[Pesqueeb]

accuracy to penetrate

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, 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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/dong-feng-21d-chinese-mis_n_672166.html

Yet another reason to quit spending your money on Chinese made sh*t.

 

[Silver]

Why is that? Worried that someone else might be able to punch back?

This is just fearmongering BS to justify military spending. The "other" side always has a doomsday game-changing paradigm shift boogeyman weapon.

 

[sanjuro]

BTW, America has always won the technology battle. Always.

 

[ohio]

You said "Dong."

 

[valve bouncer]

Actually it has long been known that US carrier groups are vulnerable to conventional submarine attack. I don't know the state of Chinese submarining but with a long range Dong who needs it?

 

[blue]

Certainly a high level of fear-mongering going on. CEP of 30-40m from a PRC-built and designed ballistic missle? Teh lolz. I'll believe it when they sink an aircraft carrier or can otherwise prove me wrong.

That said, if it is indeed as accurate as the Chinese claim, the retarded missile defense system might actually have a use, after all.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Why is that? Worried that someone else might be able to punch back?

This is just fearmongering BS to justify military spending. The "other" side always has a doomsday game-changing paradigm shift boogeyman weapon.

While I'm inclined to agree, Its named "dong". Dear god make a penis joke. Lighten up for a minute man!

 

[X3pilot]

While I'm inclined to agree, Its named "dong". Dear god make a penis joke. Lighten up for a minute man!

Long Duck Dong sees what you did there...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Dong Feng?
Sounds like a vampire porno.
Or maybe a book about a half wolf, half chow chow.

 

[dante]

BTW, America has always won the technology battle. Always.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh. You know that in WWII the Germans "won" the technology battle with us, from machine guns to tanks to jet fighters to ballistic missiles, right? The *only* reason we won was because of superior production numbers and the Ruskies having some technology wins themselves (I'm looking at you, T-34).

In Korea and Vietnam winning the technology battle did jack sh!t against superior numbers and a dedicated populace, so in reality the only time when we *have* won the technology battle (and it made a difference) was the 2 Gulf wars. Yay!!!!!! (Big flag waving scene)

Something tells me that if things get hot, it'll be another Pearl Harbor, where multi-billion dollar ships are sunk by simple, $100k missiles and torpedoes...

 

[DaveW]

Course it's only a threat to you if you go park a carrier group off the Chinese coast which is a fairly hostile thing to do.

heh heh I'm wondering if just for sh!ts and giggles they offer one to Iran.
They probably would if you pissed them off, same as Russia predictably does every time the USA gets uppity with them.

 

[sanjuro]

Uhhhhhhhhhhh. You know that in WWII the Germans "won" the technology battle with us, from machine guns to tanks to jet fighters to ballistic missiles, right? The *only* reason we won was because of superior production numbers and the Ruskies having some technology wins themselves (I'm looking at you, T-34).

In Korea and Vietnam winning the technology battle did jack sh!t against superior numbers and a dedicated populace, so in reality the only time when we *have* won the technology battle (and it made a difference) was the 2 Gulf wars. Yay!!!!!! (Big flag waving scene)

Something tells me that if things get hot, it'll be another Pearl Harbor, where multi-billion dollar ships are sunk by simple, $100k missiles and torpedoes...

This is not an area of expertise, but I will argue that we were still superior than the Nazis.

We had the production advantage and the Germans had jet fighters and rockets, but we had some weapons that were better.

I believe we had the best rifle, M1 Garand. I also think some of our propeller fighters were superior to the German counterparts.

There is also another war which we clearly won the technology battle: the Cold War. Our submarines, missiles, carriers, and jets were superior to the USSR.

 

[blue]

This is not an area of expertise, but I will argue that we were still superior than the Nazis.

We had the production advantage and the Germans had jet fighters and rockets, but we had some weapons that were better.

I believe we had the best rifle, M1 Garand. I also think some of our propeller fighters were superior to the German counterparts.

There is also another war which we clearly won the technology battle: the Cold War. Our submarines, missiles, carriers, and jets were superior to the USSR.

A) No. It was in fact, kind of shocking how much more advanced German weaponry was by the end of the war compared to Allied equipment (that is, provided the Germans could use it).

B) Lolz, you don't understand WW2 infantry doctrine.

C) No. Lolz, you don't understand Soviet naval doctrine. Or aviation.

/nerdmode off

kthnx.

 

[Straya]

BTW, America has always won the technology battle. Always.

Doesn't always help though. AK47's, RPG's and some old artillery shells buried under a road are serving the Taliban pretty well at the moment.

long range Dong

tee hee

 

[narlus]

long range Dong

band name.

 

[Andyman_1970]

A) No. It was in fact, kind of shocking how much more advanced German weaponry was by the end of the war compared to Allied equipment (that is, provided the Germans could use it).

Other than say our development of the atomic bomb, we mostly overwhelmed the Axis powers with weapons that we could mass produce and were more reliable than say the Germans (I'm thinking mostly aircraft here....)

C) No. Lolz, you don't understand Soviet naval doctrine. Or aviation.

USSR had the edge on subs in the 60's and 70's, but naval aviation (ie carriers) has never been their strong suit, the US has led by leaps and bounds in that front since almost their inception.......

 

[dante]

This is not an area of expertise, but I will argue that we were still superior than the Nazis.

We had the production advantage and the Germans had jet fighters and rockets, but we had some weapons that were better.

I believe we had the best rifle, M1 Garand. I also think some of our propeller fighters were superior to the German counterparts.

There is also another war which we clearly won the technology battle: the Cold War. Our submarines, missiles, carriers, and jets were superior to the USSR.

We got lucky with the M1, since we started the war 2 years later than everybody else and had a chance to actually produce and equip our men with it. When production started in 1936, Germany was already ramping up production of it's current bolt-action for the Spanish civil war (and the upcoming war in Europe). For fighters, by the time we came out with a truly superior prop plane (P-51), Germany already had jet fighters in the air.

 

[Andyman_1970]

For fighters, by the time we came out with a truly superior prop plane (P-51), Germany already had jet fighters in the air.

True. In many ways the FW-190 was better than the P-51 and -47, we just were able to replace our attrition at a rate Germany could not match. That said the P-47 while a technical peer to say the FW-190 was light years more rugged than it's Axis equivalents.

Same senario in the Pacific, the Zero was the sh*t and outmatched the F4F Wildcat. The F6F Hellcat was not faster but was more manuverable and WAY more rugged than the Zero. My favorite the F4U Corsair was hands down faster (IMO technically superior), but couldn't turn with a Zero, was a bit more rugged, but could be a handful to fly for a nugget pilot. Again our attrition replacement far outstripped Japan's ability from say '43 on.......

 

[rockofullr]

We all know that the Chinese Dong lacks the size and penetrating capacity to be an effective weapon.

 

[sanjuro]

Doesn't always help though. AK47's, RPG's and some old artillery shells buried under a road are serving the Taliban pretty well at the moment.

tee hee

Technology doesn't serve you well in a guerilla war, which we have mostly involved in the last 50 years.

Although we control the night in Afghanistan with our Night Vision capabilities.

 

[X3pilot]

Technology doesn't serve you well in a guerilla war, which we have mostly involved in the last 50 years.

Although we control the night in Afghanistan with our Night Vision capabilities.

As a veteran of Gulf War I, Bush War I or what ever you want to call it, I'd have to disagree with your point of technology not serving us well and it being a guerrilla war.

 

[BurlyShirley]

We all know that the Chinese Dong lacks the size and penetrating capacity to be an effective weapon.

Thread winner!

 

[Andyman_1970]

We all know that the Chinese Dong lacks the size and penetrating capacity to be an effective weapon.

Gold pure gold!!!!

 

[jimmydean]

We all know that the Chinese Dong lacks the size and penetrating capacity to be an effective weapon.

Must spread rep...

The thing about a carrier group is the purpose of the "group" is to guard the carrier. If you huck a dong at it, you will have an entire fleet full of defense to get past first.

That's why I agree that a sub is best because Phalanx CIWS doesn't do well under water.

 

[ohio]

We all know that the Chinese Dong lacks the size and penetrating capacity to be an effective weapon.

Would rep, except that took way too ****ing long. And shame on the rest of you for letting this get to page 2 before the above appeared.

 

[dante]

Page 2??

Noooob.