Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

[FunkMonk]

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy...the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

http://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp and http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964

The second link is particularly informational.
If this weapon is indeed operational and deployed in large numbers, what are the implications for the US Navy? Will an entirely new fleet be needed? A change in strategy? Or will it develop a new defensive system (like say... ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS?) that will negate this advantage. Also the latter link points out that even if China and the US don't come to blows over Taiwan or something else, this technology would eventually be picked up by lesser powers, perhaps rogue states/actors that are commonly in opposition to the US. Thoughts? Questions/answers? Bueller?

[Ed Anger]

Oh boy, another third world super weapon. Color me not convinced.

[FunkMonk]

Oh boy, another third world super weapon. Color me not convinced.

Normally I'd agree with you. Vengeance Weapon?!?! LOLZ WHUTEVA

But the USN seems to be taking this quite seriously, so there may be something there. Even if it's not 100% operational now, in ten years something like this would be very formidable if effective counter-measures aren't taken.

[Ed Anger]

This is why foreigners shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[FunkMonk]

This is why foreigners shouldn't be allowed to exist.

They're smarter than us and there are a lot more of them. 

[The Brain]

How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?

[grumbler]

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy...the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

http://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp and http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964

The second link is particularly informational. 

If by "particularly informational" you mean LOL FUNNAY I agree.  "Panic inside the bubble" is particularly hilarious scaremongering.

If this weapon is indeed operational and deployed in large numbers, what are the implications for the US Navy? Will an entirely new fleet be needed? A change in strategy? Or will it develop a new defensive system (like say... ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS?) that will negate this advantage. Also the latter link points out that even if China and the US don't come to blows over Taiwan or something else, this technology would eventually be picked up by lesser powers, perhaps rogue states/actors that are commonly in opposition to the US. Thoughts? Questions/answers? Bueller?

The mere existance of a warhead and the thrust and guidance needed to get it near a target create a capability that has to be respected, but it doesn't yield a militarily effective weapns system.  The carrier has to be detected, localized, and future position determined to within the target seeking parameters of the missible guidance system (which won't be large for a ballistic warhead, given the speeds at which it will be moving and the size/weight constraints it is under), the command and control systems have to be responsive enough to get the missile going while the data is good (something that requires a fine degree of operational art), and the system has to be able to distinguish a legitimate target in the face of jamming, spoofing, and decoys.

So, I would say that this is a threat system, but not one of such overwhelming impact as to create a "panic inside the bubble."  The USN has always been aware of the threat posed by ballistic missiles (whether with conventional or nuclear warheads) and has not to this point embarked on a crash program to counter them because the threat was never seen as sufficiently severe to justify such a program.

The idea that rogue state actors will develop the necessary C3I and operatonal art to deploy such a system anytime in the next coupla decades seems to me to be unlikely, especially when there are more cost-effective ways they can employ their resources (eg attacks in port, like that on the Cole).

[Maximus]

I thought the Aegis system had ABM capability.

[Josquius]

Japan- your friendly unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Fuck the navy. Ground based air power is the way (if we're purely talking of a real war of course. For minor beating up of 3rd world countries carriers are grand)

[FunkMonk]

So, I would say that this is a threat system, but not one of such overwhelming impact as to create a "panic inside the bubble."  The USN has always been aware of the threat posed by ballistic missiles (whether with conventional or nuclear warheads) and has not to this point embarked on a crash program to counter them because the threat was never seen as sufficiently severe to justify such a program.

The idea that rogue state actors will develop the necessary C3I and operatonal art to deploy such a system anytime in the next coupla decades seems to me to be unlikely, especially when there are more cost-effective ways they can employ their resources (eg attacks in port, like that on the Cole).

As far as "panic in the bubble", I don't know. I obviously have no insider information so I have to defer to the authorities on the issue and the people in the know.

But the mere fact the Chinese are developing a system this advanced should be cause for concern for the USN, yes? In what ways could it counter a weapon system such as this? And how expensive and scalable would it be, presuming the Chinese continually enhance this weapon system?

I generally agree with you on rogue states/actors attempting to develop such a system. Probably by the time any such state has a weapon like this at their disposal the US would have already developed effective counter-measure to it. But assuming a weapon system like this eventually is developed to a fuller potential, does it render blue-water navies obsolete? Why commit massive national treasure and resources to a project as expensive as a large navy when it is constantly under immediate threat by accurate and long-range anti-ship ballistic missles? Or more to the point, could the US develop such a weapon system itself?

These are honest questions that I'm too ignorant to answer. Indeed, one of my main objectives in posting this article was to see what you, Ank, and others had to say about this issue.

[grumbler]

I thought the Aegis system had ABM capability.

It does, but not, insofar as I know, terminal phase defense.  With the right missile, Aegis can engage ballistic missiles in the boost phase, but I don't think any of the current missiles have fuzing fast enough to engage a warhead in terminal phase (the ballistic warhead is moving so fast in terminal that by the time the interecpting missile arming system tells the intercepting missile warhead to detonate, the ballistic missile warhead is out of range).

It wuld be interesting to see if the PRC has actually "widely deployed" this system without a single test of it (of which there have been none).  If they have, then it is almost certainly because they expected the test to fail, and deployed the system purely for propoganda purposes.

[FunkMonk]

It would be interesting to see if the PRC has actually "widely deployed" this system without a single test of it (of which there have been none).  If they have, then it is almost certainly because they expected the test to fail, and deployed the system purely for propoganda purposes.

I'm inclined to agree with this, but I leave open the possibility for the future refinement of the weapon system, eventually to the point of it being effective enough that it deters US ships from operating within its range.

[grumbler]

As far as "panic in the bubble", I don't know. I obviously have no insider information so I have to defer to the authorities on the issue and the people in the know.

But the mere fact the Chinese are developing a system this advanced should be cause for concern for the USN, yes? In what ways could it counter a weapon system such as this? And how expensive and scalable would it be, presuming the Chinese continually enhance this weapon system?   

We deon't know that the Chinese are, in fact, developing such a system.  We get these "super weapon" rumoprs all the time, and they seldom (maybe never?) pan out.

I generally agree with you on rogue states/actors attempting to develop such a system. Probably by the time any such state has a weapon like this at their disposal the US would have already developed effective counter-measure to it. But assuming a weapon system like this eventually is developed to a fuller potential, does it render blue-water navies obsolete? Why commit massive national treasure and resources to a project as expensive as a large navy when it is constantly under immediate threat by accurate and long-range anti-ship ballistic missles? Or more to the point, could the US develop such a weapon system itself?

The Chinese system mimics the Pershing almost exactly, save that the Pershing had a nuclear warhead (and the radar system was for terrain mapping).  The US never deployed a conventional version of the Pershing because it was redundent and would be very expensive on a per-kill basis (having no targets as valuable as a carrier to shoot at). 

The existance of the WW2 equivelent to this system (the Betty bomber eqippped with torppedoes) did not render blue-water navies obsolete, though it did force the major navies to acknowledge that surface fleets without air cover were obsolete when withn range of Japanese LBA.

[grumbler]

I'm inclined to agree with this, but I leave open the possibility for the future refinement of the weapon system, eventually to the point of it being effective enough that it deters US ships from operating within its range.

Anything is possible, of course, but the engineering and operational barriers to the success of such a system are formidable:
(1) Developing a warhead/guidance/maneuvering package that does not significantly exceed the 600kg throw weight of the DF-21, while retaining the ability to hit a taget (guidance and maneuvering) and to hurt it once it hits (warhead, though kinetics alone is enough if guidance and maneuvering can guarantee an actual physical hit)
(2) Developing the recon capacity to detect, localize, and track carriers reliably at or near max range of the missile
(3) Developing and practicing a doctrine which allows the decision to hit the target soon enough after tracking to fire before the tracking data becomes obsolete.
(4) Practicing the doctrine enough that human error will not obviate all the technical and doctrinal development
(5) Anticipating countermeasures successfull so that the missile doesn't become obsolete before it is deployed.
(6) Developing a doctrine to allow the entire detection/control/attack system to be survivable enough to last until it is needed.

these are all non-trivial issues, and they won't be solved overnight.

[PDH]

Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions.  I think that G is arguing with himself.