Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

    Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy


    U. S. Naval Institute
    March 31, 2009

    With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

    After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

    First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

    The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

    The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

    Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

    Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

    While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

    If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

    Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

    After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

    As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

    "The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

    In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.
    J. J. Ogershok, Jr.

  • #2
    topic already posted

    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=50462
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #3
      Wasn't the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System designed FOR anti-Ballistic Missiles?

      So, isn't this kind of like developing ERA armor to stop Tandem charge Warheads?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
        Wasn't the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System designed FOR anti-Ballistic Missiles?

        So, isn't this kind of like developing ERA armor to stop Tandem charge Warheads?
        No. Aegis was developed to deal with saturation attacks from Soviet cruise missiles and naval aviation. It was modified to have anti ballistic missile capability.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          What. US SM-3 anti-ballistic missile missiles / difficulty in maneuvering and targeting for hypersonic AShBMs at long ranges; targets may have already moved 50 km since the AShBM was launched. That's not to say the Chinese may have managed to overcome this difficulty, but there's no evidence of that so far. This kind of AShBM weapon is something you want to show off as soon as you know it's working and reliable.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
            Wasn't the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System designed FOR anti-Ballistic Missiles?

            So, isn't this kind of like developing ERA armor to stop Tandem charge Warheads?
            Well, yes, but for defense against ballistic missiles targeting a city or something to that effect. This missile is somewhat of a new ballgame. Our defenses will have to adapt if they haven't already.


            I would be very curious to see how the missile gets it targeting data and how much it can adjust while in flight. Current ballistic missiles are preprogrammed with a target, and they can't change. Thats why they are useless against ships. This thing moves at Mach 10, so I would think it would not be very manuverable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Johnny W View Post
              Well, yes, but for defense against ballistic missiles targeting a city or something to that effect. This missile is somewhat of a new ballgame. Our defenses will have to adapt if they haven't already.


              I would be very curious to see how the missile gets it targeting data and how much it can adjust while in flight. Current ballistic missiles are preprogrammed with a target, and they can't change. Thats why they are useless against ships. This thing moves at Mach 10, so I would think it would not be very manuverable.
              You really should read the original blog entry, this article actually distorted it by quite a lot. It's located here http://informationdissemination.blog...velopment.html

              Comment


              • #8
                "New visitors should expect other contributors in the comments to be smarter than you. "

                Haha. One day, every blog will be like that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tphuang View Post
                  You really should read the original blog entry, this article actually distorted it by quite a lot. It's located here http://informationdissemination.blog...velopment.html

                  Thanks.

                  Interesting read, but it still seems difficult to pull off unless the Chinese plan on putting nukes on it. Hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile moving at 5000 mph is a difficult thing to do.

                  Of course, even the possibility of it is going to force the USN to make adjustments.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    By the way, Xinhui, Colonel, is there any chance the AShBM will be displayed this October?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Inst View Post
                      "New visitors should expect other contributors in the comments to be smarter than you. "

                      Haha. One day, every blog will be like that.
                      Maybe, but I came up with the rules after contributing to forums like this and having basement kids who didn't know what they were talking about pushing science fiction as reality.

                      The internet has evolved since those days, the mods here are much better these days, and in general I think more professionals are more likely to participate in discussions than they used to be.

                      I agree with tphuang, there is a lot of sensationalism in the news article, but that isn't uncommon. It is very interesting news nonetheless, even the recent Pentagon China report doesn't mention the weapon system as being IOC.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Inst View Post
                        By the way, Xinhui, Colonel, is there any chance the AShBM will be displayed this October?
                        I don't think it's intended for an anti-ship role despite what the newspapers say. What's everyone missing in all of this is that the Chinese have never done a live test.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And no live test means that it is years away from deployment even if it is intended for a antiship role.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There's a very good reason that such a weapon has never been developed, the other side might mistake it for a nuke. I prefer my weapons don't start WWIII by mistake.
                            F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              That's why the Soviets never developed an AShBM.

                              One thing, however, I never got MAD. I don't understand why it makes any sense in game theory terms, when your opponent nukes one of your cities or troop concentrations, to commit suicide by launching all your nukes and force your opponent to fire all their nukes. The alternative is to prove to the world that you don't have the guts to use nuclear weapons in retaliation and destroy the value of your nuclear deterrant. But wait! There's another way around it. You can start targeting as many of your opponent's assets as you think won't result in continued retaliation. If you go overboard, assuming your opponent is also rational, he'll also continue with limited retaliation, but at some point both sides have sated their appetite for pride and destruction and the exchange of nuclear weapons will stop.

                              Instead, in practice, if I understand, the United States had a policy of blowing up the farm if any peer enemy used nuclear weapons on its assets or on things underneath its nuclear unbrella. I assume the Soviets had a similar policy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X