TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » General & Current Events

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-10, 01:13 PM
LiberalNation's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: KY, USA
Posts: 1,199
Default Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

cool

Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance - Yahoo! News

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).

___

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.

___

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 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.
__________________
Give unto Caesar that what is Caesar's, and lie like hell to keep as much of the rest of your shit as you can.

"If you want something said ask a man...if you want something done, ask a woman" Margaret Thatcher
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-10, 01:31 PM
Benjamin's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,312
Default

The main thing needed to threaten carriers is really smart stand-off weapons, be they missiles or torpedoes. Technology trends are no friend to the big carriers and their manned aircraft.

This is classic Pournelle "strategy of technology." When the enemy bases their power on a big investment in a particular system, they are very vulnerable to technology that negates that system.

I assume this missile does a really-high-speed nearly-vertical attack? Very hard to stop. Best way would be from orbit. Bet on orbital weapons and counter-weapons getting hot.
__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881
QOTD

My BLOG: Things Have Changed
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-10, 07:22 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

I can't see it happening any time soon. For one thing there are technical problems, and for another (you won't get anyone in government to admit it but) war is a luxury and we can't afford it at the moment.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 01:55 AM
Benjamin's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,312
Default

If everyone analyzed the thing rationally, there would be very few wars indeed, and those with few and small battles.
__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881
QOTD

My BLOG: Things Have Changed
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 08:52 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

I'm pretty sure that our guys ae rational enough to realise what will happen to any weapons system they send up into space. Some of them went to university.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 10:33 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Yes but, after Iraq, that "trust them, they're smart" line is a bit harder to swallow...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 10:39 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

They might start a pointless war, but they wouldn't stick their hand in a pan full of boiling water and expect not to get burnt. I'd say that the weaponisation of space would be more a case of the latter than the former.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 12:38 PM
Benjamin's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,312
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
They might start a pointless war, but they wouldn't stick their hand in a pan full of boiling water and expect not to get burnt. I'd say that the weaponisation of space would be more a case of the latter than the former.
Right. I reviewed the thread you linked-to, and remain quite unconvinced, even as I was at the time. Basically, you're sure that stealthy attacks on satellites would be easy, effective, and low-cost to the attacker. I say they would be more like the recent N. Korean torpedo attack on the S. Korean navy. The attacker would be known, countermeasures taken against a repeat, costs imposed.

Such measures seem to have kept anyone from, say, sowing mines in the path of aircraft carriers every time we launch one....
__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881
QOTD

My BLOG: Things Have Changed
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 12:51 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Quote:
The attacker would be known, countermeasures taken against a repeat, costs imposed.
What sort of countemeasures?

Besides, all the attacker has to do is say "whoops, sorry, didn't see you there" and no retalliaton is possible. Space is a crowded place these days, accidents happen, and there's no way the victim can prove otherwise without admitting that it had weapons up there, which automatically puts it in the wrong.

Quote:
Such measures seem to have kept anyone from, say, sowing mines in the path of aircraft carriers every time we launch one....
With the difference that demining is relatively easy, and leaving mines lying about in international waters is against the law.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 01:20 PM
Benjamin's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,312
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
What sort of countemeasures?

Besides, all the attacker has to do is say "whoops, sorry, didn't see you there" and no retalliaton is possible. Space is a crowded place these days, accidents happen, and there's no way the victim can prove otherwise without admitting that it had weapons up there, which automatically puts it in the wrong.
Wrong from beginning to end.

Countermeasures like, for example, shooting first next time. Analog is the adjustment that has doubtless taken place regarding the rules of engagement with N. Korean submarines.

Nations have ways to retaliate if someone snubs their ambassador, or blocks their exports of chicken nuggets, but they are helpless if someone shoots down a $500 million satellite? I am boggled that you think some scrap of deniability will confer invulnerability.

Nations will freely admit they are 'in the wrong' rather than swallow such assaults. Except they will naturally insist they are within their rights.

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
With the difference that demining is relatively easy, and leaving mines lying about in international waters is against the law.
I'm not so sure that demining is that easy. I think fear of big retaliation, coupled with diffuse and remote gain for running such large risks, is what deters such attacks for the most part.

And do you hold that shooting down expensive satellites that belong to others isn't against the law? As opposed to an act of war similar to sinking a warship in international waters?
__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881
QOTD

My BLOG: Things Have Changed
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 9
Benjamin, contracycle, Francois Cellier, Gilles de Rais, LiberalNation, Noir, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0