Chinese 'Carrier Killer' Based on US Technology -

Epoch Times ^ | 6/23/2011 | Matthew Robertson Epoch Times Staff

[central_va]

As an old nuclear attack boat sailor who has had few carriers in the cross hairs, I have some knowledge of carrier vulnerabilities in that regard.

Naval exercises do not reflect reality. If you start an exercise with a nuke boat with 50 NM of a carrier yes that is likely to end in with a carrier in the cross hairs. That is not realistic IMO. How did the sub get into that position? in wartime CVBG wouldn't risk that. Any sub that has to transit at high speed to get to the CVBG would never make it.

[Flag_This]

"But drones with expensive sensor packages are not disposable."

Wouldn't that depend entirely on the target and the configuration of the drone? We're risking drones right now just to blow up a few taliban. And cluster munitions couldn't match it either; a remotely piloted drone could loiter, change missions, change targets and, it would seem to me, be much more versatile.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

It’s never worked in the past, there is no reason to think it would work in the future.

The US has never dropped a MOAB in combat. The nearest bomb to a MOAB is a Daisy Cutter. We dropped several Daisy Cutters in Afghanistan to great effect. Most Daisy Cutters we dropped in Viet Nam to clear landing areas for helicopters. MOABs are like small atomic bombs. They will have a significant effect on armies, especially large ones.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

It’s never worked in the past, there is no reason to think it would work in the future.

The US has never dropped a MOAB in combat. The nearest bomb to a MOAB is a Daisy Cutter. We dropped several Daisy Cutters in Afghanistan to great effect. Most Daisy Cutters we dropped in Viet Nam to clear landing areas for helicopters. MOABs are like small atomic bombs. They will have a significant effect on armies, especially large ones.

[AndyJackson]

That is not realistic IMO. How did the sub get into that position? in wartime CVBG wouldn't risk that. Any sub that has to transit at high speed to get to the CVBG would never make it.

In the first place you are dangerously deluded, but more importantly I don't know what this has to do with the original issue here about the Chinese getting a leg up on the development of anti-ship missiles by stealing technology. My view on this subject was that they may have, but given the technological advances of the modern world and the speed with which the Chinese had not just adapted but contributed to the advance of that technology, the development of missiles that can threaten an aircraft carrier was inevitable anyway. I take no stand on the likely outcome of a Chinese vs US carrier encounter because I do not have knowledge about specific threat capabilities or specific countermeasures, all of which would be classified well beyond your paygrade.

[central_va]

I am very familiar with Anti Submarine Warfare. SSN’s are not very quiet when going above 20 knots. Actually they are difficult but not terribly hard to track acoustically. At low speed, nuke boats are VERY hard to find.

[AndyJackson]

I am very familiar with Anti Submarine Warfare.

Quite apparently you are not.

[central_va]

I was the ASW Officer on a frigate for four years, with more experience than you can imagine tracking both US and Soviet SSN’s and SSBN’s. You guys aren’t as quiet as you think you are, especially at high speed.

[donmeaker]

I will note that the German “Metax” device that they developed as a submarine counter measure was found to be an active emitter, a beacon to guide our aircraft to German submarines.

[EdisonOne]

Re: The reality is that if China is given a technological toy it will probably clone it quickly. In the post Cold War world, jneither Russia nor India commonly do this — they aren’t rich enough.

Well... With India, truth is they have no need to worry about where their jet fighters, carriers, and frigates, will come from. All they need to do is to either play the Russian card or the American card against the Chinese and voila, they get MiG-23’s, Su-27’s, Jaguars, Mirage 2000’s, even F-18’s and 16’s knocking at their doorstep.

The Chinese did not have this luxury. They had to do it the hard way: they fiddled with whatever they had and, in a rush to make ends meet, they come up with the A-5, J-8 I & II, and the first crude JH-7. In other words: Necessity is the mother of all creation applies with the Chinese and that, and not how rich they are, is the thing that drives their creativity, whether it’s a cloned item or if genuine innovation, adopt whichever term suits your preference.

[AndyJackson]

You guys aren’t as quiet as you think you are

Then why did we have to carry and switch on noisemakers so that you could find us in those exercises. [smiley face emoticon]

And thank god the Soviet union collapsed because there submarines and our submarines had gotten so quiet they could not hear each other even at very close range.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks ex-Texan.

the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile that can destroy American ships, had a unique origin: its base technology was pilfered from U.S. military trash during the 1990s... U.S. engineering firm Martin Marietta, also in the 1990s... from the tons of military scrap China bought from the U.S. a decade and a half ago, intelligence was gathered to develop the radar guidance system that is now being used in the Dongfeng-21C... to develop its DF-21D medium-range ballistic missile for destroying American aircraft carriers.

Yeah, out of the trash, right. By a weird coincidence, Slick Willie was POTUS.

[TheOldLady]

How else was he supposed to pay them back for all their campaign contributions?

[Jeff Head]

This DF-21D weapon has never had one single operational test...not one.

it is a lot of talk...and IMHO, it is a red herring in hopes we will "think" they have it and thereby limit our operations out of fear of it. Pure Sun Tsu.

As it is, the us has developed, tested, and fielded a successful anti-ballistic missile defense on our AEGIS vessels already. So even if they do ultimately make one of these...or several...it will be charging into the teeth of our most effective defense.

And that defense is getting better. In April of this year (2011) we successfully tested an anti-missile laser weapon system. Not deplyed yet...but the new Ford Class carriers, the new Zumwalt Destroyers, and the new Burke Flight III destroyers (should we develop them) will all ultimately have these weapons on them as well.

Here's how that would work (in addition to the AEGIS BMD missiles already deployed:

[tanknetter]

Then why did we have to carry and switch on noisemakers so that you could find us in those exercises. [smiley face emoticon]

Did those noisemakers enhance your own signature, or replicate/project the signature of a Soviet boat?