The stuff on the flight deck could be destroyed, but the flight deck itself has literally zero chance of being affected by a cluster munition except for some paint stripping.
PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I would think that a cluster munition would be able to blow a small crater, perhaps less than a foot deep into the flight deck, though I admit I don't know how the flight deck would actually fare.
A large number of craters, a foot deep or even multiple inches deep, spread around the flight deck whether at the bow, amidships or aft flight deck, IMO would all be able to severely hamper flight operations either by creating small craters around the catapults or the waist/recovery strip. I do not think the landing gear of an aircraft would be designed to tolerate that kind of cratered inconsistency in the surface of the flight deck, whether it is for catapult launch or recovery.
Alternatively, if a cluster munition is unable to achieve that effect, I think ball bearings should be able to achieve the effect.
Nah, if you were talking about shaped-charge cluster munitions, I'd say it's likely you could punch some holes through flight deck armor or at least make some dents, but clearly you are referring to anti-personnel cluster munitions, which cause demand to soft targets mostly via fragmentation rather than explosive force or kinetic energy from a single slug. Guess what happens when you set off a hand grenade next to 3" of hardened steel? Nothing.
Tbh I'm not sure what kind of cluster munition I'm talking about, whether it's shaped anti armour munitions, but or anti personnel cluster munitions.
I'm not sure if either type would be most suitable for attacking the topside of a carrier, or something in between... I don't think I suggested anti personnel cluster munitions in my last few posts, and that lack of commitment was deliberate exactly because I don't know what kind of cluster munition (if any -- maybe ball bearings or an anti runway type munition) would be most suited for attacking the topside of a carrier.
Oh no, you are most definitely talking about anti-personnel cluster (sub)munitions: "but rather to increase the CEP of the terminal warhead and allow it to tear up a carrier's topside flight deck which is a very soft target with the island filled with radars and people, and the flight deck with arrestor gear, catapults". Anti-armor cluster submunitions are much larger and fewer in number and would not appreciably increase the probability of a hit (BTW "increasing CEP" literally means you are worsening the accuracy of the ASBM). We are talking (more or less) single digits for anti-armor vs double or triple digits for anti-personnel. Anti-armor submunitions are also not intended to attack "very soft" targets. If they kill people or radars, it's because they randomly happened to land right on top of them, whereas an anti-personnel submunition could still conceivably kill a person or cripple a radar from a few dozen feet away. So you were definitely talking about anti-personnel cluster bombs, that much is clear.
If you want to do significant damage to the flight deck itself, you have to go with anti-armor submunitions because you are simply not even going to stipple a carrier's thick flight deck armor with grenade-sized fragmentation devices. They would also either have to be modified or be specially-designed "anti-deck" submunitions rather than anti-armor since pretty much all modern anti-armor submunitions are programmed to look for and attack tanks and IFVs with a shaped-charge warhead (incidentally with very little splash damage). Personally I would go with anti-personnel submunitions. These would increase hit probability and create significant and permanent losses in crew, aircraft and other hardware and cause fires that would take hours to days to put out a la Forrestal and Enterprise fires writ large. Meanwhile a hole the size of an anti-armor submunition punched into a flight deck may or may not have any appreciable effect on flight ops and could possibly be patched over in short order.
Last edited:
When I say "increasing CEP" what I mean is that a cluster submunition would allow a cluster warhead to have a greater CEP (i.e.: yes, to be less accurate) while also still allowing a portion of the cluster warhead's dispersed submunitions to hit the carrier, compared to a unitary warhead.
As for the number of munitions that an anti armour cluster munition can carry, well the CBU-100/mk-20 rockeeye which weighs about 220kg carries 247 unguided Mk-118 anti tank bomblets -- not exactly single digits in terms of number of bomblets if that's what you're referring to by this part: "We are talking (more or less) single digits for anti-armor vs double or triple digits for anti-personnel".
Now, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that my hypothetical AShBM cluster munition warhead will carry Mk-118 style bomblets, nor am I saying Mk-118 bomblets will be suitable for striking a carrier's topside deck. The CBU-100 is only brought up as an example for a cluster bomb with anti armour bomblets which has a fairly large number of submunitions within it and its nature as an area-effect weapon, as reply to your "single digits for anti-armour" part.
So in conclusion, no, I definitely was not talking about any specific kind of cluster bomb, and I leave open the field for anti personnel, or anti armour submunitions both as submunition types, or another potential submunition type that might be specialized for the AShBM (who knows).
Like I said, I deliberately did not commit to either an anti personnel or anti armour style submunition because I wasn't sure if either one of them (or neither) would be most optimal for the mission I was envisioning.
I also definitely did not suggest that any cluster munition warhead (whether it be anti armour or otherwise) would directly adapt an anti armour submunition like the sort of targeted guided submunitions to target AFVs with EFPs like the CBU-97's skeet submunitions, and when I talk about the possibility of anti-armour submunitions I'm not thinking about CBU-97 type guided skeet EFPs.
As for what kind of warheads and what kind of targets to optimize cluster munitions for -- IMO the most likely "available" targets on the carrier's topside include the island+associated radars, the flight mission related hardware like catapults and arrestor gear, and finally the flight deck itself (if the ability to afflict fairly widespread damage is able to be committed in the last case).
One reason I do not consider the carrier's flight deck personnel and the aircraft to be an optimal target is because I expect one of the aircraft carrier's primary countermeasures to an AShBM to be to stow as many of their aircraft and personnel below decks in the hangar and within the ship respectively, once they receive early warning of an AShBM launch.
OTOH, things like the island, the catapults, the arrestor gear, and the flight deck itself cannot be hidden and protected under a layer of something else. They are all permanently exposed, and if any of them are significantly damaged, it will mission kill the carrier's ability to effectively carry out its mission of launching and recovering aircraft.
Whether an anti personnel, anti armour, or different type of sub munition would be most optimal to fulfill that role is not an answer I have, but that is the kind of target set that I think a submunition AShBM warhead should be looking to be designed for.
Yes, I understand you mean increased probability of hit, but it is technically erroneous to apply "increased CEP" to mean "increased probability of hit" is all I'm saying. You're not increasing CEP at all by using cluster munitions, as CEP is independent of payload but is rather a function of the guidance system on board the DF-21D.
Anti-armor bomblets have been shown to be both inefficient and ineffective against tanks, which is why Mk20s are being phased out (or rather have been phased out) in favor of smart anti-armor submunitions like CBU-97s. Actually I believe the last time Mk20s were used was in Desert Storm.
Evacuate and stow sounds fantastically unrealistic to me. You know that the DF-21D is an MRBM, right? Flight times for these things are less than 15 minutes from launch. Not to mention "early warning" would require a fast communications chain that gets information from forward sensors (probably not even in the fleet itself if the range is sufficiently large) into the hands of the ACHO in time to start making decisions. And how many planes could you possibly "stow" in this time? And while you could possibly evacuate every last person on the flight deck, this would significantly impact flight ops and seriously risk crew safety while completely locking down the entire flight deck for the duration of the DF-21D's flight time. If the PLAN knew USN carriers were going to do something this silly, all they would need to do is randomly launch a single ASBM every half hour to one hour, and then sit back and laugh as tragic hilarity and utter chaos ensues. The easiest mission kill in the world, one ASBM at a time.
Anything is possible.
I'm sure they went with the logical approach and did all the the calculations on:
1. penetrating the flight deck armor
2. penetrating to the main hanger deck
3. The size/shape/mix of the rods/balls of DU/tungsten
I don't see any point in explosive submunitions, because a munition travelling at Mach 5 has a lot of energy to release, so slowing down is just a waste. They might as well use a penetrating submunition round similar to an anti-tank DU sabot instead.
My gut feeling is that the main RV body is designed to penetrate the flight deck and reach the main hanger deck with all the combustible materials. And that the penentrator is fabricated from DU because of its hardness and also because burning DU will contaminate the entire hanger deck.
And that the RV also releases DU kinetic submunitions to hit any exposed airplanes, the island and surface features, along with any soft parts of the flight deck.
Last edited: