What's new

New Concern Over Chinese "Carrier-Killer"

grey boy 2

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
6,484
Reaction score
-2
Country
China
Location
United States
New Concern Over Chinese "Carrier-killer"
April 01, 2009
U.S. Naval Institute
New Concerns Over Chinese 'Carrier-Killer'

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.
 
troller.
low quality poster
Indian
crawl back to bha-***-raksha

G'day guys,
Sorry to start with a negative note.
Yes you are right 'Growler' the post you quoted has nothing to do with this topic; is a typical troll.

Before i can contribute to this very thread, i would like to discuss one thing from the thread starter (greyboy) that, is he really support all the facts mentioned in that article and others those who have thanked the same?

That which can not be proved numerically is not scientific. To be optimistic is good thing but to work some thing practically is another. I will try to share more information on that; if we can discuss it out if such development is contemporary or futuristic.

Furthermore, to kill a carrier one has to increase its vulnerability. Vulnerability is proportional to cube root of displacement. But displacement is roughly proportional to three dimensions of Length,Beam and draft thus the cube root reduced to 1(one).

To anticipate a 300 feet ACC you need one such missile above mentioned! ? configuration if it is true/ feasible (will discuss later). For every additional 100 feet another such missile has to strike in intact physicality.

The question i would like to ask how many such missiles are required to sink Nimitz Class with Propulsion of Two nuclear reactors (not diesel), four shafts,1092 feet (332.85 meters) in length, Beam of134 feet (40.84 meters), 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load of displacement and Speed of 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour) (Operational ACC are ever stationery?).

The stats are representing very basic physical configuration, the technology part?; to follow on further discussion please.

Regards
 
Great achievement if whatever has been claimed in the article is true.

but AMBIDEX's post does make some sense, i wish the above mentioned missile exists and verifies its perameters as claimed.

a super carrier may turn out to be a tough thing to put to test for this missile, what about admiral gurshkov that is being refurbished for india?:rofl:

just jokking...:pakistan:
 
Great achievement if whatever has been claimed in the article is true.

but AMBIDEX's post does make some sense, i wish the above mentioned missile exists and verifies its perameters as claimed.

a super carrier may turn out to be a tough thing to put to test for this missile, what about admiral gurshkov that is being refurbished for india?:rofl:

just jokking...:pakistan:

Even with Pakistan’s current capabilities, it will be a very costlier adventure but Adm. Gurshkov will be vulnerable to sever attacks.
if it is operating any where in Arabian sea go for it. .So if you expect Indian ACC will circle around Arabian sea then stick on to your land/port do not rely on sea to hunt him down;). Tricky isn't it? Please don't ask me how many cruise missiles will be required:) for that.

As far as subs are concerned, cross the equator fill her up again and start the hunt to come back home safe.

A neighbor country is always Navy's enemy, not distant.

Above article is a compilation of very informed person; is very difficult to defeat not because it is very accurate but is stretching into as much as contemporary possible technical scenarios available. To do its postmortem one has to start from availability of material staying intact (softening!) at speed more then 6.0 mach to live satellite tracing.

To be a blue water navy is very easy, but to defeat a true blue water navy is impossible.

I personally don’t mind such developments by china as far as symbolic strength demonstration is concerned, cause it helps and till date china's record is not bad. For peace, pretending more or actually having more is always good then having less. A weak or irresponsible;) china is not good for any one in Asia not even for india.
 
China makes a so called killer carrier....the post is full of holes lot of water sweeps in....anyway.

Chineese are cool about it .....Pakistanis are going wild.

Recomends Gorshkov for target practice.......poor guys please understand their mental state.

Please exercise some empathy for our friends and don't bite the bait.

Did you even care to know where this article came from ?

Its from US Naval Institute

You think some Mr. dumass like you know more ?

What a bunch of cheap jealousy LOSSER.

Go and challenge US Naval Institute !! :smitten::pakistan::china:

P.S. Come back to talk to me when you Indians finally figure out how

to make a simple DECENT RIFLE for your army boys !!:toast_sign:
 
china will take 20 years to catch up their economy aggregate,so asymmetric warfare is core strategy for PLA, "Carrier-Killer" is not a fresh idea,USSR brought it up decades ago,such a huge monster like AC definitely have some weakness,It's worth a try even if we have to launch 10 DF-21 to destroy 1 AC
 
china will take 20 years to catch up their economy aggregate,so asymmetric warfare is core strategy for PLA, "Carrier-Killer" is not a fresh idea,USSR brought it up decades ago,such a huge monster like AC definitely have some weakness,It's worth a try even if we have to launch 10 DF-21 to destroy 1 AC

10 DF-21 = $1 million
1 AC = $1 billion

:smitten:
 
china will take 20 years to catch up their economy aggregate,so asymmetric warfare is core strategy for PLA, "Carrier-Killer" is not a fresh idea,USSR brought it up decades ago,such a huge monster like AC definitely have some weakness,It's worth a try even if we have to launch 10 DF-21 to destroy 1 AC

Brother; Yes, exactly , but those Frogs in the Well thought its

something new,

I really feel sorry for them, I bet they don't even know the basic

speed for our Rockets to launch satellites for customers for

decades, well over hundred times, at Mach-25 speed=17000mph.

Well, what can i expect from some frogs still can't figure out how to

make a simple rifle for 60 years, simply Pathetic !!:smitten:

:pakistan::china:
 
Last edited:
10 DF-21 = $1 million
1 AC = $1 billion

:smitten:

I would like to suggest a small change in the monetary figures u had quoted.

1 AC = $5 billion (Nimitz class)

It's been rumored that from CVN 79(next gen FORD class) onwards the cost might shoot upwards a bit, but debated to be worthy as they would be carrying in excess of 75 aircraft each.
 
Extract from : www.josephaaroncampbell.info

In other words, the Chinese aren’t so much “catching up” with US military technology as much as they are “denying” our (USA's) ability to project our power, especially regionally.

Chinese military strategy is essentially this, “Why build a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier when you can just build a multi-million dollar missile which can neutralize it”?
 
I would like to remind Members, that even though this shows China's innovation and Technical prowess if such a missile does exist.

It does by no means mean that China has effectively countered The US navy.

Whilst China my develop new and more capable missiles.

THe US navy and the US military as a whole is developing cutting edge Next gen weapons.
Ranging from
High- Frequency lasers(ALL branches)
Rail guns(both army and Navy)
Combat exoskeleton( Army and Marine corp)
Hafnium Bombs(Nuclear isomer WMD )

Also The US navy will soon use the F-35 , which can seek out and destroy any such missiles before the carrier comes in range

This is just a short summary.
But you know what i mean

Matching or deterring US power by conventional means is no small feat.
The only deterrence now or in the near future is though nuclear Fission or Fusion devices
 
Very old news
Strategic Weapons Article Index
Carrier Killer Warhead
July 13, 2008:
Rumors continue to come out of China that the DF-21 ballistic missile is being equipped with a high-explosive warhead and a guidance system that can find and hit a aircraft carrier at sea. The DF-21 has a range of 1800 kilometers and normally hauls a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead. It's a two stage, 15 ton, solid fuel rocket that could carry a half ton penetrating, high-explosive warhead, along with the special guidance system (a radar and image recognition system).

As the story goes, the Chinese have reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometers range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. This kind of accuracy made the Russians very uncomfortable, as it made their command bunkers vulnerable. The Russians eventually agreed to a lot of nuclear and missile disarmament deals in order to get the Pershings decommissioned in the 1980s.

The Chinese have long been rumored to have a system like this, but there have been no tests. If the Chinese do succeed in creating a "carrier killer" version of the DF-21, the U.S. Navy can modify its Aegis anti-missile system to protect carriers against such attacks. There are also electronic warfare options, to blind the DF-21 radar. Another problem the Chinese will have is getting a general idea of where the target carrier is before they launch the DF-21. This is not impossible, but can be difficult.

Strategic Weapons: Carrier Killer Warhead
 
The U.S. believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman said. "We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese".:china:
 
My sincere apologies to Bezerk, my initial reaction to the posted article was over the top. While I believe and it is widely acknowledged that China is a rising power destined to greatness in the coming years, I’d caution my Chinese friends against believing every blog and basing their perception of capability on hear say without research and some critical thought.

First question, hitting a moving ship with a BM is like scoring a basket thru a moving hoop from outside the stadium. Remember minimum correction is possible at terminal phase this is assuming the presence of on board sensors or beacon to provide guidance and the absence of counter measures or decoys. The probability of hitting a carrier with a dozen conventionally armed ASBM is small – of course all bets are off with a nuclear warhead or saturation attack.

Second, there is a reason why Russia and the United States have refrained from using a conventional warhead on a ballistic missile. Assuming the purpose of the ASBM is to keep a carrier group away and thus neutralize it as a threat it is likely the BM will traverse the airspace of one or more countries on its way to the target. For instance if China wanted to strike a carrier group in the Arabian sea will nuclear armed India or Pakistan assume they are not the intended recipients and will they also assume the warhead is conventional?

Third, the author suggests the use of satellites, OTH radars and drones – does China have this capability? I believe the answer is yes, but I also know that there are not enough assets to make the ASBM a credible deterrent.
 

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom