Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:34 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
New Cold War anyone?

Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance
Quote:
EDITOR'S NOTE — The USS George Washington supercarrier recently deployed off North Korea in a high-profile show of U.S. sea power. AP Tokyo News Editor Eric Talmadge was aboard the carrier, and filed this report.

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm
Posts: 1221
Just a matter of time.

The aircraft carrier had really good run, but just like it caused military planners to re-think their assumptions sooner or later something was going to come along that would cause carrier tactics to be re-thought as well.

My guess is also that such a missile would be defeatable by several systems that carriers already have access to.......at least in the near/short term.

The chinese ships and carriers (if they have carriers......presuming they do but I don't know much about the chinese navy-----research project! :) ) would clearly be in the same........"boat" ;)

Their ships would be just as vulnerable to similar weapons.

China has lot to worry about already.

Russia is shaking off its post cold war malaise and they share a long border wit them. India is right next door with a population larger than theirs and India is. South Korea is always a bit unpredictable. Ethnic unrest with relgious strife adding fuel to the fire. Pakistain has nukes....and they share a religion with the same folks causing unrest.

Nations may indeed become "dominate" but that is a long way from really being able to do much about much.....look how much troube the USA has with just Iraq and Afganistain.

Not sure that I buy it....but not to long ago someone suggested that if the China became to belligerent we could simply say "hey, thanks for the massive influx of cash, but given their attempt to undermine our nation we no longer recognise our debt's to China."

Again, not sure that I buy it, but as recent history has shown there is plenty of ways to wage "war" and given the proven uselessness of international courts and UN Resolutions.........there is little that China could do if other people stopped playing by the rules.....short of an outright war....which they could not win....at least in the resonable future.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Carrier groups do have some defenses against missiles, but missiles can be tricky. Look at the difficulty the British Navy had countering Argentinian missiles during the Falkland Islands War, and the ships lost as a result. It was a wake-up call for navies around the world.

Don't underestimate China, they have a lot of catching up to do but they have the resources and the ability. In shear manpower they out number us about 4 to 1. Heck the Chinese were technologically no match for the U.S. in the Korean War yet they fought us to a stalemate. Admittedly the U.S. military was hampered by too many restrictions placed on it in that conflict, but as we have seen lately would we be any different in a new conflict with China?

By the way, India is not the most populous country yet, that is still China. According to projections India's population will surpass China's in 2025.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17101
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:

Look at the difficulty the British Navy had countering Argentinian missiles during the Falkland Islands War, and the ships lost as a result.

By and large, the Argentinians got their butts spanked. The Brits lost one (1) ship. The Faukland Islands fell faster than anyone predicted, and the Argentinian military was humiliated.

There's something missing in this article. "The Navy" also includes numerous submarines which can move around the world with impunity. They carry cruise missiles which can hit targets with pinpoint accuracy using anything from conventional explosives to nuclear weapons.

Carriers Smarriers... Go ahead - let them sink one. I'm with cxt. The Chinese are too intertwined with us economically to fuk with us. That was BY DESIGN, and you can thank pro-business and pro-trade politicians for that. They don't really want to do anything which will sink their economy, and that will happen when they piss on their largest investment. Furthermore, they don't really want to find out "what next" if they start firing missiles at our carriers. Comparatively speaking that would make "shock and awe" look like fireworks in my cul de sac.

Never put all your eggs in one basket, and these what-if scenarios become moot.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
By and large, the Argentinians got their butts spanked. The Brits lost one (1) ship. The Faukland Islands fell faster than anyone predicted, and the Argentinian military was humiliated.

Actually the British Navy lost 6 ships to Argentinian missiles and bombs: Two destroyers (HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry), two frigates (HMS Antelope and HMS Ardent), one support ship (HMS Atlantic Conveyor), and one troop landing ship (RFA Sir Galahad). 17 more British ships were damaged by missiles and bombs, some badly. It could have been worse, but fortunately for the British the Argentinians ran out of Exocet missiles and to avoid anti-aircraft fire their planes flew too low when they dropped bombs so that many did not explode when they struck ships, because their delay fuses did not have enough time to arm. One British commander remarked "six better fuses and we would have lost". The Falkland Islands War was I believe the first significant naval engagement since WWII, and while the British navy was being hit hard by the Argentinians, the U.S., U.S.S.R. and other navies were sitting up and taking note.

Total fatalities in the war were 649 Argentinians and 255 British, however 321 of the Argentinian losses occured when a British submarine sank the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrado (which was originally the American WWII cruiser USS Phoenix). That means the entire rest of the war resulted in 328 Argentinian deaths to 255 British, not exactly a large difference.

The Argentinian forces may have been defeated sooner than expected, but their performance was far from humiliating.

Quote:
There's something missing in this article. "The Navy" also includes numerous submarines which can move around the world with impunity. They carry cruise missiles which can hit targets with pinpoint accuracy using anything from conventional explosives to nuclear weapons.

Carriers Smarriers... Go ahead - let them sink one. I'm with cxt. The Chinese are too intertwined with us economically to fuk with us. That was BY DESIGN, and you can thank pro-business and pro-trade politicians for that. They don't really want to do anything which will sink their economy, and that will happen when they piss on their largest investment. Furthermore, they don't really want to find out "what next" if they start firing missiles at our carriers. Comparatively speaking that would make "shock and awe" look like fireworks in my cul de sac.

I think China realizes all that too. These missiles are likely meant to give them more political leverage with the U.S. then to actually be used against our carriers. China is not content with just becoming a major economic superpower, they are positioning themselves to become major political and military superpowers as well. They want the whole package that the U.S. has, which means they have to be able to counter us militarily on paper whether it actually gets used or not.

And you can expect the Navy to play up these threat, it's good for funding requests.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
There's something missing in this article. "The Navy" also includes numerous submarines which can move around the world with impunity. They carry cruise missiles which can hit targets with pinpoint accuracy using anything from conventional explosives to nuclear weapons.

Let's not forget the increasingly formidable Chinese submarine fleet. China is engaged in a signnificant submarine building program, and just started launching a new class of ballistic missile submarines. Naval analysts were warning as early as 2006 that within the next 20 (now 15) years the Chinese could easily outnumber our Pacific fleet of attack submarines and be patrolling the U.S. pacific coast with ballistic missile submarines.
Quote:
Sea-power trends in the Pacific Ocean are ominous. By 2025, China's navy could rule the waves of the Pacific. By some estimates, Chinese attack submarines will outnumber U.S. submarines in the Pacific by five to one and Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarines will prowl America's Western littoral, each closely tailed by two U.S. attack submarines that have better things to do. The United States, meanwhile, will likely struggle to build enough submarines to meet this challenge.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Posts: 1750
Location: USA
We already have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball ... nse_System
[url][/url]

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group