Comments on: China Close to Anti-Ship BM

By: Peter West

Peter West — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:59:59 +0000

The new Chinese ASBM can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2,000 km+, maybe up to 3,000 km in time to come.

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 2,000km 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.

By: Anthony Maw

Anthony Maw — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:25:42 +0000

Whether or not this ASBM system works at the present time is irrelevant. as long as it is rumoured to exist and can send a 5000 man carrier to the bottom with a non-zero possibility that it can get evade any plausible defence that a US carrier battle group can put up, that’s all that’s enough to keep the US carriers at bay. oh let’s not forget about the “possible” existence of those silent Chinese attack subs. Your Caesar never saw the end of the Roman Empire coming…

By: Genghis

Genghis — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 05:41:21 +0000

Is this the Chinese decade of its Chinese century?
http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6364

By: H.Kent

H.Kent — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:08:40 +0000

Dear Sirs,
Recalling Yale Jay Lubkin’s lessons that radar guidance uses minute quantities of energy reflected from the target…imagine the effect on the receiver when a directed energy “weapon” is shined on the incoming missile with a billion or more times the power; like a non-eye safe laser right in the eyes…and you’re permanently blinded. That is why DARPA is asking for directed energy weapon countermeasures now…just read the solicitations.
We want this protection now because we have the ability to kill radar receivers with our AESA emitters…like the F-22 has, but some of the largest and most powerful ever are found on DDG-51s. The ships can track objects in space, so sharpening up the beam at RORSATs will complicate targeting as well.
Killing this latest conventional “threat” would likely just involve software or antenna array changes you’ll never hear about. A nuclear warhead near hit would still be devastating, but China can do that now.
If this is conventional warhead missile, it will just splash in the water alongside the “super-jazzy fast” radar homing cruise missiles. The really powerful lasers we are testing now will make short work of IR missiles as well…
The missile jig is almost up, China.

By: yehe

yehe — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:14:06 +0000

About chinese led toy, toothpaste etc.
Statisticly seen, chinese product are even safer than American product, this according to a Japanese statistic at least, it’s just the share huge quantity of chinese export product that makes ppl think alot of chinese product is of bad quality, but if u look at the procentage, it’s not bad at all.
Chinese military tech. is overall about 10-25years behind the USA, but they are catching up quite fast, their yearly university graduate already exceed the US from several years ago, chinese is the number one source of foriegn student in most western nation University, Silicon valley is full of Chinese(and Indians), East Asians(Chinese, Korean, Japanese) are averagely THE highest educated ethnical grp in the US, this should also tell you something.

By: Macaca

Macaca — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:41:18 +0000

I think we should lure the chinese commanders into pointless comment fights and so block their ability to make informed decisions by totally confusing them. Then we shout ‘LASERS!’ and they will love us!
.
Seriously, you should all know that stuff like this is possible if you spend enough money and time on it. It’s not new, it’s just a more advanced (combination) of existing technologies.
.
Besides: blowing up a carrier is one of the most aggressive military moves you can make. If it comes to that it wont be just this one carrier, but near-total war.

By: jonny the fart

jonny the fart — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:16:07 +0000

—–There’s a reason the US Navy has never employed a weapon like this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile
PLA is not US navy.
US Navy has balistic missles.
—-it’s not as if China holds any technological advantage over us.
you are the first guy in the world who is sure about..

By: Cal

Cal — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:53:59 +0000

“To me, this seemed implausible. Shooting a ballistic missile at a moving ship?“
This initial assessment seems right on the money to me. Ballistic missiles are inherently unsuitable for anti-ship applications. There’s a reason the US Navy has never employed a weapon like this; it’s not as if China holds any technological advantage over us.

By: Kaltes

Kaltes — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:15:15 +0000

freefalling bomb is a typical anti-American hater just like the others who troll this site. They are so obsessed with this idea of American invincibility and ‘arrogance’ so they blather on and on about how weak America is, evidently trying to convince themselves.
Let’s see what evidence ffb cites for American weakness:
1) British ships
2) An American cruiser that predated WW2, was sold to Argentina, and sunk by a British nuclear submarine
3) A small (4100 tons) US frigate caught by surprise without having armed/prepared its defenses, which nonetheless survived multiple exocet hits and returned to port.
This is his so-called evidence that a US aircraft carrier at over 100,000 tons displacement would be vulnerable and easy to kill, despite the fact that the carriers have numerous escorts designed to protect them from enemy aircraft and missiles.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:15:12 +0000

Thunder of Erebus, here we come!
Y’all need to go read Payne Harrison.