It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by KilrathiLG
not to informed on chinese missiles so i apologize if this is a well known thing but its called a anti ship BALLISTIC missile implying that on radar it would look and appear as if china has launched a possible icbm? is that not the same problem we are running into with our new hypersonic missile that is supposed to be able to strike any where on the globe but with non nuclear war heads but the problem again being russia and china might mistake it for a icbm launch so we would have to inform them beforehand and then they would have to trust us that it isnt an icbm? so i may be wrong here but would not launching what looks like a nuke in a tense situation possibly have far worse outcomes then launching say a standard anti ship missile?
China’s pursuit of an antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) has been called a potential “game changer,” a weapon that could single-handedly shift the strategic balance with the United States.
A retired U.S. Navy rear admiral asserted as early as 2005 that an ASBM capability could represent “the strategic equivalent of China’s acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964.”
Whether or not this is accurate,an effective ASBM capability would undoubtedly constitute a formidable antiaccess weapon against the U.S. Navy in the western Pacific, particularly during a conflict over Taiwan.
However, as the Chinese literature demonstrates, it would mean more than that.
Fully operational ASBM capability along with essential C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) support would be a barometer of China’s greater military modernization effort, a potential instrument for regional strategic ambitions,and perhaps an important element in tipping the long-term maritime strategic balance with respect to the United States.
China has developed a missile that would turn an aircraft carrier into a two-billion-dollar hulk of twisted metal, flame, and dead sailors. Publicly, the U.S. Navy downplays its importance. Privately, the sailors are working out several different options to kill it before it kills them.
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s top officer, explained to reporters during a Friday breakfast meeting that the Navy has ways of exploiting some of the DF-21D missile’s formidable technical capabilities, even before opening fire and praying.
As Greenert sees it, there’s a menu of options. Some involve convincing the DF-21D that the carrier is in a different place. Others involve masking the electronic emissions of the carrier. Still others are more traditional — like blasting the missile out of the salty air....
..The Navy conceded in December 2010 that the DF-21D had reached “initial operating capability.” But its intelligence chief quickly added that blowing up a carrier is still past China’s means. Hitting a moving object is difficult. Testing the thing at sea is too. Then China needs to integrate the missile into its general surface warfare plans. And after all that come the countermeasures Greenert outlined. Solving all that takes time.
And while China works on that, the Navy will continue its own development. If Greenert is freaked out by a weapon that can punch through one of the most potent symbols of American power, he’s doing a good job of hiding it in public.
The so-called DF-21D is much in the news recently, mostly because it hasn’t shown up yet. It is reputed to be the anti-ship version of China’s short-range workhorse, the DF-21. (China uses some version or other of the DF-21 for short-range ballistic missiles, anti-satellite weapons, and ballistic missile defense.) I thought I’d start the analytical discussion of this virtual missile by making some simple calculations about what sort of transverse accelerations its terminal phase guidance and control systems are going to need...
...These rather simple calculations have shown that both types of guidance and control for an anti-ship ballistic missile are possible. But both would be pushing China’s technology considerably. For instance, China can most likely build mid-infrared detectors for military space applications. These might be used for their missile defense interceptor, even though they are barely applicable for anti-satellite weapons. Could they be used for an anti-ship application? Possibly. They could certainly see through most clouds so cloud cover is not an issue. But it would take more thought than I have given it to know that it could discriminate between a ship and the ocean. Radars, which with their limited range would require aerodynamic maneuvering, seem even more problematic because of the need to control large accelerations.
So, while I cannot rule out the DF-21D on first principles, it would need a sustained test and evaluation program no matter what technology it used. I, for one, am unaware of China undertaking such an extensive test program.
Originally posted by ShadeWolf
If the Americans go to war with China, they're going to have a lot more support than ATS seems to think. First off there's India, who have been itching to kick China around lately. The Chinese know that India is the only nation that can stand up to them on pure population terms. Russia is another major player. Everyone seems to think China and Russia are all friendly all of a sudden, but that's quite wrong. After the Sino-Soviet Split, they've been eying each other across the borders.
Originally posted by travis911
On this forum and all over the net, most of China's missile forces are known by the famous, although untested, carrier killer DF-21D. China though has many missiles at its command that could do major damage to US or allied forces if a conflict occurred. One scary note, almost all US Air Bases have very little protection from a Chinese missile attack:
"The problem is, there are hardly any shelters at all at most bases in the Asia-Pacific. Kadena Air Base, for example, has a grand total of 15 shelters, enough for at most 30 fighter aircraft if you squeeze two into each. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, also on Okinawa, has no aircraft shelters. There are also no shelters at MCAS Iwakuni and Yokota Air Base on Honshu, or Andersen Air Force Base."
Originally posted by Cassius666
I think China is vastly better prepaired at fending off an invasion than say during WW II. But when it comes to force projection beyond their borders China has nothing going for them and wont for a while.