PLAN would lose up to 40% of it's entire fleet to sink just 1 US aircraft carrier

[Eeshaan]

I think folk often underestimate the difficulty in physically locating a carrier group - I know it sounds daft as in "it's a chuffing big bunch of ships" but seriously, the USN has been traditionally very good at getting a carrier to sea, then disappearing in the ocean, keeping all ships and aircraft at a distance. Even with satellite surveillance, it's still a relatively small group to spot in a big drop of water, and passing that along in a timely manner is a challenge.

This is what's been talked about in previous discussions of targeting a carrier group with a DF-21- you've got to locate the group, get co-ordinates back, pass them to the missile battery, then keep the missile updated in it's flight.


Same or worse with large groups of FAC's -and the friction of battle cuts both ways.

That is quite interesting. I was thinking the opposite, i.e. how hard would it be to keep such an enourmous ship such as a Nimitz-class carrier and it's escorts hidden, especially when you literally are in another nation's backyard or their side of the ocean.

One would think that with modern-day technology such as aircraft, GPS, sattelite surveillance, drones etc., keeping track of a massive fleet of ships would be rather easy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That is quite interesting. I was thinking the opposite, i.e. how hard would it be to keep such an enourmous ship such as a Nimitz-class carrier and it's escorts hidden, especially when you literally are in another nation's backyard or their side of the ocean.

One would think that with modern-day technology such as aircraft, GPS, sattelite surveillance, drones etc., keeping track of a massive fleet of ships would be rather easy.

battle groups still manage to hide - even in designated training boxes

 

[gf0012-aust]

just to add, the only ones in recent time who have managed to successfully demonstrate a kill using a battlefield ballistic missile on a real target are the russians

that was at a range of approx 80km and the target was static - they had basically 5 minutes to decide to do the shot and only did it because they were able to validate co-ordinates before releasing the shot - the CEP of the weapon was enough to kill the target and within the metrics of him moving while the shot was in play

that's a whole pile of "different" compared to n MRBM, IRBM, ICBM crossing the blue and being updated to kill a moving and aware vessel

the chinese are not even remotely close to russian BM capabilities

 

[t68]

battle groups still manage to hide - even in designated training boxes

how big would the average training area be for a carrier group, 100km x 100km?

 

[Bonza]

just to add, the only ones in recent time who have managed to successfully demonstrate a kill using a battlefield ballistic missile on a real target are the russians

that was at a range of approx 80km and the target was static - they had basically 5 minutes to decide to do the shot and only did it because they were able to validate co-ordinates before releasing the shot - the CEP of the weapon was enough to kill the target and within the metrics of him moving while the shot was in play

that's a whole pile of "different" compared to n MRBM, IRBM, ICBM crossing the blue and being updated to kill a moving and aware vessel

the chinese are not even remotely close to russian BM capabilities

The Russian effort wasn't that hit on an insurgent leader while he was on a tapped phone line, was it? The details escape me but I remember it being mentioned somewhere down the line...

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Russian effort wasn't that hit on an insurgent leader while he was on a tapped phone line, was it? The details escape me but I remember it being mentioned somewhere down the line...

Dudayev

they picked up his sat phone and committed a battlefield rocket to end his conversation within 10mins of detecting the chatter

made a mess of the vehicle he was sitting in as well apparently.

sat phone meets SS-21 Scarab and loses

a very good example of expeditious decision making....

 

[StobieWan]

I have to say, launching something that size at someone, well, it'd make you feel special :0


It'd be "Oh, they *really* care.."

 

[Bonza]

Dudayev

they picked up his sat phone and committed a battlefield rocket to end his conversation within 10mins of detecting the chatter

made a mess of the vehicle he was sitting in as well apparently.

sat phone meets SS-21 Scarab and loses

a very good example of expeditious decision making....

Thought it might have been

I assume they had some idea of where he was going to be ahead of time, or did they manage it on the fly?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thought it might have been

I assume they had some idea of where he was going to be ahead of time, or did they manage it on the fly?

he happened to be within the response time of a rocket battery - so once they found him they acted.

you have to give it to the russians. they don't muck about

 

[StobieWan]

Part of a Great Bluff perhaps? I thought the Gobi desert test, while static was a thought to be a genuine test. There doesn't seen to be much new in public domain since about 2011.

There's a lot of stuff in the chain to go wrong, from your airborne ISTAR being intercepted and shepherded away from the group, which is routine, to a half dozen SDB's hitting your comms antennae farm for your satellite downlink, to a GBU-28 punching a hole in the roof of your command bunker.

If the carrier group executes a random turn and goes to flank on launch detection (which could be passed from a space based asset) then the carrier could be ten miles away from her predicted track by the time the missile arrives.

The DF21 radar is alleged to be adapted from the Pershing tactical missile - which had a relatively narrow field of view, so it's going to have to land in a fairly small box to locate the carrier, then it's going to have to defeat jamming, deception and decoys.

It's not a magic missile, put it that way.

 

[AegisFC]

Sub munitions on airfields would be another good one.

Nope. History shows that bombing air fields is next to pointless. In general a competent group can get a bombed air field up and going again in under an hour.

 

[Bonza]

he happened to be within the response time of a rocket battery - so once they found him they acted.

you have to give it to the russians. they don't muck about

Quite right there, they must really have wanted him badly if a targeted killing via ballistic missile made it through the chain of command inside ten minutes...

Nope. History shows that bombing air fields is next to pointless. In general a competent group can get a bombed air field up and going again in under an hour.

Was going to mention this earlier - the idea of a strategic anti-runway weapon sounds more like a curiosity than a capability. Hitting a strategically significant airbase via cratering their runways is hardly going to be worth the effort in the first place - if you're going to hit it wouldn't it be better to do so with multiple large unitary warheads and try to write the place off completely, along with any assets parked there?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Quite right there, they must really have wanted him badly if a targeted killing via ballistic missile made it through the chain of command inside ten minutes...

my understanding (and I can't find a copy of the brief that I used to have) was that they didn't have any available air - and they were determined not to lose him again, so made the decision to blow the crap out of the area before he drove off.

the intercepts showed that he wasn't moving while talking so it was make or break time.

 

[My2Cents]

If the DF21 actually do perform as advertised then I in fact I believe I have effectively lured the USN group in a trap. I can keep shooting my DF21 at them all the way out to 2500+ kms as they retreat, or intercept reinforcement's as they cross the pacific. I can even hit land targets in Japan and Taiwan. Any fixed target, is within my reach, including ships in port.

Depends on which reports you read. For example it is not going to be at re-entry speeds when searching inside the atmosphere, they have to drop to nearly Mach 3 to be able to see anything, and it will be coming down at a fairly steep angle not as a surface skimmer, so probably every VLS in the fleet can have a couple goes at it. So first it has to get past the SM-3s, then the SM-2s, and RAM probably also has chance. The DF-21 is not a wonder weapon, you will have to go for saturation.

As for land targets, you either need a LOT of conventional missiles or a nuke to keep something like an airfield out of commission. Any nuke usage is an incredibly bad idea unless China plans on conquering Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all in one, very quick, war, because they all can, and would, produce working nuclear weapons in under a year.

 

[StobieWan]

Depends on which reports you read. For example it is not going to be at re-entry speeds when searching inside the atmosphere, they have to drop to nearly Mach 3 to be able to see anything, and it will be coming down at a fairly steep angle

That's an interesting point - that would put it well within the interception capabilities of Sea Dart and SeaWolf, both of which were tested versus supersonic sounding rockets in the 1970's - let alone much more modern weapons like those listed.

 

[Lindermyer]

Also if their carrier had been at sea along with ASW escorts and operational. I am aware that a RN SSN was in the area but that Argentinian carrier and its accompying group could have made a difference if used well enough. But the Argentinian Navy didn't do that so it's really moot.

The carrier was operational and was at sea at the start of the conflict.
The carrier and ARA General Belgrano were in 2 different groups as part of a pincer attack on the RN task force.
The UK new this which is why the Belgrano was sunk, fortunately for the 25 May the ROE demanded positive visual identification, Super B is convinced she found her but fog prevented visual ID.

After the Belgrano was sunk the Argentine navy basically stayed within the 12 mile limit, kept there by the threat of SSN's.

So yes a properly handled carrier could have posed a threat to the task force, but this threat was neutralised by the presence of the SSN.

There are few navies in the world with the competency and capability to attempt to operate where an SSN is playing.

 

[My2Cents]

That's an interesting point - that would put it well within the interception capabilities of Sea Dart and SeaWolf, both of which were tested versus supersonic sounding rockets in the 1970's - let alone much more modern weapons like those listed.

And that is why I consider the DF21 as over rated in the Press.

I understand that to save costs most of the SeaWolf's targets used in testing were 4.5" artillery shells instead of target drones. Given that it was a 'hitile' design that says a lot about its accuracy.

 

[StobieWan]

And that is why I consider the DF21 as over rated in the Press.

I understand that to save costs most of the SeaWolf's targets used in testing were 4.5" artillery shells instead of target drones. Given that it was a 'hitile' design that says a lot about its accuracy.

Taking on an artillery shell used to be a standard commissioning test after launch or major refit - don't know if it still is - but back in the late 70's a number of tests were done in the target range up in the North Sea to test and prove both missiles against supersonic diving missiles. If DF21 has a final approach in the low mach numbers it's not such a major deal. I'd be more worried about NSM or similar.

 

[Eeshaan]

I have to say, launching something that size at someone, well, it'd make you feel special :0


It'd be "Oh, they *really* care.."

haha yeah. You sure earned your 15 minutes of fame on CNN then, I guess, eh ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Taking on an artillery shell used to be a standard commissioning test after launch or major refit - don't know if it still is - but back in the late 70's a number of tests were done in the target range up in the North Sea to test and prove both missiles against supersonic diving missiles. If DF21 has a final approach in the low mach numbers it's not such a major deal. I'd be more worried about NSM or similar.

arty intercepts are still used for evaluation

when I worked on a high speed intercept ptog we used to test 12.5mm all the way to 155mm. it was regarded as a baseline test before you shifted to intelligent control tests