Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "China's DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile" video.

The simple way to deal with that is simply UNREP outside the DF-21 range. The DF-21 range is little over 1000 miles so the CVN just needs to stay at 1200 miles problem solved. The USN just needs get the CMV-22 with VARS and the MQ-25 operational so it can extend its carrier planes range
8
@Jguthro Carriers are nuclear powered but their planes are not. They still have to take on fuel for their planes which requires them to be along side a tanker Thats one of the benefits of nuclear carriers The space that use to hold fuel for the carrier becomes additional storage space which allows the carrier to stay on station longer.
5
@elmohead Demolition charges which are planted strategically on various locations is not the same as weapon impacting the ship Demolition crews cut the hull in various strategic locations in addition to strategically placing charges. This allow more water to flow in The damage a missile or torpedo does completely depends on where it hit Example, the HMS Hood take a direct hit to ammunition magazine and was destroyed almost instantly. The ship broke in two and sank The HMS Sheffield took a hit from one Exocet and sank 3 days later whereas the USS Stark took 2 hits and survived
4
@gm6545 Completely false Even with testing, they have to maintain strict EPA guidelines which would prohibit the presence of aircraft even they have been stripped Secondly using bunker busters on carrier again , pointless. as that weapon is not optimized for naval warfare. The GBU-28s is 5000lbs in weight but only carried 630lbs of explosive. The mass of 5000bs is to give enough kinetic enough to punch through and the warhead does the rest. The explosive force is magnified by the bunkers design. It basically drop ice cube in glass water and you get the idea So testing that on CVN is literally pointless as CVNs are only water tight not air tight Ignition sources are stored all over the ship.
3
@gm6545 Thats technically not true The USS America CV-66 Sink-X was a carefully executed test. They did hit the ship with a lot weapons but it was carefully planned and executed which allowed them to get a great amount of data from the experiments. Without careful planning, they would sank the ship on accident and lost valuable data Also remember that the ship did not have any ignition sources aboard no fuel, weapons, aircraft, chemicals The Forrestal, Orkinsy and Enterprise were all severely damaged from fires. So yes, it remained afloat but that by one design and two planning
3
@bobandaklu7213 He has no experience, its just made up. The bits and pieces he writes says it all
2
@Boban Daklu That very true but that was then and this is now Before WW2, naval supremacy was measured in battleships. After WW2, naval supremacy was measured in the capabilities of carriers and submarines Countering air power from carriers has been extremely difficult to accomplish due to fact of longer range aircraft, missiles and aerial refueling which allows carriers to strike from 1000 miles away nominal repeatedly. long range missiles and advanced torpedoes have also made subs that much deadlier The market in countering subs and carriers have produced some weapons but there are 2 sides to that coin The market in protection has also produced some defenses The biggest drive is to produce a reliable hard kill anti-torpedos for destroying incoming torpedos as well as Laser weapons capable of destroying missiles from sub sonic to hypersonic. For subs, its just made them getting quieter and quieter unsinkable, no just very very hard to kill
2
@Drew Peacock PLAAF/PLAN lack the tanker fleet to project the J-20s
2
@gm6545 As for the odds of the DF-21/26 sinking a carrier, it carries a 1300lbs warhead That combined with its speed would punch a sizable hole in a CVN but in like I said before, it depends on where it hits If they were able to score direct hit to reactor or ammunition magazine , it might have a chance but at they are both buried under layers of armor as well as the built in safety systems They would need at least 2 direct hits Its not impossible ,however the USN constantly improving defenses does make extremely difficult to accomplish
2
@JZ909 Using the USAF tankers puts them at risk. China's J-20 will try to go after KC-10/46/130/135 tankers any chance they get.
2
@gm6545 We can all agree that you statement is complete bullshit First when testing , you dont hit with everything in the arsenal, you are testing to approximate what the ship would encounter in combat. In case of Russia That would be 1000 to 2000lbs class warheads for missiles and 600-700lbs for torpedos For China, it would be 400-500lbs warhead and the same with torpedos Secondly, with SINEX with ships that have helo hangers, you have never seen a stripped down helo in one Seeing how the hanger would hold up would yield valuable data but like I told you before, USN has to follow strict EPA guidelines which prohibit aircraft from being used in SINEXs Lastly weapons are not cheap and even the USN can't fire them off like candy
2
@Drew Peacock "You didn't address my comments above about UNREP and the DF-26" That would be a waste of time as using DF-26 ships is waste of time A destroyer or cruiser at max speed can change its position by 11 miles , CVN at max speed by over 17 miles. Even ship at 20 knots would be able to change its position by 8 miles. The DF-26s at max range cant target ships accurately The DF-series is only target at closer range. thats the point Assuming those figures are correct, there are currently 68 active Arleigh Burkes and 22 active Ticonderogas in the USN. That's 90 ships in total. 300 SM-3s works out at 3 per ship. As I said, they're so expensive I didn't think ships would carry many and this figure confirms it. No, wrong metric. There 10 carrier battle groups with 4 to 5 CG/DD per group. One ship with 20 SM-3 works out to 200 missiles with 20 missiles per battle group its simpler to equip per battle group than per ship. They are planning to have enough SM-6s per ship but the SM-3 cost limits it to per battle group here are other options but the SM-3 and SM-6 are the only ones with highest chance one shot one kill What are the other options? DEWS weapons One shot one kill is very optimistic when it comes to shooting down extremely fast ballistic anti-ship missiles. Missiles can always miss. You didn't respond to my suggestions re other ways to take out DF-21s and DF-26s. The problem with those methods is that they are terminal phase weapons whereas the SM-3 can intercept boost ,mid course and terminal, phase the SM-6 is mid course and terminal phase How so? They've already been tested Firing 20 rounds is not operational clearance. All that does is show that the gun can handle HVP ammo They havent done a complex firing like they do with SM-3 and SM-6 against maneuvering targets They can operate at max range Well you're contradicting yourself now. You originally claimed DF-21 and DF-26 couldn't operate at maximum range SMH with 20 minutes to spare A destroyer or cruiser at max speed can change its position by 11 miles , CVN at max speed by over 17 miles. Even ship at 20 knots would be able to change its position by 8 miles. the DF-26 range is 2500, just by moving 8 miles , you are out of its effective range. When you fire a weapon at targets at the edge of its range, odds are, the target will move out of range every time Not in an environment where there are enemy subs, sub-hunting ships & helicopters, carrier aircraft in the air, maritime patrol aircraft, geostationary satellites, over-the-horizon radar, a seabed sonar network and surface and underwater drones. unless they are close by, it all of that is worthless. Like I said, they wont launch if enemy ships are present and the PLAN does have not ships to cover the pacific even with over watch, aircraft still have to reach the target area or by near by. You still have to get the weapon to target you are assuming best case that they get lucky but USN is not just launch a TLAM with an enemy with 100 miles of it a seabed sonar network may be able to track it but once its goes it deep and slows to 5 knots, its a ghost Heading home? Why would a sub head home after firing a TLAM? Why would I stick around after letting the enemy know I am here. I would head home for safety as you stated its environment where there are enemy subs, sub-hunting ships & helicopters, carrier aircraft in the air, maritime patrol aircraft, geostationary satellites, over-the-horizon radar, a seabed sonar network and surface and underwater drones. Shoot and scoot tactics "The US can easily go through the EU on ground and knock Russia defenses and missile via special forces or aircraft. Which aircraft exactly? Using which ordnance exactly? As for special forces, how are they going to get into Russia in the first place? China has the same problem well protected like Russia in pacific but there is a backdoor in Arabian sea Bengal bay. Arabian Sea? Bay of Bengal? How are they backdoors to China?" You are moron point blank,
1
@Drew Peacock The fact you have to ask how special forces could get into Russia is nuff said
1
@Drew Peacock It is nuff said One of the biggest fears during the cold war was special forces on both sides Russia is land locked with the EU figure it out
1
@Drew Peacock Well the fact you have to ask how special forces would get into Russia is nuff said Thats is the simple thing to figure
1
@Drew Peacock Its not refuse, its realizing you literally have no idea what you are talking about
1
@Drew Peacock Sorry not playing the stupid game of 3 page
1
Hoy Sum The H-6K and DF-21 is not threat It can only carry one missile The H-6K combat radius is fraction of that other strategic bomber uses by the Russia and the US
1
@Drew Peacock They have 200 H-6 but not tankers to send them long distances Secondly the bomber that can carry the DF-21 is the Xian H-6N/H-6X1 which means they have to mod the airframe to carry the missile so they dont have 200 H-6 capable of carrying the DF-21 Like Russia with the MiG-31 and Kinzhal only handful of aircraft Also "Report: China Developing Nuclear-Capable ALBM" Designed to equip a new Chinese bomber known as the H6X1/H-6N, it will be ready for deployment by 2025. So its not even operational But most importantly When it comes to missile-killing lasers, the US Navy is ready to burn its ships the defensenews article outlines the USN path to 1MW Laser weapons The USN already has the ODIN, HELIOS and LaWS aboard ships So its very likely by 2025, the USN will be at 500 kw to 1MW testing as well operational with the SM-6 block 1B So not a real threat
1
@Drew Peacock Shooting at 2500 miles is more advantage for the USN than China. Even if it does travel faster, time is still on the USN side At Mach 20, or 13,050 miles per hour , its still 12 minutes roughly. The DF-series is only a real threat at closer ranges like 700 miles on down The SM-3 and SM-6 are both expensive 19 mil for the SM-3 and 5 for the SM-6 however CVNs are billions each. 6-9 bill for CVN-68 class and 10 plus for CVN-78s class The planned buy for SM-6 is 1800 missiles at a cost of 6.5 billion and 300 plus for the SM-3. The USN plans to replace the existing SM2 with SM-6. The wrinkle is that USN has been successively upgrading the SM-6 which is making it more capable but also more expensive. Same with SM-3, its been successively to be more capable but has it made extremely expensive per shot. https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/sm-3/ With 10 carriers group with 20 missiles per, thats 200 SM-3 deployed hence why the USN is upgrading the SM-6 with SM-3 technology, its not as expensive so they can afford to fire more. There are other options but the SM-3 and SM-6 are the only ones with highest chance one shot one kill The USN has no ship for its railgun yet. The HVP rounds from the 5 inch guns are promising but still years away from being practical In order to kill a missile like the DF-21/26, you need a 300 kW plus per shot. The DDG-1000 has the power but the cost of modding it would be expensive DDG-51 dont have the power unless you remove one its VLS and replace it would generator/capacitor The only choice is the LPD-17s but no one made 300 kW weapon yet, everything is below 100 kW BeiDou-1' will only get the missile to the target area, its own seeker has to find the target. The seeker will face heavy jamming They can operate at max range but that makes it easier for the USN to target and destroy. Max range gives the target a lot of time to pay with TLAM: Range 1,300km to 1,700km depending on the variant. - JASSM: Range 370 km. - JSOW-ER: Range 22km to 130km depending on the altitude it's released from. - JSM: Estimates range from 280km to 560km. - LRASM: Estimates range from 370km to 560km. Wrong info The JASSM A range is 370 where JASSM-B range is over 1000 km JSOW-ER range is 560 km, 22-130 is baseline JSOW Secondly sub launch is low threat for the sub. First it wont launch if ships are nearby second, once its launch how exactly will China counter attack a sub? unless they get lucky and have sub nearby , ? Even with nearby sub, the bulk of the PLAN subs are diesel , they dont have fuel to chase down a US SSN Also launching is easy way to draw enemy ships and subs into a trap Even anti sub marine aircraft would still need to close enough. Once the sub fires, its going deep and heading home China or Russia can't possibly be attacked until the threat from their IADSes and anti-ship missiles has been neutralised and we don't currently have any way of achieving that. Again wrong Russia is bordered by how many countries. Remember the cold fear was thousands of russian tanks invading the EU. The US can easily go through the EU on ground and knock Russia defenses and missile via special forces or aircraft. China has the same problem well protected like Russia in pacific but there is a backdoor in Arabian sea Bengal bay. Dont assume that US is going to attack from only one direction. Yes battle plans for a major shit storm in pacific but there are other ways into Russia and China Thirdly the proposed launch aircraft are the B-1B, B-52 and F-15, all of which are unstealthy.They could all be shot down by J-20s and other ground-based aircraft, carrier-based aircraft or ship-based anti-air missiles. False The PLAN/PLAAF lack the tankers to extend the J-20 range far enough to intercept. Using 1000 miles as base line, the J-20 would have be orbiting at 1200 plus miles Also again assuming that they wont overlfy India or Pakistan, Afghan, Taji , Kry Banagladesh , Myanmar. Nepal is just 400 miles from the Bay of Bengal so they can launch from there too B-1s and B-52 can launch without threat The S-400 rated up to Mach 15 , the ARRW is Mach 20 Why are missiles being built that for the most part clearly aren't fit for purpose and don't have sufficient range? its not about the missile, its how you use it
1
@Drew Peacock They can be overwhelmed but at what cost in resources per attack No one has infinite resources They can only commit so much per attack
1
@Drew Peacock Not even close 100 mil in resources lost is huge deal but even then does not guarantee success. The USN has 11 CVNs plus 8 LHA odds are at the best, they will be damaged at best surface ships are vulnerable to missiles hence the constant upgrades to their defenses As I stated before, we are seeing the first generation of hard kill anti torpedo systems "Navies, companies push for torpedo-killing torpedoes" as well the massive push for Laser weapons that can kill missiles Sending USN CVN carrier against China or Russia would be suicide for their ships not USN ships USN aircraft can easily operate at 1000 miles with their existing equipment JASSM carry be fired up 600 miles while LRASM is 300 Against ships, its 1200 miles Russia's Zircon range 540 miles So thats missile is out they havent completed the trials or testing with subs with the Zircon Next is the Kinzhal can be launched from long range but the long you launch , the more time you give the target to defend China has the same issue with its DFs SO not a real problem yet
1
@Drew Peacock Claiming that simulated exercises and wargames are representations of actual combat is just stupid The whole of simulated exercises and wargames is to train Emphasis on the word train which you can't get through your thick skull
1
@Drew Peacock Its called having options ding dong carrier group, sub, ship or land based aircraft It gives you options on battlefield to came at the enemy from variety of different ways depending on the situation
1
@Drew Peacock Yes ding dong options You don't fight war without taking risks which you literally too stupid to realize Name one navy that has stopped building surface ships because of threat of missiles or torpedoes answer no one moron because every navy accepts that reality Name one country that completely depends on long-range aircraft firing lots of long-range missiles for its capabilities answer again, no one is that stupid You can't name one military that subscribes to your nonsense Militaries may have long-range aircraft with missiles but they also have other options to choose from
1
@Emphasis213 Thats no exactly true China has been extremely careful with the DF-21/26 Trying to test them without the US knowing
1
@Drew Peacock The DF-26 wont be used against ships. First its range is 2500 miles which does give it reach but also gives the target 20 minutes. Thats ample time for SM-3s or SM-6s to make an intercept as well time for electronic warfare to jam the missile. The DF-26 like all missiles still requires course updates to stay on target. Ships are moving targets whereas targets like bases and port are fixed and require no additional support. If used close to China, odds are ,they can counter the jamming as well jam the USN DDG and CGs radar but launching it at max range put its out of range of support and in range of USN defense. The DF series is only real threat at closer ranges. At 700 miles, time to target is just 5 min 30 secs. Its still lot time but less than what they would have at 2500 miles Lastly in the pacific , the USN is going to be making heavy use of cruise missiles like TLAM, JASSM, JSOW-ER ,JSM and LRASM. Ultimately China's nightmare will be the AGM-183A. The ARRW tops out at mach 20. From 2500 miles , its 11 minutes at 1250, 5 min 44 secs If the ARRW has the range, then the USN problems with the DF-series would be over.
1
@Drew Peacock You can't pull saturation attacks with DFs TheYJ-12 is just 5500lbs is whereas the DF-21s are about 32,400lbs The shear amount of resources needed for one DF missile sorry not happening Saturation attacks will come with missile that are lighter, and can be produced quickly As for the defense thats why the US uses a layer defense ding dong F-35/SH first, followed by two layers DDG/CGs and the CVN being the last Which is both hard kill and soft kill systems Hence why China and Russia developed hypersonic weapons as breaking through existing USN defense with their current level of missile supersonic would have required a massive strike whereas hypersonic weapons can do it with one missile in theory Sure it can be ovewhelm but it wont be easy
1