What's new

The French Navy Stands Up to China

NATO is all about US, without US, NATO is nothing.
Same to PLA. without daddy US's protection when CN bow down and begged US's help , SOviet would destroy completely Beijing, Shanghai, HK etc wt her nuke missiles :cool:
 
.
Same to PLA. without daddy US's protection when CN bow down and begged US's help , SOviet would destroy completely Beijing, Shanghai, HK etc wt her nuke missiles :cool:

The matter of fact, VN is only brave when it has a mentor like Soviet as backing, with the collapse of Soviet VN crawled so quick to Beijing begging for peace and unilaterally retreat from Cambodia and Laos because they know China could repeat of what had happen to Lansong in 1979 :laugh:
 
.
@Reashot_Xigwin is getting body up hard. LOL.

This guy made alot of bias claim and act as if France fought a modern navy before. Claiming our missile is slow and less destructive because we are from the Soviet camp historically is humorous. In fact the only event closest to a modern naval war was the Falkland War in which France support and weapons got their butt whoop by the British. LoL

Fighting China is like fighting in a wolves dent. In modern naval warfare, it is about who detect wgo first. Given that we have hundred of satellites above the sky, thousand of fishing boats on the surface, and a shitload of underwater sub and robotic vessel to give location contact to the PLAN it wont take long before the limit number of Franch boat will sink and bury under the ocean. Lol Use your brain and make common sense and dont need genius to figure it out.
France have some experience in modern naval warfare the operation in Libya among one.

Meanwhile China have zero. So this is just stating the facts.
 
.
They did and saved North Korea in the process, but other side of the story is that the US didn't plan for Chinese intervention in advance; Chinese intervention took them by surprise.

Much has changed today. US, alone, has bigger and more capable naval force than that of China, and it is also better prepared for high-intensity conventional warfare.

China will put up a fight, but I will stop at this.

Oh yeah, you buy that myth US surprised by Chinese Intervention so North Korea still alive today :D

If you talk about a surprise to america, a sneak attack by japan in pearl harbour 1941. yeah, that's a surprise. but that's a different case with Chinese Intervention in this korean war.

Before Chinese troops crossed Yalu, Chinese side already Inform and even give ultimatum to American & their allies. In American side itself many acknowledge that their is High possibility that Chinese and even soviet troops will enter the war to save their North Korean ally.

And it's also very naive to say that American side don't have any Contigency plan if Chinese troops enter the war.
As a military Strategic, You must have Contigency plan for any possibility in the middle of War.

But the Arrogance from American General (Macarthur) that win WW2 before is one of Significant factor.
Mac arthur know there is high possibility that Chinese will enter the war and will save North Korea.
But what he don't know is Chinese Troops Capability and morale.

He and many american military officer think even Chinese crossed Yalu, the Chinese troops will get slaughter easily just like Japanese troops in the end of WW2.

Mac arthur even said, ""if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter"
What an Arrogance and ridiculuous thinking. that will pay him so much in the end of his military carrer.



So the Conclusion for you,
The Americans know there is high possibility Chinese troops enter the War that's not a surprise for them, but the Chinese Troops Capability itself that taken most american military officer by Surprise. They already Under-Estimate Chinese Troops Capability, and they pay for that so much.


Even in the next full 2 and Half years, The Americans and their 16 allies cannot push back Chinese Troops to Yalu and conquer Pyongyang City again. and getting hold by the Chinese in the next 2 and half years, in what we know NK-SK Border today.

What a very very long surprise for them (Full 2 and half years) :coffee:
Don't buy that myth by western media.
 
Last edited:
. .
France have some experience in modern naval warfare the operation in Libya among one.

Meanwhile China have zero. So this is just stating the facts.

What? Gadaffi Libya don't have navy dude.

If you talk about modern naval experience, Chinese Navy already sent task force to Hindian Ocean for non stop in the last 10 years. What an Achievement itself for China's Navy to sustain such an operation non stop.

And also we can see How Chinese Navy Strategy, Tactic, and Coordination in South China Sea Operation especially when Huangyan Dao Standoff (Scharborough shoal) That's an Experience itself for China's Navy to conduct such operation in the South China Sea that have large area.


If you also talk about Modern Naval Experience.
That's mean you also think that Japanese Navy and South Korean Navy is a pussies because they have MUCH LOWER modern naval experience than their Chinese Counterpart :coffee:

Be Objective and open minded, Dude ! :D
 
Last edited:
.
France have some experience in modern naval warfare the operation in Libya among one.

Meanwhile China have zero. So this is just stating the facts.
Actually one of China’s greatest weakness is their limitations in strategic thinking. China has ships but no allies and friends to project power at immediate open sea. Least on far distant seas.

The NATO has Montenegro as newest member. A country with a 5,000 man army. That is something the Chinese never have in mind. In fact in Chinese world they only know stooges. Nothing else. Chinese rather jump off the window than spend a second to win allies and friends.
 
.
In order for those missiles to score hits in the oceanic environment, you need to get a firm lock on the US forces which won't be easy in view of US electronic countermeasures in the picture, moving targets, and a number of assets trying to take out your missile launchers in the process.

American surveillance apparatus is active 24/7, and they most likely have a good picture of Chinese defenses in the Pacific. Expect them to have devised a suitable engagement strategy accordingly.

US have positioned long-range (extremely powerful) radars in different locations across the Pacific and their space-based assets scan globally.

They also have SURTASS to scan entire Pacific and uncover locations of even quietest of diesel-powered submarines in the waters.

Many do not understand the significance of 'surveillance overmatch' in modern battles. They look at pure numbers and assume all good.


Yes US has robust surveillance system, but you forget that China also has advance surveillance system + advanced EWS.

There are some flaws in that argument:

First, it is not easy to countermeassure AESA radar, as AESA is LPI. Except US already have & deploy the technology to defeat AESA.

Second, I dont think US can take out chinese missile launchers, considering US doesn't have DF-26 equivalent yet at the moment. Whit what? except total nuclear war :lol: You know, OTH and advanced surveillance system will render useless without ability to destroy the target effectively. China has OTH but she also has DF-26 that can reach 3000km.

Third, it's been proved that US advanced surveillance failed to detect chinese sub appeared nearby USS Ronald Reagan, and preventing her destroyer to collide merchant ship. That means their surveillance system is not as good as you think.

Fourth, China also has robust electronic countermeasures. She has proved to be able to jam US EA-18G growler in SCS :D
http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70536
 
.
Same to PLA. without daddy US's protection when CN bow down and begged US's help , SOviet would destroy completely Beijing, Shanghai, HK etc wt her nuke missiles :cool:
yeh, your suggar daddy soviet collapsed right after that.
 
.
In global navy power rankings China ranks the 2 while France 6. If China can't stand a chance in French waters then the chance for France to win in SCS is a snowball's chance in hell. You seem to be the only person here having so much confidence for French navy. They are just a lapdog of US and does this gesture to please its master US, everyone can see that except you.

Military power of France and China
http://armedforces.eu/compare/country_France_vs_China



France is so farrrr.... behind in everything and you are talking about France winning a war at China's doorstep, you must be out fof your mind big time.

1.) US is number 1 and Afghanistan is not listed in Global Ranking, see how Afghanistan turn out? Global Ranking stuff is BS and everyone knows it, during WW2, before 1944 when the US industrial power kicks in, japan outranked US at almost every thing concerning the Navy, but do the Japanese win every naval engagement between 1942 to 1944?

2.) And you lot seems to believe a lot in China, where they aren't actually that far ahead of France. Do tell me how and why you can guarantee a win over France? You can't, because until a war is fought, you never know who will win, but I can tell you one thing, self confident like this is the onw that always lead to losing a war.

I have no more to add, enjoy your day?
 
.
France have some experience in modern naval warfare the operation in Libya among one.

Meanwhile China have zero. So this is just stating the facts.
So beating the Vietnam to control over Paracel Island chain is not a naval warfare but the operation against desert nomad count? I Gotchu! LOL
 
.
Quantity has quality all it's own. Haven't you heard about that?
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/795954-quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-own

So it is your own theory that number not a consideration which is nonsense here. You must have miss interpreted WW2 cases.

Quantity mean shit if you have not had the quality.

You seems to quote a lot of weird stuff, what next? Are you going to say Chinese is superior race and quote Adolf Hilter's Mein Kempt?


Why should China use Indian ports?

I've told you: China's Navy have 18 Replenishment Ships in their Battle Fleet, including 2 Type 901 Fast Replenishment ships + Djibouti military base. That may not be enough for total warfare but would be enough for skirmish in mediterenian sea or north sea.

How many ship Chinese is using to fight a war in French coast then? Just 2? That's because that's probably the number that 18 ships can carry support for from China.

18 Replenishment ship is very, VERY little in number, it may give you around 40,000 (assuming each ship is Suply class ship which is around the same size as type 901) tons of supply with that 18.

Let me give you a for instant.

You need 1 tons of food PER DAY to feed 500 sailor assuming each sailor have 3 meals and eat 2 Kilogram of food per day, I personally eat more than 2 Kgs of food per day (that's around 2 destroyer worth of Sailor)
You need 10 tons of supply PER DAY to supply a ship.
You need around 30 tons of oil in around 7 days.

US have around 200 Sealift Ship, not counting the Merchant Navy (Which would be number in around 500), US navy can current only support 3 Carrier fleet which is 30 surface combatant ship (3 Carrier, 6 Cruiser, 15 destroyer, 6 Submarine), and US have bases all over the world, how would 18 supply ship goes? Triple that number and you still cannot support a meaning fleet that far ahead of your own soil. According to the loss of power curve, you lose 80% of your total combat power to just goes that far to fight.

So how do you transit thru Indian Ocean without stopping in ports all the way around India?

You are hilarious :laugh:

Didn't you ask me : "a way China can go around Indian Ocean without resupply in India"?

Once i told you Djibouti military base, then you are asking what it has to do with the fighting in france coast? :lol:

First, Djibouti is ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INDIAN OCEAN, you need a resupply trip between Hainan to Dijibouti? Where can you port if you are in War?

Secondly, Djibouti is not YOUR BASE, in war, that will most likely close off.

And you are dumb

That is still fine.

As I told you, chinese navy ammunitions + 18 replenishment ships will be enough for skirmish warfare.

your 18 replenishment is magic that can Teleport back to Chinese port in an instant?

18 replenishment ship mean shit. US have around 200 (700 if you also count the Merchant Navy) and their number is no more than 30 ship. How many Chinese ship 18 replenishment ship can support?


Britt still could win the Malvinas war against Argentina, the war that was 15,000 km away from England.

Tell me why Britt could sustain her navy in the such a distant war while China wont?

First of all, Argentina and Britain is NOT PEER TO PEER. Argentina uses second hand US ship (General Belgrano is an US WW2 relic cruiser), and the best ship in Argentina procession is British made Type-42 destroyer. I would not say the two navy is at the same class.

Second of all, look at how the naval portion of the war turn out.

Argentina Lost 1 surface combat ship and 1 submarine (Gen Belgrano and Santa Fe)
The Royal Navy lost 2 Destroyer (Type 42) and 2 Frigate (Type 21)

I don't care how you slice it, in term of tonnage (Argentina lost around 10000 tons while RN lost around 13000 tons), technology (Type-42 was state of the art then, Type 21 is not but still good in Falkland, while both Cruiser and Submarine Argentina lost is 40 years old WW2 relic) or number (4 vs 2) British fleet was DEFEATED TACTICALLY at sea.

Thirdly, Falkland war is a ground war, an amphibious intrusion. Naval war does not play an important role to the whole campaign, as long as the RN landed the troop needed to recapture Falkland, that's their part, and the RN did that, despite heavy lost (

If you don't know Military History, don't open your mouth, son.

With what the B-52H will destroy Chinese Navy?

Does US has equivalent to YJ-12, the supersonic anti ship cruise missile deployed already?

For short-range anti-ship attacks, the H-6K carries the potent YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missile. “The YJ-12 poses a number of a number of security concerns for U.S. naval forces in the Pacific and is considered the ‘most dangerous anti-ship missile China has produced thus far,’” according the Missile Defense Advocacy group. “The danger posed by the YJ-12 comes from its range of 400 km, making it the longest-ranged ACBM ever engineered, and its ability to travel at high rates of speed (up to Mach 3). This makes it difficult for Aegis Combat Systems and SM-2 surface-to-air missiles that protect U.S. carrier strike groups to identify and engage the missile since it can be launched beyond their engagement ranges, which greatly reduces the U.S. Navy’s time to react.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-h-6k-the-old-bomber-could-sink-the-us-navy-25913

You never heard of JASSM-ER?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM



Because the technology was not mature yet at that time, hence US choosed subsonic path.

But now US is interested and have her own supersonic anti ship missile, which is SM-6
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-sink-battleships-us-navys-anti-ship-sm-6-missile-15436

However SM-6 is not deployed yet, and inferior to Chinese counterparts in some important feature.

The U.S. Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) ASCM variant, which may be deployed before 2020, has less range than its Chinese counterparts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anders...-missile-failure-and-preemption/#544d5742638f

It was not considered, not immature, it cannot be immature when it was not developed. There are several flaw in the kill chain, mainly ISR portion, which no one can still solve it today, that is the reason why they are infavor of shorter range cruise missile.

DF-whatever series have a series flaw, limited range is one of the issue, carrier can deploy their fighter any range with aerial refuelling, which mean the range limit on missile is a dead point before it start. Secondly, no country as of now can achieve real time target acquisition, which depending on Chinese ISTAR lag, the carrier target DF-whatever were meant to hit would be Kilometre away from its original target, I cannot tell you what the US ISTAR lag time, but I can tell you is this, 10 minutes lag time would have mean your missile will missed the carrier by 30 kilometer. Also, Land base missile launcher is susceptible to sub launch cruise missile.

SM-6 is not a dedicated ASBM, it was created as AAM. Whatever they are used for is USN business, that does not mean it was a good idea. 88mm flak was not intend to fight tank when the german made it, but does it mean it cannot be good at it?

They are wonder because of their speed (supersonic or even hypersonic) and maneuverability. This is coming from the analysis of the military experts including from western analyst.

Your ignorance doesn't mean somebody else need to head check :lol:

What you need is just to educate your self:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-h-6k-the-old-bomber-could-sink-the-us-navy-25913
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anders...-missile-failure-and-preemption/#544d5742638f

Hahahaha :omghaha::omghaha:

First of all, if they are high speed, they cannot manoeuvre (You spell manoeuvre wrong by the way) This is physic's physical limits (@gambit). So, unless you claim Chinese missile defiled physics, it cannot be both high speed and manoeuvrable. Try driving a car over 150 km/h and turn, and see how manoeuvrable that car get, and if you was not killed, come back and tell me.

AND LOL at your quote. So 2 dude who I don't know and have no apparent credential say these are a threat and I need to think it was a threat? You are honestly either quite stupid or quite naïve or both to believe anything you read, or selectively believe anything you heard.

If H-6K with Cj-12 is a problem, then wouldn't B-52 with JASSM-ER does the same with Chinese navy? The difference is, USN have more B-52 than H-6K. So in a war, US kills PLAN, Chinese kill the Pacific Fleet, who will win at the end? That would be the US, because they still have Atlantic Fleet (2th Fleet) Med Fleet (5th Fleet) and 4th Fleetin AFRCOM and which Chinese have no Navy left.

This is honestly quite stupid to say one weapon can kill all. You can go believe your wonder weapon if you want. But keep it to yourself, otherwise I am going to laugh at you everytime you bring this up




If the war happen in SCS, the chance for US and her European alliance to win is not big, with reasons explained above: chinese numerous submarines + destroyers + frigates + regiments of H-6K + DF-21D & DF-26 + big carrier (artificial islands equipped with fighters, SAMs, and anti access weapons).

Explain to me, how?

You obliviously have not heard of "Defeat in detail" as a concept.

The same things what the Japanese Admiral told their emperor during WW2. But in reality, in a war like this, US don't fight to capture all the island at once. Their commander will choose an island that is furthermost, concentrate it forces to attack it. Then turn it into a FOB and use it to attack another island.

How many plane and missile can you put in 1 island? no more than 140 fighters. That's 4 airfield worth. US/NATO can simply focus on one island first, then the other, then the other, then the other until all the island are capture. That is called Island Hopping Campaign. In a island war, it extremely UNFAVORED the defender because of the lacking of Mobility, while the attack can come at you at any angle and you are limited by the geography. That is Military Tactics, and I think people like you would never understand.


Denial is not smart argument. What you need to do is give plausible explanation supported by facts/data that those chinese anti access weapons are total failure.

There are enough evidence that YJ-12 is supersonic and hit target, and evidence accuracy and reliability of Chinese missile tech.

Hope also is not a good argument. Come back to me when your DF-Whatever or CJ-whatever have actually killed a ship. Then we can talk, in the meantime...……

HAHAHAHA:omghaha:
 
.
First of all, if they are high speed, they cannot manoeuvre (You spell manoeuvre wrong by the way) This is physic's physical limits (@gambit).
It has gotten absurd in the past.

Someone made a not-to-scale illustration of a missile and target, then in the middle is an 'S' shaped path between missile and target. So every one of these guys believed that the missile (or warhead) traveling at double digit Mach can maneuver like an F1 racer.
 
.
Quantity mean shit if you have not had the quality.

You seems to quote a lot of weird stuff, what next? Are you going to say Chinese is superior race and quote Adolf Hilter's Mein Kempt?

You still dont understand the meaning : Quantity has quality all its own right? how much is your IQ?

Weird stuff? Stallin is right that quantity has quality all its own - it is easy to see that quantity counts sifginicantly, nobody deny except fools. Your inability to comprehend is your problem.

Besides Chinese military also has quality, US herself admit it. Your denial doesnt change anything.


How many ship Chinese is using to fight a war in French coast then? Just 2? That's because that's probably the number that 18 ships can carry support for from China.

18 Replenishment ship is very, VERY little in number, it may give you around 40,000 (assuming each ship is Suply class ship which is around the same size as type 901) tons of supply with that 18.

Let me give you a for instant.

You need 1 tons of food PER DAY to feed 500 sailor assuming each sailor have 3 meals and eat 2 Kilogram of food per day, I personally eat more than 2 Kgs of food per day (that's around 2 destroyer worth of Sailor)
You need 10 tons of supply PER DAY to supply a ship.
You need around 30 tons of oil in around 7 days.

US have around 200 Sealift Ship, not counting the Merchant Navy (Which would be number in around 500), US navy can current only support 3 Carrier fleet which is 30 surface combatant ship (3 Carrier, 6 Cruiser, 15 destroyer, 6 Submarine), and US have bases all over the world, how would 18 supply ship goes? Triple that number and you still cannot support a meaning fleet that far ahead of your own soil. According to the loss of power curve, you lose 80% of your total combat power to just goes that far to fight.

So how do you transit thru Indian Ocean without stopping in ports all the way around India?


1 person need 2kg food /day, x 500 sailors x 30 days = 30 tons nett of food, or perhaps 40 ton gross for 1 month. What make you think a destroyer with deadweight 7000 ton unable to bring 40 ton of food and 20 ton of fuel?

Besides China can use her numerous commercial ship to bring food, oils, etc departing from Singapore, KL, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or stopping their ship there. Furthermore with the support from replenishment ships + commercial ships, the military ship doesnt need to stop at the ports. What make you think it is so difficult? [emoji23]


First, Djibouti is ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INDIAN OCEAN, you need a resupply trip between Hainan to Dijibouti? Where can you port if you are in War?

Secondly, Djibouti is not YOUR BASE, in war, that will most likely close off.

And you are dumb


LOL. I've told you nevermind Djibouti close off, why must depend on Djibouti? This is a hypothetical skirmish sea warfare, you idiot [emoji38]

Navy ships dont need to stop by at any port, just let the commercial ships departs from those ports (SG, KL, Pakistan, Bangladesh, any african countries) to bringing supply for chinese navy ships.


your 18 replenishment is magic that can Teleport back to Chinese port in an instant?

18 replenishment ship mean shit. US have around 200 (700 if you also count the Merchant Navy) and their number is no more than 30 ship. How many Chinese ship 18 replenishment ship can support?


Ask Britts how they support their fleets during Malvinas war. Do you think Britts then had more replenishment and commercial ships compared to China nowadays? [emoji23]

First of all, Argentina and Britain is NOT PEER TO PEER. Argentina uses second hand US ship (General Belgrano is an US WW2 relic cruiser), and the best ship in Argentina procession is British made Type-42 destroyer. I would not say the two navy is at the same class.

Second of all, look at how the naval portion of the war turn out.

Argentina Lost 1 surface combat ship and 1 submarine (Gen Belgrano and Santa Fe)
The Royal Navy lost 2 Destroyer (Type 42) and 2 Frigate (Type 21)

I don't care how you slice it, in term of tonnage (Argentina lost around 10000 tons while RN lost around 13000 tons), technology (Type-42 was state of the art then, Type 21 is not but still good in Falkland, while both Cruiser and Submarine Argentina lost is 40 years old WW2 relic) or number (4 vs 2) British fleet was DEFEATED TACTICALLY at sea.

Thirdly, Falkland war is a ground war, an amphibious intrusion. Naval war does not play an important role to the whole campaign, as long as the RN landed the troop needed to recapture Falkland, that's their part, and the RN did that, despite heavy lost (

If you don't know Military History, don't open your mouth, son.


LOL. Dont make stupid argument.

First, what make you think France Navy is peer to peer with Chinese Navy? I've explained you how Chinese Navy is designed to counter US Navy in west pacific ocean, france navy is way behind china plan.

Second, if you already know that Malvinas war was not simply a skirmish sea war like the hypothetical skirmish sea war France vs China we are talking about, that means the hypothetical sea war between China navy & France navy should bring less burden for the aggressor (China) compared to malvinas war to Britts. That means china should have better chance to win in this hypothetical war compared to Britt's in malvinas war. Because Britts not only had to win sea war but also land war and Britts won, while China should be enough by involving her powerfull Navy.

Third, ocean indian sea will give china navy better access to more ports of neutral nations to support her navy, compared to atlantic ocean for britts during falkland war.



Have you checked that JASSM-ER is subsonic? not supersonic? How would you compare it with YJ-12 or YJ-18 that can hit ship at mach 4?

And it is also inferior to chinese LACM AKD-20 though subsonic but could be launched from H-6K 2500km away from target, far beyond your missile capability to reach even your radar can reach.

[emoji23]

It was not considered, not immature, it cannot be immature when it was not developed. There are several flaw in the kill chain, mainly ISR portion, which no one can still solve it today, that is the reason why they are infavor of shorter range cruise missile.

DF-whatever series have a series flaw, limited range is one of the issue, carrier can deploy their fighter any range with aerial refuelling, which mean the range limit on missile is a dead point before it start. Secondly, no country as of now can achieve real time target acquisition, which depending on Chinese ISTAR lag, the carrier target DF-whatever were meant to hit would be Kilometre away from its original target, I cannot tell you what the US ISTAR lag time, but I can tell you is this, 10 minutes lag time would have mean your missile will missed the carrier by 30 kilometer. Also, Land base missile launcher is susceptible to sub launch cruise missile.

SM-6 is not a dedicated ASBM, it was created as AAM. Whatever they are used for is USN business, that does not mean it was a good idea. 88mm flak was not intend to fight tank when the german made it, but does it mean it cannot be good at it?


LOL. Your claim is illogical fallacy and denial in nature. In fact the SM-6 is evidence that US is interested and developing supersonic antiship missile which is contrary to your claim!

In fact US is very interested with supersonic and hypersonic missile.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...g-its-own-invincible-hypersonic-weapons-25401
https://www.slashgear.com/lockheed-...-missile-contract-from-us-air-force-19527963/

Dont make any claim before you read and check the facts.

Talking about Lag Time problem:
Also dont bullshit, ship doesnt move as fast as missile, lagging time should not a big deal for anti ship. In fact if you understand about lagging time problem, you wouldn't ask nor deny the dangerous threat caused by supersonic anti ship missiles to US Navy. Lag time should bring more problem for anti missile system rather anti ship, means lag time should be one reason why intercepting supersonic maneuvering anti ship missile is difficult rather for the anti ship missile itself, thats why supersonic YJ-12 & YJ-18 pose danger threat to US Navy.

Hahahaha :omghaha::omghaha:

First of all, if they are high speed, they cannot manoeuvre (You spell manoeuvre wrong by the way) This is physic's physical limits (@gambit). So, unless you claim Chinese missile defiled physics, it cannot be both high speed and manoeuvrable. Try driving a car over 150 km/h and turn, and see how manoeuvrable that car get, and if you was not killed, come back and tell me.


Wrong! high speed doesn't mean unable to maneuver.
The higher the speed - the more difficult to maneuver, that is the correct one, but doesnt mean high speed guarantee losing maneuverability, speed is only one factor of many that affect maneuverability. Don't use logical fallacy to back your argument.

YJ-12 doesnt need to do complex maneuvet like u turn, L turn or cobra maneuver, but simple zigzag maneuver at supersonic speed will be good enough againts ciws.

Again educate yourself:
CM-302 supersonic antiship cruise missile, which has a 180-mile range to adhere to MTCR restrictions, is armed with a warhead of over 550 pounds, and thrust vectoring to enable terminal flight maneuvers to avoid close range defense systems of warships like destroyers and aircraft carriers. The CM-302 is the export version of the 250-mile range YJ-12, a highly capable ramjet Mach 4 anti-ship missile used by Chinese attack aircraft.
https://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-missiles-zhuhai

AND LOL at your quote. So 2 dude who I don't know and have no apparent credential say these are a threat and I need to think it was a threat? You are honestly either quite stupid or quite naïve or both to believe anything you read, or selectively believe anything you heard.


LOL. You think you are more credible than those citation? [emoji23]

It doesnt take a genius to understand why chinese supersonic sea skimming anti ship missile is a real threat, US admit it; only ignorant with comprehension problem that cannot see it.

Furthermore at least i am speaking with credible citation, while you are speaking from the thin air, without data and properly checking fact.


If H-6K with Cj-12 is a problem, then wouldn't B-52 with JASSM-ER does the same with Chinese navy? The difference is, USN have more B-52 than H-6K. So in a war, US kills PLAN, Chinese kill the Pacific Fleet, who will win at the end? That would be the US, because they still have Atlantic Fleet (2th Fleet) Med Fleet (5th Fleet) and 4th Fleetin AFRCOM and which Chinese have no Navy left.

This is honestly quite stupid to say one weapon can kill all. You can go believe your wonder weapon if you want. But keep it to yourself, otherwise I am going to laugh at you everytime you bring this up


Hahaha .. do you know that JASSM-ER is subsonic, not on par with YJ-12 and YJ-18 which is supersonic. :haha:

JASSM-ER is also inferior to chinese LACM AKD-20 though same subsonic speed AKD-20 range is 2000 - 2500 km, much farther than that JASSM-ER could reach (900km).

That is why I said these missiles called anti access weapons, and would pose real danger to US navy during the conflict.

Nobody say 1 weapon can kill all, again your reading comprehension problem. [emoji23]

Explain to me, how?

You obliviously have not heard of "Defeat in detail" as a concept.

The same things what the Japanese Admiral told their emperor during WW2. But in reality, in a war like this, US don't fight to capture all the island at once. Their commander will choose an island that is furthermost, concentrate it forces to attack it. Then turn it into a FOB and use it to attack another island.

How many plane and missile can you put in 1 island? no more than 140 fighters. That's 4 airfield worth. US/NATO can simply focus on one island first, then the other, then the other, then the other until all the island are capture. That is called Island Hopping Campaign. In a island war, it extremely UNFAVORED the defender because of the lacking of Mobility, while the attack can come at you at any angle and you are limited by the geography. That is Military Tactics, and I think people like you would never understand.


Why are you talking about the island alone?

I am mentioning the combination of all: numerous submarines + destroyers + frigates + regiments of H-6K + DF-21D & DF-26 + big carrier (artificial islands equipped with fighters, SAMs, and anti access weapons). I hope it is not because of your IQ problem. [emoji38]

How would you focus attacking 1 island, while numerous submarines + destroyers, regiment of H-6K with 2500km LACM and anti access are threatening US CBGs and guam?

Go ahead focus on one island, then you will see military base in guam finished by DF-26 launched from mainland, or losses of many US navy ships even CBGs due to AK-20 ALCM from a regiment of H-6Ks departing from mainland [emoji23]

Hope also is not a good argument. Come back to me when your DF-Whatever or CJ-whatever have actually killed a ship. Then we can talk, in the meantime...……

HAHAHAHA:omghaha:


I am speaking facts proved by solid citation, on the contrary you just throw claims and logical fallacy, no citation supporting your claims.

Come back to me when you have data & citation + have upgraded your logic . :omghaha:
 
Last edited:
.
As far china is concern they can sail..what's the point..they just will not allow anything else
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom