China to Deploy Lethal Fleet of ‘Carrier Killer’ Destroyers in South China Sea

Donate

The 11th ‘carrier killer’ destroyer was recently produced by Beijing. The country is going to deploy a fleet of the battleships to the South China Sea, trying to ward off the US Naval Forces.

China to Deploy Lethal Fleet of ‘Carrier Killer’ Destroyers in South China Sea

Type 052D Luyang II Guided Missile Destroyer (Photo: club.china.com)

Last week, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) fleet was supplemented with the 11th Type 052 Luyang III-class elite guided-missile destroyer that once again marked an aggressive increase in the country’s production of the lethal vessels. The battleship is often compared to Japan’s violent Aegis destroyer.

The week before, the 9th and 10th 052D destroyers, produced in the Jiangnan Shipyard, joined the China’s fleet. Beijing is planning to produce at least five more battleships in the nearest future in connection with the growing tensions in the South China Sea.

The battleships will be deployed to the South China Sea; some of them will flank the Liaoning that has already sparked the attention of Western defense analysts due to its growing combat capabilities and potential to house a fleet of 20 elite fighter jets.

The elite destroyer is armed with the YJ-18 long-range supersonic cruise missiles and the Type 346A radar system, providing the necessary intelligence gathering capabilities. The Type 052 Luyang III-class destroyer’s anti-ship missiles are capable of reaching speeds up to 614MPH (988kmh) through the first phase of transit after launch and accelerate to a speed of 2,302MPH (3,705kmh) for the final 25 miles (40km) of its flight time.

The ‘carrier killer’ destroyer is considered a major threat to US naval domination in the Pacific, and it will play a critical role in China’s strategy towards the US, preventing American warships from penetrating the South China Sea area.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • MeMadMax

    Missiles don’t sink ships(in small numbers)

    A single modern torpedo can sink a carrier however…

    • PaulPeter

      YJ-18 is a modern flying torpedo.

      • MeMadMax

        Nope, it’s another cruise missile. CIWS will get it, and if not, still would need a quite a few of these to actually sink a carrier.
        (MM2 SW)

        • PaulPeter

          Can they be programmed to hit at the waterline ?

          • Nexusfast123

            I was reading an article that in addition to commenting on the irregular flight path on final approach – harder to lock on, they are programmed rise up hit the target at an angle.

          • PaulPeter

            Thanks for your info.
            Lets’ say, each warhead is weighted at 300 kgs—and you have ten to twenty missiles swarming in for the kill at supersonic mach-3 kinetic kill speed.

            End result : air-craft carrier will become an artificial reef at the bottom sea-bed.

        • Nuno Cardoso da Silva

          We will never know, until some of them are actually fired against the desired target. If previous wars tell us something about weapons is that some of them perform a lot better than expected, and others a lot worse. Americans tend to underestimate their adversaries and to overestimate their own equipment and capabilities. If push comes to shove, I wouldn’t be surprised if the US armed forces do not perform as well as Americans expect…

    • Rickardus

      True, the US always keeps a nuke sub around these carriers as well, they are surrounded in the best protection money can buy. It’s not an easy concept destroying a super carrier, not as easy as the Chinese pass it off to be.. It might be a shock to them if it comes to blows… One thing ive noticed is that the US keeps really quiet about it’s true capabilities, everyone else tries to compete by releasing amazing specs, and people are wow’ed by it.. All i know is that the old M1 Abrams tanks can still make short work of a dozen modern Russian tanks, and nobody can explain how.. things like that arent described on paper.

      • VGA

        The M1 tank has been steadily improved. And the modern russian tank T-90 is just an improvement of the T-72, nothing more.

        You chose bad examples. :D

        • Pietro Del Prete

          So improved Houthys destroyed hundreds of M1 tanks inKSA and SAA RUAF and allies the same in Syria.

          • Nexusfast123

            That is more due to the uselessness of the Saudis and guile of the houthys.

          • PietroDel Prete

            About the ones used by terrorists well trained by Cia Mi6 and Mossad in Syria ?Are them useless too but the T 90 has a better edge than M1

          • Rickardus

            Perhaps, but my example is based on the t72 in the gulf war. im referring to the chinese shock as they attempt to use less advanced missiles to destroy a carrier, it would be like a column of Iraqi t72’s going up against a couple of M1 abrams… never underestimate a foe…. it’s worth noting that the US doesnt care much about tanks, they are not central to their doctrine, they never intent to let one go head to head with a T-90, they are not designed for that.. the T90 is dead before the Abrams arrive, the abrams fulfills it’s design parameters extremely well.. It’s designed for longevity and range, and it merely occupies a position in the combined arms element, not to be used on it’s own.

          • Rickardus

            I’m responding to a lot of responses here, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense? I don’t recall there being 100’s of M1 Abrams losses in the entire service of the tanks history? Can you provide evidence?

        • Jesus

          The M1 would not fare well against the T90 supported by combined arms. What the M1 did in Iraq is a pipe dream on the steppes of Russia. The M1 is terrific when the Air Force pulverizes the enemy defenses, therefore the M1’s can just waltz in, without the danger of antitank fire or heavy artillery, or MLRS fire. M1 will take serious losses against a well defended enemy that has good air cover and strong antiaircraft defenses. In context of such scenarios, the M1 is just another heavy tank that relies on hype and achievements against third rate armies. Is it not amazing that the M1 does not score well in tank biathlons held in Europe, and they never participate in the biathlons held in Russia.

          • Rickardus

            You are correct, the M1 is not central to the US military doctrine, however, my point is to provide an example within the gulf war, nothing more. keep in mind the chinese are 20 years behind in tech, and they presume to have superior anti-carrier capability.. do not underestimate an enemy like the US.. as my example serves, it may be like a column of Iraq t72’s rushing to engage a couple of M1 Abrams.

          • Jesus

            I would not say the Chinese are 20 years behind in technology, you cannot say that accurately, what they have is a medium range ballistic missile that would attack carriers at hypersonic speeds. Their range is far grater than the F18’s, and outclasses the Tomahawk ACLM; the operational weapons US has at its disposal is a short range fighter bomber and a subsonic air launched cruise missiles. Their surface to air defenses (Standard missile in various configurations) are untested against supersonic cruise missiles. The Chinese had access to Yakhont (Oniks) cruise missiles, I am sure their supersonic missiles incorporate similar characteristics. As far as Standard defenses against a hypersonic ballistic missiles zeroing on the proximity of a carrier it is wishful thinking. The qualitative gap between US armaments 10-30 years old and present day Chinese armaments is a lot narrower than a column of T72 challenging M1’s. The capabilities of existing US armaments have been noted and countermeasures have been developed by the Chinese and The Russians.

        • Rickardus

          No i don’t think i did, it was meant as an analogy, i’m not dissing russian tanks, i’m simply giving an example of what would happen.. the Chinese are roughly 20 years behind the US, they presume to have the full capability to take out a Super-Carrier… And in the analogy i will compare that intent with the same intent the Iraqi’s had, even with T72’s to at least put up a fight against the Abrams tanks, after all they did outnumber the abrams.

          • Guest12345678

            I wont compare technology but diference is not like between gatling,winchester,cannons and arrow,spear … wiping out native indians. What would make difference is army of zombie, criminals, imigrants…fighting for there own pockets,green card,record clearin and their bank family masters, as agressors and army who will fight for their country,famlies, neighbours…that are under threat as one nation. Nations with not 200, but 1000s of years national concessnes, and not articially Queen drawn countries divided by tribes,religion,etnicity… Noone count also the imigrants national concessness wake up inside Eagle island and world wakenin east, west, muslim, christians, budist ….against common evil.

      • Nexusfast123

        Big issue is that the defences are inside the range of a lot of these missiles. Mid air refueling does not solve the problem.

      • Nexusfast123

        What modern Russian and Russian crewed tanks? Russia does not export the stuff to the same spec as the Russian military uses.

      • Nexusfast123

        I guess the Pentagram must have done something with the misplaced six trillion dollars.

      • Where did that happen ? As far as i know M1s engaged T-55,T-62,T-72 Export versions so far.The M1 is at least 15 years advanced to an T-72 Export and 30 years to T-55 and T-62 and 5 times the cost.T-90 is as old as a Standard M1A2.M1s never engaged them so we cant tell if they are so superior.Carrier Groups never engaged a peer enemy as well.They were never tested.Antiship missles so far have proven to be deadly and hard to shoot down.

        • Rickardus

          Military’s always do internal testing, you be sure that the US has perfected the CIWS systems, and anti missile countermeasures. They invest lot’s in their technology.

      • Jesus

        In Iraq, not Europe, a dozen Russian T-90 tanks supported by combined arms would decimate a M1 battalion in less than half an hour.

      • lol

        Lol what a load of ****, you’re on crack or something…

      • Lars

        Rubbish and mickey mouse bs ^
        Iraq’s army was operating the cheapest-export model tanks, obsolete&training(!) ammo, worn out early model export barrels, zero support from the airforce, terrible tactics, bad sights, no recon or scouting units, atrocious training and morale- many crews simply abandoned their tanks.

        • Rickardus

          The analogy works when you consider the Chinese are 20 years behind the USA.. I’m not trying to compare the absolute modern Russian tanks here, people calm down. Im giving an example of what a shock the chinese would find when they presume to win.. just like the Iraqi’s found when they engaged M1 Tanks.

          • Peter

            China was the first Country to perfect the hypersonic glide missile. Russia second. US still has not got one. the US – Ratheon is looking at buying missile defence technology from Israel. Recently Russia were testing a drone in Syria which “inadvertently” flew into Israeli air space. Two patriot missiles and an air to air missile were fire at it, all of them unable to hit the slow flying target.

            the US may lead the world in offensive/projecting force technology that is exceptionally efficient at destroying third world countries, but Russia and China have concentrated on defensive tech which may be exceptionally good at destroying US attacks..

          • Rickardus

            You might check your facts, the israelis dont use patriot systems they have a home grown system, the US uses a layered system, at the peak is THAAD, below that is the Patriot defense, and below that i cant remember what its called, but its the same thing thats being installed to romania…. the US wouldnt buy from israel, the US never buys arms.. they did in fact pursue Hypersonic technology first, you’re maybe thinking of the hypersonic missile, in which they are ahead because they have been the only country to achieve multiple test flights… really do the research, dont go making up your own facts for the sake of perpetuating an argument.. bring me source material if you are to be taken seriously on the information you have stated, otherwisd im going to go on believing what ive researched extensively already.

      • Juana

        One thing ive noticed is that the US keeps really quiet about it’s true capabilities, everyone else tries to compete by releasing amazing specs, and people are wow’ed by it..

        – you’re right! But I’m sure China and Russia does too. It would be outright stupid to lay down all your cards, right?. Judging from how China fast had been commissioning one ship after another, and the many weapons it unveiled during its military parade last year, it would be unwise to presume China has nothing concealed, too. Over confidence in ones capabilities is dangerous, my friend. ;-)

        • Rickardus

          The difference is they have a lot to gain by posturing, appearing strong means everything when the US is at the level they are at. Which is why they have parades, and release specs.. Im sure they have secrets, but if they invented a hypersonic bomber, we would hear about it straight away… They don’t want to have to use it for real, but it does help them throw their weight around, and be able to get away with it.. plus Deterrence.. It also adds to diplomatic situations, more pressure on other parties to take matters seriously. Consider the North Korean Nuke, they overhype it, claiming it can wipe out cities anywhere in the world, when in reality, the most damage they could do is in a large and very obvious bomber to drop a nuke which can at most, maybe take out a shopping mall.

    • Nexusfast123

      Factor in nuked tipped missiles and torpedoes.

    • Any attack on a carrier group will come as a saturation attack.A carrier group can only defend against x number of incoming missles in y time frame.At a certain point the carrier group will run out of missles and/or luck.

      • Keith Hopkins

        Any ” saturation” would be picked up by satalites, drones and electronic intercepts. If they know what the fuck you post on FB and send in e mails do you not think they know what the military Chinese are up to ? They would be sank as soon as they made plans.

  • Asil

    Carrier Groups are not defensive, but attacking formations. they intend to hit first. İF any combat group aproaches and manages to fire its missiles, the defensive AEGIS and other anti missile systems are built to stop attacks from small to medium formations. But in case of a destroyer fleet manages to fire its missiles to a carrier group, then it means that carrier group was already unsuccesful, and the outcome will surely be unpleasent.

    I dont think that any engagement between US and China will include only one carrier group. Naval warfare is by its nature strategical, so major naval engagements are always for areal dominance. That means all parties will send whatever they have. Naval loses can not be replaced easily and even a small encounter is decissive. Relying only destroyers shows that China will actually rely on its strategic air power in order to counter US Navy. I doubt China has the cpacity.

    Russia on the other hand, with its composition of Submarine and Cruiser forse can perfectly defend its regional waters. And if long range strategic air force is included, US need to gather more than whatever it has.

    However, one should not dare to compare US open Sea power with any country’s. This capacity is the result of its amazing carrier and submarine force. They dominate %75 of the world, thats why US is the only and unique superpower of the world.

    • PietroDel Prete

      Don’t forget the russian capability to diasble the Aegis system by Khybyny as happened To Donald Cook on 2014 .For sure is a game changer for Russia.

      • Asil

        Sure, those technologic aspects are the tactical part of Naval warfare. They find a way, and other side also finds another way and it goes so on. My point is the carrier is the most capable part of attacking naval Force. To invest on carriers shows also the intention of agressive strategies.

        • Peter

          In WWI the battleship was king. In WWII aircraft sunk the battleships and the aircraft carrier was king. In WWIII missiles will sink the aircraft carriers and missiles will be king.
          Pouring money into or relying aircraft carriers now for a major conflict is like pouring money into battleships for WWII.

          • Asil

            Battleship was just a bigger cruiser. Carrier was a new weapon. Hypersonic missile is just a faster missile, no replacement for aircraft carrier in terms of operational use.

        • PaulPeter

          Aircraft carriers groups are like sitting ducks as there are so many of anti-ship missile systems worldwide covering from hundreds to thousands of nautical miles, rendering all fighter jets to be worthless at two to three thousands nautical miles from target area.

          • Asil

            I think you are missing a point, if you havea hypersonic missile and i dont have it, you win. İf what we are thinking is a warrior with sword against a warrior with only a shield, then i call it a fantasy. Us will never encounter any chinese and russian group whithout having its own hypersonic missiles. Or do you really think that an army with classic rifles can dare to fight against an army with rail guns? NO. Technologic gaps are easier to close than organisational and economical. Thats why we read each day a new technology in the media. So if we talk about an us carrier group it will have its own cruisers with hundreds of hypersonic missles. No military strategy or even tactic relies on defensive measure to counter a treath. All those aegis or close defense measures are for just in case scenarios. Like a tank tries to rely on its armor without using its gun. A tanks first line defensive mean is its weapon, its damage capacity. Tacticaly armor is the offensive mean. Armor means how harder it can push in disadventageous situations. There is always a anti tank weapon which can penatrate thestrongest armor.

          • PaulPeter

            You are talking with so many ” if ” and “if not” ——-all the ” ifs and ifs not ” don’t add up in reality, and you are preaching with swords, shields, bows and arrows, from the days of your great great great grandma to your cloudy present time.

            Why don’t you ” if ” yourself with one trillion bucks inside your own pockets ? This is so simple to break up your bygone narratives.

            USA and Russia had recently tested their failed Hypersonic missiles which were burnt up as soon as they started to reach hypersonic speed.

            China had successfully tested hypersonic missiles for the seventh time with a failure on the 2nd testing. The initial first test was clocked by US satellites to reach 9,127 mph, well above Mach 10 speed.

            China’s Master Computer as of this year has reached 97 Petaflop speed which is five times faster than the speed of USA Master Computer.

          • Jesus

            US navy does not have any hypersonic missiles in its inventory, nor does it have anything of the sort in the development R&D. Russia is currently testing the Zircon hypersonic missile, hoping to make it operational in 2018 deployed on Nakhimov battle cruiser. They also have hypersonic glide vehicles similar to the Chinese DF 21 that can be deployed from a conventional ICBM. US does not have anything comparable, hence the brain drain resulting from outsourcing of mfg. industries associated with the engineering talent to China and India. Yes, US is falling behind in the technological race, since its military development complex is more interested in the bottom line instead of producing the best possible weapon for the money. F22 and F35 are some glaring examples of oversold capabilities that fall short in the real world.

  • Keith Hopkins

    That Chinese junk would be sitting on the bottom as new fish reefs before they even got close in a shooting war. American subs would eat that shit alive. And just like Chinese food..be hungry again in about an hour.

    • PaulPeter

      China’s DF21D and DF26 hypersonic carrier-killer and naval state-of-the-art self-targeting missile systems, cover and overshadow 3,000 nautical miles, beyond Guam and far out into the Pacific Ocean.

      Wake up and smell the coffee.