Did China Test its
Image Credit: flickr/Pacom

Did China Test its "Carrier-Killer?"

0 Likes
70 comments

Want China Times is reporting that China may have tested its new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), the DF-21D.

The DF-21D, sometimes referred to as a "carrier-killer," is fired from a mobile truck-mounted launcher into the atmosphere, with assistance from over-the-horizon radar, satellite tracking and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles where a warhead is delivered to its target at a speed greater than sound.

Want China Times explains:

"The People's Liberation Army has successfully sunk a U.S. aircraft carrier, according to a satellite photo provided by Google Earth, reports our sister paper Want Daily — though the strike was a war game, the carrier a mock-up platform and the "sinking" occurred on dry land in a remote part of western China.

Satellite images revealed two large craters on a 200-meter-long white platform in the Gobi desert used to simulate the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. The photo was first posted on SAORBATS, an internet forum based in Argentina. Military analysts believed the craters would have been created by China's DF-21D anti-ship missile, dubbed the "carrier killer."

If such reports are accurate, this would be another step towards developing a weapons system that could tip the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific in China’s favor.

A logical next step would be for China to test the weapon against a moving vessel at sea as opposed to a stationary target on land.

China's new missile would also need to be tested against an uncooperative target. Such a weapon would face various challenges to hitting a vessel in the open ocean. As defense analyst Roger Cliff explained in an interview with The Diplomat:

"The thing to keep in mind is that, in order for China to successfully attack a U.S. navy ship with a ballistic missile, it must first detect the ship, identify it as a U.S. warship of a type that it wishes to attack (e.g., an aircraft carrier), acquire a precise enough measurement of its location that a missile can be launched at it (i.e., a one-hour old satellite photograph is probably useless, as the ship could be 25 miles away from where it was when the picture was taken), and then provide mid-course updates to the missile. Finally, the warhead must lock onto and home in on the ship."

In terms of countermeasures and ways to defeat the missile, Cliff also explained the U.S. had a number of options, although some measures may be difficult to employ:

"…over-the-horizon radars used to detect ships can be jammed, spoofed, or destroyed; smoke and other obscurants can be deployed when an imagery satellite, which follows a predictable orbit, is passing over a formation of ships; the mid-course updates can be jammed; and when the missile locks on to the target its seeker can be jammed or spoofed. Actually intercepting the missile is probably the most difficult thing to do. The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it."

China's ASBM was also in the news this week for other reasons.

Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon's testing directorate has stopped publicly raising concerns about the lack of a surrogate missile needed to test defenses against the DF-21D.

Last year the Pentagon’s operational testing chief, J. Michael Gilmore complained that the Department of Defense (DOD) had not been given funding to develop a threat-representative anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) target for open-air trials, which Gilmore characterized as an "immediate test-resource need."

Pentagon spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea has confirmed that DOD will no longer be discussing the ASBM target shortfall in public because of security concerns.

"Additional discussion of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Target at the unclassified level is not possible at this time," Elzea said, Inside Defense reported.

Comments
70
Jonny
March 19, 2013 at 01:34

What about saturation bombardment? Surely that's the point. So long as only a couple out of hundreds fired hit the target you knock the flight deck out of action (at best) or sink her. Either way you've lost your key power projection tool in the region and the enemy has demonstrated their capability to possibly deter you to further – and more costly – attempts to intervene in the future.

Lauren Garza
February 20, 2013 at 04:48

What people aren't saying is that the only way this missile could be relevant in combat is if it carries a nuclear warhead. Either as an high altitude EMP strike or as a direct airburst over a carrier battle group. The thing about an EMP strike is that one can nuance it to say that it wasn't a direct hit on the carrier.

Chuck Norris
February 16, 2013 at 03:21

The US carrier was a ship that took the US war to the doorsteps of the other country, which happened to be poor 3rd world countries of Africa, Middle East and S.East Asia. But now 50yrs later, technology makes leaps and bounds in progress. It's growth is exponential. So now, you have this piece of floating metal crap that is really a floating home for the fish. It belongs at the bottom of the ocean where the fish can use the huge carrier as a reef and a home.

The DF21F will work and destroy this floating piece of crap anytime China wants to keep the American at bay – away from the Daiyo Islands and Taiwan and the entire S.E. China Sea.

 

 

ajibola
February 6, 2013 at 21:30

china have never destroyed any country but usa have destroyed so many.by being friends to many,china have grown to number 2.by being enemy to so many and only friend to one usa is shrinking

Kim's Uncle
January 29, 2013 at 16:50

Well if the red Chinese think they can take the US then let them try! :). Speak softly and carry a big stick! The US has real power and can back up our words and deeds while china has wu Mao clan that talk so tough on the Internet! We have seen this play before!

Andy
January 29, 2013 at 14:24

@akinkhoo,  As far as I know, the Chinese nukes cannot reach all the cities of the United States.

Andy
January 29, 2013 at 13:52

"China can say what they want ie. no first use, do not want an arms race (they want to be the only one racing) peacful rise etc etc." – Excellent.

Andy
January 29, 2013 at 13:48

@John, If the world really needs peace, The commie Chinese PLA should not develop these kind of weapons.

a_canadian_observer
January 29, 2013 at 06:57

@Hanged Drawn and Quartered: Let's look at what china has done to Tibetan and Uyghuir people, all the killing, torturing causing the death of millions of them.  Look at what they taught the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, that resulted in the disappearance of 1/3 of the population through many gruesome killing methods.  Look at how they killed Vietnamese women (many of them pregnant), children and old people during the 1979 invasion.  It was just simply barbaric nature!

Emilio Lizardo
January 28, 2013 at 23:46

Of course the affects of a nuclear strike(s) on America would be catastrophic, but at the end of the day the world would have 1billion fewer Chinese.
As suggested, policy makers would likely place such limits on the objectives such that initiating a nuclear strike would not appear justified.
The most likely intervention would be to simply sit outside the range of China's weapons and strangle her sea trade. 

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief