What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

DWReese -> What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 3:56:24 AM)

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



hellfish6 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 4:24:20 AM)

According to Michelle Bachmann, when she becomes President prayer will be all the defense we ever need.



VFA41_Lion -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 4:55:51 AM)

The RIM-161B does it easy, at least in Command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_missile_SM-3



Feltan -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 5:34:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

According to Michelle Bachmann, when she becomes President prayer will be all the defense we ever need.


Completely inappropriate.

Regards,
Feltan



AlmightyTallest -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 4:18:46 PM)

There's a few choices.

RIM-156A SM-2MR Blk IV [Anti-ASBM Mod}

SM-6

And the SM-3 variants.



NakedWeasel -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 4:49:52 PM)

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.



vettim89 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 5:15:25 PM)


quote:

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



mikmykWS -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 7:14:29 PM)

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




hellfish6 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 7:22:29 PM)

Part of the way to defeat the ASBM's is to kill their targeting capabilities - their eyes.



Dimitris -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 7:23:56 PM)

quote:

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.



Tomcat84 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 7:37:29 PM)

But maybe he's trying to secure funding for something haha



hellfish6 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 8:05:19 PM)

As a recent member of the USN, I promise you that it is a system of great concern.



NakedWeasel -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 8:46:33 PM)

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.



trap144 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 11:48:51 PM)

quote:

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.



trap144 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 11:51:33 PM)

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.



ExNusquam -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 11:53:12 PM)


quote:

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.

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.



trap144 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 11:54:34 PM)

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.



ExNusquam -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/27/2014 11:59:38 PM)

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.



trap144 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 12:02:47 AM)

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 :)



mikmykWS -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 12:07:37 AM)


quote:

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



trap144 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 12:15:12 AM)

Does the USA have the equivalent?



Primarchx -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 12:48:56 AM)

I'd like to see Japan develop one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

Does the USA have the equivalent?




vettim89 -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 12:54:13 AM)

I would think with the high terminal speed the aim point would have to be pretty precise. Even at a relative shallow angle of reentry (gamma) of 45 degrees would only give the vehicle about 18 seconds of terminal phase. Roughly that gives you an engagement radius of about eleven NM. An CVTF would cover that in about 20-25 minutes. Now that assumes a real-time communication between the C&C entity and the launcher. Every minute of delay increases the area of uncertainty by 0.5 nm. I am not saying this weapons aren't a real threat but the physics alone make a single hit difficult and multiple hits unlikely.

Just my $0.02 worth

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

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.




mikmykWS -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 12:55:03 AM)

Nothing like it at all.

Mike






NakedWeasel -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 1:29:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

quote:

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.


I am TOTALLY sure. There's 5000 men and women aboard that ship, about $5,000,000,000 invested in it, and more than 50 fixed wing aircraft. Would we nuke China, or any other nation over a carrier? Are you kidding me?



NakedWeasel -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 1:31:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

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.



Generally, it is true. This is the reason so much money, technology, and secrecy is invested in stealth and submarines.



jdkbph -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 1:31:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

But maybe he's trying to secure funding for something haha


Don't laugh. They did this all throughout the cold war... hyping the bad guys in order to scare funding out of congress. Very effective, particularly as the eventual discovery that they over-stated the threat brings mostly sighs of relief.

JD



NakedWeasel -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 1:37:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

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


This is one of my primary reasons for doubting the Chinese claims. Why indeed, did the Soviets not develop this weapon decades ago when they had the technological capability, and the doctrinal methodology to employ it? And now, suddenly, almost overnight, the Chinese pull this rabbit out of the hat, and it's supposed to be the lynchpin to saving their eggrolls from American CSGs? Nah.... I'd bet against it.



NakedWeasel -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 2:08:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: trap144

Does the USA have the equivalent?


Well, before now, we've had the TASM and the Harpoon. The United States has pursued sea-skimming, low-speed, long range ASM's that when combined with moderately high-survivability and large numbers, could overwhelm enemy ships defences. These weapons packed enough firepower in each missile to mission kill most vessels with a single hit, if not sink them outright.

Probably the greatest threat to the Chinese and Russian carriers, (such as they are) is the American fast attack submarines which no doubt shadow these ships every minute they are deployed out to sea. Even our older 688i's are more than enough sub to kill an entire PLAN battle group with a couple salvos of ADCAPs. When one considers the capabilities of our newer Seawolf, and Virginia-class subs, the need for a guided ASBM melts away. These sharks are very much the silent killers of the deep, and we have enough of them in our inventory to ruin the PLAN or Russian Federation's Navy entire day.

Now, we are standing at the edge of the future, and looking down the road at ultra-stealthy, highly intelligent, network integrated ASM's like the JSM/NSM, and LRASSM. It's a very different type of ship killing, and in my opinion, much more likely to achieve results because it builds upon techniques and technologies that we have already seen proven in battle.

Beyond these new ASMs we are starting to see development of hypersonic strike weapons like the hypersonic glide vehicle, and the railgun. It is unknown if these weapons could mature into anti-ship weapons, but if I were involved at all in acquiring weapons for the US DOD, it's definitely a course I'd probably be working towards



mikmykWS -> RE: What Weapon DOES US Have to Counter DF-21? (7/28/2014 2:13:16 AM)


quote:

This is one of my primary reasons for doubting the Chinese claims. Why indeed, did the Soviets not develop this weapon decades ago when they had the technological capability, and the doctrinal methodology to employ it? And now, suddenly, almost overnight, the Chinese pull this rabbit out of the hat, and it's supposed to be the lynchpin to saving their eggrolls from American CSGs? Nah.... I'd bet against it.



It wasn't developed overnight though.

This program started in the wake of the Taiwan Crisis in the 90's. The PRC was able to blockade Taiwan by declaring an exercise zone and shooting SRBMs into their shipping lanes. This was checked when 2 US CVBGs arrived. So the lessons were that US carriers would have to be dealt with and that SRBMs could be useful in doing this ( later by actually hitting a carrier with them).

This is rocket science but the Chinese have given me no reason in the last 10 years to think they couldn't do it. They do have some of the best ballistic missiles and ASM's and continue to develop them.

Thanks!

Mike



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8442383