It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

China has "Kill Weapon" to destroy US Carriers

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:33 AM
Definitely something to watch out for, but I would think it would be able to be shot down by a carrier, no? I had a friend in the navy who said that they use blanket fire or something like that and just hope to hit it mid air, kind of like how a jet uses debris to fool missiles (I believe it is called chaff?).
Then again admittedly I know nothing of ocean combat, I only understood like 30% of this thread lol.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 12:33 AM
Just curious as to whether some of you know that we have people whose total job/occupation is to crack satellite operational codes? The codes which activate and or change the operations of satellites.

THis work goes on 24/7...

On our satellites..for security measures and on the satellites of other nations for whatever reasons are decided....friends as well as enemies.

Some of you do know this ...Correct??

To put it another way..there are no friends in this buisness.


posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:22 AM
All this tension and stuff is just chest-pounding by the ChiCom's. They are modernizing, but are too far behind us to catch up for about at least 10 years. and even if there was a strike on a US carrier, then they would have to deal with the fact that we have an Air Force with the only known stealth aircraft in it, and the only known stealth bomber in it. And The fact that we probably have certain 'assests' in place in china to deal with their leaders if things get ugly

So its just another claim to bolster their propaganda.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:45 AM
reply to dingyibvs:

You have made good points.

Don't forget that in a conflict involving Taiwan, that Taiwan itself has an awesome array of firepower aimed directly at mainland China.

I have always believed that Taiwan is free only as long as China is unable to invade successfully or unwilling to pay the terrible price of invasion. Taiwan would be levelled I assume by an all out Chinese attack, but the threat of what Taiwan would send their way keeps China at bay. I am no expert, just an armchair General and Admiral! Internet has lots of data about Taiwans impressive military, more to the point, the carriers may well be too vulnerable for the future or the present. I guess I'm not sure.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by rundog
reply to dingyibvs:

You have made good points.

Don't forget that in a conflict involving Taiwan, that Taiwan itself has an awesome array of firepower aimed directly at mainland China.

I have always believed that Taiwan is free only as long as China is unable to invade successfully or unwilling to pay the terrible price of invasion. Taiwan would be levelled I assume by an all out Chinese attack, but the threat of what Taiwan would send their way keeps China at bay. I am no expert, just an armchair General and Admiral! Internet has lots of data about Taiwans impressive military, more to the point, the carriers may well be too vulnerable for the future or the present. I guess I'm not sure.

Actually, Taiwan does not have a lot of weapons aimed at the mainland. That's actually the reported focus of their new president--to build up a missile force rather than spending more money getting ships and planes. The mainland has been capable of conquering Taiwan for a while now, what holds it back are two things:

1) American/Japanese intervention. If those two countries intervene, things will get dicey. That's what this weapon is for. It's not really to attack the U.S. ships, but to convince them that it's not worth it to intervene.

2) Destruction of Taiwan. What's the point of taking back a piece of smoldering rubble? Not to mention the international outrage sure to follow. China has been politcking internationally for a long time now to make it more justified to invade Taiwan, so a quick operation would likely not draw the ire of the western nations for long. A humanitarian disaster would, however.

As for Chinese technology, China is actually not quite that far behind the U.S. in terms of asymmetric warfare. Building naval fleets and high-tech air squadrons are very costly and mostly unnecessary for China in its stage of development right now, so China has long focused on constructing its asymmetric warfare capabilities. Their abilities to conduct electronic/cyber warfare, missile attacks, anti-satellite weapons, and espionage is probably not nearly as behind the U.S. as their naval and air technologies are. Again, they don't need to defeat the U.S. in an all-out war, they just need to be able to make it costly enough to the U.S. to make it less aggressive. What's the point of having MAD with China just to allow Russia to rise to power, for example?

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:36 AM
reply to post by orangetom1999

and this is the entire cruz whichhardly anyone understands - when push comes to shove you have no friends , and everyone is a potential enemy.

which is why the uk has an `Omega` warplan - targetting the USA.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Harlequin


Quite agree. I know we have exactly such warplans, not only against our so called enemies but our so called allies as well. Canada, the Uk and others. Somehow I dont think the average citizen can conceptualize such an idea. It is totally foreign to them. They tend to be so secure in their artificial enviornments.

Ive even heard some tales of the submarine nuclear strike plans for total war which would shock the average citizen.

Do you think the Three Gorges Dam project is targeted as part of a standard operational proceedure by multiple nations?? How much do you think such a loss would set back the Chinese?? Do you think the blueprints and designs/knowledge are available outside of China??


[edit on 4-4-2009 by orangetom1999]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:37 AM
you know the hoover dam is a great fat target , as is every nuclear reactor plant - wonderful targets in total war - irradiate the land so nothing can live.

total war - entroy based warfare , hit the enemy troops ,hit the enemies ability to make war , hit the enemies moral to want to fight by killing everything they hold dear.

soldiers , tank factories and large cities and large concentrations of refugee`s.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

I think you meant to say entropy based warfare. From the Greek word entropos..meaning toward...or towards death...unusable.

Been to the Hoover Dam some years ago when visiting Las Vegas and Southern California.

As for most of can keep it. Not interested in it and am surprised most consider it part of the United States. Same thing with New York City. Although the rest of the State of New York is indeed a very nice place.

As to Nuclear Plants ...yes I am familiar with how they work having just worked on the Refueling of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier. I also worked with the same bunch of guys to put the fuel cells in the USS George Bush. Ive also put fuel in the Dwight Eisenhower and the Ronald Reagan.
Hence familiar with radiation and contamination proceedures. Was working in a glove box yesterday as a matter of fact. Hot stuff Harlequin!! Hot Stuff!!

I really dont worry so much about that type of scenerio Harlequin. It seems our government is very much likely to collapse what little value there is in the US Dollar making almost every buisness there is remaining in the country dire straights. The nuclear plants in this country will most likely collapse from lack of funds to keep up maintenance and need shutting down. Same too with the fossil fuel plants.while costs for spotty service skyrocket.
Translation of all that is that is with the help of government we are more likely to radiate and contaminate the countryside ourselves before any enemies and or friends are likely to do so.

Say Harlequin...did you see that video of the British MEP Daniel Hannon speaking in a conference to Europeans while rebuking Gordon Brown. We need about 50 leaders of Daniel Hannon caliber here in our Congress.
Here ..this link What brass Daniel Hannon has...I salute him!! We need alot more like him here with the same caliber of brass.

I dont think it will help the UK in the long run..nor here. The finances of the UK seem to be going bankrupt faster than us here Stateside..but we will get there soon enough with our type of leadership.

No ..I dont worry that much about such an attack Harlequin. I think our own leadership will cause it themselves with poor management practices as they have been doing for almost 50 years now...and continuing.


posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:40 PM
yawn, wikipedia ramjet sunburn is old news russians sold it to iran and everyone thought the carriers in the persian gulfl would get blown up, america has countered the super sonic threat

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 12:13 AM
just look at you guys. you watch so many movies you think you're invincible. you think the CIA are a bunch of bad azz and you think the navy seal is highly, the CIA are a bunch of nerds in a cubicle, the navy seal can't find their way out of a mangrove swamp so the locals had to drag their dummy heads out of there. our high tech jet gets own by antique MiG's. our soldier are the worst trained in the world, we haven't won a war since ww2. we bully the weak helpless countries and people to make us feel better about ourselves. we're just fortunate we haven't pissed anyone our own size off. face it, our special forces can't even handle drug dealer let alone fight a war. we're just a bunch of spoiled US citizen thinking our dad can beat up their dad but in reality our dad is a coward.

lets just be happy we live in a peaceful country that spoil us. we're good people who help the world if we can. most of us aren't struggling to survive so we have that luxury. we're good at everything..except war.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by DOADOA]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by DOADOA]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 04:31 AM
reply to post by DOADOA

You forgot you have all the nukes.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 05:08 AM

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by DOADOA

You forgot you have all the nukes.

true, and that keeps me warm and fuzzy at night. knowing we'll take the whole down with us bring a smile to my face.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Harlequin
which is why the uk has an `Omega` warplan - targetting the USA.

I'm interested to hear more of this, Harlequin. I know you posted this months ago but I wonder if you might share you thoughts with us on this subject, perhaps in a new thread ?

As to the US carriers and their vulnerabilities, I would hope that their commanders are aware about these and deploy their ships in such a position as to minimise risk to the carriers whilst at the same time seeking to take advantage of any weakness in the enemy's own position. Because that really is what makes for great leadership, the tremendous balancing act that is risk.

I can only think about the English Royal Navy when it faced the daunting task of re-taking the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas in 1982. Their commanders had to keep the carriers to the East of the Islands to ensure they were out of range of Argentinian aircraft (with their Exocet missiles). But at times they also had to bring the carriers within range to ensure their fleet had sufficient air cover, to attack the airport at Port Stanley and to protect the landing grounds and troopships at San Carlos Water.

And they also had the not inconsiderable problem of an enemy fleet at sea, with its own aircraft carrier, escorts & submarines. The Royal Navy managed to deliver, but only just and it was in no small measure due to the skill of its commanders.

I wonder sometimes, though, if this prolonged period of global peace hasn't perhaps blunted the aggression that our naval commanders need in wartime ? And that the lack of a recent naval presence hasn't too given the Chinese a degree of aggression and confidence that veers towards the incautious ?

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:03 AM
This is a subject that gives me the willies, and that is no joke! Having served on an air craft carrier and seeing it in action. I thought it was invincible and the pillar of naval supremacy for the United States Navy. However, it appears my assumptions were way off, and it appears the Chinese and other nations have the weapons and know-how to possibly sink a vessel of such vital importance to the US mission at sea.

Here is an article about how vulnerable the current carrier platform is to these missiles and potential vulnerabilities in the next wave of air craft carriers to leave the shipyards.

the latest ship-killing unmanned weapon systems like
supercavitating torpedoes and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles
being produced and/or developed by other countries that can probably
sink the CVN-21, even if it is protected by its own highly-advanced,
highly-lethal systems like fighter aircraft (primarily F/A-18s), ASW
(Anti-Submarine Warfare i.e. "sub-hunting") aircraft, the Raytheon
Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), Aegis-radar-equipped and highly-weaponized cruisers and destroyers,
submarines, etc. That’s not to mention unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS) a.k.a. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being produced and
developed by other countries that can also potentially wreak a lot of
havoc and destruction on surface ships. And, at the end of the day,
that’s what the CVN-21 will be, a large, hulking, incredibly expensive
(albeit very sexy) surface ship.

So, essentially, even with the new developments in the carrier platform they may just be floating bulls-eyes for any potential aggressor. Make know mistake the Chinese want the United States out of the Pacific Ocean which they deem is their sphere of interest. Quite possibly there may be a large naval engagement in the Pacific on the scale not seen since WWII in the next 30 years or sooner. The Chinese are showing it with the development of their weapons capabilities. Here is a recent article from the US Naval Institutes magazine for January 2010, that pretty much sums up the perilous journey the US Navy may find themselves if this potential Waterloo is not addressed by senior staff in Navy and the Pentagon.

The basic operational plan also reflected an awareness of the efficacy of the classic indirect approach-a key aspect of asymmetric warfare. They also exploited a basic vulnerability of open, democratic political systems-a benign operating environment. If a handful of Saudis could plan and carry out effective attacks halfway around the world in a foreign land, why then could other adversaries not accomplish the same in local waters familiar to them?

The typical carrier capabilities that lead to presumptions of impregnability include: speed, armor, compartmentalization, size, defenses (air wing, own-ship, escorts, etc.), blue-water sanctuary (range from shore and from adversary/targets), and technological superiority of U.S. weapon systems. Not often discussed, though, is how a smart enemy might exploit technology or subterfuge to obviate some traditional carrier strengths. Some potential examples include:

* Mass media, satellite communication, and the Internet can provide location and disposition of U.S. carriers when they are near shipping lanes or coastal waters; carrier presence is obvious well before the silhouette appears on the horizon.
* Carriers not supporting a conflict requiring continuous air wing operations will not be operating at higher speeds, especially at night.
* Fast, low profile, open-ocean craft are widely available.
* Armored hangar bay doors are useless when open, typical to lower conditions of readiness.
* Carrier crew size and diversity would likely allow unfettered access to clandestine infiltrators of almost any ethnicity.
* While nuclear power provides virtually unlimited steaming, carriers remain dependent on forward staging areas and supply ships for food, aviation fuel, and stores.
* The insatiable appetite for information afloat is satisfied by way of precious, uninterrupted bandwidth flowing through multiple nodes with varying vulnerabilities.

I would hate to see what the response would be if an aircraft carrier is sunk at sea. It is completely unthinkable, given the manpower aboard and phenomenal cost of one. Not to mention the blow it would have on the American people after such a loss. In short it would be absolutely devastating for the country.

If it were to happen, you could expect whomever is responsible would get nuked without second thought. Then comes a scenario that has given us nightmares since the Cold War possible Nuclear War? That is a road that should give everyone the creeps. However, drastic restructuring of Naval Warfare strategy has to be developed and quickly or our defense establishment may be leading lambs to the slaughter. . . We must avoid another Pearl Harbor.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Jakes51]

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:10 AM
Well this is obviously not deterring countries around the world (even the countries that apparently have this anti-carrier weapon and/or those who have interest in contest to those of the Americans) from pursuing carrier programs.

Both China and Russia have plans to roll out a few carriers in the coming decade.

So there is nothing wrong with the 'carrier concept' per say, its just not 'as invincible' as it may have been perceived to be.. which essentially how most wonder weapons end up..

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by orangetom1999

You can be most assured that all countries that have competing interests with that of China, will have this as a SOP, but an SOP for total war at that (nothing lesser).
It would not be a target that one could hit w/o expecting a proportionate or even an exaggerated response from China. As severe as nuking a heavily populated city.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:28 AM

Originally posted by mel1962
China is reported to have developed a missle that is large enough destroy a US supercarrier with a range of 2000 KM and a speed exceeding MACH 10. It has a very unpredicatable flight pattern and is directed by satelite and unmaned planes.

See Link Below:

This could seriously limit US ability to project power in the west Pacific. I wonder if this is why North Korea is acting so boldly with the missle launch. Perhaps China wants to run a test of this new missle to see what our counter measures maybe. This is very disturbing, I hope we are working on significant counter measures.

[edit on 3/31/09 by mel1962]

The United States has an even better weapon that can destroy any missile from an enemy once launched. It is a plasma laser weapon that can hit multiple targets in seconds, and can even shoot down mortar fire. It can be fired from the back of a truck or from a converted 747. If you do the research you'll find it out there on Youtube for example. Tesla called it the death ray. Both the US and Russia have developed this weapon, yet the US is more advanced.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by dingyibvs

Then why would China actively pursue a carrier program?
They do not have any 'uncontested' naval patrol areas worldwide where they could 'project power' to 'lesser nations'.

All areas of Chinese interest, whether it be the North Pacific, South Pacific, South China Sea, or even the Indian Ocean Region are patrolled by navies of equal or greater surface ship capability.

Yet the Chinese want carriers.

The carriers are more than they are perceived to the opinionated eye, whether is be a US-biased eye or the other end of the spectrum..

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:49 AM
The Chinese kill weapon is a formidable weapon but the fact that it relies on GPS, satellite and space technology is going to teach the Chinese a lesson in the hardest way known. The school of hard knocks is going to slap China in the face when they realize that their billion dollar weapons system can be defeated by simple technology that offsets the GPS and tracking data by enough to ensure the missile hits where the target is not.

By the time the Chinese figure out that all their missiles and every ballistic missile has missed every target by over a 1000 meters or so is going to be enough to allow the US Navy and Air Force to send their high tech weapons to play knock, knock, boom, boom with the Chinese military leadership. Being in a deep underground bunker is not going to help.

It will be a lesson for the Chinese and others that will be learned the hard way, because just when they think certain USA targets are assured they will find that their own technology is going to destroy them for their evil efforts and when they discover they are vulnerability to their own secret technology, WWIII with a lot of fireworks could ensue because I just know it's going to scare the Chinese and others in ways that we can not imagine.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in