# China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier



## Martian2

In case anyone missed it, here's my blitzkrieg assault on a carrier force. The converse is also true. A defender can use the same strategy and tactics on a future Chinese carrier battle group. The strategy is to overwhelm the limited defense capabilities of a carrier group and to give them little time to react.

"If I were a Chinese general, I believe that I can sink the U.S. Navy if they come within range of my weapons.

I would use a combined attack. All attacks will be coordinated to arrive near-simultaneously at the target. I would designate a salvo of 50 ASBMs (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missiles) per carrier and 10 ASBMs per Aegis destroyer. I would simultaneously send swarms of CJ-10 cruise missiles at the U.S. ships. I would also deploy salvos of Chinese Exocets (i.e. C-802s). On the sea, I would send groups of "Type 022 (Houbei Class) Fast Attack Missile Crafts." Finally, I would also send swarms of attack submarines (i.e. Type 093 Shangs, Yuans, Songs, and Kilos) to fire Yu-6 (i.e. Mark 48-class) torpedoes at the U.S. ships.

If the U.S. Navy can survive a concentrated bombardment from space, air, sea-skimming missiles, and underwater torpedoes then they truly are the best in the world. If not, the U.S. Navy will be at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. If the U.S. wants to bully China, they can expect China to hit the U.S. Navy with everything in the Chinese arsenal. The U.S. has never been tested by a massive combined attack. There is a good chance that the U.S. Navy will not survive."

As soon as they are available, China's Tomahawk-class CJ-10 cruise missiles will be supplemented by stealthy HN-2000 cruise missiles. Notably, the HN-2000 has a "supersonic terminal flight phase" to apply even more pressure on the target carrier group.

http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. *This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies* and have a *supersonic terminal flight phase*, with an expected range of 4,000km."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

One more thing, as soon as China's UAVs (i.e. unmanned aerial vehicles) and/or stealth UAVs with air-to-surface missiles are ready, I would throw them into the mix as well. This will continue the strategy of creating maximum pressure, complexity, and chaos within a small time-window.

China plans to export Advanced UAV, carrying with air-surface missiles|China Military Power Mashup

"*China plans to export Advanced UAV, carrying with air-surface missiles*
Posted on 31 January 2010 by admin

Feb.01 (China Military Power Reporting by Johanthan Weng)  Recently, Xian Modern Control Technology Institute was successfully passed a design review of missile and parts used by an unmanned reconnaissance and attack aircraft, by the Project Management Department of AVIC. This event tells a truth that the Xian Modern Control Technology Institute have made a major breakthrough in the field of Attacking UAV development.

The institute self-financed and carried out three projects development. Especially, the distinguished performance of UAV in counter-terrorism, targeted killings, maintaining border stability has been dig out. At present, the reconnaissance-attack UAV made by this institute has successfully air-launched missile and hit the target for the first time in China. The unmanned surveillance attack aircraft for PLA will be formally engineering projected. The variant type of similar UAV has been signed exportation agreement for expanding overseas market."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Another problem that carrier battle groups have to worry about is submarine-launched cruise missiles. A submarine can "sneak up" and get close to a carrier flotilla and launch its cruise missiles. There would be very little time to react. A simultaneous multi-directional cruise missile attack by many submarines will pose a challenge.

China's Submarine Forces

"The Song-class submarine is expected to be the first Chinese submarine capable of firing a submerged-launch anti-ship cruise missile. ..."

In the following video, we see a picture of a SS N 27 submarine-launched "anti-ship cruise missile."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Here we go again......Another 'fanboy' raving and exaggeration of China's military capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## zagahaga

gambit said:


> Here we go again......Another 'fanboy' raving and exaggeration of China's military capabilities.



here we go with an american fanboy..... MY NAVY SOO INVINSABEL... MY AIRFORCE IS SO UNSTOPABLE... MY ARMY IS SO UNBREAKABEL...


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Here we go again......Another 'fanboy' raving and exaggeration of China's military capabilities.



The U.S. Naval Institute disagrees with you.

Take China?s ASBM Potential Seriously|Andrew S. Erickson

"*Take Chinas ASBM Potential Seriously*
Journal Articles

Andrew Erickson, Take Chinas ASBM Potential Seriously, *U.S. Naval Institute* Proceedings, Vol. 136, No. 2 (February 2010), p. 8.

*If developed and deployed successfully, a Chinese antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) system of systems would be the worlds first capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers that could make defenses against it difficult* and/or highly escalatory.

Some assume that because the engineering problem proved unsolvable for the Soviet Union in the 1970s, it must remain unsolvable for China in the 21st century. The Soviets failure to solve a similar problem using vacuum tube and early transistor technology illustrates the difficulty of successfully attacking a carrier with a ballistic missile, but is by no means predictive. China enjoys the latecomers advantage in employing technology, has mastered ballistic missile technology, and has better satellite capabilities now than the Soviet Union had then. "


----------



## Moorkh

the scenario does not talk about one critical tactical concern. how does the PLA PLAN and PLAAF bring all these forces into action against the CBG without the CBG being aware of their actions. one of the advantages of the CBG is that it can move. it can theoretically move out of the trap the chinese might be setting up. 

it shows that a carrier group can be sunk, presumably the one defending taiwan. this will allow for a window of opportunity in which the chinese forces can conquer taiwan. however it in a way ignores the consequences and a possible retaliation by the US. US has more carrier groups all over the world. 

sinking a carrier group is an act of war. US will respond in kind. it will have willing and ready bases in japan and taiwan if taiwan survives. the other CBGs will move in. this is the least response by the US. what will the chinese do then?

the CBG is not enough to defend taiwan. infact if china so chooses, it has the ability to get rid of it and move on towards taiwan. what is defending taiwan is the implication that it is under the US umbrella and acting against taiwan is same as acting against US

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## applesauce

Moorkh said:


> the scenario does not talk about one critical tactical concern. how does the PLA PLAN and PLAAF bring all these forces into action against the CBG without the CBG being aware of their actions. one of the advantages of the CBG is that it can move. it can theoretically move out of the trap the chinese might be setting up.
> 
> it shows that a carrier group can be sunk, presumably the one defending taiwan. this will allow for a window of opportunity in which the chinese forces can conquer taiwan. however it in a way ignores the consequences and a possible retaliation by the US. US has more carrier groups all over the world.
> 
> sinking a carrier group is an act of war. US will respond in kind. it will have willing and ready bases in japan and taiwan if taiwan survives. the other CBGs will move in. this is the least response by the US. what will the chinese do then?
> 
> the CBG is not enough to defend taiwan. infact if china so chooses, it has the ability to get rid of it and move on towards taiwan. what is defending taiwan is the implication that it is under the US umbrella and acting against taiwan is same as acting against US



meh all that these weapon do is to create a no go zone around china which is all they need for Taiwan, there are no other possible/plausible war scenarios with USA, so it goes like this, taiwan declares independence, china launches missiles destroying their airfields and navy yards, plan keeps the landing force mostly free from harassment by enemy ship(taiwan ships) the plaaf creates a local air superiority for the landing(easy considering enemy airfield should be destroyed) taiwan is estimated to be taken in under a month(you can look this up), all the while the job of these weapon(anti-carrier) is not to actually sink a carrier but to keep them far away from the fight complicating matters greatly for the USN while the congress debates a month goes by then pla is firmly established, debate dies down end of story(aside from the political firestorm that is surly to follow).


----------



## Martian2

Moorkh said:


> the scenario does not talk about one critical tactical concern. how does the PLA PLAN and PLAAF bring all these forces into action against the CBG without the CBG being aware of their actions. one of the advantages of the CBG is that it can move. it can theoretically move out of the trap the chinese might be setting up.
> 
> it shows that a carrier group can be sunk, presumably the one defending taiwan. this will allow for a window of opportunity in which the chinese forces can conquer taiwan. however it in a way ignores the consequences and a possible retaliation by the US. US has more carrier groups all over the world.
> 
> sinking a carrier group is an act of war. US will respond in kind. it will have willing and ready bases in japan and taiwan if taiwan survives. the other CBGs will move in. this is the least response by the US. what will the chinese do then?
> 
> the CBG is not enough to defend taiwan. infact if china so chooses, it has the ability to get rid of it and move on towards taiwan. what is defending taiwan is the implication that it is under the US umbrella and acting against taiwan is same as acting against US



Every carrier battle group is vulnerable to a concentrated bombardment from ASBMs/space, cruise missiles/air, Chinese "Exocets" C-802s/sea-skimmers, and torpedoes/underwater. If the carrier groups are within 1,000 miles of China's coastline, I believe they can all be sunk.

It is only a question of the extent of Chinese casualties. If the Americans know that you're coming then more Chinese submarines will become casualties. However, I don't think the carrier group will survive.

The bigger worry is that current American thinking is to threaten nuclear retaliation if China sinks an American carrier by conventional means.

Doesn't it seem like common sense that the U.S. won't just sit and watch China sink one U.S. aircraft carrier after another? Do you really believe that the U.S. will be indifferent to China sinking the U.S. Navy and destroying a proud symbol of the United States and American power? Most people would say "of course not."

America will escalate and engage in dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. The smart money is betting that the hyperpower won't go quietly. Americans are very touchy when it comes to China, their only perceived rival. Shatter that American psyche by destroying their aircraft carrier battle groups and you run the risk of all-out (nuclear) war.

*These are from the U.S. Naval Institute.
*
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/...p?STORY_ID=1856

"Issue: *May 2009* Vol. 135/5/1,275

On the Verge of a Game-Changer
By Andrew S. Erickson and David D. Yang

*A Chinese antiship ballistic missile could alter the rules in the Pacific and place U.S. Navy carrier strike groups in jeopardy.
*
Chinese leaders and strategists have been thinking of using land-based missiles to hit threatening sea targets for more than three decades. Today, the discussion is increasingly widespread, technical, and operationally focused. This suggests the possibility that China may be closer than ever to mastering such a system&#8212;with perhaps a strategically publicized test sometime in the future&#8212;or even to using it in the event of conflict. Indeed, the mere perception that China might have an antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) capability could be a game-changer, with profound consequences for deterrence, military operations, and the balance of power in the Western Pacific.

While Chinese ASBM capability remains uncertain, relevant U.S. government sources state consistently that Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on a variant of the 1,500 km-plus range DF-21/CSS-5 solid propellant medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). According to the Department of Defense, if supported by "a sophisticated command-and-control system," e.g., accurate real-time target data, from China's growing family of terrestrial and space-based sensors, ASBMs could hold U.S. carrier strike groups at risk in the Western Pacific. Further, China's use of submunitions might render a carrier operationally ineffective without sinking it, thereby achieving its objectives with a (perceived) lower risk of escalation.1
...
Utility and Feasibility

The generalist literature is broadly consistent concerning the operational effects of ASBMs and their potential value for Chinese maritime strategy. ASBMs are promoted as a means to overcome conventional inferiority by exploiting technological asymmetry, deter intervention to give China more maneuvering space, and offer both escalation control and a "trump card" for victory if deterrence fails. Skeptics writing in a China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation journal, however, charge that *ASBMs offer limited power-projection capabilities, are highly escalatory if employed, and might trigger nuclear retaliation*.5"

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/...p?STORY_ID=2313

"Issue: *April 2010* Vol. 136/4/1,286

'Get Off the Fainting Couch'
By Craig Hooper and Christopher Albon

Have fretful descriptions of China's medium-range antiship ballistic missile endangered America's strategic standing in the Pacific Basin? Its time to stop worrying and start managing the Chinese ASBM threat.
...
A year later, in January 2007, Jane's Navy International broached the news that China was focusing on "soft kill" warheads for the DF-21, developing electromagnetic pulse generators and warheads capable of releasing a "cluster of non-explosive flechette penetrators, designed to shower a vessel with high-speed metal. The flechettes would kill unprotected crew and, more importantly, strip the ship of its radar, communications, and other sensor arrays."3
...
Identify Options

By overlooking the potential impact of PGS, naval strategists forfeited an interesting opportunity to *engage China on the underlying hazard of nuclear ambiguity, or the employment of known nuclear-strike platforms for the delivery of conventional munitions. That dialogue must begin soon.* The U.S. Congress, deeply concerned about the *misinterpretation of a conventionally armed ballistic missile launch*, has restrained American development of conventional PGS platforms. But a confirmed entry of Chinese ASBMs into the Pacific theater by way of a functional demonstration would put Congress under enormous pressure to fully fund a range of PGS projects.
...
Precise, conventionally armed ballistic missiles are poised to become important components of the global arsenal. They are very dangerous. As no-notice, first-strike enabling weapons, *these missiles raise the specter of a disproportionate nuclear response or an unwarranted nuclear retaliation from an untargeted third party.* Responsible countries of the Pacific Basin have an opportunity to begin discussing these weapons before they arrive and destabilize the region. If ASBM fear-mongering leads to a regional effort to slow the proliferation of conventional ballistic missiles in the Pacific, then all the embarrassing hand-wringing will have been worthwhile."


----------



## Moorkh

^^^ so u support my POV ??


----------



## Martian2

Moorkh said:


> ^^^ so u support my POV ??



Not quite. Looking objectively at the advanced weapons in China's arsenal today, I believe China can sink all U.S. carrier battle groups that are within range of China's ASBMs, cruise missiles, Chinese C-802 "Exocets," and torpedoes. By using large numbers near-simultaneously and in combination, I don't see how any large naval surface ship can survive that kind of concentrated bombardment.

Unfortunately, I don't believe for a second that the U.S. will keep the conflict to a conventional war. The U.S. is the current champion and China is the contender. The U.S. will fight dirty to keep China in her place. We have previously seen the U.S. become bogged down with China in a conventional conflict and resort to nuclear threats.

The bottom line is that China can most likely sink U.S. carriers. However, the ASBM weapon and combined conventional lightning attack cannot be used. We all know the U.S. is a sore loser and will go nuclear. Final verdict: China's ASBM is a technological marvel, but it can't be used.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/chi...lear/index.html

"History

*China's efforts to develop a nuclear weapons program came in response to nuclear threats from the United States. In July 1950, at the very beginning of the Korean War, U.S. President Harry Truman ordered ten nuclear-configured B-29s to the Pacific, and "warned China that the U.S. would take 'whatever steps are necessary' to stop Chinese intervention and that the use of nuclear weapons 'had been under active consideration.'" In 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight Eisenhower publicly hinted that he would authorize the use of nuclear weapons against China if the Korean War armistice talks continued to stagnate.* In 1954, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, General Curtis LeMay, voiced his support for the use of nuclear weapons if China resumed fighting in Korea. LeMay stated, "There are no suitable strategic air targets in Korea. However, I would drop a few bombs in proper places like China, Manchuria and Southeastern Russia. In those 'poker games,' such as Korea and Indo-China, we... have never raised the ante&#8212;we have always just called the bet. We ought to try raising sometime." Not long after, in January 1955, U.S. Navy Admiral Arthur Radford also publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons if China invaded South Korea.

These threats prompted the Chinese to begin developing nuclear weapons in the winter of 1954. The Third Ministry of Machinery Building (renamed the Second Ministry of Machinery Building in 1957 and then in 1982, the Ministry of Nuclear Industry) was then established in 1956. With Soviet assistance, nuclear research began at the Institute of Physics and Atomic Energy in Beijing, and a gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant in Lanzhou was constructed to produce weapons-grade uranium. On 15 October 1957, the U.S.S.R. agreed to provide China with a sample atomic bomb and manufacturing data. From 1955 to 1959, approximately 260 Chinese nuclear scientists and engineers went to the Soviet Union, while roughly the same number of Soviet nuclear experts traveled to China to work in its nuclear industry. However, by 1959 the rift between the Soviet Union and China had become so great that one year later in 1960 the Soviet Union discontinued all assistance to China. After 1960, China was forced to go it alone.

China successfully tested its first atomic bomb on 16 October 1964&#8212;with highly enriched uranium produced at the Lanzhou facility&#8212;and just 32 months later on 17 June 1967, China tested its first thermonuclear device. This achievement is remarkable in that the timespan between the two events is substantially less than the other nuclear powers. By way of comparison, 86 months passed between the United States' first atomic test and its first hydrogen bomb test; for the U.S.S.R., it was 75 months; for the U.K., 66 months; and for France, 105 months."

http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml

"Korean War FAQ

Copyright&#169; , 1998, All rights reserved.

31. What did Mao say about US after the Korean war?

"American imperialists are very arrogant, they are very unreasonable whenever they can get away with it, if they became a little bit reasonable, it was because they had no other choice."

32. Did US consider the use the A-Bomb in Korea?

US generals actively considered the use of Atomic Bombs from the very beginning, even before China intervened. US presidents considered the use of the A-Bombs after PVA entered.

[From Blair]

On June 1950, Eisenhower met with Collins, Haislip, Ridgway, Ike suggested use of two atomic bombs in the Korea area.

In July 1950, MacArthur suggested plan to use atomic bombs to 'isolate the battle fields".

[From Hastings]

On November 30 1950, President Truman said in a press conference: "There had always been active consideration of its[Atomic Bomb's] use...".

On December 24 1950, MacArthur submitted a list of 'retaliation targets' in China and North Korea, requiring 26 atomic bombs.

In January 1953, US tested its first tactical nuclear weapon, and the JCS considered its use "against military targets affecting operations in Korea."

In February 1953, in a NSC meeting, President Eisenhower suggested the Kaesong area of North Korea as an appropriate demonstration ground for a tactical nuclear bomb--it "provided a good target for this type of weapon".

On May 19 1953, the Joint Chiefs recommended direct air and naval operations against China, including the use of nuclear weapons. The National Security Council endorsed the JCS recommendation the next day.

Dulles, the Secretary of State was visiting India and told Nehru to deliver a message to Zhou Enlai: if peace was not speedily attained, the United States would begin to bomb north of Yalu, and US had recently tested atomic shells.

33. As a side question, did US threaten China with nukes after the Korean war?

Yes.

US threatened China with nuclear weapons again in 1959.
From recently declassified documents, President Kennedy considered using nukes to bomb Chinese nuclear facilities in early 1960s , when China was on the verge of exploding its own bomb, but JFK was assassinated and the plan was dropped by President Johnson.

Facing nuclear threat, Chairman Mao said:"we need to have some atomic bombs too". In 1964, China exploded its first A-Bomb, 30 months later, in 1967, it exploded its first H-Bomb, since then, China has developed a variety of strategic and tactical weapons, China also produced missiles of various ranges, initially targeting US bases at Japan and Philippines, and eventually the North America continent. Mao also said:"We must have nuclear submarines even if this would take us ten thousand years". China tested its nuclear subs in early 1970s and tested SLBMs later. The exact size of PLA nuclear stockpile is unknown, but reasonable estimate put it in the range of 2000-4000 warheads.

In March 1996, PLA conducted an exercise in the Taiwan Straits, President Clinton sent two carriers to the straits, PLA responded by dispatching its nuclear attack submarines and the US fleet stayed 300 nautical miles off Taiwan, in the meantime, PLA SAF (Secondary Artillery Force) conducted exercise to retaliate against enemy strategic strikes, PLA Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. Xiong Guangkai reportedly hinted that US cares more about LA than Taiwan.

34. How many civilians were killed by US forces in Korea?

About 3 million. (To be detailed)

35. What was the lesson China learned from the Korean war?

Chinese learned that united as a nation, they can defeat any enemy.

36. What is the future outlook of Sino-US relations?

China and US historically had fewer and less severe conflicts during the humiliating 100 year Chinese history since the Opium war. Chinese and Americans need not and should not be enemies, they should cooperate with each other to build a world of peace and prosperity."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Donatello

Does it matter?

I mean, the rate at which Chinese firms are developing their own weapons, in this decade, we will see their firepower increase no matter what. They may not have good anti-ship missiles today, but sooner or later they will have them. Just a matter of time


----------



## KS

Definitely China has the capability to sink - *but only the first CBG *because it has the weapons nd more importantly the element of surprise.
But once that is done then China will be sunk...make no mistake abt it..because it is the *stated policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland* nd do u think US will have any qualms at all in launching a massive retaliatory on PRC..?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sanchez

Before China shot satellite or intercepted exoatmospheric missile who expected that? Anti-ship BMs are already inducted in a few units of PLA after more than 20 years R&D. They will fully function when Chinese Beidou navigation system is completely set in place. This tech is actually not very difficult for US to develop and it could be the reason why many in the US believe it.

The art of this weapon is that it only needs to drill holes on the carrier's deck, instead of sinking it.


----------



## Martian2

Karthic Sri said:


> Definitely China has the capability to sink - *but only the first CBG *because it has the weapons nd more importantly the element of surprise.
> But once that is done then China will be sunk...make no mistake abt it..because it is the *stated policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland* nd do u think US will have any qualms at all in launching a massive retaliatory on PRC..?



Can you provide a link to an U.S. government website that states the "policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland"? I would like to read the details. Thank you.


----------



## Sanchez

Karthic Sri said:


> Definitely China has the capability to sink - *but only the first CBG *because it has the weapons nd more importantly the element of surprise.
> But once that is done then China will be sunk...make no mistake abt it..because it is the *stated policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland* nd do u think US will have any qualms at all in launching a massive retaliatory on PRC..?



How can US retaliate China in a massive way? Nukes?
US stealth bombers are not invincible to China's SAM networks. All US bases as far as to Guam could be hit by Chinese missiles. How can US gather its forces while we are watching?

China is preparing her military defence against a worst enemy. It's certainly not India, so to speak.


----------



## Martian2

As long as the war over Taiwan doesn't turn nuclear, I believe that Mainland China will ultimately prevail in the war of attrition. Let's face it, Mainland China wants the island a lot more than the U.S. Also, Taiwan is 100 miles off Mainland China's coast. The U.S. is thousands of miles away. Logistically, China has a huge advantage.

Therein lies the problem. How do you stop the U.S. from intervening without sinking her carriers? If you sink American carriers with 5,000 to 6,000 personnel on board then what are the chances that the U.S. won't go nuclear? The U.S. Naval Institute (i.e. USNI) publications are already warning China that the U.S. will go nuclear. The USNI is communicating to China that its advanced ASBMs are verboten (i.e. forbidden).

Anyway, here is the latest RAND Corporation study on a China-U.S. Taiwan war.

Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War | Danger Room | Wired.com

"*Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War*

* By David Axe Email Author
* August 5, 2009 | 

In 2000, the *influential think tank RAND Corporation* crunched some numbers regarding a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and concluded that &#8220;any near-term Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would likely be a very bloody affair with a significant probability of failure&#8221; &#8212; especially if the U.S. raced to the island nation&#8217;s defense. But nine years later, a *new, much-updated edition of the RAND study found that China&#8217;s improved air and missile forces &#8220;represent clear and impending dangers to the defense of Taiwan,&#8221; whether or not the U.S. is involved.*

*&#8220;A credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue [American and allied] air force has even fired a shot,&#8221; the monograph notes.*

It&#8217;s a potentially controversial assertion &#8212; and one that might have fueled the (now-resolved) debate over whether the U.S. Air Force should buy more F-22s. RAND found that F-22s flying from the relative safety of Guam could be surprisingly effective in blunting a Chinese air assault.

Still, with or without F-22s, the Chinese air and missile force &#8220;dramatically outnumbers [U.S. and Taiwanese] forces and wins the war of attrition,&#8221; according to Steve Trimble&#8217;s summary of the RAND study. The Chinese lose 241 jets on the first day of fighting, while the U.S. and Taiwan together lose 147, but this lopsided kill ratio doesn&#8217;t matter, when China has hundreds more planes to put into the air. Moreover, most of the U.S. and Taiwanese planes lost, are destroyed on the ground by barrages of Chinese ballistic missiles. (It&#8217;s not for no reason that the U.S. Air Force is working hard to win new friends, each with juicy new bases, all over the Pacific.)

Before you panic, though, consider the many caveats RAND sneaks into the study &#8212; especially in the footnotes.

In light of how close the Chinese and Taiwanese economies have grown in the last decade, a Chinese invasion would amount to Beijing &#8220;shooting itself in the foot.&#8221; &#8220;China&#8217;s IT sector, in particular, could be devastated.&#8221; Never mind that the U.S. and Chinese economies are also irrevocably interdependent.

What&#8217;s more, despite focusing on the air battle for most of the report&#8217;s 185 pages, RAND admits that dogfighting can&#8217;t conquer an island. &#8220;Ultimately, there is only one military course of action that guarantees China control of Taiwan: a successful invasion and occupation.&#8221; An amphibious assault across the 200-mile-wide Taiwan Strait would represent &#8220;by far the most challenging military operation ever undertaken&#8221; by the Chinese. The entire Chinese navy could only carry 31,000 troops in the first wave &#8212; a number RAND admits would &#8220;almost certainly not&#8221; suffice, &#8220;assuming that Taiwan&#8217;s government, military, and populace chose to put up a fight.&#8221; It would take just one successful attack by Taiwan&#8217;s missile boats, or one day&#8217;s sorties by the island&#8217;s attack choppers, to incapacitate the whole Chinese assault fleet.

For that matter, RAND admits that successful attacks by just four U.S. B-1B bombers could also disable the invasion fleet. But let&#8217;s assume China does sweep the sky of U.S. and Taiwanese planes, bombers included &#8212; and even manages to take out Taiwan&#8217;s missile boats and choppers. The RAND study glosses over, in a single footnote, the force that would really play the biggest role in halting a Chinese invasion: the U.S. Navy&#8217;s huge, lethal fleet of nuclear submarines."


----------



## below_freezing

a very potent weapon for sinking carriers are J-6 and J-7 converted drones with anti-ship missile programming. these already exist, and are essentially costless 19 ton cruise missiles that can fly at mach 2 considering that over 3000 of these planes were produced and just take up space in storage.

it all depends on how badly the US wants to fight. 3000 J-6 drones in addition to any number of cruise missiles and aircraft WILL take out any number of carrier battle groups and all associated ships. the US can escape this threat any time however by just staying out of range, the burden of starting a war is on the US and no one else and china reserves the right to retaliate to any pre-emptive attack by any power.

the rand study is also very optimistic for taiwan because it assumes that 1 taiwanese F-16 can take out multiple (more than 1) mainland J-11, Su-30 or J-10. This is a fatal assumption again resting from the American idea that numeric inferiority means technological superiority: there is no such correlation, and many forces have absolute superiority in both qualitative and quantitative fields on their enemies such as USN vs. Iraq and PLAAF vs. Taiwan. There is no plane in Taiwan that can come close to the J-10 or Su-30. In fact their media estimates to destroy 1 Su-30, it would take 4.5 taiwanese aircraft http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_4203061_1.html


----------



## Sanchez

below_freezing said:


> a very potent weapon for sinking carriers are J-6 and J-7 converted drones with anti-ship missile programming. these already exist, and are essentially costless 19 ton cruise missiles that can fly at mach 2 considering that over 3000 of these planes were produced and just take up space in storage.
> 
> it all depends on how badly the US wants to fight. 3000 J-6 drones in addition to any number of cruise missiles and aircraft WILL take out any number of carrier battle groups and all associated ships. the US can escape this threat any time however by just staying out of range, the burden of starting a war is on the US and no one else and china reserves the right to retaliate to any pre-emptive attack by any power.



There are not as many "drones" as 3000.


----------



## below_freezing

if all J-6 (now retired) are converted to drones, then yes there can be 3000 of them.


----------



## IBRIS

China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier. I'm just laughing my A$$ off just reading the fanboy's posts. China may have become a strong nation but not as strong as US Navy. China has no clue to what extend US Navies capabilities are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Folks...

This is not new. This subject have been posted before. The technicalities questioned. This is just another 'fanboy' tactic of letting the previous debates, on the same subject, be pushed into the recesses of the forum listings, let the subject lay low for a while, then resurrect it again as if it is something new and shocking.

For American claims, the counter argument is that the US have never faced an equal enemy, therefore any claims made by US should be suspect. But this argument seemingly is never applied to China. Whatever the Chinese government claimed, even when it is clearly speculative, the 'fanboys' suspend their critical thinking skills and many times cross the line separating the laws of physics and fantasy.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Folks...
> 
> This is not new. This subject have been posted before. The technicalities questioned. This is just another 'fanboy' tactic of letting the previous debates, on the same subject, be pushed into the recesses of the forum listings, let the subject lay low for a while, then resurrect it again as if it is something new and shocking.
> 
> For American claims, the counter argument is that the US have never faced an equal enemy, therefore any claims made by US should be suspect. But this argument seemingly is never applied to China. Whatever the Chinese government claimed, even when it is clearly speculative, the 'fanboys' suspend their critical thinking skills and many times cross the line separating the laws of physics and fantasy.



Read the previous twenty-one posts by other members of this forum. You are the only one complaining. If you have nothing constructive to add, please visit some other thread. Thank you.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Read the previous twenty-one posts by other members of this forum. You are the only one complaining. If you have nothing constructive to add, please visit some other thread. Thank you.


Pointing out the fallacies of the arguments is being constructive. Questioning the technicalities of this speculative weapon is being constructive. Or are you saying that only Chinese are allowed to do these things in other threads?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Pointing out the fallacies of the arguments is being constructive. Questioning the technicalities of this speculative weapon is being constructive. Or are you saying that only Chinese are allowed to do these things in other threads?



Moorkh and other members have raised legitimate points. You have repeatedly engaged in personal attacks by making accusations of being a "fanboy." That is not professional and does not contribute to the discussion.

This thread contains information that members and guests of this forum may consider interesting. The position of the U.S. Naval Institute is clearly expressed. The RAND Corporation study regarding the military situation over the Taiwan Straits is also interesting. The newslinks demonstrating that U.S. nuclear threats against Mainland China date back to the Korean War and thereafter are also of potential interest.

Though you may not find any of this information interesting, you do not have the right to disparage me as a "fanboy" in your first two posts (see posts #4 and #22). I would greatly appreciated it if you would extend a little courtesy to me. Thank you.


----------



## Martian2

Let me address the point that China's ASBM is "speculative" by an alleged military professional.

Firstly, why would the U.S. Naval Institute address China's ASBM in at least three separate publications if it was a mere flight of fantasy? Obviously, the U.S. Naval Institute believes that China's ASBM is a dangerous and credible threat.

Secondly, what are the technical challenges of developing an ASBM in comparison to China's technological capabilities? An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means it's really big, can carry about 100 planes, and has a relatively long runway. An aircraft carrier can move at a slow 35 knots (65 km/h) along the 2-dimensional surface of the ocean.

In comparison, let's examine the complex challenge of destroying a weather satellite. China's FY-1C was approximately the size of a small refrigerator with dimensions of 4 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet. It was traveling at 8 km/s or 22,000 miles/hour at more than 500 miles above the Earth in a 3-dimensional spatial orbit. China's ASAT technology successfully destroyed the tiny and fast-moving orbiting satellite. Most people reasonably conclude that China's demonstrated technological prowess in its ASAT test is in excess of the far-simpler requirements of hitting a slow-moving man-made island (i.e. aircraft carrier).

Furthermore, China has also demonstrated that it can successfully hit a fast-moving missile with its mid-course ground-based interceptor (i.e. GBI).

Given China's ASAT and GBI capabilities, I think it is reasonable for the U.S. Naval Institute to conclude that China probably has a functional ASBM and to treat it as a serious threat. Let's listen to the experts discuss China's ASBM in the following CNN newsclip.











2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test was conducted by China on January 11, 2007. A Chinese weather satellite &#8212; the *FY-1C polar orbit satellite* of the Fengyun series, at an *altitude of 865 kilometres* (537 mi), with a mass of 750 kg[1] &#8212; was *destroyed by a kinetic kill vehicle traveling with a speed of 8 km/s in the opposite direction*[2] (see Head-on engagement). It was launched with a multistage solid-fuel missile from Xichang Satellite Launch Center or nearby.

Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine first reported the test. *The report was confirmed on January 18, 2007 by a United States National Security Council (NSC) spokesman.*[3]"

Breaking News, China finishes its first Missile Defense Test!!|China Military Power Mashup

"Jan.11 (China Military News reporting by Johnathan Weng) &#8211; Beijing local time PM 9:00 January 11 on 2010, *Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announces that China has successfully finished a ground-Based midcourse missile interception test in the territory of China.*"

Aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Aircraft take off to the front, into the wind, and land from the rear. *Carriers steam at speed, for example up to 35 knots (65 km/h)*, into the wind during"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sanchez

Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.


----------



## dbc

Sanchez said:


> Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.



What is a '_BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers"_' 
sounds scary ..


----------



## Martian2

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> What is a '_BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers"_'
> sounds scary ..



"Originally Posted by Sanchez
Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers."

My understanding of the sentence:

Besides BMs (i.e. ballistic missiles), scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.

or

Besides ballistic missiles, scramjet powered "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.


----------



## dbc

Martian2 said:


> "Originally Posted by Sanchez
> Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers."
> 
> My understanding of the sentence:
> 
> Besides BMs (i.e. ballistic missiles), scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.
> 
> or
> 
> Besides ballistic missiles, scramjet powered "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.



What are scramjet powered "bombers"?


----------



## Martian2

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> What are scramjet powered "bombers"?



I believe that a "scramjet powered 'bomber'" is a scramjet powered airplane that carries a bomb. Think of a X-43 with a bomb payload.

Space Airplane: NASA tests combined-cycle scramjet rocket engine

"In the process of demonstrating a *scramjet-powered airplane* in flight for the first time, the X-43 set a world speed record for an "air breathing" ..."

Scramjet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"No *scramjet powered vehicle* has yet been produced outside an ..... a crashed plane was carrying a ScramJet engine prototype as undeclared cargo for testing. ..."


----------



## dbc

Martian2 said:


> I believe that a "scramjet powered 'bomber'" is a scramjet powered airplane that carries a bomb.
> 
> Space Airplane: NASA tests combined-cycle scramjet rocket engine
> 
> "In the process of demonstrating a *scramjet-powered airplane* in flight for the first time, the X-43 set a world speed record for an "air breathing" ..."
> 
> Scramjet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No *scramjet powered vehicle* has yet been produced outside an ..... a crashed plane was carrying a ScramJet engine prototype as undeclared cargo for testing. ..."



China has scramjet powered bombers?


----------



## Martian2

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> China *has* scramjet powered bombers?





Sanchez said:


> Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" *will be* another potential threat to carriers.



Let's examine Sanchez's sentence and your question.

Sanchez said "*will be*," which means "future." Also, the word "potential" means "perhaps." Following standard English, Sanchez said that "scramjet powered bombers may (i.e. perhaps or potentially) pose a threat in the future.

Oddly, your question is regarding the present. You asked, "China *has* scramjet powered bombers"?

Is there a problem in understanding simple tenses?


----------



## no_name

But we should not really talk about weapons that has not been fielded yet, even if the potential is there. 

Do china have scram jet program for bombers? Some info or source would be nice.

regards


----------



## Vassnti

Martian2 said:


> I would use a combined attack. All attacks will be coordinated to arrive near-simultaneously at the target. I would designate a salvo of 50 ASBMs (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missiles) per carrier and 10 ASBMs per Aegis destroyer.



Two carrier groups, assume 2 aegis per group thats 70 x2 140 ICBMS launched at US interests not inculding the lets nuke guam while were at it scenario. 

12:00 China launches strikes against Taiwan.

12:02 China declares war against Taiwan

12:05 China launces 150 ICBM's at US fleet.

12:35 Bejing


----------



## dbc

Martian2 said:


> Let's examine Sanchez's sentence and your question.
> 
> Sanchez said "*will be*," which means "future." Also, the word "potential" means "perhaps." Following standard English, Sanchez said that "scramjet powered bombers may (i.e. perhaps or potential) pose a threat in the future.
> 
> Oddly, your question is regarding the present. You said, "China *has* scramjet powered bombers?"
> 
> Is there a problem in understanding simple tenses?



I'm not sure I like your tone, I assumed the thread starter (you) wanted to discuss real scenarios, which prompted my question.

I have no interest in wasting my time on childish fantasies like scramjet "bombers"


----------



## Martian2

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> I'm not sure I like your tone, I assumed the thread starter (you) wanted to discuss real scenarios, which prompted my question.
> 
> I have no interest in wasting my time on childish fantasies like scramjet "bombers"



I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intent. I'm overly logical and I usually don't think about my "tone." Sorry.


----------



## Martian2

Vassnti said:


> Two carrier groups, assume 2 aegis per group thats 70 x2 140 ICBMS launched at US interests not inculding the lets nuke guam while were at it scenario.
> 
> 12:00 China launches strikes against Taiwan.
> 
> 12:02 China declares war against Taiwan
> 
> 12:05 China launces 150 ICBM's at US fleet.
> 
> 12:35 Bejing



I worry about 12:35 and afterwards. 5,000 years of glorious civilization prematurely truncated because of a miscalculation in using 150 advanced ASBMs. Yes, China probably won the battle. However, there won't be enough survivors to remember the accomplishment.


----------



## Martian2

no_name said:


> But we should not really talk about weapons that has not been fielded yet, even if the potential is there.
> 
> *[Does China have a scramjet program]* for bombers? Some info or source would be nice.
> 
> regards



China Developing Scramjet Propulsion | AVIATION WEEK

"AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY

*China Developing Scramjet Propulsion*

Sep 2, 2007

By Craig Covault

China is starting to ramp up its scramjet propulsion work&#8212;an initiative that will benefit high-speed missile programs while also helping the country to develop advanced aerospace materials, greater computational capabilities and a cadre of young engineers who have matured as a result of cutting-edge engine and aerodynamic challenges.

Building on its ramjet experience, China is embracing the much more difficult task of developing Mach 5 air vehicle concepts in which propulsion and aerodynamics are highly coupled.

As part of this effort, an integrated scramjet model is about to begin testing at up to Mach 5.6 in a new wind tunnel in Beijing.

In addition to the technology and engineering experience to be gained, the mid-term military payoff is likely to be more advanced high-speed tactical and medium-range Chinese missiles, especially for antiship warfare that could threaten U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific or operating in support of Taiwan.

&#8220;China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the U.S. and field disruptive military technologies that could, over time, offset traditional U.S. military advantages,&#8221; the 2006 Pentagon Quadrennial Review said about overall Chinese military technology initiatives.

And over the next several decades, the scramjet work could eventually provide China with a tactical hypersonic global-strike capability beyond the country&#8217;s strategic ballistic missile force. The U.S. has similar goals for its own growing scramjet program.

The Chinese allowed a peek into multiple aspects of their scramjet efforts at the recent American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conference in Cincinnati. Chinese engineers from several research facilities presented about a dozen papers on their scramjet developments, as well as details on the new wind tunnel.

At the same forum, their papers revealed new rocket propulsion research, including work on hybrid systems that use a combination of propellants easier to handle and store than most propellants in wider use today. New insight also was offered on Chinese solid rocket motor technology work, important for both missile and space launch applications.

The Cincinnati meeting differed from a traditional U.S. industry gathering, because nearly a dozen engineers from Iran also submitted papers on Iranian solid and liquid rocket technologies. The Iranian engineers are based at the Sharif University of Technology and the KNT Technical University, both in Tehran. They apparently did not deliver the papers in person. However, as participants, the Iranians have access to all of the highly detailed U.S. aircraft and rocket propulsion presentations made at the conference.

A scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) flies at Mach 5 or faster using hydrogen fuel and oxygen out of the air for oxidizer. The engine must combine an advanced ramjet that changes configuration to swallow supersonic flow above about Mach 4.

Advanced ramjet technologies are also important for scramjet development, and the Chinese have been active in this area for decades.

Ironically, one the more interesting historical papers presented at the forum was a detailed description of how the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed combined top-secret ramjet propulsion technologies with segmented solid rocket boosters for the Mach 3 D-21B reconnaissance drones that were launched by modified SR-71s and B-52Hs in the late 1960s (see center photo). The D-21B was specifically developed to gather intelligence over China.

This was the first time details on the segmented rocket booster portion of the D-21B program have been presented publicly, says Robert Geisler of Geisler Industries, who led the analysis with retired Pratt & Whitney and ATK Tactical Propulsion engineers. Segmented boosters use individual circular sections like space shuttle solid rocket motors.

China already has such segmented solid rocket motor and ramjet capabilities today, but scramjets are a much greater challenge.

Although nowhere nearly as advanced as U.S. scramjet work, Chinese activities in this discipline will give the Defense Dept. additional impetus to argue for strong, ongoing U.S. hypersonic propulsion funding. Diverse U.S. technology programs are already underway to support development of the X-51 scramjet test vehicle (AW&ST July 23, p. 23).

As part of the Chinese effort, the engineers say new analytical centers are also being developed. For example, a Hypersonic Propulsion Test Facility has been built to support the scramjet program, according to Xinyu Chang, a senior researcher at the Laboratory of High-Temperature Gas Dynamics in Beijing, where the HPTF is located. Gas Dynamics lab research is specifically oriented to &#8220;the development of hypersonic flight vehicles, both aeronautics-and space-related,&#8221; according to data from the facility.

Broad studies there are &#8220;devoted to the fundamentals of hypersonic and high-temperature gas dynamics including detonation phenomena, supersonic combustion, chemical reactions, shock-wave/vortex interactions and thermal-chemical flow characteristics.&#8221; The lab helps lead several Chinese technology programs for scramjet propulsion. This includes basic hypersonic vehicle designs that could mate with a scramjet engine, as well as computational fluid dynamics work to assess the challenge of coupled ramjet/scramjet inlet flow fields at the front of the vehicle.

Scramjet ignition technology and work on cooling the internal walls of a scramjet are also being assessed, the Chinese say. Computer modeling of scramjet combustion instability is also being modeled.

&#8220;At the present time, the emphasis on rocket-based combined cycle [RBCC] scramjet research has gradually transferred from research and performance studies to some ground experiments and structures design,&#8221; says Wang Houqing, a researcher at Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xian. NPU is one of China&#8217;s top aerospace research centers.

&#8220;A copper model scramjet is ready for testing&#8221; in the new Gas Dynamics Laboratory facility, says Xinyu.

&#8220;The facility is to provide high enthalpy [thermal dynamic] model scramjet testing,&#8221; he says.

The facility uses a hydrogen/air and oxygen replenishment combustion heater with a flow rate of 3.5 kg./sec., with temperature capabilities up to 2,000K. It can generate test velocities up to Mach 5.6, according to Xinyu.

Many different scramjet combustor configurations have been tested so far, he says. But the new facility will allow complete scramjet engine model configurations to be evaluated instead of just the combustor alone.

Other Chinese scramjet research presented at Cincinnati included:

&#8226;Aerodynamic performance of Chinese waverider designs integrated with an inlet. &#8220;Simulation studies were conducted to investigate forebody-inlet-isolator performance in an airframe-scramjet integrated hypersonic vehicle,&#8221; according to Liu Zhenxia, also at NPU.

&#8226;Multicode computational fluid dynamics runs for coupled ramjet/scramjet inlet flowfields. This work models the transition from &#8220;ram&#8221; to &#8220;scram&#8221; propulsion. The research is underway at the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

&#8226;Research of gas discharge coefficients. This work is being conducted at the College of Aerospace and Materials Engineering at the National University of Defense Technology in Changsha.

&#8226;Cross-section design of a controllable hypersonic inlet. The research is being done at the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

&#8226;Scramjet combustion mode translation studies. This work is also part of the scramjet effort at the National University of Defense Technology.

&#8226;Hydrogen injection and scramjet ignition testing. The research is being done in the Defense Technology university.

&#8226;Thermal and structures studies. NPU is performing heat transfer analysis and overall scramjet thermal structure design, including analysis of different materials used in the scramjet concepts.

&#8226;Numerical simulation of combustion instability. This work is also being pursued in Xian."


----------



## Jun

I doubt how many US citizens will support US army to go to war with China over Taiwan.


----------



## Martian2

Jun said:


> I doubt how many US citizens will support US army to go to war with China over Taiwan.



The majority of American citizens do not want to become involved in the Chinese Civil War over Taiwan. However, they don't get to make the decisions. The elites are in charge of the U.S. government and my instinct tells me that they may very well go to war.

If China is serious about using its ASBMs, she had better build hundreds of MIRVed ICBMs to prevent the U.S. from escalating a conventional war over Taiwan into a nuclear one. Otherwise, in my judgment, the sinking of an U.S. carrier with thousands of sailors will cross a U.S. "red line." The U.S. will almost definitely escalate and Beijing may indeed become the first casualty.


----------



## gpit

Martian buddy, 

Without your type of loyalty risks who are in doubt of the power of this empire, we would have gone home by Christmas of 1950. No matter how technically sound, you are still politically wrong.

*In fact, "The State Department is infested with communists* (like you). *I have here in my hand a list of 205a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."*


----------



## Martian2

gpit said:


> Martian buddy,
> 
> Without your type of &#8220;loyalty risks&#8221; who are in doubt of the power of this empire, we would have gone home by Christmas of 1950. No matter how technically sound, you are still politically wrong.
> 
> *In fact, "The State Department is infested with communists* (like you). *I have here in my hand a list of 205&#8212;a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."*



I was wondering when the "divided loyalty" camp was going to show up. Ha ha. Notice how my posts actually argue for restraint on the part of Beijing. My loyalty is not in question and neo-McCarthys will fail miserably in catching this slippery fish.

If Homeland Security shows up at my door, I'll tell them that my cat has been walking all over the computer keyboard and I have no idea what she typed. It sure as hell wasn't me. Worst case scenario, I'll sneak into Canada and request political asylum.

On a more serious note, when the "divided loyalty" camp shows up, it's my cue to back off and a signal that I might be crossing the line. I think I'll go do something else before I get into trouble. Politics is dangerous. Being an armchair general doesn't feel very safe to me.


----------



## no_name

Jun said:


> I doubt how many US citizens will support US army to go to war with China over Taiwan.



Probably not much. But if China sinks a US carrier it might change.


----------



## faithfulguy

Any talk of China take on US Navy is matter of future tense. Any such talk within the next 50 years would be no different then sending out some kamakazi. The only way China can take over Taiwan is if: US strictly won't interview if Taiwan declares independent. or

The only exception is when the US has an enemy within such as Barack Hussein Obama who is bent on destroying the US. So the only way China can sink US carrier battle groups for Obama to be in cahoot with the CCP military and order the carrier group to a specific location for Chinese ASBM to sink them. That is how China can defeat US navy. Which is totally possible with Obama in charge. 

Next, watch out for Obama to help the terrorist countries attack Israel and then help Russia "reclaim" Poland, Czechslavakia and Hungary.


----------



## Luftwaffe

Vassnti you are reported..


----------



## dbc

luftwaffe said:


> Vassnti you are reported..



Busted by the Baron!


----------



## gambit

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> I'm not sure I like your tone, I assumed the thread starter (you) wanted to discuss *real scenarios*, which prompted my question.
> 
> I have no interest in wasting my time on childish fantasies like scramjet "bombers"


What you asked is usually discarded. A 'real scenario' would not even have this speculative ASBM weapon since even the USNI commentary is filled with 'could' and 'may be' and 'possible'. For these gents, a 'real scenario' is highly selective.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Let me address the point that China's ASBM is "speculative" by an alleged military professional.


Yes...We will examine in details.



Martian2 said:


> Firstly, why would the U.S. Naval Institute address China's ASBM in at least three separate publications if it was a mere flight of fantasy? Obviously, the U.S. Naval Institute believes that China's ASBM is a dangerous and credible threat.


The USNI is *NOT* an official branch of the US Navy. The USNI is, and I have *NO* problem calling it so, very much a 'fanboy' organization, much like the Air Force Association, of which I am member. Both of these organizations offer former active duty personnel, officers and enlisted, a social and political platform after their time in service to continue to support their services. So of course the USNI would offer to make their 'worst case' scenario to the public, just like how former leaders of these services did when they were active duty.



Martian2 said:


> Secondly, what are the technical challenges of developing an ASBM in comparison to China's technological capabilities? An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means it's really big, can carry about 100 planes, and has a relatively long runway. An aircraft carrier can move at a slow 35 knots (65 km/h) along the 2-dimensional surface of the ocean.


You really have no idea, do you?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/773713-post38.html


> Finding that aircraft carrier is one thing but tracking it in real time is another. At 30kts or higher for 30 minutes, the ship's maneuverings to launch and recover aircrafts can have it anywhere inside a several hundreds square mile area. Increase that air operation time to 90 minutes and the area enlarges to several thousands square miles. That is not counting the carrier's heavily armed escorts ringing that air operation perimeter. If the need is a high speed dash to beat the sh!t out of some loudmouth fool, if this fool takes his eyes off the ship for one day, the distance displacement approaches 800 nm from the previous sighting.


When I read from you this bit...'_An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means *it's really big*..._'...I know I am reading from someone most likely have never been at sea beyond visual shore range. You have no idea how difficult it is to find anything, no matter its size, in open ocean. Even with several acres of real estate, we are talking about this being amidst several *HUNDREDS* of square km from the time of detection, if even possible, to the time when a single DF-21 reached apogee. Look at the floor of your living room and throw down a toothpick. That is what an aircraft carrier look like in open ocean *IF* you can distinguish it.

Do you think the weather god will accommodate China? Over-the-horizon radars operate in the HF/UHF/VHF bands and they must use ionospheric reflections to even *GUESS* the location of what they are looking for. The HF/UHF/VHF bands are vulnerable to 'brown-outs' when the sun rises and sets...

Radio propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Radio propagation is affected by the daily changes of water vapor in the troposphere and ionization in the upper atmosphere, due to the Sun.


If you respond to me that OTH radar is not the same as radio propagation, the reading public will know that the label 'fanboy' is very much appropriate to you. And a scientifically ignorant one at that.



Martian2 said:


> In comparison, let's examine the complex challenge of destroying a weather satellite. China's FY-1C was approximately the size of a small refrigerator with dimensions of 4 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet. It was traveling at 8 km/s or 22,000 miles/hour at more than 500 miles above the Earth in a 3-dimensional spatial orbit. China's ASAT technology successfully destroyed the tiny and fast-moving orbiting satellite. Most people reasonably conclude that China's demonstrated technological prowess in its ASAT test is in excess of the far-simpler requirements of hitting a slow-moving man-made island (i.e. aircraft carrier).
> 
> Furthermore, China has also demonstrated that it can successfully hit a fast-moving missile with its mid-course ground-based interceptor (i.e. GBI).


Bad comparison.

In an head-on collision course, as far as the sensor-guidance section goes, as long as the two objects do not have lateral acceleration, aka displacement, the sensor-guidance section will be able to maintain target lock, be it infrared or radar guidance. The problem is getting a valid target lock as early as possible, which equal to distance, and the interceptor is able to align itself to the target. That is not what will happen against an aircraft carrier because the ship does have lateral displacement, forcing the descending warhead to compensate. But in order to compensate, the descending warhead must slow down. That was not possible in an orbital head-on collision course. The orbital interceptor and the target was approaching each other at a so high a closing velocity that the only way for China to be successful was to tightly schedule the entire interception scheme to give the interceptor the maximum possible time to orient itself against the target. That one-time interception proved to me that China was testing sensor-guidance, nothing more.

So if the descending warhead must slow down from the time it reenter atmosphere, it will be vulnerable to ECM via chaff/flare discharge.



Martian2 said:


> Given China's ASAT and GBI capabilities, I think it is reasonable for the U.S. Naval Institute to conclude that China probably has a functional ASBM and to treat it as a serious threat.


No...You only assume that the USNI made such a conclusion...

On the Verge of a Game-Changer - U.S. Naval Institute


> This suggests the possibility that China may be closer than ever to mastering such a system...


Look at the sentence and see the uncertainty for yourself: 'suggests', 'possibility' and 'may be'. Sorry...But only a 'fanboy' would jump to the conclusion that the sentence constitute a conclusion.

What else...



> While Chinese ASBM capability remains uncertain, relevant U.S. government sources state consistently that Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on a variant of the 1,500 km-plus range DF-21/CSS-5 solid propellant medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). According to the Department of Defense, if supported by "a sophisticated command-and-control system," e.g., accurate real-time target data, from China's growing family of terrestrial and space-based sensors, ASBMs could hold U.S. carrier strike groups at risk in the Western Pacific. Further, China's use of submunitions might render a carrier operationally ineffective without sinking it, thereby achieving its objectives with a (perceived) lower risk of escalation.


Fine...There is absolutely nothing there to say that US intelligence sources concluded that China does have a deployed ASBM weapon system. What does _'...if supported...'_ mean?

You do not like the label 'fanboy'? Then do not act like one. But if you do act like one, then support your arguments with credible analysis, not sources that upon a careful reading revealed nothing more than speculative opinion, even if said sources came from US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Folks...

Here is an old but relevant explanation...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/527412-post36.html



> booo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a missile with 300-400 CEP (circular error probable) hit a ACC of 300m length which is moving at 30knots?
> 
> can anyone enlighten?
> 
> 
> 
> In weapons testing, we test against three target *MODES*:
> 
> - Stationary
> - Moving
> - Maneuvering
> 
> Just in case anyone is curious about 'moving' versus 'maneuvering'...A train is a moving target but not a maneuvering one.
> 
> An aircraft carrier is not merely a moving target but a maneuvering one. When a carrier is conducting flight operations, it will try to maintain an against-the-wind condition to assist its aircrafts in take-offs and landings. It will make unpredictable, not erratic, maneuvers in doing so. Make no confusion between 'unpredictability' and 'erratic' behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granted, this is a ship and any maneuvers will require time and large areas of the sea to do so. But if this wishful 'carrier killer' ballistic missile is launched from about 1,000 km or more distance, the ship can move several km from its original position by the time the warhead begins its descent. Using over-the-horizon (OTH) radars can only give positional, not maneuvers, changes as long wavelengths have poor target resolutions. By the time the warhead begins its descent, the entire fleet will be alerted to the threat and in less than five seconds, enough chaff and IR flares will be launched to totally blanket the warhead's electronic view. This severely complicate the CEP figure -- the shaded circle.
Click to expand...


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> What you asked is usually discarded. A 'real scenario' would not even have this *speculative ASBM weapon* since even the USNI commentary is filled with 'could' and 'may be' and 'possible'. For these gents, a 'real scenario' is highly selective.



According to your fundamentalist approach, the U.S. concern about China's ASAT capability was pointless until China shot down a weather satellite in space. Once again, according to your logic, the U.S. concern about China's mid-course ground-based-interceptor (i.e. GBI) was also baseless until China shot down a missile in mid-flight.

For myopic fundamentalists like you, you believe that the U.S. government, U.S. think tanks, and U.S. media are all fools because they are wasting their time discussing China's non-existent and non-imminent ASBM. You will only be satisfied after-the-fact when China destroys an U.S. carrier. You will always be looking in the rear-view mirror. According to you, the world is wrong and you're right. You are free to believe that you have better information than the retired Major General that is the head of the U.S. Naval Institute. The forum members and guests will have to decide whether they agree with you.

Here's a picture of the "speculative" ASBM shown at China's 60th anniversary parade.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/d...admiral-willard-testimony_chinese-article.png

The picture is from this article. According to you, you are better informed than Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). Since Admiral Willard says that China is "testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers," that means China's ASBM is real and not speculative. With all due respect, I prefer to believe Admiral Willard and not you.

China Testing Ballistic Missile &#8216;Carrier-Killer&#8217;

"March 29, 2010

China Testing Ballistic Missile &#8216;Carrier-Killer&#8217;

*Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was &#8220;developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.&#8221;*

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But *this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced* (.pdf) *to the stage of actual testing*.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier (click to open pdf file) strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other &#8220;asymmetric&#8221; systems &#8212; ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines &#8212; could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

*Willard&#8217;s disclosure should come as little surprise: China&#8217;s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials &#8212; including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead &#8212; have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI&#8217;s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development &#8220;has progressed at a remarkable rate.&#8221; In the span of just over a decade, he said, &#8220;China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.&#8230; China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.&#8221;

When someone of Bray&#8217;s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.*

Equally intriguing has been the depiction of this capability in the Chinese media. A lengthy November 2009 program about anti-ship ballistic missiles (video) broadcast on China Central Television Channel 7 (China&#8217;s official military channel) featured an unexplained &#8212; and rather badly animated &#8212; cartoon sequence. This curious 'toon features a sailor who falsely assumes that his carrier&#8217;s Aegis defense systems can destroy an incoming ASBM as effectively as a cruise missile, with disastrous results.

The full program is available in three segments (parts 1, 2, and 3) on YouTube. Skip to 7:18 on the second clip to view this strange, and somewhat disturbing, segment.

Likewise, Chinese media seem to be tracking PACOM&#8217;s statements about this more closely than the U.S. press. The graphic above is drawn from an article on Dongfang Ribao (Oriental Daily), the website of a Shanghai newspaper.

Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China&#8217;s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China&#8217;s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress.

U.S. ships, however, will not offer a fixed target for China&#8217;s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. Military planning documents like the February 2010 Joint Operating Environment (.pdf) and Quadrennial Defense Review (.pdf) clearly recognize America&#8217;s growing &#8220;anti-access&#8221; challenge, and the QDR &#8212; the Pentagon&#8217;s guiding strategy document &#8212; charges the U.S. military with multiple initiatives to address it.

In a world where U.S. naval assets will often be safest underwater, President Obama&#8217;s defense budget supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine. And developing effective countermeasures against anti-ship ballistic missiles is a topic of vigorous discussion in Navy circles. The United States is clearly taking steps to prevent this kind of weapon from changing the rules of the game in the Western Pacific, but continued effort will be essential for U.S. maritime forces to preserve their role in safeguarding the global commons."


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> According to your fundamentalist approach,...


Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?



Martian2 said:


> ...the U.S. concern about China's ASAT capability was pointless until China shot down a weather satellite in space. Once again, according to your logic, the U.S. concern about China's mid-course ground-based-interceptor (i.e. GBI) was also baseless until China shot down a missile in mid-flight.


Show the readers a credible source that said the US dismissed China's intentions on testing in space.



Martian2 said:


> The forum members and guests will have to decide whether they agree with you.


I have no fear of the readership and their judgments. Anyone can call me any names he want but I only ask that he rebut me in similar manner when I challenge their delusions on technical grounds and that when I back up my arguments I expect him to do the same. So far I have yet to see the same from you. Surprise...???



Martian2 said:


> You are free to believe that you have better information than the retired Major General that is the head of the U.S. Naval Institute.


I have not disputed what the good general said. I have never said that what China attempts is technically impossible. But technical possibility is not technical probability.



Martian2 said:


> Here's a picture of the "speculative" ASBM shown at China's 60th anniversary parade.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/d...admiral-willard-testimony_chinese-article.png
> 
> The picture is from this article. According to you, you are better informed than Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). If Admiral Willard says that China is "testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers," that means China's ASBM is real and not speculative.


No...It mean exactly that -- testing. Until anyone present to the public more than just pictures, we are free to dispute any claims -- on technical grounds.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?
> 
> 
> Show the readers a credible source that said the US dismissed China's intentions on testing in space.
> 
> 
> I have no fear of the readership and their judgments. Anyone can call me any names he want but I only ask that he rebut me in similar manner when I challenge their delusions on technical grounds and that when I back up my arguments I expect him to do the same. So far I have yet to see the same from you. Surprise...???
> 
> 
> I have not disputed what the good general said. I have never said that what China attempts is technically impossible. But technical possibility is not technical probability.
> 
> 
> No...It mean exactly that -- testing. Until anyone present to the public more than just pictures, we are free to dispute any claims -- on technical grounds.



This is very simple.

Either *Adm. Robert Willard*, the *head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM)*, "*Department of Defense* (.pdf) and *National Air and Space Intelligence Center* (.pdf) reports, as well as by the *Office of Naval Intelligence* (ONI) and the *Congressional Research Service*. Senior officials &#8212; including *Secretary of Defense Robert Gates*, *Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair* (.pdf) and *Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead*" and "*Scott Bray, ONI&#8217;s Senior Intelligence Officer-China*" are correct that the U.S. face a grave threat from China's ASBM or internet guy "gambit" is correct that China's ASBM is speculative on his personal assessment of technical grounds.

You choose.

[Note: I refer to "internet guy 'gambit'" in the third person. The "You" in "You choose" should obviously refer to the forum reader (i.e. forum member or guest). Real threat or speculative waste of time? What do you think?]


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> This is very simple. Either *Adm. Robert Willard*, the *head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM)*, "*Department of Defense* (.pdf) and *National Air and Space Intelligence Center* (.pdf) reports, as well as by the *Office of Naval Intelligence* (ONI) and the *Congressional Research Service*. Senior officials  including *Secretary of Defense Robert Gates*, *Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair* (.pdf) and *Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead*" and "*Scott Bray, ONIs Senior Intelligence Officer-China*" are correct that the U.S. face a grave threat from China's ASBM or internet guy "gambit" is correct that China's ASBM is speculative on his personal assessment of technical grounds.
> 
> You choose.


No...The readership will chose.

Like I said, I have never dispute the technical possibility of an ASBM weapon. But what I do dispute is its technical probability and more importantly its efficacy. What those officers testified contains nothing more than the typical 'worst case' scenario, which they are obliged to do. 

If such a weapon is deployed, is it a threat? Of course it is.

If such a weapon is deployed, do we know its efficacy?

Efficacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the power to produce an effect

What is the effect? To either severely damaged a US aircraft carrier or even sink it.

How do we produce this effect?

Am still waiting...


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> No...The readership will chose.
> 
> Like I said, I have never dispute the technical possibility of an ASBM weapon. But what I do dispute is its technical probability and more importantly its efficacy. What those officers testified contains nothing more than the typical 'worst case' scenario, which they are obliged to do.
> 
> If such a weapon is deployed, is it a threat? Of course it is.
> 
> If such a weapon is deployed, do we know its efficacy?
> 
> Efficacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> : the power to produce an effect
> 
> What is the effect? To either severely damaged a US aircraft carrier or even sink it.
> 
> *How do we produce this effect?
> *
> Am still waiting...



You can produce this effect by spending fifteen years of research and development, billions of dollars, and putting your best scientists on the job. After the production of the desired ASBM, you keep the hard-earned technologies a secret from the world, including internet guys.

China Testing Ballistic Missile &#8216;Carrier-Killer&#8217; | Danger Room | Wired.com

"*Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty.* And Chinas military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on Chinas disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress."


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You can produce this effect by spending fifteen years of research and development, billions of dollars, and putting your best scientists on the job. After the production of the desired ASBM, you keep the hard-earned technologies a secret from the world, including internet guys.


All the money and efforts could be for naught, as explained by a bunch of 'internet guys'.

One of the mean to produce the desired effect is over-the-horizon radar. Technically speaking, the idea and its deployment are nothing new. This type of radar have been around for decades. What those officers testified contains nothing about OTH vulnerabilities but their ECM officers would certainly know about them. They did not lie or even conceal anything. They were asked about China's attempt at producing such a weapon and they responded with an overall picture of what an ASBM weapon system could mean, in the worst case scenario, to a US carrier fleet and eventually to US foreign policy regarding Asia.

This is an open forum where there is no time limit. A bunch of 'internet guys' are free to dispute or support any ideas, no matter how loony. From a technical perspective, can any of you 'internet guys' dispute what I said about OTH vulnerabilities and therefore offer an aircraft carrier a tactical advantage?


----------



## below_freezing

even if the ASBM is fake, how will USN deal with 3000 J-6 and J-7 drones?

they do not even need to be maneuvering, only programmable to move towards surface targets with a large RCS.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> All the money and efforts could be for naught, as explained by a bunch of 'internet guys'.
> 
> One of the mean to produce the desired effect is over-the-horizon radar. Technically speaking, the idea and its deployment are nothing new. This type of radar have been around for decades. What those officers testified contains nothing about OTH vulnerabilities but their ECM officers would certainly know about them. They did not lie or even conceal anything. They were asked about China's attempt at producing such a weapon and they responded with an overall picture of what an ASBM weapon system could mean, in the worst case scenario, to a US carrier fleet and eventually to US foreign policy regarding Asia.
> 
> This is an open forum where there is no time limit. *A bunch of 'internet guys' are free to dispute or support any ideas, no matter how loony.* From a technical perspective, can any of you 'internet guys' dispute what I said about OTH vulnerabilities and therefore offer an aircraft carrier a tactical advantage?



You fail to understand that no one, except the Chinese experts, can give you a technical overview on building an ASBM. You keep demanding a conceptual explanation of how an anti-ship ballistic missile will work in principle. It took China's best minds (backed by massive resources) fifteen years to answer that question. The Pentagon doesn't know the answer to the technical questions of how to build a functional ASBM. "The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship [ballistic] missiles."

U.S. intelligence agencies have been watching Dalian like a hawk. Do you really believe that they're delusional and trying to collect data on a speculative waste-of-time non-existent missile? Come on, be real. "U.S. intelligence agencies for the past several years have been closely monitoring China's northern port of Dalian, where past anti-ship missile tests were carried out, for the first flight test of the new ASBM."

Washington Times - Inside the Ring

"China's anti-carrier missiles

China is moving ahead with development of an aircraft-carrier-killing ballistic missile that is likely the first step in a major new Chinese strategic missile program, according to a forthcoming report by Mark A. Stokes, a retired Air Force officer and former Pentagon China specialist.

The report provides new details on efforts by the Chinese military to convert DF-21 medium-range ballistic missiles into aircraft-carrier-killing weapons, viewed by the Pentagon to be key asymmetric warfare weapons in Beijing's military buildup.

The report identifies numerous Chinese military and technical writings that show the development of anti-ship ballistic missiles is well advanced.

It states that China is ready to conduct a flight test, perhaps timed to future elections in Taiwan.

Mr. Stokes is director of the Project 2049 Institute, an Asia policy research group in Arlington that will release the report, "China's Evolving Conventional Strategic Strike Capability," in the next several days.

Disclosure of the report comes as China's state-run newspaper Global Times reported Wednesday that the Chinese military on Oct. 1, during a parade marking the 60th anniversary of the communist government, will showcase for the first time five types of missiles, including nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, conventional cruise missiles and medium-range and short-range conventional missiles.

*U.S. intelligence agencies for the past several years have been closely monitoring China's northern port of Dalian, where past anti-ship missile tests were carried out, for the first flight test of the new ASBM.*

*The new conventionally armed ballistic missile test, if successful, is expected to be strategically comparable to Beijing's January 2007 anti-satellite missile test.*

The report by Mr. Stokes states that fielding the anti-ship missile "could alter the strategic landscape in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond."

The current missile being developed, the DF-21, has a range of about 1,500 miles, enough to threaten and deter U.S. aircraft-carrier strike groups that would be used by the Pentagon to defend Taiwan from a mainland attack or to respond to other conflicts in Asia.

The new missiles are expected to fly in the upper atmosphere or near space and thus "negate" current U.S. Navy-based missile defenses, the report says.

*Beyond Asia, the report states that using missiles to hit ships as sea is the first step in China's plan for conventional long-range attack capability across the globe.

The U.S. military is developing a similar capability called prompt global strike that would enable commanders to hit targets anywhere in the world in less than an hour. The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship missiles.*

The report states that a review of Chinese military writings reveals that anti-ship ballistic missiles are part of a "phased approach for development of a conventional global strike capability by 2025."

The phases include extending the targeting range of precision guided conventional warhead missiles from 1,240 by 2010 to 1,860 miles in 2015, up to 5,000 miles by 2020, and globewide missile capabilities by 2025 using a hypersonic cruise vehicle.

The missile programs include maneuvering re-entry vehicles and warheads with on-board sensors that are accurate enough to attack ships in the ocean moving at up to 35 knots at sea.

For targeting and tracking, China is developing a comprehensive system of space, ground and sea radar and sensors, including a "near-space" vehicle that would be deployed out of range of most surface-to-air missiles.

In addition to using it during a conflict over Taiwan, China also could use its long-range missiles in any conflict in the South China Sea or in response to threats to close sea lanes used to transport oil to China.

"China's success in fielding a regional and global precision-strike capability could extend the threat envelope to military facilities in Hawaii, and perhaps even space-related and other military facilities in the continental United States that are likely to be involved in a Taiwan-related contingency," Mr. Stoke said.

U.S. allies in Asia rely on aircraft-carrier strike groups, which are outfitted with both strike aircraft and long-range cruise missiles, to maintain security.

China's ability to attack the carriers will undermine stability by preventing carriers from moving within 1,500 miles of China, the report says.

The report mentions a new Chinese missile threat that is a an advanced hybrid ballistic missile that skims the Earth's atmosphere and then converts to an air-breathing cruise missile before reaching the target.

Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said China is rapidly developing the space surveillance and navigation system for its long-range missiles.

"This threat deserves very serious consideration, as it would clearly, if true, necessitate a major new American initiative in the area of missile defenses," Mr. Fisher said.

Jeffrey Lewis, a strategic analyst at the New America Foundation, said the Chinese military seems very interested in conventionally armed ballistic missiles "largely, I suspect, out of a desire to increase the service's profile and autonomy."

Mr. Lewis, however, has been wrong in the past in his assessment of Chinese military developments. He stated on his blog in July 2005 that the Pentagon had "no evidence" for published claims China was working on a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile.

A year and half later, in January 2007, China conducted its first successful test of a direct-ascent ASAT missile after several failures.

Chinese Embassy spokesman Wang Baodong did not address the new missile directly.

"As a peace-loving country that pursues the national defense policy of self-defense nature, China's military modernization, including its navy building, is solely for self-defense," Mr. Wang said in an e-mail."


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> even if the ASBM is fake, how will USN deal with 3000 J-6 and J-7 drones?
> 
> they do not even need to be maneuvering, only programmable to move towards surface targets with a large RCS.


First...

ITT VIS


> As well as being constrained to the broad frequency band necessary for ionospheric propagation, an OTHR must also allow for the fact that the *ionosphere is a highly variable and unpredictable medium*. For acceptable OTHR performance, continuous real-time ionospheric assessment (sounding) is necessary, as is the ability for the radar system to adapt to the changes. The day-night variability of the ionosphere requires, typically, a 5:2 change in frequency for comparable operational range but imposed on this diurnal ionospheric cycle are both longer term sunspot-related effects and short-term disturbances.


This is to show the readers that OTH vulnerabilities and weaknesses are not something made up.

Second...

OTH stations are large and usually non-movable, making them vulnerable to air strikes, such as from B-2s.

Now...

As long as there are AWACS, the fleet can deploy chaff/flare defense. Against such a saturation attack, ECM will not distract them all but enough will be misled that the fleet will not be disabled. Thousands of cruise missiles...This is the typical argument that borderline on the fantasy.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You fail to understand that no one, except the Chinese experts, can give you a technical overview on building an ASBM. You keep demanding a conceptual explanation of how an anti-ship ballistic missile will work in principle. It took China's best minds (backed by massive resources) fifteen years to answer that question. *The Pentagon doesn't know the answer to the technical questions of how to build a functional ASBM.* "The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship [ballistic] missiles."




The Pentagon have a much longer 'wish list' than our defense budget could allow. Look at what have been revealed recently, from lasers to 'pain ray', that are under testing. But here you are telling the public that for a country that has MIRV-ed ICBMs, we do not know how to install maneuvering mechanisms to compensate for a moving target.

XM982 Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile


> The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is a fire and forget, smart munition.


Now...Am willing to admit I do not know much about ballistic gunnery. I do know a little bit about sensor-guidance. But if the US Army is developing smart artillery rounds, I do not see how you can say that the US cannot develop an ASBM if we really put our efforts into the program.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> The Pentagon have a much longer 'wish list' than our defense budget could allow. Look at what have been revealed recently, from lasers to 'pain ray', that are under testing. But here you are telling the public that for a country that has MIRV-ed ICBMs, we do not know how to install maneuvering mechanisms to compensate for a moving target.
> 
> XM982 Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile
> 
> Now...Am willing to admit I do not know much about ballistic gunnery. I do know a little bit about sensor-guidance. But if the US Army is developing smart artillery rounds, *I do not see how you can say that the US cannot develop an ASBM if we really put our efforts into the program.*



The newslink that I provided is very clear in stating that the Pentagon is currently conducting research into developing an anti-ship ballistic missile. Obviously if the Chinese can build one, the U.S. can eventually replicate the weapon. However, China has spent fifteen years and an ungodly sum of money to develop it.

We do not know how much money the Pentagon is willing to devote to its anti-ship ballistic missile program because China doesn't have a functional carrier. Also, the U.S. could probably sink a Chinese carrier with a stealth fighter strike, which means that ASBM development is unlikely to be a priority. No one knows how many years it will require for the Pentagon to develop a functional ASBM. Is it five years, ten years, or closer to fifteen years? The Chinese have always been pretty good with missile technology.

The point is that just about everyone, except you, believes that China has a functional or near-functional ASBM. It doesn't matter if it takes China a few extra years to perfect their ASBM. They have something close and it will likely be deployed in the next few years. Why do I believe it? China has shot down a satellite and a flying missile. It seems obvious to everyone that their missile technology is first-rate.

I need to go to sleep desperately. My eyes are killing me. I will give you the last word.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The newslink that I provided is very clear in stating that the Pentagon is currently conducting research into developing an anti-ship ballistic missile. Obviously if the Chinese can build one, the U.S. can eventually replicate the weapon. However, China has spent fifteen years and an ungodly sum of money to develop it.
> 
> We do not know how much money the Pentagon is willing to devote to its anti-ship ballistic missile program because China doesn't have a functional carrier. Also, the U.S. could probably sink the Chinese carrier with a stealth fighter strike, which means that an ASBM is unlikely to be a priority. No one knows how many years it will require for the Pentagon to develop a functional ASBM. Is it five years, ten years, or closer to fifteen years? The Chinese have always been pretty good with missile technology.
> 
> The point is that just about everyone, except you, believes that China has a functional or near-functional ASBM. It doesn't matter if it takes China a few extra years to perfect their ASBM. They have something close and it will likely be deployed in the next few years. Why do I believe it? *China has shot down a satellite and a flying missile.* It seems obvious to everyone that their missile technology is first-rate.


And the US have not? By your reasoning, since the US have been much further along than China on missile defense, from boost to terminal, we should have no problems at all in developing an ASBM weapon much quicker than China could. Regardless of efficacy, China could deploy any missile and call it an ASBM.


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> First...
> 
> ITT VIS
> 
> This is to show the readers that OTH vulnerabilities and weaknesses are not something made up.
> 
> Second...
> 
> OTH stations are large and usually non-movable, making them vulnerable to air strikes, such as from B-2s.
> 
> Now...
> 
> As long as there are AWACS, the fleet can deploy chaff/flare defense. Against such a saturation attack, ECM will not distract them all but enough will be misled that the fleet will not be disabled. Thousands of cruise missiles...This is the typical argument that borderline on the fantasy.



these of course, are not real cruise missiles, and with range comparable to the flight radius of a single engined fighter, which is not over the horizon. we have thousands of 1960's retired fighters that have already been shown to be capable of simple autonomous movement.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> We do not know how much money the Pentagon is willing to devote to its anti-ship ballistic missile program because *China doesn't have a functional carrier.*


Clearly a sign of limited thinking. An aircraft carrier is a *TYPE* of ship. All ships are moving targets. Therefore the goal is *NOT* to hit an aircraft carrier but a ship -- *ANY* ship. So if you can hit a dingy, you certainly can hit a much larger target -- an aircraft carrier. Developing a weapon to hit only the aircraft carrier is to reveal one's technological limitations. What would be the minimum size of the intended target that this weapon could see? Anything smaller than 300 meters in length? If not, then the USN could send a fleet that does not contain anything larger and let the USAF does the bombing.


----------



## dingyibvs

gambit said:


> Clearly a sign of limited thinking. An aircraft carrier is a *TYPE* of ship. All ships are moving targets. Therefore the goal is *NOT* to hit an aircraft carrier but a ship -- *ANY* ship. So if you can hit a dingy, you certainly can hit a much larger target -- an aircraft carrier. Developing a weapon to hit only the aircraft carrier is to reveal one's technological limitations. What would be the minimum size of the intended target that this weapon could see? Anything smaller than 300 meters in length? If not, then the USN could send a fleet that does not contain anything larger and let the USAF does the bombing.



Then mission accomplished -- one important U.S. asset has been neutralized. Nobody's saying that's America's only option though, and stealth bomber strikes will be a pain for sure, but that'll take some serious commitment. In the end, do you think America is as resolved to defend Taiwan as China would be to take it, should Taiwan declare independence?

It's all really a moot point though, since no fight is gonna break out. China would prefer to win the war without firing a bullet, and they're well on their way to do so. Taiwan will probably be conquered economically long before they're conquered militarily or politically.


----------



## gambit

dingyibvs said:


> Then mission accomplished -- one important U.S. asset has been neutralized.


Which one is that?



dingyibvs said:


> Nobody's saying that's America's only option though, and stealth bomber strikes will be a pain for sure, but that'll take some serious commitment.


I have no idea what that meant.



dingyibvs said:


> In the end, do you think America is as resolved to defend Taiwan as China would be to take it, should Taiwan declare independence?


Equally valid would be: Is China resolved to go to war against Taiwan if Taiwan declare independence?



dingyibvs said:


> It's all really a moot point though, since no fight is gonna break out. China would prefer to win the war without firing a bullet, and they're well on their way to do so. Taiwan will probably be conquered economically long before they're conquered militarily or politically.


A people can only be 'conquered' through military means. Else it is absorption. If the Taiwanese allowed themselves to be absorbed by mainland China, more power to them.


----------



## Sanchez

China has long engaged in R&D of hypersonic aircraft. See "China to Develop Hypersonic Aircraft" Article from: Xinhua News Agency September 15, 2001. China to Develop Hypersonic Aircraft - Xinhua News Agency | HighBeam Research - FREE trial.

The Chinese development of hypersonic aircraft tech could also be found in a report on a conference in the US several years ago. China was among the few credible countries which had tested a scramjet airplane with 5-7 times of sound speed.

The Chinese "aircraft" is far from ready for induction. According to "leaks" circulating in Chinese forums, if there'd be an urgent need for a single way bomber or a hypersonic cruise missile (flying near space or at high altitude), China has the means to deliver it.


----------



## gpit

Martian2 said:


> I was wondering when the "divided loyalty" camp was going to show up. Ha ha. Notice how my posts actually argue for restraint on the part of Beijing. My loyalty is not in question and neo-McCarthys will fail miserably in catching this slippery fish.
> 
> If Homeland Security shows up at my door, I'll tell them that my cat has been walking all over the computer keyboard and I have no idea what she typed. It sure as hell wasn't me. Worst case scenario, I'll sneak into Canada and request political asylum.
> 
> On a more serious note, when the "divided loyalty" camp shows up, it's my cue to back off and a signal that I might be crossing the line. I think I'll go do something else before I get into trouble. Politics is dangerous. Being an armchair general doesn't feel very safe to me.



Hahahaha...

While freedom of speech is on the paper, *servitude is always welcomed in any types of countries*. McCarthyists keep popping up here and there, be they new or old. That 30 of our state governors receive life-threatening letters due to heath care reform is evidence. Seems like barbaric traits still havent been evolved away enough from human, being they pro communist or pro democracy. And the likelihood of ending dispute in an American way (i.e. finish off opponents with a bullet or two, as evidenced by my fellow countrymen against me in this forum) is, alas, palpable.

BTW, Canada sounds like a good asylum destination. Hopeful you/we dont have to resort to that Political asylum :: California Immigration Lawyer Blog


----------



## Moorkh

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Martian2 View Post
> You fail to understand that no one, except the Chinese experts, can give you a technical overview on building an ASBM. You keep demanding a conceptual explanation of how an anti-ship ballistic missile will work in principle. It took China's best minds (backed by massive resources) fifteen years to answer that question. The Pentagon doesn't know the answer to the technical questions of how to build a functional ASBM. "The Pentagon also is conducting research on long-range anti-ship [ballistic] missiles."
> 
> 
> The Pentagon have a much longer 'wish list' than our defense budget could allow. Look at what have been revealed recently, from lasers to 'pain ray', that are under testing. But here you are telling the public that for a country that has MIRV-ed ICBMs, we do not know how to install maneuvering mechanisms to compensate for a moving target.
> 
> XM982 Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile
> Quote:
> The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is a fire and forget, smart munition.
> Now...Am willing to admit I do not know much about ballistic gunnery. I do know a little bit about sensor-guidance. But if the US Army is developing smart artillery rounds, I do not see how you can say that the US cannot develop an ASBM if we really put our efforts into the program.



artillery shells and warheads of ballistic missiles have a difference which does not support your argument.

its the speed at which they move. a warhead of a ballistic missile moves at very high speeds when re entering the atmosphere. the speeds are infact so high that there is even formation of plasma around the warhead. so guiding the warheads at such speeds is much more difficult than artillery shells.

arguably the warheads of the missiles can be slowed down to allow for maneuvering of the warhead without disintegration.


----------



## Martian2

gpit said:


> Hahahaha...
> 
> While freedom of speech is on the paper, *servitude is always welcomed in any types of countries*. McCarthyists keep popping up here and there, be they new or old. That 30 of our state governors receive life-threatening letters due to heath care reform is evidence. Seems like barbaric traits still haven&#8217;t been evolved away enough from human, being they pro communist or pro democracy. And the likelihood of ending dispute in an American way (i.e. finish off opponents with a bullet or two, as evidenced by my fellow countrymen against me in this forum) is, alas, palpable.
> 
> BTW, Canada sounds like a good asylum destination. Hopeful you/we don&#8217;t have to resort to that Political asylum :: California Immigration Lawyer Blog



I tend to write articles that are different from the mainstream press. The mainstream press always writes the same thing and it gets boring. You've seen the headlines: "U.S. is world superpower" (and implicitly China is not) or "U.S. economy is three times the size of China's economy." Any internet novice can argue that U.S. will beat China senseless through current superior technology, economic size, and numerous "lily pads" (i.e. 750 to 800 foreign military bases).

It is a difficult challenge to write articles such as "China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier," where the underdog has a fighting chance. This requires the skill of a true armchair general. Unfortunately, these kind of articles are viewed through a political lens and not for the fun internet discussion that it was meant to be. Ideally, in my view, we are all armchair generals and keyboard warriors gathering around a water cooler in cyberspace and having a collegial chat.

However, I am an objective person and I realize that my fellow Americans' perception of my actions is more relevant than my own intentions. Last time, TruthSeeker raised the issue of "divided loyalty" in my thread "Are Taiwanese Chinese?" Now, you have raised the issue of "split loyalty" in this thread. It is not important that you raised the issue of "split loyalty" because someone else would have eventually stepped forth and raised the objection. I am "0 for 2" and I'm guessing that there's a silent majority out there that disapproves of my conduct.

I can only conclude that my internet postings are not mere fun and games. I am attracting "friendly fire." If you guys aren't happy then there may be people in the security agencies who are also unhappy with my hobby.

The reason that I'm slightly paranoid is because my father was pulled over at Hong Kong airport years ago. A woman walked up to him and showed her FBI badge to him. As a former nuclear engineer, my father had left the industry a few years earlier and he was in Hong Kong strictly on business. At the time, we were exporting a $6.2 million dollar refurbished CMOS (i.e. complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) production line. Anyway, she said, "we're watching you." This was shocking. Why was the FBI watching a bunch of nobodies like our family?

Here's how it ends. I view myself as insignificant and unimportant. However, I am receiving repeated complaints of "divided loyalties," which means that I'm irritating a lot of people. I don't want the FBI, Homeland Security, or anybody else to visit me. If they waterboarded me, I would squeal like a little girl. To avoid this humiliation, I think I'll quietly fade away from cyberspace.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jagjitnatt

Come on.

Sure China can sink a carrier battle group but at what costs????
The rest of US navy won't be eating french fries at McDonalds I guess.

Intel would have warned the Navy way ahead of time. Things never happen all of a sudden. If China starts preparing to take down the carrier, US too would be ready with its missiles and its carrier group would become ready to deal with any threat.

China or for that matter any other country today is not capable of taking on the US Navy. It can cause a little damage, but it would be numbering its last days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## topjumper

jagjitnatt said:


> Come on.
> 
> Sure China can sink a carrier battle group but at what costs????
> The rest of US navy won't be eating french fries at McDonalds I guess.
> 
> Intel would have warned the Navy way ahead of time. Things never happen all of a sudden. If China starts preparing to take down the carrier, US too would be ready with its missiles and its carrier group would become ready to deal with any threat.
> 
> China or for that matter any other country today is not capable of taking on the US Navy. It can cause a little damage, but it would be numbering its last days.



Agreed, you can probably win a battle if you are prepared but you can't win the war.


----------



## lhuang

I hope to god that China doesn't launch an attack on sovereign US territory (aka aircraft carriers). That is tantamount to suicide even today.

But 20 years in the future, who knows ^_^


----------



## gambit

Moorkh said:


> artillery shells and warheads of ballistic missiles have a difference which does not support your argument.
> 
> its the speed at which they move. a warhead of a ballistic missile moves at very high speeds when re entering the atmosphere. the speeds are infact so high that there is even formation of plasma around the warhead. so guiding the warheads at such speeds is much more difficult than artillery shells.
> 
> arguably the warheads of the missiles can be slowed down to allow for maneuvering of the warhead without disintegration.


You need to make up your mind. Does artillery gunnery with 'smart' munition support my argument or not? I did state here and in previous incarnations of this subject that in order for a descending warhead, which would be traveling at double-digit Mach, to use its sensor to *TRY* to acquire a moving target, said warhead *MUST* reduce that descent velocity.

If anything, I have never said that maneuvers at double-digit Mach is impossible and your argument here did not show us how it is impossible, leaving the possibility open for development. The issue here is sensor-guidance which is already fraught with vulnerabilities, from within and without, and I provided enough sources of of them to show that none of those things are made up. So far no 'fanboy' here provide any sources to say how did China compensate for those vulnerabilities. All we have seen so far is how secretive China is. And if that is acceptable 'proof'  then all this talk is useless anyway. Anyone could counter with even more fantastic weapons and the arguments would always be the same, that 'my' government is more secretive than 'yours'.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> It is a difficult challenge to write articles such as "China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier," where the underdog has a fighting chance. *This requires the skill of a true armchair general.*
> 
> If you guys aren't happy then there *may be people in the security agencies who are also unhappy with my hobby.*


You seriously overrate yourself. From my experience, in and out of military service, I have seen far more complex scenarios. In these types of discussions, it is the technical information presented that can earn someone the type of attention that you seek to flatter yourself with, not pulp fiction.


----------



## Sanchez

It's ridiculous to hear so much exaggeration about US carriers from Asians. US navy is unbeatable on open waters but not when it fights close to our coast. If the carriers are being used in the war then they will be sunk by us at every possible cost.


----------



## gambit

Sanchez said:


> It's ridiculous to hear so much exaggeration about US carriers from Asians. US navy is unbeatable on open waters but not when it fights close to our coast. If the carriers are being used in the war then they will be sunk by us at every possible cost.


Flight operations require room to maneuver the ship, around 200nm from shore is acceptable. So it is useless to even speculate that an American aircraft carrier will enter littoral waters. We are not talking about helo carriers but capital ships like the USS Enterprise class.


----------



## Sanchez

gambit said:


> Flight operations require room to maneuver the ship, around 200nm from shore is acceptable. So it is useless to even speculate that an American aircraft carrier will enter littoral waters. We are not talking about helo carriers but capital ships like the USS Enterprise class.



Who said US carriers would enter littoral waters? Chinese are adopting US doctrines to keep wars outside her territory so that China is trying to build a credible coastal defence at a distance of 1000nm. Right now I would believe 1000kms from the coastal line is defendable in case of a military threat.


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?
> 
> 
> ...



fun&#183;da&#183;men&#183;tal&#183;ism audio (fnd-mntl-zm) KEY 

NOUN:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, *and often by intolerance of other views* and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism,* insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture*.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

fundamentalism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> fun·da·men·tal·ism audio (fnd-mntl-zm) KEY
> 
> NOUN:
> 
> 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, *and often by intolerance of other views* and opposition to secularism.
> 2.
> a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism,* insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture*.
> b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
> 
> fundamentalism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education


Never thought of asking people to abide by and support their arguments with the laws of physics would make me a 'religious fundamentalist'.


----------



## Martian2

Martian2 said:


> The majority of American citizens do not want to become involved in the Chinese Civil War over Taiwan. However, they don't get to make the decisions. The elites are in charge of the U.S. government and my instinct tells me that they may very well go to war.
> 
> *If China is serious about using its ASBMs, she had better build hundreds of MIRVed ICBMs to prevent the U.S. from escalating a conventional war over Taiwan into a nuclear one.* Otherwise, in my judgment, the sinking of an U.S. carrier with thousands of sailors will cross a U.S. "red line." The U.S. will almost definitely escalate and Beijing may indeed become the first casualty.



As a retired "armchair general," I cannot resist a final parting shot. For those who questioned my military analysis, please note that today's Wall Street Journal has published an article by a real retired general that expresses similar insights.

China Needs Weapons to Deter Nuclear Attack, Military Paper Says - WSJ.com

"* APRIL 22, 2010, 11:19 A.M. ET

*China Needs Weapons to Deter Nuclear Attack, Military Paper Says*

By GORDON FAIRCLOUGH

SHANGHAI*China needs weapons capable of retaliating against any nuclear attack on the country, according to a commentary in the nation's main military newspaper* that sought to explain the strategic thinking behind Beijing's push to modernize its atomic arsenal.

The commentary, published Thursday in the official Liberation Army Daily, also reiterated China's longstanding stated policy that it "will never be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances."

*Written by a retired general*, the newspaper piece follows last week's international nuclear-security summit in Washington and comes amid questions in the U.S., Japan and elsewhere about the intent behind China's efforts to strengthen its nuclear forces.

*In recent years, China has been expanding its arsenal of ballistic missiles and investing in weapons that are more mobile and more sophisticated. The country has also developed a new generation of submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons.*

Even so, China's atomic arsenalwith fewer than 100 long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads, according to the Pentagon's 2009 estimate of Chinese military power remains far smaller than those of the U.S. or Russia. Washington and Moscow recently agreed to limit their number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 each.

However, opponents of arms reductions by the U.S. have argued that such cuts could make it easier for China to catch up in terms of nuclear capability. And officials in the U.S. and elsewhere have called on Beijing to better explain the motives behind the Chinese government's increased spending on both nuclear and conventional forces.

The commentary's author, Xu Guangyu, who now works for the state-run China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said in an interview Thursday that he was responding to complaints from abroad that China's nuclear intentions are "not transparent." Gen. Xu said he wanted to dispel "misunderstandings" and challenge those who "promote a China-threat theory by exaggerating China's nuclear capabilities."

China has developed solid fuel-powered rockets that can be moved by truck, making them easier to launch and harder for foreign militaries to track than the liquid-fueled, silo-based missiles that previously had been the mainstay of China's nuclear force. The country also appears intent on deploying nuclear-armed submarines.

The point of such steps, Gen. Xu wrote, is "to really possess, and to convince the other side that it faces an intolerable second-strike nuclear capability, thereby deterring an enemy from using nuclear weapons against us." Other states, he said, "must grasp, without the least ambiguity, that we possess a deterrent." He also stressed that China "adheres to a defensive nuclear strategy."

*In its annual report on the Chinese military last year, the U.S. Defense Department said China has developed a "more survivable and flexible strategic nuclear force" that "would be able to inflict significant damage on most large American cities." But the report concluded that: "There is no evidence that China's doctrine of 'no first use' has changed."*

Gao Sen in Beijing contributed to this article."


----------



## Martian2

I leave future analyses to the next generation of armchair generals. However, here is my parting article on "China's Nuclear Strike Force."

Regarding the discussion on whether China has an adequate number of nuclear ICBMs, I don't believe that this problem has been overlooked by the competent government of China.

1) China has the 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall." You can hide a lot of ICBMs in a 5,000 KM underground facility. See Board Message

2) The 20 silo-based "city-buster" ICBMs (i.e. 1 to 4 megatons) alone can destroy 20 American cities. If you annihilate the top 20 American cities, you are talking about roughly 30 million dead plus nuclear fallout. This is called nuclear deterrence.

3) China has road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBM launchers.

Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal

"*Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal*
Kanwa Information Center ^

Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:19:59 PM by Filibuster_60

Kanwa was informed that the *development of train-borne DF31 ICBM is already completed*, and the deployment of these missiles has also been prepared. The development of DF31A, a upgraded version of DF31, has also already been completed.

In order to further enhance the mobile nuclear striking power and the capability to survive attacks, *China has developed new types of DF31 series ICBMs similar to the former Soviet Union train-borne SS-24*. In normal days, these missiles are moved along the railroads, while at time of war, they can be transported to selected sites and then launch nuclear assaults upon the enemy. DF31 is manufactured in Sichuan at Sichuan Areospace Industry Corporation. Reliable sources from China military industry say the major difference between DF31 and DF31A lies in their warheads. The former has single warhead, while the latter has multi-warheads."

4) China has Type 094 Jin-class submarines carrying JL-2 SLBMs.

5) Nuclear-capable DH-10 cruise missiles have been added to the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

6) I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. However, for the sake of completeness, I want to point out that "It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force."

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesofthe...sile_detail.asp

"The CSS-9 is an effective strategic system that has significantly increased the PRC&#8217;s nuclear strike capabilities. Though the PRC&#8217;s land-based systems are unable to directly threaten much beyond the west coast of the United States, the CSS-9 is a modern ICBM system that threatens Russia and India, two major PRC rivals. *However, the CSS-9 missile system can easily reach all of the US with the placement aboard cargo ships disguised as shipping containers. The self-contained launch system could easily be placed on a PRC ship and launched against targets in the US. It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force.* Similarly, these containers could be smuggled into and stored in PRC controlled warehouses throughout the Americas. The modular nature of these modern missile systems makes them extremely dangerous since they do not need to follow tradition missile tactics. *Even with modern satellite systems, the combination of hidden road and cross-country mobile launchers, missile silos, and rail/ship launchers make it impossible to destroy most of these missiles prior to launch.*" 

7) China is developing the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile with a terminal supersonic phase. Just like the DH-10 cruise missile, it is reasonable to expect that the HN-2000 will also be nuclear-capable. See http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. *This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies* and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."

8) Have you ever watched the movie "WarGames"? A nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. will cause both nations to launch an all-out attack on all countries of the world. Russia and the U.S. will not foolishly destroy only each other and let China become the de facto superpower.

Similarly, in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, China has plenty of thermonuclear SRBMs and IRBMs (especially the ones located in Tibet; see newslinks below). China will "wipe out" most Russian cities. In retaliation, the Russians will take everyone else with them. Just as it was depicted in WarGames, Russian nuclear missiles will radiate to every major city in the world. Everybody dies, except for the lucky few in underground military facilities built to withstand a nuclear war.

In essence, China can "borrow" the Russian nuclear arsenal in the final exchange against the U.S. The Russians are not going to let the U.S. become the de facto superpower survivor.


http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/extens...ntral-china.php

"Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China



More than 50 launch pads for nuclear ballistic missiles have been identified scattered across a 2,000 square kilometer (772 square miles) area of central China, according to analysis of satellite images.

By Hans M. Kristensen

Analysis of new commercial satellite photos has identified an extensive deployment area with nearly 60 launch pads for medium-range nuclear ballistic missiles in Central China near Delingha and Da Qaidam.

The region has long been rumored to house nuclear missiles and I have previously described some of the facilities in a report and a blog. But the new analysis reveals a significantly larger deployment area than previously known, different types of launch pads, command and control facilities, and missile deployment equipment at a large facility in downtown Delingha.

The U.S. government often highlights China&#8217;s deployment of new mobile missiles as a concern but keeps the details secret, so the discovery of the deployment area provides the first opportunity for the public to better understand how China operates its mobile ballistic missiles."

http://rupeenews.com/2009/09/07/beijings-m...china-tensions/

"Beijing&#8217;s Missile in Tibet, & Hainan Naval base scare Delhi: Dramatic rise in India-China tensions

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Moin Ansari

The Chinese Red dragon&#8217;s reach has scared the pants off the Indian elephant. Many have predicted a war between India and China within the next few years. Some called that prediction alarmist. First there were repeated statements from Delhi that China was their biggest enemy and threat. Then news stories that China has built a huge infrastructure on the undefined and undemarcated Mcmohan line (the de factor border between India and China). Now the escalating tensions are sounding alarm bells around the world. The Federation of American Scientist has just published pictures of Chinese missiles which can target all of India. The incompetent intelligence agencies of India didn&#8217;t have a clue about the missiles. Any high school drop out could have paid a commercial satellite a nickel and gotten the pictures of the satellites. The fact that the FAS pictures has so unnerved Delhi that it has decided to form to new intelligence agencies is a subject of much discussion around the world..."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

As many of you know, I have asserted that China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers because the American government and military say it is so. I have provided numerous newslinks to the statements of Pentagon military officials. Despite the overwhelming evidence, there has been a die-hard naysayer, who insists that China's ASBM is speculative and merely a hypothetical worst-case-scenario.

I have previously shown you a picture of China's very real ASBM at China's 60th anniversary parade. I hope that the following news article from the front page of the New York Times will finally put to rest the silly claim of "speculative" missile. "The leader of the United States Pacific Command," Admiral Robert F. Willard, had testified to Congress that China has already "tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers."

In conclusion, does China have a dangerous ASBM that poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers? The answer lies in the "plain English doctrine." Can a person understand the plain English in the following paragraph from the New York Times?

China Expands Naval Power to Waters U.S. Dominates - NYTimes.com

"*In late March, Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of the United States Pacific Command, said in Congressional testimony that recent Chinese military developments were &#8220;pretty dramatic.&#8221; China has tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers, he said.* After years of denials, Chinese officials have confirmed that they intend to deploy an aircraft carrier group within a few years.

*China is also developing a sophisticated submarine fleet that could try to prevent foreign naval vessels from entering its strategic waters if a conflict erupted in the region, said Admiral Willard and military analysts.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> As many of you know, I have asserted that China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers because the American government and military say it is so. I have provided numerous newslinks to the statements of Pentagon military officials. Despite the overwhelming evidence, there has been a die-hard naysayer, who insists that China's ASBM is speculative and merely a hypothetical worst-case-scenario.
> 
> I have previously shown you a picture of China's very real ASBM at China's 60th anniversary parade. I hope that the following news article from the front page of the New York Times will finally put to rest the silly claim of "speculative" missile. "The leader of the United States Pacific Command," Admiral Robert F. Willard, had testified to Congress that China has already "tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers."
> 
> In conclusion, does China have a dangerous ASBM that poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers? The answer lies in the "plain English doctrine." Can a person understand the plain English in the following paragraph from the New York Times?
> 
> China Expands Naval Power to Waters U.S. Dominates - NYTimes.com
> 
> "In late March, Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of the United States Pacific Command, said in Congressional testimony that recent Chinese military developments were pretty dramatic. China has tested long-range ballistic missiles that *could be used* against aircraft carriers, he said. After years of denials, Chinese officials have confirmed that they intend to deploy an aircraft carrier group within a few years.
> 
> China is also developing a sophisticated submarine fleet that could try to prevent foreign naval vessels from entering its strategic waters if a conflict erupted in the region, said Admiral Willard and military analysts."


Readers,

I caution you not to be misled by overly eager Chinese fanboys seeking validation of their ignorance. Please note the highlighted words. Throughout these so called 'evidences', you will see many: if, could, possibly and may be. No one dispute what was said. But what is and should be disputed are the fanboys' interpretation of what was said.

AN/FPS-108 COBRA DANE


> First deployed in 1977, the AN/FPS-108 radar operates in the 1215-1400 MHz band using a 29m phased array antenna. The primary mission is to track and collect data on foreign intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) test launches to the Kamchatka impact area and the broad ocean impact areas in the Pacific Ocean. The *metric and signature data collected* support START 2 and INF treaty monitoring, and scientific and technical intelligence efforts.



MissileThreat :: Cobra Dane Radar


> Designed to track Russian missile launches during the Cold War, its northern location also makes the *Cobra Dane radar* of especial use for *tracking missile launches* coming from North Korea or *China.*


Pave Paws is Cobra Dane's cousin. Pave Paws is capable of detecting 10 meter square targets at 3000 nm. For the same target dimension that Pave Paws can detect, which is roughly the dimension of a MIRV warhead, Cobra Dane can provide less than one meter range resolution. In other words, at any given distance, Cobra Dane can provide the target's location with less than one meter accuracy.

COBRA JUDY (U)


> Data collected by COBRA JUDY is required by Congress for arms control verification. COBRA JUDY is the only radar sensor capable of collecting the metric and signature data needed for strategic missile treaty verification, as well as strategic and theater missile defense development efforts. As such, it's requirements are critical for the foreseeable future, even beyond the FYDP.


Cobra Judy is a smaller and mobile -- shipborne -- version of Cobra Dane.

Next is the radar horizon calculator...

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

The reader can vary the airborne target's altitude with any figure.

Next...The reader can look at a map of China, specifically the coastal regions. The reader can see that China will have limited testing areas before infringing upon the neighbors, alarming them and revealing relevant technical information of a missile test. As shown, Cobra Dane on US territory can already detect any ballistic trajectory launched from mainland China, which the DF-21 most likely will be. That mean Cobra Judy will have a very limited search and monitor area for any Chinese ballistic missile testing whilst staying well outside of China's territorial waters. The reader can verify this information with the above radar horizon calculator.

If any descending warhead is capable of maneuvers, two things must happen:

1- Change in descent velocity.
2- Lateral acceleration.

Against a land based and fixed target, like a city or a missile base, the goal is to descent fast to give the enemy little or no time to respond. That mean item one must occur *BEFORE* the warhead's seeker can attempt to acquire a moving target, and since the goal is to impact a moving target, the test must produce exactly that, which should give both Cobra Dane and Cobra Judy lateral acceleration information.

China would also have incremental tests, meaning the first few will be for fixed target acquisitions. These first few will give US an idea of the general testing area: scope and range. That is all Cobra Judy need from Cobra Dane. So if we can record the time of the start of the change in descent velocity and if available the time of the lateral acceleration, we can infer much about the DF-21's capability. The lower the altitude the change in descent velocity and lateral acceleration as the warhead seek a moving test target, the more lethal is the weapon. It does not matter if the target is aircraft carrier or dingy size. The descent should be fast enough to compress the defender's response time and if the seeker-guidance and maneuvering mechanisms are exceptional, any abrupt change by the warhead at as low an altitude as possible would further compress that response time, possibly to nothing.

So if the DF-21 is deployable, US military chiefs would not have filled their report with ifs, possibles, coulds, and may bes. If they are questioned, of course they are obliged to give policy makers the proverbial 'worst case' scenario, for their forces and the effects on foreign policy. Instead of giving the readers relevant general but technical information/explanation like above, these fanboys could only flood the discussion with nothing but the same report worded differently by different people, giving the impression that US military chiefs are 'alarmed' or 'in a panic' or 'worried' and other hyperboles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Readers,
> 
> ...



We see well your fundamentalistic approach: if we don&#8217;t see it, it does not exist. Thus if US doesn&#8217;t detect a maneuvering DF-21, or maneuvering in that lethal way, according to you, nothing is there.

Case should be rested by now.

Just remind you, when MacArthur was approaching Yalu River, he didn&#8217;t see, neither believed, any Chinese troops in Korea land: how dare the poor and backward you (China) touch the hair of giant America with world forces? When he did hear some reports of the army, he still didn&#8217;t think China dared to send troops, because of the same pathetic mentality.

You are only 1/10000 of MacArthur in capability.

Again, it is more about mentality, not about physics. If you have wrong mentality, even if physics is right, you still won&#8217;t believe it because you explain things with the laws in wrong places.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PlanetWarrior

Yawwwnnnnnnnn . Lack of history studies seems to inhibit the way you kids think. Great idea for China to whack off the USN. Reminds me of that same great idea which Japan had. Repayment for that great idea to Japan was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't truly believe that Uncle Sam will stop at just Beijing if the Chinese had to sink his prized ships.


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Case should be rested by now.


I just closed it.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I just closed it.



I found a quote from gambit's grandfather!

Record Low Temperatures Hit Northeast : Now! Hampshire

"Jul 14, 2009 ... *supersonic flight is impossible*, splitting atoms and harnessing nuclear energy is impossible, the universe revolves about the earth, ..."


----------



## Awesome

The United States won't come in range and then fight, it will first fight when its enemies are in range. The thing is the US does not usually do Gung Ho, Jonh Woo style a gun in each hand shooting everyone on the scene type of attacks.

The US is rumored to have Inter Continental Cruise Missiles and many other tricks for long range attacks, remember those B2's can fly to China and back from the continental US. The US's tactic would definitely be to soften its target and gradually increase the intensity of its attacks. 

Can't give you a play by play, but thats what the US trend in recent years suggests.

This gives some advantage to China - if China takes over Taiwan, the US isn't probably going to come guns blazing down on China. For the past 5-10 years, this has been the focus of military assumption by the Chinese defence that a big naval armada would come down knocking on their door. 

They should think about other things as well.


----------



## no_name

Which is why china is developing anti satellite weapons. 

All US's intel and long range attack option will depend on it.

They are also testing ground based lasers for targeting satellites


----------



## gambit

Asim Aquil said:


> *The United States won't come in range and then fight*, it will first fight when its enemies are in range. The thing is the US does not usually do Gung Ho, Jonh Woo style a gun in each hand shooting everyone on the scene type of attacks.
> 
> The US is rumored to have Inter Continental Cruise Missiles and many other tricks for long range attacks, remember those B2's can fly to China and back from the continental US. The US's tactic would definitely be to soften its target and gradually increase the intensity of its attacks.
> 
> Can't give you a play by play, but thats what the US trend in recent years suggests.
> 
> This gives some advantage to China - if China takes over Taiwan, the US isn't probably going to come guns blazing down on China. For the past 5-10 years, this has been the focus of military assumption by the Chinese defence that a big naval armada would come down knocking on their door.
> 
> They should think about other things as well.


Of course we will come within range and fight. *OUR* range, that is...

This is not pre-WWII where Germany managed to clandestinely built up all three services. Even then, there were signs picked up by various European intelligence agencies that Germany was massively rearming. China will not be able to prepare for an attack on Taiwan without US knowing about it. Even in the 'old days' as in swords, spears, bows and arrows, merchants were always excellent sources in intelligence and many served as spymasters for their lieges. Same for today, Taiwanese businessmen will pick up clues about said preparations.

So if there is a potential for an armed conflict over Taiwan and if the US is determined not to let Taiwan fall, we will let both sides know we are watching. If we decide to preempt China, long range bombers of both types will attack those strategic preparation points. China's submarine forces will have been tracked by US and will be sunk. We do not need to destroy everything, just do serious enough damages that will force China to do another cost/benefit analysis over taking Taiwan by force.


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> Of course we will come within range and fight. *OUR* range, that is...
> 
> This is not pre-WWII where Germany managed to clandestinely built up all three services. Even then, there were signs picked up by various European intelligence agencies that Germany was massively rearming. China will not be able to prepare for an attack on Taiwan without US knowing about it. Even in the 'old days' as in swords, spears, bows and arrows, merchants were always excellent sources in intelligence and many served as spymasters for their lieges. Same for today, Taiwanese businessmen will pick up clues about said preparations.
> 
> So if there is a potential for an armed conflict over Taiwan and if the US is determined not to let Taiwan fall, we will let both sides know we are watching. If we decide to preempt China, long range bombers of both types will attack those strategic preparation points. China's submarine forces will have been tracked by US and will be sunk. We do not need to destroy everything, just do serious enough damages that will force China to do another cost/benefit analysis over taking Taiwan by force.



and those bombers will be downed by fighters and SAMs. then the US will have to think about whether it will escalate, or step down.


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> and those bombers will be downed by fighters and SAMs. then the US will have to think about whether it will escalate, or step down.


Terrain Following B-1s and invisible to Chinese radars B-2s...??? Baghdad Bob...Is that you...???


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> Terrain Following B-1s and invisible to Chinese radars B-2s...??? Baghdad Bob...Is that you...???



terrain following B-1 lol... at low level it's maximum speed is mach 0.92, less with full weapons. this needs to be done over uneven terrain, over the ocean at long distances this can be easily detected. for actually downing it, HQ-9 is more than enough. not to mention everything J-8 and up have lookdown-shootdown capable radars.

B-2 are invisible to what radar? nothing is invisible unless it is transparent to radio waves, it's simply RCS that's decreased which decreases detection distance.

"mission accomplished!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> terrain following B-1 lol... at low level it's maximum speed is mach 0.92, less with full weapons. this needs to be done over uneven terrain, over the ocean at long distances this can be easily detected.


Do not talk as if you know what you are talking about. If an aircraft is below the radar horizon, its speed is largely irrelevant.



below_freezing said:


> for actually downing it, HQ-9 is more than enough. not to mention everything J-8 and up have lookdown-shootdown capable radars.


 Those J-8s will have no idea which direction the B-1s will approach. A bit of education for you, fighter aircraft radars are quite directional.



below_freezing said:


> B-2 are invisible to what radar? nothing is invisible unless it is transparent to radio waves, it's simply RCS that's decreased which decreases detection distance.


And you learned that from me. By the time any Chinese radar detect a B-2, if at all, it would have been weapons release time for the B-2.



below_freezing said:


> "mission accomplished!"


That will be our 'tally ho', right before we 'pickle'.


----------



## below_freezing

of course the speed is important. lower speed increases time for reaction. the radar horizon applies to uneven terrain, over flat open ocean there's no radar horizon.

and our SAM radars are similar to MPQ-53. if the B-2 can't be detected by our radars, it would be just as invisible to US radars.


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> of course the speed is important. lower speed increases time for reaction. the radar horizon applies to uneven terrain, *over flat open ocean there's no radar horizon.*




This is utterly embarrassing for you and your fellow Chinese members here. This is exactly what I mean about desperate people willing to bend the laws of physics. This is a *MUST SAVE*.



below_freezing said:


> and our SAM radars are similar to MPQ-53. if the B-2 can't be detected by our radars, it would be just as invisible to US radars.


We do not care if our radars cannot pick up our B-2s. We have other means to know where they are anyway. So what the hell does this worth in this argument? Zilch.


----------



## below_freezing

sorry got confuse by terrain following. english is not my first language.

on the radar horizon:

how low is low?

R=(2*4/3*R_earth*h)^0.5

unless the B-1 can fly below 200 m, it will easily be detected and shot down within 50 km. even if weapons are released, scrambled fighters will still know its approximate location and will down it from there.


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> sorry got confuse by terrain following. english is not my first language.
> 
> on the radar horizon:
> 
> how low is low?
> 
> R=(2*4/3*R_earth*h)^0.5


Here is another thing you can learn from me...

Horizon calculator - radar and visual



below_freezing said:


> *unless the B-1 can fly below 200 m*, it will easily be detected and shot down within 50 km. even if weapons are released, scrambled fighters will still know its approximate location and will down it from there.


Sure...

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - B-1B Lancer


> low-level mission: 600 mph (965 km/h) at *200 ft (61 m)*


I was in the WSO seat in an F-111E in a four-ship over the English Channel. Our lead was asked if we could help out the French to test their new air defense radars. We descend down to 50 ft and I tuned the TF radars to pick up surface waves. Do not think that just because you can post some math you really know what you are talking about. The higher the radar's altitude, the greater its radar horizon, but it also advertises its position, location and transmit strength to a greater distance to anyone out there. This will force Chinese radars to divide their attention to uncertain hostile inbounds, high and low, and both difficult to detect. US air power, and that mean all three services, is the most combat experienced in the world. Each can devise and execute its own operations. Each can also coordinate with ground forces as the world have seen in the ME. But unlike the ME, we will not have to worry about our ground forces.


----------



## Martian2

Time out! Incoming breaking news. This whole China-U.S. scenario is basically dead. My former "armchair general" article has been killed by a changing world. KIA!

Ma: Taiwan won't ask U.S. to fight China - CNN.com

"*Ma: Taiwan won't ask U.S. to fight China*
By Tom Evans, CNN
*May 1, 2010* -- Updated 0604 GMT (1404 HKT)

(CNN) -- *Taiwan will never ask the United States to fight against China on its behalf, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou said in a CNN interview.*

"We will continue to reduce the risks so that we will purchase arms from the United States, but *we will never ask the Americans to fight for Taiwan*," Ma told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview that aired Friday. "*This is something that is very, very clear.*"

He added that the *risk to the United States of a conflict between China and Taiwan is the lowest in 60 years as a result of his government's efforts to build a rapprochement with Beijing*.

"In the last two years, as a result of our efforts to improve relations with the Chinese mainland, *we have already defused the tension to a great extent*," he said.

*Ma said his government has concluded 12 agreements with China* on flights, food safety, opening Taiwan to mainland tourists and mutual judicial assistance in the past two years.

"*All these agreements contribute to prosperity and stability in Taiwan* and nothing in these agreements compromised Taiwan's sovereignty or autonomy," he added."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Time out! Incoming breaking news. This whole China-U.S. scenario is basically dead. My former "armchair general" article has been killed by a changing world. KIA!
> 
> Ma: Taiwan won't ask U.S. to fight China - CNN.com
> 
> "*Ma: Taiwan won't ask U.S. to fight China*
> By Tom Evans, CNN
> *May 1, 2010* -- Updated 0604 GMT (1404 HKT)
> 
> (CNN) -- *Taiwan will never ask the United States to fight against China on its behalf, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou said in a CNN interview.*
> 
> "We will continue to reduce the risks so that we will purchase arms from the United States, but *we will never ask the Americans to fight for Taiwan*," Ma told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview that aired Friday. "*This is something that is very, very clear.*"
> 
> He added that the *risk to the United States of a conflict between China and Taiwan is the lowest in 60 years as a result of his government's efforts to build a rapprochement with Beijing*.
> 
> "In the last two years, as a result of our efforts to improve relations with the Chinese mainland, *we have already defused the tension to a great extent*," he said.
> 
> *Ma said his government has concluded 12 agreements with China* on flights, food safety, opening Taiwan to mainland tourists and mutual judicial assistance in the past two years.
> 
> "*All these agreements contribute to prosperity and stability in Taiwan* and nothing in these agreements compromised Taiwan's sovereignty or autonomy," he added."


Right...And this will be etched in stone that Taiwan will never ask in the future. I knew this news item was going to come up.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Right...And this will be etched in stone that Taiwan will never ask in the future. I knew this news item was going to come up.



Au contraire, the news from Taiwan is excellent. The U.S. military is exhausted. America's fighting men and women deserve a long well-earned rest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/12/usa.iraq
"Aug 12, 2007 ... *But it is in the soldiers themselves - and in the ordinary stories they tell - that the exhaustion of the US military is most obvious*, ..."

Analysis: America decides to fight and win in Afghanistan - Telegraph
"Nov 1, 2008 ... The *US military is exhausted after years of combat in Iraq*, from where the general plans to gradually withdraw his men. ..."

Julie Menin: We Can't Turn Our Back on Iran
"Jun 18, 2009 ... Besides, thanks to Bushie's antics, the *US military is exhausted and overtaxed, and is in no shape to enter Iran*. ..."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Au contraire, the news from Taiwan is excellent. The U.S. military is exhausted. America's fighting men and women deserve a long well-earned rest.
> 
> Analysis: America decides to fight and win in Afghanistan - Telegraph
> "Nov 1, 2008 ... The *US military is exhausted after years of combat in Iraq*, from where the general plans to gradually withdraw his men. ..."
> 
> Julie Menin: We Can't Turn Our Back on Iran
> "Jun 18, 2009 ... Besides, thanks to Bushie's antics, the *US military is exhausted and overtaxed, and is in no shape to enter Iran*. ..."


You go right ahead and believe that we are 'exhausted'. Ultimately, what matter is what the PLA's leadership believe and I have no doubt they are not as gullible as you are.


----------



## below_freezing

the same for US leaders. they know many things that the average soldier does not.


----------



## Martian2

U.S. attempts to pierce China's veil of strategic nuclear ambiguity.

In post #82, I listed the broad range of known delivery vehicles for "China's Nuclear Strike Force." One of the most well-kept secrets on the planet is the size of China's thermonuclear arsenal. The Pentagon has no idea how to deal with China unless it knows with certainty the size of China's nuclear deterrent.

Let's review some key facts.

1) China was the fourth nation in the world to explode a thermonuclear weapon in 1967, ahead of the French.

2) China launched her first satellite into space in 1970.

3) Putting (1) and (2) together, China has possessed the capability to build thermonuclear-tipped ICBMs for 40 years. Over the years, China has improved her miniaturization technology to the point of building a W-88 class warhead by the 1980s.

We also know that China has demonstrated the ability to send multiple satellites into space on one rocket. This dual-use technology is the basis for MIRVed ICBMs.

The point is that China has been able to build advanced MIRVed thermonuclear ICBMs for at least twenty to thirty years.

4) Everyone agrees that China's nuclear arsenal is smaller than the U.S.'s roughly 10,000 (e.g. deployed and strategic reserve) warheads.

5) The key question that everyone wants answered is: how much "smaller" is the Chinese nuclear arsenal? Are China's nuclear warheads closer to 200 or 2,000 in number? The U.S. wants to know.

Hence, the latest clever political move to pressure China to disclose the number and locations of her nuclear arsenal. The U.S. has disclosed the total number of its nuclear warheads (which we all knew numbered in the many thousands) and now it wants to know China's big secret.

For the last 40 years, has China been sitting on her hands and doing "not much"? Or, as many suspect, how big of a nuclear arsenal has China built in secret over the last 40 years?

U.S. says China nuclear programs lack transparency | Reuters

"*U.S. says China nuclear programs lack transparency*

WASHINGTON
Tue Apr 6, 2010 1:57pm EDT







(Reuters) - *Lack of transparency surrounding China's nuclear programs raises questions about its strategic intentions, the United States said on Tuesday.*

Barack Obama | China

"*China's nuclear arsenal remains much smaller than the arsenals of Russia and the United States*," the administration said in a nuclear policy document published on Tuesday.

"But the *lack of transparency* surrounding its nuclear programs -- their *pace* and *scope*, as well as the strategy and doctrine that guides them -- raises questions about China's future strategic intentions."

"The United States and China's Asian neighbors remain concerned about the pace and scope of China's current military modernization efforts, including its quantitative and qualitative modernization of its nuclear capabilities," it said.

China last month unveiled its 2010 military budget with a spending hike of 7.5 percent, a relatively low figure that surprised outside analysts after more than two decades of double-digit rises.

*The U.S. report reiterated the Pentagon's oft-stated wish to hold a strategic dialogue with the Chinese military* that would "provide a venue and mechanism for each side to communicate its views about the other's strategies, policies, and programs on nuclear weapons and other strategic capabilities."

"The goal of such a dialogue is to enhance confidence, improve transparency, and reduce mistrust," the report added.

China ended weeks of uncertainty last week when it announced that President Hu Jintao would attend a summit next week on nuclear security in Washington.

China had previously delayed saying whether Hu would participate in the multinational meeting hosted by President Barack Obama. U.S.-China ties have recently been clouded by economic and political disputes.

Washington angered Beijing by announcing a $6.4 billion arms package for Taiwan early this year, and China responded by postponing several high-level exchanges between U.S. and Chinese military leaders.

But China did not freeze all military-to-military contacts as it did in response to previous U.S. arms deals with Taiwan.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart and Paul Eckert, Editing by Alan Elsner)"

http://china.globaltimes.cn/diplomacy/2010-05/528550.html

"*US calls on China for more nuke transparency*

* Source: Global Times
* [02:27 May 05 2010]
* Comments

By Liu Dong

*China pledged Tuesday "extreme restraint" in its nuclear development*, as the *US revealed Monday the size of its nuclear stockpile, whilst warning about isolation for any state that defies the current disarmament trend.*

The Pentagon disclosed that the US holds 5,113 nuclear warheads as of September 30, including operationally operated warheads, both in active and inactive reserves, an 84 percent curtail from the 31,225 in 1967 and a 75 percent cut from the 22,217 in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell.

The figures, the first official disclosure of the half-century-long top secret, were released as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference unfolds, at which US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that this revelation serves to enhance transparency concerning the US arsenal and which is conducive to *urging other nuclear-armed states to follow suit*.

*China was specifically singled out, as a senior US defense official renewed calls for greater transparency by China, saying there was "little visibility" when it came to Beijing's nuclear program, Reuters reported.*

Zhang Zhaozhong, director of the Science and Technology Research Division of the National Defense University, rebuffed the US claim of China's lack of a transparent policy concerning the nuclear arsenal as unsubstantiated.

"On the contrary, the publicized figure is merely shrouded tactics, as the US holds at least 9,000 nuclear warheads," Zhang added.

China will "exercise extreme restraint over developing nuclear weapons," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Tuesday in a regular press briefing.

"*China will continue to maintain nuclear power at the lowest level, only for national security needs.* We are willing to make joint efforts with the relevant countries toward nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-weapons-free world," the spokeswoman added."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

Martian2 said:


> U.S. attempts to pierce China's veil of strategic nuclear ambiguity.
> 
> In post #82, I listed the broad range of known delivery vehicles for "China's Nuclear Strike Force." One of the most well-kept secrets on the planet is the size of China's thermonuclear arsenal. The Pentagon has no idea how to deal with China unless it knows with certainty the size of China's nuclear deterrent.
> 
> Let's review some key facts.
> 
> 1) China was the fourth nation in the world to explode a thermonuclear weapon in 1967, ahead of the French.
> 
> 2) China launched her first satellite into space in 1970.
> 
> 3) Putting (1) and (2) together, China has possessed the capability to build thermonuclear-tipped ICBMs for 40 years. Over the years, China has improved her miniaturization technology to the point of building a W-88 class warhead by the 1980s.
> 
> We also know that China has demonstrated the ability to send multiple satellites into space on one rocket. This dual-use technology is the basis for MIRVed ICBMs.
> 
> The point is that China has been able to build advanced MIRVed thermonuclear ICBMs for at least twenty to thirty years.
> 
> 4) Everyone agrees that China's nuclear arsenal is smaller than the U.S.'s roughly 10,000 (e.g. deployed and strategic reserve) warheads.
> 
> *5) The key question that everyone wants answered is: how much "smaller" is the Chinese nuclear arsenal? Are China's nuclear warheads closer to 200 or 2,000 in number? The U.S. wants to know.*
> 
> Hence, the latest clever political move to pressure China to disclose the number and locations of her nuclear arsenal. The U.S. has disclosed the total number of its nuclear warheads (which we all knew numbered in the many thousands) and now it wants to know China's big secret.
> 
> For the last 40 years, has China been sitting on her hands and doing "not much"? Or, as many suspect, how big of a nuclear arsenal has China built in secret over the last 40 years?
> 
> U.S. says China nuclear programs lack transparency | Reuters
> 
> "*U.S. says China nuclear programs lack transparency*



Well done analysis! 

And this is the core of Sun Tzu's Art of War, where the more you understand of your adversaries and the less they know of you, the greater your strategic powers! 

However, there's a slight change in your analysis. Where you said 

*"...200 or 2,000..."*

should be

*"...200 or 2,000 or 20,000..."*

And this is why no one dared to attack China yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Readers,
> 
> I caution you not to be misled by overly eager Chinese fanboys seeking validation of their ignorance. Please note the highlighted words. Throughout these so called 'evidences', you will see many: if, could, possibly and may be. No one dispute what was said. But what is and should be disputed are the fanboys' interpretation of what was said.



According to my count, gambit has called me a "fanboy" three times (e.g. see posts #4, #22, and #84). However, what if I'm right? Let's take a look at the "47-page report, entitled, 'A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics'" written by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). "ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces."

China's ASBM program is the "Most worrisome for the US Navy&#8217;s pre-eminence in the region...the ASBM&#8217;s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept." Since the ONI is "most" worried about China's ASBM, does this mean that the Office of Naval Intelligence is full of fanboys in gambit's military professional opinion?

Measuring The Chinese Fleet : Marport

"Measuring The Chinese Fleet
January 27, 2010 &#183; Posted in Industry News, Underwater Defence



*A mistake by a US Navy intelligence official has given the world an unexpected peek into the secret world of China&#8217;s navy. The US Office for Naval Intelligence (ONI) committed the blunder of posting, on an open website, the agency&#8217;s assessment of the state of the Chinese navy.* Before the ONI could rectify this indiscretion by pulling off the report, it had been downloaded and posted on publicly accessible websites.

The *47-page report, entitled, &#8220;A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics&#8221;*, is still posted on the website of the Federation of American Scientists, a policy advocacy body at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/oni/pla-navy.pdf
...
The PLA(N)&#8217;s most key acquisition, says the ONI report, is a sophisticated anti-air capability, which would allow its ships to operate in &#8220;distant seas&#8221;, far from land-based air-defence systems. The Luyang I class of destroyers, already formidable, have been followed by the *Luyang II class and the Jiangkai II frigates, which are linked with an air-surveillance network as good as America&#8217;s world-standard Aegis system.*

*Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, will be a key deterrent in the PLA(N).* The ONI report says that Beijing will replace its large number of low-tech submarines with &#8220;smaller numbers of modern, high-capability boats (submarines)&#8221;. But while the number of surface ships remains constant, today&#8217;s fleet of 62 submarines will increase over the next 10-15 years to 75. [In that time-frame, India&#8217;s submarine fleet will be about one-third that of China&#8217;s.]

*Most worrisome for the US Navy&#8217;s pre-eminence in the region, is the programme to develop the world&#8217;s first Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM), a variant of China&#8217;s Dong Feng &#8211; 21 missile. The ONI report reveals that the ASBM&#8217;s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept."
*

Office of Naval Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The *Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)* was established in the United States Navy in 1882. ONI was established to "seek out and report" on the advancements in other nations' navies. Its headquarters are at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Maryland. *ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Yes, this thread is back from the dead. Not because I wanted to resurrect it. I was debating someone else on another forum and I think I found some interesting information that helped my argument. Please read it and evaluate its usefulness for yourself. By the way, you have to click on the newslink and go to the website to access the hotlinks. For your information, MaRV means "a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV)."






DONG FENG MARV WARHEAD IS DESIGNED TO EVADE PATRIOT AND STANDARD DEFENSE MISSILES

Information Dissemination: PLAN ASBM development

"Saturday, March 28, 2009
PLAN ASBM development

I was contacted by Galrahn to read over a Chinese blog entry on PLAN's ASBM development (found here) and post my thoughts on it. I think that before you look further, there are some other good reads on this topic. Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat. I have also written an entry in the past regarding ASBM threat, but it's really not that well researched. That one was based on an article that stated China has solved the difficulties surrounding hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.

I think that the blog entry I read was definitely the best researched work on PLAN's ASBM plans. *It listed many research papers that were written in Chinese and published years ago.* As a result of that, I cannot possibly confirm that some of the things I've read are actually accurate. The sources that I can confirm on the Internet do seem to conform to what he was stating. I think in order to continue, it would be beneficial to read some of the resources that he mentioned. The include:
Sinodefence's Space Page
Sinodefence's Missile Page
Xianglong UAV Page
Yilong UAV page
The first one is important, because you can look through the current and future development in China's space industry. It's important to look through the communication, IMINT and EO satellites that China will use in this system.
In the second link, the important missiles to look for are DF-21 and possibly DF-15. In the third link, it lists China's probably most recent venture into HALE UAV. It's about 2/3 the size of Global Hawk or maybe even smaller. We don't have any figure on its endurance, but one would guess it's much less than that of Global Hawk due to the smaller size and less efficient engine. Although at this point, I would think that PLAN would be fine with an Asian Hawk. And the final link is an entry with information on China's version of Predator MALE UAV. The stats listed on that page were actually from its ddescription in the Zhuhai airshow, so I can verify that they are accurate. The two UAVs are both developed by Chengdu AC (the developer of J-10), so my guess is that Xianglong's endurance is comparable to Yilong (around 20 hours).

Reading through those links + Sean's blog entry are important in appreciating the rest of the ASBM system. I will try to make this out in Q&A format:

1. What caused China to start develop this system?
There are two main causes that drove this project. The first one is USA's Pershing II project. I guess this showed PLA the accuracy that can be achieved through MaRV warhead and active radar guidance. The second one is the Taiwan incident in 1996 when PLA's powerlessness against USN carrier group was on full display.

2. When did the project start and where is it now?
*China probably started researching on MaRV right after Pershing II was deployed in 1984. By 1991, China had finished research on MaRV.* According to the blog, there was a famous research paper in 1994 about attacking fixed target using MaRV technology. *In 1999's national pride parade, they showed a missile with all the basic technology needed for the missile part of the ASBM system. If we look at the current status of the satellite constellations and reconnaissance platforms, we could probably say that the system has achieved some operational capability.* The entire system needed for ASBM probably will not get set up until all the space assets and UAVs are online next decade.

3. Which missile are they using and what kind of improvements are they putting in?
It looks like DF-21 is the missile that ASBM is based on. It uses a solid propellant, is road-mobile, widely deployed and also have recently been improved to DF-21C. It's range of around 2000 km would perfectly cover the areas where future conflict is likely to be fought. Its range also would cover most of the areas that China's OTH-B radar would cover. *It is also large enough to carry a large warhead needed to inflict damage on carrier while also holding a more complex guidance/seeker. They have put a MaRV warhead on DF-21 for maneuverability. In order to improve the penetration capability, they have added a third stage to it to provide unpredictable movement (I think the blog described it as some kind of oscillation). They have apparently made modifications to the warhead in order to lower its radar signature. They have also added a new multi-mode seeker that apparently has an active, passive radar and infrared seeker* (I'm not sure how that works). It didn't mention how the missile would counter ESM of the fleet except for improving the seeker and getting more updated info from the sources that provided it initial targeting data.

4. *What are the sources that provide targeting data for this ASBM system?*
The blog basically listed 5 sources and they are:

* *Reconnaissance Satellites* - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict. It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise.
* *Elint satellites* - It mentioned something like USN's White Cloud Spaceborne ELINT System. The problem I have with this is that I can't find any mention of China having similar system anywhere.
* *OTH Radar* - Has a range of 800 to 3000 km. The accuracy in targetting is around 20 to 30 km. This can be improved to 2 to 3 km with improved algorithm. OTH radar can work with the recon satellites to provide more accurate targeting info.
* *UAV* - As mentioned above, China does have a robust UAV program going right now including the aforementioned XiangLong program. As we've seen in the Zhuhai airshow, they have numerous HALE and MALE UAV projects going. The major problem currently with Chinese UAV programs is that they simply don't have many small turbojet/turbofan engine series. As a result of having to work with what they have, the major design institute in AVIC-1 can't come up with the most optimal UAVs. I think that this will change in the next 10 years, so this part of the targeting system is behind recon satellites and OTH radar.
* *Radio post* - This is problem the most confusing one for me. The blog talked about working with elint satellites (which I don't think they have) to get the location of the carrier group through communications between ships and satellites/aerial assets.


5. How does the launching/attacking process work?
I think that in times of war, they would launch many micro-EO satellites that have short duration to increase reconnaissance in the area approaching Taiwan. Similar to US, they would have HALE UAVs to do advanced scouting in front of the war zone. The OTH radar will give the base initial idea of incoming fleet. This information would be combined with data of the recon satellites to provide a more precise and more accurate targeting data. The missile would be launched to the estimated position based on initial position + velocity, but this would obviously be off. Although, I think the movement of the carrier group will not be overwhelming. If the target is 2000 km away and the missile is traveling at mach 10 (343 * 3.6 * 10 = 10,000+ km/h) , it would get there in less than 12 minutes. During that time, if the fleet moves at 30 knots, it would move at most 6 knots or around 11 km from the original location. Still, if we add this to the initial precision problems of OTH radar + EO satellite, this could still cause the fleet to be outside the scanning area of the ASBM. In the cruising process, the missile would have to continuously communicate with the base through those new Data relay satellites (like TianLian-1 that they launched recently) to get more improve the precision. The ASBM will also likely veer off the path at this time, so it would need communication with Beidou-2 constellation in order to keep it on track. When it gets close to the target, the blog talked about 3 phases in its attack: high altitude guidance, high altitude gliding and low altitude guidance. I'm really not sure how accurate is the blog's description of the process. Its general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.

6. What is the operational status of this system?
From all the past sources I've read, it seems like PLAN already considers this system to have achieved IOC. Normally, I don't read about a certain capability developed in a Chinese military magazine until after it is attained. From reading through different sources, it looks like IOC was probably in 2007 or 2008. As mentioned before, more elements in the system like UAV and satellites are getting added as time goes on, so I look at this as a continuously evolutionary process.

7. How beneficial is this system?
That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its purpose.

8. Are there other launch platforms to this system?
I always thought that an-air launched version of ASBM from JH-7A is possible. There are certainly a large variety of short range ballistic missiles that JH-7A would be able to carry and provide updates for. I have not thought about launching ASBM from a SSBN, since that could easily be mistaken for a nuclear missile.

That's about it. I think a lot of resources on this are available to form an opinion.

Posted by Feng at 7:02 PM"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Martian2 said:


> Yes, this thread is back from the dead. Not because I wanted to resurrect it. I was debating someone else on another forum and I think I found some interesting information that helped my argument. Please read it and evaluate its usefulness for yourself. By the way, you have to click on the newslink and go to the website to access the hotlinks. For your information, MaRV means "a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DONG FENG MARV WARHEAD IS DESIGNED TO EVADE PATRIOT AND STANDARD DEFENSE MISSILES
> 
> Information Dissemination: PLAN ASBM development
> 
> "Saturday, March 28, 2009
> PLAN ASBM development
> 
> I was contacted by Galrahn to read over a Chinese blog entry on PLAN's ASBM development (found here) and post my thoughts on it. I think that before you look further, there are some other good reads on this topic. Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat. I have also written an entry in the past regarding ASBM threat, but it's really not that well researched. That one was based on an article that stated China has solved the difficulties surrounding hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.
> 
> I think that the blog entry I read was definitely the best researched work on PLAN's ASBM plans. *It listed many research papers that were written in Chinese and published years ago.* As a result of that, I cannot possibly confirm that some of the things I've read are actually accurate. The sources that I can confirm on the Internet do seem to conform to what he was stating. I think in order to continue, it would be beneficial to read some of the resources that he mentioned. The include:
> Sinodefence's Space Page
> Sinodefence's Missile Page
> Xianglong UAV Page
> Yilong UAV page
> The first one is important, because you can look through the current and future development in China's space industry. It's important to look through the communication, IMINT and EO satellites that China will use in this system.
> In the second link, the important missiles to look for are DF-21 and possibly DF-15. In the third link, it lists China's probably most recent venture into HALE UAV. It's about 2/3 the size of Global Hawk or maybe even smaller. We don't have any figure on its endurance, but one would guess it's much less than that of Global Hawk due to the smaller size and less efficient engine. Although at this point, I would think that PLAN would be fine with an Asian Hawk. And the final link is an entry with information on China's version of Predator MALE UAV. The stats listed on that page were actually from its ddescription in the Zhuhai airshow, so I can verify that they are accurate. The two UAVs are both developed by Chengdu AC (the developer of J-10), so my guess is that Xianglong's endurance is comparable to Yilong (around 20 hours).
> 
> Reading through those links + Sean's blog entry are important in appreciating the rest of the ASBM system. I will try to make this out in Q&A format:
> 
> 1. What caused China to start develop this system?
> There are two main causes that drove this project. The first one is USA's Pershing II project. I guess this showed PLA the accuracy that can be achieved through MaRV warhead and active radar guidance. The second one is the Taiwan incident in 1996 when PLA's powerlessness against USN carrier group was on full display.
> 
> 2. When did the project start and where is it now?
> *China probably started researching on MaRV right after Pershing II was deployed in 1984. By 1991, China had finished research on MaRV.* According to the blog, there was a famous research paper in 1994 about attacking fixed target using MaRV technology. *In 1999's national pride parade, they showed a missile with all the basic technology needed for the missile part of the ASBM system. If we look at the current status of the satellite constellations and reconnaissance platforms, we could probably say that the system has achieved some operational capability.* The entire system needed for ASBM probably will not get set up until all the space assets and UAVs are online next decade.
> 
> 3. Which missile are they using and what kind of improvements are they putting in?
> It looks like DF-21 is the missile that ASBM is based on. It uses a solid propellant, is road-mobile, widely deployed and also have recently been improved to DF-21C. It's range of around 2000 km would perfectly cover the areas where future conflict is likely to be fought. Its range also would cover most of the areas that China's OTH-B radar would cover. *It is also large enough to carry a large warhead needed to inflict damage on carrier while also holding a more complex guidance/seeker. They have put a MaRV warhead on DF-21 for maneuverability. In order to improve the penetration capability, they have added a third stage to it to provide unpredictable movement (I think the blog described it as some kind of oscillation). They have apparently made modifications to the warhead in order to lower its radar signature. They have also added a new multi-mode seeker that apparently has an active, passive radar and infrared seeker* (I'm not sure how that works). It didn't mention how the missile would counter ESM of the fleet except for improving the seeker and getting more updated info from the sources that provided it initial targeting data.
> 
> 4. *What are the sources that provide targeting data for this ASBM system?*
> The blog basically listed 5 sources and they are:
> 
> * *Reconnaissance Satellites* - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict. It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise.
> * *Elint satellites* - It mentioned something like USN's White Cloud Spaceborne ELINT System. The problem I have with this is that I can't find any mention of China having similar system anywhere.
> * *OTH Radar* - Has a range of 800 to 3000 km. The accuracy in targetting is around 20 to 30 km. This can be improved to 2 to 3 km with improved algorithm. OTH radar can work with the recon satellites to provide more accurate targeting info.
> * *UAV* - As mentioned above, China does have a robust UAV program going right now including the aforementioned XiangLong program. As we've seen in the Zhuhai airshow, they have numerous HALE and MALE UAV projects going. The major problem currently with Chinese UAV programs is that they simply don't have many small turbojet/turbofan engine series. As a result of having to work with what they have, the major design institute in AVIC-1 can't come up with the most optimal UAVs. I think that this will change in the next 10 years, so this part of the targeting system is behind recon satellites and OTH radar.
> * *Radio post* - This is problem the most confusing one for me. The blog talked about working with elint satellites (which I don't think they have) to get the location of the carrier group through communications between ships and satellites/aerial assets.
> 
> 
> 5. How does the launching/attacking process work?
> I think that in times of war, they would launch many micro-EO satellites that have short duration to increase reconnaissance in the area approaching Taiwan. Similar to US, they would have HALE UAVs to do advanced scouting in front of the war zone. The OTH radar will give the base initial idea of incoming fleet. This information would be combined with data of the recon satellites to provide a more precise and more accurate targeting data. The missile would be launched to the estimated position based on initial position + velocity, but this would obviously be off. Although, I think the movement of the carrier group will not be overwhelming. If the target is 2000 km away and the missile is traveling at mach 10 (343 * 3.6 * 10 = 10,000+ km/h) , it would get there in less than 12 minutes. During that time, if the fleet moves at 30 knots, it would move at most 6 knots or around 11 km from the original location. Still, if we add this to the initial precision problems of OTH radar + EO satellite, this could still cause the fleet to be outside the scanning area of the ASBM. In the cruising process, the missile would have to continuously communicate with the base through those new Data relay satellites (like TianLian-1 that they launched recently) to get more improve the precision. The ASBM will also likely veer off the path at this time, so it would need communication with Beidou-2 constellation in order to keep it on track. When it gets close to the target, the blog talked about 3 phases in its attack: high altitude guidance, high altitude gliding and low altitude guidance. I'm really not sure how accurate is the blog's description of the process. Its general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.
> 
> 6. What is the operational status of this system?
> From all the past sources I've read, it seems like PLAN already considers this system to have achieved IOC. Normally, I don't read about a certain capability developed in a Chinese military magazine until after it is attained. From reading through different sources, it looks like IOC was probably in 2007 or 2008. As mentioned before, more elements in the system like UAV and satellites are getting added as time goes on, so I look at this as a continuously evolutionary process.
> 
> 7. How beneficial is this system?
> That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its purpose.
> 
> 8. Are there other launch platforms to this system?
> I always thought that an-air launched version of ASBM from JH-7A is possible. There are certainly a large variety of short range ballistic missiles that JH-7A would be able to carry and provide updates for. I have not thought about launching ASBM from a SSBN, since that could easily be mistaken for a nuclear missile.
> 
> That's about it. I think a lot of resources on this are available to form an opinion.
> 
> Posted by *Feng* at 7:02 PM"



After a 43-post marathon on another forum, Feng's article finally convinced another die-hard skeptic today.

marshall's post:

"After reading this over, I will concede, an ASBM has a reasonable chance of becoming operationally effective. My previous opinion was not swayed because *ALL* of the other analyses I had read did not include realistic technical references and were very often tinged with an element reminiscent of a fear campaign. Those sorts of strategic analyses in my opinion are nothing more than ideologically/politically motivated rationalizations. However, this post from this "Feng" character makes a lot of sense. How the heck did China advance so fast???

So, assuming an ASBM that has say a 20-50&#37; hit probability is deployed by the hundreds within the next 10 years. Then, I will agree, this is not only a game changing weapon. It will be a turning point in history because if a supercarrier can be taken out from 2000kms out, then that means the CEP on a stationary target would be in the neighborhood of ~10m. In other words, this would mean any airforce base, and even naval bases, could be taken out of action from thousands of kilometres, with similar ballistic missiles. It's not just game changing, it wouldn't just be the end of the aircraft carrier age, it might even be the beginnings of the end of foreign *NON-ARMY* military bases. Either a radical defense platform will need to be developed to counter this, or it means the U.S. better get used to sharing Asia with China."

My reply:

"Feng is the operator of the well-respected website "China Air and Naval Power." On the front page of SinoDefence.com, Feng's website is the third "Recommended Site" on the left of the page. Feng has been chronicling China's air and naval power for four years. His website can be found at China Air and Naval Power

Feng makes a reference to: "Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat." Sean O'Connor is the operator of the highly-regarded website "IMINT & Analysis" with 432,535 visitors. His website can be found at http://geimint.blogspot.com/"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## new wave

Martian2 said:


> After a 43-post marathon on another forum, Feng's article finally "convinced" another die-hard skeptic today.
> 
> marshall's post:
> 
> "After reading this over, I will concede, an ASBM has a reasonable chance of becoming operationally effective. My previous opinion was not swayed because *ALL* of the other analyses I had read did not include realistic technical references and were very often tinged with an element reminiscent of a fear campaign. Those sorts of strategic analyses in my opinion are nothing more than ideologically/politically motivated rationalizations. However, this post from this "Feng" character makes a lot of sense. How the heck did China advance so fast???
> 
> So, assuming an ASBM that has say a 20-50% hit probability is deployed by the hundreds within the next 10 years. Then, I will agree, this is not only a game changing weapon. It will be a turning point in history because if a supercarrier can be taken out from 2000kms out, then that means the CEP on a stationary target would be in the neighborhood of ~10m. In other words, this would mean any airforce base, and even naval bases, could be taken out of action from thousands of kilometres, with similar ballistic missiles. It's not just game changing, it wouldn't just be the end of the aircraft carrier age, it might even be the beginnings of the end of foreign *NON-ARMY* military bases. Either a radical defense platform will need to be developed to counter this, or it means the U.S. better get used to sharing Asia with China."
> 
> My reply:
> 
> "Feng is the operator of the well-respected website "China Air and Naval Power." On the front page of SinoDefence.com, Feng's website is the third "Recommended Site" on the left of the page. Feng has been chronicling China's air and naval power for four years. His website can be found at China Air and Naval Power
> 
> Feng makes a reference to: "Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat." Sean O'Connor is the operator of the highly-regarded website "IMINT & Analysis" with 432,535 visitors. His website can be found at IMINT & Analysis"




Correct me if i was wrong, i read somewhere, may be sinodefence, Feng was invited by the US congress regarding as a Chinese military expert.


----------



## Martian2

new wave said:


> Correct me if i was wrong, i read somewhere, may be sinodefence, Feng was invited by the US congress regarding as a Chinese military expert.



I don't know. It's possible. Whether it's Feng or Sean O'Connor, these individuals are highly knowledgeable about China's military affairs. I've read their articles and posts for years.


----------



## Martian2

luhai said:


> Well, according to the Chinese government's website:
> "*Among the nuclear-weapon states, China* has performed the least number of nuclear tests and *possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal*. It has never taken part in any nuclear arms race or deployed any nuclear weapons outside its territory. "
> 
> *This would put China's nuclear arsenal below 200.*



You have to be careful. You could be jumping to a false conclusion. You have to interpret the Chinese government's statement from a lawyer's view and recognize the ambiguity in their claim.

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-35-125.pdf

"Estimating the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal has always relied almost exclusively on U.S. intelligence estimates, while Chinese government information about the size or composition of its nuclear forces has been almost non-existent. In the Chinese view, secrecy increases the potential adversaries uncertainty about Chinese capabilities and therefore increases the deterrent effect, although it may also  as in the case of the United States  cause that adversary to assume the worst. Perhaps in recognition of this dilemma, the *Chinese Foreign Ministry in April 2004 published a fact sheet that included the statement: Among the nuclear-weapon states, China ... possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal.*93 Since Britain has declared that it has less than 200 operationally available warheads, and the United States, Russia and France have more, *the Chinese statement could be interpreted to mean that Chinas nuclear arsenal is smaller than Britains.*94

Not surprisingly, *the devil is in the details*. When the *Chinese statement uses the word arsenal, does that mean the entire stockpile or just the portion of it that is operationally deployed? To add to the confusion, Britain has not disclosed the size of its stockpile but only declared that less than 200 warheads are operationally available. This strongly suggests that there may be additional British warheads in storage."* (see pp. 38-39)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## below_freezing

it is likely that most warheads are stored in hardenened underground bunkers ready for assembly within hours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dragonbane

reasons why this isn't possible:

1. if a bm is launched u cant tell if its conventional or nuclear and no country is stupid enough to risk a nuclear war especially against an opponent with 5000 warheads

2. even if the bm is somehow launched, and not mistaken for a nuke its not easy to hit a moving target even though its huge. an a/c moves 35 nmph and it wont just stand around

3. the guy who talked about the ASAT missle has to realise that for most satellites its easy to predict where they will be down to the second, they go around a fixed orbit so they are relatively easy to hit

4. even if the bm can somehow target something moving, it still has to go through the cruisers and destroyers equipped with the aegis system and possibly even more advanced systems that are not yet public


----------



## Martian2

dragonbane said:


> reasons why this isn't possible:
> 
> 1. if a bm is launched u cant tell if its conventional or nuclear and no country is stupid enough to risk a nuclear war especially against an opponent with 5000 warheads
> 
> 2. even if the bm is somehow launched, and not mistaken for a nuke its not easy to hit a moving target even though its huge. an a/c moves 35 nmph and it wont just stand around
> 
> 3. the guy who talked about the ASAT missle has to realise that for most satellites its easy to predict where they will be down to the second, they go around a fixed orbit so they are relatively easy to hit
> 
> 4. even if the bm can somehow target something moving, it still has to go through the cruisers and destroyers equipped with the aegis system and possibly even more advanced systems that are not yet public



1. I don't think that it's very convincing to claim that it is not possible to distinguish between a conventional and nuclear attack on an aircraft carrier battle group (i.e. CBG). China has always pledged a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. Also, the U.S. military can surely afford to wait a few minutes to see the results of the attack on a CBG before deciding on nuclear retaliation.

2. I believe that computer processing power, sensor integration, and technology has advanced to the point where an ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) is feasible.

3. I agree with you that the difficulty level progresses from ASAT (i.e. anti-satellite weapon) test to mid-course ground-based-interceptor (i.e. GBI) and then to ASBM. China has already proven that she can successfully perform an ASAT and GBI test. Many observers believe that an ASBM is within China's technological reach. Admiral Willard, head of United States Pacific Command, has already stated that China has performed tests on her ASBM. However, the details of those tests have not been disclosed by the U.S. military to the public.

4. The capability of U.S. defenses against a Chinese ASBM is unknown. However, it is important to remember that only ONE ASBM needs to penetrate the U.S. shield to cause significant damage. Is any sane U.S. admiral willing to send an U.S. carrier battle group into Chinese waters in the belief of a 100&#37; success rate in defending the CBG against multiple salvos of Chinese ASBMs and in tandem with other possible combination of cruise missiles, sea-skimming Chinese Exocets (e.g. C-802), and torpedoes?

The purpose behind developing the ASBM is to deter the United States from becoming involved in a potential war over Taiwan; if Taiwan declares independence. Judging by the numerous articles written about the dangers posed by China's ASBM, I would say that China has created sufficient doubt and the enormous sum of money spent over 13 years was a good investment.

US panic at China's new ship killer

"The institute's report said the Dong Feng missile was thought to have a range of about 2000 kilometres and a speed of Mach 10: "The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a US supercarrier in one strike."

*The result, 13 years later, is the Dong Feng 21. "It's a technological leap that's never [before] been made," says Schriver, now the head of a non-partisan research body, Project 2049 Institute*, and a founding partner of the consulting firm Armitage International.

"*The Russians couldn't do it*. If it works, it will have the range of a ballistic missile and the accuracy of a cruise missile.

"The Chinese would have the ability to hold our carriers at a great distance - it almost makes the aircraft carriers obsolete.

"*What did we do in 1996? We sent carriers. What are the Chinese doing? Taking the carriers out of the equation.*" He thinks it prudent to expect such missiles to be operating within a couple of years."


----------



## no_name

I was thinking, if they can modify JL-1A, to be ASBM then they could convert those couple old xia ballistic missile submarine into non-nuclear carrier strike force. They would stay near home water and any attempts by enemy submarines to destroy them will have to pass through china's web of diesel attack subs.

We can even have romeos lie in waiting

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dragonbane

Martin 2


1. i understand your points, but the strategy of launching multiple asbm at a battle group is the only way it will work, and no country is willing to wait even a few seconds to see if those bm's are nuclear or not. if its 1 bm then its understandable, but we are talking about MULTPLE bm's and noone is stupid enough to wait a few minutes because noone knows where they will land, maybe the cbg, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc... countries which are all under nuke umbrella. 

2. you have to understand that making missiles that can target moving objects and avoid abm systems is very complex, remember the new Buluva missile? failed 80% of the time and is designed to avoid defenses by manuvering. and Russia has many years in designing bm's and they have produced thousands of them (not irbm's like china but icbm which are more complex)

3. also gbi's are similar to asbm's their target has a fixed path although hard to hit(to date i haven't seen many missiles able to avoid gbi), its not as hard as hitting something moving in a path u cannot predict.

4. the US has invested billions on bmd and a lot of those technologies are secret, and there is also testing of laser anti missile defense, which in itsself could become operational within the next decade and could present a 2-3 generation leap against other bmd systems.


----------



## Martian2

dragonbane said:


> Martin 2
> 
> 
> 1. i understand your points, but the strategy of launching multiple asbm at a battle group is the only way it will work, and no country is willing to wait even a few seconds to see if those bm's are nuclear or not. if its 1 bm then its understandable, but we are talking about MULTPLE bm's and noone is stupid enough to wait a few minutes because noone knows where they will land, maybe the cbg, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc... countries which are all under nuke umbrella.
> 
> 2. you have to understand that making missiles that can target moving objects and avoid abm systems is very complex, remember the new Buluva missile? failed 80&#37; of the time and is designed to avoid defenses by manuvering. and Russia has many years in designing bm's and they have produced thousands of them (not irbm's like china but icbm which are more complex)
> 
> 3. also gbi's are similar to asbm's their target has a fixed path although hard to hit(to date i haven't seen many missiles able to avoid gbi), its not as hard as hitting something moving in a path u cannot predict.
> 
> 4. the US has invested billions on bmd and a lot of those technologies are secret, and there is also testing of laser anti missile defense, which in itsself could become operational within the next decade and could present a 2-3 generation leap against other bmd systems.



1. I tried and failed to find a documentary video on NORAD, which shows that they track every missile launch in the world. NORAD can quickly determine the projected target area based on the trajectory of a ballistic missile. They know where a ballistic missile is headed.

If the ballistic missile was nuclear, China would only fire a few. When China fires massive salvos, it is clear that it is a conventional ASBM strike. Also, you have forgotten that China has consistently pledged a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons.

2. You're getting China confused with Russia. China is not Russia. China's Julang-2 Trident-class SLBM was successfully tested 10 years ago. The Russians have been working on their Bulava Trident-class SLBM for 15 years and they still have no clue on how to fix the problems (see http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100305/158107604.html).

China is a first-rate military and technological power that is arguably second only to the United States. For proof, read my article on http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...52c-aegis-class-warships-ocean-dominance.html Russians are still not able to build an Aegis-class destroyer.

The United States military believes that "China is the only near-peer."

"&#8220;For the first time ever, we're really taking into account the location&#8221; of would-be adversaries, said *retired Vice Adm. Timothy LaFleur of San Diego, former commander of Naval Surface Forces* and now an executive with the defense consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton. '*Clearly, China is the only near-peer threat that's out there*.'" See China's military rebirth prompts U.S. response - Military - SignOnSanDiego.com

Nukes in the Taiwan Crisis FAS Strategic Security Blog

"CHISOP or not, however, the *March 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review* underscored the central status of China in U.S. planning: &#8220;Of the major and emerging powers, *China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States*&#8221; as it &#8220;continues to invest heavily in its military, particularly in its *strategic arsenal and capabilities* designed to improve its ability to project power beyond its borders.&#8221;

3. I've already said that I agreed that ASBM is harder than GBI. I disagree with you that GBI is very similar to an ASAT test in difficulty. In a GBI intercept, the sensors and intercept missile have very little time to react. Also, the hostile missile can fly overhead from any direction. In my opinion, due to the compressed window for reaction time and uncertainty of the hostile missile's incoming direction, a GBI test is significantly harder than an ASAT test.

Furthermore, in an ASAT test, you can always wait for the satellite to make another orbit. In a GBI test, you only get one attempt. Failure to intercept in the compressed time window means that the incoming warhead will explode on a valuable target in your country.

4. Lasers are extremely limited in usefulness. On a rainy, cloudy, or foggy day, the laser's energy will be quickly dissipated by the moisture. Lasers are only useful on clear days and nights. Lasers also have a very limited range because the air/atmosphere also absorbs laser energy.

There are many countermeasures against lasers. For starters, missiles can be spun to dissipate the energy focused on any particular spot. Another example is putting ablative armor on the missile. The bottom line is that laser anti-missile weapons are highly-experimental, have limited energy output, have limited range, useful only during clear weather, and subject to countermeasures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## applesauce

all this missile has to do is* present *a threat if it does that it has done its job, and the us seems to believe it is a threat.


----------



## Martian2

Mark Helprin: Farewell to America's China Station - WSJ.com

"* MAY 17, 2010

Farewell to America's China Station
*Beijing is poised to project ever greater power in the Pacific.* The U.S. doesn't appear up to the challenge.

By MARK HELPRIN

The United States and China are on a collision course in the Western Pacific. *Far sooner than once anticipated, China will achieve effective military parity in Asia*, general conventional parity, and nuclear parity. Then the short road to superiority will be impossible for it to ignore, as it is already on its way thanks to a brilliant policy borrowed from Japan and Israel.

That is, briefly, since Deng Xiaoping, China has understood that, without catastrophic social dislocation, *it can leverage its spectacular economic growth into X increases in per-capita GDP but many-times-X increases in military spending*. To wit, between 1988 and 2007, a tenfold increase in per-capita GDP ($256 to $2,539) but a 21-fold purchasing power parity increase in military expenditures to $122 billion from $5.78 billion. The major constraint has been that an ever increasing rate of technical advance can only be absorbed so fast even by a rapidly modernizing military.
...
*China is on the cusp of being able to use conventional satellites, swarms of miniature satellites, and networked surface, undersea, and aerial cuing for real-time terminal guidance with which to direct its 1,500 short-range ballistic missiles to the five or six aircraft carriers* the United States (after ceding control of the Panama Canal and reducing its carrier fleet by one-third since 1987) could dispatch to meet an invasion of Taiwan. *In combination with antiship weapons launched from surface vessels, submarines, and aircraft, the missile barrage is designed to keep carrier battle groups beyond effective range.* Had we built more carriers, provided them with sufficient missile defense, not neglected antisubmarine warfare, and dared consider suppression of enemy satellites and protections for our own, this would not be so.

Had we not stopped production of the F-22 at a third of the original requirement, its 2,000-mile range and definitive superiority may have allowed us to dominate the air over Taiwan nonetheless. *Nor can we "lillypad" fighters to Taiwan if its airfields are destroyed by Chinese missiles, against which we have no adequate defense.*
...
Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt), "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt) and, most recently, "Digital Barbarism" (HarperCollins)."


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> * *Reconnaissance Satellites* - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching *many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict.* It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise.


*Readers,*

Please take this speculation with some serious salt...

Space Based Radar


> A Bi-static GEO Space Radar would include a constellation of 3-4 GEO transmitters equipped with an L-band radar for airborne warning and control missions which would require a 100 m dish that would weigh 30,000 lbs and require 20+ kw of power. A Joint STARS-like radar in geosynchronous orbit would function in the S-band and would require a 25 m dish which would weigh 6,000 lbs and require 2 kw+ of power. The MEO receivers would include a constellation of 24-36 receivers at an altitude of 1600 km. For AWACS-like missions, the MEO satellites would require a 35 x 35 m array weighing 10,000 lbs. A Joint-STARS-like mission would require a 10 x 10 m receive array that would weigh 4,000 lbs.


The above example is just one of the many publicly available sources that contains reasonable details on the power requirements and antenna size of any long duration, meanings years, of space based radar systems, which of course would begs the question of what is the timespan of these speculative 'short duration micro satellites". But it is not speculative to reason that utility is proportionate to size and utility in this case mean time and power. So the smaller a 'micro satellite' that supposedly contains a radar, the smaller its antenna and therefore the less useful it will be, in terms of duration and detection capability. These 'micro satellites' could be in low orbit altitude and vulnerable to US ship based SM-3, as when we shot down US-193...

USA-193 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> ...an SM-3 missile to destroy the satellite, at an altitude of 130 nautical miles (240 km),...


So until we know the true operational orbit of these speculative 'micro satellites' the default position should be that the radar intelligence gap problem remain unsolved by China.

This ASBM system remains speculative, no matter how many times the original report is rehashed by different people, including US military leaders. The US DoD does not deny the technical feasibility but the generals and admirals are obliged to give the nation their 'worst case' scenarios. This is about regional access denial and the US military is not idle in creating means to maintain our access in time of war. Already in the subsystem level analysis, there are *CURRENT* defense mechanisms that *WILL* either render this speculative Chinese ASBM system useless or make it financially difficult for China to pursue. For example, over-the-horizon radar systems can be destroyed by B-2 bombers in concert with ship launched cruise missiles, creating a radar intelligence gap for this ASBM system. Would China launch several ASBMs against these smaller ships, thereby depleting stocks that could turn a favorable tide for China in a naval conflict against US? How would China defend these large OTH radar stations against sub launched cruise missiles?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> *Readers,*
> 
> Please take this speculation with some serious salt...
> 
> Space Based Radar
> 
> The above example is just one of the many publicly available sources that contains reasonable details on the power requirements and antenna size of any long duration, meanings years, of space based radar systems, which of course would begs the question of what is the timespan of these speculative 'short duration micro satellites". But it is not speculative to reason that utility is proportionate to size and utility in this case mean time and power. So the smaller a 'micro satellite' that supposedly contains a radar, the smaller its antenna and therefore the less useful it will be, in terms of duration and detection capability. These 'micro satellites' could be in low orbit altitude and vulnerable to US ship based SM-3, as when we shot down US-193...
> 
> USA-193 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So until we know the true operational orbit of these speculative 'micro satellites' the default position should be that the radar intelligence gap problem remain unsolved by China.
> 
> This ASBM system remains speculative, no matter how many times the original report is rehashed by different people, including US military leaders. The US DoD does not deny the technical feasibility but the generals and admirals are obliged to give the nation their 'worst case' scenarios. This is about regional access denial and the US military is not idle in creating means to maintain our access in time of war. Already in the subsystem level analysis, there are *CURRENT* defense mechanisms that *WILL* either render this speculative Chinese ASBM system useless or make it financially difficult for China to pursue. For example, over-the-horizon radar systems can be destroyed by B-2 bombers in concert with ship launched cruise missiles, creating a radar intelligence gap for this ASBM system. Would China launch several ASBMs against these smaller ships, thereby depleting stocks that could turn a favorable tide for China in a naval conflict against US? How would China defend these large OTH radar stations against sub launched cruise missiles?



If I were in China's position, my first step would be to launch many more reconnaissance satellites. I would place an even greater priority on developing stealth satellites to make them more survivable. Also, I would consider developing satellites with defensive capabilities (e.g. decoys, its own kinetic weapons, or laser for defense).

Another route that I would pursue is to develop long-range stealth UAVs. The goal is to gain targeting data on the carriers from sensors. It doesn't matter whether it's from a satellite or UAV.

As the article in the Wall Street Journal (i.e. WSJ) suggested, China may be able to acquire targeting data on carriers from underwater sensors, such as semi-buried underwater passive listening devices and/or through submarines.

Finally, the WSJ noted that anti-ship missiles themselves pose a significant danger to U.S. carriers. "In combination with *antiship weapons launched from surface vessels, submarines, and aircraft, the missile barrage is designed to keep carrier battle groups beyond effective range*." Just as in the case of ASBMs, only one anti-ship missile needs to penetrate U.S. defenses to cause significant damage. To understand the destructive power of a single anti-ship missile (e.g. French Exocet or Chinese "Exocet"/C-802), watch the video below. The dilemma remains the same. Is an admiral willing to risk capital ships in the belief of a 100&#37; effective defense against swarms of Chinese anti-ship missiles and torpedoes?

Whether it's through ASBM and/or anti-ship weapons, as long as carrier battle groups are kept "beyond effective range," China has accomplished her strategic objective of delaying or negating the U.S. Navy's interference in a potential military conflict over the Taiwan Straits.





"ColdWarWarriors &#8212; January 13, 2009 &#8212; *HMS Sheffield is sunk by an Argentinian Exocet missile in the Falklands war 1982.*"






"paradisedriver &#8212; August 01, 2008 &#8212; *Training exercise video showing a "kill" in one shot.*"
[China's Yu-6 torpedo is the equivalent of an U.S. Mark-48 torpedo, which was used in the video.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> If I were in China's position, my first step would be to launch many more reconnaissance satellites. I would place an even greater priority on developing stealth satellites to make them more survivable. Also, I would consider developing satellites with defensive capabilities (e.g. decoys, its own kinetic weapons, or laser for defense).
> 
> Another route that I would pursue is to develop long-range stealth UAVs. The goal is to gain targeting data on the carriers from sensors. It doesn't matter whether it's from a satellite or UAV.
> 
> As the article in the Wall Street Journal (i.e. WSJ) suggested, China may be able to acquire targeting data on carriers from underwater sensors, such as semi-buried underwater passive listening devices and/or through submarines.
> 
> Finally, the WSJ noted that anti-ship missiles themselves pose a significant danger to U.S. carriers. "In combination with *antiship weapons launched from surface vessels, submarines, and aircraft, the missile barrage is designed to keep carrier battle groups beyond effective range*." Just as in the case of ASBMs, only one anti-ship missile needs to penetrate U.S. defenses to cause significant damage. To understand the destructive power of a single anti-ship missile (e.g. French Exocet or Chinese "Exocet"/C-802), watch the video below. The dilemma remains the same. Is an admiral willing to risk capital ships in the belief of a 100% effective defense against swarms of Chinese anti-ship missiles and torpedoes?
> 
> Whether it's through ASBM and/or anti-ship weapons, as long as carrier battle groups are kept "beyond effective range," China has accomplished her strategic objective of delaying or negating the U.S. Navy's interference in a potential military conflict over the Taiwan Straits.


Everything above is what I pointed out -- subsystems -- that are necessary, either as standalone system or in support of an ASBM system. For the former, we have proven countermeasures and if they are also necessary to support an ASBM system, their countermeasures would make it financially draining to develop and deploy an ASBM system. Your videos serves nothing more than to distract attention from what you cannot dispute.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Everything above is what I pointed out -- subsystems -- that are necessary, either as standalone system or in support of an ASBM system. For the former, we have proven countermeasures and if they are also necessary to support an ASBM system, their countermeasures would make it financially draining to develop and deploy an ASBM system. Your videos serves nothing more than to distract attention from what you cannot dispute.





Martian2 said:


> The strategy is to overwhelm the limited defense capabilities of a carrier group and to give them little time to react.
> 
> "If I were a Chinese general, I believe that I can sink the U.S. Navy if they come within range of my weapons.
> 
> *I would use a combined attack.* All attacks will be coordinated to arrive near-simultaneously at the target. I would designate a salvo of 50 *ASBMs* (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missiles) per carrier and 10 ASBMs per Aegis destroyer. I would simultaneously send swarms of *CJ-10 cruise missiles* at the U.S. ships. I would also deploy salvos of *Chinese Exocets (i.e. C-802s)*. On the sea, I would send groups of "Type 022 (Houbei Class) Fast Attack Missile Crafts." Finally, I would also send swarms of attack submarines (i.e. Type 093 Shangs, Yuans, Songs, and Kilos) to fire *Yu-6 (i.e. Mark 48-class) torpedoes* at the U.S. ships.
> 
> If the U.S. Navy can survive a concentrated bombardment from space, air, sea-skimming missiles, and underwater torpedoes then they truly are the best in the world. If not, the U.S. Navy will be at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. If the U.S. wants to bully China, they can *expect China to hit the U.S. Navy with everything in the Chinese arsenal. The U.S. has never been tested by a massive combined attack.* There is a good chance that the U.S. Navy will not survive."



I don't believe that you understand the point behind the article "China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier." I suggest that you reread the first few paragraphs. China's ASBM was merely an additional component to an already complex threat to U.S. Navy capital ships.

U.S. Navy capital ships faced threats from the air/cruise missiles, sea/sea-skimming Chinese "Exocets," and underwater/Yu-6 "Mark 48-class" torpedoes. China's ASBM added an extra dimension of an attack from space/ballistic missiles.

The U.S. Navy will have to take additional steps to try and neutralize China's ASBM system. Whether they will be successful, I don't know. Only an actual war can reveal which side was successful in executing their strategy.

China's ASBM is a mere component in a complex Chinese strategy of sea denial and/or delay of U.S. naval help for Taiwan. Pointing out a few weaknesses in China's existing ASBM sensor system does not lessen China's ability to wage blitzkrieg on U.S. carriers.

Finally, I will repeat the WSJ's point again. If China has placed significant numbers of underwater passive listening devices and they can triangulate the carrier's position from the sound of its propellers then the vulnerability of China's OTH radars is irrelevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I don't believe that you understand the point behind the article "China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier."


Yes I do.



Martian2 said:


> I suggest that you reread the first few paragraphs. China's ASBM was merely an additional component to an already complex threat to U.S. Navy capital ships.


Currently, the PLAN does not have a 'complex' threat to a US aircraft carrier battlegroup. 



Martian2 said:


> U.S. Navy capital ships faced threats from the air/cruise missiles, sea/sea-skimming Chinese "Exocets," and underwater/Yu-6 "Mark 48-class" torpedoes. China's ASBM added an extra dimension of an attack from space/ballistic missile.


Low level sea cruise missiles have the same vulnerabilities as their over land cousins -- limited radar horizon. As long as the fleet has AWACS coverage, the cruise missile threat is not sufficient to deter the fleet. As for torpedoes, they are launched by submarines and the fleet does not sail without sub escorts. Again...Another threat, while not eliminated, is sufficiently degraded to where it does not offer a credible deterrence.



Martian2 said:


> The U.S. Navy will have to take additional steps to try and neutralize China's ASBM system. Whether they will be successful, I don't know. *Only an actual war can reveal which side was successful in executing their strategy.*


One that China cannot afford to take the risk of losing. Iraq offered a more subtle lesson that the Chinese military leadership are more willing to admit than your clouded perception allowed you to see. Analysts the world over predicted tens of thousands allied casualties for Desert Storm. In the end, our troops were more afraid of 'frats' than we were of enemy fire. No matter how much contempt you may have for the Iraqi military, contempt cannot replace objective analyses. The fact is that China is at least one generation, more like two, overall behind US in power projection capabilities and how to bypass obstacles to that projection.



Martian2 said:


> China's ASBM is a mere component in a complex Chinese strategy of sea denial and/or delay of U.S. naval help for Taiwan. *Pointing out a few weaknesses in China's existing ASBM sensor system does not lessen China's ability to wage blitzkrieg on U.S. carriers.*


Of course it does. Long range strikes *ALWAYS* depend on intelligence. The lower this range figure, the lower the efficacy index of said weapon system.



Martian2 said:


> Finally, I will repeat the WSJ's point again. If China has placed significant numbers of underwater passive listening devices and they can triangulate the carrier's position from the sound of its propellers then the vulnerability of China's OTH radars is irrelevant.


If...??? How long into the future is this 'if'? Do you even know how sonar works and its vulnerabilities?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> 
> *Currently, the PLAN does not have a 'complex' threat to a US aircraft carrier battlegroup.
> *
> 
> Low level sea cruise missiles have the same vulnerabilities as their over land cousins -- limited radar horizon. As long as the fleet has AWACS coverage, the cruise missile threat is not sufficient to deter the fleet. As for torpedoes, they are launched by submarines and the fleet does not sail without sub escorts. Again...Another threat, while not eliminated, is sufficiently degraded to where it does not offer a credible deterrence.
> 
> 
> One that China cannot afford to take the risk of losing. Iraq offered a more subtle lesson that the Chinese military leadership are more willing to admit than your clouded perception allowed you to see. Analysts the world over predicted tens of thousands allied casualties for Desert Storm. In the end, our troops were more afraid of 'frats' than we were of enemy fire. No matter how much contempt you may have for the Iraqi military, contempt cannot replace objective analyses. The fact is that China is at least one generation, more like two, overall behind US in power projection capabilities and how to bypass obstacles to that projection.
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Long range strikes *ALWAYS* depend on intelligence. The lower this range figure, the lower the efficacy index of said weapon system.
> 
> 
> *If...??? How long into the future is this 'if'? Do you even know how sonar works and its vulnerabilities?*



From almost every media source that I can find, including CBS News and the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. government and military take the threat seriously.

You are among the few die-hard skeptics who believe that China does not pose a serious/"complex" threat to an U.S. carrier group. That's your prerogative.

Blah blah blah about Iraq. Whatever.

The technology is 49 years old. It is silly to claim that China has not or cannot duplicate SOSUS in the waters off of China.

SOSUS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*SOSUS, an acronym for Sound Surveillance System, is a chain of underwater listening posts* across the northern Atlantic Ocean near Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom &#8212; the GIUK gap. It was originally operated by the United States Navy for tracking Soviet submarines, which had to pass through the gap to attack targets further west. Other locations in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean also had SOSUS stations. It was later supplemented by mobile assets such as the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS), and became part of the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS). Many other listening posts are still in operation around the world.
...

First SOSUS sensors

SOSUS goes operational

*In 1961, SOSUS tracked the USS George Washington (SSBN-598) from the United States to the United Kingdom.* The next year SOSUS detected and tracked its first Soviet diesel submarine. Later that year the SOSUS test system in the Bahamas tracked a Soviet Foxtrot class submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis. SOSUS was upgraded a number of times as submarines became quieter.

*SOSUS systems consisted of bottom mounted hydrophone arrays connected by underwater cables to facilities ashore.* The individual arrays were installed primarily on continental slopes and seamounts at locations optimized for undistorted long range acoustic propagation. *The combination of location within the ocean and the sensitivity of arrays allowed the system to detect acoustic power of less than a watt at ranges of several hundred kilometers.*"

China can build this:


Type 052C Aegis-class destroyer #171 Haikou


But not this???


A hydrophone


----------



## Cityboy

Great posts gambit. . Thanks for posting some physics and bursting yet again propaganda like photoshop jxx pics. .fanboys got their dose of reality


----------



## below_freezing

Maulik said:


> Great posts gambit. . Thanks for posting some physics and bursting yet again propaganda like photoshop jxx pics. .fanboys got their dose of reality



where's the physics?

i want to see some equations on here.

the only one that has offered a quantitative analysis is gpit. in physics, 1 number is worth 10 words.


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> where's the physics?
> 
> i want to see some equations on here.
> 
> the only one that has offered a quantitative analysis is gpit. in physics, 1 number is worth 10 words.


Yeah...The guy consistently refused to answer the most essential 15 words: Show me sources that say diffraction fields are irrelevant in RCS prediction and reduction techniques.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> From almost every media source that I can find, including CBS News and the Wall Street Journal, *the U.S. government and military take the threat seriously.*
> 
> You are among the few die-hard skeptics who believe that China does not pose a serious/"complex" threat to an U.S. carrier group. That's your prerogative.


Of course we should. But nowhere does it mean we are in a 'panic' as the sensationalist headliners would like to portray US.



Martian2 said:


> Blah blah blah about Iraq. Whatever.


Too bad for you the Chinese military leadership does not consider Iraq to be 'blah'.



Martian2 said:


> The technology is 49 years old. It is silly to claim that China has not or cannot duplicate SOSUS in the waters off of China.


Where did I say China cannot copy SOSUS?

Anyway...SOSUS was successful against the older generation of sub, nuclear or else, that are much noisier than modern subs. Today, SOSUS has been relegated to civilian R/D efforts. Sonar detection degradation is far worse a problem than with radar detection. The density of the medium is the cause. What SOSUS did was to remember a particular acoustic signature and track its dislocation from one sensor post to the next. Because of issues like temperature variations, aka thermoclines, the next sensor post did not always detect that acoustic signature. So when the next sensor post does detect it, we now have a large geographical dislocation of said target.

The best weapon against a sub is still another sub, complemented by surface deployed sonar detection. Given how quiet are our nuclear subs, I do wish China great success in deploying a SOSUS-like system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Of course we should. But nowhere does it mean we are in a 'panic' as the sensationalist headliners would like to portray US.
> 
> 
> Too bad for you the Chinese military leadership does not consider Iraq to be 'blah'.
> 
> 
> Where did I say China cannot copy SOSUS?
> 
> Anyway...SOSUS was successful against the older generation of sub, nuclear or else, that are much noisier than modern subs. Today, SOSUS has been relegated to civilian R/D efforts. Sonar detection degradation is far worse a problem than with radar detection. The density of the medium is the cause. What SOSUS did was to remember a particular acoustic signature and track its dislocation from one sensor post to the next. Because of issues like temperature variations, aka thermoclines, the next sensor post did not always detect that acoustic signature. So when the next sensor post does detect it, we now have a large geographical dislocation of said target.
> 
> The best weapon against a sub is still another sub, complemented by surface deployed sonar detection. Given how quiet are our nuclear subs, I do wish China great success in deploying a SOSUS-like system.



Fact 1: Giant carrier propeller generates huge amount of energy.



Fact 2: A SOSUS-like system can "detect acoustic power of *less than a watt at ranges of several hundred kilometers*." The carrier propeller is generating an unimaginably greater amount of energy "than a watt." For comparison, the light bulb in your room is probably 100 watts. 100 watts cannot spin a carrier propeller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

"SOSUS systems consisted of bottom mounted hydrophone arrays connected by underwater cables to facilities ashore. The individual arrays were installed primarily on continental slopes and seamounts at locations optimized for undistorted long range acoustic propagation. The combination of location within the ocean and the sensitivity of arrays allowed the system to detect acoustic power of less than a watt at ranges of several hundred kilometers."

Fact 3: Using the data from a SOSUS-like system, the location of an aircraft carrier can be determined through acoustic location. "Multiple passive sonars can be used for range localization by *triangulation* or correlation, directly."

Acoustic location - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Sonar

SONAR (SOund Navigation And Ranging) &#8212; or sonar &#8212; is a technique that uses sound propagation under water (or occasionally in air) to navigate, communicate or to detect other vessels. There are two kinds of sonar &#8212; active and passive. A single active sonar can localize in range and bearing as well as measuring radial speed. However, a single passive sonar can only localize in bearing directly, though target motion analysis can be used to localize in range, given time. *Multiple passive sonars can be used for range localization by triangulation or correlation, directly.*"

Final step: Transmit the data for the location of the carrier to China's ASBMs. ASBMs will be raining down on the carrier group.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Fact 1: *Giant carrier propeller generates huge amount of energy.*
> 
> Fact 2: A SOSUS-like system can "detect acoustic power of *less than a watt at ranges of several hundred kilometers*." The carrier propeller is generating an unimaginably greater amount of energy "than a watt." For comparison, the light bulb in your room is probably 100 watts. *100 watts cannot spin a carrier propeller.*


I cannot help but chuckle at the highlighted above. I have to save this. You are saying that power generated, an output, is the exact same level as input. You are saying that the nuclear reactor of a Nimitz class carrier output is 190Mw so the power level of the sonar signature is the same level: *'100 watts cannot spin a carrier propeller'*.

What I see are not facts but comical attempts at making up 'facts' and the continuation of violations of the laws of physics to support said made up 'facts'.

One hundred watts cannot rotate an aircraft carrier's propeller. A Nimitz class nuclear reactor generate 190Mw. Therefore, the sonar signature of the screws must be 190Mw, or somewhere around that level. May be am missing something in the translation here.

Anyway...A surface ship's sonar detection is based upon mechanically generated noises and cavitation flow. SOSUS or a SOSUS-like sensor system would have no problems picking up any surface noises such as those generated by ships. But SOSUS was created mainly to detect the low freqs screw noises generated by subs and we are talking about deterring an aircraft carrier fleet to at least one thousand km out, not several hundreds as that distance is within strike range. So what good is this sensor net if it cannot provide target information beyond one thousand km?

Oh...Of course...The ship's screws are generating 190Mw of underwater noise power level...!!!

SOFAR channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The SOFAR channel (short for Sound Fixing and Ranging channel), or deep sound channel (DSC),[1] is a horizontal layer of water in the ocean at the depth at which the speed of sound is minimal. The SOFAR channel acts as a waveguide for sound, and *low frequency sound waves within the channel may travel thousands of miles before dissipating.*[2] This phenomenon is an important factor in submarine warfare.


SOSUS sensors were positioned deep enough to exploit this underwater feature -- deep sound channels. But for a surface noise generator, there is something called a 'shadow zone' in sonar detection...

SOFAR channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In underwater acoustics, a region in which very little sound energy penetrates, depending upon the strength of the lower boundary of the surface duct. It is usually bounded by the lower boundary of the surface duct and the limiting ray. There are two *shadow zones*: the sea surface, beneath which a shadow is cast by the surface in the sound field of a shallow source, and the deep-sea bottom, which produces a shadow zone in the upward-refracting water above it.





The sub is a passive sensor. Its current depth would not give it very accurate surface location of that surface noise generator -- the ship. Range equation states that power density decreases with distance. But in dealing with thermoclines, sonar detection is often restricted to two dimensions. That is why SOSUS was successful during the Cold War against subs because subs *NEEDS* to go deep. Sea water density increases with depth. EM wave speed decreases in thick medium, like water. On the other hand, sound wave speed *INCREASES* in the same thick medium. But sound waves also *BENDS* as they travels through different density layers. The refraction effect gets more pronounced with increasing sound wave speed and density levels. Depth is the sub's protection against detection but because of the shadow zones, depth also limit or can even prevent the sub from detecting surface noise generators -- ships.

So if China intends to deploy passive sensors against surface ships, the net will not be far off shore, thereby limiting its effective detection range to within several hundreds km, within the carrier's air wing strike distance. As the illustration shows, there would be multiple sonar echoes created by the water surface, generating multiple locations of the same ship. The sun will create temperature gradients well below the ship's hull. Add in salinity. The result is called 'anomalous propagations due to acoustic refractions'.

Refraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In underwater acoustics, *refraction* is the bending or curving of a sound ray that results when the ray passes through a sound speed gradient from a region of one sound speed to a region of a different speed. The amount of ray bending is dependent upon the amount of difference between sound speeds, that is, the *variation in temperature, salinity, and pressure of the water*.


It is only in your dream that a SOSUS-like sensor net can provide sufficient target information -- to a single ship -- for an ASBM system. The problem here is that you and fanboys like you eagerly grasp on to the most general information put out by other fanboys or by popular media not interested in details in the ones I pointed out above. SOSUS was not perfect and we never claimed it to be. SOSUS did not 'track' any target in the popular context of the word. SOSUS was successful because the Soviets were technologically inferior to US. But in this case, China would be replicating something we retired. We created it, we know how to defeat it or reduce its efficacy.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I cannot help but chuckle at the highlighted above. I have to save this. You are saying that power generated, an output, is the exact same level as input. You are saying that the nuclear reactor of a Nimitz class carrier output is 190Mw so the power level of the sonar signature is the same level: *'100 watts cannot spin a carrier propeller'*.
> 
> What I see are not facts but comical attempts at making up 'facts' and the continuation of violations of the laws of physics to support said made up 'facts'.
> 
> One hundred watts cannot rotate an aircraft carrier's propeller. A Nimitz class nuclear reactor generate 190Mw. Therefore, the sonar signature of the screws must be 190Mw, or somewhere around that level. May be am missing something in the translation here.
> 
> Anyway...A surface ship's sonar detection is based upon mechanically generated noises and cavitation flow. SOSUS or a SOSUS-like sensor system would have no problems picking up any surface noises such as those generated by ships. But SOSUS was created mainly to detect the low freqs screw noises generated by subs and we are talking about deterring an aircraft carrier fleet to at least one thousand km out, not several hundreds as that distance is within strike range. So what good is this sensor net if it cannot provide target information beyond one thousand km?
> 
> Oh...Of course...The ship's screws are generating 190Mw of underwater noise power level...!!!
> 
> SOFAR channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> SOSUS sensors were positioned deep enough to exploit this underwater feature -- deep sound channels. But for a surface noise generator, there is something called a 'shadow zone' in sonar detection...
> 
> SOFAR channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sub is a passive sensor. Its current depth would not give it very accurate surface location of that surface noise generator -- the ship. Range equation states that power density decreases with distance. But in dealing with thermoclines, sonar detection is often restricted to two dimensions. That is why SOSUS was successful during the Cold War against subs because subs *NEEDS* to go deep. Sea water density increases with depth. EM wave speed decreases in thick medium, like water. On the other hand, sound wave speed *INCREASES* in the same thick medium. But sound waves also *BENDS* as they travels through different density layers. The refraction effect gets more pronounced with increasing sound wave speed and density levels. Depth is the sub's protection against detection but because of the shadow zones, depth also limit or can even prevent the sub from detecting surface noise generators -- ships.
> 
> So if China intends to deploy passive sensors against surface ships, the net will not be far off shore, thereby limiting its effective detection range to within several hundreds km, within the carrier's air wing strike distance. As the illustration shows, there would be multiple sonar echoes created by the water surface, generating multiple locations of the same ship. The sun will create temperature gradients well below the ship's hull. Add in salinity. The result is called 'anomalous propagations due to acoustic refractions'.
> 
> Refraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It is only in your dream that a SOSUS-like sensor net can provide sufficient target information -- to a single ship -- for an ASBM system. The problem here is that you and fanboys like you eagerly grasp on to the most general information put out by other fanboys or by popular media not interested in details in the ones I pointed out above. SOSUS was not perfect and we never claimed it to be. SOSUS did not 'track' any target in the popular context of the word. SOSUS was successful because the Soviets were technologically inferior to US. But in this case, China would be replicating something we retired. We created it, we know how to defeat it or reduce its efficacy.



You seem to have a problem in understanding a very simple concept. Let's try this again.

Just like in SOSUS, China's hydrophones will be located near the continental shelf. "The *individual arrays were installed primarily on continental slopes* and *seamounts at locations optimized for undistorted long range acoustic propagation*." (see SOSUS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Fact 1: Location of China's hydrophones are already roughly 350 Km out to sea (e.g. equivalent to 210 miles; if you use nautical miles then the distance is pushed out a little further).

The Delimitation of East China Sea Continental Shelf&#163;&#186;Sino-Japanese Disputes from the Perspective of International Law

"The continental shelf between China and Japan is 325 nautical miles in width at maximum, 167 nautical miles at minimum and *216 nautical miles in average*, ..."

Fact 2: SOSUS-like system can "*detect acoustic power of less than a watt at ranges of several hundred kilometers.*"

Putting facts (1) + (2) together, this means that if a carrier propeller generated less than a watt of acoustic energy then China's SOSUS-like system can detect an aircraft carrier out to 650 Km or more.

Math: Hydrophones are located 350 Km from coast on continental shelf + several hundred kilometers (e.g. 300 Km or more) = ballpark 650 Km range.

Fact 3: Giant carrier propellers generate an enormous amount of acoustic energy as they spin and push a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier through the water. An extremely conservative detection range of the carrier's propellers is at least 950Km or roughly 1,000 Km.

Hydrophones can detect the acoustic energy of giant carrier propellers at distances far in excess of a mere "several hundred kilometers." Despite the incredibly noisy carrier propellers, we'll be extremely conservative and add a mere 300 Km to the hydrophones' existing detection range. In reality, the hydrophones' detection range will be far in excess of 300 Km because the acoustic energy level jumped from "less than a watt" to "something really huge."

Fact 4: The acoustic data from the hydrophones are "*undistorted*." SOSUS-like hydrophones are intentionally placed at "*seamounts at locations optimized for undistorted long range acoustic propagation*." (see SOSUS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Fact 5: Combine the acoustic data from China's SOSUS-like system and use "acoustic location" and triangulation to determine location of carrier (see Acoustic location - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Final step: Transmit the data for the location of the carrier to China's ASBMs. ASBMs will be raining down on the carrier group.

Is this clear enough for everyone? Or are some of you still confused?

[Note: A quick comment on the level of the carrier propellers' acoustic energy. I use a description like "something really huge" because I don't know the exact figure. Also, the figure will change depending on the speed of rotation of the propeller.

Knowing that a Nimitz carrier has two reactors that can each generate up to 190 MW doesn't get me very far. What proportion is used for onboard electrical use and what proportion is directed to the four bronze propellers? Does anyone also happen to know the "loss" rate in mechanical energy transmission? Just like the powertrain in your car, energy is wasted in the transmission system and driveshaft.

Next, does anyone know what proportion of the propeller's energy is consumed by productive kinetic energy conversion and what proportion is converted into acoustic energy? I don't know the answer to that question either.

Finally, I don't think that it's important to become obsessed over what I consider to be an unimportant minor detail. Take one look at the wake of an aircraft carrier and you can tell that a "really huge" amount of acoustic energy is helping to make those bubbles. Common sense should indicate that China can probably locate the aircraft carrier a lot further than 1,000 Km.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You seem to have a problem in understanding a very simple concept.


And you are no different than the other Chinese fanboys here who simply repeat the same arguments when faced with details that they cannot dispute. Long range acoustics is best when the sensor is at a certain depth to exploit 'deep sound channels', but that same depth would place the sensor in the 'shadow zones' where thermoclines can render surface noise generators unreliable as to their precise surface locations. Above the 'shadow zones' we have anomalous propagations caused by surface reflections and the same temperature and density gradients. If things are as easy as you try to fool people here, then why bother with sonar school anyway?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And you are no different than the other Chinese fanboys here who simply repeat the same arguments when faced with details that they cannot dispute. Long range acoustics is best when the sensor is at a certain depth to exploit 'deep sound channels', but that same depth would place the sensor in the 'shadow zones' where thermoclines can render surface noise generators unreliable as to their precise surface locations. Above the 'shadow zones' we have anomalous propagations caused by surface reflections and the same temperature and density gradients. If things are as easy as you try to fool people here, then why bother with sonar school anyway?









Take a look at the picture of the continental shelf. Arrays of hydrophones can be placed in water that is no deeper than 100m to avoid thermoclines. Or, if you're willing to spend the money, a country can place arrays of hydrophones at different depths along the continental slope. This approach would be similar to the placement of hydrophones at different depths by a group of U.S. destroyers with their towed array detectors.

To repeat, for those who do not understand, water that is 100m or less form essentially one layer. Arrays of hydrophones in 100m or less can avoid a thermocline and easily detect the sound of an aircraft carrier propeller.

I never claimed that it was easy. However, the physics is pretty straightforward. China has the sicentists, technology, money, and computer processing power to utilize a 49 year-old technology to find a "really huge" carrier propeller acoustic source. Why is that a big deal? It's a lot easier than building a sophisticated Aegis-class destroyer, which is NOT a 49 year-old technology.

Thermocline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Waves mix the water near the surface layer and distribute heat to deeper water, such that the *temperature may be relatively uniform for up to 100 m (300 ft)*, depending on wave strength and the existence of surface turbulence caused by currents. Below this mixed layer, however, the temperature remains relatively stable over day/night cycles. The *temperature of the deep ocean drops gradually with depth*."


"Graph showing a tropical ocean *thermocline* (depth vs. temperature). *Note the rapid change between 100 and 200 meters.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

*Readers,*

Here are the facts...

Oxygen minimum zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The Oxygen minimum zone (OMZ), sometimes referred to as the *shadow zone*, is the zone in which oxygen saturation in seawater in the ocean is at its lowest. This zone *occurs at depths of about 200 to 1,000 metres, depending on local circumstances.*



Acoustic Modem &mdash; Nortek AS


> Shadow Zones A shadow zone is defined as a region with no direct path of acoustic energy, and only reflected energy may enter this zone. An acoustic shadow zone will occur if the speed of sound profile is not uniform; this will lead to *bending of the transmission path or rays.* A conceptual example is presented in the figure below. The trouble with shadow zones is that they can often exist with a mildly non-uniform speed of sound profile, and that they are usually non-stationary over time. This means that *a location may have variable reception.*


The word 'location' in the product blurb mean a sensor location.

SOSUS, beginning with Project Caesar back in the 1950s, were installing sensors from 200-something fathoms. 

SOSUS The "Secret Weapon" of Undersea Surveillance


> The first prototype of a full-size SOSUS installation  a 1,000-foot-long line array of 40 hydrophone elements in *240 fathoms of water*  was deployed on the bottom off Eleuthera by a British cable layer in January 1952.


...And later sensors were going as deep as 1000 fathoms to avoid shadow zones and to exploit deep sound channels.

Here is the fathom to meters conversion...

Fathoms to Meters Conversion Calculator

So for the original SOSUS we have sensors in shadow zones in some areas and below the shadow zones in other areas. The issue is not detection but about accuracy and precision of those detection, which of course create a certain level of uncertainty. At worst, the sensor may not detect any surface noise generators at all because of these zones. But because the original SOSUS were placed at those depths, they were successful against subs because that was the intent -- submarine warfare. If surface ships cannot detect subs that are below the shadow zone, then neither can the sub nor any passive sensor that is below the shadow zone can detect any surface noise generators. The depth location of a shadow zone, as shown, are not constant. What we see in this debate is either the inability or deceitful refusal to connect these separate factors.


----------



## Martian2

For those of you who don't have your minds stuck in the Dark Ages, this is very simple.

49 years ago, the United States built passive sonar detectors to find Soviet submarines. The United States placed the detectors at the appropriate thermocline suitable for submarines. Using triangulation, the United States was able to determine the location of Soviet subs.

Today, China has a different use for passive sonar detectors. China wants to find the location of U.S. carriers and destroyers. China's task is immensely easier because 100,000 ton aircraft carriers are noisy as hell and nothing like extremely quiet nuclear powered submarines. China will place her hydrophones in the appropriate thermocline for surface ships.

Using the same principles of trigonometry that all of us learned in high school, China can triangulate and determine the position of U.S. carriers. You may not like the result, but too bad.

SOSUS Sosus System Ocean Atlantic Installed Sound Stations

"SOSUS, an acronym for SOund SUrveillance System, was a chain of underwater listening posts located for the most part across the northern Atlantic Ocean near Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom -- the so-called GIUK gap. It is operated by the US Navy originally with the purpose of tracking Soviet submarines, which would have had to pass through the gap in order to attack shipping in the Atlantic. A selection of sites in other locations in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean have also had SOSUS stations installed.

SOSUS development was started by the Committee for Undersea Warfare in *1949*, a panel formed by the U.S. Navy in order to further research into anti-submarine warfare. At the time the main concern was snorkeling diesel submarines, and the panel quickly decided that the solution was to use low-frequency *sound detectors which would be able to hear the sound of their engines from hundreds of kilometres. Each site would consist of several detectors, allowing them to triangulate the position of the submarine.* They recommended that $10 million be spent annually to develop such systems."

I'll let the other guy rant about oxygen levels or whatever he feels like.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> For those of you who don't have your minds stuck in the Dark Ages, this is very simple.
> 
> 49 years ago, the United States built passive sonar detectors to find Soviet submarines. The United States placed the detectors at the appropriate thermocline suitable for submarines. Using triangulation, the United States was able to determine the location of Soviet subs.
> 
> Today, China has a different use for passive sonar detectors. China wants to find the location of U.S. carriers and destroyers. *China's task is immensely easier because 100,000 ton aircraft carriers are noisy as hell* and nothing like extremely quiet nuclear powered submarines. China will place her hydrophones in the appropriate thermocline for surface ships.


*Readers,*

This is exactly what I am talking about -- making up 'facts' and violating the laws of physics.

Ship propellers generate low freqs from their rpm, usually at around 200-300, even for aircraft carriers. This translate to a blade freq of around 20hz and below. Human hearing range is 20-20khz. Low frequency sonar is within the same range and their maximum travel distance is...

Australian Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises - Sonar and seismic impacts


> Low-frequency (LF). Low frequency sonars have been defined as those that emit sound *below 1000 Hz*. These sonars are designed to provide theatre level protection, such as for an Aircraft Carrier Task Group out to many miles (*up to 200 miles*) from the ships.


Ships are noise generators. A noise generator create an active sonar 'ping'. So if an active low freq sonar has a maximum distance of around 200 miles, how is it possible that the blade noise of an aircraft carrier can travel thousands of miles?

Chinese fanboy 'physics', of course...

Here are the real physics...

Sound Transmission in the Ocean - sea, depth, oceans, temperature, salt, system, wave, marine, salinity, Pacific


> Specific combinations of temperature, pressure, and salinity may act to create shadow zones, or reflective layers, that are resistant to the propagation of sound waves.


So we have conditions where it is very possible that sound wave propagation does not exist, otherwise its origin is difficult to determine. Blade noise cannot exist if the ship is stationary. So if there are conditions where sound wave propagation is resisted, it would be even more difficult to determine the position of a moving ship.



> A specific set of conditions, however, also act to create a channel through which sound waves propagate at minimal speed but with minimal loss of strength.


Now we getting somewhere...



> ...*at a depth of approximately 750 meters (2,460 feet), the variations in temperature become so slight that the water becomes essentially isothermal (of uniform temperature).* From that point, the speed of sound is regulated more by changes in pressure that accompany the increasing depth.
> 
> Because sound wave transmission speed is directly proportional to pressure, the speed of sound increases as the pressure increases with depth. Accordingly, at the interface of the thermocline and the isothermal depths, there exists a region of minimal speed of sound. This interface creates a sound "pipeline," or "deep sound channel," within the oceans that allows the *transmission of low-frequency sound over thousands of kilometers.*
> 
> Sound waves can be trapped effectively in the narrow SOFAR channel. Traveling at minimum velocity, the sound waves lose little energy, allowing the waves to *propagate over distances in excess of 25,000 kilometers (15,500 miles)*.


Aah...So it is possible for low freq sound waves to travel thousands of km of distance. Except that somehow that sound wave must descend to 750 meters (2,460 feet).

Whoooppsss...

We have already seen that certain seawater condition can resist sound wave propagation and even stop it -- the shadow zone. So what we have here is a possibility, not a certainty, that the low freq blade noise of an aircraft carrier descends down to several hundreds meters to get trapped in a deep sound channel. And the ship is moving at that. Then we have another possibility, not a certainty, that this unique acoustic signature will pass upward through another shadow zone to be collected by a passive sensor.

*Readers*...This is Chinese fanboy 'physics'...

What happened is that people took the SOSUS capabilities, at its most general description, and apply it to a different environment. Low freq near surface propagation is nowhere the distance to make a passive sensor system effective.


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

Martian2 said:


> Take a look at the picture of the continental shelf. Arrays of hydrophones can be placed in water that is no deeper than 100m to avoid thermoclines. Or, if you're willing to spend the money, a country can place arrays of hydrophones at different depths along the continental slope. This approach would be similar to the placement of hydrophones at different depths by a group of U.S. destroyers with their towed array detectors.
> 
> To repeat, for those who do not understand, water that is 100m or less form essentially one layer. Arrays of hydrophones in 100m or less can avoid a thermocline and easily detect the sound of an aircraft carrier propeller.
> 
> I never claimed that it was easy. However, the physics is pretty straightforward. China has the sicentists, technology, money, and computer processing power to utilize a 49 year-old technology to find a "really huge" carrier propeller acoustic source. Why is that a big deal? It's a lot easier than building a sophisticated Aegis-class destroyer, which is NOT a 49 year-old technology.
> 
> Thermocline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Waves mix the water near the surface layer and distribute heat to deeper water, such that the *temperature may be relatively uniform for up to 100 m (300 ft)*, depending on wave strength and the existence of surface turbulence caused by currents. Below this mixed layer, however, the temperature remains relatively stable over day/night cycles. The *temperature of the deep ocean drops gradually with depth*."
> 
> 
> "Graph showing a tropical ocean *thermocline* (depth vs. temperature). *Note the rapid change between 100 and 200 meters.*"



Martian2 vs Gambit, Martian2 wins again!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> Martian2 vs Gambit, Martian2 wins again!


If you have to resort to this level of self aggrandizement and make this declaration when the evidences are against your arguments, it mean you lost...

If near surface low freq sound propagation reaches thousands of km, then why did we place the SOSUS net sensors so deep? The answer is that near surface low freq sound propagation is nowhere like Chinese fanboy 'physics' would like to fool people.


----------



## Martian2

Propellers emit a wide range of noise levels over a spectrum. Noise data for the propellers of a Nimitz U.S. aircraft carrier is not available. The next best analog is a giant cruise ship. In the following article, you will learn that a cruise ship's propellers emit a broad range of frequencies and the spectrum changes depending on the speed or rpm (i.e. rotation per minute) of the propeller blades.

Powered by Google Docs

The paragraphs cannot be copied. Please read "3. Spectral Representation, 4. Volendam Signature, 5. Dominant Signature Components, and 6. Perspective" on pages 3 and 4.

A quick summary is that the large propellers of a cruise ship emit noise frequencies in a wide spectrum. The composition of high, mid, and low frequencies change depending on propeller speed. A Nimitz carrier propeller blades will behave similarly and emit a spectrum of high, mid, and low frequencies.

Here is the bottom line.





Using 49 year-old hydrophones, the United States could detect the tiny acoustic energy (e.g. look at the tiny wake) of a submarine and triangulate its location.



Using modern advanced hydrophones with far greater sensitivity, 49 years of technological improvements, and incomparable computer-processing power to identify the signal, someone is making the claim that this HUMONGOUS acoustic energy source cannot be detected within 300 Km to 600 Km of the modern advanced hydrophones and that triangulation is not possible. I think he's nuts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Propellers emit a wide range of noise levels over a spectrum. Noise data for a Nimitz U.S. aircraft carrier is not available. The next best analog is a giant cruise ship. In the following article, you will learn that a cruise ship's propellers emit a broad range of frequencies and the spectrum changes depending on the speed or rpm (i.e. rotation per minute) of the propeller blades.
> 
> Powered by Google Docs
> 
> The paragraphs cannot be copied. Please read "3. Spectral Representation, 4. Volendam Signature, 5. Dominant Signature Components, and 6. Perspective" on pages 3 and 4.
> 
> A quick summary is that the large propellers of a cruise ship emit noise frequencies in a wide spectrum. The composition of high, mid, and low frequencies change depending on propeller speed. A Nimitz carrier propeller blades will behave similarly and emit a spectrum of high, mid, and low frequencies.


If you actually read your source, you would have seen the paragraph that said...



> At 20 knots, low frequency propeller blade rate harmonics were present. One of these harmonics in combination with diesel generator energy caused the 25 Hz peak at 20 knots.


Which is within acceptable range for a ship that cruises at 30+ kts. It is these low freqs that has the longest range and distance is what we are talking about here.

Sonar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Long-range sonar uses low frequencies to minimise absorption effects.


So even if a ship generate freqs of several hundreds hz or even higher, it will be the lower freqs that will travels the furthest.



Martian2 said:


> Here is the bottom line.
> 
> Using 49 year-old hydrophones, the United States could detect the tiny acoustic energy (e.g. look at the tiny wake and bubbles) of a submarine and triangulate its location.


Yes...But only if the sensors are located at several hundreds meters depth.



Martian2 said:


> Using modern advanced hydrophones with far greater sensitivity, 49 years of technological improvements, and incomparable computer-processing power to identify the signal, someone is making the claim that this HUMONGOUS acoustic energy source cannot be detected within 300 Km to 600 Km of the modern advanced hydrophones and that triangulation is not possible. I think he's nuts.


Sorry...But somehow nature is not going to comply with your wishes.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> If you actually read your source, you would have seen the paragraph that said...
> 
> 
> Which is within acceptable range for a ship that cruises at 30+ kts. It is these low freqs that has the longest range and distance is what we are talking about here.
> 
> Sonar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So even if a ship generate freqs of several hundreds hz or even higher, it will be the lower freqs that will travels the furthest.
> 
> 
> Yes...But only if the sensors are located at several hundreds meters depth.
> 
> 
> Sorry...But somehow nature is not going to comply with your wishes.



Do the math. 200 miles is equivalent to 333.33 Km. Adding the 350 Km from the location of the hydrophone array on the continental shelf to another 333.33 Km, while ignoring the sensitivity of modern advanced hydrophones, the base range is 683.33 Km or roughly 700 Km. That is the minimum distance that a carrier must stay away from the Chinese coast. That is still an effective deterrent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

China's continental shelf varies. We will place the hydrophones as far out as possible. "The continental shelf between China and Japan is 325 nautical miles in width at maximum."

1 nautical mile = 1.852 kilometers

325 nautical miles x 1.852 Km/nautical mile = 601.9 Km

Low frequency sonar is effective out to 200 miles or 333.3 Km.

Total range of hydrophones is 601.9 Km + 333.3 Km = 935.2 Km

935.2 Km is pretty close to 1,000 Km. The range of 935.2 Km is an effective deterrent for China's ASBM.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Do the math. 200 miles is equivalent to 333.33 Km. Adding the 350 Km from the location of the hydrophone array on the continental shelf to another 333.33 Km, while ignoring the sensitivity of modern advanced hydrophones, the base range is 683.33 Km or roughly 700 Km. That is the minimum distance that a carrier must stay away from the Chinese coast. That is still an effective deterrent.


This is not about sensor sensitivity and you do not know how exact can China deploy those sensors. A Super Hornet's combat range is about 800km unrefueled. Over 1000km if it is configured for air-air. Looky here...You do not know what you are talking about. You did not know about the deep sound channels. You did not know about the shadow zones. You did not know about the SOSUS history. You did not know that sonar uses low freqs. And the list goes on...All of the things you did not know gave you a false sense of understanding of the subject.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> This is not about sensor sensitivity and you do not know how exact can China deploy those sensors. A Super Hornet's combat range is about 800km unrefueled. Over 1000km if it is configured for air-air. Looky here...You do not know what you are talking about. You did not know about the deep sound channels. You did not know about the shadow zones. You did not know about the SOSUS history. You did not know that sonar uses low freqs. And the list goes on...All of the things you did not know gave you a false sense of understanding of the subject.



I have no idea what you are complaining about now. I summarized that China's ASBM deterrent range is 935.2 Km from China's coast. All of the arguments in this thread regarding the serious dangers that China's ASBMs pose to U.S. capital ships are all relevant.


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

Martian2 said:


> I have no idea what you are complaining about now. I summarized that China's ASBM deterrent range is 935.2 Km from China's coast. All of the arguments in this thread regarding the serious dangers that China's ASBMs pose to U.S. capital ships are all relevant.



Gambit has met his match -- Gambit is no match for Martian2's *consistent logical presentation of facts and reason!* Burn baby burn!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I have no idea what you are complaining about now.


Of course not. Because am not 'complaining' about anything. I merely pointed out that you are ignorant of the subject. But you have no problems declaring yourself the winner of the debate despite those glaring ignorance.



Martian2 said:


> I summarized that China's ASBM deterrent range is 935.2 Km from China's coast.


So what? It is a figure. But where is the threat?



Martian2 said:


> All of the arguments in this thread regarding the serious dangers that China's ASBMs pose to U.S. capital ships are all relevant.


Of course...If the threat exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> Gambit has met his match -- Gambit is no match for Martian2's *consistent logical presentation of facts and reason!* Burn baby burn!


Aah...So you admit you are no match for me...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

This idea is going to sound radical, so hold on to your hats. In the event of a declaration of independence by a hypothetical loose-cannon DPP Taiwan president, what if China chose to strangle Taiwan economically without the need for ASBMs, anti-ship missiles, or submarines to enforce an embargo?



marshall said:


> However, this would be irrelevant because they would be unable to stop a blockade of Taiwan anyways. All China would need to do is publicaly declare that any commercial ship intending to dock in Taiwan would be attacked by missiles. In such an environment, no non-military vessel would dare take the risk. *Besides that, the docking facilities would probably be destroyed as well, so even without a missile threat, ships wouldn't be able to unload/load their cargo anyways.*



The idea of destroying Taiwan's docking facilities is an ingenious way to achieve an embargo. There would be no need to blockade Taiwan with submarines. Destroy the docks and Taiwan would eventually beg China for a settlement. I guess Taiwan can't declare independence if it wants to survive economically.

By the way, the idea of destroying docks for unloading ships, is this your original idea? Unfortunately, it never occurred to me and this is the first time that I've heard of the idea. Taiwan is particularly susceptible to an embargo; however it is achieved.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-1...s-update1-.html

"Wednesday May 19, 2010

Bloomberg
Taiwan&#8217;s Economy May Have Expanded Most in 20 Years (Update1)
May 19, 2010, 12:06 AM EDT
...
The recovery also brought an exit from deflation, with consumer prices rising 1.3 percent in April, a fourth consecutive increase. Crude-oil prices have risen about 20 percent in the past 12 months, boosting transport costs in *Taiwan, which imports 99 percent of its energy*. Central bank Governor Perng Fai-nan said two months ago the bank won&#8217;t sacrifice price stability for economic growth."



marshall said:


> I thought about it while I was writing it. It took me maybe 10 seconds to think of it because it's so obvious. Taiwan cannot be directly attacked simply because China does not have the capability. It does not have enough landing craft to land the 50000+ fully equipped soldiers it would need for the first wave. Anything less than this would be cut down at the beachhead because Taiwan's military numbers in the hundreds of thousands and they would have advance warning before the actual assault.
> 
> The only way to bring Taiwan to its knees is economic blockade, to starve Taiwan. Without the fuel and food to sustain Taiwan, it would literally fall apart in a few months. China does not want to kill anybody on Taiwan. Their declared aim is to reunite peacefully with their fellow countrymen. However, if another Chen Shui-bian comes to power and is covertly backed by the U.S., I'm sure something along the lines of what I said will happen. There is absolutely no defense against that. China would probably bomb every airport, military and commercial, every port...military and commercial. Basically, every transportation conduit *while leaving the rest of the infrastructure intact*.
> 
> Taiwan would be forced to negotiate within 6 months or risk utter destruction. If it escalated with U.S. tit-for-tat intervention, China could sustain much more damage simply because it has continental scale whereas Taiwan is a comparatively small island with few natural resources. It's really a no-brainer, Taiwan would lose big time and has 0&#37; chance of success.


----------



## Martian2

Martian said:


> "The U.S. has never been tested by a massive combined attack."





Red Fox Ace said:


> True, but the U.S. Navy anticipated this sort of massive "saturation attack" as early as the 1960s, largely from the Soviet Union's Northern Fleet. The Soviet Navy was expected to unleash a massive attack with missiles from all different kinds of platforms - bombers, submarines, surface ships, etc.
> 
> Granted, the U.S. Navy, 50 years later, still has never faced such an attack in real life, so we don't know. But the threat has long ago been anticipated.
> 
> The newcomer is the ASBM, of course.



I believe that the odds favor the attacker. Only one or two missiles need to get past the defender to cause severe damage and create massive confusion/panic. One Yu-6 torpedo (i.e. a clone of the Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo) can split a destroyer in half.

While a massive combined and simultaneous attack is logical and predictable, I am not aware of anyone claiming a 100 percent full-proof U.S. defense system. Also, China has the capability to launch thousands of missiles and torpedoes at targeted capital ships. It is not just a matter of surviving the first wave. The defenders must survive a sustained attack; without fail.

It is my judgment that when a defender faces an attacker with technological-proximity, the odds are heavily in favor of the attacker. I have read that the U.S. strategy is to avoid serious risk to its capital ships. As I understand it, the current plan is to outfit American submarines with conventional tomahawk cruise missiles and threaten to launch many of them at China during a war.

The U.S. wants to be the attacker and shift the burden of defense onto China. The U.S. capital ships will be kept safely out of the strike range of Chinese missiles and quiet diesel submarines with Yu-6 torpedoes lurking near China.


----------



## no_name

An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable. 

Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anon45

no_name said:


> An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.
> 
> Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.



Is there currently any way to generate a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a missile strong enough to fry the entire carrier groups sensors? hardened equipment (i'd assume comms are hardened).

Wouldn't carriers carry spares?


----------



## NWO

anon45 said:


> Is there currently any way to generate a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a missile strong enough to fry the entire carrier groups sensors? hardened equipment (i'd assume comms are hardened).
> 
> Wouldn't carriers carry spares?


I don't know if the technology will exists in the future, but if it does and it works, then the carriers won't have enough time to carry out the repairs unless other ships protect it.


----------



## gambit

no_name said:


> An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.
> 
> Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.


This tells me you do not know what you are talking about regarding the limitations of a non-nuclear generated EMP and how an aircraft carrier group is arrayed for war.

So according to 'Chinese physics'...There is a non-nuclear warhead that can generate a strong enough EMP to disable a fleet that is spread out over several square km.


----------



## Martian2

no_name said:


> An electromagnetic pulse warhead can take out electronics of the complete carrier group. The carrier don't need to be sunk to render them inoperable.
> 
> Why does ASBM need to be conventional warhead. It could be electromangetic, leaving the carrier group blind and vulnerable for conventional attack. It doesn't have to hit the carrier directly.



Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.

"The outcome of a simulation published by Orbis, an American journal on international relations and US foreign policy, clearly did its job in making military circles uneasy. After a hit by a Dong Feng 21D, it took the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington a mere 20 minutes to sink.

The DF-21D, as the missile is commonly called, is a modification of a solid-propellant, single-warhead medium-range ballistic missile that China has been working on since the late 1960s. The newest version, also going under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization reporting name CSS-5 Mod-4, is believed to come with the unique feature that it can target a moving aircraft carrier as far away as 3,000 kilometers from a land-based mobile launcher.

Enabled by this new weapon, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) hopes to gain the option to control the West Pacific from land, as opposed to engaging with the US Navy in sea battles that China would be unlikely to win. If the DF-21D is really as sophisticated as has been widely speculated, the US would have to risk its neck when coming to South Korea's, Japan's or Taiwan's aid in the event of Chinese military aggression.

It can safely be assumed that a fair portion of Washington's military strategies would be rendered useless it the US were to lose the ability to securely travel anywhere using aircraft carriers from which jet fighters start their devastatingly precise bombing campaigns - as has been seen in the wars against Serbia and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Like the DF-21D's earliest predecessor, the German V-2, a long-range World War II ballistic missile that the Nazis called a Wunderwaffe, China's anti-ship ballistic missile remains shrouded in mystery. Military experts from Washington to Taipei have been left guessing its exact capabilities. It is suggested that the missile's high-angle re-entry into the atmosphere, as well as its speed, make it almost impossible to defend against.

*What further worries American defense analysts is that the Chinese apparently have the advantage of being able to screw on almost anything that's found in the PLA's warhead arsenals, such as HEAT shells, which are extremely efficient at penetrating steel, as well as cluster bombs, which eject smaller sub-munitions.*

*The Chinese could even destroy their opponents' electronic control systems - critical to the operation of ground vehicles and aircraft - by producing damaging current and voltage surges with the help of electromagnetic pulse bombs loaded into the DF-21D. Yet another option would be to fit a missile with a thermobaric fuel-air bomb. This warhead produces a blast wave of a very long duration, a feature that is useful in military applications where the attacker aims to increase the number of casualties and cause greater damage to infrastructure.*

As a strong indication of how serious the US sees the threat of China's missiles, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently lamented that the DF-21D 'has the ability to disrupt [American] freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options'."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

The DF-21 again...


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> The DF-21 again...



I think I have to agree with you...very grudgingly... once again.

I've been a lurker for many months on the PDF and the ASBM seems to be the most popular and debated subject on China Defence. Although I am not fit comment on the merit of the weapon I do think that running four separate threads on the same issue is a bit wasteful. The mods should at the very least merge all ASBM threads and dissuade people from opening new ones.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> I think I have to agree with you...very grudgingly... once again.
> 
> I've been a lurker for many months on the PDF and the ASBM seems to be the most popular and debated subject on China Defence. Although I am not fit comment on the merit of the weapon I do think that running four separate threads on the same issue is a bit wasteful. The mods should at the very least merge all ASBM threads and dissuade people from opening new ones.


I have never said that capabilities like the DF-21's purported claims are technically impossible. What I have always asked from the Chinese members here is that *BEFORE* they start posting sales brochures blurbs and worst case scenarios commentaries by US generals, try to stay with the intended theme of this forum by presenting some reasonably credible technical explanations on the *HOW* these capabilities are achieved and that they should not get offended if they are challenged. Too much to ask, I guess...


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I have never said that capabilities like the DF-21's purported claims are technically impossible. What I have always asked from the Chinese members here is that *BEFORE* they start posting sales brochures blurbs and worst case scenarios commentaries by US generals, try to stay with the intended theme of this forum by presenting some reasonably credible technical explanations on the *HOW* these capabilities are achieved and that they should not get offended if they are challenged. Too much to ask, I guess...



A ballistic missile with a computer chip onboard is guided to its target by coordinates from a sensor (e.g. satellite, OTH radar, aerial (e.g. UAV spotting or JStar), sonar, electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio communication, radar emissions, or giant infrared signature from capital ships) emitted from targeted capital ships, SOSUS, reported by Chinese spotters on cargo ships, spotted by fishing boat, special forces recon waiting in blue rubber rafts on the ocean, location revealed by spy (e.g. Aldrich Ames case), or some other means of detection).


----------



## no_name

gambit said:


> This tells me you do not know what you are talking about regarding the limitations of a non-nuclear generated EMP and how an aircraft carrier group is arrayed for war.
> 
> So according to 'Chinese physics'...There is a non-nuclear warhead that can generate a strong enough EMP to disable a fleet that is spread out over several square km.



Bravo that you actually resort to tying what I said with 'chinese physics'. It could just be my own personal statement, incorrect or not .

If I know everything I would not be on a forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> A ballistic missile with a computer chip onboard is guided to its target by coordinates from a sensor (e.g. satellite, OTH radar, aerial (e.g. UAV spotting or JStar), sonar, electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio communication, radar emissions, or giant infrared signature from capital ships) emitted from targeted capital ships, SOSUS, reported by Chinese spotters on cargo ships, spotted by fishing boat, special forces recon waiting in blue rubber rafts on the ocean, location revealed by spy (e.g. Aldrich Ames case), or some other means of detection).


You should try something like this...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/866788-post28.html

Good luck.


----------



## gambit

no_name said:


> Bravo that you actually resort to tying what I said with 'chinese physics'. It could just be my own personal statement, incorrect or not .
> 
> *If I know everything I would not be on a forum.*


Then do not make baseless assertions.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> You should try something like this...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/866788-post28.html
> 
> Good luck.



Unless you are a premiere aerospace engineer with distinguished awards and with a long list of citations of your articles, the link is merely your opinion.

As a known China-hater, you enjoy raising nonsense objections. Do you remember our discussion where you made the ridiculous claim that all incoming ballistic warheads come in vertically and not at an angle?

I have said this once before. I will not spend hours repeatedly proving your ignorance of technical matters. I have proven it before and I will not continue to waste my time.

This is not a difficult subject matter. Ballistic missiles are decades-old technology. It is also well-known that computer chips enable smart weapons to guide themselves onto a target. There are many sensors and other methods of acquiring targeting information. With all three elements, a ballistic missile is on its way to its target.

The issues of defense and American response are a separate matter. However, to constantly carp about non-existent technical problems shows that you are in a tiny minority of China-haters.


----------



## Martian2

JamD said:


> And Nuking a carrier becomes an even more viable option since their are no direct/immidiate civillian deaths. But let us hope it doesn't come to that



China's ASBM is a deterrent. I don't think it's actually meant to be used. The development of the ASBM is to deter Taiwan independence and to put pressure on the U.S. to ensure that Taiwan "toe the line." I believe that it is a bargaining chip.

The actual use of the ASBM will be a major escalation of tensions between the U.S. and China. The destruction of a supercarrier will result in the immediate deaths of 6,000 American sailors. In comparison, 9/11 resulted in less than 3,000 American deaths. Every destroyer sunk by an ASBM will add another 1,000 to the death toll. These are major casualties and will take the U.S. and China into scary uncharted territory.

The U.S. military appears weak, but it is not. The U.S. is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of extensive self-imposed constraints through "rules of engagement" (i.e. ROE). In the eyes of the world, the U.S. cannot just lay waste to Iraq and Afghanistan without regard for innocent civilian lives.

In the case of China, the U.S. will be facing a true military heavyweight. The United States will fight with the full might of its superpower military. In that situation, China may resort to tactical nuclear weapons to compensate for current conventional deficiency. The U.S. will retaliate by going nuclear as well.

And that, my friends, is how World War III and a full-scale nuclear exchange starts. The game of nuclear chicken will quickly spiral out of control. It is best to threaten the other side with an ASBM weapon, but its actual use is a major strategic blunder.

To summarize, China's ASBM is only meant as a deterrent. The actual use of the ASBM means that the world may be on the brink of a nuclear war and winter. We will all be the losers and my armchair-general days will be over.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Unless you are a premiere aerospace engineer with distinguished awards and with a long list of citations of your articles, *the link is merely your opinion.*


And yours is any less?



Martian2 said:


> As a known China-hater, you enjoy raising nonsense objections. Do you remember our discussion where you made the ridiculous claim that all incoming ballistic warheads come in vertically and not at an angle?
> 
> I have said this once before. I will not spend hours repeatedly proving your ignorance of technical matters. I have proven it before and I will not continue to waste my time.
> 
> This is not a difficult subject matter. Ballistic missiles are decades-old technology. It is also well-known that computer chips enable smart weapons to guide themselves onto a target. There are many sensors and other methods of acquiring targeting information. With all three elements, a ballistic missile is on its way to its target.


From what I see of this 'technical' explanation, even a toaster would qualify. The readers can see for themselves that they will learn far more about some of the basics of the ICBM from this...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/866788-post28.html

...Than they would learn from your simplistic 'computer chips'.

Your pal bailed the forum...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1100176-post231.html

...After he used paywall sources with nary a clue of what they mean and I used Chinese engineers to debunk his sorry arguments. I see little differences between the two of you.



Martian2 said:


> The issues of defense and American response are a separate matter. However, to constantly carp about non-existent technical problems shows that you are in a tiny minority of China-haters.


If the technical challenges that I posed to you fanboys here are 'non-existent', then so is the DF-21.


----------



## Martian2

Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command

China Testing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM); U.S. Preparing Accordingly&#8211;Updated With Latest Analysis & Sources|Andrew S. Erickson

"On 24 August 2010, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made the following statement to Japanese media in Tokyo:

&#8220;To our knowledge, [China&#8217;s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.&#8221;

A 16 August 2010 background briefing by a Senior U.S. Department of Defense official indicates that China still needs to successfully integrate its ASBM with C4ISR in order to operationalize it:

&#8220;We continue to be concerned about their efforts to development this&#8212;this particular system. I would say the primary area&#8230; where we see them still facing roadblocks is in integrating the missile system with the C4-ISR. And they still have a ways to go before they manage to get that integrated so that they have an operational and effective system.&#8221;

&#8220;But nonetheless, this is an area that, for all the obvious reasons, remains, you know, of great concern for us.&#8221;

The just-released 2010 U.S. Department of Defense Report on China&#8217;s Military offers a general background:

&#8220;Augmented by direct acquisition of foreign weapons and technology, [defense industry] reforms have enabled China to develop and produce advanced weapon systems that incorporate mid-1990s technology in many areas, and some systems&#8212;particularly ballistic missiles&#8212;that rival any in the world today.&#8221; (p. 43)

&#8220;Production trends and resource allocation appear to favor missile and space systems&#8230;.&#8221; (p. 44).

&#8220;China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes.&#8221; (p. 1)

&#8220;China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km, is armed with a maneuverable warhead, and when integrated with appropriate command and control systems, is intended to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.&#8221; (p. 2)

&#8220;The PLA is acquiring conventional MRBMs to increase the range at which it can conduct precision strikes against land targets and naval ships, including aircraft carriers, operating far from China&#8217;s shores out to the first island chain.&#8221; (p. 31)

&#8220;The PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with Sky Wave and Surface Wave OTH radars. OTH radars could be used in conjunction with imagery satellites to assist in locating targets at great distances from PRC shores to support long range precision strikes, including by anti-ship ballistic missiles.&#8221; (p. 2)

&#8220;Over the long term, improvements in China&#8217;s C4ISR, including space-based and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track, and target military activities deep into the western Pacific Ocean.&#8221; (p. 37)

Based on sophisticated organizational analysis, Mark Stokes and Tiffany Ma suggest that the Second Artillery may be constructing ASBM missile brigade facilities in the northern Guangdong Province municipality of Shaoguan (&#38902;&#20851:

&#8220;Last week, China&#8217;s state-run media quietly announced the construction of facilities for a new Second Artillery missile brigade &#8211; the 96166 Unit &#8211; in the northern Guangdong municipality of Shaoguan&#8230; the province is already home to a Second Artillery short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) brigade (the 96169 unit in Meizhou)&#8230;.&#8221;

&#8220;Although the introduction of the 1,700km range solid fuelled, terminally guided DF-21C ballistic missile into Guangdong is possible, the brigade is also a candidate to be the first unit equipped with the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The DF-21C, first introduced into the active inventory in 2005, is designed to attack fixed targets on land. If an ASBM is successful in passing the necessary design reviews and a sufficient sensor network is in place, the Shaoguan brigade could become the first in the PLA to field a lethal capability against moving targets at sea out to a range of 1,500-2,000km or more from launch sites.&#8221;

&#8220;The Second Artillery planned to finalize the design of the DF-21D by the end of 2010 and the establishment of a permanent deployment location often coincides with the design finalization of a new missile. However, an initial operational capability is likely a ways off, as a follow-on testing of a prototype design may be needed prior to certification for full-rate production.&#8221;

Shaoguan&#8217;s location near Hunan Province, with the inter-provincial Nanling mountains and tunnels through them that complicate satellite surveillance (under construction since at least 2008), offers significant advantages:

&#8220;Whether the unit is equipped with the DF-21C or the more advanced DF-21D maritime variant, the establishment of a conventionally-capable medium range ballistic missile brigade in Guangdong would decisively expand the Second Artillery&#8217;s striking radius. More specifically, it would enable the Second Artillery to support the Central Military Commission to enforce territorial claims in the South China Sea, or strike targets in a Taiwan-related contingency without having to overfly Japanese territory.&#8221;

Other recent indications of Chinese ASBM development progress include the reported completion of a DF-21D rocket motor facility in 2009 and the recent launch of 5 advanced Yaogan satellites, three of which were apparently placed in the same orbit on 5 March&#8211;thereby perhaps offering better coverage of critical areas along China&#8217;s maritime periphery. Another possible indication is a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit &#8220;slow-moving targets&#8221; with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters. Mark Stokes, a noted expert at the Project 2049 Institute on this and related issues, stated on 4 June 2010 that 'odds are what you&#8217;re seeing now in terms of testing is&#8230; flight tests of the [DF-21D] motor itself and the airframe&#8230; the final step would be most likely going against a target at sea in a realistic environment.'&#8221;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brotherhood

Brother, by arguing with a typical Chinese hater will get you no where, especially with a self hating(&#36067;&#22283;&#36042.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Brotherhood said:


> Brother, by arguing with a typical Chinese hater will get you no where, especially with a self hating(&#36067;&#22283;&#36042.


Just for you, brother, am going to break my rule -- again -- about using paywall sources, like I did here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1100176-post231.html

...And please pay attention to the authors' names and time of publication...



> Ship Detection with Short Coherent Integration Time in Over-the-Horizon Radar
> 
> *Xin Guo , Jin-Lin Ni , Guo-Sui Liu*
> 
> Research Center of Electronic Engineering Technology, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, China
> 
> REPORT DATE 14 APR 2005
> 
> I. Introduction
> 
> The skywave over-the-horizon-radar (OTHR) is unique in radar family that employs the ionosphere to refract the radar high frequency signal (3-30mhz) to illuminate the target from the top down, thus significantly extending the detection range of 1000-4000km and permitting wide-area surveillance. However, scanning such vast coverage area requires relatively short coherent integration time (CIT) to increase the data rate, so as to ensure the work of the tracker.
> 
> For aircraft, short CIT is not a problem since their speeds separate them well from the ocean/ground clutter. But for ships, the low Doppler resolution resulting from the short CIT is not sufficient in most case to distinguish them from the close powerful ocean clutter.
> 
> In order to improve the signal-to-clutter ratio (SCR), a Fourier transform based clutter cancellation algorithm is proposed by Root [1-2]. By modeling the first-order clutter as sinusoid and subtracting it from the data, the ships can be exposed in short-time Doppler spectrum. This clutter subtraction means that the amplitude, frequency and initial phase of clutter must be estimated. In [1-2], Fourier based techniques is utilized to estimate the clutter, in which the clutter frequency and amplitude are directly obtained by the peak in Doppler spectrum, and initial phase is found by numerical search in the range 0 2 that minimize the energy of estimation error. However, since the Doppler resolution of short-time data is low, the clutter frequency estimation is not accurate if only maximal Fourier transform amplitude is used. This imperfect parameter estimation and clutter subtraction will result in the clutter residue. To remove them, iteration cancellation technique is used until the ships are shown up. However, as algorithm proceeds by iteration, the clutter residue will spread in Doppler spectrum and present a difficulty in ship identification and even masks the ships.
> 
> In this paper, an improvement to above Fourier based clutter cancellation is presented. We employ high-accuracy parameter estimation method [3] to obtain the clutter parameters, while the basic clutter subtraction and iteration cancellation is the same as in [1-2]. In this method, not only the amplitude information of dominant peak in Fourier spectrum but also the phase information is considered. With Fourier phase analysis, better clutter frequency and amplitude estimation can be achieved. As the result, after clutter cancellation, the clutter residue may have lower power and lesser spreading in Doppler spectrum, which will benefit the ship identification. Besides, in this method, the initial phase of the clutter can be directly calculated, avoiding the numerical search in the range 0 2 .
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> VI. CONCLUSION
> 
> Realizing ship detection with short CIT will enhance the OTHR data rate and guarantee the timely surveillance of the large areas. *But the short CIT and the resulting low Doppler resolution cannot separate the ships from the close powerful ocean clutter. To overcome this problem, the ocean clutter cancellation algorithm is proposed by Root.* In this paper, some improvement is presented. By combining the Fourier phase information, better clutter parameter estimation can be achieved. As the result, after clutter cancellation, the power and spreading of clutter residue in Doppler spectrum may reduce, which is helpful for the visibility and identification of ships. In addition, this method can directly get the initial phase, which eliminated the numerical search in the range 0 2 . However, note that this approach employs the phase information, it generally requires the Bragg peaks have high clutter-to-noise ratio. This requirement is usually satisfied in OTHR.
> 
> Finally, we would point out that the multimode propagation is a limitation for ship detection. First, it *yields more than two Bragg peaks and the extra Bragg peak may be mistakenly regarded as the ship target.* Second, the multiple positive (or negative) Bragg lines may be very close in Doppler spectrum and have approximate power, thus the Fourier phase analysis method may not get correct parameter estimation and lead the clutter cancellation unsatisfactory. *Though selecting proper radar operating frequency can achieve single mode propagation, this is not always feasible due to the ionospheric condition and the desired surveillance region.* Therefore, it requires further research to remove this contamination before ship detection.


The operating freqs used by OTH radars (3-30mhz) are usually the same as that of ordinary AM/FM music radio stations that are affected by day/night ionization of the atmosphere's layers because of the sun...

AM, FM Radio Waves and Sound


> The ionosphere is much more effective in reflecting these radio waves at night. (Incidentally, technically, it's refracting, not reflecting, but the effect is somewhat the same.)
> 
> That's why at sunset most AM radio stations in the U.S. have to:
> 
> * reduce power
> 
> * directionalize their signal (send it more in some directions than others), or
> 
> * go off the air (sign off until sunrise the next day)
> 
> This may explain why your favorite AM radio station goes off the air at sunset, or becomes much harder to hear (because of reduced power).


Chinese engineers are encountering the same refractory problems as we have decades ago with their OTH radars. Except that the US have a considerable technological semiconductor advantage today that allows US superior data processing to separate the real targets from ocean surface clutter. And that the Chinese military could see a decoy and empty oil tanker as an aircraft carrier.

So if putting your exaggerated claims about the DF-21 under the technical microscope qualify as 'Chinese hating', I guess you had better start yelling at senors *Xin Guo , Jin-Lin Ni , Guo-Sui Liu*


----------



## Martian2

> Ship Detection with Short Coherent Integration Time in Over-the-Horizon Radar
> 
> Xin Guo , Jin-Lin Ni , Guo-Sui Liu
> 
> Research Center of Electronic Engineering Technology, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, China
> 
> *REPORT DATE 14 APR 2005*



The report is FIVE years old. That is prior to successful 2007 ASAT and 2010 mid-course GBI (i.e. ground-based interceptor) tests. For God's sake, the Type 052C "171 Haikou was launched on 30 October 2003 and was commissioned in 2005."

At the stupendous pace of technological development in China, five years is ancient history. Don't you have a source from modern times?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The report is FIVE years old. That is prior to successful 2007 ASAT and 2010 mid-course GBI (i.e. ground-based interceptor) tests. For God's sake, the Type 052C "171 Haikou was launched on 30 October 2003 and was commissioned in 2005."
> 
> At the stupendous pace of technological development in China, five years is ancient history. Don't you have a source from modern times?


Yup...This is clearly from someone who has not a clue about R/D and manufacturing. Next we will see from the Chinese members here claiming that China will take only one year to deploy anything.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Yup...This is clearly from someone who has not a clue about R/D and manufacturing. Next we will see from the Chinese members here claiming that China will take only one year to deploy anything.



If you believe strongly in the glacial pace of technological change, you might as well cite a source from ten, twenty, or thirty years ago.

Come on, no one cites a Department of Defense study about China's military capabilities from five years ago. Do you know why? It's OUTDATED.


----------



## muse

*Doubts over China's 'wonder weapon'*
By Jens Kastner and Wang Jyh-Perng 

TAIPEI - In the past 12 months, the world's military journals have been awash with analyses of the power balance in the West Pacific possibly tilting in China's favor. Pundits and reporters proclaim in unison that Beijing is about to achieve its goal of making United States military interventions in future conflicts fought out in the Yellow, the East China or South China Seas a very difficult, if not impossible, mission. 

Most think-tanks see Washington's democratic allies in the region as being threatened by China's boosted reconnaissance abilities, its submarine fleet and a growing arsenal of cruise and tactical missiles. 

Yet, among all of Beijing's options to challenge US naval supremacy, the weapon that sends chills down China's opponents' spines is what is regarded as a Wunderwaffe, or wonder weapon, the Dong Feng 21D, the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile. If the assessments of observers prove correct, China's wonder weapon is to make its way into history books - with it, China would be able to take on the US Navy's aircraft carriers, the pride of the US military. 

The outcome of a simulation published by Orbis, an American journal on international relations and US foreign policy, clearly did its job in making military circles uneasy. After a hit by a Dong Feng 21D, it took the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington a mere 20 minutes to sink. 

The DF-21D, as the missile is commonly called, is a modification of a solid-propellant, single-warhead medium-range ballistic missile that China has been working on since the late 1960s. The newest version, also going under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization reporting name CSS-5 Mod-4, is believed to come with the unique feature that it can target a moving aircraft carrier as far away as 3,000 kilometers from a land-based mobile launcher. 

Enabled by this new weapon, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) hopes to gain the option to control the West Pacific from land, as opposed to engaging with the US Navy in sea battles that China would be unlikely to win. If the DF-21D is really as sophisticated as has been widely speculated, the US would have to risk its neck when coming to South Korea's, Japan's or Taiwan's aid in the event of Chinese military aggression. 

It can safely be assumed that a fair portion of Washington's military strategies would be rendered useless it the US were to lose the ability to securely travel anywhere using aircraft carriers from which jet fighters start their devastatingly precise bombing campaigns - as has been seen in the wars against Serbia and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 

Like the DF-21D's earliest predecessor, the German V-2, a long-range World War II ballistic missile that the Nazis called a Wunderwaffe, China's anti-ship ballistic missile remains shrouded in mystery. Military experts from Washington to Taipei have been left guessing its exact capabilities. It is suggested that the missile's high-angle re-entry into the atmosphere, as well as its speed, make it almost impossible to defend against. 

What further worries American defense analysts is that the Chinese apparently have the advantage of being able to screw on almost anything that's found in the PLA's warhead arsenals, such as HEAT shells, which are extremely efficient at penetrating steel, as well as cluster bombs, which eject smaller sub-munitions. 

The Chinese could even destroy their opponents' electronic control systems - critical to the operation of ground vehicles and aircraft - by producing damaging current and voltage surges with the help of electromagnetic pulse bombs loaded into the DF-21D. Yet another option would be to fit a missile with a thermobaric fuel-air bomb. This warhead produces a blast wave of a very long duration, a feature that is useful in military applications where the attacker aims to increase the number of casualties and cause greater damage to infrastructure. 

As *a strong indication of how serious the US sees the threat of China's missiles, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently lamented that the DF-21D "has the ability to disrupt [American] freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options".* 

Among others, Taiwan has reason to be most concerned about China's apparent potential to deter US carriers from entering the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea. The island is home to some of the world's most accomplished scholars who dedicate their careers to monitoring and researching China's security policy. 

One of these is Professor Arthur Ding, a research fellow at the China Politics Division at Taiwan's National Chengchi University. Apart from this assignment, he also holds the position of a professor at the Political Warfare Cadres Academy in Taipei. Ding spoke to Asia Times Online on the DF-21D. 

Asia Times Online: _The DF-21D can strike US aircraft carriers and sink them in a very short time. Will this development have an impact on the naval balance in the East China Sea?_ 

Arthur Ding: T_his is the ultimate goal China aims to achieve. But technically speaking, it's not feasible. That is because when the missile re-enters the atmosphere, its speed would be somewhere around Mach 7 [2,382.03 meters/second]. That is so fast that there would not be sufficient time to re-direct the warhead to hit an US aircraft carrier precisely. A carrier could only be hit indirectly by a special warhead, such as a fuel-air explosive._ 

AToL: _How will the DF-21D affect Taiwan's security situation?_ 

AD: T_here's no doubt that China's military modernization does increase the risk for US involvement. Nevertheless, aircraft carriers are unlikely to be the only instruments the US will have at hand. As time goes by, many more weapons may be developed. If this is the case, China will be frustrated and disappointed if it's only focusing on scenarios involving aircraft carriers. Thus, the DF-21D mainly serves as a psychological deterrent for the US_. 

Jens Kastner is a Taipei-based writer. Wang Jyh-Perng is a reserve captain of the Taiwan Navy and associate research fellow at the Association for Managing Defense and Strategies.


----------



## maxx

muse said:


> AD: T_here's no doubt that China's military modernization does increase the risk for US involvement. Nevertheless, aircraft carriers are unlikely to be the only instruments the US will have at hand. As time goes by, many more weapons may be developed. If this is the case, China will be frustrated and disappointed if it's only focusing on scenarios involving aircraft carriers. Thus, the DF-21D mainly serves as a psychological deterrent for the US_.


I agree with this. US submarines, SSGN and SSN are equally as threatening as an aircraft carrier battle group and are often overlooked.


----------



## Martian2

muse said:


> Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.
> 
> Asia Times Online: The DF-21D can strike US aircraft carriers and sink them in a very short time. Will this development have an impact on the naval balance in the East China Sea?
> 
> Arthur Ding: This is the ultimate goal China aims to achieve. But technically speaking, it's not feasible. That is because *when the missile re-enters the atmosphere, its speed would be somewhere around Mach 7 [2,382.03 meters/second]. That is so fast that there would not be sufficient time to re-direct the warhead to hit an US aircraft carrier precisely.* A carrier could only be hit indirectly by a special warhead, such as a fuel-air explosive.



I disagree with professor Arthur Ding's statement. He never explained his claim. A typical computer processor is in the GHz range. That is 1 billion clock cycles per second. To a modern computer chip, the missile is moving in extremely slow motion (e.g. 2,382 meters / 1,000,000,000 = barely moving).


----------



## Martian2

RedMercury said:


> It would be the actuators (thrusters or fins) which limit ability to change course for a fast re-entry ASBM. But fast re-entry is just one approach of many.



I think the burden is on professor Arthur Ding to clearly explain the details behind his claim. I have not read a similar claim by other experts.

The challenge seems pretty straightforward. A sensor provides targeting data for an incoming warhead. A giga-hertz computer processor (that can execute a billion instructions per second) makes continuous minute adjustments to the steering fins of the warhead and guides it to its target. What exactly is the problem?

We already know that modern flight computers make continuous adjustments to keep an unstable airplane in the air. Similarly, a modern computer should easily be able to make continuous adjustments to the "air fins" of a warhead.

Professor Ding gave us a conclusion. He needs to provide details and connect the dots if he wants to make a persuasive case. Currently, I am not persuaded.

Computers in Aviation

"The General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin) F-16, which entered service in the late 1970s and has been built in large numbers, was the first operational jet fighter to use an analog flight control system. The pilot steers the rudder pedals and joystick, but these are not directly connected to the control surfaces such as the rudder and ailerons. Instead, they are connected to a "fly-by-wire" flight control system. Three computers on the aircraft constantly adjust the flight controls to maintain the aircraft in flight and reply to the commands from the pilot. *The F-16 is inherently unstable by design, meaning that it would fly out of control if the computers failed (which is why there are three of them). The designers made it unstable in order to improve its maneuverability. The computers constantly readjust the flight surfaces to keep the plane flying.* Initially, pilots often referred to the F-16 as "the electric jet." But computer control systems have become so common that they are no longer unusual."


----------



## Martian2

"Hitting a Bullet with a Bullet"





"The Missile Defense Agency said initial results show the interceptor's rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as planned. Boeing said the warhead was tracked, intercepted and destroyed."


Thirty years ago, I would have given professor Ding the benefit of the doubt. However, a lot has happened in thirty years. In the 1980s, it was conventional wisdom that anti-missile defense was pie-in-the-sky Star Wars technology. After all, everyone knew that you couldn't "hit a bullet with a bullet."

However, we have now all seen the pictures of the successful intercepts of a "bullet hitting a bullet." I want professor Ding to explain why a "bullet"/"kill vehicle" can hit another "bullet"/"warhead", but cannot hit a sitting duck that is 4-acres in size and moving at a ridiculously slow 33 knots per hour.

National Missile Defense: A Status Report - Council on Foreign Relations

*"Updated: September 17, 2009

Not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet." - Lt. Gen. Henry A. "Trey" Obering III, Former Director, Missile Defense Agency"*


----------



## Martian2

RedMercury said:


> I'm not saying the computation is the main problem. I'm saying making sufficiently powerful actuators is a more difficult problem.
> 
> The NMD example isn't a very good analogy because the NMD kill vehicle is much lighter, since it is a hit-to-kill kinetic warhead. It has less mass than a hypothetical ASBM, therefore less inertia, therefore less force required to accelerate. So it is much easier to steer the NMD kill vehicle. A ASBM would be much heavier because it will likely have a chemical warhead, so it is harder to accelerate. This means it needs powerful thrusters or control surfaces with high control authority.
> 
> Again, this is all assuming the ASBM re-enters at a high speed.



Can you cite a study from a reputable American source (e.g. Department of Defense study, DARPA, Jane's, major American newspaper, think tank (e.g. Brookings Institution, RAND, etc.), Jamestown Foundation, major American defense contractor (e.g. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc.), Naval War College, or any other mainstream reputable organization) that discusses the alleged problem identified by professor Ding?

Quite frankly, I have never heard of this "actuator" problem. I will share what I do know. The United States forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table because of the introduction in 1983 (e.g. almost 30 years ago) of Pershing II MARV technology.

It is a great puzzle to me that a Pershing II MARVed warhead can be steered in 1983 to its target, but an ASBM MARV warhead in 2010 cannot be steered. Once again, I will assert that professor Ding is alone in his idiosyncratic claim.

http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1694.aspx





(US Army photo)

"MGM-31C Pershing II

(United States)

Notes:
...
Compared to MGM-31A, *MGM-31C was externally similar but had two sets of delta fins. The nose section was a single-warhead MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle)* consisting of the Goodyear radar seeker, the inertial guidance unit, and the *warhead on top of a steering vane package.*

Pershing II was launched from a M-790 flatbed trailer towed by a M-1001 prime mover. This had a max speed of 40mph and a road range of 450 miles. (To save money, only enough M-1001s were bought for active units in Europe, stateside training units used existing HEMTT prime movers.) It was guided inertially through most of the flight. After atmospheric re-entry, the RADAG (Radar Digital Area Guidance) system took over. This took four successively-closer radar snapshots of the target as the MARV descended, giving the guidance computer a 128 square-pixel portrait to home on. In the event RADAG was jammed or failed, the Pershing II continued on inertial guidance. *The warhead could be set for impact* or airburst. The first and second rocket stages, essentially identical, were of a new design that used Kevlar and hybrid-alloy materials. *Steering was by vanes in the exhaust in the atmosphere and a reactive system above it.* The first stage separated at 1/3rd of the apogee altitude.
...
The first test flight was on 18 November 1977. *The missile was declared fully operational in 1983 and in April 1984 deployment to West Germany began.* By the summer of 1985, Pershing II had completely replaced Pershing I in operational European units. The following units operated MGM-31C in Europe:
..."

MGM-31 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Pershing II
...
Service history

In service 19831991
Used by USA (United States Army)

Engine Hercules, two-stage, solid propellant

Operational 
range 1,770 kilometres (1,100 mi)

*Speed Mach 8+
*
Guidance
system Singer Kearfott Inertial and Goodyear Aerospace active radar

*Steering
system* *vector control system (steerable nozzle), air fins
*
Accuracy 30 metres (100 ft) circular error probable (restrictions apply)

Launch
platform M1003 erector launcher

Transport M1001 MAN tractor in Germany; M983 HEMTT in the U.S."


----------



## Martian2

Maggern said:


> As far as I understood your article, the manoeuvering on Pershing was for adjusting the vehicle after re-entry to be able to much more accurately target a structure, or any other relatively stationary target. The problem with an ASBM is that it would not only have to adjust it's projectory after re-entry to more accurately line itself up with the original target, but it would also have to change it according to the continuing movements of the carrier (if this was the target), which would be steaming ahead at full speed (given this is out in the open sea), and possibly try to move irradically (if it knew it risked being struck by an ASBM).



I take it that you couldn't find a study from a mainstream American source on an "actuator" problem?

Let's go through the sequence of events:

1) MARV warhead is homing in on its target.

2) *"Active radar terminal-guidance"* locks onto target.

3) MARV warhead impacts with "pinpoint accuracy."

Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*The maneuverable reentry vehicle (abbreviated MARV or MaRV) is a type of nuclear warhead capable of shifting targets in flight.* Refer to atmospheric reentry.

There are several types, of which examples include:

* the version designed for the Trident missile, which had to be able to evade Soviet anti-ballistic missile systems.

* *the active radar terminal-guidance version with pinpoint accuracy for the MGM-31C Pershing II missile
*
* B-611

* DF-15

* the high hypersonic land-based anti-ship ballistic missile variant of the DF-21

* DF-31

* DF-41

* JL-2

* the warheads used by the Topol-M missile which are designed to defeat any US ABM systems."


----------



## Martian2

Active radar homing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*Active radar homing is a missile guidance method in which a guided missile contains a radar transceiver and the electronics necessary for it to find and track its target autonomously.* NATO brevity code for an active radar homing missile launch is Fox Three.

*Advantages
*
There are two major advantages to active radar homing:

* Because the *missile is tracking the target*, and the missile is typically going to be much closer to the target than the launching platform during the terminal phase, the tracking can be much more accurate and also have better resistance to ECM. *Active radar homing missiles have some of the best kill probabilities*, along with missiles employing track-via-missile guidance.

* Because the *missile is totally autonomous during the terminal phase*, the launch platform does not need to have its radar enabled at all during this phase, and in the case of a mobile launching platform like an aircraft, can actually exit the scene or undertake other actions while the missile homes in on its target. This is often referred to as fire-and-forget capability and is a great advantage that modern air-to-air missiles have over their predecessors.

*Disadvantages
*
There are two major disadvantages to active radar homing:

* Since the missile has to contain an entire radar transceiver and electronics, it was until recently difficult to fit all of this into a missile without unacceptably increasing its size and weight. Even with today's miniaturisation making this possible, it is quite *expensive* to make these missiles since the sophisticated electronics within the missile are inevitably destroyed upon impact.

* *There is very little chance that targets with any sort of decent radar warning receiver would be unaware that an incoming missile is approaching them.* This gives them sufficient time to take evasive action and deploy countermeasures. *However, given the accuracy of this homing method, unless the target is especially maneuverable or the missile is not, there may not be much they can do to avoid being intercepted.*

* These types of missiles with this mounted equipment are only effective in long range confrontations."


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I think the burden is on professor Arthur Ding to clearly explain the details behind his claim. *I have not read a similar claim by other experts.*


Right...That mean just because *YOU* have no relevant experience and does not exercise critical thinking skills, therefore these technical problems does not exists...



Martian2 said:


> The challenge seems pretty straightforward. A sensor provides targeting data for an incoming warhead. A giga-hertz computer processor (that can execute a billion instructions per second) makes continuous minute adjustments to the steering fins of the warhead and guides it to its target. *What exactly is the problem?*
> 
> We already know that modern flight computers make continuous adjustments to keep an unstable airplane in the air. Similarly, a modern computer should easily be able to make continuous adjustments to the "air fins" of a warhead.
> 
> Professor Ding gave us a conclusion. He needs to provide details and connect the dots if he wants to make a persuasive case. Currently, I am not persuaded.
> 
> Computers in Aviation
> 
> "The General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin) F-16, which entered service in the late 1970s and has been built in large numbers, was the first operational jet fighter to use an analog flight control system. The pilot steers the rudder pedals and joystick, but these are not directly connected to the control surfaces such as the rudder and ailerons. Instead, they are connected to a "fly-by-wire" flight control system. Three computers on the aircraft constantly adjust the flight controls to maintain the aircraft in flight and reply to the commands from the pilot. *The F-16 is inherently unstable by design, meaning that it would fly out of control if the computers failed (which is why there are three of them). The designers made it unstable in order to improve its maneuverability. The computers constantly readjust the flight surfaces to keep the plane flying.* Initially, pilots often referred to the F-16 as "the electric jet." But computer control systems have become so common that they are no longer unusual."


You are making a fool out of yourself. The reason why the F-16's flight control system able to control a negative stability aircraft is *NOT* of processing power, although such power is important, but about the response mechanisms that made up a 'flight control system'. The A/B models were analog. The FCLS computer sends commands to the flight control hydraulics, which operate with 3000lb/psi, to motivate flight control surfaces that weighs anywhere from tens to hundreds of lbs.

This is what a warhead container look like...







There is no room in *EACH* warhead to hold a hydraulic generator to produce that kind of pressure. The F-16 analogy is also inappropriate in that the aircraft was design with negative stability but nuclear warheads are *NOT* so design. These things do not have their own power. A warhead descends because of gravity and that speed, its shape demands positive aerodynamic stability to maintain consistent trajectory. An aircraft has the ability to return to any spatial point, as long as its fuel holds out. A nuclear warhead is unpowered, other than what gravity provides, therefore its spatial translation is *ONE-WAY*. An aircraft has the ability to control its velocity in either direction. A solely gravity powered nuclear warhead can only lose, not gain, velocity, that mean a nuclear warhead has only one chance to hit a moving target.


----------



## Martian2

DF-21C

Form follows function. The DF-21C has the same distinctive nose as the Pershing II. The DF-21C appears to be a convergent-engineered Pershing II.

SgForums :: Singapore's Online Community - Jane's: China deploying Anti-ship ballistic missile by 2009

"Jane's: China deploying Anti-ship ballistic missile by 2009

There's no effect way to intercept ballistic missile (BM) currently. If the Jane's report really predicts the deployment of Anti-ship ballistic missile in 2009 correctly, then the US aircraft carrier battle group which is at the core of the US global intervening power will be serious threatened because the current shipborne SAMs like SM2 are not capable to intercept such BMs. The weakening of the big uncle's military power will in turn weaken his political demands. That will have dramatic effect on the political map of East Asia.

China develops anti-ship missile

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw060118_1_n.shtml

By Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent
Virginia, US

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles.

The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009.

PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. *The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported.* Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.

However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the *US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some [of] the current missiles' re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea.*"

217 of 577 words

[End of non-subscriber extract.]"


----------



## Martian2

Look gambit, I don't really care if some people are willing to believe your extremely-biased China-hating arguments. They have a choice. They can believe Jane's and the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence or you. If they are dumb enough to believe you then that's their problem.

By the way, why are you showing a picture of a MIRVed warhead when I am discussing MARV technology?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Look gambit, I don't really care if some people are willing to believe your extremely-biased China-hating arguments.


Of course you do care. All of you do care. Else you would not bother to rehashed the same news items over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum...Without a technical clue of what they say.



Martian2 said:


> They have a choice.


Yes they do. And it really does not look good for you.



Martian2 said:


> They can believe Jane's and the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence or you. If they are dumb enough to believe you then that's their problem.


On the contrary...They are smart enough to see the generalized descriptions made by those sources versus the valid technical issues I brought up. They are smart enough to see the words 'could' or 'may be' or 'potential' for what they are -- uncertainties. Unlike you and your fellow Chinese fanboys who exaggerates their meanings.



Martian2 said:


> By the way, why are you showing a picture of a MIRVed warhead when I am discussing MARV technology?


If you have to ask this question, this tells me you are out of your league in this discussion. Clue -- Visually speaking, you cannot tell the differences. At least not until you are up close and personal with one of these.


----------



## Martian2

Read last bold paragraph at the bottom of the article.





Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command

China Testing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM); U.S. Preparing Accordingly&#8211;Updated With Latest Analysis & Sources|Andrew S. Erickson

"On 24 August 2010, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made the following statement to Japanese media in Tokyo:

&#8220;To our knowledge, [China&#8217;s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.&#8221;

A 16 August 2010 background briefing by a Senior U.S. Department of Defense official indicates that China still needs to successfully integrate its ASBM with C4ISR in order to operationalize it:

&#8220;We continue to be concerned about their efforts to development this&#8212;this particular system. I would say the primary area&#8230; where we see them still facing roadblocks is in integrating the missile system with the C4-ISR. And they still have a ways to go before they manage to get that integrated so that they have an operational and effective system.&#8221;

&#8220;But nonetheless, this is an area that, for all the obvious reasons, remains, you know, of great concern for us.&#8221;

The just-released 2010 U.S. Department of Defense Report on China&#8217;s Military offers a general background:

&#8220;Augmented by direct acquisition of foreign weapons and technology, [defense industry] reforms have enabled China to develop and produce advanced weapon systems that incorporate mid-1990s technology in many areas, and some systems&#8212;particularly ballistic missiles&#8212;that rival any in the world today.&#8221; (p. 43)

&#8220;Production trends and resource allocation appear to favor missile and space systems&#8230;.&#8221; (p. 44).

&#8220;China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes.&#8221; (p. 1)

&#8220;China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km, is armed with a maneuverable warhead, and when integrated with appropriate command and control systems, is intended to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.&#8221; (p. 2)

&#8220;The PLA is acquiring conventional MRBMs to increase the range at which it can conduct precision strikes against land targets and naval ships, including aircraft carriers, operating far from China&#8217;s shores out to the first island chain.&#8221; (p. 31)

&#8220;The PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with Sky Wave and Surface Wave OTH radars. OTH radars could be used in conjunction with imagery satellites to assist in locating targets at great distances from PRC shores to support long range precision strikes, including by anti-ship ballistic missiles.&#8221; (p. 2)

&#8220;Over the long term, improvements in China&#8217;s C4ISR, including space-based and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track, and target military activities deep into the western Pacific Ocean.&#8221; (p. 37)

Based on sophisticated organizational analysis, Mark Stokes and Tiffany Ma suggest that the Second Artillery may be constructing ASBM missile brigade facilities in the northern Guangdong Province municipality of Shaoguan (&#38902;&#20851:

&#8220;Last week, China&#8217;s state-run media quietly announced the construction of facilities for a new Second Artillery missile brigade &#8211; the 96166 Unit &#8211; in the northern Guangdong municipality of Shaoguan&#8230; the province is already home to a Second Artillery short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) brigade (the 96169 unit in Meizhou)&#8230;.&#8221;

&#8220;Although the introduction of the 1,700km range solid fuelled, terminally guided DF-21C ballistic missile into Guangdong is possible, the brigade is also a candidate to be the first unit equipped with the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The DF-21C, first introduced into the active inventory in 2005, is designed to attack fixed targets on land. If an ASBM is successful in passing the necessary design reviews and a sufficient sensor network is in place, the Shaoguan brigade could become the first in the PLA to field a lethal capability against moving targets at sea out to a range of 1,500-2,000km or more from launch sites.&#8221;

&#8220;The Second Artillery planned to finalize the design of the DF-21D by the end of 2010 and the establishment of a permanent deployment location often coincides with the design finalization of a new missile. However, an initial operational capability is likely a ways off, as a follow-on testing of a prototype design may be needed prior to certification for full-rate production.&#8221;

Shaoguan&#8217;s location near Hunan Province, with the inter-provincial Nanling mountains and tunnels through them that complicate satellite surveillance (under construction since at least 2008), offers significant advantages:

&#8220;Whether the unit is equipped with the DF-21C or the more advanced DF-21D maritime variant, the establishment of a conventionally-capable medium range ballistic missile brigade in Guangdong would decisively expand the Second Artillery&#8217;s striking radius. More specifically, it would enable the Second Artillery to support the Central Military Commission to enforce territorial claims in the South China Sea, or strike targets in a Taiwan-related contingency without having to overfly Japanese territory.&#8221;

Other recent indications of Chinese ASBM development progress include the reported completion of a DF-21D rocket motor facility in 2009 and the recent launch of 5 advanced Yaogan satellites, three of which were apparently placed in the same orbit on 5 March&#8211;thereby perhaps offering better coverage of critical areas along China&#8217;s maritime periphery. *Another possible indication is a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit &#8220;slow-moving targets&#8221; with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters.* Mark Stokes, a noted expert at the Project 2049 Institute on this and related issues, stated on 4 June 2010 that 'odds are what you&#8217;re seeing now in terms of testing is&#8230; flight tests of the [DF-21D] motor itself and the airframe&#8230; the final step would be most likely going against a target at sea in a realistic environment.'&#8221;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

I believe aircraft carriers are too large and susceptible to destruction by a technologically-advanced military (e.g. China or United States). I don't believe American aircraft carrier battle groups are survivable in Chinese waters. Similarly, I do not believe the Shi Lang is survivable in American waters. Eventually, American carriers will have to stay east of Hawaii and Chinese carrier(s) will have to stay west of Hawaii.

Here are my latest thoughts on anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) and aircraft carriers.

----------

*Multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM*

An efficient method to attack an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is to use an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) with multiple MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) warheads.

With multiple MARV warheads, a ballistic missile will have reduced range. This can be fixed by building a larger missile to accommodate the larger number of warheads.

My original proposal was to use a simultaneous attack on each capital ship with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, torpedoes, stealth cruise missiles if available, and mix of subsonic (with supersonic terminal phase if available) and supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

I want to elaborate on the anti-ship ballistic missile discussion. It is more efficient and effective to arm each ASBM with multiple MARVs. Let's say each DF-21D ASBM is armed with three MARVs. Firing 25 ASBMs at each destroyer within a five-minute window would total 75 MARV warheads or an incoming warhead every four seconds.

I had proposed launching 50 ASBMs at each aircraft carrier. That is a total of 150 MARV warheads within a five-minute window. This means an incoming warhead will attempt to strike the carrier every two seconds for five minutes non-stop.

We would have to run computer simulations, but another option is to time the arrival of all 50 ASBMs within a ten-second window by using computerized coordination. Basically, the sky will drop down on the carrier with 150 warheads in ten seconds.

With an intense ballistic missile bombardment coupled to an equally intense simultaneous cruise missile and torpedo attack, I don't think an aircraft carrier battle group will survive in Chinese waters.

Feel free to create your own attack plan, such as an initial EMP warhead to fry the carrier group's electronics and a follow-up of 150 MARV warheads in a short time-frame.





It is logical to equip Chinese DF-21D ASBMs with multiple MARV warheads by reducing the range or building a larger ballistic missile.





A MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) is basically a warhead with thrusters.





Multiple warheads (MIRVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile. Similarly, multiple warheads with thrusters (e.g. MARVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile.

[Note: Thank you to Dr. Somnath999 for the composite images of China's ASBM.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

Martian2 said:


> I believe aircraft carriers are too large and susceptible to destruction by a technologically-advanced military (e.g. China or United States). I don't believe American aircraft carrier battle groups are survivable in Chinese waters. Similarly, I do not believe the Shi Lang is survivable in American waters. Eventually, American carriers will have to stay east of Hawaii and Chinese carrier(s) will have to stay west of Hawaii.
> 
> Here are my latest thoughts on anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) and aircraft carriers.
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM*
> 
> An efficient method to attack an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is to use an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) with multiple MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) warheads.
> 
> With multiple MARV warheads, a ballistic missile will have reduced range. This can be fixed by building a larger missile to accommodate the larger number of warheads.
> 
> My original proposal was to use a simultaneous attack on each capital ship with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, torpedoes, stealth cruise missiles if available, and mix of subsonic (with supersonic terminal phase if available) and supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.
> 
> I want to elaborate on the anti-ship ballistic missile discussion. It is more efficient and effective to arm each ASBM with multiple MARVs. Let's say each DF-21D ASBM is armed with three MARVs. Firing 25 ASBMs at each destroyer within a five-minute window would total 75 MARV warheads or an incoming warhead every four seconds.
> 
> I had proposed launching 50 ASBMs at each aircraft carrier. That is a total of 150 MARV warheads within a five-minute window. This means an incoming warhead will attempt to strike the carrier every two seconds for five minutes non-stop.
> 
> We would have to run computer simulations, but another option is to time the arrival of all 50 ASBMs within a ten-second window by using computerized coordination. Basically, the sky will drop down on the carrier with 150 warheads in ten seconds.
> 
> With an intense ballistic missile bombardment coupled to an equally intense simultaneous cruise missile and torpedo attack, I don't think an aircraft carrier battle group will survive in Chinese waters.
> 
> Feel free to create your own attack plan, such as an initial EMP warhead to fry the carrier group's electronics and a follow-up of 150 MARV warheads in a short time-frame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is logical to equip Chinese DF-21D ASBMs with multiple MARV warheads by reducing the range or building a larger ballistic missile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) is basically a warhead with thrusters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple warheads (MIRVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile. Similarly, multiple warheads with thrusters (e.g. MARVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile.


 Hey Martian have you seen the latest j-20 vid I put up its awesome it named j20 2002 public test flight video

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*A triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM will only be 3 meters in diameter*

Let's calculate the size of my proposed devastating triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM.

The diameter of the DF-21 ballistic missile is 1.4m (or 0.7m in radius; see citation below).





We want to build a triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM.

The radius of a triple-MARVed ASBM is (see formula in second citation below):

R = B * (1 + 2 / Sqrt(3))

R = 0.7m * (1 + 2 / (1.732)) = 1.5m (or 3 meters in diameter)

In conclusion, by only doubling the diameter of the DF-21D from 1.4m to 3m, we can pack three times as many MARVs onto the ballistic missile.

----------

References:

1.4m diameter for DF-21 missile: MissileThreat :: CSS-5 (DF-21)

Formula for calculating a circle to circumscribe three inner circles:

BLOG.CSHARPHELPER.COM: Draw a large circle that circumscribes three smaller tangent circles in C#

"Draw a large circle that circumscribes three smaller tangent circles...






The dashed triangle has corners at the inner circles' centers. If the radius of the inner circles is r, then the sides of the triangles have length 2 * r. Because all three sides have the same lengths, this is an equilateral triangle. That means all of its angles are 60 degrees.

The orange triangle's smaller angle is half as large as the angles in the dashed triangle so it is 30 degrees. That makes the orange triangle is a 30-60-90 triangle (the angles are 30, 60, and 90 degrees). One of the properties of the 30-60-90 triangle is that C/A = 1/2 and C/B = 1/Sqrt(3). Rearranging you can get A = 2 * C and C = B/Sqrt(3).

The distance B is the radius r of the smaller circle. The radius of the outer circle is R = r + A = B + A. You can use the previous equations to substitute for A to get:

R = B + A
= B + 2 * C
= B + 2 * (B / Sqrt(3))
= B * (1 + 2 / Sqrt(3))

Solving for B gives B = R / (1 + 2 / Sqrt(3)).

This gives you the radius of the inner circles in terms of the radius of the outer circle. To make the outer circle just fit the form, we need R to be half of the smaller of the form's available width or height."


----------



## Martian2

*Revision: China won't build a triple-MARVed DF-21D ASBM*

My revised analysis is due to AntiTerror13's astute observation. He said a triple-MARVed ASBM would be four times heavier. He is correct and my hoped-for cost-savings just went up in smoke.

I was trying to build a more cost-efficient ASBM. From a volume perspective, placing three MARV warheads on a missile with twice the diameter looks appealing. However, from a weight perspective, three warheads on a four-times heavier missile is inefficient.

A missile is basically a cylinder with a tapered end. Its volume is "pi*r^2" (the area for a circle) multiplied by the length "h". When the radius is doubled, the overall volume is quadrupled. This means more material is needed to lift three MARVs on a single missile than three separate missiles.

It's possible "h" can be reduced due to the larger total volume of fuel, but the combined total liftoff weight is higher and a significant reduction in length is unlikely.

If I wanted to be clever, I can argue it requires fewer highly-trained personnel to operate and guard the ASBM. Also, I can note fewer mobile launchers (TELs) are required.

However, in a balanced analysis, the big cost-savings do not exist. Therefore, a triple-MARVed ASBM is unlikely to be built. It turns out that thermonuclear-tipped ballistic missiles can be efficiently MIRVed or MARVed, but not ballistic missiles with conventional warheads.

When a single megaton-class thermonuclear warhead is replaced with a cluster of smaller 100-kiloton-class warheads, it can maintain devastating strike power. We cannot replace a conventional 600kg HE (high explosive) warhead with three little ones. It wouldn't cause sufficient damage.

----------

Reference for 600kg warhead on DF-21D ASBM: MissileThreat :: CSS-5 (DF-21)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lordwedggie

Martian, as you have said earlier (that I'm in agreement with), the DF21 ASBM is a strategy asset that should never be used, shouldn't China limit the number actually deployed? I suppose if China can manage to conceal the actual number of missiles deployed and demonstrate the use of a few, would that achieve the strategic goal? Thus we won't be needing triple-MARVed DF21s or thousands of single warhead versions, but a few hundred. 

After all nobody knows how many nuclear missiles China have, the certainty that China do have them is sufficient.

Though this was an interesting read, I'm sorry your design failed .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tvsram1992

and you think US cant do combined attack?  Please be brave to show your flags .


----------



## Oldman1

lordwedggie said:


> Martian, as you have said earlier (that I'm in agreement with), the DF21 ASBM is a strategy asset that should never be used, shouldn't China limit the number actually deployed? I suppose if China can manage to conceal the actual number of missiles deployed and demonstrate the use of a few, would that achieve the strategic goal? Thus we won't be needing triple-MARVed DF21s or thousands of single warhead versions, but a few hundred.
> 
> After all nobody knows how many nuclear missiles China have, the certainty that China do have them is sufficient.
> 
> Though this was an interesting read, I'm sorry your design failed .



Even if it worked it be a total failure from the beginning because it would be deemed as a nuclear launch and you be seeing dozens of Trident missiles with MIRVs heading their way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Oldman1 said:


> Even if it worked it be a total failure from the beginning because it would be deemed as a nuclear launch and you be seeing dozens of Trident missiles with MIRVs heading their way.



The U.S. knows it's a conventional warhead, because China has a no-first-use (NFU) policy of using nuclear weapons. Plus, the Chinese DF-21D ASBM has been advertised to death. Whatever ballistic missiles are being shot at an aircraft carrier, it's a conventional DF-21D. In the worst case scenario, China can call the U.S. on the hotline and tell them it's the DF-21D.

Anyway, if the U.S. goes nuclear then China will go nuclear too. If the U.S. wants to find an excuse to start global thermonuclear war, I'm sure China will oblige the Pentagon. There are hawks on both sides, who are more than ready to go at it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fireurimagination

Martian2 said:


> The U.S. knows it's a conventional warhead, because China has a no-first-use (NFU) policy of using nuclear weapons. Plus, the Chinese DF-21D ASBM has been advertised to death. Whatever ballistic missiles are being shot at an aircraft carrier, it's a conventional DF-21D. In the worst case scenario, China can call the U.S. on the hotline and tell them it's the DF-21D.
> 
> Anyway, if the U.S. goes nuclear then China will go nuclear too. If the U.S. wants to find an excuse to start global thermonuclear war, I'm sure China will oblige the Pentagon. There are hawks on both sides, who are more than ready to go at it.



So you want the end the China (for sure), US (probably) and the planet as we know it in the quest to sink an AC, great


----------



## lordwedggie

You have completely failed to grasp what Martian was saying.

But be assured, although the US can destroy the planet 100 times over, china can perhaps only do it ONCE. So it's not 'end china (for sure), US (probably)', it's the end of EVERYBODY (CERTAINLY).

That's what nuclear strategic asset means, sad but true. Now do you understand?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

As usual this scenario assumes that the role the carrier group will take is that of passive target, not shooting back, or being engaged in its own offensive actions.


----------



## gambit

Juice said:


> As usual this scenario assumes that the role the carrier group will take is that of passive target, not shooting back, or being engaged in its own offensive actions.


They have to assume the worst for US and the best for the opposition. Makes you wonder how much war gaming the PLA does and how honest it is when it does it.


----------



## UKBengali

Fireurimagination said:


> So you want the end the China (for sure), US (probably) and the planet as we know it in the quest to sink an AC, great



Americans are not that dumb.

Sink a carrier and the US will try to strike a Chinese Naval port with conventional cruise missiles etc.

China can blow the US into history and the Americans know that.


----------



## Juice

UKBengali said:


> Americans are not that dumb.
> 
> Sink a carrier and the US will try to strike a Chinese Naval port with conventional cruise missiles etc.
> 
> China can blow the US into history and the Americans know that.



I'm sure you meant the US can glass China and the Chinese know that.


----------



## UKBengali

Juice said:


> I'm sure you meant the US can glass China and the Chinese know that.



The Chinese can also glass the US, so the US will not do much to a Chinese conventional strike on a carrier.

What is your point or do you not understand the idea of proportionality and mutual deterrence?


----------



## UKBengali

^^^ These US losers cannot stand to have a country challenging them and to end their time of killing, bullying and thieving in the near future.


----------



## Esc8781

Yes I agree with all of you America is stupid and worthless! China is invincible and the US can't touch it.


----------



## Oldman1

Martian2 said:


> The U.S. knows it's a conventional warhead, because China has a no-first-use (NFU) policy of using nuclear weapons. Plus, the Chinese DF-21D ASBM has been advertised to death. Whatever ballistic missiles are being shot at an aircraft carrier, it's a conventional DF-21D. In the worst case scenario, China can call the U.S. on the hotline and tell them it's the DF-21D.
> 
> Anyway, if the U.S. goes nuclear then China will go nuclear too. If the U.S. wants to find an excuse to start global thermonuclear war, I'm sure China will oblige the Pentagon. There are hawks on both sides, who are more than ready to go at it.



We can't take a word of China's assurance during times of war when firing a ballistic missile which it is in the first place. Its a long range weapon and we don't slowly react to one the moment its launch. All you did was converted to carrying a conventional warhead and we don't know what has what since China tends to be secretive. So if China fires a ballistic missile we can assume that its a nuclear launch weapon so we go nuclear. China gave us the excuse to fire nuclear weapons.

Hence the reason we didn't build one.
Experts warn of an accidental atomic war / Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia - SFGate

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war.

"The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces."

Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered.


----------



## UKBengali

Oldman1 said:


> We can't take a word of China's assurance during times of war when firing a ballistic missile which it is in the first place. Its a long range weapon and we don't slowly react to one the moment its launch. All you did was converted to carrying a conventional warhead and we don't know what has what since China tends to be secretive. So if China fires a ballistic missile we can assume that its a nuclear launch weapon so we go nuclear. China gave us the excuse to fire nuclear weapons.
> 
> Hence the reason we didn't build one.
> Experts warn of an accidental atomic war / Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia - SFGate
> 
> Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war.
> 
> "The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces."
> 
> Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered.




Not this "we go nuclear" argument again!

Go nuclear and then risk everything.

You will wait and see what it is and then respond appropriately.

Chinese won't care about your threats.

They will rely on the fact that you will respond proportionately as they know that you know that they can mess you up totally.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> Not this "we go nuclear" argument again!
> 
> Go nuclear and then risk everything.
> 
> You will wait and see what it is and then respond appropriately.
> 
> Chinese won't care about your threats.
> 
> They will rely on the fact that you will respond proportionately as they know that you know that they can mess you up totally.



Oh trust me when I said is China really gonna risk a nuclear war to try to hit an aircraft carrier? Thousands of years of rich history and culture gone in minutes. Yes we will respond proportionately when assumed its a nuclear launch. Just like the Russian President did when he thought it was a nuclear launch in Norway even though it was one rocket.


----------



## UKBengali

Oldman1 said:


> Oh trust me when I said is China really gonna risk a nuclear war to try to hit an aircraft carrier? Thousands of years of rich history and culture gone in minutes. Yes we will respond proportionately when assumed its a nuclear launch. Just like the Russian President did when he thought it was a nuclear launch in Norway even though it was one rocket.



The US government will not risk total nuclear destruction over a conventional attack on an aircraft carrier.

If your carriers interfere in Asian affairs then China will try to sink them. Simple as that.

If it takes DF-21Ds to do it, then they will use them.

Simple way to keep your carriers out of harms way, do not interfere in other countries squabbles/affairs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> The US government will not risk total nuclear destruction over a conventional attack on an aircraft carrier.
> 
> If your carriers interfere in Asian affairs then China will try to sink them. Simple as that.
> 
> If it takes DF-21Ds to do it, then they will use them.
> 
> Simple way to keep your carriers out of harms way, do not interfere in other countries squabbles/affairs.



We won't risk a nuclear war over the destruction of an aircraft carrier. But we will risk nuclear war over the launch of a ballistic missile. Didn't you read my article I posted?


----------



## UKBengali

Oldman1 said:


> We won't risk a nuclear war over the destruction of an aircraft carrier. But we will risk nuclear war over the launch of a ballistic missile. Didn't you read my article I posted?



And I simply don't think that the US government will want to risk it's own destruction by Chinese launches of ballistic missiles towards carriers in the open ocean.

You think hard when you know you will die very soon if you take a certain course of action.

All very well for Bush to order war when he and his family are totally safe, now what would he do if a Chinese DF-21D was clearly headed for some point in the Western Pacific?

Launch a nuclear strike?

Result - he and his family could all die within 1 hour.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> And I simply don't think that the US government will want to risk it's own destruction by Chinese launches of ballistic missiles towards carriers in the open ocean.
> 
> You think hard when you know you will die very soon if you take a certain course of action.
> 
> All very well for Bush to order war when he and his family are totally safe, now what would he do if a Chinese DF-21D was clearly headed for some point in the Western Pacific?
> 
> Launch a nuclear strike?
> 
> Result - he and his family could all die within 1 hour.



The moment China launches ballistic missiles is the moment the U.S. will deemed it as MAD. They can't tell if its targeting aircraft carriers or islands or the U.S. mainland. You are still not even listening. When a missile goes into orbit it releases MIRVs which can hit almost anywhere! Don't think of a ballistic missile that goes up and comes back down all intact.


----------



## Esc8781

UKBengali said:


> And I simply don't think that the US government will want to risk it's own destruction by Chinese launches of ballistic missiles towards carriers in the open ocean.
> 
> You think hard when you know you will die very soon if you take a certain course of action.
> 
> All very well for Bush to order war when he and his family are totally safe, now what would he do if a Chinese DF-21D was clearly headed for some point in the Western Pacific?
> 
> Launch a nuclear strike?
> 
> Result - he and his family could all die within 1 hour.


 You are saying do not interfere with other countries when Philippians are calling us for help, try to sink the carriers a whole lot of jammers, fighter jets, and submarines can detect your missile if it hit well we will sink your only carrier! Stop underestimating the US.


----------



## amalakas

Oldman1 said:


> The moment China launches ballistic missiles is the moment the U.S. will deemed it as MAD. They can't tell if its targeting aircraft carriers or islands or the U.S. mainland. You are still not even listening. When a missile goes into orbit it releases MIRVs which can hit almost anywhere! Don't think of a ballistic missile that goes up and comes back down all intact.




I mentioned this months back when the members here were boasting the missiles merits. 

If was going up against the US (or Russia) the very last thing that would cross my mind would be to launch a ballistic missile!! 

I have given this some thought since the whole thing surfaced and I still cannot see how the missile is agile/capable enough to hit a ship!

It doesn't even matter how big said ship is, it might as well be a boat! for targeting purposes it is the same.


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali

Lets say for example has we proceeded and implemented the Global Strike weapon that would allow SSBNs to fire Trident armed conventional warheads to target Chinese naval bases, air bases, command and control, its new carrier, etc. Would China believe its not a nuclear launch weapon?


----------



## UKBengali

Oldman1 said:


> UKBengali
> 
> Lets say for example has we proceeded and implemented the Global Strike weapon that would allow SSBNs to fire Trident armed conventional warheads to target Chinese naval bases, air bases, command and control, its new carrier, etc. Would China believe its not a nuclear launch weapon?



Well it is one thing to use ballistic missiles on Chinese mainland and another thing to use it on a Chinese carrier.

The US has not become the country it has by acting irrationally and I simply refuse to believe that it will start now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> Well it is one thing to use ballistic missiles on Chinese mainland and another thing to use it on a Chinese carrier.
> 
> The US has not become the country it has by acting irrationally and I simply refuse to believe that it will start now.



Well since China would keep its new carrier close to the mainland they would mistaken it for attacking the mainland if the Trident missile was going after its carrier. You may think we are not acting irrationally but you can accuse Kennedy of almost starting WW3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.


----------



## Martian2

Oldman1 said:


> Well since China would keep its new carrier close to the mainland they would mistaken it for attacking the mainland if the Trident missile was going after its carrier. You may think we are not acting irrationally but you can accuse Kennedy of almost starting WW3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.



*US is rational. Cuban Missile Crisis and Turkey missile withdrawal quid pro quo.*

You are misrepresenting history.

1. The United States decided to place nuclear missiles in Turkey to threaten the USSR.

2. The USSR retaliated by placing nuclear missile in Cuba.

3. The U.S. felt threatened by the Russian nuclear missiles on Cuba and there was a standoff between the American and Soviet navies (or actually American warships and Soviet transport ships).

4. The Soviets withdrew their nuclear missiles from Cuba in a quid pro quo for American withdrawal of its nuclear missiles from Turkey.

In conclusion, the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated the U.S. is a rational actor.



Oldman1 said:


> Oh trust me when I said is China really gonna risk a nuclear war to try to hit an aircraft carrier? *Thousands of years of rich history and culture gone in minutes.*



*MAD works for Russians. Doesn't work too well for China.*

I suspect this is true. That is why the U.S. can bully China.

MAD (mutually assured destruction) works for the Russians. You want to interfere in Georgia? We'll start with tactical nuclear weapons and keep escalating until the U.S. backs off. Very persuasive argument.

When China tries the same Russian strategy, the US doesn't believe it (see Oldman1 quote above). This is a serious problem, where the U.S. is holding Chinese people, culture, history, and civilization hostage.

Chinese are conservative by nature. The U.S. political system and leadership are erratic and makes Chinese people nervous. One look at the budget standoffs in the U.S. and Chinese will quickly conclude the U.S. has some screws loose.

MAD is an implicit threat (that the U.S. doesn't believe from China; just look at Oldman1 view above) which isn't working very well and China doesn't really want to stumble into war with the U.S.

Oh well, time for China to head back to the negotiating table with the Americans. The Russians can get what they want. China can't really. Putin is willing to fight an all-out thermonuclear war. Hu Jintao is not. Everyone knows this.


----------



## Oldman1

Martian2 said:


> *US is rational. Cuban Missile Crisis and Turkey missile withdrawal quid pro quo.*
> 
> You are misrepresenting history.
> 
> 1. The United States decided to place nuclear missiles in Turkey to threaten the USSR.
> 
> 2. The USSR retaliated by placing nuclear missile in Cuba.
> 
> 3. The U.S. felt threatened by the Russian nuclear missiles on Cuba and there was a standoff between the American and Soviet navies (or actually American warships and Soviet transport ships).
> 
> 4. The Soviets withdrew their nuclear missiles from Cuba in a quid pro quo for American withdrawal of its nuclear missiles from Turkey.
> 
> In conclusion, the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated the U.S. is a rational actor.



Oh I thought a blockade could lead to a nuclear war silly me. I wonder why the Russians decided to back away from challenging it.





> *MAD works for Russians. Doesn't work too well for China.*
> 
> I suspect this is true. That is why the U.S. can bully China.
> 
> MAD (mutually assured destruction) works for the Russians. You want to interfere in Georgia? We'll start with tactical nuclear weapons and keep escalating until the U.S. backs off. Very persuasive argument.
> 
> When China tries the same Russian strategy, the US doesn't believe it (see Oldman1 quote above). This is a serious problem, where the U.S. is holding Chinese people, culture, history, and civilization hostage.



Even Putin himself knows the danger of such Global Strike weapon that he even suggested that strategic nuclear forces would respond if we use such weapon. I guess he's holding us hostage. As I said before this weapon is deemed to fail because its asking for nuclear retaliation no matter what the missile contains.



> Chinese are conservative by nature. The U.S. political system and leadership are erratic and makes Chinese people nervous. One look at the budget standoffs in the U.S. and Chinese will quickly conclude the U.S. has some screws loose.



So that pretty much contradicts about Americans being rational.



> MAD is an implicit threat (that the U.S. doesn't believe from China; just look at Oldman1 view above) which isn't working very well and China doesn't really want to stumble into war with the U.S.
> 
> Oh well, time for China to head back to the negotiating table with the Americans. The Russians can get what they want. China can't really. Putin is willing to fight an all-out thermonuclear war. Hu Jintao is not. Everyone knows this.



We believe in the threat from China which is why I implied MAD in the first place. I cannot tell what kind of warheads those missiles had. So the best way to prevent nuclear launch or so called carrier killers is to use MAD.


----------



## Martian2

*Chinese DF-21D ASBM is an useful bargaining chip*

The Chinese DF-21D ASBM is still a very useful weapon.

1. It would make the U.S. hesitate in bringing in its capital ships.

2. If the naval war isn't going well, DF-21D ASBMs can be unleashed in large numbers.

In conclusion, the DF-21D ASBM serves its purpose as a deterrent. It's another bargaining chip on the table in the poker game between the U.S. and China.

Anyway, I'm not too worried about war between the U.S. and China. The two countries have co-existed peacefully for fifty years. The DF-21D ASBM is simply another step in the game of posturing between the U.S. and China.

Both countries play the same game of strategic ambiguity. Will the U.S. intervene in a war over Taiwan? Will China use its DF-21D ASBM against U.S. carriers? The answers to these questions are all unknown, but they're intended to generate leverage at the negotiating table.

Essentially, you have China building the DF-21D ASBM and 10-MIRVed DF-41 ICBM to try and convince the United States to back off more in Asia.

My final point is the DF-21D may be superseded by newer technologies and may not be used at all. China has been working on the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile. These may be unleashed in large quantities for an simultaneous attack on an U.S. carrier battle group.

----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongniao_(missile)#HN-2000

"*HN-2000*

A stealthy, supersonic cruise/anti-ship missile has been reported under development. It is reported to be equipped with a millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and Beidou satellite guidance. It has an accuracy of up to 1-3 meters and a range of 4000 km. However such a weapon is still said to be under development, with little information on them currently in existence. [3][4]"

----------

Also see (page 5): http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_under_radar_china_cruise_missile.pdf


----------



## Oldman1

Martian2 said:


> *Chinese DF-21D ASBM is an useful bargaining chip*
> 
> The Chinese DF-21D ASBM is still a very useful weapon.
> 
> 1. It would make the U.S. hesitate in bringing in its capital ships.



I doubt it because they would find a way to neutralize the so called carrier killers or keep the ships from being detected. We always find a way. Hence the reason for R&D. 



> 2. If the naval war isn't going well, DF-21D ASBMs can be unleashed in large numbers.



Fire away then.



> In conclusion, the DF-21D ASBM serves its purpose as a deterrent. It's another bargaining chip on the table in the poker game between the U.S. and China.



I doubt it be used as a bargaining chip because like I said about my first paragraph.



> Anyway, I'm not too worried about war between the U.S. and China. The two countries have co-existed peacefully for fifty years. The DF-21D ASBM is simply another step in the game of posturing between the U.S. and China.



Maybe, possible, never know.



> Both countries play the same game of strategic ambiguity. Will the U.S. intervene in a war over Taiwan? Will China use its DF-21D ASBM against U.S. carriers? The answers to these questions are all unknown, but they're intended to generate leverage at the negotiating table.



What exactly do you expect at the negotiating table? Ban aircraft carriers and you guys don't build DF 21s?



> Essentially, you have China building the DF-21D ASBM and 10-MIRVed DF-41 ICBM to try and convince the United States to back off more in Asia.



Hence the reason for Tridents missiles and SSGNs in response.



> My final point is the DF-21D may be superseded by newer technologies and may not be used at all. China has been working on the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile. These may be unleashed in large quantities for an simultaneous attack on an U.S. carrier battle group.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Hongniao (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*HN-2000*
> 
> A stealthy, supersonic cruise/anti-ship missile has been reported under development. It is reported to be equipped with a millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and Beidou satellite guidance. It has an accuracy of up to 1-3 meters and a range of 4000 km. However such a weapon is still said to be under development, with little information on them currently in existence. [3][4]"
> 
> ----------
> 
> Also see (page 5): http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_under_radar_china_cruise_missile.pdf



Surely you never expect the U.S. Navy and Air Force to sit still and develop new weapons and counter measures do you?


----------



## Martian2

Show me a single credible report of masking an aircraft carrier's radar and infrared signatures.

It doesn't exist unless you can change the laws of physics. I don't care how much money you spend on R&D.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Show me a single credible report of masking an aircraft carrier's radar and infrared signatures.


Waterfall cascade, for one. A chaff bloom is another.



Martian2 said:


> It doesn't exist unless you can change the laws of physics.


But *YOU* do regularly.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Show me a single credible report of masking an aircraft carrier's radar and infrared signatures.
> 
> It doesn't exist unless you can change the laws of physics. I don't care how much money you spend on R&D.




How big do you think the signature of a carrier is?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Waterfall cascade, for one. A chaff bloom is another.
> 
> 
> But *YOU* do regularly.



I have a citation for the waterfall cascade. I know its effectiveness. Do you? It's worthless.

Are you ready to debate the number of degrees Celsius that a waterfall cascade is theoretically useful for?



amalakas said:


> How big do you think the signature of a carrier is?



Are you seriously that dumb? It's the infrared signature generated by 75 MegaWatt engines.

Have you considered all of the infrared signatures of the planes idling or taking off from the carrier? Duh!

----------

You two morons annoy me. No serious person believes that you can hide the waste heat from an aircraft carrier and its complement of 80 to 100 fighter aircraft.

Once again, let me repeat myself. Show me a reputable citation where you can hide the radar and infrared signatures of an aircraft carrier and its airplanes (against a background of cold ocean water) beyond detection from modern sensors. Show me the test results. Otherwise, stop yapping.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> I have a citation for the waterfall cascade. I know its effectiveness. Do you? It's worthless.
> 
> Are you ready to debate the number of degrees Celsius that a waterfall cascade is theoretically useful for?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously that dumb? It's the infrared signature generated by 75 MegaWatt engines.
> 
> Have you considered all of the infrared signatures of the planes idling or taking off from the carrier? Duh!



And a warhead coming from re-entry will acquire said heat signature? and I am dumb. OK!


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> And a warhead coming from re-entry will acquire said heat signature? and I am dumb. OK!



The warhead is coming in at Mach 10 and it's a maneuverable MARV. Who cares if you can detect it? You can't stop it.

If you want to claim otherwise, show me a reputable citation where a Mach 10-MARV was shot down under near-real world conditions. You can't, can you?


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> The warhead is coming in at Mach 10 and it's a maneuverable MARV. Who cares if you can detect it? You can't stop it.
> 
> If you want to claim otherwise, show me a reputable citation where a Mach 10-MARV was shot down under near-real world conditions. You can't, can you?



There is no current deployed system that can intercept a re-entry warhead. There is a a reason for that. Velocity. 

Velocity however is only an enemy if the warhead is nuclear. If it is not, it is the missile's enemy as well. Can you even begin to fathom how accurate you must be to hit a moving ship at those speeds? 

I posted before, the Carrier might as well be as small as a fishing boat in those speeds..


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> There is no current deployed system that can intercept a re-entry warhead. There is a a reason for that. Velocity.
> 
> Velocity however is only an enemy if the warhead is nuclear. If it is not, it is the missile's enemy as well. Can you even begin to fathom how accurate you must be to hit a moving ship at those speeds?
> 
> I posted before, the Carrier might as well be as small as a fishing boat in those speeds..



Can you even begin to fathom how fast a modern gigahertz microprocessor (1,000,000,000 operations per second) can process information? To the microprocessor, the ballistic missile is moving in slow motion and the aircraft carrier isn't moving at all.

Intel Unveils 1.5 Gigahertz Microprocessor - eNotes.com

"Article abstract: Intel introduced its Pentium 4 microprocessor, with processing speeds of 1.5 gigahertz, a far cry from the Intel 8088, which it released in 1979 for ..."


----------



## Juice

Here is an idea, we take out the launch sites with conventionaly armed ICBM's, of course after reassuring the Chinese they aren't nuclear.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Can you even begin to fathom how fast a modern gigahertz microprocessor (1,000,000,000 operations per second) can process information? To the microprocessor, the ballistic missile is moving in slow motion and the aircraft carrier isn't moving at all.
> 
> Intel Unveils 1.5 Gigahertz Microprocessor - eNotes.com
> 
> "Article abstract: Intel introduced its Pentium 4 microprocessor, with processing speeds of 1.5 gigahertz, a far cry from the Intel 8088, which it released in 1979 for ..."



I am afraid I have to tell you this is irrelevant. We have had this processing power for some time now, missiles still miss. There isn't a single missile system on this planet right now that offers 100% hit rate. And that is at significant lower velocities. I hope you will not argue this. 
What makes you so confident that problems that haven't been solved with "lesser" weapon systems have been resolved with this one?


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> I am afraid I have to tell you this is irrelevant. We have had this processing power for some time now, missiles still miss. There isn't a single missile system on this planet right now that offers 100% hit rate. And that is at significant lower velocities. I hope you will not argue this.
> What makes you so confident that problems that haven't been solved with "lesser" weapon systems have been resolved with this one?



Let's say China shoots 100 DF-21D ASBMs at an aircraft carrier within five minutes. For whatever reason, let's say 15% fail. That means 85 MARV warheads are bearing down on the aircraft carrier. Do you want to bet on the survivability of the carrier?

China does not need an 100% hit rate or effective system. The attacker only needs a couple of hits and the carrier is down.






Simulated ASBM strikes on aircraft carrier deck mock-up on land. I know the "carrier" isn't moving. However, to a gigahertz microprocessor on the DF-21D ASBM, a real aircraft carrier (with a speed of 30 knots per hour) isn't really moving either.


----------



## Bombay Dude

F 18s with ASEA Equipped can take out the Launching Sites. Nimitz has upto 90. I think upto 6 can be Launched at a time. So they can make upto 15 Vs. 

Can any American tell me What are the escorts in a Typical Nimitz CBG?


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Let's say China shoots 100 DF-21D ASBMs at an aircraft carrier within five minutes. For whatever reason, let's say 15% fail. That means 85 MARV warheads are bearing down on the aircraft carrier. Do you want to bet on the survivability of the carrier?
> 
> China does not need a 100% hit rate or effective system. The attacker only needs a couple of hits and the carrier is down.



OK, for argument's sake I will go along. You mean to tell me, someone in their sane frame of mind will order the launch of 100, (or even 10) ballistic missiles ? 

Even if I am to believe that the carrier will be hit, do you want to bet on the reaction of the early warning systems of both NATO and the US/Russia ? 

Still, even if 85% of the tips are falling down on the carrier, I still doubt any will hit it. I am not convinced by feasibility of that system. It only makes sense if the system is nuclear. 

You are talking about a CEP of I would say sub-meter, since even missing the Carrier by a meter, well you haven't hit it ,have you? And aiming is not measured from the center of the carrier, but from whatever the guidance sees as a target, right? 

I don't think anything can be that accurate with the current level of technology.


----------



## Martian2

Bombay Dude said:


> F 18s with ASEA Equipped can take out the Launching Sites. Nimitz has upto 90. I think upto 6 can be Launched at a time. So they can make upto 15 Vs.
> 
> Can any American tell me What are the escorts in a Typical Nimitz CBG?



F-18 has a combat radius of 460 miles. The carrier will be long dead before the F-18 takes off. Furthermore, American admirals have stated that no fourth-generation aircraft can penetrate China's overlapping air defenses, which they have characterized as the most formidable in the world.

A few Aegis destroyers won't do any good. They'll be too busy trying to save themselves. They are also unlikely to be successful in defending themselves against a massive simultaneous bombardment of DF-21D ASBMs.

The fundamental problem for the U.S. is that ASBMs are cheap. China can fire hundreds of them cost-effectively at a billion-dollar destroyer or five-billion-dollar aircraft carrier.


----------



## faithfulguy

Juice said:


> Here is an idea, we take out the launch sites with conventionaly armed ICBM's, of course after reassuring the Chinese they aren't nuclear.



DF-21D target acquisition system will be wipe out if there is any potential conflict with the US. So this weapon system is useless. US will not move any carrier with the distance of DF-21D until the missiles are wipe out.

The question now become does China have any way of preventing a missile from destroying the system. Another question that we can ask is would US able to identify the system. Base on the size of the radar and the number of the missiles, it should not be a problem for the US military to make DF-21D nothing more than a technology demonstrator.


----------



## amalakas

Bombay Dude said:


> F 18s with ASEA Equipped can take out the Launching Sites. Nimitz has upto 90. I think upto 6 can be Launched at a time. So they can make upto 15 Vs.
> 
> Can any American tell me What are the escorts in a Typical Nimitz CBG?




Wiki ---> "A carrier strike group (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates,[1] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship. The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet who is operationally responsible for the area of waters the carrier strike group is operating in."


----------



## faithfulguy

Martian2 said:


> F-18 has a combat radius of 460 miles. The carrier will be long dead before the F-18 takes off. Furthermore, American admirals have stated that no fourth-generation aircraft can penetrate China's overlapping air defenses, which they have characterized as the most formidable in the world.



a trident II D5 has a longer range than DF-21. Unless China can find and destroy the subs within the range of the DF-21D system, DF-21D is useless against the US carriers.



Bombay Dude said:


> F 18s with ASEA Equipped can take out the Launching Sites. Nimitz has upto 90. I think upto 6 can be Launched at a time. So they can make upto 15 Vs.
> 
> Can any American tell me What are the escorts in a Typical Nimitz CBG?



US won't move any surface ships within the range of DF-21D until the sub launched trident or tomahawk missile destroy the radar use by DF-21D.


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> OK, for argument's sake I will go along. You mean to tell me, someone in their sane frame of mind will order the launch of 100, (or even 10) ballistic missiles ?
> 
> Even if I am to believe that the carrier will be hit, do you want to bet on the reaction of the early warning systems of both NATO and the US/Russia ?
> 
> Still, even if 85% of the tips are falling down on the carrier, I still doubt any will hit it. I am not convinced by feasibility of that system. It only makes sense if the system is nuclear.
> 
> You are talking about a CEP of I would say sub-meter, since even missing the Carrier by a meter, well you haven't hit it ,have you? And aiming is not measured from the center of the carrier, but from whatever the guidance sees as a target, right?
> 
> I don't think anything can be that accurate with the current level of technology.



You're a moron. An ASBM does not need a CEP on the order of a sub-meter. An Nimitz aircraft carrier is 333 meters long. Why do you need a CEP of a sub-meter to hit a 333-meter aircraft carrier? Do you know what CEP means? I think you're totally clueless.

----------

Anyway, there are too many trolls and morons in this thread. I'm tired of answering stupid questions. I only like good ones and I haven't seen any. See you guys later.


----------



## faithfulguy

DF-21D is more of a political weapon than a military weapon. It just test the resolve of the US to interfere the Taiwan straite issue. If US has the resolve, than US will win any conventional war with China. So DF-21D would just make US think twice before interfere in any conflict with Taiwan. But if US is committed, US will certain win in any conflict vs China even if DF-21D has 5 times the capability of what it actually have.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> You're a moron. An ASBM does not need a CEP on the order of a sub-meter. An Nimitz aircraft carrier is 333 meters long. Why do you need a CEP of a sub-meter to hit a 333-meter aircraft carrier? Do you know what CEP means? I think you're totally clueless.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Anyway, there are too many trolls and morons in this thread. I'm tired of answering stupid questions. I only like good ones and I haven't seen any. See you guys later.



i think you don't understand what CEP is, and the size of the carrier has no bearing here. 

whatever rocks your boat. 

I have used the coordinates of your photo in google, there is nothing indicating a weapon's range. 
If someone else can try the same and verify that it is indeed a weapon's range it would be nice.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oldman1 said:


> We can't take a word of China's assurance during times of war when firing a ballistic missile which it is in the first place. Its a long range weapon and we don't slowly react to one the moment its launch. All you did was converted to carrying a conventional warhead and we don't know what has what since China tends to be secretive. So if China fires a ballistic missile we can assume that its a nuclear launch weapon so we go nuclear. China gave us the excuse to fire nuclear weapons.



First of all, the DF-21D is *not* a long range weapon. It is an IRBM and ballistic trajectories can be calculated. Are you saying the US is so backwards it can't even tell the difference between an IRBM and an ICBM?

But let me turn your argument against you.

Nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles.

W80 (nuclear warhead) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can also be delivered by aircraft.

B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if the US launches a single Tomahawk cruise missile or deploys F-35s, China can assume that it is a nuclear first strike. You just gave China the excuse to launch every single DF-31A.


----------



## manojb

Then why china building ac?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You're a moron. An ASBM does not need a CEP on the order of a sub-meter. An Nimitz aircraft carrier is 333 meters long. Why do you need a CEP of a sub-meter to hit a 333-meter aircraft carrier? Do you know what CEP means? I think you're totally clueless.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Anyway, there are too many trolls and morons in this thread. I'm tired of answering stupid questions. I only like good ones and I haven't seen any. See you guys later.


No...It is *YOU* who are clueless. A CEP is calculated upon a circle. An elongated target does not offer any increase in hit success. If anything, such a target is even more problematic. See 'runway denial' and how successful it really is. Go back to that intellectually dead playground with your nonsense. It had deteriorated into nothing more than a mutual admiration society.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> No...It is *YOU* who are clueless. A CEP is calculated upon a circle. An elongated target does not offer any increase in hit success. If anything, such a target is even more problematic. See 'runway denial' and how successful it really is. Go back to that intellectually dead playground with your nonsense. It had deteriorated into nothing more than a mutual admiration society.



I still cannot see a feasible way for such a system without it being based on nuclear capability. 

I can imagine a CNV literally sailing while a rain of warheads drops around it at distance. 

I have tried the coordinates at the bottom of Martian2's image about the simulated attack on a carrier deck with the missile. 

I didn't see anything that indicates a weapons range. But if someone else would that would be great.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Meanwhile, back in the real world China's nuclear buildup continues. 



> China has ambitious plans to have *more than 100 reactors operating by 2020* to help curb surging demand for coal and imported oil and gas. But development was suspended after Japan's March 2011 tsunami crippled the Fukushima power plant, causing the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.
> 
> Authorities launched an inspection of China's 13 operating reactors following the Fukushima disaster and said they found no problems. They said they were reviewing work on the *28 reactors under construction*.



China nuclear company plans IPO to fund expansion


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I still cannot see a feasible way for such a system without it being based on nuclear capability.
> 
> I can imagine a CNV literally sailing while a rain of warheads drops around it at distance.
> 
> I have tried the coordinates at the bottom of Martian2's image about the simulated attack on a carrier deck with the missile.
> 
> I didn't see anything that indicates a weapons range. But if someone else would that would be great.


Runway denial is just about the best example of how difficult it will be to take out a moving target.







That is the carrier Hiryu dodging dumb gravity bombs in the Battle of Midway.

What these yayhoos does not understand is the problems of:

- Closing velocity
- Sensor
- Flight Control System response
- Structural stress

Does the DF-21D have an active radar? If yes, what are its scan limits? Nosecones impose physical scan limits and more 'pointy' the warhead, the more restrictive the scan limits. The more restrictive the scan limits, the greater the vulnerability to chaff, which *WILL* create a radar noise blanket of several hundreds square km, completely blanketing the warhead's radar view. These guys have never seen the inside of aircraft, let alone the nosecone of bomb or a missile warhead. They see the words 'zig zag' and they think the warhead is going to perform some maneuvers straight out of a Hollywood action movie. They do not know the structural stress an aircraft or even a compact warhead will experience during even just one course deviation, let alone a 'zig zag' motion. They cannot explain what kind of flight control mechanisms would be required, aerodynamic exploitations or lateral thrust.


----------



## Bombay Dude

Martian2 said:


> F-18 has a combat radius of 460 miles. The carrier will be long dead before the F-18 takes off. Furthermore, American admirals have stated that no fourth-generation aircraft can penetrate China's overlapping air defenses, which they have characterized as the most formidable in the world.
> 
> A few Aegis destroyers won't do any good. They'll be too busy trying to save themselves. They are also unlikely to be successful in defending themselves against a massive simultaneous bombardment of DF-21D ASBMs.
> 
> The fundamental problem for the U.S. is that ASBMs are cheap. China can fire hundreds of them cost-effectively at a billion-dollar destroyer or five-billion-dollar aircraft carrier.



This Chinese only throws Lies.

Hornet is capable of 2346 Kms. Nimitz can indeed come near Naha Island and Bomb China without need to Refuel. There will be atleast 4 Burke's in a War Time Situation. Don't know if Nimitz has any LRSAM. But 96 VLS capable Burke Flight 3 will be put forward. Plus A Ohio SSGN with 154 Tomahawks. The Nearest US Base Guam is 2250 Km from Nearest Operating CSG. The Undersea Threat will be taken care by Virginias. 

There is No way China can fire Hundreds of ASBMs within Minutes. Ohios, F-18s, B-2s would be Bombing your Launching Facalities since DF-21D can best be effective from only 100 Km from the Shore. 

We have not even taken into consideration the Kongos, Atagos and the Sejongs sitting a Couple Hundred Kms away. 

*The Most Important Point*: The Chinese Missile is more of a Psycho-Ops than to be Used in Reality. 

Just Imagine, Why Didn't the Soviets make one?

But They Decided to go Cover the Curve starting from Moskva to Ulyanovsk.  

And Lastly Remember China is a Land Based Power with No Naval Tradition like US.


----------



## Oldman1

Martian2 said:


> Show me a single credible report of masking an aircraft carrier's radar and infrared signatures.
> 
> It doesn't exist unless you can change the laws of physics. I don't care how much money you spend on R&D.



Like I said they will find a way to do something on the ships as well as tactics.


----------



## UKBengali

Bombay Dude said:


> This Chinese only throws Lies.
> 
> Hornet is capable of 2346 Kms. Nimitz can indeed come near Naha Island and Bomb China without need to Refuel. There will be atleast 4 Burke's in a War Time Situation. Don't know if Nimitz has any LRSAM. But 96 VLS capable Burke Flight 3 will be put forward. Plus A Ohio SSGN with 154 Tomahawks. The Nearest US Base Guam is 2250 Km from Nearest Operating CSG. The Undersea Threat will be taken care by Virginias.
> 
> There is No way China can fire Hundreds of ASBMs within Minutes. Ohios, F-18s, B-2s would be Bombing your Launching Facalities since DF-21D can best be effective from only 100 Km from the Shore.
> 
> We have not even taken into consideration the Kongos, Atagos and the Sejongs sitting a Couple Hundred Kms away.
> 
> *The Most Important Point*: The Chinese Missile is more of a Psycho-Ops than to be Used in Reality.
> 
> Just Imagine, Why Didn't the Soviets make one?
> 
> But They Decided to go Cover the Curve starting from Moskva to Ulyanovsk.
> 
> And Lastly Remember China is a Land Based Power with No Naval Tradition like US.




Soviets did not make one? Sensing technology was nowhere near good enough in those days.

No Naval tradition? Well the US hammered the much more experienced Japanese Navy in WW2.


----------



## Oldman1

Martian2 said:


> F-18 has a combat radius of 460 miles. The carrier will be long dead before the F-18 takes off. Furthermore, American admirals have stated that no fourth-generation aircraft can penetrate China's overlapping air defenses, which they have characterized as the most formidable in the world.
> 
> A few Aegis destroyers won't do any good. They'll be too busy trying to save themselves. They are also unlikely to be successful in defending themselves against a massive simultaneous bombardment of DF-21D ASBMs.
> 
> The fundamental problem for the U.S. is that ASBMs are cheap. China can fire hundreds of them cost-effectively at a billion-dollar destroyer or five-billion-dollar aircraft carrier.



With that thinking is dangerous if all your intents and purpose is to take on aircrart carriers as the only danger to China. Have you ever thought of long range cruise missiles, submarines, long range bombers and bombs that can hit China from a distance? An SSGN can be quipped with almost 200 cruise missiles can target command and control and SAM batteries which means its useless even before carriers even got there.


----------



## UKBengali

Oldman1 said:


> With that thinking is dangerous if all your intents and purpose is to take on aircrart carriers as the only danger to China. Have you ever thought of long range cruise missiles, submarines, long range bombers and bombs that can hit China from a distance? An SSGN can be quipped with almost 200 cruise missiles can target command and control and SAM batteries which means its useless even before carriers even got there.



Most US cruise missiles would be shot down by China's air defences anyway.

This is not Iraq 1991.

China is too rich a target for the US to try that tactic.


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> First of all, the DF-21D is *not* a long range weapon. It is an IRBM and ballistic trajectories can be calculated. Are you saying the US is so backwards it can't even tell the difference between an IRBM and an ICBM?
> 
> But let me turn your argument against you.
> 
> Nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles.
> 
> W80 (nuclear warhead) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> They can also be delivered by aircraft.
> 
> B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So if the US launches a single Tomahawk cruise missile or deploys F-35s, China can assume that it is a nuclear first strike. You just gave China the excuse to launch every single DF-31A.



Then China should stop making aircraft and cruise missiles then. Its true that the SSGNs can be equipped with special weapons if decided and you find out too late because you believe it won't happen. Just like in response to launching IRBMs or ICBMs or whatever that goes ballistic in the first place.


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> Most US cruise missiles would be shot down by China's air defences anyway.
> 
> This is not Iraq 1991.
> 
> China is too rich a target for the US to try that tactic.



Oh so you are saying Iraq back in 91 should have taken out all those cruise missiles when it had powerful SAMs and AA guns behind the Soviets back then. Its a rich target to go after.

And all this was back in 91.


----------



## UKBengali

Oldman1 said:


> Oh so you are saying Iraq back in 91 should have taken out all those cruise missiles when it had powerful SAMs and AA guns behind the Soviets back then. Its a rich target to go after.
> 
> And all this was back in 91.



Iraqi equipment was around 15-20 years behind what the Russians had in 1991.


----------



## The SC

The US might threaten by going nuclear, but how come the fact that if this scenario comes to happen, China would have thought about it and would have prepared itself to go nuclear too also in an innovative way the US has no knowledge of, didn't cross your mind.


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> Most US cruise missiles would be shot down by China's air defences anyway.
> 
> This is not Iraq 1991.
> 
> China is too rich a target for the US to try that tactic.


What kind of experience does China have regarding air defense against cruise missiles?


----------



## Juice

UKBengali said:


> Soviets did not make one? Sensing technology was nowhere near good enough in those days.
> 
> No Naval tradition? Well the US hammered the much more experienced Japanese Navy in WW2.


 The Japanese Navy was far from more experienced. They had to buy all their first gen ships abroad, and were new to steam, armor, cannons, etc. The US was still mostly English, and heir to many centuries of naval bad-assery. The Japanese were slightly more experienced than the Chinese of today, but more in the modern Chinese position (just figuring out how to produce their own ships, only a few generation at that time)


----------



## lordwedggie

Hahaha 'naval bad-assery'. Yeah during the independence war the newly formed US navy performed admirablly against the royal navy. There was an article describing an 1 on 1 engagement between two frigates, the british frigate ended up surrendering. If the US had some 1st rates then it could have been very interesting. 

Anyway Bombay Dude (you guys sure say 'dude' a lot, dude), if you read Martian's posts back a few pages, he concluded himself the ASBM is a strategic asset and therefor should never been used. It will likely escalate to nuclear doom. Its mere existence (helped by other more conventional platforms such as subs, stealth fighters, cruise missiles, radars, surface fleets) serves the purpose, which is to prevent/delay US involvement should china find itself in a crisis with neighboring countries.

Gambit, if you think your government taking the ASBM seriously is a mistake, I would suggest you write them a letter instead of posting here? After all isn't this what democracy is all about? Here is your chance to be a patriot and prevent your country to waste your hard-earns on developing new systems to counter a nonexistent fantasy? 

If I'm not mistaken the DF21 ASBM are Second Artillery, let's all hope these guys are never called into action.


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> Iraqi equipment was around 15-20 years behind what the Russians had in 1991.



They buy weapons that money can buy for them.


----------



## Juice

lordwedggie said:


> Hahaha 'naval bad-assery'. Yeah during the independence war the newly formed US navy performed admirablly against the royal navy. There was an article describing an 1 on 1 engagement between two frigates, the british frigate ended up surrendering. If the US had some 1st rates then it could have been very interesting.
> 
> Anyway Bombay Dude (you guys sure say 'dude' a lot, dude), if you read Martian's posts back a few pages, he concluded himself the ASBM is a strategic asset and therefor should never been used. It will likely escalate to nuclear doom. Its mere existence (helped by other more conventional platforms such as subs, stealth fighters, cruise missiles, radars, surface fleets) serves the purpose, which is to prevent/delay US involvement should china find itself in a crisis with neighboring countries.
> 
> Gambit, if you think your government taking the ASBM seriously is a mistake, I would suggest you write them a letter instead of posting here? After all isn't this what democracy is all about? Here is your chance to be a patriot and prevent your country to waste your hard-earns on developing new systems to counter a nonexistent fantasy?
> 
> If I'm not mistaken the DF21 ASBM are Second Artillery, let's all hope these guys are never called into action.


Not sure how that matters, the American Revolution was in essence a civil war. And yes, England and the US are heirs to the most sophisticated Naval traditions in world history.


----------



## bronx

gambit said:


> What kind of experience does China have regarding air defense against cruise missiles?


 
One could ask the same :

1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?

2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?

3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined 
(1) & (2) attack as above ?



Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anon45

bronx said:


> One could ask the same :
> 
> 1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?
> 
> 2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?
> 
> 3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
> (1) & (2) attack as above ?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq



1) Gulf War, Operation Praying Mantis

2) Operation Praying Mantis would be the closest comparison as it was defence against anti-ship missiles, even if they weren't ballistic.

3) Again operation Praying Mantis

China would significantly raise the risk of a nuclear response by firing off multiple ballistic missiles simultaneously, because that could be mistaken as a nuclear strike, even more so if China fires off 50's or the 'hundreds' that some forumgoers speculate, as that is how a nuclear first strike is typically envisioned.

The Chances are raised even further if China keeps testing in secret and China decides it should try to surprise us with (from the viewpoint of the US) ballistic missiles with an unknown payload when our intelligence believes China's much touted ASBM's are not operational yet.

Transparency on when these missiles come into service is critical in order to reduce the likelihood of mistakes.


----------



## Oldman1

bronx said:


> One could ask the same :
> 
> 1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?
> 
> 2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?
> 
> 3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
> (1) & (2) attack as above ?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq



We used target drones for that reason since for decades we were prepared for possible war with Soviet Union.

Recently they been testing some other...things.

U.S. Navy Laser Weapon Shoots Down Drone in Test. - YouTube


----------



## gambit

bronx said:


> One could ask the same :
> 
> 1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?


Already answered adequately.



bronx said:


> 2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?


Ballistic missiles are the same no matter what their targets: land or sea. The only difference is that at sea, the target is moving. This complicate reentry calculation. So the more proper question should be how many countries have experience at fielding a ballistic warhead with real-time maneuverability to match target positional changes? None. But as far as defense against ballistic warheads goes, we have the technology and the current developmental experience that China does not have.



bronx said:


> 3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
> (1) & (2) attack as above ?


When we have such an opponent. But not yet in China.



bronx said:


> Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq


The PLA would love to have 1/2 the experience we do with Iraq. Considering how the PLA probably could not have taken on Iraq back then, may be 1/4 would be more appropriate.


----------



## UKBengali

gambit said:


> What kind of experience does China have regarding air defense against cruise missiles?



They have none, just like the US has virtually none against swarms of sophisticated cruise missiles.

What the Chinese have are AESA AWACs, fighters with look-down/shot-down radars that can guide AAMs to these cruise missiles, a multi-layered ground air defence system that would pick off the cruise missiles at long, medium and short range.

US has little cards to play against China militarily unless it is an engagement in the open Oceans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

UKBengali said:


> They have none, just like the US has virtually none against swarms of sophisticated cruise missiles.
> 
> What the Chinese have are AESA AWACs, fighters with look-down/shot-down radars that can guide AAMs to these cruise missiles, a multi-layered ground air defence system that would pick off the cruise missiles at long, medium and short range.
> 
> US has little cards to play against China militarily unless it is an engagement in the open Oceans.


 Guess what we have everything you mentioned on there.


----------



## bronx

anon45 said:


> 1) Gulf War, Operation Praying Mantis
> 
> 2) Operation Praying Mantis would be the closest comparison as it was defence against anti-ship missiles, even if they weren't ballistic.
> 
> 3) Again operation Praying Mantis


 
hmm...interesting reading . Thanks for this. 

So at least the USN has some experience against this threat , while the PLAN does not have . 

I wonder who will be the 1st opponent to test the PLAN out ? Perhaps Phillipines ?


----------



## bronx

gambit said:


> The PLA would love to have 1/2 the experience we do with Iraq. Considering how the PLA probably could not have taken on Iraq back then, may be 1/4 would be more appropriate.




Why would the PLA engage in a physical war in Iraq ? They have heaps of other option(s) , given China considerable financial resources available . Just Buy Iraq out (directly or indirectly) ,e.g set up State owned Joint ventures entities with Iraq and reap the rewards OR Have a currency swop with Iraq and charged them higher interest or exchange rate .Both Easy options .

I thought Sun Tzu was complusory reading at West Point ? 

Sun Tzu : "Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them "

However, if an invasion is necessary for whatever other reasons (e.g , For Generals to test their new toys) : 

1) The PLA could outsource the whole invasion to the US Military . Given the Treasury huge budget deficit , I'm sure some members of the House may well consider the adventure feasible. Both China & US can also veto any UN security council resolutions. Gives them more opportunities to vote on the same side !
.

OR
.


2) The PLA could outsource the whole event to Blackwater , XE or Academi . With a double digit unemployment figure , many vets begging / sleeping on the streets , Academi could well hire many many vet at cheap rates ($9 an hour ?) and successfully tender for the project at $300 million ? And add $20 million to lobby for congressional approval , total $320 million. Pocket change for the PLA / China ...LOL 

Everybody wins . The experienced battle hardened vets get jobs, Academi walks away with a pile of profit + cash , China spends some of her treasuries away..  

.
.

On a more serious note , I reckon that we will see more private contractors & mercenaries for the next few regional wars ; the shareholders at XE / Academi are smart investors , a niche market that is provides high ROI !


----------



## eachus

bronx said:


> One could ask the same :
> 
> 1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?
> 
> 2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?
> 
> 3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
> (1) & (2) attack as above ?
> 
> Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq




China is on the defense side, China is backed to the corner has no way to avoid the war and has to accept unlimited lose. China should have those as price for any invader 

1) number rounds of multiple(100+ each attack) cruise missiles, possible each can emit 100 blooms, any radar can defense?

2) number rounds of multiple(100+ each attack) ASBM missiles, and possible each can emit 100 blooms?

3) number rounds of multiple(100+ each attack) unman aircrafts, and possible each can emit 100 blooms, missiles?

4) 100+ stealthy unman aircrafts, and possible stealthy missiles?

5) submarines, unman submarines, smart bombs,,,,

6) when J20 is ready, add those to the list. 

7) 100+ manned aircrafts with missiles. 

8) something you and I dont know yet, but exists.

9) possible all of above combined. 

[note: do not expect US or China has a single satellite in space. both have abilities to take them all down.] 


US attack/invade China, US has option and does care the price/return ratio. 
China on the defense side, China has no option can not do calculation for return.


----------



## eachus

in the last 40 years, US did not have a single rival test its military capacity. fight against Iraq and Libia are worse than normal hometown test. those countries have technology at least 2 generations outdated, was that meaningful?


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> in the last 40 years, US did not have a single rival test its military capacity.


Is that our fault? In the last 100 yrs, how many military rivals (not peers) have faced US? Plenty, counting WW II. But how many peers? Just one, the USSR. And whatever commentary/criticism you can level at US, you can do the same for the Soviets and China as well.



eachus said:


> fight against Iraq and Libia are worse than normal hometown test. those countries have technology at least 2 generations outdated, *was that meaningful?*


Yes, they were. China wish the PLA would have 1/4 combat experience of the US military. Keep in mind those countries were armed by the USSR/China alliance.



bronx said:


> Why would the PLA engage in a physical war in Iraq ?


Speculative. Every military have a wish it could take on X, Y, or Z opponent in a real fight. Whatever Sun Tzu advised about wining without fighting is a political/strategic issue. But deep down inside, a military is no different than a boxer that itches for a real fight. You think Mike Tyson talked his way to the championship?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## doidoi2

Guys, there is no point arguing in an online forum about the superior quality of Chinese weapons/tactics over Western ones. Remember one of Sun Tzu's tenets. 

*When able, you must appear unable, and vice versa.*

It's to our advantage to let the military be underestimated. Never forget this.

Why do you think the CCP boasted about its many achievements in the 70's and 80's when they're in deplorable form? Why do you think the CCP no longer makes those proclamations of superior ability and instead chooses to emphasize the peaceful aspects of its army?

Don't make the mistake of giving up tactical advantage for a few moments of &#36894;&#22068;&#30382;&#23376;.


----------



## gambit

doidoi2 said:


> Guys, there is no point arguing in an online forum about the superior quality of Chinese weapons/tactics over Western ones. Remember one of Sun Tzu's tenets.
> 
> When able, you must appear unable, and vice versa.
> 
> *It's to our advantage to let the military be underestimated.* Never forget this.
> 
> Why do you think the CCP boasted about its many achievements in the 70's and 80's when they're in deplorable form? Why do you think the CCP no longer makes those proclamations of superior ability and instead chooses to emphasize the peaceful aspects of its army?
> 
> Don't make the mistake of giving up tactical advantage for a few moments of &#36894;&#22068;&#30382;&#23376;.


And that is why China predicted that the US would have massive casualty in Desert Storm. Also, we do not have regular military parades with jackbooted high kicking troopers designed to impress the gullible. Looks like we followed Sun Tzu better than China does.


----------



## doidoi2

gambit said:


> And that is why China predicted that the US would have massive casualty in Desert Storm. Also, we do not have regular military parades with jackbooted high kicking troopers designed to impress the gullible. Looks like we followed Sun Tzu better than China does.



You're absolutely right. America > China in every way. China won't catch up militarily for at least 100 years (as Lee Kuan Yew has said). Not too sure what Americans are worried about. Nothing but paper tiger here.


----------



## gambit

doidoi2 said:


> You're absolutely right. America > China in every way. China won't catch up militarily for at least 100 years (as Lee Kuan Yew has said). Not too sure what Americans are worried about. Nothing but paper tiger here.


The difference between the Americans on this forum versus the Chinese on this forum is that a few of us actually served in the military, have traveled to foreign countries and served with their militaries, and understands our military's weaknesses as well as our strengths. Whereas not one of the Chinese members here, from mainland China or the US, have even passed through Basic. So which ones of us all are really vulnerable to the guilt of underestimating a potential adversary?


----------



## LetsGetRowdy

gambit said:


> The difference between the Americans on this forum versus the Chinese on this forum is that a few of us actually served in the military, have traveled to foreign countries and served with their militaries, and understands our military's weaknesses as well as our strengths. Whereas not one of the Chinese members here, from mainland China or the US, have even passed through Basic. So which ones of us all are really vulnerable to the guilt of underestimating a potential adversary?



The difference is because Americans (not you, you are vietnamese) are from a war-mongering nation, no other nations on earth has invaded more countries in the past decade compared to the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> The difference between the Americans on this forum versus the Chinese on this forum is that a few of us actually served in the military, have traveled to foreign countries and served with their militaries, and understands our military's weaknesses as well as our strengths. Whereas not one of the Chinese members here, from mainland China or the US, have even passed through Basic. So which ones of us all are really vulnerable to the guilt of underestimating a potential adversary?



lessons learned through serving with different militaries within NATO for example are invaluable. 

I mentioned before that when the Greek Airforce conducted training run against a CVN, the de-briefing /feedback we got was that the tactics employed were never seen before and an eye opener for the US Navy in pelagic environments with a multitude of islands. 

Guess who knows more about defending a fleet now than they used to know 10 years ago!


----------



## Oldman1

LetsGetRowdy said:


> The difference is because Americans (not you, you are vietnamese) are from a war-mongering nation, no other nations on earth has invaded more countries in the past decade compared to the US.



Not every country is a superpower, can only invade one nation or so. Kind of like Iraq invading Kuwait.


----------



## UKBengali

US versus Iraq proves the superiority of the US?


----------



## gambit

LetsGetRowdy said:


> The difference is because Americans (not you, you are vietnamese)...


I am an American. Or do you prefer to look at the world through a racial/racist prism?



LetsGetRowdy said:


> ...are from a war-mongering nation, no other nations on earth has invaded more countries in the past decade compared to the US.


For what reasons? How many of those countries do you want to live in? Why are so many people want to 'invade' US through immigration?


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> US versus Iraq proves the superiority of the US?



Of course. Iraq could only invade one country. We invaded multiple. Unless you can prove me wrong that Iraq can invade a dozen countries in a few decades.


----------



## terranMarine

gambit said:


> I am an American. Or do you prefer to look at the world through a racial/racist prism?
> 
> 
> For what reasons? How many of those countries do you want to live in? Why are so many people want to 'invade' US through immigration?


 
For what reasons you ask? You tell us why your country have wage wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
Let me give you some history facts in a nutshell

* US feared Communism 
- US attacked North Vietnam and North Korea.
- US placed Jupiter missiles (armed with nuclear warheads) in Italy and Turkey targeting USSR
- US wanted to overthrow Cuba and kill Castro
- USSR responded, this led to the Cuban missile crisis
- Both countries came to an agreement: USSR remove nuclear missiles from Cuba, US remove Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey and promised not to invade Cuba.

During the Iraq-Iran conflict , US didn't want Iraq to lose and thus provided help to Saddam with arms but still considered Iraq a country supporting terrorists. When Saddam decided to attack Kuwait, US declared war on Iraq (operation dessert storm)

After 9/11, US started hunting down Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Believed they were hiding in Afghanistan so the US launched a war in that country.

US accused Iraq of developing nuclear weapons and supporting al-Qaeda and told the world that they had proofs.
After capturing Saddam and defeated the country, no proof of nukes can be found.

US wanted to place defense missile shield in Poland and Czech in order to protect EU from Iranian threats.
Russia doubts the US intention and think they could be targeting Russian ICMB.

Why was US so anxious for actions against Libya and now in Syria but didn't want to intervene when hell broke loose in Egypt?

Everything points to one thing and that is Americans want to replace those unfriendly government towards their country with one that is so called better for its civilians but also acceptable to the US.


----------



## gambit

terranMarine said:


> For what reasons you ask? You tell us why your country have wage wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
> *Let me give you some history facts in a nutshell*


Am old enough to be your father. I lived through the Cold War.



terranMarine said:


> * US feared Communism


Good reason.



terranMarine said:


> - US attacked North Vietnam and North Korea.


To contain communism. A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> - US placed Jupiter missiles (armed with nuclear warheads) in Italy and Turkey targeting USSR


To contain communism. A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> - US wanted to overthrow Cuba and kill Castro


To contain communism. A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> - USSR responded, this led to the Cuban missile crisis


Which the USSR backed down. A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> - Both countries came to an agreement: USSR remove nuclear missiles from Cuba, US remove Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey and promised not to invade Cuba.


And communism was contained in the Western Hemisphere. A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> During the Iraq-Iran conflict , US didn't want Iraq to lose and thus provided help to Saddam with arms but still considered Iraq a country supporting terrorists.


To contain Iran, a nutcase country. A good reason. Besides, we were not the only one who wanted to contain Iran. Convenient that you ignored the rest of the ME. And you want to teach me a history lesson? 



terranMarine said:


> When Saddam decided to attack Kuwait, US declared war on Iraq (operation dessert storm)


A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> After 9/11, US started hunting down Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Believed they were hiding in Afghanistan so the US launched a war in that country.


And we were correct. A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> US accused Iraq of developing nuclear weapons and supporting al-Qaeda and told the world that they had proofs.
> After capturing Saddam and defeated the country, no proof of nukes can be found.


WMD in itself is a good reason. Whether actual weapons were there or not is a different issue. Convenient that you ignore dozens of other countries, including those in the ME, who believed in the same thing and wanted US to take do 'something' about it. And you want to teach me a history lesson? 



terranMarine said:


> US wanted to place defense missile shield in Poland and Czech in order to protect EU from Iranian threats.


A good reason.



terranMarine said:


> Russia doubts the US intention and think they could be targeting Russian ICMB.


Different issue.



terranMarine said:


> Why was US so anxious for actions against Libya and now in Syria but didn't want to intervene when hell broke loose in Egypt?


Because Egypt is not threatening anyone. Yet.



terranMarine said:


> Everything points to one thing and that is Americans want to replace those unfriendly government towards their country with one that is so called better for its civilians but also acceptable to the US.


Beats invading for oil, women, and natural resources, ya think?


----------



## Oldman1

terranMarine said:


> For what reasons you ask? You tell us why your country have wage wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
> Let me give you some history facts in a nutshell
> 
> * US feared Communism



Based on Soviet's past to support communism sure we feared it.



> - US attacked North Vietnam and North Korea.



North Vietnam invaded South, North Korea invaded South its a well known fact.




> - US placed Jupiter missiles (armed with nuclear warheads) in Italy and Turkey targeting USSR



USSR attempted to spread communism in Turkey and Greece hence the reason for it.



> - US wanted to overthrow Cuba and kill Castro



Soviets would have done the same just like close to home in Eastern and Southern Europe.


> - USSR responded, this led to the Cuban missile crisis
> - Both countries came to an agreement: USSR remove nuclear missiles from Cuba, US remove Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey and promised not to invade Cuba.



Thats awesome but didn't matter since we have SSBNs.



> During the Iraq-Iran conflict , US didn't want Iraq to lose and thus provided help to Saddam with arms but still considered Iraq a country supporting terrorists. When Saddam decided to attack Kuwait, US declared war on Iraq (operation dessert storm)



Name one U.S. equipment in Iraq's arsenal that we sold to. 



> After 9/11, US started hunting down Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Believed they were hiding in Afghanistan so the US launched a war in that country.



And?



> US accused Iraq of developing nuclear weapons and supporting al-Qaeda and told the world that they had proofs.
> After capturing Saddam and defeated the country, no proof of nukes can be found.



Past history of using chemical weapons in Iraq and Iran as well as messing with the U.N. inspections tends to lead to Saddam's downfall. 



> US wanted to place defense missile shield in Poland and Czech in order to protect EU from Iranian threats.
> Russia doubts the US intention and think they could be targeting Russian ICMB.



Learn geography. If Iran were to fire missiles where would it go?



> Why was US so anxious for actions against Libya and now in Syria but didn't want to intervene when hell broke loose in Egypt?



Didn't lead to civil war and it was quick.



> Everything points to one thing and that is Americans want to replace those unfriendly government towards their country with one that is so called better for its civilians but also acceptable to the US.



Pretty much everything you pointed just contradicts what you just put out.


----------



## longyi

I wonder these two guys are marry to each other or is the same guy with two different IDs. Their MOs are almost identical.


----------



## gambit

longyi said:


> I wonder these two guys are marry to each other or is the same guy with two different IDs. Their MOs are almost identical.


And you Chinese boys...???


----------



## timetravel

gambit said:


> And you Chinese boys...???



they are all sitting in one big room, with CD overlooking them and giving instructions

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Range of China's DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM)*







[Note: Thank you to EastWind for the picture.]

----------

*US Naval War College: China's DF-21D ASBM costs $5 to $10.5 million per missile*





A Chinese DF-21D ASBM costs only $5 to $10.5 million. China can afford to build hundreds of them.





Out of the 100 DF-21D ASBMs fired at a single aircraft carrier, China only needs one or two hits to achieve a "soft kill" (e.g. knocked out of combat). If there are more impacts, the carrier might sink.

I have suggested China may fire 100 DF-21D ASBMs to arrive near-simultaneously and attack an aircraft carrier. However, is this economically feasible? As shown in the citation below, each DF-21D ASBM costs between $5 to $10.5 million per missile.

We'll pick the upper range and say each DF-21D ASBM costs $10 million. A bombardment of 100 DF-21D ASBMs will cost a total of $1 billion. This is a cost-effective way to attack a $5 billion aircraft carrier.

Anyway, in a war, costs don't really matter. China will attempt to sink the aircraft carrier with sufficient numbers of DF-21D ASBMs regardless of cost.

----------

From the third page at the following link from the US Naval War College:

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/...9d27/The-Strategic-Implications-of-Obscurants

"While it is problematic to estimate accurately *the cost of the DF-21, sources place the unit price, in U.S. currency, between $5,000,000 and $10,500,000 per missile.[7] This seems a reasonable estimate in light of the cost of a similar weapon, the U.S. Pershing II, which adjusted for inflation would be roughly twelve million dollars per missile.* In comparison, the ballistic-missile-defense-capable SM-3 costs roughly ten million dollars per missile. At first blush, the nearly equal prices of interceptor (SM-3) and ASBM (DF-21) suggest near parity in cost ratio, but a shoot two to kill one doctrine means a differential of nearly ten million dollars per exchange. However, even this is misleading, as the launch platformessentially a big truckof the DF-21 is far less expensive than that of the SM-3, a warship. This estimate also ignores the operational and developmental challenges of intercepting an ASBM; nor does it fold in the things like purchasing power disparity, labor costs, and government controls, which all favor China. Nonetheless, this simple cost comparison is striking."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mercenary

Dumb question but can the Gatling Gun shoot down these China's DF-21D ASBM missiles or are they simply too fast to be picked up and tracked by those guns?

And what counter-measures is the US building against these missiles?


----------



## longyi

gambit said:


> And you Chinese boys...???




Boys? I'm old enough to be your father.


----------



## Martian2

Mercenary said:


> Dumb question but can the Gatling Gun shoot down these China's DF-21D ASBM missiles or are they simply too fast to be picked up and tracked by those guns?
> 
> And what counter-measures is the US building against these missiles?



CIWS cannot shoot vertically. CIWS is useless against a Mach 10 incoming Chinese DF-21D IRBM.

The counter-measures are obvious.

1. Stay out of range (see orange section of map in my prior post).

2. Destroy the detection and guidance support network for the DF-21D.

If neither condition is met, saying your last prayer is a good idea.


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Darn....US will never fight China in China's Fight. US will Fight China in US's fight. They wont engage you in brown waters....they will drag you out in the open to fight you.


----------



## gambit

Mercenary said:


> Dumb question...


No such if you ask honestly.



Mercenary said:


> ...but can the Gatling Gun shoot down these China's DF-21D ASBM missiles...


The current version cannot because of physical limitations, as in the design is pretty much to be against aircraft type target in a 'horizontal' approach. But there is nothing to prevent US from developing one that can shoot straight up although the danger of projectiles falling back down on our heads would discourage such a design. 



Mercenary said:


> ...or are they simply too fast to be picked up and tracked by those guns?


As far as sensors goes, there is nothing to say we cannot pick up any descending warheads, despite what 'Chinese physics' may say.



Mercenary said:


> And what counter-measures is the US building against these missiles?


There several inherent difficulties for a ballistic missile going against a moving target, even as slow as a ship, and assuming this is non-nuclear.

- A ballistic warhead is non-powered, meaning it has no means of acceleration to compensate for target deviation from track. Understand that speed is not acceleration. Any changes in heading will result in speed loss with no regaining of it. So if closing speed is vital in surprising the target, then any loss is a reduction in odds of that. Structurally speaking, the greater the speed, the greater the structural stresses will be if there is a heading deviation. This mean the warhead must be robust and that take room away for explosives.

- A non-nuclear ballistic warhead going against a moving target require on-board sensors. Which type ? This will take more room away for explosives.

- If radar is used, a chaff bloom can be deployed that is several thousands square km in electronic view, completely blinding the warhead's radar. The warhead's radar can see the radar effect from chaff and can even see the distinct area compared to calm sea, but under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view.

- If over-the-horizon radar is used to detect the fleet and to provide initial directional guidance, OTH radar arrays are large and usually not mobile. And we are talking several hundreds meters of array size, either from a single antenna or from an array of discrete antennas working together. These large arrays can -- and will be -- destroyed by B-2s.

The DF-21D is neither the tactical nor technical cure for a carrier threat as the Chinese members here would like to have people believe. The idea itself is a theoretical threat -- yes. No one is denying that. But making it an viable weapon is something we have yet to see while there are current working countermeasures against it already.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

longyi said:


> Boys? I'm old enough to be your father.


I doubt that. I lived thru the 1968 Tet Offensive in Saigon. In effect, I know what real war is like before the Chinese boys here were even borned.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> There several inherent difficulties for a ballistic missile going against a moving target, even as slow as a ship, and assuming this is non-nuclear.
> 
> - A ballistic warhead is non-powered, meaning it has no means of acceleration to compensate for target deviation from track. Understand that speed is not acceleration. Any changes in heading will result in speed loss with no regaining of it. So if closing speed is vital in surprising the target, then any loss is a reduction in odds of that. Structurally speaking, the greater the speed, the greater the structural stresses will be if there is a heading deviation. This mean the warhead must be robust and that take room away for explosives.
> 
> - A non-nuclear ballistic warhead going against a moving target require on-board sensors. Which type ? This will take more room away for explosives.



You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right? 

You know nothing! DF-21D may not be like conventional ballistic missile as you are describing above. Thats why it is so called "quasi ballistic missile".



> - If radar is used, a chaff bloom can be deployed that is several thousands square km in electronic view, completely blinding the warhead's radar. The warhead's radar can see the radar effect from chaff and can even see the distinct area compared to calm sea, but under that EM umbrella, the ship is *effectively* hidden from EM view.
> ....
> while there are current working countermeasures against it already.



Tell us how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

If it is true as you said that ship could be hidden from EM view effectively by chaff, then we dont need stealth ship, no need phalanx, etc, just rely on chaff

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dbc

antonius123 said:


> You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right?
> 
> You know nothing! DF-21D may not be like conventional ballistic missile as you are describing above. Thats why it is so called "quasi ballistic missile".



'Quasi' what the what now?


----------



## Juice

Like quasimodo...


----------



## amalakas

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> 'Quasi' what the what now?


 
ahhh you haven't been keeping up with current events.. 

this is our resident magician. His favourite trick is writing like that. 

Don't worry you will see this alot. He probably got it from a wikipedia page. It is his only source.



antonius123 said:


> You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right?
> 
> You know nothing! DF-21D may not be like conventional ballistic missile as you are describing above. Thats why it is so called "quasi ballistic missile".
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, *against modern radar*?
> 
> If it is true as you said that ship could be hidden from EM view effectively by chaff, then we dont need stealth ship, no need phalanx, etc, just rely on chaff



How about you telling us where this modern radar will be housed! because if it is housed inside the quasi ballistic missile  of yours .. a butterfly flapping its wings is equally reliable with chaff! if it is on land then let me laugh some more..


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> - If over-the-horizon radar is used to detect the fleet and to provide initial directional guidance, OTH radar arrays are large and usually not mobile. And we are talking several hundreds meters of array size, either from a single antenna or from an array of discrete antennas working together. These large arrays can -- and will be -- destroyed by B-2s.



Are these B-2s flying in unescorted?


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> - A non-nuclear ballistic warhead going against a moving target require on-board sensors. Which type ? This will take more room away for explosives.



Who says the DF-21D can't also acquire targeting information for an *off-board* sensor, like the J-20 for example?


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Who says the DF-21D can't also acquire targeting information for an *off-board* sensor, like the J-20 for example?


 

no one says it can't. But does it?
With conservative estimates, from launch to hit at maximum range will take 14 minutes and approx 8 minutes for a carrier near taiwan. in both cases the carrier would have travelled ~13km and ~9km to any direction! and it is going to take less than 20 seconds for the missile to hit water, that means it has to find the target and lock on after re entry in that amount of time! How does that sound?


----------



## danger007

US carriers are nuclear powered..... will china dare to attack it in SCS??? hmmm USN must withdraw all of it's carriers. by the way IF chinese can sunk USN super carriers... why chinese are making and planning for new carriers....


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> no one says it can't. But does it?
> With conservative estimates, from launch to hit at maximum range will take 14 minutes and approx 8 minutes for a carrier near taiwan. in both cases the carrier would have travelled ~13km and ~9km to any direction! and it is going to take less than 20 seconds for the missile to hit water, that means it has to find the target and lock on after re entry in that amount of time! How does that sound?



And during those 14 minutes, the J-20 will be stalking the carrier and providing targeting information for the DF-21D.

Problem solved.


----------



## danger007

j20blackdragon said:


> And during those 14 minutes, the J-20 will be stalking the carrier and providing targeting information for the DF-21D.
> 
> Problem solved.




F-22 and growlers will watch the show right.... I asked you one question.... If carriers are such defenseless, why china planning to have 3 carriers


----------



## j20blackdragon

danger007 said:


> F-22 and growlers will watch the show right.... I asked you one question.... If carriers are such defenseless, why china planning to have 3 carriers



F-22s from which airbase?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

j20blackdragon said:


> F-22s from which airbase?



what eva you are talking is not worth full to read ....


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> And during those 14 minutes, the J-20 will be stalking the carrier and providing targeting information for the DF-21D.
> 
> Problem solved.


 
stalk it how exactly ?


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> stalk it how exactly ?



Step 1: OTH radar provides a rough estimate of where the carrier is.

Step 2: J-20s fly out there.

Step 3: DF-21D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> Are these B-2s flying in unescorted?



B2s do fly in unescorted. Thats their purpose. Design to infiltrate the Soviet Union aka Russia by itself. Flying in with escorts will tell them they are coming since we didn't have stealth fighters to provide protection.



j20blackdragon said:


> F-22s from which airbase?



So you are going to attack Japan as well? As carrier battle groups aren't going to allow a Chinese aircraft get near it in times of war. It will be shot down.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oldman1 said:


> B2s do fly in unescorted. Thats their purpose. Design to infiltrate the Soviet Union aka Russia by itself. Flying in with escorts will tell them they are coming since we didn't have stealth fighters to provide protection.



And those unescorted B-2s will light up like a Christmas tree when those weapon bays open.


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> And those unescorted B-2s will light up like a Christmas tree when those weapon bays open.



It be too late and it doesn't take long to drop a few bombs and close the bays does it?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oldman1 said:


> It be too late and it doesn't take long to drop a few bombs and close the bays does it?



Closing the bay is pointless because a whole bunch of J-10Bs (with IRST) on combat air patrol just a few miles away have already been vectored in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

danger007 said:


> F-22 and growlers will watch the show right.... I asked you one question.... If carriers are such defenseless, why china planning to have 3 carriers



Carriers should fear a rich, sufficiently technogically advanced country like China.

They should have little fear of other countries.

IMO, only the Chinese and the US have the necessary technology and resources now to develop a carrier killer. Russia may also be able to do it but I am less certain about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> Closing the bay is pointless because a whole bunch of J-10Bs (with IRST) on combat air patrol just a few miles away have already been vectored in.



You can cover only so much airspace.


----------



## UKBengali

j20blackdragon said:


> Closing the bay is pointless because a whole bunch of J-10Bs (with IRST) on combat air patrol just a few miles away have already been vectored in.



Actually a J-10A radar should be able to "see" a B2 from around 30km anyway.

So as long as they are within this range, then a Pl-12 will make mince-mint of the 2 billion a piece B2's

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> Carriers should fear a rich, sufficiently technogically advanced country like China.
> 
> They should have little fear of other countries.
> 
> IMO, only the Chinese and the US have the necessary technology and resources now to develop a carrier killer. Russia may also be able to do it but I am less certain about them.



The U.S. Navy didn't fear Japan, it won't fear China as well. It was prepared for possible war against the Soviet Union and its navy. Japan sank most of our battleships in Pearl Harbor, what happened after that?



UKBengali said:


> Actually a J-10A radar should be able to "see" a B2 from around 30km anyway.
> 
> So as long as they are within this range, then a Pl-12 will make mince-mint of the 2 billion a piece B2's



You know about J10's radar and B2 stealth specs?


----------



## UKBengali

Oldman1 said:


> The U.S. Navy didn't fear Japan, it won't fear China as well. It was prepared for possible war against the Soviet Union and its navy. Japan sank most of our battleships in Pearl Harbor, what happened after that?



The US was around 13 times as rich as Japan in WW2.

China is around 75% of the US level now and it should pass US in the next 3-4 years at current growth rates.

Also China has far greater land mass and natural resources than Japan.

The Soviet Union GDP peaked at around 40% of US GDP



China will turn out to be a far more formidable foe than the Soviet Union ever was.



Oldman1 said:


> The U.S. Navy didn't fear Japan, it won't fear China as well. It was prepared for possible war against the Soviet Union and its navy. Japan sank most of our battleships in Pearl Harbor, what happened after that?
> 
> 
> 
> You know about J10's radar and B2 stealth specs?



Rought estimate from available public sources. B-2 is not invisible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Here's the B-2. 

We found it. 







http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_B-2_Close_View_IR_lg.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> The US was around 13 times as rich as Japan in WW2.
> 
> China is around 75% of the US level now and it should pass US in the next 3-4 years at current growth rates.
> 
> Also China has far greater land mass and natural resources than Japan.
> 
> The Soviet Union GDP peaked at around 40% of US GDP
> 
> 
> 
> China will turn out to be a far more formidable foe than the Soviet Union ever was.



Japan was ahead of us in terms of military power at the time before we had total mobilization, they had the Japanese Zero and bigger battleships with many experienced personnel. And the Soviets had a bigger land mass before the fall of the Soviet Union and bigger military than the U.S.



j20blackdragon said:


> Here's the B-2.
> 
> We found it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_B-2_Close_View_IR_lg.gif



Is that a camera from the J10? As I said before you can only cover so much airspace.



UKBengali said:


> The US was around 13 times as rich as Japan in WW2.
> 
> China is around 75% of the US level now and it should pass US in the next 3-4 years at current growth rates.
> 
> Also China has far greater land mass and natural resources than Japan.
> 
> The Soviet Union GDP peaked at around 40% of US GDP
> 
> 
> 
> China will turn out to be a far more formidable foe than the Soviet Union ever was.
> 
> 
> 
> Rought estimate from available public sources. B-2 is not invisible.


 

Public sources is just public. Never said it was invisible, but its hard to detect and all you have is speculation. Hence why I asked you if you know its true specs.


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Here's the B-2.
> 
> .....................................


 

So, the rough plan is to send J-20s towards the general location of a Carrier Battle Group, which has AEGIS equipped ships blasting the air with EMR and ready to launch a very capable anti air weapon. 
then your plan is to launch the DF-21D towards that area and have the J-20s broadcast to the whole world they are there so a carrier can be hit. 

OK. If you think that is reasonable that is fine by me. 

thinks to point out. 

1. The J-20 is VLO, it is not invisible, which means that for those Naval Radars, it can be eventually be picked up.

2. the J-20 needs to come close to the actual carrier to pinpoint it's exact location. Remember, the carrier is moving at about 50km/h .. so simply pointing the warhead there isn't enough. 

3. How many chinese planes do you actually know that carry equipment that relays targeting information about anything to anywhere ? I am making this point because you have to know that an aircraft's radar is targeting tracks relative to itself, not some global system. 

Only recently and only few aircraft have the ability to share targeting info.


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> So, the rough plan is to send J-20s towards the general location of a Carrier Battle Group, which has AEGIS equipped ships blasting the air with EMR and ready to launch a very capable anti air weapon.
> then your plan is to launch the DF-21D towards that area and have the J-20s broadcast to the whole world they are there so a carrier can be hit.
> 
> OK. If you think that is reasonable that is fine by me.
> 
> thinks to point out.
> 
> 1. The J-20 is VLO, it is not invisible, which means that for those Naval Radars, it can be eventually be picked up.
> 
> 2. the J-20 needs to come close to the actual carrier to pinpoint it's exact location. Remember, the carrier is moving at about 50km/h .. so simply pointing the warhead there isn't enough.
> 
> 3. How many chinese planes do you actually know that carry equipment that relays targeting information about anything to anywhere ? I am making this point because you have to know that an aircraft's radar is targeting tracks relative to itself, not some global system.
> 
> Only recently and only few aircraft have the ability to share targeting info.



Those AEGIS ships you mentioned will also get hit by the DF-21D. 

China will send in every single J-20 and J-15 we got to provide targeting information for the DF-21D. 

Good luck.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

This situation is very simple.

If you drop a single bomb on Chinese territory, all your forward bases will be hit by missile and J-20 airstrikes.






If you go nuclear, China goes nuclear.






Go ahead and bring it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Those AEGIS ships you mentioned will also get hit by the DF-21D.
> 
> China will send in every single J-20 and J-15 we got to provide targeting information for the DF-21D.
> 
> Good luck.



childish .....................


----------



## Abdi-Karim Elmi

In a hypothetical war, the USA would have allies in the pacific namely Japan. Kongo class Ageis combat system will dominare PLAN anti shipping system and shoot down J 20 using ASEA Radar and EWS. Then it will gain naval dominance in the sea of Japan before the USA mobilises its full reserves.


----------



## SinoChallenger

UKBengali said:


> The US was around 13 times as rich as Japan in WW2.
> 
> China is around 75% of the US level now and it should pass US in the next 3-4 years at current growth rates.
> 
> Also China has far greater land mass and natural resources than Japan.
> 
> The Soviet Union GDP peaked at around 40% of US GDP
> 
> 
> 
> China will turn out to be a far more formidable foe than the Soviet Union ever was.


That's right. Japan was defeated because it tried to take on China and fell into a quagmire. USSR was defeated because it tried to take on China and got a bloody nose in numerous border skirmishes in Central Asia and the Far East. China is the victor of both WW2 and the Cold War. Now we are fighting with the other "victor" to see who is #1 superpower.

USA will be defeated because it is trying to take on China after we already secured our maritime periphery with DF-21D and J-20 and we will secure our shipping routes with naval bases in Myanmar and Cambodia within 5-10 years. The American empire will sunset before 2025.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...anmar-pipeline-online-2013-a.html#post3279011




j20blackdragon said:


> Those AEGIS ships you mentioned will also get hit by the DF-21D.
> 
> China will send in every single J-20 and J-15 we got to provide targeting information for the DF-21D.
> 
> Good luck.


Yes and don't forget J-10B entered service.










Abdi-Karim Elmi said:


> In a hypothetical war, the USA would have allies in the pacific namely Japan. Kongo class Ageis combat system will dominare PLAN anti shipping system and shoot down J 20 using ASEA Radar and EWS. Then it will gain naval dominance in the sea of Japan before the USA mobilises its full reserves.


  

How can a Kongo destroyer hit a stealth fighter it cannot even see? Nor can it see the stealth high supersonic ramjet anti-ship missile that J-20 carries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Abdi-Karim Elmi said:


> In a hypothetical war, the USA would have allies in the pacific namely Japan. Kongo class Ageis combat system will dominare PLAN anti shipping system and shoot down J 20 using ASEA Radar and EWS. Then it will gain naval dominance in the sea of Japan before the USA mobilises its full reserves.



Japan's entire navy can be sunk *in port* anytime China wants to.

Does anyone remember the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mercenary

j20blackdragon said:


> Japan's entire navy can be sunk *in port* anytime China wants to.
> 
> Does anyone remember the attack on Pearl Harbor?



Pearl Harbor didn't sink the entire Pacific Navy.

Only a few battleships were sunk and rest were damaged and the Carriers were unscathed.

US defeted Japan decisively 6 months later in Midway.

Perhaps thats the fate that awaits China. China launches a foolish attack using Land based Anti-Ship missiles damaging a few ships and then US uses Submarine Warfare and Carrier BattleGroups to impose a naval embargo on China.


----------



## ajtr

China-USA Shadow boxing is like this scene........sorry no english sub...


----------



## UKBengali

Mercenary said:


> Pearl Harbor didn't sink the entire Pacific Navy.
> 
> Only a few battleships were sunk and rest were damaged and the Carriers were unscathed.
> 
> US defeted Japan decisively 6 months later in Midway.
> 
> Perhaps thats the fate that awaits China. China launches a foolish attack using Land based Anti-Ship missiles damaging a few ships and then US uses Submarine Warfare and Carrier BattleGroups to impose a naval embargo on China.



 Japan is not US.

DF-21D and Type-095 SSNs will await the US carriers.

Anyway China will not go to war till around 2025, when it will have enough resources to annihilate US forces in the Eastern Pacific.

Remember China will have "home-turf" advantage so all the US will have will be what they have on their carrier battle groups.China will have it's whole Navy, Airforce and missiles based on land to pummel the US Navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Esc8781

UYou guys should search up the aircraft carrier's defense systems it has a whole lot of them. Cough cough rail gun cough.


----------



## Mercenary

UKBengali said:


> Japan is not US.
> 
> DF-21D and Type-095 SSNs will await the US carriers.
> 
> Anyway China will not go to war till around 2025, when it will have enough resources to annihilate US forces in the Eastern Pacific.
> 
> Remember China will have "home-turf" advantage so all the US will have will be what they have on their carrier battle groups.China will have it's whole Navy, Airforce and missiles based on land to pummel the US Navy.



Annhiliate? 

US is scaling down its forces in the Middle East and building up its forces in the Pacific and by 2025, US will have new weapon systems that will negate all advantages that China has such as their Carrier Killer Missile.

By 2025, 60% of all US forces will be in the Pacific. And not only that, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and others are all US allies and will join forces to fight China and with years of buying Arms from USA, all of them will very lethal foes to China.

Any China vs USA war in 2025, will look like what happened to Iraq during the Gulf War, when all of the American Arab Allies joined forces to fight Saddam.


----------



## amalakas

Mercenary said:


> Annhiliate?
> 
> US is scaling down its forces in the Middle East and building up its forces in the Pacific and by 2025, US will have new weapon systems that will negate all advantages that China has such as their Carrier Killer Missile.
> 
> By 2025, 60% of all US forces will be in the Pacific. And not only that, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and others are all US allies and will join forces to fight China and with years of buying Arms from USA, all of them will very lethal foes to China.
> 
> Any China vs USA war in 2025, will look like what happened to Iraq during the Gulf War, when all of the American Arab Allies joined forces to fight Saddam.




this missile is nothing more than a minor thought to US mission planners ..


----------



## j20blackdragon

Mercenary said:


> By 2025, 60% of all US forces will be in the Pacific. And not only that, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and others are all US allies and will join forces to fight China and with years of buying Arms from USA, all of them will very lethal foes to China.



The more aircraft and ships the US moves within missile range the better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> The more aircraft and ships the US moves within missile range the better.



Actually allowing many within range is bad for China. Most already have the ability to hit targets far beyond the range of SAMs and surface to surface missiles.

With the exception of your so called carrier killer missile if it works and the consequences of launching a ballistic type missile which be conceived as a nuclear attack since that is what it is, a ballistic missile designed for nuclear warheads.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oldman1 said:


> Actually allowing many within range is bad for China. Most already have the ability to hit targets far beyond the range of SAMs and surface to surface missiles.
> 
> With the exception of your so called carrier killer missile if it works and the consequences of launching a ballistic type missile which be conceived as a nuclear attack since that is what it is, a ballistic missile designed for nuclear warheads.



Go ahead and bring everything within missile range.

Aircraft will be destroyed on parkings ramps and ships will be destroyed in port.






If you go nuclear, China goes nuclear. Simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Oldman1 said:


> Actually allowing many within range is bad for China. Most already have the ability to hit targets far beyond the range of SAMs and surface to surface missiles.
> 
> With the exception of your so called carrier killer missile if it works and the consequences of launching a ballistic type missile which be conceived as a nuclear attack since that is what it is, a ballistic missile designed for nuclear warheads.


Let the kid masturbate to his own fantasies. Keep in mind that all the China Chinese on this forum are essentially conscript rejects. On the one hand they are glad they were rejected for military service for one reason or another, on the other hand, it is highly incongruous for them to participate on a military oriented discussion forum and pound their (military) chests for China. You can practically see the internal conflicts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

j20blackdragon said:


> Go ahead and bring everything within missile range.
> 
> Aircraft will be destroyed on parkings ramps and ships will be destroyed in port.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you go nuclear, China goes nuclear. Simple.



US will neva leave it's carrier defenseless.... They are decades ahead of you..... credibility of chinese weapons still question mark in front of US..... you might built or copied lots of weapons ,jets etc within short period but US is technologically quantitatively and qualitatively ahead of you..... No one knows what kinda secret weapons they got.... you are talking about 2025 that means 13 years more...do you think they will sitting ducks and watching you in this period???? they will come more modern weapons than what you think..... lolz what an ignorant .... you can't win war with just missiles....


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> Go ahead and bring everything within missile range.
> 
> Aircraft will be destroyed on parkings ramps and ships will be destroyed in port.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you go nuclear, China goes nuclear. Simple.



I don't think so. China has complained about the Missile Defense. And we do have submarines that can launch hundreds of cruise missiles without being detected. We have jammers and decoys that act as jammers so you know what happens.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oldman1 said:


> And we do have submarines that can launch hundreds of cruise missiles without being detected.



Chinese P-3 Orion will counter the submarines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Mercenary said:


> Annhiliate?
> 
> US is scaling down its forces in the Middle East and building up its forces in the Pacific and by 2025, US will have new weapon systems that will negate all advantages that China has such as their Carrier Killer Missile.
> 
> By 2025, 60% of all US forces will be in the Pacific. And not only that, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and others are all US allies and will join forces to fight China and with years of buying Arms from USA, all of them will very lethal foes to China.
> 
> Any China vs USA war in 2025, will look like what happened to Iraq during the Gulf War, when all of the American Arab Allies joined forces to fight Saddam.





So you think China versus US in 2025 will be like US versus Iraq in 1991?

For starters, there is that small thing of the Chinese economy surpassing the US well before 2025 even comes around. Current predictions say this will happen before 2020. Add in the Chinese PPP advantage and China is likely to be twice as rich as the US by 2025. China will out build US in everything and have a greater market than the US in pretty much everything as well. Annoy China and you lose the largest market in the world.

US did not become the greatest power by the force of it's military but by also being the richest economy. That baton is very close to being passed to China soon.

And you seriously think that all those non-nuclear countries will risk nuclear destruction to fight with the US then? One Chinese thermonuclear weapon and there is no more Singapore. 

Please impress me with an intelligent reply.



amalakas said:


> this missile is nothing more than a minor thought to US mission planners ..



You don't know that.

That missile is only a small part of the Chinese armoury anyway.

China will have aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear submarines, cruise missiles, ballistics missiles and land-based missiles and aircraft to pummel the US.

My bet is that the US will accept reality and leave Asia to the Chinese. They do not care as much about Asia as the Chinese do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

UKBengali said:


> And you seriously think that all those non-nuclear countries will risk nuclear destruction to fight with the US then? One Chinese thermonuclear weapon and there is no more Singapore.



The same question applies to the US as well.

Is the US willing to risk nuclear destruction to protect Vietnam and the Philippines's oil claims? 

I think we all know the answer to that. 




[/IMG]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mercenary

UKBengali said:


> So you think China versus US in 2025 will be like US versus Iraq in 1991?
> 
> For starters, there is that small thing of the Chinese economy surpassing the US well before 2025 even comes around. Current predictions say this will happen before 2020. Add in the Chinese PPP advantage and China is likely to be twice as rich as the US by 2025. China will out build US in everything and have a greater market than the US in pretty much everything as well. Annoy China and you lose the largest market in the world.
> 
> US did not become the greatest power by the force of it's military but by also being the richest economy. That baton is very close to being passed to China soon.
> 
> And you seriously think that all those non-nuclear countries will risk nuclear destruction to fight with the US then? One Chinese thermonuclear weapon and there is no more Singapore.
> 
> Please impress me with an intelligent reply.


 
China may surpass US in overall economic terms but per person, US is miles ahead. China has 1.2 Billion people, where as US has 300 million. So Americans are more wealthy and have more purchasing power than an ordinary Chinese.

China has dire needs in its rural areas where it needs to pump money and improve living conditions. As Chinese cities prosper, funds need to be transferred to help rurual china improve. those Chinese farmers rioting a few months ago is a testament of the growing civil disturbance occuring in rural china.

If China launches a nuclear strike on those countries, then USA will launch a nuclear strike on China.

The war could be kept non-nuclear like the Korean War.

Overall, the likelyhood of a US-China war is very low. Both countires are intertwined economically, and both countries will be heavily damaged by a war. Chinese aggression can be kept in check if USA continues to build up Militaries of chinese rivals in the periphery of China.

In other words, China will never dominate the world the way USA has done since 1941 - present.


----------



## Oldman1

UKBengali said:


> Japan is not US.
> 
> DF-21D and Type-095 SSNs will await the US carriers.
> 
> Anyway China will not go to war till around 2025, when it will have enough resources to annihilate US forces in the Eastern Pacific.
> 
> Remember China will have "home-turf" advantage so all the US will have will be what they have on their carrier battle groups.China will have it's whole Navy, Airforce and missiles based on land to pummel the US Navy.



China does not have the home turf advantage because the U.S. Navy will pummel all the naval bases, airbases, sink all its ships, etc. And we haven't included the Air Force. Thousands of long range cruise missiles, decoys, jamming, decoy jammers, long range glide bombs, etc.



j20blackdragon said:


> The same question applies to the US as well.
> 
> Is the US willing to risk nuclear destruction to protect Vietnam and the Philippines's oil claims?
> 
> I think we all know the answer to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]



Would China risk annihilation for the South China Sea? Doubt it.



j20blackdragon said:


> Chinese P-3 Orion will counter the submarines.



They be shot down before they even get out to sea. Remember your aircraft has to travel at least 1000km to find the boats.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oldman1 said:


> China does not have the home turf advantage because the U.S. Navy will pummel all the naval bases, airbases, sink all its ships, etc.



What US Navy? Chinese missiles will pummel all US naval bases, airbases, and the DF-21D will sink all ships. 



> And we haven't included the Air Force. Thousands of long range cruise missiles, decoys, jamming, decoy jammers, long range glide bombs, etc.



What US Air Force? Chinese missiles already pummeled all your airbases.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> What US Navy? Chinese missiles will pummel all US naval bases, airbases, and the DF-21D will sink all ships.
> 
> 
> 
> What US Air Force? Chinese missiles already pummeled all your airbases.



Sigh* You expect that we can't reach your mainland without airbases. Keep thinking that. Study Doolittle Raid when Japan thought they were safe.

Also that attack change everything for Japanese thinking because they couldn't believe the bombers could have hit them unless we had an airbase nearby. Hence the plan to attack Midway which led to the destruction of their carriers.


----------



## anarchy 99

If the US ever f**ks with us again, we will kick their arse just like we did in the Korean war. PLA is undefeated in military warfare. We kicked the Japs out of china, kicked the KMT out, humiliated the US in Korean war, made a complete mockery of India in 1962, smacked the soviet union in the border conflict, took our islands back by smashing Vietnam, stopped the Vietnamese aggression in 1979.

PLA is undefeated in military warfare. And that was before any economic reforms or military modernization. 

If the United States or any other aggressive regime crosses the red line, we will impose maximum possible punishment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> 'Quasi' what the what now?


 
It means not purely balistic.



amalakas said:


> ahhh you haven't been keeping up with current events..
> 
> this is our resident magician. His favourite trick is writing like that.
> 
> Don't worry you will see this alot. He probably got it from a wikipedia page. It is his only source.



For you who claim as aviation expert, it is not acceptable if you dont know what quasi ballistic means. And no, it is not must always from wikipedia 



> How about you telling us where this modern radar will be housed! because if it is housed inside the quasi ballistic missile  of yours .. a butterfly flapping its wings is equally reliable with chaff! if it is on land then let me laugh some more..


 
Do you realize that no spec of this weapon released by PRC?

But you can explain why you think that a butterfly flapping its wings is equally reliable with chaff?


----------



## anarchy 99

USA got absolutely donkey punched in the Korean war by the PLA, the imperialist pigs thought they could invade china, they came right up to the border of china from north Korea, once that happened we entered the war and started the humiliation of the US military and drove the scumbags back. The 8th US army got a pants down spanking. It was the worst military defeat given to the US military.
We f**ked the snot outta them. Completely humiliated them and made a complete and utter mockery of their 'invinsible' military and their superpower status.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

anarchy 99 said:


> USA got absolutely donkey punched in the Korean war by the PLA, the imperialist pigs thought they could invade china, they came right up to the border of china from north Korea, once that happened we entered the war and started the humiliation of the US military and drove the scumbags back. The 8th US army got a pants down spanking. It was the worst military defeat given to the US military.
> We f**ked the snot outta them. Completely humiliated them and made a complete and utter mockery of their 'invinsible' military and their superpower status.


 

Have you got any idea the amount of losses suffered by the PLA during that war? 

Do you think this practice will work today too? What do you hope that you will be thrown to the lions so PLA can half meet its objectives ? 

what do you think this the 50's. Lessons have been learned and learned good. 


take it down a notch with the hubris here ok?



antonius123 said:


> It means not purely balistic.
> 
> 
> 
> For you who claim as aviation expert, it is not acceptable if you dont know what quasi ballistic means. And no, it is not must always from wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that no spec of this weapon released by PRC?
> 
> But you can explain why you think that a butterfly flapping its wings is equally reliable with chaff?






I never said I don't know what it is, all I said is you looked it up in wikipedia!!! 

as for all the rest you are saying ...ever .. the only thing they do is provide me with more comedy. 

I heard wikipedia is very large... go find something more to entertain us .. go now..


and while you are in there, look up sarcasm.. that was the butterfly thing !!


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right?


The DF-21D works under real physics. Not 'Chinese physics'. Not 'Indonesian physics'.



antonius123 said:


> Tell us how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?
> 
> If it is true as you said that ship could be hidden from EM view effectively by chaff, then we dont need stealth ship, no need phalanx, etc, just rely on chaff


The laugh is on you. Chaff is a *RESPONSIVE* or *ACTIVE* measure. Being low radar observable is passive.

An EM shield is like a physical shield. You can see the shield. You just cannot see the man behind the shield. But if you can see the shield then at least you know there is a man behind that shield.

That is not 'stealth' works. Being well camouflaged is 'stealth'. Instead of 'low radar observable' it is 'low visual cues observable'.

I cannot dumb it down any further than that for you. If you cannot understand it, it is because you have no aviation and military experience at all. Let me guess, now you are going to say that you have military 'study'?


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> The DF-21D works under real physics. Not 'Chinese physics'. Not 'Indonesian physics'.
> 
> 
> The laugh is on you. Chaff is a *RESPONSIVE* or *ACTIVE* measure. Being low radar observable is passive.
> 
> An EM shield is like a physical shield. You can see the shield. You just cannot see the man behind the shield. But if you can see the shield then at least you know there is a man behind that shield.
> 
> That is not 'stealth' works. Being well camouflaged is 'stealth'. Instead of 'low radar observable' it is 'low visual cues observable'.
> 
> I cannot dumb it down any further than that for you. If you cannot understand it, it is because you have no aviation and military experience at all. Let me guess, now you are going to say that you have military 'study'?


 

I think the inherent difficulties of a ballistic missile approach to hitting a moving target have been 
thoroughly exhausted.

China has fielded the weapon, however there is a very large BUT here. 

To date there hasn't been a live testing of the weapon on an actual target that meets the target of intend profile. i.e. a ship.

this is not common, as both the US and USSR/Rusia, always conduct tests of weapons that are semi public. 
this of course serves its purposes, no such thing from the chinese though.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I think the inherent difficulties of a ballistic missile approach to hitting a moving target have been
> thoroughly exhausted.
> 
> China has fielded the weapon, however there is a very large BUT here.
> 
> *To date there hasn't been a live testing of the weapon on an actual target that meets the target of intend profile. i.e. a ship.*
> 
> this is not common, as both the US and USSR/Rusia, always conduct tests of weapons that are semi public.
> this of course serves its purposes, no such thing from the chinese though.


The problem here is that these yahoos have no understanding of the idea 'proof of concept'.

Can a ship be sunk? That 'proof of concept' was proven with Billy Mitchell back in 1921 and it was with manned aircrafts filled with bombs.

Can an aircraft carrier be sunk? If a ship can be sunk, then why not an aircraft carrier? It is another type of ship. And yes, WW II proved that such a ship can be sunk.

But here is where it gets tricky...

A WW II era aircraft carrier is not the same in design as post WW II aircraft carriers. WW II era carriers were conversions from cruisers, tankers and even supply oilers. Today's aircraft carriers are specifically designed with the needs of naval aviation as primary and the ship's survivability to continue that mission is equally important.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/earth/19ship.html


> The U.S.S. Oriskany, known as the Mighty-O, was commissioned in 1950 and served in Korea and Vietnam. The ship was sunk by the Navy in May 2006 under a pilot program to convert decommissioned vessels into artificial reefs.


It literally took months to plan on how to strategically placed explosives *INSIDE* the ship in order to sink it. And the ship allowed people to do it at that. 

So has the 'proof of concept' of a ship sinking via a ballistic missile attack instead of manned aircrafts and bombs been performed?

The only 'proof of concept' we are certain so far about this subject is that of nationalistic blather from the Chinese crowd. They definitely proved they can yak up a storm about it.


----------



## danger007

The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warhead&#8217;s trajectory as it reenters the Eearth&#8217;s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier&#8212;the only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario China&#8217;s military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something China&#8217;s military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriers&#8212;the only targets worth shooting at&#8212;can zig and zag at anytime.

each mechanism for changing the warhead&#8217;s trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensors&#8212;putting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a moment&#8212;then it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.

At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusters&#8212;little rocket engines&#8212;to change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a &#8220;bus&#8221; that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, I&#8217;m pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 km&#8212;the minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three G&#8217;s (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for China&#8217;s ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.

If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can &#8220;safely&#8221; extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.

If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earth&#8217;s surface for really effective control. Let&#8217;s assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earth&#8217;s surface before the warhead&#8217;s fins &#8220;bite.&#8221; Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.

At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 G&#8217;s. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/202125-chinese-sac-blends.html

he he


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> The DF-21D works under real physics. Not 'Chinese physics'. Not 'Indonesian physics'.



I dont know what you mean as "chinese physics nor indonesian physics, since your language always substandard.

But I can guess as follow:
Indonesian physics = chinese physics; 
Chinese physics result in high tech achievement like fastest bullet train, fastest super computer, sophisticated DF-21D, very advance ABM, etc.

While vietnam physics is no where 




> The laugh is on you. Chaff is a *RESPONSIVE* or *ACTIVE* measure. Being low radar observable is passive.
> 
> An EM shield is like a physical shield. You can see the shield. You just cannot see the man behind the shield. But if you can see the shield then at least you know there is a man behind that shield.
> 
> That is not 'stealth' works. Being well camouflaged is 'stealth'. Instead of 'low radar observable' it is 'low visual cues observable'.
> 
> I cannot dumb it down any further than that for you. If you cannot understand it, it is because you have no aviation and military experience at all. Let me guess, now you are going to say that you have military 'study'?




It is you that are idiot here ..

I am not asking if EM shield will work like stealth works, again you are demonstrating idiocy and poor reading comprehension problem 

I am asking you: how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23Ro7221D

Since you claim that: *under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view*.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23RoDIsFM

This is more superb and effective than Stealth Technology to hide the object from enemy's weapon guided by radar! also more effective than Phalanx to protect the ship from missile, regardless how different they work! 

If the super duper chaff is not that effective, then your claim that chaff is the effective counter measure for DF-21D => FAILED

How idiot you are

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

danger007 said:


> The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warheads trajectory as it reenters the Eearths atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrierthe only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario Chinas military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something Chinas military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriersthe only targets worth shooting atcan zig and zag at anytime.
> 
> each mechanism for changing the warheads trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensorsputting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a momentthen it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.
> 
> At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusterslittle rocket enginesto change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a bus that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, Im pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 kmthe minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three Gs (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for Chinas ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.
> 
> If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can safely extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.
> 
> If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earths surface for really effective control. Lets assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earths surface before the warheads fins bite. Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.
> 
> At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 Gs. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.


 
Hey my off the top of my head calculations were approx correct. I am glad.



antonius123 said:


> I dont know what you mean as "chinese physics nor indonesian physics, since your language always substandard.
> 
> But I can guess as follow:
> Indonesian physics = chinese physics;
> Chinese physics result in high tech achievement like fastest bullet train, fastest super computer, sophisticated DF-21D, very advance ABM, etc.
> 
> While vietnam physics is no where
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you that are idiot here ..
> 
> I am not asking if EM shield will work like stealth works, again you are demonstrating idiocy and clueless again
> 
> I am asking you: how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23Ro7221D
> 
> Sine you claim that: *under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view*.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23RoDIsFM
> 
> This is more superb than Stealth Technology!
> 
> By your claim, we do not need stealth technology anymore as even the big object like ship could be EFFECTIVELY hidden from EM view.
> 
> If the super duper chaff is not that effective, then your claim that chaff is the effective counter measure for DF-21D => FAILED
> 
> How idiot you are




you are the biggest comedy stunt since the blues brothers ....


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I dont know what you mean as "chinese physics nor indonesian physics, since your language always substandard.


From you? 



antonius123 said:


> But I can guess as follow:
> Indonesian physics = chinese physics;
> Chinese physics result in high tech achievement like fastest bullet train, fastest super computer, sophisticated DF-21D, very advance ABM, etc.
> 
> While vietnam physics is no where


I am here as an American. My ethnic origin is irrelevant.



antonius123 said:


> It is you that are idiot here ..
> 
> I am not asking if EM shield will work like stealth works, again you are demonstrating idiocy and clueless again
> 
> I am asking you: how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?


Do you even understand the words 'chaff bloom'?



antonius123 said:


> Sine you claim that: *under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view*.
> 
> *This is more superb than Stealth Technology!*
> 
> By your claim, we do not need stealth technology anymore as even the big object like ship could be EFFECTIVELY hidden from EM view.
> 
> If the super duper chaff is not that effective, then your claim that chaff is the effective counter measure for DF-21D => FAILED
> 
> How idiot you are


This tells me that you do not understand how radar works, its advantages, its disadvantages, its weaknesses, and how it is employed with *ALL* those things.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

Mercenary said:


> US is scaling down its forces in the Middle East and building up its forces in the Pacific and *by 2025, US will have new weapon systems that will negate all advantages that China has* such as their Carrier Killer Missile.



Sir, on what basis can you make predictions about future American weapon systems with certainty when future remains uncertain? Is it unbiased, on your part, to proclaim unseen, unheard of American 'future weapons' as certainties without considering that Chinese economic, scientific, industrial and military-industrial growth is multiple times that of USA's? 



> By 2025, 60% of all US forces will be in the Pacific. And not only that, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and others are all US allies and will join forces to fight China and with years of buying Arms from USA, all of them will very lethal foes to China.



South Korea=Cowering in fear of North Korea. 
Australia=Kangaroo land=No military
Taiwan=Chinese. Both agree on it. They only differ on the form of government. 
Singapore can not change balance of power anywhere on earth due to size constraints. 
Japan=Lost cause because the people have lost will to remilitarize, they have accepted subservience to Americans. If they want to remilitarize, they must expel Americans. As it stands, Japan's population is declining, with no reversal in sight. 



> Any China vs USA war in 2025, will look like what happened to Iraq during the Gulf War, when all of the American Arab Allies joined forces to fight Saddam.




Sir, let's not try to make bombastic Indianesque claims about the future when future remains uncertain. 

1. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was isolated by all Arab and Muslim countries as well, on all sides. 
2. Saddam Hussein's Iraq never possessed nuclear bombs, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, or 80+ destroyers, frigates and major surface combatants as today's China. In 2025, these numbers are likely to rise further. 
3. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was defeated by the use of not only sorties flying out from airbases in neighbouring countries, but also about half of American carrier battle groups in their inventory.
4. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had a population that was less than 1/12 of USA's, and less than 1/30 of all the other countries that fought against it. In China's case, China still outdoes USA+'potential allies' most of whom are cowering in fear of North Korea. 
5. Saddam Hussein's Iraq could not design, and build any major weapons system for its ground, air or naval forces on its own. Chinese industry, on the other hand, has exceeded USA's by a huge margin in many instances. China's steel production, for example, during the last year was more than the next 10 countries' steel output combined, as an example. 
6. USA could not stop SCUD ballistic missiles fired by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which had comparatively little experience in developing, designing, and deploying indigenous ballistic and cruise missiles of various ranges and features, and comparatively little industrial basis to mass produce them. 
7. China has sufficient thermonuclear weapons to eliminate all USA economic centres, as well as those of any 'allies' that commit itself to any American aggression against China. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no such capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> From you?
> 
> 
> I am here as an American. My ethnic origin is irrelevant.



But your knowledge demonstrating vietnam physics level 




> Do you even understand the words 'chaff bloom'?



Yes, so?

What make you think that the chaff bloom is so effective in hiding the ship for so long againts modern radar? Why do you think this is a much better way to protect the ship than Phalanx?



> This tells me that you do not understand how radar works, its advantages, its disadvantages, its weaknesses, and how it is employed with *ALL* those things.


 
As I said, I do not say those have the same way of works, you idiot.

I am asking you the effectiveness of the chaff compared to other kind of protection (stealth, phalanx, etc); because you said the chaff can hide the ship EFFECTIVELY therefore will make DF-21D impotent.

I bet you dont know or cannot answer?



amalakas said:


> Hey my off the top of my head calculations were approx correct. I am glad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are the biggest comedy stunt since the blues brothers ....



Sorry I dont deal with a cheerleader at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

danger007 said:


> The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warheads trajectory as it reenters the Eearths atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrierthe only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario Chinas military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something Chinas military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriersthe only targets worth shooting atcan zig and zag at anytime.
> 
> each mechanism for changing the warheads trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensorsputting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a momentthen it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.
> 
> At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusterslittle rocket enginesto change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a bus that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, Im pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 kmthe minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three Gs (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for Chinas ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.
> 
> If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can safely extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.
> 
> If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earths surface for really effective control. Lets assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earths surface before the warheads fins bite. Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.
> 
> At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 Gs. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.



Copy and pasted from this source. 

Geoffrey Forden &bull; DF-21 Delta: Some Early Thoughts


----------



## danger007

Responding to the Emerging Threat of Chinese DF-21D (CSS-5 MOD 4) A...

take a look...



j20blackdragon said:


> Copy and pasted from this source.
> 
> Geoffrey Forden &#8226; DF-21 Delta: Some Early Thoughts



so?????????? whats your point????


----------



## j20blackdragon

Banglar Lathial said:


> 7. China has sufficient thermonuclear weapons to eliminate all USA economic centres, as well as those of any 'allies' that commit itself to any American aggression against China. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no such capability.



China will be pretty much untouchable by 2025.

Nukes have always been the bottom line.

DF-21D and J-20 are just toys to mess around with small countries like the Philippines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

j20blackdragon said:


> China will be pretty much untouchable by 2025.
> 
> Nukes have always been the bottom line.
> 
> DF-21D and J-20 are just toys to mess around with small countries like the Philippines.



yes you are right.....


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> But your knowledge demonstrating vietnam physics level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so?
> 
> What make you think that the chaff bloom is so effective in hiding the ship for so long againts modern radar? Why do you think this is a much better way to protect the ship than Phalanx?
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I do not say those have the same way of works, you idiot.
> 
> I am asking you the effectiveness of the chaff compared to other kind of protection (stealth, phalanx, etc); because you said the chaff can hide the ship EFFECTIVELY therefore will make DF-21D impotent.
> 
> I bet you dont know or cannot answer?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I dont deal with a cheerleader at the moment.


 

of course, you have your comedy to deal with first ..................

found out what chaff bloom does yet ???


----------



## Banglar Lathial

j20blackdragon said:


> China will be pretty much untouchable by 2025.
> 
> Nukes have always been the bottom line.
> 
> DF-21D and J-20 are just toys to mess around with small countries like the Philippines.




I would not indulge in belittling any of your neighbours, nor would I indulge in belittling China for most East Asian countries generally have decent to good relationship with us, on a diplomatic level, and the public are also usually not antagonistic to us. 

A good point that you made is that thermonuclear deterrence is the 'trump card' that allows China to develop its conventional weapons like J-20 at its own pace. If China had acquired/developed 100s of squadrons of J-20s without any thermonuclear deterrence, then it is doubtful whether Chinese progress would be tolerated by the envious Western countries. Therefore, I agree with you that thermonuclear deterrence is a necessity for an independent country in a world where evil Westerners have already displayed their ugly nature.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Banglar Lathial said:


> I would not indulge in belittling any of your neighbours, nor would I indulge in belittling China for most East Asian countries generally have decent to good relationship with us, on a diplomatic level, and the public are also usually not antagonistic to us.
> 
> A good point that you made is that thermonuclear deterrence is the 'trump card' that allows China to develop its conventional weapons like J-20 at its own pace. If China had acquired/developed 100s of squadrons of J-20s without any thermonuclear deterrence, then it is doubtful whether Chinese progress would be tolerated by the envious Western countries. Therefore, I agree with you that thermonuclear deterrence is a necessity for an independent country in a world where evil Westerners have already displayed their ugly nature.


 

There is nothing envious or otherwise here. The are no evil westerners or easterners. It is comments like that that make me think most people in this forum are ignorant of the reality. 

There are no nation friendships, there are only national interests.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

amalakas said:


> There is nothing envious or otherwise here. The are no evil westerners or easterners. It is comments like that that make me think most people in this forum are ignorant of the reality.
> 
> There are no nation friendships, there are only national interests.




There are evil Westerners, this is an easily verifiable fact that all members and non-members can easily attest to. Ask the Vietnamese what they suffered at the hands of Americans and French. Ask the Afghans, Iraqis, and others what they have suffered at the hands of Americans? Ask the Indians what they suffered at the hands of Brits? Ask the Natives of Australia and America what they suffered at the hands of Europeans (there may be few of them left)? Ask almost all of Africa how they suffered at the hands of Europe? 

This is the undeniable truth. All around the world people would admit that West is evil. The rest of the world may not agree on how to go about dealing with the West, but they all agree, that Western history proves its evil nature.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Banglar Lathial said:


> There are evil Westerners, this is an easily verifiable fact that all members and non-members can easily attest to. Ask the Vietnamese what they suffered at the hands of Americans and French. Ask the Afghans, Iraqis, and others what they have suffered at the hands of Americans? Ask the Indians what they suffered at the hands of Brits? Ask the Natives of Australia and America what they suffered at the hands of Europeans (there may be few of them left)? Ask almost all of Africa how they suffered at the hands of Europe?
> 
> This is the undeniable truth. All around the world people would admit that West is evil. The rest of the world may not agree on how to go about dealing with the West, but they all agree, that Western history proves its evil nature.



Ask the tibetans what they have suffered at the hands of the Chinese, the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese. The Greeks at the hands of the Germans. The Americans at the hands of the English. The Rwanda genocide in which Hutu killed almost a million Tutsis. The whoever at the hands of the whoever. 

It is called national interests. The guy with the upper hand will exploit the guy under them. It is a fact of life. 

There are again no evil westerners or easterners, your comment only supports my argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Luffy 500

China will soon have a dozen AC groups with the falling yankis selling some of theirs. A fast depleted US in military fire power will ultimately have to bow down to China if they don't want to end up like Meji Japan. In the future US can only prosper by giving herself to china.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

Let us go back to the original discussion. How to sink USA's aircraft carriers? How many tonnes of explosives do you think would be sufficient? Would you attack with a salvo of DF-21D ballistic missiles alone? Would you want to throw in a mix of anti ship cruise misiles to confuse and overwhelm their defensive measures?


----------



## amalakas

Banglar Lathial said:


> Let us go back to the original discussion. How to sink USA's aircraft carriers? How many tonnes of explosives do you think would be sufficient? Would you attack with a salvo of DF-21D ballistic missiles alone? Would you want to throw in a mix of anti ship cruise misiles to confuse and overwhelm their defensive measures?



why? according to the chinese members in here, there are NO defensive measures and the missiles are dead accurate


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> But your knowledge demonstrating vietnam physics level.


I work with real physics. The Chinese engineers who built the bullet train, the rockets, the J-20 and other Chinese achievements also works with real physics. It is the Chinese members here who works with 'Chinese physics'. And *YOU* apparently works with 'Indonesian physics'.



antonius123 said:


> Yes, so?


Then what is a 'chaff bloom'?



antonius123 said:


> What make you think that the chaff bloom is so effective in hiding the ship for so long againts modern radar?


Chaff have been used since WW II, from ships to aircrafts. Even the F-22 have chaff.



antonius123 said:


> Why do you think this is a much better way to protect the ship than Phalanx?


This is stupid and it shows your stupidity. The Phalanx is a gun. Chaff is a passive defense. Chaff is a distraction tactic while the gun is an offensive measure against an attacker, be he an aircraft or a missile.



antonius123 said:


> As I said, I do not say those have the same way of works, you idiot.
> 
> I am asking you the effectiveness of the chaff compared to other kind of protection (stealth, phalanx, etc); because you said the chaff can hide the ship EFFECTIVELY therefore will make DF-21D impotent.
> 
> I bet you dont know or cannot answer?


I know the answer because I used to work with this stuff and therefore I know how to search for supporting sources...

Anti-Ship Missile Defense System & Decoys | Defense Update


> The rocket creates a ship size decoy at a range of 14 kilometers from the ship.
> 
> The BT-4 short range rockets generate huge targets, many thousands of square meters in size, almost instantaneously.


A computerized chaff dispenser can create a distraction/seduction RCS of ship size to hundreds to thousands of square kms, effectively blinding any radar sensor.

This post by you...



antonius123 said:


> I am not asking if EM shield will work like stealth works, again you are demonstrating idiocy and poor reading comprehension problem
> 
> I am asking you: how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?
> 
> Since you claim that: *under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view*.
> 
> This is more superb and effective than Stealth Technology to hide the object from enemy's weapon guided by radar! also more effective than Phalanx to protect the ship from missile, regardless how different they work!


...Means you do not know basic radar detection and therefore not a clue on how to counter it.

Chaff is about creating an RCS that is much larger than yourself.

Being low radar observable or 'stealth' is about *MINIMIZING* your own RCS.

Either method is about distracting the seeking radar towards a larger EM target. Your post mean you have a false understanding of both because it demands and either/or situation. That is not correct. Chaff and 'stealth' are for different tactics. The F-22 is 'stealth' but also can dispense chaff. That does not mean 'stealth' is a worthless idea.

But of course, since you operate on 'Indonesian physics' you would not understand *ANYTHING* I said.

Post 348...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/54955-chinas-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-24.html#post3303124

...Is nothing new from me and to many here but no one ever challenged me on it. Why? Because they understood it. On the other hand, *YOU* are the first one to challenge me on it. That make you the stupidest person on this board.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sasquatch

Stick to the topic it's gotten way off otherwise you will get an infraction.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> I work with real physics. The Chinese engineers who built the bullet train, the rockets, the J-20 and other Chinese achievements also works with real physics. It is the Chinese members here who works with 'Chinese physics'. And *YOU* apparently works with 'Indonesian physics'.
> 
> 
> Then what is a 'chaff bloom'?
> 
> 
> Chaff have been used since WW II, from ships to aircrafts. Even the F-22 have chaff.
> 
> 
> This is stupid and it shows your stupidity. The Phalanx is a gun. Chaff is a passive defense. Chaff is a distraction tactic while the gun is an offensive measure against an attacker, be he an aircraft or a missile.
> 
> 
> I know the answer because I used to work with this stuff and therefore I know how to search for supporting sources...
> 
> Anti-Ship Missile Defense System & Decoys | Defense Update
> 
> A computerized chaff dispenser can create a distraction/seduction RCS of ship size to hundreds to thousands of square kms, effectively blinding any radar sensor.
> 
> This post by you...
> 
> 
> ...Means you do not know basic radar detection and therefore not a clue on how to counter it.
> 
> Chaff is about creating an RCS that is much larger than yourself.
> 
> Being low radar observable or 'stealth' is about *MINIMIZING* your own RCS.
> 
> Either method is about distracting the seeking radar towards a larger EM target. Your post mean you have a false understanding of both because it demands and either/or situation. That is not correct. Chaff and 'stealth' are for different tactics. The F-22 is 'stealth' but also can dispense chaff. That does not mean 'stealth' is a worthless idea.
> 
> But of course, since you operate on 'Indonesian physics' you would not understand *ANYTHING* I said.
> 
> Post 348...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/54955-chinas-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-24.html#post3303124
> 
> ...Is nothing new from me and to many here but no one ever challenged me on it. Why? Because they understood it. On the other hand, *YOU* are the first one to challenge me on it. That make you the stupidest person on this board.



The main problem with this guys is that they think the Chinese scientists have all of a sudden invented the wheel and the fire at the same time! 

It is as if all other world navies have never sailed a ship before. It is as if no other country has ever flown a fighter plane before, it is as if no other country has ever looked at a missile before. 

I wrote a long time ago on this forum that it is best not to dismiss the established in favour of the unproven. 

China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier! ... I had a heated debate a while ago with Gambit over the difficulties of locating a carrier in sea. 

I can still say that during my service the HAF found and came within visual distance of a US carrier during joined exercises, 
There is however a huge difference, the Aegean is not the pacific ocean, there is over a million square miles, maybe more of sea around China. And one has to keep track of a a few hectares of flattop ! And then launch a missile at it ! .............right .... 

It is a bubble shuttering truth, but needs to be said. 

You do realise that there exists the capability to empower a vessel to have a similar radar signature as another. 

You so realise that in order to beat this weapon even if half credible, simple decoys costing a few thousands of dollars can render it useless. 

The only way for this weapon to have been even a shadow of a threat, would be for it to be satellite guided to the meter, and for that to happen, China should have over 100 dedicated satellites for that. And there are simply not enough available orbits for that I think....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

anarchy 99 said:


> If the US ever f**ks with us again, we will kick their arse just like we did in the Korean war. PLA is undefeated in military warfare. *We kicked the Japs out of china*, kicked the KMT out, humiliated the US in Korean war, made a complete mockery of India in 1962, *smacked the soviet union in the border conflict*, took our islands back by smashing Vietnam, *stopped the Vietnamese aggression in 1979*.
> 
> PLA is undefeated in military warfare. And that was before any economic reforms or military modernization.
> 
> If the United States or any other aggressive regime crosses the red line, we will impose maximum possible punishment.




Don't kid yourself, Chinese soldiers ambushed Russian borderguards, some of which were murdered in cold blood. Russia beat back Chinese troops on Damansky Island and for good measures bombarded Chinese troop formations on Chinese soil. The result was that the Soviet Union still controlled Damansky Island (military failure by China). Moreover, China never attempted something so wreckless again.

And you didn't stop Vietnam in 1979. China failed to stop Vietnam from occupying Cambodia, thus they failed militarily. 

And China did not defeat Japan alone, the Soviets smashed a Japanese army numbering over 1.2 million men.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> There is however a huge difference, the Aegean is not the pacific ocean, there is over a million square miles, maybe more of sea around China. And one has to keep track of a a few hectares of flattop ! And then launch a missile at it ! .............right ....
> 
> It is a bubble shuttering truth, but needs to be said.



Nope.

OTH radar is keeping track of the carrier. 

And a large amount of J-20s are also there to provide more accurate targeting information.


----------



## j20blackdragon

A combination of satellites, OTH radar, ships, and Chinese Global Hawk will be keeping track of your carrier even before the shooting war has started.

We know exactly where you are.


----------



## gambit

> j20blackdragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> OTH radar is keeping track of the carrier.
> 
> And a large amount of J-20s are also there to provide more accurate targeting information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j20blackdragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> A combination of satellites, OTH radar, ships, and Chinese Global Hawk will be keeping track of your carrier even before the shooting war has started.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

OTH radars are very large arrays, as in meters, dozens of meters, or even hundreds of meters in array size.

Eyeballing the US Air Force Over the Horizon-Backscatter Transmitting Array


> The Over-The-Horizon Backscatter Radar, often described as the world's largest radar, was developed over 25 years for $1.5 billion and occupies an area nearly twice the size of New York's Central Park.


An OTH array does not need to be completely destroyed, just need to have a part damaged and that will sufficiently deform any beam to render the array worthless.



j20blackdragon said:


> We know exactly where you are.


And we would know exactly where those Chinese OTH stations are.

You think China is the first one to think of the OTH?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Chinese satellites, OTH radar, ships, and Chinese Global Hawk will be keeping tabs on all American ships during *peacetime*. 

And if/when the shooting war starts, we already know where you are. 

How simple can this get?

Are you going to attack every Chinese ship you see in international waters even during peacetime? 

Will you launch a preemptive strike on OTH radars right now? 

Let me know when that happens.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Chinese satellites, OTH radar, ships, and Chinese Global Hawk will be keeping tabs on all American ships during *peacetime*.
> 
> And if/when the shooting war starts, we already know where you are.
> 
> How simple can this get?
> 
> Are you going to attack every Chinese ship you see in international waters even during peacetime?
> 
> Will you launch a preemptive strike on OTH radars right now?









No defense by China.



j20blackdragon said:


> Let me know when that happens.


No need for me to do that. A blackout on news, OTA and the Internet, by the PLA, head of the new Chinese praetorian government, will inform you of when *THAT* happens. 

*WE* will decide when this hostile relationship become a shooting war. And when we do so decide, *WE* will fire the first shot. The PLA will be blind. What you do not understand, understandably because you are a conscript reject, is that the side with the longer reach can and usually do force its opponent to be on the defensive at the onset of a war. USAF bombers will have China's long range detection capabilities either on the ropes or KO-ed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> No defense by China.



You just posted pictures of the non-stealth B-52 and B-1 and you believe China has no defense against that?

Go ahead and send them in. 

Let me remind you that it took the US *several months* to build up the forces necessary to invade Iraq.

China isn't blind.

And please bring all your forces within missile range.

That would be wonderful.


----------



## shahadat hussain

OK. now please shift this thread to jokes section


----------



## Esc8781

j20blackdragon said:


> Chinese satellites, OTH radar, ships, and Chinese Global Hawk will be keeping tabs on all American ships during *peacetime*.
> 
> And if/when the shooting war starts, we already know where you are.
> 
> How simple can this get?
> 
> Are you going to attack every Chinese ship you see in international waters even during peacetime?
> 
> Will you launch a preemptive strike on OTH radars right now?
> 
> Let me know when that happens.


 Why aren't you sure the Americans are doing that right now?


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> You just posted pictures of the non-stealth B-52 and B-1 and you believe China has no defense against that?
> 
> Go ahead and send them in.
> 
> Let me remind you that it took the US *several months* to build up the forces necessary to invade Iraq.
> 
> China isn't blind.
> 
> And please bring all your forces within missile range.
> 
> That would be wonderful.


No one is talking about 'invading' mainland China. If China is not Iraq, then the US tactics for China will not be as Iraq's. This 'China is not Iraq' is simplistic thinking. But understandable on your part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> *WE* will decide when this hostile relationship become a shooting war. And when we do so decide, *WE* will fire the first shot.



All talk and no action.

You didn't nuke China during the Korean war because China was protected by the Soviet Union.

After that, you needed China to contain the Soviets during the Sino-Soviet split.

So the time to strike China was probably in the early 90s right after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But you didn't.

Instead, you went to Iraq.

And now you're still in Afghanistan.

In the meantime, the US maintains the world's largest trade deficit with China making us richer by the year.

How dumb can you get?


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> All talk and no action.


Yeah...All that talk about 'collapsing' the US economy through 'dumping'...And no actions...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

j20blackdragon said:


> All talk and no action.
> 
> You didn't nuke China during the Korean war because China was protected by the Soviet Union.
> 
> After that, you needed China to contain the Soviets during the Sino-Soviet split.
> 
> So the time to strike China was probably in the early 90s right after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> But you didn't.
> 
> Instead, you went to Iraq.
> 
> And now you're still in Afghanistan.
> 
> In the meantime, the US maintains the world's largest trade deficit with China making us richer by the year.
> 
> How dumb can you get?


 Um the Soviet Union was about to nuke you in 1969.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> No one is talking about 'invading' mainland China. If China is not Iraq, then the US tactics for China will not be as Iraq's. This 'China is not Iraq' is simplistic thinking. But understandable on your part.



If those tactics consist of sending in unescorted B-52s and B-1s against China, go right ahead.

Just do it.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> If those tactics consist of sending in unescorted B-52s and B-1s against China, go right ahead.
> 
> Just do it.


More simplistic thinking. Just because a B-2 may be unescorted, what make you think it will be detectable? And by what definition do you mean 'escort'? The kind you see in movies where the setting is WW II where bombers and fighters are within visual range of each other? I do hope the PLA thinks like you do. It will make its defeat so much easier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> Yeah...All that talk about 'collapsing' the US economy through 'dumping'...And no actions...



The US is doing a fine job destroying its own economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007&#8211;2012_global_financial_crisis

China doesn't need to do anything.

China should just do exactly what its been doing for the last several decades and we win.

List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> The US is doing a fine job destroying its own economy.


Then why not accelerate it and claim victory? All talk and no actions, conscript reject.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

j20blackdragon said:


> If those tactics consist of sending in unescorted B-52s and B-1s against China, go right ahead.
> 
> Just do it.



yar, except some fancy statements, you are not talking with any sense.... how many times you will post same pics....


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> More simplistic thinking. Just because a B-2 may be unescorted, what make you think it will be detectable? And by what definition do you mean 'escort'? The kind you see in movies where the setting is WW II where bombers and fighters are within visual range of each other? I do hope the PLA thinks like you do. It will make its defeat so much easier.



The US has 20 B-2s.

If you want to fly those B-2s back and forth across the Pacific Ocean, be my guest.

It also doesn't matter if the B-2s are detected or not.

The moment a single bomb lands on Chinese territory, China will respond.









gambit said:


> Then why not accelerate it and claim victory? All talk and no actions, conscript reject.



Attack China now.

Do it.

If you keep delaying your attack, we win.

List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> The US has 20 B-2s.
> 
> If you want to fly those B-2s back and forth across the Pacific Ocean, be my guest.


We did. Too bad China's radars are too sh1tty to detect them. But then again, we flew them from CONUS to Yugoslavia and the Russian-supplied radars could not detect them as well.



j20blackdragon said:


> It also doesn't matter if the B-2s are detected or not.
> 
> The moment a single bomb lands on Chinese territory, China will respond.


Only to the Chinese here that it does not matter. Like I said, I really do hope that the PLA's leadership thinks like you do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## danger007

Gambit,amalakas sir please don't respond to his crap....


----------



## j20blackdragon

Attack and we respond.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

danger007 said:


> Gambit,amalakas sir please don't respond to his crap....


Why not....they are getting taste of their own medicine.....


----------



## j20blackdragon

If you go conventional, China goes conventional.






If you go nuclear, China goes nuclear.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Firemaster

gambit said:


> We did. Too bad China's radars are too sh1tty to detect them. But then again, we flew them from CONUS to Yugoslavia and the Russian-supplied radars could not detect them as well.
> 
> 
> Only to the Chinese here that it does not matter. Like I said,* I really do hope that the PLA's leadership thinks like you do.*


I think the 'CCR' of this forum exactly reflect ccp thoughts.


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> If you go conventional, China goes conventional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you go nuclear, China goes nuclear.




ehmmm.. why are you posting so many irrelevant photos? I mean all else aside, what are the photos all about?


----------



## j20blackdragon

If you do nothing, perfect.

List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Attack and we respond.


With what? More propaganda? We give up...!!!











China's OTH radars will be rendered worthless, perhaps some value can be had for scrap metal recycling. The PLAAF will be grounded, at least for a day while the runway holes are repaired. How much experience does the PLAAF have at 'rapid runway repair'?

We have plenty. We even have dedicated squadrons for it...

Marine Corps 'Devil Dogs' train with RED HORSE Airmen


> 5/22/2011 - KADENA AIR BASE, Japan
> 
> RED HORSE instructors hosted a week-long training camp for EOPS Marines, teaching various techniques in heavy equipment operation and rapid runway repair methods that are unique to the Air Force.



Expeditionary Engineering Division (CEXX)


> To accomplish these missions, Air Force engineers are organized into three basic types of units with complementary wartime missions - *RED HORSE units, Prime BEEF units, and Prime Readiness in Base Support (Prime RIBS) units.* An engineering and services (E&S) force module combines Prime BEEF and Prime RIBS capabilities to support a flying squadron.


Go Red Horse, Prime RIBS and Prime BEEF...!!! Love those naming conventions.

After the initial shock and while the PLA's leadership is still in shock and awed by how quickly they were rendered blind, low level Bones will attack the PLAN at all of its vital port facilities, either bottle up PLAN ships or denying return access to PLAN ships. The PLAN will be panned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

Hypersonic Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon



A tip sets the plan in motion--a whispered warning of a North Korean nuclear launch, or of a shipment of biotoxins bound for a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon. Word races through the American intelligence network until it reaches U.S. Strategic Command headquarters, the Pentagon and, eventually, the White House. In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch.

When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles. At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident's four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet. Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.

If Pentagon strategists get their way, there will be no place on the planet to hide from such an assault. The plan is part of a program&#8212;in slow development since the 1990s, and now quickly coalescing in military circles&#8212;called Prompt Global Strike. It will begin with modified Tridents. But eventually, Prompt Global Strike could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal. One candidate: the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5&#8212;roughly 3600 mph. The goal, according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes."

The question is whether such an attack can be deployed without triggering World War III: Those tungsten-armed Tridents look, and fly, exactly like the deadliest weapons in the American nuclear arsenal.

The Trident II iteration of Prompt Global Strike foresaw a pushbutton war, fought from the White House. It assumed that the United States would have few allies or bases abroad from which to attack. Local commanders would be largely circumvented.

But alternate scenarios being drawn up let U.S. forces act much as they do today, only faster. Hypersonic weapons could make that happen. Put an X-51-equipped plane in the air, and it could enable commanders to hit targets for hundreds of miles around in minutes. Tips could be acted on instantly; subs wouldn't have to be in a perfect position in order to strike. Intelligence wouldn't have to race all the way to the Oval Office. Wrong information would produce local damage. And because the X-51 wouldn't be confused with a nuke&#8212;or have to fly threateningly over nuclear-armed countries&#8212;"you don't worry about starting World War III" when you score a direct hit, Lewis notes.

Hypersonic technology will take longer to develop than a conventional Trident. But the X-51, and weapons like it, might make the most sense for the Global Strike arsenal. After all, they reduce potential fallout from the riskiest part of the program: the human element.


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> If you do nothing, perfect.
> 
> List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




have you ever considered the fact that China's GDP rises because of the western markets? Do you believe that if the west decides to fold back, China's GDP will continue to rise? The truth behind your economic growth is western consumption and cheap chinese labour..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

If I were you J-20BlackDragon, I would ignore these trolls.

Speaking for myself, I spend my valuable time at the gym working out or improving my YouTube video-creation skills.

Arguing with these irrational anti-China haters is a waste of time and these guys are here all the time. It's not productive.

1. The ethnic Vietnamese is unhappy. His country is stuck in the Third World and he unloads his anger on China.

2. The Greek guy's country is in the toilet and he's unloading his anger on China.

3. The Indian guys' country is collapsing, where electricity is sometimes unavailable in the majority of the country. They unleash their anger on China.

The common denominator is jealousy. China is a competently managed country and it's constantly improving. Vietnam, Greece, and India are all moving in the opposite direction with collapsing currencies.

Hence, most of us happy Chinese ignore these losers. Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

Martian2 said:


> If I were you J-20BlackDragon, I would ignore these trolls.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I spend my valuable time at the gym working out or improving my YouTube video-creation skills.
> 
> Arguing with these irrational anti-China haters is a waste of time and these guys are here all the time. It's not productive. Just my two cents.


 
 made my day... 
@topic; martian can you please answer me ... If USA carrier can be sunk that much easily , why china trying to build new carriers??? what the purpose having CBG .. when you can do that job with just missiles as you claims???


----------



## Martian2

danger007 said:


> made my day...
> @topic; martian can you please answer me ... If USA carrier can be sunk that much easily , why china trying to build new carriers??? what the purpose having CBG .. when you can do that job with just missiles as you claims???



Isn't it obvious? China's DF-21D ASBM is strictly a defensive weapon that is useful in a band around 2,000km from China's shores.

China is switching from strategic defense to offense. Down the road, China wants to park an aircraft carrier battle group off another country's shores.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> If I were you J-20BlackDragon, I would ignore these trolls.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I spend my valuable time at the gym working out or improving my YouTube video-creation skills.
> 
> Arguing with these irrational anti-China haters is a waste of time and these guys are here all the time. It's not productive.
> 
> 1. The ethnic Vietnamese is unhappy. His country is stuck in the Third World and he unloads his anger on China.
> 
> 2. The Greek guy's country is in the toilet and he's unloading his anger on China.
> 
> 3. The Indian guys' country is collapsing, where electricity is sometimes unavailable in the majority of the country. They unleash their anger on China.
> 
> The common denominator is jealousy. China is a competently managed country and it's constantly improving. Vietnam, Greece, and India are all moving in the opposite direction with collapsing currencies.
> 
> Hence, most of us happy Chinese ignore these losers. Just my two cents.




And of course all you mentioned affects our intelligence and that is why we miss your amazing points !!!!! 

anything you want to add on reputable sources Martian ?



Martian2 said:


> Isn't it obvious? China's DF-21D ASBM is strictly a defensive weapon that is useful in a band around 2,000km from China's shores.
> 
> China is switching from strategic defense to offense. Down the road, China wants to park an aircraft carrier battle group off another country's shores.



and what if the other country has similar weapons ? .. pure gold


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> And of course all you mentioned affects our intelligence and that is why we miss your amazing points !!!!!
> 
> anything you want to add on reputable sources Martian ?
> 
> and what if the other country has similar weapons ? .. pure gold



I'm not thinking about the U.S.

I'm thinking China is pondering putting pressure on other countries following America's style of diplomacy.

----------

Sure, here are some reputable sources.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/where-dong-weak-gold-rules-vietnam-they-will-pay-you-store-your-gold

"Apr 11, 2012 &#8211; The unfortunately named Vietnamese dong has been devalued to the point where it now has an absurd number of zeros. Over the past 3 years it has lost some 30% of its value against the US dollar&#8211; it now takes about 21,000 dong to buy just one US dollar."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47547122/Greece_to_Exit_Euro_New_Currency_to_Fall_60_Citi

"May 24, 2012 &#8211; Greece will leave the euro zone next year and the country's new currency will "immediately fall by 60 percent," according to Citi chief economist ..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57451244/greece-sees-borrowing-costs-jump/

"Jun 12, 2012 &#8211; Country raised $2B but at a relatively hefty interest rate that rose from a similar debt sale last month."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/india-telecoms-credit-idINL2E8J29KZ20120802

"Reuters-Aug 2, 2012
Aug 2 (IFR) - A light is shining at the end of the tunnel for Indian ... and the rupee's 25% fall against the US dollar in the past 12 months has left it ..."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> I'm not thinking about the U.S.
> 
> I'm thinking China is pondering putting pressure on other countries a la American style.



I know what you mean, and of course the idea of the US/Russia arming these countries with comparable weapons hasn't crossed your mind ?


----------



## j20blackdragon

China's nuclear buildup is nonstop!

I dare someone to do something.

Are you all talk and no action?



> The nation has 13 generators in commercial operation while *28 are being built*, the Ministry of Environmental Protection said in June. China may have *more than 100 atomic reactors by 2020*, it said.



China Connects First Fast Nuclear Reactor to Electricity Grid - Bloomberg



> China has ambitious plans to have *more than 100 reactors operating by 2020* to help curb surging demand for coal and imported oil and gas. But development was suspended after Japan's March 2011 tsunami crippled the Fukushima power plant, causing the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.
> 
> Authorities launched an inspection of China's 13 operating reactors following the Fukushima disaster and said they found no problems. They said they were reviewing work on the *28 reactors under construction*.



China nuclear company plans IPO to fund expansion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> China's nuclear buildup is nonstop!
> 
> I dare someone to do something.
> 
> Are you all talk and no action?
> 
> 
> 
> China Connects First Fast Nuclear Reactor to Electricity Grid - Bloomberg
> 
> 
> 
> China nuclear company plans IPO to fund expansion



again, what is with all the photos ?


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> again, what is with all the photos ?



Calm down buddy!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Calm down buddy!



I am really trying to see why you post the same over and over again. Especially the ones from parades .. what are they suppose to prove ..really!


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> If I were you J-20BlackDragon, I would ignore these trolls.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I spend my valuable time at the gym working out or improving my YouTube video-creation skills.
> 
> Arguing with these irrational anti-China haters is a waste of time and these guys are here all the time. It's not productive.
> 
> 1. The ethnic Vietnamese is unhappy. His country is stuck in the Third World and he unloads his anger on China.
> 
> 2. The Greek guy's country is in the toilet and he's unloading his anger on China.
> 
> 3. The Indian guys' country is collapsing, where electricity is sometimes unavailable in the majority of the country. They unleash their anger on China.
> 
> The common denominator is jealousy. China is a competently managed country and it's constantly improving. Vietnam, Greece, and India are all moving in the opposite direction with collapsing currencies.
> 
> Hence, most of us happy Chinese ignore these losers. *Just my two cents.*


And coming from a Chinese whose loyalty is confused and who have no military experience in this matter, that is about how much your comments are worth -- in total.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

North Korea sunk the Cheonan in 2010.

The US didn't do anything.

All talk and no action! 

ROKS Cheonan sinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> I know what you mean, and of course the idea of the US/Russia arming these countries with comparable weapons hasn't crossed your mind ?



Come on. You sound like those Vietnamese retards.

Russia sells six Kilo submarines to Vietnam. So what?

1. No Kilo submarine has been delivered.

2. Vietnamese has no experience operating submarines. China has been operating submarines for 50 years.

3. China has 71 submarines and it is constantly building more.

4. China can attack other countries by land or with its 4,000km DH-10 cruise missile.

5. China can use its powerful PLA Air Force to destroy future Vietnamese bases.

6. Chinese AESA radars have far greater range than crappy Third World countries around its periphery.

7. Aside from the U.S., only China is perfecting its true fifth-generation stealth fighter. Don't mention the T-50/Pak-Fa with its exposed metal engines.

8. China can easily replace any of its military losses by manufacturing more weapons. India, Vietnam, and others cannot.

In conclusion, selling an insignificant amount of weaponry to countries that have no experience in using them makes no difference to China. Duh!

----------

Dear Gambit,

History has shown that McCarthyism does not equate to patriotism. In fact, history has proved that McCarthyism is a betrayal of the fundamental American values of fairness and freedom from a political witch hunt.

I am merely an armchair general exercising my constitutional right to discuss potential military scenarios. There is nothing patriotic or unpatriotic in my behavior. I'm pursuing my hobby, just like you.

However, unlike you, I don't take cheap shots at your patriotism or other personal issues. It's called respecting others.

Sincerely,

Armchair General Martin

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

gambit said:


> We did. Too bad China's radars are too sh1tty to detect them. But then again, we flew them from CONUS to Yugoslavia and the Russian-supplied radars could not detect them as well.
> 
> 
> Only to the Chinese here that it does not matter. Like I said, I really do hope that the PLA's leadership thinks like you do.


 
Too bad the Russian radars were not the most advanced.

China's radar technology is approaching cutting edge and the Chinese have 4th generation fighters and AWACs that the Serbians lacked.

Your point proves nothing.

US B-2s won't ever make it back from bombing runs on China.

:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Come on. You sound like those Vietnamese retards.
> 
> Russia sells six Kilo submarines to Vietnam. So what?
> 
> 1. No Kilo submarine has been delivered.
> 
> 2. Vietnamese has no experience operating submarines. China has been operating submarines for 50 years.
> 
> 3. China has 71 submarines and it is constantly building more.
> 
> 4. China can attack other countries by land or with its 4,000km DH-10 cruise missile.
> 
> 5. China can use its powerful PLA Air Force to destroy future Vietnamese bases.
> 
> 6. Chinese AESA radars have far greater range than crappy Third World countries around its periphery.
> 
> 7. Aside from the U.S., only China is perfecting its true fifth-generation stealth fighter. Don't mention the T-50/Pak-Fa with its exposed metal engines.
> 
> 8. China can easily replace any of its military losses by manufacturing more weapons. India, Vietnam, and others cannot.
> 
> In conclusion, selling an insignificant amount of weaponry to countries that have no experience in using them makes no difference to China. Duh!
> 
> ----------
> 
> Dear Gambit,
> 
> History has shown that McCarthyism does not equate to patriotism. In fact, history has proved that McCarthyism is a betrayal of the fundamental American values of fairness and freedom from a political witch hunt.
> 
> I am merely an armchair general exercising my constitutional right to discuss potential military scenarios. There is nothing patriotic or unpatriotic in my behavior. I'm pursuing my hobby, just like you.
> 
> However, unlike you, I don't take cheap shots at your patriotism or other personal issues. It's called respecting others.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Armchair General Martin



you are still using the same old arguments aren't you ? 

and when I said sources, I didn't mean sources for your current post, you missed the sarcasm


----------



## j20blackdragon

UKBengali said:


> Too bad the Russian radars were not the most advanced.
> 
> China's radar technology is approaching cutting edge and the Chinese have 4th generation fighters and AWACs that the Serbians lacked.
> 
> Your point proves nothing.
> 
> US B-2s won't ever make it back from bombing runs on China.
> 
> :



Exactly.

He thinks B-2s can fly unescorted into China with no air superiority and open those bomb bays without being detected.

I say go ahead and do it.

What's stopping the US from doing it right now?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Exactly.
> 
> He thinks B-2s can fly unescorted into China with no air superiority and open those bomb bays without being detected.
> 
> I say go ahead and do it.
> 
> What's stopping the US from doing it right now?




It is called foreign policy, and yes not only B-2s but also even the retired F-117s could fly in and out of Chinese airspace and noone would even know.

Not to mention that right now the combined conventional might of the PLN cannot deal with a single US CBG. 

some people think I exaggerate, but I am not.


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> and yes not only B-2s but also even the retired F-117s could fly in and out of Chinese airspace and noone would even know.



What is the combat radius of the F-117 and from which airbase is it operating from?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> What is the combat radius of the F-117 and from which airbase is it operating from?



Also what is with the image again? You use this for the DF-21D! you are going to use the same missile to hit military bases too? what it is a swiss army knife of missiles this one?

You are forgetting these are first strike weapons, they don't advertise their presence when they are about to be used. 

So if they were meant to be used, they would be and then be long gone afterwards. And you and other table top strategists can go guessing where they flew from or not. 

The point was that there is something you don't know. And that is that nothing works the way you think. 

What you do is counting numbers of planes and tanks and think that is what matters. It is not. 

and I tried to explain this to you boys a number of times. 

China doesn't even have the experience to conduct operations. Simply because it hasn't conducted any. 

You have clearly time and time again demonstrated a lack of appreciation for strategic objectives and means to achieve them. You only count numbers.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Exactly.
> 
> He thinks B-2s can fly unescorted into China with no air superiority and *open those bomb bays without being detected.*
> 
> I say go ahead and do it.


And your no experience is showing.

In order for the weapons bay to have any adverse effects on RCS, the seeking radar *HAS TO BE ON THE AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE.*

If the radar beam sweeps over the B-2 before it begins its weapons release procedures, its delivery *WILL NOT* be detected until...errr...*TOO FRACKING LATE.*

This is why I get more of an intellectual challenge working on my bike than from you Chinese boys -- *COMBINED*.



j20blackdragon said:


> What's stopping the US from doing it right now?


Our magnanimity.


----------



## Firemaster

gambit said:


> And your no experience is showing.
> 
> In order for the weapons bay to have any adverse effects on RCS, the seeking radar *HAS TO BE ON THE AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE.*
> 
> If the radar beam sweeps over the B-2 before it begins its weapons release procedures, its delivery *WILL NOT* be detected until...errr...*TOO FRACKING LATE.*
> 
> This is why I get more of an intellectual challenge working on my bike than from you Chinese boys -- *COMBINED*.
> 
> 
> Our magnanimity.


Sir although it doesn't seem a right place to ask a question but Visitor message service is off so I am asking it here.
In one of your post I read that nothing is invisible on a radar even RCS of a bird but you said that things like size of a bird are automatically rejected by the radar as clutter even if those are flying at mach 1.
Now, can we not implement an algorithm in radar processing module to reject RCS of a bird's size only when if it is flying slower than 500Km/h in order to detect a stealth aircraft?




> magnanimity.


New word added to my vocabulary


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> Also what is with the image again? You use this for the DF-21D! you are going to use the same missile to hit military bases too? what it is a swiss army knife of missiles this one?



It's like I'm talking to a child. 

The DF-21D is for ships.

China has other missiles for the military bases.

I'll even post the pictures for you so you don't get confused.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Firemaster said:


> Sir although it doesn't seem a right place to ask a question but Visitor message service is off so I am asking it here.
> In one of your post I read that nothing is invisible on a radar even RCS of a bird but you said that things like size of a bird are automatically rejected by the radar as clutter even if those are flying at mach 1.
> Now, can we not implement an algorithm in radar processing module to reject RCS of a bird's size only when if it is flying slower than 500Km/h in order to detect a stealth aircraft?
> 
> 
> 
> New word added to my vocabulary



We can and we have. 

But that is not the point. The point is that if you were to see the returns from a relatively modern and modestly powerful radar froma fighter plane, you would be amazed by how much it picks up. It is hard to for any algorithm to separate echoes that may or may not be travelling at high speeds. 

they are simply too many. Now you can do this, but there is only so much a dedicated unit can do. if you make it search for the supersonic bird, it may not be able to do much else..



j20blackdragon said:


> It's like I'm talking to a child.
> 
> The DF-21D is for ships.
> 
> China has other missiles for the military bases.
> 
> I'll even post the pictures for you so you don't get confused.




you'll have to excuse me, you keep posting the same images... i tend to lose the point after a while ..


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> you'll have to excuse me, you keep posting the same images... i tend to lose the point after a while ..



I want everyone to see how China is going to destroy all your forward bases. 

Go ahead and attack.

All talk and no action? 


















gambit said:


> And your no experience is showing.
> 
> In order for the weapons bay to have any adverse effects on RCS, the seeking radar *HAS TO BE ON THE AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE.*
> 
> If the radar beam sweeps over the B-2 before it begins its weapons release procedures, its delivery *WILL NOT* be detected until...errr...*TOO FRACKING LATE.*



If that's the case, the J-20 will open its weapon bays and drop some glide bombs straight through the deck of your carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mercenary

From Wikipedia: DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, The U.S. arsenal has a &#8220;variety of potential countermeasures&#8221; and the &#8220;kill chain&#8221; of a potential DF-21D attack would be so &#8220;complicated&#8221; that it would provide a &#8220;number of opportunities to defeat the attack&#8221;.
He also stated the unless one country integrates an &#8220;entire system of systems&#8221; to make this work, the missile itself would be pretty &#8220;useless&#8221;.[27]

&#8220;Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.&#8221;[27] - Roger Cliff


----------



## amalakas

Mercenary said:


> From Wikipedia: DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, The U.S. arsenal has a &#8220;variety of potential countermeasures&#8221; and the &#8220;kill chain&#8221; of a potential DF-21D attack would be so &#8220;complicated&#8221; that it would provide a &#8220;number of opportunities to defeat the attack&#8221;.
> He also stated the unless one country integrates an &#8220;entire system of systems&#8221; to make this work, the missile itself would be pretty &#8220;useless&#8221;.[27]
> 
> &#8220;Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.&#8221;[27] - Roger Cliff



which agrees with what has been said so far.


----------



## Esc8781

j20blackdragon said:


> I want everyone to see how China is going to destroy all your forward bases.
> 
> Go ahead and attack.
> 
> All talk and no action?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case, the J-20 will open its weapon bays and drop some glide bombs straight through the deck of your carrier.


 Wait hold on if China can detect our B-2 why can't we detect the j-20 if we started stealth before China did? Plus why aren't you sure that f-18 super hornets and f-35C aren't around the carrier to defend it from the j-20  how does that make any sense someone tell me!


----------



## Martian2

*$1 trillion cuts in the U.S. military budget over the next ten years*

You anti-China haters need to live in the real world. The U.S. military is in the process of being gutted.

There is $1 trillion over ten years being cut from the Pentagon budget starting January 2013 (right after the presidential election). In ten years, the U.S. military will be a shadow of its current self. 

There will be no significant U.S. attempt to counterbalance China in Asia. If you're broke, you can't do squat. That's a fact.

----------

Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study | Reuters

"Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study
WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:34pm EDT
...
The Pentagon "has not adequately articulated the strategy behind its force posture planning nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities," CSIS said in its report.

*While the Pentagon is planning to make nearly $500 billion in cuts to projected spending over the next 10 years, it is seeking to stave off an additional $500 billion in potential cuts under a process known as 'sequestration.'*"

[Note: Thank you to Paul Yih for the newslink.]

[Additional note: Sequestration is an automatic across-the-board cut to the annual U.S. budget, unless the Democrats and Republicans can agree on a budget deal. We all know hell will freeze over before Democrats (more taxes on the rich) and Republicans (lower taxes on the rich and reduced spending on everything except the military) can agree to aforesaid budget deal. Therefore, sequestration is inevitable.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> *$1 trillion cuts in the U.S. military budget over the next ten years*
> 
> *You anti-China haters need to live in the real world.* The U.S. military is in the process of being gutted.
> 
> There is $1 trillion over ten years being cut from the Pentagon budget starting January 2013 (right after the presidential election). In ten years, the U.S. military will be a shadow of its current self.
> 
> There will be no significant U.S. attempt to counterbalance China in Asia. If you're broke, you can't do squat. That's a fact.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study | Reuters
> 
> "Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study
> WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:34pm EDT
> ...
> The Pentagon "has not adequately articulated the strategy behind its force posture planning nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities," CSIS said in its report.
> 
> *While the Pentagon is planning to make nearly $500 billion in cuts to projected spending over the next 10 years, it is seeking to stave off an additional $500 billion in potential cuts under a process known as 'sequestration.'*"
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Paul Yih for the newslink.]
> 
> [Additional note: Sequestration is an automatic across-the-board cut to the annual U.S. budget, unless the Democrats and Republicans can agree on a budget deal. We all know hell will freeze over before Democrats (more taxes on the rich) and Republicans (lower taxes on the rich and reduced spending on everything except the military) can agree to aforesaid budget deal. Therefore, sequestration is inevitable.]




That is what you don''t get. We (or at least I) am no china hater. What I hate is the amount of misinformation people like you spread based on a minute understanding and teenage chest thumping. 

Most of the things you personally post are misconceptions, misunderstandings and a mix of own egotistical based interpretations of facts. 

I don't like to play this game but I don't like people like you to insult all I have learned all these years because that way I allow you to insult all the people who taught me as well. 

Your posts on Chinese GDP over and over again, (along with the other member, dragon), you current post on US cutting military budget, you bitter comments about us being China haters because our respective countries are going south, these are highly indicative of a person with an agenda, personal and psychologically motivated, by what, I don't know.

Where we come from, has no bearing on out intelligence and on what we know and we have been taught. 
I have tried to show you a number of times how erroneous your interpretations of China's economic growth is, but you don't seem to want to see. That is fine by me.

We tried this issue in terms of politics, technology, systems integration and everything else along the way. You don't seem to listen nor understand. That is fine by me also.

You have a very twisted world perspective and that is sad. What is sadder is that we can probably paint a far more accurate picture of Chinese foreign policy intentions and military directions and goals than you guys do, and you are supposed to be chinese or chinese fans. Sad really.


----------



## gambit

Firemaster said:


> In one of your post I read that nothing is invisible on a radar even RCS of a bird but you said that things like size of a bird are automatically rejected by the radar as clutter even if those are flying at mach 1.


Yes.



Firemaster said:


> Now, can we not implement an algorithm in radar processing module to reject RCS of a bird's size only when if it is flying slower than 500Km/h in order to detect a stealth aircraft?


It is called 'moving target indicator' radar, or more precisely -- mode.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...-raptor-detailed-analasis-25.html#post1926961

The argument 'no bird flies at Mach 1' have been posited before as some sort of antidote for 'stealth'. The MTI mode have very lmited utility in trying to detect an F-117 class body.

Track-before-detect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In radar technology and similar fields, track-before-detect (TBD) is a concept according to which a signal is tracked before declaring it a target.


Detect-before-track is when there is a trespass of a threshold (clutter rejection) over time. Then the violator is marked as a 'target' and tracked. In DBT, we set a threshold where we say that any RCS value that matches this threshold and *BELOW* we do not want to display, in other words, the operator is not informed at all.

IEEE Xplore - Signal-to-noise ratio threshold effect in track before detect


> Track before detect (TBD) refers to simultaneous detection and tracking using *unthresholded* sensor responses over time.



IEEE Xplore - Hidden Markov based target detection for track-before-detect


> Track-before-detect (TBD) techniques avoid the usage of a detection threshold...


Unthresholded and avoid a threshold.

In track-before-detect (TBD), we lower the threshold to the point where we basically see everything, possibly signals as low as cosmic background radiation (CBR), then we track them *ALL* over time. We do not consider the Doppler component of any response like in MTI mode. We simply monitor the spatial progress of *EVERYTHING*. The filter(s) that we introduce at this point can be anything, from RCS to speed to altitude to heading. If anything matches our filter criteria, it is 'detected'. Hence, track-before-detect.

The main technical issue is that of data processing. The wider the beamwidth the greater the amount of data. The narrower the beamwidth, the less data but at the expense of volume scan over time. The data processing power alone is not yet allowable for a fighter class radar. It is more feasible for a ground station but the volume is still a hurdle, especially when combat urgency (time) is factored in.

This is why currently, the bi-static radar is still the better threat to 'stealth' but it has its own limitations, technical and logistical issues as well.



j20blackdragon said:


> If that's the case, the J-20 will open its weapon bays and drop some glide bombs straight through the deck of your carrier.


Big if. You are assuming that the J-20 is even in the same class as the F-117. The J-20's flippity-floppity canards in flight is going to holler: 'Here I am, come get me!!!'

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Dear Gambit,
> 
> History has shown that McCarthyism does not equate to patriotism. In fact, history has proved that McCarthyism is a betrayal of the fundamental American values of fairness and freedom from a political witch hunt.
> 
> I am merely an armchair general exercising my constitutional right to discuss potential military scenarios. There is nothing patriotic or unpatriotic in my behavior. I'm pursuing my hobby, just like you.
> 
> However, unlike you, I don't take cheap shots at your patriotism or other personal issues. It's called respecting others.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Armchair General Martin


It is hilarious and an irony so delicious that you would invoke your US Constitutional rights when your emotional alliance is with those who do not care about such rights.

I met plenty of Chinese-Americans in my days, in and out of the military, US borned and naturalized citizens. The difference between them and the Chinese-Americans here is that they do not criticize the US to destroy whilst the lot of you potential traitors Chinese-Americans here criticize the US precisely to destroy her. Their criticisms of the US are always accompanied by solutions, no matter how flawed or ill informed they are earnest attempts nonetheless, and those solutions are always on how to fix the US to maintain her high status in the world. For the Chinese-Americans on this forum, you criticize the US in the hope that others will abandon her.

I do not need to channel the ghost of McCarthy to see you for what you are. I only need to read your posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

B-2s entered service in 1997.

And I'm still waiting for them to bomb China.

Where are they?

All talk and no action?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> B-2s entered service in 1997.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for them to bomb China.
> 
> Where are they?
> 
> All talk and no action?



Did you even see the image you posted ?


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> Did you even see the image you posted ?



What about it? 

Care to provide your analysis?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> What about it?
> 
> Care to provide your analysis?



Does it not show how a potential stealth attack aircraft will use LO and careful mission planning to achieve its goal? 

yes or no?


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> Does it not show how a potential stealth attack aircraft will use LO and careful mission planning to achieve its goal?
> 
> yes or no?



Sure, so where are the B-2 attacks on China?

Let us have it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

j20blackdragon said:


> Sure, so where are the B-2 attacks on China?
> 
> Let us have it.



*Ignore the soon-to-be Third World Greek*

Amalakas is a bankrupt Greek. I don't remember anyone putting him in charge of the USAF.

How is he any different from an Egyptian pretending to control Russia's nuclear arsenal?

Both situations are equally ridiculous. Amalakas is delusional.

----------

Amalakas should be focused on the discussion of demoting Greece into a Third World developing country. He is not an American and he should stop talking big about a country that he knows nothing about.

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/20...h-korea-greece-could-become-em/#axzz23aZaxKme

"MSCI holds fire on South Korea; Greece could be demoted to EM
June 20, 2012 10:27 pm by Pan Kwan Yuk
...
*But perhaps the bigger shocker (or not depending on your point of view) is news that Greece is being added to MSCI&#8217;s review list for potential reclassification from developed to EM status. Talk about a kick in the teeth.*

From the MSCI press release:



> The MSCI Greece Index is structurally no longer in line with Developed Markets size requirements with only two index constituents. If these two remaining index constituents were to experience further decrease in size, MSCI may be forced to discontinue the calculation of the MSCI Greece Index. The weight of the MSCI Greece Index in the MSCI World Index has decreased from 0.16% in May 2010 to 0.03% in May 2012.
> 
> In addition, the Greek equity market is the only Developed Market in which in&#8208;kind transfers and off&#8208;exchange transactions are prohibited and stock lending as well as short selling practices are not well established. This has created significant concerns for market participants and in particular for passive portfolio managers. The Greek authorities have not been receptive to repeated complaints from the international investment community and did not manage to bring equity market regulations and practices in line with the evolving standards of Developed Markets.
> 
> MSCI may launch a public consultation on a proposal to reclassify the MSCI Greece Index to Standalone Market status outside of the regular reclassification cycle if the country were to introduce accessibility restrictions to its equity market following a potential exit of the country from the European Monetary Union.



Ouch."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Amalakas is a bankrupt Greek. I don't remember anyone putting him in charge of the USAF.
> 
> How is he any different from an Egyptian pretending to control Russia's nuclear arsenal?
> 
> Both situations are equally ridiculous. Amalakas is delusional.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Amalakas should be focused on the discussion of demoting Greece into a Third World developing country. He is not an American and he should stop talking big about a country that he knows nothing about.
> 
> [snap]: MSCI holds fire on South Korea; Greece could be demoted to EM | beyondbrics
> 
> "MSCI holds fire on South Korea; Greece could be demoted to EM
> June 20, 2012 10:27 pm by Pan Kwan Yuk
> ...
> High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. [snap]: MSCI holds fire on South Korea; Greece could be demoted to EM | beyondbrics
> 
> But perhaps the bigger shocker (or not depending on your point of view) is news that Greece is being added to MSCIs review list for potential reclassification from developed to EM status. Talk about a kick in the teeth.
> 
> From the MSCI press release:
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch."



What has his country of origin or the state of his countries economy have to do with mission planing?


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> What has his country of origin or the state of his countries economy have to do with mission planing?



He does not understand American policy goals or military history. He has no business talking about the USAF.

How would you like it if someone from Bermuda kept talking about scenarios where the Bermudan uses Russia's nuclear arsenal?

Wouldn't you find that ridiculous?

The guy (Amalakas and the Bermudan) needs to have his head examined.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Amalakas is a bankrupt Greek. I don't remember anyone putting him in charge of the USAF.


And we do not remember anyone putting you in charge of the PLA.

Considering you have no military experience and no related experience in the technical issues discussed, who is the truly delusional one here?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And we do not remember anyone putting you in charge of the PLA.
> 
> Considering you have no military experience and no related experience in the technical issues discussed, who is the truly delusional one here?



My military analyses are fully supported by citations. For example, I quote Admiral Willard or PLA general Peng.

By the way, you are guilty for your sparsity of quoting American military leaders in your sometimes ridiculous posts.

----------

At Amalakas:

Look, a member of a PIIGS bailout country has no right to talk trash. It is a sign of mental illness. 

Your country Greece is crap. You Greeks are just a bunch of beggars. I'm tired of your anti-China posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

gambit said:


> And we do not remember anyone putting you in charge of the PLA.
> 
> Considering you have no military experience and no related experience in the technical issues discussed, who is the truly delusional one here?



*Usually those who have military experience lack experience and wit in other fields. Scientists never have military experience like you have but do think you understand the world better than a scientist ?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> My military analyses are fully supported by citations. For example, I quote Admiral Willard or PLA general Peng.
> 
> By the way, you are guilty for your sparsity of quoting American military leaders in your sometimes ridiculous posts.
> 
> ----------
> 
> At Amalakas:
> 
> *Look, a member of a PIIGS bailout country has no right to talk trash. It is a sign of mental illness.
> 
> Your country Greece is crap. You Greeks are just a bunch of beggars. I'm tired of your anti-China posts.*




You know your arguments lack sufficient understanding and hence you are resorting to semi-personal insults. 

Nothing new here. Your attacks will not change the way I take down your false understandings.


I respect China far more than you do, that is why I don't make false assumptions about it. Its military and anything else along the way. 

I had military training, The first thing they teach you is "*To respect your opponent*" ,any opponent. 

China is NOT my opponent, and I doubt it will ever be, but you are drawing lines in the sand as if you are responsible for foreign affairs. (Thank God you are not!)

Now to answer your questions and explain to you why I understand US foreign policy better than you. 

Because I was serving in a NATO air force for a long time. I was briefed on US foreign policy, I was given leaflets with instructions for out of country deployments. I have been given briefings and material to study. I went to seminars. 
One of them was titled, "NATO structure in the face of the ever changing geopolitical aspirations of the Far East: A complex time game" 
I still have that leaflet among others. You think our jobs was just going into work every day and taking care of Jet engines like your buddy has suggested in the past? 

This shows how clearly misinformed you are.

The fact that my country is bankrupt has nothing to do with my intelligence and how I perceive your arguments or lack there of. 

Bottom line is your arguments are biassed and lack any depth. That is why we are here. Not because I am Greek. 

get it ?



T-Rex said:


> *Usually those who have military experience lack experience and wit in other fields. Scientists never have military experience like you have but do think you understand the world better than a scientist ?*




How about those who have military experience and then went on to get degrees from it and now are scientists in the field? 

I see a lot of misunderstanding about how western military works in this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> You know your arguments lack sufficient understanding and hence you are resorting to semi-personal insults.
> 
> Nothing new here. Your attacks will not change the way I take down your false understandings.
> 
> 
> I respect China far more than you do, that is why I don't make false assumptions about it. Its military and anything else along the way.
> 
> I had military training, The first thing they teach you is "*To respect your opponent*" ,any opponent.
> 
> China is NOT my opponent, and I doubt it will ever be, but you are drawing lines in the sand as if you are responsible for foreign affairs. (Thank God you are not!)
> 
> Now to answer your questions and explain to you why I understand US foreign policy better than you.
> 
> Because I was serving in a NATO air force for a long time. I was briefed on US foreign policy, I was given leaflets with instructions for out of country deployments. I have been given briefings and material to study. I went to seminars.
> One of them was titled, "NATO structure in the face of the ever changing geopolitical aspirations of the Far East: A complex time game"
> I still have that leaflet among others. You think our jobs was just going into work every day and taking care of Jet engines like your buddy has suggested in the past?
> 
> This shows how clearly misinformed you are.
> 
> The fact that my country is bankrupt has nothing to do with my intelligence and how I perceive your arguments or lack there of.
> 
> Bottom line is your arguments are biassed and lack any depth. That is why we are here. Not because I am Greek.
> 
> get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about those who have military experience and then went on to get degrees from it and now are scientists in the field?
> 
> I see a lot of misunderstanding about how western military works in this forum.



You are way out of line.

You are a Greek and trash talking with American military power. This is absurd.

If you want to make a point, show a reputable citation and make a reasonable argument.

Otherwise, your anti-China rhetoric is tiresome and annoying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> You are way out of line.
> 
> You are a Greek and trash talking with American military power. This is absurd.
> 
> If you want to make a point, show a reputable citation and make a reasonable argument.
> 
> Otherwise, your anti-China rhetoric is tiresome and annoying.




Your resorting to insults again will have no bearing. 

You are once again asking me for citations. Let us all examine what happened last time you asked me for some! 


In post #2260 in the J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions I posted:



amalakas said:


> oh .. and because you usually ask for citations ... here they are .. i wonder if you are going to read them.. .
> 
> D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc.
> 
> George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar
> 
> Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research
> 
> have fun man..



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-151.html#ixzz23cNkbjQF


Your amazingly intellectual answer to that was : 

post #2261


Martian2 said:


> Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? *You never post a reputable citation *to back up your crap. It gets annoying.
> 
> Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?.



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-151.html#ixzz23cNvyvgS

You see how you say they *are NOT reputable sources?*

And in my response to that amazing comment by you was : 
post #2262



amalakas said:


> D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc. 1999;
> 
> George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar (Second Edition), SciTech Publishing, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1998;
> 
> *Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research, Journal of UEST of China, Vol.34, No.4, Aug.2005;*



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-151.html#ixzz23cNzufEX


*You never came back to us with more explanation *as to why you consider the above references for that topic *as non reputable*, especially seeing as *a particularly important one for my arguments was actually Chinese !* .. 

you only attacked again asking for exact word phrases that mention what only you understand, not realising *that the Chinese citation had been written for exactly what you were asking for!!!* 


In other words you have been busted .. and you have lost all (if any) credibility you might have had in asking for citations , because when they are given to you , you lack the proper education and understanding to use them and evaluate them. 

end of story. 

unfortunately for you, a forum is a timeline of all the things we post. And guess what, it exposes YOU, not me. 

keep it up exposing yourself ..

You see unfortunately, a person's ethnicity has nothing to do with the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> He does not understand American policy goals or military history. He has no business talking about the USAF.
> 
> How would you like it if someone from Bermuda kept talking about scenarios where the Bermudan uses Russia's nuclear arsenal?
> 
> Wouldn't you find that ridiculous?
> 
> The guy (Amalakas and the Bermudan) needs to have his head examined.




I have worked with the USAF and the USN, on more occasions than you can even begin to imagine. 

Your lack of understanding of NATO structures is amazing.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> My military analyses are fully supported by citations. For example, I quote Admiral Willard or PLA general Peng.


No. Your 'analysis' are merely creative reinterpretations of other people's real analysis.



T-Rex said:


> *Usually those who have military experience lack experience and wit in other fields.* Scientists never have military experience like you have but do think you understand the world better than a scientist ?


And do *YOU* have experience that are relevant to the subjects here? If not, I suggest stop sucking up to the Chinese, keep quiet and ask earnest questions. Guarantee that you will learn something.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> No. Your 'analysis' are merely *creative* reinterpretations of other people's real analysis.




emphasis on .....


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> No. Your 'analysis' are merely creative reinterpretations of other people's real analysis.



I quoted Admiral Willard. You're the one who's disputing Admiral Willard's statements. You pretend that you know more than the commander of U.S. Pacific forces. You are the pretender with delusions of grandeur.

At Amalakas, you have only made a fool of yourself in front of everyone. No one cares about a Greek maintenance guy on U.S. aircraft. You are still only knowledgeable about maintenance. A Greek janitor cannot promote himself to chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff. It doesn't work that way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I quoted Admiral Willard. You're the one who's disputing Admiral Willard's statements. You pretend that you know more than the U.S. commander of U.S. Pacific forces. You are the pretender with delusions of grandeur.


So certain are you? Bring the Admiral's comments back on and let the readers see.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> So certain are you? Bring the Admiral's comments back on and let the readers see.



No thanks. You can browse the earlier pages. I quoted Admiral Willard multiple times and posted his picture. You were adamant in your naysaying. You are willing to pursue your anti-China agenda in direct contradiction of Admiral Willard's statements.

You're a zealot. I'm not. My time is valuable and I'm not willing to argue the same point with you for the tenth time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> I quoted Admiral Willard. You're the one who's disputing Admiral Willard's statements. You pretend that you know more than the commander of U.S. Pacific forces. You are the pretender with delusions of grandeur.
> 
> At Amalakas, *you have only made a fool of yourself in front of everyone. No one cares about a Greek maintenance guy on U.S. aircraft. You are still only knowledgeable about maintenance. A Greek janitor cannot promote himself to chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff. It doesn't work that way*.




Perhaps I am a janitor and perhaps I am working in the Greek embassy in the U.S. tasked with foreign affairs, military attaché, we will never know, ..

but aside from all that, care to explain to us what happened with those reputable sources you were asking for as I mentioned in post #447 ? 


I think that is more of value establishing what you are, now that we all know I am a janitor ...



gambit said:


> So certain are you? Bring the Admiral's comments back on and let the readers see.




don't ask for the impossible...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> Perhaps I am a janitor and perhaps I am working in the Greek embassy in the U.S. tasked with foreign affairs, military attaché, we will never know, ..
> 
> but aside from all that, care to explain to us what happened with those reputable sources you were asking for as I mentioned in post #447 ?
> 
> 
> I think that is more of value establishing what you are, now that we all know I am a janitor ...



Look, you are Greek and we expect you to understand Greek policies and military capabilities in more depth than others on this forum. We expect to hear about Greek military affairs from you. However, we do not expect you to fly American B-2 bombers wherever you like. That is just ridiculous.

Similarly, we expect to hear about Russian affairs from PtldM3. We do not expect him to fly American B-2 bombers wherever he likes, which he rationally doesn't do.

He's rational and you're not. Do you get it?

If you insist on your stupid fantasy of flying American B-2 stealth bombers over China then I demand you show me a reputable citation from the Obama administration suggesting this possibility. If not, shut the hell up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *No thanks. You can browse the earlier pages.* I quoted Admiral Willard multiple times and posted his picture. You were adamant in your naysaying. You are willing to pursue your anti-China agenda in direct contradiction of Admiral Willard's statements.


Yeah...Just as I thought...Cowardice.



Martian2 said:


> My time is valuable.


Suuuuure it is......What you are is frustrated that the only people who sing your praises are the technically ignorant and gullible and the Chinese. That is why you keep coming back here with your so called 'analysis' in hope that you can convince more on how 'smart' you are because deep down you are tired of that intellectually dead playground of yours where everyone is nothing more than members of a mutual admiration society.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Look, you are Greek and we expect you to understand Greek policies and military capabilities in more depth than others on this forum. We expect to hear about Greek military affairs from you. However, we do not expect you to fly American B-2 bombers wherever you like. That is just ridiculous.
> 
> Similarly, we expect to hear about Russian affairs from PtldM3. We do not expect him to fly American B-2 bombers wherever he likes, which he rationally doesn't do. He's rational and you're not. Do you get it?




Yes, sure, but when did I say that I fly B-2's whenever I like ?

Look, I will try to explain this to you, as best as I can... 

Greece is a member of NATO, 

NATO is primarily equipped with US equipment and hence American doctrine. 

to put it simply, WE WERE TRAINED BY THE U.S. .. the americans trained us !!! every step of the way !! how more toned down can I say it..


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Yeah...Just as I thought...Cowardice.
> 
> 
> Suuuuure it is......What you are is frustrated that the only people who sing your praises are the technically ignorant and gullible and the Chinese. That is why you keep coming back here with your so called 'analysis' in hope that you can convince more on how 'smart' you are because deep down you are tired of that intellectually dead playground of yours where everyone is nothing more than members of a mutual admiration society.



My insights are welcomed by the community.

I have 1.5 "thanks" for every one of my posts. You have 0.5 "thanks" for every one of your posts. One of my posts is worth about three of your posts.



amalakas said:


> Yes, sure, but when did I say that I fly B-2's whenever I like ?
> 
> Look, I will try to explain this to you, as best as I can...
> 
> Greece is a member of NATO,
> 
> NATO is primarily equipped with US equipment and hence American doctrine.
> 
> to put it simply, WE WERE TRAINED BY THE U.S. .. the americans trained us !!! every step of the way !! how more toned down can I say it..



NATO doesn't have any B-2 bombers. When did NATO end up in charge of American armed forces?

You guys are the tail of the dog. The tail does not wag the dog.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> ...show me a reputable citation from the Obama administration suggesting this possibility. If not, shut the hell up.


This is where your so called 'analysis' failed. Military plannings *TRANSCENDS* political administrations, even under dictatorships where a single leader rules over decades. What the Obama Administration say today can be discarded tomorrow, by Obama or by the next administration. If you cannot understand this, shut the hell up.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> My insights are welcomed by the community.
> 
> I have 1.5 "thanks" for every one of my posts. You have 0.5 "thanks" for every one of your posts. One of my posts is worth about three of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> NATO doesn't have any B-2 bombers. When did NATO end up in charge of American armed forces?
> 
> You guys are the tail of the dog. The tail does not wag the dog.




You are asking me about mission planning. During NATO operations, the B-2s are part of the NATO assets in its disposal. Believe it or not we don't have to be flying B-2s to know what their mission planing requirements are within NATO. 

what you forget is that all of NATO countries are essentially potential bases for ANY american piece of military asset. 

NATO personnel anywhere in Europe is briefed accordingly, not just Greece, anywhere, Germany, Spain, Italy, Turkey...


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> My insights are welcomed by the community.


And I can say the same.



Martian2 said:


> *I have 1.5 "thanks" for every one of my posts.* You have 0.5 "thanks" for every one of your posts. One of my posts is worth about three of your posts.


From mostly the Chinese......People here knows my contempt for the 'Thank' feature and know I do not care for it. For the Chinese conscript rejects here, even an insult is 'useful'. I have yet to see where any of you Chinese contribute significantly to a technical discussion *WITH* posts that are devoid of anything relating to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> This is where your so called 'analysis' failed. Military plannings *TRANSCENDS* political administrations, even under dictatorships where a single leader rules over decades. What the Obama Administration say today can be discarded tomorrow, by Obama or by the next administration. If you cannot understand this, shut the hell up.



Want to see my citation from Secretary of State Clinton pledging neutrality in the South China Sea?

Now, I challenge you to provide a citation from the Obama administration stating it is willing to commit the full might of the U.S. military to fight China in the South China Sea.



amalakas said:


> You are asking me about mission planning. During NATO operations, the B-2s are part of the NATO assets in its disposal. Believe it or not we don't have to be flying B-2s to know what their mission planing requirements are within NATO.
> 
> what you forget is that all of NATO countries are essentially potential bases for ANY american piece of military asset.
> 
> NATO personnel anywhere in Europe is briefed accordingly, not just Greece, anywhere, Germany, Spain, Italy, Turkey...



Baloney. I've never heard of NATO planning for war with China. Show me a reputable citation.

You two idiots have been posting garbage in this thread and I'm demanding to see some reputable citations to back up your crap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Want to see my citation from Secretary of State Clinton pledging neutrality in the South China Sea?
> 
> Now, I challenge you to provide a citation from the Obama administration stating it is willing to commit the full might of the U.S. military to fight China in the South China Sea.


The US had no territorial claims in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan either. And look what happened. That is how simplistic is your thinking.



Martian2 said:


> I've never heard of NATO planning for war with China. Show me a reputable citation.


That is not what he meant.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> The US had no territorial claims in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan either. And look what happened. That is how simplistic is your thinking.



You're kidding right? The U.S. administrations made clear statements prior to the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Regarding Vietnam, the U.S. stated its intent to stop the communist domino effect in Southeast Asia.

Regarding Iraq, Bush said Saddam had 24 hours to leave Baghdad.

Afghanistan was the base for the attack on 9/11. This was simple retaliation.

Now, give me a credible citation of official Obama administration policy for an imminent war with China. Time to put up or shut up.

Official Obama administration policy is neutrality. You two anti-China idiots live in a fantasy world. I want some credible citations from you two dummies for real-world relevance.

This is either a professional defense forum or it's not. I'm demanding you two clowns to prove the professionalism of your views and a connection to real life.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> The US had no territorial claims in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan either. And look what happened. That is how simplistic is your thinking.
> 
> 
> *That is not what he meant*.



Well I think that went straight over his head...





Martian2 said:


> You're kidding right? The U.S. administrations made clear statements prior to the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
> 
> Regarding Vietnam, the U.S. stated its intent to stop the communist domino effect in Southeast Asia.
> 
> Regarding Iraq, Bush said Saddam had 24 hours to leave Baghdad.
> 
> Afghanistan was the base for the attack on 9/11. This was simple retaliation.
> 
> Now, give me a credible citation of official Obama administration policy for an imminent war with China. Time to put up or shut up.
> 
> Official Obama administration policy is neutrality. You two anti-China idiots live in a fantasy world. I want some credible citations from you two dummies for real-world relevance.




When did this suddenly become a preparation for war with China. Open your eyes, we are not talking about war preparations. 

and after all, you were posting about the chinese capabilities in destroying an american carrier. Show us reputable sources that the chinese are indenting to do so then!! 

do you see how twisted your logic is?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You're kidding right? The U.S. administrations made clear statements prior to the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
> 
> Regarding Vietnam, the U.S. stated its intent to stop the communist domino effect in Southeast Asia.
> 
> Regarding Iraq, Bush said Saddam had 24 hours to leave Baghdad.
> 
> Afghanistan was the base for the attack on 9/11. This was simple retaliation.
> 
> Now, give me a credible citation of official Obama administration policy for an imminent war with China. Time to put up or shut up.


You specifically said 'territorial claim'.

Here is what State said...

The South China Sea


> But we do not take a position on the competing territorial claims over *land features* in the South China Sea.


That is not 'territorial claims' as you often posited. A neutral position on one thing does not mean neutrality on all when it comes to a complex issue like the SCS where there are other competing issues.

Such as...


> We oppose the threat or use of force by any claimant in the South China Sea to advance its claims or interfere with legitimate economic activity.


The US does have vital economic interests in keeping the SCS free of any Chinese domination and *WILL* take the necessary military steps to ensure that freedom. That does not mean the US accept/prefers the Vietnamese claim or the Phil or anyone else's.



amalakas said:


> Well I think that went straight over his head...


But he will get 'Thank' for it anyway......It is so sad to see anyone so obsessed with praises from an anonymous Internet forum then turned around and said his time is too valuable.


----------



## Martian2

You two idiots (Amalakas and Gambit) are engaged in a geopolitical version of Fantasy Geopolitics. It has no relation to reality and it clutters up the forum. Posts should use official government positions as a starting point and the discussion continues from there. You two clowns are off in your own little world.

Here's what official Obama administration policy looks like (see citation below). There are no B-2s headed for China. You two crazies are just loony.

How in the world did official American neutrality transform into B-2s flying into Chinese airspace (e.g. Amalakas has been posting endlessly on this kind of garbage)?

----------

BBC News - Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia

"Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
12 July 2012 Last updated at 04:25 ET

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi have said their countries will co-operate on Asia issues.






*Mrs Clinton says the US will not ''take sides'' in regional disputes in Asia*
...
*The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You two idiots (Amalakas and Gambit) are engaged in a geopolitical version of Fantasy Geopolitics. It has no relation to reality and it clutters up the forum. Posts should use official government positions as a starting point and the discussion continues from there. You two clowns are off in your own little world.
> 
> Here's what official Obama administration policy looks like (see citation below). There are no B-2s headed for China. You two crazies are just loony.
> 
> ----------
> 
> BBC News - Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
> 
> "Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
> 12 July 2012 Last updated at 04:25 ET
> 
> US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi have said their countries will co-operate on Asia issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mrs Clinton says the US will not ''take sides'' in regional disputes in Asia*
> ...
> *The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed.*"


And State also said...

The South China Sea


> We oppose the threat or use of force by any claimant in the South China Sea to advance its claims or interfere with legitimate economic activity.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And State also said...
> 
> The South China Sea



So? She says that about Syria, Africa, India (Kashmir), etc. That's standard boilerplate. It means nothing.

The U.S. also said that about Georgia. The U.S. advocacy of peace is standard practice. It is said all the time.

How does a statement of the U.S. favoring peace turn into B-2s flying into China? You idiots have been discussing the issue continuously. Now, I want to know the basis for your idiotic discussion.

I thought I was on a professional defense forum and not Fantasy Geopolitics for nuts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> You two idiots (Amalakas and Gambit) are engaged in a geopolitical version of Fantasy Geopolitics. It has no relation to reality and it clutters up the forum. Posts should use official government positions as a starting point and the discussion continues from there. You two clowns are off in your own little world.
> 
> Here's what official Obama administration policy looks like (see citation below). There are no B-2s headed for China. You two crazies are just loony.
> 
> How in the world did official American neutrality transform into B-2s flying into Chinese airspace (e.g. Amalakas has been posting endlessly on this kind of garbage)?
> 
> ----------
> 
> BBC News - Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
> 
> "Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
> 12 July 2012 Last updated at 04:25 ET
> 
> US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi have said their countries will co-operate on Asia issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mrs Clinton says the US will not ''take sides'' in regional disputes in Asia*
> ...
> *The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed.*"




Ahhhmmmm ... crazy or not, when did anyone say there are B-2s heading for China? 

Another Chinese member (Blackdragon or something) posted an image showing a B-2 possible mission in hostile territory. 

I asked him if he understands what he posted. When did anyone say B-2s are heading towards China now? 

We will not be held responsible if the chinese people start running for shelters right now !!!


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> So? She says that about Syria, Africa, India (Kashmir), etc.? That's standard boilerplate. It means nothing. The U.S. also said that about Georgia. The U.S. advocacy of peace is standard practice. It is said all the time.


Then what State said about 'neutrality' can also mean nothing.



amalakas said:


> Ahhhmmmm ... crazy or not, when did anyone say there are B-2s heading for China?
> 
> Another Chinese member (Blackdragon or something) posted an image showing a B-2 possible mission in hostile territory.
> 
> I asked him if he understands what he posted. When did anyone say B-2s are heading towards China now?
> 
> We will not be held responsible if the chinese people start running for shelters right now !!!


*THAT* went over that guy's head.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Then what State said about 'neutrality' can also mean nothing.
> 
> 
> *THAT* went over that guy's head.



No, she STRESSED neutrality. Also, neutrality is very specific. Try looking up the word in a dictionary.

Anyway, I have provided a reputable citation from the BBC to back up my assertion that official Obama administration policy is neutrality.

If you two clowns want to keep flying B-2s all over the world, the rest of the forum is going to laugh at you.

I asked you for reputable citations to back up your silly B-2 flights and you couldn't produce any. You two losers are degrading the professional reputation of our forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> No, she STRESSED neutrality. Also, neutrality is very specific. Try looking up the word in a dictionary.


Not the same as 'territorial claim', which is very specific.



Martian2 said:


> I thought I was on a professional defense forum and not Fantasy Geopolitics for nuts.


The perhaps you should refrain from using 'Chinese physics' from now on since there are a lot of technically related discussions going on.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> No, she STRESSED neutrality. Also, neutrality is very specific. Try looking up the word in a dictionary.
> 
> Anyway, I have provided a reputable citation from the BBC to back up my assertion that official Obama administration policy is neutrality.
> 
> If you two clowns want to keep flying B-2s all over the world, the rest of the forum is going to laugh at you.
> 
> I asked you for reputable citations to back up your silly B-2 flights and you couldn't produce any. You two losers are degrading the professional reputation of our forum.



leaving your insults aside, I think you misunderstood what the statement about neutrality meant.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> If you two clowns want to keep flying B-2s all over the world, the rest of the forum is going to laugh at you.
> 
> I asked you for reputable citations to back up your silly B-2 flights and you couldn't produce any. You two losers are degrading the professional reputation of our forum.


This is how juvenile your argument really is.






When people see something like that, they do not need to see an argument that is specifically detailed to China, or to Russia, or to Timbuktu, to deduce that the US is capable of sending the B-2 to China on notice that is unknown to China. They do not need to be a 'Military Professional' to understand. It is common sense.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> This is how juvenile your argument really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people see something like that, they do not need to see an argument that is specifically detailed to China, or to Russia, or to Timbuktu, to deduce that the US is capable of sending the B-2 to China on notice that is unknown to China. They do not need to be a 'Military Professional' to understand. It is common sense.




I think he might be missing the political statement the use of the B-2 made in that case, which was beyond mission requirements.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I think he might be missing the political statement the use of the B-2 made in that case, which was beyond mission requirements.


Then as an 'armchair general' he should be demoted.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Then as an 'armchair general' he should be demoted.




to a 'stool general' ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

^ I LOLed....thanks for brightening up the morning. I am deeply thankful to martian and his ilk for their contributions. I rarely have to get coffee now.


----------



## SinoChallenger

In 2008, USA tried to fly a B-2 close to China to see if we would pick it up. We lit it up with EW beams and fried its electronics. After it returned to Guam base, it crashed.


----------



## Abhishek_

^is that what the script says? LOL
if you can reach it, use google to find some details on the crash


----------



## Esc8781

SinoChallenger said:


> In 2008, USA tried to fly a B-2 close to China to see if we would pick it up. We lit it up with EW beams and fried its electronics. After it returned to Guam base, it crashed.


 Nah it crashed at Guam's airport. 






It was because of the humidity that cause it avionics to "fry" stop spreading fake news. Anyways isn't it the electronics that kept it stable?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

CJ-10 launched from a truck for Japan and South Korea.











CJ-10 launched from *ships (including cargo ships)* for Guam.
















End result: all forward bases destroyed.

Good luck.


----------



## IBRIS

SinoChallenger said:


> In 2008, USA tried to fly a B-2 close to China to see if we would pick it up. We lit it up with EW beams and fried its electronics. After it returned to Guam base, it crashed.


You wish.! I bet you gloat over that fantasy day in, day out. Don't you ever try trolling again in threads i will obliterate the nerve system you pose on here with your smiley faces. 

PS, you lie like a kid.


----------



## Esc8781

Abhishek_ said:


> ^let us know when you lot get some testicular fortitude to pull off any of these tricks.


 The way you say things it make me

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> End result: all forward bases destroyed.
> 
> Good luck.




excuse me, the extent of your navy's ability is to place field artillery and tanks on ships? Who are you going to fight, U571 ??? 




make sure this "tank equipped" ship doesn't have to come up against this :











I'm sorry man, I don't mean to be ripping at you like this but you need to be more careful with the images bit.


----------



## j20blackdragon

How will you refuel your B-2s when all your forward bases are destroyed and the J-20 has shot down all your tankers?


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> How will you refuel your B-2s when all your forward bases are destroyed and the J-20 has shot down all your tankers?



yes yes yes, 

I am not ripping at you for this, I meant you need to be more careful with the images, because that last one with the tanks on board is just hilarious ..


----------



## j20blackdragon

Goodbye Guam! 



> New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times
> 
> February 18, 2011
> 
> The Chinese army is researching a new type of *conventional missile* that is set to be weaponized and entered into active service within five years, military sources have revealed.
> 
> China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), the nation's largest missile weaponry manufacturer, is set "to complete research, production and delivery of this new generation of missile by 2015," the China NewsService reported Thursday.
> 
> The new missile would be part of a network forming a solid defense system allowing for total coverage in both defense and attack, and capable of dealing with various threats from land, sea, air, space as well as cybernetic attacks, according to the report.
> 
> The report, however, did not provide any further details of the new missile.
> 
> A military source close to the development, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to the Global Times yesterday that "The subject under development is a medium- and long-range *conventional missile with a traveling distance of as far as 4,000 kilometers*."
> 
> "The research is going smoothly, and the missile will be produced and ready for service in five years," he said, noting that the project would also entail a three-year evaluation period.
> 
> "It extends the range of China's missiles and will therefore greatly enhance the national defense capabilities," the source said.
> 
> The source also unveiled that "the Chinese-made Dong Feng 21D missile, with firing range between 1800 and 2800 kilometers, is already deployed in the army."
> 
> Foreign media have also speculated that the Dong Feng 21D is a "carrier killer" and would prove to be a game-changer in the Asian security environment, where US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups have ruled the waves since the end of World War II, the AP reported.
> 
> China debuted its first stealth fighter jet, the J-20, in January, in a test flight that coincided with a visit to Beijing by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
> 
> Following the successful test flight, speculations and assessments of Beijing's military advancement echoed around the world.



New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times - People's Daily Online


----------



## Abhishek_

j20blackdragon said:


> How will you refuel your B-2s when all your forward bases are destroyed and the J-20 has shot down all your tankers?


you mean before or after the US exhausts the ICBM stockpile?


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> How will you refuel your B-2s when all your forward bases are destroyed and the J-20 has shot down all your tankers?


China's J-20s will be grounded on the first day.






The problem for the Chinese boys here with their fantasies is that the US have *PROVEN* combat records while the PLA have only -- fantasies.


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Goodbye Guam!
> 
> 
> 
> New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times - People's Daily Online










yes yes yes, any news on how your superman comes along?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Abhishek_ said:


> you mean before or after the US exhausts the ICBM stockpile?



Empty threats. 






Guam is gone! 



> New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times
> 
> February 18, 2011
> 
> The Chinese army is researching a new type of *conventional missile* that is set to be weaponized and entered into active service within five years, military sources have revealed.
> 
> China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), the nation's largest missile weaponry manufacturer, is set "to complete research, production and delivery of this new generation of missile by 2015," the China NewsService reported Thursday.
> 
> The new missile would be part of a network forming a solid defense system allowing for total coverage in both defense and attack, and capable of dealing with various threats from land, sea, air, space as well as cybernetic attacks, according to the report.
> 
> The report, however, did not provide any further details of the new missile.
> 
> A military source close to the development, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to the Global Times yesterday that "The subject under development is a medium- and long-range *conventional missile with a traveling distance of as far as 4,000 kilometers*."
> 
> "The research is going smoothly, and the missile will be produced and ready for service in five years," he said, noting that the project would also entail a three-year evaluation period.
> 
> "It extends the range of China's missiles and will therefore greatly enhance the national defense capabilities," the source said.
> 
> The source also unveiled that "the Chinese-made Dong Feng 21D missile, with firing range between 1800 and 2800 kilometers, is already deployed in the army."
> 
> Foreign media have also speculated that the Dong Feng 21D is a "carrier killer" and would prove to be a game-changer in the Asian security environment, where US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups have ruled the waves since the end of World War II, the AP reported.
> 
> China debuted its first stealth fighter jet, the J-20, in January, in a test flight that coincided with a visit to Beijing by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
> 
> Following the successful test flight, speculations and assessments of Beijing's military advancement echoed around the world.



New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times - People's Daily Online

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

SinusChallenged said:


> In 2008, USA tried to fly a B-2 close to China to see if we would pick it up. We lit it up with EW beams and fried its electronics. After it returned to Guam base, it crashed.


Should have 'hacked' it and forced it to land?

Say what...??? That did not happened...???


----------



## Abhishek_

j20blackdragon said:


> Empty threats.


this thread has seen plenty. would you please post more pics


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Should have 'hacked' it and forced it to land?
> 
> Say what...??? That did not happened...???




send word to the west coast, this is coming :

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

China has one of the largest merchant navies in the world.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2108rank.html

Hundreds of cargo ships will be armed with the CJ-10 LACM!

Goodbye Guam!


----------

