Posted on 12/03/2012 5:40:49 PM PST by bruinbirdman
Taiwan’s Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology has completed a series of tests of its Hsiung Feng III (HF-3) ‘carrier killer’ anti-ship missile. The missile, first showcased at the Taipei Aerospace and Defense Technology Exhibition in August 2011, is a ramjet-powered, 120kg payload supersonic anti-ship missile with an estimated range of 130km to 150km and a maximum speed of Mach 2 – about twice the speed of sound. The Taipei Times reports that the HF-3 could be deployed on the west coast across from the mainland. That positioning would use mountains for cover against mainland missiles while bringing targets in the Strait within range. The HF-3 could also extend the attack range of land-based launchers in the Western Pacific.
CSIST has had some interesting projects in the past.
It’d be funny if after spending decades and tens of millions developing naval air capability the chicoms lost their pride & joy in the opening minutes of a conflict with Taiwan.
Ping.
Yeah but it’s “Made in Taiwan.”
A real slap in the face for Beijing.
The USSR had a massive amount of ‘carrier killer’ missiles. Mach 2 would be slow for one of them.
Why are these now a big deal?
The big deal is that ANY country, not just a super power like the USSR - as you cited- can develop and deploy carrier killers.
"About?"
They aren’t really killers without nuclear warheads. Maybe 10 100-500kt per carrier would ensure 0 chance of survival. A bunch of conventials aren’t that big of a deal.
Stuff is never very defended or secure when it comes down to it, I’m just not sure why anyone would be even awakened at this news.
lolz
“about”...
more like precisely
Well, I didn’t want to come off all pedantic and all....
:^)
It was worth a Snicker bar..
“A bunch of conventials aren’t that big of a deal.”
It depends how big the bunch is. I would suspect that 100 missiles coming at a carrier at M2 would be hard to track and defend against.
The whole term "carrier killer" is a misnomer.
You don't need to kill a carrier, just make it incapable of flight operations, which is much, much easier. A carrier that can't launch and land aircraft is worthless. One big hole in the deck, or a significant reduction in top speed so loaded aircraft can't get off the deck, is enough.
Though you can effectively completely destroy a carrier with a single missile hit (might not sink it, but you can burn it out completely). All you need is to set off a couple of aircraft loaded with fuel and weapons and presto, you have an out of control fire that could consume the ship (and I'll hazard a guess the Chinese don't have the damage control proficiency we do.)
They aren’t really killers without nuclear warheads. Maybe 10 100-500kt per carrier would ensure 0 chance of survival. A bunch of conventials aren’t that big of a deal.
Stuff is never very defended or secure when it comes down to it, I’m just not sure why anyone would be even awakened at this news.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In fact modern torpedo and missile technology is pretty capable in sinking ships using conventional means.
As for a Taiwan-Chinese issue I don’t think Red China need any carriers to deal with it.
Taiwan airspace is pretty within a range of their land-based weapons.
They need carrier fleet to send a message to India, Russia and Japan (Not so much USA since Chicoms are in bed with DC establishment for 40+ years).
Really. Twenty years ago. What became of them all?
It appears that most of the delivery vehicles and missiles themselves weren’t well maintained and are trash at this point. They were top of the line stuff, but it’s like like what happened to our F14 Tomcat/Phoenix missiles. Things moved on. Cheaper, maybe better, maybe not!
For a snub nose ChiCom cruiser wannabe carrier, it probably is.
yitbos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.