What's new

US Naval Institute: Chinese "Aircraft Carrier Killer" Confirmed

Chinese debates about ASBMs' utility parallel widespread disagreements over their technical feasibility. Analysts generally agree that five major technical challenges must be surmounted to achieve a functioning ASBM:

* Detection. Pessimists claim that carriers are too small relative to the potential search area to be detected by satellite images. Optimists maintain that CSGs—with their massive electromagnetic footprints—can be detected, e.g., with space-borne sensors.

* Tracking. Skeptics maintain that requisite satellite coverage is unattainable, as are sufficient naval and surveillance craft and overseas bases for signals intelligence. They believe that China's other tracking methods are inadequate, even in combination. Strangely, they seem to overlook the possibility of China possessing relevant land-based over-the-horizon radars.

* Target defense penetration. Skeptics, with their claims that slowing the warhead for terminal guidance makes it prohibitively vulnerable to interception, seem relatively unpersuasive. Optimists advocate multi-axis saturation attacks to overwhelm CSG defenses, without appearing to acknowledge the difficulty of coordinating them.

* Hitting a moving target. How to strike a CSG that moves during location, data transmission, and ASBM delivery? Skeptics contend that ballistic missiles are less accurate than cruise missiles because the former's trajectory is relatively fixed. But optimists maintain that as long as the initial ASBM trajectory is reasonably accurate, appropriate homing corrections can be made. They suggest improving precision with passive radiation homing and activating terminal guidance at higher altitude to allow the seeker to scan a larger area, and selecting opportune moments for attack, e.g., when tailwinds or at-sea replenishment preclude significant mobility.

* Causing sufficient damage. Several experts detail CSG damage-control equipment. But the conventional wisdom seems to be that multi-axis saturation attacks (to defeat defenses) and/or submunitions (to distribute damage), delivered accurately, can achieve a mission kill by targeting critical exposed areas (e.g., the carrier's aircraft, island, and C4ISR equipment).
Those issues are answered here ==> http://www.defence.pk/forums/929758-post34.html
 
well it is not only for us carriers but also growing indian carriers and pakistan navy should get it tpp so put some scares in hearts of indian carrier battle groups captains
 
well it is not only for us carriers but also growing indian carriers and pakistan navy should get it tpp so put some scares in hearts of indian carrier battle groups captains

Pakistan doesn't need it. An effective submarine force is a better choice.
 
well if pakistan has option to gey a varrier killer missile why not if it going to hurt indian carrier and with it indian carrier loss which will mean with a single shot india will have a loss of billions and with it re building it ecnomical lost we will happy to get it along with effective submarine fleet.
 
Pakistan doesn't need it. An effective submarine force is a better choice.

You don't choose one or the other. You would reduce the # of submarine purchases and load the ASBM in a complementary manner, to keep the enemy guessing. I don't think China will stop researching submarines after developing these missiles.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom