|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sorta wtf? -
09-11-2010, 01:12 AM
The DF-21D is using a active radar guidance system that existed on the US Pershing II back in 1983.
The DF-21D does not have a convetional payload that guarantys a 100% kill on a US carrier. That is why it also has the option to carry a nuclear weapons payload. This is the only way to get a 100% kill on a US carrier. F -15's or any aircraft from a US carrier battle group would not even figure in a defense against a MRBM *(Medium Range Ballistic Missle) which is what a DF-21D is. The Ageis Cruiser coupled with other vessels in the CVBG would use SM-3 and medium range missle defense systems. "...Standard Missile SM-3 now deployed on Ticonderoga class cruisers and Improved Arleigh Burke class destroyers was designed specifically to engage theater ballistic missiles in their midcourse (free-fall) phase; they have proven very effective in tests. Each cruiser and destroyer will, presumably, carry a dozen or more of these missiles for the defense of the carrier-"...Electronic and infrared jamming; decoy deployment; maneuvering; and, of course, shooting back. China May Turn Missiles into Carrier-KillersBy Noah Shachtman March 31, 2009 The technical challenges still seem daunting, including the fact that ballistic missles aren’t designed for tactical precision strikes of relatively small (in oceanic terms) targets speeding at 30 knots. But the really troubling issue is this: ballistic missiles are strategic weapons (the DF-21 has roughly the same range as a Pershing 2). They’re designed to carry nuclear weapons. Everyone knows they’re designed to carry nukes, and to hurl them long distances. So if the U.S. detects missiles hurtling over the Pacific, and NORAD has 15 minutes to decide whether it’s a tactical strike on the Nimitz, or if some city is going to be vaporized… Of course, in the rational world of deterrence theory and defense planning, U.S. decision-makers would know these were tactical weapons and wouldn’t overreact. Or maybe not. Read More China May Turn Missiles into Carrier-Killers (Corrected) | Danger Room | Wired.com 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sorta smoke again -
09-11-2010, 03:30 AM
wrong again dude.
DF-21D uses GPS guidance when it is first fired at a target.. What about those counter measures on board the DF-21D? IR and homing radar - That is called a active guidance system. example: What about the terminal end of the missles' path as it encounters it's target? The US carriers (CVBG) defensive shield of medium range missles ? GPS guidance is only good if nobody fires back on your DF-21D? GPS is only one stage of the DF-21Ds guidance to the target the other half is the terminal guidance stage . (closing distance to target) What about if the target *US carrier has escorts like a Ageis Cruiser which will start lobbing a 'sh*t storm' of SM-3's for example - at your DF-21D? Your DF-21D has a 'active guidance system' either infrared (IR) homing guidance to evade those US SM-3's, followed by radar homing. I have included sources and links with my posts from sources that make a living as defense analyst.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-11-2010, 03:38 AM
Quote:
Id like to see your sources though. They are completely at odds with the media sources I have. All of which say that US Naval analysts were alarmed by the new missile and the Pentagon was taken by surprise by them. My sources include the Huffington Post, Sinodefence review amongst others and all were dated the latter half of this year.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sorta not -
09-11-2010, 03:56 AM
Why do you worry about DF-21D which is not proven yet and has a very narrow application? The Chinese navy have submarines that can do a much better job at hunting the US CVBGs' without the use of any ballistic missle for the price of measly torpedo.
Ding Dong, Dong-Feng! on August 8, 2010 by J.E. Dyer Allahpundit laid down the gauntlet with this question on China’s new anti-carrier weapon, the Dong Feng-21D ballistic missile: A submarine nailing the carrier at the keel is a much better bet: take out propulsion, you take out the whole weapon system. Without propulsion, the carrier can’t make the 35 knots of wind over the deck that it needs to recover aircraft. And China has lots of submarines. Everytime the US defense establishment is threatn'ed with a decrease in next years defense budget they have a 'the skys falling' media blitz to protect their piece of the pie. This next FY Defense Budget is already being fought by the Armed Services , especially the Navy through leaks to the media that will enhance their own pockets.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-11-2010, 05:13 AM
Quote:
If i was going to sink a carrier my first choice would be by submarine as Fluffy stated. But we are seriously off topic so i am going to stop there i suggest we get back on topic before the thread is shut down. 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-11-2010, 06:24 AM
I'm not an expert on this at all but it sounds to me 東風21D is a Frankenstein monster of a ballistic missile and an Air-to-Ship Missile. Delivering an ASM with a ballistic missile is new, but the US sure has tons of counter measures for ASMs. Still, even if the US can shoot down 99% of them, it will still be a great threat, or at least repellant, as it shouldn't be that hard for Chinese to build 100s of them. That plus the submarines China is building may hinder US carrier's access to the seas near China. This brings up an interesting point which I hope is pertinent to the topic.
The US military force in Japan is there mainly to protect Taiwan and Korea. Korea isn't crucial to Japanese survival but Taiwan is, as it is in the way of an important Japanese sea lane and close to Senkaku where there said to be oil, possibly as much as the amount Iraq has. Now the US's main support to Taiwan will be USS George Washington or its successor. And if it becomes hard for carriers to get close to Taiwan, it seems to me that the importance of the airbases in Japan will be more significant, especially the ones in Okinawa. mmm. I really don't see any practical scenario with which Japan can afford the US military to withdraw completely.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
points to consider -
09-11-2010, 07:41 AM
Has anyone mentioned the threat of North Korea or the decline of the U.S as the sole dominant power of the world?
It is good to have a discussion about the issue of U.S bases in Japan, but it is a matter for the Japanese people to decide, it is their country, isn't it?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-11-2010, 04:44 PM
Whether this Chinese missile can do what it says has to be tested. The U.S. has been developing air-to-ship missile defenses. Currently, the three ways to take out a ship is: missile, torpedo, or bomb. But then again, this missile was design to go thru that.
The only way to know exactly how effective it is would be to use it in a real confrontation against an American carrier. May it never come to this. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-14-2010, 01:37 AM
I think for the sake of Japan's safety, the prospect of US forces leaving would be very disastrous to Japan. Furthermore, Allies of the United States of America also get the protection by the world's strongest military power. People like to fancy that the Middle Eastern wars being fought are bloody, but we're not even putting the full focus of our military on the region.
It's remarkably funny how some of these chats go. Lots of Japanese posters fancy trading one protective older brother for another in China, but I think it's silly to even consider that idea, don't all of you agree? Japan has it really good with the United States, and any offenses by American military personnel seriously pales in comparison to the number of rapes, murders, and so forth that occur in Japan on a yearly basis. The only reason that it gets so much coverage is because Japan is still inherently a nationalistic country. The idea of a foreigner committing a crime is that much more heinous there.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
