What's new

Here Is Why the US Military Is Not In Panic Mode Over China's Carrier-Killer Missiles

T-Rex

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
9,989
Reaction score
-11
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Here Is Why the US Military Is Not In Panic Mode Over China's Carrier-Killer Missiles
uss_harry_s_truman_mod_45151545.jpg

Dave Majumdar

June 20, 2016

The United States Navy will have to live with the proliferation of anti-ship ballistic missiles that have the potential to threaten an aircraft carrier. However, the threat from such weapons is not insurmountable, and in many cases, the danger might be overblown.

“I think there is this long-range precision strike capability, certainly. Everybody says A2/AD [anti-access/area-denial],” Adm. John Richardson, the U.S. Navy’s chief of naval operations, told an audience at the Center for a New American Security’s annual conference on June 20. “A2/AD is sort of an aspiration. In actual execution it’s much more difficult.”

While U.S. Navy officials—and many Washington, D.C., think tanks—have talked about the potential threat to the service’s aircraft carrier fleet from weapons such as the Chinese DF-21D and DF-26, the difficulty of developing a true A2/AD capability is seldom discussed.

As Richardson pointed out, A2/AD strategies have existed since the dawn of warfare. What makes the new Chinese capability different is the combination of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability with long-range precision weapons. “The combination ubiquitous ISR, long-range precision strike weapons take that to the next level,” Richardson said. “It demands a response.”

But the threat is not just contained in the South China Sea, Richardson said. The anti-ship ballistic missile threat is increasingly found around the world and will continue to proliferate. Indeed, the hermit kingdom of North Korea has apparently acquired anti-ship ballistic missile technology. As such, the Navy will have to get used to living with the threat of anti-ship ballistic missiles and other similar threats.

“I think that the proliferation of anti-ship ballistic missiles is just a fact of life we’re going to have to address,” Richardson said. “That fact that it’s in the hands of North Korea—a leader who has been less predictable than many others brings another dimension to that equation.”


However, that does not mean that the aircraft carrier is obsolete or that the carrier air wing is unable to conduct its mission. As Navy officials have mentioned repeatedly in private conversations—weapons such as anti-ship ballistic missiles require an extensive “kill chain”—including ISR sensors, data-networks, command and control and other systems—in order to be effective. That extensive kill chain can be attacked and disrupted through electronic attacks, cyber warfare or some other kinetic means. “Our response would be to inject a lot of friction into that system,” Richardson said—disrupting the enemy kill chain.

Indeed, when A2/AD zones are discussed, often the entire radius of where an enemy missile can attack targets—such as an aircraft carrier out at sea—is marked as a no go zone. But in the Navy’s view, it can operate inside those zones, but the service would have to use different tactics. Moreover, the assumption that an area defended by a weapon such as a DF-26 is a no-go zone makes the implicit assumption that the Chinese—or other enemy—has the ISR assets and networks to make their weapon work perfectly. “That’s just not the reality of the situation,” Richardson said.

Nonetheless, anti-ship ballistic missiles and China’s growing A2/AD capabilities will remain a potential threat. But that threat is not insurmountable and will not render America’s mighty super carriers or their air wings obsolete in the near future.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...tary-not-panic-mode-over-chinas-carrier-16651
 
Its pretty obvious the USA is way behind the curve now, when they plan to counter A, China is already at C.

Still remembering the time when US naively trying to defeat the 1500 km ranged DF-21D by their extremely long ranged UAVs? before they even field a UAV prototype, China has announced the deployment of 4000km ranged DF-26 ASBM.

I am sure China's A2/AD system is robust under war conditions, that's why we develop highly sophisticate network, including Quantum radar, OTH radar, satellites, long range UAVs, undersea sensor network, anti-ship ballistic missiles or even anti-AWACS ballistic missiles, direct-energy weapons etc.

I bet by the time the US figured out a way to deal with DF-26, China will field the counter-counter weapon already.

But maybe the US admiral is right on one thing: US may not need to worry about China's A2/AD that much, because by then, maybe it is the US need to think about A2/AD to counter China navy instead, or at least by then the battle will be mainly on high sea.
 
Last edited:
If my memory serve right, this news has been posted some time ago. So why do we need to reread this post and reply to it again?
 
What you expect the Admiral to say? "We are doomed and sitting duck! All USN shall never engage the Chinese."

Of cos they will BS something to boast the moral of their armforces when even facing total defeat. :enjoy:
 
What you expect the Admiral to say? "We are doomed and sitting duck! All USN shall never engage the Chinese."

Of cos they will BS something to boast the moral of their armforces when even facing total defeat. :enjoy:
By the same line of reasoning, what do we expect the Chinese to say ? That the DF-21D is so-so against the US ? Of course the Chinese military is going to say the best things they can come up with to praise the DF21D.

Of course, this is the same PLA that predicted the US military will suffer heavy casualties in Desert Storm.
 
By the same line of reasoning, what do we expect the Chinese to say ? That the DF-21D is so-so against the US ? Of course the Chinese military is going to say the best things they can come up with to praise the DF21D.

Of course, this is the same PLA that predicted the US military will suffer heavy casualties in Desert Storm.

The same can be said about US confidence in the Korean and Vietnam War and we know how it turned out for America. :enjoy:
 
To be fair to both sides, China without a doubt is a growing military power the must be reckoned with even by the United States. But on the other hand, it is unlikely that American military planners are just sitting and drinking beer and not making counter plans. American military planners plan on very long term basis and they will not let go of their grasp on the world affairs that easily, although its waning. Interesting times ahead.
 
The same can be said about US confidence in the Korean and Vietnam War and we know how it turned out for America. :enjoy:
South Korea exists and every single military analysts agreed that the US was the dominant force in Viet Nam. It was politics, not military issues, that the US withdrew from SE Asia. But considering you have no military education, we should not expect too much from you.

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...paper-dragon-df-21d-carrier-killer-hasn-t.htm
Of more importance, over water tests will allow the U.S. to detect and verify the "kill chain" that guides the DF-21D to its over-the-horizon targets. The DF-21D has radar and optical sensors that track distant targets but these haven't yet been tested against a warship wildly maneuvering at up to 30 knots (55 km/h) while being subjected to intense electronic warfare countermeasures and jamming.

Read more: http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...f-21d-carrier-killer-hasn-t.htm#ixzz4LMqYQX79
There is an international agreement, of which China is a signatory, that says any planned rocket launch outside of borders must be internationally noted. This is to prevent any potential misunderstanding between countries.

An open water test of the DF-21D would require China to notify South Korea, Japan, and certainly the US. Not minutes before, but days before. This means the US would be monitoring the test launches and full SIGINT processes would be underway.

To be fair to both sides, China without a doubt is a growing military power the must be reckoned with even by the United States. But on the other hand, it is unlikely that American military planners are just sitting and drinking beer and not making counter plans. American military planners plan on very long term basis and they will not let go of their grasp on the world affairs that easily, although its waning. Interesting times ahead.
We are talking about the PDF Chinese, who have very little respect for experience in general, let alone military experience in particular. So yes, they do believe that the US military have been sitting around and drinking beer.
 
By the same line of reasoning, what do we expect the Chinese to say ? That the DF-21D is so-so against the US ? Of course the Chinese military is going to say the best things they can come up with to praise the DF21D.

Of course, this is the same PLA that predicted the US military will suffer heavy casualties in Desert Storm.
US general predict 1 year is all it takes to mission accomplished when they enter vietnam war. The same US command to tell you DF-21 is nothing :enjoy:

They are plenty of option to tackle CVN. Cruise missile, submarine, flood with plenty of fighter jets and UAV but China chose DF-21D :enjoy:

More or less tells you something works.
 
US general predict 1 year is all it takes to mission accomplished when they enter vietnam war. The same US command to tell you DF-21 is nothing
You want to debate the military aspects of the Vietnam War, go to the appropriate threads.

They are plenty of option to tackle CVN. Cruise missile, submarine, flood with plenty of fighter jets and UAV but China chose DF-21D :enjoy:

More or less tells you something works.
China chose the ballistic missile path because it is the easiest in terms of technicality and the 'scare' factor. But the reality is that going after any moving target is filled with high risks of failure, especially if the target is capable of bringing countermeasures.

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...paper-dragon-df-21d-carrier-killer-hasn-t.htm
Analysts concur that for China to successfully attack a U.S. Navy ship with the DF-21D, it must first detect the ship and identify it as a U.S. warship of a type it wants to attack (such as an aircraft carrier).
The operative word here is 'type'. So far, there is no evidence that the DF-21D has successfully distinguish one type from another. To do so, there must be MULTIPLE OPEN WATER tests using different sizes of ships with different radar and/or IR signatures.

These issues have been presented by me yrs ago on this forum.
 
Article is crap

As, one in the comments pointed out, technology advance is against, big and relatively static carriors

Radars, microelectronic blocks, data translation systems are being improved and downsized, with less and less power consumption which enables fitting them in more space constraint casings

Number of surveillance platforms is increased due to the rise of drones and there are satellites , advanced UCAVs (Sharp Sword etc)

With current and future sensor capabilities, carrier is going to be detected much before he enters warzone. This leaves plenty of time, for preparation for coordinated attack against the carrior and the escort

Since the task force is valuable target , loss of few tens of UCAVs and missiles spent does not make any difference

Task force are going to get destroyed or crippled. Big vessels are loosers in this game

Defence cant be improved, according to detection and attack capabilities
 
Last edited:
Just a few doubt regarding this asbm thing:
a) Will real time targeting be possible in the sense,will not some time pass between the satellite or UAV passing on the co-ordinates to the kill vehicle, within which the ship would have moved. 1 minute gap will still lead to the ship at full speed be over a km away from the last known location. More the gap, more will be the distance the ship will be away from the kill vehicle.How is that accounted for?
b) If the the war head used is nuclear, it can't a small tactical one as I understand US tests ships to withstand large blasts even in the vicinity. Will China use strategic war heads and if so, will there be no retaliation?
c) Will not the impact of a nuclear warhead in sea be absorbed by the water to an extent, which will again necessitate the use of a still larger warhead?
 
South Korea exists and every single military analysts agreed that the US was the dominant force in Viet Nam. It was politics, not military issues, that the US withdrew from SE Asia. But considering you have no military education, we should not expect too much from you.

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...paper-dragon-df-21d-carrier-killer-hasn-t.htm

There is an international agreement, of which China is a signatory, that says any planned rocket launch outside of borders must be internationally noted. This is to prevent any potential misunderstanding between countries.

An open water test of the DF-21D would require China to notify South Korea, Japan, and certainly the US. Not minutes before, but days before. This means the US would be monitoring the test launches and full SIGINT processes would be underway.


We are talking about the PDF Chinese, who have very little respect for experience in general, let alone military experience in particular. So yes, they do believe that the US military have been sitting around and drinking beer.

Despite your claim of miltary or other experience this or that blah blah blah how fast you think an massive aircraft carrier can sail on an open sea? 30 - 40 knots per hour? How can the speed be translated into km per hour?
That is less than 75 km per hour. and the deck is as big as 3 to 4 football fields

Who told you the test must be done in the sea?

We can do the test on a fast moving unmanned vehicle driving at over 100 km per hour, changing speeds and changing directions on windy desert hi-ways and even during extreme thunderous weather

Does the PLA need to test our missile on an open sea to ascertain our accuracy?
And we are talking about the the test of just one missile shot each time

You've tried so hard all the time to impress but I have to tell YOU, you cant earn any bit of respect here
What a pity
 
a) Will real time targeting be possible in the sense,will not some time pass between the satellite or UAV passing on the co-ordinates to the kill vehicle, within which the ship would have moved. 1 minute gap will still lead to the ship at full speed be over a km away from the last known location. More the gap, more will be the distance the ship will be away from the kill vehicle.How is that accounted for?

Reaches of real time targeting is surely highly classified matter, and only very limited circle of personalities are into this in full scale

But, I do know this. Computer in the command system, can set up the path of the carrier, and accordingly fire the salvo of missiles with multiple warheads on the coordinates, best suiting the actual coordinate of the vessel, per rocket

With the existing accuracy, carrier and the task force, are going to be disabled at least. When over 100 warheads, pour upon the vessels, there no way, they can go through that rain undamaged. With radar , deck and landing system antenas and systems, damaged, whats the use of airplane carrier
 

Back
Top Bottom