3 ms·
>>>>Warheads on the DF-21/26 aren't the same size as the missile diameter For some reason finding physical radar dimensions is not easy. Even if the warhead is
by CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>>Warheads on the DF-21/26 aren't the same size as the missile diameter
For some reason finding physical radar dimensions is not easy. Even if the warhead is ~1m to the DF-21/26's 1.4m, that's still enough to stuff in one of these: [1] one of the most powerful A2A radars ever. [2]&[3] are <60cm diameter. [3] is known Chinese tech, and is therefore most within the realm of feasibility for employment.
>>>And the missiles won't have that much maneuverability
They shouldn't need much, just enough to turn a near-miss into a full miss (assuming a frag detonation and not a more difficult kinetic kill anyway). Topol-Ms are rumored to have evasive maneuver capabilities, to establish precedent.
>>>>Plus you're forgetting about SM6. This will eat these for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Nah I just lumped them in with the SM2/3. Regardless of the actual SAM used you're going to shoot 2 of them per incoming contact. The SM6 tests listed on the Wiki all used 2 missiles per MRBM target.[6]
>>>Assuming that the DF21 can even burn through the ECM that will be blasting it.
Ummmmm, pointing insanely powerful radio emissions into the upper atmosphere in an attempt to blind a ballistic missile is a great way to broadcast your position. If anything, might be a good idea to configure several DF-21s for passive direction finding. Not sure if the DF-21s have any kind of datalink, the speeds and atmospheric conditions will make that difficult, but P-700 Granit missiles have a networked cooperative capability and those things are decades old.
>>>>An 1100lb warhead will be similar in effect to a Harpoon.
A Harpoon has a <500lb warhead [4]. 1100lbs is closer to a Tomahawk. For reference, the P-700's warhead (and it's definitely considered "carrier killer" ordnance) is ~1600lbs.
>>>You might get lucky and have a mission kill
A 500kg warhead with a vertical attack profile, if it hits, is practically a guaranteed mission kill. The CVN will lose catapults or an elevator at the least, and suffer a gigantic detonation inside its hangar at worst. Either way it's a PR victory and its entire air wing is no longer contributing to the fight.
>>>>>And if we go to war with the PRC, we won't be using one CVN. We'll be surging 2-3 CVBGs, and they'll run out of missiles.
If they run out of anti-carrier ballistic missiles they'll send drone-converted 3rd-generation aircraft, which is a great way to burn up our anti-air ordnance.[5] If anything they'll use those FIRST to exhaust our defenses, then fire the DF-21/26s, then follow up with a land-based strike package to finish the task force off. China's land-based strike aircraft all outrange the combat radius of carrier aircraft + ordnance by a significant margin. We'll run out of ordnance within the Nine Dash Line / First Island Chain before China does.
Oh, not that I ever expect a 100-missile DF-21 salvo anyway. I don't think they have anywhere near that many launchers, and our best bet would be Tomahawk strikes from submarines against the launchers early in the war.
FYI: I've spent ~5 years in the west Pacific Theater, 3 of those at a Corps-level combined arms headquarters that regularly wargames ahem a "peer fight" against a fictional country with a ballooning blue water navy and an authoritarian government, if you catch my meaning. I've spent a LOT of time reading exercise AARs, intel updates, and threat briefs from the past ten years on this problem set, courtesy of the ///SECRET Intelink portal. But I'm arguing entirely from open-source info here.
Oh, and check out RAND's site here:[7] It's 2 years out of date but if anything the US's relative situation has deteriorated. But it's a good quick summary of the balance of power.
[1]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOke7iN2vaI/AAAAAAAAAJs/2pgY49MFzZ4/s1600/Phazotron+JSC's+Radars-4.jpg https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOke7iN2vaI/AAAAAAAAA...
[2]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOkeIyMnjDI/AAAAAAAAAJk/nsjPL6tqDlk/s1600/Phazotron+JSC's+Radars-3.jpg https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOkeIyMnjDI/AAAAAAAAA...
[3]https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-block-iiis-proposed-aesa-radar-klj-7a.458854/page-18 https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-block-iiis-proposed-aes...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)
[5]http://aviationintel.com/as-highlighted-on-this-site-as-a-threat-for-years-chinas-converted-surplus-fighter-drone-force-eyeballed-from-space/ http://aviationintel.com/as-highlighted-on-this-site-as-a-th...
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM
[7]https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html
- greedo 7y agoFor maneuverability of the warheads, I was focusing more on them being able to adjust to a shifting target location, not avoiding SAMs. I don't think decoys and other countermeasures to ABM defences are currently relevant to non-ICBM platforms for the near future. I think that the bigger issue with protecting the CVBGs isn't DF-21/26 but that lack of missile magazine depth and reloading. We can't even fill most of the VLS we have now, and as you mentioned, it'd be pretty simple to degrade our AD with threats that require a response but aren't as dangerous. And since replenishment at sea for VLS is not currently practiced, ships would have to cycle through Yokosuka (assuming it's still a functioning base after whatever the PLAN does) for reloads. And since we have relatively shortlegged "interceptors" for the CVNs, with shortlegged AAMs (as currently deployed), I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN decides that ALCMs still have tremendous value. Hell, we don't even deploy with full airwings these days. At least the PLAN is pretty far behind in subs. For now.
- eloff 7y agoI just want to say this was a fascinating and eye opening discussion from you two. Thanks for the content.
- CapricornNoble 7y agoAgreed on all points, especially our need to lean on our overwhelmingly-capable submarine force.