), even they have strong british&commonwealth support and assistance.
You surely have a lot of patience with that idiot. He's the only idiot in my blocked list.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.
1 person need 2kg food /day, x 500 sailors x 30 days = 30 tons nett of food, or perhaps 40 ton gross. 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]
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.
Ask Britts how they support their fleets during Malvinas war. Do you think Britts have more replenishment and commercial ships compared to China? [emoji23]
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.
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. 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 access to more ports of neutral nations to support her navy, compared to atlantic ocean for britts during flakland 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]
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.
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 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
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.
Hahaha .. do you know that JASSM-ER is subsonic, not on par with YJ-12 and YJ-18 which is supersonic.
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]
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 sub + destroyers, regiment of H-6K with 2500km LACM is threatening US CBGs?
Go ahead focus on one island, then you will see military base in guam finished by DF-26 launched from mainland [emoji23]
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 .
I am aware but American surveillance system is greater in scale and complexity by far.
AESA radar might be difficult to jam in theory but US have developed relevant countermeasures for it which are not discussed in public.
They can.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
Isolated incident like that doesn't prove much because we should not expect US to bring everything in its arsenal to bear in an "exercise." ASW wasn't a component of that exercise anyways.
Impressive.Fourth, China also has robust electronic countermeasures. She has proved to be able to jam US EA-18G growler in SCS
http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70536
Hahaha .. do you know that JASSM-ER is subsonic, not on par with YJ-12 and YJ-18 which is supersonic.
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]
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 .
I am aware but American surveillance system is greater in scale and complexity by far.
Isolated incident like that doesn't prove much because we should not expect US to bring everything in its arsenal to bear in an "exercise." ASW wasn't a component of that exercise anyways.
I am talking about SURTASS LFA - an ASW capability that is activated on a conditional basis. SURTASS LFA can uncover location and movement of any submarine across the Pacific and/or in any oceanic environment where it is ported/fielded.
US have scores of ships with SURTASS LFA capabilities, and can position them across the Pacific to scan the entire oceanic environment for submarine-related activity beneath. Learn more from here:
SURTASS passive systems have proven their effectiveness against the diesel electric submarine in both deep ocean and shallow water areas. SURTASS with passive automation provides rapid target detection, classification, tracking and reporting of both surface and subsurface vessels. T-AGOS ships, with non-acoustic sensors installed, provide surface ship surveillance capabilities to assist in resolving the undersea classification problem.
Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/surtass.htm
US also have submarines designed/dedicated to ASW missions from get-go.
They also intend to dedicate a large number of drones to ASW missions in the near future.
And we are STILL surprise that you guys do not know basic physics.Thrust vectoring managed by good control system, will enable zigzag (S-shaped maneuver) at mach 4.
I am surprised you don't know about that
And you are dreaming if you think China can replicate what the Gotland did.
The SCS depth is more than adequate for US (and France) nuclear subs to hunt for Chinese subs, which is not in the same class as the Gotland and the Gotland could not make the distance for those exercises. That means as Chinese subs make the trips to the SCS, occasionally running on the surface or even not, they are already tracked. You think the SCS is devoid of US nuclear subs now?
Everything has it own quality, how good or bad the quality is what that count.
You don't even understand the quote you made, it mean Quantity on its own is a quality. It is not always true depending on what you are talking about. In a land war when everyone have a gun, maybe, in a naval engagement when you much more depending on skill and technology, it may not.
How high IQ do you have to NOT Understand that quote?
And no, Stalin is not a tactician nor strategist, so no, his word don't count, if you quote Ruskov, or Von Clauzwitch, or even Molkte maybe, quoting Stalin you may as well quote Hitler.
So, HAHAA
Your lack of Naval Knowledge amaze me.
First of all, you need fresh water, food, aviation fuel, diesel to operate a ship when you are not in combat, you will need munition, equipment, repair, weaponry when you are in combat.
Do you even know how often an US navy ship refuel? 3 or 4 days. It does not mean they run out of fuel in 3 or 4 days but SOP dictate they cannot go under certain amount of fuel and provision. Navy ship don't usually have supply to last 21 days. and even with extended deployment. Not more than 30 days at sea without resupplying.
Now, back to your question. 1.) 30 days get you no where, if you depart from Hainan, 30 days trip will bring you to at most cape of good hope. 2.) Between diesel, munition, yes, Navy ship usually cannot carry 40 tons of food, because of the priority of logistic. Most destroyer carry 10 tons food, enough for 14 days.
And lol for suggesting using commercial ship. Maybe you can siphon some fuel from the tank if you have an adaptor, but to resupply other stuff, unless you plan to carry each box from commercial ship to your navy ship, you need to open your resupply ship bulkhead for the transfer, if you do it in a commercial ship(If it can actually do it) that ship will sink to the bottom of the ocean. Most merchant ship is either container ship, which lay it on the container, how do you transfer a container from a merchant ship to a Navy ship in high sea when wave swing you around? Ever wondering why Navy need to specifically design replenishment ship for underway replenishment? Really high IQ of you.
You bring up Djibouti first, if you don't want me to talk about Djibouti, don't talk about Djibouti first,
Also, spare me the idiot and moron, I am here to discuss, not to argue with a 12 years old playing video game. Although I do have a feeling I am talking to a immature 12 years old.
You do know Royal Navy have 58 + replenishment ship operated between Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxillery, Serco Naval Service today, Right? So yes. UK have more replenishment ship than China. And during 1980, UK had around 100 auxiliary ship.
You are the one that make stupid comment.
1.) What make you think French ship is not peer to China? China is way behind the US Navy, and French Navy is at least on par with US navy. Look at how many and which country buy Chinese naval ship, then look at how many and which country buy French Ship, and see it for yourself.
2.) UK fought Falkland is half the length of a hypothetical Chinese-French fight. With ascension island as forward operating base. And if we look at the naval battle fought between UK and Argentina, UK lost that battle. In that battle, the Brits are not invading Falkland, they are liberating Falkland, the war is won because the population side with the Brits and they are British, not because of the Royal Navy out fought the Argie. In fact, Royal Navy had made the task of recapturing Falkland harder.
-)They did not seal off the San Carlos Bay, which mean Argentine Skyhawk can come in to bomb the Para and Royal Marine at will.
-)They lose the Atlantic Conveyor, which carry all the British Army Helicopter
-) They failed to maintain a no fly zone over Falkland, which mean only 4 sorties from RN Carrier launch to support the ground troop during the whole war.
The only thing they did right is they landed the 3rd Brigade and the Royal Marine. Granted, that is the primary objective. But that is one part of the war. And in term of losses, their naval campaign actually failed.
3.) No neutral country will support China or France, hence they are called NEUTRAL. During Falkland war, even US did not support the UK, when Maggie ask for access to Puerto Rico (merely 4000 mile to Falkland) and Reagan say no. in the end, the UK need to launch from their own base in Ascension, which is double that amount. I don't think even Pakistan will allow China to use its port to fuk with French, seeing how many dealing Pakistan have with the French.
lol, I am not the one who claim CJ-12 is a wonder weapon, you are.
And no, CJ-12 hit nothing at mach 4, if they hit a ship in war, show me proof. I can say no ship can escape JASSM, without actual performance data at war, all you can do is talk.
1.) You claim US navy is interested in something wasn't physically exist, and I am bullshitting?
2.) Interested in Hypersonic Missile and Supersonic missile and Interested in Anti-Ship missile is two different thing.
3.) lol, ship can reach 30 knots per hours, that is their MINIMAL top speed, without overheating their engine, you know what kind of speed is 30 knots per hour. That's 35 miles per hours, that's 54 kilometre per hours.
10 Minutes lag time which mean you give the target a 10 minutes head start, that's 9 kilometres, then you are talking about strike TTL and correction, at best you are looking at 25 minutes lag in total, at worse, you are looking at 45 minutes lag, which mean at 25 minutes lag, the target will be off by ~27 km.
How much to do you know ISTAR? Do you even know what ISTAR stand for? LOL
LOL, you want a Supersonic Missile to ZIGZAG at MACH 4 to dodge CIWS? LOL. Did I heard that right?
I cannot even begin to tell you how stupid that is. @gambit.
Do you think which one can turn faster? a Mach 4 missile? or a CIWS?
The rest of your paragraph is simply...……….MOOT.
Firstly, you speak nothing, you have no creditable citation. Nor would you actually explaining why you think that would work.
Secondly, anything is a threat to the navy. How big a threat is would be a major talking point. By that definition, yes, Chinese missile is a threat, so does the Russian Missile, Iranian Missile or even British missile.
Thing is, being a threat does not mean it is an end game, which does not mean that is better than the US navy. Part of what a war is to neutralize any threat, without threat, there will be no war. Having think they are a threat does not mean the USN does not have a way to counter it. Nor was that raise a concern.
That said, it have nothing in common with the topic at hand. Topic is French vs China, not US vs China.
So? What's wrong being subsonic? Does it mean it is inferior? The function of a weapon is on killing the other side, being subsonic or supersonic does not mean it is inferior. For example, each H-6 can only carry 6 YJ-12, which each B-52 can carry 8 JASSM, would that make JASSM superior in that sense?
What you are arguing is honestly, quite stupid.
What Guam have to do with this?
Dude, what do you think a missile is made of? Nuke? You can fire 100 missile and all hit Guam, you won't destroy it. Missile is a point to point weapon, it is used to hit specific target, or hard target, there are more hard target on Guam than China have all the DF-whatever combine.
Also, How about A regiment of B-52, B-1 and B-2, would that threaten the PLAN? China have how many H-6K? How many B-1, B-2, B-52 US have?
You know Japanese base in WW2 was hit by more Bombs than you have in Chinese missile stock, and they keep running. You think DF-whatever can make a difference? Wait, you ain't Chinese lol.
So, DF-21, DF-26, CJ-10, YJ-12 did have actual combat data? Please give example or I am calling you Bullshit.
Strange, because outside these Chinese Forum bubble, you lot were the idiots.
I don't see a single one of you have more than 100 positive rating, nor anyone who fly a Chinese flag start any military related topic that is worth discussing. I alone have more positive rating than all the Chinese PDF member combine, me and gambit combine? You lot ain't even close.
LOL. You can denied it and stay inside your bubble and think I am an idiot. I don't mind. Because your feeling mean shit to me.
The more you post, the more it is evident that you are a fraud when you claimed to have 'aviation studies'. Even someone who just passed ground school would understand exactly what I said.
CIWS is computer controlled. That is why the gun turret can travel at 115 deg PER SECOND.
Yeah...YOU.
There is no daydreaming about it. Because you never served, not even as a lowly conscript, you do not understand. Plus you ain't smart enough to understand in the first place.
Debunked a long time ago...You need to learn how USS Ronald Reagan and its escorting ships failed to detect the presence of Chinese Song Class sub which sudenly appear nearby it
Everything has it own quality, how good or bad the quality is what that count.
You don't even understand the quote you made, it mean Quantity on its own is a quality. It is not always true depending on what you are talking about. In a land war when everyone have a gun, maybe, in a naval engagement when you much more depending on skill and technology, it may not.
How high IQ do you have to NOT Understand that quote?
And no, Stalin is not a tactician nor strategist, so no, his word don't count, if you quote Ruskov, or Von Clauzwitch, or even Molkte maybe, quoting Stalin you may as well quote Hitler.
So, HAHAA
LOL, you want a Supersonic Missile to ZIGZAG at MACH 4 to dodge CIWS? LOL. Did I heard that right?
I cannot even begin to tell you how stupid that is. @gambit.
Do you think which one can turn faster? a Mach 4 missile? or a CIWS?
The rest of your paragraph is simply...……….MOOT.
What Guam have to do with this?
Dude, what do you think a missile is made of? Nuke? You can fire 100 missile and all hit Guam, you won't destroy it. Missile is a point to point weapon, it is used to hit specific target, or hard target, there are more hard target on Guam than China have all the DF-whatever combine.
Also, How about A regiment of B-52, B-1 and B-2, would that threaten the PLAN? China have how many H-6K? How many B-1, B-2, B-52 US have?
You know Japanese base in WW2 was hit by more Bombs than you have in Chinese missile stock, and they keep running. You think DF-whatever can make a difference? Wait, you ain't Chinese lol.
So, DF-21, DF-26, CJ-10, YJ-12 did have actual combat data? Please give example or I am calling you Bullshit.
You're right, bro. I completely agree with you. But I wouldn't waste my time on an idiot who's trying really hard to prove white is black. You can't put sense in these morons.If you have only 2 destroyers while enemy has 10 destroyers against you (assuming everything else is the same), will you have chance to win equal to your enemy? Not right?
Thats the meaning of: Quantity on its own is a quality. As simple as that! And you dont understand? HAHAA
Stalin is not a stupid person, it is you who is stupid HAHAA
Not a big deal. 80 ton food supply for 2 month oconsumption can be handled by chinese logistic ship.
Since when you eat amunition during the trip? LOL.
Doesn't matter.
Chinese simple ships can let the chinese navy cirlce the globe.
https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/
Prove?
Educate yourself :
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/09/26/canada-to-lease-commercial-vessel-to-refuel-navy-ships/
Then I've told you that China doesnt need Djibouti for skirmish sea warfare with France in mediteranean sea. Djibouti is only additional, if they cant help doesnt matter.
How much is your IQ?
See what other people says about you
Evidence?
This is my evidence on how china navy can circle the globe:
https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/
And you know China currently has a lot more commercial vessels than Britts that she can lease for replenishment purpose.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/09/26/canada-to-lease-commercial-vessel-to-refuel-navy-ships/
LOLs. Who is making that stupid and ignorant claim other than you?
Since when selling arms or ship to foreign nation become a solid parameter to measure the strenght of a country naval?
Do you know there are many factors on a country making decision to buy arms? => politics consideration, same platform and commonality, and technology. So you see quality of technology is not the sole factor! France used to sell more arms than China was because commonality of the weapons with other westerns country and US compared to chinese, while you know US is the king of arms supplier.
And do you know currently China surpass france in term of selling arms overseas?
When will you be a little bit smarter and stop making stupid argument?
In fact, Britt couldn't win the war if she could not win sea war with Argentina. Regardless of the collateral damages that Britts navy suffered, Britts navy won.
The farther distance of the mediteranean sea should not be problem for China as you now already know that china can support her navy circling globe, not to mention supporting vessels coming from Pakistan port.
Neutral country wont get involve in the war indeed.
But why Singapore shall forbid a commercial vessel to get uploaded with food and other supply there for Chinese navy?
What make you think mach 4 missile won't be able to hit big target like ship?
If HQ-19 and other SAM or anti sattelite missile could hit small target with speed higher than mach 4? IQ problem again ?
Is this not enough for you:
YJ-12 exist, YJ-18 exist, DF-21D exist, SM-6 exist. SM-6 is as anti ship missile as well. Why are you denial?
Tell me why there should be "10 minutes lag time issue" for a missile like YJ-12 or YJ-18 which has their own radar and tracking system on board for terminal phase?
Tell me: what make you think zigzag at mach 4 is unattainable? and what make you think that movement cannot dodge CIWS? Dont just OMG and denial ..
Which one is faster in turning is not a big matter. The big matter here is: CIWS cannot predict how the target will maneuver. If the CIWS can predict and can turn at least same fast then yes CIWS have big chance to down the missile. Unfortunately not.
My my citations like: national interest, popsci, stallin, etc is not credible or less credible than your mouth?
Denial into the core
Yes it is a major talking, only you are ignorant. You dont know doesnt mean non existence.
Nope. They are talking about Chinese and Russian, not iranian etc missile as a real threat to US Navy.
So you dont know the faster the more difficult to intercept?
Can you intercept bullet as easy as intercepting fly?
Your physics score must be very bad during your high school, maybe because of IQ problem
If you are the general of chinese side in the war, of course DF-26 will render useless due to your stupidity.
But it doesn't take a genius to see that we can use DF-26 to hit and destroy runway of military base so that they cannot fly fighters or bombers, and also destroying hanger and the aircraft inside.
What make you think a bombardment with rain of DF-26 wont be much less potent than bombing from a H-6K or B-52? IQ problem eh?
They have been tested and sucessfull. US military doesnt take it lightly.
They know China perform well in missiles, even hit more than US during the test including shooting satellites of ICBM during midcourse which is a lot more complicated than shooting a ship.
Come back to me when you have data and can be a little bit smarter
Actually I want to ignore him due to stupidity - absurdity and ignorance that he consistently demonstrates.
But the problem is: stupidity if told many times without proper counter would be considered truth by other ignorants.
What the hell do you know to tell me? You were so stupid at making fraudulent claim about yourself that you cannot tell me what kind of 'aviation study' did you have. You are in no position to tell us anything.
