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

[ToughOmbre]

From the U. S. Naval Institute website.....

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.



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.

TO

[mkloby]

I wouldn't think that this should be a huge surprise...

[timshatz]

Yeah, not a suprise. But I kinda wonder how well it works. Sounds pretty complex and the Chinese are not doing so hot with complex stuff. Still using an outside source for advance jet engines. Gotta figure a rocket that changes direction midflight is more advanced than a jet engine.

[Colin1]

Gotta figure a rocket that changes direction midflight is more advanced than a jet engine

I'm no ballistic weapons expert
but surely it can wind and weave as much as it likes, at some stage it's got to cone in on the target vessel ie Patriot fodder (or whatever has replaced Patriot) launched from the target vessel itself or somewhere else in the task force/fleet?

[FLYBOYJ]

Based on some of the Chinese equipment sold abroad 1 in 3 of these missiles might work as advertised.

[comiso90]

Whats better, a killer fastball pitcher or a killer fastball hitter?

there will be counter measures.

I'd be more afraid of subs coordinating an attack with squadron of bear bombers with stand-off cruise missles.

.

[FLYBOYJ]

Whats better, a killer fastball pitcher or a killer fastball hitter?

there will be counter measures.

I'd be more afraid of subs coordinating an attack with squadron of bear bombers with stand-off cruise missles.

Again the problem is still the quality of their equipment. There are still plenty of intelligence reports citing that the Chinese haven't adopted the same regards to quality as the west or Japanese has IMO I think its cultural.

Although this article is 9 years old I still believe it is still true today.

IS-012000-Nolt

[comiso90]

Again the problem is still the quality of their equipment. There are still plenty of intelligence reports citing that the Chinese haven't adopted the same regards to quality as the west or Japanese has IMO I think its cultural.

Although this article is 9 years old I still believe it is still true today.

IS-012000-Nolt

Sure quality is an issue and i agree that know one knows better than the Chinese that quality can often be overcome by massive quantity. If only 1 in 20 missiles get through to the target, launch 45 missiles.

Although these missiles sound a lot more expensive than Silkworms...

I wonder if a focused EMP pulse could screw up the missiles guidance system w/o damaging the fleet.


.

[Colin1]

...and I agree that no one knows better than the Chinese that quality can often be overcome by massive quantity

I wonder if a focused EMP pulse could screw up the missiles guidance system w/o damaging the fleet

The Soviet Union?

An airburst EMP (likely, if you're trying to intercept a missile) will be omni-directional in nature and omnis don't lend themselves to 'focussing'. It would depend on the pulse yield and how far away from the fleet you managed to intercept, the juggling act being: big enough to screw up the missile and small enough to keep the local assets from harm.
The fleet could take further ECM in the form of disconnecting antennas and switching off equipment but I don't think any fleet commander would be happy about being completely blind in the face of an incoming attack.

[syscom3]

If its flying that fast, its going to generate one heck of a heat signture as well as an ionized trail when its in the atmosphere. I strongly doubt that its "low obervable", unless its at low altitude in which it will also have weaknesses that can be exploited.

Then theres the maneuverability issue. Anything flying at mach 10 and expected to pull high gee's will need one strongly reinforced airframe, which impacts on the size of the warhead.

I always take "panic" in the military with a lot of doubt. They have all the motivation to overplay their opponants weapons capabilities, and underplay ours.

Is this a weapon to be concerned about? yes. Is it the ultimate weapon? Nope. And I also suspect the Russians and Chinese are upset about our missle defense programs for reasons aother than what they say in public.

[mkloby]

I always take "panic" in the military with a lot of doubt. They have all the motivation to overplay their opponants weapons capabilities, and underplay ours.

Just a couple thoughts:
1. There is no panic in regard to this.
2. We don't overplay our opponents' strengths.
3. We don't underplay our strengths.

However, I think at times there seems to be a heightened sense of urgency in order to obtain funding. However, the resource that the military deals with involves human lives. This might be what you were getting at.

[syscom3]

...... This might be what you were getting at.

No, I am adamant that the military industrial complex always requires to overplay our adversaries threats in which to get funding for their pet programs.

I spent 20 years in the aerospace world (and have been following it for 35 years) and see it time and time again.

The threat is real, but not at the magnitude the USNI is making it out to be.

[mkloby]

No, I am adamant that the military industrial complex always requires to overplay our adversaries threats in which to get funding for their pet programs.

I spent 20 years in the aerospace world (and have been following it for 35 years) and see it time and time again.

[FLYBOYJ]

the military industrial complex.

No such thing!

[Matt308]

Mach 10? Unless it has a ballistic missile profile... B$llshit. Pure propaganda.

And then if it does, it is just another Aegis target.