PDA

View Full Version : "China Deploys ASBM Carrier Killer ."



megimoo
12-27-2010, 04:15 PM
China's military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for Pacific allies.

Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.

"An analogy using a Western term would be 'initial operational capability (IOC),' whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it," Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. "I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC."

The four-star admiral, who has been an outspoken skeptic of China's claims that its large-scale military buildup is peaceful, said the U.S. deployment assessment is based on China's press reports and continued testing.The new weapon, the "D" version of China's DF-21 medium-range missile, involves firing the mobile missile into space, returning into the atmosphere and then maneuvering it to its target

Military officials consider using ballistic missile against ships at sea to be a difficult task that requires a variety of air, sea and space sensors; navigation systems; and precision guidance technology — capabilities not typical of other Chinese missiles.Asked about the integrated system, Adm. Willard said that "to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large."

The admiral said that while the United States thinks "that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested," China's testing has not gone as far as a live-fire test attack on an actual ship."We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system," he said.
snip

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

m00
12-27-2010, 04:48 PM
Hey maybe if we had a missile defense shield... oh wait, we 'agreed' not to do that.

djones520
12-28-2010, 05:47 AM
I covered this yesterday... we agreed not to use ICBM bunkers to hold our anti-missile defenses, nothing more.

Our ship born AEGIS missile defenses, which we would use in this situation, have not been affected at all by that treaty.

We also have a THAAD unit based out of Hawaii that will be used to defend against ballistic missiles launched from East Asia.

megimoo
12-28-2010, 09:54 AM
I covered this yesterday... we agreed not to use ICBM bunkers to hold our anti-missile defenses, nothing more.

Our ship born AEGIS missile defenses, which we would use in this situation, have not been affected at all by that treaty.

We also have a THAAD unit based out of Hawaii that will be used to defend against ballistic missiles launched from East Asia.

Are you the only one in America that has seen the full detains on what was negotiated away by team Obama ?The details are kept secret even from the US Congress .

Aegis is a shipboard missile defense system originally designed to protect our carrier strike groups from Russian Backfire Bombers .It has proven to be useful against Ballistic Missiles if given enough warning by large over the horizon radar systems .The new Chinese missile is long range and very high speed and satellite guided .

If they fired these things in salvos from different land based launchers it would be tough going for the Carrier Strike groups.China's intent is to drive our carrier forces far away from the South China sea and Formosa.

djones520
12-28-2010, 09:55 AM
Are you the only one in America that has seen the full detains on what was negotiated away by team Obama ?The details are kept secret even from the US Congress .

Aegis is a shipboard missile defense system originally designed to protect our carrier strike groups from Russian Backfire Bombers .It has proven to be useful against Ballistic Missiles if given enough warning by large over the horizon radar systems .The new Chinese missile is long range and very high speed and satellite guided .

If they fired these things in salvos from different land based launchers it would be tough going for the Carrier Strike groups.China's intent is to drive our carrier forces far away from the South China sea and Formosa.

I've actually read the treaty. Have you?

megimoo
12-28-2010, 10:09 AM
I've actually read the treaty. Have you?

You read what was released but not the whole thing !Gates and the JCS are the only ones who have it and are concerned over the details.

Russia has a most favorable treaty from their point of view and will hold us to the ABM draw down portions.
As I've said before Russian is scared to death of ABM and have always demanded that we dump it .

Along comes Obama looking for a win to cover his failed presidency and his team of over anxious amateurs give away the crown jewel of our Security for a cluster of Obsolete junk missiles !

djones520
12-28-2010, 10:13 AM
You read what was released but not the whole thing !Gates and the JCS are the only ones who have it and are concerned over the details.

Russia has a most favorable treaty from their point of view and will hold us to the ABM draw down portions.
As I've said before Russian is scared to death of ABM and have always demanded that we dump it .

Along comes Obama looking for a win to cover his failed presidency and his team of over anxious amateurs give away the crown jewel of our Security for a cluster of Obsolete junk missiles !

So what is it that you know that lets you throw around statements like us throwing away all our missile defences?

Starbuck
12-28-2010, 11:38 AM
I use the "Trust But Verify" phrase that Ronald Reagan loved so much.

But I use it to gage the actions of our two Mississippi senators. They both voted in favor of the treaty. OK. I like them both, they are Republicans, but I'm going to be reading this thing for myself.

I believe we are being driven to near hysteria by the press. Maybe. We'll see. Then I'll vote accordingly.

megimoo
12-28-2010, 11:42 AM
So what is it that you know that lets you throw around statements like us throwing away all our missile defences?I'm not alone in that one Mr. Jones .A number of US senators share my concerns. How would you explain senators’ concerns?

djones520
12-28-2010, 11:55 AM
I'm not alone in that one Mr. Jones .A number of US senators share my concerns. How would you explain senators’ concerns?

Political grand standing mostly? The loudest opponents where using it to bring up issues that weren't even related to the START treaty. Granted, the administration wasn't nearly as forthcoming about all the discussions that went along with this treaty, but in the end what is binding is what was on that paper. And what is on that paper is plain as day, and not that big of a hindrance to use since almost all of our defense capabilties are ship based, or based on the west coast and Alaska, not in Montana and the Dakota's.

But that doesn't even begin to answer the question I asked you. What do YOU know that allows you to throw around comments about how this treaty shuts down all our missile defense capabilities?

megimoo
12-28-2010, 12:32 PM
Political grand standing mostly? The loudest opponents where using it to bring up issues that weren't even related to the START treaty. Granted, the administration wasn't nearly as forthcoming about all the discussions that went along with this treaty, but in the end what is binding is what was on that paper. And what is on that paper is plain as day, and not that big of a hindrance to use since almost all of our defense capabilties are ship based, or based on the west coast and Alaska, not in Montana and the Dakota's.

But that doesn't even begin to answer the question I asked you. What do YOU know that allows you to throw around comments about how this treaty shuts down all our missile defense capabilities?

You with impunity call it grandstanding. Do you have any evidence to support that claim ?Couldn't it be they have an honest fear of poor negotiations on the part of these amateurs in the White House.
After all Obama has already given away a portion of the proposed ABM system in Poland with radar systems placed in Romania, Bulgaria .

Article V of New START would prohibit both sides from converting launchers for ICBMs and SLBMs into launchers for missile defense interceptors, and vice versa .

"We have no plans to convert any additional ICBM silos. In fact, it would be less expensive to build a new silo rather than convert an old one" .Russia's larger fear is that we would further expand ABM and isolate their Nuclear strike capabilities .

SLBMs however are an entirely different matter .The giveaway there is it prohibits us from using our decommissioned SSBN bombers,as launch platforms for ABM interceptors in case of an Nuclear attack .