The improved Dongfeng 21D - a game changer, analysts say

[Skybird]

From the Financial Times

(text quoted via Google since their access is restricted)

===========

Chinese missile shifts power in Pacific

By Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: December 28 2010 11:58


A new Chinese anti-ship missile that will significantly alter the balance of military power in the Pacific is now operational, according to a senior US commander.

Admiral Robert Willard, the top US commander in the Pacific, said the Chinese ballistic missile, which was designed to threaten US aircraft carriers in the region, had reached “initial operational capability”.

His remarks signal that China is challenging the US ability to project military power in Asia much sooner than many had expected.


The US and other countries in the Pacific region are increasingly concerned at the speed with which China is developing its naval power. Japan, for example, recently decided to refocus its military on the potential threat from China (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6b02908-0985-11e0-8c68-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html#axzz19P8kzL00).

“So now we know – China’s [anti-ship ballistic missile] is no longer aspirational,” Andrew Erickson, an expert on the Chinese military at the US Naval War College, said in response to Adm Willard’s comments to the Asahi newspaper.

Defence analysts have called the Dongfeng 21 D missile a “game changer” since it could force US aircraft carriers to stay away from waters where China does not want to see them. These include the Taiwan Strait where a potential conflict could develop over the self-ruled island which China claims.
The land-based missile is designed to target and track aircraft carrier groups with the help of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and over-the-horizon radar. Aircraft carriers and their accompanying ships are unable to defend themselves against such a threat.

Aware of the missile’s development, the Pentagon has already started considering ways to counter the new threat, including a new concept for more closely integrated navy and air force operations.

Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said in September, the development of such a missile would force the Pentagon to rethink the way carriers were deployed.

“If the Chinese or somebody else has a highly accurate anti-ship cruise or ballistic missile that can take out a carrier at hundreds of miles of ranges and therefore in Asia puts us back behind the second island chain, how then do you use carriers differently in the future?” Mr Gates asked.

The second chain of islands runs from the Bonins along the Marianas, Guam and Palau, forming a north-south line east of Japan and the Philippines. This line defines what China sees as its “near seas” – waters in which the US navy now frequently operates and are home to US naval bases and allies such as Japan and South Korea.

Adm Willard noted this year that China’s anti-ship ballistic missile was undergoing extensive testing and was close to deployment. Observers believe China started production of missile motors last year and that the Chinese military is preparing a nuclear missile base in the southern city of Shaoguan for their deployment.

Defence analysts have also linked several missile flight tests this year to the new weapon but no conclusive evidence has been available to date.
Adm Willard’s latest comments appear to remove any doubts. The term “initial operational capability” as used by the Pentagon indicates that some military units have started deployment of the weapon and are capable of using it.

Mr Erickson said: “Beijing has successfully developed, tested, and deployed the world’s first weapons system capable of targeting a moving carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.” .

Adm Willard said the new Chinese weapon was still not fully-operational and would probably undergo testing for “several more years”. The key remaining step is a comprehensive test of the entire system at sea, which is much more difficult than test flights over land.

China also needs to deploy more satellites to ensure seamless tracking of a moving target at sea. But defence experts warn that the weapon would immediately be a threat to US carriers because China could make up for a lack in accuracy by launching larger numbers of missiles.



The Financial Times Limited 2010.

================

Since quite some time I think that carriers are a weapon whichcan deal out their typical advantages only against enemies of inferior military capability, but become the more a vulnerable prey the more sophisticated the enemy's technology, range and numerical options are. Like WWII saw the shift from battleships to carriers, modern subs relativised the strength of carrier groups at sea when engaged in a direct duel. A modern missile like the 21-D, once it has been certified as fully operational under conditions at sea, can annihilate carriers at ranges were the carrrier'S fighters cannot strike back, or defend, and ship-mounted defence measures always can be overloaded by "flooding" the airspace with attackers, which already now may compansate for the still existing lacking naval reconnaissance and satellite capacity of the Chinese. But the Chinese are modernising and improving at a spectacular rate, right now already belonging to the international spearhead in military research in some areas (cyberwar, drones, stealth-drones, certain kinds of missiles). It is unlikely that the Chinese will make the mistake to not increase their satellite capacity as well.

I think we have entered the time of sunset of the carrier era, at least carriers being used against military opponents that could fight on the same eye level - and in their own territories: from a position of superiority.

[Platapus]

The only game changer will be that the US congress will use this as a justification for increased military spending, in selected states of course, in the name of "national security".

More spending that we can't afford...

I guess it is not a game changer after all. :nope:

[XabbaRus]

Wasn't this discussed some time ago? I'm not too sure about it as it requires pretty good up to the minute targetting info, even if it is a ballistic missile travelling many thousands of miles and hour. Give the development that ship borne ABMs have been going through in the US I would have thought that the US Navy has some counter to it.

[Skybird]

The Dongfeng is no "new" system, but the present developement stage is more advanced than assumed, this is how I interpret the article. Note that is is now about to be fielded after several tests over this year, and now needs kind of finetuning to maritime conditions, and a supportive satellite/recce environment. It also seems to me that the Pentagon is more alarmed about it, than before, and than they admit (who wants to voluntarily admit in public that his shiny flagship platform and strategy is about to be neutralised by the opponent?). China has surprised us repeatedly over the past years with the speed of their military advancements - last but not least in the submarine area. Their modernisation programs runs faster than it was thought possible. Much faster.

That we volunztarily closed the tech gap of them and delivered them the knowhow to now run their own highly successful hightech industry, may have something to do with it. We should not complain, we got what we wanted - meaningless economic short-term profits in the past that now play no role anymore. Of course, assuming the Chinese national system and politics would change if we do business with them, was naive from the first day on. Another hurting truth that no politician is ready to admit. We got what we wanted, now we pay the price. Completely our own fault.

I still think, and also take it from the occasional odd comment in this forum, that not a few people still underestimate the Chinese military.

Give the development that ship borne ABMs have been going through in the US I would have thought that the US Navy has some counter to it.
The problem is that a success rate of let's say 90% of ABM measures means nothing if the enemy is able to launch one or two or three dozens of cheap missiles (compared to an expensive carrier) of which each has the capability to destroy the carrier, completely. The 21D flight profile and navigation system also is said to be tricky to be tracked and forecasted, and is of the latest generation.

[Rockstar]

I still think all this mess is China flexing it's muscle. Once our neighbors start believing we can't confidently project power in that area. Our influence dwindles and China becomes the big man on campus. No time like the present I'd say especially with the U.S. in two other countries already.

Air power manned or unmanned is a game changer. It's improved recon, destroyed enemy infrastructure with ease, mighty battleships have become obsolete and now it seems the carrier group is next.

[Madox58]

You can wipe the enemy from the field.
But until you can actually take the ground and hold it?
You haven't done much except buy time.
What you bought may not be worth the final price paid.
If some insane fool in China did sink a U.S. Carrier with this?
I'd see a bright Glow on the Western Horizon most likely.

[Skybird]

You can wipe the enemy from the field.
But until you can actually take the ground and hold it?
You haven't done much except buy time.
What you bought may not be worth the final price paid.
If some insane fool in China did sink a U.S. Carrier with this?
I'd see a bright Glow on the Western Horizon most likely.
Considering mutual nuclear exchanges, that cannot be won. Nuclear weapons are only an option as long as the enemy has no nuclear weapon capacity. That is why it is so parampount in importance to prevent a hostile regime to become a nuclear power, and act to prevent that as long as it still is none. This was ignored with Pakistan, and I fear it gets again ignored with Iran. Both mean nothing but troubles.

The Chinese are preparing their military to not only defend their homeland, but also to protect their vital economic interests and international maritime supply lines, as well as preparing to bully away the US Navy from the area around Taiwan and the disputed, resources-rich sea areas. That is a kind of warfare that does not need much taking of ground. Except Taiwan - if (what I still doubt) they would land there, they surely have the capability to hold the island if they were able to land on it and overcome Taiwanese defence.

Sooner or later they will reunite with Taiwan anyway, that is the most likely scenario. Taiwan will not have much other choice, once the Chinese pressure has become too strong as if the US could hold out in that situation any longer. The US and the West must not be fought in real war, just making the option of war unavailable to the US is sufficent, since China has several options to outmanouver the US by economic means. We currently see it with their restriction of exports in rare earths (which are not that rare at all, but producing them outside China has been voluntarily given up by US companies, reopemning those capacities will take aroiund 12-15 years from now on), and we can expect Chinese fiscal policies being tailored to slowly take over the leading status as a world currency from the US$, and not before then the free floating of the Yuan maybe will be allowed.

In the Far East, the US already is on the defensive - militarily, economically, and financially. And the Europeans: have become too unimportant as if they can be considered a serious player in that area anymore. Chinese pressure will grow, and faster than the US could compensate. And different to the German reunification, the US is not in a strong position again to seriously influence the terms of Chinese reunification. I do not even expect a compromise like the Hongkong model.

The Dongfeng may also become a factor when considering US carrier control of oil shipping lines in the Middle East. These are of vital importance not only to the West, but China as well.

I think we will also see a growing number of Chinese military bases in Africa, in those countries that they first bound to themselves by attractive fincxial aid and economic deals, and now have started to economically exploit. Raising bases in support of ELINT, naval forces and air units, is the next logical step. They will do that like the European empires maintained coastal bases to maintain their empires - without necessarily occupying whole countries with troops. That Chinese strategy would also explain their motivation and assistance to keep several African conflicts brimming (beside binding Western resources there).

[Rockstar]

Travelling last year I learned Chinese are even in the Bahamas!

[TLAM Strike]

We already have a proven ability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles so the DF-21D isn't so much a game changer as much as just another threat and considering how much a ASBM will cost compared to a ASM I don't think they will be able to mount a saturation attack with these yet. Also these are fired from semi fixed sites vulnerable to destruction.

Also the PLAAF's Badger bombers have the possibility of greater range with IFR than the current DF-21D.

The real effect of the DF-21 missiles we will see in the coming decade(s) is the militarization of space. The DF-21 is also the basis for China's ASAT missile, so putting up birds that can shoot down DF-21Ds and KT series missiles will quickly become a priority. If you can shoot down enemy birds in the air/space than very quickly you can start to shoot at targets on the ground. Combat Aircraft provide the air cover for our fleets and the striking force of them, very soon we may seen combat spacecraft providing space cover for our fleets too... then maybe as a striking force as well.

Remember two words "Casabla-Howitzer"

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9892/camosuit.gif

[Tessa]

Considering mutual nuclear exchanges, that cannot be won. Nuclear weapons are only an option as long as the enemy has no nuclear weapon capacity. That is why it is so parampount in importance to prevent a hostile regime to become a nuclear power, and act to prevent that as long as it still is none. This was ignored with Pakistan, and I fear it gets again ignored with Iran. Both mean nothing but troubles.


While China may have/has nuclear ordinance, I don't think that they (I agree with you that many here underestimate China as a threat, I found that out while working for the DOD) would have the will to launch them and allow for detonation. Launching their missles and then having them abort and fall into the ocean 2 or 3 minutes before impact is something I could see happening; to be the one the fires the first nuclear shot is only going to kill themselves.

The retaliation even if only conventional bombs were used (in this case, I could see them not using smart bombs) would be massive. A massive sky full of B-52's each dropping 10 tons of ordinance (or those nasty air-sea fuel bombs) on their missle/strategic sites and not caring about any collaterial damage (i.e. civilian casualties) would likely stop all hostile actions and reconsider how much of their population they are willing to sacrifice in order to make their point. Eventually those bombers will start going over industrial targets in more urban areas, if 100,000 people die in the process that's just too bad; and the more they keep bombing those numbers will start to get atrocious.

As fanatical as the Chinese are, I'm not sure that even their operators would have it in them to push the button/turn the key that they know will likely result in not just the destruction of their own country, but potentially start the chain reaction that leads to the everyone looses scenario when you use nuclear ordinance.

[Skybird]

Tessa, I was directly answering to privateer who indicated that in case of the Chinese striking a US carrier the US would open the nuclear exchnage and turn China into a bright glow at the Wetsern horizon. ;) See my remarks in that context. I agree, China would not start a nuclear war with the US. Nor would the US do that with China. Both would lose dozens and hundreds of millions in lives. No matter the outcome, nobody can be seen as a winner under such circumstances. That why I said nuclear weapons are only an option as long as the other side does not have them.

[Skybird]

We already have a proven ability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles so the DF-21D isn't so much a game changer as much as just another threat and considering how much a ASBM will cost compared to a ASM I don't think they will be able to mount a saturation attack with these yet. Also these are fired from semi fixed sites vulnerable to destruction.

Also the PLAAF's Badger bombers have the possibility of greater range with IFR than the current DF-21D.

The real effect of the DF-21 missiles we will see in the coming decade(s) is the militarization of space. The DF-21 is also the basis for China's ASAT missile, so putting up birds that can shoot down DF-21Ds and KT series missiles will quickly become a priority. If you can shoot down enemy birds in the air/space than very quickly you can start to shoot at targets on the ground. Combat Aircraft provide the air cover for our fleets and the striking force of them, very soon we may seen combat spacecraft providing space cover for our fleets too... then maybe as a striking force as well.

Remember two words "Casabla-Howitzer"



The American ABM capacity is anything but "reliable" so far. Successes are poutnumbered by failures, and the successes scored so far were acchieved under cleaned and ideal circumstances. I would recommend not to read too much into it.

And as I said: every area defence against incoming missiles can be saturated beyond breaking point.

I agree on the militarization of space, I would also mention cyberwar, and the neutralising of enemy C3I capacities. Imagine the US military suddenly being cut off from its global sensor network, or GPS and communication satellites disconnected. That would dramatically neutralise many of the advanatges of American combat forces. Their efficiency would go down, and their losses would go up. See this in the light of limited availability of platforms and soldiers, and limited tolerance of the American public for high own losses.

[TLAM Strike]

The American ABM capacity is anything but "reliable" so far. Successes are poutnumbered by failures, and the successes scored so far were acchieved under cleaned and ideal circumstances. I would recommend not to read too much into it. The SM-3 has a success rate of over 80%. The DoD is now planning on making land based SM-3 batteries.

I lost the list of PAC-3 engagements I had in OIF but it's record was really good. :damn:

And as I said: every area defence against incoming missiles can be saturated beyond breaking point. Simple budgeting. A ballistic missile costs far more that a cruise missile. For example a Trident missile costs $29 million while a Harpoon missile costs $1.2 million. (That is 24 Harpoons for the price of one Trident). The different branches of the PLA are all fighting for the piece of the same pie so someone has to build fewer of something. If they build large numbers of DF-21Ds we deploy larger numbers of SM-3s to counter them, since they then can deploy fewer numbers of say C-803s it evens out.

I agree on the militarization of space, I would also mention cyberwar, and the neutralising of enemy C3I capacities. Imagine the US military suddenly being cut off from its global sensor network, or GPS and communication satellites disconnected. That would dramatically neutralise many of the advanatges of American combat forces. Their efficiency would go down, and their losses would go up. See this in the light of limited availability of platforms and soldiers, and limited tolerance of the American public for high own losses. I sort of agree on the cyberwar thing, but I see it as more of a Strategic Weapon to damage a countries economy and infrastructure than something to disrupt the military. Optimally military computer systems should be isolated from general access to the world at large.

I do think that the current generation of military satellites are very vulnerable, they have do not defensive systems, it wasn't until the 1980s they started encrypting access to them! For recon sats shooting them down is fairly easy but hacking them would be difficult in wartime I think since there are such simple countermeasures; have them only accept new tasking while they pass over CONUS, and orders are transmitted at a random shifting frequency. Anyone tries transmitting new tasking from the CONUS they get paid a visit by the FBI, anyone outside of CONUS tries transmitting new tasking maybe they get visited by a Tomahawk.

GPS is somewhat harder to mess with since its a transmitting system. Simple to stop hacking, patch the birds OS to not accept new commands for a set period of time. Shooting down GPS birds is somewhat harder since they are in a higher orbit.

Our Recon Birds would probably be shot down quite quickly and have to be replaced by UAVs. GPS would generally be OK. Of course we can shoot down China's recon birds as well rendering their DF-21s useless as anti-ship weapons assuming we can splash their maritime patrol planes as well and destroy their fixed OTH radar sites.

[Skybird]

80% you say on the SM-3, well that is even worse than what I said with 90%. It means that statistically when you try to stop 5 incoming missiles, one of them will get through.

The budgeting thing also is not correctly given by you, becasue you have to compare the 21D not to a cruise missle, but to a carrier and its fighterwings, and I would argue also to the attached flotilla protecting the carrier, because certain ship classes like the Aegis cruiser exist only because of just one single job of theirs: to protect carriers. That'S what they were designed for.

Carriers are top priority targets for the Chinese. The 21D is a cheaper solution to neutralise them, even if they are needed by the dozens to defeat the carrier's defence by "flooding" them. And as it is claimed: you need only one 21D hitting the target in order to obliterate it. Do you really want to bet your money on the carrier when let'S say 16 21D are fired, that they all will be shot down, all 16? You can assume that they will be equipped with the latest navigation systems by the Chinese. Already today their flight path characteristics are described to be "tricky" to be tracked.

I think you are uncritically too convinced by US technology here. But China really is no longer fighting with stones and axes. ;) You better start to take them serious, before your sailors will need to learn the lesson the hard way. I think the Pentagon has started to understand this. The Chinese submarine threat, the cyber threat and the missile threat are now priority concerns, it seems to me.

Let'S do like any good pilot: let'S not assume that the autopilot should be trusted blindly.

[the_tyrant]

Relax, Chinese internet warfare capabilities are minimal at best

I have been to a Chinese hacking/security conference before
its surprising, as most of the people there are talking about "defacing" and "stealing accounts"
As for the government speaker, he was talking about new and faster ways to censor websites. Preventing the spread of non government sanctioned information

[Skybird]

The Chinese military has established a cyberwarfare organisation long before the Americans did. Not much is known about them, but insiders of the matter estimate the size of this organisation to be between 50,000 and 250,000 military personell. Most acts of cyber espionage carried out in the world, derive from China - not the US or Russia. Together with non-organised private and criminal hackers, China scores for more than the half of all global hacking taking place today.

Private hobby hackers are not my concern. The officially supported and organised military activity and the professionally run economic espionage and infiltration of governmental networks is what worries me. And I can promise you that you have not heared about that at a public conference of Chinese private hackers. ;)

[CaptainHaplo]

80% you say on the SM-3, well that is even worse than what I said with 90%. It means that statistically when you try to stop 5 incoming missiles, one of them will get through.

No, this assumes a 1 for 1 shot - which no CGC is going to do. We have had the ability to "basket fire" since Aegis, which means your going to have multiple missiles targetted at each inbound. With each target getting, say... 3 interceptors - the chances of any individual incoming making it through is miniscule.

Your fighting a war on paper under rules that would never be used, so the "determined" outcome is faulty. Garbage in, Garbage out....

[TLAM Strike]

80% you say on the SM-3, well that is even worse than what I said with 90%. It means that statistically when you try to stop 5 incoming missiles, one of them will get through. which is why more than one missile are sent to for each incoming missile. Its SOP today to send up two each today.

The budgeting thing also is not correctly given by you, becasue you have to compare the 21D not to a cruise missle, but to a carrier and its fighterwings, and I would argue also to the attached flotilla protecting the carrier, because certain ship classes like the Aegis cruiser exist only because of just one single job of theirs: to protect carriers. That'S what they were designed for. Any weapon is cheaper if it sinks a carrier! :damn:

Weapons are always cheaper than the defense against it otherwise the weapon would not be built! :nope: (most of the time anyways)

You could spend 4 billion dollars to have a evil witch cast a spell on the carrier that sends it in to the 9th dimension and still come out on the positive side of the monies expended.

Even if you sink a carrier you still have a task force of highly mobile air defense systems armed with long range strike missiles. The CVN isn't the only vessel in the Navy that provides power projection.

Carriers are top priority targets for the Chinese. The 21D is a cheaper solution to neutralise them, even if they are needed by the dozens to defeat the carrier's defence by "flooding" them. Not really... I don't have cost statics for Chinese gear so I'll use US stuff..

1 Trident Missile $29 Million
vs
1 F/A-18E Hornet $55 Million
6 Harpoon Missiles $6 Million
= $61 Million.

So for the cost of two DF-21s a single fighter bomber can fire 6 shots and in theory RTB and rearm (DF-21 is a single use weapon).

For the cost of another DF-21 a fighter bomber could rearm 4 more times. That is 30 total missile attacks.

Are you starting to see an economic problem of using such expensive weapons?

And as it is claimed: you need only one 21D hitting the target in order to obliterate it. One DF-21 would not obliterate a CVN, just prevent it from conducting air ops. The sat images of the test areas for the DF-21s show only 3 10 meter wide craters and numerous sub munition (like cluster bomblet) impacts. A hit would force the carrier to withdraw and be put in drydock, and most of the planes on deck would probably be lost or severely damaged, but it would not be a total loss.

Do you really want to bet your money on the carrier when let'S say 16 21D are fired, that they all will be shot down, all 16? Lets see 16 DF-21s vs Four Aegis Destroyers equipped with up to 384 SAMs and capable of tracking 400 targets at once... yea I'm betting on the USN. I'm guess that 30-40 would be necessary to score a hit, even more if a a line of destroyers are sent closer to shore (or land based missiles from Guam) to engage the DF-21s in their 2nd stage of flight.

You can assume that they will be equipped with the latest navigation systems by the Chinese. And our ships are armed with our latest tracking, targeting and jamming systems. Whats is your point?


Already today their flight path characteristics are described to be "tricky" to be tracked. During terminal flight is the only time when this weapon would be tricky to track. At launch this thing makes a massive heat bloom detected by our early warning birds. In their second stage of flight they are tracked by our radars, any mid course corrected will be spotted by our birds on thermal. When they reach their 3rd stage of flight (the terminal stage) that is whey they can deploy anti-intercept countermeasures, but these DF-21s rely partially on SAR to acquire their targets- that can be use to guide our missiles or could be jammed.

I think you are uncritically too convinced by US technology here. But China really is no longer fighting with stones and axes. ;) You better start to take them serious, before your sailors will need to learn the lesson the hard way. I think the Pentagon has started to understand this. The Chinese submarine threat, the cyber threat and the missile threat are now priority concerns, it seems to me.

Let'S do like any good pilot: let'S not assume that the autopilot should be trusted blindly. I do take them seriously, but I don't think that some new weapon they just rolled out immediately makes our forces useless. We have the largest defense budget in the world, we have the most diverse inventory of weapons of any nation and that is where our strength lies; any new weapon of our enemy's we can counter balance with several of our own.

[Skybird]

TLAM, again you dodge the fiancial formula. the Dongfeng has been built for only one purpose - to kill carriers. You cannot compare it to the cost of a Hornet, or six Harpoons - you can only compare it to the cost of a total carrier plus all its fighter wings and escorts. Those escorts, with the exception of the 688, do not make much more sense in a hot war environment against an enemy which is technologically en par and operates close to his supply bases, while you do not. Since Adm Gorshkov's famous quote it is common thinking that naval conflicts are short, brutal and incredibly intense in ammo consummation. If you run a CVG groupü withiout a carrier inside striking range of China, you will run low on ABM ammo very soon. Your flotilla effectilvy is nothing more than floating targets for one of the most heavily missile-armed combat force on this planet.

You seem to will to risk a carrier group on the basis of assuming that you are capable with your technology to prevent that one single 21D penetrating the defence shield and annihilating the carrier. Well, I do not share your optimism, not on the statistical chances, and not on the fail-safety of the technology you use. In fact military hightech tends to have more breakdown times and periods when it is switched off for repairs, than many people assume. The occassional odd event and unlucky circumstance not even taken into account.

China now hosts the fastest supercomputer in the world. They are building their own satellite system. They are leading in stealth drone design. Half of their submarine fleet, numerically growing anyway, is now rated to be of modern types. Economically and fina ncially they are much better set up to wage and maintain war efforts, than the US. The probable warzones are close to their supply bases, and inside the aircover shield of their landbased airforce. And last but not least: they can afford to fight in hugh numbers, and can afford to have higher losses, than the US forces.

If all this together does not make you think, then I cannot help you. A war between China and the US in the forseeable future already now would have anything but a certain outcome in favour of the US - it already is a very uncertain thing right now. And the balance is constantly shifting - in China's favour, and against the US. China's power raises. America's is in decline. That's how it is. The tech gap is closing rapidly, and the local numbers speak in favour of China.

One has underestimated Vietnam. One has been hit and then went running in Lebanon, in Somalia. Grenada was anything but a smooth run. Korea - was a draw only, but still the most successful operation in this list of examples. One has underestimated Iraq. One has underestimated Afghanistan. And always was the talk of technological superiority, and hightech. But just a bunch of poorly equipped farmers showed you the limits of your military capacity. But you want to declare certain victory beyond doubt when facing for the first time ever since WWII an enbemy that is en par with your - and has observed your weaknesses and faulures and thus will combine his technological skills with the strategies of non-conventional, asymmetric wars?

As I said, I cannot share this optimism. Technology is not fail-safe, and trusting blindly in it, is not wise. That is especially true for ABM.

BTW, defence against low and slow flying cruise missiles, and against fast and space-flying ICBMs, are two totally different ballgames.

[TLAM Strike]

TLAM, again you dodge the fiancial formula. the Dongfeng has been built for only one purpose - to kill carriers. You cannot compare it to the cost of a Hornet, or six Harpoons - you can only compare it to the cost of a total carrier plus all its fighter wings and escorts. Those escorts, with the exception of the 688, do not make much more sense in a hot war environment against an enemy which is technologically en par and operates close to his supply bases, while you do not. The DF-21 is not a single role weapon. It can be used as a tactical and strategic nuclear delivery system, an Anti Ship weapon, and an anti-satellite weapon. Only diffrence is the payload and trajectory.

Since Adm Gorshkov's famous quote it is common thinking that naval conflicts are short, brutal and incredibly intense in ammo consummation. If you run a CVG groupü withiout a carrier inside striking range of China, you will run low on ABM ammo very soon. Your flotilla effectilvy is nothing more than floating targets for one of the most heavily missile-armed combat force on this planet. One of yes, because we are still number 1. We are talking about a situation of 3,000 fighters against 1,300 (advantage us! :haha: ) and less than 500 of them are modern. We have 6+ ABM systems in concurrent development or deployment, they have one ASBM system in development.

You seem to will to risk a carrier group on the basis of assuming that you are capable with your technology to prevent that one single 21D penetrating the defence shield and annihilating the carrier. Well, I do not share your optimism, not on the statistical chances, and not on the fail-safety of the technology you use. In fact military hightech tends to have more breakdown times and periods when it is switched off for repairs, than many people assume. The occassional odd event and unlucky circumstance not even taken into account. have you heard of redundancy? that is why we maintain more than one ship. If one ship needs to shut down its defences to repairs another takes over. Do you think all the ships in a CSG operate at the same level of readiness at all times?

China now hosts the fastest supercomputer in the world. They are building their own satellite system. They are leading in stealth drone design. Half of their submarine fleet, numerically growing anyway, is now rated to be of modern types. Economically and fina ncially they are much better set up to wage and maintain war efforts, than the US. The probable warzones are close to their supply bases, and inside the aircover shield of their landbased airforce. And last but not least: they can afford to fight in hugh numbers, and can afford to have higher losses, than the US forces. A lot of incorrect assumptions there Sky, China has a fleet of approx 54 submarines including SSBNs, 21 of them are "modern" (that is build after 1985). (In comparison we have 43 "Modern Subs" not incl SSBNs and 12 older subs, if you add the JMSDF you can add 18 more modern subs.) Our land based air force has the range to deploy and operate in the Pacific, that is why we maintain our large tanker force and bases in Guam, Okinawa, Japan, Pearl, and Alaska plus any bases that would fall under our control in the country we are defending (Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Korea etc) Not to mention our bases in Europe, the Mid East and Indian Ocean that can strike them from the other direction. We have operationally deployed stealth drones, China is still deploying their Preditor and Global Hawk knockoffs.

If all this together does not make you think, then I cannot help you. A war between China and the US in the forseeable future already now would have anything but a certain outcome in favour of the US - it already is a very uncertain thing right now. And the balance is constantly shifting - in China's favour, and against the US. China's power raises. America's is in decline. That's how it is. The tech gap is closing rapidly, and the local numbers speak in favour of China. All the world's innovation is still coming from the west, China is only copying it. When China creates the next IPhone, or Google, or Pet Rock I'll consider it...

One has underestimated Vietnam. One has been hit and then went running in Lebanon, in Somalia. Grenada was anything but a smooth run. Korea - was a draw only, but still the most successful operation in this list of examples. One has underestimated Iraq. One has underestimated Afghanistan. And always was the talk of technological superiority, and hightech. But just a bunch of poorly equipped farmers showed you the limits of your military capacity. But you want to declare certain victory beyond doubt when facing for the first time ever since WWII an enbemy that is en par with your - and has observed your weaknesses and faulures and thus will combine his technological skills with the strategies of non-conventional, asymmetric wars? Do you really think that China the most heavily populated and one of the most industrialized nations on earth would launch a unconventional Vietcong style war? A type of war that runs counter to their training, equipment, strategies and doctrines? How would such a doctrine allow them to conduct any sort of offensive military operation? Which is the only reason we would fight them! Fight them to defend our allies in the region or in defense of the US.

BTW, defence against low and slow flying cruise missiles, and against fast and space-flying ICBMs, are two totally different ballgames. You are right on that, cruise missiles are harder to track and engage since they can come in under the horizon and can hide in the radar reflections of waves. Ballistic Missiles attack from space where stealth jumps to zero very fast.

[Skybird]

The Dongfeng originally has been a MRBM, which then got altered to be used as an anti-satellite-system (successful use has been demonstrated), and a new developement on basis of the DF21 has been the carrier-killer, which now has entered a new stage and then got relabvelled as 21-D. We talk about the carrier-.killer version here which is an anti-ship-missile that is powerful enmough to sink a carrier by one hit only - that'S why it is called a carrier killer. We must assume that this was the primary purprose for its developement.

3000 fighters you have, you said. But this is not that part of your force focussing on China, but it is spread around the world. How many of them wouild be relocated to the Chinese theatre? How much would you will to strip other theatres and critical hotspots (Iran, Gulf, the US homeland) off their fighter coverage? How much logistic capacity have the bases in striking range to China so that they can maintain how many fighters exactly? The Chinese, on the other hand, are fighting for and on their own soil, or close to it. They would bring in almost all of their forces, if needed. They also are modernising their airforce, which could also operate under cover from groundbased radar and SAM. American fighters fighting them would need to enter Chinese SAM umbrellas.

Redundancy is all nice and well, still a system efficiency of 80% means that there is an uncalculatable risk of just one DF21 slipping through, ruining the flotilla'S day. Chances are that the flotilla also would need to operate in sub-infested waters.

My info on their drone capabiltiy differs from yours. While they still cannot operate them globally (due to lacking satellite links), the latest drones themselves are at least on the same level like US designs, and more stealthy like those being used in Afghanistan (which need a lot of maintenance, btw.) Again I remind you that the Chinese would operate close to their homeland and bvases - not offcoast California. Korea and Japan all are in striking range of Chinese landbased missiles, your bases there are not safe. About the quality of their sub crews I cannot comment, probably nobody can. But when your own Navy rates half of their fleet as "modern" now, then I take your navy by its own words. Also, China builds new subs, faster than you, more than you. So, the submarine balance also is shifting against you. The pentagon is warning right of this sincer many years, but not too many listen, thinking it is just a trick to get more money. This time, I fear, it is not.

It does not matter whether or not China offers innovations. When they copy the technology of yours, it means that you are up against technology at öleast as sophisticated as yours. You better calculate that they also imporve it. We Germans 30 years ago thought the Japanese were just copying our cars. They did. And then started to imporve the technology. Also, in several military areas, the Chinese technology is not really that uninnovative than you think.

China will chose those tactics and stratgegies in case of war that will hurt you the most. And we all have seen the massive vulnerabiliuty of your forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, there is a difference in mentality, Eastern minbds more often think in terms of "Erschöpfungskriege" ("exhaustive war", like what you had in Vietnam), that avoids decisive battles as soon as possible, but aims and exhgausting the enemy with a long series of needle stings and ongoing constant fighting and ongoing constant losses. Wetsern and especially American mentality is different here, focussing more on the conceot of trying to enforce the oine decisive moment as soon as possible. Endurance in war effort with high losses is something that the Western mind does not like, and the Wetsern public even less, especially when accompanied with high and constant losses. Also, China has build a lot of influence tghrpoughout the world, to make weaker 3rd world nations their allies (and economic vasalls), and having the opotion to initiate proxy wars agaiunst Am werican forces far away from the Chinese theatre, jzust like it is feared that Iran would launch proxy attacks in Iraq and Israel or Lebanon in case of being attacked.

A defence of the US is not the issue, since China certainly has no intention to strike the US homeland. I personally doubt that they would laun ch a full war against Taiwan either. But what they want is intimidating both Taiwan and the US to make them bowing to Chinese demands for any kind of reunification, and what I do not rule out that there will be local military conflicts about resource-rich areas at sea that are either international waters or are disputed between China and its neighbours. The East- and Southchinese Sea are two examples that jump to mind. The military raise of theirs, which tzakes place at a pace that is beyond expecations and is surprising everybody, is aiming at bullying the US navy away from these areas. Right now a war in and for these waters already would be a risky thing for the US, with uncertain outcome, but in the future I think America needs to recognise that it can no longer hold these grounds in case of a determined conflict with the Chinese. After all the whole scenario would not really be a fleet manouver in viewing range of Monterey.

[TLAM Strike]

The Dongfeng originally has been a MRBM, which then got altered to be used as an anti-satellite-system (successful use has been demonstrated), and a new developement on basis of the DF21 has been the carrier-killer, which now has entered a new stage and then got relabvelled as 21-D. We talk about the carrier-.killer version here which is an anti-ship-missile that is powerful enmough to sink a carrier by one hit only - that'S why it is called a carrier killer. We must assume that this was the primary purprose for its developement. Its a <4000lb warhead, or two Kh-22 Missiles. It might destroy the armored flight deck of a Nimitz but it is not sinking her.

But that is assuming they can even be fired. Its very possible their launch sites and their targeting radars will be the first things taken out. Some of China's OTH radar sites are within range of Taiwan's artillery.

3000 fighters you have, you said. But this is not that part of your force focussing on China, but it is spread around the world. How many of them wouild be relocated to the Chinese theatre? How much would you will to strip other theatres and critical hotspots (Iran, Gulf, the US homeland) off their fighter coverage? Many of those hotspots are within range of China using IFR. Montana is within range of China using IFR. We have a proven ability to strike across the world with our long range bombers, thats the reason we keep the air force around (its defiantly not because of their personality).

How much logistic capacity have the bases in striking range to China so that they can maintain how many fighters exactly? The Chinese, on the other hand, are fighting for and on their own soil, or close to it. They would bring in almost all of their forces, if needed. Look at US and Allied bases, they incircle all except for the northern Chinese border with Russia. China must defend it all (and their Russian border) because the US can launch a penetrating attack with long range bombers anywhere along it.


They also are modernising their airforce, Yea so are we. Wait we are not "Modernizing" we are stetting the standard for what everyone else considers "Modern".

which could also operate under cover from groundbased radar and SAM. American fighters fighting them would need to enter Chinese SAM umbrellas. Thats why we have stand off missiles. :yep:

Redundancy is all nice and well, still a system efficiency of 80% means that there is an uncalculatable risk of just one DF21 slipping through, ruining the flotilla'S day. Chances are that the flotilla also would need to operate in sub-infested waters. Which is why as I've said our SOP is to fire two or more missiles meaning that the intercept probability goes up to 160% or 240%.

My info on their drone capabiltiy differs from yours. While they still cannot operate them globally (due to lacking satellite links), the latest drones themselves are at least on the same level like US designs, and more stealthy like those being used in Afghanistan (which need a lot of maintenance, btw.) Well I've seen a lot of models at airshows but I've seen no stealth UAVs in active service with the PLAAF. Can't say the same for the USAF.

Again I remind you that the Chinese would operate close to their homeland and bvases - not offcoast California. Korea and Japan all are in striking range of Chinese landbased missiles, your bases there are not safe. There is a reason those bases would be targeted first, they put they put us in range of China. There is a reason the B-1, B-2 and B-52 operate out of Guam.

About the quality of their sub crews I cannot comment, probably nobody can. I can, their new SSBNs have not moved in 3 years. There sub crews rarely go to sea for more than a few days at a time. In 2008 they conducted a total of 12 patrols, in no year before that have they conducted more than 6. On average PLAN submarines go to sea once every 4 1/2 years.

But when your own Navy rates half of their fleet as "modern" now, then I take your navy by its own words. Also, China builds new subs, faster than you, more than you. So, the submarine balance also is shifting against you. The pentagon is warning right of this sincer many years, but not too many listen, thinking it is just a trick to get more money. This time, I fear, it is not. There still is a massive technology gap between PRC and US Submarines. Our submarines are far more refined than theirs. PRC submarines are kit bashes of different technologies unknown in the PLAN until their introduction for example it wasn't until 1997 that they received a submarine with all digital sonar, we have had such systems since the 1970s. Their torpedoes are known to use chemicals that react explosively in water.

China will chose those tactics and stratgegies in case of war that will hurt you the most. And we all have seen the massive vulnerabiliuty of your forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, there is a difference in mentality, Eastern minbds more often think in terms of "Erschöpfungskriege" ("exhaustive war", like what you had in Vietnam), that avoids decisive battles as soon as possible, but aims and exhgausting the enemy with a long series of needle stings and ongoing constant fighting and ongoing constant losses. Wetsern and especially American mentality is different here, focussing more on the conceot of trying to enforce the oine decisive moment as soon as possible. Endurance in war effort with high losses is something that the Western mind does not like, and the Wetsern public even less, especially when accompanied with high and constant losses. Also, China has build a lot of influence tghrpoughout the world, to make weaker 3rd world nations their allies (and economic vasalls), and having the opotion to initiate proxy wars agaiunst Am werican forces far away from the Chinese theatre, jzust like it is feared that Iran would launch proxy attacks in Iraq and Israel or Lebanon in case of being attacked. Lets see, the US Fought in Vietnam for 10 years (almost), maintained its number of forces across the world, increased the size of its military and when the US decided to pull out of Vietnam had to downsize its military because it was too big (they downsized the volunteers too not just the draftees.)

A defence of the US is not the issue, since China certainly has no intention to strike the US homeland. I personally doubt that they would laun ch a full war against Taiwan either. But what they want is intimidating both Taiwan and the US to make them bowing to Chinese demands for any kind of reunification, and what I do not rule out that there will be local military conflicts about resource-rich areas at sea that are either international waters or are disputed between China and its neighbours. The East- and Southchinese Sea are two examples that jump to mind. The military raise of theirs, which tzakes place at a pace that is beyond expecations and is surprising everybody, is aiming at bullying the US navy away from these areas. Right now a war in and for these waters already would be a risky thing for the US, with uncertain outcome, but in the future I think America needs to recognise that it can no longer hold these grounds in case of a determined conflict with the Chinese. After all the whole scenario would not really be a fleet manouver in viewing range of Monterey. The question we have to ask is will China risk bringing in the US in to a conflict over some islands in the SCS or ECS when the US can attack the Chinese mainland but nice vise versa (except by nuclear ICBM).

[claybirdd]

goody goody gumdrops, I love this thread.

[Skybird]

Which is why as I've said our SOP is to fire two or more missiles meaning that the intercept probability goes up to 160% or 240%.

:06:

Oh-oh, check your math! ;) Three single events à 80% success probability are not 160 (240)%... :D - If you throw a 6-sided dice 6 times, you do not have a 100% probability to get the number you wanted. ;)

Also, probabilities are just that: probabilities. Their reliability does not lie in the calculcation of just a handful events, but in the assumption to have an unlimited number of events - only then you have the mathematical argument to take 80% as actually 80%. If you just have a few events, they still can all show the same outcome, all of them: and it is either the one, or the other. That is the tricky part about probabilities. It is said that nuclear reactors have a likelihood to melt through to China of just one reactor every 2000 years. What does that mean? Theoretically that if you have 2000 reactors wordwide, every year you have one reactor melting through. But that is academical only. But what the 2000 year value does not say is that you could not have several reactors going up in those two thousand years - and all of them in the first 100 years, for example. Or all of them going up within just one year. Only if you assume an infinite ammount of time with an infinite ammount of events, reliabilities become absolute descriptions of the world - but then still not saying anything about distribution patterns of events over time.


Or take board games. You probably remember a day when you played, and threw several times, maybe even unbelievably often, the same number in a row. Take Backgammon. As long as you play only a handful of matches, the novice can beat the master, and the game is a game of sheer luck. Only when playing many matches, the skills of players, strategies and probabilities of dices falling start to play an increasing role. Backgammon is a strategy game only if you play MANY matches.

So, while your success chance goes up when firing more than just one interceptor missile with a success chance of not 100%, your success probability never reaches or exceeds 100%. Never.

My point stands. Currently nobody has a functional, reliable, fully trustworthy ICBM- or MRBM interception system. Star Wars is still science fiction. And the Dongfeng is no Tomahawk or Harpoon, but an MRBM. If it would be easy to shoot it down, then we would read in the news that the USA has a functional anti ballistic missile system and Star Wars now is real.

Plus: it remains a fact that the Pentagon estimates this weapon to be destructive enough to destroy a carrier with just one hit, so just one missile needs to get through. JUST ONE. The defence secretary said once this missile is functional it must be considered to keep carriers out of it's reach and retreat behind a distant defence line, so he obviously does not share your or Haplo's optimism regarding countermeasures in defence against it. You maybe can live with the risk of just one or two cruise missiles hitting a carrier, although that would already be a nightmare if hitting the hangar deck, the weapon stores or a fuel tank. Already that scenario has the potential to take a carrier effectively out of action for months, or neutralising it's aerial capacity dramatically.

And Haplo says I am waging paper wars...? Haplo, I was not about actual procedures, but about the probability of the single event. :)

If the Dongfeng really is that "harmless", then the Chinese would not build it. A weapon like this does not get build in order to just sink a frigate or a cruiser. That would be to shoot with cannons at sparrows.

[TLAM Strike]

:06:

Oh-oh, check your math! ;) Three single events à 80% success probability are not 160 (240)%... :D - If you throw a 6-sided dice 6 times, you do not have a 100% probability to get the number you wanted. ;) Except missiles are self correcting dice. Imagine if you throw down those six dice trying to roll a '6', you throw them all with the same velocity and spin. The first one lands you a '4' so you magically correct the spin and speed to make it land on the numbers you want.

My point stands. Currently nobody has a functional, reliable, fully trustworthy ICBM- or MRBM interception system. Star Wars is still science fiction. And the Dongfeng is no Tomahawk or Harpoon, but an MRBM. If it would be easy to shoot it down, then we would read in the news that the USA has a functional anti ballistic missile system and Star Wars now is real. Star Wars and a Point defense ICBM defense are two different things. SDI was meant to be a all aspect intercept system capable of engaging ICBMs in all three stages of flight, currently we can enagine ICBMs in the last stage of flight or in their second stage of flight using forward deployed assets.

Plus: it remains a fact that the Pentagon estimates this weapon to be destructive enough to destroy a carrier with just one hit, so just one missile needs to get through. JUST ONE. The defence secretary said once this missile is functional it must be considered to keep carriers out of it's reach and retreat behind a distant defence line, so he obviously does not share your or Haplo's optimism regarding countermeasures in defence against it. You maybe can live with the risk of just one or two cruise missiles hitting a carrier, although that would already be a nightmare if hitting the hangar deck, the weapon stores or a fuel tank. Already that scenario has the potential to take a carrier effectively out of action for months, or neutralising it's aerial capacity dramatically. Knocking out air ops is not destroying the carrier! I've said that already.

Also we should sent them closer to China forcing such weapons to be fired on a higher trajectory giving the reentry body less time in the atmosphere to maneuver so a carriers evasive maneuvers are more effective.

If the Dongfeng really is that "harmless", then the Chinese would not build it. A weapon like this does not get build in order to just sink a frigate or a cruiser. That would be to shoot with cannons at sparrows. A single C-802 is mostly harmless. To be effective dozens even hundreds of C-802s need to be used. Same with the DF-21, but the expense of the weapon means that other aspects of the PLA need to be cut back to allow for it to be used in such quantities. In other words they could build sufficient numbers to guarantee that they sink the five or so carriers we have in the Pacific but the rest of their military will be less able to exploit this.

Another thing we have to remember is: this is not a new idea for a weapon! We have been concerned someone (the Soviets) would use such weapons on us since the 1980s. We considered the Soviets using Yankee class subs to deliver such attacks against us when they kept them in service so long. The Soviets fielded a air launched missile (the Kh-15) that has many of the same flight characteristics as the DF-21, similar attack vector and similar terminal speeds. I assume we have developed defenses against this weapon in the past 30 years.

[Skybird]

Except missiles are self correcting dice. Imagine if you throw down those six dice trying to roll a '6', you throw them all with the same velocity and spin. The first one lands you a '4' so you magically correct the spin and speed to make it land on the numbers you want.

Doesn'T matter, that procedure already is included if you say a missile has a hit probability of X %. Mathematically, if you launch three anti-missiles, it is three independent events, each having a probability of the DF surviving of 20%. That equals to use a five-sided dice three times in a row, and every time throwing a "1" - the probability of that event is the probability that the DF does not get shot down by those three SM-2s.

Do you want to risk a multi-billion dollar ship and 60 aircraft aboard and 5p000 personell by betting that in the next round your opposing player does not throw the same number threwe times in a row? I would if it is just about fun or a few cents. If it is about my life or all my property, I would not - too often I have had this situation inngames that right this has happened to me or somebody else. It happens.

The probababilty above getds altered again when considering that maybe also the Chinese wojuld launch more than just one missile. Plus itnerfernce by distracting events - for example timely coordinated submarine maneuvers and attacks, aircraft raids, or whatever.

All I want to say is that that 80% probability per single SM-2 is a good probability, but should not be overrated nevertheless.


Knocking out air ops is not destroying the carrier! I've said that already.
An aircraft carrier not capable for months to launch aircraft, and being in doch (if it msakes it there), is a dead carrier. Whether it swims above or below the waterline, does not matter - it is useless.

Also we should sent them closer to China forcing such weapons to be fired on a higher trajectory giving the reentry body less time in the atmosphere to maneuver so a carriers evasive maneuvers are more effective.

Judging by the quoted comments in the article, the Pentagon disagrees.

A single C-802 is mostly harmless. To be effective dozens even hundreds of C-802s need to be used. Same with the DF-21, but the expense of the weapon means that other aspects of the PLA need to be cut back to allow for it to be used in such quantities. In other words they could build sufficient numbers to guarantee that they sink the five or so carriers we have in the Pacific but the rest of their military will be less able to exploit this.
Question is what emphasis their strategy puts on neutralising the key component of Americas naval strategy. In American public opinion, the loss of just one carrier already for the Chinese is worth more than ten times the cost of building a carrier - because it wpould shift the public opinion against loosing so immense rescources and numbers of lives for "just" defending some foreign nation that meanwhile gets rained with Chinese missiles.

Another thing we have to remember is: this is not a new idea for a weapon! We have been concerned someone (the Soviets) would use such weapons on us since the 1980s. We considered the Soviets using Yankee class subs to deliver such attacks against us when they kept them in service so long. The Soviets fielded a air launched missile (the Kh-15) that has many of the same flight characteristics as the DF-21, similar attack vector and similar terminal speeds. I assume we have developed defenses against this weapon in the past 30 years.

The SSGN threat you mean, I assume. Yes. But those missiles did not have the destruction power the DF21D is claimed to have. Also it was assumed that they would launch their missiles from so close vicinity that the short reaction time was even greater a threat than the possible ammount of destruction itself. Also, the capacity to keep away by carrier-based fighter-power a Soviet battle group built around their missile cruiser of that time, with their enormous firepower, was somewhat undermined by a missle-sub that launches an attack from a range deep within the zone that normally would have been denied to enemy surface activities by carrier-based airpower.

But anyhow, I do not want to claim to be the great naval expert here, I am not. I just posted that article, and I refer to the official American statements quoted in there. And the Admiral and the Ministere said the missile has the capacity to destroy a carrier, and that once it has been adopted to maritime operation conditions, this may force the carrier strategy to be altered and have the carriers stationed outside the reach of this missile. That's all. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

Doesn'T matter, that procedure already is included if you say a missile has a hit probability of X %. Mathematically, if you launch three anti-missiles, it is three independent events, each having a probability of the DF surviving of 20%. That equals to use a five-sided dice three times in a row, and every time throwing a "1" - the probability of that event is the probability that the DF does not get shot down by those three SM-2s.

Do you want to risk a multi-billion dollar ship and 60 aircraft aboard and 5p000 personell by betting that in the next round your opposing player does not throw the same number threwe times in a row? I would if it is just about fun or a few cents. If it is about my life or all my property, I would not - too often I have had this situation inngames that right this has happened to me or somebody else. It happens. Published kill probability are single shot probabilities. Probability increase the more rounds are fired because the additional rounds can be corrected based on the first rounds trajectory. Sort of like using a smaller dice each time you roll.

The probababilty above getds altered again when considering that maybe also the Chinese wojuld launch more than just one missile. Plus itnerfernce by distracting events - for example timely coordinated submarine maneuvers and attacks, aircraft raids, or whatever.All I want to say is that that 80% probability per single SM-2 is a good probability, but should not be overrated nevertheless. [/quote] I'm assuming they are firing large numbers of missiles AEGIS has the capability of engaging many targets at once, something on the order of 3 engaged and 6 tracked at once for the Burkes, and it has the ability of switching targets for missiles in flight.


An aircraft carrier not capable for months to launch aircraft, and being in doch (if it msakes it there), is a dead carrier. Whether it swims above or below the waterline, does not matter - it is useless. But the crew would mostly survive. That's the important part. We got other planes and ships they can man.



Judging by the quoted comments in the article, the Pentagon disagrees. The Pentagon wants money.


Question is what emphasis their strategy puts on neutralising the key component of Americas naval strategy. In American public opinion, the loss of just one carrier already for the Chinese is worth more than ten times the cost of building a carrier - because it wpould shift the public opinion against loosing so immense rescources and numbers of lives for "just" defending some foreign nation that meanwhile gets rained with Chinese missiles. The carrier is not the only striking force of the USN. Two of the Ohio SSGNs are deployed to the Pacific for a reason.



The SSGN threat you mean, I assume.No I'm talking about the SSBN threat. In the 1980s it was theorized by NATO that the Russians to insure they sunk our carriers would use SLBMs with nuclear warheads fired from older Yankee I class submarines to strike them from the North Sea or Northern Atlantic.


Yes. But those missiles did not have the destruction power the DF21D is claimed to have. The DF-21's warhead and kinetic force is the equivalent of 5 TLAM-C warheads or 5,000 lbs of TNT. The 25,000 ton USS Franklin took 1000lbs of bombs to her unarmored flight deck and was still able to sail from Japan to New York, the 3/4 in armor on the bottom of her hanger deck saved her from internal damage, a Nimitz has three times that armor on her flight deck and is 4 times the size of an Essex class carrier. A DF-21 might take out what is on her flight deck, it will probably damage her hanger deck some but that carrier is still going to float.



Also it was assumed that they would launch their missiles from so close vicinity that the short reaction time was even greater a threat than the possible ammount of destruction itself. Also, the capacity to keep away by carrier-based fighter-power a Soviet battle group built around their missile cruiser of that time, with their enormous firepower, was somewhat undermined by a missle-sub that launches an attack from a range deep within the zone that normally would have been denied to enemy surface activities by carrier-based airpower. Russian missiles are long ranged for a reason. They planned to use Satellite recon to target them from long range.


But anyhow, I do not want to claim to be the great naval expert here, I am not. I just posted that article, and I refer to the official American statements quoted in there. And the Admiral and the Ministere said the missile has the capacity to destroy a carrier, and that once it has been adopted to maritime operation conditions, this may force the carrier strategy to be altered and have the carriers stationed outside the reach of this missile. That's all. ;) Don't mistake what is said at press briefings for what is done in real life. Even stationing CSGs outside of DF-21 range is still a major threat to China because of our IFR capability.

But no matter how you figure it any shooting match with China will be messy.

[Skybird]

But the crew would mostly survive. That's the important part. We got other planes and ships they can man.

The carrier as a base is a miss, and if it gets damage sufficient to put it out of compbat operations, then it is a reasonable assumption that its losses in airplanes would be significantly. So would be the losses in life, and injured people. A war at saea probabyl would not last long enough to have these people sailing home on a crippled ship, then stay at hospitals, then rehabilitation, and retraining, reassigning, and then have them fighting again - fighting not from a carrier in that forward combat position anyway, that is for sure. The US Navy has two anchor compnents around which it'S strategy is build, carriers on the surface, and submarines below the surface. But the fire power of a submarine is no replacement for that of a carrier's fighterwing.

The carrier is not the only striking force of the USN. Two of the Ohio SSGNs are deployed to the Pacific for a reason.
.

A sub fires its load, and then it needs to go home - in a war that most likely would not last many weeks but just days. A carrier has a longer endurance and rearm and maintain airplanes for longer combat operations - assuming the fighterwings are still there.

All this assumes that the war would not include Japan and Korea, which is unlikely. China has demonstrated that Japan is within it'S missile range. That means both US bases there as well asd Japan itself are vulnerable. So is Korea. The Us would need to take that into account if it does not want to loose its two closest allies in that region. But over the longer time range you have to expect that both countries, especially Japan, will adopt more or less to Chinese power growing in the region - they cannot act as if this strong and still growing neighbour simply does not exist. Therefore, ties with the US will not necessarily break, but loosen up.

China can very well defend it's continental position, and the sea-areas off the coat, even those outside the 12 mile zone, the Chinese Sea and the Taiwanese Strait. It can do that by submarines and by aircraft and by its navy, plus land-based missiles. It also can bombard Taiwanese cities, and very severly. That they can keep away American carrier groups from these areas and from striking range, and that they can make life for American submarines in these waters miserable and highly dangerous, is what they are after.

And right because they have nuclear weapons as well, the US will think twice and three times before starting to seriously attack and bombard psoitions on continental China. You cannot afford any risks if your enemy has nuclear weapons, too - that'S why they have and keep them.

[Krauter]

Bloody hell, TLAM you're wasting your energy it seems. All of the points you've brought up are valid, all of Skybirds (no offence) seem, to me, to just spin around in circles, already having been counter-argued by you.

On a side note, how different would multiple launches of DF-21s look to NORAD compared to multiple launches of Nuclear ICBMs? Would China want to risk an effort at negating an aircraft carrier (say first strike) being mistaken for a nuclear first strike?

Finally, Adm Williams contradicts himself...

Adm Willard noted this year that China’s anti-ship ballistic missile was undergoing extensive testing and was close to deployment.

The term “initial operational capability” as used by the Pentagon indicates that some military units have started deployment of the weapon and are capable of using it.

Adm Willard said the new Chinese weapon was still not fully-operational and would probably undergo testing for “several more years”.