The Navy relies on these awesome missiles to stop China’s ‘carrier killer’


China’s Dong Feng-21D medium-range ballistic missile — otherwise known as the “carrier killer” — looms large in people’s minds as a weapon of ultimate destruction.

It’s designed to do exactly what the name implies: kill American and allied carriers, sending thousands of sailors to a watery grave.

But the Navy has been working to protect carriers from enemy ballistic missiles for decades. Here are three missiles that could stop a DF-21D in its tracks.

1. The Standard Missile-3

The Japanese navy ship JS KONGO launches a Standard Missile-3 against a ballistic missile during a Dec. 18, 2007, test. (Photo:

The Japanese navy ship JS KONGO launches a Standard Missile-3 against a ballistic missile during a Dec. 18, 2007, test. (Photo:

The SM-3 is the Navy’s preferred tool for defeating an incoming ballistic missile. The system is deployed on Aegis ballistic missile defense ships in the U.S. Navy and KONGO-class destroyers in Japan’s navy.

These missiles primarily engage their targets in space at the height of the ballistic missile’s flight path. To hit a DF-21D, the Aegis system will need to be on or near the projected flight path. Keeping carriers safe may require keeping an Aegis ship equipped with SM-3s permanently co-located with the carrier.

2. Standard Missile-6

The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship’s aegis weapons system. (Photo: U.S. Navy)

The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship’s aegis weapons system. (Photo: U.S. Navy)

The SM-6 is really designed to take down cruise missiles and perhaps the occasional jet, but the Navy has been testing its capability when pressed into an anti-ballistic missile role. In a Dec. 14 test, an updated SM-6 fired from an aegis destroyer successfully struck down a medium-range ballistic missile.

These are much cheaper than SM-3s, but the SM-6 is a final, last-ditch defense while the SM-3 is still the first call. That’s because SM-6s engage targeted missiles during their terminal phase, the final moments before the incoming missile kills its target. If the SM-6 misses, there isn’t time to do anything else.

3. The Army’s THAAD missile

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island during Flight Test Operational (FTO)-02 Event 2a, conducted Nov. 1, 2015. (Photo: Missile Defense Agency Ben Listerman)

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island during Flight Test Operational (FTO)-02 Event 2a, conducted Nov. 1, 2015. (Photo: Missile Defense Agency Ben Listerman)

The Terminal, High-Altitude Air Defense missile is a radar-guided, hit-to-kill missile that engages ballistic missiles either in the edge of space or soon after they enter the atmosphere. It might be capable of engaging a DF-21D after it begins its descent to the carrier.

The system is rapidly deployable and the Army has already stood up five air defense artillery batteries with the new missiles. One battery is deployed to Guam and plans are ongoing to deploy another to South Korea.

The main problem for the Navy when using THAAD to protect its ships is that the THAAD system is deployed on trucks, not ships. It’s hard to keep land-based missiles in position to protect ships sailing on the open sea.

Source: WE ARE THE MIGHTY “The Navy relies on these awesome missiles to stop China’s ‘carrier killer’”

Note: This is WE ARE THE MIGHTY’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.

Advertisements

17 Comments on “The Navy relies on these awesome missiles to stop China’s ‘carrier killer’”

  1. Tyler Reber says:

    Obviously, if the missiles didn’t work, they would be called ‘awesome’ missiles.

    Like

  2. Simon says:

    Why don’t America put it to a test and provoke China to launch a DF21 at their carrier and see if the yank’s clumsy missile can shoot it down? Err I guess not.

    BTW China is testing a new version of the J 31 stealth fighter that is looking every bit if not better than than the F35
    http://defence-blog.com/news/chinese-new-prototype-of-the-fc-31-fifth-generation-jet-fighter-makes-first-flight.html

    Like

  3. Fre Okin says:

    “In a Dec. 14 test, an updated SM-6 fired from an aegis destroyer successfully struck down a medium-range ballistic missile.”

    This is laughable. It is easy to shoot down an incoming missile with predictable trajectory and slower speed. SM 6 Mach 3.5 is so slow it will miss DF21D by a mile!

    Against SM3 missiles, it is the maneuverability feature of DF21D that counts to avoiding being hit and will continue it’s way to sink US aircraft carriers. China definitely use extremely fast computing power on DF21D to allow it to make micro micro second course change to avoid a direct hit.

    Due to the intense (Mach 15.25) Block IIA speed of SM 3 missiles, it cannot turn quick enough or abrupt enough to catch the incoming DF 21D and will miss it by a very narrow distance of perhaps a hundred feet or more. Nobody really know but definitely it will miss DF21D because the incoming Chinese missile have sensors to detect them and make a last minute micro micro second 1/500 sec perhaps adjustment in trajectory. The Chinese intentionally design the DF21D speed to match the stress limit of the missile container to avoid structural damage when making a quick sudden turn. This is why DF21D speed is only about two third of SM 3 missiles.

    The superfast SM 3 missiles do not have the capability to make an abrupt change of course to catch the DF21D. It will break up due to intense G force if it do or it will miss by a hundred feet or more. The thin missile container cannot handle extreme G force, so the (Mach 15.25) Block IIA extreme speed actually cause problem preventing it from hitting the Chinese missile. This is assuming US material science technology for the missile container is same as the Chinese.

    Even if it explode nearby and manage to damage the Chinese missile, the Chinese missile will come down like big pieces of fireballs on the aircraft carriers and accompanying destroyers, so in effect expand the whole area of attack to burn the decks of all USN ships in the armada making them inoperable. Jets than manage to take off face danger of being hit by fragments of broken missiles. Just like that, a hit on DF21D may end up as a curse on USN as it will cripple all the hardware on the ships making radars fail to work, jets fail to take off.Those jets that manage to take off will have no runway to return to and will all be captured by the Chinese or run out of fuel and crash into the sea.

    THAAD even if deployed to ships is irrelevant as the range is too short and suffer from the same fireballs from heaven raining down on USN armada of ships. It is slightly better than SM6 with Mach 8.24 but will still miss DF21D.

    A saturation attack of DF21D will guarantee enough USN armada of ships catch fire under the scenario outlined above

    Like

    • Steve says:

      Nice post…

      Like

    • quiet radar says:

      The world is still waiting for this DF-21D to be tested against a target at sea. Any target will do. And so far all we have heard regarding DF-21D is alot of hot air. At this point DF-21D still appears to be all talk.

      Like

      • Fre Okin says:

        You should give China the incentive to test drive DF21D on the sea target if you tell China you are onboard one of the ships.

        Liked by 1 person

      • joe says:

        Maybe it works and maybe it does not work. Haha.

        Like

      • chankaiyee2 says:

        Tested and hit a moving target at sea on Jan. 18, 2014. Being ignorant, you had better change your name into blind radar.

        Like

      • chankaiyee2 says:

        You are not only ignorant but also stupid. You even lack the common sense that China spent 1.8 billion yuan to develop DF-21 without testing it.

        In an aircraft carrier battle group. An Aegis destroyer can be armed with only 90 Standard-3 Block1B missile defense missiles that cost $10 million each and $900 million in all. With their maximum interception rate, the defense of all those missiles can be broken by the volley of China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles that cost less than $20 millions in all. As the anti-ship missiles are based on land, their launch system costs much less than an Aegis destroyer that costs $2 billion.

        According to previous reports summarized in my posts dated May 20 and February 17, China has 7 anti-ship missile brigades each with the capabilities of launching 24-32 anti-ship ballistic missiles simultaneously. Together, they can attack with the volley of 168 to 224 missiles to sink an entire aircraft carrier battle group. Moreover, they can reload for a second round of volley within hours.

        How can China grudge the expense to test DF-21D when it has incurred so much costs to build so many DF-21D? It is worthwhile even to build a new ship as target for the tests. Only people as stupid as you may believe that China has built hundreds missiles without testing them.

        China has tested the volley of dozens of such missiles at precisely the same time from sites long distance away from one another and refeeding the launchers for a second volley in hours.

        Like

      • johnleecan says:

        My former best friend, an officer of one of US Navy destroyers, revealed to his family and close friends that the US Navy is scared shit of China’s DF21 missiles. In fact, he said the American military had monitored the success of DF21 missiles but instead commented that these missiles haven’t been proven yet since they are afraid of the mass exodus of US navy sailors and servicemen. The same reason why the US navy do innocent passage because they are afraid, in his words, that some crazy Chinese officer might give the order to annihilate their ships if ever they did military maneuvers in Chinese waters.

        Yes, my former best friend and now my adversary, is real. I don’t like to reveal his name because I don’t like to be labeled a backstabber but I can give you clues. He was born in a southeast Asian country but carried a Chinese passport when he immigrated to America. He has an uncommon English first name and a Chinese surname.

        Now, you Americans and you anti-Chinese people thinks that America is unbeatable and is supreme, you just sit back, relax and wait for your time. The Chinese will be coming.

        Like

        • James says:

          There is truth to what you have related. If the US navy was so sure and confident that it can prevail over PLA defences with regard to the DF21D, it would have sent one or two CBGs into the islands of SCS after the PCA decision. This as a show of support to the Philippines. Nothing happened. That’s very telling don’t you think?. Unlike in 1996, Bill Clinton ordered 2 CBGs onto the Taiwan Straits as a show of support to the renegade island.

          Anyone care to bet if Trump are prepared to sent a carrier battle group within shooting range of the DF21-D the next time there’s such a crisis across the Straits?

          If US were given half a chance, you would have seen US military assets sailing and flying regularly around these islands. Fact of the matter is US navy cannot and dare not unless they are prepared for major conflict with China and are prepared to lose several thousands of their “precious” men and its aircraft carriers. But more importantly, US naval doctrine which predicate the invincibility of its aircraft carriers group will be turned on its head. A lie and a paper tiger…
          Worthy only to bully small and weak nations unable to fight back…

          Liked by 1 person

          • Mad Max says:

            And the U.S. dollar will collapse immediately further collapsing d U.S. economy. Overnight all Americans will be poor.

            Like

  4. Steve says:

    No mentioned of speed of these SMs to engage the DFs at terminal phase. Good luck to the crew of the US Aegis defence warships…some of the missile volleys will be coming your way, the rest to the carriers.

    Like

  5. joe says:

    The best defense is stay out of 2000 km range.

    Like