Latest Chinese Missile To Target US Carriers

[satcom]

How likely would it be that China can successfully hit a Carrier? Also would the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense be able to stop one.

Thanks





http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...se_Missile_To_Target_US_Carriers160011915.php


China plans to equip its upcoming missiles with infrared technology to give them the ability to hit US warships in Asia, a Japanese newspaper said Wednesday. The upgrade is part of preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory and which has a security pact with the United States, the Sankei Shimbun said.

Citing unnamed military sources in Japan and Taiwan, the conservative newspaper said that China was developing an infrared detection system for its medium-range Dongfeng-21 missiles so they can pinpoint warships.

The upgraded Dongfeng would discourage the United States or Japan from sending in their warships equipped with the Aegis technology designed to shoot down incoming missiles, the newspaper said.

The Dongfeng-21 has a range of some 2,150 kilometers (1,350 miles). The Sankei estimated that around 100 are deployed.

Western analysts have also speculated that China is also developing a next-generation long-range Dongfeng-41 capable of hitting the US mainland.

Beijing has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan, where nationalists fled in 1949 after losing the civil war to Mao Zedong's communists, if the island declares formal independence.

The United States and Japan in a first-of-a-kind statement in February 2005 declared that a peaceful resolution of Taiwan Strait issues was a common strategic objective of the Pacific allies.

 

[contedicavour]

That's precisely what the SM-3 is for isn't it ? ATBM...

Japan is already installing it on one of its AEGIS modified Burke DDGs, and an unknown number of Ticonderoga and Burke CG/DDGs have SM-3s aboard.

With such a system I doubt there's anything China can get through. At least for now and for some time.

cheers

 

[Tasman]

That's precisely what the SM-3 is for isn't it ? ATBM...

Japan is already installing it on one of its AEGIS modified Burke DDGs, and an unknown number of Ticonderoga and Burke CG/DDGs have SM-3s aboard.

With such a system I doubt there's anything China can get through. At least for now and for some time.

cheers

I agree with what you say although I suspect that nothing can provide a 100% guarantee that nothing will get through.

I don't understand why the article suggests that the USA and Japan will be discouraged from sending in AEGIS equipped ships. I would have thought that the presence of the new missile would encourage them to actually send in more AEGIS ships equipped with SM-3!

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

I agree with what you say although I suspect that nothing can provide a 100% guarantee that nothing will get through.

I don't understand why the article suggests that the USA and Japan will be discouraged from sending in AEGIS equipped ships. I would have thought that the presence of the new missile would encourage them to actually send in more AEGIS ships equipped with SM-3!

Cheers

The writer probably meant to say that dongfeng will discourage the US from sending aircraft carriers in the line of fire as Clinton did in the '90s (between Taiwan and China).
Though such Dongfeng deployments will only encourage the US to supply Taiwan with more PAC-3 and SM-2s for the 4 Kidds. May be even Ticonderoga with AEGIS (the first ships which have been deleted by the USN)

cheers

 

[harryriedl]

i don't think anyone would want an early tico as they have been beaten up and did the majority of the Atlantic cruises and quite a few have warped hulls and are tired ships and would be to much of a pain to return to services

 

[AegisFC]

The writer probably meant to say that dongfeng will discourage the US from sending aircraft carriers in the line of fire as Clinton did in the '90s (between Taiwan and China).
Though such Dongfeng deployments will only encourage the US to supply Taiwan with more PAC-3 and SM-2s for the 4 Kidds. May be even Ticonderoga with AEGIS (the first ships which have been deleted by the USN)

cheers

Taiwan will not be getting Aegis and they will not be getting the old Tico's. The Valley Forge is at the bottom of the ocean and the others are either going to share its fate or continue to be spare parts bins for the rest of the CG's.

 

[Galrahn]

The number of SM-3 enabled ABM AEGIS ships in the US Navy arsenal will be 18 by 2010. The current number is 16 able to track. with 6 able to deploy. 3 Cruisers and 13 destroyers so far have been announced to carry the ABM capability.

All 16 ships include the 13 Flight I and Flight II DDGs in the Pacific fleet, plus the Lake Erie, Shiloh, and Port Royal, also in the Pacific.

 

[contedicavour]

The number of SM-3 enabled ABM AEGIS ships in the US Navy arsenal will be 18 by 2010. The current number is 16 able to track. with 6 able to deploy. 3 Cruisers and 13 destroyers so far have been announced to carry the ABM capability.

All 16 ships include the 13 Flight I and Flight II DDGs in the Pacific fleet, plus the Lake Erie, Shiloh, and Port Royal, also in the Pacific.

Wow thanks very interesting I didn't have data on this.
It is interesting you are anticipating dangers coming from Asia (since deployed ships all belong to the Pacific fleet) but not from elsewhere. Unless the new ATBM SAMs being installed in Eastern Europe cover the Atlantic side.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Taiwan will not be getting Aegis and they will not be getting the old Tico's. The Valley Forge is at the bottom of the ocean and the others are either going to share its fate or continue to be spare parts bins for the rest of the CG's.

With Japan and South Korea having Aegis systems aboard their DDGs, Taiwan must be itching to have its own... which btw was planned on a follow on to locally built OHP FFGs but never materialized.

cheers

 

[AegisFC]

The number of SM-3 enabled ABM AEGIS ships in the US Navy arsenal will be 18 by 2010. The current number is 16 able to track. with 6 able to deploy. 3 Cruisers and 13 destroyers so far have been announced to carry the ABM capability.

All 16 ships include the 13 Flight I and Flight II DDGs in the Pacific fleet, plus the Lake Erie, Shiloh, and Port Royal, also in the Pacific.

Any BL4 or above US Aegis ship can track, but they will not be in a tactical configuration. The ones you mentioned can track and maintain the ability to defend themselves and protect other assets.

It is interesting you are anticipating dangers coming from Asia (since deployed ships all belong to the Pacific fleet) but not from elsewhere. Unless the new ATBM SAMs being installed in Eastern Europe cover the Atlantic side

The test range is in Hawaii so that may have somthing to do with what ships are upgraded first.

With Japan and South Korea having Aegis systems aboard their DDGs, Taiwan must be itching to have its own... which btw was planned on a follow on to locally built OHP FFGs but never materialized.

At one time Taiwan wanted to buy brand new Burkes (FL I's I think) but the US didn't like that idea.
Everything I've read about the mini-Aegis OHP's was that they were supposed to have some kind of Hughes developed system that wasn't quite Aegis but was better than NTU.

 

[Galrahn]

Aegis is right on, the Pacific fleet is the main hub for ABM converting because the facilities are there.

One thing though, only the 3.6 version of the AEGIS software can track and engage both ballistic missiles and conventional missile systems. Not all AEGIS DDGs have converted to 3.6 version yet.

Additionally, the BL4+ can only detect, tracking is a bit of a stretch, and it can't provide targeting information to a shooter even if the BL4 ship has CEC.

But there is another reason as well. The longest possible attack axis, unless someone in Europe is going to attack the United States, would be from the Atlantic. Russia, as an example, would strike over the northern pole axis, not the Atlantic axis, so a bunch of missile defense ships in the Atlantic would be futile.

Until someone in South America or north/east Africa arms up a nuclear ballistic missile, or Europe and the US decide to get hostile, there really isn't any reason to deploy the capability to the US east coast. A submarine launched weapon would most likely have to be defended from a land based defense platform anyway, so it is not only logistically smarter, but strategically and tactically as well, to deploy the AEGIS ABM system to the Pacific where it can forward deploy to virtually all the known 'most likely' threats, and additionally provide at-sea defense along the routes of the most likely potential aggressors (North Korea, or even China) to the United States.

 

[Dae JoYoung]

The Spaniards have Aegis-like systems, but I don't think their system is very capable. I wonder if the Taiwanese are interested in the Spaniard's?

Also, I doubt that the Taiwanese are very happy that they're not as trusted as Koreans or the Japanese for that matter, but then again, can the Taiwanese afford an Aegis ship for a billion dollars a pop?

 

[Tasman]

The Spaniards have Aegis-like systems, but I don't think their system is very capable. I wonder if the Taiwanese are interested in the Spaniard's?

Also, I doubt that the Taiwanese are very happy that they're not as trusted as Koreans or the Japanese for that matter, but then again, can the Taiwanese afford an Aegis ship for a billion dollars a pop?

The Spanish F100 class frigates are fitted with Aegis, not an "Aegis like system". For their size they are very capable ships but because they have Aegis, US permission would be needed for this class of ship to be sold to Taiwan.

Cheers

 

[metro]

Firing at a US Carrier would most likely be a military blunder that would stay near the top of the "blunder books" for a long time. If China actually it a carrier, the US would destroy "2 of China's New Carrier's." And, "sub's sink" for "various" reasons. If the US wants to go that route, several chinese subs might not surface. I'm not saying A is better than B, it's more og the law of unintended consequences.

BTW, I saw that the US has figured out the new "Rail" magnetic launchers on the Carrier being built. With no catapult, or no need to let the sytem reset, can something like a tungston rod be placed in a launcher (maybe with an adapter), and about how far could something from like 3ft be launched? I don't know the speeds air-craft need to leave the deck at?:unknown

 

[AegisFC]

Also, I doubt that the Taiwanese are very happy that they're not as trusted as Koreans or the Japanese for that matter, but then again, can the Taiwanese afford an Aegis ship for a billion dollars a pop?

They were just given 4 Kidd class DDG's at a very cheap price, which dispite not having Aegis are still pretty good AAW ships that can be upgraded in various ways to meet Taiwan's needs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

BTW, I saw that the US has figured out the new "Rail" magnetic launchers on the Carrier being built. With no catapult, or no need to let the sytem reset, can something like a tungston rod be placed in a launcher (maybe with an adapter), and about how far could something from like 3ft be launched? I don't know the speeds air-craft need to leave the deck at?:unknown

• the system still needs to reset as such - except thats more or less an issue of reload/recycle
• launching a rod as a kinetic weapon is just not useful or practical as a subset of the plane launching mechanics
• 3ft? what for? its a sling
• a rail gun launcher means that they can electrically dial up the mass quotient for each discrete winged platform. eg an optimum launch cycle could be dialed up for each platform if necessary. it also means that in absolute terms, there may not be a necessity to turn into the wind to assist in creating lift. However, going into the wind is a free assist (as such).

Its utility is going to be interesting as it changes the dynamics of operations immediately.

 

[swerve]

...Its utility is going to be interesting as it changes the dynamics of operations immediately.

Official UK sources have said that the CVFs may be fitted with EM catapults in the future, when the technology is sufficiently mature. There's been work done on it here, & the MoD has been following the progress of the US work.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Official UK sources have said that the CVFs may be fitted with EM catapults in the future, when the technology is sufficiently mature. There's been work done on it here, & the MoD has been following the progress of the US work.

Ahhhh, that explains why the whole trouble of ensuring that the CVF's have space for catapults when for now there has been no official talk of a CTOL Aircraft, equipping EM catapults when ready nice, would this be in conjunction with a UCAV buy perhaps?

 

[metro]

• the system still needs to reset as such - except thats more or less an issue of reload/recycle
  

  [*]launching a rod as a kinetic weapon is just not useful or practical as a subset of the plane launching mechanics.
  [*]3ft? what for? its a sling

  LOL! I was actually thinking of something for the x-games. A waterboard with a little magnet under it. 4 launch ramps and stick a 15yr/old kid on rail. When the air-boss has told everyone off, he can launch the kids and see who can go the furthest. IDEA (Patent Pending).
  
  I actually meant someting that is like 3M. I was thinking using something like a cruise missile (or one of those "Metal Storm Pods") which would be launched from a carrier (I just don't know the power of the launching system), and the "missile" would only need rocket fuel if the taget is out of range. Just thinking into the future, but I'm Heading torards unmaned aircraft.
  
  
  

  [*]a rail gun launcher means that they can electrically dial up the mass quotient for each discrete winged platform. eg an optimum launch cycle could be dialed up for each platform if necessary. it also means that in absolute terms, there may not be a necessity to turn into the wind to assist in creating lift. However, going into the wind is a free assist (as such).

Its utility is going to be interesting as it changes the dynamics of operations immediately.

Yeah, I think as soon as the plane hits the rail, all info about it is automatically passed through the system so that nobody screws up something like I did with ft/Mtrs, LBS/KGS. It will definitely cut down on the number of people needed on the "most dangerous street in the world."

I believe they already figured out how to get the 4 rail launchers on the Carrier. There are some pics of it (the Gerald Ford, right?). Yes the launchers are huge, but I think they got rid of all of the steam plumbing throughout the ship.

Pics (scroll down about half way for pics of Ford)
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_ships_and_subs.html

Scroll down again for the "Drones" on carriers. They say the Bids are already in.
Also, is the one Drone that is next to the F18 on the deck, lost? Or is it just going to take off backwards. Perhaps, people should still be on the ships a while longer
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_drones.html

 

[govahnator]

Metro, you are an idiot...

If the Chinese hits a U.S. carrier with that missile, it won't be the last hit. Many U.S. carriers will be simultaneously hit, obviously. Equally funny is your saying that "two Chinese carriers" and "several Chinese submarines" will sink after just one U.S. carrier is hit. That is highly doubtful considering that with all the fancy ASW capabilities the U.S. CBGs supposedly have, they could not detect Chinese submarines stalking them well within striking distance until the submarines surfaced to say: "Hey, I'm over here, doofus." Apparently, these incidents include but is not limited to the most recent one willing to be reported by certain U.S. media outlets. In an even earlier incident, a Chinese submarine surfaced to reveal itself to the U.S. carrier and disappeared again right underneath it despite efforts to track it by the U.S. side. And there were several other similar incidents like it. If the U.S. navy cannot even detect Chinese submarines now, by the time the Chinese deploy the new kind of anti-carrier missile, their newer submarines will be even harder to detect and track. If U.S. carriers are hit, it wil definitely become an all-out conflict. And in the course of an all-out conflict, if certain Chinese submarines are lost, so will submarines on the U.S. side as well, in which case the major U.S. media outlets will try to downplay it as "...there are reports that a U.S. sub may have been hit, but the reports cannot be independently confirmed...Military officials decline to comment...The U.S. military denies having any knowledge of blah blah blah...However, the U.S. military has sunk several Chinese submarines, according to U.S. officials...blah blah blah (more flag-waving)..." The U.S. military and its media cronies will at first deny and lie and use anything to prop up its Hollywood action image until such facade becomes impossible to maintain. One thing is for sure: reality won't happen like in Hollywood-made action movies or the feel-good stories as reported in the U.S. media,

Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules and learn to self moderate your posts in future