Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China deploys carrier-killer missile
Coach is Right ^ | January 1st, 2011 | Jim Emerson, staff writer

Posted on 01/01/2011 12:42:17 PM PST by darkwing104

Adm. Robert Willard, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, told the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun that China is deploying its new Dong Feng-21D anti-ship ballistic missile they publicly claim can sink U.S. aircraft carriers. The Admiral stated “this kind of capability should be a concern to the region, and it poses a challenge to any naval or air operations that would be conducted in that area were it to be employed.”

What is a Dong Feng-21D?

The Dong Feng-21D is a land-based guided missile that launches it war-head into space and returns it to earth at ten times the speed of sound while maneuvering to strike a moving target. Updates and tracking will be provided by satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and radar all linked by a communications network, most likely, provided by military satellites.

Since the targets will be out of sight of ground base units it would have to be dependent on air and space borne

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: dhina; unitedstates; weapon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last


1 posted on 01/01/2011 12:42:23 PM PST by darkwing104
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

No problem.... we just launch a space shuttle armed with rockets and shoot down every damn chinese satellite we can find.


2 posted on 01/01/2011 12:47:36 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Well, that’s just not good. (if it works as advertised)


3 posted on 01/01/2011 12:48:43 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
No biggie, WE have Obama to bow the Chinese into submission!

We are covered so don't worry.

4 posted on 01/01/2011 12:51:13 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

If they sank one of our carriers, I’d say that would be more than enough provocation to justify using one.


5 posted on 01/01/2011 12:51:40 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Nothing good could happen for the Chinese if this this picture came to pass. (think Trident)


6 posted on 01/01/2011 12:52:55 PM PST by joelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
How were the Chinese able to come up with such technology in the first place?

Must be their ally the Russians, right?

7 posted on 01/01/2011 12:55:49 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

First, there is no proof that this system even works. Second, even several direct hits from weapons of this size will not sink a carrier. Third, our carrier task groups each include Aegis cruisers and destroyers that are capable of shooting down incoming ballistic missile. This is an additional threat that must be taken into account, to be sure, but it is *not* a ‘carrier killer’.


8 posted on 01/01/2011 12:56:04 PM PST by Vigilant1 (The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Why sink the carriers when they can claim them for themselves as they are 0’s creditors?


9 posted on 01/01/2011 12:56:21 PM PST by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
Wait for the 0 to say nothing.

He only jumps in if he can take credit for something or look good. Otherwise his surrogates have to do the talking.

Exactly why does the US think China is a broker in the Korea issue? Is it the Chinese involvement in the war? Their involvement in Vietnam? Their development of weapon systems specifically designed to counter us? Their not so secret long term hegemonic regional influence and desire to become able to project force? It is absurd to suppose the Chinese are in any way neutral or objective when it comes to Korea..... They have economic interests with the north which is dependent on them and they use the north as leverage against us, actually spurring on the conflict when we act in a way they don't like. For example, if we do something they don't like regard Taiwan, you expect that mysteriously and suddenly north Korea might flare up......... The US reliance on China for a solution to the north Korean issue is like asking a drug dealer to help in the treatment of the addicted.

10 posted on 01/01/2011 1:02:46 PM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

If they sank one of our carriers, I’d say that would be more than enough provocation to justify using one.

5 posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 3:51:40 PM by KoRn

When you say one i take it your refering to a baker’s dozen?


11 posted on 01/01/2011 1:03:58 PM PST by heshtesh (ueer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert

We have been seeing a lot of things about how strong China’s military is lately, and how we can’t bring our carriers close to China. I bet this is just a set up so Obummer won’t get to much grief for not defending our allies. I wouldn’t put it past him to let Taiwan fall with out any of our help. Or even South Korea.


12 posted on 01/01/2011 1:04:15 PM PST by jimpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

“If they sank one of our carriers, I’d say that would be more than enough provocation to justify using one.”

Like Soros will allow Obama to start a war with our country’s benefactor.


13 posted on 01/01/2011 1:07:12 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz ( Happy Freeping New Year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jimpick

0 will always do the bidding of his marxist masters. I doubt if (heaven forbid!) say a carrier or its battle group were “liquidated” by the Chinese, he would do anything except bow and blame the downright mean country he is president of.


14 posted on 01/01/2011 1:08:23 PM PST by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

15 posted on 01/01/2011 1:09:35 PM PST by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Visualize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimpick
I'm more than certain when Obama hears there is a new threat to our carriers Obama, the most incompetent person in any room occupied by two or more people, thinks to himself, If these jerks think I'm going to waste my time worrying about China attacking our air conditioners they can go pound sand.


16 posted on 01/01/2011 1:18:57 PM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

Sure hard to keep those whitewall tires clean in battle conditions what with rain and mud.


17 posted on 01/01/2011 1:21:15 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
How were the Chinese able to come up with such technology in the first place? Must be their ally the Russians, right?

Well, he did have rushin' fingers. (and Roman hands)

18 posted on 01/01/2011 1:21:32 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Obama cancels anti-carrier killer missile missile. In order to spread the military power around and level the battlefield.


19 posted on 01/01/2011 1:22:23 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

They call it the ‘Clinton’.


20 posted on 01/01/2011 1:23:49 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vigilant1
Similar arguments were made by the battleship navy crowd about naval aviation circa 1940.

History settled the debate. Let's not get caught exposed again.

Wiki: "HMS Prince of Wales (pennant number 53) was a King George V-class battleship of the Royal Navy, built at the Cammell Laird shipyard in Birkenhead, England. The Prince of Wales had a brief but active career, helping to stop the Bismarck and carrying Winston Churchill to the Newfoundland Conference; however, her sinking by Japanese land-based bombers in the Far East in 1941 is one of the events that led to the end of the battleship being considered the predominant class in naval warfare."

Hubris can kill.

21 posted on 01/01/2011 1:28:45 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
They call it the ‘Clinton’.

The Clinton is the code name for the Bill version of the missile.

The Clin2ton is the code name for the Hillary version of the missile.

22 posted on 01/01/2011 1:29:14 PM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
They call it the ‘Clinton’.

The Clinton is the code name for the Bill version of the missile.

The Clin2ton is the code name for the Hillary version of the missile.

23 posted on 01/01/2011 1:29:21 PM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: joelt
I'm concerned that nothing would happen. Obambi would make a state trip to Beijing and genuflect.
24 posted on 01/01/2011 1:30:49 PM PST by ArmyTeach (Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain ... Iowa 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
Seems like the perfect target for our new rail-gun system. Assuming they get the bugs worked out and with the electrical power generating capacity of nuclear reactors, it`s little more than a suborbital live fire target exorcise.
25 posted on 01/01/2011 1:31:51 PM PST by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

26 posted on 01/01/2011 1:33:23 PM PST by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Visualize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: joelt
I`ve heard we keep half of our nuke subs in port at any one time, by agreement.
27 posted on 01/01/2011 1:34:30 PM PST by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

Not with the New START, we don't. It limits delivery systems.
28 posted on 01/01/2011 1:44:10 PM PST by andyk (Hi, my name's Andy, and I am a BF 1942 / Desert Combat junkie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
"... we just launch a space shuttle..."

Where are we going to get a space shuttle? Last flight scheduled for April 2011. Fleet is being scattered.

29 posted on 01/01/2011 1:56:14 PM PST by Calamari (Pass enough laws and everyone is guilty of something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
TM:
"Similar arguments were made by the battleship navy crowd about naval aviation circa 1940. History settled the debate. Let's not get caught exposed again."

Sorry, but your comparison is simply invalid and inapplicable. The same was said about antiship cruise missiles like the Exocent making navies obsolete. That was obviously wrong., as are almost all claims about new 'superweapons' making whole classes of primary weapons systems 'useless' and 'obsolete'.

You clearly do not understand just how difficult a modern carrier is to sink. A carrier is literally a small floating city, and has thousands of watertight compartments. To sink one, you need a to breach a significant percentage of those compartments. This weapon is not even remotely capable of accomplishing that. They are in no way the quantum advancement represented by the introduction of aerial warfare. They are merely a different means of delivering an explosive warhead the size of an aircraft bomb on target.

Even in WWII, our carriers were able to absorb multiple direct hits by 1000 pound and larger armor-piercing bombs and not be sunk. Modern carriers are much larger and have far better firefighting and damage control equipment. There have been a number of cases where fires in the hangar decks of modern carriers have led to the explosion of several aircraft fully loaded with ordnance. This involved a hell of a lot more explosives; tens of thousands of pounds of them; detonating within the ship than a half-dozen direct hits from these Chinese missiles could deliver. Our carriers not only survived these incidents, they returned to port under their own power.

So the idea that these Chinese missiles can actually sink a carrier is fantasy. They could, if they somehow got past our Aegis anti-missile defenses, certainly damage a carrier, but the same is true of any weapon system aimed at carriers. That is the nature of war; attack and defense. This is just another new warhead delivery system for which we already have a good defense.

30 posted on 01/01/2011 1:57:05 PM PST by Vigilant1 (The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: joelt

We’d better be thinking of a new POTUS because the one we have isn’t going to retaliate.


31 posted on 01/01/2011 2:03:16 PM PST by Rappini ("Pro deo et Patria.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vigilant1
Although the 21d is being publicized as conventionally armed, I believe that it is nuclear capable and a nuclear warhead could certainly sink the carrier along with the rest of the group.
32 posted on 01/01/2011 2:22:56 PM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Probably their allies the Clintons.
No sarcasm needed.....


33 posted on 01/01/2011 2:26:21 PM PST by 9422WMR (Illegal is not a race. illegal alien, illegal alien, illegal alien, illegal alien.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Paid for and developed, by one-sided “Free Trade”.

It will get worse.


34 posted on 01/01/2011 2:31:56 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (McCarthy was Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Hubris can kill.

Darn right. It's like the notion that USAF bases and facilities are less vulnerable than 30kt aircraft carriers.

35 posted on 01/01/2011 3:37:04 PM PST by Jacquerie (Our Constitution is timeless because human nature is static.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

All of which have been functionally deactivated by Komrade Kenyan.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

36 posted on 01/01/2011 3:39:23 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

Don’t forget popping the “three gorges” dam. Worth 5 times the cost of a carrier, and that’s not counting the lost electricity and damage downstream.


37 posted on 01/01/2011 3:57:01 PM PST by ROTB (Sans Christian revival, we are government slaves, or nuked by China/Russia when we finally revolt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Jezz, it was just a few days ago when this missile was announced as still in the pre-testing stage, now it is not only tested, manufactured, and deployed as operational.... my those Chinese sure move fast.


38 posted on 01/01/2011 5:53:15 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine .. now it is your turn..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
"No biggie, WE have Obama to bow the Chinese into submission!

We are covered so don't worry."



39 posted on 01/01/2011 6:07:49 PM PST by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

some tru spokes, drop it a little..... those white walls are redickulus!!!


40 posted on 01/01/2011 6:08:19 PM PST by Iron head mike (The government will soon make criminals of us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104; 1rudeboy
We have Free Trade™ China now, so war is never going to happen. They are our friends now. /sarc

Have you ever noticed how none of the Free Republic Free Trade crowd EVER chimes in on any of these Chinese military threat threads?

41 posted on 01/01/2011 6:24:34 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Even less likely is a Big Government Conservative chiming-in on one of my China strategic threat threads. Posting stuff from Heritage does that to them.


42 posted on 01/01/2011 6:40:15 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I have debated and debated you. You dodge as usual.


43 posted on 01/01/2011 7:06:31 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: central_va

For that matter, I’ve never seen you on a human-trafficking thread. Remaining true to your heritage?


44 posted on 01/01/2011 7:11:53 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Toddsterpatriot
I’ve never seen you on a human-trafficking thread. Remaining true to your heritage?

What is a human trafficking thread? What about THIS thread care to comment?

Todd, rude boy chickened out, will you comment on this thread?

45 posted on 01/01/2011 7:23:13 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: central_va
I was just dishing back some of your own medicine. Now you have the stupid. In any case, you might find the following thread of interest:

Magnequench: CFIUS and China's Thirst for U.S. Defense Technology.

Note the date and who posted it.

Todd, never mind our slave-loving friend, he's whining again.

46 posted on 01/01/2011 7:28:41 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You are just a long winded blow hard. Nobody seems to be able to debate you because you are incapable of making your position clear. I went to that link you provided, kind of ridiculous to post that book and then not comment or summarize at all, and then belittle because nobody wanted to play. You’re idiot.


47 posted on 01/01/2011 7:38:03 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: central_va

You child. You asked why “none of the Free Republic Free Trade crowd EVER chimes in on any of these Chinese military threat threads?” I gave you one of my favorite examples, and now you complain that you lack the attention span to read it? Is it past your bedtime? You sound tired and cranky.


48 posted on 01/01/2011 7:45:40 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You are a confused hypocrite, go to bed. Selling out out your country is hard work so you should be tired.


49 posted on 01/01/2011 7:48:08 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Poor, poor, little boy. Wrong again. Don’t fret, as you grow older you’ll grow accustomed to it.


50 posted on 01/01/2011 7:51:30 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson