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.


China has "Kill Weapon" to destroy US Carriers

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by Ulala

After HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrando, that opposing fleet that you spoke of left the area and was no longer a factor. That's right. The entire Argentinian Fleet got the hell out of Dodge and stayed way out of the Brits area of operations.

As far as a Chinese ballistic anti-carrier weapon is concerned, if it isn't a nuke, I'm not worried. What would be the turning radius on something going Mach 10? There might be some damage from a shockwave as it passes by, but a direct hit is going to be very tough. When you start talking speeds that high, you start to get inside the calculation time of the computer processors that guide it. Mach 10 is something like 7500 miles per hour or right around 11,000 feet per second.

I would love to see China get a full sized aircraft carrier in operation. It would be fun to watch them learn how to do flight ops, provided you watch from a safe on another ship.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by MaxBlack

I wish I could agree with you on this that United States are going to rule the day if a confrontation ever reaches fruition in the Pacific. However, they appear to be gearing up to be quite a formidable foe off in the distance. The US is dependent upon the same methods such GPS, satellites, and other space and computer orientated devices to wage war, as well.

I don't think this something the US military leadership should scoff at and it is a serious threat to the US Naval presence in that part of the world and other locations. Not to mention US military dominance altogether. The carrier remains at the forefront of naval tactics at present, and what I have read from numerous sources is that it is a threat not to be taken lightly.

The Chinese and their naval developments is probably this biggest threat to the US Navy since the Imperial Navy in World War II. Plus, not to mention the inroads in their cyber warfare capabilities, because it has been known that they are hacking into the DOD and other defense databases.

Dr. Brenner characterized China as "very aggressive" in acquiring U.S. advanced technology. "The technology bleed to China, among others, is a very serious problem," he said in March 2007, noting that "you can now, from the comfort of your own home or office, exfiltrate information electronically from somebody else's computer around the world without the expense and risk of trying to grow a spy."

The U.S. Department of Defense warned in an annual report released this week that China continues to develop its abilities to wage war in cyberspace as part of a doctrine of "non-contact" warfare.

Tim Bennett, the former president of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, a leading trade group, said that U.S. intelligence officials have told him that the PLA in 2003 gained access to a network that controlled electric power systems serving the northeastern United States. The intelligence officials said that forensic analysis had confirmed the source, Bennett said. “They said that, with confidence, it had been traced back to the PLA.” These officials believe that the intrusion may have precipitated the largest blackout in North American history, which occurred in August of that year.

So, apparently, they realize how important all the things you have mentioned are, when the next war comes. Essentially, the military establishment and the senior leadership at the Pentagon need to drastically rethink naval warfare and tactics. If they don't it will imperil their effectiveness in a real war and not swatting flies like the environment dictates.

A strong Navy ensures world stability and military supremacy of whichever nation possesses one. It happens to be one of the greatest deterrents against war. It has been that way throughout the annals of history. Therefore, serious thought needs to be put into this, rather than scoff, and marginalize the threat. Here is a good example of the possible course the DOD is headed and how it relates to China as they emerge as a potential geopolitical opponent.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 11:34 AM
At this time China does not have the naval capability of force projection. If it ever came down to a shooting war her Navy would have a short but exciting life and US submarines would have a shoot-ex. The biggest concern for US carriers would be some of China's diesel submarines, if they could get into place and lie dormant until a carrier came into range. If those subs have to chase a carrier, they lose their noise advantage and become easy targets.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:21 PM
I'm more worried about their energy weapons then any new improvements on existing public technology like missiles. Light weapons, sonic weapons, solid field manipulation arms, etc.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:35 PM
If they ever attacked the USA they would most likely have multiple western countries to face. They would be out gunned (but not out manned)

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 03:19 PM
That is the scariest part though. They can keep throwing bodies out for as long as they need to.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:47 PM
(Must not make jokes about china)

I could imagine that is what they would do. They would introduce conscription

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:02 PM
The problem with modern warfare is that it is too networked. You knock out one component of the network and the entire system is vulnerable.

For instance a CBG has the Aegis Suite as the centerstone of its defense, if the Aegis is attacked my multiple ~10 sunburns from multiple directions at once and also by a few subs (china demonstrated its ability to get close engough to a US CBG as it did with the USS kitty hawk CBG) and the Aegis is down and the entire CBG is open to virtually any attack. You have virtually saturated the Aegis and even if one missle gets through, its basically over. These weapon systems have gotten so big that they cannot be modularized, ie if one component fails others can suffice. Remember the russian fighters that buzzed a US carrier as well?

So basically we have two inicdents that we know of that showed the hole in our CBG system, the chinese sub and the russian fighters making an overpass. In my opinoin the CBG is nearing obsoletion.

Same with our reliance on satellite for communications and navigation. Anti satellite missles are making headway and it is a major component of our warfare. Take out or satellites and it can make things complicated.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:45 PM
China's political goal is to annex and govern Taiwan.

They won't be able to do that unless

a) the Taiwanese agree

b) they land a large number of troops, police, and administrators.

Nations nearly always only surrender when soldiers are on the street.

If (a) happens then the USA would not intervene militarily.

Indeed the carriers are probably quite vulnerable to modern long-range weaponry.

Suppose an actual armed conflict appears to be imminent, not just the usual posturing and exercises.

In that case, the carriers would likely leave.

Think about things on the other side: what defense does a Chinese invasion fleet have from B2's protected with F-22s?

Chinese could likely disable or sink a carrier, but then what? Would they be able to accomplish their political objectives? Would they be able to actually land sufficient troops to conquer and annex Taiwan?

The Chinese would have to pre-emptively destroy air bases on Diego Garcia, Okinawa and South Korea. This would cause very major political problems.

And then, how vulnerable are troop carriers to US & Taiwanese submarines?

The end result of a conflict could be one sunk US carrier and a dozen surface ships, a third of the Chinese navy sunk, a number of conventional missiles causing tactical but no strategic damage on both sides. Outcome: a still independent Taiwan definitely not inclined to re-unification, and an US across-the-board tariff on Chinese products.

Eventually Taiwan will be bribed or find it economically in its own interest to re-unify with a Hong-Kong like setup.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by mbkennel]

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 09:04 PM
China could not be stupid enough to attack a US carrier

It would give the US and NATO the right to sink or seize all Chinese ships world wide.
There entire China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, being government owned could be hunted down and seized or sunk.
That is over 550 ships.
The US government can do this for two reasons one the ships are Chinese government owned and they are officered by reserve Chinese navy officers.

The Chinese government owns over 1800 ocean-going fishing vessels.
these can be seized or sunk also.

Plus every ship in the chinese navy would become a target. about 1720 vessels plus These are vessels that would normally be commissioned and excludes landing craft, mine warfare drones and auxiliary/support vessels.

Now you want to guess who would lose the most vessels.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by ANNED]

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:35 PM
All china has to do is request all the loans back, and the mortgage to the white house and pentagon as well and foreclose them, how are you gonna run a war when the buildings your supposed to be fighting from are owned by the enemy.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
All china has to do is request all the loans back, and the mortgage to the white house and pentagon as well and foreclose them, how are you gonna run a war when the buildings your supposed to be fighting from are owned by the enemy.

Many just dont see the simple truth. Let me brake it down for you if you owe the bank 1000 dollars and can not pay you are screwed and if you a million dollars the bank is the one who is screwed. What will they do invade us.
Last time I checked they are a large ocean away with a very little navy. Wake up the US debt is a joke on them not us. They have paid for our wars and military build up and will get paid back with pennies on the dollar.

And to the OP so what they have a nice missile? Could they not just use the big one? It would take out more then the aircraft carrier and is much easier to aim. This is nothing but propaganda brought to courtesy of the Chinese. They are weak and stories like this just prove it to me even more. It is called chest pounding and gorillas use it all the time as a bluff. I worry about the countries that like to keep secrets more then the wimps with big mouths.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:03 AM
when USA uses a military technology is because we already developed it 20 to 30 years trust me on this, China just developed a missile to combat an old technology as a super carrier.

I prefer to think about what the heck the US is working on at this moment.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by moonwilson
reply to post by Harlequin

Against a mach 10 missile, coming in from straight overhead, I wouldn't put much faith in the CIWS. Mach 10 is almost 8000mph! That's way, way faster than what CIWS was designed to counter. Also, even the newer, improved mount can't elevate above 70 degrees- which means it's useless against very high-trajectory missiles.

Yes, but who says the chinese - or anyone else for that matter - really has anything close to a mach 10 weapon? If there really is such a weapon, it would be much more likely that the U.S. would have it first since the way china and most of the world gets new weapons is to steal and/or copy U.S. designs. I don't even buy the idea of a mach 5 indian missile.

Wannabe's ...

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:46 AM
Ballistic missile warheads do come in extremely fast, mach 10 is not at all outrageous.

The Chinese have this technology, they have ICBM's after all.

An ICBM warhead hits the top of the atmosphere at near orbital speeds. From somebody on the ground it comes down stupendously fast. This is what a ballistic missile attack looks like: "look at that meteor up there, whoa, ---BOOM" in three or four seconds.

At those speeds the critical technology is extraordinarily precise guidance.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:28 AM
Well, you have to think tactically about this situation. What is the main weapon of the carrier. It's RUNWAY. you cluster bomb the runway and disable it and no fighters will be able to get of the carrier, it is essentially a nice cruise ship with no casino.

An ballistic missile warhead coming within close proximity can easily release a cluster bomb and blanket the entire carrier essentially destroying the runway. It is not necessary to sink the carrier as some people think to disable it. You have to disable the primary weapon system that it was designed for. It was designed for providing a shipborne runway at sea. Find a way to disable it. That is the enemy objective. Even the Aegis will not be able to stop a cluster bomb warhead scenario. One warhead releasing hundreds of little devils...yea....

Think smarter people.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:06 PM
reply to post by mel1962

I hope that this is true, America needs to be kept in check.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Even the Aegis will not be able to stop a cluster bomb warhead scenario. One warhead releasing hundreds of little devils...yea....


You can't deploy cluster munitions from anything other than low level and hope they hit anything. Whatever carries them to that level would be able to be targeted and hit.

Think smarter people.


posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by COOL HAND

What if it is multiple supersonic missiles carrying them!, not some low level bombing run which is sure to fail. What if it is a ballistic missile carrying the cluster bomb warhead, I'm not talking about cluster bombs being dropped from an airplane dude. I'm saying that the warhead is guaranteed to get to the carrier because it is a ballistic missile.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:31 PM

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
What if it is multiple supersonic missiles carrying them!, not some low level bombing run which is sure to fail. What if it is a ballistic missile carrying the cluster bomb warhead, I'm not talking about cluster bombs being dropped from an airplane dude. I'm saying that the warhead is guaranteed to get to the carrier because it is a ballistic missile.

Doesn't change the fact that you have to release cluster bomblets at low altitude in order to hit what you are aiming for with enough bomblets to cause the damage you want. Otherwise you'll just scatter them and reduce their effectiveness.

How do you guarantee a ballistic target hitting a carrier? Do you give it terminal guidance and a way to maneuver at those speeds?

[edit on 15/4/10 by COOL HAND]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in