PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Blackstone said:

Remote control drone targeting ships...

Click to expand...

You missed the point. I know full well that there are better ways to do tests than sacrificing someone's life. But I meant, would you want to be on that ship? Clearly, the answer is no, because you want it to be remote controlled instead. That's what sailors and captains of enemy carriers would be considering when approaching the range of the missile. In all-out war, there is no choice but to follow orders and find out exactly how good of a weapon it is, but when everyone's in the war room discussing whether to intervene against China, fear of the possibility that you're gonna be on a carrier when it goes to the bottom of the ocean is gonna sway you towards using more diplomatic means. That's deterrence. You don't have to be 100% sure it's gonna kill you for you to be deterred.

The US has never fired an ICBM to hit a target in Asia or Eastern Europe before so how do we know it even goes that far without a test? You think that means that the US doesn't have believable first strike ability to the military planners in China/Russia? Same logic.

AssassinsMace said:

It's been reported that the ASBM warhead does maneuver to evade missiles defense. Also I remember reading an article where a Western expert said given the range and hypersonic speeds US Navy ships will not have enough time to react. The questions if an ASBM can actually work can be said of missile defense also.

View attachment 29182

Click to expand...

You must have missed the part where we were talking about mid-course maneuvering. It's already acknowledged that the warhead will (probably) perform terminal maneuvers to evade the likes of SM-2, SM-6, and PAC-3, but midcourse maneuvering for the purpose of evading a missile like the SM-3 has never been mentioned either for the DF-21D or AFAIK for any MARV.

tphuang said:

2) ASBM at its really fast speed can identify carrier upon re-entry, home in onto the target and do enough damage. Remember, carrier moves extremely fast and can move a lot from launch to re-entry.

Click to expand...

Launch time to reentry time is probably less than 15 minutes even assuming the missile travels to a maximum range of ~2,000 km and is moving at 3.4km/sec in a parabolic trajectory. During that time a carrier will only have traveled about 15 km, which I doubt would be an issue for the seeker to acquire the target.

Iron Man said:

Launch time to reentry time is probably less than 15 minutes even assuming the missile travels to a maximum range of ~2,000 km and is moving at 3.4km/sec in a parabolic trajectory. During that time a carrier will only have traveled about 15 km, which I doubt would be an issue for the seeker to acquire the target.

Click to expand...

How and what kind of seeker installed on where?
The RV would be smothered in ionized plasma due to speed during re-entry which will render any on-board sensors as well as satellite communication useless.

AssassinsMace said:

It's been reported that the ASBM warhead does maneuver to evade missiles defense. Also I remember reading an article where a Western expert said given the range and hypersonic speeds US Navy ships will not have enough time to react. The questions if an ASBM can actually work can be said of missile defense also.

***

Click to expand...

There is no question about the DF-21D making terminal maneuvers.

DF-21D warhead is an MaRV. To hit or come in proximity to a carrier it absolutely requires terminal maneuvering. The point was regarding mid-course interception. Currently the only known system that avoids/evades mid-course interceptors in the PRC would be the DF-ZF HGV. That is still in testing. It is quite possible that future ASBM will employee a HGV but right now the DF-21D is vulnerable to mid-course interceptors such as SM-3. A carrier Carrier Strike Group will employee Aegis CG and DDG.

SamuraiBlue said:

How and what kind of seeker installed on where?
The RV would be smothered in ionized plasma due to speed during re-entry which will render any on-board sensors as well as satellite communication useless.

Click to expand...

I think you were being schooled in another thread regarding this exact subject. Please refer back to that thread for answers to your questions.

Hyperwarp said:

Currently the only known system that avoids/evades mid-course interceptors in the PRC would be the DF-ZF HGV.

Click to expand...

Actually I'm not sure that this is the case either. The DF-ZF/Wu-14 probably performs terminal maneuvers for the purpose of evasion, but I haven't read that it performs mid-course maneuvers for the purpose of evasion. What I have read is that it relies on a depressed parabolic trajectory in order to render itself less vulnerable or even invulnerable to mid-course (exo-atmospheric) interceptors, not that it actively performs evasive maneuvers during its midcourse phase.

Iron Man said:

I think you were being schooled in another thread regarding this exact subject. Please refer back to that thread for answers to your questions.

Click to expand...

Which nobody was able to come up with an compelling argument based on science to actually prove it is possible ending to the usual childish logic of "It is so because I say so", something like what you are doing right now.

SamuraiBlue said:

Which nobody was able to come up with an compelling argument based on science to actually prove it is possible ending to the usual childish logic of "It is so because I say so", something like what you are doing right now.

Click to expand...

I get it, I do. You must think that Chinese engineers were unable to achieve terminal guidance for a warhead that therefore could be immediately and easily out-maneuvered in the terminal stage by the target ship making a simple turn. But even though the whole world (and you) know that they didn't achieve this, they put the DF-21D into service anyway. You were clearly too smart for them and have seen through their bluff and have foiled their plot. Hat's off to your limitless internet genius.

Iron Man said:

I get it, I do. You must think that Chinese engineers were unable to achieve terminal guidance for a warhead

Click to expand...

No DXXXX, engineers in general can't make something that defies science regardless of nationality.
Try explaining how a re-entry vehicle is able to maintain mach 10+ without creating friction heat that will super heat the air in front causing it to become ionized plasma.
Then I will believe you.

SamuraiBlue said:

No DXXXX, engineers in general can't make something that defies science regardless of nationality.
Try explaining how a re-entry vehicle is able to maintain mach 10+ without creating friction heat that will super heat the air in front causing it to become ionized plasma.
Then I will believe you.

Click to expand...

First, realize that I don't permit your random internet self the luxury of dictating "science" to anyone here, including me. Second, the US long ago solved the problem of ionizing plasma-induced blackouts with the TDRS system of satellites which relayed communications feeds to the Space Shuttle via an antenna blister on the non-plasma back end of the spacecraft, a strategy which the DF-21D almost certainly uses as well. Once the warhead clears the plasma shield, it will either switch on its own terminal guidance sensors, or continue to rely on satellite feeds, or both.

Iron Man said:

First, realize that I don't permit your random internet self the luxury of dictating "science" to anyone here, including me. Second, the US long ago solved the problem of ionizing plasma-induced blackouts with the TDRS system of satellites which relayed communications feeds to the Space Shuttle via an antenna blister on the non-plasma back end of the spacecraft, a strategy which the DF-21D almost certainly uses as well. Once the warhead clears the plasma shield, it will either switch on its own terminal guidance sensors, or continue to rely on satellite feeds, or both.

Click to expand...

Again ignorance talks. The Space shuttle being able to communicate was due to it's sheer size and shape where the vertical tail was long enough and the re-entry surface was large enough so that the top of the vertical tail would be far enough away where the ionized air was able to dissipate providing a pocket for the antenna.

That can't happen for a re-entry module of a missile since it is coned shape with the pointy side facing down making the entire cone as the re-entry surface in where the ionized air would engulf the entire module.