China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[Martian2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Which one is that?

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.

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?

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]

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]

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[topjumper]

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]

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]

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.