What's new

China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says

BanglaBhoot

RETIRED TTA
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
5
Country
France
Location
France
China's military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for its Pacific allies.

Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.

"An analogy using a Western term would be 'initial operational capability (IOC),' whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it," Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. "I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC."

The four-star admiral, who has been an outspoken skeptic of China's claims that its large-scale military buildup is peaceful, said the U.S. deployment assessment is based on China's press reports and continued testing.

The new weapon, the "D" version of China's DF-21 medium-range missile, involves firing the mobile missile into space, returning it into the atmosphere and then maneuvering it to its target

Military officials consider using ballistic missiles against ships at sea to be a difficult task that requires a variety of air, sea and space sensors, navigation systems and precision guidance technology - capabilities not typical of other Chinese missiles.

Asked about the integrated system, Adm. Willard said that "to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large."

The admiral said that while the U.S. thinks "that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested," China's testing has not gone as far as a live-fire test attack on an actual ship.

"We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system," he said.

Adm. Willard said he did not view the new missile as a greater threat to U.S. and allied forces than China's submarine forces, which also have been expanded greatly in the past decade.

"Anti-access/area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities that China has developed and that other countries have developed," he said.

"It´s not exclusively China that has what is now being referred to as A2/AD capability. But in China´s case, it´s a combination of integrated air-defense systems; advanced naval systems, such as the submarine; advanced ballistic-missile systems, such as the anti-ship ballistic missile, as well as power-projection systems into the region," he said.

The new weapons can threaten "archipelagos" in Asia, such as Japan and Philippines, as well as Vietnam and other states that "are falling within the envelope of this, of an A2/AD capability of China," Adm. Willard said.

"That should be concerning - and we know is concerning - to those countries," he said.

Adm. Willard said the new weapons are "an expanded capability that ranges beyond the first island chain and overlaps countries in the region."

"For that reason, it is concerning to Southeast Asia, [and] it remains concerning to the United States."

Andrew S. Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the admiral's comments on the missile deployment confirm earlier reports that the Chinese are moving ahead with the DF-21D missile.

"China must have conducted a rigorous program of tests, most likely including flight tests, to demonstrate that the DF-21D [missile] is mature enough for initial production, deployment and employment," Mr. Erickson said in an e-mail.

Mr. Erickson estimates that at least one unit of China's Second Artillery Corps, as its missile forces are called, must be equipped with the road-mobile system.

"While doubtless an area of continuous challenge and improvement, the DF-21D´s command, control, communications, computers, information, surveillance, and reconnaissance infrastructure must be sufficient to support attempts at basic carrier strike group targeting," he said.

Mr. Erickson said, based on Chinese missile-deployment patterns, that the new missile system likely will be fielded in "waves" at different units to meet deterrence objectives.

Military specialists have said the DF-21D deployment is a potent new threat because it will force U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to operate farther from hot spots in the western Pacific.

Currently, U.S. military strategy calls for the Pentagon to send several strike groups to waters near Taiwan in the event China follows through on threats to use force to retake the island. The lone U.S. aircraft carrier strike group based permanently in the region is the USS George Washington, whose home port is inYokosuka, Japan. A second carrier is planned for Hawaii or Guam.

Carrier forces also provide air power in the event of a new war in Korea and are used to assure freedom of navigation, a growing problem as the result of recent Chinese military assertiveness in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea.

Adm. Willard did not discuss what U.S. countermeasures the Navy has taken against the new anti-ship missile. U.S. naval task forces include ships equipped with the Aegis system designed to shoot down ballistic missiles.

Wallace "Chip" Gregson, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said in a speech earlier this month that China's new anti-access and area-denial weapons, including the DF-21D, "threaten our primary means of projecting power: our bases, our sea and air assets, and the networks that support them."

He warned that China's military buildup could "upend the regional security balance."

Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the new ASBM is only one part of a series of new Chinese weapons that threaten the region.

"When we add the ASBM to the PLA's [People's Liberation Army's] growing anti-satellite capabilities, growing numbers of submarines, and quite soon, its fifth-generation fighter, we are seeing the erection of a new Chinese wall in the western Pacific, for which the Obama administration has offered almost nothing in defensive response," Mr. Fisher said.

"Clearly, China's communist leadership is not impressed by the administration's ending of F-22 production, its retirement of the Navy's nuclear cruise missile, START Treaty reductions in U.S. missile warheads, and its refusal to consider U.S. space warfare capabilities. Such weakness is the surest way to invite military adventurism from China," he added.

Mr. Fisher said the Pentagon should mount a crash program to develop high-technology energy weapons, like rail guns and lasers in response to the new ASBMs.

Mark Stokes, a retired Air Force officer who has written extensively on the new missile, said the new deployment is a concern.

"China's ability to place at risk U.S. and other nations' maritime surface assets operating in the western Pacific and South China Sea is growing and closer to becoming a reality than many may think," Mr. Stokes said.

China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says - Washington Times
 
.
Here we go again...:lol:

Military officials consider using ballistic missiles against ships at sea to be a difficult task that requires a variety of air, sea and space sensors, navigation systems and precision guidance technology - capabilities not typical of other Chinese missiles.
The greater the dependency of any weapons system of external sensors for guidance/correlative data, the greater the degradation of efficacy should any of those sensors are removed from the chain. This is a legitimate criticism that is proven in non-military affairs, such as air traffic control.

For example...

The DF-21 ASBM is supposedly to receive initial targeting direction from over-the-horizon (OTH) radar. Such technology is not unknown and there is no reason to believe this is beyond China's technological grasp. An OTH radar would qualify as a 'component' of the system and an external sensor to provide guidance/correlative data. This component can be tested standalone and that unless the observer is aware of the component's greater purpose, the test will be overtly innocuous. The test subjects can be, and probably have been, cargo transports that routinely traverse the Pacific. These surface ships are much more plentiful than American warships, have diverse speeds to provide test subjects variability, and their schedules are quite open to the public to provide ample testing opportunities.

CHINA CHANGJIANG NATIONAL SHIPPING(GROUP)CORPORATION(CSC) - Shipping Yellowpages - ShippingOnline.cn
Under administration of State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of State Council, China Changjiang National Shipping (Group) Corp. (hereinafter referred to as CSC), one of first 57 pilot groups separately listed in plan, is the largest backbone shipping group in Chinese inland river.
Can any of these state owned companies cooperate with the PLAN to serve as tracking subjects? Absolutely and who else needs to know? Independent individual components testing is an important testing regime inside a development process and the process is time tested well. If any component failed, there are no risks of data contamination and the investigation will be limited, saving considerable time and efforts. And we are looking at the scope of a system that involve multiple components and spans thousands of km in distance.

That said...Does that mean there are no countermeasures to an OTH system? Of course there are and they ranges from direct assault to various methods of evading the radar itself. An OTH system is large as in the radar antenna system itself is tens of meters in dimensions. Such an installation can be detected from visual to EM signals intelligence. A direct assault to destroy or even degrade such a station would degrade the DF-21's efficacy from the start.

The admiral said that while the U.S. thinks "that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested," China's testing has not gone as far as a live-fire test attack on an actual ship.

"We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system," he said.
China does not have much open water area where ballistic missile tests can be performed in secrecy. A cargo transport's dimensions are...

The Cargo Ship
The sketch at the right shows the principal dimensions of a cargo ship. The length can be the length overall (LOA) or the length between perpendiculars (LBP) at the water line. The depth is measured from the keel to the upper continuous deck. The draft is measured from the keel to the water line of the loaded ship. The beam is the width of the ship. The front of the ship is the bows, the rear the stern. The starboard side is the right side, facing the front of the ship, while the port side is the left. Our example ship, the AP2 (or VC2) Victory ship, has a LOA of 455 ft, a LBP of 436.5 ft, a beam of 62 ft, a depth of 38 ft, and a draft of 28.5 ft.
Does not need to be a true aircraft carrier, just something approximate and this will serve just fine.

Is it possible to launch a ballistic missile at this target several hundreds km from shore, impact the ship, and sink it without any satellite or even an insurance company knowing about it? Hardly and even less likely when China is under constant watch by the US military. If the DF-21 is a technical success, not just from component testing but in an open water test with all the components working together as designed, then the US will have good cause to 'panic', as many here hyperbolically hoped so...:D
 
.
Does the Communist Party of Vietnam have any comments regarding this deployment? Oh wait...
 
. .
Does the Communist Party of Vietnam have any comments regarding this deployment? Oh wait...
Not...Because commies are not very smart. Else they would not be commies in the first place.
 
.
U.S. Admirals are such liars. How dare they make preposterous claims without even consulting the laws of physics first...
Nonsense...Admiral Willard undoubtedly is well informed of the laws of physics. His opinion reflected that.
 
.
Gotta avoid the massive budget axe that's coming... Hope NASA can avoid it.
 
.
Not...Because commies are not very smart. Else they would not be commies in the first place.

A very nice way to address your countrymen whom you by coincidence share "not very smart" genes with.

Lol, abandoning your country is one thing, but criticizing others under American flags is another. Maybe you should quit your job as a plane maintenance crew and add credibility to your criticism by developing stealth jets and ASBMs.
 
Last edited:
.
A very nice way to address your countrymen whom you by coincidence share "not very smart" genes with.
Are you saying that there is a genetic predisposition towards communism? What does that say for China?

Kid...It is understandable that you and the Chinese boys are ticked off that someone would have the audacity to criticize anything 'Chinese', let alone that someone is a member of an Asiatic group that you boys considered to be racially inferior. But the readers do not miss the fact that ALL of you 'high IQ' Chinese avoid addressing the valid arguments I pointed out that showed everyone there are weaknesses in this Chinese weapons system. My arguments are supported by real physics, not 'Chinese' physics as so often expressed here before I came along. So until someone from this supposedly 'superior' Asiatic race with his oh-my-goodness-so-high-IQ put up a valid counter-argument...:toast_sign:
 
.
Are you saying that there is a genetic predisposition towards communism? What does that say for China?

Kid...It is understandable that you and the Chinese boys are ticked off that someone would have the audacity to criticize anything 'Chinese', let alone that someone is a member of an Asiatic group that you boys considered to be racially inferior. But the readers do not miss the fact that ALL of you 'high IQ' Chinese avoid addressing the valid arguments I pointed out that showed everyone there are weaknesses in this Chinese weapons system. My arguments are supported by real physics, not 'Chinese' physics as so often expressed here before I came along. So until someone from this supposedly 'superior' Asiatic race with his oh-my-goodness-so-high-IQ put up a valid counter-argument...:toast_sign:

Not really, I couldn't care less about what happens to the Chinese. What pisses me off is the fact that you are ciriticizing another country as an American, while you're just a landed refugee from a dumb commie state. You are inferior to the object you're criticizing.

PS: I think you guys are genetically inferior but similar to the Chinese. You guys belong to the same race, but different ethnic groups. You all look the same to me...
 
Last edited:
.
Not really, I couldn't care less about what happens to the Chinese. What's pissing me off is the fact that you are ciriticizing another country as an American, while you're just landed refugee from a dumb commie state.
Why should that matter to you? Unless you are a racist? Citizenship trumps skin color. Or do you expect Barack Obama to pledge allegiance to Kenya? :lol:
 
.
Why should that matter to you? Unless you are a racist? Citizenship trumps skin color. Or do you expect Barack Obama to pledge allegiance to Kenya? :lol:

Sir, birth certificate trumps skin color in America. Review your constitution.

Citizenship is cheap and in your case -- free.

I guess you wouldn't understand that growing up in a French colony. Did they give you citizenship too?
 
.
Sir, birth certificate trumps skin color in America. Review your constitution.
Wrong...I am a US citizen.

Citizenship is cheap and in your case -- free.
If you are borned in Canada, your US citizenship will also be free...:lol:

I guess you wouldn't understand that growing up in a French colony. Did they give you citizenship too?
You are nothing but a sad and pathetic US-hating Canadian and a racist to boot. Get lost, loser.
 
.
China's military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for its Pacific allies.

Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.

"An analogy using a Western term would be 'initial operational capability (IOC),' whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it," Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. "I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC."

The four-star admiral, who has been an outspoken skeptic of China's claims that its large-scale military buildup is peaceful, said the U.S. deployment assessment is based on China's press reports and continued testing.

The new weapon, the "D" version of China's DF-21 medium-range missile, involves firing the mobile missile into space, returning it into the atmosphere and then maneuvering it to its target

Military officials consider using ballistic missiles against ships at sea to be a difficult task that requires a variety of air, sea and space sensors, navigation systems and precision guidance technology - capabilities not typical of other Chinese missiles.

Asked about the integrated system, Adm. Willard said that "to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large."

The admiral said that while the U.S. thinks "that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested," China's testing has not gone as far as a live-fire test attack on an actual ship.

"We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system," he said.

Adm. Willard said he did not view the new missile as a greater threat to U.S. and allied forces than China's submarine forces, which also have been expanded greatly in the past decade.

"Anti-access/area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities that China has developed and that other countries have developed," he said.

"It´s not exclusively China that has what is now being referred to as A2/AD capability. But in China´s case, it´s a combination of integrated air-defense systems; advanced naval systems, such as the submarine; advanced ballistic-missile systems, such as the anti-ship ballistic missile, as well as power-projection systems into the region," he said.

The new weapons can threaten "archipelagos" in Asia, such as Japan and Philippines, as well as Vietnam and other states that "are falling within the envelope of this, of an A2/AD capability of China," Adm. Willard said.

"That should be concerning - and we know is concerning - to those countries," he said.

Adm. Willard said the new weapons are "an expanded capability that ranges beyond the first island chain and overlaps countries in the region."

"For that reason, it is concerning to Southeast Asia, [and] it remains concerning to the United States."

Andrew S. Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the admiral's comments on the missile deployment confirm earlier reports that the Chinese are moving ahead with the DF-21D missile.

"China must have conducted a rigorous program of tests, most likely including flight tests, to demonstrate that the DF-21D [missile] is mature enough for initial production, deployment and employment," Mr. Erickson said in an e-mail.

Mr. Erickson estimates that at least one unit of China's Second Artillery Corps, as its missile forces are called, must be equipped with the road-mobile system.

"While doubtless an area of continuous challenge and improvement, the DF-21D´s command, control, communications, computers, information, surveillance, and reconnaissance infrastructure must be sufficient to support attempts at basic carrier strike group targeting," he said.

Mr. Erickson said, based on Chinese missile-deployment patterns, that the new missile system likely will be fielded in "waves" at different units to meet deterrence objectives.

Military specialists have said the DF-21D deployment is a potent new threat because it will force U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to operate farther from hot spots in the western Pacific.

Currently, U.S. military strategy calls for the Pentagon to send several strike groups to waters near Taiwan in the event China follows through on threats to use force to retake the island. The lone U.S. aircraft carrier strike group based permanently in the region is the USS George Washington, whose home port is inYokosuka, Japan. A second carrier is planned for Hawaii or Guam.

Carrier forces also provide air power in the event of a new war in Korea and are used to assure freedom of navigation, a growing problem as the result of recent Chinese military assertiveness in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea.

Adm. Willard did not discuss what U.S. countermeasures the Navy has taken against the new anti-ship missile. U.S. naval task forces include ships equipped with the Aegis system designed to shoot down ballistic missiles.

Wallace "Chip" Gregson, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said in a speech earlier this month that China's new anti-access and area-denial weapons, including the DF-21D, "threaten our primary means of projecting power: our bases, our sea and air assets, and the networks that support them."

He warned that China's military buildup could "upend the regional security balance."

Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the new ASBM is only one part of a series of new Chinese weapons that threaten the region.

"When we add the ASBM to the PLA's [People's Liberation Army's] growing anti-satellite capabilities, growing numbers of submarines, and quite soon, its fifth-generation fighter, we are seeing the erection of a new Chinese wall in the western Pacific, for which the Obama administration has offered almost nothing in defensive response," Mr. Fisher said.

"Clearly, China's communist leadership is not impressed by the administration's ending of F-22 production, its retirement of the Navy's nuclear cruise missile, START Treaty reductions in U.S. missile warheads, and its refusal to consider U.S. space warfare capabilities. Such weakness is the surest way to invite military adventurism from China," he added.

Mr. Fisher said the Pentagon should mount a crash program to develop high-technology energy weapons, like rail guns and lasers in response to the new ASBMs.

Mark Stokes, a retired Air Force officer who has written extensively on the new missile, said the new deployment is a concern.

"China's ability to place at risk U.S. and other nations' maritime surface assets operating in the western Pacific and South China Sea is growing and closer to becoming a reality than many may think," Mr. Stokes said.

China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says - Washington Times



...that should be any allies....


because last time US stepped in to help South Vietnam, we know what happened...

When US stepped in to help the South Koreans....we all know what happened...


Now, under the so called aim of spreading democracy to Afghanistan, they are helping their allies Pakistan and Afghanistan.....and we all are witness to how well that is going.


I think US should withdraw from policing the world's frontiers.......they suck at it.
 
.
Why should that matter to you? Unless you are a racist? Citizenship trumps skin color. Or do you expect Barack Obama to pledge allegiance to Kenya? :lol:

Why Kenya?

Maybe Sudan would be better.:cheers:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom