China's 'Carrier Killer' Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles - an Overview

[@kongkong1364]

whether it actually works or not we might never find out but as a deterrent, it works like a charm. the last time the pla fired missiles across taiwan in 1996, america carrier came and park itself right at china's doorstep. in 2022, it stayed well out of range of troubles

[@oakspines7171]

Not due to ASBMs which only work during war time but due to political reason and leadership.

[@kongkong1364]

@@oakspines7171 yup the same political reason & leadership donald trump started and biden just followed

[@ruggeddiscipline6026]

@@kongkong1364 😆 🤣

[@ylstorage7085]

I am speculating that the US is more afraid of Chinese stuff accidentally hit them instead actually trying to hit them. China is not dumb to start WW3 over Taiwan, China is not going to hit us carriers, even if they sail to the strait. However, US has to say something or do something big if just one Chinese stuff accidentally hit the US asset and kills some Americans. Resulting in a pretty sizable escalation.

[@dusancorlija9088]

@@kongkong1364 Biden followed....WHAT??.....My President Biden with a half working brain followed Trump?. BTW, are you KONG KONG or KING KONG ???

[@twood2032]

Many people ask the question does the Chinese carrier killer really works or can it really hit moving target? Then the answer is up to the US to answer, does the US want to test this theory with their carrier groups. Something like the DF17, one is enough to disable the carrier, if lucky the carrier can still sail home, but 2 DF17 is pretty much enough to sunk a super carrier, if the blast also cause internal secondary expulsion then the supercarrier is 100% going down.

[@gelinrefira]

Well, that's what deterrence is all about. If it makes the belligerent paused and rethink their calculations on whether they can win in a straight out fight, that's a diplomatic win and you protected your country without firing a shot.

[@danielsummey4144]

I doubt it. It may burn. You may kill everyone on it. But I doubt it sinks.

[@danwelterweight4137]

Plus there is also the threat of other ship based anti ship ballistic and cruise missiles, land based air power, submarines and another thing not discussed enough. Under water smart mines. Any US commander that dares to sail near the Chinese 1st or 2nd Island Chains in a conflict over Taiwan or any other subject would have to be in Suicidal mode. That would clearly mean certain death. That region is the ultimate Chinese kill zone. It would be like shooting turkey in a barrel. And we are also not considering other things like the jamming of communications, sattelites being jammed or shot down. Radio communication being jammed, satellite guided ordnance being being useless, US bases and command centers and assets in the region being rained wown with Chinese Chinese missiles ballistic and cruise missiles. Some of them hypersonic missiles Many of these missiles taking out American Air assets on the ground like fuel and weapons depots, crew installation while they sit on the ground. Air assets like AWACS and fuel tankers being targeted from far away distances by Chinese 5th generation Air assets. Can you imagine doing maintenance and repair in that situation? Or even operating in that kind of environment. That would be very very bad. The Chinese would be able to absorb a lot more than the US. US ships would be totally exposed out to see. China could use underground facilities to hide its weapons and assets.

[@姜磊-n5h]

Very comprehensive and informative. Best video I've seen on topic. Kudos!

[@abyyy490]

Keep them coming brother. 💪

[@catonpillow]

Question: Can Сhina' anti-ship ballistic missiles deter the U$ carriers? Answer: They are more than capable to do so. Not that the U$ would ever come to the aid of the island of Taiwan. And not that Сhina would reunite it by force. An excellent video and a top-notch analysis as per usual Eurasia! Keep it up!

[@gelinrefira]

I think the MIC in America will not want to miss an opportunity to make obscene amount of money. Causing a war in West Pacific will make companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing a lot of money and the keep the lines going up.

[@catonpillow]

@@gelinrefira Correct. They will do their best to cause it. And are already trying.

[@tyn6211]

Does the US Navy want to bet 10000 lives on whether the DF-17 is an actual carrier killer?

[@simbatortie9684]

Two US warship sailed thru the strait of Taiwan today? What happen to the "Carrier Killer"??????????????????????????????????????????? LOL!!!!!!

[@danielsummey4144]

Keep thinking that.

[@hughmungus2760]

I think its worth mentioning that china now has an air launched ASBM that was recently seen mounted to H6 bombers. This hypothetically increases the range even further. Also, there is the DF100 which rarely gets talked about because so little is know about it.

[@vickomen333]

whoaah!

[@MJTUEN]

If China's missiles are not workable as expected, the US aircraft carrier would not have had sailed far away from Taiwan during the military drills conducted by China this month. US carriers are only for show but not for actual combat in view of their assessment on China's overall capability.

[@Snow-vi9ix]

Aircraft range extended goes 1500km+ too !! Don't need to be near Taiwan either,idea is you to top blockage, something,chinese navy is vulnerable against same long range attacks !!

[@drmap5194]

Hitting a usa carrier also means the start of world war 3 so we pray to God such thing will never happen

[@usaassole5739]

@@Snow-vi9ix DF series are good at to attach over 1500 M targets

[@usaassole5739]

@@Snow-vi9ix Also very good at attack US mainland, and you can never be able to intercept them.

[@dt_2]

@@Snow-vi9ix Those missiles can go beyond 1500km range. Why do you think USA is so nervous about China's mid range missiles and wanted China to be a participant in the INF treaty?

[@carlossori2877]

it wasn't the Germans it was China the one that invented the rockets (fireworks) what can you expect?

[@秦天天-y7w]

@Crapon Pillow If what you're saying is true, we should register patents, charge everyone royalties LOL

[@craigharrison5406]

Dude rockets and fireworks are 2 different things lol. That would be like saying the inventor fo the horse drawn carriage also invented the automobile.

[@johnbodman4504]

China is safe from the warmongering, so called west. China will not sail half way around the world to colonize and plunder other countries, though I like to think China will help to protect its friends. The quantity, quality, range and accuracy of China's missiles, are more than enough to protect China in its own waters. China does not need eleven super aircraft carriers to defend itself, its defense budget is way better spent on missiles for defense, rather than aircraft carriers for offense, or as the Americans would say, projection of force.

[@netflixnchill882]

Hands down the best content on KZbin regarding the topics covered. I’d be interested in hearing your opinion on the Constellation Class Frigate. Would the lack of a hull mounted sonar make it more vulnerable to mines? Also, it’s about 4/5 the cost on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with 3/5 of the capability. It seems like a waste of money to invest in a new Frigate program rather than a Cruiser replacement for an expeditionary Navy. Also, your opinion on the new DDG(X) destroyer concept; it looks like we’re copying the Type-55 if I’m being completely honest.

[@lagrangewei]

USN is facing ship shortage. building cruiser would make the problem worst.

[@christopherchen6170]

@@lagrangewei dude just outsource the production to china then problems solved

[@FlashdogFul28]

See Sandboxx news video on (Is the US lossing the Hypersonic arms race.) It's an excelent video on the subject.

[@I-02]

DDG(X) is the cruiser replacement. It carries more VLS cells than the Ticonderoga-class. I'm not sure how it's copying the Type 55 though, considering the US drew up such designs back in the late 1990's with the SC-21 program.

[@lagrangewei]

@@I-02 you are confused the DDGX in the SC21 program is a completely different ship and a failure. the current DDGX program is a new program.

[@christopherchen6170]

good to see that you branching out beyond actual ships

[@alpha5449]

The key is hipersonic speed jointly with range. A missile that is not interceptable and has a range bigger than aricraft range is good enough to keep carriers at a distance. Or to sink them if they dont behave! To be noted a strictly defense doctrine against an offensive specialization of the carrieres.

[@gelinrefira]

Unfortunately, we still have so little information on these DF-21s. It will be both a diplomatic and military coup against the US if China can decisively demonstrate that the DF-21 can penetrate a dense area of air defense and hit a carrier size target.

[@joeblow1688]

Yes, the US Navy has a problem. China seems to have checkmated the US carrier groups!

[@kenho-wr5ul2rh7m]

china has HGV (x10 sonic speed, non-interceptable, inter-continent)

[@asiftalpur3758]

its a deterrent only up until it isn't, and when it isn't is what we should be concerned about. The more I do think about it, it's more on the lines of filling strategic gaps in a very innovative and cost effective way, and it's pushing the gap back instead of keeping the status quo

[@chubascomohd2688]

Give American a another 5 years and the cross strait situation will be different.

[@gelinrefira]

@@chubascomohd2688 Yea, probably why China is not resting on its laurels. They are building 5-6 Type 52D and DL at the same time. It's insane.

[@jwickerszh]

@@gelinrefira Yes, time is not on the US side here ... even today they can barely get a stalemate assuming they get enough allies to join in.

[@davidmoss2576]

@@jwickerszh You know its bad when the US is circling the world for allies.

[@abyyy490]

Great video as always

[@Strategy_Analysis]

Great summary. Thank you. Important not to lose focus on these weapons systems when many are drawn to China's new aircraft carriers. Also, you don't necessarily need to sink a carrier, you just need to render it inoperable for launching and recovering aircraft. So multiple smaller warheads can be better than a large unitary warhead.

[@姜磊-n5h]

A carrier hit by a hypersonic warhead, it would probably be as good as gone. If ammunition or aviation fuel explosion is triggered, and very likely it will be, then there's a very good chance the reactor will be damaged and the whole crew would be contaminated. Don't think they expected the carriers to ever be hit while designing them.

[@commie5211]

My take on this, multiple smaller warheads might be the case for df21, but not for df17. There is not enough volume due to the shape of the warheads. Therefore to make it effective, it has to rely on direct impact, and get the energy from speed. It probably does not have explosives inside, because mass will convert to energy greater than explosives at that speed, just my guess.

[@geopoliticsjunkie4114]

First to say Good info , good job

[@davidmoss2576]

Love your channel bro, you do fantastic analysis.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@姜磊-n5h]

One way of targeting is said to be satellites. To be specific, the jilin(吉林) satellites. There seem to be 2 types, Gaofen (high res) and Kuanfu(wide range). They are said to be able to provide continuous realtime surveillance of any spot on earth for 1.5 hours by relaying from one satellites to another. There are videos on yt showing live traffic in Dubai, Tokyo and some USA airbase. Moving cars and F22s are clearly identifiable. A major mystery in using this system to target carrier groups is how to spot tiny vessels in the vast ocean. The biggest challenge for the traditional satellites is the huge volume of data must be beamed back to earth for analysis. These new satellites are said to have enough processing power and AI algorithms on-board to be able to conduct search by themselves. It would still be a difficult task and subject to time and weather conditions but China has been launching these satellites a lot lately so this ability sounds credible to me. The flight time of ASBM is mostly under 20 minutes. In that window a carrier can only move for some 20kms. If there's good intelligence on the rough whereabouts of the fleet the satellites should be able to get there and do the job.

[@gelinrefira]

The new gen of Chinese spy satellites are intriguing. They have been talk about these satellites having on board AI processing to quickly identify and track targets, often in real time and to keep them tracked. There are also rumors of China demonstrating this capability by tracking USN carrier groups leaving their home ports even on US mainland and then kept them tracked all the time. One of the main advantage of having a carrier is that the ocean is huge and radar coverage is spotty and very very expensive, so even something as big as a carrier group can hide out in the middle of an ocean while always moving to avoid being tracked. If these satellites' capabilities are really true, then missiles like these will have a near unbeatable kill chain, assuming the US does not shoot down the satellites first.

[@paolo3349]

Interesting. I wonder how resistant they are to current anti-satellite weapons? I suspect taking out enemy satellites will be the first step in any hostilities.

[@gelinrefira]

@@paolo3349 Yea, I expect that in a hot war, the anti sat missiles will be fired en masse to try to take out each other's eyes in the sky.

[@archangel7052]

@@paolo3349 Easier said than done...there are thousands of sattelites up there.

[@姜磊-n5h]

@@paolo3349 the satellites are around 60kg each, making them hard to detect and expensive to destroy, if possible at all. Also China demonstrated quick deployment capability using solid fuel rocket before Pelosi's visit. 6 satellites in one rocket.

[@johnbodman4504]

Once again an excellent show.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Thanks!

[@pernykvist3442]

In these hypersonic missiles China is fare ahead as showed.

[@chenghu9911]

Actually, you could get some information about CM401 and M20, which were shown in Zhuhai Air Show. The CM401 has a radar. And they should share some similarity with DF21D or DF26.

[@douginorlando6260]

The missile is traveling over 200 times faster than the carrier. The time a carrier requires to travel it’s length, the missile closes by 40+ miles

[@williamwilliam]

For a country like China whose military are laser focused on defense of their territories and people, it's so much easier to develop ever more sophisticated weapons to suit their need, whereas the U.S.A, having over >700-1,000 military bases and installations all around the entire planet, have a much wider range and military needs.

[@user10u7]

yes, that's what I have noticed, China really focuses on defensive

[@xlw5865]

Америка - сильный мужчина, Китай - худой, а ракеты - ножи. Худой человек взял нож не для того, чтобы убить сильного, а для того, чтобы сильный не осмелился запугивать его.

[@paolo3349]

It would be interesting to see a test of this weapon under real-world conditions, particularly where anti-satellite weapons are used at the outset of hostilities.

[@lifescience2050]

wait for the world war iii

[@davidmoss2576]

In a real world situation the war would be fought at the WW2 level after the first year.

[@pavel4freedom]

@@davidmoss2576 I think you are right, furthermore I think things would escalate quickly to the nuclear level.

[@jwickerszh]

Good summary, no mention of inventory numbers, I wonder if those are easy to estimate.

[@chrisrosenkreuz23]

Amazing reportage thank you for your work

[@marklewin6370]

These missiles can sink Japan within 24hrs.

[@barbaramccoy6448]

I wish the leaders of countries that hate each other would duke it out instead of having so many others killed while they are safely in their bunkers.

[@gelinrefira]

I wish that too. These "leaders" are playing with sending other people to fight their fight.

[@horridohobbies]

The USN wants to build more smaller ships to go against China. But the USN can't build ships very quickly, whereas China can build ships like there's no tomorrow. Why do you think China has the world's largest navy (over 350 ships)?

[@cam35mm]

another well done piece

[@Doomguy05816]

Since the YJ-21 has been put into service will the YJ-18 have a meaningful place in the Chinese military in the future?

[@user-ku6bv4ni2f]

YJ21 most likely wouldnt fit in 052D/L's VLS, and with new batchs of 052DLs coming YJ18s will still be required. plus it's not as if yj18s are so outdated by any means.

[@Darko-kn6il]

YJ-21 is a anti ship ballistic missile on a ship while YJ-18 is the main stay for anti ship attacks.

[@The136th]

No. 055 and 052d uses the same vls, yj21 would fit on both. Yj18 is for less valuable target

[@stenyethanmathews945]

Remember....all it takes just 1 sunk carrier. You can replace missiles but you can't replace a carrier (and all the personnel) without incurring a tremendous cost.

[@MajorLeague718]

It costs $13 billion to build a U.S. aircraft carrier. U.S. only has 11 aircraft carriers. Won't take too much for the ASBMs to destroy the entire fleet.

[@craigharrison5406]

US has 11. You can't kill 1 carrier without a tremendous return volley from the rest of the carrier strike group including tactical nukes on supporting US subs. Killing even one isn't as easy as saying it. You guys thinking the US is some second rate military with junk equipment are hilarious. Trillion dollar military budget for decades now. Did you guys think they are building squirt guns over there with all that money?

[@craigharrison5406]

@@MajorLeague718 Won't take much 🤣. Keep believeing the fairy tales. The US will fire back back and they have nuclear armed subs under the water those ASBM's can't touch lol. It's not like demonstration videos or excercises.

[@Lalramkumhlunsitlhou25300]

Videos from this channel is really a quality content

[@BeelP.]

Whether or not the ASBMs work or not is for the US to find out. Will they risk their USD10bil warships and their 5,000 crew to find out?

[@lktan224]

US carriers are for show only in exercise and show off but in actual battle these carriers are no way to see.

[@ServantofGod904]

Thanks for the video.

[@djtan3313]

Good content. Keep it up!

[@good_man4083]

Great video keep it up

[@douginorlando6260]

DF-27 is the upgraded next generation DF-17. Draw a 7000 Km radius circle around every location of a DF-27 including overseas bases and perhaps a cargo container ship

[@wuffendok]

If the US is thinking of building smaller war ships to fight China, then it really means they have acknowledged that their hundreds of billions $$s worth of assets in the US carrier program are largely wasted. In one big stroke, China builds the world's largest EV/Battery Industry bypassing ICE cars to surpass Japan to be the world's largest Automobile exporter. In one big stroke, China's DF-17. DF-21D, DF-26 and YJ-21 have made the mighty US carrier power obsolete. This video does not even mention China's lastest disclosure of its most powerful DF-27 Hypersonic Glider Missle, which can reach beyond the second island chain, reaching the US west coast cities.

[@JohnSmith22222]

Great video!

[@huoyeh4319]

BRAVO CHINA !!!!

[@maolo76]

The US would have to attack China from the sea. China can take all that firepower. But the US naval fleet has limited weapons. When the Chinese retaliate with a saturation antiship missile attack. They will be done all..11 battle group.

[@claudemaggard7162]

Us would cut off china's oil supply's so china wouldn't last as long as you think. Game over. China doesn't want none of us. I promise you.

[@MajorLeague718]

U.S. only has 11 aircraft carriers. If these are destroyed by the ASBM's, it will be very difficult to launch airstrikes against the Chinese mainland or Chinese fleet.

[@fallencrow6718]

@@MajorLeague718 Also it will be the perfect time for everyone in the middle east and africa to make a move while the us is thootless. A lot of youtube chanels and think tanks seem to think that this war will happend in a bacuum.

[@blcheah2672]

@@fallencrow6718 Defeating the US is not even necessary. So long as the US can be substantially weakened, their colonies and vassal nations can declare independence. Ideally the number of US overseas bases should be reduced to no more than 10 from the current nearly 800. (China has 1 overseas base; Russia has 2.) This will greatly reduce the threat that America poses to the planet.

[@lagrangewei]

you suggest that these missile have active seeker, this is unlikely to be the case given the heat generated from travelling at hypersonic speed, any sensor install in the warhead may not be accurate. from chinese scientific paper, it is more likely using a datalink for guidance. considering chinese commerical earth observers were able to track a carrier in real time, it not hard to imagine that chinese military spysat are able to do the same and provide full tracking data for the missile. given it speed of at least 5 mach, terminal stage would be under 40 second. during which only a couple of datalink would need to be successful at zero in on the target, and it would be rather hard to try and jam every single satellite in the chinese datalink constellation. of course this assumes that "star wars" hasn't broken out....

[@TheKeithvidz]

the big missile warheads say df 21 and 26 may employ a pull up maneuver like the US Pershing, slowing down.

[@allenkfan]

If “star war’ starts, it means nuclear war. because nuclear war deterrence relies on space assets. So, “star war” will not start, that’s why it is not necessary for US to developed any serious anti-satellite capability.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Thanks for the comments. They are a fair challenge. I have recently come across a few Chinese scientific papers claiming to have resolved the issue of terminal seekers abroad hypersonic missiles at high altitude. Specifically, they claimed to address infrared imaging and active radar guidance, so that is where I was coming from. But one can have reservations about whether these ideas have been put into practice yet.

[@MrCastodian]

Terminal guidance in hypersonic missile do work, USA solved this back in the 70s, Israelis have done it with the Lora missile and Russia with its Kinzhal. Just because USA can’t do it now does not mean that other can’t, it’s all about spending, if you want to spend money to develop this type of systems they will do it, USA just don’t wanted it…

[@boyriyan2217]

Saya sbg org indonesia mungkn salah tapsir bhw indonesia rencana y bisa trjd perang dgn china itu slh g ada sejarah y justru china sgt apresiasi trhdp indonesia emang d natuna ada propokasi dgn para nelayan indonesia lambat laun udah d atasi dgn sistim mou atau kesepahan politik luar negri Yg jd masalah aukus indonesia dan china lg mantau as inggris dan australia

[@naughtiusmaximus.6821]

Please make a video on turkish aircraft carrier

[@shmeckle666]

I love using these things on Command: Modern Operations the land based, air launched one of these and the land based and air launched hypersonic drone (forget its name) are great in command. Love seeing those as my first strike when attacking carrier groups in custom scenarios. Comes and strikes quick. Throw in some other traditional air/submarine launched anti-ship missiles. and it makes for a real pickle for the USN.

[@vickomen333]

just learned that such an awesome tging exists. Thanks pal.

[@shmeckle666]

@@vickomen333 no problem. Love using the 2020+ real/hypothetical/in development Chinese kit CMANO.

[@Justin-dv7ul]

@Liam Marra command modern operations is the best wargame

[@shmeckle666]

@@Justin-dv7ul yeah it’s a hoot

[@alexalbrecht5768]

As great as C:MO is it completely fails to accurately model the real world performance of ASBMs. Real ASBMs aren’t terminal hypersonics since chemical interactions at Mach 5+ interfere with active sensors. A proper analog would be the Pershing 2 which pretty much functions identically, albeit with a different target set and radar.

[@angelwhite376]

The thing about arms sales when you sell it then that countrie is allowed to give it over to be checked by the usa so the usa can learn to shoot them down or make a system to defeat it.. It happings all the time..

[@jwickerszh]

I'm pretty sure the US knows out to make their own ballistic missiles.

[@红杏出墙-c7g]

In fact, the ballistic missiles sold by China to Saudi Arabia are under the supervision of China. These missiles are usually managed and maintained by Chinese soldiers, and they will only be launched under the conditions agreed between China and Saudi Arabia. These ballistic missiles can provide Saudi Arabia with a strategic deterrent capability that cannot be ignored. I don't think the Americans have access to these missiles.

[@joem0088]

Judging from the volume of literature in US military and think tank circles on Chinese A2AD systems, it is clearly a deterrent.

[@ycplum7062]

Whether they ork or not is mainly a concern of teh Chinese. For the Americans, the uncertainty that they may work forces chabges in doctrine, strategy, and tactics. Even if they do not work today, there is a good chance that they may work in the futures.

[@seventian6117]

wtf, nickname never was "killer buh buh", it is express. Guam express, Okinawa express, Ali express, you get the idea.

[@nicoleela2617]

It's effectivity is when the actual engagement comes..

[@HappyPandaBear73]

Phenomenal Insight! TEAM CHINA ALL THE WAY!👍🙂

[@oldbear9965]

If the DF-26 is a ballistic missile which tells me it's not equipped with a seeker. And if it was, a seeker at Mach speeds of 10-12, the plasma sheath would be to great for the seeker's RF to penetrate the plasma sheath. Ballistic missile paths are easy to predict...and the ship are not stationary targets so the ballistic missile will have to predict where the ship will be and not where it is at time of missile fire. As far as the DF-17, not much information available to make a capability assessment.

[@Warren-pe1un]

Chinese researchers have overcome this....they able maintain constant communication with missile including handing communications between satellites that is in range...they researchers published parts if the paper some time ago

[@1Stevencat]

11:33 that is such a small island....I wonder how it got there????

[@oakspines7171]

Don't know how good the PLA space ISR capability and at what level it is. Sattelites can only mometarily see the objects below their paths when they pass by. It needs an extensive network to do that. It took the Soviet a while to attain that capability in the Atlantic ocean.

[@MrCastodian]

China have surpassed Russia a decade ago, more satellites and most of all, Way way better.

[@yttean98]

When the US navy keeps up its exuberant behavior in showing off the power of its navy and one day sails its Aircraft Carrier through Taiwan Strait. The PLA feels like testing their DF 17 for the sake of showing off as well or flexing its muscle and then firing off 10 *DF17 at the same Carrier I believe the probability more than one will hit it on target, thereby sinking it? As you can see, the total cost of 10 units is far less than the cost of one carrier which makes the carrier obsolete.

[@The136th]

Sinking probably not, disable or put it out of combat yes, carriers are very hard to actually sink, the US themselves tried that.

[@peribe438]

Firing on US ships in international waters as the Taiwan Straight is an act of war. Surely the so called ”peace-loving” Chinese would not want to start a world war?

[@The136th]

@@peribe438 Only if the US starts it

[@johnbodman4504]

Another good video. I doubt that China will build more than five or six aircraftcarriers, these carriers will be mainly used to extend Chinese air power beyond the range of American carrier launched aircraft. The American f-35 in any of its three forms, is a very short range aircraft, versions of the fa/18 have a longer range, however they are near their use by date. In spite of the popular Wolfowits doctrine, America will have to recognize the fact that China is now beyond any American bullying.

[@WeiPan88]

Ultra sonic, coming down from top. Easily !

[@level1selamat155]

God bless PRC and mother Russia

[@nicolasroirand8011]

Merci beaucoup .

[@ruiguo5115]

Damn! The pronunciation of the names of these Chinese weapons are spot on, down to the tone of each word. This is rare for non native speakers. Either this guy speaks Chinese or he has some serious passion for his content

[@Wbliss]

Anyone can speculate about how effective the Chinese hypersonics missiles could have on the U.S. ac; the results could show the speculators when the time comes.! If the hypersonics couldn’t meet the expectations, then the medium ICBMs could do the Job as well on the U.S. ac.

[@davidmoss2576]

One thing you can take to the bank is if China says it hypersonic missiles can sink a carrier they mean it can sink a carrier. If you study CPC and PLA history, they aren't much for exaggerating when it comes to weapon systems. For example while the Soviets and even Russian were bragging about their MLRS systems being devastating, the Chinese whom already bought thousands of these said they are good at making lots of noise and creating chaos but not very accurate. Also said if you need to dig lots of big holes, these systems might be handy, but declared the PLA needed to upgrade their systems for modern warfare. This was back in the late 1990's early 2000's time frame.

[@douginorlando6260]

I assume China has been working on every type of tracking that is in use by any military world wide. Plus many that have been discussed in literature worldwide. Probably collecting a library of every source of technical info on every key military function including details/concepts that are proposed but not necessarily pursued

[@arthurvandeman]

👌i have always found it odd in all the discussions around china's a/c carrier in its anti acess strategy agaisnt us carrriers that no-one ever mentions how vulnerable chinese carriers are to us assets. us may not (yet)have hypersonic missiles but its dominance in all spectrum warfare is unmatched and tested capability for (generations now) in the kill-chain is established. we have established that us carriers are vulnerable but it stands to reason that ch carriers are even more vulnerable to the usn.....🙃

[@zetareticulan321]

Stop doing copium. It's not good for you.

[@dalao2yang]

Right in man. But that only shows the carrier is a absolute weapon that can only deployed to a weaker nation. Basically a power projection bullying tool :p. When fighting the real threat like US and china its just too bulky and slow and short ranged to be effective. Chinese carrier are not meant to do head on battle with USN deep into the Pacific. The objective is Taiwan. 120 mils off the Chinese coast. China do not need the carrier to take Taiwan, but if American want to intervene....they will have to rely on the carrier battle groups. These missiles are part of the Chinese effort to discourage US intervention.

[@biochemwang2421]

To some extents, you are right.

[@chinathesideyoudontsee8157]

Something to consider is the Chinese navy is considered a "brown water navy" basically meaning it was designed for mainland defense purposes which work simultaneously with its land defenses .They are now also expanding into the "blue water navy zone " with their ships/ carriers which are designed for longer range deployments into the Pacific / Indian oceans. To answer your question it is probably not mentioned as much as they don't put their navy in that sort of predicament as that is not what ' its currently use if is for .

[@danielsummey4144]

@@zetareticulan321 China getting ready for another millennium of irrelevance

[@alaguilera4121]

China's military is as strong as their buildings and bridges

[@_method_5877]

But yet no one is daring to actually challenge them lol

[@alaguilera4121]

@@_method_5877Nancy pelosi: hold my 🍻

[@jaypaige7550]

They said they would shoot Pelosi jet out of the sky but did nothing but run drills after she left , paper dragon it is 😭😭

[@_method_5877]

@@jaypaige7550 The CCP never made that claim. A Chinese commentator Hu Xijin did lol

[@_method_5877]

@@alaguilera4121 That old hag Nancy Pelosi played right into China's hand. She only proved how elementary this current administration truly is lol

[@amitsahay8724]

Wrong question. Question is can USA dare to start Direct war against nuclear power countries, after loosing to Afghanistan or viatnam type of weak and fragile unarmed civilians?

[@FawadKhan-bo8uz]

No

[@mohamedbaradji7504]

Seeing how this time it would be a conventional war, yes. Fighting people hiding in caves is nothing like fighting a real army. Ask Iraq in 1993 and 2003.

[@good_man4083]

No balls just baking

[@davidmoss2576]

The US is brave enough to fight through proxy.

[@TheKeithvidz]

Pelosi says yes.

[@irwan3064]

Swarm of torpedo drones and naval drones are equally lethal

[@ozibala]

Nice models

[@pasmith1972]

Just big pointy tubes with nothing but air inside. 😂

[@dwightbelinfanti836]

Ignorance is bliss until you see the mushroom cloud

[@tigerhu1149]

Nice video. Just a few points. 1. Take a looked at how large an area China must cover to conduct A2/AD of coalition forces. 2. Take a look at the US sea and land based air and missile defense such as SM3 (mid-course) and THAAD (terminal). 3. Within seconds of PLA missile launch it would be detected via space assets and minutes later the targeted ships would take evasive maneuvers. In addition, active jamming, and deceptive systems would take over at appropriate times. 4. To use US diversification to smaller and unmanned systems as illustration of US assessment of the effectiveness of PRC anti-ship missiles might be a bit of a stretch. 5. Take a look at the warhead effective zone of these Chinese missiles. Have you calculated the miss distance if DF-17 at its 20km cruise altitude with a 1 degree mistake in pitch as it dives towards a target 60km away? Many questions can be answered if China demonstrated DF-26B, DF-21D, and DF-17 can hit a moving target traveling at close to 40km/hr from the time of its launch to the time of its terminal guidance (the shot near Hainan Island two years ago was not). The seeker has to be able to find the target within that area and the warhead has be able to maneuver within the distance of that area. Until then, we probably should not give those missiles such high confidence as shown in this video.

[@vincechoon6962]

How about usa gps knock off and radar jam than can it still stop df missiles

[@MrCastodian]

1. You assume there will be a collision force, don’t do that, past wars and conflict show that nations have their own interest in mind. There is a large area to cover, but not as large as you expect, USA will not come from the North in the East China Sea, to confined and to close to Russia, to many choke points, they will not come from the south thru South China Sea, to confined, to shallow and to many small islands, would give China to much edge. USA will come from the east, Pacific Ocean in the back and with Taiwan between them and China and slowly push west. 2.SM-3 and THAAD are good, but in no way an optimal option against semi ballistic missiles, SM-3 and THAAD are designed to engaged missiles with a predictable path, AS M does not have that. 3.It does not take a second to detect a launch and US can’t know we’re the missile will go in the boots phase, when they have established we’re the missiles are going they can do as you say and start evasive manoeuvres but the speed of ships does not give them time to leave the area were the terminal guidance radar from China can pick up a target, and active jamming are in prectice worthless against a mach 10+ missile, not enough time, when they are in range for jamming they will hit the ship within a few seconds, the same with decoy. Jamming and decoy against subsonic missiles are at best mediocre, against super and even more so hyper sonic they are not good at all. 4.True, but can also be false. 5. US Navy do not agree with you.

[@ethanmac639]

Russia needs to build 8 Shtorm supercarriers and at least 15 lider class destroyers and 1000's of su-57's, su-75's and t-14 armata's

[@dernadaarmando2948]

The problem is where they gets money

[@jimmycricket7385]

The narrator's accent is a curious mix of Chinese and New Zealander.

[@tokuo0511]

When the Soviet Union turmoil then disintegrated in the 90s, China gov took the opportunity absorbed many of the top scientists and weapons experts from that region...well.. think about it.

[@mathewsthomas5210]

Waste of money 😭 can we divert our funds to a bettter cause like fighting poverty,illiteracy etc

[@gelinrefira]

Well, it's a two way street. US can reduce its military budget and actually make real overtures to peace with China, and maybe China wouldn't have to feel threatened every time a USN warship sail across the strait on a pretext of "freedom of navigation." If both countries stop spending so much money on the military, then everyone wins. But if one side's foreign policy is to contain the other side, and it has a long track record of invading other countries to preserve its hegemony, then you can't really blame that side for being nervous.

[@zetareticulan321]

Even a beggar need a stick to keep dogs away.

[@se-wb9hv]

武器才能让自己获得和平，没有武器，就没有和平的权利，弱肉强食法则，这不是我们想看到的，但是在美国的威胁下，我们只能武装自己。

[@amitsahay8724]

Some people say USSR has also not succeed to win in Afghanistan. But when Russia was fighting against afganistan, Afghanistan had full support of USA and it's pet dogs like UK and France. When amarica was fighting against afganistan. Afghanistan was all alone 😫😫😫. Still kicked amarican anus

[@black10872]

How do???

[@jaypaige7550]

The Vietnam war , China & USSR backed North Vietnam 🤓🤓

[@willwozniak2826]

Blah Blah Blah...you will be singing a different tune when the NUKES start flying

[@Endoplexer]

Turns out invading someone who doesn't want you there is hard. China will learn that for themselves when they invade Taiwan.

[@tvgerbil1984]

To be honest, once all these powers worked out there just wasn't much to have in Afghanistan, they all lost interests and moved away.

[@clearheaded5696]

Is it not possible if China fire 100's of these missles targeting the US AC battle group and still missed despite they are guided by AI and Baidu satellites? Even 100's of this missiles still cost less than the entire AC plus 3000+ of lives on board.

[@MrCastodian]

They are not really guided by GPS, that’s just the initial guidance, the actual guidance in the terminal phase are made by an active or passive radar, or an imaging radar.

[@mikslids7083]

Taiwan's new "Xionghang" stealthy high-altitude hypersonic orbit-changing cruise missile has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers; the "Xiong Falcon" stealthy, ground-to-sea supersonic orbit-changing cruise missile has a range of more than 800 kilometers. Both types of missile warheads are equipped with radar guidance seekers, infrared image seekers, and AI identification systems, so that the missiles can attack moving targets at sea or land targets. They are dual-purpose anti-ship and land-attack missiles. A new high-performance AI chip is added to calculate the image of the captured target for enhanced recognition, so that the missile has an AI smart missile with a similar eye recognition function. This is why "Xionghang" and "Xiong Falcon" have completed 20 live tests, with a hit rate of 100%. Both "Xionghang" and "Xiong Falcon" can communicate with satellites, early warning aircraft, and drone. They can also use pre-installed geographical orientation map data without relying on GPS, and use the INS inertial navigation system to navigate to the enemy's target area , start the scanning of the radar infrared image finder to find the target, and the AI ​​eye algorithm recognizes and compares the image parameters of the enemy target in the missile computer to identify the target to attack. AI eyes can identify interference flame shields and false targets, and only attack real targets; because of the AI eye function, missiles are not interfered by enemy electronic warfare, and use high-speed and high-performance AI chips to calculate and filter out enemy interference electromagnetic waves, and can also reversely capture the interference source and report the coordinates of the enemy interference source to the friendly drone and early warning aircraft through the data link to carry out follow-up strikes. The flight computer of the missile can pre-plan the path of flying around to deceive the enemy, and change the attack target through the data link, and carry out coordinated group attack operations with the same missile network.

[@craigharrison5406]

Saying you can kill a US carrier and actually doing it are 2 different things. The Japanese thought it would be easy in WW2 as well.

[@kitzquitasol7277]

There are 12 carriers that can respond if one carrier is attack.

[@TheKeithvidz]

maintaining a great distance (anti access) to preserve naval assets is a loss for the USN.

[@gelinrefira]

If you mean neoliberal imperialists in America cannot send a carrier around to bully another country who refused to play ball nicely within America's hegemony is a loss for the USN, then yea.

[@TheKeithvidz]

@@gelinrefira Right on my guy. The US is gunning for war, thus I won't bat an eye when WW2 repeats and a carrier sinks beneath the waves.

[@TheKeithvidz]

@@gelinrefira finally saw your post - and dead on.

[@davidseto2199]

After the sinking of the Moscow, sailing into you our enemy's missile envelope is suicide.

[@lengthao8424]

You will be dead and destroy that for sure......!!!!!!!!!! Russia is slaughter Nato right now in Ukraine.......!!!!!!!!!!!

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro 300.000 unidades para o exército brasileiro

[@willwozniak2826]

Saudi Arabia has DF 21 missiles?

[@commie5211]

Yes, Saudi bought 36 if df4 during the 80s, those had been upgraded to df21 recently.

[@The136th]

Yes, but not the Anti ship variant

[@skgolden123]

It is claimed acquisition and targeting radars have a hard time piercing the plasma around a hypersonic RV. So how can it have an acquisition radar itself to target a warship that can pierce thru that same plasma. Seems like BS to me

[@SylvesterChindimba-dq9zh]

Still the story will go the same .the weapons is so classic with no people.

[@angeluscorpius]

Would the ASBM work against attack subs? How would China defend against or deny access to US subs? In the event of a shooting war, say China sinks or cripples a US Carrier and the US in a tantrum targets China's carriers (just tit for tat, no strategic objective), 1) how would the US sink the Chinese Carrier, and 2) how would China defend/protect its carriers?

[@davidmoss2576]

Of course an ASBM wouldn't be able to hit subs, they aren't meant for that role. China have plenty of anti-sub ships, planes, and choppers. It is the one area where the US can sneak in but leaving after firing their weapons will be very hard.

[@Shan-b7c-v7n]

Forkland .British .War China🇨🇳 Silk worm missile successfuly worked . British ship sank

[@sc8916]

Please make a video for the Indian Navy, since they said they are far more advanced than the Chinese navy.

[@DannyWong352]

HAHAHAHA🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@titaniumskunkogkush4365]

Don't make the video. India not smart as I thought they were.

[@optimalp2844]

Bro? They first need to focus on their own infrastructure and economy for god’s sake.

[@tonypaca3015]

India super powder 💨💨💨

[@good_man4083]

@@tonypaca3015 please don’t said that India good at talking 💩💩💩💩

[@MonkeyDRogzers12]

need thousands of satellite tracker like the US to make this work.

[@MrCastodian]

No…First of all, USA does not have even close to “Thousands” USA military have 123 satellites in orbit, China has 68… If all US allies aided in a war they would have an additional 35 satellites with a total of 158, and this are likely allies to USA in a war. If Chinese allies help them with satellites it would give them an additional 74 satellites, a total of 142, so not as superior as you believe. And btw, China have proven ASAT capability, USA does not.

[@mackermaldrill2656]

Your voice sounds very much like Gary "Baba Booey" Dell'Abate.

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro 200.000 unidades para o exército brasileiro

[@americannumber2]

东风快递

[@XiaoHanChen]

使命必达

[@I-02]

As far as all these Chinese claims go, the US also claims their latest SM-3 missiles can in fact intercept all types of ballistic missiles. And the US recently entered service a laser missile defense system onto their destroyers. The US themselves also have claimed "unstoppable" anti-ship missiles with their stealthy AGM-158C that can be deployed from "unstoppable" stealth aircraft. The Tomahawk Blk V can be sub-launched and is a much smaller sized weapon than the ASBMs, but still delivers a 450 kg warhead over 1,600 nautical miles and is 1/100 the price of DF-17. Additionally, the newly produced JASSM-XR carries a 1,000 kg warhead and has a stated range of >1,000 nautical miles and can be swarm launched from any bomber or cargo plane. Either way, assuming one side has the penultimate advantage because of local claims is foolish.

[@sushilover5367]

lets assume every single american missile could intercept a chinese one. how many of those missiles can an aircraft striking group carry? u think the chinese will just stop launching missiles when the ameircans run out of juice? lol so yes, one side does have "penultimate advantage".

[@Kemet3.0]

Sorry guys, the one mistake and a big mistake what about US 73 Nuclear submarine you can't find in the water? In addition, most stated that China has a lot of dumb bombs that are for all shows. China only has 3 Nuclear submarines. This is what makes US special.

[@ethanmac639]

i hope so! thank god for China🇨🇳 , Russia🇷🇺 , Iran🇮🇷 , North Korea🇰🇵 and all their allies

[@waterishdrake8693]

Idk what “god” you’re referring to, but people have considered cats a “god” before so no telling! My guess is your “god” likes little girls and the followers are know to violate goats.

[@tonysu8860]

I'd consider the missiles described in this video as only a moderate threat. They're not to be ignored by a long shot. At the time this video was published, the USN had already announced it was installing an upgrade of its standard missile defense systems on naval warships which is the SA-6 to the first generation capable of defending against hypersonic missiles. Like any other system, it's unknown how effective a first generation is. ASBMs as a whole should not be considered an extreme threat and well within the demonstrated capabilities of numerous US military anti-missile defenses but can always be potentially overwhelmed by numbers. Hypersonic missiles which can alter the ballistic path are much more difficult to defend against but if a target like an aircraft carrier is far enough away, there is likely time to avoid being struck. Currently, China is not believed to have the capability for its missiles to receive real time data updates from surveillance like satellites and adjust for a moving target. That may change some time in the future, but for now properly deployed aircraft carriers are likely not yet vulnerable. Probably no one knows exactly what would happen in an open conflict, and it'd probably be foolhardy for China to initiate open hostilities with the US and find out whether its capabilities can actually beat US military defenses.

[@903IDFOLEY]

You mean the SM-6. The SA-6 is a older Russian SAM.

[@edinnorthcarolina--ovelhog5786]

I guarantee the U.S. already has countermeasures ready.

[@waterishdrake8693]

Do we get any egg rowls wit it?

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro 60.000 unidades para o exército brasileiro