China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[amalakas]

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]

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.

 

[Oldman1]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

It doesn't exist unless you can change the laws of physics.

But YOU do regularly.

 

[amalakas]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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..