Not Good News for Carriers...

Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

AP =96 In this July 25, 2010 photo, crew of the USS George Washington line up on the deck as the supercarrier =85 By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Writer =96 2 hrs 45 mins ago ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON =96 Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas. China may soon put an end to that. U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China =97 an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles). ___ EDITOR'S NOTE =97 The USS George Washington supercarrier recently deployed off North Korea in a high-profile show of U.S. sea power. AP Tokyo News Editor Eric Talmadge was aboard the carrier, and filed this report. ___ Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea. The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline. While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision. The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment. Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia's largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes. "The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose." Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean =97 covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas =97 where it claims exclusivity. It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its

1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes. The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan. U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate. "We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week. But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy. "China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable =97 against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War. Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore." Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though =97 with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq =97 its implications haven't been widely discussed in public. Analysts note that while much has been made of China's efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews' level of expertise, training and experience. But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention. "When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically =97 fighter to fighter or ship to ship =97 and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said. Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups. The Pentagon has been worried for years about China getting an anti- ship ballistic missile. The Pentagon considers such a missile an "anti- access," weapon, meaning that it could deny others access to certain areas. The Air Force's top surveillance and intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, told reporters this week that China's effort to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend. He did not single out the DF 21D, but said: "While we might not fight the Chinese, we may end up in situations where we'll certainly be opposing the equipment that they build and sell around the world." Questions remain over when =97 and if =97 China will perfect the technology; hitting a moving carrier is no mean feat, requiring state- of-the-art guidance systems, and some experts believe it will take China a decade or so to field a reliable threat. Others, however, say final tests of the missile could come in the next year or two. Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington. That would usher in a "new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States." While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D =97 which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads =97 has been much discussed by military buffs online. A pseudonymous article posted on Xinhuanet, website of China's official news agency, imagines the U.S. dispatching the George Washington to aid Taiwan against a Chinese attack. The Chinese would respond with three salvos of DF 21D, the first of which would pierce the hull, start fires and shut down flight operations, the article says. The second would knock out its engines and be accompanied by air attacks. The third wave, the article says, would "send the George Washington to the bottom of the ocean." Comments on the article were mostly positive. ___ AP writer Christopher Bodeen in Beijing and National Security Writer Anne Gearan in Washington, D.C.
Reply to
Musicman59
Loading thread data ...

And a LOT of help from our friends in the Military Industrial complex.

Reply to
tomcervo

The Chinese are using the age old weapon of propaganda. They know full well that sinking an American aircraft carrier worth billions of dollars not to mention taking the lives of it's 5,000 crew members would be national suicide. Imagine the damage that would have been inflicted if the attacks of September 11th could have been traced back to a nation state. The mood of our nation at that point in time was kill 'em all. Now imagine twice the number of dead. Our military would reduce China to less than third world stature very quickly. Shock and awe in comparison would look like a fourth of July fireworks display. The Chinese are many things, but stupid is not one of them. They do not seek conflict with the U.S.. They only wish to be the biggest fish in their pond. The United States did not become a world power overnight, China has only been on the world stage for 40 years. They fully understand their mightiest weapon is their economy. Scary press releases about carrier killing missiles serve two purposes. One, to pump up the hawks in their own military industrial complex and sway them from attempting to replicate a carrier based navy which would cost untold billions of dollars and accomplish little without years of hard won experience. Two, to give their regional allies and others the impression that they are indeed a world power by seeming to challenge the U.S. militarily. This weapon if it does in fact perform as indicated, serves only to illustrate the fact that the Chinese have no real blue water navy with which to defend their sphere of influence. I too have read about this wonder weapon. I wonder which "strategic think tank" aka defense firm lobbyist translated the article from its original Chinese military journal origins.

Reply to
Rich

This could shape up like the late 1940s. The U.S. had to decide how to best deliver nuclear weapons against an enemy country. The Navy favored super carriers like the U.S.S. United States. The Air force was pushing strategic bombers (B-36, B-47 in Greenland etc. B-52). We could only afford one. The air force won. The United States was canceled and the hul converted to a trans Atlantic passenger ship. Then we got into Korea and the need for carriers was reestablished - But the first real super carier the Forrestal didn't join the fleet until late 50s.

We're again seeing the arguement about the need for deep pentration bombers. If the carriers appear checkmated by the Dong Feng this could start a shift away from the Navy to Air Force once again. Less carrier battle groups - a new expensive bomber.

Reply to
Val Kraut

Meh.

First, the missile would have to get through the carrier's AEGIS escort before the carrier's own (noticeably more inefficient) defences come into play.

Second, missiles do diddly-squat in maintaining air superiority. (They can help achieve it, but they can't keep it.) And aircraft launch from carriers...

Reply to
Rob Kelk

This is not a real threat, but just propaganda. The missile is real but they can't nor or for the forseeable future attack, or disrupt us. If they did, or we have a real depression, we take them down with us. Their economy relies on us being consumers of their products. To shut that off would hurt them terribly.

This is more for show to their own people and more importantly for the nations of the pacific rim.

Reply to
AM

Only my opinion FWIW, but I think any nation that ever sunk a US Carrier (and it would no doubt take a nation, not some terrorist group) the response should, without question, be nuclear. No screwing around. Send a clear message to the rest of the world. Ram an explosives laden boat into the Cole, we'll deal with it. Sink a carrier and plan on getting lit up. And screw what the rest of the world thinks.

Reply to
All for fair play

Musicman59 wrote: : : While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before : they become operational, the DF 21D which would travel at 10 times : the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads has been much : discussed by military buffs online. : If the DF 21D can travel at Mach 10, why does it need a warhead? Kinetic enery would be sufficient.

And, is this any more of a threat than the Russian super- cavitating torpedo?

I would say this is more of a bald attempt at restoring some defense funding that has to be cut (along with a lot of other spending) rather than a real issue.

Bruce

Reply to
Bruce Burden

"> I would say this is more of a bald attempt at restoring

It answers the question - Why does the Air Force need a new Bomber.

Reply to
Val Kraut

"Musicman59" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

The Soviets tried developing a similar system for the Yankee-class SSBN. It was the SS-NX-13. A ballistic missile with the anti-carrier mission and a 1 MT warhead. Ivan couldn't get it to work due to numerous glitches, the Yankee skippers weren't happy about being given the anti-carrier mission with all the ASW around the carriers, and there was the simple matter that U.S. policy was that if tac nukes were used against U.S. ships, nuclear retaliation against naval-related targets on shore would soon follow.

AP ? In this July 25, 2010 photo, crew of the USS George Washington line up on the deck as the supercarrier ? By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Writer ? 2 hrs 45 mins ago ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON ? Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas. China may soon put an end to that. U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China ? an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles). ___ EDITOR'S NOTE ? The USS George Washington supercarrier recently deployed off North Korea in a high-profile show of U.S. sea power. AP Tokyo News Editor Eric Talmadge was aboard the carrier, and filed this report. ___ Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea. The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline. While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision. The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment. Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia's largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes. "The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose." Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean ? covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas ? where it claims exclusivity. It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its

1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes. The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan. U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate. "We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week. But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy. "China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable ? against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War. Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore." Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though ? with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ? its implications haven't been widely discussed in public. Analysts note that while much has been made of China's efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews' level of expertise, training and experience. But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention. "When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically ? fighter to fighter or ship to ship ? and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said. Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups. The Pentagon has been worried for years about China getting an anti- ship ballistic missile. The Pentagon considers such a missile an "anti- access," weapon, meaning that it could deny others access to certain areas. The Air Force's top surveillance and intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, told reporters this week that China's effort to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend. He did not single out the DF 21D, but said: "While we might not fight the Chinese, we may end up in situations where we'll certainly be opposing the equipment that they build and sell around the world." Questions remain over when ? and if ? China will perfect the technology; hitting a moving carrier is no mean feat, requiring state- of-the-art guidance systems, and some experts believe it will take China a decade or so to field a reliable threat. Others, however, say final tests of the missile could come in the next year or two. Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington. That would usher in a "new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States." While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D ? which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads ? has been much discussed by military buffs online. A pseudonymous article posted on Xinhuanet, website of China's official news agency, imagines the U.S. dispatching the George Washington to aid Taiwan against a Chinese attack. The Chinese would respond with three salvos of DF 21D, the first of which would pierce the hull, start fires and shut down flight operations, the article says. The second would knock out its engines and be accompanied by air attacks. The third wave, the article says, would "send the George Washington to the bottom of the ocean." Comments on the article were mostly positive. ___ AP writer Christopher Bodeen in Beijing and National Security Writer Anne Gearan in Washington, D.C.
Reply to
Matt Wiser

Th US needs to go from MAD to YAD, (Your assured destruction). North Korea launches a nuke at South Korea or Japan, North Korea ceases to exist. Utterly. All cities and militaryfacilities reduced to ash. (There - is- the problem with the fallout.....) Same thing for Iran. Also, directed energy weapons will soon trump missels. Speed of light beats Mach 10 quite handily. Replace aircraft carries with sub or, (preferably) space-to-atmospere launched drones. All manned weapon systems are obsolete. There a treaty against space based weapons so deployment will have to quick and massive followed by ripping up of said treaty. Orbitig weapon platforms, moon bases, astroid mining, be still my heart.

Reply to
rfranklin

Val Kraut wrote: : : It answers the question - Why does the Air Force need a new Bomber. : If the Air Force wants a "bomb truck" to replace the B-52, then I am okay with that.

Another gold plated B-1 or platinum plated B-2 - screw you, Air Force. To say nothing about the unobtanium plated JSF. I don't care if the damn thing will personally serve me a properly chilled Coke on the way to a mission, at some point, these damn things are too expensive, complex and there are too few of them to really matter.

And don't get me started on why we need Capitans flying damned drones! Other branches seem to muddle along with warrent officers flying the damn things...

Bruce

Reply to
Bruce Burden

Ever heard of "saturation bombing"?

Reply to
Rob Kelk

Take a look at any map of China. Its so cluttered with place names you'd have difficulty in finding a third tier city of 500 thousand population. What saturation bombing. You wouldn't know where to begin. In any case go look up WIKI and other sources on Chinese weapons. Better still look up YouTube on China's 60th Anniversary Parade. There you will see some of the latest hardware including truck mounted missiles. If you are into saturation bombing you have to send in a few dozen aircraft to make an impression. Think of a 10 percent or higher loss rate. At this level where numbers mean everything attrition is a statistical certainty. And one F18 can buy at least ten AA missiles. How long can you keep this exchange rate up? Don't forget those missiles are designed and made in China. China can ramp up production faster than you can replace your losses. That most irreplaceable asset of yours is pilots. Its folly to send manned aircraft against intelligent robots (missiles.)

Reply to
PaPa Peng

Wait a minute, if the Chinese dropped a Dong Feng on an American supercarrier, I doubt that the US Navy would have to worry one minute about sending in attack bombers to spank Chinese ass. That's what all those silos out on (under?) the Great Plains are for. If China were to be so stupid as to attack an American ship unprovoked, collecting the money that the U.S. owes them would be the least of their worries, or they'd collect in American hardware. And I'm sure that there are MANY brass hats in the Pentagon who would love to be the ones giving the order......

Reply to
The Old Man

Get real. The DF12D is a defensive Area Denial Weapon. In no way can it be considered an offensive weapon. This means the US can no longer sail the seventh fleet off the coast of China to threaten her. Much of your political options and military adventures will have to take this into account. It is extremely childish of you to threaten a nuclear strike. China has enough ICBMs to do serious damage. Both countries will be knocked down. This leaves Russia as the default super nuclear power that can impose its will in a new word order. Surely you are not going thinking of taking on both China and Russia at the same time.

Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan is evidence enough that your mighty war machine is no longer the game changer in global affairs. You no longer have the stomach nor the means to invade another country. There is no IJN to give you a good carrier vs carrier fight. So your super-carriers are good for chasing pirates, showing the flag and for disaster relief work? China is not interested in a shooting war with any one although she can hold up her end of a fight any time. Meantime China's development and global influence is growing by leaps and bounds. You can't even come up with a simple plan to put your millions of unemployed back to work. Even they have enough good sense not to sign up for military service. You are in the wrong kind of war.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Napoleon Bonaparte

Reply to
PaPa Peng

I wouldn't need to, nor would my government. I doubt we'd get involved in any action between China and the USA.

An untrustworthy source. (They used to cite my hobbyist website as a source - how accurate can they be?)

Or a few hundred ICBMs, which the USA claims they've had for decades.

Reply to
Rob Kelk

Um, actually... that is precisely what would occur under MAD doctrine. Other names are on the list too.

All fairly moot, as anyone with any brains knows the Chinese will not first strike a US aircraft carrier or base of any kind - nor will we. The missile talk is just what another poster mentioned - fodder for local pacific rim ears.

The North Koreans and the Iranians on the other hand, I fear, have a date with a dustbuster.

WmB

Reply to
WmB

...this is the first intelligent statement I've read in this whole discussion...

...this one, while close to the mark, indicates more thinking still required.

And even when you're smart, you can still lose everything...

Reply to
Rufus

That thought crossed my mind too. The DF21D will likely carry a 500lb to 1000lb HE or thermal non armor piercing warhead. There is a trade off between size, weight and range. Take a look at the YouTube video of the 1974 on-deck accident that had fully fueled planes, their bombs and rockets exploding. The Forrestal survived that and made port under her own steam. A few 1000 lb warheads won't sink a carrier although it can mess up one. The original article writes of mass missiles to overcome defenses. This indeed will be the strategy. Missiles are cheap and does not put valuable and irreplaceable personnel at risk. One the other hand a two carrier battle group is an extremely juicy target with some 20,000 personnel neatly packed in steel cans. When the situation presents itself the sensible thing to do will be to throw everything and the kitchen ink at it. Say launch

400 missiles. Only 40 need to be guided missiles (ballistic and cruise.) The rest can be ballistic missiles with relatively simpler guidance to land them on a GPS coordinate. These will be mines laid in a pattern around the carrier battle group. For the same amount of explosives mines do far more damage to a ship. Let's see a carrier battle group maintain its integrity in such an attack.
Reply to
PaPa Peng

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.