The Chinese have a new toy...and it doesn't bode well for US Fleets

[stlrtruck]

http://www.military.com/news/article...ml?ESRC=dod.nl

April 01, 2009
U.S. Naval Institute

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.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

I don't care who the POTUS is when the shite hits the fan but whoever it is, better have some brass balls to keep our military strong!!!

[MACH1]

Nice to see our money is going to good use.

[Godfather]

Meh...if they have a toy it's probably defective and full of lead.

[steelwall]

Answer = submarines

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by MACH1

Nice to see our money is going to good use.

amen.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates released a $534 billion budget proposal Monday that would shift money from programs plagued by cost overruns to weapons and systems needed to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The budget proposal, Gates said, "profoundly reforms how this department does business" in defense acquisition. It seeks to balance the needs of troops in combat while modernizing for future threats, he said....

Some programs would grow under the budget proposal, which is up from $515 billion in the current year.

america spends more money per year on its defense budget than the next 25 countries COMBINED.

dont let the republisheep trick you into thinking obama is slashing DoD spending.

[Preacher]

The budget for this year (which is a Bush budget) is 654.7billion
Next year, (Obama's first budget) is 663.7billion

The war on terror--which is now called "overseas contingency plans" (come on, ANYONE would have to admit that is just a SILLY name) is about the same.

So in short, Obama is NOT cutting the military. However, is not really increasing the military funding by that much either. 9 billion is not enough to do what he wants. . . increasing the size of the army and Marines. However, in this economy, it isn't wise to increase the budget either. If this kind of budget restraint was showing throughout the budget, I would be fine with next years budget, given the circumstances.

If he DID increase the size of those two forces, I would be in COMPLETE agreement, provided he didn't do it on the backs of the Airforce and Navy, or spec. ops.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...0_defense8.pdf

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by Preacher

The budget for this year (which is a Bush budget) is 654.7billion
Next year, (Obama's first budget) is 663.7billion

The war on terror--which is now called "overseas contingency plans" (come on, ANYONE would have to admit that is just a SILLY name) is about the same.

So in short, Obama is NOT cutting the military. However, is not really increasing the military funding by that much either. 9 billion is not enough to do what he wants. . . increasing the size of the army and Marines. However, in this economy, it isn't wise to increase the budget either. If this kind of budget restraint was showing throughout the budget, I would be fine with next years budget, given the circumstances.

If he DID increase the size of those two forces, I would be in COMPLETE agreement, provided he didn't do it on the backs of the Airforce and Navy, or spec. ops.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...0_defense8.pdf

i clicked the link you provised and did not see where you are getting your numbers-

The Defense Department (DOD) Budget provides our troops with vital
resources to carry out their missions with their continued high level of
excellence. This Budget also ensures that, while our servicemembers
protect our country, we protect their families with expanded support
here at home. With $533.7 billion for Fiscal Year 2010, the Budget
addresses the Defense Department’s highest priorities.

(come on, ANYONE would have to admit that is just a SILLY name)

i know. the "axis of evil" was such a better name.

However, is not really increasing the military funding by that much either. 9 billion is not enough to do what he wants. . .

yeah, and trying to eliminate kickbacks and bribes and reappropriate funds doesnt increase the value of the US spent on military either.

everyone knows the haliburton route of charging the govt 50 cents (or so) for a pack of ketchup isnt the way to go.

[xfl2001fan]

That is, unless you work for Haliburton.

[Muppet13]

Originally Posted by Godfather

Meh...if they have a toy it's probably defective and full of lead.

Nice!!!

[steelwall]

Saber rattleing by both countries to get more funds for their military. Neither has the desire to go to war.