You are indeed low life shit from your behave.
Last edited by a moderator:
The US's experimental 'lighting carriers' are 'much more capable' than China's current carriers, top US admiral says
- Thread starter F-22Raptor
- Start date
F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I hope to see Typhon missile batteries be deployed to Tawain in the coming years.
It’ll allow for land, antiship, and anti air/missile capability.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Take your own advice. You guys talks about 'terminal phase' this and 'terminal phase' that, as if you know WTF you are talking about.
A missile's or warhead's terminal phase is just as vulnerable to interception as any of the previous stages of its flight. The terminal phase is when the missile or warhead is fully committed to the target, what it mean is that there is no more room to maneuver. The flight is straight towards the target. At this point, the defense can spoof and/or even destroy the attacker -- assuming the defense is good enough. Therefore, the goal is to make the terminal phase as late into the flight as possible.
Here is the technical explanation...
The last phase of missile guidance must have high accuracy as well as fast response to guidance signals. Missile performance becomes a critical factor during this phase. The missile must be capable of executing the final maneuvers required for intercept within the constantly decreasing available flight time. The maneuverability of the missile will be a function of velocity as well as airframe design. Therefore, a terminal guidance system must be compatible with missile performance capabilities. The greater the target acceleration, the more critical the method of terminal guidance becomes. Suitable methods of guidance will be discussed in later sections of this chapter. In some missiles, especially short-range missiles, a single guidance system may be used for all three phases of guidance, whereas other missiles may have a different guidance system for each phase.
See the highlighted? The faster the attacker, the sooner it will reach a point where any maneuver will take it out of the target acquisition zone, depending on the sensor package used. This is the true 'terminal phase'. No more maneuvers. The attacker-to-target distance that make up this true terminal phase depends on the airframe design.
The weaker the airframe, the sooner comes this true terminal phase, which means a longer attacker-to-target distance which means greater vulnerabilities to defense.
Conversely, the stronger the airframe, the longer the attacker can maneuver before final commitment, which means a later true terminal phase which means a shorter attacker-to-target distance which means lesser vulnerabilities to defense.
Can a gravity driven ballistic warhead maneuver to create that late true terminal phase in its descent towards a ground target? Yes, but because the warhead is non-power, maneuvers will cost speed, then as the attacker-to-target distance shortens, maneuvers becomes less viable lest said maneuvers take the attacker out of the target acquisition zone, depending on the sensor package used. Now take in the fact that the target is a moving ship. This means the sensor target acquisition zone must be mathematically large, as in the maximum the sensor can provide. Because the target is a ship which means a predictive 2D path, like ACROSS a map, the warhead will reach a sooner 'no maneuvers' zone than if the target is a fixed land building. Any attacker maneuver will be to adjust that predictive final impact point which mean the warhead's final flight WILL be vulnerable to defense measures. In other words, because the target is moving, even in just 2D, the Dung-Fling warhead's true terminal phase will be pretty much the moment it descend, then as it make flight adjustments, the warhead's descent path will be predicted by the defensive measures.
What kind of flight controls system can warhead have? All we have to do is look up public information on ballistic missiles to see how actually small the warhead really is.
retaxis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,197
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
War between two nations with thermonuclear weapons will simply not happen
But US will be a white minority nation by 2040! watch the IQ drop and the homelessness and gang banging crime increase 10x in a short period of time after 2030. The only thing a nation has is its people and its DNA. US has sold its soul and its blood and is being replaced by hispanics and blacks and Im here watching this sh1tshow unfold! The less white people in US, the greater the poverty, crime, violence and civil war rises exponentially. Already US is so divided they are practically at each others throat with the left vs right. Another 20years and the left will dominate demographically and its all over for the US. well it was fun while it lasted but enjoy your grandkids living in slums and getting gang banged by latino and african convicts.
But US will be a white minority nation by 2040! watch the IQ drop and the homelessness and gang banging crime increase 10x in a short period of time after 2030. The only thing a nation has is its people and its DNA. US has sold its soul and its blood and is being replaced by hispanics and blacks and Im here watching this sh1tshow unfold! The less white people in US, the greater the poverty, crime, violence and civil war rises exponentially. Already US is so divided they are practically at each others throat with the left vs right. Another 20years and the left will dominate demographically and its all over for the US. well it was fun while it lasted but enjoy your grandkids living in slums and getting gang banged by latino and african convicts.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
One thing I have learn is that Chinese Rocket Artillery have not enough range to target Taiwan. The best China get is PL-16, which only have ~500km (Barely touched Taiwan from China) if I use ATACAM style ballistic missile system, those are worse than useless. I tried to but them in Penghu, but the US did what the Ukrainian do in Snake Island, they keep bombing the island from Chiayi using MLRS and I can't really put anything on the island. That is part of my failure to take the central part of the Taiwan island and expand my beachhead.
The majority of my Beachhead support are either from flying in J-16 or J-11 from mainland, then Naval Gun/Missile Support. But those aren't enough as I don't have good loitering time around on target, and US and JASDF present in Taiwan would mean I only have around 50km clear zone I can drop artillery in and around 50km from my beachhead, but anything else, I can't do.
I think what China need is a AC-130 type airborne Artillery or Rocket Ship. A Squadron of AC-130 gunship flying above the SSAM/Destroyer cover can deal a lot of damage to the enemy, I can move off from my beachhead now with 2 regiments and using the gunship as cover so I don't need to wait for shore party fire mission or CAP from mainland.
FuturePAF
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
In a podcast, there was a proposal to give Taiwan 1000 km missiles as well as allow them to license produce them, at a rate of a thousand a year. If China produced a similar range missile or one with a slightly longer range but in much large numbers it could give you that rocket artillery support you desire.
Something like a 600 nautical mile version of the Prsm missile.
You also need mainland based railgun tube artillery, enough to fire tens of thousands of shells a day. With the range to be safe inside mainland China. Just imagine the Russian and Ukraine ops scaled up and an order of magnitude greater because the tempo would be much more faster.
An AC-130 would be a sitting duck in an environment where there are still air defenses. Those planes orbit at a relatively low altitude.
Instead of the AC-130, artillery with smart munitions would be best or drones with smart munitions. If built in large numbers, costs can be keep at a minimum.
Last edited:
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Well, it depends on how you use it.
The problem is we are fighting the US in this, unless we can also take the East Coast of Taiwan, which hard as it is now, I need maybe 5 times my naval strength to pull that off. Which mean they American and Japanese, along with Taiwanese are going to keep pushing from the East.
For the Air Superiority, I can use my Air Force to tie down their SAM and deal with American/Japanese Fighter (Can't do it long because I only have around 400 J-20/FC-31 against a combination of 500 F-35 and 100 F-22 + all the legacy fighter) but if I use them just to do CAP, then I will have to use a large amount of bomb couple with a large amount of sorties, because I can refuel mid-air, but once my ordinance was dropped. I can't rearm mid-air, which mean after a squadron of 4 J-16 dropped that 32 bombs, they would have to go home and rearm regardless of fuel status. And I don't have 250 J-16 like they have Strike Eagle. If I can suppress the local airspace and gain local air superiority, I can use AC-130 type gunship.
The problem I have is, Air Power is lacking on my end, I don't have enough secondary fighter (legacy fighter) to do CAP after my 5th gen go up and contest the Air Superiority, I had around 150 J-16 and some 800 J-10/J-11 before this war, A combination of USAF/JASDF/ROCAF have around 1000 F-16 (Viper and F-2) and a few hundred F-15 and then you have assorted Japanese and Taiwanese secondary role fighter (F-4, F-5, F-CK-1) and A-10 (A-10 killed a lot of my armor force by the way) that may not be useful for Air Superiority, but they can drop Mk82 or any kind of precision munition just the same.
Last edited:
Also a shelf life aspect - we’ve kind of used up shelf life on a lot of systems because we hang them and fly them operationally many munitions “expire” or go obsolete without being fired. This is especially true for AAMs and ASMs.
US is just getting started
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
FuturePAF
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
So you need a bomb truck fighter/bomber, or smaller munitions that cause the same desired effects, or just cranking out more J-16s.
It doesn’t have to be the highest end platform, perhaps more JH-7A2 should be built, for the strike role. Also, how about increasing production of attack helicopters, as well as building larger one like the Mi-28 that are more heavily armored and carry more munitions and fuel. Couple this with tilt rotor aircraft as troop transports and attack platform. Or at least just lots of stealthy attack helicopters, operating from half a dozen LHD off the east coast of Taiwan maybe the best way to refuel and rearm and maintain orbits over taiwan, to knock out pop up threats.
You definitely need a larger navy. The current PLAN is currently enough to contest the first island chain if push comes to shove, but will need to keep growing.
Just like the USN’s future plans, a lot of manned ships but also a lot of unmanned ships are needed, especially to hold and dominate the water in the Taiwanese EEZ.
Btw, the Nammo/Boeing Ramjet shells can reach out to 150 km. If this range can be extended to 300 km, perhaps a new round in the 203 mm caliber, similar to the Russian 2S7 “Pion” Artillery piece. 30% increase in caliber means a 70% in volume if the length is the same. If the length is extended, to take advantage of the larger caliber, perhaps the range can be doubled to 300 km. That should be enough to hold all of Taiwan at risk. The PLAN could also build old fashion battleships, armed with 100 km range rounds fired from a dozen or more of guns on each ship, they could provide the fire support for the east coast of Taiwan operations, relieving the mainland based artillery from that burden.
*the following video is just show the broadside, the size of the guns would not be 16 inch guns but probably 5-8 inch guns, which with modern rounds, they would be enough to hold the any threat within 70-100 nautical miles at risk.
With that kind of range, the artillery could be based 100 km in from the coast at the start of the war, and move closer to the coast as it become more safer to operate from there or as troops advanced further on the island. If there are a 1000 artillery pieces (peak rate of 2.5 rounds / minute) and each one fires 200-300 rounds a day, it might be low enough to maintain the lives of the barrels for a few months of operations. The PLA could also improve the design of this artillery system and make it more reliable and easier to operate, so the performance of gun or chassis could be improved to make it more survivable. Perhaps adding a better auto loader and placing the crew inside a safe crew capsule in the hull.
Hundreds of artillery guns near the Fujian coast could provide the cover fire for nearly the entirety of the Taiwan and be rearmed continuously.
LHD from off the East coast of Taiwan can provide continuous ISTAR, relaying targeting data for the artillery guns in Fujian.
The range revolution - Nammo
www.nammo.com
Last edited:
retaxis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,197
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
He got teased for being Chinese growing up. So instead of being strong and being proud of his heritage, he basically said the bullies are right and i got to believe whatever the bullies say just like Gordon Chang lol
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
I don't mean we need top of the range stuff, however, if China are up against a combination of US, Japan and Taiwan, then China would need a better second string. Because 1 on 1 on the best stuff, China maybe able to hang on to US onslaught. But then there are just too many second-string US and Japan can muster. That's what killing my offensive at the moment.
The problem is, China second string stuff is honestly quite bad, it's basically a bunch of Mig-21 or JH-7, it's not a match on US and Japan second string, which have around 300 legacy F-15(C or J) and then a bunch of older F-16 and F-4/F-5 and the Taiwan indigenous fighter. I mean after I pitched my J-20 and J-31 against F-22 and F-35, the best I can hope for is a draw, then I pitched J-10, J-11 and J-16 against F-15E, F-16 Viper (US and Taiwan), F-2A and FA-18E Super Hornet, I can't win that technologically and numerically. And then the US, Japan and Taiwan have a bunch of 3rd string Legacy F-15, F4, F5 and the Taiwanese Indigenous fighter. Couple with Patriot and Taiwanese SAM, I can't complete with that.
Attack chopper needed to be forward deployed, I can't fly them from Fujian (That alone would have eat up the milage) and Taiwan and the US know that, they destoryed all the airport before I took them. I have no usable runway and no usable control tower. I have set up some field FRAP and positioned some chopper with, but that is not going to be enough.
Problem is, China is most likely going to fight just US alone, I didn't attack US force in Korea because ROKN have more naval power than Japan. The trade off is US would simply redeploy all their asset from Korea to Taiwan. I am talking about 4 Airbase worth of aircraft and 2 Army Division with complete Aviation and Artillery asset.
On the other hand, I can't use all available force because I need to do 4 things.
1.)Secure my landing site and beachhead, that took almost 40% of my Navy capital ship, with 25 destroyers 2 Aircraft Carrier, 17 sub
2.) Secure Japan Sea, to both put pressure on ROK and counter JMSDF move.
3.) Secure South China sea, incase US asset from Philippine, Singapore and Australia to come up
4.) I need to put the rest of my fleet in reserve, in case someone else fancy to have a go
Notice that beside ROK, I did not attack US territories in Asia and Hawaii, I can't afford to have US invoke NATO article 5 and put the entire NATO on my back...That's why US Asset in South Pacific are largely untouched, as with US Asset in ROK.
Btw, the Nammo/Boeing Ramjet shells can reach out to 150 km. If this range can be extended to 300 km, perhaps a new round in the 203 mm caliber, similar to the Russian 2S7 “Pion” Artillery piece. 30% increase in caliber means a 70% in volume if the length is the same. If the length is extended, to take advantage of the larger caliber, perhaps the range can be doubled to 300 km. That should be enough to hold all of Taiwan at risk. The PLAN could also build old fashion battleships, armed with 100 km range rounds fired from a dozen or more of guns on each ship, they could provide the fire support for the east coast of Taiwan operations, relieving the mainland based artillery from that burden.
*the following video is just show the broadside, the size of the guns would not be 16 inch guns but probably 5-8 inch guns, which with modern rounds, they would be enough to hold the any threat within 70-100 nautical miles at risk.
8 inch guns
With that kind of range, the artillery could be based 100 km in from the coast at the start of the war, and move closer to the coast as it become more safer to operate from there or as troops advanced further on the island. If there are a 1000 artillery pieces (peak rate of 2.5 rounds / minute) and each one fires 200-300 rounds a day, it might be low enough to maintain the lives of the barrels for a few months of operations. The PLA could also improve the design of this artillery system and make it more reliable and easier to operate, so the performance of gun or chassis could be improved to make it more survivable. Perhaps adding a better auto loader and placing the crew inside a safe crew capsule in the hull.
Hundreds of artillery guns near the Fujian coast could provide the cover fire for nearly the entirety of the Taiwan and be rearmed continuously.
LHD from off the East coast of Taiwan can provide continuous ISTAR, relaying targeting data for the artillery guns in Fujian.
The range revolution - Nammo
It's way above artillery range from Chinese coast. It's also way above Rocket Artillery if we position them in Chinese coast, the closest distant between Fujian and Taiwan West coast is 505km. That outrange most my artillery beside Rocket force and it's too expensive to do daily attack with my ballistic missile.. Plus I needed those to attack USN if and when they come close.
If we need to use artillery, we either need to put them onshore, either in the beachhead, which is not a good idea because it is getting pounded daily. Or we can put it in Penghu which is about 100km from Taiwan mainland, but then I would need to land a force near Taichung, otherwise the Taiwanese and US could just use HIMARS or MLRS to attack my artillery in Penghu.
Well, if they heed to your advice, it wouldn't need your intervention to begin with.
Dude, I grow up in China......I attended Middle School in Hong Kong and High School in both Hong Kong and China. And I did my first year of university in Chinese University in Hong Kong.
What you said did not make sense........Don't project your own experience on being bully in Australia on me lol.
Last edited:
FuturePAF
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
So fighter production is going to have to go up as well as technological modernization if you are to become competitive. More J-10s, J-16s, J-35s and more J-20s. Would doubling the numbers of these platforms be enough?
Can’t attack helicopters be deployed on LHDs, or at least use them as refueling and rearming points. LHD production is going to have to increase, such that you have at least a dozen to surround the island.
Your also going to need at lot more carrier battle groups as well as SSNs to keep an eye on all the areas you mentioned, at least 8 if not 10 to allow for downtime for some of them.
Artillery range with ramjet shells using a 203 mm may be 200-300 km, fires from Fujian it maybe able to cover at least the entire west coast plus some of the northern west coast. Battleships with 8 inch guns like old ww2 battleships could provide shore bombardment fire support of the rest from around the island and be protected by the carrier battle groups and their air defense umbrellas
China Brings Back the Broadside
So, is this a viable way to deploy artillery at sea? I see no problem with it under the right conditions. More from David Axe.
newwars.wordpress.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
