# Chinese ‘Carrier-Killer’



## comiso90 (Mar 29, 2010)

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’ | Danger Room | Wired.com


/






/

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 29, 2010)

That's scary! I wonder what congress is doing to counter this.


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 29, 2010)

Well, given how decisive carriers are in a Naval battle, you can't really blame them for being prepared. Did the article say if they were giving the evil eye to any particular country?


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 29, 2010)

If I had to guess I would say Russia and the United States. Maybe a little more on Russia. But I'm just guessing here.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 29, 2010)

Take a look at this infographic:

World Wide Aircraft Carriers


.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 29, 2010)

Wow!! I was under the impression that Russia had two or three not one. Maybe they are eying us. I don't know.


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 29, 2010)

I dunno, I just get the impression that saying they're building these things specifically for the US (although the odds are in favor) would be like saying "hey, the Chinese developed a 12mm rifle round, they must be wanting to start something with us!" Having a missile that can take out a carrier just seems...prudent. We have subs that can dance around their carrier escorts, pop a few ADCAPs in the side of a carrier, and then chew on the escorts for desserts. Makes sense that they'd want a similar capability.

Sorry, just playin devil's advocate for a second here. I just don't get the feeling that the crosshairs are on any one nation in particular.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 29, 2010)

The US Navy and perhaps the threat of nuclear retaliation has been the only thing that has kept Tawain safe. These missles are an equalizer that may turn Taiwan into another Hong Kong.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 29, 2010)

I'm sorta leaning in your direction of thought RA. I mean, as much as we owe China and all the business we do with them it would not seem prudent to be doing this as a first strike weapon but you never know.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2010)

It would need active homing for it too work. And anything active can be jammed.

Besides, maybe this will be a kick in the ass wake up call to further develop lasers and other exotic weapons.

Also .... ever wonder why China screams so loud about the US anti-ballistic missle tests?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 30, 2010)

As scary as that may seem, it doesn't look much different than the SS-22 or Silkworm.

But hey, the rig has whitewall tires...gotta give 'em points for that, at least!


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Mar 30, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> As scary as that may seem, it doesn't look much different than the SS-22 or Silkworm.
> 
> But hey, the rig has whitewall tires...gotta give 'em points for that, at least!


That's too funny. 
I didn't notice it until I read your post.


Wheels


----------



## Waynos (Mar 30, 2010)

Is this actually genuine or just propaganda though?

I mean how do you _steer_ a ballistic missile? Its a contradiction in terms.

A carrier is a tiny pinprick on the worlds oceans and it is also _moving_. Precision guided munitions have to have the means to correct theor path, look at any paveway bomb. At the moment I am strggling to see how this idea could work at all, rather than whether China specifically has the ability.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 30, 2010)

There are two things involved in steering - guidance system, and some kind of mechanism making missile go desired way. I think mechanism (be it aerodynamic or pyrotechnic) already exists in existing re-entry vehicles of modern ballistic missiles so nothing new to invent here. 
The guidance system is what is new here, in order to deal with moving target on sea surface. If Chinese have produced the material that is both strong enough to withstand great heat during re-entry, while being RF-transparent, and a radar that can 'ground-map' when pointed at almost 90deg, they might have a dangerous system.


----------



## Torch (Mar 30, 2010)

Don't know about you guys but that does look like a US carrier with f-14s/18s on deck.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 30, 2010)

If it can hit carriers, it can hit anything else too. Destroyers, Cruisers, Container ships, ect. It's a big anti-ship missle. 

Looking at it from the Chinese perspective, it makes sense. They have very few natural resources and their lines of communication to the Persian Gulf go right past India, the other growing power in the region. Sooner or later, those two will bump heads. Having a ship killing missle is just a logical development of their force projection. 

Don't see the Chinese bothering the US Navy or the US anytime soon. More a problem economically for both countries if a fight breaks out than if we just cruise along as we are. China at war with the US loses her largest trading partner, holder of their debt and largest supplier of illegal information. The US loses access to what is essentially it's manufacturing base. Loser for both countries. 

Lastly, as other people have noted on this thread, building an anti-ship missle and getting it to work reliable are two different things.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Mar 30, 2010)

I think you guys are forgetting something about China's ability to hit something. It wasn't that long ago when China launched a successful missile at a satelite. A satelite is considerably smaller than an aircraft carrier even if it is traveling at a know direction and speed. But perhaps were not looking at this right. Here's a what if for you. What if that missile is not suppose to directly hit that ship but instead go off above it. Lets say something like an EMP bomb. An EMP bomb would take out not only the carrier but the entire task force and anything with electronics within a large area. Just something to consider.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 30, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> There are two things involved in steering - guidance system, and some kind of mechanism making missile go desired way. I think mechanism (be it aerodynamic or pyrotechnic) already exists in existing re-entry vehicles of modern ballistic missiles so nothing new to invent here.
> The guidance system is what is new here, in order to deal with moving target on sea surface. If Chinese have produced the material that is both strong enough to withstand great heat during re-entry, while being RF-transparent, and a radar that can 'ground-map' when pointed at almost 90deg, they might have a dangerous system.



Targetting a city with an ICBM is a very different thing than trying to hit a ship at sea, you have come up mwith some VERY big if's there tomo, thats why I think its just scaremongering. Also, they didn't hit a satellite with a ballistic missile, thats the point where it falls down for me, right there.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Mar 30, 2010)

"American intelligence believes it was a successful Chinese test of anti-satellite weapons. Launched from the Xichang range, the medium-range ballistic missile carried a kinetic interceptor in place of a warhead, which in a direct hit destroyed a weather satellite put into a polar orbit in 1999 at an altitude of about 860 kilometers.

An undisputed fact is that we now have a cloud of debris in orbit which is expected, according to some sources, to last a quarter of a century and pose a threat to space vehicles. It is this debris that raises the first question in a series of uncertainties about the tests: Where does it come from?"... There are skeptics and there are believers. Fact of the matter is there is a debris field where a satelite use to function.

The Chinese Satellite Killer

"Reports of this week's test first came to light in the publication Aviation Week Space Technology, which cited U.S. intelligence analysis of orbital tracking. The tracking data indicated that the Chinese weather satellite disintegrated suddenly on Jan. 11 — and although the cause could not be confirmed, the fact that Washington expressed concern led to the conclusion that a satellite-killing missile was employed."

Questions deepen over satellite-killer test - Space- msnbc.com

You can believe what you wish. I prefer to err on the side of caution.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 30, 2010)

So are you saying that the ballistic missile might launch smaller, guided weapons? I can see that being more achieveable than a straight ballisitic missile hit. Yes, that would actually be quite scary, IF thats what they are doing. Unless you can hit it before the 'multiple warheads' are deployed you are doomed.

On another point though. Wouldn't a ballistic missile trigger a nuclear response?


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Mar 30, 2010)

That is a question... I don't know. I guess it depends on who is sitting on the button. As I understand it, Obama just signed a nuclear deal with Russia which would draw down the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenal. The U.S. is not of the mind set to act in a Nuclear war unless perhaps fired at our homeland. Therefore my guess, and this is only a guess, is no. Besides, a nuclear bomb exploded in the upper atmosphere could send an EMP pulse to an area roughly the size of the continental US. Which would make this senario I asked about earlier improbable.


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 30, 2010)

It has been known since 2004.

Dongfeng(East Wind) Type 21D
Range 1500-2500 km

Search result:
Image
Video


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 30, 2010)

Shinpachi said:


> It has been known since 2004.
> 
> Dongfeng(East Wind) Type 21D
> Range 1500-2500 km
> ...



yeah.. but this is the first dedicated article I'v seen.


The biggest value the China is that this is a bargaining chip. It is a viable threat that will make and strategist think twice. . If accuracy is an issue, they just build more missiles. Ballistic missiles are more difficult to counter than than cruise type.

.


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 30, 2010)

Sorry comiso90 if I might have made you unpleasant by my last too simple post
but I had no intention to do so. I hope you to understand it.

The recent military power of China may look more threat than ever but, if so, I would not be living in Japan which is located next to China any longer. 

I will keep living here because I know that they won't attack from their side first because they could know well what happened to Japan when Japan had attacked Pearl Harbour first.

To a contrary, what interest me on their web sites is that they are daily insisting the present and future military threats from not only the US but Japan!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2010)

Aegis. And a successful US demonstration of an exo-atmospheric kill of a re-entry vehicle.

And I agree with Waynos.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 30, 2010)

Didnt the old Pershing-2 IRBM's have a radar mapper as part of the payload so as give it a means to adjust its terminal dive for a potential "bullseye" hit?

Waynos is right that the ballistic missle might have smaller warheads with active sensors and the means to guide the warhead. But as I've also said before, if its an active seeker, then it can be jammed.


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 30, 2010)

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a direct hit, either. The concussion/water hammer from something that big could conceivably buckle the hull, at least of some of the smaller ships, plus, if its close enough, the upward force and/or water displacement beneath the ship could break its keel. That's what nuclear torpedos are designed to do...basically, create a "void" in the ocean beneath the ship that smaller ships will "fall" into (which would royally suck when the ocean decides to rush back in), or in the case of carriers, where the bow/stern could, in theory still be in the "normal" ocean, placing undue stress on the keel, and pretty much crack the ship in half. With enough explosives, or nuclear warheads, you don't necessarily have to have a direct bulls-eye.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2010)

Shinpachi said:


> To a contrary, what interest me on their web sites is that they are daily insisting the present and future military threats from not only the US but Japan!



Sounding more like Imperial Germany every day. "We arm ourselves to deal with all the threats around us". Not a good rationale.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2010)

A few thoughts...

I remember reading a paper were there was a plan to take some of our ballistic missiles and arm them with conventional warheads. IMO it’s a great idea especially if there is a need to take out a sizeable stronghold in rapid time. The problem with this is if one is fired, it is indistinguishable between a nuke armed missile and it may escalate an arms race with those countries that have the technology to build such missiles.

This "carrier killer' has been around for a while. IMO its propaganda against the US dominance of the sea and the ability to project power through an aircraft carrier force. China is a regional super power and although we could debate the strengths and weaknesses of her military, the fact remains that she cannot project her military might outside her sphere of influence. The day she starts trying to match the US aircraft carrier force, that's the day we'd better be preparing for a confrontation with her. I don't believe that is going to happen, at least not in the short term, she's too busy making money. The only joker in the deck is Taiwan.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This "carrier killer' has been around for a while. IMO its propaganda against the US dominance of the sea and the ability to project power through an aircraft carrier force. China is a regional super power and although we could debate the strengths and weaknesses of her military, the fact remains that she cannot project her military might outside her sphere of influence. The day she starts trying to match the US aircraft carrier force, that's the day we'd better be preparing for a confrontation with her. I don't believe that is going to happen, at least not in the short term, she's too busy making money. The only joker in the deck is Taiwan.



Didn't the Soviets have a carrier killer back in the 80s? 2K warhead and 2K mph?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Didn't the Soviets have a carrier killer back in the 80s? 2K warhead and 2K mph?



I believe so and they were more or less in the same boat (to coin a phrase) that China is today.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe so and they were more or less in the same boat (to coin a phrase) that China is today.



Ballistic?... i guess with a 2k warhead it was.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2010)

What does that mean, comiso?


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 31, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> What does that mean, comiso?



Ballistic: like an ICBM nuke, or SCUD... vertical take off, extreme altitude into space, or the edge of space, multiple stages, often multiple warheads, very high angle of attack usually with large warheads, very fast - often airburst. large land or sub based launchers. usually not as accurate but larger warhead means it may not have to be precise.

Ballistic missiles are very difficult to defeat. New laser defense offers hope

as apposed to cruise or "sea skimming" missile .. can fly "under the radar", low angle of attack comparatively maneuverable, smaller warhead (can be nuke), many are subsonic although there are some supersonic models. easier to shoot down with phalanx, aegis AA missles. versital launch methods.. sub, grounfd sea and air. very accurate.. easier guidance )used to say that a cruise missile could land in a swimming pool 2000 miles away.

Both can "kill a carrier" but in a nut shell, ballistic missiles can carry a larger warhead and its more difficult to stop.
also.. some cruise missiles fly a parabola and will skim the sea for most of the journey but climb high before impact for a near vertical hit to maximize damage







http://steeljawscribe.blogspot.com/2007/05/missile-defense-101-icbm-fundamentals.html

.

.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2010)

As I recall (and this is definitely a "don't quote me on this" call), per my earlier post, the Soviets had a 1 ton warhead on a 2000 mph missle that was a sea skimmer. BUT, it might've been 1000lb. I don't think it had a balistic terminal dive at the end, just slammed in at low level. A lot like the Exocet but a lot bigger.

I remember training for it down in Dam Neck. "Vampires" is what they were called. Didn't give you a lot of time between the launch and contact, less than half a minute. TAO, FC and CIC had to be on the ball. Was relatively easy with Aegis, hit or miss with the older stuff. 

Mostly miss.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2010)

timshatz said:


> As I recall (and this is definitely a "don't quote me on this" call), per my earlier post, the Soviets had a 1 ton warhead on a 2000 mph missle that was a sea skimmer. BUT, it might've been 1000lb. I don't think it had a balistic terminal dive at the end, just slammed in at low level. A lot like the Exocet but a lot bigger.
> 
> I remember training for it down in Dam Neck. "Vampires" is what they were called. Didn't give you a lot of time between the launch and contact, less than half a minute. TAO, FC and CIC had to be on the ball. Was relatively easy with Aegis, hit or miss with the older stuff.
> 
> Mostly miss.



U.S. NAVY GETS SUN'BURNED' - NEW RUSSIAN ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILE FOR CHINA


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> U.S. NAVY GETS SUN'BURNED' - NEW RUSSIAN ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILE FOR CHINA



Looks like it. Nasty sucker, but I thought it had a larger warhead. 

Is there another one? Sunburst? Sunbeam?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2010)

I think that's the beast - the fastest of its call and the navy wanted to buy it from the Russians!


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2010)

Perhaps you mean SS-N-12 (Sandbox), or SS-N-19 (Shipwreck)? 
1-ton warhead, ~300 nmi range, 1.5-2 Mach sea-skimmers. 
The -19 has titanium armor applied, and one missile acts as spotter commander for up to 8 other missiles attacking the enemy. The acting-commanding missile is replaced by other one if destroyed. The 'slave' missiles lit up their radars only after directed towards their targets. 
Russian subs can fire up 24 such missiles, each weighting more than Grippen fighter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2010)

Hi, comiso,

I've got puzzled by that '2k warhead' in the sentence


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 31, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> The -19 has titanium armor applied, and one missile acts as spotter commander for up to 8 other missiles attacking the enemy. The acting-commanding missile is replaced by other one if destroyed. The 'slave' missiles lit up their radars only after directed towards their targets.



It does what?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2010)

Who?


----------



## timshatz (Apr 1, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Perhaps you mean SS-N-12 (Sandbox), or SS-N-19 (Shipwreck)?
> 1-ton warhead, ~300 nmi range, 1.5-2 Mach sea-skimmers.
> The -19 has titanium armor applied, and one missile acts as spotter commander for up to 8 other missiles attacking the enemy. The acting-commanding missile is replaced by other one if destroyed. The 'slave' missiles lit up their radars only after directed towards their targets.
> Russian subs can fire up 24 such missiles, each weighting more than Grippen fighter.



I remember that one! They came in swarms, lots and lots of big, hulking, vodka powered ship killers. The rumor was the reason they didn't armor up our ships was to let the titanium warhead go right through without stopping. I guess the thought was "it won't notice". 

I had my doubts about that idea, especially as I was going to be working where that sucker was coming in. Superstructure has a big radar signature. 

Yeah, that one should've been renamed "Nightmare" cause it was.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2010)

> vodka powered ship killers



Now that's good


----------

