Posted on 06/30/2010 11:16:36 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Chinese media reports that beginning today the People’ Liberation Army (PLA) will hold six days of military exercises in the East China Sea, a message, analysts say, to the U.S. Navy not to steam its carrier battle groups too close to Chinese shores.
While a Chinese military official said the drills are routine, observers say the anti-carrier exercise is intended to pressure the U.S. Navy not to hold joint exercises with the carrier USS George Washington and South Korean ships in the Yellow Sea.
Respected China analyst Andrew Erickson says the live fire training aims to demonstrate China’s ability to attack a U.S. carrier strike group and may include the first test of China’s long talked about anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). He sees hints that China’s Second Artillery, a powerful organization within the Chinese military which operates the country’s missile force, may be at a point where it’s ready to test an ASBM.
Recent indications include the reported completion of a DF-21D rocket motor facility in 2009 and the recent launch of 5 advanced Yaogan satellites, three of which were apparently placed in the same orbit on 5 March–thereby perhaps offering better coverage of critical areas along China’s maritime periphery. Another possible indication is a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit “slow-moving targets” with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters.
I attended Erickson’s presentation at a recent National Defense University conference on Chinese naval modernization and he said China is rapidly putting into place the component parts of an advanced reconnaissance-strike complex, including launching a series of ocean observation satellites and electro-optical military satellites.
(Excerpt) Read more at defensetech.org ...
Talk of such a weapon at the highest levels and media propaganda and hype creates an environment where many, even in the government and military will treat the weapon as if though it exists and is near operation, even when there is no credible evidence of it.
I for one do not believe that the Chinese have the recon/location capability, the accuracy, the maneuverability technology, or the ECM technology necessary to hit a maneuvering carrier at long distance...say in excess of 500 Km.
In addition to all of that, our AEGIS technology already exists with missiles that can hit and shoot down such ballistic missiles...and that is a proven and demonstrated technology.
So, the Chinese will shoot one of these things into the China Sea somewhere at some old container ship, which will dutifully blow up and the media will hype it. They will do it in an environment where they will try and prevent our ELINT capabilities from observing it...but we will, through numerous means, including significant sat coverage and assets very near the vessel in question observe it any way.
The media will hype the “set up” and our military will know the truth and be prepared for whatever the Chinese actually field.
ping
ASBM means the thing is shot from land, goes into space into orbit, then is terminally guided onto the target, which is a ship.
This route is cheaper than to for a PRC attack to come from a ship; subs are a different matter, sure, but at this early point it’s still risk for PLAN ships to take on a US battle fleet head-on. They see it as cheaper and less risk to take on a carrier using a missile from very long-range.
Advances in chinese optics, satellites, etc mean that hiding a US carrier anywhere is harder than it used to be.
Problem: If this missile were launched its likely to look like a nuclear strike against, say, the USA homeland. American forces would be in horror, then relief as they notice that the target was a carrier in a faraway theater, then again horror as they realized that a while US carrier had just disappeared.
US carriers do have defenses against this however, like SM-3, and others. Also some day that directed energy will provide solutions for this type of attack; what missile is faster than the speed of LIGHT? No missile, and not 10 at the same time.
But will Obama permit for the level of funding we’d need for DE weapons to get onto ships at the pace that is probably required?
No.
The Chinese intend to expel us from the Western pacific, and my prediction is that they will SUCCEED.
“Do you want to keep your carriers more than you want Taiwan still in your orbit...?”
That’s the question the PRC is asking us.
I forgot to mention it, though many here already know it:
This PRC tech was bought/stolen from the USA under the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
The ceremony must have been in the 1950's.
I wonder when that picture was taken?
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
My own NSHO is that Bill Clinton was recruited by KGB at a very young age and turned over to the Chinese BuDer in the 60's or 70's, thereafter becoming a Manchurian candidate. I think his original contact and talent-spotter was Sen. Bill Fulbright, for whom Clinton interned as a teen, and his case officer was Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, a Chinese "restaurateur" who came all the way from Hong Kong (yeah, right) to Little Rock, to answer the raging call of Arkansas diners for decent moo shoo pork (yeah, right).
I agree. Those missiles and big tractors would show up particularly well on a FLIR screen.
The question we need to ask in reply is, "How badly does each one of you want personally to die in the retribution we will measure out to you if you screw with us?"
That's the question that was put to the Russian Politburo by President Reagan and backed up with IRBM's and penetration bombers like the B-1. They decided they didn't want to storm the Fulda Gap after all.
Put that way, the Chinese may not want Taiwan that way, either.
The DF-21 has a re-entry terminal velocity of somewhere around Mach 7 or 8. SM3s are capable of boost phase, apex and terminal intercepts of objects traveling at Mach 3.
Now the DF-21c supposedly come in 2 variants, a kinetic kill vehicle and a chemical based EMP. The only effective way to stop this is with a directed energy weapon.
Ummmmm....that’s a big threat to make....considering the country is too poor to afford food stamps for it’s citizens.
The Pershing II was a ballistic missile that included terminal guidance radar. That particular missile had a tactical nuclear warhead, although a much smaller yield compared to its immediate predecessor, the Pershing I. This was partly due to the more accurate guidance due to the terminal radar. The smaller warhead also resulted in longer range due to reduced throw weight.
Current technology (no telling what the Chinese stole, or bought from the Clintons) could make this even more feasible to fit using a conventional warhead.
It doesn't matter how big and impressive the missile looks. It won't do any damage if it can't hit.
Yes, but it also uses satellite tracking. The Chinese have been launching a series of satellites for support of this missile:
Yaogan-VII electro-optical satellite - 9 December 2009
Yaogan-VIII synthetic aperture radar satellite - 14 December 2009
Yaogan-IX Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) constellation (3 satellites in formation)
That surely has much the same kind of disadvantages as using helicopters for mid course guidance.
Helicoptors are vulnerable to carrier based aircrafts. Geo-stationary SARSATs are more accurate and much harder to destroy.
This weapon is a game changer.
I agree this is a new and dangerous development, but I dont think its anywhere near as good as all that.
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.