What's new

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

Gabbar

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
2,118
Reaction score
0
Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy

DONG FENG 11
27e52c2d6d7337c382d6dc9939904900._.jpg


U. S. Naval Institute
March 31, 2009

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.

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.



The ASBM is said to be a modified DF-21

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.

f8bc1bb2a28935b98119002b185b6797.jpg

876b92beb0df178ebf2fef79ae73d85b.jpg
 
. . .
A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering a warhead (often nuclear) to a predetermined target. The missile is only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight and its course is subsequently governed by the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics.

whats the use of a 2000 km range anti-ship ballistic missiles when the target is maneuverable ...does not make the slightest of sense to me ..you can use ballistic missiles on cities but using a non-maneuverable missile on a maneuverable target is seriously dumb:rofl::rofl:

:cheers:
 
.
whats the use of a 2000 km range anti-ship ballistic missiles when the target is maneuverable ...does not make the slightest of sense to me ..you can use ballistic missiles on cities but using a non-maneuverable missile on a maneuverable target is seriously dumb:rofl::rofl:

:cheers:

Exactly CBG moving with the speed of about 30 knot with aegis class destroyer.

I think it is just for threatening the US, other than that it will be mere foolishness.
 
. .
Exactly CBG moving with the speed of about 30 knot with aegis class destroyer.

I think it is just for threatening the US, other than that it will be mere foolishness.

as i see it other than the reporter one of the officials are really worried about it

..ballistic missiles by definition are not maneuverable at a terminal stage ..if it is maneuverable then its not right to call them ballistic missiles


all that navy guys are panicking reports are BS ..at a time like this when major defence research projects are being axed ....REMINDS ME OF COPE INDIA EXCERSISES....600+ billion defense budget ...is five 5 times greater than chinese ..seriously funny article...news reporters and bloggers are out of serious news i presume
:cheers:
 
.
^^ Plus the speed is at mach 10 and how would you manouver missile at mach 10?
 
.
600+ billion defense budget ...is five 5 times greater than chinese ..seriously funny article...news reporters and bloggers are out of serious news i presume
:cheers:

i don't put much stock in this "super-missile", but you're forgetting purchasing power parity. foreign military weapon acquisitions aside, China gets 4 times the bang for its bucks as the US does on military spending domestically.
 
.
whats the use of a 2000 km range anti-ship ballistic missiles when the target is maneuverable ...does not make the slightest of sense to me ..you can use ballistic missiles on cities but using a non-maneuverable missile on a maneuverable target is seriously dumb:rofl::rofl:

:cheers:


I think you should approach with your FULLEST knowledge and OUTSTANDING merit (related to modern weapon system only) to the Chinese govt so that you will be offered an exclusive job in the Chinese weapon industry. China needs such Platinum medalist weapon experts from India. :rofl::rofl:
 
.
I think you should approach with your FULLEST knowledge and OUTSTANDING merit (related to modern weapon system only) to the Chinese govt so that you will be offered an exclusive job in the Chinese weapon industry. China needs such Platinum medalist weapon experts from India. :rofl::rofl:

hey dude chill out ...the ballistic missile is seriously threatening if its used on land based targets ....no offense i never criticized the tech. just said there is no point using a non-maneuvering missile on movable targets ... i think that missile can easily reach Alaska and that might pose threats to ports where the subs and carriers are docked ...no offense...i was just makin fun of the reporter CAL IT A BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY-CRUISE MISSILE :woot:

:cheers:
 
.
i don't put much stock in this "super-missile", but you're forgetting purchasing power parity. foreign military weapon acquisitions aside, China gets 4 times the bang for its bucks as the US does on military spending domestically.

No they don't. China can't make an F-22 at any price, let alone an F-35. Its tanks, subs and ships, computers, battle management, and numerous other factors are also inferior etc. If China did create an anti-ship ballistic missile- what a waste. If the USN did not have the SM-3 it would be a good weapon, but now that carrier groups already have ABM capability its useless.
 
.
No they don't. China can't make an F-22 at any price, let alone an F-35. Its tanks, subs and ships, computers, battle management, and numerous other factors are also inferior etc. If China did create an anti-ship ballistic missile- what a waste. If the USN did not have the SM-3 it would be a good weapon, but now that carrier groups already have ABM capability its useless.

Yes, they do. They are of course still confined to the limits of their technical expertise. But every hour of labour to build a weapon, every officer and enlisted man and woman's salary and such is _relatively_ much cheaper in China than in the US, in nominal USD. So when you compare a nations defence expenditures in USD you can not only look at nomial USD spending - exchange rate fluctuations alone can greatly inflate or deflate a defence budget without telling the full story.

That's all i was saying. The rest of your post infers things I neither said nor implied, so I'm not going to address it.
 
.
{quote]China gets 4 times the bang for its bucks as the US does on military spending domestically.[/quote]

That is what you said.

So for every dollar spent China should get 4x what the US gets. But they don't, they can't rival an F-22, Ohio class SSGN, Virginia class SSN, F-35, THAAD, SM-3 at any price let alone 4x the bang for the buck.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom