Military Review

China has tested aircraft carrier killers

45
China has tested the upgraded DF-21D rocket, reports the Asia Times. For the first time on the tests of the rocket of a new generation told the channel CCTV. Details of the modernization of the DF-21D are not reported, it is only known that the rocket (conventionally called the DF-21G) has become more powerful by 30 percent.


China has tested aircraft carrier killers


The publication notes that the rocket could get a new mobile launcher that can move on the road.

DF-21D is considered the first and only anti-ship ballistic missile in the world. The range of the missile capable of carrying conventional and nuclear (up to 300 kilotons) warheads is estimated at 2 700 kilometers. Targeting is carried out by means of radar and optical-electronic equipment of Yaogan satellites.

The United States has repeatedly stated that they consider DF-21D to be one of the main threats to their aircraft carriers, the rocket also allows for use as an anti-satellite weapons.

In November, 2017 of the year, according to American intelligence, in secret, China conducted two flight tests of a new DF-17 ballistic missile equipped with a hypersonic glider, reports Lenta.ru
Photos used:
http://www.andrewerickson.com/
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Old26
    Old26 1 February 2018 10: 46 New
    +6
    Yes, an article in the “just to write” series. Blooper on a blooper. It’s a pity that minuses have been removed, at least in terms of evaluating articles
    1. Professor
      Professor 1 February 2018 10: 58 New
      10
      Quote: Old26
      Yes, an article in the “just to write” series. Blooper on a blooper. It’s a pity that minuses have been removed, at least in terms of evaluating articles

      So correct. For this, there are comments. And we honor and gain the mind. Regarding the "cons" I agree.
      1. Dmitry Tantsyura
        Dmitry Tantsyura 2 February 2018 08: 30 New
        0
        and photo? it is enough for me to know that the hygiene region is at a high level.
    2. RASKAT
      RASKAT 1 February 2018 11: 03 New
      +5
      Oh, I do not believe in these tales that a ballistic missile can get into a moving object. Well, if only to watch him at the base, peacefully standing.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 1 February 2018 11: 12 New
        +3
        Quote: RASKAT
        Oh, I do not believe in these tales that a ballistic missile can get into a moving object.

        The shell hit. The question, in fact, is only in the guidance system in the final section
      2. Alex-a832
        Alex-a832 1 February 2018 12: 34 New
        +1
        If with a nuclear warhead, with detonation at a given height, then a +/- kilometer can be considered a hit "in the bullseye" (even if a charge of tactical power).
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 1 February 2018 12: 41 New
        +4
        Quote: RASKAT
        Oh, I do not believe in these tales that a ballistic missile can get into a moving object

        In the USSR fell. An anti-ship version of the R-27K ballistic missile. What, in fact, are doubts? GOS can not be put for guidance in the final section? The ship is not a plane, it does not run very fast
        1. RASKAT
          RASKAT 1 February 2018 13: 53 New
          +1
          GOS can not be put for guidance in the final section?
          About that and speech that it is impossible. At a range of 3 000 km, the head speed in descending orbit should be about 3-4 km / s and the temperature under 1500-2000 degrees. Plus the plasma around the head. So GOS is not an option.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 1 February 2018 14: 15 New
            +2
            Entering the atmosphere, the warhead does not slow down to 2-3 Machs? After the search and capture of the target.
            1. RASKAT
              RASKAT 1 February 2018 14: 54 New
              +1
              Well, I don’t know. The Chinese may slow down, although this is nonsense. lol Then it will be quite simple to bring down, the Americans, although far from our C-300, but still have pretty good air defense on their destroyers, they will cope with such goals and at such speeds.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 1 February 2018 15: 25 New
                +4
                Quote: RASKAT
                Well, I don’t know. Chinese may slow down, although this is nonsense.

                In principle, the Chinese did not come up with anything new. The Pershing-2 ballistic missile system had a guidance system for warheads in the final section of the trajectory along a radar map of the area (the radar head was standing). The MS extinguished speed due to aerodynamic drag when it entered the upper atmosphere.
                The Soviet R-27K also had a radar seeker, passive radar for guiding the radars of operating radars of ships (in one of the tests in November 1973 a direct hit was detected in the target)
                It’s very difficult to shoot down a dive target at Mach 3. Soviet anti-ship missiles of the X-22 type (Mach 3,5, diving from a height of 20 km) were also a very difficult target
    3. Muvka
      Muvka 1 February 2018 11: 05 New
      0
      Ballistic anti-ship missile with a range of 3 km? ETOGES how much time to sail away AUG ...
      1. dauria
        dauria 1 February 2018 12: 16 New
        +2
        ETOGES how much time to sail away AUG.


        At a speed of 30 knots in 15 minutes? In any case, it will not leave the detection zone of the GOS missile.
        As I understand it, the idea instead of our Tu-22m is to throw an x-22 missile to the launch point in a ballistic way. Well, maybe not bad. Calculations were given - a regiment of Tu-22m in exchange for one aircraft carrier. And here the airfield is not needed, the range is the same, the crews are not substituting. If the exact coordinates are obtained, why not pulnit?
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 1 February 2018 12: 44 New
        +4
        Quote: Muvka
        ETOGES how much time to sail away AUG

        20 kilometers maximum, if it will dabble at full speed. Not critical
  2. Egorovich
    Egorovich 1 February 2018 10: 51 New
    +3
    Kirdyk crept imperceptibly, soon mattress carriers will sail only along the American coast, and then no, no! lol
    1. Kalinvagen
      Kalinvagen 1 February 2018 10: 53 New
      +1
      and ours? in the black sea?
      1. cobalt
        cobalt 1 February 2018 11: 18 New
        +3
        In the Black Sea, an international treaty forbids the navigation of aircraft carriers, therefore, in order to circumvent the ban, we built not full-fledged aircraft carriers, but aircraft carriers.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 February 2018 12: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: cobalt
          In the Black Sea, an international treaty forbids the navigation of aircraft carriers

          Which contract?
          Quote: cobalt
          therefore, in order to circumvent the ban, we built not full-fledged aircraft carriers, but aircraft-carrying cruisers.

          No need to give out need for virtue. There are no prohibitions on the Black Sea states on aircraft carriers in the Black Sea and on their passage through the Straits (except for one - aircraft must not fly into the air during passage). And we built TAVKR because the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense had a deep personal dislike to AB and loved Yakovlev’s verticals very much.
          All the same, I still had to lay down a full-fledged AV - but with a delay of 20 years and throwing away before that the people's money for 4 ships with cruiser armament and aircraft carrier displacement.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 1 February 2018 12: 46 New
            +6
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Which contract?

            Montreux Convention
            Quote: Alexey RA
            No need to give out need for virtue. There are no bans on the Black Sea states on aircraft carriers in the Black Sea and on their passage through the Straits

            for everyone there. But in the USSR, aircraft carriers were called TAVKRs for many reasons - both for the aforementioned, and because they were not real aircraft carriers (including in terms of application), and for political reasons ("an aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression for the decaying West!")
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 February 2018 13: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Montreux Convention

              The Convention does not contain any restrictions on aircraft carriers for powers coastal to the Black Sea. Carriers of the Black Sea Powers are mentioned in the Convention only in Annex IV. "Classes and subclasses of ships to be included in the calculation of the total tonnage of the fleets of the coastal Powers to the Black Sea referred to in Article 18 of this Convention".
              Moreover, Article 18 does not apply directly to the Black Sea powers - it limits the total tonnage that the Powers, not coastal to the Black Seamay have in this sea in peacetime. And the tonnage of the fleets of the Black Sea Powers (more precisely, the strongest fleet) serves only as the basis for calculating this limit.

              The Black Sea Powers also have no restrictions on the tonnage of passing ships:
              Article 14.
              The total maximum tonnage of all ships of foreign naval units that may be in transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15 tons, with the exception of cases provided for in Article 000 and in Annex III to this Convention. However, the units indicated in the previous paragraph should not consist of more than nine ships. Ships belonging to the Black Sea Coastal Powers will not be included in this tonnage. or non-coastal, which, according to the provisions of Article 17, pay a visit to one of the ports of the Straits.

              But this article restricts the non-Black Sea Powers: either look for an aircraft carrier of 15 tons, or do not go further than the ports of the Straits.

              Here is the only general restriction on aircraft carriers of all powers:
              Article 15
              Warships passing through the Straits in transit cannot in any case use aircraft that could be on them.
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 1 February 2018 13: 18 New
            +8
            Quote: Alexey RA
            There are no bans on the Black Sea states on aircraft carriers in the Black Sea and on their passage through the Straits

            Montreux Straits Convention
            Article 10
            In peacetime light surface ships, small warships and auxiliary vessels, whether or not they belong to the Black Sea Coastal Powers, whatever their flag, they will exercise the right of freedom of passage through the Straits without any fees or charges, since they enter there during the day and on the conditions provided for in Articles 13 and following set forth below.

            Warships other than those that are suitable for the classes indicated in the previous paragraph will have the right of access only on special conditions provided for in Articles 11 and 12.

            Article 11
            Powers coastal to the Black Sea are allowed to navigate their battleships through the Straits tonnage in excess of tonnage provided for in the first paragraph of Article 14, provided that these ships sail through the Straits alone, escorted by no more than two destroyers.

            Article 12
            Powers coastal to the Black Sea will have the right to navigate through the straits, in order to return to their base, their submarinesbuilt or purchased outside this sea if Turkey has received advance notice of a bookmark or purchase.

            Not a word for the aircraft carriers, i.e. they cannot formally pass through the straits. According to the document (Annex II, paragraph B of the Convention), aircraft carriers are considered “surface warships which, whatever their displacement, are designed or arranged primarily for the transport and commissioning of aircraft at sea. If the warship was not designed or designed primarily for the transport and commissioning of aircraft at sea, the device on this ship deck for descent or take-off will not result in the inclusion of it (the ship) in the class of aircraft carriers. "
            As for
            Quote: Alexey RA
            aircraft must not fly into the air

            it concerns all types of ships:
            "Article 15
            Warships passing through the Straits in transit cannot in any case use aircraft that could be on them. "
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 February 2018 13: 38 New
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Not a word for the aircraft carriers, i.e. they cannot formally pass through the straits.

              In this case, TAVKR also can not pass the Straits. Because TAVKR does not apply to LC (Article 11) and submarines (Article 12). And the provisions of Article 10 are not applicable to it:
              Light surface ships are military surface ships other than aircraft carriers, small warships or auxiliary ships, the standard displacement of which is higher than 100 tons (102 metric tons) and do not exceed 10 tons (000 metric tons) and which do not have guns of caliber above 10 millimeters (160 inches).
              Small warships are surface warships other than auxiliary ships whose standard displacement is higher than 100 tons (102 metric tons) and does not exceed 2 tons (000 metric tons).
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 1 February 2018 14: 23 New
                +4
                Quote: Alexey RA
                In this case, TAVKR also can not pass the Straits.

                According to the document (Annex II, paragraph B of the Convention), aircraft carriers are considered “surface warships which, whatever their displacementare designed or constructed primarily for the transport and commissioning of aircraft at sea. If a warship was not intended or designed primarily for transportation and putting into operation at sea aircraft, the device on this ship of the deck for launching or taking off will not have the consequence of including it (the ship) in the class of aircraft carriers
                The law, of course, is harsh, but there are loopholes in any. They called the cruiser - and the bribes are smooth. Japan, by the way, is forbidden to have aircraft carriers. Therefore, they build helicopter carriers, officially calling them destroyers, from which VTOL can operate
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 1 February 2018 15: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  The law, of course, is harsh, but there are loopholes in any. They called the cruiser - and the bribes are smooth.

                  Nah ... there are no cruisers in the Montreux Convention. It clearly states that there are only 6 classes of ships: battleships, aircraft carriers, light surface ships, submarines, small warships and auxiliary ships. All - there are no more classes.
                  And cruisers in this classification fall into the class of "light surface ships", the restrictions of which are actually written off from the Washington and London agreements: the displacement does not exceed 10 tons (000 metric tons) guns caliber - not higher than 10 millimeters (160 inches).
                  That is, for compliance with the Convention, it is necessary either to reclassify TAVKR in LC or in AB. Because he does not climb into other classes.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 1 February 2018 18: 02 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    That is, for compliance with the Convention, it is necessary either to reclassify TAVKR in LC or in AB. Because he does not climb into other classes.

                    Yeah, that is, the cruiser itself as a class is now illegal, because the Convention did not explicitly spell it out, did not use this term? And since then, all the cruisers -
                    Is it not a cruiser, but light surface ships? There is no destroyer in the Convention and there is no minesweeper. You live for soundness - all these ships are ranked as one class.
                    The Convention is not a regulatory instrument for the fleets of the world, as them classify your ships. She is conditionally divides all ships into groups on some grounds. One could write the ships of group "A", the ships of group "B", and so on. Leave the already accepted division of conscience of the authors of the document.
                    Although, no doubt, it seems funny that TAVKR fall into the category of battleships, which are currently not among the active ships)
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    actually deducted from the Washington and London agreements

                    so am I talking about
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    That is, for compliance with the Convention

                    that is, you just need to amend the text of the Convention so that it does not injure the tender souls of pedantic people. Although, for me, it will do so too - most importantly, the meaning is clear
              2. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 1 February 2018 14: 32 New
                +3
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Because TAVKR does not apply to LC (Article 11) and submarines (Article 12). And the provisions of Article 10 are not applicable to it.

                judging by the Convention, it must be considered a battleship)))
                B. Classes

                1. Battleships are surface warships belonging to one of the following subclasses:
                a) surface warships other than aircraft carriers, auxiliary ships or battleships of subclass b), whose standard displacement is above 10 tons (10 metric tons) or which have guns of a caliber above 160 millimeters (203 inches);
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 1 February 2018 14: 54 New
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  judging by the Convention, it must be considered a battleship)))

                  That's it. But ours officially classified it as cruiser. Hence, formally, Article 11 is not applicable to it.
                  However, w ...
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 1 February 2018 15: 50 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    But ours officially classified him as a cruiser

                    All claims are against the authors of the Convention. It does not strictly correspond to the generally accepted classification of ships. There is only a list of signs by which the ship belongs to a particular category. Here, for example, a heavy cruiser with 203 mm guns, but with a standard displacement of 12 thousand tons, how to classify? According to the convention, this is a battleship, however, because 10 thousand tons got out of the magic number)
                    I think then they wrote according to the Washington agreements. Modern ships no longer correspond to anything.
                    1. protoss
                      protoss 2 February 2018 00: 35 New
                      0
                      meanwhile, this year, the Istanbul Canal begins to be dug, to which the convention will not apply.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 2 February 2018 12: 24 New
                        +2
                        Quote: protoss
                        begin to dig the istanbul canal, to which the convention will not apply

                        Why is that?
                        "streamline the passage and shipping in the Dardanelles, the Sea of ​​Marmara and the Bosphorus, embraced by the general definition of" Straits with the aim of fencing, in a framework that meets Turkish security and security in the Black Sea, coastal states,"
                        If another access to the Black Sea is opened, then the rules will apply to it. In general, we will see what kind of channel it will turn out. Apparently, just another branch for unloading the Istanbul Strait
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 1 February 2018 11: 21 New
    +1
    The idea of ​​a vertical drop in ammunition is not new. An attack from the “strictly into the zenith” direction is always the most difficult for any air defense system. And the reaction time is required lightning fast - the speed of the warhead is very high. Doubts are only in the quality of target designation and the capabilities of the target capture system. At a falling speed of one kilometer per second, which optics can withstand aerodynamic heating? Given the increase in atmospheric density with decreasing laughing
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 1 February 2018 19: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Doubts are only in the quality of target designation and the capabilities of the target capture system. At a falling speed of one kilometer per second, which optics can withstand aerodynamic heating?

      it's all solvable. Either a fairing made of radiolucent ablative material when installing a radar detector or a resettable fairing when using optics. Upon entering the atmosphere, the warhead slows down to supersonic speed. And her flight in the atmosphere will be very short
  4. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 1 February 2018 11: 35 New
    +4
    "China, in secrecy, conducted two flight tests of the new DF-17 ballistic missile,
    equipped with hypersonic glider "///

    The Chinese are trying this scheme:
    The BR flies over a section in space and releases a warhead - a glider at its descent in the stratosphere. KR glider flies descending on hypersound in the direction
    to the goal of astronavigation. Above the target, it slows down to a supersonic speed and then goes to the target by the GOS.
  5. Mitrich
    Mitrich 1 February 2018 12: 03 New
    0
    Soviet developments of the 70-80s provided for attacks on the AUG. Astro correction, 1-2 inclusions on a ballistic trajectory for correction. Yes, and with good ammunition, plus or minus 1 kilometer, the result will still give a positive. The most important point is to determine this is the problem. So what's new with the Chinese is the glider.
  6. Old26
    Old26 1 February 2018 12: 15 New
    +4
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Old26
    Yes, an article in the “just to write” series. Blooper on a blooper. It’s a pity that minuses have been removed, at least in terms of evaluating articles

    So correct. For this, there are comments. And we honor and gain the mind. Regarding the "cons" I agree.

    Yes, no problem. I will not even emphasize that the source is the LENTA.VRU resource. Well, if in the case, then

    China has tested the upgraded DF-21D rocket, reports the Asia Times. For the first time on the tests of the rocket of a new generation told the channel CCTV. Details of the modernization of the DF-21D are not reported, it is only known that the rocket (conventionally called the DF-21G) has become more powerful by 30 percent.

    Interestingly, from the point of view of the authors of this article, it means 30% more powerful?
    • Did she drop weight by 30%?
    • Range increased by 30%
    • Or maybe the starting weight is 30% higher?
    Which means 30% more powerful??

    The publication notes that the rocket could get a new mobile launcher that can move on the road.

    And the old launcher with the same wheel formula 10x10 off-road could not move from the word at all?

    DF-21D is considered the first and only anti-ship ballistic missile in the world.

    And for some reason, I thought that the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile was the Soviet R-27K EMNIP missile launched from a submarine. And besides this Soviet one, there is also an Iranian anti-ship ballistic missile, known as the Persian Gulf (in translation). so it’s not the first, and by no means the only

    Target designation is carried out by means of radar and optoelectronic equipment of Yaogan satellites.

    No one disputes, but only the number of these satellites is such that they can hardly create coverage for a certain region of the ocean for any long time. Moreover, the Chinese themselves said that this missile was designed to destroy targets (aircraft carriers0 in the base, because the parameters of the radar guidance system do not yet allow the detection, identification and pointing of missiles at moving targets

    The United States has repeatedly stated that it considers the DF-21D one of the main threats to its aircraft carriers; the missile also allows the use of anti-satellite weapons.

    The USA can say anything. Any such conversation ends with allegations of the backlog of the United States and the requirement to give money to fend off a particular threat. As for the use of the rocket also as a carrier of anti-satellite weapons - it is very doubtful. missile parameters needed to solve missile defense missile defense are much higher than conventional ballistic missiles. To put it in your own words, an anti-satellite missile or anti-missile should bring a small mass to a great height and quickly, and an ordinary ballistic one should bring a large mass, to a greater range and at a much lower speed. And here they are trying to harness "a horse and a trembling doe" in one wagon
    1. Mimoprohodil
      Mimoprohodil 1 February 2018 18: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Nobody argues, but that's just how many of these satellites are
      21 satellites were launched only in the last 3 years. Are you few?
  7. Shadow shooter
    Shadow shooter 1 February 2018 13: 32 New
    0
    Interestingly, on the basis of Iskander can you come up with something like that? wink
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 1 February 2018 14: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Shadow Shooter
      based on Iskander, you can come up with something like that

      his range is not enough for RCC
      1. Shadow shooter
        Shadow shooter 2 February 2018 08: 00 New
        0
        Range enhancement is not a problem
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 2 February 2018 09: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: Shadow Shooter
          Range enhancement is not a problem

          Is that what you think in your fantasies, or is something confirmed?
          1. Shadow shooter
            Shadow shooter 2 February 2018 11: 24 New
            0
            So attached one more step and fly the rocket further
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 2 February 2018 12: 51 New
              +2
              Quote: Shadow Shooter
              So attached one more step and fly the rocket further

              ok, as an option. The warhead of a rocket is inseparable. The flight altitude is about 60 km. GOS three types:
              1. optical correlation, the missile is guided by the reference image of the target, previously stored in memory:
              2. the radar correlation GOS, the missile is guided by comparing a digital map of the area with the memory. The battle falls away - what are the landmarks in the sea?
              3. active radar seeker
              There is also an X-32 air-based cruise missile. Launch range up to 1000 km, flight altitude 40 km, speed 4,5M, ARLGSN, dives at the target.
  8. Old26
    Old26 1 February 2018 21: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Mimoprohodil
    Quote: Old26
    Nobody argues, but that's just how many of these satellites are
    21 satellites were launched only in the last 3 years. Are you few?

    Of course not enough. Over the past 3 years (15,16,17) 10 satellites were launched. For the last four - yes, 21. But look at the start times. The average life they get about 2-3 years. Some of those launched in the same 2014 probably already do not work. In addition, there are satellites of several different directions: optical, radar, radio-electronic. Of course, they created a network, but it hardly covers any significant areas of the ocean
  9. Bypassed
    Bypassed 2 February 2018 11: 05 New
    0
    The familiar chassis. China has spread Belarusians well. They built the tractor plant as a joint venture, they thought they would send at least 20 sets to China, and for them in three years, let's goodbye.
    By the way, no one paid attention to what chassis the DPRK missiles are driving around on. It looks like the Chinese People’s chassis is being customized. What kind of interest is being asked?
    1. Bypassed
      Bypassed 2 February 2018 11: 05 New
      0
      amendment - 20 years supply of car kits and spare parts