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

[FunkMonk]

We don'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.

Your skepticism prompted me to see if there really was anything to these rumors. I had a quick perusal of the DoD website.
This is from the DoD's 2008 Annual Report to Congress regarding the military power of the PRC (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html):

China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) as a component of its anti-access strategy. The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km and, when incorporated into a sophisticated command and control system, is a key component of China's anti-access strategy to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships at sea, including aircraft carriers, from great distances.

And from the 2009 Report, the one that recently caused much Chinese ire:

Analyses of current and projected force structure improvements suggest that China is seeking the capacity to hold surface ships at risk through a layered capability reaching out to the "second island chain." One area of investment involves combining conventionally-armed anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) based on the CSS-5 (DF-21) airframe, C4ISR for geo-location and tracking of targets, and onboard guidance systems for terminal homing to strike surface ships. As described in an authoritative 2004 article for the Second Artillery Corps, the ASBM could employ "terminal-sensitive penetrating sub-munitions" to "destroy the enemy's carrier-borne planes, the control tower and other easily damaged and vital positions." This capability would have particular significance, as it would provide China with preemptive and coercive options in a regional crisis.

The 2009 Report even has a graphic of a Chinese diagram translated into English for the Congressional Committee:


So there is SOMETHING there. The question is how far along it is. If the US had no reason to continue with a similar system (Pershing II) because no other nation had a large enough navy with which to contend the seas, China definitely does. The USN could be considered something of a target-rich environment for them.

[FunkMonk]

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

[Ed Anger]

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

Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.

[FunkMonk]

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

Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.

Grumbles is the Old Guard. I am the New Guard. 

[DontSayBanana]

Might be something to this; remember the Chinese buying up all those Russian radar planes a year or two ago? There's no doubt that a country with the resources China has could put out a long-range missile that can pack a heavy punch like that, so no surprises there.

That kind of long-range missile guidance needs a healthy dose of good intel, though, and that's where they should be watching for Chinese prodding.

[grumbler]

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

I still see the LoA photo and get confused myself! 

[FunkMonk]

(2) Developing the recon capacity to detect, localize, and track carriers reliably at or near max range of the missile

I think this may be the greatest hang-up and most difficult of the things you mentioned. Also, perhaps, the most vulnerable to counter-measure.

[FunkMonk]

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

I still see the LoA photo and get confused myself! 

[DontSayBanana]

I think this may be the greatest hang-up and most difficult of the things you mentioned. Also, perhaps, the most vulnerable to counter-measure.

Probably. That sounds like something we can agree on, at least.

[Ed Anger]

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

Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.

Grumbles is the Old Guard. I am the New Guard. 

Young Guard. The Garde Imperiale sneers at your mistake.

[FunkMonk]

Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.

Grumbles is the Old Guard. I am the New Guard. 

Young Guard. The Garde Imperiale sneers at your mistake.

'Young Guard' is sooo 'Old Guard'. 

[grumbler]

So there is SOMETHING there. The question is how far along it is. If the US had no reason to continue with a similar system (Pershing II) because no other nation had a large enough navy with which to contend the seas, China definitely does. The USN could be considered something of a target-rich environment for them.

I do not question the idea that the Chinese are looking to develop something like this.  I am just questioning its actual existance as an effective weapon, and noting that the USN has long considered the ASBM threat a future possibility (I worked on a study that examined a Soviet use of such weapons, albeit with nuclear warheads, back in 200BCE).  The best counter is obviously a better guidance system on the Standard Missile/SM Followon, combined with a system to counter the C3I and/or seeker.

I would also note that the CBO report indicates a soft-kill system (against the aircraft and/or command system of the carrier, not the carrier itself) which is a far cry from the "Destroy Aircraft Carriers" bit in the title.  Obviously, softkill via submunitions is a lot more feasible given throw weight constraints.

[Ed Anger]

'Young Guard' is sooo 'Old Guard'. 

You sneer at the organization of the Garde Imperiale? YOU SICKEN ME.

[grumbler]

Grumbles is the Old Guard...

Well, yes, precisely.  "Grumbler" is simply the English translation of "grognard," which is the nickname for a member of the Old Guard.  That is why I chose it.

[FunkMonk]

So there is SOMETHING there. The question is how far along it is. If the US had no reason to continue with a similar system (Pershing II) because no other nation had a large enough navy with which to contend the seas, China definitely does. The USN could be considered something of a target-rich environment for them.

I do not question the idea that the Chinese are looking to develop something like this.  I am just questioning its actual existance as an effective weapon, and noting that the USN has long considered the ASBM threat a future possibility (I worked on a study that examined a Soviet use of such weapons, albeit with nuclear warheads, back in 200BCE).  The best counter is obviously a better guidance system on the Standard Missile/SM Followon, combined with a system to counter the C3I and/or seeker.

I would also note that the CBO report indicates a soft-kill system (against the aircraft and/or command system of the carrier, not the carrier itself) which is a far cry from the "Destroy Aircraft Carriers" bit in the title.  Obviously, softkill via submunitions is a lot more feasible given throw weight constraints.

We agree and I am now filled with knowledge on this subject. 

Also,  @

I worked on a study that examined a Soviet use of such weapons, albeit with nuclear warheads, back in 200BCE