@@entrancemperium5506 Depends. When Japan sank America's Pacific fleet it wasn't worth it in the end. When America sank Japan's fleet at Midway it was. Well, for the Americans it was worth it. Not so much for the Japanese.
@@entrancemperium5506 Not just one, Ballistic Missile was intend to blow and damage the fleet, try 10 missile at once and u know if it worth it against 1 fleet
Japan had a lot of success sinking US battleships early in WW2. Brit battleships to, like sinking the Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya with land based bombers and torpedo bombers. There was a lot of talk then that large Battleships were an antiquated expensive technology and that Japan had found a way to defeat these huge expensive ships with a few low cost planes and torpedos. But then US Navy started developing successful counter attack strategies, while the US Industrial Wartime Machinery kept pumping out more ships, and eventually Japan was overwhelmed by US Naval Strength. Wars aren't won in the first volley.
When carrier is under resupply from a replenish ship, that’s when it’s most vulnerable, because it travels in straight line in a predicable path for 30 minutes.
There is also the fact that claiming a capability in itself has military value. The fact that China makes claims for their DF-21 has on its own no doubt resulted in a rethink on tactics and strategy by the US, just in case they do work as claimed. Russia also announces new weapons with tremendous claimed capabilities before they are even funded, or deployable and possibly even before they actually work, but gets some military credibility out of doing so.
End of last month(Aug, 2020), Chinese military tested two such missiles. One DF-26 and one DF-21D.The DF-26 was launched from inland China and 21 was launched from the coast. Report saying, both missiles hit a target ship in South China Sea simultaneously. And the most interesting thing is that the target was moving while missiles hit.
@@briant5685 there is also a huge sizeable brainwashed crowd that just thinks china and russia has super weapons and that the worlds only super power, the US would have "no chance" in a war.
@@truthseeker8123 You are stupid. Carriers obsolete for anything resembling peer conflict. There is a reason they are where they are and are not where they're not.
I just know China tested both of them recently, supposedly sinking a ship in the South China Sea, and the US didn’t make a faint sound of protest and didn’t come out exclaiming the test failed. This means only one thing, the missiles hit the target as designed.
He doesnt have more subscribers because only the keyboard warriors believe his drivel. Anyone with any REAL experience sees this CZcamsr as the crackpot fantasy world he is....
which A lot of what you say is correct but some things to consider: 1) You do not not need to sink a carrier. Just damage it enough so it's out of action 2) The carrier killer missile's range will deter US carriers from operating within 1000km of the missile. This will make the carrier less effective as aircraft will be operating from maximum battle ranges 3) Tracking a carrier is EASY. There are a number of reasons why. Firstly it doesn't travel alone. It's part of a CBG. Firstly spies at port will know when the CBG is leaving. Then you have the massive wake of all the ships combined which will be picked up from satellites. Also the heat generated from the CBG will be easily observable from space.
Tracking a carrier is NOT easy, if it doesn't want to be. Furthermore, there are many ways to prevent a missile from actually hitting the carrier. China is still far behind the US in C4ISR.
J Manstein how is China still far behind? China just finished its Beidou GPS, and if it's just off China's coast, China can even just send continuous stream of unmanned drones from mainland to track carrier groups, and even if USA sinks them all, that's just more info for China to triangulate and they now know where to use the satellites to look. If China can do soft landing on far side of moon, they can hit a carrier off China's coast. Even if China is technically behind USA still, hitting USA carrier off China's coast with a missile is not a problem. That's China's whole strategy they've been developing for decades.
This assumes Chinese satellites won't be shot down, that American carriers wouldn't still operate after being hit and that all US admirals aren't brave/foolish enough to operate within range of Chinese missiles.
And if we do I pray the following American Action will be devastating ballistic attack on all islands in the South China Sea China has based on followed by attacking Beijing
@@Jack3md the u.s. response will come along with indian response on indo china border simultaneously. If it goes to a war ; india will fight side by side u.s. and most probably Vietnam , and Taiwan also. Because all the chinese neighbours know , what a shitty country china is. The most disastrous establishment.
@@Movie.theorist actually India is more shity besides India has only one successful way of winning wars which is in Bollywood movies. Indian can't support shit and USA knows it. India has the most Dumbest terrorist army which is only good in conducting proxy terrorist attacks in neighbouring countries and still fails.
@@frugi007 One characteristic of the Indians is that they always fantasize about attacking China with other countries, and never dared to fantasize that they can defeat China by themself.
The first phase of China's military buildup has always been area denial of its coastline. DF-21D is one of those threats that could work but you can never really know, and that throws your calculations off. How sure are you that it won't work or your defenses will. That's enough to push carrier operation far off the coast because even if the missiles are expensive, losing a carrier or two is even more devastating. China can concentrate all its missiles in an area to strategically deny entry to US carriers and even if they fired off their entire arsenal of 20, 30 missiles to saturate the defenses and to increase hit chance they only need one successful hit to sink the carrier. If you are a commander of a Pacific fleet, are you going to risk that? Will the Pentagon willing to risk that? Then, the missiles already did its job.
It also has a huge deterrent value. Probably the most effective way to limit these missiles would be to shoot down recon and communications satellites, which makes it hard to coordinate a detection and launch platform hundreds of miles apart, or to track a carrier if spotted. However, that is a major escalation in conflict, which makes it less likely that a conflict will start in the first place. That actually applies in both directions - China would have to realize that their satellites become a target which means they're less likely to provoke such a conflict. If your goal is defensive war then you don't really need the ability to win - you need the ability to make war more expensive than any possible political/economic gain an enemy could obtain from it.
@@fredmanly3122 Bingo. The main objective of the PLA is to deny USN entry to waters near China's coast and then further out into the ocean in the future. They do not have any real expeditionary capability right now for a cross ocean invasion but they don't need to. They need to turtle up first and everything they have been doing is to ensure that turtle shell is extremely expensive to penetrate. If you are defending your country, wouldn't you do the same?
And thats why the US DOD has been focusing so heavily for more than 15 years on long range aircraft and munitions. Alot of it is only being talked about publicly now but theyve all been in the works for quite some time
@@gelinrefira Yup you're absolutely right. When China does gain that offensive ability id be pretty certain their first move wouldnt be against the carriers, its be against the military gps satellites tasked solely for tracking, guidance etc. Take those out and you've blinded the entire us military. Itd be a huge escalation yes, but going after anything belonging to the us would result in war, so you might as well give yourself the best opportunities available to you to win it y'know
Counter point - Most of the reasons why the missile might fail is due to the manoeuvrability of the target. 3:37 in this video details this point. Saying a ship moving at 20 knots can be get 20-50km away by the time the missile's warhead flys in. The counter point is that assuming a ship will be moving at those speeds, or moving in a non-predictable manner, when the missile is fired. Engine falure, any form of at-sea resupply (eg: onboard munitions), leaked intelligence for planned routes/randevu points, predictability of a ship's actions-on. Other enemy actions to box-in/herd in/bait the carrier. In an ideal world the carrier could get 20-50km away from the initial target point. But we don't live in an ideal world, and a competent enemy would make every effort to exploit this fact. ~ ~ ~ ~ Edit. Ignore the comments. They are dominated by one Dunning Kruger who thinks carriers are unsinkable and can withstand a nuclear blast, vs lots of people telling him how he is wrong about everything.
Shane Rooney the missile is irrelevant. Do you have any idea how hard it is to sink a carrier?czcams.com/video/Dnt3UZvx3N0/video.html They used the only one ever sunk as target practice for over 4 WEEKS. NOTHING. That’s basically everything in the USA arsenal. Couldn’t sink it. Had to use a crap ton of shaped charges and teams cutting specific places just like bringing down a building. Chinas💩 isn’t a threat.
truthseeker it was sunk as an artificcial reef and they wanted it upright, if they actually wanted to use it as a target, it wouldnt have survived much
An aircraft carrier is a large target and any enemy does not have to destroy a carrier but disable it. At a fraction of a price of an anti-ship ballistic missile it would probably be feasible to launch a 10,000+ small drone attack with the aim of peppering the carrier deck just enough to prevent the taking off and landing of aircraft. An aircraft carrier is very intimidating piece of hardware in peace time, but in a no holds barred conflict it is probably more vulnerable to unconventional weapons than some people would like to acknowledge.
I think the *ONLY* way the DF-21D could guarantee a "kill" against an aircraft carrier is to use a _nuclear_ warhead of around 200 KT yield. That way, even if the "miss" is around 1,000 meters, the blast effect of a 200 KT nuclear warhead would still be enough to at least disable the carrier.
@@livingfree9553 Correct. Launches would be detected within seconds, and anti-satellite measures would be deployed. The missiles would probably lose their GPS targeting information before they even began their terminal dives..... The Raytheon SM-3 can hit targets travelling at over 15'000 mph, so it won't take long to get to where the missiles reach the peak of their trajectory - at around 100 miles or so altitude. Probably just a few minutes...... The AEGIS systems on most US ships have been designed expressly for this and similar tasks.......
Please do another video going into the article's mistakes. We'd all appreciate a real understanding of the news from a SME instead of the nonsense the media puts out these days.
A secondary effect of the DF21D is USA pilots will have to fly 1000 miles before they even get to the Chinese coast, do their mission, then fly 1000 miles back to the carrier. This will require at least one refuelling (and probably more) and long hours in the cockpit leading to pilot fatigue and mistakes. Just forcing the long flights is a win for China.
Dan 240Z What do you mean? There is no need to learn this in high school unless you go to west point or take some sort of specialized courses. This is a very specific subject. It has nothing to do with the school system.
@@TheZachary86 these people are just deluded losers who don't appreciate the value of learning something. They just want to feel comfortable and watch youtube and not have to think. Why ScOoL if thErS yoUtube>/?
Try watching talks from CSIS (Center for Strategic International studies) when they discuss military matters. They're full of juicy Intel. Some may fall asleep since it's simply people talking-but I eat that shit up, even if they spew their bais, whatever those may be. Plenty of literature out there as well on these topics. Its dense and ain't flashy, but intel is intel, baby!
Info graphics has never had one video that doesn’t have myriad mistakes. Its like they guess and not look into what they say. Sad for a channel called infographics
Half of CZcams's education channels are like that, a mix of Ancient Alien, DailyMail, BBC, and FOX rolled into one. Some facts, some factoid, and a lot of subjective opinions. All of Simon Whistler's channels are like that and the Scottish guy that replaced him is even worst
@@lawsharland7278 an under strengthened, badly out numbered, outgunned UN/US force against a surplus of Chinese troops with soviet technical support. The fact that the US were able to conduct a fighting withdrawal and hold the line says a lot. More like China got their asses kicked because they suffered untold amounts of casualties, and they failed to punch through numerically inferior UN troops. You also seem awfully proud that China helped preserve North Korea, just look at what the country is today.
thats an idea. the Russians and Iranians are putting anti-ship missiles in shipping containers and loading them container ships. the anti-ship missile which might be more effective than the df21d. I wonder if the df21d is really designed for use with a tactical nuclear warhead. Does anyone know if the df21d is supposed to be conventional or nuclear?
Most of the cargo ships aren’t registered in China. You basically have no idea who is on board. If a war were to break out shipping would be significantly reduced. Only approved ships would be allowed to cross
Best time to strike a carrier is when it is in Yokosuka，Busan or Guam for maintenance since no crew life will be lost. 2nd best timing is during resupply in the middle of the sea when it will traveling at low speed on straight line. 3rd best time is during FA/18 Great Hornet taking off since it will be traveling against wind in predictable 25 knots straight line. Usually that's when you are engaging with the carrier in battlegroup formation knowing carrier's exact location and maneuvering behavior.
Regarding target movement and course corrections I'm pretty sure they wouldn't put a larger, more powerful radar in it. They would just use a data link and update it with target information from satellites before plasma becomes an issue. After that there's only a few minutes of movement that needs to be adjusted for, which could be handled by a smaller radar.
Fulcrum Fulcrum ok bud, just because Fox News agrees with you doesn’t mean they’re any better than CNN. They’re trump apologist that lie and start there own fake narratives, and lets not talk about how they were promoting massive anti lockdown protest.
I brought this up long time ago about this missile and people active like they didn't understand : high speed mean harder to turn with less time to turn. High speed gives less response time but is not stealthy and also generates heat as it moved at high speed. I think radar and heat sensor with pick up up early Hypersonic weapons easily and is some cases even visually by there visual trails. The main thing is have a weapons system fast enough and having enough range to intercept one. Jammers would be the cheapest way but I wouldn't want to just depend on them.
I was on a destroyer that was part of the Roosevelt battle group. There’s so many ways to take out an incoming missile. That’s why there’s DDG’s and CG’a all around it. We were basically called missile magnets on destroyers.
Yep, you lot have to take the missiles to save the carrier. And that is because the Carrier is so important. China would not be able to hit them from long range, but the Carrier can send planes to hit China. Cheers
@@BatMan-xr8gg After the first few missiles, China's targeting satellites would be hit to prevent any further launches. There is little point launching a missile which needs GPS targeting information, if you can no longer provide it....
The DF 21 and DF 26 are all Reversed Engineer form there Counterparts RUSSIA the Cold War SCUD Missile . But the DF 21 and DF26 Anit Ship Ballistic Missile that they can sink a US Aircraft Carrier it never been test that can sink one US Aircraft Carrier all are Simulation . Unlike the US they test its capacity prove that they can hit there Target like the TAAD Missile
"I'm sure the Chinese technicians who developed the DF-21D know all what you have said." What the fuck is your point? He's listing the problems they have to deal with. Do you think knowing there's a problem makes fixing it easy? Do you think they have some magic tech that prevents nearby matter from becoming plasma when it's nearly the radar? Jesus. This is the dumbest post here, and I just read one by a guy who thinks the missile must be accurate because it's bigger than a fighter-launched anti-ship missile.
@@Veladus Haha, the plasma layer will only be formed at the front end of the vehicle. You only need to release a connected receiver at the back of the vehicle to receive the signal, just like flying a kite.
The need for a warhead in these missiles seem like an after thought since the kinetic energy of a ballistic missile slamming into a flight deck from space is enough to ruin your day. Theoretically the warhead can be all radar and flight control and be effective.
ya might not sink the ship with a kinetic hit, but you've got either a mobility kill or killed it's operation ability. So sure it'll still float but probably not much more, and that's a win.
@@spaideman7850 WRONG they only use radar once they get into the atmosphere at that pint it has seconds to acquire a target. Before that they use sat data for a location.
When the west ask the questions like can china do this and that, you know China is already much stronger. Unlike the west, china will only let you see what they want you to see. With the US military, they will let you see more than they actually have in their arsenal just to justify their over spending to the public.
A sneaky way to defeat the radar jamming would be to have a penetration aid in the form of a jettisoned parachuting radio that would tell a second missile what the most likely target is.
They were testing these missiles back in 2005 that's 16 years ago. Do people really think China doesn't have better anti-ship tech now that they have a defense budget 5 times greater than back then and they know the biggest threat for them are naval ships?
Now if they can defend against nuclear missiles... That would be very, VERY bad in my opinion. The M.A.D doctrine would be broken, nuclear weapons would stop having deterrent power... and foot soldiers would return to die by the MILLIONS on the battlefield, if two mayor powers decide to fight... Too destabilizing.
Liquid Propellant Guns seems way more plausible and should be able to shoot at mach 4, which is enough to launch a scramjet projectile and hit railgun speeds. Railguns are just trying so hard to destroy themselves, have a strong magnetic field which is makes guided projectiles more expensive, require capacitors which have a very low energy density for power, and lose a lot of the energy in the fuel to generator systems. If you run a ship with an Alum cycle turbine, you get LNG fuel and have a cryo oxygen separator built in that you can use to fuel the liquid propellant gun off the fuel tank, giving you all the logistical advantages of the railgun without a lot of the problems.
@@thamiordragonheart8682 I dreamed up that a nuclear powered destroyer would be perfect for a rail gun. But I'm not in the navy, nor an engineer, so it'll probably remain a dream? 😅
I think we'll be seeing a sort of arms race for this system similar to the SAM race during the Vietnam War, where the Eastern Bloc and the United States created a whole host of measures, countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures. More powerful jammers to overpower the radar, more powerful radar to overpower the jammers, etc.
In principal,china may use 100 Df21D to attack one US carrier. At the height 200km, they pin down the location of the carrier and calculate all the possible location of the carrier within next 30 seconds. Then China cover the area with grid made of 100 missiles. Calculation shows that 4 missiles will hit target.
750 billion dollars annually, two new 6th gen fighters on the way, it would take a combined coalition of several countries to even scratch our defense and offense capabilities. not to mention its made in china
It's my personal belief that China would attack using air launched anti-ship missiles, perhaps in concert with a couple of these missiles in order to overwhelm the carrier group's defenses. The Soviets simulated such an attack against their own Kiev-class ship Novorossiysk using similar strategies with favorable results. Another well done video!!
It can damage but likely not sink. The US conducted sinking tests on a supercarrier it was set to scrap, they repeatedly shot bombed and torpedoed it until they eventually had to send demolition teams in to manually sink it.
Exactly. You can make a carrier inoperable but "destroying" or sinking it is another thing. And a carrier strike group has more than 200 Surface to Air Missiles like the SM-3 to destroy incoming missiles plus electronic warfare jamming and close range air defences (good and old C-RAM). And a carrier strike group has at least three CGs (Ticonderoga-class cruiser) which is basically a ship with one job: Destroy incoming missiles. But thats normal for these kinda countries. The government/military can say "we got the best missiles. One of them can sink an aircraft carrier" and the citizens or soldiers think "wow we are the best" even though its just a capability they have on paper. On paper this thing *could* sink a carrier. Like russia was the second strongest military *on paper* and ukraine just the 22th largest. I mean without a doubt its a threat, but not a carrier killer. In the end it could be: One shot, one kill or whats more likely 100 shots and one kill. We just don't know.
Bigger questions can it hit a moving target? Can it hit a stationary target anywhere but in the Gobi desert? Can the Chinese find a carrier at sea? Can it survive the gauntlet and come within attack range of a carrier? Are there enough of them to attack a carrier with or are most of them just decoys? How reliable are they? will they survive the boost phase without breaking up? People can talk all the smack they like but the DF-21D has never been used in combat.
It would depend on several issues such as If the enemy fleet can be properly located and targeted for Missile strike, if those missiles work as advertised and the carriers defenses can be overwhelmed then the answer is yes. But again that depends on a lot of factors which are currently unknown.
@@kencantrell981 Sure. The question though is whether those subs will be able to communicate with the missile launchers without satellites. If you have satellites you probably don't need the subs. If you don't have them, then subs can't radio home without being quickly sunk (even satellite communications is risky if you're that close to a carrier - lower-frequency long-range radio is a complete giveaway). Really the subs are more of a risk of just directly shooting at the carrier. Now, if they had satellites then the subs could more safely provide general intel while staying at a distance.
You can sink a carrier and a carrier group. ...A carrier group CANNOT Sink The Chinese land mass. That's the difference. ...It's like shooting fish in a barrel when the Chinese send those ballistic missiles in vollies. ...I'm sure the Chinese has thousands of these in stock.
@@SportZFan4L1fe It's more complicated than that, the chinese can have thousands of missiles but unless they can locate the enemy fleet and achieve proper targetting those missiles would be landing on the water spcially since we are talking about moving uncoperative targets. There are several ways that the targetting part of the kill chain can be achieved with sattlelites been the primary tool but one that could be attrition pretty quickly if both sides start to shootdown each others space assets. The other way that proper ISR could be mantain and achieved is by heavy usage of survillance drones.
These hypersonic ASBM missiles travel in orbit 200 km above, then fire 2nd stage engine to reach 12,000 km/hr or 3.4 km/sec speed smashing down within 60 seconds to hit target. The carriers and SM-6 missiles have 30 seconds from lock-on detection to destroy or evade these ASBM. It will be very difficult. Better destroy it in its orbit.
About finding the carriers in the first place. There is no need to maintain surveillance over the entire ocean, you are not interested in targeting data of things you can't hit. Satellite surveillance is good enough to maintain early warning and general intelligence. What is needed is a continual target monitoring capability over an arc of the hit range, say 1500km from launch position. With side scan capability the surveillance craft can fly along an inner circular arc of at least 100km up range. If you have say 4 extremely fast recognizance planes flying such an arc between North East and South West ends of China, this path has an arc length of less than 4000km, each aircraft flying one way, land, refuel and turn around, 2 pairs flying in opposite directions, you practically have the line of defence full time covered. So what we need would be something with several thousand km ferry range (the last 1000km can be done by gliding); speed of M4 or higher, at say 25,000m altitude, which can relay realtime radar and optical signals through satellite data link; can take off and land from conventional airstrips, or launched from a larger aircraft; having a reasonably short turn round time, including using conventional liquid fuel; preferrably unmanned too, then bingo, better than satellite cover. Is there something like this in the Chinese arsenal? 2019 National Day parade www.globaltimes.cn/content/1165936.shtml www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/bzk-008.htm www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30121/chinas-high-speed-recon-drone-is-rocket-powered-and-all-about-doing-what-satellites-cant Yes, it's here!
@@GlenCychosz And here comes the laboriously idiotic explanation as to why an LHD is somehow not a carrier, because it's not a Ford Class.... Anytime now...
Israel added lazers to its Iron dome anti air defense system quite a while back.. and some US ships have been outfitted with experimental lazers, but i don't think they are anywhere close to full use yet..
Noted that most of the previous comments below were over 5 months old, trust those persons who wrote these comments were not aware there was a REAL LIVE TEST of ASBMs consist of an DF-21D and another DF-26B targeting a real moving vessel in South China Sea in late August this year. These 2 missiles were launched at different time and different places ( one from the northwest China and the other from east coast of China), and BOTH missiles hit the assigned moving target AT THE SAME TIME, showing the planning and organizing capabilities of the PLA Rocket Force! Sure the Chinese needs to know the exact locations of their enemy before they fire those missiles, and obviously they have this capability long time ago. That's why those 2 U.S. carrier strike groups led by CVN-74 and CVN-76 eventually chickened out from the South China Sea conflict in July 2016 because they knew their locations were disclosed to the PLA. See what the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said in the Halifax Forum in mid November this year: www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/11/21/halifax-forum-news-china-accelerating-rocket-force-capability
In case anyone wants the non, creepy CCP propaganda version. The US navy is well aware of the capabilities of the PLA rocket force. Over the horizon radar paired with a ballistic missile system isn’t enough to stop multiple carrier strike groups, full stop. By the way, me and the boys on the Stennis (CVN-74) had fun plowing through the South China Sea and the international waters off the Spratley Islands in 2019 and 2020. Big kiss, Dominic. Remember, there’s a reason why the CCP pulls their hair out trying to stop US Navy aircraft carriers.
The carriers are constantly shadowed by Russian and Chinese subs that will relay the position information to the missile upon entry. Radar is not likely to be used. Also, assuming there is only one warhead and not several is a mistake. The biggest worry is also the radioactive mess those carriers will make when blown to bits. Sinking one would be disingenuous. Best to severely damage or cripple it so it can't fight.
subs need to surface to transmit targeting info, so that would be very risky for the sub. possible, but surfacing so close to enemy surface ships and then emitting radar would essentially be suicide for the submarine.
Burn-through requires a radar with very high power and very high antenna directivity...neither of which are available on a missile platform. Also the plasma effect would indeed render the on-board radar blind. Other targeting assets would have to be used. Also the radar beams would be detected and copied by the A/C carrier jammers then blasted back at the incoming radar at extremely high power...like a strobe light in your eyes at night. [also...we don't even know that there's anything inside those Chinese tube-shaped objects]
Lets not forget.. this dude who runs this channel is an expert of nothing. He has no more information than anyone else could get from internet research or a book. Granted he puts the time and effort into doing the things most wont, but he is no expert. Has no military background, no defense background, no intelligence background, and no history of ever working in the defense industry. Its the definition of armchair expert. A dedicated one, i will give him that.
@@SortaProfessional89 And therefore no vested interest in spinning a line of bull to keep his job. There is nothing magical about the military, military intelligence or military contractors, they all still have to work within the laws of logic, science and nature.
This was one of the systems I had to study in college. As far as what is available Open Source, the guiding belief in terms of function and vehicle design of the RV is that it's similar in construction to, I believe, the Pershing II system the US has long since retired. That system, was designed to conduct a 25 G turn AFTER re-entering the atmosphere. From there it would conduct a glide maneuver for a given distance before adjust again to hit whatever target. It's believed it's during this glide maneuver that the DF-21D is fed targeting data from a satellite data-link network; which China recently put into space.
I guess that’s why the US has a working anti satellite missile:) It seems like if world war 3 popped off gps and spy satellites would be down in hours. Whichever ones survived the first few missiles would get taken out by space debris. I think having it’s own inertial guidance is probably an important design consideration for these kind of missiles and aircraft in general. One thing the US invests in is reliable INS guidance on their planes, and they’re probably able to use LORAN if satellites went out and build their own mobile guidance network. Be pretty hard to fly an F35 just using a paper map and dead reckoning:)
I usualy don't comment on videos but i have to give praise for this one, instead of assuming how good or not good the 21D is the autor has a unbiased view of the unknown capabilitis of this equipment. It might be able to k.o. a carry but the true fact is we rly dont know! Sry any mistake english is not my 1st language.
Whether DF 21D can sink U.S aircraft carriers is not so important, it is enough to hit the deck and make a lot of deep dents on it. warplane mission can't be carried out and crash into the sea!
People on Quora (who generally know these things better than most) point out that these missiles are huge, making them difficult to put on ships, and they have to be fired from great range and. That gives the defending ships time to react even though the missile is moving extremely quickly. Further, hypersonic sea skimming missiles don't currently exist (due to size and weight), so all hypersonic missiles must currently be launched almost into space, making the missiles that much easier to hit (compared to sea skimming).
AN/SLQ-32V (?) CHAFFROC Also, when a ship is doing 35 knots perhaps (totally maxed out), the ship is almost stationary, when being attacked by a high subsonic plane/missile/dodo bird (even supersonic, or hypersonic vehicle). So therefore, if intel is a minute or two old, the last ship position would be easy to fix the intercept point. Speaking from experience, i was a squid in the late 70's, early 80's stationed on the west coast. Everyone would do practice bombing runs on us, even B-52's, and it happened so fast, one barely could track it visually.
That would probably happen against China or Russia but both their Navy (and air force) would be obliterated in the process. Such a scenario would escalate to nuclear war (tactical then strategic) and mutual destruction, with countries running out of ships/planes first (Russia/China) pulling the trigger. The carrier groups are extremely powerful mobile military bases meant for proxy wars and direct conflict or deterrence with non nuclear nations. Super carriers are also meant to project the US in contested areas as an asset of deterrence during cold/economic wars against other nuclear powers. A nation can't just sink one without the situation spiraling into nuclear apocalypse. That's why they are such an annoyance to China & Russia.
And then a decade of nuclear winter and no one gives a 5hit about covid because everyone who didn't die in the first 24 months has cancer. Hopefully Beijing and Moscow are half mile deep glowing craters
Would have expected the high speed drone China revealed last year to be mentioned, called Sharp sword or something. I do wonder how much AI can help with cancelling noise signals from decoy, seen some interesting noice clean up results from autonomous driving demo.
imo, One of major problem is Accuracy Firing Missile Barrage to target isn't hard It's harder to find the target, and even harder to guiding fired missiles with realtime pinpoint accuracy so, China need to have tracking device on enemy warship
China just shoot 2 of these missiles into South China Sea to react to US flying a U-2 plane into the no fly zone in the middle of a live-fire exercise.
I'm not privy to test data to know whether China's anti ship arsenal is particularly effective but I was able to interact with an Australian Air Force Air Traffic controller a few months back that gave me a new sense of how cautious modern militaries are with their assets. He was talking about his tour of Afghanistan and how he improved the time to kill of US airstrikes on high value Taliban targets from about 10 minutes to 2. One of the several problems he saw when he arrived was that artillery and mortar teams would be operating in an area and would have to be instructed to cease firing prior to USAF planes being allowed to enter the airspace. Even though mortar teams and artillery teams don't fire that many rounds during the day and the odds of an F-35 being hit by friendly artillery from the ground is insanely small, no one wants to risk losing a military asset that costs around US$100M. After all, if you fly a dozen sorties a day for 10 years, the odds go from astronomically small to just very small that you'll accidentally mortar your own stealth fighter. Will the USN risk a multi-billion dollar carrier against a missile specifically designed to destroy it getting lucky? Not unless there was absolutely no alternative. Hence the anti-ship missiles may well do their job in a conflict with the US without ever being fired simply by keeping the carrier fleet far out in the Pacific and greatly increasing the delay of any air support they can provide to Taiwan.
A nuclear tipped missiles doesn't have to be precise or sink an aircraft carrier. Radiation will make the aircraft carrier useless both through it's EMP and residual radio activity.
Covert Cabal you forgot one very important thing : the US has put enormous amount of money into their radars etc for the aegis system. However this is actually becoming a problem as the US ships have so much powerful radars and other emitting equipments that they litteraly are : Christmas trees in the middle of the Pacific. Everyone can see them from very far away. Of course they could just turn of their radars and stay on passive mode so that they protect their location but it also means that they could lose the precious seconds to try intercept these missiles and thus means that a hit will be more probable given that China is at parity with the US in term of satellites so they could spot them. An other option is to lunch an E 2 from the carrier and make it go at some distance from the carrier and then activate it's radar to see what if there is something coming. However this would also most likely give away the zone where the carrier is and with it's very numerous statelittes China could concentrate them on this zone of the pacific. The only difference with the previous scenario is that the E2, if the Chinese don't destroy it, will be very probable to see the ballistic missiles coming in. And alert the carrier group so that they all activate all their systems and try to intercept them. I think the US could protect it self from those missiles but not before several carriers ends at the bottom of the ocean
To me it sounds like the flip of a coin if a US carrier will be sunk. A lot will depend on the situation and tactics of both sides. Yes, the US can defend it's carriers. It spends lot of money and time trying too. But the Chinese have also put lots of money and time into making missiles that can sink carriers. There is also the chance that if a carrier is hit by a missile, it doesn't sink. So, we'll have to wait see
@@chaosXP3RT I agree, hope we will never find out in real. Personnaly I think the Russians submarines are much more of a threat to the carriers, the Chinese ballistic missiles are still a threat but the carriers can just stay outside of their range and use the air force vast tanker fleet to refuel the f18 during the flight.
@@DK-ig8zi Yes. I think submarines are definitely king of the sea. The USA, China and Russia all have very formidable submarines. Not only can they launch their own missiles, but they can launch torpedoes. From what I've read, the US Navy just scrapped it's idea of towing torpedo nets around a carrier. They are still trying to figure out how to protect their carriers from torpedoes.
The Russians have studied extensively the missile striking techniques necessary to sink a carrier. They concluded a single anti ship missile struck directly from above would penetrate the decking and detonate inside the hull destroying the control and cooling systems for the Westinghouse Nuclear reactor that powers the ship. Within thirty minutes the reactor would detonate with an explosion that would be seen from the International Space Station.
You're incorrect about the SLQ-32 as it is aimed outward from the ship and not up towards the ballistic missile. It may be able to detect the radar coming from space but it would not be able to direct its jamming upwards. And even if it did it would not necessarily jam the radar as there are other methods of disabling using that system.
The range of DF-21D is somewhere between 2000-3000km. Even if you have such long range stand off weapon, you still need to find the mobile launchers. It is even harder than finding a battle group on the flat ocean because these launchers are much smaller than a carrier and they can hide in any warehouses or tunnels.
@@joelau2383 satellites and once a DF-21D fired we will know it's location and we got a man who drives one of the DF-21D trucks telling where the launchers are stationed
@@livingfree9553 Even if you can find it when it fires. It obviously would be long gone while your standoff off weapons take several hours to reach the launch site. A driver would tell you where the launcher are stationed? I guess he ask you to make the transaction before he tell you the location. To be honest, it sounds like a phone scam and you should call the police.
@@joelau2383 No my friend we are alot closer than you think , the next you go to the beach we see you just look out into the ocean you see the tiny light in the water that's a submarine with 200 attack weapons ready to go .
@@livingfree9553 Sorry, but you should really stop dreaming and start learning the issues in reality. There are hundreds km of shallow water extended from China coast line. Submarines are all sitting ducks there.
With the Beidou fully in operation and AI tech targeting a slow moving aircraft carrier not an impossible task. Just see how they landed the rover in Mars all automatic.
As with any new threat, new tactics and countermeasures are developed to mitigate against them. Most likely it will not be any single countermeasure. A combination of ECM through the SLQ-32, decoys anti ballistic missile interceptors and something as simple as evasive zig zag patterns developed originally for ASW would be employed.
Technically, they can add nuclear warheads to the missile and drop it on the carrier battle group. But, that will be a major escalation. I dont think we will ever get there. All these fancy toys are necessary to deter adversaries. In the end, nothing will happen...hopefully for a while.
@@dunrossb absolutely what pains is their Masters taught them to mud Islam,that Islam is bad,is terrorism,but those groups never attack two countries Saudi Arabia&Israel, and all these groups are Sunnis Islamists relates to Saudi ,not Shi'a,and Saudi is under mossad& CIA and USA military control /USA military protection we beard trump said we protect Saudi Arabia would say they're rich?so NATO shoots themselves and blame others
This is the time where journalist articles and mainstream media goes down the drain, just like how TV cable is dying out. Because of quality of content coming from people like you. Youre doing god's work, my dude.
Can a missile sink an aircraft carrier?...Of course not......but many more of the same missile would. It's much cheaper to built a boat-load of missiles than to build an aircraft carrier to counter another aircraft carrier.
@@crabbyjungle5670 Not to mention literally noone has demonstrated an EMP weapon. Sure we can do it in a lab, but, a whole fleet or a whole city? You need a nuke, and well, congrats, if you use that, the world ends.
And you wonder why _kind_ of warhead the DF-21D uses to ensure a "kill." The only one that might work is a 150-200 KT nuclear warhead about the size of the W80 used on the AGM-86B cruise missile, so even if the miss is about a mile or so the blast effects from the 150-200 KT nuclear warhead is strong enough to disable the ship.
That's an interesting idea - something moving fast would encounter any fragments even if they're short-lived/dispersed - a bit like how driving fast through a very light rain still requires you to use your wipers. It might depend on how fragile the warhead is though - it already has ablative armor just to survive re-entry (granted, that probably isn't designed for metal fragments). The flak would only impact it over a very short range so it wouldn't have time to penetrate far into the warhead. Also, if the warhead is mainly kinetic like a titanium rod/etc then I'd think that flak would have little effect.
@@fredmanly3122 To but at those speeds? As long as it's not solid which I would think would be a waste of money compared to a railgun. Which the space shuttle's ablative shell could not survive a foam strike why would a missile's unless it was over-designed? A curse missile may not even have a very thick one or one at all it could be just made out of stainless steel or titanium. Which even in a worst-case scenario flak spam from a dozen ships plus CIS defence guns and counter missiles a hypersonic missile something that has the cost all these systems combined would make it hard for a missile to get through or be worth it when it does. Also, an armoured solid core missile will still take damage and might be thrown off course and if you add chalf into the flak will jamming GPS the missile could miss or be dodged. But yeah you've raised good points but I still think it's worth it.
Any ship could be sunk. Oceans' bottoms are full of "unsinkable" ships.
At what cost. Sinking one is not worth the consequences.
@@entrancemperium5506 Sinking a whole fleet could be worth the consequences when not sinking them results in even worse results for your nation.
@@entrancemperium5506 Depends. When Japan sank America's Pacific fleet it wasn't worth it in the end. When America sank Japan's fleet at Midway it was.
Well, for the Americans it was worth it. Not so much for the Japanese.
@@entrancemperium5506 Not just one, Ballistic Missile was intend to blow and damage the fleet, try 10 missile at once and u know if it worth it against 1 fleet
Japan had a lot of success sinking US battleships early in WW2. Brit battleships to, like sinking the Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya with land based bombers and torpedo bombers. There was a lot of talk then that large Battleships were an antiquated expensive technology and that Japan had found a way to defeat these huge expensive ships with a few low cost planes and torpedos. But then US Navy started developing successful counter attack strategies, while the US Industrial Wartime Machinery kept pumping out more ships, and eventually Japan was overwhelmed by US Naval Strength. Wars aren't won in the first volley.
When carrier is under resupply from a replenish ship, that’s when it’s most vulnerable, because it travels in straight line in a predicable path for 30 minutes.
Good point 👍
We practiced emergency break or separation all of the time. You’re not committed for 30 mins if a threat is detected.
What are they refueling? lol
@@isaacmartinez442 Jet fuel, Food and other supplies.
Every US navy ship is equipped with Slick 32.
I'm starting to learn that most military systems aren't nearly as capable as everyone thinks and says.
There is also the fact that claiming a capability in itself has military value. The fact that China makes claims for their DF-21 has on its own no doubt resulted in a rethink on tactics and strategy by the US, just in case they do work as claimed. Russia also announces new weapons with tremendous claimed capabilities before they are even funded, or deployable and possibly even before they actually work, but gets some military credibility out of doing so.
@@robman2095 spot on
Pretty much every military system is also a dual use psych ops.
End of last month(Aug, 2020), Chinese military tested two such missiles. One DF-26 and one DF-21D.The DF-26 was launched from inland China and 21 was launched from the coast. Report saying, both missiles hit a target ship in South China Sea simultaneously. And the most interesting thing is that the target was moving while missiles hit.
Communist party
mistakes come when you start to underestimate your enemy..
true,but most brainwahsed people think usa is invinsible
@@briant5685 there is also a huge sizeable brainwashed crowd that just thinks china and russia has super weapons and that the worlds only super power, the US would have "no chance" in a war.
wrr
@@alexanderrose1556 Time has changed.
@@alexanderrose1556 yes they do have, remember the directed energy facilities in china and russia
THE MISSILE KNOWS WHERE IT IS AT ALL TIMES. THE MISSILE KNOWS WHERE IT IS BECAUSE IT KNOWS WHERE IT ISNT.
You are stupid. Do you have any idea how hard it is to sink a carrier? czcams.com/video/Dnt3UZvx3N0/video.html
truthseeker it was a joke, doofseeker
@@truthseeker8123 You are stupid. Carriers obsolete for anything resembling peer conflict. There is a reason they are where they are and are not where they're not.
Don't forget the remix! czcams.com/video/_LjN3UclYzU/video.html
EDIT: Best meme.
@@truthseeker8123 smug
“They really listen to their games community” in the sponsorship is the funniest damn thing I’ve heard all day lol
I just know China tested both of them recently, supposedly sinking a ship in the South China Sea, and the US didn’t make a faint sound of protest and didn’t come out exclaiming the test failed. This means only one thing, the missiles hit the target as designed.
This is my favorite military tech channel. Simple yet on point, unbiased info. Should have 10x subscribers, IMO. Waiting for your next presentation!
Repent of your sins and follow Jesus Christ Almighty
@@Hi-xu9xn Wtf
@@Hi-xu9xn Amen!
He doesnt have more subscribers because only the keyboard warriors believe his drivel. Anyone with any REAL experience sees this CZcamsr as the crackpot fantasy world he is....
which A lot of what you say is correct but some things to consider:
1) You do not not need to sink a carrier. Just damage it enough so it's out of action
2) The carrier killer missile's range will deter US carriers from operating within 1000km of the missile. This will make the carrier less effective as aircraft will be operating from maximum battle ranges
3) Tracking a carrier is EASY. There are a number of reasons why. Firstly it doesn't travel alone. It's part of a CBG. Firstly spies at port will know when the CBG is leaving. Then you have the massive wake of all the ships combined which will be picked up from satellites. Also the heat generated from the CBG will be easily observable from space.
But many Amuricans believe the CBG is unsinkable 😂 when you say unsinkable, that's dangerous.
@@deltacharlieromeo8252 What's an Amurican, is this some new type of idiot we should be concerned about?
Tracking a carrier is NOT easy, if it doesn't want to be. Furthermore, there are many ways to prevent a missile from actually hitting the carrier. China is still far behind the US in C4ISR.
J Manstein how is China still far behind? China just finished its Beidou GPS, and if it's just off China's coast, China can even just send continuous stream of unmanned drones from mainland to track carrier groups, and even if USA sinks them all, that's just more info for China to triangulate and they now know where to use the satellites to look. If China can do soft landing on far side of moon, they can hit a carrier off China's coast.
Even if China is technically behind USA still, hitting USA carrier off China's coast with a missile is not a problem. That's China's whole strategy they've been developing for decades.
This assumes Chinese satellites won't be shot down, that American carriers wouldn't still operate after being hit and that all US admirals aren't brave/foolish enough to operate within range of Chinese missiles.
Let's just pray we will never actually see these in action.
And if we do I pray the following American Action will be devastating ballistic attack on all islands in the South China Sea China has based on followed by attacking Beijing
Eddy P Oh you can bet your ass the American response will be much more devastating
@@Jack3md the u.s. response will come along with indian response on indo china border simultaneously. If it goes to a war ; india will fight side by side u.s. and most probably Vietnam , and Taiwan also. Because all the chinese neighbours know , what a shitty country china is. The most disastrous establishment.
@@Movie.theorist actually India is more shity besides India has only one successful way of winning wars which is in Bollywood movies. Indian can't support shit and USA knows it. India has the most Dumbest terrorist army which is only good in conducting proxy terrorist attacks in neighbouring countries and still fails.
@@frugi007 One characteristic of the Indians is that they always fantasize about attacking China with other countries, and never dared to fantasize that they can defeat China by themself.
The first phase of China's military buildup has always been area denial of its coastline. DF-21D is one of those threats that could work but you can never really know, and that throws your calculations off. How sure are you that it won't work or your defenses will. That's enough to push carrier operation far off the coast because even if the missiles are expensive, losing a carrier or two is even more devastating. China can concentrate all its missiles in an area to strategically deny entry to US carriers and even if they fired off their entire arsenal of 20, 30 missiles to saturate the defenses and to increase hit chance they only need one successful hit to sink the carrier. If you are a commander of a Pacific fleet, are you going to risk that? Will the Pentagon willing to risk that? Then, the missiles already did its job.
They had 60-80 missiles in 2008 and if the manufacturing pace estimates are true they now have 200+.
It also has a huge deterrent value. Probably the most effective way to limit these missiles would be to shoot down recon and communications satellites, which makes it hard to coordinate a detection and launch platform hundreds of miles apart, or to track a carrier if spotted. However, that is a major escalation in conflict, which makes it less likely that a conflict will start in the first place. That actually applies in both directions - China would have to realize that their satellites become a target which means they're less likely to provoke such a conflict.
If your goal is defensive war then you don't really need the ability to win - you need the ability to make war more expensive than any possible political/economic gain an enemy could obtain from it.
@@fredmanly3122 Bingo. The main objective of the PLA is to deny USN entry to waters near China's coast and then further out into the ocean in the future. They do not have any real expeditionary capability right now for a cross ocean invasion but they don't need to. They need to turtle up first and everything they have been doing is to ensure that turtle shell is extremely expensive to penetrate.
If you are defending your country, wouldn't you do the same?
And thats why the US DOD has been focusing so heavily for more than 15 years on long range aircraft and munitions. Alot of it is only being talked about publicly now but theyve all been in the works for quite some time
@@gelinrefira Yup you're absolutely right. When China does gain that offensive ability id be pretty certain their first move wouldnt be against the carriers, its be against the military gps satellites tasked solely for tracking, guidance etc. Take those out and you've blinded the entire us military. Itd be a huge escalation yes, but going after anything belonging to the us would result in war, so you might as well give yourself the best opportunities available to you to win it y'know
Counter point -
Most of the reasons why the missile might fail is due to the manoeuvrability of the target. 3:37 in this video details this point. Saying a ship moving at 20 knots can be get 20-50km away by the time the missile's warhead flys in. The counter point is that assuming a ship will be moving at those speeds, or moving in a non-predictable manner, when the missile is fired.
Engine falure, any form of at-sea resupply (eg: onboard munitions), leaked intelligence for planned routes/randevu points, predictability of a ship's actions-on. Other enemy actions to box-in/herd in/bait the carrier.
In an ideal world the carrier could get 20-50km away from the initial target point. But we don't live in an ideal world, and a competent enemy would make every effort to exploit this fact.
~ ~ ~ ~ Edit.
Ignore the comments. They are dominated by one Dunning Kruger who thinks carriers are unsinkable and can withstand a nuclear blast, vs lots of people telling him how he is wrong about everything.
Exactly, see my comment above
Shane Rooney the missile is irrelevant. Do you have any idea how hard it is to sink a carrier?czcams.com/video/Dnt3UZvx3N0/video.html
They used the only one ever sunk as target practice for over 4 WEEKS. NOTHING. That’s basically everything in the USA arsenal. Couldn’t sink it. Had to use a crap ton of shaped charges and teams cutting specific places just like bringing down a building. Chinas💩 isn’t a threat.
truthseeker it was sunk as an artificcial reef and they wanted it upright, if they actually wanted to use it as a target, it wouldnt have survived much
@@truthseeker8123 A mission kill is good enough anyway.
@@truthseeker8123 You're forgetting the tiny insignificant fact that US carriers are FULL OF PEOPLE...
How many of them will die?
Hey man, just wanna say I appreciate the increased frequency at which you’ve been posting new vids 👏🏼
Fucking ill second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh and 8th THAT!
TEeHeE
Repent of your sins and follow Jesus Christ Almighty
I am Chinese, I can prove that DF-21 is just an inflatable model, don’t worry
同志们辛苦了
Reverse psychology. The Chinese are planting such comments so we lower our guard and they catch us with our pants down. 😲
I am Chinese. I work in the Dongfeng Company’s arsenal. Our country’s missiles are all made of clay.
Little Dragon Lee, you're fired.
@@SS-yv9cq smart boy. here is your treat
An aircraft carrier is a large target and any enemy does not have to destroy a carrier but disable it.
At a fraction of a price of an anti-ship ballistic missile it would probably be feasible to launch a 10,000+ small drone attack with the aim of peppering the carrier deck just enough to prevent the taking off and landing of aircraft.
An aircraft carrier is very intimidating piece of hardware in peace time, but in a no holds barred conflict it is probably more vulnerable to unconventional weapons than some people would like to acknowledge.
Man I sure wish something would get uploaded here
*20 minutes later*
Nice, your vids are always a good watch
It’s always a good day when Covert uploads
wrr
Yeah you get it
Hell Yeah You Got That Right!!!!!
Repent of your sins and follow Jesus Christ Almighty
I think the *ONLY* way the DF-21D could guarantee a "kill" against an aircraft carrier is to use a _nuclear_ warhead of around 200 KT yield. That way, even if the "miss" is around 1,000 meters, the blast effect of a 200 KT nuclear warhead would still be enough to at least disable the carrier.
submarine ,ship , air standoff weapon systems will knockout the BMS before they can be launched
@@livingfree9553 Correct. Launches would be detected within seconds, and anti-satellite measures would be deployed. The missiles would probably lose their GPS targeting information before they even began their terminal dives..... The Raytheon SM-3 can hit targets travelling at over 15'000 mph, so it won't take long to get to where the missiles reach the peak of their trajectory - at around 100 miles or so altitude. Probably just a few minutes...... The AEGIS systems on most US ships have been designed expressly for this and similar tasks.......
I'd say China has the advantage here. US will have a harder time finding the missiles than China finding US warships.
Yet another informative video on a very much discussed yet very poorly understood missile.
Please do another video going into the article's mistakes. We'd all appreciate a real understanding of the news from a SME instead of the nonsense the media puts out these days.
A really interesting arm race of spear and shield
A secondary effect of the DF21D is USA pilots will have to fly 1000 miles before they even get to the Chinese coast, do their mission, then fly 1000 miles back to the carrier. This will require at least one refuelling (and probably more) and long hours in the cockpit leading to pilot fatigue and mistakes. Just forcing the long flights is a win for China.
Which is why it wouldn't happen that way. Instead, the US Navy's submarines would probably do the job.
why is half of my military knowledge from this channel
this single channel is bascially a mini high school course on the military in bite sized clips
They present it in a form that us average viewers can consume. Most of us would just fall asleep if we dig into the details
Dan 240Z
What do you mean? There is no need to learn this in high school unless you go to west point or take some sort of specialized courses.
This is a very specific subject. It has nothing to do with the school system.
@@TheZachary86 these people are just deluded losers who don't appreciate the value of learning something.
They just want to feel comfortable and watch youtube and not have to think. Why ScOoL if thErS yoUtube>/?
Try watching talks from CSIS (Center for Strategic International studies) when they discuss military matters. They're full of juicy Intel. Some may fall asleep since it's simply people talking-but I eat that shit up, even if they spew their bais, whatever those may be.
Plenty of literature out there as well on these topics. Its dense and ain't flashy, but intel is intel, baby!
Info graphics has never had one video that doesn’t have myriad mistakes. Its like they guess and not look into what they say. Sad for a channel called infographics
They are poor man's kurzgetsagz (probably butchering the spelling)
Half of CZcams's education channels are like that, a mix of Ancient Alien, DailyMail, BBC, and FOX rolled into one. Some facts, some factoid, and a lot of subjective opinions. All of Simon Whistler's channels are like that and the Scottish guy that replaced him is even worst
infographics always thinks that the US military is some kind of gods.no one is invincible and no one is untouchable.
True. This is not where you find legitimate information.
@@Peizxcv extra credits still quiet good but it history channel
1:45 video starts
Repent of your sins and follow Jesus Christ Almighty
i mean they could just launch multiple missiles at a single target to overwhelm its defences.
@@geocam2 im not talking about the missiles missing im talking about them getting shot down
@Jay Leong eh thats what america said before the Chinese intervened in Korea and we all know how that went XD
@@lawsharland7278 How did that went?
@@zenkisaragi1551 the americans got kicked all the way the 38th parallel
@@lawsharland7278 an under strengthened, badly out numbered, outgunned UN/US force against a surplus of Chinese troops with soviet technical support. The fact that the US were able to conduct a fighting withdrawal and hold the line says a lot. More like China got their asses kicked because they suffered untold amounts of casualties, and they failed to punch through numerically inferior UN troops. You also seem awfully proud that China helped preserve North Korea, just look at what the country is today.
US NAVAL FLEET: I fear no man but that shit scares me
Can one of the 50,000 Chinese cargo ships Carry these missles?
thats an idea. the Russians and Iranians are putting anti-ship missiles in shipping containers and loading them container ships. the anti-ship missile which might be more effective than the df21d. I wonder if the df21d is really designed for use with a tactical nuclear warhead. Does anyone know if the df21d is supposed to be conventional or nuclear?
.
Most of the cargo ships aren’t registered in China. You basically have no idea who is on board. If a war were to break out shipping would be significantly reduced. Only approved ships would be allowed to cross
@@martinclennon4640 DF-21D is technically the nuclear variant of the missile, but I believe it can have a conventional payload as well.
That is a terrible idea. DF 21 doesn’t lack range. Any mountain near China coast can reach US carrier 1000 miles away from coast.
Best time to strike a carrier is when it is in Yokosuka，Busan or Guam for maintenance since no crew life will be lost. 2nd best timing is during resupply in the middle of the sea when it will traveling at low speed on straight line. 3rd best time is during FA/18 Great Hornet taking off since it will be traveling against wind in predictable 25 knots straight line. Usually that's when you are engaging with the carrier in battlegroup formation knowing carrier's exact location and maneuvering behavior.
Regarding target movement and course corrections I'm pretty sure they wouldn't put a larger, more powerful radar in it. They would just use a data link and update it with target information from satellites before plasma becomes an issue. After that there's only a few minutes of movement that needs to be adjusted for, which could be handled by a smaller radar.
Bolivian navy hypercocaine missiles can sunk anything.
Fox News? Not knowing what they’re talking about? Who woulda guessed
Michael Kemper none of them know what they are talking about
The other msm news outlets are worst ...
Trump News lost credibility long time ago.
All mainstream news is trash, fox, cnn, Washington post etc..
Fulcrum Fulcrum ok bud, just because Fox News agrees with you doesn’t mean they’re any better than CNN. They’re trump apologist that lie and start there own fake narratives, and lets not talk about how they were promoting massive anti lockdown protest.
I brought this up long time ago about this missile and people active like they didn't understand : high speed mean harder to turn with less time to turn. High speed gives less response time but is not stealthy and also generates heat as it moved at high speed. I think radar and heat sensor with pick up up early Hypersonic weapons easily and is some cases even visually by there visual trails. The main thing is have a weapons system fast enough and having enough range to intercept one. Jammers would be the cheapest way but I wouldn't want to just depend on them.
Laser weapons offer a solution against hypersonic missiles, and laser weaponry is being developed by several armed forces right now......
I was on a destroyer that was part of the Roosevelt battle group. There’s so many ways to take out an incoming missile. That’s why there’s DDG’s and CG’a all around it. We were basically called missile magnets on destroyers.
Yep, you lot have to take the missiles to save the carrier. And that is because the Carrier is so important. China would not be able to hit them from long range, but the Carrier can send planes to hit China. Cheers
@@BatMan-xr8gg After the first few missiles, China's targeting satellites would be hit to prevent any further launches. There is little point launching a missile which needs GPS targeting information, if you can no longer provide it....
@@Brian-om2hh And who is to say that China has not targeted Americas satellites? Never underestimate your enemy.
I'm sure the Chinese technicians who developed the DF-21D know all what you have said.
The DF 21 and DF 26 are all Reversed Engineer form there Counterparts RUSSIA the Cold War SCUD Missile . But the DF 21 and DF26 Anit Ship Ballistic Missile that they can sink a US Aircraft Carrier it never been test that can sink one US Aircraft Carrier all are Simulation . Unlike the US they test its capacity prove that they can hit there Target like the TAAD Missile
"I'm sure the Chinese technicians who developed the DF-21D know all what you have said."
What the fuck is your point? He's listing the problems they have to deal with. Do you think knowing there's a problem makes fixing it easy? Do you think they have some magic tech that prevents nearby matter from becoming plasma when it's nearly the radar? Jesus. This is the dumbest post here, and I just read one by a guy who thinks the missile must be accurate because it's bigger than a fighter-launched anti-ship missile.
@@Veladus Haha, the plasma layer will only be formed at the front end of the vehicle. You only need to release a connected receiver at the back of the vehicle to receive the signal, just like flying a kite.
It's on Wikipedia
The need for a warhead in these missiles seem like an after thought since the kinetic energy of a ballistic missile slamming into a flight deck from space is enough to ruin your day. Theoretically the warhead can be all radar and flight control and be effective.
Yeah, explosive warhead or not. Hitting you at that speed is a mission kill no matter what.
ya might not sink the ship with a kinetic hit, but you've got either a mobility kill or killed it's operation ability. So sure it'll still float but probably not much more, and that's a win.
@@MrShpoulsen Depends on how long the conflict lasts. Will it be over in 20 minutes, as MAD proponents say? Or will we always be at war with Eastasia?
During repairs it's vulnerable to normal non-maneuvering ballistic missiles.
US build military base and air strip on the Philippines, tried to sink that 😁
Carriers aren’t even the most threatened by it, it’s Taiwan that should really be focused, because all DF21s could be on Taiwan at any moment.
@Khepri Taiwan calls themselves China because China’s stole their land and murdered their people.
Good point, probably one of the most comprehensive understanding video about the real deal about ASBM on social media
Iran's slow moving old tech ICBM already could hit US airbases in Iraq with precision. Let alone China's.
A airbase is a stationary target, but a carrier is moving
@@LaGrangeM the reason icbm is so accurate because it is auto-homing. unless the object move fast like a jet plane, else its a sitting duck.
@@spaideman7850 WRONG they only use radar once they get into the atmosphere at that pint it has seconds to acquire a target. Before that they use sat data for a location.
@@OB_JUAN your point is?
When the west ask the questions like can china do this and that, you know China is already much stronger. Unlike the west, china will only let you see what they want you to see. With the US military, they will let you see more than they actually have in their arsenal just to justify their over spending to the public.
I always love your stuff dude! Very informational and well rounded without much bias
A sneaky way to defeat the radar jamming would be to have a penetration aid in the form of a jettisoned parachuting radio that would tell a second missile what the most likely target is.
But how is a drop aircraft supposed to overfly a carrier group to release that aid without being bungholed?
They were testing these missiles back in 2005 that's 16 years ago. Do people really think China doesn't have better anti-ship tech now that they have a defense budget 5 times greater than back then and they know the biggest threat for them are naval ships?
I like the idea of rail guns being the future of missile defense.
Now if they can defend against nuclear missiles... That would be very, VERY bad in my opinion.
The M.A.D doctrine would be broken, nuclear weapons would stop having deterrent power... and foot soldiers would return to die by the MILLIONS on the battlefield, if two mayor powers decide to fight... Too destabilizing.
US has been working on it for a long time without success. The reason USS Zumwalt was built but railgun was not ready for prime time.
Liquid Propellant Guns seems way more plausible and should be able to shoot at mach 4, which is enough to launch a scramjet projectile and hit railgun speeds. Railguns are just trying so hard to destroy themselves, have a strong magnetic field which is makes guided projectiles more expensive, require capacitors which have a very low energy density for power, and lose a lot of the energy in the fuel to generator systems.
If you run a ship with an Alum cycle turbine, you get LNG fuel and have a cryo oxygen separator built in that you can use to fuel the liquid propellant gun off the fuel tank, giving you all the logistical advantages of the railgun without a lot of the problems.
@@thamiordragonheart8682
I dreamed up that a nuclear powered destroyer would be perfect for a rail gun.
But I'm not in the navy, nor an engineer, so it'll probably remain a dream? 😅
@Solipsil
Even if the tech worked, they'd probably manage to fuck up the maintenance to the point that it becomes a problem 😆
I can't wait for the Covert Cabal theme to start playing. I love it, and the info that follows.
I think we'll be seeing a sort of arms race for this system similar to the SAM race during the Vietnam War, where the Eastern Bloc and the United States created a whole host of measures, countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures. More powerful jammers to overpower the radar, more powerful radar to overpower the jammers, etc.
So why is the designation written on the missiles in English characters and not Chinese? Am I missing something?
*Spur of the moment video*
Cabal: "Hmmm... aircraft carrier?"
World of Warships: "Hi"
In dept analysis, thanks bro. Could you do a video on capabilities of the recent Iranian rocket booster and the range if used as ballistic missile
In principal,china may use 100 Df21D to attack one US carrier. At the height 200km, they pin down the location of the carrier and calculate all the possible location of the carrier within next 30 seconds. Then China cover the area with grid made of 100 missiles. Calculation shows that 4 missiles will hit target.
750 billion dollars annually, two new 6th gen fighters on the way, it would take a combined coalition of several countries to even scratch our defense and offense capabilities. not to mention its made in china
the best way to find out is sail your ship to china and you will know!
It's my personal belief that China would attack using air launched anti-ship missiles, perhaps in concert with a couple of these missiles in order to overwhelm the carrier group's defenses. The Soviets simulated such an attack against their own Kiev-class ship Novorossiysk using similar strategies with favorable results. Another well done video!!
Of courski! Sovietski rocket can sink anythingski. 🐂 Sh##ski!
It can damage but likely not sink. The US conducted sinking tests on a supercarrier it was set to scrap, they repeatedly shot bombed and torpedoed it until they eventually had to send demolition teams in to manually sink it.
Exactly. You can make a carrier inoperable but "destroying" or sinking it is another thing. And a carrier strike group has more than 200 Surface to Air Missiles like the SM-3 to destroy incoming missiles plus electronic warfare jamming and close range air defences (good and old C-RAM). And a carrier strike group has at least three CGs (Ticonderoga-class cruiser) which is basically a ship with one job: Destroy incoming missiles. But thats normal for these kinda countries. The government/military can say "we got the best missiles. One of them can sink an aircraft carrier" and the citizens or soldiers think "wow we are the best" even though its just a capability they have on paper. On paper this thing *could* sink a carrier. Like russia was the second strongest military *on paper* and ukraine just the 22th largest. I mean without a doubt its a threat, but not a carrier killer. In the end it could be: One shot, one kill or whats more likely 100 shots and one kill. We just don't know.
Bigger questions can it hit a moving target? Can it hit a stationary target anywhere but in the Gobi desert? Can the Chinese find a carrier at sea? Can it survive the gauntlet and come within attack range of a carrier? Are there enough of them to attack a carrier with or are most of them just decoys? How reliable are they? will they survive the boost phase without breaking up? People can talk all the smack they like but the DF-21D has never been used in combat.
Well, I guess this video can be updated given the recent test performed.
Why what happened?
It would depend on several issues such as If the enemy fleet can be properly located and targeted for Missile strike, if those missiles work as advertised and the carriers defenses can be overwhelmed then the answer is yes.
But again that depends on a lot of factors which are currently unknown.
Does ch!na have subs ?
@@kencantrell981 yup 50 plus subs
@@kencantrell981 Sure. The question though is whether those subs will be able to communicate with the missile launchers without satellites. If you have satellites you probably don't need the subs. If you don't have them, then subs can't radio home without being quickly sunk (even satellite communications is risky if you're that close to a carrier - lower-frequency long-range radio is a complete giveaway).
Really the subs are more of a risk of just directly shooting at the carrier.
Now, if they had satellites then the subs could more safely provide general intel while staying at a distance.
You can sink a carrier and a carrier group. ...A carrier group CANNOT Sink The Chinese land mass. That's the difference. ...It's like shooting fish in a barrel when the Chinese send those ballistic missiles in vollies. ...I'm sure the Chinese has thousands of these in stock.
@@SportZFan4L1fe It's more complicated than that, the chinese can have thousands of missiles but unless they can locate the enemy fleet and achieve proper targetting those missiles would be landing on the water spcially since we are talking about moving uncoperative targets. There are several ways that the targetting part of the kill chain can be achieved with sattlelites been the primary tool but one that could be attrition pretty quickly if both sides start to shootdown each others space assets. The other way that proper ISR could be mantain and achieved is by heavy usage of survillance drones.
These hypersonic ASBM missiles travel in orbit 200 km above, then fire 2nd stage engine to reach 12,000 km/hr or 3.4 km/sec speed smashing down within 60 seconds to hit target. The carriers and SM-6 missiles have 30 seconds from lock-on detection to destroy or evade these ASBM. It will be very difficult. Better destroy it in its orbit.
About finding the carriers in the first place.
There is no need to maintain surveillance over the entire ocean,
you are not interested in targeting data of things you can't hit.
Satellite surveillance is good enough to maintain early warning and general intelligence.
What is needed is a continual target monitoring capability over an arc of the hit range, say 1500km from launch position.
With side scan capability the surveillance craft can fly along an inner circular arc of at least 100km up range.
If you have say 4 extremely fast recognizance planes flying such an arc between North East and South West ends of China,
this path has an arc length of less than 4000km, each aircraft flying one way, land, refuel and turn around,
2 pairs flying in opposite directions, you practically have the line of defence full time covered.
So what we need would be something with several thousand km ferry range (the last 1000km can be done by gliding);
speed of M4 or higher, at say 25,000m altitude, which can relay realtime radar and optical signals through satellite data link;
can take off and land from conventional airstrips, or launched from a larger aircraft;
having a reasonably short turn round time, including using conventional liquid fuel;
preferrably unmanned too,
then bingo, better than satellite cover.
Is there something like this in the Chinese arsenal?
2019 National Day parade
www.globaltimes.cn/content/1165936.shtml
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/bzk-008.htm
www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30121/chinas-high-speed-recon-drone-is-rocket-powered-and-all-about-doing-what-satellites-cant
Yes, it's here!
How do you feel about the fire on the Carrier in San Diego
No carrier was on fire.
@@GlenCychosz And here comes the laboriously idiotic explanation as to why an LHD is somehow not a carrier, because it's not a Ford Class.... Anytime now...
@@chooseymomschoose it's not though, its a amphibious assualt ship. That's officially what it's designated as
No carrier was on fire.
@@GlenCychosz That's hot
aren’t we developing lasers for point defense tho?
Franc Marcus there not operational tho
Lasers aren't ready for a real conflict, and most likely they would just blast a couple rockets at us at once, overpowering our defenses.
Most of the anti ship missile defenses are missiles not lasers. Currently most of the lasers can only take out a small rhibs engine.
Israel added lazers to its Iron dome anti air defense system quite a while back.. and some US ships have been outfitted with experimental lazers, but i don't think they are anywhere close to full use yet..
It's easier to throw a lot of rocks, than it is to block each and every rock
Noted that most of the previous comments below were over 5 months old, trust those persons who wrote these comments were not aware there was a REAL LIVE TEST of ASBMs consist of an DF-21D and another DF-26B targeting a real moving vessel in South China Sea in late August this year. These 2 missiles were launched at different time and different places ( one from the northwest China and the other from east coast of China), and BOTH missiles hit the assigned moving target AT THE SAME TIME, showing the planning and organizing capabilities of the PLA Rocket Force!
Sure the Chinese needs to know the exact locations of their enemy before they fire those missiles, and obviously they have this capability long time ago. That's why those 2 U.S. carrier strike groups led by CVN-74 and CVN-76 eventually chickened out from the South China Sea conflict in July 2016 because they knew their locations were disclosed to the PLA.
See what the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said in the Halifax Forum in mid November this year:
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/11/21/halifax-forum-news-china-accelerating-rocket-force-capability
In case anyone wants the non, creepy CCP propaganda version. The US navy is well aware of the capabilities of the PLA rocket force. Over the horizon radar paired with a ballistic missile system isn’t enough to stop multiple carrier strike groups, full stop.
By the way, me and the boys on the Stennis (CVN-74) had fun plowing through the South China Sea and the international waters off the Spratley Islands in 2019 and 2020. Big kiss, Dominic.
Remember, there’s a reason why the CCP pulls their hair out trying to stop US Navy aircraft carriers.
The carriers are constantly shadowed by Russian and Chinese subs that will relay the position information to the missile upon entry. Radar is not likely to be used. Also, assuming there is only one warhead and not several is a mistake. The biggest worry is also the radioactive mess those carriers will make when blown to bits. Sinking one would be disingenuous. Best to severely damage or cripple it so it can't fight.
subs need to surface to transmit targeting info, so that would be very risky for the sub. possible, but surfacing so close to enemy surface ships and then emitting radar would essentially be suicide for the submarine.
Burn-through requires a radar with very high power and very high antenna directivity...neither of which are available on a missile platform. Also the plasma effect would indeed render the on-board radar blind. Other targeting assets would have to be used. Also the radar beams would be detected and copied by the A/C carrier jammers then blasted back at the incoming radar at extremely high power...like a strobe light in your eyes at night. [also...we don't even know that there's anything inside those Chinese tube-shaped objects]
Lets not forget.. this dude who runs this channel is an expert of nothing. He has no more information than anyone else could get from internet research or a book. Granted he puts the time and effort into doing the things most wont, but he is no expert. Has no military background, no defense background, no intelligence background, and no history of ever working in the defense industry. Its the definition of armchair expert. A dedicated one, i will give him that.
It is a dangerous weapon and i recoment not to overate your confidence for truth.
@@SortaProfessional89 And therefore no vested interest in spinning a line of bull to keep his job.
There is nothing magical about the military, military intelligence or military contractors, they all still have to work within the laws of logic, science and nature.
I love your well researched and intelligent uploads. Thank you!
This was one of the systems I had to study in college.
As far as what is available Open Source, the guiding belief in terms of function and vehicle design of the RV is that it's similar in construction to, I believe, the Pershing II system the US has long since retired. That system, was designed to conduct a 25 G turn AFTER re-entering the atmosphere. From there it would conduct a glide maneuver for a given distance before adjust again to hit whatever target. It's believed it's during this glide maneuver that the DF-21D is fed targeting data from a satellite data-link network; which China recently put into space.
I guess that’s why the US has a working anti satellite missile:) It seems like if world war 3 popped off gps and spy satellites would be down in hours. Whichever ones survived the first few missiles would get taken out by space debris.
I think having it’s own inertial guidance is probably an important design consideration for these kind of missiles and aircraft in general. One thing the US invests in is reliable INS guidance on their planes, and they’re probably able to use LORAN if satellites went out and build their own mobile guidance network. Be pretty hard to fly an F35 just using a paper map and dead reckoning:)
I usualy don't comment on videos but i have to give praise for this one, instead of assuming how good or not good the 21D is the autor has a unbiased view of the unknown capabilitis of this equipment. It might be able to k.o. a carry but the true fact is we rly dont know! Sry any mistake english is not my 1st language.
THAT MUSIC! Man, every time I hear this intro I feel like I'm being hyped up for battle.
Whether DF 21D can sink U.S aircraft carriers is not so important, it is enough to hit the deck and make a lot of deep dents on it. warplane mission can't be carried out and crash into the sea!
People on Quora (who generally know these things better than most) point out that these missiles are huge, making them difficult to put on ships, and they have to be fired from great range and. That gives the defending ships time to react even though the missile is moving extremely quickly. Further, hypersonic sea skimming missiles don't currently exist (due to size and weight), so all hypersonic missiles must currently be launched almost into space, making the missiles that much easier to hit (compared to sea skimming).
AN/SLQ-32V (?)
CHAFFROC
Also, when a ship is doing 35 knots perhaps (totally maxed out), the ship is almost stationary, when being attacked by a high subsonic plane/missile/dodo bird (even supersonic, or hypersonic vehicle). So therefore, if intel is a minute or two old, the last ship position would be easy to fix the intercept point. Speaking from experience, i was a squid in the late 70's, early 80's stationed on the west coast. Everyone would do practice bombing runs on us, even B-52's, and it happened so fast, one barely could track it visually.
Can we imagine what would happen to China now if they don’t have these kinds of defenses to deter their aggressors?
China doesn’t have any aggressors...
China had been conquered by UK, France, Japan, Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal and USA hundred years ago. They just had to make their defense.
@@andrewdoesyt7787 *looks at US bases surrounding China*
Yup, no aggressors at all...
@@elmohead The bases are for if China attacks the US, they will strike back quickly! If the US was an aggressor, china would be gone by now, yea?
@@andrewdoesyt7787 "China would be gone by now" yeah USA can't even defeat North Korea... or Vietnam...
Imagine a war starts. USA is caught off guard and 6 of the 11 carriers get sunk in 1 week
That would probably happen against China or Russia but both their Navy (and air force) would be obliterated in the process. Such a scenario would escalate to nuclear war (tactical then strategic) and mutual destruction, with countries running out of ships/planes first (Russia/China) pulling the trigger. The carrier groups are extremely powerful mobile military bases meant for proxy wars and direct conflict or deterrence with non nuclear nations. Super carriers are also meant to project the US in contested areas as an asset of deterrence during cold/economic wars against other nuclear powers. A nation can't just sink one without the situation spiraling into nuclear apocalypse. That's why they are such an annoyance to China & Russia.
And then a decade of nuclear winter and no one gives a 5hit about covid because everyone who didn't die in the first 24 months has cancer. Hopefully Beijing and Moscow are half mile deep glowing craters
Yeah that would be WW3. To say we’d be pissed would be an understatement
Would have expected the high speed drone China revealed last year to be mentioned, called Sharp sword or something.
I do wonder how much AI can help with cancelling noise signals from decoy, seen some interesting noice clean up results from autonomous driving demo.
imo,
One of major problem is Accuracy
Firing Missile Barrage to target isn't hard
It's harder to find the target, and even harder to guiding fired missiles with realtime pinpoint accuracy
so, China need to have tracking device on enemy warship
To be safe, US carrier shall stay back 2000KM away from Chinese coast line.
And at this point Taiwan has zero protection, so China already won.
@ no one is going to attack taiwan, jus like there is no wmd in middle east, u stupid warmonger
@@lastchangdepapa1247 uh, sorry, but what makes him a warmonger?
@Bakon And they would risk their soldiers over Taiwan when US wouldn't? And with what anyway? They don't exactly have big navies.
@ japan has the second biggest navy after the US, however this will be overtaken by china in like, just an year
China just shoot 2 of these missiles into South China Sea to react to US flying a U-2 plane into the no fly zone in the middle of a live-fire exercise.
Actually it shot four, but two malfunctioned!
@Common Sense Realist Does this make common sense that starting full scale war by sinking a US air carrier?
I'm not privy to test data to know whether China's anti ship arsenal is particularly effective but I was able to interact with an Australian Air Force Air Traffic controller a few months back that gave me a new sense of how cautious modern militaries are with their assets. He was talking about his tour of Afghanistan and how he improved the time to kill of US airstrikes on high value Taliban targets from about 10 minutes to 2. One of the several problems he saw when he arrived was that artillery and mortar teams would be operating in an area and would have to be instructed to cease firing prior to USAF planes being allowed to enter the airspace. Even though mortar teams and artillery teams don't fire that many rounds during the day and the odds of an F-35 being hit by friendly artillery from the ground is insanely small, no one wants to risk losing a military asset that costs around US$100M. After all, if you fly a dozen sorties a day for 10 years, the odds go from astronomically small to just very small that you'll accidentally mortar your own stealth fighter.
Will the USN risk a multi-billion dollar carrier against a missile specifically designed to destroy it getting lucky? Not unless there was absolutely no alternative. Hence the anti-ship missiles may well do their job in a conflict with the US without ever being fired simply by keeping the carrier fleet far out in the Pacific and greatly increasing the delay of any air support they can provide to Taiwan.
A nuclear tipped missiles doesn't have to be precise or sink an aircraft carrier. Radiation will make the aircraft carrier useless both through it's EMP and residual radio activity.
and it comes in dozens, I am sure!
Covert Cabal you forgot one very important thing : the US has put enormous amount of money into their radars etc for the aegis system. However this is actually becoming a problem as the US ships have so much powerful radars and other emitting equipments that they litteraly are : Christmas trees in the middle of the Pacific.
Everyone can see them from very far away.
Of course they could just turn of their radars and stay on passive mode so that they protect their location but it also means that they could lose the precious seconds to try intercept these missiles and thus means that a hit will be more probable given that China is at parity with the US in term of satellites so they could spot them.
An other option is to lunch an E 2 from the carrier and make it go at some distance from the carrier and then activate it's radar to see what if there is something coming. However this would also most likely give away the zone where the carrier is and with it's very numerous statelittes China could concentrate them on this zone of the pacific. The only difference with the previous scenario is that the E2, if the Chinese don't destroy it, will be very probable to see the ballistic missiles coming in. And alert the carrier group so that they all activate all their systems and try to intercept them.
I think the US could protect it self from those missiles but not before several carriers ends at the bottom of the ocean
To me it sounds like the flip of a coin if a US carrier will be sunk. A lot will depend on the situation and tactics of both sides. Yes, the US can defend it's carriers. It spends lot of money and time trying too. But the Chinese have also put lots of money and time into making missiles that can sink carriers. There is also the chance that if a carrier is hit by a missile, it doesn't sink. So, we'll have to wait see
@@chaosXP3RT I agree, hope we will never find out in real.
Personnaly I think the Russians submarines are much more of a threat to the carriers, the Chinese ballistic missiles are still a threat but the carriers can just stay outside of their range and use the air force vast tanker fleet to refuel the f18 during the flight.
@@DK-ig8zi Yes. I think submarines are definitely king of the sea. The USA, China and Russia all have very formidable submarines. Not only can they launch their own missiles, but they can launch torpedoes. From what I've read, the US Navy just scrapped it's idea of towing torpedo nets around a carrier. They are still trying to figure out how to protect their carriers from torpedoes.
No they just use an Huawei handset and 5g for tracking 😆😆
they have their own gps tho deibu i think the name
Do they really? I've missed that.. Thought it was just GPS and Glonas
@@fensoxx yup
Will Bailey yeah europe and china and india is trying to create one
@@fensoxx The Chinese do have the Beidou constellation. The Europeans are also working on Galileo, which is technically already operational.
The Russians have studied extensively the missile striking techniques necessary to sink a carrier. They concluded a single anti ship missile struck directly from above would penetrate the decking and detonate inside the hull destroying the control and cooling systems for the Westinghouse Nuclear reactor that powers the ship. Within thirty minutes the reactor would detonate with an explosion that would be seen from the International Space Station.
You're incorrect about the SLQ-32 as it is aimed outward from the ship and not up towards the ballistic missile. It may be able to detect the radar coming from space but it would not be able to direct its jamming upwards. And even if it did it would not necessarily jam the radar as there are other methods of disabling using that system.
the battle group can stay clear of the BM just use stand off weapon systems to attack the BMS before can launch them ...
The range of DF-21D is somewhere between 2000-3000km. Even if you have such long range stand off weapon, you still need to find the mobile launchers. It is even harder than finding a battle group on the flat ocean because these launchers are much smaller than a carrier and they can hide in any warehouses or tunnels.
@@joelau2383 satellites and once a DF-21D fired we will know it's location and we got a man who drives one of the DF-21D trucks telling where the launchers are stationed
@@livingfree9553 Even if you can find it when it fires. It obviously would be long gone while your standoff off weapons take several hours to reach the launch site.
A driver would tell you where the launcher are stationed? I guess he ask you to make the transaction before he tell you the location. To be honest, it sounds like a phone scam and you should call the police.
@@joelau2383 No my friend we are alot closer than you think , the next you go to the beach we see you just look out into the ocean you see the tiny light in the water that's a submarine with 200 attack weapons ready to go .
@@livingfree9553 Sorry, but you should really stop dreaming and start learning the issues in reality. There are hundreds km of shallow water extended from China coast line. Submarines are all sitting ducks there.
I’ll use reverse psychology and just stay put.
With the Beidou fully in operation and AI tech targeting a slow moving aircraft carrier not an impossible task. Just see how they landed the rover in Mars all automatic.
As with any new threat, new tactics and countermeasures are developed to mitigate against them. Most likely it will not be any single countermeasure. A combination of ECM through the SLQ-32, decoys anti ballistic missile interceptors and something as simple as evasive zig zag patterns developed originally for ASW would be employed.
Technically, they can add nuclear warheads to the missile and drop it on the carrier battle group. But, that will be a major escalation. I dont think we will ever get there. All these fancy toys are necessary to deter adversaries. In the end, nothing will happen...hopefully for a while.
"In the end, nothing will happen"
- Franz Ferdinand, 1914
I have a bad feeling about this one guys
Western Media: America is a very powerful Nation
Taliban: Hold my beer 🍺🍻 😉😂
History and literal statistics would be a better thing to say than western media
POWER OF IMAN 😤🕋
The frick? American mainstream media are bribed by the Chinese government.
Buddy how long do you think Talibans will hold up if the US just use nukes?
@@lolasdm6959 That will be the end of US as well...! I hope you're smart enuf to understand that.
Sounds like the hypersonic glide vehicle is the game changer for these...
you can also use the sm-6 for terminal defence
Come on, China’s military tech will perform just like its recent mars mission
China & Iran are now allies, can shift the technology & techniques USA the year that you start the war is the day you'll start falling
@@jumamnumbwa9483 Communists and Jihadists were made for each other.
@@dunrossb absolutely what pains is their Masters taught them to mud Islam,that Islam is bad,is terrorism,but those groups never attack two countries Saudi Arabia&Israel, and all these groups are Sunnis Islamists relates to Saudi ,not Shi'a,and Saudi is under mossad& CIA and USA military control /USA military protection we beard trump said we protect Saudi Arabia would say they're rich?so NATO shoots themselves and blame others
@@dunrossb America has ties with saudi arabia the number 1 sponsor of terrorism in the middle east
I couldn't find info on a failed Chinese mars mission?
This is the time where journalist articles and mainstream media goes down the drain, just like how TV cable is dying out. Because of quality of content coming from people like you.
Youre doing god's work, my dude.
Can a missile sink an aircraft carrier?...Of course not......but many more of the same missile would.
It's much cheaper to built a boat-load of missiles than to build an aircraft carrier to counter another aircraft carrier.
You have to force the missle maneuver when you want it to and then you can target it
"the game keeps a really good job at keeping it balance" nice joke lol
Don't need to hit any ships at first. One EMP over the fleet will change everything.
All the military stuff is EMP hardened, so it likely wouldn't do much. Maybe break some cell phones.
You know military hardware is shielded from EMP
@@crabbyjungle5670 Not to mention literally noone has demonstrated an EMP weapon. Sure we can do it in a lab, but, a whole fleet or a whole city? You need a nuke, and well, congrats, if you use that, the world ends.
@@jttech44 and Russia would be interested
And you wonder why _kind_ of warhead the DF-21D uses to ensure a "kill." The only one that might work is a 150-200 KT nuclear warhead about the size of the W80 used on the AGM-86B cruise missile, so even if the miss is about a mile or so the blast effects from the 150-200 KT nuclear warhead is strong enough to disable the ship.
Also wouldn't a flak cloud be a good defense against hypersonic missiles? As they are moving so fast wouldn't hitting 100 ft of shrapnel destroy them?
That's an interesting idea - something moving fast would encounter any fragments even if they're short-lived/dispersed - a bit like how driving fast through a very light rain still requires you to use your wipers.
It might depend on how fragile the warhead is though - it already has ablative armor just to survive re-entry (granted, that probably isn't designed for metal fragments). The flak would only impact it over a very short range so it wouldn't have time to penetrate far into the warhead. Also, if the warhead is mainly kinetic like a titanium rod/etc then I'd think that flak would have little effect.
@@fredmanly3122 To but at those speeds? As long as it's not solid which I would think would be a waste of money compared to a railgun. Which the space shuttle's ablative shell could not survive a foam strike why would a missile's unless it was over-designed? A curse missile may not even have a very thick one or one at all it could be just made out of stainless steel or titanium. Which even in a worst-case scenario flak spam from a dozen ships plus CIS defence guns and counter missiles a hypersonic missile something that has the cost all these systems combined would make it hard for a missile to get through or be worth it when it does. Also, an armoured solid core missile will still take damage and might be thrown off course and if you add chalf into the flak will jamming GPS the missile could miss or be dodged.
But yeah you've raised good points but I still think it's worth it.