China could lose 95% of ballistic, cruise missiles under strategic arms control

[Oldman1]

Is it not copying the China strategy?

Not sure how its copying when before the INF Treaty we had the Pershings.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Not sure how its copying when before the INF Treaty we had the Pershings.

The contemporary technology during the Cold War cannot target the moving object with a ballistic missile.

China is the first country to make this real.

 

[Oldman1]

More ballistic missiles means less budget for the USN and USAF.

And the lobbyists of the USN and USAF will not be happy for that.

They would have to figure that out themselves. The Marine Corp wants to ditch their tanks and go for ground based anti ship missiles in the Pacific.

 

[riscol]

I thought the Chinese A2AD was to successfully deny US Aircraft Carriers and Air Force which they already succeeded because US now want to adopt to this approach seeing they are no match for China. So yes it is copying Chinese strategy

 

[F-22Raptor]

 

[Oldman1]

The contemporary technology during the Cold War cannot target the moving object with a ballistic missile.

China is the first country to make this real.

Thought the Russians did something like that.

I thought the Chinese A2AD was to successfully deny US Aircraft Carriers and Air Force which they already succeeded because US now want to adopt to this approach seeing they are no match for China. So yes it is copying Chinese strategy

Targeting carriers and airbases during the Cold War was no different.

 

[313ghazi]

Not even the worst Pakistani government would sign such a deal - let alone the Chinese.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

They would have to figure that out themselves. The Marine Corp wants to ditch their tanks and go for ground based anti ship missiles in the Pacific.

What a pity, this means your navy and air force need to go diet.

And looks at China, with a mere 200 billion budget, soon we will have more than 50 Aegis destroyers and 50 nuclear subs, and we will also have our first nuclear supercarrier that rivals the Gerald Ford class by 2025.

In the meantime, our ASBM force is still growing in a exponential rate, and will soon achieve the intercontinental range that can target anywhere around the world.

 

[riscol]

The revelation of JL-3 is the most anticipated for the Chinese and ofcourse the stealth bomber

 

[F-22Raptor]

-Naval Strike Missiles
- Anti ship SM-6 Block 1a/Hypersonic SM-6 Block 1B
- Maritime Strike Tomahawk
- 550-800km Precision Strike Missiles
- 800km VLO LRASMs

These capabilities will all be introduced to the Western Pacific in the coming years. A 12 ship B-1 strike package alone could unload 288 LRASMs into the Chinese Navy.

 

[Oldman1]

What a pity, this means your navy and air force need to go diet.

And looks at China, with a mere 200 billion budget, soon we will have more than 50 Aegis destroyers and 50 nuclear subs, and we will also have our first nuclear supercarrier that rivals the Gerald Ford class by 2025.

In the meantime, our ASBM force is still growing in a exponential rate, and will soon achieve the intercontinental range that can target anywhere around the world.

Like I've said, that depends on what their priorities are. And the U.S. Army and Marines getting more ballistic missiles to target every Chinese base and ship, well you Chinese thought smart that its cheaper to sink a carrier than build one eh?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The revelation of JL-3 is the most anticipated for the Chinese and ofcourse the stealth bomber

The team that developed that the JL-3 has already been awarded. It looks like the missile is pretty much close to its deployment. Even if the Type 096 is not commissioned yet, the Type 094A can also carry the JL-3 with its bigger hump than the original Type 094.

And the H-20 bomber will be a milestone to fulfill the shortcoming of our nuclear triad.

Like I've said, that depends on what their priorities are. And the U.S. Army and Marines getting more ballistic missiles to target every Chinese base and ship, well you Chinese thought smart that its cheaper to sink a carrier than build one eh?

The destroyers are even easier to sink, but why we still build a bunch of destroyers?

What is the weird twisted logic behind this?

Having the most powerful ASBM force and a strong navy is not mutually exclusive.

 

[riscol]

That sounds very promising development. With the Chinese speed in constructing warships and submarines we will be seeing a massive growth spurt within the next decade or two.

 

[Oldman1]

The destroyers are even easier to sink, but why we still build a bunch of destroyers?

What is the weird twisted logic behind this?

Having the most powerful ASBM force and a strong navy is not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, what is this Chinese weird logic. You have anti ship ballistic missiles, yet you build carriers? Aren't carriers obsolete as Chinese posters like to point out all the time?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Indeed, what is this Chinese weird logic. You have anti ship ballistic missiles, yet you build carriers? Aren't carriers obsolete as Chinese posters like to point out all the time?

With a powerful ASBM force, our navy will have a much easier time to deal with the opponent's navy.

That's truly the art of war baby!