• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,726
2
81
https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp">Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers</a>

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.
Looks like this new weapon will put US Naval superiority in question;

The only way I can think of to thwart this weapon would be to develop deck mounted anti-missile systems on our carriers, battleships and alike, that is accurate enough to render it useless.

Thank you for participating in the forums, but this topic is already in progress here.
-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Aircraft carriers have been sitting ducks for some time. The problem is cruise missiles.
The anti-missle defense systems are not reliable. This is the reason that a carrier is surrounded by smaller ships, destroyers, frigates, etc..-to take the hit and not take out the carrier.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
It could put it in question if it were a) real (maybe it is, maybe not), b) the navy has no real defense against it (which seems questionable) and c) naval superiority hinged upon the ability or lack thereof of China to take out carriers.

Although the article said there are no anti-ship-ballistic defenses, surely if the navy feels confident it could take out a ballistic missle from NK against land it couild do the same with it coming toward it.

In end, I doubt that any conventional weapon would be enough to render a carrier dead in the water without it getting pretty damn close to it, which means it's gotten past the multi-barreled cannons sitting on the ship, which I presume can change their targeting faster than one of these rockets can actually change its path.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Let me guess, a nuke tipped cruise missle?

Anyways I think cerrier fleets will have a hard time against any large well organized country. Didnt the DoD run simulations that showed our fleets would effectively need to be off the map to save them in the event of a war?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
This hardly worries me to be honest. If it ever gets to the point where they are taking out carriers, I will be looking at a nice orange ball on the Los Angeles horizon, followed by my incineration.

China and Russia make up for not having very accurate ICBMs by using larger warheads than the US, along with the air-burst triangle pattern, which is just devastating.

I'm 90% sure we would break our treaty with Taiwan and not come to full military aid if China decided to take it back. We dont have the resources for a real war right now, and we sure as hell dont want to have a nuclear exchange.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,144
24,726
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It could put it in question if it were a) real (maybe it is, maybe not), b) the navy has no real defense against it (which seems questionable) and c) naval superiority hinged upon the ability or lack thereof of China to take out carriers.

Although the article said there are no anti-ship-ballistic defenses, surely if the navy feels confident it could take out a ballistic missle from NK against land it couild do the same with it coming toward it.

In end, I doubt that any conventional weapon would be enough to render a carrier dead in the water without it getting pretty damn close to it, which means it's gotten past the multi-barreled cannons sitting on the ship, which I presume can change their targeting faster than one of these rockets can actually change its path.
CIWS isn't really effective against ballistic missiles as they move too fast for it to intercept. (and they don't match its target profile, although this could be changed)

What I really question is China's ability to make a ballistic missile accurate enough to hit a (comparatively) small target, on the ocean, that is MOVING at a range of more than 1000 miles? This sounds like something that, if developed at all, is many years away.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
Wouldn't it just be a glorified cruise missile of some sort? And how hard can it be to hit a moving carrier when missiles can track down a plane?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,144
24,726
136
Originally posted by: ohnoes
Wouldn't it just be a glorified cruise missile of some sort? And how hard can it be to hit a moving carrier when missiles can track down a plane?
Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are very different. Cruise missiles fly somewhat similarly to a plane, and so they can be maneuvered fairly easily. Ballistic missiles fly way up into the sky and basically just fall on their target. Much harder to hit something with.
 

GoSharks

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 1999
3,057
0
76
Originally posted by: Socio
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.
Right.... (emphasis mine)
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,973
245
106
I thought the whole point behind the Aegis Cruiser was to provide the fleet with defense against this type of threats. I would assume there's a Navy's version of the Patriot missile for intercepts at range.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The real problem is that we should not be using the term ballistic missile anymore. A ballistic missile is something dumb, know any three points of its trajectory, and you can predict the whole trajectory, more modern versions will combine the the super high velocity with some screening and close to the target maneuverability. Much much harder to intercept than a low level low velocity cruise missile.

And somewhat advantage China, as they ramp up their military spending, they can cherry pick quality and quantity state of the arts technologies. And thus get the best bang for the buck, while much of the US stuff is now somewhat obsolete, even though the US has it over China on quantity.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
I thought the USA was the only country in the world allowed to develop or possess weapons.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
Originally posted by: ohnoes
Wouldn't it just be a glorified cruise missile of some sort? And how hard can it be to hit a moving carrier when missiles can track down a plane?
How hard?

Think about the movement of a carrier at cruise speed (30knts). Then calculate the surface area involved and you will quickly see targeting is a major challenge.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,345
24
81
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Originally posted by: JTsyo
I thought the whole point behind the Aegis Cruiser was to provide the fleet with defense against this type of threats. I would assume there's a Navy's version of the Patriot missile for intercepts at range.
Standard Missile 3
Assuming China had the capability to lob a ballistic missile on a carrier -I doubt they do today- a standard missile or even a patriot knockoff would do the trick fairly easily. Depending on the guidance the missiles uses, a much cheaper and simpler countermeasure could even be employed with good success.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
5
76
You guys do realize that when we deploy a carrier to a place that might be dangerous , like China, we don't just send it alone. There are escort ships that are more than capable of taking out a missile.


The really dangerous missiles are the surface hugger. They can fly within 10 feet of the surface and are next to impossible to detect.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,144
24,726
136
Originally posted by: Modelworks
You guys do realize that when we deploy a carrier to a place that might be dangerous , like China, we don't just send it alone. There are escort ships that are more than capable of taking out a missile.


The really dangerous missiles are the surface hugger. They can fly within 10 feet of the surface and are next to impossible to detect.
Actually a ballistic missile would be a far greater threat assuming it could actually hit the target. (that being a BIG assumption) They move far far faster than any cruise missile, and are far harder to intercept. The surface hugging cruise missile has been a staple of anti ship missiles for quite a long time, and our current ships are actually pretty decent at detecting and intercepting them with RAM launchers and CIWS systems.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,468
4,308
136
I have never had faith in the ability of the whole Aegis system. It is FAR too easy to overwhelm or trick ANY anti-missile system yet devised. The laws of physics pertain. An aircraft carrier is a relatively big, relatively slow-moving, and relatively combustible target.

Anyone who thinks otherwise about anti-missile technology would be wise to study that actual performance of the Patriot system in Israel and environs during the first Iraq war against a scattered and third-rate threat from Saddam. It's performance was pitiful.

I would welcome the opportunity to be proved wrong, but please bring the results of documented tests to the table when doing so.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
5
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Modelworks
You guys do realize that when we deploy a carrier to a place that might be dangerous , like China, we don't just send it alone. There are escort ships that are more than capable of taking out a missile.


The really dangerous missiles are the surface hugger. They can fly within 10 feet of the surface and are next to impossible to detect.
Actually a ballistic missile would be a far greater threat assuming it could actually hit the target. (that being a BIG assumption) They move far far faster than any cruise missile, and are far harder to intercept. The surface hugging cruise missile has been a staple of anti ship missiles for quite a long time, and our current ships are actually pretty decent at detecting and intercepting them with RAM launchers and CIWS systems.

Not the old generation missile that could only go down to 20 meters or so , but the next generation that can go down to 2 meters. The only thing we have that can detect those are the E-2C.


The biggest threat of any I think remains the moskit. The USA is rumored to have a defense against those ready in 2011. The last trial defense went badly.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,144
24,726
136
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Modelworks
You guys do realize that when we deploy a carrier to a place that might be dangerous , like China, we don't just send it alone. There are escort ships that are more than capable of taking out a missile.


The really dangerous missiles are the surface hugger. They can fly within 10 feet of the surface and are next to impossible to detect.
Actually a ballistic missile would be a far greater threat assuming it could actually hit the target. (that being a BIG assumption) They move far far faster than any cruise missile, and are far harder to intercept. The surface hugging cruise missile has been a staple of anti ship missiles for quite a long time, and our current ships are actually pretty decent at detecting and intercepting them with RAM launchers and CIWS systems.

Not the old generation missile that could only go down to 20 meters or so , but the next generation that can go down to 2 meters. The only thing we have that can detect those are the E-2C.


The biggest threat of any I think remains the moskit. The USA is rumored to have a defense against those ready in 2011. The last trial defense went badly.
AEGIS can detect a missile 2m above the wavetops. The advantage to flying so low isn't so much that you can't be detected, it's that due to radar horizons you give the ship only a few seconds to react when they do detect you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS