China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[Martian2]

"The U.S. has never been tested by a massive combined attack."

True, but the U.S. Navy anticipated this sort of massive "saturation attack" as early as the 1960s, largely from the Soviet Union's Northern Fleet. The Soviet Navy was expected to unleash a massive attack with missiles from all different kinds of platforms - bombers, submarines, surface ships, etc.

Granted, the U.S. Navy, 50 years later, still has never faced such an attack in real life, so we don't know. But the threat has long ago been anticipated.

The newcomer is the ASBM, of course.

I believe that the odds favor the attacker. Only one or two missiles need to get past the defender to cause severe damage and create massive confusion/panic. One Yu-6 torpedo (i.e. a clone of the Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo) can split a destroyer in half.

While a massive combined and simultaneous attack is logical and predictable, I am not aware of anyone claiming a 100 percent full-proof U.S. defense system. Also, China has the capability to launch thousands of missiles and torpedoes at targeted capital ships. It is not just a matter of surviving the first wave. The defenders must survive a sustained attack; without fail.

It is my judgment that when a defender faces an attacker with technological-proximity, the odds are heavily in favor of the attacker. I have read that the U.S. strategy is to avoid serious risk to its capital ships. As I understand it, the current plan is to outfit American submarines with conventional tomahawk cruise missiles and threaten to launch many of them at China during a war.

The U.S. wants to be the attacker and shift the burden of defense onto China. The U.S. capital ships will be kept safely out of the strike range of Chinese missiles and quiet diesel submarines with Yu-6 torpedoes lurking near China.

 

[no_name]

An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.

Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.

 

[anon45]

An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.

Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.

Is there currently any way to generate a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a missile strong enough to fry the entire carrier groups sensors? hardened equipment (i'd assume comms are hardened).

Wouldn't carriers carry spares?

 

[NWO]

Is there currently any way to generate a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a missile strong enough to fry the entire carrier groups sensors? hardened equipment (i'd assume comms are hardened).

Wouldn't carriers carry spares?

I don't know if the technology will exists in the future, but if it does and it works, then the carriers won't have enough time to carry out the repairs unless other ships protect it.

 

[gambit]

An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.

Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.

This tells me you do not know what you are talking about regarding the limitations of a non-nuclear generated EMP and how an aircraft carrier group is arrayed for war.

So according to 'Chinese physics'...There is a non-nuclear warhead that can generate a strong enough EMP to disable a fleet that is spread out over several square km.

 

[Martian2]

An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.

Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.

Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.

"The outcome of a simulation published by Orbis, an American journal on international relations and US foreign policy, clearly did its job in making military circles uneasy. After a hit by a Dong Feng 21D, it took the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington a mere 20 minutes to sink.

The DF-21D, as the missile is commonly called, is a modification of a solid-propellant, single-warhead medium-range ballistic missile that China has been working on since the late 1960s. The newest version, also going under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization reporting name CSS-5 Mod-4, is believed to come with the unique feature that it can target a moving aircraft carrier as far away as 3,000 kilometers from a land-based mobile launcher.

Enabled by this new weapon, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) hopes to gain the option to control the West Pacific from land, as opposed to engaging with the US Navy in sea battles that China would be unlikely to win. If the DF-21D is really as sophisticated as has been widely speculated, the US would have to risk its neck when coming to South Korea's, Japan's or Taiwan's aid in the event of Chinese military aggression.

It can safely be assumed that a fair portion of Washington's military strategies would be rendered useless it the US were to lose the ability to securely travel anywhere using aircraft carriers from which jet fighters start their devastatingly precise bombing campaigns - as has been seen in the wars against Serbia and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Like the DF-21D's earliest predecessor, the German V-2, a long-range World War II ballistic missile that the Nazis called a Wunderwaffe, China's anti-ship ballistic missile remains shrouded in mystery. Military experts from Washington to Taipei have been left guessing its exact capabilities. It is suggested that the missile's high-angle re-entry into the atmosphere, as well as its speed, make it almost impossible to defend against.

What further worries American defense analysts is that the Chinese apparently have the advantage of being able to screw on almost anything that's found in the PLA's warhead arsenals, such as HEAT shells, which are extremely efficient at penetrating steel, as well as cluster bombs, which eject smaller sub-munitions.

The Chinese could even destroy their opponents' electronic control systems - critical to the operation of ground vehicles and aircraft - by producing damaging current and voltage surges with the help of electromagnetic pulse bombs loaded into the DF-21D. Yet another option would be to fit a missile with a thermobaric fuel-air bomb. This warhead produces a blast wave of a very long duration, a feature that is useful in military applications where the attacker aims to increase the number of casualties and cause greater damage to infrastructure.

As a strong indication of how serious the US sees the threat of China's missiles, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently lamented that the DF-21D 'has the ability to disrupt [American] freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options'."

 

[gambit]

The DF-21 again...

 

[siegecrossbow]

The DF-21 again...

I think I have to agree with you...very grudgingly... once again.

I've been a lurker for many months on the PDF and the ASBM seems to be the most popular and debated subject on China Defence. Although I am not fit comment on the merit of the weapon I do think that running four separate threads on the same issue is a bit wasteful. The mods should at the very least merge all ASBM threads and dissuade people from opening new ones.

 

[gambit]

I think I have to agree with you...very grudgingly... once again.

I've been a lurker for many months on the PDF and the ASBM seems to be the most popular and debated subject on China Defence. Although I am not fit comment on the merit of the weapon I do think that running four separate threads on the same issue is a bit wasteful. The mods should at the very least merge all ASBM threads and dissuade people from opening new ones.

I have never said that capabilities like the DF-21's purported claims are technically impossible. What I have always asked from the Chinese members here is that BEFORE they start posting sales brochures blurbs and worst case scenarios commentaries by US generals, try to stay with the intended theme of this forum by presenting some reasonably credible technical explanations on the HOW these capabilities are achieved and that they should not get offended if they are challenged. Too much to ask, I guess...

 

[Martian2]

I have never said that capabilities like the DF-21's purported claims are technically impossible. What I have always asked from the Chinese members here is that BEFORE they start posting sales brochures blurbs and worst case scenarios commentaries by US generals, try to stay with the intended theme of this forum by presenting some reasonably credible technical explanations on the HOW these capabilities are achieved and that they should not get offended if they are challenged. Too much to ask, I guess...

A ballistic missile with a computer chip onboard is guided to its target by coordinates from a sensor (e.g. satellite, OTH radar, aerial (e.g. UAV spotting or JStar), sonar, electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio communication, radar emissions, or giant infrared signature from capital ships) emitted from targeted capital ships, SOSUS, reported by Chinese spotters on cargo ships, spotted by fishing boat, special forces recon waiting in blue rubber rafts on the ocean, location revealed by spy (e.g. Aldrich Ames case), or some other means of detection).

 

[no_name]

This tells me you do not know what you are talking about regarding the limitations of a non-nuclear generated EMP and how an aircraft carrier group is arrayed for war.

So according to 'Chinese physics'...There is a non-nuclear warhead that can generate a strong enough EMP to disable a fleet that is spread out over several square km.

Bravo that you actually resort to tying what I said with 'chinese physics'. It could just be my own personal statement, incorrect or not .

If I know everything I would not be on a forum.

 

[gambit]

A ballistic missile with a computer chip onboard is guided to its target by coordinates from a sensor (e.g. satellite, OTH radar, aerial (e.g. UAV spotting or JStar), sonar, electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio communication, radar emissions, or giant infrared signature from capital ships) emitted from targeted capital ships, SOSUS, reported by Chinese spotters on cargo ships, spotted by fishing boat, special forces recon waiting in blue rubber rafts on the ocean, location revealed by spy (e.g. Aldrich Ames case), or some other means of detection).

You should try something like this...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/866788-post28.html

Good luck.

 

[gambit]

Bravo that you actually resort to tying what I said with 'chinese physics'. It could just be my own personal statement, incorrect or not .

If I know everything I would not be on a forum.

Then do not make baseless assertions.

 

[Martian2]

You should try something like this...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/866788-post28.html

Good luck.

Unless you are a premiere aerospace engineer with distinguished awards and with a long list of citations of your articles, the link is merely your opinion.

As a known China-hater, you enjoy raising nonsense objections. Do you remember our discussion where you made the ridiculous claim that all incoming ballistic warheads come in vertically and not at an angle?

I have said this once before. I will not spend hours repeatedly proving your ignorance of technical matters. I have proven it before and I will not continue to waste my time.

This is not a difficult subject matter. Ballistic missiles are decades-old technology. It is also well-known that computer chips enable smart weapons to guide themselves onto a target. There are many sensors and other methods of acquiring targeting information. With all three elements, a ballistic missile is on its way to its target.

The issues of defense and American response are a separate matter. However, to constantly carp about non-existent technical problems shows that you are in a tiny minority of China-haters.

 

[Martian2]

And Nuking a carrier becomes an even more viable option since their are no direct/immidiate civillian deaths. But let us hope it doesn't come to that

China's ASBM is a deterrent. I don't think it's actually meant to be used. The development of the ASBM is to deter Taiwan independence and to put pressure on the U.S. to ensure that Taiwan "toe the line." I believe that it is a bargaining chip.

The actual use of the ASBM will be a major escalation of tensions between the U.S. and China. The destruction of a supercarrier will result in the immediate deaths of 6,000 American sailors. In comparison, 9/11 resulted in less than 3,000 American deaths. Every destroyer sunk by an ASBM will add another 1,000 to the death toll. These are major casualties and will take the U.S. and China into scary uncharted territory.

The U.S. military appears weak, but it is not. The U.S. is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of extensive self-imposed constraints through "rules of engagement" (i.e. ROE). In the eyes of the world, the U.S. cannot just lay waste to Iraq and Afghanistan without regard for innocent civilian lives.

In the case of China, the U.S. will be facing a true military heavyweight. The United States will fight with the full might of its superpower military. In that situation, China may resort to tactical nuclear weapons to compensate for current conventional deficiency. The U.S. will retaliate by going nuclear as well.

And that, my friends, is how World War III and a full-scale nuclear exchange starts. The game of nuclear chicken will quickly spiral out of control. It is best to threaten the other side with an ASBM weapon, but its actual use is a major strategic blunder.

To summarize, China's ASBM is only meant as a deterrent. The actual use of the ASBM means that the world may be on the brink of a nuclear war and winter. We will all be the losers and my armchair-general days will be over.