Advanced Missile Poses Substantial New Threat For U.S. Navy

U. S. Naval Institute

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

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.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

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.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"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."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

---------------------------------

About the U.S. Naval Institute

The Naval Institute should jealously guard its role as prodder, conscience, and constructive safe haven for ideas that keep pushing the establishment not to be content to accept only the little challenges when the big challenges are out there.

Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.)
21st Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Mach 10 Doubtful
written by Lance Winslow, July 07, 2009

Mach 10, don't think so. What while in orbit?

• 
• -3
• 
• 

They wouldn't do that, would they?
written by RHO1953, July 07, 2009

Of course this is a scenario that is even more than worst-case. Should we get to that point everything as we know it is over. Since they manufacture most of our consumer goods and even some military supplies, such an act would the result of a series of incidents hard to imagine. We absolutely need to develop counter-measures as quickly as possible, but recognize this as a progression of an emerging China as a world power that must be reckoned with in the future.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Brad, July 07, 2009

Personally I'd be more worried about the Chinese submarine threat rather than a long range missile with no way to find it's target. They have not even tested this weapon - how could they rely on it in a time of war.

The PLA has pretty sh*tty C4IRS capabilties - remember the US dominates space, without space you're as blind as a bat in a sound proof room.

This may be a threat 20 years from now... right now the threat is a swarm attack by quite diesel subs and supersonic anti-ship missiles launched from ground based aircraft.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by JCee, July 07, 2009

Bonehead subs are a major threat not to be neglected but the Chinese are thought to have stolen the plans to the US Pershing II's. The Pershing II's had a radar guided terminal phase allowing for last moment manuvering allowing pin point accuracy there is no logical reason it could not hit an aircraft carrier! The accuracy and the range of the Pershing II's allowed for the targeting of Command Bunkers and were key to persuading the USSR into signing and implementing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-31_Pershing

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by GDS, July 07, 2009

Thanks Billy Clinton for selling US tech to the Chinese for campaign cash. Nice job you traitor.

• 
• +9
• 
• 

...
written by JCee, July 07, 2009

The Chinese are believe to have stolen the plans to the Pershing II missile. The Pershing II's had a radar guided terminal phase with the ability to maneuver at for last moment course corrections. The accuracy of the Pershing II's was great enough to scare the Soviet Union into signing and actually implementing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to get them the heck out of Europe so their Command Bunkers wouldn't be so vulnerable.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Chinese missles and US carriers
written by popseal, July 07, 2009

Who knows this stuff? There is so much bob n' weeve, rope-a-dope, and tap dance in this arena, who really knows what the Hell is the truth? It would not surprise me to discover we had an airplane launched, anti-missle missle that could reach orbit and neutralized the big dong II from China.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Chinese anti-carrier missle?
written by popseal, July 07, 2009

Due to the endless bob n' weeve, rope-a-dope, and tap dance on defense capabilities, I would not be surprised to learn that America has a fighter jet, launched, anti-missile missile that could easily neutralize a "big dong 21". I think Stephen Colbert broke the story some time ago and referred to our "big six fast dick" anti-missile.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by JayP, July 08, 2009

We can thank Clinton for any Chinese advancements. He and his administration worked tirelessly to help the Chinese military simply for personal gain.

My money is on that his 'wife' is continuing his work.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Played this game before...
written by 6monkeyrs, July 08, 2009

I had played this game before.

The Chinese need to be stopped at all cost. Time to play C&C against China.

I remember that we always told that Russia had the imagination to create things. Come to realized that they build out of ideas stolen from the U.S. If China is building such a weapon, it would only be used as a deterance. To launch such a thing would be a give away, especially with all the flags it will set in accordance to the discription you gave for it to be a successful launch and attack.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by OnMoon, September 29, 2009

Look at the human history. No country can stay dominant power forever. People have to face the reality whether they like it or not.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment