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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
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.


Six AEGIS ships? In what world?


In 2003 the US Navy had 22 VLS Ticonderoga class and 5 non-VLS Ticonderogas, as well as 34 completed Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Since then they've retired the 5 non-VLS Ticos and added at least 13 more Burkes. So there are currently AT LEAST 69 Aegis ships. Of those almost 20 of them (if I remember the numbers right) are capable of carrying the SM-3 ABM suite, and within the next few years, all of them will carry the SM-6ER, which will extend interception range greatly.




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Note the emphasis:


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


The excerpt you posted refers to a proposed increased in speed of the RIM-161.

According Rayethon the current terminal speed is Mach 1 or 600MPH. www.raytheon.com...

That would require a significantly larger rocket motor to be able to propel it almost 2 times as fast then it currently travels.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Of those almost 20 of them (if I remember the numbers right) are capable of carrying the SM-3 ABM suite, and within the next few years, all of them will carry the SM-6ER,


The "AEGIS Suite" refers to both the electronic warfare component and the ABM-interceptor vehicles.

As far as I know, only 6 ships in current service are fielding the RIM-161 SM-3 standard that have the AEGIS electronic warfare package too.


AEGIS was designed and developed as a complete system, integrating state-of-the-art radar and missile systems. The missile launching system, the computer programs, the radar and the displays are fully integrated to work together.

www.janes.com...

That's the common definition of the complete AEGIS-Naval warfare suite.

Baseline 7 or Mk. 7 is the latest variant of this, equipped with the RIM-161 SM-3.

As I said previously, what good is the advanced tracking capabilities if you have no way of taking the missile down?

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



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Uhm, no it doesn't. I suggest you get up to speed on these systems if you're going to try to discuss them.

AEGIS:


The Aegis Combat System (ACS) is an advanced command and control (Command and Decision, or C&D, in Aegis parlance), and Weapon Control System (WCS) that uses powerful computers and radars to track and destroy enemy targets. It is the world's most advanced naval surface ship combat system and the first fully integrated combat system built to defend against air, surface, and subsurface threats.

The ACS is composed of the Aegis Weapon System (AWS), the fast-reaction component of the Aegis Anti-Aircraft Warfare (AAW) capability, along with the Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS), the MK 41 VLS[2], Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASuW) systems, and Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM). Shipboard torpedo and naval gunnery systems are also integrated. AWS, the heart of Aegis, comprises the AN/SPY-1 Radar, MK 99 Fire Control System, WCS, the Command and Decision Suite, and SM-2 Standard Missile systems. The Aegis Combat System is controlled by an advanced, automatic detect-and-track, multi-function three-dimensional passive electronically scanned array radar, the AN/SPY-1. Known as "the Shield of the Fleet", the SPY high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a track capacity of well over 100 targets at more than 100 nautical miles (190 km).[3]

en.wikipedia.org...


Aegis, which means shield, is the Navy’s latest surface combat system. Aegis was designed and developed as a complete system, capable of engaging in simultaneous warfare on several fronts -- air, surface, subsurface, and strike. Anti-Air Warfare elements include the Radar System AN/SPY-1B/D, Command and Decision System, and Weapons Control System.

For more than 40 years, the US Navy has developed systems and tactics to protect itself from air attacks. Since the end of World War II, several generations of anti-ship missiles have emerged as the air threat to the fleet. The first combatant ship sunk by one of these missiles was an Israeli destroyer in October 1967, hit by a Soviet built missile. The threat posed by such weapons was reconfirmed in April 1988 when two Iranian surface combatants fired on US Navy ships and aircraft in the Persian Gulf. The resulting exchange of anti-ship missiles led to the destruction of an Iranian frigate and corvette by US built Harpoon missiles. Modern anti-ship missiles can be launched several hundred miles away. The attacks can be coordinated, combining air, surface and subsurface launches, so that the missiles arrive on target almost simultaneously.

The US Navy's defense against this threat has continued to rely on the strategy of defense in depth. Guns were replaced in the late fifties by the first generation of guided missiles in ships and aircraft. By the late sixties, it was recognized that reaction time, firepower, and operational availability in all environments did not match the threat. As a result, an operational requirement for an Advanced Surface Missile System (ASMS) was promulgated and a comprehensive engineering development program was initiated to meet that requirement. ASMS was re-named AEGIS (after the mythological shield of Zeus) in December 1969.

www.fas.org...

So they've had an ABM on ships since 1969?

That's right it's the standard definition, but it has NOTHING to do with the SM-3 unless you're talking about the BMD. The Aegis system was developed to defend against missile, aircraft, and ship attacks DECADES before they developed the BMD system.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Hi again
Those of you claiming it is fear-mongering from China, and others claiming that it would not be manouverable enough etc please see www.military.com...
(link provided in origanal post aswell)

Not manouverable and easy to track?

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.


Only fear-mongering from China?
As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."


And as mentioned earlier, the MSM only care about the insignificant and completely ignores the larger threats.

S&F if you feel it is important to get the word out!

Deny Ignorance
Zyk



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Note the emphasis:


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


The excerpt you posted refers to a proposed increased in speed of the RIM-161.

According Rayethon the current terminal speed is Mach 1 or 600MPH. www.raytheon.com...

That would require a significantly larger rocket motor to be able to propel it almost 2 times as fast then it currently travels.


This is incorrect. The PDF brochure that you are referring to indicates that the kinetic warhead, in exo-atmospheric flight, hits its target with "more than 130 megajoules of kinetic energy, or the equivalent of a 10 ton truck
traveling at 600 miles per hour". The KW is actually traveling much faster.

In fact the SM-3, in atmospheric flight, travels at more than 6,000 mph, which is quite sufficient to intercept any known TBM threat. Source

Coupled with existing Aegis technology and other specialized radars such as the HPD, US carrier fleets are a top-flight TBM defense force.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 



In fact the SM-3, in atmospheric flight, travels at more than 6,000 mph,


1. That Mach 9 figure refers to the top speed attainable, which is during boost phase.

2. To manoeuvre against a target as nimble as a Cruise Missile in terminal phase it would obviously slow down.

3. The RIM-161A is still the developmental version, that is being looked into as possibly an anti-satellite weapon as well. It's not in current service.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I see some posts here, (probably made by americans) (no offence)
Whom for some reason think that the great US NAVY is indestructible.
And I say again no offence:
How did Pearl Harbour happen?

Yes I know it was a attack that started the war and they where neutral and stuff. But if people had thought that all those ships could be destroyed in one day, it would never have happened.

Deny Ignorance

Zyk

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Zykloner]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Again, you should double check those facts you're throwing around. The RIM-161A is the SM-3 and it IS active, the RIM-161B has already been fired as well. The A has been deployed on as many as 18 ships to date.

Reply to Zykloner

First off Pearl Harbor was a fleet at anchor, unprepared.

Secondly, I'm not saying that the USN is invincible by any stretch. But it's also not as easy to destroy as other people seem to think that it is.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I'm expecting it won't be long now until China is more powerful than the USA. They seem to be hanging on to their money better, and they have a huge population to pick the brightest minds from to come up with USA beating weapons. They have some pretty good spies to steal technology with too.

If USA really does have an economic crisis that lasts a few years to a decade, that could push the Chinese to a level where they are truly competitive, and if they keep going strong they way they are, I could see them taking over the role as major superpower within 20 years.

I'm just speculating of course, but I don't think it's such wild speculation anymore.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
China and the U.S won't ever tango... they need each other.... I would say a Russian war is more likely but it would be a death warrant for all of us....



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


sorry to say but pearl harbor was ALLOWED to happen...the U.S knew well in advance that it was coming.. its pretty sick.. we do have capabilities that would far outstrip Russian and Chinese technology but those guns won't ever be drawn until the fight is on



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Bummer for the boys who like to make aircraft carriers.

So, now, we can only user our carriers where they can still intimidate nations who can't build a ship killer like this. I wonder if China is going to be selling this technology to other countries?

I thought that China was building two new aircraft carriers of their own. I wonder if we have this ship killer tech?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


All this means is that the carriers have to stay farther out to sea. That's where in-flight refueling comes into play. Until the launch sites or radars are taken out by land based and naval air, then the carriers move in closer.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The Annual Magical Missile Announcement


April 3, 2009: In what has become an annual event over the last few years, there are another batch of rumors out of China that the DF-21 ballistic missile has been equipped with a high-explosive warhead and a guidance system that can find and hit a aircraft carrier at sea. The DF-21 has a range of 1800 kilometers and normally hauls a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead. It's a two stage, 15 ton, solid fuel rocket that could carry a half ton penetrating, high-explosive warhead, along with the special guidance system (a radar and image recognition system).

As the story goes, the Chinese have reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s seeker technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometer range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. This kind of accuracy made the Russians very uncomfortable, as it made their command bunkers vulnerable. The Russians eventually agreed to a lot of nuclear and missile disarmament deals in order to get the Pershings decommissioned in the 1980s.

The Chinese have long been rumored to have a system like this, but there have been no tests. If the Chinese do succeed in creating a "carrier killer" version of the DF-21, the U.S. Navy can modify its Aegis anti-missile system to protect carriers against such attacks. There are also electronic warfare options, to blind the DF-21 radar. Another problem the Chinese will have is getting a general idea of where the target carrier is before they launch the DF-21. This is not impossible, but can be difficult. But first, the Chinese have to conduct some of tests of this wondrous new weapon. So far, there have been no tests.


So, we will see i suppose.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Yea I think the age of hulking surface ships might be coming to an end. Part of me says that countermeasures will advance to the point of being able to shield the ship or deflect any weapons, other part says that a ship like a US Supercarrier is just a giant floating target.

If energy weapons are developed, and appropriate countermeasures cannot be developed (such as energy shields, etc..), you will likely see a shift in the operation of naval warfare to smaller vehicles, and vehicles that can go both above and below the waves.

Who knows, just speculating, but great article.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I think a US policy change could solve the problem.

If anyone attacks a US Carrier group with a nuclear missile, it will be seen as a direct attack on the US mainland and would be met with a massive nuclear counter-strike on the offending countries nation.

Since that would mean a probable end to the habitability of the Earth's biosphere, it would probably mean that these type of weapons would have no real tactical value.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
China and the U.S won't ever tango... they need each other.... I would say a Russian war is more likely but it would be a death warrant for all of us....


Good point.

The US and China are deep in bed they wont come to blows.

Every generation plans the next major war using the best of the last major wars technology.

Consider the battleship, It was the end all be all of WWI and when WWII broke out and it was placed in the bench warmer position behind the Carriers.

Now we have these massive floating city air forces whose time may have passed. It may not be worth all the screening vessels that are needed to keep it safe when a few well placed cruise missiles or drones could get the job done cheaper and safer launched from some other less vulnerable platform.

Stealth is the key I think mostly subs and smaller more lethal stealth surface ships.


[edit on 6-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Good at playing Battleship?

Doesn't take much brains to not send ships directly at missile systems without taking them out first...

Don't even see how this is news worthy

Really WE had the first missile that could take out any Naval centerpiece decades ago

The Nuclear Missile lol

what exactly has changed they don't need a warhead to do it, congratulations

Where is the imaginary war with China where we wont use super weapons anyway, it's not Iraq lol



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

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

Nope.

First sentence. OP.


Hooray for the Chinese, for they have developed a super cool new anti-ship ballistic missile. (ASBM)


Don't tell others to get a lesson in reading comprehension. Why don't you? Or just an Axe to grind?


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

I don't want the answer spoon fed to myself - I want logical, factual, explanations for you postings, something that is lacking. Your basic 'facts' are either incorrect, or used very selectively.


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

You'd have to be blind to miss them.


There are two main categories of Over The Horizon (OTH) radar technologies that any modern system can be classified into; OTH-B (backscatter) that operate in the 5 to 28mhz range, the signal is reflected off of the Earths ionosphere, usually in order to have a very, very long range, usually in the order of 3000 kilometres. The drawback with these radars is a VERY large blind area. The second kind of OTH radar is OTH-SW which diffract radar waves along the surface of the Ocean, and beyond the radar horizon.

I would recommend actually reading the basics of such systems.



Considering the 2,000km range, that would require a very alert Carrier Group escort to be able to detect the launch vessel and have time to destroy it before it released the missile, considering it would be out of range of radar, and even screening air patrols unless they came incredibly close to the vessel.


In any event where China is going to launch an invasion against for example, Taiwan, a single Carrier will NOT be defending lone wolf. This is not a scenario where it is a single CBG versus a very, very, powerful country; so don't insinuate so. Yep, to destroy the missiles you have to find the launchers, something the Chinese have a massive abundance of, the launchers themselves are mobile. So, yes, you're right.

However, the OTH-B systems; are not mobile. They are not in abundance, they are not mobile. They are NOT accurate enough for targetting; nor are they anything new. Many systems have been retired. Australias OTH-B radar has been claimed that the radar is accurate enough to show changes in an aircraft's flightpath when breaking for a landing at an airport. So; a radar that is bragged can even detect a turning aircraft is now used for target location with ballistic missiles? Oh, and by the way, try taking a look at the size of the arrays you are talking about...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

Because obviously kilometre long arrays can survive the United States for longer than an hour; that's the whole purpose of C4ISR and strike packages.


What Missile defence system exactly?

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

Land based PAC-3 as well as AEGIS BMD, which are always a part of a CBG. It is unknown how well these systems would stand up against the DF-21, however, it is also unknown how well the DF-21 would stand up against these systems. Anything claiming otherwise is unsubstanciated. Given ASBM has yet to be tested and thus is experimental, I might as well add any concept I might like to counter it. ABL, JSF with lasers, RAIL GUNS... ETC... it's truely absurd.


No they're not. Anti-shipping missiles are rarely, if ever deployed from fixed sites or batteries.

DF-21 is mobile, ASBM version hasn't been tested thus is neither...


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

Well unless they have many, mobile, kilometre long arrays, they are obviously isolated, and destroyed with relative ease. Given ASBM DF-21 has not been tested, a 2018 bomber could probably kick the door down easily, so to speak (So could current systems - but that's sooo less cool than some fantasy aircraft against a fantasy system
.).


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.

OOOHHH GOOOOD, you actually answered the question.


blog.huanqiu.com...

The blog basically listed 5 sources and they are: Reconnaissance Satellites, Elint satellites, OTH Radar, UAV / radio. All of which may or may not be defeated; which is exactly the point. I have said that from the outset, however it is you who seems to think a CBG is automatically dead with a system which does not exist. (Although it is unclear if you are referring to Sunburn mach 3 missiles or DF-21 which is what the topic is about.)


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.

And neither is ECM is fool proof and can be possibly be defeated through ECCM. ECM can actually alert the defender of presence and REDUCE survivability of the re-entry vehicle. Unless you can prove to me WHY Chinese ECM will defeat American ECCM, then any claims will be IGNORED.



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.

Irrelevant - we're talking about DF-21 here. And the Kh-22 can be overcome with other ways, neither is Kh-22 a Ballistic Missile, therefore it will not be overcome with ANTI BALLISIC MISSILES. There is a reason the warhead on the SM-3 is called the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile or LEAP.

Torpedoes are not shot at flying aircraft.



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

That's like saying, "It is evidently clear just how vulnerable the human body is to nuclear explosions". Without context, it's useless. Establish air superiority, and keep the carriers out of harms way until the enemies ability to launch missiles at the carrier is destroyed.

All these missile prove is that in a peacetime scenario China has the ability to take out a carrier, which is obvious given that the carriers operate in international airspace and waters; where the Chinese could destroy CBG's with freefall nuclear weapons if they wanted to. In wartime? Maybe maybe not, with missile technology.


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.

No, there are 105 AEGIS class ships, as well as land based PAC-3 which is found all over the South Korea, and Japan. I don't know why you're preaching Sunburn / ASBM will somehow save China if it is attacked by the United States (which apparently is a single CBG
). Destroy the enemies ability to find the carriers, shoot down the long ranged ballistics, while keeping away from the short ranged, mach 3 sea skimmers. I am not claiming that WILL work, but I am not claiming the opposite either.

Did it ever occur that if it looks as if there will be a war then... maybe... just MAYBE SM-3 development will be accelerated and deployed on more ships? It does not, however, look like their will be a war.


The excerpt you posted refers to a proposed increased in speed of the RIM-161.

According Rayethon the current terminal speed is Mach 1 or 600MPH. www.raytheon.com...

It says the energy is equivalent to a 10 ton truck travelling at 600mph. If I asked you, "Where does it say that?". Would that be spoon feeding information? Again, reading comprehension.


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?

...

So, it is China versus an aircraft carrier? Nice analogy!
Here's a better one, if someone is pointing a gun at you, what do you do? Try to shoot down the bullet? No, you get the best body armor possible, while trying to kill the person aiming it before they shoot, which is exactly the point.

You're making the same mistake as the Japanese and Nazi's did in World War II. Will your next post be riddled with insults; as per usual?


[edit on 7/4/2009 by C0bzz]




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join