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

U. S. Naval Institute ^ | 3/31/09

[Blood of Tyrants]

HA! The zero doesn’t have the balls to launch a nuke. Hell, he doesn’t have the balls to launch a counter strike!

[nathanbedford]

So not now but perhaps sometime in the future, missiles will render surface fleets too vulnerable to act as the world's policeman in the role bequeathed to our Navy by the British Navy. I thought the idea of a mach 10 missile was a bit much, not to mention the sideways jig. But it also seems likely that eventually, within a decade or two, missiles will if not overwhelm fleet defenses at least render surface ships and their crews so vulnerable as to lose their geopolitical impact not to mention their warfighting abilities.

So what will be the shape of naval warfare and of our Navy's traditional role as the cavalry? will the Navy have to submerge? will the battle for the control of the seas actually be fought in space? how does all of this superduper stuff mesh with the pedestrian needs to whack a terrorist in a mud hut?

[sniper63]

Mach 10 = approximately 7100MPH. Their math figures to be .2817hours or approximately 14+minutes from launch to impact. Taking into consideration that the missle needs to ramp up to that speed give it another 15 minutes or so to escape gravity and reach velocity for a total of 30 minutes.

Being as a scram jet will not work until Mach 3+ the missle would need to incorporate some sort of rocket booster or ram jet to achieve enough forward velocity for a ram jet to work adding to the time it would take to impact from launch.

My guess would be 30 to 40 minutes at best. I would need to sit down and do the math.

[bikerman]

I quite shopping their years ago when I discovered they flaunt eminent domain to open new stores which seem to be around us about every 5 miles their is a super center or regular store or Sam's pushing their made in China junk.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

I hate living under threats, I really do. My point of view is to get it on and get it finished if someone feels that way. Either they go or I go, doesn’t really make me any difference. Just don’t like the constant posturing, intimidation and threats. For what it is worth....

[Blood of Tyrants]

IIRC, ballistic missiles only have the rocket motors firing in the boost phase and then finish arcing up and then fall down on the target with some minimal guidance. There is not going to be much maneuvering.

[agere_contra]

True - the early dynamic in the Falklands war centred on the carriers.

Of course the Falklands could not - could not - have been retaken without using Aircraft carriers. The British had no choice but to use them.

Admiral Sandy Woodward made the defense of these two floating targets his main priority - and just as obviously the Argentinians made them their main targets.

They sank an aircraft-carrier sized container ship (the "Atlantic Conveyor") but never got near the real targets.

I guess the only alternative to expensive big-target carriers is to develop UCAVs that have the same/better firepower and capability as manned fighters - the carriers for those could be titchy by comparison.

[PapaBear3625]

An ICBM will generally spend 3 to 5 minutes getting to suborbital velocity, some time out in space traveling at close to orbital speed, and two minutes in re-entry phase.

From a satellite, tracking a blazing rocket during boost phase is easy, the exhaust is pretty hot and stands out well. Once the rocket burns out, it's not as easy to see.

If the warhead is stealthy in its orbital phase, and is able to shift around a bit, it makes it much harder for a kinetic-kill intercept to happen.

[Renegade]

Sixteen nukes come from two missles ! Subs carry 12+ missles = 96 targets from 1 sub . Eight would be enough figuring in wind patterns and hoping it wouldn’t drift to cont. USA

[swarthyguy]

There is no doubt of the US ability to turn Chinese cities and bases into glass.

The real issue is, in the event of a dustup leading to the respective Navies confronting each other, the Chinese make a calculated risk, and with luck, take down a US carrier.

Do you believe we would hit their cities with nukes in this case? I dunno, assuming in a coldblooded way the loss of 5-6000 US navy men, would the population of the US countenance the killing of millions of Chinese?

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

“We didn’t give them anything...The Clintons sold it to them for a fair and reasonable price in campaign contributions.”

And keeping those campaign contributions from China a secret was foremost in their minds when the Clintons had Jaimie Gorelick issue the “Wall” memo. They couldn’t risk the FBI getting info from the CIA on the money. So, in keeping with the Law of Unintended Consequences, the dots of the 911 conspiracy weren’t connected by the intel & CT communities.

[swarthyguy]

There is no doubt of the US ability to turn Chinese cities and bases into glass.

The real issue is, in the event of a dustup leading to the respective Navies confronting each other, the Chinese make a calculated risk, and with luck, take down a US carrier.

Do you believe we would hit their cities with nukes in this case? I dunno, assuming in a coldblooded way the loss of 5-6000 US navy men, would the population of the US countenance the killing of millions of Chinese?

[Billthedrill]

We're coming up with a multi-mach platform of our own (scramjet) but it's a long way from complete. But the Soviets had a mach 2.5 anti-ship missile with a 2000-lb warhead over thirty years ago. That would definitely do a number on anything floating.

Will the Navy have to submerge?

Yes, and come up with stealth platforms difficult to target for surface ships and improved ECM capabilities for everyone.

Will the battle for the control of the seas actually be fought in space?

Absolutely. Both militaries are now capable of shooting down satellites. I expect the pious demands on the part of the UN that space never be "militarized" to be just as effective as the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which prevented WWII... :-)

[Dr. Marten]

“If it’s traveling at mach 10, does it need a warhead?”

Yeah, no kidding. My thoughts exactly. That’s 7,414.5 / MPH

[Dr. Marten]

Ping.

[MGMSwordsman]

I am amazed at the number of Americans that continue to underestimate the ability of our enemies to think outside the box and be creative enough to defeat us. I am also amazed at the number of Americans that continue to overestimate the USA’s resolve and military power.

A news flash - World War 2 was over a long time ago. Our current enemies are highly creative, almost as technologically sophisticated as we are (in some technologies they already lead), they are blessed with a huge advantage in manufacturing and manpower, they have overwhelming numbers of sometimes simple but effective weapons (as compared to our handful of smart weapons), and they are not hamstrung with political correctness and a self-hating political leadership. Some of you folks will still be blinded to this reality right up until the point that you get vaporized.

And, while our enemies are dramatically improving their capabilities, we are a shadow of our former selves and our military and nuclear deterrent capability has been in radical decline since Daddy Bush was in office. The US hasn't fielded a new nuclear weapon in what, 2 decades? We have scrapped all of our Peacekeeper ICBM’s? These are only a few of the examples.

I suggest some of you people regroup and reevaluate our security situation. The enemy is preparing for a checkmate, and it appears that we are not only allowing it to happen, but we are actually assisting in our own destruction.

Repeat after me, the Islamic/terrorist enemy can do great damage to us, but only the clenched fist of Russia and China have the ability to annihilate the USA. Food for thought.

[nathanbedford]

sounds like an excellent time to cut the military budget and fall behind in this race-just as Representative Dingell today has announced we should do.

[GreenLanternCorps]

"...an aircraft carrier sunk. Just won't happen. Right?!"

There is no such thing as an unsinkable ship. In the Second World War We lost FOUR fleet carriers in 1942 (USS Lexington (CV-2), USS Yorktown (CV-5), USS Wasp(CV-7) USS Hornet(CV-8))

This is a picture of USS Wasp:

[BuffaloJack]

> Report: Chinese Develop Special “Kill Weapon” to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Is it called an OBAMA?

[Big_Monkey]

"I’m thinking the Chinese would suffer a loss of millions of people a lot better than we would.

You mean a loss of 300 million a lot better than we could, right? When you've got a billion, what's a few hundred million? All they have to do is quit killing each families second born, and they'll make that up in a month.