It’s a similar rationale to the carrier’s, make the enemy divert resources into naval BMD that he would otherwise have been able to bring to bear in a different way. Every SM-3 carried is one less SM-2 or TacTom carried, diluting the defensive or offensive capabilities of the CVBG to a level where perhaps they become manageable for the combined Chinese forces.

ASBMs won’t single-handedly topple US naval superiority thanks to SM-3, but they’re not a non-event either.

Yes but a DF-21D would probably cost a good deal more than a YJ-82. imho unless the USN massively over compensates for the existence of the AShBM I question the benefits the chinese side would get especially consdering all the investment into making this a workable system.

I think the main attractions for the PLA with AShBM, apart from being hard to intercept and covering a massive area, is the damage the weapon could potentially inflict if it gained a successful hit.
I don’t think people have really targeted carriers (and sea vessels in general) coming down from on top of it since WWII.
The USS enterprise suffered serious damage after misfiring rocket caused ordanace on deck to explode — blowing holes through the flight deck, some going two decks deep.
And that was from simply a detonation without any kinetic energy.
The damage a Mach 10 warhead either penetrating through the flight deck with a delayed fuse, or a submuntion warhead on the vulnerable flight deck of a carrier is potentially very great, compared to a couple of standard or even supersonic ASCMs.

The challenge of course is delivering it.

Of course it’ll have terminal guidance and MaRV — I said that in both of my last two posts lol… If it didn’t then you may as well lob unguided ballistic missiles 3000km out and hoping the enemy CVBG will be unlucky enough to hit one.

I don’t really know enough about aegis to comment on how effective it would be against an AShBM with all the additions DF-21D is said to feature.

I am not querying the existence of the so-called carrier killing missile, but I am very sceptical that it can do what the Chinese claim. Have they got the ability to find and track a carrier in real time, launch a ballistic missile hundreds or thousands of miles away, continue to track the carrier, and relay the information to the missile as it re-enters the atmosphere, guiding on to a target which will have moved several miles during the time the missile has been in flight?

As far as I am aware, the USA and Russians developed ICBMS with a CEP measured in a few hundred feet, but that is firing from a static silo against another static target, with a thermonuclear weapon. The Chinese missile will, I presume, be conventional, and so will have to hit its target, a miss by half a mile won’t count. How many of these missiles will China make, because I can guarantee they won’t be cheap. I really don’t buy it, and as I said, I find it rather jarring that China is launching a carrier at the same time it is claiming to have an infallible anti-carrier weapon. The carrier I believe, the carrier killer I don’t.

here’s some of tphuang’s thoughts on the AShBM, two to three years ago.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/03/plan-asbm-development.html
http://china-pla.blogspot.com/2008/09/f-22p-taking-shape-my-thoughts-on-plans.html

No one said the anti carrier weapon was infallible, but it’ll certainly be able to keep flattops at bay at far greater distances than shore based cruise missiles.
Again, the fact that the Chinese are developing both carriers and AShBM should not be confusing at all — they fill completely different roles.

The AShBM will obviously have mid course correction, terminal guidance, MaRV and varying types of warheads such as submunitions.

Besides, Admiral Mullen was told that China did have an AShBM (2700 km range) but it was “under development” and had “many challenges and complications” (something along those lines). Basically this is the PLA trying to be a bit more transparent but still attempting to make the potential enemy underestimate their real capabilities.

Personally I don’t buy the hype the Chinese are putting out about their anti-carrier ballistic missiles. This is something the USSR never achieved, and I’m sure they would have liked to. The time between launching such a missile and it reaching the target area would, depending on range, have to be several minutes, during which the carrier will have moved two or three miles. Assuming the misile is not nuclear tipped, how would you solve the problem of terminal guidance? All of this presupposes that you can locate the carrier in the first place. I think the fact that China is so keen to develop a carrier force tells you something about the real status of anti-carrier ballistic missiles.

A carrier and AShBM complement each other. But then again almost every long ranged weapons system will complement a carrier.

The fact that they’re set on building carriers does not tell you anything about the AShBM. AShBM is meant for area denial, carriers are for projecting power abroad and protecting China’s SLOCs and shipping in general.

Taken some time before she left port, after she was finished.
😀

For the love of god man, don’t describe it like that again. Or the J-20 Hotdog title will be closer to reality.

Can’t judge taste I suppose :p

Posted by martian (and hou shanghai before that) over on SDF..
Not sure if it’s a PS or not (hope/don’t think it is), but great angle anyhow.

erm double post