It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

New Chinese Missile Can Destroy US Supercarrier in One Go

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stander
reply to post by Zykloner
 

Thanks for the news. We all need a handkerchief to wipe out our teary eye following the N. Korean failure to permanently embed WWIII as a thrilling topic to speculate upon.



Agree 100%




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Also, the idea that any (conventional) missile can "destroy" a super-carrier is an idea for the masses. Nimitz class carriers are the most survivable surface warships (structure wise only) in operation anywhere in the world, and many would argue ever built. Now factor in the crew, defense systems, and countermeasures.

Forget about nuclear warheads, that can of worms will not be opened. Furthermore, a carrier represents a significant investment in resources, treasury, and lives. It would represent an escalation which would make mainland China fair game, and the Chinese don't want to go there.

Also, any MRBM carrying a MARV warhead with an array of sensors would be limited in payload. As such, you can expect any such warhead not to be unitary, but rather full of "smart" sub munitions. These munitions would be deployed in the terminal stage to reduce their vulnerability and maximize their capability. Not only would this increase the probability of scoring a hit, but it would do so without the need to launch dozens of missiles toward a single target. All one needs to do is score a mission kill on the carrier to disrupt, or even halt, flight operations. This can be done without massive damage to the carrier itself, reducing the chances of an escalated response.

Currently the most dangerous threat to a carrier is a submarine. Two or more modern torpedoes would break the keel of even a mighty Nimitz class. Surface missile salvos are a threat but they require ridiculous numbers to get past defenses and to actually "destroy" a carrier. Surface missiles also put their launching platform in great risk and it is a threat that's been around for decades. Capability is abundant and able to deal with it, given a reasonable scenario. Bottom line, China is far away from perfecting ASBMs and we are also developing offensive and defensive means to deal with them. The Navy ABM program is not aimed at North Korea (which requires two weeks to launch one missile), but China and other such near peer adversaries. The Navy ABM program has been ongoing for more than a decade now, we have not been taken by surprise by an old and known potential threat.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
have you noticed the fear mongering climbing to a new level everyday?

they are just setting the stage so when another NWO based attack happens the sheeple will have already been brainwashed into it



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Oh so you want the answer spoonfed to you? Sheesh, are you unable to use the querying powers of Google?

Radars operate at different wavelengths for different purposes, which are categorised into "Bands".

The Bands go from A to M in order of increasing frequencies. "Low-Band" radars are radars operate at very long wavelengths, and hence have the longest possible ranges of any military tracking radars.

Low-Band radars are commonly used by early-warning detection systems on Ships, SAMs, Aircraft and national networks like NORAD, to pick up launches of missiles, aircraft or enemy movements across the horizon well before they're in a position to attack or to give them maximum readiness time to respond.

More here:www.wonderland.org.nz...

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
In the effort to "deny ignorance," one should have realized that for the past several years, the Chinese having been making such claims that they possessed a 'carrier killer' missile. Furthermore, ballistic missiles are inherently unsuitable for anti-ship applications.

This news is no new revelation; it amounts to a /yawn.


You left out the other positives/negatives for Chinese:

1 - The Chinese would bankrupt themselves by having a war with their largest trading partner, and the country that owes them over a trillion dollars.

2 - The Chinese would solve their own population problem when the U.S> launches retaliatory strikes.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 



But, this thread isn't about conventional ASCMs, now is it?


No, it's about China's anti-shipping capabilities in general.


TBMs are inherently unsuitable in an anti-shipping role for a variety of reasons, such as:


I agree with you 100%, ballistic missiles converted into a anti-shipping role just doesn't make sense given the lack of manoeuvrability, easier detection, etc.

Nevertheless, the Chinese have many, many other potent weapons against surface fleets.

Don't discount China's abilities simply because of this one missile.

reply to post by daeoeste
 



That is, if the missile can get past our missile defense system.


What Missile defence system exactly?

Aircraft Carriers alone only have CWIS as a last line of defence against incoming anti-shipping missiles.

And CWIS is just far too slow to intercept anything but the slowest of cruise missiles, on high-terminal trajectories.

Missiles like the Sunburn come in just above the waterline at supersonic speeds giving a Carrier almost little to no warning.

Even then, in a real, carrier-attack mission, any modern military like the Chinese or Russians would simply swamp the Carrier with so many missiles that a few are bound to get through.

Carrier Groups rely far more aircraft screening around their perimeter to alert them of any impending danger and to take it out before it can attack.

Once missiles are in the air though, the aircraft carrier is fair game.

reply to post by groingrinder
 



The anti ship missile sites are probably monitored by spy satellite. They would not need to be destroyed by the carrier battle group. They could be destroyed by land based missiles or an airborne laser. (Yeah we have cool military stuff as well.)


No they're not.

Anti-shipping missiles are rarely, if ever deployed from fixed sites or batteries.

I'm referring to air launched or sea-launched anti-shipping missiles, which make up the majority.

America doesn't have the Intelligence resources to monitor every plane and ship in the Chinese fleet and their movements.

As for the Airborne Laser and YAL-1, it's still highly experimental. You won't see that on the battlefield for years to come.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Substituting "pick" for "detecting" does not change the fact that OTH radars cannot provide tracking capability, and hence a firing solution. They can tell you, however, that some object is within a given radius of several miles. That capacity alone (however long it might remain operation during a war) cannot guide a ballistic missile with precision to a moving target. Throw in several dozen decoys to mimic the radar return of a carrier and it would very quickly turn into a game of 'pop-the-weasel' with that kind of technology.

Another thing to think about when it comes to radars, work has been done in active cancellation regarding electromagnetic waves.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 




Currently the most dangerous threat to a carrier is a submarine. Two or more modern torpedoes would break the keel of even a mighty Nimitz class.


I would characterise super-cavitating torpedoes as the most dangerous threat any Navy faces in today's world.

Like Russia's VA-111 "Shkval", there's no line of defence against these.

At speeds of over 400km/h and nuclear warhead capability, a few would cripple any Carrier in the world:
www.fas.org...

It's basically an underwater missile, in various US Navy simulations with a Submarine fleet attacking a surface fleet, these things have consistently penetrated any form of defensive measures in the US arsenal.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Once missiles are in the air though, the aircraft carrier is fair game.


I'll bypass all the kinetic means of destroying ANY incoming missile and simply say that an AEGIS system can actively "fry" enemy electronics. Mull that one over for a bit...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 



Substituting "pick" for "detecting" does not change the fact that OTH radars cannot provide tracking capability, and hence a firing solution.


Never said they could mate.

The thing to remember is these radars are not operating isolated and alone from the rest of a early-warning net or SAM sites.

The whole reason they are designated as "Early-Warning" radar is because they are precisely that.
They're not mean to provide firing solutions and computational data.

By giving a rough idea of the target's course and heading, they're meant to act as screens by which other assets can further pin-point a position, e.g. Air assets (AWACS) which then relay back precise locations and guidance via an uplink to a cruise-missile carrier, be it naval or aerial, who can destroy the target.

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 




I'll bypass all the kinetic means of destroying ANY incoming missile and simply say that an AEGIS system can actively "fry" enemy electronics.


1. CWIS is a last line of defence and you know it. No Carrier relies exclusively on it for ABM defence.

2. ABL, YAL and other non-ballistic based ABM measures are all EXPERIMENTAL a subject to a whole host of issues. Laser blooming/defocusing, extremely limited fuel supply, charge time, short range, etc.

3. ECM is neither a first line of defence or a last line of defence against anti-shipping missiles.
It's meant to augment a comprehensive defence solution.

ECM jamming can be "burned through" with enough wattage, or given false signals to chase around.
It's not fool-proof.

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
ECM jamming can be "burned through" with enough wattage, or given false signals to chase around.
It's not fool-proof.


A missile is going to "burn through" an AEGIS system focusing its power on it? Don't think so. And I'm not taking about jamming, more like short circuit.
Also, RAM/SeaRAM missiles are the new thing now for close in defense, most ships are having their Phalanx systems taken out.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Again, stop pretending missiles and radars operate in some "magical vacuum" in a real battle scenario.

Ballistic Missiles can be equipped with decoys to release a weak jamming signal to fool a system like AEGIS into locking onto the source, thinking it's the missile.

Moreover, who's to say the guidance relay for the missile, be it AWACS, ground stations, Naval groups won't be equipped with AESA radars which are near impossible to jam because of the extremely fast scan time which leaves no window of opportunity for an ECM device to find the correct azimuth and elevation in which the radar's main lobe is currently directed.

I'm sorry but there are still ENORMOUS gaps in virtually every country's Naval ABM abilities and systems and that includes the US.

To say anti-shipping missiles, cruise or ballistic (while I agree anti-shipping ballistic missiles are useless), are now rendered "invalid" in a practical scenario is borderline delusional.

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


It has to get through a multilayered defense to get to CIWS. A single AEGIS ship can focus MILLIONS of watts of power down a very fine beam. That's capable of frying electronics in everything from missiles to aircraft. If Aegis decides to focus the radar I don't know of a single system out there, shielded or not that can withstand it. The problem with focusing is that you lose the big picture.

The AN/SPY-1D is capable of tracking, searching, and guiding with over 100 targets on the screen, and was designed to track low vis targets flying low level.

Minimum safe distance on high power, broadcasting wide area for the AN/SPY-1D is 580 feet. The AN/SPG-62 fire control radar is 1850 feet. Under certain conditions, the AN/SPY-1D minimum safe distance is 1580 feet. That's a lot of power being put out, because the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) is 5 Mw/sq cm. Anything closer than 50 feet on LOW power/wide angle and you're over PEL.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
The missle uses technology developed by guess who....the United States military. They got this back in the 1990's. Howard Bloom wrote up an article in the Disinfo book "You are being Lied to" in 99 If i remember correctly.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Ok, but do they have one of these -

digg.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



It has to get through a multilayered defense


None of which are fool-proof as I outlined and far from perfect.

Just as one example, the Kh-22 is Mach 3 in terminal phase.

There's absolutely not a single ABM system in current US Service capable of intercepting that baby.


A single AEGIS ship can focus MILLIONS of watts of power down a very fine beam. That's capable of frying electronics in everything from missiles to aircraft.


There's 6 AEGIS-class ships (or 6 ships equipped with the AEGIS suite) in the US Navy to begin with, so I don't know why everyone's preaching here that AEGIS will come in to save the day if a Carrier Group is attacked.

The US has 11 supercarriers last time I checked.


The AN/SPY-1D is capable of tracking, searching, and guiding with over 100 targets on the screen, and was designed to track low vis targets flying low level.


Yeah and?

Who's going to engage a multiple-strike party of say 10 Sunburn or Kh-22 missiles all travelling at supersonic speeds towards a lone carrier?

Tracking is all well and good but that data is only useful if it gets to an interceptor, be it airborne, naval or ABM based.


Minimum safe distance on high power, broadcasting wide area for the AN/SPY-1D is 580 feet. The AN/SPG-62 fire control radar is 1850 feet.


Look I'm not denying the AEGIS system doesn't have some phenomenal ECM capabilities, but it's simply at the moment spread far too thin to ensure the survival of any US ship or even Aircraft carrier for that matter against cruise or ballistic missiles.

And once you put aside AEGIS, it becomes evidently clear just how vulnerable US Surface Fleets are to anti-shipping cruise missiles.

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira


Do you know how big Aircraft Carrier cross sections are on Low-band warning radars?

You'd have to be blind to miss them.


and then be sure to protect the missiles before they are launched.


considering it would be out of range of radar, and even screening air patrols unless they came incredibly close to the vessel.



first you would have to be blind then it would be out of range

Yeah that tends to work both ways!




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I was referring to the range of the Low-Band radar in the first example, and the range of aircraft patrol's radar in the second, which is far, far shorter.

Hence it would pick up the patrol's originating carrier fleet before the patrol even noticed it.

Really, reading comprehension. It helps.

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



It has to get through a multilayered defense


None of which are fool-proof as I outlined and far from perfect.

Just as one example, the Kh-22 is Mach 3 in terminal phase.

There's absolutely not a single ABM system in current US Service capable of intercepting that baby.



I'll continue to ignore your immature attempts at belittling.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

SM-II

One such modification, increasing the speed of the missile, will be easily achieved as the current deployed version of the Standard has been intentionally slowed-down so that it does not risk violating the restrictions of the ABM treaty. See this PDF file to see modifications that will have to be made to upgrade the Standard.


[edit on 6-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join