• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Associated Press: China developing game-changing, carrier-killing, ballistic missile.

Status
Not open for further replies.

SUPREME1

Banned
"He who controls the Pacific, controls the world."

Shit just got real.


Associate Press via YahooNews said:
Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.

China may soon put an end to that.


U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea.

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.

The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment.

Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia's largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes.

"The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.

It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.

U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.

"We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy.

"China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore."

Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though — with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — its implications haven't been widely discussed in public.

Analysts note that while much has been made of China's efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews' level of expertise, training and experience.

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention.

"When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said.

Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.

The Pentagon has been worried for years about China getting an anti-ship ballistic missile. The Pentagon considers such a missile an "anti-access," weapon, meaning that it could deny others access to certain areas.

The Air Force's top surveillance and intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, told reporters this week that China's effort to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend.

He did not single out the DF 21D, but said: "While we might not fight the Chinese, we may end up in situations where we'll certainly be opposing the equipment that they build and sell around the world."

Questions remain over when — and if — China will perfect the technology; hitting a moving carrier is no mean feat, requiring state-of-the-art guidance systems, and some experts believe it will take China a decade or so to field a reliable threat. Others, however, say final tests of the missile could come in the next year or two.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.

That would usher in a "new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States."


While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D — which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads — has been much discussed by military buffs online.

A pseudonymous article posted on Xinhuanet, website of China's official news agency, imagines the U.S. dispatching the George Washington to aid Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

The Chinese would respond with three salvos of DF 21D, the first of which would pierce the hull, start fires and shut down flight operations, the article says. The second would knock out its engines and be accompanied by air attacks. The third wave, the article says, would "send the George Washington to the bottom of the ocean."

Comments on the article were mostly positive.

AP writer Christopher Bodeen in Beijing and National Security Writer Anne Gearan in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
 

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
lol, another missile that will end up misfiring into the ocean. China still has a long way to go before they become the scary anti america everyone seems to think they are.
 

Xeke

Banned
What's the point?

China sinks a US carrier.

hydrogen-bomb.jpg


Hey the world is over! Yay! There wont ever be a conventional war between major powers.
 
I propose some sort of anti-missile technology to combat this threat. Perhaps some sort of barrier or cushion made entirely out of American $20 bills that we could wrap our aircraft carriers in.
 
Carriers would be mostly ineffective in that sort of war anyway. Carriers are great for projecting global power quickly anywhere on earth but not so great against militaries with similar technology
 

daw840

Member
Xeke said:
What's the point?

China sinks a US carrier.

hydrogen-bomb.jpg


Hey the world is over! Yay! There wont ever be a conventional war between major powers.

I really don't think the US is just going to jump balls out into nuclear war. I think it would be more like a "shock and awe" campaign that makes 2001 Afghanistan look like a couple of really big bottle rockets.
 

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
"America's virtually invincible carrier fleet"? I thought that the Russians still had plenty of supersonic bombers with carrier killing missiles?
 

SUPREME1

Banned
ElectricBlue187 said:
Carriers would be mostly ineffective in that sort of war anyway. Carriers are great for projecting global power quickly anywhere on earth but not so great against militaries with similar technology


Basically it boils down to this:

China gets this thing done. Now it opens them up to go after Taiwan. China tells the US, back off, this isn't your turf, mind your business. The US dispatches carriers to support Taiwan. China has the ability to stop those carriers dead in the tracks. They didn't use atomic weapons so the US won't respond with atomic weapons. In the meantime, Taiwan is done and is now again part of China.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
daw840 said:
I really don't think the US is just going to jump balls out into nuclear war. I think it would be more like a "shock and awe" campaign that makes 2001 Afghanistan look like a couple of really big bottle rockets.

And how do you propose we go about staging a shock and awe campaign without the use of carriers?
 

Cooter

Lacks the power of instantaneous movement
ImperialConquest said:
Basically it boils down to this:

China gets this thing done. Now it opens them up to go after Taiwan. China tells the US, back off, this isn't your turf, mind your business. The US dispatches carriers to support Taiwan. China has the ability to stop those carriers dead in the tracks. They didn't use atomic weapons so the US won't respond with atomic weapons. In the meantime, Taiwan is done and is now again part of China.


You think China sinking a fleet of carriers won't start a war?
 

Xeke

Banned
Raistlin said:
And how do you propose we go about staging a shock and awe campaign without the use of carriers?

ICBM's?

China gets this thing done. Now it opens them up to go after Taiwan. China tells the US, back off, this isn't your turf, mind your business. The US dispatches carriers to support Taiwan. China has the ability to stop those carriers dead in the tracks. They didn't use atomic weapons so the US won't respond with atomic weapons. In the meantime, Taiwan is done and is now again part of China.

China sinks US carriers. US declares war on China, it eventually becomes nuclear.
 

turnbuckle

Member
Ughh, I'm far more worried about the oneupmanship the U$ might respond with. Gonna build carriers that can shapeshift into a missle that will self deploy once targeted by these Chinese missles.

Cooter said:
You think China sinking a fleet of carriers won't start a war?

Oh, it would. No idea how we'd pay for it. It'd probably actually be in China's best interest [heh, kind of a pun] to loan us the money to fight a war against them.
 
ImperialConquest said:
Basically it boils down to this:

China gets this thing done. Now it opens them up to go after Taiwan. China tells the US, back off, this isn't your turf, mind your business. The US dispatches carriers to support Taiwan. China has the ability to stop those carriers dead in the tracks. They didn't use atomic weapons so the US won't respond with atomic weapons. In the meantime, Taiwan is done and is now again part of China.

Sinking a US aircraft carrier = full scale war. But I don't think that the USA would stand in China's way of retaking Taiwan beyond a lot of diplomatic talk.
 

SUPREME1

Banned
Cooter said:
You think China sinking a fleet of carriers won't start a war?


War =/= Nuclear War


This is a conventional weapon. If they use a conventional weapon, the US policy is to return the favor using conventional weapons.

It'd be war, it wouldn't necessarily be nuclear war.



Also, the US doesn't want to risk their greatest flagships by having them within srtriking distance of these missiles. It takes years and a shit ton of money to build a carrier.

The whole point of this missile, as stated in the article, is to deny the US access to certain regions. That's huge.
 

Xeke

Banned
turnbuckle said:
Ughh, I'm far more worried about the oneupmanship the U$ might respond with. Gonna build carriers that can shapeshift into a missle that will self deploy once targeted by these Chinese missles.



Oh, it would. No idea how we'd pay for it. It'd probably actually be in China's best interest [heh, kind of a pun] to loan us the money to fight a war against them.

There wouldn't be much of a China left.

War =/= Nuclear War


This is a conventional weapon. If they use a conventional weapon, the US policy is to return the favor using conventional weapons.

That would turn into a full blown WWIII and there wouldn't be much of a China left.
It'd be war, it wouldn't necessarily be nuclear war.

You're crazy if you think we could get into a full scale traditional war with China and both side would play nice and not use Nuke's, that's delusional.
 

bionic77

Member
Crakatak187 said:
Isn't carriers mostly used to deploy a massive amount of troops overseas? It seems pretty important to warfare to me.
It is only important against countries without nuclear weapons. Total waste of money against another superpower.
 
It is not in China's best interest to take Taiwan by force, at any rate; by attacking and taking them, they'd destroy the very things that make Taiwan so worthwhile.

Naw, this is more of a psychological thing. The nation which was once the most powerful on Earth is reasserting itself. It's to be expected. I wouldn't be so worried if they were a bit more democratic and less totalitarian. Oh well.
 
Come on, so as soon as they rightly develop weapon capabilities to fill a glaring gap in their military, it's "Well, they're obviously going to sink a US battlegroup!" Fucking hell. I'd say you guys need to stop playing World in Conflict, but the truth is, not nearly enough did!

What a bunch of Clancy-juniors. "Yeah, they hit our fleet, we'll NUKE 'EM!"
 
Xeke said:
What's the point?

China sinks a US carrier.

hydrogen-bomb.jpg


Hey the world is over! Yay! There wont ever be a conventional war between major powers.

The point is that they can sell it to anyone. Including North Korea.
 
Pylon_Trooper said:
Come on, so as soon as they rightly develop weapon capabilities to fill a glaring gap in their military, it's "Well, they're obviously going to sink a US battlegroup!" Fucking hell. I'd say you guys need to stop playing World in Conflict, but the truth is, not nearly enough did!

What a bunch of Clancy-juniors. "Yeah, they hit our fleet, we'll NUKE 'EM!"

we almost got into a nuclear war over a blockade....
 

daw840

Member
Raistlin said:
And how do you propose we go about staging a shock and awe campaign without the use of carriers?

Um, we were flying those shock and awe campaigns from a base here in Missouri. All it takes is for the entire population of the US to get behind a war and no one can compete. Rosy Riveter all over again. Only this time, its rivets on stealth bombers...
 
ImperialConquest said:
Basically it boils down to this:

China gets this thing done. Now it opens them up to go after Taiwan. China tells the US, back off, this isn't your turf, mind your business. The US dispatches carriers to support Taiwan. China has the ability to stop those carriers dead in the tracks. They didn't use atomic weapons so the US won't respond with atomic weapons. In the meantime, Taiwan is done and is now again part of China.

No way. China will NEVER physically attack Taiwan. They will change the scope through backroom deals and politics. Look, having nuclear weapons is horrible; however, unless there is an iRobot, Matrix, or Terminator Skynet system that literally takes over our weaponry, no superpower will ever attack or threaten another superpower. Although Russia and the U.S. came close, today is different. Many more countries have nuclear weaponry and ties to one another. China attacks us, we respond, Russia gets into the mix, etc.
 
Xeke said:
I don't think anybody is actually afraid of North Korea.

Your point? If a country can sink your sea fortress, thus shifting the military power balance in its favor, you would think twice before attacking it.
 
Lagspike_exe said:
The point is that they can sell it to anyone. Including North Korea.

See, this is what I don't get. North Korea is the shunned, erratic little nuisance that plays crazy simply for economic aid and its inward dogma invigoration. North Korea is as bigger problem for China as it is an ally. Why would China want to destabilise the region by doing such a thing? It's got economic growth it cannot sustain in the long-term without strives made to infrastructure and development...to give North Korea anything to upset the relative peace of the region these days would be ludicrous.
 

Kuro Madoushi

Unconfirmed Member
Wow...overreact much?

I agree with war =/= nuclear war. Even if tensions rise between the two, I highly doubt the US will ever nuke China. Sheesh...always you assholes and your nukes...

I do see China using this somewhat as a deterrent to the States to stay out of their business with Taiwan. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Taiwan and China eventually reconcile and have it become a SAR like Hong Kong. Lots of people want this already in Taiwan (though of course there's also strong opposition).

Are you guys mad? Why the hell would China attack Taiwan? While the people there may consider themselves 'Taiwanese', many are still ethnically Chinese. I think a more elegant solution and more China's MO would be to get them diplomatically or economically. No reason to use force.
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
we almost got into a nuclear war over a blockade....

In a completely different geopolitical climate. You've got a few more players in the game this time. Big, well-armed and high-tech democracies in the region, incredible inter-networked trade that keep economies afloat and continue infrastructure development. Soft powers playing roles. This idea that China is simply champing at the bit to fire off a few missiles is ridiculous. Unlike the Cold War, where nationalism had the propensity to be a big part of laying the smackdown, the Chinese government sees economic development and continued growth as a stamp of their legitimacy. To undo that by picking a fight without the means to project force is idiotic. Like US cultural imperialism, the Chinese imperialism is undoubtedly one of financial and commercial imperative.

Considering how much capital flushes into the US from East Asia, as well...
 
Pylon_Trooper said:
See, this is what I don't get. North Korea is the shunned, erratic little nuisance that plays crazy simply for economic aid and its inward dogma invigoration. North Korea is as bigger problem for China as it is an ally. Why would China want to destabilise the region by doing such a thing? It's got economic growth it cannot sustain in the long-term without strives made to infrastructure and development...to give North Korea anything to upset the relative peace of the region these days would be ludicrous.

Because NK is a part of the Chinese influence sphere. China made NK. They won't let it go.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
I still wonder how badly a relatively silent diesel sub loaded up with a nuke would damage a carrier if it managed to get within a few hundred feet and detonate the nuke (suicidally of course). It seems like the most likely scenario if NK decides to go nuts. I know that the US did some tests of underwater nuclear detonations versus surface ships back in the day, but they didn't seem very conclusive other than that the ships got horrendously irradiated.
 

Xeke

Banned
Lagspike_exe said:
Because NK is a part of the Chinese influence sphere. China made NK. They won't let it go.

1950 China =/= 2010 China. They aren't even close to the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom