With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned. After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers. Rest of the story It's an interesting and potentially devastating development, if true. One would hope that the Navy would be a step or two ahead of such a thing, and if we are hearing about it now, they've been working on it for years. However, it doesn't take too much digging in the history books to see time and again where navies of the world were slow to adapt to changing technology. Ship design and defense mechanisms cannot be be changed overnight, it takes years of steady buildup to achieve a desired force capability. Missile technology, by comparison, is relatively easy and cheap to develop (I did say relatively). If this article is true, it is very similar to the period just before World War One. Despite the craze of building "Dreadnought" type battleships, many navies sought to redress the balance by developing weapons systems that could threaten the battleships at a much lower cost; leading to the birth of the motor torpedo boat and development of the submarine as an offensive weapon. Same thing happens again 20 years later with aerial bombing of ships. Question is, are we at another of these technological crossroads?
We've always stayed on top of these developments. The technology that they use was incorporated into some of our tactical ballistic missiles in the 1980's so we are very familiar with it. One of the reasons that our latest anti-ballistic missiles are sea-based is that ballistic missiles with maneuverability, decoys, and guidance systems have existed for some time. The Russians have such a system, but not the money to deploy it extensively.The Aegis warships that carry our anti-ballistic missile are operational already. The weapon is only a threat if we allow it to be. We probably would not be deploying carrier groups near Chinese air forces anyway and we do have countermeasures. Every weapon has a weakness. This one has several. First it has to survive deployment in the face of stealthy unmanned aircraft targeting their launch sites. Secondly ballistic missiles are not all that stealthy. They have a huge launch signature, are very vulnerable in the boost phase, and wide open to sophisticated radar in the descent phase. Hard to hit, to be sure, but it ain't impossible and we do have the capability. Like the cruise missiles before them, they are dependent on other platforms for mid-course and terminal guidance in order to hit a moving target. The long-range patrol planes and helicopters that the cruise missiles needed proved to be vulnerable to carrier aircraft and missiles. Likewise the satellites and RPV's that these ballistic missiles depend on to hit the target are extremely vulnerable to US technology. Every little thing has to work for this technology to be successful and we have ways to mess with it in every phase. The Soviets have a long history of inventing carrier-killing superweapons, starting with the cruise missile in the 60's and continuing through the supersonic torpedo in the 90's. But we have developed effective countermeasures for them all. If we don't go broke, we will remain ahead of Chinese war technology. The other reason that this is not such a huge threat is that we have no intention of trying to control the South China Sea with aircraft carriers. We have always and shall continue to control the South China Sea with nuclear attack submarines. Two or three subs on a full war authorization could dominate the entire theater. They drill there all of the time. That's why the Chinese were so upset at that new Navy sonar oceanography ship mapping sea bottoms, currents, and temperature inversions on their continental shelf last week.
I tend to believe you are right, Red, but since these are not things the general public can be made aware of, you just never know. Again, history shows that military top brass can be very slow to respond to technical changes, especially when it threatens well established technology and doctrine. One would hope the many lessons of the past serve to reinforce reality, but in a case like this it's all pretty much conjecture until the real shooting starts and you see what actually works and what doesn't. You may well be right about not using carriers in the South China Sea, but what about the East China Sea and the Taiwan Strait? Any conflict with China would surely involve Taiwan, and it's extremely likely Japan as well. Any reinforcement of Taiwan would almost certainly involve carrier based aircraft, at least in the initial phases. We don't home port a carrier in Japan for nothing.
You won't be seeing carriers in the Taiwan Strait or anywhere where we don't have air supremacy. They are too vulnerable to saturation air attack. They are used primarily to provide offshore support for operations against small countries who can't threaten the carrier. Or against anyone foolish enough to send a naval task force against it. In a full-blown war with the Soviets or Chinese, the carriers would be operating in blue water on radio silence and trying not to be found while they stage hit and run air assaults from maximum range. From there they can prevent any forces or shipping from operating outside the enemy air coverage envelope. An envelope that we would be shrinking with air and missile strikes against its command and control structure as well as its operational bases.
There's another angle to this. Sinking an aircraft carrier would effectively escalate any confrontation past the point of measured responses, probably. So, if they sink a carrier, they invite some serious responses. Americans have taken the gloves off in the past. Put 5000 sailors into the briny deep and there's a really good chance a serious case of whoop ass is on the way. We are not defenseless. Nor do we lack means to deal with these kinds of things. But it is an intersting article, fo sheaux...
i understand the importance of carriers, but, push come to shove, i think we could take off from land to hit some chinese ships
It's a bloody big ocean, kid. We can't even hit pirates in fishing boats in the constricted waters of the Gulf of Aden. We don't always have land bases where we need them and where we do have them, they are subject to pre-emptive attack. Exercises among our own navy and with other navies have proven that a carrier task force on radio silence is awfully hard to find in the ocean. And it gives us a base that we can move anywhere.
Hell, I know for a fact that a carrier with the lights dimmed down on a dark night with no moon is awfully hard to find, even in the Persian Gulf! And that's WITH Night Vision Goggles!
