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



## ToughOmbre (Mar 31, 2009)

From the U. S. Naval Institute website.....

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. 

TO


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2009)

I wouldn't think that this should be a huge surprise...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2009)

Yeah, not a suprise. But I kinda wonder how well it works. Sounds pretty complex and the Chinese are not doing so hot with complex stuff. Still using an outside source for advance jet engines. Gotta figure a rocket that changes direction midflight is more advanced than a jet engine.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 31, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Gotta figure a rocket that changes direction midflight is more advanced than a jet engine


I'm no ballistic weapons expert
but surely it can wind and weave as much as it likes, at some stage it's got to cone in on the target vessel ie Patriot fodder (or whatever has replaced Patriot) launched from the target vessel itself or somewhere else in the task force/fleet?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2009)

Based on some of the Chinese equipment sold abroad 1 in 3 of these missiles might work as advertised.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 31, 2009)

Whats better, a killer fastball pitcher or a killer fastball hitter?

there will be counter measures. 

I'd be more afraid of subs coordinating an attack with squadron of bear bombers with stand-off cruise missles.

.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Whats better, a killer fastball pitcher or a killer fastball hitter?
> 
> there will be counter measures.
> 
> I'd be more afraid of subs coordinating an attack with squadron of bear bombers with stand-off cruise missles.



Again the problem is still the quality of their equipment. There are still plenty of intelligence reports citing that the Chinese haven't adopted the same regards to quality as the west or Japanese has IMO I think its cultural.

Although this article is 9 years old I still believe it is still true today.

IS-012000-Nolt


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again the problem is still the quality of their equipment. There are still plenty of intelligence reports citing that the Chinese haven't adopted the same regards to quality as the west or Japanese has IMO I think its cultural.
> 
> Although this article is 9 years old I still believe it is still true today.
> 
> IS-012000-Nolt



Sure quality is an issue and i agree that know one knows better than the Chinese that quality can often be overcome by massive quantity. If only 1 in 20 missiles get through to the target, launch 45 missiles.

Although these missiles sound a lot more expensive than Silkworms...

I wonder if a focused EMP pulse could screw up the missiles guidance system w/o damaging the fleet.


.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 31, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> ...and I agree that no one knows better than the Chinese that quality can often be overcome by massive quantity
> 
> I wonder if a focused EMP pulse could screw up the missiles guidance system w/o damaging the fleet


The Soviet Union?

An airburst EMP (likely, if you're trying to intercept a missile) will be omni-directional in nature and omnis don't lend themselves to 'focussing'. It would depend on the pulse yield and how far away from the fleet you managed to intercept, the juggling act being: big enough to screw up the missile and small enough to keep the local assets from harm.
The fleet could take further ECM in the form of disconnecting antennas and switching off equipment but I don't think any fleet commander would be happy about being completely blind in the face of an incoming attack.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 31, 2009)

If its flying that fast, its going to generate one heck of a heat signture as well as an ionized trail when its in the atmosphere. I strongly doubt that its "low obervable", unless its at low altitude in which it will also have weaknesses that can be exploited.

Then theres the maneuverability issue. Anything flying at mach 10 and expected to pull high gee's will need one strongly reinforced airframe, which impacts on the size of the warhead.

I always take "panic" in the military with a lot of doubt. They have all the motivation to overplay their opponants weapons capabilities, and underplay ours.

Is this a weapon to be concerned about? yes. Is it the ultimate weapon? Nope. And I also suspect the Russians and Chinese are upset about our missle defense programs for reasons aother than what they say in public.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I always take "panic" in the military with a lot of doubt. They have all the motivation to overplay their opponants weapons capabilities, and underplay ours.



Just a couple thoughts:
1. There is no panic in regard to this.
2. We don't overplay our opponents' strengths.
3. We don't underplay our strengths.

However, I think at times there seems to be a heightened sense of urgency in order to obtain funding. However, the resource that the military deals with involves human lives. This might be what you were getting at.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 31, 2009)

mkloby said:


> ...... This might be what you were getting at.



No, I am adamant that the military industrial complex always requires to overplay our adversaries threats in which to get funding for their pet programs.

I spent 20 years in the aerospace world (and have been following it for 35 years) and see it time and time again.

The threat is real, but not at the magnitude the USNI is making it out to be.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> No, I am adamant that the military industrial complex always requires to overplay our adversaries threats in which to get funding for their pet programs.
> 
> I spent 20 years in the aerospace world (and have been following it for 35 years) and see it time and time again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> the military industrial complex.



No such thing!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2009)

Mach 10? Unless it has a ballistic missile profile... B$llshit. Pure propaganda.

And then if it does, it is just another Aegis target.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No such thing!



It sure does exist.

If there isnt a "threat", then they sure dont have work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> It sure does exist.


*Show us who they are???*

where do they meet?
how are they creating a threat and selling the threat to the government?
How are they connected to the government????

Maybe Tony Stark is real? 

And don't say "follow the money."

Since the time IKE made that famous speech, defence contractors have shrunk at least by 50% if not more. Although everyone touts defense procurement abuse and influence by the remaining contractors, there's actually a ton of oversight, more than ever and I too have been working defense contracts for at least 25 years and I've seen the abuse waste and stupidity on both sides of the fence and is isn't becuase of an "MIC." The "MIC" is a myth needed to explain why so much money is spent and sometimes wasted on defense spending, and many times the problem isn't a perceived "fat cat" sitting in a office at Boeing or Northrop, its a bureaucrat sitting in a cubical in the Pentagon or at Tinker AFB who never served in the military and who hasn't a clue about the products he or she is procuring for his or her employer - the US Tax Payer!


----------



## timshatz (Apr 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Then theres the maneuverability issue. Anything flying at mach 10 and expected to pull high gee's will need one strongly reinforced airframe, which impacts on the size of the warhead.
> .



My sentiments exactly. Tough to get something like that working. Especially for guys who's track record isn't that good. 

Then again, they said that about the A6M as well and look what happened there. 

Jeez, I'm arguing with myself.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> It sure does exist.
> 
> If there isnt a "threat", then they sure dont have work.



That's a pretty weak argument for the military industrial complex's existence.

There are current actual threats and potential threats to prepare against. Did the MIC invent the IED threat in order to develop and market the MRAP? Was the stockpiling of weaons in caches in the desert created in order to market more UAS support? The threat of hostility that collateral damage creates propogated in order to bring PGMs to the table? Oh, and the manpad threat is also created so the MIC can market ASE gear too?

Come on man - Maybe if it was your A** on the line in combat instead of in your safe, comfortable home you'd feel a different way...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2009)

Hmmmm ..... weve had the fighter gap and bomber gap in the 50's, missle gap in the 60's. The big bad highly trained and motivated Soviet military of the 70's.

And now we have a chinese missle that has created panic.

LOL.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Hmmmm ..... weve had the fighter gap and bomber gap in the 50's, missle gap in the 60's. The big bad highly trained and motivated Soviet military of the 70's.
> 
> And now we have a chinese missle that has created panic.
> 
> LOL.



Well that seals it... the MIC does exist! 

Who's in panic btw???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Hmmmm ..... weve had the fighter gap and bomber gap in the 50's, missle gap in the 60's.


And WHO came up with those terms? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a defense contractor!

And in some cases they turned out to be correct.



syscom3 said:


> The big bad highly trained and motivated Soviet military of the 70's.


And that they were when compared to a "Carter Adminstration" military. Different story after 1981...


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2009)

Digressing I know but I have heard that the Chinese Navy have a problem with their vaunted carriers. Russia has cancelled the order for 50 Su33 aircraft that China placed.
Russia has just twigged that China has a habit of producing cheaper versions of almost anything they buy, in this case the Su27 in direct violation of signed agreements. China bought 200 Su27's (J-11) and then produced their own version (J-11B), in itself not allowed in the original agreement and offered this for export in direct competition with the Russian version, which has really ticked the Russians off.

This leaves China with a problem as to where to get their carrier aircraft from. We can take it as read the USA isn't going to sell them any and the only other producer of carrier aircraft, is France.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2009)

Glider said:


> Digressing I know but I have heard that the Chinese Navy have a problem with their vaunted carriers. Russia has cancelled the order for 50 Su33 aircraft that China placed.
> Russia has just twigged that China has a habit of producing cheaper versions of almost anything they buy, in this case the Su27 in direct violation of signed agreements. China bought 200 Su27's (J-11) and then produced their own version (J-11B), in itself not allowed in the original agreement and offered this for export in direct competition with the Russian version, which has really ticked the Russians off.
> 
> This leaves China with a problem as to where to get their carrier aircraft from. We can take it as read the USA isn't going to sell them any and the only other producer of carrier aircraft, is France.



Interesting thoughts there Glider - I'll worry a lot more about the Chinese the day they field 10 ro 20 "capable" aircraft carriers.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Interesting thoughts there Glider - I'll worry a lot more about the Chinese the day they field 10 ro 20 "capable" aircraft carriers.



Power projection is what it is all about, and seems to be what the Chinese are ultimately seeking...


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2009)

Thats true. Its going to get interesting and a little scary on two fronts. Taiwan is the obvious problem but India is currently the Naval power of the area and the only one with carriers. Both would be happy to see the Chinese Navy have problems with their carriers.

Anyway back to the topic. I would be surprised if the Chinese had the technical assets in place for such a weapon. They have satellites but not I would have thought to be able to cover the area needed and these would have to be able to track and report in real time any changes in the position of the target. They may also need to be used in communicating changes in the missiles flight . Also the misiles will need to have countermeasures and dummies to overcome Aegis missile systems. Its a bit of a tall order for me.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 1, 2009)

A mach 10 airbreathing missile is pure folly for the ChiComs. No truth to it whatsoever. I don't know why you guys are wasting your breath on this subject.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> A mach 10 airbreathing missile is pure folly for the ChiComs. No truth to it whatsoever. I don't know why you guys are wasting your breath on this subject.


 Matt, If I was president I'd appoint you UN ambassador!


----------



## Freebird (Apr 1, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Mach 10? Unless it has a ballistic missile profile... B$llshit. Pure propaganda.
> 
> And then if it does, it is just another Aegis target.



Can Aegis work against a ballistic missile warhead?

At that point it would no longer be a missile that can be shot down, just a warhead? 

Suppose the first missile carries EMP to detonate over the target? Makes thing much more interesting for the rest?


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 3, 2009)

Heh. Considerign the date of most of these posts, I'm still waiting for someone to pop up and yell "April Fools"!


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 3, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> A mach 10 airbreathing missile is pure folly for the ChiComs. No truth to it whatsoever. I don't know why you guys are wasting your breath on this subject.



Unless I missed something, it's not referred to as an air breather. It's a ballistic missile. To me the implication is that it is like a Scud with much better guidance. Still i cant imagine anything mach 10 screaming down with enough accuracy to sink a carrier unless its a low yield nuke.

7,600 mph agile enough to anything?


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 3, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Heh. Considerign the date of most of these posts, I'm still waiting for someone to pop up and yell "April Fools"!



Only a world class jack-ass would do something like that!
.


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 4, 2009)

Heh. Not denyin I may be qualified as at least a nation-wide jackass, but world class, no. So I'm not able to pop up at this time, sorry.


----------

