| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carrier Killer | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 5 2010, 03:19 PM (415 Views) | |
| George K | Aug 5 2010, 03:19 PM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
New Concerns over Chinese "Carrier Killer" U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles). The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline. While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision. The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment. Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia's largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes. "The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose." Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity. It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes. The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan. U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate. "We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week. But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy. "China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War. Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore." Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though — with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — its implications haven't been widely discussed in public. Analysts note that while much has been made of China's efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews' level of expertise, training and experience. But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close. ... While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D — which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads — has been much discussed by military buffs online. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Aug 5 2010, 03:32 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Read any Dale Brown? Yeah, it's fiction, but he already acknowledges the carrier battle group may be too expensive and too vulnerable for the next war. (Of course, he's a former zoomie, so he's predjudiced). In his novels, he advocates an airplane which can also go into space, being able to dock with a space station and space-based kinetic energy weapons. Less cost, more effective. If you don't behave, you get a rod from God. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Aug 5 2010, 03:36 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Carrier groups are problematic in a large scale conflict, but are still the most reliable forces for smaller regional conflicts. I don't see them disappearing, but I do think their role will be changing dramatically over the next three decades. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Aug 5 2010, 04:30 PM Post #4 |
|
Shortstop
|
It's hard for me to believe that China would become this impatient. They only have to wait a short time and our leaders will give them anything they want. Maybe the new weapon is just a way for our leadership to save some face when they say they were forced to hand over the keys to the Capitol. Oh, and I believe I've read all the Dale Brown. I hope we have some of his guys stashed somewhere. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Aug 5 2010, 04:53 PM Post #5 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Before we go off the deep end, recall that similar things were said about the Exocet missile and other anti-ship weapons. First off, one must consider our potential countermeasures, from existing defenses on Aegis-class cruisers to newer things under development (like lasers). The anti-ship missile is not necessarily a game changer. |
![]() |
|
| George K | Aug 5 2010, 04:59 PM Post #6 |
|
Finally
|
Even at Mach 10? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Aug 5 2010, 05:47 PM Post #7 |
|
Shortstop
|
mach 10 = 7,612.07051 mph (roughly it of course depends on the local speed of sound) NY to LA = 2,778 miles NY to DC = 204 miles NY to LA at Mach 10 = about 22 minutes NY to DC at Mach 10 = about 96 seconds But the 204 miles are roughly at sea level and I don't know if anyone has any materials that would last very long at mach 10 at sea level |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Aug 5 2010, 05:53 PM Post #8 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
A laser travels a touch faster than mach 10. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Aug 5 2010, 06:05 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
And a laser has to have enough energy to kill the threat, along with a tracking system to slew and engage within the threat envelope. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Aug 5 2010, 06:16 PM Post #10 |
|
Finally
|
I'm not sure I buy the Mach 10 thing. The SR 71 flew at Mach 3-4. One of the major problems was heating of the skin - in fact the whole aircraft expanded once it got to altitude and speed. Hell, the Concorde grew by 14 inches at Mach 2.5. Am I to believe that a missile can travel 5 times faster, be reliable and accurate? Also, I'm not sure I believe the "We're shocked, shocked" story either. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Aug 5 2010, 06:16 PM Post #11 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Something I believe we are currently working on. |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Aug 5 2010, 06:21 PM Post #12 |
|
Shortstop
|
So I guess the best thing might be to just kill all of them right now. It might be just what is needed for the dems this November. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Aug 5 2010, 06:31 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
The U.S.A.F. thinks Mach 10 is doable. The Waverider is in the testing stage and I believe it does Mach 6. As to whether the Chinese can do Mach 10?...I dunno. And about ship-mounted lasers...the Raytheon version has undergone some successful testing, but at nothing nearly as fast as the claimed Chinese speed. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| 1hp | Aug 5 2010, 06:50 PM Post #14 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Uh, no........strategic planners don't cross their fingers and hope. One plans, and plans.......until they reach their goal. Waiting for the actions of others to benefit you never enters the equation....at least, not if you want to win. Which I assume the Chinese want - at least to persuade the US that it has the capability to win. |
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................ | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Aug 5 2010, 06:55 PM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Shocking! |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Aug 8 2010, 01:36 PM Post #16 |
|
Finally
|
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/08/ding-dong-dong-feng/
Answer from this naval reader: both. Perhaps “overblown” isn’t the right expression, so much as “blown by rogue winds and widely misunderstood.” Allow me to explain. The DF-21D isn’t a weapon we have no defenses against. In fact, the US Navy’s Standard Missile (anti-air missile) program and ballistic missile defense (BMD) upgrade to the Aegis tracking and guidance system are the right defenses to deal with it. Much is frequently made of how fast the DF-21D would be approaching its target in the terminal phase, but the gee-whiz aspect of that is overblown: it’s a ballistic missile. Of course it comes down really fast at the end. That’s what they do. The US has been working on ballistic missile defenses, afloat and ashore, for nearly 30 years now; the speed at which they plummet toward the earth is not a surprise. We have also proven our ability to intercept ballistic missiles coming down at high speeds from extra-atmospheric apogees – although here our success has been slow, and proven mainly in controlled test conditions. Almost all of the just-above-50% success rate has been achieved in the last decade (looking only at the last decade’s testing, the success rate is more like 80%). That said, a ballistic missile coming down at a carrier is a different and faster-moving problem than an anti-ship cruise missile coming at a carrier. Most of the cruise missiles out there (which fly like airplanes) are subsonic, and therefore relatively easy to shoot down. The supersonic Russian-designed SS-N-22 Sunburn (or MKB Raduga) missile is an exception, and China does have that missile, as a weapon system on Sovremenny-class destroyers purchased from Russia. (I note that cruise missiles aren’t the best weapon to use against a carrier anyway; they’ll be more likely to be used against escort ships and merchants.) But the geometry of the ballistic missile problem is in a class of its own. That’s what makes the DF-21D a potential game-changer: the fact that the geometry of the problem, and the defensive tactics it would require, impose significant operational constraints. Let me open that discussion with the observation that the fundamental significance of any of this will depend heavily on how effective the DF-21D’s terminal guidance is. Unless China wants to just lob warheads out there to plop harmlessly in the ocean, the DF-21D will have to have a form or forms of effective terminal guidance. Ships are moving targets, and for a ballistic missile, close will mean no cigar. The DF-21D will reportedly have multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs), unquestionably complicating the defensive picture, but the likelihood of any individual hit will be extremely low without hard-to-evade guidance. There’s a good discussion on that here; the hardest guidance to evade is infrared (IR) homing, followed by radar homing. Supposing China can make the DF-21D home on targets to a level 50% as good as “perfect,” and supposing our own missile defenses function better with each passing year, we have a difficult but bounded problem. And the big problem is not that we can’t defend our carriers at all, it’s that defending them would levy so many constraints on our operations. In effect, the DF-21D is a harassment weapon, and a darn good one, if it works as it’s intended to. Our carriers don’t carry ballistic missile defenses, for starters. The Aegis ships – cruisers and destroyers – would have to defend them. To some extent we already operate that way; a carrier is virtually never without an Aegis escort when it’s deployed forward. But one is generally deemed enough; against enemy attack aircraft or cruise missiles, the carrier’s own defenses are effective and will catch close-in threats that slip through the Aegis net. The carrier can defend itself from air threats with its fighter aircraft and short-range anti-air missiles – but these aren’t defenses against ballistic missiles. If China can launch a barrage of MIRVed DF-21Ds, she can bog us down defending the carrier – or simply push us further offshore. But the further offshore we have to operate, the more vulnerable our carriers’ aircraft are when they are approaching targets on land. It’s not just the distance over which China has a shot at them, it’s that plus the fact that they will have to refuel in-air to get to the target and then back to “Mom” (the carrier). The threat of a DF-21D barrage would also be a fouling agent for carrier flight operations. The most vulnerable time of all is when aircraft are being recovered at the end of a mission cycle. The Chinese know that. Naturally, they will time DF-21D salvos to coincide with recovery ops. When you’re trying to bring down 16 or 20 jet aircraft safely, you can’t keep changing course and speed and turning your electronics on and off. The carrier has to be a safe recovery platform for her aircraft, otherwise there’s no point – and that’s the highest-payoff vulnerability for an enemy to go after. If the DF-21D is mainly a nuisance, these issues can be addressed in the medium term with tactics, while we look for longer-term fixes in technology. But the DF-21D will be only one of the disruptions a naval force faces. It’s probably not going to be a very effective way to literally “kill” a carrier for some years to come. A submarine nailing the carrier at the keel is a much better bet: take out propulsion, you take out the whole weapon system. Without propulsion, the carrier can’t make the 35 knots of wind over the deck that it needs to recover aircraft. And China has lots of submarines. It’s the combination of weapons China can increasingly bring to bear that the US Navy is worried about. If we’ve got one big, honking set of tactical constraints imposed by the Chinese submarine threat, another posed by the Chinese attack aircraft threat, and another posed by supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, adding the DF-21D as a flight-ops harassment problem makes it that much harder for our forces to keep their heads above water: to use our weapons to actually attack the enemy, rather than just to defend ourselves. (And yes, George and Meredith Friedman, authors of The Future of War, called this prospect for our carriers “senility,” and predicted it in theory, if not because of the particular threat posed by the DF-21D, back in the mid-1990s.) Edited by George K, Aug 8 2010, 01:36 PM.
|
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Rainman | Aug 8 2010, 04:15 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
This has probably been linked to before, but I'll suggest it anyway as a really cool site regarding the U.S. Navy: Navy photo archives BTW - my daughter is in the Navy, hence my interest leading to countless hours browsing navy stuff on the internet. As to the Chinese "carrier killer," I'd call it a pawn at this point. But over the years/decades, yes, we'd better make sure we continually lead in R&D. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Aug 8 2010, 04:16 PM Post #18 |
|
Cheers
|
I thought this was another iPhone thread. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








Shocking!

4:57 PM Jul 10