Well there's a difference actually, this comes from again, velocity. The SM-3 was able to hit the malfunctioning USA-193 satellite that which was falling to earth at about Mach 23. Though the trajectory of the satellite was known, the trajectory of the terminal stage of the DF-21D is most likely predictable also, as the exoatmospheric intercept window for the DF-21D should be wide enough so that the warhead bus would not be readjusting it's course for impact against the target.
Iron,
I highly doubt that a "recently" detected maneuvering warhead can be considered the same as a large falling satellite which had been tracked for eons prior to interception. USA-193 had known mass and was in uncontrolled free fall; which follows very basic laws of physics (namingly F=g*(m1)*(m2)/(r^2) and its derivatives); a maneuvering warhead is not following a predictable path. This is before the notion of mutiple missile launches and sub warheads.
In comparison, the DF-21D was tested against a rotating concrete slab that happened to be the size of the Nimitz. If that concrete slab was programed to maneuver in an unpredictable course at 35 knots, that would be a valid test of the DF-21D's guidance system and accuracy. However, it was simply, a rotating concrete slab. So although the test did demonstrate the DF-21D's accuracy against a rotating ship, it did not demonstrate it's accuracy against a moving and rotating ship, which is the most realistic example.
I don't think the slab was rotating.
But the main point was not that the DF21D can hit a moving ship or not, but that testing had been conducted like the SM3. So if you believe that a SM3 can hit a moving maneuvering target because of it's tests against predictable and known objects, then, you will believe that a DF21D can hit a moving ship because it can hit a concrete slab.
a SM3 at Mach 8 vs a Mach 23 satellite is an intercept speed ratio of ~1:3
a df21 at mach 10 vs a 45 knot (0.07 mach) ship is an intercept speed ratio of ~143:1
A SM3 warhead vs a intercept target warhead is a size of maybe 1:5
A DF21 warhead vs a carrier target is a size of maybe 1:1000
All of which suggest that it is easier for a DF21 to hit a carrier than for a SM3 to hit a DF21.
lol. There is no solid estimation of the penetrative power of "2 kg submunitions" at Mach 12. They can penetrate 25 mm of steel or a 1,000 mm of steel, we just don't know because there's no equation (that I know of) to estimate the penetrative power of a spherical object.
And it's unlikely anything would go straight through the Iowa other than an EFP. KE projectiles will tend to deform mid-way, if it doesn't blow up, that is.
Well simple comparisons can be made, they do not have to be spherical; you can have ~60 10kg fin stabilized penetration if you want;
A M829A3 DU anti tank sabot is around 10 Kg, it goes at around 1555 m/s or Mach 4.5. It is reputed to go through ~800 mm of RHAe armor.
A WHA 20mm Kw.K. 38 L / 55 cannon round going at 1000 m/s (~mach 3) at 0.1 kg can go through 60 mm of armor
in any case, if you are going at mach 10, your penetrative power would increase
Again, no one did any calculations pertaining to the penetrative power of spherical sub-munitions. It's also unlikely that a small diameter submunition (such as a 0.5" ball of DU) would penetrate enough armor and sheer space to actually do much damage to the crew.
My philosophy is this, if you penetrate the armored deck, the crew working in the hanger below is basically dead or injured. If you have penetration, you will have spalling (I doubt CVN are spall lined), If hanger crew is severly recduced and the aircraft + equipment within it damaged; the carrier is as good as useless.
So how big and what shape of the penetration needs to be is a different question.
Not exactly. The USN has already started and made plenty of headway into arsenal ships. In fact, IIRC, there's about 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles that's on board some Ohio class SSGNs that's patrolling within launch range of the PRC. Not to mention that because the USN's ships have modular VLS, who's to say that the Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke class ships that are escorting the CV wouldn't also be loaded with Tomahawks themselves.
Well yes,
the USA launched more than 1000 tomahawk at Iraq; which (in comparison to China) did not have that many military targets, nor that good air defense; and much smaller country. I mean tomahawks does not do that much damage; and I doubt China will let a Ohio sit there launching all of her 300 tomahawks; you get a few in the air and the boomer will have to relocate.
The DF21 also out range the tomahawk (at least on paper 3000 km vs 2500 km) meaning even if destroyer sacrificed their SM3 (or other) to launch tomahawks, they will still be in range of the DF21 themselves to launch it. -> I am just proving the point that the notion of staying out of reach of the DF21 as Nikex suggested, does not mean the CVBG is safe. (Can the DF21 work is a different question).
So if the CVBG is to stay out of the DF21's range, it can't really deliver munition into China. And Tomahawks deliver much less munition than strike fighters like the F/A 18. (which is what I meant when I said strike fighter had a range of 1000 km). A tomahawk carries 450 kg of munition vs. 8,000 kg on a super hornet. If the strike figther can't strike, the munition a CVBG can deliver is a fration of it's potential.
---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------
What was meant was this. The ability of the F-35 to DETECT the launch of a DF-21D as soon as it cleared the horizon.
Okay, so what? if the carrier have to stay 3000 km away from China, the DF21 had worked. - the CVBG cannot launch strikes against China already; it is mission ineffective.
The smoke has particles suspended that act like chaff. And like chaff it is tailored for certain frequencies of radars that would be used to home in on the CVN. I have posted this article several times. I wish somebody would read it since it answers all the questions you and others are raising about the modern use of smoke or as it is known today: OBSCURANTS. Please note the bold parts of the quote. There are only so many ways to home in on a target. And like the Pershing 2 where the Chinese came up with the idea for a DF-21D, the homing radar is in the millimeter portion of the spectrum band
How do you know that it is in the millimeter range?
It could be satellite laser guide, or ground station triangulation for all I care. It technically doesn't need it's own sensors, It could have a data link from a base station which provides its with a location it needs to fly to.
It could have a seeker like a traditional Xband radar, or a theoretical quantum radar -> I don't know, and I don't think you know either. To assume that you can counter that frequency or that frequency does not overlap with American used ones is pure guess work.
Also, how will flight opts operate with a smoke screen on it's deck?
"....The application of obscurants on the modern battlefield has been widely examined by U.S. Army strategists and operators for over a decade and a half; (2) obscurants are firmly imbedded in U.S. Army doctrine. (3) Moreover, the effectiveness of obscurants against a panoply of terminal homing systems, from the visual to the millimeter-wave spectrum, is proven.
In simple terms, the particles suspended in the medium of smoke can be adjusted in size to absorb and diffuse radar waves emanating from the seeker heads of incoming antiship missiles, thereby denying any homing information to the missile. In the modern naval battle space, where antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) are a principal threat, adapting obscurant systems and developing tactics and operational schemes for their use at sea is prudent. Given the stark potential of antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), this adaptation may be essential. (4)
Nike-X which became
SPRINT accomplished these types of warhead intercepts decades ago. Check out SPRINT. It had 21 successful intercepts of incoming warhead. A remarkable piece of technology that has not been equaled even today
Err yeah? So what is different from SM3 tests? all against simulated targets; and not multiple targets.
Again, my Scud + DF21 launch theory, can the system determine which missile is the real threat; which is false?
Multiple warheads? Sub munitions?
No one will send ONE missile to attack a CVBG piece meal; I highly doubt a CVBG can intercept lets say 100 incoming ballistic missile with 200 anti ship cruise missiles all impacting at around the same time. The DF21D is just a part of a long range anti ship capability that includes HN-3, HN-2000, KH-55, strike aircraft
) but I'm pretty sure that the USN's submarine arm is still superior to the PLAN's submarine arm.