SinoDefence Forum

crobato

Video capture from TV showing innards of C-602/YJ-62.

Attached Images

	5d7e83400106i3y6.jpg (101.7 KB, 154 views)
	5d7e83400106i3y8.jpg (69.8 KB, 117 views)
	5d7e83400106i3yc.jpg (194.4 KB, 123 views)
	5d7e83400106i3ye.jpg (81.8 KB, 116 views)
	5d7e83400106i3y9.jpg (75.8 KB, 114 views)

__________________
"Lets do a thermal sweep."

Rising China

U.S. navy must be looking for more funding.

Published by samon March 31, 2009in Marine and Boating, News, War and Military and World.

U.S. Naval Institute, “Report: Chinese Develop Special “Kill Weapon” to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers”

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a “kill weapon” developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

“The Navy’s reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren’t many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat.”

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

bladerunner

In the first instance you would have to know where to direct your satellites and drones to look look, a ship is a very small speck in a big ocean.

tphuang

oh that, this is just the third party interpretation of a blog entry that I wrote for Ray's blog. It's also on my blog,
China Air and Naval Power
They of course did a horrible job of understanding my point.

Bltizo

A question; how effective are supersonic (or even hypersonic) anti ship cruise missiles?
The US seems to make a lot of fuss over these, but China hasn't got any apart from on their Sovremenny's. (Supersonic, as in the whole way from being fired, not like YJ-83 only in attacking phase)

You would think they might want to equip their own ships with Russian missiles, but they stick with YJ-83 and YJ-62 instead..
Or do they already have a Supersonic/Hypersonic anti ship missile under R&D?

Any input will be helpful.

Scratch

While all those Sunburns, Moskits and the like sometimes get really hyped, they are not the silver bullets some make them to be.
Those missiles are big and heavy. Meaning you cannot put much onto your ship. Furthermore, due to their size and speed, they have a large radar and IR signature, making early detection easier. Since they travel that fast, they have less time to pick up their target. Flying M2 at low level consumes a lot of fuel, wich is why also they're big, their range is rather short.

The USN e.g. always talks about them being dangerous, they want more money for fancy equipment. But then again, there's hardly anybody using supersonic AShM. Even the chinese who have the sunburns take a different approach with their domestic missiles.

I know of no programm for a chinese supersonic AShM.

tphuang

Generally speaking, supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles both have their advantages. There have been many discussions on this in the past. And with Aegis, USN is really quite capable of handle multi-axis supersonic missile attacks which was the main Soviet threat. ASBM is suppose to give a whole new level of threat.

Bltizo

Doesn't the Russian Shipwreck Supersnic ASM have a range of around 500km? The longest range chinese one is the YJ-62 which is about 300?

Oh a different question, what is the PLAN's longest range ASM that can be put on destroyers? I know of only the YJ-62 which on sinodefence says is 280km..

FriedRiceNSpice

The Shipwreck was so large that it could only fit on the Kirov-class battlecruisers, their aviation cruisers, and certain modified SSGNs designed specifically to carry the missile.

The missile weighed over 7000kg. For comparison, the YJ-62 has a mass of about 1400kg.
I think it is rather pointless to have the missile operate at supersonic speeds for the entire duration of the attack, for only once it enters the radar horizon of the target fleet does speed become relevant. No one really knows the exact range on the YJ-62, the 280km is oft quoted for the export version because of international limitations on the proliferation of missile technologies. It is speculated that the domestic version may achieve ranges of up to 400km.

Scratch

Beyond a certain point, greater range is also only usefull once you have got the means of providing target acquisition and tracking to feed data to the missiles.
I don't really know how far China has progresses in that area. I guess mainly airborne assets like H-6 or Su-30s, and maybe subs, can relay target positions to launch platforms.
A certain part of the range of the missile can of course also be used to fly an off axis attack.
The YJ-83 is an interesting concept, however.

Bltizo

I heard the PLAn might have small UAV's that can do target acquisation. Couldn't helicopters do that too?

And how is the YJ-83 an interesting concept? What does off axis mean?

Scratch

I don't know about those UAVs, especially reagarding their shipborne capabilities. Helicopters are sure an option, however I believe only now is the PLAN fielding a credible asset with the Z-9C.

Interesting concept in that it travels subsonic during mid-course, therefore being fuel efficient and relatively small. And only after target acquisition makes a sprint for the target.

Let's say an opposing fleet is to the north of you. You have one set of missiles fly the direct path and therefore coming from the south. A second set of missiles is directed to a point east of that fleet and then turn inbound, coming from the east. The second set of missiles attacks off axis.

Delbert

I would rather prefer an immediate deployment and huge numbers of Land Attack cruise missiles with various ranges from 500km, 1000km, 1500km, 2000km.

Probably around 1,000 missiles of each kind can be deployed. (A counter part to US Tomahawk missiles).

If this was achieved it would greatly improve China's military posture across the region, it will really rattle its neighbors.

Do anybody had idea when China will finish developing Land Attack cruise missile technology?

FriedRiceNSpice

LACMs are among the some of the most expensive weapons around. In a regional deterrent role, LACMs really do not offer anything anything that massive amounts of cheap TBMs do not. The main advantage of LACMs are their accuracy and low observability, but if your purpose is to rattle your neighbors, then those attributes are actually counterproductive to your goals. For precision strikes against other regional powers, long range strike jets with precision-munitions such as J-11s will suffice.

The main advantage of LACMs is offering precision strike against targets far outside your borders and fits in nicely with power projection in mind.

Delbert

Yes that is my purpose, to hit strategic targets that are far from your territory and lower chances of detection.

Though it wouldn't be as scary as nukes does, but it will surely rattle your neighbors.. why? All of their military bases, strategic sites are within your range.

Those can be wiped out in a huge massive barrage of missile strikes. Since LACM offers better accuracy too.