| Submit your comments on this article | |
| China-Japan-Koreas | |
| Chinese Develop Special 'Kill Weapon' to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers | |
| 2009-03-31 | |
| 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.
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. | |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #14 Something unmentioned in the article, and probably unmentionable - what would have to happen to get to the point that the USN has to counter this? It's either a surprise attack (probably not to wise of the PLA) or actions escalated to this point. If the latter, I suspect carriers will not be anywhere in range to be a target - that's what the unmanned navy will be used for. Finally, this all has a whiff of being an Iranian press release, what with the super capabilities, indefensibility, and breathtaking threat! |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-03-31 23:18 |
| #13 Phalanx guns are kinda-sorta being phased out by guided missiles atm, because they don't have much time to deal with supersonic missiles on final approach. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-03-31 22:48 |
| #12 THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE ITS NOT EASY. Good analysis. Now, if said carrier task force is using software that's been outsourced to a hostile country and hardware manufactured in the same country ... But what's the chances of that? |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-03-31 22:20 |
| #11 Wouldn't a Phalanx gun be able to do something about these puppies? |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2009-03-31 22:01 |
| #10 If I were tasked with coming up with a defense against this weapon, it would look like an ESSM with an infrared seeker. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-03-31 20:21 |
| #9 Sorry Old Patriot but...I might be a chemist and not a physicist however....mass times velocity is momentum. Kinetic energy is one half mass times velocity squared. |
| Posted by: Chemist 2009-03-31 19:39 |
| #8 If we had a CiC and a Naval Command with cojones, as well as a stated defense policy, we would just say: lose a carrier and you lose 3 Gorges Dam. Of course, the Chicoms probably have nukes in containers at the ports they operate at each end of the Panama Canal. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-03-31 19:02 |
| #7 It takes a considerable force to accelerate from standing still to "Mach 10" (doubt it flies that fast, especially at low altitude. Air resistance would melt it, even made of pure titanium). It also takes time. You also don't fly such a missile at low altitude - there's just too much air, too much turbulence, and too much of a chance of hitting something. If you hit an albatross at 2200mph, it's going to destroy both the albatross and whatever hit it (KE=MV - kinetic energy equals the mass times the velocity. A 1000kg missile travelling at ~3000km/h results in a HUGE explosion). The necessity for constant external control will result in its detection, and possibly even spoofing. There ARE anti-missile defenses available to a carrier battle group that can significantly reduce the threat. China's running another bluff that isn't going to work. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-03-31 18:58 |
| #6 Any reentry vehicle coming in at multi-mach won't be able to maneuver well or lock sensors. But off board sensors and comms (sats, aircraft) can locate a carrier and continuously update position and heading and a missile can be designed to compensate in early reentry flight, well before onboard sensors go active. It's a worrisome problem, esp if the Chinese are will to saturate SM-3 and SM-3 defenses. Then how good is US ECM? |
| Posted by: ed 2009-03-31 18:50 |
| #5 ION also from WMF > CHINA TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THREE NEW MAJOR AIRPORTS [PLAAF AirBases] IN HIGH TIBETAN MOUNTAIN RANGES DESPITE LOCAL ENGINEERING AND OTHER NATURAL/ENVIRON DIFFICULTIES. "INDIAN ARMY 'COLLAPSE'"... ARTICLE > Read, INDIA CAN'T = WON'T STOP CHIN AIRPORT/MILBASE CONSTRUX DESPITE RECOGNIZING THE LT STRATEGIC MIL THREAT TO INDIA + LOC. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-03-31 18:48 |
| #4 Ala WORLD MILITARY FORUM > the Chinese are also interested in dev = "researching" VARIOUS HI-TECHY, REMOTE CONTROLLED, FIRE-AND-FORGET ANTI-CARRIER, etc. TORPEDO- + MISSLE PLATFORMS e.g. CONVERTED OIL PLATFORMS, DIRIGIBLES, RC ARTY BATTERIES EMPLACED ON CHINA SEA ISLETS, etc. The PRC fears that US = US-ALLIED MARITIME AREA/SEA DENIAL as per DISPUTED CHINA SEA ISLAND GROUPS will serously hamper their desired ability to project OTH MilPol force-power e.g. TAIWAN, MALACCAS, INDIAN OCEAN. Its a major rationale beghind China's new regional rapprochement vee JAPAN. WMF + OTHER CHIN FORUM POSTERS are mainly NOT HAPPY about POTUS BAM-MAN's recent proposition of the US + CHINA SHARING THE NEW GWADAR PORT, which Chin developed [read - PAID $$$]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-03-31 18:43 |
| #3 Mind you I also said nothing about the potential defenses and countermeasures said battle group could take. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2009-03-31 18:17 |
| #2 Little thing called math and physics makes it a difficult proposition at best and idiocy at worst. Heres why...lets say you have a battlgroup..your target is the carrier in the middle of said battlegroup. Said carrier is able to move say at least 35mph. Now lets say your missiles are 1000km away and takes at least 15-30 minutes to reach the target if it stayed still. IRBMs don't accelerate as fast as ICBMs nor have as high a velocity so we'll say 30 minutes is the upper end of that figure. In that time the carrier can potentially move somewhere around 10 miles in ANY direction...thats roughly 340 square miles of ocean the damn missile warhead has to scan with whatever radar or guidance set it has then make its course corrections all while staying within a 5-10 minute bracket in order to have enough velocity and fuel to make it to a moving target. THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE ITS NOT EASY. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2009-03-31 18:16 |
| #1 Thank you Bill Clinton. You gave China the missile technology and machining to accomplish this feat in the 90's. |
| Posted by: Bob Angoluse5058 2009-03-31 17:24 |