Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers
U. S. Naval Institute ^ | 3/31/09

Posted on 03/31/2009 9:55:05 AM PDT by Evil Slayer

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at usni.org ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aircraftcarriers; china; chinathreat; killweapon; tm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-160 next last
To: Petronski

LOL, yes.

I have to say I was ignorantly envisioning a straight line missile - maybe launched from a plane - doing mach 10 but of course this is no such thing. This has a re-entry phase and the launch would be spotted well ahead of time.

ABM lasers I guess would make a workable defense. As would shredding the Chinese sats. No need for America to retreat into its “Fortress of Solitude” just yet.


61 posted on 03/31/2009 10:20:36 AM PDT by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Petronski
A 2000 km range means at least an hour in flight. More than enough time to react and defend.

It's not a cruise missile. It's a ballistic missile. It's sub-orbital for most of its flight time. Ballistic missile flight times between the US and Russia are around 30 minutes.

What this is, is an ICBM with terminal guidance capability to hit moving targets.

62 posted on 03/31/2009 10:20:39 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Silly question but once the commander in chief gets top secret data regarding our nukes, military etc....what ensures he’s not on a satellite phone giving these secrets to terrorists?


63 posted on 03/31/2009 10:21:46 AM PDT by freebird5850 (O-Bomba is not the Messia. Jesus was a carpenter and could build a cabinet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

If the Chinese hit us it would wreck their trade deals and make the paper debt the bought worthless. This is just saber rattling. No need to worry unless they demand something first—like Hawaii.


64 posted on 03/31/2009 10:22:10 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

You forgot... “and he’ll probably cancel any effective program, including this one.”


65 posted on 03/31/2009 10:22:47 AM PDT by ataDude (My incredulity has already turned into disillusionment and is now turning into hatred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

I agree. Our best defense is that we owe them a sh%^load of money.


66 posted on 03/31/2009 10:23:06 AM PDT by nufsed (Release the birth certificate, passport and school records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Could missiles be slowed down at will and converted, in effect, into drones with ability to loiter and with, of course, television capabilities?

If you put a bunch of warheads into polar orbit, they can loiter in orbit indefinitely, and be triggered to reenter and hit a target on command.

67 posted on 03/31/2009 10:23:17 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Could? yes.
Would? no.


68 posted on 03/31/2009 10:23:32 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (John Galt was exiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

That was my first thought but I honestly don’t think they would care if we wiped out a chunk of their population.


69 posted on 03/31/2009 10:24:00 AM PDT by MattinNJ (Sanford/Palin in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Our economies are linked so we can squeeze their nuts! Don’t buy anything made in China if at all possible!


70 posted on 03/31/2009 10:24:11 AM PDT by WellyP (obama must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Could and would are different, conceptually.


71 posted on 03/31/2009 10:27:40 AM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

The Australians got a Mach 10 scramjet re-entry in 2007 - I guess one of those (or the similar US designs) with a powerful warhead would be reasonably possible by now.

But hitting a fighting ship at sea with one? - like you I also doubt anyone is quite up to that yet.


72 posted on 03/31/2009 10:28:29 AM PDT by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

NOT an advanced missile. Just a unusual use for an IRBM. Maybe with some intermediate correction or terminal homing. We could do that with a Minuteman or Poseidon, no problem. We just don’t have any plans for nuclear fleet busting weapons.
The question is “How would we respond?” Like “Nuke our fleet and 3 Gorges dam is GONE, sucker and then we start working over the rest of your country until heads of the upper levels of the Chinese Communist Party are delivered to us in bins.”


73 posted on 03/31/2009 10:28:45 AM PDT by Little Ray (Do we have a Plan B?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss

“””What would sixteen nukes
do to China? I would bet
we wouldn’t target

urban areas.
So sixteen nukes would only
wreck some factories.”””

From What I have seen most factories are in urban areas


74 posted on 03/31/2009 10:30:49 AM PDT by underbyte (TEOTEWAKI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
What this is, is an ICBM with terminal guidance capability to hit moving targets.

I am decidedly NOT a rocket scientist. However:

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.
The combination of
(a) a 12 minute flight time at speeds reaching mach 10,
and
(b) unpredictable maneuverability,
seems far-fetched.
75 posted on 03/31/2009 10:30:49 AM PDT by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Guess these idiots, the Chinese, forgot that we have ICBM with Nukes and can hit China anyplace any time. A reminder that fire one of these advance missiles and guess what will happen. Shortest war in history.

That presumes the will of our leaders to respond in such a fashion.

I am not confident in that, to say the least.

76 posted on 03/31/2009 10:32:58 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Didn’t Cankles and Bubba Herpes sell a lot of technology for campaign contributions from the Chinese?


77 posted on 03/31/2009 10:37:03 AM PDT by wac3rd (In the end, we all are Conservative, some just need their lives jolted to realize that fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

I have been of the opinion that the aircraft carrier has been obsolete for at least 25 years. We need space based assets to project a strike anywhere at anytime capability. The big blue is no longer sufficient to guard such a valuable asset. The Falklands should have been our warning to move off of these large over-expensive platforms.


78 posted on 03/31/2009 10:37:13 AM PDT by ChinaThreat (3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex
“The Navy’s reaction is telling . . . . suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified . . . . blah, blah, blah . . .”

Or, the Navy is toying with the Chinese and/or Congress.

I believe that the Navy has been working on a defense for this sort of thing for 30 years or more.

79 posted on 03/31/2009 10:37:31 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Ask Bill Clinton.


80 posted on 03/31/2009 10:37:31 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Socialism is the belief that most people are better off if everyone was equally poor and miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-160 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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