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

Discussion in 'SitRep' started by ToughOmbre, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. ToughOmbre

    ToughOmbre Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,182
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired from Verizon Communications - Now Working for Point Lobster Company, Pt. Pleasant Beach, NJ
    Location:
    Jersey Shore, USA
    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
     
  2. mkloby

    mkloby Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,561
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    USMC - Capt - 7532
    Location:
    Jacksonville, NC
    I wouldn't think that this should be a huge surprise...
     
  3. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    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.
     
  4. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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?
     
  5. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,202
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Based on some of the Chinese equipment sold abroad 1 in 3 of these missiles might work as advertised.
     
  6. comiso90

    comiso90 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Video and multi-media communications expert
    Location:
    FL
    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.

    .
     
  7. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,202
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    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
     
  8. comiso90

    comiso90 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Video and multi-media communications expert
    Location:
    FL
    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.


    .
     
  9. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
  10. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    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.
     
  11. mkloby

    mkloby Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,561
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    USMC - Capt - 7532
    Location:
    Jacksonville, NC
    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.
     
  12. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    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.
     
  13. mkloby

    mkloby Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,561
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    USMC - Capt - 7532
    Location:
    Jacksonville, NC
    :lol:
     
  14. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,202
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    No such thing!
     
  15. Matt308

    Matt308 Glock Perfection
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Washington State
    Mach 10? Unless it has a ballistic missile profile... B$llshit. Pure propaganda.

    And then if it does, it is just another Aegis target.
     
  16. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    It sure does exist.

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

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,202
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    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?:rolleyes:

    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!
     
  18. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    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.
     
  19. mkloby

    mkloby Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,561
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    USMC - Capt - 7532
    Location:
    Jacksonville, NC
    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...
     
  20. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page