Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
China Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: China's DF-21A - could it cause a nuke exchange?
reefdiver    8/6/2010 6:09:22 PM
The DF-21A "carrier killer" ballistic missile has been brought up before. Fox has an article today: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/06/chinese-carrier-killer-missile-game-changer-expert-says/ h**p://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/06/chinese-carrier-killer-missile-game-changer-expert-says/ Hypothetical question: if china could indeed get this to work (likely a big 'if'), would its successful use (i.e. sinking of a US carrier) prompt the US to resort to a nuclear response or would the US simply cede the oceans and send its surface fleet home, leaving only long range bombers and submarines to retaliate with conventional weapons. Alternatively, would the US likey absorb the blow, proceed and trust its fleet BM defense systems, assuming the first simply represented unpreparedness?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
YelliChink       8/6/2010 6:21:46 PM
Anybody who study real naval strategy, technology and things of that nature will tell you that Carriers are not very useful when fighting against China.
 
There are few things that will be more useful and much more deadly. The problem is that the USN need more of those, but don't or can't get more.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/9/2010 4:39:18 AM

The DF-21A "carrier killer" ballistic missile has been brought up before. Fox has an article today: link
h**p://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/06/chinese-carrier-killer-missile-game-changer-expert-says/

Hypothetical question: if china could indeed get this to work (likely a big 'if'), would its successful use (i.e. sinking of a US carrier) prompt the US to resort to a nuclear response or would the US simply cede the oceans and send its surface fleet home, leaving only long range bombers and submarines to retaliate with conventional weapons.

Alternatively, would the US likey absorb the blow, proceed and trust its fleet BM defense systems, assuming the first simply represented unpreparedness?


Assuming the DF-21D is non-nuclear, then a nuclear response if off-the-table.  If it is nuclear, then they just signed their death warrant.
 
But it is not/will not be a game changer.  It is just a faster alternative to a cruise missile, that is easier to detect due to its high arching trajectory.  And one that we are already deploying ABM systems on escort vessels that are capable of intercepting it.  By the time China can make it operational the concept will be nearly worthless.  This is just a propaganda exercise, and the Press fell for it (again).
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       8/9/2010 12:45:51 PM
I think the 'back end' part of anti-carrier system would be more challenging.  Need to track and target US carriers, which means China must have good satellite coverage over the Pacific and have subs ready to shadow US CBGs.  The submarine part is going to be perhaps the most difficult as this is not exactly something that can be put together within a matter of decade as this requires qualities in subs and sub crews.  For attacks against US carriers, dismal probability unless US carriers operate within Chinese air coverage and if the latter can at least achieve parity in air superiority.  (But will the US play by Chinese playbook?  Most likely not.)  At any rate, anti-carrier ballistic missile alone is not a panacea.
 
China should steadily build navy primarily to secure nearby seas -- Yellow Sea, East and South China Seas.  Worry about expanding the fleet to become Pacific-capable later on.  As an upstart naval power, it makes more sense to start less ambitious and work out kinks while small.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/9/2010 5:36:19 PM
The hysteria around DF-21 from a chinese perspective is because the carrier is symbolic of US power and force projection - it's the political fall out that will result in US reactions, not the tactical "loss" of a carrier.
 
seriously, this is all fluff and nonsense.  does it have potential?  - yes - is it a gamechanger? - IMO no
 
china does not have any of the companion systems at a sufficient real time development level to be able to use this beyond a very restricted targetting basket - thats not the same as a target.
 
no companion systems means limited capability - and has been pointed out, the US has far better tools to employ if they want to belt china day1 - day3
 
the carriers are a roll up tool, a pressure point too, but other assets would be doing the hard yards on day 1
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       8/9/2010 10:26:07 PM
Also, from a strategic point of view, one cannot devastate monsters like US or China (unless nukes are used), even if one thinks he has 'game-changers'.  Monstrous-sized powers can only be brought down by executing attrition in your favor.  As a matter of fact, China has done quite well by sticking to trade and finance game, not open military confrontation with the US.  It is only a matter of time before China becomes the single biggest economic power on this planet.  (Two trends:  The world energy and mineral prices will increasingly depend on thirst and hunger from China and developing powers and the same developing powers are heavily investing in their infrastructures.)  China can worry about its own 'Great White Fleet' after that point.
 
Quote    Reply

Thuan    How many missles with nuclear warheads do you think China aims at the U.S?   8/10/2010 9:15:59 AM
So you think that if china's DF-21D armed with nuclear warheads used to sink the U.S. Aircraft carrier is the death warrant signed by China. Why don't you ask yourself how many missiles with nuclear warheads China aims at the U.S? If the Americans used nuclear weapons against China, the Americans signed a death warrant too.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       8/10/2010 10:26:17 AM


Assuming the DF-21D is non-nuclear, then a nuclear response if off-the-table.  If it is nuclear, then they just signed their death warrant.

 .....
That's the catch, isn't it?
How do we safely assume that an inbound BM isn't nuclear?
Do BM's carry IFF transponders like aircraft that trasmit what kind of missile they are and what kind of warhead they carry?
 
IIRC, a similar contradictory argument was made as to why the US couldn't really develop conventionally-armed warheads for Trident missiles for use from subs for part of that Prompt Global Strike system: how does the targeted nation know for certain, other than just our word, that nuclear ballistic missiles aren't being used against them?
 
Does the USN willingly sacrifice a carrier and 4000+ lives to justify its inaction against the chinese missile launch?
 
I fear the boycotting of china in the US (and numerous hate crimes against "chinese looking" people) will prove far more detrimental in the long term against a chinese missile launch than any military strike the US could offer in retaliation.
We already have more than enough people in America who cringe when muslims are seen in their communities ans stores, even if all muslims weren't tied to 9/11.
So the notion that china would easily get off the hook for some kind of "total misunderstanding" I don't think is going to fly with the American public (the true, patriotic American public,
not those scumbags who would preach that the "evil American government war machine got what was coming to them").

Question might be: how many people and assets would mainland china be willing to risk, just to bloody the nose of the mighty Americans?
 
This is, of course, an all-theoretical scenario. The backlash vs china (from not just the US but anyone in the region who would suddenly feel their security threatened by this now-demonstrated (were it to actually happen) chinese capability) should be more than enough deterrent to prevent it from happening at all.
 
...but, nations have been known to do stupid things.
 
Quote    Reply

Thuan       8/10/2010 7:24:22 PM
The stupid Americans keep thinking that the U.S. has thousands of nuclear warheads and China has less than 50 ICBMs that could hit the U.S. So the stupid Americans assumed that the U.S. could destroy China and China could only do a little damage to the U.S. The stupid Americans should think it over and ask yourself how many ICBMs China aims at the U.S. China can hit the U.S with ICBMs like DF-5, DF-5A, DF-31, DF-31A and DF-41. The stupid Americans sign their death warrant if they use nuclear weapons against China.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       8/11/2010 5:18:48 PM

The stupid Americans keep thinking that the U.S. has thousands of nuclear warheads and China has less than 50 ICBMs that could hit the U.S. So the stupid Americans assumed that the U.S. could destroy China and China could only do a little damage to the U.S. The stupid Americans should think it over and ask yourself how many ICBMs China aims at the U.S. China can hit the U.S with ICBMs like DF-5, DF-5A, DF-31, DF-31A and DF-41. The stupid Americans sign their death warrant if they use nuclear weapons against China.

US carriers can be used to contain the PLAN and the Chinese commercial fleet, picking off everything from subs to the Viagra to fishing boats and coastal barges.  Not to mention breaking up civilian and port facilities.
 
That may provide more economic damage than any nuke.
 
And a nuke strike against China, even a limited one, would free up E. Turkestan, S. Mongolia, Manchuria and Tibet/Sichuan to leave China (as Sichuan was a part of Tibet).  The PLA would be so occupied with the resulting catastrophe that freedom fighters would be unstoppable.
 

 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/11/2010 5:43:16 PM

The stupid Americans keep thinking that the U.S. has thousands of nuclear warheads and China has less than 50 ICBMs that could hit the U.S. So the stupid Americans assumed that the U.S. could destroy China and China could only do a little damage to the U.S. The stupid Americans should think it over and ask yourself how many ICBMs China aims at the U.S. China can hit the U.S with ICBMs like DF-5, DF-5A, DF-31, DF-31A and DF-41. The stupid Americans sign their death warrant if they use nuclear weapons against China.

Stupid Americans?  as opposed to silly chinese kids who don't understand that France is militarily stronger than china at a force delivery level - and that France actually has a working nuclear triad - china doesn't - she's barely got a functioning nuclear powered sub - let alone a sub that can actually go out and do its mission effectively.  That silly chinese kids don;t realise that the PLAN is second rate and nowhere near the technical or firepower competency of the Japanese?
china is a superpower in her own mind, unable to militarily effect change ahainst any country with a modern military - and certainly not against any country beyond the air protection she can afford her southern most fleets. 
 
Singapore has a navy that can actually engage in CEC across service levels - china hasn't gone beyond embryonic CEC at a naval squadron level - let alone service level.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics