What's new

China's New "Carrier-Killing" Missile Is Overrated

1000VA

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
344
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
China's New "Carrier-Killing" Missile Is Overrated



Last week saw another round of semi-hysterical speculation about China's new Dong Feng missile, which supposedly has the accuracy required to attack U.S. aircraft carriers from 900 miles away. Prof. Toshi Yoshihara of the Naval War College told the Associated Press that the new missile signals "the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II," and "sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore." Patrick Cronin of the Center for a New American Security said the missile is "potentially capable of stopping our naval projection." Investor's Business Daily compared the Pentagon's lack of response to the Dong Feng with Navy complacency in the days leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and saw the emerging antiship threat as further evidence the world is entering a "Chinese Century."

I haven't seen the intelligence reports, so maybe all the alarm is warranted. But I doubt it. China has yet to conduct a single realistic test of the conventionally-armed ballistic missile. Even if it performs as feared, there is a glaring omission in all the threat mongering: the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) has no reliable way of actually targeting U.S. carrier task forces when they are at sea. No matter how accurate the new missile's guidance system may be, Chinese military commanders need to know where to aim it -- especially since a near miss with a conventional warhead has pretty much the same military value as missing by a hundred miles. So how exactly is the PLA supposed to find U.S. carriers, when they are constantly moving and actively excluding hostile forces from their immediate vicinity?

The answer is that it can't. "Four and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory" -- the way carrier proponents often describe flattops -- may sound like a huge target, but in fact it is a mere speck in the vast expanses of the Western Pacific. For example, the modestly-sized South China Sea that Beijing keeps trying to claim for itself contains over a million square miles of water, in which a carrier can easily hide. And that's only a small part of the East Asia littoral. I calculated a decade ago that to acquire continuous target-quality information for the entire South China Sea, the PLA would need over a hundred low-earth-orbit reconnaissance satellites moving in three parallel tracks. At the moment, China only has a handful of such satellites, and as a result most of the time its overhead sensors aren't anywhere near areas of interest. It also has over-the-horizon radars and roaming submarines, plus a fleet of reconnaissance aircraft, but these do not add up to the seamless targeting network the PLA would need to track and attack a U.S. carrier.

The Navy is currently investing in upgrades to its Aegis combat system and other defensive equipment aimed at dealing with maneuvering warheads such as the Dong Feng would carry. These defensive measures will likely come to fruition long before Beijing has a reliable way of targeting our carriers. In addition, the Navy has numerous kinetic and non-kinetic strike options that could be used to rapidly degrade whatever surveillance network the PLA has assembled if the threat of an attack against U.S. carriers were deemed serious enough. And then there are all the passive "signature management" measures the Navy might undertake to foil the tracking efforts of the PLA using remote sensors. Frankly, the U.S. Navy has so many options for negating Chinese antiship capabilities that I can only conclude the alarmists aren't conversant with U.S. military preparations to be so worried about the nascent Dong Feng.

Of course, losing even one aircraft carrier would be a huge blow to the American psyche. But the American response would be so devastating that Beijing would soon regret its boldness. The value of a trillion dollars in Chinese currency reserves would evaporate overnight. China's access to the world's richest export market would end. Its information networks would largely cease functioning. Its sea-based supply lines to Persian Gulf oil and Australian minerals would be severed. And all that could happen even before U.S. bombs began falling on Chinese territory. So while we can't be absolutely certain that China's leaders won't someday be foolish enough to attack a U.S. aircraft carrier, we can be pretty damned sure that they would soon realize they had made a big mistake.
 
.
Gee thanks, I wouldn't have got the point of you subtle article without your coloring the text bright red and underlining everything.
 
.
The subtle point is that even in a news article, that bullying tone of voice and sense of self entitlement and self-righteousness still manages to display itself.
 
.
well good move alll countries who have the AC and thinks they are blue water navy and they can block sea routes of opponents in war days are gone with this missile their ships become prey specially for indians and americans who want to rule indian sea their dreams are now over
 
.
well good move alll countries who have the AC and thinks they are blue water navy and they can block sea routes of opponents in war days are gone with this missile their ships become prey specially for indians and americans who want to rule indian sea their dreams are now over

..er..ok?:china:
 
.
The subtle point is that even in a news article, that bullying tone of voice and sense of self entitlement and self-righteousness still manages to display itself.

..must've have been very subtle so subtle that I completly missed it.
 
.
Pakistan should be interested in this missile as we face threat of aircraft carriers. We can also protect international Persian Gulf sea lanes by installing these missile at Gwadar.
 
.
Pakistan should be interested in this missile as we face threat of aircraft carriers. We can also protect international Persian Gulf sea lanes by installing these missile at Gwadar.

AC are over-rated. Why use an AC when you have airfields on land that are much larger and much less vulnerable to attack. AC's are weapons for pounding the unruly and unorganized natives, they become a liability against well organized armed forces.
 
.
Pakistan should be interested in this missile as we face threat of aircraft carriers. We can also protect international Persian Gulf sea lanes by installing these missile at Gwadar.

Did any of you’ll read post #1? The author claims the missile is overrated.
 
.
AC are over-rated. Why use an AC when you have airfields on land that are much larger and much less vulnerable to attack. AC's are weapons for pounding the unruly and unorganized natives, they become a liability against well organized armed forces.

I lol'd, especially the red part "pounding the unruly and unorganized natives" :rofl:

Why is my post count stuck on 915?
 
.
I lol'd, especially the red part "pounding the unruly and unorganized natives" :rofl:

Well when was the last time that the AC was used against another nation capable of field an AC? 1945 right? Since 1945, they've been used in Korea, Vietnam, Malvinas, Gulf war I and II. All pretty lob-sided affairs in terms of air force and tactical missile force.
 
.
Well when was the last time that the AC was used against another nation capable of field an AC? 1945 right? Since 1945, they've been used in Korea, Vietnam, Malvinas, Gulf war I and II. All pretty lob-sided affairs in terms of air force and tactical missile force.

Well if what you say is true then why does China feel so threatened by the presence of a CBG in south china seas?
 
.
AC are over-rated. Why use an AC when you have airfields on land that are much larger and much less vulnerable to attack. AC's are weapons for pounding the unruly and unorganized natives, they become a liability against well organized armed forces.

Well the point the author is trying to make is CBG are difficult to find, grain of sand in an ocean.

Won't debate whether that is true or not since there's many other military professionals who can do that, but there's no evidence that carriers are only useful against unorganized or poorly armed forces. The Empire of Japan was highly organized and well armed, and so were the Argentines with their Exocet missiles. In fact the Falklands War demonstrates that even when heavily outnumbered (Argentines had hundreds vs the British's 34 harriers) what a carrier allows is for you to dictate range and lower enemy loiter time to minutes.

In fact if I wanted to fight unorganized or poorly armed forces I would rather have battleships than carriers. Battleships have firepower carriers can only dream of, and most importantly sustained firepower unlike the puny warhead of a Tomahawk or temporary aircraft flying overhead.
 
Last edited:
.
Well if what you say is true then why does China feel so threatened by the presence of a CBG in south china seas?

Symbolism I guess, the bigger game is geopolitical chess for the SE Asia I think. A CBG in the east sea is a kin to moving a chess piece about.

Again this is all just my opinion
 
.
Symbolism I guess, the bigger game is geopolitical chess for the SE Asia I think. A CBG in the east sea is a kin to moving a chess piece about.

Again this is all just my opinion

Are you suggesting China herself is pursuing one or more carriers as a ‘symbol’ of her power?
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom