| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| China Has ‘Workable’ Anti-Ship Missile Design, Pentagon Says |
| 2011-09-03 |
| Wonder if it is marked "GE" on any of the parts..... |
| Posted by:Uncle Phester |
| #8 China + PLA are still waffling between the doctrines of Cold War-style "managed escalation" from conventional towards nuclear strike, versus unilateral or "preemptive" limited nuclear strike, as they fear that the US-Alied may mistakenly interprete any incoming DF-21 ASBMS as a strategic limited or "all-out" nuclear strike. IMO this is part of the reason China deployed an easily convertible, dual-use "oil-energy platform" in the SCS - IT IS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES A "HYBRID" OR ASYMMETRIC "FLOATING/SEA FORT" CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING BOTH VERTICAL-LAUNCH + TLCM SYS THAT, SSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH, CCCCCCCCCCCCC, BTW CAN ALSO SUPPORT "CIVILIAN" OIL-ENERGY DRILLING RIG SYS IN PDENIABLE COVER/DISGUISE. Its complement to the above is combined Surface Warfare-Submarine task groups on CVN hunt. The Taiwan Straits + SCS, etc is the rear front -China + PLA, PLAN actually intend to deter, defeat, or destroy US CVBGS while the latter is still away in EASTPAC-CONUS [Hawaii, US West Coast], CENTPAC, or WESTPAC [Guam]. NPT UNLIKE THE US-NATO, USSR = now RUSSIA, OR ANY OTHER MAJOR POWER, CHINA DESIRES THAT ANY NUCWAR-POSSIB MIL CONFRONTATION OCCUR AS FAR AWAY FROM POSSIBLE. IMO its safe to say that, for China + PLA/PLAN, Guam-WESTPAC IS THE "LINE OF DEATH" WHERE THE US CVBGS DARE NOT CROSS UNLESS THEY WANT ALL OUT WAR. [KLINGON, ROMULAN, CARDASSIAN, ETC. "NEUTRAL ZONES here]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-09-03 22:32 |
| #7 Currently the Aegis has a 2 layer layer defense against ASBMs. Standard 3 for exoatmospheric. Standard 2/6 for atmospheric. I think the defense will also need a bottom layer, more maneuverable missile like the ESSM in case the DF-21D has any tech from the Pershing II Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle. |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-03 22:07 |
| #6 The Silkworm was one of those explosive-packed drones that were used as anti-ship missiles; it was not a ballistic missile. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2011-09-03 21:52 |
| #5 I thought that's what the Silkworm was. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-09-03 17:58 |
| #4 Meh... so do we. Anyone can make a ballistic anti-ship missile. The real trick is to find a way to make it even halfway accurate. They could do GPS, but it isn't as accurate as ours. They could do radar, but that can be jammed. They can do optical, but that is easily defeated. They could guide it in with lasers via sub, but that means the sub has to live long enough to do it. Needless to say, there are a few details that still need worked out before our aircraft carriers need to stay away from the Chinese coast and Taiwan. China is getting closer, but is still a decade or two off from having a real working version. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-09-03 17:40 |
| #3 Standard III missiles are part of Ballistic Missile Defense and carried by AEGIS cruisers. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2011-09-03 16:37 |
| #2 This is a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile. OTOH, someone is probably working on a seagoing THAAD equivalent... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2011-09-03 15:27 |
| #1 Any country that can build passenger jets and small commercial jets can build an anti-shipping missile. The first ones were basically converted small jet aircraft made into drones and filled with explosives. Whether it can make it through all of the anti-missile fire and spoofing is the big question. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2011-09-03 15:17 |