Chinese ‘Carrier-Killer’

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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 said:
It has been known since 2004.

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

Search result:
Image
Video
Click to expand...

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.

.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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

Didn't the Soviets have a carrier killer back in the 80s? 2K warhead and 2K mph?
 
tomo pauk said:
What does that mean, comiso?
Click to expand...

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

.

.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

New Chinese Fighter
Replies
1
Views
360
Capt. Vick
M
A Chinese Spy Balloon?
10 11 12
Replies
231
Views
12K
horseUSA
M
Nice Carrier Photo
Replies
4
Views
710
Jimbob
A
2030, Chinese CBG vs. Japanese CBG
Replies
0
Views
442
Admiral Beez
A
A
Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi in the Arctic
Replies
1
Views
774
Christopher Tarana
C
Menu
Log in
Register