
Chinese Develop "Kill Weapon" targetting Aircraft Carriers - chaostheory
https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
======
ixnu
It's the Too Big to Fail principle in military terms. The projection of force
is greatly reduced when the fear of losing an asset determines its domain.

A carrier that has to stay 2000 km from the action puts a tremendous strain
every aspect of operations.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
A carrier that has to stay 2000 km away from the action is completely useless.
Carriers are designed for one thing: tactical air support. Can't do that from
2000km.

~~~
falsestprophet
Carriers were designed for many things, but never for action against a serious
opponent like China or even Iran.

Like much of the US military, the carriers were meant to bully weak Soviet
satellite states. Today they are used to bully weak states of all persuasions.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
That must be why it took four years to defeat the Japanese. If the US Navy had
been really serious, instead of mucking around with fleets of aircraft
carriers...

~~~
falsestprophet
It is probably a mistake to plan for future wars in the model of a war 70
years in the past. Surface fleets were rendered obsolete around the 1960s when
anti-ship missiles matured.

Things change, 70 years before the aircraft carrier, warships were made of
wood and powered by the wind.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
It's silly to rely on anecdotes like this. For example, the AK-47 is as old
today as the sailing ships you mention at the time of the first aircraft
carriers, but some American combat units are willing to ditch their M4s for
it. The odds it will be improved much in the near future are pretty slim.

I think the flaw in your argument is the word "obsolete" -- it connotes
"replaced" or "no longer in use." What else, besides the carrier battle group,
do you use to project power?

~~~
falsestprophet
You are missing the point entirely.

Anti-ship missiles are no joke. No one really believes the US surface fleet
can survive against an enemy equipped with a large number of these weapons.

Of course, the Navy has defenses. But it only takes one missile to
incapacitate a ship. Would you really feel safe on a carrier off the coast of
China during a war?

I read in one Navy report that a supercarrier would not be expected to last
the first few hours of a conflict with Iran or the first few minutes of a
conflict with China.

 _Unlike the ground-combatant, who has the advantage of concealment, terrain,
and, fundamentally, ground beneath his feet, the naval surface combatant is
alone, aboard a warm boat, easily distinguishable from the cold water that
surrounds her, said boat being packed to the gills with men, weaponry, and
explosives, sailing on a flat, relatively featureless expanse of ocean, which
offers concealment and shelter to none, and is (eventually) naturally deadly
to human life. As this is the case, threats that would merely slow down the
ground combatant--such as guided missiles--are a much greater threat to the
naval combatant. Possessing a speed and an agility that naval platforms cannot
forseeably match, as well as computerized "smart" guidance systems and a heavy
payload of high-explosive, the modern anti-ship missile, once it has acquired
its target, is an enemy that the target ship cannot usually run from, hide
from, physically avoid, or absorb._

wikipedia.com: anti ship missiles

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Nyah. You're selling, but I'm not buying.

Couple of points.

First, warfare is no longer all-or-nothing. Carrier forces can and do sit
offshore from nation states that have anti-ship missiles and have their way.
War is mostly incremental any more. That might change, but that's current
state. Taking pot shots at a carrier fleet in interational waters because its
doing something you don't like (like protecting Japan or Taiwan) is starting
to play for real money. Might happen, but it's not the most common scenario.

Second, got any evidence of anti-ship missiles taking out a modern warship in
the last 30 years or so? Last I remember it happening, I think, was during the
Falkland Islands conflict.

I think A/S technology poses an immediate and extremely dangerous threat to a
surface naval fleet -- no doubt about it. But it's not a new threat. This
threat goes back at least 50 years. A _lot_ of work has been done on both
sides to increase the threat and make it go away. Most of these weapon systems
have not been tested in integrated battle. That's a wild card that could
either help or hurt a carrier, but the assumption was that carriers were
sitting ducks, so the onus is on you to demonstrate this is the case.

Finally, a carrier fleet is a large assembly of surface ships, not just a
single target. These other ships do all sorts of neat and interesting things.
Electronic CounterMeasures _are not going to be completely known to either
combatant ahead of time_.

So right now it's a total crap shoot, in my opinion, to take shots at a
carrier group. And it's not a gamble that has any reasonable payoff -- unless
you're in a total war situation. In which case carriers are the least of your
worries. You'll be ducking submarine-launched nukes. And that's not so much
fun.

------
endtime
I don't know a ton about China, but unless it's just the tone of the article
this missile seems very highly targeted at the US Navy (I think we're much
more carrier-heavy than other navies; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Does the Chinese government/military have the mindset that they are likely to
go to war with the US? Seems kind of unrealistic to me. Maybe they are
thinking about how to keep the US out of the picture if they were to invade
Taiwan? Not that I think the US would intervene anyway...

I'm sure someone here knows much more about China than I do - what am I
missing?

~~~
redcap
The US is a perceived military adversary as far as Taiwan, and to a lesser
extent, southeast Asia is concerned.

I really do think (hope) that the chance of all-out war is unlikely, but
military orgs prepare for all circumstances. There may be a perception gap on
the part of Chinese military hawks as to what the US aim is - they feel pent-
in/threatened, and they're responding. This is a great country who has had a
recent history of being a whipping boy (Europe in the 19th century, Japan in
the early 20th) - only in recent years is China starting to regain its
'rightful' place in the world.

~~~
chaostheory
"a recent history of being a whipping boy"

This is really what Taiwan is about, a constant reminder of China's past
humiliation; it's a big emotional issue for the Chinese. I feel that this is
the driving force for everything that China has done recently

yeah I agree though that war for Taiwan is unlikely, since China's real
invasion of Taiwan already started years ago. It's just too lucrative for
Taiwanese manufacturing businesses to set up shop in China, and they've
already been migrating to China en-mass years ago. Add to that Chinese laws
forcing many of these Taiwanese businesses to have a cap as to how much money
they can transfer outside of China (specifically back to Taiwan) and then you
can see the long term problem for Taiwan...

------
gaoshan
A "kill" weapon? What, as opposed to a "happy" weapon?

~~~
redcap
I believe it's military lingo for a device (missile) that can completely take
out some hardware (in this case a massive ship) and 'kill' it.

This is a game-changer for the US Navy, and likely other military
organisations too.

------
chaostheory
this is actually better commentary (somewhat reminds me of raganwald though):
[http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-
carrier...](http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-
will-die/all/1/)

~~~
demallien
Sure, except the author keeps on trying to sound like he has spotted a flaw
that the top US brass haven't even thought of yet: "Ships have no defence
against ballistic missiles!"

Except of course, AEGIS has been under development for years, and is now
actually deployed in the field. What's the full name for AEGIS? Oh, that's
right, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. It's deployed on what platform?
Cruisers... In other words, the author's central point is a load of bollocks,
ships do indeed now have a defence against ballistic missiles.

Getting back to the main topic, well done to the Chinese if they have indeed
managed to implement a high-velocity, low-trajectory heavy missile capable of
taking out a carrier. Now the arms race begins. Can the US make an incremental
improvement to AEGIS to defend against this new threat?

This ties in nicely to yesterday's discussion on HN, kicked off by Gruber's
comments on complexity. If the US military had to design a defence system
against ballistic missiles from scratch today, there is every reason to think
that they'd stuff it up. But instead, they have gradually built up the
missile-intercept capability, starting with the relatively simple Nike-Zeus,
moving up to systems such as Patriot, and then building on that success to
create AEGIS and Ground-based Midcourse Defense systems. Each step is simply
an evolution on what has come before, and a defence against this new attack
will also just be an evolution on what has come before...

~~~
chaostheory
"In other words, the author's central point is a load of bollocks, ships do
indeed now have a defence against ballistic missiles."

I may have read the article differently... I feel that the author has put the
emphasis on aircraft carriers being obsolete, and his main point is that the
US Navy has a flawed focus of fewer and larger units; instead of building a
larger fleet consisting of smaller ships like AEGIS, stealth ships, or other
smaller boats.

Cruisers != Aircraft Carriers

------
rjprins
What is all this non sense about a war. The US and China are about as far from
war as Siamese twins are from schizophrenia!

\-- I know, it doesn't make any sense at all!!

Besides, the strongest weapon China has against the US is economic leverage.
If they want, they can almost turn the US in a third-world nation by dumping
their dollars.

------
mynameishere
Old news.

[http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&...](http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35)

~~~
redcap
You might have wanted this article from Exiled Online which includes details
wrt to the new Chinese ASBM: [http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-
how-the-carrier...](http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-
carriers-will-die/)

------
thras
Surface ships are just floating targets anyway. Nations like the U.S. and
China will go to war with nuclear submarines shooting thermonuclear tipped
ICBMs at each other's cities or not at all.

~~~
Rod
Wouldn't that be a bit too dramatic?!?

Once you've played the "nuclear card", you have committed suicide, basically.
Given that a nuclear war would ensure mutual destruction, wouldn't China and
the U.S. be better off fighting with conventional weapons only?

~~~
chancho
Interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.

~~~
cschneid
That's BS. Nuclear War is a great game to play, for all ages (seriously, check
it out, it's a fun waste of 30 minutes)

