New Chinese Missile Can Destroy US Supercarrier in One Go

[onehandle]

The text below is from the LINK, not me. They are being sarcastic.
___________________

Hooray for the Chinese, for they have developed a super cool new anti-ship ballistic missile with low radar signature and unpredictable flight path which can destroy US Navy Supercarriers on one go! Oh, wait.

According to the latest intelligence report, the new missile—a modified Dong Feng 21—can strick carriers or any other warship within a 2,000 kilometer range from its launching point. The new super-weapon carries a warhead powerful enough to sink a supercarrier in a single strike, travelling at mach 10 (ten times the speed of sound), which enables it to reach the maximum range target in less than 12 minutes.

Even worse: its combination of a complex guidance system and high maneuverability makes it almost impossible to intercept. Let's hope that the US Navy admirals are good at playing Battleships.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5199587/new-chinese-missile-can-destroy-us-supercarrier-in-one-go

[Zywiec]

1. I'm sure the 5500 Sailors on those carriers will appreciate your sarcasm. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

11. the sarcasm is not the poster's...but rather the person who wrote the article...

at the link.

[baldguy]

16. Do they appreciate the stupidity of the admirals putting them on such a huge target?

Criticizing people who expose obvious flaws in our strategic policy through a misguided sense of patriotism is not only unwarranted - its also stupid and dangerous.

[Occam Bandage]

25. What's the difference between this and a launch of a MRBM with a MIRV?

Hell, what's the difference between this and a nuclear MRBM and a MIRV? Exact same effect, plus or minus a bit of background radiation. It's been easy to destroy carriers ever since the '70s--a ballistic missile takes care of most anything. Sailors on a carrier are no more "on a huge target" than residents of Los Angeles are.

[baldguy]

31. Thank you for proving my point.

If we've known our large carriers have been vulnerable since the 70s, why do we keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars building & operating them?

and btw, LA evolved to be what it is today. If it was being designed from scratch, they wouldn't put a city of 10 million people in a desert. Nor should we be putting over 5000 servicemen & women, and $15 billion of our treasure in one handy package for the Chinese navy to dispose of.

[Occam Bandage]

33. For the same reason we have military bases around the world.

For a carrier to be destroyed, the Chinese would use the exact same missile that they could use to destroy any American military base in the Asian theater (or for that matter, any civilian population center in Asia) should the desire/need arise. Heck, anything anywhere in the world that isn't deep underground is vulnerable to ballistic missiles, whether conventional or nuclear. I brought up LA because if a carrier is destroyed, LA would probably be destroyed too. You could replace LA with Tokyo if you like, or Chicago, or New York, etc., etc.

The purpose of a carrier/military base isn't to win a shooting war against China any more than it was to win a shooting war against Russia; the war would long have gone nuclear by that time. Carriers serve as a combination of conventional force projection and deterrent of the "if you invade Taiwan you'll have to launch a ballistic missile to destroy this carrier and a ballistic missile launch will be responded to with ballistic missiles of our own" variety.

[Statistical]

35. Exactly. A carrier is not so much a weapon as it is a mobile base.

We have bases in US and around the world.

A carrier is simply a mobile base. It has command capabilites, runways, logistics, ammo stores, food, spare parts, machine shops, etc.

It is a mobile command, logistics, and launch platform.

It gives us the ability to put a base anywhere in the world we need one.

So big deal. A carrier is "vulnerable" to an ICBM.
Guess what Andrews Airforce Base is "vulnerable" to an ICBM.

A strike on an American military base by a ballistic missile would likely lead to a nuclear war.

If China launched this at a carrier or any American city we would have no way of knowing it isn't nuclear armed until impact. We would have no way of knowing if it is the first wave of a nuclear strike againt American counter value targets (mass American casualties).

In that situation rather than lose the ability to retaliate in the opening strike we would launch and our birds would pass each other in the air.

If China is stupid enough to use one of these then likely we are within minutes of 30-40 American cities becoming radioactive glass for the next 300-400 years. Adding one more carrier to 20-30 million dead won't matter much.

[baldguy]

37. Those same points apply to any amphibious assault ship.

At a half or a third the price.

[Hydra]

2. But remember, China is our FRIEND!!!

They make stuff cheap for us, and give us a place to supposedly sell things to(if we made any)!

They wouldn't do that to us...would they?

:sarcasm:

[Winterblues]

19. Have they ever?

Maybe history is an important indicater. :shrug: Just like Iran, when have they ever launched an attack on another country without being attacked first?

[MellowDem]

21. You're joking, right?

Do a bit of google searching.

[Occam Bandage]

28. They attacked India without provocation in '62 and Vietnam in '79.

:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

3. Ooooooo, scary!

How many times has a sunburn or this new "super-sunburn" missile been used against a modern naval warship? How many times has it's capability to travel at Mach 10 been tested (that would be approx 7,600 MPH at sea level, by the way).

Oh, zero?

Maybe I'll reserve judgement on how spectacular it is then.

[Ezlivin]

15. How many times had the atomic bomb been tested against a real city?

You can be assured that this new missile has been put through many tests if the Chinese government decides to make it operational.

I was involved with weapons testing in the US Navy. I slept in a room filled with live weapons designed to destroy another ship but none of them had ever been used in a real conflict. Yet we had plenty of confidence in their ability to perform their designed task.

Put another way: Pretend you're the CO of an aircraft carrier and you're thinking of entering an area supposedly guarded with these Chinese missiles. Do you assume that they will not work in the real world and proceed?

[NeedleCast]

29. LOL, Of Course The Chinese Govornment is going to hype it, what else would they say

That it's an average missile that might or might not be effective against US carriers?

Really, I can be sure that the new missile has been put through many tests? I'm expected to take the word of the Chinese government? Sounds a lot like the latest, greatest "scud" to me. No place safer to be than where a scud is aimed, because thats the last place it'll hit. Or the devestating new TD-2 the NKs just launched. What a terrible threat...they managed to hit the Pacific ocean with it. Now that's accuracy!

If I'm the CO of an aircraft carrier I take precaution to avoid this situation but I also understand that things don't work in a vacuum of the sunburn-vs-supercarrier. I also trust that one of if not the most advanced navy in the world has thought these things through regarding the most expensive single piece of military hardware floating and have given me the ability to defeat this threat, or at least have a chance of defeating it.

Lastly, when I start to see things like random reporters quoting "intelligence sources" that are unnamed and the unprecedented ability of a "ballistic missile" (which this isn't) to achieve mach 10, I get a little skeptical. Especially since whoever wrote the OP doesn't seem to understand the difference between a cruise missile and ballistic missile which aren't even in the ballpark of being the same thing other than the fact that the title of the object both include the word missile.

[Occam Bandage]

30. The DF-21 is a ballistic missile.

I'm not particularly impressed. A ballistic missile can obviously destroy a carrier. Stick a MIRV on it or a MARV. Same difference.

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0411.html

[NeedleCast]

34. Sorry, Seeing Conflicting images of this missile

The image of this missile in an similar OP yesterday showed a picture of a large missile attached to a plane, leading me to believe this was either a cruise missile or ASM.

Like you said down-thread, if we're at the point where the Chinese are popping of ballistic missiles at our carrier groups this missile will not be carrying a conventional warhead. I think the use of this missile clearly means we've reached at least the point of tactical nuclear war.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Self-delete

Sorry.

[EOTE]

6. The text is from gizmodo.com, not from the OP.

And even gizmodo isn't cheering this weapon, it seems to be more sarcasm masking fear.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Thanks--I missed that entirely.

I'll kill my snark. It wasn't justified.

[KharmaTrain]

5. One Step Closer To Push Button War

One day we'll get so sophisticated our robots will fight their robots. It's all assured destruction as cyborgs will never die and wars will never cease...but at least the human element will be removed.

While we live in a very dangerous world, technology is turning the notion of war and world domination on its head. The more deadly the weapons, the more sophisticated, the more likely someone is going to avoid them and work to counteract them. Mutually assured destruction is the ultimate deterent as the machines become smarter and more deadly than a human can react to. But by then we'll also be in a world where power will be shown in technology, not in territory.

While it's destroyed the world's economy, globalization has diminished the need for "world domination" in a military sense and far more in an informational one.

[Fumesucker]

7. Mach 10 at sea level is going to generate a great deal of heat from friction..

That sucker had best be made of unobtainium or it's going to melt in extremely short order.

[dysfunctional press]

13. it says that it's a ballistic misile...

but it sounds more like a cruise missile. :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

14. Typical crappy reporting..

The problem seems to be that many reporters don't have a clue about what they are reporting on.

And a "ballistic missile" by definition can't have a randomly changing course, then it wouldn't be ballistic.

[Postman]

8. "Dong" missile?

I heard the Germans are developing the "Schwanz" missile....along with the Italian version called the "Mingia" missile....

[safeinOhio]

10. Our new "dingle berry" missile can take one out

[Javaman]

12. Understand the US military is developing a new missile named after chaney...

:rofl:

[baldguy]

17. "Evil Decrepit Old War Criminal" doesn't have quite the ring to it.

[Javaman]

18. no...

The Dick. LOL

[Occam Bandage]

24. Dongfeng means "East Wind." nt

[inwiththenew]

20. That is a dangerous game to play

using that missile. NORAD would detect the launch of a ballistic missile and could trigger a response. You only have a couple minutes to determine if the missile is in fact a nuclear strike or this missile.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. It sounds like it's a godsend for the Pentagon accountants and MIC lobbyists.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Occam Bandage]

26. It's nice that the Chinese are helpfully providing us with another Cold War with

great opportunity for military innovation and subsequent massive wasteful expenditure. It's such an integral part of the American volksgeist, and the War on Terror really didn't afford us enough opportunities for building enormous weapons and counterweapons that will be useful for approximately fifteen minutes before the world ends.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. The Dance of Death has it's own music. National Antherms.

Everybody thinks their Zucchini Patch is nobler, better, and more desirable, than any other and consequently needs expansion and protection.

[Occam Bandage]

23. As a proponent of sea power, I'm not particularly scared by this.

As for the added threat? Carriers are far too risky to use against China in the opening stages of a war as it is. Carriers would only be useful mid- and late-stage, after we've established air supremacy, which would involve destruction of missile launch capacity as well. (That would of course require an unthinkable level of destruction, to the point where I would be surprised if the war had not yet gone nuclear. In fact, any war between America and China would have to either end in an embarrassing stalemate/standoff or a nuclear exchange.)

As for defense? This may well be obsolete in ten years, given the speed of anti-missile laser weapon development. After all, it is much easier to track and fire using a laser than it is using a projectile. Should we develop better missile shield technology, well, that would work well also. The chaotic flight path is only upon descent, and all anti-missile weapons work against ascent. There isn't much difference between an unpredictable flightpath and a MIRV, after all.

As for the likelihood of use? If a Chinese ballistic missile (of a rocket type, I might add, that was originally designed as a nuclear delivery device) is launched at an American target, I'm pretty sure that the war has gone nuclear before the missile hits its target. I'm also pretty sure that a successful strike against an aircraft carrier would invite a nuclear response, given their importance to American power projection in Asia. By the time the Chinese think it's a good idea to launch ballistic missiles at American targets, we're all pretty much fucked anyway.

[Vickers]

27. I hope they aren't using GPS for any of the guidance.

That shit can be clicked off about 10 seconds after a confirmed launch signature.

:spank:

[flvegan]

32. And had McCain won, we'd already be nuking them over this.