Home » AirSea Battle » China’s Carrier Killer Ballistic Missiles are Operational

China’s Carrier Killer Ballistic Missiles are Operational

It looks like this is the week China’s military rapidly advancing military tech keeps getting the limelight . First, we saw pics of the Asian giant’s new stealth fighter. Now, it looks like China is one step closer to fielding ballistic missiles aimed at holding U.S. forces throughout the Pacific at bay.

Adm. Robert Willard, the top U.S. officer in the Pacific said this week that China’s new DF-21D anti-ship balistic missiles, with their 900-mile range, have reached an early operational status.

Apparently, the missiles, widely fretted over in Washington as one of the most serious threats to the United States’ ability to project power in the Pacific (read here, here and here) have reached the equivalent of initial operational capability, Willard said in an interview with the Japanese Newspaper, Asahi Shimbun.

While the U.S. hasn’t seen an “over water” test of the missile, Willard says that the fact that the system is at IOC, means it can likely hit intended targets.

Typically, to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large.

He goes on to say that while the missiles are not yet as serious a threat to American aircraft carriers as submarines are, they do represent one more layer of a complex anti-access, area denial system ranging from advanced surface to air missiles to submarines and the new ballistic missiles which could strike either U.S. allies or its carriers and bases in the region.

The anti-access/area denial systems, more or less, range countries, archipelagos such as Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam, so there are many countries in the region that are falling within the envelope of this, of an A2/AD capability of China. That should be concerning–and we know is concerning–to those countries.

While it may be largely designed to assure China of its ability to affect military operations within its regional waters, it is an expanded capability that ranges beyond the first island chain and overlaps countries in the region. For that reason, it is concerning to Southeast Asia, (and) it remains concerning to the United States.

The rise of this type of anti-access technology has caused the Pentagon to beging reevaluating how it will fight a major war under the aegis of the Air-Sea Battle concept, which calls for the Air Force and Navy to figure out how they will work together to overcome such threats.  That plan is being finalized right now, none too soon in light of these latest developments. It remains to be seen whether the concept will me a highly fleshed out plan for fighting in places like the Western Pacific or if it will be a mere vision statement.

One aspect that will likely feature prominently in the Air-Sea Battle concept is the, so-called, family of long range strike systems being eyed by the DoD.

The family of systems idea was launched after Defense Secretary Robert Gates shelved the Air Force’s plan to build a new long range bomber by 2018. Instead, he told the service to look at what capabilities it could develop along with the other services to best overcome advanced enemy air defenses. While some sort of penetrating bomber/electronic attack/intelligence plane may be part of this family, it will also likely include stand-off cruise missiles lauchded by air or sea, and even land based ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets around the globe on very short notice.

While China insists its military tech is being developed for defensive purposes and that China will always work to safeguard “regional peace and stability,” it’s not always clear what that means. For example, China’s military has dramatically increased its penetrations of Japanese airspace, resulting in Japanese fighters being scrambled 44 times this fiscal year; double the total for 2006, according to a different article in Asahi Shimbun.

Share |

{ 99 comments… read them below or add one }

Robert December 28, 2010 at 3:31 pm

In other words, don't try to mess with the Red Dragon in it's own back yard. You will regret it. One Pacific power is ebbing, another great power it raising to take its place.


Brok3n December 28, 2010 at 6:15 pm

*** the Communist Red Dragon lol


Sev December 30, 2010 at 1:25 am

A thing about Dragons. They don't exist. In your dreams buddy!


Jimmy4482 December 29, 2010 at 12:30 pm

The thing is, a great power does not need to tell you it is a great power. It just is. I want China to be a great power that is confident, one that does not feel the need to prove itself. One that doesn't over-react to perceived slights. And one that doesn't feel the need to censor the views of its people. A confident and powerful China will be a force for good. A powerful but insecure China with a chip on its shoulder will be a threat to peace.


roland December 28, 2010 at 3:41 pm

It looks like a modified S-400. Perhaps we need the russian, Israelis scientist help or make our own version like a US modified ballistic RIM-67 missiles to counter the threat.


Musson December 29, 2010 at 8:34 am

Guess what happens when China fires off a salvo of ICBMs?

We fire ours back.

Conventionally armed ICBMs are a great way to start a Nuclear War.


roland December 29, 2010 at 9:19 pm

It's more likely to happen when North Korea start using it's own nukes against the South.


rick December 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm

But China can never beat us because we are so diverse and Diversity is Strength, right? That's what my teachers always say. Nothing is more important than Diversity. Diversity is Strength - it says so right on the school posters.


@ohfuckinreally December 28, 2010 at 5:57 pm

Well, your comment explains why 50% of the comments on DefenseTech are retarded. You must be a white nationalist.


rick December 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm

In 2030 China may have the largest economy in the world. They may have most of the high tech manufacturing in the world. They may have more advanced science and engineering than America.

But we'll still be #1 cause we'll be more Diverse! And nothing can beat Diversity! Yaaay Diversity!

China just has Chinese. China isn't Diverse at all. Which means they can't possibly be successful at anything because Diversity is Strength. How can they build anything when all their scientists and engineers are only Chinese? That's unpossible! Where's their Diversity? It is not physically possible to develop advanced weapons without Diversity!

In summary, Diversity! Thank you.


This is good me December 28, 2010 at 5:39 pm

You seem to be one of the smartest people USA has to offer.
Keep in mind they will kill you and that they have allready reaped trough specifically invisible (the most powerful) dildo into all girls asses and dont submit to try any.
They have in essence allready killed your children because your wife will not mentally bear your things because of her childhood rape stress that was set to activate latter in marrige if childkill of your type of person was reguired. Read David Eddigns Belgarion series.
Act accordingly.


kim December 29, 2010 at 9:20 am

Don't feed the trolls…..


@ohfuckinreally December 28, 2010 at 5:57 pm

Stormfront is that way.


QF74 December 28, 2010 at 7:50 pm

Wow so I am surprised to discover that the only person I actually understand in this exchange is Mr. Rick. He seems to think that sarcastic comments about diversity are amusing and worth sharing with the world.

The other two? No freakin' clue.


icedrake December 29, 2010 at 1:41 am

@oh****inreally is suggesting that rick is a white supremacist. Stormfront is a white supremacist group, from a (very) cursory look at their website.

This is good me, on the other hand… Yeah, I can't even begin to guess what sort of drug cocktail prompted that particular comment.


tperk1 December 29, 2010 at 9:50 pm

If they knock out our Satellites where blind, lost, deaf and our smart bombs become stupid. they sink our carriers there goes our instant over-seas fire-power. I think we have to resort back to 1960's super low-bandwidth frequency to co-communicate (I hope) with are nuclear subs. Then that leaves us to fight man-e- Mano. in their back yard. How much has their military spending increased and how many Billion-Chinese are there? Our fire-power was almost overcome by human-wave attacks in the 1950's. Throw in some of the highest-hardest mountains in the world and a few million half-starved North- Koreans. They could grab Taiwan, and South-Korea (just to occupy our over-extended forces more). And finally if it don't go" Nuclar" (G.W.B.) they could make a grab for Japan.


@Earlydawn December 28, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Japan needs to militarize, and the Navy needs to get serious on BMD. That's all there is to it.


@Joe_Schmoe12 December 28, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Or, more simply, they can just buy the Israeli anti-missile systems; Arrow, Davids Sling and Iron Dome.

There, just saved you billions of dollars wasted on defense contractors dragging their heels.


@Joe_Schmoe12 December 28, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Also forgot to include THEL if they ever get it cheap enough.


QF74 December 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm

[sarcasm]America buy others' defense goods? Never![/sarcasm]

My apologies. I agree with you. But realistically it's never going to happen.


@Earlydawn December 28, 2010 at 10:08 pm

Iron Dome wouldn't work against a ballistic missile. Ballistic missiles are super to hypersonic in speed. Iron dome is a short-ranged system designed to shoot down artillery rounds and small (non-strategic) missiles.

Arrow might work, but is a troubled program, and has no answer for missiles that deploy submunitions, a la the Chinese system. Also, it's a theater-scale, which is relatively short ranged in the Pacific environment.

David's Sling is primarily anti-cruise missile, so it wouldn't work either.


Tian December 28, 2010 at 6:40 pm

Japan can't militarize. To do so would impede American interests in claiming a foot-hold on the Rimlands of Eurasia. On the other hand, a pliant Japan would be justification for continual American (soft) colonial presence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_J._Spykman#... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_J._Spykman#...


Tad December 30, 2010 at 11:52 pm

I believe Japan will eventually feel threatened enough by China to militarize. I agree with you in that it will probably be done against the wishes of the US. My reasoning is that the Japanese can no longer trust the US to keep the sea lanes open because the Chinese are building such formidable anti-ship forces (i.e., subs, anti-ship missiles, long-range stealth attack planes, deeply submerged mines, …).


Kevin December 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm

How does this work? What sensors do the targeting? Wouldn't taking out the targeting sensors make this system moot?


praetorian December 29, 2010 at 9:23 am

Mabey Boeing's space plane was built just for this. Take out the enemies eyes in the sky.


Byron Skinner December 28, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Good Afternoon Folks,

Before everybody gets excited, I would suggest that they go and read the AP story this was taken from. The conclusion of the AP story is the opposite of what this nameless byline story comes to.

The phrase "…early operational stages." is just down right false. The AP story says that some problems with the DF-121D are being solved on paper, but the DF-21D is nowhere near operational. The DF21D has yet to even have a successful flight test with all its stages, and is still very problem prone.

Much of the DF-21's technology is from the Russian Federations Toplo M program, which has been canceled. The GEM problem with stage three couldn't be solved and the solid fueled mobile ICBM program is in the process of being restarted and no results are expected till 2020 earliest.

The AP story ends saying that the DF-21D "Carrier Killer" is years away.

Byron Skinner


JnmnJ December 28, 2010 at 5:07 pm

Great article on China's future:


stan December 28, 2010 at 5:28 pm

Good luck trying to hit a moving target with a ballistic missile in the middle of the ocean. This must be a joke.


jemc50 December 28, 2010 at 11:22 pm

Hitting an aircraft carrier going 30 knots is a whole lot easier than one ballistic missile hitting another ballistic missile. Especially, if the Chinese missile is thermonuclear. It all depends upon how good the guidance systems are.


Jacob December 29, 2010 at 1:03 am

If the Chinese use a tactical nuke on a CVBG, then we have all the excuse we need to do the same thing to their Taiwan invasion fleet.


Rob December 29, 2010 at 5:03 am

Except the US has no balls left anymore so you won't be using nukes.


kim December 29, 2010 at 9:24 am

It won't be a nuclear missile, as the danger of escalating such a conflict would be way too high. Besides, a regular missile bearing down on a ship at hypersonic speed would have more than enough kinetic energy to take it out. Assuming of course that the guidance system is sophisticated enough.


David December 29, 2010 at 6:03 am

Don't forget that aircraft carrier is a huge chunk of metal in the middle of the ocean, easily visible at optical, infared, radio, whatever. Any terminal guidance will do the job.


@Earlydawn December 29, 2010 at 10:11 am

That's absolutely not true. A carrier group in full EMCON and offboard electronic warfare capabilities is a very slippery target.


chaos0xomega December 29, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Yeah, because the nuclear reactor beating at the heart of a carrier isn't a massive thermal signature at all, right?


Kevin December 29, 2010 at 2:15 pm

No its not…if you had any knowledge at all you would know that is is smaller than a convensional heat source…a boiler.

@Earlydawn December 30, 2010 at 11:24 pm

Wow, don't really know what to say on this one. I don't think you know how a nuclear reactor works..

brian December 28, 2010 at 5:46 pm

Just means if we get into a shooting war with China, the Satellites are going to be the first targets to go. Once the Chinese are blind in space, these missiles will be worthless as they won't be able to target.


Jeff Fraser December 28, 2010 at 11:45 pm

Do we have enough capability in the ASAT category? I saw an article on here about that a while ago…


Moose December 29, 2010 at 12:37 pm

tricky question, but the Navy did shoot down a satellite with an ABM missile recently.


brian December 29, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Yes we have substantial anti-sat capabilities.


goldplated December 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm

We have nukes.. they have nukes. First combatant to fire a shot on either side will start a chain of events leading up to MAD. Why even bother?


Jerry December 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Our nukes can reach anywhere in China, while theirs can hit California at best?


@ohfuckinreally December 29, 2010 at 12:32 am

You are behind the times.


Tian December 28, 2010 at 6:35 pm

China is not penetrating Japanese air space. Japan defines arbitrarily an "Air Defense Identification Zone" (ADIZ) over which it will scramble air-crafts.
What's more, Japan decided to increase its ADIZ further, past even the middle line demarcating Sino-Japanese EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2006/05/japanese-air-...

Looking at this from China's point of view, it is the Japanese being provocative.
what's stopping China from expanding its own ADIZ and then claim Jap intrusion?

If you are gonna write about an issue, it pays to know something about it first.


AdvancedMan December 28, 2010 at 7:31 pm

The Chicom troll is strong with this one. Enjoy your 50 cents dude.


Tian December 28, 2010 at 9:31 pm

If your best argument is name-calling, I wish you luck in life. You'll need it.


AdvancedMan December 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm

If it walks like a duck….


@ohfuckinreally December 29, 2010 at 12:34 am

Silly Tian, this is DefenseTech. Only the perspective of neocons is valid here.


STemplar December 28, 2010 at 8:54 pm

Interesting but given that the USN is already war gaming with the X47 as a done deal, it really doesn't do much for the Chinese.


Hunter78 December 28, 2010 at 9:48 pm

The Chinese are massive losers in any thermonuclear war. Their land is too densely populated to deal with an immensely polluted world. US, Canada, Russia are good bets in this conflict.


Justin H December 28, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Any war with Taiwan or the U.S would be like China shooting itself in the foot. It would serve no reason and accomplish nothing, besides the Communist rulers being thrown out of power.


Hunter78 December 28, 2010 at 10:55 pm

Provoking out of country threats is a tried and true method of controlling internal challenges to your rule. The Chinese love these attacks from Taiwan, US, Korea.


@ohfuckinreally December 29, 2010 at 12:35 am

^LOL Hunter78 thinks people can win a nuclear war.


Ben December 29, 2010 at 9:24 am

It really depends on your definition of winning.

The initial and short term effects of a nuclear war are actually quite survivable given preparation.
If you survive the Initial blasts, then the next problem is fallout which is deadly for days, dangerous for a month, and unhealthy for a few years.
Once you survive those, then the only thing you have to worry about is whether a nuclear winter has been started.

The "nuclear winter" climatological cooling effect is caused entirely by atmospheric soot resulting from secondary fires. For this effect to occur, vast quantities of soot need to be produced. (on the order of 50 Teragrams) For these vast quantities of soot to be produced, you need several things.

1. The nuclear strategy of both sides needs to be a "counter-value" attack against population concentrations, instead of a "counter-force" attack against military targets.
This is because cities have to burn to make the soot.

2. In those cities, there must be significant sources of ignition that can ignite the debris.
This is because the thermal flash from nuclear devices does not lend itself to ignition. It is so hot that it vaporizes the outer layers of exposed surfaces, but it only lasts for a moment, and then the blast wave disperses the superheated vapor. This results in ablation to a depth that decreases with range, but not fire. This is also why nuclear winter can only be caused by cities and not forest fires. (although dead fallen trees might burn later due to lightning)

3. The ignition sources, must be accompanied by materials capable of igniting.
The only fires that were observed in tests were in buildings that survived the blast and were full of tinder (newspapers and flammable trash) that could be ignited by the trapped gasses. The attacks on japan on the other hand were timed intentionally to occur during mealtimes, when thousands of charcoal burners would be in use, and the blast collapsed wooden houses into one giant fuel pile.

4. the cities must have sufficient density of flammable material for the fires to propagate into a "firestorm" large enough for the smoke plume to reach the stratosphere.
If the plume does not reach the stratosphere, then the soot will rain out within days.
This "black rain" was observed after the nuclear bombings of Japan, which targeted cities, & that had both ignition sources and fuel, but which were not large enough for the pyrocumulus cloud from the fire to form into a pyrocumulonimbus .
Examples of pyrocumulonimbus firestorms do however include the non-nuclear Dresden fire-bombing, and the 1906 San Fransisco fire.


asdf December 30, 2010 at 6:27 pm

but isn't there the problem of removing any contaminated soil, which can be dangerous as the RA materials are inside of the upper layer?


Ben December 31, 2010 at 3:56 am

The contaminated soil is part of the "fallout" problem.

The good news about fallout contamination, is that it is only really hot for about a month. This is because most of the fallout is from material which was irradiated during the detonation, and not the bombs themselves. The fallout from the castle bravo test which irradiated a japanese ship for example, was mostly pulverized coral from the test site. These isotopes found in such fallout are short lived.
Additionally, because the material is deposited on the surface, much of it is carried away by runoff.

The radioactive material from the nuclear fuel is where the long lived radiation danger lies. The detonation of a nuclear warhead disperses such a small quantity of fuel (a few kilos), over such a wide area (the stratosphere), that the effect is relatively insignificant.

To get long term contamination you need concentration.

Chernobyl caused long term contamination over a large area because the core was made out of graphite and burned after the steam explosion. This spread a very large mass of fuel and transmuted carbon particles.

The b-52 accidents during chrome dome required soil cleanup, because the bombs were disintegrated, coating a relatively small area with nuclear fuel.
A lot of fuss is made about the soil cleanup that happened, but a few square miles of contamination is rather insignificant on a global scale.

tperk1 December 29, 2010 at 9:58 pm

China Has some of the highest hardest mountains in the world, also there are a few Billion of them. In an all out Nuclear attack I think they could still muster a few Hundred-million men stashed away. Their "Big" Dong missiles can carry awesome payloads plus they do have warheads with (Mirv's) Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle's; they might not have a good enough delivery sysem for a Tactical-strike - but, they have enough to deliver mass warheads.


Justin H December 28, 2010 at 10:03 pm

More reasons not to shrink the defense budget, which is already less than 5% of the entire GDP. And more reasons to step up work on supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles.


greg December 28, 2010 at 11:13 pm

I agree a larger percentage of GDP sounds good. I do think China is barely a threat yet a paper tiger still. There front line air defense and jets are russian. They operate c-130s and paladins. Out of 2000 jets something like 1700 are 60s vintage.

I only think we should increase gdp since we are going to be the global police for the next how ever many years, you have to fun that. The ballistic missile threat is already being dealt with with abm. I mean why develop abm if you can't shoot down an irbm. They are said to have terminal interception with sm2's. I mean why spend 10 million on an sm-3 if it can't protect the carrier. This is a problem where we have been working on the solution for a very long time. I'm not to worried about this or there stealth jet with no engine, and mystery avionics.


Crain December 29, 2010 at 8:15 am

The DoD budget was over 18% of the federal budget for 2010. 2011, whenever it actually passes, is projected to increase it. That doesn't include all those discretionary funds that always get approved. Throwing money at the military isn't a solution. We need to do better with the money we have going to it already, over 738 Billion dollars. Maybe less jumbotrons in TOC's, and more R & D.


Justin H December 29, 2010 at 4:43 pm

18% of the FEDERAL BUDGET, not the national GDP.


driky December 30, 2010 at 11:38 pm

which we cannot afford as a nation at the moment. If we could we would not be borrowing money from China and Japan to pay for our overseas exploits.


DualityOfMan December 30, 2010 at 9:10 am

We spent 6% during the 1980s, at the height of the Cold War.


Chops December 29, 2010 at 1:00 am

If things went far enough south for China to attack one of our carriers with their new missle, I think they would wind up with more problems than they ever imagined.


Deepak December 29, 2010 at 2:31 am

The Chinese are building their defences at a pace that are keeping others at tenterhooks. They will soon make their 5th Gen plane operational. Their carriers are on their way. I see them as the next super power unless US takes steps to counter it. Am sure they will. But where is the money gonna come from?


roland December 29, 2010 at 5:22 pm

It came from us (USA). In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion. We been paying them a yearly interest, and China use that interest to build their China’s Carrier Killer Ballistic Missiles to use against us when we attack NK in the future.


Justin H December 30, 2010 at 12:00 am

China wont become a military super power for another 10 years.


Justin H December 31, 2010 at 4:24 am

These Chinese trolls need to man up and reveal themselves.


josh December 30, 2010 at 1:10 am

im also wondering what the hell are we devoloping or are we just watching and not doing anything but talking about them rising and waiting for something to happen to us.

its going to be a 2 superpower world again. u.s / china.

you want to stop china's rise. its simple, stop buying there made in china shit. we laid the foundation down for china


JJC December 30, 2010 at 11:16 am

Since we are already borrowing Billions and Billions of $$$ from the Chinese, why stop?


blight December 29, 2010 at 2:45 am

Questions we need to answer is what is the projected flight time from a missile silo in China into a target in the Pacific Ocean? Are the conventional approximated numbers for ballistic missiles from the cold war (twenty minutes or less) appropriate? If so, thirty knots isn't very far in miles.

If there is no nuclear warhead, then it means some vaguely approximate terminal guidance is required. An INS is good to ~50-100 meters: perfect to nail a carrier, and would probably require some luck against a DDG or a CG.

The key seems to be detection envelope. Launches can be detected fairly easily with Cold War era systems designed to track Russian ICBM launches. It gives you enough warning to change course headings and foil a missile attack, even if you had a targets position and vector when programming the target area.


STemplar December 29, 2010 at 3:29 am

I had read they might opt for an airbursting warhead that scatters some sort of flechettes or such that would render a carriers flight deck non op. Gives them a sort of shotgun shell area effect to increase effectiveness. The military is pretty serious about DEWs as both defensive and offensive and with Northrop's 100 kw laser reaching more and more milestones, it probably won't be long before there is something deployed shipboard. It would make life very hard on missiles.


Ben December 29, 2010 at 9:58 am

Its probably less than 20min considering that most of the ICBM flight time is the exo-atmospheric coasting between boost and re-entry. A theater ballistic missile is going to have much less of a gap.
The Iraqi scuds targeted at Israel for example, only had a 6-7min flight time.

Some of the most modern missiles of the type aren't technically "ballistic" at all since they switch to a powered hypersonic cruise in the upper atmosphere and abruptly altering course to evade countermeasures, maneuvering all the way in. (Iskander, the Russian scud replacement, can be re-targeted in flight & can make 20-30g turns!)


Musson December 29, 2010 at 9:15 am

Anti-missile missiles are to limited and costly to be anything but an interim option.

Rail guns and lasers are advancing so quickly, they may actually evolve into a reasonable point defense system.


tperk1 December 29, 2010 at 10:01 am

Whenever china starts saber-rattling over Taiwan the first thing America does is send the carrier task force of the 7th fleet to the Taiwan Straits or The East China Sea depending on who you ask. Also they have developed a Satellite killer (tested and successful). Any one can see they are identifying our main strengths and targeting them. They must see a potential conflict with us in their future!


@Earlydawn December 29, 2010 at 10:13 am

China tested the ASAT system against a cooperative target in a different orbit than most U.S. satellite systems. That's not to say that a Chinese shootdown is impossible. It's just not a battle-proven capability.


Maxtrue December 29, 2010 at 10:17 am

"David Sullivan wrote:
If the Chinese have large numbers of fixed or mobile sensors on the seabed, they have intelligence superiority over large areas. With seabed based torpedoes, like the one that sank the South Korean ship this year, they can make it too costly for the U.S. fleet to operate in the region. Anti-ship from seabed and ballistic missiles would be a deadly synergism." Aviation weekly


tperk1 December 29, 2010 at 10:03 pm

Wow, that is the first I've ever heard of sea-based torpedoes. Makes sense for an awsome weapon. I thought I could think up some good systems - but that - never crossed my mind! Have to look that up…


asdf December 30, 2010 at 6:31 pm

those are actually called mines. they are more advanced these days then in the ww2 times and probably are self-propelled in some way.


roland December 29, 2010 at 1:52 pm

China’s Carrier Killer Ballistic Missiles are gps and radar base guidance missile with approximate 900+ distance flight . It looks like a modified S-400.


Justin H December 30, 2010 at 12:00 am

We can turn off their access to GPS.


Justin H December 30, 2010 at 12:01 am

since China, and almost everyone else uses our GPS system.


Maxtrue December 29, 2010 at 5:10 pm



Tad December 29, 2010 at 6:26 pm

Big deal, as long as the US can control the sea lanes it's got China bottled up. Park the carriers 950 miles away and have them fly air superiority missions for lots of smaller vessels (including subs) that are armed with anti-ship missiles. I doubt these anti-ship ballistic missiles are accurate enough to take out subs or even smaller ships such as frigates or even destroyers.


roland December 29, 2010 at 6:55 pm

I think China is dependent with GPS nowadays. The technology was copied from us. If there is an engagement with China, I believe the first good defense will be is attacking their GPS satellites, that will be used to guide their missiles against us (USA).


tperk1 December 29, 2010 at 10:10 pm

They developed and tested the first successful satellite killer., then we followed them a couple months later with a night test ( rumors syas ours is a laser), but then we're both blind, deaf and smart-bombs go dumb. There are a couple billion of them, and then you know those idiotic Noth-Koreans would jump in (invited or not). It would come down too, who would blink first with their finger on the button!


William C. December 30, 2010 at 12:42 am

The 1980s ASM-135 was success in testing before the program was canceled. It was a pretty interesting piece of equipment. A F-15 would carry it slung under the fuselage, get to a high altitude, then hit the afterburners, climbing at a near vertical angle and launching the missile at a predetermined position. Then the missiles internal guidance systems would do the rest.

Personally I still believe such an aircraft launched anti-satellite weapon would be a better solution than alternatives.


roland December 31, 2010 at 12:17 am

Since the Chinese Carrier killer are GPS and radar guided missile it is also a good idea to upgrade our modern and old ships , boats and planes with plasma weapon that can thwart an incoming ballistic missiles.


EDWARD December 30, 2010 at 1:03 am



josh December 30, 2010 at 1:19 am

does anybody have any idea what we have been developing to counter alot of china's weaponry or is the pentagon just sitting back and having meetings about it and not doing anything?

well i did read the other day about this in the washington times and so far obama bin laden hasnt offered any defense plan for this yet.obama is against the weaponazation of space and is on record for saying it while china is pushing further advancement in asats, he retired the navy's nuclear cruise missile and has stopped production of the f-22.


Max December 30, 2010 at 6:24 am

In order for an anti-carrier ballistic missile to work, you have to have accurate targeting data. Even if a carrier's position is fixed before launch, in the several minutes that it would take to fire the missile and land in the area of the carrier, the carrier can move extremely fast if it wants to and escape getting hit by any ballistic missile that uses inertial guidance.

The only way around this problem is if the warhead has a terminal guidance radar or is able to communicate with a radar satellite to give it constant position updates. Have the Chinese developed either capability?


DualityOfMan December 30, 2010 at 9:05 am

The DF-21D uses infrared terminal guidance.


Maxtrue December 30, 2010 at 11:55 am

Sounds rather easy to defeat then, yes?


Tenn Slim December 30, 2010 at 8:28 am


China needs stability domestically. A Anti/Defense Missle IOC like this, adds to the PR for Domestics. IOC stage still has a lot of operational problems inherent. IE can the missle hit the target, etc.

Again, DOD says, study the problem. Shelve the funds, study, think. A typical Leftist OBAMA response.



Jim Paul December 30, 2010 at 9:09 am

If we used all our bullets to cut down the Chinese, we would only stop half of them. They then would be twice as strong as then they only have to feed less people.


Maxtrue December 30, 2010 at 11:54 am

Brilliant Paul……now we ARE coming to a Sputnik moment http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/america... Can't figure out Republican logic. Anyone?

Or should we just give the money to Darpa?


Justin H December 30, 2010 at 6:20 pm

Fact: The U.S has an $80Billion black budget. :)


Justin H December 31, 2010 at 4:25 am

China uses our GPS, they do not have their own system.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: