Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 I'm sure if the carrier didn't have AWACs overhead and AEGIS in the fleet there would be some serious issues but as is, I'm just not buying this supermissile is such a big threat unless the carrier group gets confined really close to shore.
As is, if it wasn't a sneak attack I suspect the missile batteries would be targetted and destroyed long before the carrier got into range. That is the point of a carrier after all, to be able to send planes out.
Posted by rjschwarz 2010-08-09 00:32||
#2 They already have carrier killer missiles like Sunburn. The carrier has been obsolete for a long time, there just hasn't been a major naval conflict since WWII to show it.
Posted by gromky 2010-08-09 00:56||
#3 See also FREEREPUBLIC/TOPIX > THE JAPANESE ARCHIPELAGO SEEN THROUGH CHINA'S EYES.
Economics, like Politics, is deemed as WARFARE BY OTHER MEANS. In order to work, the DF-21 + similar ASBMS must only be MRV'ed but the original Missle itself must be capable of subtantially or variably changing its path in mid-flight/phase to counter effec changes in the Carrier's path-of-sail.
IOW, THE CPLA NEEDS NOT A MISSLE BUT AN RC IM-CAPABLE UNMANNED BOMBER, A "MOTHER" CRAFT ITSELF CAPABLE OF LAUNCHING DEADLY END-PHASE "SMART" OR "GENIUS" MUNITIONS AT THE CARRIER + BATTLE GROUP.
Pragmatically, since both the USN Carrier, + SSN Submarine [CV/CVBG UW escort(s)] fleets have shrunk from their Cold War levels, the most costs-efffective method for the PLAN is for Risng China to simply build up the numbers of their LR Nuke Sub fleets in "Wolf Packs" to track + overwhelm the US CVN's + CVBGS, ala Nazi Germany + Cold War Soviet Navy.
CHIN MIL FORUMS/BLOGGERS > many also support the idea of the CPLAN complementing any contrux of a larger LR Sub fleet wid THE EMPLACEMENT OF HEAVILY-ARMED, TECHY CONVERTED OIL RIGS-PLATFORMS ON CHIN-CONTROLLED CHINA SEAS ISLANDS, + TASK GROUPS OF SURFACE WARFARE "ARSENAL/FIRE SHIPS" [Multi-Combat converted or dedicated ocean supertanker] ON ROUTINE SURFACE PATROL ALONG KEY ROUTES.
Proposed US MOBS/MOABS meet PLA Fixed-Static Offshore Bases.
Lest we fergit, RUSSIA > desires to reactivate + upgrade the former KIROV-CLASS BATTLECRUISERS despite recognizing the power of the Nimitz-class CVNS.
IOW, US GLOBAL-SPACE MISSLE DEFENSE + GLOBAL STRIKE + SPACE STRIKE = ANTI-US INTERNATIONAL COMPETITORS/OPPONENTS MUST "EMBRACE MUTUAL DESTRUCTION/TOTAL ANNIHILATION" TO DEFEAT US TECHS + FIREPOWER, i.e. ABANDON COLD WAR NOTIONS THAT OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE MILSYS MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN FIXED OR LIMITED SITES, + NOT BE "FLUID".
Is "GLOBALISM" = NOT "NATIONALISM" NOR EVEN "REGIONALISM", "CONTINENTALISM", "TRANS-..."; + moreso when dealing wid AYMMETRIC WARFARE, aka NOT-CLASSIC-WARFARE-AMONG-ORGANIZED-NATIONS-STATES-N-GOVTS.
Nuclearized Regional, Global "People's War" as fought by HIGHLY DECENTRALIZED, HIGHLY FLUID, HIGHLY COVERT SHADOWY NUCLEARIZED CELLS, NONS, MILITANT + SEMI-MILITANT GROUPS + DIFFUSE NETWORKS???
HYBRID RESPONSE(S) TO HYBRID THREAT(S)!?
Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-08-09 01:30||
#4 ...Lord, there's been a lot of hollering about this thing over the last few days. Let's take a look at some details.
First, what we're dealing with here is a Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle, or MaRV. These were first brought into US service on the old MX and the still-serving Trident II. In other words, welcome to 1985.
Second, this thing is going to require a couple of other gadgets to work right - either a satellite based radar link (best) or a direct radar paint provided by an aircraft or vessel. Satellites can be killed; we've proven that. Any Chinese ship, sub, or aircraft that gets close enough to get a radar contact (and granted, some have) will have a very short, exciting life in wartime.
Third, the fact that the Chinese are testing this beast doesn't mean that they can produce them in the numbers needed to INSURE killing a CV. They're very good at building short to medium range tactical missiles (think high-tech SCUDS)but they are no more than very accurate long-range artillery, and that BTW is exactly how the Chinese think of them. OTOH, they have only built about forty full-up ICBMs, which says something about their actual technical abilities in terms of building missile bodies and more importantly missile guidance systems.
Third, this beast is going to have to be mobile, otherwise the Chinese know perfectly well that we'll whack their launch sites the same way we took down Saddam's toys. Now, they've built approximately twenty mobile ICBMs....that have to be parked somewhere and guarded like hell because authoritarian Communist regimes are real funny about letting nuclear weapons run loose lest they be used against them. In other words, the one real advantage this thing would have - it's mobility - can't be used most of the time, and we'll be able to keep pretty good track of them. And don't forget that the B-2s primary cold war mission was to have been whacking mobile Soviet CPs and missile units.
Is this a legitimate and possibly very dangerous weapon? Hell, yes. Is it a game changer? Far from it.
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2010-08-09 06:24||
#5 With the ruling class collapsing the economy, Congress will sink more carrier groups in the next decade or so than what the Chinese could ever hope for with this expenditure of resources.
Posted by Procopius2k 2010-08-09 06:54||
#6 Congress will sink more carrier groups
Or convert to floating golf courses for PresBO.
Posted by Glenmore 2010-08-09 08:15||
#7 Carriers are too vulnerable to what cames from land.
Solution:semisubmersible arsenal ship.
Posted by Phosing Big Foot3926 2010-08-09 08:25||
#8 The hyping of this so-called "carrier killer," is nothing but an attempt to get more funding for weapons contractors. The truth is AEGIS and the SM3 are more than capable of defending a carrier from this thing.
Posted by Bob Thrirong1862 2010-08-09 08:56||
#9 Bzzt WRONG Aegis cannot protect from a ballistic missile threat. It's not even established that it will work against Sunburn.
Old joke: How do you sink a carrier defended by 100 SM3? Fire 101 missiles at it.
Posted by gromky 2010-08-09 09:25||
#10 Unless policy has changed dramatically over the last few years, using a nuclear weapon against the US, even if only against US military forces, triggers nuclear retaliation. Somehow, I don't see this as a game changer.
Posted by rwv 2010-08-09 10:27||
#11 this thing is going to require a couple of other gadgets to work right - either a satellite based radar link (best)
Correct me if wrong, but I remember discussions about re-entry vehicles and how they lose radio contact when they enter the atmosphere. This would mean that the warhead would "go blind" just as it is approaching the target.
My calculations are that the carrier could turn and change its direction by several hundred yards before the missle reaches its impact point. A conventional warhead would be a clean miss, and a nuclear warhead would be an act of suicide (see comment #10).
This missle has been followed by the US Navy for several years now and there is an array of countermeasures against it.
Posted by Frozen Al 2010-08-09 11:45||
#12 Gromky you are wrong from what I recall reading: Some of the Aegis are equipped with SM3 variants which have been shown to be somewhat effective in terminal phase against exoatmospheric missiles
Posted by No I am The Other Beldar 2010-08-09 11:50||
#13 My understanding is that this is a manueverable conventionally armed ballistic missile. The question really is what does the US do when a ballitic missile is heading toward a capital ship. I'll tell you they assume nuclear and respond appropriately.
So what are the PLA gonna do? Call ahead and tell us it's conventional and not nuclear? I don't think that will work.
So the US assumes nuke and responds with nuke.
If the PLA sends a conventional warhead in a nuke delivery vehicle they are being pretty stupid as it will get them nuked. Or should.
All of this assuming we have a President that would actually defend the USA.
Posted by Hellfish 2010-08-09 12:32||
#14 Strategypage.com's take on this missle:
Many in the West don't pick up on the smoke and mirrors aspects of Chinese defense policies. Case in point is the legendary Chinese ballistic missile that can hit American aircraft carriers. For nearly five years, there have been stories (in the West) about how China was working on targeting systems for its ballistic missiles, that would enable them to seek out and hit aircraft carriers. Such sensors would use infrared (heat seeking) technology. The key was having multiple sensor systems that could find the general location of the carrier, before launching the ballistic missile (like a DF-21, with a range of 2,100 kilometers). The latest rumors have even given the carrier killer missile a name; the DF-21D. This wonder weapon hasn't even been tested yet, much less seen or officially announced.
Posted by Frozen Al 2010-08-09 13:03||
#15 I seem to remember at least two Chinese spies being caught after spending more than a few years stealing high level secrets from the US Navy. Who knows what they gleaned (and are still gleaning) from those endeavors. While I don't think they have this capability yet, they certainly could develop it. For the Chinese funding and ingenuity are not in short supply. Nor is the willingness on the part of their gov't to persue new, more powerful military technology to defeat the only real threat they face in open war, us.
As for producing them in mass quantities once developed, that wouldn't be a problem either. China has (and has had for at least a decade) one of the most advanced and extensive manufacturing economies on the planet. They can pretty much reproduce anything quickly once they know how to make it. Also, geographically speaking they can move large amounts of goods (or large objects) across the country quickly thanks to the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers (which run from their east coast striaight through the heart of China).
Military and economically speaking China is already a threat (and has been for some time). Technologically speaking they are no slouch. If they want to develop this kind of missile they have all of the tools they need to get the job done.
Posted by Keenster 2010-08-09 14:00||
#16 Two things I want to note: 1) Last month they had an exercise where lots of ships and aircraft were firing at an unmanned/undefended/unmoving vintage aircraft carrier. If I remember correctly it took over 30 rounds to sink the ship. 2) In warfare distance equals time. Missiles fly fast but if you have minutes to react you can defeat one or 20. As previously mentioned Carriers have a large defensive screen. Does anyone know of a successful land based missile attack on a naval warship?
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2010-08-09 18:52||
#17 Never had heard of a solely land-based missile attack sinking a carrier; even the ones sunk in WWII required dozens of attacks by fighter/bomber aircraft, and a couple of those were finished off by their own subs to prevent enemy capture. Also, everything that leaks out from the US carrier sinking trials like the one that happened in the past couple of years says that Western-built carriers are a bitch to sink -- even sitting in place without being defended.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2010-08-09 21:10||
#18 Here's one. Even then, it's obviously going to be kind of tough.
Posted by gorb 2010-08-09 21:10||
#19 RELATED > GUAMPDN FORUMS = PACIFIC POWER COULD CHANGE.
POSTER > opined that that the B-2 Stealth Bomber is now all but toast thanx to an Indian engineer giving its tech secrets to China, + that GUAM may find itself encircled or blockaded by China in future.
* FREEREPUBLIC/NET POSTERS > believe that whatever Milstrikes abndor Terrstrikes, Other anti-US Agendum America = Amerika's enemies have in mind NEEDS TO OCCUR WHILE POTUS BAMMER IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
* CHINESE MIL FORUM > [WAPO Artic]CONCERNED ABOUT CHINA'S RISE, SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS BUILD UP THEIR MILITARIES.
ARTIC > describes how MOST COUNTRIES IN ASIA ARE "BANDWAGONING" WID THE US TO COUNTER = BALANCE AGZ CHINA'S FUTURE POWER POTENTIAL [read, FUTURE REGIOnAL MIL AGGRESSION?].
Also from CMF > VIETNAM TAKES US STANCE ON XISHA ISLANDS [aka Paracels]. ARTIC infers that recent visit of USS "GEORGE WASHINGTON" CVN was covertly meant to monitor Sino-Viet tensions oer disputed South China Seas islands + deter Chin mil response to Vietnam-specific recce + claims to same???
Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-08-09 22:10||