China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says

[kiwiman127]

And we have to stop them.

And your solution for stopping the Chinese?

......Seriously?

Use your damn head. We have pledged to defend Taiwan against immoral, unwarranted, Chi-com military aggression.The Chi-coms have pledged to retake Taiwan BY FORCE if it doesn't come back on it's own.

Now THINK....................................................

In my previous post I paraphrased what you had earlier posted. And isn't the main topic of this thread China's cruiser killer missile? Based on your response, you seemed to tie China's new toy and Taiwan together.
Also, I asked you a question, that being (based on your above post) was your solution to this, a US unilateral attack China as in "we have to stop them".
Finally, please don't preach to me about being informed. Even though folks tell me I'm well-read, I never hesitate in learnings new things every day. While you're posting your 50 or so posts on these boards every day, I'm reading and learning.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

And your solution for stopping the Chinese?

......Seriously?

Use your damn head. We have pledged to defend Taiwan against immoral, unwarranted, Chi-com military aggression.The Chi-coms have pledged to retake Taiwan BY FORCE if it doesn't come back on it's own.

Now THINK....................................................

In my previous post I paraphrased what you had earlier posted. And isn't the main topic of this thread China's cruiser killer missile? Based on your response, you seemed to tie China's new toy and Taiwan together.
Also, I asked you a question, that being (based on your above post) was your solution to this, a US unilateral attack China as in "we have to stop them".
Finally, please don't preach to me about being informed. Even though folks tell me I'm well-read, I never hesitate in learnings new things every day. While you're posting your 50 or so posts on these boards every day, I'm reading and learning.

Been there, did that. Appreciate your fanfare tho, as it's obvious you been on my page. I addressed your claims in my last post.

You should quote that, and respond legitimately, instead of tryna nit pick that one.

 

[uscitizen]

ASo are we to go to war with a power that we could not whip twice before over a little island called Tiawan?

Of course they would enslave and torture the population of Taiwan just like they are doing to Hong Kong.

Could this be business interest driven?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

ASo are we to go to war with a power that we could not whip twice before over a little island called Tiawan?

Of course they would enslave and torture the population of Taiwan just like they are doing to Hong Kong.

Could this be business interest driven?

We have NEVER really been at real war with China.

You also just answered your own question of why we need to stop them with your 2nd sentence.

 

[Intense]

ASo are we to go to war with a power that we could not whip twice before over a little island called Tiawan?

Of course they would enslave and torture the population of Taiwan just like they are doing to Hong Kong.

Could this be business interest driven?

We have NEVER really been at real war with China.

You also just answered your own question of why we need to stop them with your 2nd sentence.

We were at war with China during the Viet Nam Crisis and Korea. Our Military were just not allowed to reference it in their reports, at least in relation to Nam.

 

[martybegan]

So what China has ship killer missles. perhaps we can buy some from them?

Hopefully they work as well as everything else China produces...

It's originally a Russian development. The technology was sold to Iran, which in turn sold it to China. It is a fearsome, ship-killing missile for which there is no available countermeasure.

It's called the Sunburn and is not new but has been around for several years. What makes it so dangerous is it flies faster than the speed of sound, carries an enormous payload (powerful enough to sink a carrier) and it follows a sensor-maintained flight path no higher than six feet above the surface of the water, which makes it undetectable by conventional radar. And it costs less than a low-grade fighter plane to produce.

We'd better hope that a countermeasure for this weapon is developed soon, because it conceivably could render our Naval warfare capability totally useless.

I'm sure there is a countermeasure, the missile has been around for a while. and this is different then the balistic missile quoted in the OP's message.

these missiles can still be shot down by AA missiles, it is just harder to do it. There are also additonal countermeasures, such as shooting down the launching aircraft, sinking the launching boat, or even creating large water plumes in the flight path of the missile.

Add in all the ECM/chaff/ etc countermeasures and the weapon is still a far cry from one shot one kill.

 

[zzzz]

We have fought the fought the Chinese numerous times throughout our history. Even on the mainland in the Battle of the Pearl River Forts, and during the boxer rebellion and occuppied parts of it!

A carrier task force has many levels of defense and against one of these missiles the odds are pretty good that it would be destroyed. The problem is when there are large salvos of missiles like 6or 10 at a time and the defensive systems become overloaded. It is during this time that a missile can get in a hit. And that is the dilemma what commanders face in combat. How much of a chance do they take. Since carriers project power through the air they can stand off to a certain range and stay out of harms way but because of that range the strike power and tactical flexibility is reduced. In a battle with the Chinese over Taiwan the carriers would stay on the eastern side of the island for the duration. Politically the US cannot lose a carrier so the commanders could not put a carrier in range of these missiles even with all the defense. So for the US this battle essentially becomes an air battle with naval aviation and air force. I have already posted about this scenerio in other threads and the corresponding study done on the air war.

This is but one aspect of the modernization of the Chinese military. They have ICBM's, very quiet subs that can be use to sink carriers too and other stuff we know nothing about. They still have to prove they can utilize these weapons in a war situation and this is why they are doing joint training exercises with foreign militaries. But for the US the question becomes "Are we really going to lose all those men and material and absorb the cost of fighting for an island that is really a part of China and possibly lose that war?" To me the answer is no. It is not worth it. How would the US have felt if Great Britian and France had stepped in and helped the confederate states with ships and troops? It is the same situation here. Tawain is a rebelious province of mainland China and it is not worth the lives of our men and women to keep it so.

 

[martybegan]

We have fought the fought the Chinese numerous times throughout our history. Even on the mainland in the Battle of the Pearl River Forts, and during the boxer rebellion and occuppied parts of it!

A carrier task force has many levels of defense and against one of these missiles the odds are pretty good that it would be destroyed. The problem is when there are large salvos of missiles like 6or 10 at a time and the defensive systems become overloaded. It is during this time that a missile can get in a hit. And that is the dilemma what commanders face in combat. How much of a chance do they take. Since carriers project power through the air they can stand off to a certain range and stay out of harms way but because of that range the strike power and tactical flexibility is reduced. In a battle with the Chinese over Taiwan the carriers would stay on the eastern side of the island for the duration. Politically the US cannot lose a carrier so the commanders could not put a carrier in range of these missiles even with all the defense. So for the US this battle essentially becomes an air battle with naval aviation and air force. I have already posted about this scenerio in other threads and the corresponding study done on the air war.

This is but one aspect of the modernization of the Chinese military. They have ICBM's, very quiet subs that can be use to sink carriers too and other stuff we know nothing about. They still have to prove they can utilize these weapons in a war situation and this is why they are doing joint training exercises with foreign militaries. But for the US the question becomes "Are we really going to lose all those men and material and absorb the cost of fighting for an island that is really a part of China and possibly lose that war?" To me the answer is no. It is not worth it. How would the US have felt if Great Britian and France had stepped in and helped the confederate states with ships and troops? It is the same situation here. Tawain is a rebelious province of mainland China and it is not worth the lives of our men and women to keep it so.

The comparison with the civil war is not valid. To be the equivalent we would have had to step in in the first few years after the Nationalists left Mainland China and set up on Taiwan. This is now 50 years later, and basically they are two seperate countries, regardless of the current political shennanigans that go on.

Regardless of what people think, the US has pledged to protect Taiwan from any ChiCom incursion. For us to back out of this would ruin our ability to deal with other nations for decades to come.

 

[zzzz]

The comparison with the civil war is not valid. To be the equivalent we would have had to step in in the first few years after the Nationalists left Mainland China and set up on Taiwan. This is now 50 years later, and basically they are two seperate countries, regardless of the current political shennanigans that go on.

Regardless of what people think, the US has pledged to protect Taiwan from any ChiCom incursion. For us to back out of this would ruin our ability to deal with other nations for decades to come.

We do not have a pact with Taiwan to protect them, only words that we will. Reality is something different.

 

[martybegan]

The comparison with the civil war is not valid. To be the equivalent we would have had to step in in the first few years after the Nationalists left Mainland China and set up on Taiwan. This is now 50 years later, and basically they are two seperate countries, regardless of the current political shennanigans that go on.

Regardless of what people think, the US has pledged to protect Taiwan from any ChiCom incursion. For us to back out of this would ruin our ability to deal with other nations for decades to come.

We do not have a pact with Taiwan to protect them, only words that we will. Reality is something different.

Words mean things, as someone once said. Also if we send Taiwan packing, what makes you think China will not try the same crap with South Korea or Japan?

 

[Trajan]

Hopefully they work as well as everything else China produces...

It's originally a Russian development. The technology was sold to Iran, which in turn sold it to China. It is a fearsome, ship-killing missile for which there is no available countermeasure.

It's called the Sunburn and is not new but has been around for several years. What makes it so dangerous is it flies faster than the speed of sound, carries an enormous payload (powerful enough to sink a carrier) and it follows a sensor-maintained flight path no higher than six feet above the surface of the water, which makes it undetectable by conventional radar. And it costs less than a low-grade fighter plane to produce.

We'd better hope that a countermeasure for this weapon is developed soon, because it conceivably could render our Naval warfare capability totally useless.

I'm sure there is a countermeasure, the missile has been around for a while. and this is different then the balistic missile quoted in the OP's message.

these missiles can still be shot down by AA missiles, it is just harder to do it. There are also additonal countermeasures, such as shooting down the launching aircraft, sinking the launching boat, or even creating large water plumes in the flight path of the missile.

Add in all the ECM/chaff/ etc countermeasures and the weapon is still a far cry from one shot one kill.

if it comes in like an Exocet which is not what was described in the op as you noted, yes we have counter measures, we have point defenses etc. that have been upgraded since say, the Falklands. I would think we studied that and fly our CAP further out than 30 miles and use side scan and underneath the envelope radar etc.

IF its a high flyer plunger, vectoring in a missile from 100K feet up, on to a surface moving at 30 knots,even at what appears to be a huge 1000 feet long and 200 feet wide is not as easy as it sounds. They'd need constant surveillance, interference free communications between the 'driver' all the way to the missile until it acquired the target, then of course we would attempt to jam its on-board homing devices.

Its size as in carrying a payload that could "kill" a carrier is a virtue in that its purportedly a one shot one kill, but the size required to make it so, means less maneuverability especially when its goes 'terminal' on its final flight path etc.

In 2008, an Aegis launched SM-3 intercepted and 'killed ' a decaying U.S. satellite re-entering the atmosphere at over 20,000 mph. Apparently we aren't asleep.

 

[zzzz]

The comparison with the civil war is not valid. To be the equivalent we would have had to step in in the first few years after the Nationalists left Mainland China and set up on Taiwan. This is now 50 years later, and basically they are two seperate countries, regardless of the current political shennanigans that go on.

Regardless of what people think, the US has pledged to protect Taiwan from any ChiCom incursion. For us to back out of this would ruin our ability to deal with other nations for decades to come.

We do not have a pact with Taiwan to protect them, only words that we will. Reality is something different.

Words mean things, as someone once said. Also if we send Taiwan packing, what makes you think China will not try the same crap with South Korea or Japan?

Yes, giving someone your word person to person is one thing, governments though say one thing and do another. History is littered with examples of this including ours. The case for SK or Japan is we have a signed treaty with them and we have to respond if they are attacked. Taiwan is another story altogether.

 

[Sallow]

ASo are we to go to war with a power that we could not whip twice before over a little island called Tiawan?

Of course they would enslave and torture the population of Taiwan just like they are doing to Hong Kong.

Could this be business interest driven?

We have NEVER really been at real war with China.

You also just answered your own question of why we need to stop them with your 2nd sentence.

Sure we have. You really need to pick up a freaking book. You could start with "The Boxer Rebellion" and end with "Korea".

 

[Sallow]

The comparison with the civil war is not valid. To be the equivalent we would have had to step in in the first few years after the Nationalists left Mainland China and set up on Taiwan. This is now 50 years later, and basically they are two seperate countries, regardless of the current political shennanigans that go on.

Regardless of what people think, the US has pledged to protect Taiwan from any ChiCom incursion. For us to back out of this would ruin our ability to deal with other nations for decades to come.

We do not have a pact with Taiwan to protect them, only words that we will. Reality is something different.

You people are amazing. We maintain a military base on Taiwan.

 

[Sallow]

The comparison with the civil war is not valid. To be the equivalent we would have had to step in in the first few years after the Nationalists left Mainland China and set up on Taiwan. This is now 50 years later, and basically they are two seperate countries, regardless of the current political shennanigans that go on.

Regardless of what people think, the US has pledged to protect Taiwan from any ChiCom incursion. For us to back out of this would ruin our ability to deal with other nations for decades to come.

We do not have a pact with Taiwan to protect them, only words that we will. Reality is something different.

Words mean things, as someone once said. Also if we send Taiwan packing, what makes you think China will not try the same crap with South Korea or Japan?

Why? Because they really are not interested.

They did try to invade Vietnam after the US pulled out..but they got their asses roundly kicked by the Vietnamese.

 

[Sallow]

We were at war with China during the Viet Nam Crisis and Korea. Our Military were just not allowed to reference it in their reports, at least in relation to Nam.

I seriously doubt the Chinese sent troops to Vietnam. The two countries are hostile to each other..although they may have sent arms. Russians, however, are a different matter entirely.

 

[zzzz]

It's originally a Russian development. The technology was sold to Iran, which in turn sold it to China. It is a fearsome, ship-killing missile for which there is no available countermeasure.

It's called the Sunburn and is not new but has been around for several years. What makes it so dangerous is it flies faster than the speed of sound, carries an enormous payload (powerful enough to sink a carrier) and it follows a sensor-maintained flight path no higher than six feet above the surface of the water, which makes it undetectable by conventional radar. And it costs less than a low-grade fighter plane to produce.

We'd better hope that a countermeasure for this weapon is developed soon, because it conceivably could render our Naval warfare capability totally useless.

I'm sure there is a countermeasure, the missile has been around for a while. and this is different then the balistic missile quoted in the OP's message.

these missiles can still be shot down by AA missiles, it is just harder to do it. There are also additonal countermeasures, such as shooting down the launching aircraft, sinking the launching boat, or even creating large water plumes in the flight path of the missile.

Add in all the ECM/chaff/ etc countermeasures and the weapon is still a far cry from one shot one kill.

if it comes in like an Exocet which is not what was described in the op as you noted, yes we have counter measures, we have point defenses etc. that have been upgraded since say, the Falklands. I would think we studied that and fly our CAP further out than 30 miles and use side scan and underneath the envelope radar etc.

IF its a high flyer plunger, vectoring in a missile from 100K feet up, on to a surface moving at 30 knots,even at what appears to be a huge 1000 feet long and 200 feet wide is not as easy as it sounds. They'd need constant surveillance, interference free communications between the 'driver' all the way to the missile until it acquired the target, then of course we would attempt to jam its on-board homing devices.

Its size as in carrying a payload that could "kill" a carrier is a virtue in that its purportedly a one shot one kill, but the size required to make it so, means less maneuverability especially when its goes 'terminal' on its final flight path etc.

In 2008, an Aegis launched SM-3 intercepted and 'killed ' a decaying U.S. satellite re-entering the atmosphere at over 20,000 mph. Apparently we aren't asleep.

The sunburn missile is a ship lauched missile not a land based system like the Dong Feng 21D (CSS-5) Medium-Range Ballistic Missile which is the missile in question. The sunburn was supplied to the Chinese navy along with 2 Destroyers with the launch systems.

Here is a picture of the 21D missile. It is a high trajectory ballistic missile not a cruise missile.

DongFeng 21D (CSS-5 Mod-4)

The U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed the existence of the DF-21D land-based ASBM system, which is the world’s first and only of its kind. By combining manoeuvrable re-entry vehicles (MaRVs) with a terminal guidance system, the DF-21C is capable of targeting a slow-moving aircraft carrier battle group from a land-based mobile launcher. The maximum range of the missile was said to be 3,000km, possibly achieved by carrying a smaller payload.

DongFeng 21 (CSS-5) Medium-Range Ballistic Missile - SinoDefence.com

 

[zzzz]

The comparison with the civil war is not valid. To be the equivalent we would have had to step in in the first few years after the Nationalists left Mainland China and set up on Taiwan. This is now 50 years later, and basically they are two seperate countries, regardless of the current political shennanigans that go on.

Regardless of what people think, the US has pledged to protect Taiwan from any ChiCom incursion. For us to back out of this would ruin our ability to deal with other nations for decades to come.

We do not have a pact with Taiwan to protect them, only words that we will. Reality is something different.

You people are amazing. We maintain a military base on Taiwan.

Where is it located? I do not know of any on the Island. We do not recognize Taiwan as an independant country, therefore we do not have diplomatic relations with them or an embassy so no Marines are there.

 

[Trajan]

We were at war with China during the Viet Nam Crisis and Korea. Our Military were just not allowed to reference it in their reports, at least in relation to Nam.

I seriously doubt the Chinese sent troops to Vietnam. The two countries are hostile to each other..although they may have sent arms. Russians, however, are a different matter entirely.

there were over 40K Chinese troops ( and north koreans) in north Vietnam. they manned AA batteries, built roads, supervised building roads and bridges, drove trucks helped with logistics etc.

 

[Sallow]

We do not have a pact with Taiwan to protect them, only words that we will. Reality is something different.

You people are amazing. We maintain a military base on Taiwan.

Where is it located? I do not know of any on the Island. We do not recognize Taiwan as an independant country, therefore we do not have diplomatic relations with them or an embassy so no Marines are there.

We sure as heck DO have relations with them..and have for a long time. We DO recognize Taiwan as an independent country. For a long time we maintained a subtle pact to defend Taiwan until George W. Bush declared we would respond to any attack by China.

Ching Chuan Kang Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia