Chinese Missile Could Shift Pacific Power Balance

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By ERIC TALMADGE (AP)

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON — Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.

China may soon put an end to that.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea.

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hjjPjsk5XNErhKx86d7iHle8R1uwD9HD98S00

[hack89]

1. Of course finding the carriers at sea might be somewhat problematic. nt

[Posteritatis]

3. I imagine putting one through a point defense screen would be nontrivial, too. (nt)

[on point]

6. Not really

Carriers tend to be pretty obvious from space. They leave a nice big wake and have a big heat signature.

[hack89]

8. Except satellites can't detect carriers (or other moving objects) from space

it's called field of view - it is like looking for a grain of sand in your backyard looking through a soda straw.

Satellites are referred to as cued sensors - they have to be given a precise set of coordinates to aim their sensors. They are not search platforms.

[Aristophrenia]

13. Keep believing that -

They can read your watch.

[hack89]

15. Only when they know exactly where my watch is

someone has to tell them where I am first. "Field of view" - that's the key concept. The ocean is huge and the field of view (FOV) of a satellite is tiny - your post is a good example. If they could read my watch then the FOV would be about 6 inches. Now tell me how practical it is to search the Pacific Ocean in 6 inch sections? Is it clearer now?

[Grinchie]

27. Are your really that stupid?

Like FOV is the only thing used to target the Keyhole..

Give me a break.

[hack89]

40. No - I won't give you a break

cut the BS insults and explain exactly how it works.

Your question "Like FOV is the only thing used to target the Keyhole.." makes it very clear you have no idea what you are talking about. FOV is a limitation on the sensor.

[Arctic Dave]

17. Your kidding right?

Carrier groups give off a HUGE electronic signature. Plus tracking thirteen or more ships that can only move so far, so fast is not a hard task to do with modern satellite tracking.

[hack89]

20. Are you familiar with the concept of EMCON?

during the Cold War we would routinely run strike groups across the ocean in total electronic silence just to fuck with the Soviets. We would light off when they started to panic to prevent them from doing something rash.

Modern satellite systems are not like Hollywood movies - they still have to obey the laws of physics. The field of view is the big one - toss in bad weather, night time, predicable satellite orbits and tracks and it becomes clear why they are poor large area search sensors.

[Arctic Dave]

23. I think you over estimate the cat and mouse game you are referring to.

Funny how the Russians were able to find a single Destroyer(the ship I was stationed on) in the entire Pacific Ocean. Either that or they are really, really lucky. As for field of vision, old fashion radar is able to view over the horizon, has been able for decades

[hack89]

25. Radar has very limited range

especially when you are talking about targeting for ballistic missiles 15 miles max from land or a ship, perhaps 200 miles from a plane. The carriers can operate well out of radar range of China and any ships or planes searching for the carriers wouldn't survive long enough to get within range.

[Grinchie]

28. Yeah, like the old TU-95 cant fly for 34 hours straight either

[Pavulon]

2. Sinking a carrier with a ballistic missile would be the first act in a nuclear war.

a ballistic missile heading towards a us carrier group would illicit a counter launch. It would be assumed nuclear armed.

[bossy22]

14. exactly

there are really no known reliable ways to determine whether the ballistic missle is nuclear or conventional (without being the one firing it). Thats why the U.S. gave up conventually tipped ICBMs; russia warned that it could start a nuclear since other countries have no way of telling whether its nuclear or not.

Plus this wouldnt be the first time that the chinese military used propaganda to "scare" their enemies.

[AngryAmish]

35. Let me third this

This thing is essentially a Pershing missile aimed at a carrier group. In fact it would be dumb not to put a nuke on this because you might as well wipe out the carrier group surface ships since a nuke from a sub is coming right back atcha.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Helping maintain an even balance

is always good.

[Purveyor]

5. I tend to agree with you on this. eom

[Hosnon]

7. I agree. But I admit I'd prefer it to be 51-49 in our favor.

:evilgrin:

[hack89]

9. Except if you live on Taiwan perhaps. nt

[Lightning Count]

10. Would you like an even balance with Hitler?

Sometimes having an advantage is not that bad. You can be sure the Chinese are not interested in balance.

[daleo]

26. Are the Chinese equvalent to Hitler? n/t

[bossy22]

12. not when it comes to the military...

remember, military parity (or percieved) lead to world war 1 and world war 2. Sometimes its good to have an adult in the room when two 10 year olds start fighting

[dipsydoodle]

18. And the USA is the adult ?

:rofl:

[spin]

11. One of the big mistakes is fighting the last war ...

technology always advances.

Carriers will eventually go the way of battleships.

If you remain entrenched in the past, your opponent might just run right over you. History provides many such lessons, for example the Maginot Line which the Germans overran in WII.

[hack89]

16. Or the balance will shift back to the defense

or an offensive weapon will be developed to destroy the missiles before launch. Or electronic means of preventing targeting will be developed.

People have been writing off carriers for a very long time yet here we are.

[Lightning Count]

19. The Super Dimensional Fortress is right around the corner...

[hack89]

21. Cool. nt

[Grinchie]

29. Yeah, Cool.. You pay for it.. I don't need it.

[hack89]

34. You do understand it is a joke, don't you? nt

[spin]

22. True, it always goes back and forth ...

between offense and defense. First one has the edge, than the other.

The problem is that in the current age, it takes a while to develop a defense for a carrier to thwart a new threat. With all the wars we have been fighting in recent years, will we fund the research?

Our technology is far better than the current Chinese technology, but the balance could shift quickly. Hopefully, we have already realized the threat and new defensive system are under development.

And since I don't have the necessary clearances to know, we may already be able to defend against any threat the Chinese have.

But eventually, carriers may be obsolete. We need to plan for such a future time. It is possible that the future lies in long range unmanned aircraft. You can produce a bunch of them for the cost of a carrier.

[Grinchie]

30. All this shit is obsolete, you guys are just having a wet dream about Heavy Metal

This shit is irrelevant when you're dead.

[armodem08]

24. Oh, they need more toys...

Seriously, the defense contractors must pay someone to put these stories in the media. If I remember correctly, the same was said of an Iranian missile about 6 months ago. And what came of that? Nothing. I'll be setting a reminder for around 6 months from now, when Russia or whoever we're wrestling for global supremacy has a new "game changing" missile...

[Grinchie]

31. Actually, they Photoshop'ed those with the Clone Tool..

The Iranian Missiles were not real (except for 1), but boy did it make a big impression on the gullible idiots that love the idea of another war with Iran!

The defnse contractors don't need to pay anyone for these stories, simply because they employ so many pathetic rats in the rat maze, willing to promote war instead of Peace, which is much too scary for their business model.

Plus, they are the bottomless pit where all the funny money the federal reserve prints goes when Inflation problems arise. Ho perfect.. No Accountability, no return on investment, and a perpetualt economic depletion to fix the problems of Fiat Monetery System..

Isn't it great?!

[Blue_Tires]

41. exactly....

[David__77]

32. Such a thing would be a move for peace.

China's influence is a force for peace and stability in the east, and globally. US hegemony must not and cannot persist.

[Lightning Count]

36. Or at least a source of unseen levels of pollution. nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

33. Thanks to all the money they get from selling us beads...

and other trinkets.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. UFOS Could Shift EARTHS Power Balance says military

I bet that's the next headline and boogieman.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. US has Anti-Ballistic Missile Ships

I would expect this will cause the construction and/or conversion of additional Aegis ships to be equipped with the Anti-Ballistic missile variant.

[brandus01]

39. not invincible

a Chinese diesel sub surfaced undetected within striking distance of a carrier a few years ago. a carrier group is not as invincible as they'd like you to believe. they're more like 50 billion dollar floating target for subs.

[Prometheus Bound]

42. Then there's the old N Korean sub that allegedly slipped under US and S Korea forces sinking a ship

during naval exercises no less.