Home » Sea » AirSea Battle » Can Aegis Stop China’s Carrier Killer Missiles?

Can Aegis Stop China’s Carrier Killer Missiles?

by John Reed on January 5, 2011

A Lockheed official today gave a predictably cryptic answer to questions regarding the the ability of the defense giant’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to protect against China’s DF-21D carrier killer missiles.

“We’re constantly looking at the evolution of our Aegis BMD capability to keep pace with threats,” said Lisa Callahan Lockheed’s vice president in charge of the Aegis program during a Jan. 5 phone call with reporters. “While I can’t talk specifically about the capabilities we have against specific threats…we are definitely working to evolve our system to keep pace with the threats as they evolve.”

Callahan refused to comment when pressed on whether the current Aegis BMD system can protect against the DF-21D.

Wonder how long it will be before we come up with a way of defending our carriers from this system? It may mean developing carrier-borne strike aircraft with longer ranges or adjusting concepts of operation to keep the carriers farther off China’s coast. The latter could mean U.S. Navy and Marine Corps jets would have to refuel more often, fly longer missions and/or carry reduced weapons loads.

Share |

{ 162 comments… read them below or add one }

moe January 5, 2011 at 5:47 pm

I dont think Aegis is built to have enough up angle to engage a missile coming down on them, I think they are more built for lateral defense. However it would probably be easy to modify these for that…


RocketMan January 5, 2011 at 8:33 pm

Aegis BMD uses the SM-3, and doesn't care a whit about your so-called "up angle" — it fires from a vertical tube, burns out just outside the atmosphere, and coasts ballistically for an exoatmospheric intercept.


S O January 5, 2011 at 10:25 pm

…except that you still need a radar that tracks the BM during flight – even pretty much above the ship.

Defence plans that depend on engaging a missile like DF-21D at long range will inevitably require extremely short reaction times … and those are unrealistic in the real world where Murphy's Law does indeed rule with Clausewitz' friction.


moe January 7, 2011 at 9:18 am

uh if the missile comes down at a high angle trajectory, over the ship, the current aegis will not be able to engage it. You are talking about a missile that is coming out of the atmosphere! the Aegis would need shoot straight up, which I dont think they have that kind of elevation capability.

but again, that should be an easy modification, and or the new missile aegis should be able to handle it. Problem comes if you have multiple incoming missiles, there is a limit on how many can be intercepted, no matter how good your anti missile defense is.


superraptor January 5, 2011 at 5:51 pm

It also could mean to go back to the future and have a much larger 5th Generation Strategic bomber force operating from a distance which we could easily afford if we siginificantly reduced our forward Tacair bases and associated fighters (less need for thousands of F-35)and reduced the number of aircraft carriers. Even new upgraded B-1s with ALCMs could do the job as they are hard to defeat flying at sea level. It is sad that the TACair background of the USAF leadership has clouded their strategic thinking.


ano8 January 6, 2011 at 9:25 pm

Wow.The fighter mafia now are seeing the usefulness of the bombers.Amazing.


Michael January 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm

What about that laser test where we shot down that missile some months ago? Maybe we could lase that thing before it's too late. (At least I'm not suggesting "sharks with friggin laser beams attached to their heads".) Of course, the laser concept wouldn't work in all weather patterns…

Just thinking out loud.


CoCowboy692000 January 12, 2012 at 2:26 am

What about an ICBM type of idea, except it's laser based…. multiple lasers with multiple targeting capabilities, etc., from the same missle??? I don't see why not… Or even the X37b (I think that's the name of the one that looks like the space shuttle) could be outfitted with multiple lasers… in fact all kinds of things…

But as you said, just thinking out loud… I haven't even plowed through all of the comments on this yet… should be fun to see all of the ideas!


brian January 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm

If we had a high powered laser YES, otherwise MAYBE.

The best way to deal with this threat is to kill its terminal targeting and guidance, that says laser to me.


Wells January 5, 2011 at 6:47 pm

hell yeah laser all the way too bad we dont still have our modded 747 laser system, thanks obama.


Sparkle Motion January 5, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Wells, the ABL is a dinosaur and a big fat target, and it was never ready for prime time. Laser power and optics subsystems have advanced to become orders of magnitude cheaper, smaller, and lighter since the ungainly chemical lasers were conceived for the ABL. The best plan is the current one: scrap the ABL, but keep the lessons we learned building and flying it, and adapt them to much smaller and lighter platforms.

When you see a C-17 or C-27 zig-zagging aggressively through the skies with a hip-mounted laser 10x more powerful than ABL's, you'll recognize the wisdom in this.


Moose January 5, 2011 at 11:45 pm

Not to mention Capital ships sorting FE Lasers and Railguns for defense.


Caleb January 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm

This always got me, I understand that to have a flying laser a la 747 ABL system would be useful for ballistic missile defense against fixed targets (cities bases ect)

But wouldnt a ship born laser be the most akin to the vulcan but way faster with better targeting and more precision? Also the size/energy storage wouldnt be as big an issue as it is on a plane…

Maxtrue January 6, 2011 at 9:04 am

Sure, but will you be alive? It won't be a C-17. 10x more powerful? And what lesson learned if you stop short of fully testing the proof of concept? It is thinking like this that delays product in favor of wishful thinking. hip-mounted? Yep, that's the ticket…


brian January 6, 2011 at 10:56 am

Just because something is a big fat dinosaur when you deploy, doesn't mean its useless or not the best tool for the job. We can have something better in the lab, but its in the lab and until the technology can match the output of what we can deploy right now, its not the right tool for the job. I am sure Solid state lasers will be there one day, but just not now


chuck January 6, 2011 at 7:49 pm

What good is a 474 with a laser.The laser doesnt have the range to do the job. Are we going to have them on station flying 24/7 all over the world. Its the type of thing that when you need it you need it now not 5 hours from now.


chuck January 6, 2011 at 7:51 pm

sorry should have typed 747


ano8 January 6, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Chemical lasers are overrated.(like ABL).Solid stated laser or another kind are the future.The ABL still is working like a research platform.


Drake1 January 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm

A new Tomcat interceptor type phoenix combo?


William C. January 5, 2011 at 7:04 pm

A modern fighter launch an ABM missile to intercept such targets. Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have been looking into developing such missiles based of the PAC-3 and AMRAAM.

In my opinion, the best counter to missiles like the DF-21D into the coming decades into the coming decades will a combination of defenses. The continued development of AEGIS and SM-3, the introduction of high powered directed energy weapons (lasers) on a new series of destroyer or cruiser, and new Navy fighters equipped to launch ABM missile. Such a fighter would need to have a relatively long loiter time at the outskirts of a CBG however, more time than the Super Hornet currently provides.

The concept of an airborne laser system to be used in a defense role has merit too, but we are years away from the ability to fit such a system to a carrier capable aircraft.


2thebear January 6, 2011 at 5:39 pm

I agree with Drake and the F-14; one hell of a platform and with all the hard points… you can attach just about anything!. We must start thinging a little more broadly air to ground; air-to-air, close air ground support.

I might be a little slow, use 4th Gen tools,,,,, But I can still kick ass.


ano8 January 6, 2011 at 9:35 pm

Phoenix was designed to shot down slow Soviet bombers.They have not use against a carrier killer missiles. The time of the 4th Gen tools is already done.


JDC January 7, 2011 at 10:41 am

Yes, except there are no F14's in the bone yard. They shredded all of them in a knee jerk reaction to a few scumbag contractors trying to divert spares via an intermediary to Iran.

There are a very few de-mil'ed F-14's on static display. Unsure of the status of Phoenix missiles, but the F14 was the only a/c to carry them (other than one A3 testbed now retired) so they are probably scrap.


ROBERTRO2 January 8, 2011 at 1:35 pm



JZizka January 5, 2011 at 7:32 pm

How about going after the system they use (satellites) to find the carriers in the first place geniuses…..


S O January 5, 2011 at 10:27 pm

…because a) not that simple b) Chinese could launch multiple cheap satellites on demand to counter c) there are more targeting systems than only satellite d) "neutral" satellites could be used for targeting


TLAM Strike January 5, 2011 at 11:05 pm

There is no such thing as a “Cheap” satellite. A Russian Soyuz spacecraft and its Proton rocket cost $120 million. Something like a RORSAT is a few thousand kg lighter but its still a massive investment to built it and the rocket. Also there is only a few places to launch a satellite in the ENTIRE WORLD. One B-2 sortie and they could lose that capability for years.

“Neutral” birds can be countered, just buy all the air time on them. Or jam their downlink.

Also we know where these satellites are (AEGIS can track them, in fact IIRC AEGIS can bounce a radar signal off the Moon if it wants. also you can track them by eye if you want- I have spotted satellites and the X-37 with my binoculars), so we can operate outside of the footprint of the satellite for a limited time (hours or days depending on its orbit.). Or we can station warships with SM-3s or fighters with ASATs to shoot them down as they pass overhead before spotting the carrier. Also right there is a mission for the X-37B, satellite interception and destruction. The X-37B can change its orbital inclination meaning it could intercept several targets on one mission. All that would be needed to destroy a Satellite is a 20mm cannon in its payload bay, even a cup of ball bearings dropped in its path would obliterate a satellite at orbital speeds. Worse comes to worse we can ram one of our birds in to it. (the Chinese has already tested that option).

The larger threat I see is Over the Horizon radar from the shore of China. But those would be Tomahawk target #1 I think.

Second major threat is the increasing number of Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the PLAAF and PLANAF. Those of course can be intercepted and shot down. Too bad we don’t have the old AIM-54 for that mission.


S O January 6, 2011 at 11:59 am

It's possible to launch more than a dozen satellites into low orbit (less than 500 km) at once. This can happen from a launch pad in remote areas – an equatorial launch position is not necessary..
These short-lived and small satellites would pass a specific point on earth very often because of their low orbit and would need much less expensive sensors because of their relative proximity to the surface.
Their low orbit makes a high velocity a necessity, which in combination with maneuvers makes an intercept very difficult.

There's such a thing as a cheap maritime surveillance satellite.


TLAM Strike January 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm

However the smaller the bird the less resolution on its sensors. If its a low quality photo recon bird then it could be fooled by decoys like the Soviets used when our early birds would go over their naval bases. If its a low quality radar bird that it could be jammed by the more powerful phased array radars on our warships. If its IR imaging than it could be blinded by a laser (Visible Light imaging too could be blinded).

Low orbit equals bad. It puts it in range of ground based weapons, and makes maneuvers more costly in terms of fuel (Space craft like to maneuver at the slowest point of their orbits called “apogee”, where their thrusters have the most power and error in their course change is the lowest). Also an attack from the inverse orbital track will be more damaging due to increased relative velocities in addition to giving the bird less time to maneuver away from an interceptor. Also the foot print of the bird is less at lower orbit meaning less area covered by sensors.

E_Khun January 5, 2011 at 7:48 pm

What's wrong with you guys? Everyone here immediately thinks in terms of "hard" killing them Carrier Killing Missiles. What's wrong with a good old bit of deception?


Belesari January 5, 2011 at 9:12 pm

lol Ok obi wan. What do you suggest?


IKnowIT January 6, 2011 at 10:24 am

Such as?


S O January 6, 2011 at 11:54 am

Decoy ships and barges.


Jeff Fraser January 6, 2011 at 2:50 pm

Decoys the size of a Nimitz-class? Hmmm…


Sev January 6, 2011 at 8:42 pm

how about disturing the air around a missile? Like seting off large explosins in it's path in order to adversley affect its trajectory. IDK, might be an idea.

Ehran January 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm

was a us admiral some years ago demonstrated that commercial photo satts had enough resolution to spot a carrier group easily. today's satts can give up what aircraft are sitting on the deck i'd imagine.
then there is the problem of all the radio noise the carrier group emits constantly.

us of ass January 11, 2012 at 1:11 am

Deception? How about have the carrier group sail backwards?


STemplar January 5, 2011 at 8:08 pm

I'm sure it's capable. I know an engineer that worked on the AMRAAM and she always talked about how that missile was capable of far more than just what it was specced to do. So I'm sure the SM3 is as well.

I also agree a layered approach provides redundancy along with different intercept options that an attacking system would have less chance to be able to overcome. There is SM3 currently, the EW potential of AESA, drones loaded with an NCADE option using AMRAAMs, the recent 100kw laser tests seem promising, a scaled down rail gun is a possibility,

How about some good forward deployed ISR and persistent prompt strike for some plain ol preemptive strikes?


Joe America January 5, 2011 at 8:12 pm

Something tells me China should be more concerned with protecting it's DF-21D
from our offensive weapons.


S O January 5, 2011 at 10:29 pm

Sure, the '91 Scud hunt against missile launchers on perfectly open terrain with zero effect was certainly reassuring.

PRC missile launcher vehicles could even hide in one of ten thousands of buildings until a minute or two before launch.
The only way to hit them before launch is to hit them in the military base in the first minutes of a war.


blight January 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm

I think Kosovo is a more damning indictment of our ability to target enemy units on the ground. The use of decoys and concealment was probably the biggest embarrassment never reported on.


Cain January 11, 2012 at 12:57 am

Something tells me Joe America is a moron.


us of ass January 11, 2012 at 1:13 am

Ever hear of the Underground Great Wall of China where these DF21s are / to be stored?
It's strike proof, even from nuclear.


Justin H January 5, 2011 at 8:17 pm

Time to make the F/A-37 Talon from the movie Stealth, a reality lol.


Campbell January 5, 2011 at 9:01 pm

"…or adjusting concepts of operation to keep the carriers farther off China’s coast."

Try this…use a new kind of carrier. One that makes targeting much more difficult because it can deliver strikes from ANY location, whether off the coast……OR FROM ANYWHERE INLAND. A carrier that moves at three times the speed of present aircraft carriers; and which needs no escorting ships to protect it from submarines.
Say what?
Airships. Launching UCAVs.
USS Macon and USS Akron….updated. stronger! faster! able to cross shorelines and leap tall mountains in a single bound! Whoooeeee!


blight January 6, 2011 at 12:47 am

Wouldn't work. Macon and Akron carried small lightweight scout planes, and wouldn't do well carrying heavy fighter jets and extensive fuel and munitions. Every pound you bring up has to be accounted for in additional internal lift volume. The equation is far from favorable.

(That and Helium isn't cheap…)


Billw917 January 6, 2011 at 10:24 am

So, we're talking Battlestar Galactica?


blight January 6, 2011 at 8:10 pm

Or Dr Who (or SHIELD's) sky carrier.

Some Bolos will show the world who's boss, and enrich General Motors to a painful degree.


crackedlenses January 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm

I say we send the Pillar of Autumn. That would be enough to scare even the deaf and the blind Chinese……


blight January 6, 2011 at 8:57 pm

What if we attached the Pillar of Autumn to an airship?

blight January 6, 2011 at 11:52 pm

In more seriousness, an airship or a larger fixed wing flying carrier would still need to be protected from enemy aircraft. A CV or CVN can deliver staggering amounts of firepower to target, whereas a skycarrier needs to carry every pound and keep it in the air. The fuel costs would be pretty staggering. Maybe we'd need to solve the nuclear propulsion problem first before developing a fixed-wing skycarrier of meaningful size. And even then, it's especially expensive to heavily armor an aircraft and you pay the penalty out of range and payload. You are already a giant radar target if not properly designed and then subject to the constraints of a low-observeable aircraft, and a LO aircraft already entails considerable expense.

It's worth noting that airships served as anti-submarine units and fleet scouts, but weren't pushed into combat against real surface combatants or enemy air. Even Britain, which used barrage balloons and could stand to profit from a patrol unit that didn't run out of gas didn't lean towards the airship/skycarrier concept to reduce patrol craft response times.


Belesari January 5, 2011 at 9:25 pm

Campbell, while i think Airships would be great for transporting massive amounts of cargo over land i cant see them as Carriers. Atleast not for the next 50 years. Simply dont have near the tech. Also it would be rapped by fighters.


I think a new longer range interceptor and longer range strike aircraft are nessesary. Not Something like the F-18. Say something like the crusader or tomcat. And something like a A-6 Intruder.

I think there are a few things that are going to be able to defend against the DF-21D and other such weapons. I'm not sure if the sm-3 Is fully capable of taking out the DF but i think its possible. Maybe not highly capable but they may just need to upgrade it more which as a weapons system they have been for awhile. Dont forget railgun research. The railgun would make a great Line of site anti-air weapon. Then there are DE weapons which are coming along very well.

The idea that the carrier is now obsolete and super weapons capable of defeating everything are a fantasy. The nuke was supposed to make warfare itself permanent and without the same armys as the past. That has been proven false as many times as all the others


Red Matt January 5, 2011 at 10:18 pm

The problem with longer range strike aircraft is that it's easier/cheaper to make a longer-ranged missile, up to the point where you're using conventional ICBMs to hit carriers anywhere on the planet.

I'm not saying carriers are obsolete, and there are countermeasures to this concept… but staying out of range isn't one of them.


Belesari January 5, 2011 at 11:33 pm

Your not going to be using ICBM's from around the planet to kill carriers. ANY ICBM or rocket launc for that matter is know before it gets clears that atmosphere. Plus no one can tell if your launching a REAL ICBM with a nuke load. Big no, no. Then there is the massive cost of a ICBM. Maintanence etc.

And you would have to send up dozens of them at the same time because there WILL be a counter to this syetm like all weapons have a counter. Then there is a counter counter and we go around and around.

Im not talking about staying out of range of the missiles. We need long range carrier based fighters and bombers the Super Hornet only has a combat radius of 395 nmi last i looked. That is pathetic.


ano8 January 6, 2011 at 10:00 pm

We need long range carrier based fighters and bombers

The answer: X-47B


Guest January 6, 2011 at 11:05 am

You can't outrange ballistic missiles. We could spend many billions a carrier air wing that can allow our carriers to operate 500nm further from their target, but all it takes is a ballistic missile with 500nm longer range to make that entire fleet obsolete.

We need to disperse our naval air power away from the monolithic supercarrier. We need UAVs that can operate from much smaller ships for strike, ASW, EW, and AEW. When the number of high-value targets increase from one or two, to forty or fifty, it will be much more difficult to stop a naval fleet.


blight January 7, 2011 at 4:22 pm

I really don't see airships doing much of cargo lifting. They are great for putting up a lightweight loiterer on next to no fuel. A airship playing carrier to a fleet of lightweight Predators is probably the only viable system I can imagine. I would shudder to imagine parking one in an area and refuelling/rearming them in the air. The savings from avoiding ground takeoffs would translate into longer range or more payload. That and keeping them close to the fight. However this system would run into serious fail against an enemy with air-to-air missiles…


Jacob January 5, 2011 at 10:05 pm

If precision weapons become more and more advanced, we might have to give up on aircraft carriers altogether like we gave up on the battleship. The "All Submarine Navy" article comes to mind….


Justin H January 5, 2011 at 10:37 pm

Remember Boeing's concept 6th Gen navy fighter. Compared to F-35: better stealth, has supercruise, greater range, and hopefully a slightly larger payload, and optionally manned.


Steveo January 6, 2011 at 7:12 am

Boeing, aren't they the same folk who claim the F-15SE as stealthy as the F-35.

Not sure i'd take what they say very seriously.


Maxtrue January 6, 2011 at 9:10 am

Yes, I'm sure the DOD doesn't take what Boeing says seriously.


Justin H January 6, 2011 at 5:04 pm

They never said that. But I'm glad you have a wild imagination.


ano8 January 6, 2011 at 10:02 pm

Yeah .they said that


Justin H January 5, 2011 at 10:41 pm

China may consider pre-emptive nuke strikes against better equipped enemies.


superraptor January 5, 2011 at 11:41 pm

Thank god, this administration removed our tactical nuclear cruise missiles from our subs to have them permanently dimantled. So much for deterrence.


US of Ass January 11, 2012 at 1:02 am

Hey Moron, Is China off the coast of the USA? No. USA is sticking it's bloody nose where it don't belong…get it?
You Americans are MORONS. NO ONE likes the Americans, except fellow Anglo countries.


behind every blade February 8, 2013 at 10:14 pm

So? We don't give a crap whether or not you commies like us.


Belesari January 5, 2011 at 11:35 pm

Time for some orbital weapons platforms with KK rods. Maybe its tie for a space navy LOL.


elgatoso January 6, 2011 at 10:05 pm

Rods of God and brilliant pebbles.


John B January 5, 2011 at 11:43 pm

People seem to be misguided on concept of killing Chicom satellites to deprive its carrier killing missiles from targeting US carriers groups. So, in the scenario of tension in Taiwan strait, the US Navy just sends in the carriers, then starts launching pre-emptive strikes to kill the Chinese satellites or its missle bases just in case ? Come on, be real guys. Then we might as well nuke them now for good.


William C. January 6, 2011 at 12:51 am

If the Chinese ever launch ballistic missiles at our carriers, I fear they will be carrying low-yield nuclear warheads rather than any sort of conventional payload. Yet even if this isn't the case why do we hesitate from developing nuclear tipped ABM missiles? Certainly a SM-3 with a nuclear warhead would have a higher chance of success to neutralize it's target.


@Joe_Schmoe12 January 6, 2011 at 1:20 am

When nuclear weapons explode in the atmosphere nasty things happen, it's why the U.S. and USSR stopped atmospheric tests in the 1950's I believe.

First, it causes a massive EMP, well more like wave, over the atmosphere that travels for quite a distance. To give you an idea, a single several-megaton nuke exploding in the atmosphere over the west coast would blank out most of the U.S..

So on the same note, it would more than likely damage the aircraft carrier group itself (depending on their level of EM shielding) and severely damage China, Japan, Korea, etc. Not practical for the effect you are trying to achieve.

Second, it causes one hell of an Aurora.


@Joe_Schmoe12 January 6, 2011 at 1:25 am

Here is some more info:

"This high-altitude EMP occurs between 30 and 50 kilometers above the Earth's surface. The potential as an anti-satellite weapon became apparent in August 1958 during Hardtack Teak. The EMP observed at the Apia Observatory at Samoa was four times more powerful than any created by solar storms, while in July 1962 the Starfish Prime test damaged electronics in Honolulu and New Zealand (approximately 1,300 kilometers away), fused 300 street lights on Oahu (Hawaii), set off about 100 burglar alarms, and caused the failure of a microwave repeating station on Kauai, which cut off the sturdy telephone system from the other Hawaiian islands [1]. The radius for an effective satellite kill for the various prompt radiations produced by such a nuclear weapon in space was determined to be roughly 80 km.

The Soviets detonated four high-altitude tests in 1961 and three in 1962. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, both the US and the USSR detonated several high-altitude nuclear explosions as a form of saber-rattling. The Soviet tests were meant to demonstrate their anti-ballistic missile defenses which would supposedly protect their major cities in the event of a nuclear war. The worst effects of a Russian high-altitude test occurred on 22 October 1962 (during the Cuban missile crisis), in ‘Operation K’ (ABM System A proof tests) when a 300-kt missile-warhead detonated near Dzhezkazgan at 290-km altitude. The EMP fused 570 km of overhead telephone line with a measured current of 2,500 A, started a fire that burned down the Karaganda power plant, and shut down 1,000-km of shallow-buried power cables between Aqmola and Almaty
The Partial Test Ban Treaty was passed the following year, ending atmospheric and exoatmospheric nuclear tests. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 banned the stationing and use of nuclear weapons in space."

So like I said, no go there.


us of ass January 11, 2012 at 1:03 am

Nuclear warheads? Whoever uses them first can expect same in response, so don't look for China to be using nuclear tipped warheads, you meathead.


Tony C. January 6, 2011 at 7:12 am

The point is missed, the answer was Lockheed Martin keeps upgrading based upon emerging threats. The Chicom Carrier Killer is a candidate for the rail gun as a defense.
No warhead tarvelling at mach 3 is able to manuever, no matter how much they say they can.
Tarcking a warhead on a fixed tarjectory can make it targetable by a rail gun system. The rail gun prijectiile travels at mach 7, so you do the math. The BMD system is for nuclear weapons in teh appogee (space seperation). The rail gun can be used for warheads once they enter the atmosphere. The US Navy is looking at high power lasers too, they know that they need speed to counter speed.


Maxtrue January 6, 2011 at 9:20 am

hypersonic missiles and warheads traveling more than 30,000 ft per sec will be able to maneuver if equipped with control surfaces. I don't think however that suborbital launched guided spikes are likely to hit another fast moving missile. I wouldn't rely on a rail projectile hitting one 200 miles away. A missile carrying drone protecting the perimeter might do as well as one powerful laser cannon. And lesser DEW might be able to fry it.

Good point Byron, although what each said was entirely different subject matter. At this rate, how many top officers will be left? China needs to develop a stealthy microphone and then our carriers will be leader-less.


Guest January 6, 2011 at 11:10 am

I sure am glad I don't live in your little fantasy world!


Guest January 6, 2011 at 11:11 am

Oops, my apologies, Tony C. I meant to post this in response to Clive's post, not yours.


DualityOfMan January 6, 2011 at 1:52 pm

The US Pershing II had terminal guidance way back in the 80s.

Air-to-air missiles travel at mach 3+ and seem to maneuver just fine.


Maxtrue January 6, 2011 at 10:10 am


More dangerous than the Carrier Killer…….


jmatt January 6, 2011 at 10:31 am

This is the beauty of free trade: We need China and China needs us. We have more to gain as trading partners than as belligerents.

Moreover, what's the contention? Taiwan? If Taiwan disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, would you even know it? And while they have an historical animosity, in present day, China and Taiwan do a lot of trade with each other.

Do mainland Chinese really want to kill island Chinese? What's to be gained by taking over an island that would be obliterated before it was captured? And since the world would surely embargo Chinese goods if it attacked and took possession of Taiwan, why risk your entire economy for a small island when you are already the largest country on Earth?

Yes, we need to be vigilent in our defense. But this ain't 1938. Capitalism won and both the Russians and the Chinese not only acknowledge it but enjoy it. We're all to busy becoming prosperous to bother killing each other.


Maxtrue January 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm

No, more like 1930…and it seems we might be repeating German reliance on untested higher technology instead of contemplating logistics and quantity. Worst yet, a repeat of anticipating problems and disturbing mentalities.

Let us all have hope in the X-51 making Swiss cheese of enemy decks with 3000 tungsten spikes traveling at 30,000 ft per second. Subs would be a more traditional route. Perhaps in the near future America might want to test this hypervelocity capability on a retired carrier for PR effect. Something the Germans weren't smart enough to do or achieve. At the start of WW2 they had the designs for a hypersonic bomber pictured in a mock photo flying over NYC. We on the other hand, were asllep at the radar scope when Japan unloaded more conventional sorties on Pearl Harbor. History has a recycling way of mixing things up.


Chimp January 8, 2011 at 5:20 am

Mainland Chinese absolutely do not want to kill Taiwanese Chinese. It would be a political disaster which the CCP most likely wouldn't survive.

The relationship between China and Taiwan, and Taiwan and the US is *extremely* complex. I give you the iPhone 4 – designed in the USA, and made in China by a Taiwanese manufacturer. And you better believe that the capitalist wonder-phone is popular in China. I was in Beijing just before Christmas, and they were going for RMB10,000 a pop in 'approved' outlets – who couldn't keep up with demand.

In other words, the world according to CNN may not be a good reflection of reality, believe it or not!


theman January 6, 2011 at 1:52 pm

JMatt is mostly right. Most importantly, THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE OVER TAIWAN IS THAT BEIJING CONSIDERS IT TO BE PART OF CHINA. So attacking Taiwan would kind of undermine their entire basis for claiming the island. In addition, can you imagine how difficult it would be to stage an opposed landing these days? China is not going to invade Taiwan. The more likely conflict would be over North Korea, and even that is a remote possibility.


Byron Skinner January 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm

Good Morning Folks,

Some very good discussion on this rather well worn topic. It appears though that two assumptions are in general being made here. First is that a DF-21D could get launched. Give the US ability to find and destroy mobile missile launchers the probability that a DF-21D could get launched is rather slim.

The DF itself is a system still in early development. The DF-21 is kinda like a Swiss Army knife missile. With two stages it is an IRBM/MRBM that could easily engage targets in the Ningxia Nhi Autonomous area. That may be the reason way the 2nd. Artillery Corps who control all of China’s ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads has located all six existing mobile DF launchers in this critical area.

With it’s three stages operating, which the Chinese have yet to achieve, the same types of problems the Russians have with the Bulava/Topol M the DF-21 is a short range ICBM. It is noted that the continental US is not with in range of the DF-21 ICBM from current Chinese territory.

The other assumption is that Ages is maxed out. The system still has a lot of growth in it and the Standard 3 is not the end of the line in anti-ballistic missile technology.

Any use of such a weapon would be the result of a prolonged period of political unrest between the PRC and the United States, there would be no surprise.

Byron Skinner


Rob G January 6, 2011 at 11:28 pm

I'm more concerned about a Chinese submarine getting a lucky shot with a torpedo than the DF-21.


quest January 6, 2011 at 9:43 pm

So China has ballistic missiles … big deal , so do we. I suspect that any future Taiwan straits war would probably end up not being fought from carriers but with long range bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missles.


Oliski January 6, 2011 at 11:31 pm

There are multiple strategies that can be utilized one would be to have long-range stealth drones set up a 360 network perimeter. Drones could be armed or unarmed and could easily send coordinates of the incoming missiles as well as it’s trajectory to the carrier group. The rest is history. That’s just one strategy and there are more. The rest is up to the brilliant minds of military strategist to make it a reality. When a web is created and a strand is broken the web still holds. I should be paid for this china has nothing on me.


blight January 6, 2011 at 11:48 pm

I think the fundamental question then would be extending the detection envelope of a small expendable UAV. If you start putting in a super expensive radar package onboard those UAVs, you probably do more economic damage by simply blasting these out of the sky until Boeing can't put them together anymore.

I wonder if you could modify a AWACs craft and just park it nearby a valuable target, and use its sensors spot ballistic missiles farther away.

The OST prohibits weapons platforms in space, so a tungsten rod launcher in high orbit coupled to rocket launch detection systems is off the table…


asdf January 8, 2011 at 1:57 pm

exactly, and so is an armed version of the x-32 or 37 or whatever it is. any shooting or such activity in the space will get extremely messy in no time.


danf January 6, 2011 at 11:52 pm

The Chinese don't have to kill any Carriers. they just have to wait for the US to decommission the ones they have. We already plan to take the Abe Lincoln offline simply by opting to not refuel it. So now there are only 11. Watch the budget cycle. See if any new carriers construction is authorized…Don't you get it ? Obama hates American power…the "Dreams From My Father" he is talking about is that America is a oppressive colonial power that must be castrated. In 10 years the US carrier force will be 5 or 6. There will be no next gen advance bomber, the new START treaty will be interpreted to mean no new strategic delivery, no missle defense…US military dominance is over…it's just going to take 10 years to clear the props from the stage. Open your eyes…can't you see. The future competiveness of the US is being poured out onto the dirt of Afghanistan. Do you seriously think OB cares a rats ass about Afghanistan…it is simply a convenient place for OB to bleed out military spending, energy and moral…wake up people…


blight January 6, 2011 at 11:54 pm

That's pretty paranoid, considering that a pres only has eight years /tops/ to do serious damage to a country's military power. America has had presidents exploit the peacetime dividend only to be unlucky and have a war hit them in the face. We've come out bloodied but unbroken each time. I agree that this kind of luck isn't forever, but still…


Mike January 7, 2011 at 12:41 am

The question is can the aegis stop the Chinese carrier killer? The answer is yes the infrastucture is in place and in theory when you put into perspective time fuel etc aegis
Has a clear advantage not to mention algorithms and new propulsion tech as wells composites more advance processors. I’m no expert but the only way we can give the Chinese the advantage is not protecting our secrets. They seem to be very good copycats have the numbers and also have the money and spies (hacking). Being that we owe them alot of money in the trillions can probably buy there way.


asdf January 8, 2011 at 1:58 pm

tech is not everything. there is always a $100 weapon that can kill pa $5m system (vehicle…).


longshadow January 7, 2011 at 10:20 am

We will be fielding UCAV's about the same time they start fielding their DF-21D's. Carriers with UCAV's and loitering Tactical Tomahawk missiles isn't that far away.


JDC January 7, 2011 at 10:56 am

Anyone consider the fact that the DF-21D could be a bit of strategic deception? The Chinese aren't dumb. It might be in development, but the jump from a land based Korean War army with almost no Navy to a 21st century fighting force takes decades. They are getting there, but aren't 20' tall (yet).

I'm sure they are working on the carrier killer. However, having a good PR campaign to destroy the will to deploy (casualty adverse) our will to go into harms way also works.

This buys them time…we also spend time and $ to develop the "anti-DF-21D" weapon…meanwhile they continue to build up submarine assets and train in counter-surface warfare techniques and tactics.

The real danger, as pointed out is two fold: 1. The US Navy decreasing the capability of platforms, decommissioning all platforms at a rate which greatly exceeds the build plan (and foolishly sinking those decom ships instead of retaining the more modern ones). 10 carriers-REALLY? 2. Spending a lot of $ to move major USAF and USN assets to Guam, thereby easing the Chinese targeting problem. Hmmm…let's decrease our forces a lot, then put a large portion of those we have left into one small island base.

(Naval Aviator, 34 YOS)


meinrotti January 7, 2011 at 2:25 pm

Take out their satellites before putting the carriers in harms way. Once blinded their OTH targeting and capability is useless. They do not have the mobile airborne sensor capability or sophistication that the US has or the blue water aviation assets to support them. China has 3 ships for auxillary refueling and load out for support of at sea assets. Their satellites are their achilles heel. Blind their targeting and terminal guidance.


ChrisM101 January 7, 2011 at 3:17 pm

Im not sure all of you understand the scope of the DF-21 threat.

First this is a Nuclear weapon platform. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.
Secondly its multiple RV, so 5-6 warheads.
Third the hypersonic maneuverability of the RV

Aegis can engage to a point standard RV's i don't think they are up to the level of intercepting Maneuvering Re-entry Vehicles. China has up to 80 of the DF-21 missles, and some are not to this level of tech but older single warhead models, but you can bet any new ones deployed are and that amounts to about 8 launchers, fired in unison, a possibility of 40+ warheads would likely be directed toward a carrier group.

China knowing that launching a single nuke at the US carrier strike group would likely result in several SLBMs appearing in their radar scopes within a few minutes cannot really have a use for this weapon except in a worst case scenario. Of course thats what we all say about nuclear weapons until someone uses one then all bets are off.

What better to ask would be : What is the US Response to the attacking or sinking of a Carrier?
And the response if a Nuclear weapon is used ?

The world is such that we would be the only bad guys if we lost 15,000 soldiers/sailors to nuclear weapons in theater but launched a nuclear counter attack, which obviously in china would amount to killing millions near designated military targets alone.

Then you have to think a chinese counter attack or pre-emptive strike on the US mainland would include a large response.


asdf January 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm

it's not a nuclear platform by default, it can be (optionally) though. and the case about the nucs (all bets are off) wasn't there during the cold war. the west actually planned for the use of the TACTICAL nucs for reduction of the tank formations etc. as did the "other guys".


blight January 7, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Pondering the effects of nuclear weapons on a aircraft carrier. The only time ships were nuked directly was in Operation Crossroads. Bomb Able (~20 ktons, airburst) detonated ~ 600 yards from a target battleship (USS Nevada)and caused "serious damage".

Test Baker, which was an underwater bomb did more serious damage (for the same reasons that torpedoes and sea mines are so feared). My impression was that Baker seems to have caused more radioactive contamination than Able.

It's a pity that we did not drop a nuke on the USS America when we had the chance to test equipment. I imagine next time we retire a carrier, we should tow it out into the Pacific and do a few test fires with conventional ICBMs at it.


Byron Skinner January 7, 2011 at 5:23 pm

Good Afternoon Folks,

It would seem that we have exhausted nearly all the possibilities of what a conventional carrier killer BM can/could due. The next use of this weapon would obviously be nuclear. I agree with what blight sad if you going to take out ships with nuc;s do an underwater explosion. The bikini test results that are in the public domain show this very clearly to include taking out a carrier.

Other then as hypothetical arguments, I really don’t see the value of any of these weapon platforms or the weapon they would support. In very simple terms before any conflict would get to the stage where these weapons could become of use they would no longer exist.

Byron Skinner


PolicyWonk January 8, 2011 at 1:07 pm

I think the US needs to make clear, that if foreign relations become tense enough between our nations (or those we have mutual defense treaties with) ever gets to a point to where a ballistic missile might be launched for whtever reason by China, since we';; have no way to determine what the purpose of that missile is (or how it is armed), we will have to assume that the payload is nuclear.

Unfortunately, that also means, that we would have to respond with a ballistic missile (or missiles as the case may be) that would more than likely have to be launched on warning.


rasley January 9, 2011 at 10:03 am

Enter ArcLight.

It may be time to reassess the feasibiity of coupling PGS to a resurrection of the Arsenal Ship (or some variant thereof). In an era of ship killing ballistic missiles and whatever else the future may hold, a dedicated launch platform for such a weapons system seems like something to put back on the table.

Imagine a battlespace where UCAVs loiter overhead gathering intelligence and pass it on nearly instantaneously. Enemy troop movements, strength, weapons locations, etc, all being transmitted to a battleforce commander and his/her staff. Now imagine that commander being able to select from a vast array of targetable weapons and launching them from a platform well outside the range of even a ship killing ballistic missile.

That my friends is a real game changer. Whether you are a black shoe or a brown shoe, anyone can appreciate the potential capabilities that such a system would give our deployed forces. And what's more, in today's purple suit environment, a weapon that leverages any sort of joint architecture would have a better chance of making it through the Congressional gauntlet unscathed.


blight January 9, 2011 at 8:22 pm

Haven't we been here before? Except in the old days, it would be persistent air force units on tap and ready to bomb out those pesky Viet Cong.

Arsenal Ship is nice to talk about, but Tomahawk cruise missiles are subsonic. So if you park outside of missile range and fire your barrage, there will be a lot of waiting until those missiles arrive at their targets.

Omnipresence is expensive, and you pay for a UCAV flying overhead whether or not there are actually Taliban below.


Matt January 9, 2011 at 6:30 pm

Anyone else remember the laser equipted phalanx CIWS that THIS SITE posted awhile (month?) ago? Can that stop these missles?


blight January 9, 2011 at 8:20 pm

From previous deftech video footage, the laser took a few seconds to burn through a missile. Even if a Phalanx could lock on, it would require pinpoint accuracy and holding the beam on the exact same point of the missile for damage. On the plus side, missile casings are usually thin, so penetration would probably be pretty quick.

Only one way to find out…


Natick Worrior January 12, 2011 at 11:00 am

We simply need to outfit Strike Groups with Lasers. More funds need to be spent on develoing this as a defense. There has been test that shown it can be done successfully, knocking out incoming mortars, shells and misslles. I understand that at this stated of developement, the laser may be big in size but if you have an aircarft carrier all you have is room. Or produce a ship that house the laser system and it liquid chimecials.


Hu Khan January 16, 2011 at 6:23 am

ASBM will carry a neutron bomb so that China can then tow the carrier back to HongKong as another museum casino piece. China has the habit of buying up useless carriers for Chinese entertainment.


passingby April 8, 2012 at 8:00 am

a radioactive museum / casino ???


blackgang June 7, 2011 at 2:02 pm

I find all of this mental masturbation over a future war with China to be a complete waste of time. Any actual shooting war with the PRC would go NUCLEAR within days. It is for that reason and that reason alone that any such war will never happen.


Slamming June 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Why should'nt China posses advanced weapons like these? They have had to tollerate american carrier battle groups in their back yard for years. I predict that within 30 years the Americans (as a dwindling economic and military power) will be moaning about Chinese battle groups off the West coast. The days of a one super power world are rapidly ending and the West had better get over it. The most effective defence against them is not military….its ecomomic. Stop getting our factories relocated to China and they would not be able to afford the big boys toys!!!!!!


Darragh Scully June 20, 2011 at 5:07 am

greetings. After thinking about this problem it would be difficult for China to cause to much problems with this missile alone. Ussually there are just 2 carriers in the region, well atleast in the japanese area of operations anyway. After some thought on the df 21d you must realise that its whole system is based on a satelite guidance system. So should war break out I am saying that one mission will be to use RIM 161 off Erie, Shiloh or Decatur or any other similarly equiped ship to neutralise the Yaogan-VII electro-optical satellite, Yaogan-VIII synthetic aperture radar satellite and the Yaogan-IX Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) constellation systems or any other Chinnese Statalites for that matter. Notably a missile defence system that would counter Chinnese attempts to eliminate US satellites should be considered also. Satellites will need to be equiped to counter this threat in the future because the Chinese and others also have anti satelite missile systems in operation.


Chad P July 21, 2011 at 7:20 pm

I doubt China would resort to a nuclear fight. That is a ginnie that no prudent leader (as opposed to religious nut) wants to let out. After all, if one side goes nuke, both sides do. The US has China so outmatched in nuclear capability that that is infact, probably a situation that China would actively seek to avoid (while boasting otherwise). Given the admittedly limited, but real (and increasing) ability of US missile defense, the field could be skewed even further. China would find their own nuclear attacks marginally, yet still somewhat thwarted, while being forced to take everything that came at them.
All this said, perhaps its time to give up Taiwan. China is emerging as a superpower, and Taiwan is in their yard, just as Cuba is in our yard. A superpower will have its yard as it wants it, and anyone contesting that will find themselves fighting in a superpowers own yard. The soviets recognized this, and we should too.


Sentinel August 21, 2011 at 11:15 am

The advantages to China are distance and relatively low cost missiles compared to $25B price tag on each US carrier. China could launch 100 low cost missiles against each US carrier and hope 5-10 that could get through to sink the ship, assuming US carrier has defense against ballistic missiles in the future. The only way to deter this is to declare nuclear war on China if US carrier is attacked by ballistic missiles.


Christopher Lehman September 16, 2011 at 6:42 pm

the DF-21 will be an EMP type bomb. You don't need to sink ships for a bomb to be effective. If it can't move and nothing onboard works, that's just as good as sunk.


passingby April 8, 2012 at 8:07 am

the first wave of strikes against carrier groups should be EMP weapons, unless it's an all-out war, in which case it wouldn't hurt to simply use nuclear weapons. I doubt that the US (and shadow) government has the nerve to go for a mutually assured annihilation script.


Jake November 13, 2011 at 11:17 am

the funniest part about this is, china using a carrier killing missile would just awaken the giant again. the biggest question americans would have to answer after seeing one of our 11 aircraft carriers go down, would be whether we send china back to the stone age, or just kill thier leadership with our laughably overpowered military. id like to see chinas "largest airforce" comprised of mainly antiques even get off the freaking ground. chinas large population and brutal tactics has been a bully in asia for too long.


Ric December 7, 2011 at 10:21 pm

Good points on using lasers and rail gun to kill of DF-21 type missiles. However a salvo of say 24 missiles can overwhelm the carrier defense and even one hit can turn the ship by 90 degrees just by the kinetic force plus explosion.

Another point made also had good logic but only partially: Yes the anti tank missiles and sea torpedos have not thrown tanks and ships out of the equation. That is because there are thousands of tanks and 100s of ships. However in the whole world's navy there are barely three dozen or more Aircraft Carriers. US has 11, UK 1, Germany None, Russia only 1 etc. So a $10B carrier going down to $1M missile is too big a investment return to ignore.

Another good point made was to take out Chinese satellites to kill off the terminal guidance of DF-21s. Space area is where US can defeat other nations including Russia not by 1 or 10 miles but by 100s of miles in the literal sense.

Seems space is the new frontier and in BMD sense, it already is.


dan December 30, 2011 at 4:51 pm

If a "sizzler" was launched from the Iranian shore at the Strait of Hormuz, a carrier would have 45 seconds before impact. Could our defense systems react that quickly? Just wondering.


passingby April 8, 2012 at 8:00 am

I'll bet on "No"

I speculate that Aegis is as over-hyped as earlier US radar systems.

Remember USS Stark???


Justin Hall August 1, 2013 at 6:51 pm



hbj February 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm

make peace instead?


RISSER Jean-Louis April 8, 2012 at 6:27 am

dear sir! my only intention was to imagine a cheap personal anti-tank weapon,with a little
barrel but a high velocity with indifferently perforing or hollow ammunitions;for that purpose
wich I call" engin semi-auto propelled",it means principally:
1 a first exposive charge,enough strong to give a rocket a good output and a long range
2 the best best output approachs the sound speed,and explane the necessity to reduce
the barrel,or using guns without recoil,but heavier.because the next war may involve
a massive tanks use…friendly your.


passingby April 9, 2012 at 4:56 am

huh?? how is that relevant in this Aegis defense thread??


Simon Lau February 21, 2013 at 1:01 pm

US is 10,000 miles away from China, I wonder why the US carriers are having the rights to keep close to the Chinese coast and facing the threats from DF-21D. Thus, the best solution is stop deploying the warships around China as it is the only way to reduce the US national debts and save the valueable lives of the Americans as having war with China is a loss loss scenario.


TeXan June 9, 2013 at 6:48 pm

Aegis has a fair capability of shooting down hostile aircraft.. Why couldn't it shoot down a balistic missle?

BTW aircraft carriers are unsinkable and cannot be damaged by missiles or torpedoes. That is why they have Big George patrolling off of north Korea.. they are not scared of torpedoes.. check it out..


Jack March 4, 2014 at 4:57 am

Yeah and the Chinese are sitting at their desks just picking their noses.
I don't think.


William C. January 6, 2011 at 12:48 am

Remember, SM-3 was designed to deal with ballistic missiles, particularly medium ranged designs like the category this would fall into. Nothing is 100% but I'm sure we aren't building the SM-3 just to look pretty when it launches.


Curt January 6, 2011 at 3:02 am

And of course, since the Chinese have never even tested a DF-21D let alone successfully tested the missile with all the required near realtime sensors and C2 system in a realistic environment, maybe no one really knows if AEGIS can counter it because we don't even know what it will look like yet.


Maxtrue January 6, 2011 at 9:24 am

Until China has a rough matrix of subcontractors and Democratization, they have the J-20 and we have a multitude of technology.


Guest January 6, 2011 at 11:11 am

I sure am glad I don't live in your little fantasy world!


Steelrain13 January 9, 2011 at 8:09 pm

Another Dumb Republican.


blight January 9, 2011 at 8:19 pm

Hooray, let's all be cold blooded. We should all be little Brezhnevs!


us of ass January 11, 2012 at 1:06 am

Oh, it's okay for the US to kill their enemies, but taking US casualties is not okay.
Only little brown/black/yellow people should die? Is that it, nimrod?


brian January 6, 2011 at 10:52 am


Alright suppose the Carrier is traveling at 30 Knots, that missile will be traveling at say what 7-9k Knots, it might as well be parked. The only questions is terminal guidance not carrier movement. The SM3 is the only missile our destroyers carry that can hit that warhead, and its not a done deal, since its only going to be traveling 5-7k knots.


TLAM Strike January 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm

“The “Carrier Killer” warhead has yet to be invented but it could be: HE. a flechette that would cover the carrier with tennis ball size darts that would stick into the flight deck and disable radar, it could be an enriched uranium penetrator or what ever. This weapon simply doesn’t exist. It hasn’t fore the past ten years that it’s been speculated on.”

Based on sat photos of the test ranges hit by DF-21s the missile has 3-6 main warheads each capable of blasting a 15 meter wide crater in concrete and a secondary warhead of dozens of cluster bomb like sub munitions.


TLAM Strike January 6, 2011 at 12:06 pm

By that same notion you might as well say that fighter planes shouldn’t maneuver if fired on by a missile.

Speed or maneuverability; pick one.


STemplar January 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm

20 minutes of flight time would mean a carrier at speed has moved 11.5 miles from the point it was at to begin with. Which translates to over 400 sq miles of ocean the carrier could be in. Somehow I don't think that's an easy shot.


brian January 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm

WTF are you talking about?


TLAM Strike January 6, 2011 at 12:43 pm

An aerodynamic object’s ability to maneuver is inversely proportional to its speed except when nearing stall speed. Basically in an aircraft’s (or in this case missile’s) flight envelope there is a “Sweet Spot” half way between max and minimum air speeds where it’s drag is the lowest. This because of a force called “Parasitic Drag” which increases with speed.

This is why pilots don’t make sharp turns at supersonic speeds. A subsonic aircraft will simply out turn them.


brian January 6, 2011 at 1:23 pm

again, WTF are you talking about? Your way off subject. Reread post/response again, and then think carefully about what we are talking about


brian January 6, 2011 at 1:31 pm

right and 20 minutes of traveling at 7-9k/hour umm yeah that translates into umm ridiculous area of coverage. I mean we could figure out trajectory based on the downward arc and visibility but that would be silly.

BTW, I didn't say easy, just saying movement of the carrier doesn't really matter. If terminal guidance works, then it hits.


Curt January 7, 2011 at 5:14 am

Except you have to add the targetting error, lets be generous and say 5nm, and then the missile accuracy error, say 100yds, and you really are looking at a circular area around 16nm in radius (800sqnm). And it grows every minute you delay launch due to reporting lag, missile prep, making decisions, spinning up the missile, etc. So you are really probably talking on the order of 30min from target location to launch. Depending on the sensor on the missile, that makes a huge area (over 1300sqnm) to seed decoys, etc. How much can your missile maneuver from the target point once it aquires the target? 100yds? 1000yds? 5nm? How long does it get to discrimnate targets? You are not really outmaneuvering the missile, you are outmaneuvering the anti-ship system of which the missile is probably the easiest part.


STemplar January 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm

Terminal guidance is course correction given to a missile between mid course and arrival in the target area. If a target is 400 sq miles and you're looking to hit a single ship within that area then you need a lot more going for you than just terminal guidance. To say that movement isn't a huge factor in whether or not the missile strikes a target is simply not true.


brian January 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Not to mock you but a system that can detect and travel to a ship 2000k miles away is going to be somehow going to miss a ship traveling 1/300th of its speed is absurd. I mean seriously the targeting area is 12.5 Million Miles! 400 Miles isn't even a rounding area a system like that!


Greg January 6, 2011 at 4:26 pm

You are making ascertains as if you are an expert when you are clearly not. 400square miles is a huge area. Also how much manevouring can you do at Mach 7-10? I'm no expert but it seems like things will rip off at that speed.


STemplar January 7, 2011 at 3:10 am

You aren't mocking me because I actually don't think you have a clue about the complexities of hitting a sea borne target 1000 miles away. I am talking about hitting a single ship within 400 sq miles, a 20 by 20 mile box. To say that movement plays no substantial part in it defies simple logic before you even get into the engineering of it. It doesn't matter how fast the missile flies, or far it travels, if it doesn't have a an on board targeting system, or a robust communications capability and maneuvering capability for receiving updated targeting information, it isn't going to hit a moving target.


Josh January 6, 2011 at 5:25 pm

What part of this are you guys not getting? If a missle can be locked on and fired, an aircraft carrier CANNOT get out of the way nor can it hide. As Brian as correctly stated, the associated sensor arrary required to make this system work is not going to be fooled by a lumbering ship the size of a small town doing "evasive" moves on the open ocean.


brian January 7, 2011 at 1:05 pm

right, you are talking about 400 sq Miles being huge, when the system designed to launch that missile us designed to detect, target and launch a hypersonic payload in a radius of 12.5 MILLION SQ MILES!!!

It would absurd to create a "carrier killer" that didn't have terminal guidance because regardless of where the carrier was "dead in the water" the ballistic course of that missile after launch would invariably be off. and a carrier isn't really that big of a target in a huge ocean.


Josh January 6, 2011 at 5:26 pm

I love how the "experts" on this forum keep giving these comments negative votes… must be too factual for them, better to talk about airships (?!) and Nimitz class carriers out maneuvering a missile.


crackedlenses January 6, 2011 at 8:29 pm

There are some parts of it that could come true. I sure don't trust our news media when it comes to war coverage…….


ano8 January 6, 2011 at 10:23 pm

What are you talking about ???We are twenty years evolved against our closed allies not even counting our adversaries,(Our enemies,NK,Iran and other 3 world countries are still in the fifties going to the sixties).Do not confuse politicians with our military,


Sev January 6, 2011 at 10:44 pm

You don't even know what the Pillar of Autumn is do you? Son. I am dissapoint.


elgatoso January 6, 2011 at 11:13 pm

Pilar of Autumn is the spaceship of HALO ,You shoul be talking about the MAC railgun.


blight January 6, 2011 at 11:27 pm

Clearly my airship sarcasm just went whoosh over your heads.

AIrship mode makes everything awesome!


blight January 6, 2011 at 11:30 pm

I'd be more disappointed in your typo or the inability to detect sarcasm in an airship fetish response. A Mk XXXIV's with hellrails would make quick work of the unfortunate Pillar of Autumn, and would probably have nukes left over for the UNSC when they come down to the surface to play.


blight January 6, 2011 at 11:31 pm

And I mean the latter post in total jest. How can a sci-fi discussion with airships and sky carriers be interpreted in any seriousness? Take care.


brian January 7, 2011 at 1:13 pm

It doesn't need to maneuver much to the missile the carrier would appear to be still. Just a small change in the angle of attack would more than compensate. Imagine walking down the street. Imagine the person next to you was walling 1/300th the speed of your walk. do you think you could walk into him regardless of "his awesome maneuverability"?


brian January 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm

right a 120,000 ton carrier schlepping through water at 30 knots is going to be more maneuverable than a hypersonic missile traveling through space.

Interesting thought but ridiculous.


blight_ February 14, 2012 at 1:17 am

China supported the DPRK, briefly skirmished with the Soviets, engaged India, occupied Tibet, propped up the Viet Cong and then invaded Vietnam. Who knows if they participated in clandestine ops in Laos, Thailand and the other nations bordering Yunan while they rooted out Kuomintang exiles?


blight_ February 14, 2012 at 1:39 am

Granted they don't hold a candle to the United States, but they weren't playing at the same level as the US and the Soviets.

Find me an American involvement overseas during the Cold War, and chances are its Soviet counterpart is nearby.


behind every blade February 8, 2013 at 10:26 pm

It's a ballistic missile… SSBN's have probably the most advance navigation system on the planet and fire from extremely low speed. Once the Mirvs release warhead which go ballistic they are extremely accurate, however I doubt they could hit a moving target (not that they'd need to being nukes but as an example…) Ballistic means falling. Very little course correction is available after that point. The Mirvs do any final course adjustment via starmaps just prior to release. Once launch of the theoretical anti-carrier BM is detected, it is a simple determination of when it goes ballistic to avoid it. Or that's how I see it.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: