using nukes. Safing technology is one of the highest forms of Nuke tech for this reason alone.

Nako bai, no nukes. Its Haram.

Unless off course......

As I said all sides had nukes in their arsenal yet all sides gave up nukes and started pursuing conventional warheads on IRBMs and US already has conventional warheads on ICBMs. In US the debate centers around the aftermath of declaring that they are going to use conventional warheads on ICBMs for quick global response. Despite being the 'self declared boss of the world' they themselves are not confident of admitting to already have fielded a weapon. There was some talk that they would give advance warnings to Russians and launch from outside US or from the coast of US (Nuke laden ICBMs being presumably stationed towards the center of US).


5.Tests of DF21 and operational preparedness.
DF21 is still in research phase though Chinese media claim it is operational. But the lack of repeated test and lack of proper targets for those tests puts the claims into doubt. Chinese media are controlled by the goverment and often helps to propagate messages which are baseless and false.

Thus i feel that DF 21 will never be an aircraft carrier killer.
Feelings do not matter.

And lack of repeated tests could also be an indicator of confidence. AFAIK the Agnis were supposed to be tested a mere 3 times (others had marked 5 test limits for themselves) before declaring that a version of Agni can be handed over for operational tests. Have you given thought to the possibility that the Chinese already had this technology before 2010 and the tests were for the rest of the cards in the kill chain, to fall in place.

Pakis have not failed ever :D but that is another matter.
 

Bheeshma

New Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
916
Likes
384
And lack of repeated tests could also be an indicator of confidence.

Really?? That's as credible as the PSed images of J-20 and J-21.:rofl:. I am pretty sure the lack of test is because it has already failed and there is no point continuing the DF-21 ding dong anymore other than MRBM. Brahmos is still being tested regularly despite its lethality and acceptance by the 3 armed forces.
 

Khagesh

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
Will you guys say the threat exists only after the US Navy says so? That puts you in risk of being a camp follower. I hope you guys realize that.

Anyhow the US analysts and Navy too had reacted like that initially when some of their own raised the panic. That syndrome is called "ASBM Denial".

Here is how an analyst in his writing recognized the ASBM Denial Syndrome and analyses it all.

Andrew Erickson, a specialist on the Chinese military at the U.S. Naval War College.
Book : Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) Development: Drivers, Trajectories and Strategic Implications.
“The bottom line is that the era of ‘ASBM denial’ is over,”

“Physics, however, allows for an ASBM; physics is the same for the Chinese as it is for everyone else. We are witnessing the results today as well as the ability of China’s once-moribund defense industry to integrate existing technologies in innovative ways”
And this ASBM denial is not unreal. See how America's own analysts saw their own people behaving in 2009 period:

http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."
Actually its not the fault of you guys. US and its sympathizers / fans can remain out of touch with reality for very long times till CNN / Fox tells them otherwise. Comes right from the top. Top as in the people that the sympathizers / fans follow.

www.informationdissemination.net/2013/10/whos-afraid-of-df-21d.html

When first told by intelligence officers that the Soviets had a land-based cruise missile that could strike U.S. ships at sea with impunity, President John F. Kennedy asked if the U.S. had something like it or a countermeasure. When told the U.S. had no such weapon or response system Kennedy said, “Why in hell don’t we? How long have we known about this weapon?” When Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara answered “several years” and indicated it was an interim report, Kennedy responded, “I don’t want half-assed information, go back and do your homework,” and later told aides the lack of usable information in the brief left him, “pissed off.”
But it is time that even the foreign fanboys are seeing the Chinese on the wall. Its percolated down to silly guys like the one who called for 30 nuke subs for Aussies. This one. Note how clearly he can see that a seeker for a Brahmos has bearings on other kind of stuff also. This is his own original thinking. It may not be correct but it is not too far from reality also.
http://gentleseas.blogspot.in/2014/01/chinese-slbms-and-anti-ship-df-21d.html


And its not like only the fanboys and official analysts have noted this. Even NPA ayotollahs are noting it today.

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/6/79.full.pdf
China has also started deploying conventionally armed versions of the DF-21 (the DF-21C, and the DF-21D which is an anti-ship missile)
Here is the reality of the development which preceded the declaration by the Chinese.

China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) is the backbone of China's national defense science and technology industry.

Here is how they have developed it since:
https://tiananmenstremendousachieve...hip-missile-that-has-already-been-in-service/

In an interview with Asahi Shimbun, former US Pacific Commander Adm. Robert F. Willard said that China’s DF-21D has acquired initial operating capability

A US research institute believes that in 2011 and 2012, China conducted quite a few launches of DF-21D in the South China Sea and successfully hit and sank a simulated model of aircraft carrier made by transforming China’s Yuanwang 4 survey ship.

Here is the deployment status:
In the period between 2012 to 2013, China for the first time deployed for combat its DF-21D anti-ship missiles. One combat brigade of such missiles is located near Zhaoqing, Guangdong Province while a second brigade will be deployed in Anhui or Henan province. At present, US military believes that China’s anti-ship ballistic missile has already had combat capability.

Source: huanqiu.com “Exposure of suspected test launch of DF-21 anti-ship missile that has already been in service according to US source” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese”
When people decide to deride the Chinese they oftentimes are merely kowtowing the official US line appropriately amplified by kala angrez on various forums but then here is how the Americans themselves explain their officialese that mostly gets lost in the chatter box of Social Media.

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2012/...2700km-range-gen-chen-bingde-never-said-that/
As for the definition of “operational,” it seems likely that the U.S. and Chinese militaries have different definitions of what it means for a weapon to be operational, with the PLA’s definition in this case being more stringent, at least in certain respects. This would explain why Admiral Robert Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, stated in December 2010: “I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved [Initial Operational Capability] IOC.” Perhaps also whereas Admiral Willard was speaking of the U.S. concept of IOC, General Chen is alluding to a Chinese benchmark closer to the U.S. concept of Full Operational Capability (FOC)—a much higher standard to meet, and one that no U.S. official has claimed publicly that China’s ASBM has achieved.

-Dr. Andrew S. Erickson is an Associate Professor in the Strategic Research Department at theU.S. Naval War College (NWC) and a core founding member of the department’sChina Maritime Studies Institute(CMSI). He serves on the Naval War College Review’s Editorial Board. Since 2008, he has been an Associate in Research at Harvard University’s John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies.
Oh BTW Andrew S. Erickson who said the above himself was an ASBM Denier early on. Does not look like one today. And after 2010 the Chinese have launched a series of satellites for naval intel. Their HALE UAVs are already known to be in tests. So their FOC may by either done (like say FOC-1) or very close (like say FOC-2).

You people are failing to see the issue of Aircraft Carrier deployment as different from Aircraft Carrier development.

This phase of the discussion started from a post where a big guy from Indian Navy had questioned adding on fancy but ultimately useless items onto our own Aircraft Carriers. He was probably very aware of our real needs and probably never visited any online forums.

Probably you guys took it to the heart because you wrongly sensed that a recognition of an ASBM threat is a denial of a need for Aircraft Carriers. To the contrary we actually need ACs. Despite the ASBM the US will be making Ford class and China too will acquire more ACs. Russians too have unveiled plans to have one or two.

But ASBMs do mean that we change the way we think about ACs. And how will you even meet your enemy if you are unable to even acknowledge its existence.
 

Khagesh

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
See the following kind of bravado is easily perceived as empty:
A ballistic missile with a conventional warhead can NEVER SINK an A/c. You need a nuclear warhead to BARELY damage an aircraft carrier.
FYI merely the kinetic force from a Ballistic RV will render the AC mission killed absolutely and properly. From the size of warhead a DF-21D carries and the speed with which it is claimed to be travelling, I would suspect (a hunch) the total breech of AC deck and lower decks, almost to the keel.

Later additions should do even better.
 

blueblood

New Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
"People" are really concerned about the Anti ship Bullshit missile.

So, while there are some doubts about India's capability to make an MIRV ICBM or a Teller Ulam design because India hasn't tested it but a missile as untested as my ability to fly a chopper is very credible.

Pentagon pay rolled fear mongers like Richard Fisher for eg. often fail to mention that even if the missile is real.

1) It is not a stand alone missile. It depends on a huge system of systems. Even a minor failure in the chain will result in splash instead of boom.

2) For all the bullshit about the re-entry speed of missile and whatnot, SM3 is a real and very capable system.

3) Retaliation of sinking a CVN will result in China loosing its ports and naval bases within days to CM strikes.

4) B-2 is still pretty much invisible to radar so they probably won't mind "messing" with the Chinese C4ISTAR.
 

Khagesh

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
Bahut dard ho raha hai USA ke liye. :)

But then what is good for the goose/US is good for the gander/India.

And the 2 countries who have handed over nukes to Pakis and 'early version of DF-21' to Saudi Arapia, could get imaginative. Nahi kya?

But it really is funny with you guys. Kitana pyar umad ghumad ke aa raha hai Umrikiyon ke liye. Itna ke apne hi Navy ke bade afsar, apne hi research establishments ko ignore kiya ja raha hai. :rotfl:
 

Khagesh

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
Anyways SM-3 is useless:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-3/
continent's only "upper tier" defense
And here is what the NPA walas think about similar things when Indians say something about something that has bearing on these things:
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/10/indianmirv/
From the comments section you can find out 2 guys talking about slightly different things and you should know both the guys:
Rahul says:
November 4, 2013 at 9:06 am

Hans , The MIRV payload will be carried by Agni 6 a new Medium ICBM class missile with a Throw Up Weight of 3 T , the Agni 6 will weigh around 60-70 T

The Agni-1 to Agni-5 Series have a throw up weight of ~ 1 – 1.5 T

Agni 6 will not just carry MIRV ( with PBV ) but also Advanced MaRV the type proof tested in Agni 5.

More Details

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...e-warheads-likely-by-2017-113050800034_1.html

Reply
  1. Hans M. Kristensen says:
    November 19, 2013 at 6:34 pm
    Thanks for the link. We’ll see what Agni 6 will end up carrying. I haven’t heard about an India PBV (post-boost vehicle) tests having been carried out yet, and MaRV on an ICBM is something that the US and Russia haven’t even deployed – although there are rumors that Russia is working on something along those lines in its misguided obsession with the U.S. ballistic missile defense system. So I guess I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me where an Indian requirement for MIRV – certainly MaRV – would come from. I’m always skeptical about fantastic capabilities rumored many years in advance.
 

Defencearts

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
21
Likes
7
I know... It's been like a week already and no news on the launch.

Is it really a glitch in the flood gates?
 

no smoking

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,057
Likes
2,353
Country flag
DF-21D is not something Indian need to worry about. That is an answer that Chinese can come up when dealing with Americans overwhelming navy force. In Sino-US possible war scenario, what the Chinese is expected to handle with is 400 fighters/bombers from 7 aircraft carriers. At the meantime, there will possible be another 300 fighters/bombers joining them from their bases in Japan. That is a force Chinese can't match. So, DF21 (let's assume it works) gives Chinese a chance keeping half of American force out of the war zone.

In the case of Indian, there is no way that Indian navy can throw even half of that scale into Eastern Asia. Chinese has enough traditional air/navy force to take care of it.
 

no smoking

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,057
Likes
2,353
Country flag
"People" are really concerned about the Anti ship Bullshit missile.

So, while there are some doubts about India's capability to make an MIRV ICBM or a Teller Ulam design because India hasn't tested it but a missile as untested as my ability to fly a chopper is very credible. .
Because it will capture people's attention immediately when you ran a nuclear test. But it may escape American's watch when you ran various missile tests Every Week.

Pentagon pay rolled fear mongers like Richard Fisher for eg. often fail to mention that even if the missile is real.

1) It is not a stand alone missile. It depends on a huge system of systems. Even a minor failure in the chain will result in splash instead of boom.
The thing we know for sure is that Chinese is putting every block of such a system into place except missile. How good this system could be is up to everyone's guess.

2) For all the bullshit about the re-entry speed of missile and whatnot, SM3 is a real and very capable system.
SM3 is good, but can't guarantee 100% kill rate. One single missile missed will cost a 10b dollar aircraft carrier.

3) Retaliation of sinking a CVN will result in China loosing its ports and naval bases within days to CM strikes.
Guess who is supposed to conduct CM strikes? The answer is: the CVN group.

4) B-2 is still pretty much invisible to radar so they probably won't mind "messing" with the Chinese C4ISTAR.
That is the threat that any defence system has to deal with and it is far from invisible when they are flying close to enemy's border.
Besides, the major parts of system DF21 may depend are those satellite and UAV in the air.
 

Articles

Top