Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WaPo: China’s carrier-killer missile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The point is that we can jam their signals as much as they can ours. In theory, BACKFIRES can toss their missiles at 100 miles out. In reality, they need to get within 75 to burn through the jam.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      It's not that hard to track cell phone towers. They don't move. The ability to track people in real time was there from the start. How do you think cell phone companies know how many minutes you've used so that they can charge you ... and the person on the other end if using another cell phone?
      The thing is, I was under impression that once one of the parties locates such a valuable target as a CV it's not that hard to track their movement using sats, AWACS and/or other platforms.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #33
        A long time ago, their subs and fishing trawlers were following us left, right, and centre. The problem is that they're the first thing to be sunk in time of conflict.

        Comment


        • #34
          Sir,we started from technical capabilities but we went into tactics.If it somehow works from a technical standpoint,tacticians will find a way for such weapons to be used.

          We have more sensors and sensor platforms than ever.But the Chinese did not went on with a live test.They apparently abandoned the project.And that is something I find to be intriguing.Somehow it doesn't connects.
          Those who know don't speak
          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Comment


          • #35
            Easiest way to figure this is that the Chinese missle in question is the DF-21D. Its a ballistic missle that is mobile launched. If it goes up, its got to come down (no matter how fast the claim is) and there are choices, jam it (Navy has over 20 years experience in ECM jamming) Shoot it down on its ascent (Navy already proved years ago it can take out a satellite with the first shot and no warhead just simple collision with an SM-3 missle which is standard load out these days on CG's and some or most DD's. Shoot it down in descent. CIWS Block 1b (Seaboard Laser systems still in infancy so dont count)

            But here is the ultimate price..... US free of Chinese debt forever and the shooting war starts.

            Which one do you think they would rather have?;)

            AND on top of that,

            1) No guarentee that it will hit the moving carrier which can move faster then most ships afloat today.

            2) Even if it does, it doesnt necessiarly mean it will sink it.

            IMO, You can forget the Chinese using a drone, it will never get within range of the CVN on a battle footing without being shot down by either escort or CAP and then the game is up, its our turn. And yes, they will see it.

            When all is said and done, you can also bet Tawian will indefinately push for independance and probably get it in the end.

            Heres what must be considered for the Chinese in return, Lose all claims to Taiwan forever, Lose the HUGE cost of American Debt and in the end get your military hobbled which we are sure the Russians wont mind at all.

            Worth it to attempt it? Me thinks not.
            Last edited by Dreadnought; 04 Nov 13,, 19:34.
            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              A long time ago, their subs and fishing trawlers were following us left, right, and centre. The problem is that they're the first thing to be sunk in time of conflict.
              Death by recce.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                Lose the HUGE cost of American Debt
                .
                That doesn't work because it runs contravene to the Constitution. All debts must be paid one way or the other. It is enshrined into the Constitution.

                Comment


                • #38
                  It will be compensated from war reparations ;)
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                    Sir,we started from technical capabilities but we went into tactics.If it somehow works from a technical standpoint,tacticians will find a way for such weapons to be used.
                    The system will not work without a midcourse correction but to achieve a midcourse correction, you might as well have launched from that point.

                    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                    We have more sensors and sensor platforms than ever.But the Chinese did not went on with a live test.They apparently abandoned the project.And that is something I find to be intriguing.Somehow it doesn't connects.
                    The problem is that everyone assumes that the DF-21D is a carrier killer when in fact, it's a runway/bunker killer. You don't need midcourse correction for those things.

                    One more thing. No one has yet to see a DF-21D in open source.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Nov 13,, 20:58.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      That doesn't work because it runs contravene to the Constitution. All debts must be paid one way or the other. It is enshrined into the Constitution.
                      I would cast doubt upon that considering they would be enemies at this point. Why would you want to fund those fighting against you?
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                        I would cast doubt upon that considering they would be enemies at this point. Why would you want to fund those fighting against you?
                        After the dust settles, the debt still needs to be paid. That triuism is the hallmark and the core strength of the U.S. dollar currency. If the truism is not true, nobody would value US currency.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          A gentle hint - the thread is slightly derailing from the original intent, can we try and stay in the lane as much as possible......
                          Linkeden:
                          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            After the dust settles, the debt still needs to be paid. That triuism is the hallmark and the core strength of the U.S. dollar currency. If the truism is not true, nobody would value US currency.
                            You are absolutely right, the debt and the debt for the US carrier and its crew must be paid in full. Starting with the Chinese Navy
                            Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Nov 13,, 01:44.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Methinks discussion about the legal status of a debtor nation that is also a belligerent might require an entirely different thread and a different set of expertise? Back to guns and ammo plz :D
                              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                More from the armchair Admirals........

                                PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report

                                Staff Reporter 2013-10-14 12:04 (GMT+8)

                                China would have to sacrifice up to 40% of its naval fleet in an attempt to sink a supercarrier like the USS Gerald R Ford in a campaign, according to a report from the Moscow-based Military-Industrial Courier.

                                China currently possesses several effective weapons systems that could be used against a US carrier battle group, including its DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles and 12 guided-missile destroyers. The country's two Type 051C and six Type 052C destroyers are all equipped with anti-ship missiles such as the YJ-83, C-805 and YJ-62, and they would also pose a serious threat against US carriers within the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, China has purchased four Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Moskit SSM P-270 anti-ship missiles from Russia, the report said.

                                Aside from the Liaoning, the country's first aircraft carrier, the PLA Navy currently has 15 Type 054A frigates carrying HQ-16 surface-to-air missile within its vertical launching system. With the capability to defend the Chinese fleet against the US carrier-based aircraft, the Type 054A is able to sink enemy vessels with its C-803 anti-ship missile as well.

                                If a US carrier battle group were to enter the waters of the Chinese coast, the PLA Navy could also deploy its 10 Type 056 corvettes and 40 Type 022 missile boats to fight in guerrilla warfare at sea against the US Navy, the report said. Both vessels able to launch anti-ship missiles such as YJ-83 and C-803 and the United States Navy would lose 10% of its strength in the region if one of its carriers were to be sunk.

                                However, the PLA Navy would not be able to sink a US aircraft carrier easily. According to Forbes magazine, several countermethods have been developed by the US Navy to defend its aircraft carriers from Chinese attacks. While long-range unmanned aerial vehicles are able to destroy Chinese missile facilities, F-35 fighters with a combat range of 200 and 300 nautical miles enables the US ships to fight without entering the Chinese coastline.

                                The Military-Industrial Courier estimated that between 30%-40% of China's total naval strength would be lost to simply destroy one US carrier. Meanwhile, the biggest weakness for the US Navy in a potential conflict with the PLA Navy would be how to deploy its 11 carriers, 88 surface combat vessels, 55 Littoral Combat Ships and 31 amphibious assault ships to the Western Pacific in a short period of time, the report said.

                                PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report

                                As obvious by the article the writers have absolutely no idea how modern warfare is conducted.
                                Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Nov 13,, 18:52.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X