- Researchers in China claim they carried out a successful simulated attack on a US aircraft carrier using satellites to conceal missile approaches
- An article published in the Chinese magazine Shipboard Electronic Countermeasures claimed that they would need 28 satellites in low orbit to launch a global attack
A Chinese laboratory has claimed it can decimate US warships with ‘space weapons’ – low-flying satellites – after carrying out a fake hypersonic missile attack.
In a research paper published in December in the Chinese journal Shipboard Electronic Countermeasures, scientist Liu Shichang described a computer-simulated attack on the US fleet.
The team launched missiles at a US aircraft carrier from 750 miles away and used low-flying satellites to jam the ship’s radars so that it could not detect the missiles until they were just 30 miles away.
Based on the research, they concluded that three satellites would be enough to attack a group of aircraft carriers, while only 28 satellites would enable a “global attack,” according to the South China Morning Post.
Liu wrote: ‘Controlling height has always been a crucial tactic in war since ancient times.
The study concluded that they could launch a global attack using 28 satellites
In May last year, Chinese researchers said they had managed to down the USS Gerald R. Ford, which was believed to be unsinkable by conventional weapons.
“With the evolution of the concept of war and the advancement of technology, space has become a new dominant height that is fiercely contested by the world’s military powers.”
Liu works at the secret Science and Technology on Electronic Information Control Laboratory.
According to the South China Morning Post, the laboratory works on electronic warfare equipment for the Chinese military, under the state-owned China Electronics Technology Group Corporation.
The exercise showed how the People’s Liberation Army could use so-called space weapons to attack the US fleet.
In the simulation, after the missiles were fired, the electronic warfare satellites in low orbit reflected radar signals back to the US warships, so the missiles could not be detected amid background noise.
They concluded that the satellites had “unique advantages” because they could operate across national borders.
They added that because they fly at low altitudes, they “suffer minimal power loss, require less sensitive receivers and transmitter power, and are more feasible for engineering.”
The team said China is “making progress in related research and applications” and added that “electronic warfare in space using low-orbit satellite constellations has become an important means of information warfare.”
China is ‘moving forward’ with research into how the technology can be applied
Hypersonic rockets travel at more than five times the speed of sound in the upper atmosphere
By concealing the missile’s approach, the satellites allow it to get close enough to “conduct terminal maneuvers for further penetration until destroying the target.”
It could help complete a famously difficult long-range attack on an aircraft carrier group. The team did not say exactly what type of platform or rocket they used in their simulation.
The study claimed that the US and Russia are also seeking space weapons for these types of attacks.
In May last year, China claimed to have destroyed the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, in a similar simulation.
Beijing researchers said they were able to bring down the USS Gerald R. Ford – believed to be unsinkable by conventional weapons – in 20 battles using 24 hypersonic anti-ship missiles.
At the time, analysts wondered why China would release the results of a war game simulation.
“Anyone who publicly discusses the outcome of a war game or a simulation has a political purpose, especially if they frame the outcome as a win or a loss,” said Drew Thompson, a former senior US defense official. Telegraph.
“Effective war games are games that test an assumption, a function, or a variable to inform the game’s sponsor about the complex interaction of elements,” he explained.
“War games are not about winning or losing. They are about learning.”