China's Naval Game-Changer

To: Kaslin
By the end of the year, China could deploy an anti-ship missile capable of hitting U.S. aircraft carriers at long range. The naval dominance that American foreign policy depended on may be at an end.

Not to worry, Obama has a plan for this.

We will crush the Chinese through niceness and debt.
2 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 7:15:18 AM by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: EGPWS

And give them a few trillion in Afgan mining rights.

3 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 7:17:05 AM by omega4179 (PREVIEW IS MY FRIEND)

To: Kaslin

Hype to the extent that not even a mention or consideration of the multiple layers of air defense (i.e.: AEGIS, etc.) that incorporate a US CVs defense.

5 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 7:20:28 AM by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin

The military equivalent of the Edsel.

6 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 7:20:50 AM by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)

To: Kaslin

The welfare state so depleted Britain, the nation that long boasted the mightiest Navy on earth, that its war with Argentina in 1982 was a close run thing. Without our help, Argentina may have won.

In like fashion, Hussein intends to bleed our military forces at the expense of the destructive welfare state. The difference is that when Britain retreated, the US picked up the baton of freedom.

Not so this time. When the world says adios to PAX Americana, it says hello to a new Dark Age.

8 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 7:35:11 AM by Jacquerie (We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin

In the next real war, any US aircraft carrier will simply be a big fat target and a floating death trap. They won’t last past the first couple of days of real combat. In fact, I’m sure they will be taken out of the equation at the outset of hostilities.

9 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 7:37:06 AM by Paratesties

To: Kaslin

“Now our naval supremacy is being challenged with the final testing and imminent deployment of the Dong Feng 21D,”

Oh, for Pete’s sake, the Chicomms can’t even manufacture a set of socket wrenches that work. Anyone who thinks the ChiComms are some sort of genuises are idiots. The ChiComms are at best monkeys looking for banana treats.

And no, the Chicomms aren’t worth squat as fighters. The lowly Vietnamese kicked the Chicomms butts in 1978. ( Go look it up.)

And all you monkeys who want to bring up Korea..

First, the UN gave up every Allied tactic to the ChiComms.

Second, Truman nixed bombing Peking, as MacArthur correctly suggested...

So, sue me.....

10 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 8:28:19 AM by sergeantdave

To: Paratesties
You don't really understand carrier operations do you?

American carriers operate as part of a Carrier Battle Group. The carrier is only one part of the Battle Group. It is the center piece to be sure but carriers do not act alone. They are formidable even if they were alone.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
13 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 10:45:45 AM by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]
To: sergeantdave

Keep living in your little fantasy world, bud. You’re going to say that our enemies have no chance against the US military right up until the time that the USA, and the US military, get annihilated in the next real war by both China and Russia. People like you that think our enemies are incapable “monkeys”, as you stated, are almost as dangerous to our national security as Obama.

The last time I looked, the US military has been shrinking both in size and capability on all fronts, while our potential enemies are modernizing and rapidly expanding their capabilities. We have been disarming as fast as we possibly can. The Chinese and the Russians have been doing just the opposite.

I suggest that you stop living in the 1950’s.

14 posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 10:47:42 AM by Paratesties

To: Enchante; Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; ...
are these missiles invulnerable to AEGIS?

I’d think we have been working on this issue for a very long time....... the article doesn’t even mention AEGIS

do these missiles have some special evasive or ECM capabilities to enable them to penetrate AEGIS?

or does it depend upon trying to overwhelm the system with numbers?

I’d thought that AEGIS is up to handling even hundreds of incoming “targets” nowadays but I have no idea what the Chicoms are up to with this missile...... anyone really KNOW something?

Enchante, you ask some very good and interesting questions. I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to even tell you a good sea story.

I did ping the list to your post on the hope that someone else may know more, but your questions are not directly Navair related. If there was an ALLNAV list, someone on it might be better qualified to answer them than we are.
18 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 3:00:20 AM by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)

To: magslinger; Enchante; Jeff Head

I’ve been out of the community for quite a while, but when I was active (90-96) the main vulnerability of the Aegis system was the sea-skimming missile. NATO Sea Sparrow was much more effective against those threats. Aegis was designed to handle 100 Backfire Bombers launching 2 or 3 missiles each at long range. Aegis was very effective against those mass raid threats, but the sea skimmers were a different story. Remember, you had a 12 mile horizon to detect and engage an incoming threat. I don’t know if that helps, but that’s what I remember...

Jeff Head is kind of the Aegis expert, but I don’t know if he’s been freeping much lately...

19 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 3:38:40 AM by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Freedom's Fortress")

To: magslinger

One reason, I believe that we made such a demonstration shooting down the dead satellite by the Lake Erie

23 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12:13 AM by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Freedom's Fortress")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: neodad; magslinger; Kaslin
China and the press have been hyping this missile for months...and China for 3-4 years now.

There has not been one operational test...not one.

It presumes a long range recon, tracking, and ID capability, and a better ECM capability than the Chinese are known to possess.

In addition, it is supposedly a mid-range ballistic missile. Will not do much manuevering in terminal phase, and will not have much time to do it. The carrier will have moved good distances by the time the mmissile arrives.

Finally, as a ballistic misile it strikes at a part of the AEGI system that has been testd very successfully. We now have the BMD defense capability with AEGIS. They are striking at a strength of the most effective defensive system in the world.

I believe this missile is hype and is a Sung Tsu attempt by the Chinese to create a threat out of nothing while they are probably working on some other asymetrical weapon in the mean time.

Make no mistake, the Chinese Navy (PLAN) is developing rapidly into a threat...but this supposed system has never been seen...only talked about.
24 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 6:14:10 AM by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: magslinger
do these missiles have some special evasive or ECM capabilities to enable them to penetrate AEGIS?

A friend of ours used to train Navy officers on the Aegis system. According to what he had said to me a couple of years ago this is not really that new and our Navy has been planning on it for a while.

Apparently our intell and development is further ahead than we might think.
25 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:17:35 AM by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))

To: magslinger; neodad; Enchante
The Dong Feng 21D is indeed a ballistic missile. This only changes the problem but doesn't necessarily make it more difficult. The US has demonstrated that a SM-3 can make a skin-to-skin hit on a deorbiting satellite.

The major drawback of the 21D is its reliance on secondary assets for targeting information, primarily radar satellites. If you take out the satellites, you significantly degrade the system.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
27 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:30:53 AM by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: magslinger
indicate a high trajectory and therefore easier for Aegis to handle

You are correct. We can actually shoot down satellites with the Aegis system. Yet I have heard it manages ground level (cruise missiles and air craft) nicely too._
28 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:31:23 AM by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))

To: Jeff Head

Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this subjsct. This is what makes FR the best source of news in the world. Real time fact checking (and fact checking of the fact checking). One FReeper knows missiles and counter measures. Another FReeper knows about the spacing of letters on typewriters. No one FReeper knows it all, but between us all we come close.

30 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37:58 AM by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin

Yawn,,,,,, 900 mile range? big whoop. If things were bad enough between us that this was a threat, the carriers would not be in range. However, in event of a “sucker punch” kind of engagement, The US response to a strike like this could be dicey. Do we go all in by turning loose the Tridents? ? Or convene a blue ribbon panel to determine why everthing is our fault. Only TheOne knows. God help us.

31 posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:43:44 AM by joelt

To: magslinger

The AEGIS system no longer works because of Obama’s stripping from the Navy maintenance money so he can give the money to career racists and welfare bums. Read the Navy Times. It is a sad story of DDG-51s abd CG-47s that cannot use their weapons because they are rusted shut and cannot use AEGIS because it has fallen into disrepair.

34 posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 12:56:09 AM by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: Jeff Head; neodad; magslinger

Thanks to all for the info — I thought it sounded over-hyped but had no basis for knowing..... “interesting” how reporters could write an article on such a system and not do even the slightest pretense of research on the matter....

35 posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 1:54:53 AM by Enchante ("The great enemy of clear language is insincerity." -- George Orwell --)

To: Jeff Head; neodad
I agree. I remember 20 years ago when the Sunburn was supposed to be sounding the death knell of the US carrier fleet, yet here we are.

It presumes a long range recon, tracking, and ID capability, and a better ECM capability than the Chinese are known to possess.

I think that's the key. Some people don't realize that it is hard to find ships - even a carrier battlegroup - in the middle of the open ocean. I know China has at least one naval reconnaissance satellite, but do they have enough for effective coverage of the Western Pacific?

Also, we sent the Chinese a message concerning the vulnerability of such an asset when we shot down one of our own malfunctioning satellites a couple years ago. That's a capability we're going to need to stay on top of.
37 posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 8:54:41 AM by The Pack Knight (Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]
To: JSteff; magslinger; Enchante; Jeff Head
This seems to be the future. The nice thing about a laser is it's easier to get it on target and keep it their. The nice thing about warships is they have large generators in them to make lots of nice mega watts.

The competition, will be as always, development of shielding, and development of more powerful lasers. Nothing really changes over the centuries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRFEAIdmQ_8
38 posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 10:26:35 AM by DariusBane (People are like sheep and have two speeds: grazing and stampede)