What's new

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘CARRIER-KILLER'

FreekiN

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
2,908
Reaction score
0
China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

Dr. Andrew Erickson is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College’s China Maritime Studies Institute and a Truman Security Fellow. This is his first post for Danger Room; these are solely his personal views.

6656ece968d9b5db020ea3d39807b13b.png


Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced (.pdf) to the stage of actual testing.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier (.pdf) strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Willard’s disclosure should come as little surprise: China’s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead — have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development “has progressed at a remarkable rate.” In the span of just over a decade, he said, “China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.… China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.”

When someone of Bray’s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.


Equally intriguing has been the depiction of this capability in the Chinese media. A lengthy November 2009 program about anti-ship ballistic missiles (video) broadcast on China Central Television Channel 7 (China’s official military channel) featured an unexplained — and rather badly animated — cartoon sequence. This curious 'toon features a sailor who falsely assumes that his carrier’s Aegis defense systems can destroy an incoming ASBM as effectively as a cruise missile, with disastrous results.

The full program is available in three segments (parts 1, 2, and 3) on YouTube. Skip to 7:18 on the second clip to view this strange, and somewhat disturbing, segment.

Likewise, Chinese media seem to be tracking PACOM’s statements about this more closely than the U.S. press. The graphic above is drawn from an article on Dongfang Ribao (Oriental Daily), the website of a Shanghai newspaper.

Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China’s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China’s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress.

U.S. ships, however, will not offer a fixed target for China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. Military planning documents like the February 2010 Joint Operating Environment (.pdf) and Quadrennial Defense Review (.pdf) clearly recognize America’s growing “anti-access” challenge, and the QDR — the Pentagon’s guiding strategy document — charges the U.S. military with multiple initiatives to address it.

In a world where U.S. naval assets will often be safest underwater, President Obama’s defense budget supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine. And developing effective countermeasures against anti-ship ballistic missiles is a topic of vigorous discussion in Navy circles. The United States is clearly taking steps to prevent this kind of weapon from changing the rules of the game in the Western Pacific, but continued effort will be essential for U.S. maritime forces to preserve their role in safeguarding the global commons.



Read More China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’ | Danger Room | Wired.com


holy mother of holy :china:
 
. . . . . . .
Ask the admins to do a check on me, I only have one id here.


it doesn't change the fact that you are not chinese,“pinyin” boy

bie chu lai diu ren le ,3 ge

any "pinyin" word you are familiar with this time? don't play those dirty tricks between P-C
 
Last edited:
.
Seems like an annual event these "carrier killer" missiles.

These reports must be on a Word template and the date changed every 6-10 months
 
. . .
BOOM!! a billion dollar thing turn into ashes, awesome!

the missile is not built to sink an aircraft carrier, but to disable it. the AC itself can not be sunk by 1KG or 2KG bombs or missiles, but it's flying deck will be damaged beyond repair, untill it return to base, by a small pieces of metal provided that pieces of metal flew at the speed of Mach 6-10.

so instead of nuclear warhead, a cluster bomb would be a better choice.
 
.
Another DF-21 thread...???

so instead of nuclear warhead, a cluster bomb would be a better choice.
Not necessarily...

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the morning of 14 January 1969, a MK-32 Zuni rocket loaded on a parked F-4 Phantom exploded due to ordnance 'cook off' after being overheated by an aircraft start unit mounted to a tow tractor[14]. The explosion set off fires and additional explosions across the flight deck. The fires were brought under control relatively quickly (when compared with previous carrier flight deck fires), but 27 lives were lost and an additional 314 personnel were injured. The fire destroyed 15 aircraft, and the resulting damage forced Enterprise to put in for repairs, primarily to repair the flight deck's armored plating[15]. In early March 1969, repairs to the ship were completed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and the ship proceeded on her deployment to Vietnam and the Tonkin Gulf.
If the above fire was the result of a combat action, the Enterprise would still be able to launch and recover aircrafts, albeit at a slower pace. Cluster munitions would have done similar damages. Enough to slow down the tempo, but not too severe to disable the ship and her flight operations. That is how modern US aircraft carriers are built.

Other cluster munition related issues are spread pattern and release altitude. The higher the release altitude, the larger the spread pattern and therefore the lesser the concentration of damages. Release altitude must also take into consideration that even though this is a large target, it is a moving target. Too high and the whole weapon might as well be worthless as the bomblets would fall harmlessly in wide dispersal area in the sea. Too low and the damages could be too concentrated.

Example below...

rapid_runway_repair_minimum.jpg


That is a from a runway repair kit and equipment manufacturer. The yellow strip is the minimum runway length for a repaired runway to resume flight operations, or an aircraft carrier deck. The individual brown dots could be translated as cluster munitions. Some felled into the sea, some damaged the flight deck. No individual munition impact is considered fatal.

It is not as easy to hit a moving aircraft carrier and disable it as some dreamers would like to believe.
 
. .
Another DF-21 thread...???


Not necessarily...

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the above fire was the result of a combat action, the Enterprise would still be able to launch and recover aircrafts, albeit at a slower pace. Cluster munitions would have done similar damages. Enough to slow down the tempo, but not too severe to disable the ship and her flight operations. That is how modern US aircraft carriers are built.

Other cluster munition related issues are spread pattern and release altitude. The higher the release altitude, the larger the spread pattern and therefore the lesser the concentration of damages. Release altitude must also take into consideration that even though this is a large target, it is a moving target. Too high and the whole weapon might as well be worthless as the bomblets would fall harmlessly in wide dispersal area in the sea. Too low and the damages could be too concentrated.

Example below...

rapid_runway_repair_minimum.jpg


That is a from a runway repair kit and equipment manufacturer. The yellow strip is the minimum runway length for a repaired runway to resume flight operations, or an aircraft carrier deck. The individual brown dots could be translated as cluster munitions. Some felled into the sea, some damaged the flight deck. No individual munition impact is considered fatal.

It is not as easy to hit a moving aircraft carrier and disable it as some dreamers would like to believe.

1) as in your example one explosion is alomst fatal, what about 2 or 3 hits.

2) how many spare runways are there on an AC and can they be repaired at the high sea? it's a make of steel, not concrete.

3) without air support, let's say 1-2 hour, what are you going to use to intercept the imcomming fighters.


4)try to read this
http://www.defence.pk/forums/weapon...-sci-fi-weapons-theyre-actually-building.html

if the 100KG "Rods from God" can "penetrate hardened nuclear missile silos", i think a 10KG or even 1KG Rod would be enough to penetrate the flight deck. and DF-21s can carry a 1.5 ton warhead to the 1000KM altitude, so that means there would be 150-1500 little babies.

or i could give you another example,
the kinetic energy of a shell fire by a 120mm tank gun is about 11 million joule, which is more then enougth to penetrate the 550mm armor of T72.
if a 1KG titanium rod flew at mach 6, the kinetic energy is 0.5*1*(6*340)^2= 2 million joule. do you thing the filght deck is repairable after hit by this little babies.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom