US Cannot Rely on 3 ‘awesome missiles’ to Stop China’s ‘carrier killer’Posted: December 24, 2016
I reblogged Logan Nye’ article “The Navy relies on these awesome missiles to stop China’s ‘carrier killer’” on December 23. Of the 3 missiles Nye mentioned, THAAD is land based and has limited range about 200 km so that US Navy cannot rely on it. SM-6 has to intercept the missile at terminal stage. Even if it hits the missile, the explosion may still cause damage to the carrier.
Only SM-3 is capable of intercepting the missile but according to a mil.eastday.com article, it is no defense against saturate attack of DF-21Ds. 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 China’s anti-ship missiles are based on land, their launch system costs much less than an Aegis destroyer that costs $2 billion.
Therefore, due to the much lower costs, according to previous reports, China has 7 anti-ship missile brigades each with the capabilities of launching 24-32 anti-ship ballistic missiles simultaneously from their mobile launch vehicles. Together, they can attack with the volley of 168 to 224 missiles capable of sinking an entire aircraft carrier battle group. Moreover, they can reload for a second round of volley within hours as China has a large stock of the missiles due to its low cost. US fleet, if not sunk, cannot reload in such a short time and will be defenseless.
China has conducted a drill of firing dozens of DF-21Ds at the same target simultaneously from sites far away from one another and reloading the mobile launch vehicles within hours after the launch. Can US Navy rely on its limited number of SM-3s on a US aircraft carrier battle group in defending such saturated attacks?
Moreover, is the US rich enough to fight a war with expensive weapons against much cheaper but more effective weapons?
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on WE ARE THE MIGHTY’s article, full text of which was reblogged here on December 23.