Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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.

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.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China's failure to be transparent about its rapidly growing military capabilities has created uncertainty and risks of miscalculation, the Pentagon said in an annual report released on Wednesday.

The report, the first under the Obama administration, came weeks after Chinese boats jostled with a U.S. Navy surveillance ship in the South China Sea in a confrontation that heightened tensions over Chinese military activities near its coasts.

"Much uncertainty surrounds China's future course, particularly regarding how its expanding military power might be used," according to the report on Chinese military power, which was submitted to the U.S. Congress.

China was making advances in denying outsiders access to offshore areas and was improving its nuclear, space, and cyber warfare while making its military modestly more transparent, it said, noting potentially global implications to this trend.

...Risks to the United States and its allies in the Pacific region arise from incomplete Chinese defense spending figures and actions that appear inconsistent with declared policies, said the report, the first under the Obama administration.

"The limited transparency in China's military and security affairs poses risks to stability by creating uncertainty and increasing the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation," the report said.

...The report noted that the recent naval showdown between the two sides took place near Hainan island, where the construction of a navy base gives the Chinese navy access to international sea lanes and allows stealthy deployment of submarines into the South China Sea.

"The base appears large enough to accommodate a mix of attack and ballistic missile submarines and advanced surface combatant ships," it said.

The Pentagon analysis said China is developing weapons that would disable its enemies' space technology such as satellites, and boosting its electromagnetic warfare and cyber-warfare capabilities.

China continued to modernize its nuclear arsenal, improving its fleet of ballistic missile submarines to give itself greater strategic strike capability, said the report. China's aircraft carrier research program supported its navy's intention to build multiple carriers by 2020, it added.

The United States was increasingly concerned about "computer network intrusions that appear to originate in China," said the defense official, who pointed to a focus on computer defense and computer attack in Chinese doctrine.

...In the Taiwan Strait, the balance of forces continued to shift in China's favor as it rapidly built up an arsenal of short-range missiles opposite Taiwan, the report said.

Asked if the Pentagon was concerned the analysis could derail bilateral military talks by angering China, press secretary Geoff Morrell said the "straightforward, fact-based report" had "nothing inflammatory or derogatory in it."

houndawg wrote:I think we already established that carriers are becoming obsolete in a previous thread. Best way to defend the US against a Chinese military that will soon be able to ensure the safety of it's oil supply?

travelinman67 wrote:

houndawg wrote:I think we already established that carriers are becoming obsolete in a previous thread. Best way to defend the US against a Chinese military that will soon be able to ensure the safety of it's oil supply?

No, you made that statement with little backing, but a lot of arguing.

The projected Littoral Fleet buildout of Ford class carriers is laid out through 2020, with a proposed CVN-X (Ford/Experimental transitional design), followed by plans for the CVX carrier which will revolutionize carrier design. While I realize you foresee the military future being a bunch of dope-smoking gamers sitting around in a community center using drones to hunt white males driving 3/4 ton and larger pickups...

...that ain't ever happening, dawg. The Carrier Strike Groups change world policies...in days. Ain't nothing like 'em, and ain't nothing gonna replace 'em. Even if space based weaponry were deployed, specialized weaponry (bunker busters, air-fuel [overpressure] devices for clearing "embedded" enemies, etc...] and some theaters will still require expeditionary deployment. So there will ALWAYS be the need for Strike Groups.

Do your homework on this, dawg. Read Naval Reserve Sea Power...it's available on the web and is well ahead of the all-in-one services like Janes.

houndawg wrote:Best way to defend the US against a Chinese military that will soon be able to ensure the safety of it's oil supply? Energy independence. Crash program, Appollo-style, starting yesterday, will put us in the militarily advantageous position...

UNI88 wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
No, you made that statement with little backing, but a lot of arguing.

The projected Littoral Fleet buildout of Ford class carriers is laid out through 2020, with a proposed CVN-X (Ford/Experimental transitional design), followed by plans for the CVX carrier which will revolutionize carrier design. While I realize you foresee the military future being a bunch of dope-smoking gamers sitting around in a community center using drones to hunt white males driving 3/4 ton and larger pickups...

...that ain't ever happening, dawg. The Carrier Strike Groups change world policies...in days. Ain't nothing like 'em, and ain't nothing gonna replace 'em. Even if space based weaponry were deployed, specialized weaponry (bunker busters, air-fuel [overpressure] devices for clearing "embedded" enemies, etc...] and some theaters will still require expeditionary deployment. So there will ALWAYS be the need for Strike Groups.

Do your homework on this, dawg. Read Naval Reserve Sea Power...it's available on the web and is well ahead of the all-in-one services like Janes.

Whether carriers are obsolete or not does not change HD's underlying statement that:

houndawg wrote:Best way to defend the US against a Chinese military that will soon be able to ensure the safety of it's oil supply? Energy independence. Crash program, Appollo-style, starting yesterday, will put us in the militarily advantageous position...

travelinman67 wrote:

houndawg wrote:I think we already established that carriers are becoming obsolete in a previous thread. Best way to defend the US against a Chinese military that will soon be able to ensure the safety of it's oil supply?

No, you made that statement with little backing, but a lot of arguing.

The projected Littoral Fleet buildout of Ford class carriers is laid out through 2020, with a proposed CVN-X (Ford/Experimental transitional design), followed by plans for the CVX carrier which will revolutionize carrier design. While I realize you foresee the military future being a bunch of dope-smoking gamers sitting around in a community center using drones to hunt white males driving 3/4 ton and larger pickups...

...that ain't ever happening, dawg. The Carrier Strike Groups change world policies...in days. Ain't nothing like 'em, and ain't nothing gonna replace 'em. Even if space based weaponry were deployed, specialized weaponry (bunker busters, air-fuel [overpressure] devices for clearing "embedded" enemies, etc...] and some theaters will still require expeditionary deployment. So there will ALWAYS be the need for Strike Groups.

Do your homework on this, dawg. Read Naval Reserve Sea Power...it's available on the web and is well ahead of the all-in-one services like Janes.