New Chinese Missile Can Destroy US Supercarrier in One Go

Here is a interesting pic from Rand Study: Air Combat Past, Present and Future





And here is the range of the chinese Over the Horizon Radar

news flash old American bomb can kill 90,000–166,000 in one go.

It's no surprise that the Chinese want to exert their influence in the Pacific as the Japanese once did during the Second World War. The only obstacle is the United States and its naval presence in the Pacific. I read in a military publication awhile back that the Soviet Union tried to develop a "carrier killer," some thirty years ago, but couldn't get it to work right. So, apparently the Chinese have been able to use what the Soviets tried to do and make their weapons platform operational with the help of the US and their interest payments.

Talk about "robbing Peter to pay Paul!" The US/China relationship makes strange bedfellows. I just read an article about the the vulnerability of aircraft carriers to surface to air missiles and torpedoes. I have always been led to believe that the seas have been an open playground for the United States Navy since the end of World War II, however, this article begs to differ. Apparently, many of weapons platforms that can sink aircraft carriers. . .

Bottom line, if we get into any kind of serious beef with ANY country
that has a decent arsenal of these weapons, our aircraft carriers will
most likely be destroyed and sunk within minutes. They’re just too
big, too slow, and too visible to survive, even with all their onboard
and offboard networked defenses. The fact is that high-speed,
sophisticated precision anti-ship weapons technology is cheaper and
can therefore outpace our ability to protect our big, slow carriers.
In the end, war is a financial transaction. Russian helicopters cost
a lot more to produce, field and replace than Stinger missiles, and
U.S. Aircraft carriers cost A LOT more to produce, field and replace
than even the most sophisticated anti-ship weapons.

www.defensereview.com...

The entire article was an eye opener, and apparently, the twilight has come for the aircraft and its operational effectiveness. That is even after the Navy unveils their new carrier platform with the (CVN-21). I have had the privilege of serving on one of the vessels, and I must say, they are a sight to see in action. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that it would become a floating bulls-eye in the center of a battle-group formation, but I was wrong.

However, if one is sunk it would be devastating to the aggressor as well, and may garner a nuclear attack in response? It is just to costly to lose one and I can see the aforementioned response as plausible. If it does happen, it will begin domino affect leading to full-scale nuclear war. In essense, the feared "Pandora's Box, " would be opened. Here is a quote from the article, that sums up the surface capabilities of the Navy in the the modern age by a sub-commander . . .

A very wise U.S. submarine commander once said "There are two kinds of
ships in the US Navy: subs and targets."

www.defensereview.com...

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

After some time spent on Google Earth examining the Iranian coastline and its islands in the Gulf.. like Kish island and the ones south of it.... you may find evidence that your statement may no longer be true.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by seataka]

I don't know if this has been said, but that missile would never make it to even hit the carrier...carriers don't travel alone, and it's not like they don't know how to shoot down a missile.

reply to post by yellowcard


Well the problem is that if they make the missile have an unpredictable flight path then it's going to be hard to shoot down. It only makes it harder to shoot down if the missile is flying at vary high speeds.

I would imagine that the US would have to use some sort of laser system to counter the next generation of weapons.

I am sure that none of this really matters at the moment because MAD is still in effect. The only thing that's will decrease the effectiveness of MAD is the missile shield; that's what Russia is upset about.

Here is an update to this story....

reply to post by audas


Where??? No update on your post?

reply to post by freetree64


i think that poster wanted to post the article below but forgot to put in the link.

China is "developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile designed specifically to target aircraft carriers," Adm. Willard said in his prepared statement.

The Washington Times

DF-21 Specifications:

Official name: DongFeng 21 (DF-21)
NATO reporting name: CSS-5
Contractor: CASIC 4th Academy
Service status: In service
Configuration: Two-stage, solid propellant
Deployment: Road mobile, 6X6 tractor truck + six-wheel trailer; or silo
Length: 10.7m
Diameter: 1.4m
Launch weight: 14,700kg
Range: 1,770km
Re-entry vehicle mass: 600kg
Warhead: One single 500kT yield, or conventional
Guidance: Inertial + terminal radar guidance
Accuracy: CEP 300~400m

DF-21

[edit on 3.29.10 by toreishi]