Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WaPo: China’s carrier-killer missile

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

  • #46
    I am sorry Dreadnought, but I do not share your feelings of invincibility when it comes to aircraft carriers. They can be sunk. It is just a matter of degree of how far you are willing to go to. Vice versa, it also works the other way too. It depends how aggressive USN intends to be that would certainly provoke a unconditional response.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
      I am sorry Dreadnought, but I do not share your feelings of invincibility when it comes to aircraft carriers. They can be sunk. It is just a matter of degree of how far you are willing to go to. Vice versa, it also works the other way too. It depends how aggressive USN intends to be that would certainly provoke a unconditional response.
      Invincibility has absolutely ZERO to do with it. These people are obviously so far out of whack with the way the USN conducts itself during a war time footing or peace time for that matter its note worthy of posting to laugh at. Any US sailor (or Marine) knows full well America is not just going to sail right into their cross hairs persay their coastline and say "here we are shoot at us" and sink us no more then the Chinese would in turn present such a target for US forces.

      You will also notice that they make absolutely no mention of submarine warfare from either side in the article.

      Which will no doubt play out heavily on both sides of the confrontation.

      In other words they are unfamiliar with the Triad of coverage in even basic battle planning.

      No ship is unsinkable, It has been proven time after time. However, damage control and a close study design of how you design a ship to absorb damage has paid numerous dividends in saving ships to fight another day.

      The article is a joke, even from my limited standpoint. It says in black and white they have no idea what they are talking about. Just blowing smoke.

      My nephew could form a better hypothesis from his playstation.
      Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Nov 13,, 20:48.
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post

        The article is a joke, even from my limited standpoint. It says in black and white they have no idea what they are talking about. Just blowing smoke.

        My nephew could form a better hypothesis from his playstation.
        Its been pilloried by every TAC/Strat planner I know of.... basically its some fanclub portryal of a canned fight - and leaves so much out that it makes Tom Clancy look like Mahan

        These canned fight scenarios might appeal to local consumption, but its not a serious piece of work by any margin
        Linkeden:
        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • #49
          Saw this figured I would post since they are "chummy"...

          At least 19 North Korean sailors were killed when a naval vessel sank during "combat duties" off the east coast last month, North and South Korean media said.

          South Korean media said the ship sank during a drill killing "scores".

          Photos released by North Korea's KCNA state news agency showed leader Kim Jong Un laying flowers at the foot of a memorial to the dead, encircled by at least 19 graves emblazoned with the faces of the sailors.

          "Submarine chaser No. 233 fell while performing combat duties in mid-October," KCNA said.

          The article did not specify what operation it was undertaking.

          North Korea mourns sailors lost in combat - Telegraph


          Combat?

          Some articles claim there was a collision with another NK warship and one sunk, others state both ships sank.

          Excert:

          Quoting a military source, it said the ships were a Hainan-class 375-ton submarine chaser and a 100 to 200-ton patrol boat.

          http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...sey=nav%7Chead
          Last edited by Dreadnought; 06 Nov 13,, 00:34.
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #50
            If the NK ships were sunk by combat and the SKN said nothing, then I deeply admire and respect the professionalism and competence and capability of the SK Navy. Instead of making a brouhaha over the sinking, they remained mum on it while sending a deeply personal message to the Fat Boy of NoKo in which I am sure he has keenly felt.

            Comment


            • #51
              North Korean Ship Sinking: Naval Vessel Sank Last Month, Reports Say
              11/04/13 07:08 AM ET EST

              PYONGYANG, North Korea -- PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) — A North Korean naval vessel sank last month, killing an unspecified number of officers and sailors, according to North and South Korean media.

              The North's official Korean Central News Agency provided few concrete details, and there was no clue as to what might have happened. KCNA said in a dispatch Saturday that the deaths came while a submarine chaser was performing "combat duties."

              North Korea rarely releases details about military mishaps or accidents.

              The rest of the dispatch was devoted to a recent visit by leader Kim Jong Un to a "cemetery of fallen fighters." He was shown in state media inspecting a large number of stone markers that carried photos of sailors.

              KCNA's dispatch said the incident happened in October, but did not give a date. Photos of the stone markers released by state media show "Oct. 13" inscribed on them.

              An unidentified South Korean military source told the South's Chosun Ilbo newspaper that the vessel was built in the 1960s, and that its old age might have been a factor in the sinking. The South's Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified source, reported that the vessel sank near Wonsan on the east coast.

              Much of North Korea's military equipment is decrepit, but the country has a massive army and thousands of artillery pieces deployed along its border.

              The rival Koreas both claim the waters around their western sea boundary, which is the most likely scene of any future clash between them. North Korea disputes the boundary, which was unilaterally drawn close to its shores by the U.S.-led U.N. Command after the 1950-53 Korean War, and the two Koreas have fought several bloody naval skirmishes there since 1999.

              Pyongyang is also blamed for a 2010 torpedo attack that sank a South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors. A North Korean artillery attack that year killed four South Koreans on a frontline island.

              North Korean Ship Sinking: Naval Vessel Sank Last Month, Reports Say
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #52
                If the articles are correct and it was a Hainan-class 375-ton submarine chaser then this would be the ship as China and Pakistan among others owned them as well. Although the armament may be different.

                It states a total crew of 70. Death toll put at 15-20.

                http://orbat.com/site/history/volume...minor%206D.pdf

                Type 037 (Hainan Class) Submarine Chaser - SinoDefence.com
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 06 Nov 13,, 20:10.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Stealth objects can't readily radiate.

                  Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                  Sir,stealth recon platforms cannot be excluded.Those can send live feed.We don't know what the Chinese have or will have.But I'll assume their tech to be close to Western one.
                  A ocean surveillance recon asset will most likely have to emit a rather powerful active source to achieve its purpose, manned or unmanned. The Soviets used to have Bear-D; the US uses P-3/P-8 and hopefully soon MQ-4. All of these assets require permissive environments to be employed. If you are emitting a megawatt sized radar signal, regardless of wheather you're operating spread spectrum, I think a peer competitor will notice.

                  It does seem rather easy however for a DF-21 to engage a target in an out of the blue strike, where PLAN assets, or even their coast guard, could simply follow a CV around without being engaged. Or else just target one in port in Japan, if present. Satellites are problematic--there is at least one PRC ISAR radar satellite in orbit (probably much more capable than RORSAT) which I assume could tell a CV from a container ship, but it would be in a polar orbit with no dwell time and likely wouldn't have a life span longer than a day or so if ballistic missiles were employed.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    USN assests are not going to let anyone "tail them" if on a battle footing. They will sink it or jam it long enough to move on.

                    The CVN herself just needs to pour on the steam and can literally "run away" from her entire BG if needed. That would leave a massive wall of water for those Chinese CG boats to deal with and those ships are much more agile then one is led to believe.

                    Your Chinese CG boats have very limited range and are definately not suited for blue water operations.

                    They have been at the cat and mouse game longer then most and have developed ops to deal with such things.

                    Targeting a CVN in Japan would be the very same as targeting Japan and the US.

                    Something China already knows and does not want to do because of the variety of reprisals that can take place including the dissolve of the UNSC and the vote which not only leaves a wide open door to attack China and her assests but also those that ride her coatials like North Korea. According to OOE, something they very much dont want, a few million refugees pouring over their border.
                    Last edited by Dreadnought; 07 Nov 13,, 19:32.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Josh View Post
                      there is at least one PRC ISAR radar satellite in orbit (probably much more capable than RORSAT) which I assume could tell a CV from a container ship, but it would be in a polar orbit with no dwell time and likely wouldn't have a life span longer than a day or so if ballistic missiles were employed.
                      If the intent is to have persistent coverage at the RORSAT level then they need a minimum of 11 sats and a baseline minimum of 23 for global coverage - and ideally 30+ for redundancy

                      The chinese don't have anywhere near that number

                      Unfortunately there is a tendency to suspend reality when some discuss the chinese and their capability - sure we can apply respect to all the advances that they've made (and they are praiseworthy and shouldn't be outright dismissed as just being driven by fanbois and their INT 5th column type capability) but it behooves us all to exercise some pause and caution when looking at them because the absolute reality check and considered analysis of what they claim, what they have, and the associated tells which accompany capability devs are often more than just "misaligned"

                      for any country to deliver a capability, everyone of those assets employed must have a centre of capability gravity to deliver not only in its own right, but also to maximise benefit, to be a system enabler and contribute effectively to the mission intent.

                      I don't see anything which makes me reconsider that the DF21 has a track to kill capability either at the autonomous level. or more importantly - because other critical elements exist to support, let alone update it in flight - esp against an aware target

                      hell, they can't even demonstrate an ability to deploy an SDB type weapon which can be steered onto a moving (let alone active jinking) target - let alone perform that capability across the deep blue where they have no targeting awareness at the global level

                      my BS meter just goes through the roof...
                      Last edited by gf0012-aust; 08 Nov 13,, 00:51. Reason: gr
                      Linkeden:
                      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The report is from Jamestown foundation? Does Heritage foundation have anything to say, where is Lockheed Martin's lobbyist? Boeing in the house?

                        Let's beat the shit out of this dead horse until the PLA has anything to say about it.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          PLA says it best by not saying anything at all.
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                            What experience do they physically have with sinking a carrier? Answer-none.

                            And the USN carriers are built nothing like the former soviet "circus wagon" they have at present.

                            They can say this or that but in the end they have zero idea of how to sink a USN carrier .
                            Sinking a boat doesn't require experience. It requires putting holes into it such that it loses its buoyancy. The rest is academic. down she goes.

                            I also don't think they have zero idea, cause to send a missile with a large warhead is not a novel idea. its quite a good idea actually. In fact I would say its the only idea.

                            finding a large ship that doesn't employ stealth like a zamwalt is fairly easy. Its going to cause a large blip on the radar. Its going to be easily tracked by satelite.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by winton View Post

                              finding a large ship that doesn't employ stealth like a zamwalt is fairly easy. Its going to cause a large blip on the radar. Its going to be easily tracked by satelite.
                              actually, that's not necessarily the case

                              in recent times, there are numerous cases of "red" assets being unable to find the carrier and it's group despite it being in a defined exercise area.
                              Linkeden:
                              http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                              http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                                actually, that's not necessarily the case

                                in recent times, there are numerous cases of "red" assets being unable to find the carrier and it's group despite it being in a defined exercise area.
                                what about the sub that surfaced closed to the kitty hawk carrier group undetected? Thats gotta raise some concerns.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X