What weapon does the US Have to counter China's DF-21 anti-surface missile? The thing travels up to 8000kts, and only SLOWS to 3000kts when it gets under 65000 feet. The fastest SAMs that I see are all in the 2500kt range. So, what is the new USA weapon that they plan on using to stop this carrier killer?
Doug
What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
Moderator: MOD_Command
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
According to Michelle Bachmann, when she becomes President prayer will be all the defense we ever need.
-
VFA41_Lion
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:16 pm
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
The RIM-161B does it easy, at least in Command.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_St ... ssile_SM-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_St ... ssile_SM-3
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
ORIGINAL: hellfish6
According to Michelle Bachmann, when she becomes President prayer will be all the defense we ever need.
Completely inappropriate.
Regards,
Feltan
-
AlmightyTallest
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:00 pm
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
There's a few choices.
RIM-156A SM-2MR Blk IV [Anti-ASBM Mod}
SM-6
And the SM-3 variants.
RIM-156A SM-2MR Blk IV [Anti-ASBM Mod}
SM-6
And the SM-3 variants.
-
NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
As the DF-21 ASBM is derived from the typical DF-21, the same weapon systems used to destroy tactical theater ballistic rockets/missiles should be effective. Currently, these would include the RIM-161 (SM-3), and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). What is unknown, however, is the actual "threat" the DF-21 might bring to the table. The concept might look feasible on paper, but the employment of the concept in reality is probably far more difficult to achieve than all the fanboi hype would have you believe. It's been discussed here before, but I have real questions about the PRC's ability to successfully target a carrier (supposedly the ASBM's primary target) steaming and maneuvering far out to sea in a blue water environment. And then, I have more questions about the ASBM's sensor and guidance package to successfully engage a ship. It is supposed to be equipped with a terminally active radar seeker, and I would have to assume would also include INS and possibly GPS. But given the time of flight, the issues of exiting and re-entering the atmosphere, and the size/weight/technological complexities of such a seeker would make the weapon's success rate a very farfetched number indeed.
The missile is not going to be able to use it's seeker radar until after it re-enters the atmosphere. The radar is going to be limited by range, mechanical sweep/slew, and it's ability to successfully discriminate a vessel's radar signature. The problem will be extremely compounded due to the high mach numbers the re-entry vehicle is traveling in the terminal phase. It just doesn't have a lot of time for the radar seeker to find the target at it's maximum range, and then adjust it's flight path to achieve an impact. This would be a difficult prospect for any nation's defense agencies to accomplish, and I have seen no evidence that China's best scientific minds could do the near-impossible, thus far.
What they've done, is broadcast a hypothetical capability, and an intent, versus the United States proven ability to project force, and defend against ballistic missile threats. Until I see some evidence that China has successfully carried out a real-world live fire exercise against a similar target in a realistic environment, I have no choice but to regard such claims as bluster, and propaganda/hyperbole. I'm not completely discounting the PRC's ample technological capabilities, or underestimating them outright, but I just don't see any empirical evidence to suggest they have gone from ox-cart to Buck Rogers in less than a decade.
The missile is not going to be able to use it's seeker radar until after it re-enters the atmosphere. The radar is going to be limited by range, mechanical sweep/slew, and it's ability to successfully discriminate a vessel's radar signature. The problem will be extremely compounded due to the high mach numbers the re-entry vehicle is traveling in the terminal phase. It just doesn't have a lot of time for the radar seeker to find the target at it's maximum range, and then adjust it's flight path to achieve an impact. This would be a difficult prospect for any nation's defense agencies to accomplish, and I have seen no evidence that China's best scientific minds could do the near-impossible, thus far.
What they've done, is broadcast a hypothetical capability, and an intent, versus the United States proven ability to project force, and defend against ballistic missile threats. Until I see some evidence that China has successfully carried out a real-world live fire exercise against a similar target in a realistic environment, I have no choice but to regard such claims as bluster, and propaganda/hyperbole. I'm not completely discounting the PRC's ample technological capabilities, or underestimating them outright, but I just don't see any empirical evidence to suggest they have gone from ox-cart to Buck Rogers in less than a decade.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
ORIGINAL: DWReese
What weapon does the US Have to counter China's DF-21 anti-surface missile? The thing travels up to 8000kts, and only SLOWS to 3000kts when it gets under 65000 feet. The fastest SAMs that I see are all in the 2500kt range. So, what is the new USA weapon that they plan on using to stop this carrier killer?
Doug
A USN ABM missile would not have to "catch" the inbound DF-21 as it would be heading straight towards the launcher (assuming it was fired by a CVTF escort).
There is this too
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
Its an interesting problem.
As NW points out nobody really knows how accurate the ASBM is and data on the SM-3's and and really all ABM weapons is a little light because there hasn't been one test against a substantial salvo which is what the USN would be more likely to face.
Right now it is all theory. Nice thing is you can use Command to start developing ideas, tactics etc. You're not going to get exact data points (you really shouldn't use a sim for that) but will answer questions and id many of the things to think about.
Mike
As NW points out nobody really knows how accurate the ASBM is and data on the SM-3's and and really all ABM weapons is a little light because there hasn't been one test against a substantial salvo which is what the USN would be more likely to face.
Right now it is all theory. Nice thing is you can use Command to start developing ideas, tactics etc. You're not going to get exact data points (you really shouldn't use a sim for that) but will answer questions and id many of the things to think about.
Mike
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
Part of the way to defeat the ASBM's is to kill their targeting capabilities - their eyes.
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
As the DF-21 ASBM is derived from the typical DF-21, the same weapon systems used to destroy tactical theater ballistic rockets/missiles should be effective. Currently, these would include the RIM-161 (SM-3), and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). What is unknown, however, is the actual "threat" the DF-21 might bring to the table. The concept might look feasible on paper, but the employment of the concept in reality is probably far more difficult to achieve than all the fanboi hype would have you believe. It's been discussed here before, but I have real questions about the PRC's ability to successfully target a carrier (supposedly the ASBM's primary target) steaming and maneuvering far out to sea in a blue water environment. And then, I have more questions about the ASBM's sensor and guidance package to successfully engage a ship. It is supposed to be equipped with a terminally active radar seeker, and I would have to assume would also include INS and possibly GPS. But given the time of flight, the issues of exiting and re-entering the atmosphere, and the size/weight/technological complexities of such a seeker would make the weapon's success rate a very farfetched number indeed.
The missile is not going to be able to use it's seeker radar until after it re-enters the atmosphere. The radar is going to be limited by range, mechanical sweep/slew, and it's ability to successfully discriminate a vessel's radar signature. The problem will be extremely compounded due to the high mach numbers the re-entry vehicle is traveling in the terminal phase. It just doesn't have a lot of time for the radar seeker to find the target at it's maximum range, and then adjust it's flight path to achieve an impact. This would be a difficult prospect for any nation's defense agencies to accomplish, and I have seen no evidence that China's best scientific minds could do the near-impossible, thus far.
What they've done, is broadcast a hypothetical capability, and an intent, versus the United States proven ability to project force, and defend against ballistic missile threats. Until I see some evidence that China has successfully carried out a real-world live fire exercise against a similar target in a realistic environment, I have no choice but to regard such claims as bluster, and propaganda/hyperbole. I'm not completely discounting the PRC's ample technological capabilities, or underestimating them outright, but I just don't see any empirical evidence to suggest they have gone from ox-cart to Buck Rogers in less than a decade.
IIRC the USN CNO (or some other top Navy brass) stated in unequivocal terms in 2010 that the entire complex had achieved IOC, and that it was a concern.
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
But maybe he's trying to secure funding for something haha
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
As a recent member of the USN, I promise you that it is a system of great concern.
-
NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
It is certainly a waypoint on a roadmap, and as Tomcat pointed out- a great way of securing additional funding. Regardless of how much a threat it is in reality at this moment, it is clear that it is the intention of the Chinese to continue towards that ultimate goal, and therefore, is a very easy sell to Congress for vitally needed funds for our BMD systems. I figure that laser system is going to need additional funding as well. It's very easy to look at the threat versus defense "big picture", and see that vast sums of money will be spent by several nations as a result of this new capability. If the PRC is going to threaten our carrier strike groups at sea, the response from the US DOD would be an enhanced capability to strike against the ASBM and it's on-shore launch/targeting facilities. Additional funds will be needed for continuing R&D on existing BMD. Additional funds will be invested in improving existing ship and space-based sensors and battle management. Additional funds will be needed for future BMD. Additional funds will be needed for ship-based soft and hard kill defences, including countermeasures and jamming.
If I was a politician on a senate subcommittee for national defense, I'd probably be quite pleased with the news of this supposed threat, and the money that I could demand to properly prepare to counter the threat. If people don't think these sorts of issues are dealt with by politicians using this sort of reasoning, they would be sorely disappointed.
One further thing should be said on the subject. If the PRC were ever to utilize such a weapon against an American aircraft carrier, they might as well as arm it with a nuclear warhead, and launch it in a coordinated nuclear first strike at strategic US targets throughout the world. Regardless of whether a US carrier is sunk by way of torpedo, or missile, conventional ASBM, or nuclear warhead, the response from the United States would be the same. It would come very quickly, it would achieve surface temperatures exceeding the surface of the sun, and would dose an entire continent with lethal levels of radiation and fallout for the next ten thousand years. So if the Chinese or any other nation wants bet and to lose it all in a single act, the DF-21D seems like an excellent step forward down that road. So long as they realize, there ain't no coming back from that trip. You buy that ticket, you will take the ride.
If I was a politician on a senate subcommittee for national defense, I'd probably be quite pleased with the news of this supposed threat, and the money that I could demand to properly prepare to counter the threat. If people don't think these sorts of issues are dealt with by politicians using this sort of reasoning, they would be sorely disappointed.
One further thing should be said on the subject. If the PRC were ever to utilize such a weapon against an American aircraft carrier, they might as well as arm it with a nuclear warhead, and launch it in a coordinated nuclear first strike at strategic US targets throughout the world. Regardless of whether a US carrier is sunk by way of torpedo, or missile, conventional ASBM, or nuclear warhead, the response from the United States would be the same. It would come very quickly, it would achieve surface temperatures exceeding the surface of the sun, and would dose an entire continent with lethal levels of radiation and fallout for the next ten thousand years. So if the Chinese or any other nation wants bet and to lose it all in a single act, the DF-21D seems like an excellent step forward down that road. So long as they realize, there ain't no coming back from that trip. You buy that ticket, you will take the ride.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
Regardless of whether a US carrier is sunk by way of torpedo, or missile, conventional ASBM, or nuclear warhead, the response from the United States would be the same.
You sure? ... The Chinese military disagrees, anyhow.
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
Equivalent to saying your carrier is safe as long as nobody knows where it is. Always true, no matter what weapon is in question, and to boot, never reliable as a strategy. Not even close.
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
Don't forget that the US Ground-based midcourse defense reached IOC in 2005 and failed 5 of the 9 intercept tests since then. As NakedWeasel points out, the Chinese definitely have an MRBM with sensors that can target a ship, but the actual ability of that MRBM to hit and kill a ship may be limited.ORIGINAL: Sunburn
IIRC the USN CNO (or some other top Navy brass) stated in unequivocal terms in 2010 that the entire complex had achieved IOC, and that it was a concern.
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
fas thinks 500m CEP's are perfectly reasonable, so unless the carrier reacts pretty quickly in the event of a launch to change course and speed up, an unguided BM volley would be pretty threatening without guidance and with conventional warheads.
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
I can almost guarantee you that US CVBGs would change course and speed after ever Chinese satellite pass. PIM would probably still be fairly easy to figure out given general trends (i.e. the battle group moved 100 miles west in 6 hours), but I don't know if that's accurate enough to put weapons on the target.
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
I tend to think you can't hide a carrier these days when the fighting starts. You can make it costly to find at best. This is something we could probably game out and see in Command 
RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21?
ORIGINAL: trap144
fas thinks 500m CEP's are perfectly reasonable, so unless the carrier reacts pretty quickly in the event of a launch to change course and speed up, an unguided BM volley would be pretty threatening without guidance and with conventional warheads.
The problem is getting the guidance info to the shooters in enough time to be accurate enough. DF-21 compensates with radar (so shoot into box, radar goes on hunts for target then guides). You don't have that capability with a standard ballistic missile.
Honestly not sure why the Soviets never pursued this that far during the Cold War.
Mike