Yahoo: Chinese "Carrier Killer" could shift Pacific power balance

[HailGreen28]

I think that both China and India would like it if the US wasn't the dominant naval power in the Indian Ocean. They'd like to fill that role, instead.

I don't think this new Chinese IRBM would be a factor in any Indian Ocean conflict. It's strictly to give them an option against our warships, if things in Taiwan or Korea heat up.

The Indian Ocean situation is interesting. India is building it's navy. China is becoming more dependent on shipping lanes from the ME through Indonesia. And piracy is still a huge problem in the Malaysian straits. There haven't been hostilities between India and China since 1962, but I wouldn't be surprised if China started building a decent surface force to protect its interests there; its shipping.

[zoony]

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

The US (IMO) has never had the ability to take territory away from China. (Without nuclear weapons.)

Yes, if the US and China were to fight a war over who's going to control, say, Saudi Arabia, then the US would certainly have a chance at "winning a war against China".

But my post was in response to the claim that China is simply attempting to defend itself against the US.

I think you're over-estimating the political stability of China.

The communists still control it all, despite a magnificent world-pr campaign. It really is still the haves and the have nots. Civil liberties and freedoms in China still suck.

It wouldn't take much, say a small bombing campaign, for 1 billion Chinese to ponder the question... "should we just kill these tyrannical commy ****s and let the US install a democracy?"

...

[Monte51Coleman]

My favorite sentence:

"The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment."

[nonniey]

And this matters because....?

You'll need to go back and follow the conversation. Bottomlime the US is capable of defeating the Chinese, for now at least.

[aREDSKIN]

Her's a good analysis. Of course I have no idea of the accuracy of this but it sounds plausible.

Well we already had a problem with the air/sea fired KSH-55 Sunburn which flew wavetop then hit at Mach 2+ giving our point defense weapon 2.5 seconds for a hit, which coincidentally was less than the time required to sense, target and fire, by the Phalanx. The Sunburn is fielded by Russia, China and we believe, Iran. Sweet, right?

Our response was to mount a high powered SeaRam system....One has to do some digging to find out how effective the system is. Raytheon isn't really saying much about it's performance, but I've managed to dig up some info.

"In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."

"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%"

The SeaRAM is a drop in replacement for the Phalanx system. The RAM missle itself is a mach 2, second generation derivative of the Sidewinder and Stinger missles. It features BOTH infrared and radar based target tracking, allowing for use against future low radar cross section (stealthy) anti-ship missles. The effective range of the RAM missile is 11 miles. The CIWS part of the SeaRAM can track multiple targets and fire multiple missles at a single target. Each SeaRAM platform holds 11 RAM missiles.OKAY?

This threat is not going to be much faster at interception ranges, should be defensible by Aegis at longer ranges, and as a ballistic missile, even maneuverable and fired in a depressed trajectory won't be nearly as agile as the Sunburn. If the Aegis cannot defend at longer ranges than point defense, we have a much larger problem than carriers, and it's time for, and no excuses ..SPACE BASED DEFENSE

The Information and Dissemination blog puts it this way:

I think that in times of war, they would launch many micro-EO satellites that have short duration to increase reconnaissance in the area approaching Taiwan. Similar to US, they would have HALE UAVs to do advanced scouting in front of the war zone. The OTH radar will give the base initial idea of incoming fleet. This information would be combined with data of the recon satellites to provide a more precise and more accurate targeting data. The missile would be launched to the estimated position based on initial position + velocity, but this would obviously be off. Although, I think the movement of the carrier group will not be overwhelming. If the target is 2000 km away and the missile is traveling at mach 10 (343 * 3.6 * 10 = 10,000+ km/h) , it would get there in less than 12 minutes. During that time, if the fleet moves at 30 knots, it would move at most 6 knots or around 11 km from the original location. Still, if we add this to the initial precision problems of OTH radar + EO satellite, this could still cause the fleet to be outside the scanning area of the ASBM. In the cruising process, the missile would have to continuously communicate with the base through those new Data relay satellites (like TianLian-1 that they launched recently) to get more improve the precision. The ASBM will also likely veer off the path at this time, so it would need communication with Beidou-2 constellation in order to keep it on track. When it gets close to the target, the blog talked about 3 phases in its attack: high altitude guidance, high altitude gliding and low altitude guidance. I'm really not sure how accurate is the blog's description of the process. Its general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/03/china-perfects-ballistic-missile-to.html

[Thiebear]

any country could attack the United States once..

Then we would swoop in and rebuild their water, electricity, schools and defense.

Probably funnel billions in money that would just disappear into their economy.

Boy would they regret it.

[Hubbs]

It wouldn't take much, say a small bombing campaign, for 1 billion Chinese to ponder the question... "should we just kill these tyrannical commy ****s and let the US install a democracy?"

Yeah, that seems to be working out real well for us elsewhere.

You'll need to go back and follow the conversation. Bottomlime the US is capable of defeating the Chinese, for now at least.

Is the US capable of winning a naval war against the Chinese? Laughably so.

Is the US capable of defending Taiwan from the Chinese? Almost definitely. I can come up with a few ways for China to attack that I like to think are clever (and I mean that I like thinking that I'm clever, not that I like the possibility of us failing), but I'm sure the Pentagon has prepared for thousands of scenarios. This is likely an irrelevant topic anyway, as China has been in the process of economically assimilating Taiwan for a while now, and despite those on the island who fervently support independence, we've seen this movie before under its original title: Hong Kong.

Is the US capable of destroying mainland Chinese assets with airstrikes and missiles? Absolutely.

Is the US capable of actually occupying part of the Chinese mainland? Not bloody likely.

[commyderm2]

Meanwhile, all of our defense resources are going toward chasing around bandits, thugs, and religious extremists in caves.. going to war with a country with no opening plan, no midgame strategy and no exit strategy for no reason.. developing plans to go to war with another developing third world middle eastern nation.. using our military for R&D expeditions.. Providing defense for Japan, Taiwan, Iraq, Isreal, North Korea, Palistine, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc,..

Meanwhile in reality world.. countries like China.. you know, real countries with real money and real resources, are getting ready to dispel us from their region and dominate that part of the globe both militaristicly and economically.. Why are they able to do this?? because this government is embracing their totalitarianism, protectionism, and communism with open arms..

Then everybody wonders how 911 happens.. why do we have more resources going toward defense then most of the rest of the world combined and we can't even defend ourselves against a dozen or so foreign terrorists? Not only are morons and crooks running this country into the ground but idiots allow them to by just blaming the other party for the same crimes their party are committing too..

[Larry]

Wow.

That's the level of stunning coherency that I usually associate with (one of the board's noted conservatives).

[afkidd]

Pretty sure the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier will have something for this type of threat.

[aszumilo]

Yeah, this is basically what I was thinking...but chain guns intercepting a missile? Isn't that like throwing rocks at a 90 mph fast ball?

I worked on one of those "chain guns" when I was in the Navy. It was called the Phalanx Close In Weapons System, CIWS for short. It fires a depleted uranium or tungsten slug, weighing just over 1000 grains. It fires at a rate of over 3000 rounds per minute, depending on the mod of the system it can be over 4000 per minute. More than enough to bring a missile down and highly accurate, as it tracks the inbound target and the outbound rounds and lines them up.

In addition to that system, Carriers also have the NATO Sea Sparrow anti-air missile defense system. Not to mention, the escort ships such as the Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers. These ships can track a target several hundred miles out and launch an SM-2 interceptor missile to take it out, way before it would ever be a threat to the Carrier. They would have to fire several missiles to become a real threat and the Aegis system can track a high number of targets simultaneously.

Carriers are very rarely on their own out at sea. They will almost always have several escort ships with them.

Even with this "new" advanced missile the Chinese have, I am certain we knew about it before it was announced to the world and have contingency plans for it.

[DjTj]

Yeah, that seems to be working out real well for us elsewhere.

The same reasons that make it difficult for the US to impose democracy on Iraq or Afghanistan will make it difficult for China to impose their rule over Taiwan.

This is likely an irrelevant topic anyway, as China has been in the process of economically assimilating Taiwan for a while now, and despite those on the island who fervently support independence, we've seen this movie before under its original title: Hong Kong.

Taiwan is fundamentally different from Hong Kong. Hong Kong always accepted its fate at the end of its 99-year lease, and they never made serious military plans to resist a Chinese takeover. They traded British rule for Chinese rule, but they never really had self-rule as Taiwan enjoys.

Taiwan has mandatory military service for all adult males, and its entire populace has been educated to fervently hate the Communists and to prepare to resist an invasion.

A vast majority of the population in Taiwan has no real ties to the mainland. While a number of Chinese came to Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War, more than 80% of the population is descended from those who immigrated to Taiwan more than 400 years ago after the fall of the Ming Dynasty. Their ancestors expelled the Dutch from Taiwan, and then they formed the core of the resistance against the Qing Dynasty. Centuries later, they resisted Japanese occupation. After Chiang Kai-Shek arrived, they resisted Nationalist rule. The Taiwanese will not go quietly in the face of Chinese rule in the same way that Hong Kong has.

The residents of Hong Kong always considered themselves Chinese (they certainly didn't think of themselves as British), and they never believed they could effectively resist Chinese rule. Taiwan is different. A majority of Taiwanese identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese, and they have fought much longer odds against the Japanese and against Chiang Kai-Shek.

Hong Kong did not have its own military, and Hong Kong shares a land border with China. 100 miles separate Taiwan from China, and that buffer provides more than enough time for Japan or the United States to support Taiwan in defense of any invasion.

The economic ties between China and Taiwan will get stronger over time, but that is not going to change the political identity of the Taiwanese people. If China took Taiwan by force, they would be facing a decades-long guerrilla resistance.

Unification is certainly a possibility, but it would have to come on clearly negotiated terms with the support of Taiwan's people and her legislature. It will not come easily through military conflict, and it will not occur by fiat as has happened in Hong Kong.

[Hubbs]

The same reasons that make it difficult for the US to impose democracy on Iraq or Afghanistan will make it difficult for China to impose their rule over Taiwan.

Didn't say "impose".

Unification is certainly a possibility, but it would have to come on clearly negotiated terms with the support of Taiwan's people and her legislature.

Yup.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

I worked on one of those "chain guns" when I was in the Navy. It was called the Phalanx Close In Weapons System, CIWS for short. It fires a depleted uranium or tungsten slug, weighing just over 1000 grains. It fires at a rate of over 3000 rounds per minute, depending on the mod of the system it can be over 4000 per minute. More than enough to bring a missile down and highly accurate, as it tracks the inbound target and the outbound rounds and lines them up.

In addition to that system, Carriers also have the NATO Sea Sparrow anti-air missile defense system. Not to mention, the escort ships such as the Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers. These ships can track a target several hundred miles out and launch an SM-2 interceptor missile to take it out, way before it would ever be a threat to the Carrier. They would have to fire several missiles to become a real threat and the Aegis system can track a high number of targets simultaneously.

Carriers are very rarely on their own out at sea. They will almost always have several escort ships with them.

Even with this "new" advanced missile the Chinese have, I am certain we knew about it before it was announced to the world and have contingency plans for it.

Thanks for the great response, good stuff. I wasn't thinking of the multi barrel 20mm for some reason.

When is it alright for a carrier NOT to have an escort? I was always under the impression they had at least a few battle cruisers around them at all times.

[Larry]

When is it alright for a carrier NOT to have an escort? I was always under the impression they had at least a few battle cruisers around them at all times.

Me, I came to the conclusion decades ago that the US Navy has three kinds of ships:

Submarines.

Carriers

Ships that protect carriers.

[aszumilo]

Thanks for the great response, good stuff. I wasn't thinking of the multi barrel 20mm for some reason.

When is it alright for a carrier NOT to have an escort? I was always under the impression they had at least a few battle cruisers around them at all times.

Usually the only time a carrier will be out by itself is in territorial watersof the U.S. This way it is still under protection from shore based fighter squadrons and other surface vessels. While technically out by itself, it never really is, since there are always ships moving in and out of port and out doing their training also.

[aszumilo]

Me, I came to the conclusion decades ago that the US Navy has three kinds of ships:

Submarines.

Carriers

Ships that protect carriers.

A submarine is not a ship, they are called boats. And there are also Cruiser Battle Groups, that do not have a Carrier, so not all ships protect carriers all the time.

[Hubbs]

A submarine is not a ship, they are called boats. And there are also Cruiser Battle Groups, that do not have a Carrier, so not all ships protect carriers all the time.

You're thinking way, way too hard about this.

[twa]

You're thinking way, way too hard about this.

If he is a ex sailor he is not thinking,simply responding by rote;)

[visionary]

The same reasons that make it difficult for the US to impose democracy on Iraq or Afghanistan will make it difficult for China to impose their rule over Taiwan.

Taiwan is fundamentally different from Hong Kong. Hong Kong always accepted its fate at the end of its 99-year lease, and they never made serious military plans to resist a Chinese takeover. They traded British rule for Chinese rule, but they never really had self-rule as Taiwan enjoys.

Isn't Hong Kong a semi-autonomous capitalist city though?

I don't think they're really all that controlled by the mainland except officially.

(I don't really see how they could be, with their long capitalist history anyway)

[aszumilo]

If he is a ex sailor he is not thinking,simply responding by rote;)

I am an Ex-Sailor. I worked on several weapons systems while I served. There is no over thinking involved. Ask almost any submariner, they will tell you it is a boat.

How about you? Seems to be a bit of not thinking on your part.

[twa]

I am an Ex-Sailor. I worked on several weapons systems while I served. There is no over thinking involved. Ask almost any submariner, they will tell you it is a boat.

How about you? Seems to be a bit of not thinking on your part.

Strictly civilian myself,though you could say I have had a bit of interaction. blue water ain't for me

Lessons learned well are never forgotten

My daughter will be on Ike once it returns

[DjTj]

Isn't Hong Kong a semi-autonomous capitalist city though?

I don't think they're really all that controlled by the mainland except officially.

(I don't really see how they could be, with their long capitalist history anyway)

China allows pretty broad economic flexibility to Hong Kong as it does to most of its big cities. Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzen are pretty much capitalist cities as well.

There is more political freedom, and a much more open press, in Hong Kong, but they still don't elect the majority of their leaders:

Hong Kong's current leader was chosen by an exclusive committee stacked with Beijing's allies, and only half of the territory's 60 legislators are elected, with the rest picked by special interest groups.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-01-01-hong-kong-democracy_N.htm

In some ways, the fact that Taiwan remains independent forces China to be a little gentle in how it treats Hong Kong. The Taiwanese will never agree to unification if they see Hong Kong getting really screwed.

[Larry]

Hong Kong's current leader was chosen by an exclusive committee stacked with Beijing's allies, and only half of the territory's 60 legislators are elected, with the rest picked by special interest groups.

Gee, all of ours are.

[Raub]

We already have frickin laser beams.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-07-18-laser-drones_N.htm?csp=outbrain&csp=obnetwork

Naval laser test blasts drones from the sky

The range distance of the tests lasers is a Navy secret, but Defense Industry Daily in 2007 reported their reach would be three times farther than the 20-millimeter "Gatling" guns now mounted on Navy ships to defend against airborne threats.