China anti-ship ballistic missiles.

[NoShangriLa]

China's missile plans put US naval power in a weaker spot.

To counter the Asia-Pacific focus of the US Navy, China is reportedly planning to deploy ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads and special guidance systems to hit moving surface ships at sea in the western Pacific before they can get within range of Chinese targets.....

It started out as innocent American fund cheap Chinese toys, then made in China American flags, and end up with American steel made into Chinese war heads that going to take over the world.

My dad had a saying. ?The American are evil but at least they let us eat, unlike the Communist (Chinese/Russian) they would rape us till we die?.

 

[sandorski]

Stuff like this is inevitable, except they are only really a threat if China chooses to use them. That's assuming of course that the capability of the weapons matches the claim.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

China's missile plans put US naval power in a weaker spot.

To counter the Asia-Pacific focus of the US Navy, China is reportedly planning to deploy ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads and special guidance systems to hit moving surface ships at sea in the western Pacific before they can get within range of Chinese targets.....

It started out as innocent American fund cheap Chinese toys, then made in China American flags, and end up with American steel made into Chinese war heads that going to take over the world.

My dad had a saying. ?The American are evil but at least they let us eat, unlike the Communist (Chinese/Russian) they would rape us till we die?.

so whats the big freakin deal????
You think for a minute we do not have something similar??

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

China's missile plans put US naval power in a weaker spot.

To counter the Asia-Pacific focus of the US Navy, China is reportedly planning to deploy ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads and special guidance systems to hit moving surface ships at sea in the western Pacific before they can get within range of Chinese targets.....

It started out as innocent American fund cheap Chinese toys, then made in China American flags, and end up with American steel made into Chinese war heads that going to take over the world.

My dad had a saying. ?The American are evil but at least they let us eat, unlike the Communist (Chinese/Russian) they would rape us till we die?.

so whats the big freakin deal????
You think for a minute we do not have something similar??

I could be that the West have something similar, but the missiles will render the US Naval useless in the Pacific surrounding Taiwan/Japan/S. Korea.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
I could be that the West have something similar, but the missiles will render the US Naval useless in the Pacific surrounding Taiwan/Japan/S. Korea.

What an incredibly foolish assumption.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
I could be that the West have something similar, but the missiles will render the US Naval useless in the Pacific surrounding Taiwan/Japan/S. Korea.

What an incredibly foolish assumption.

Why so?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
I could be that the West have something similar, but the missiles will render the US Naval useless in the Pacific surrounding Taiwan/Japan/S. Korea.

What an incredibly foolish assumption.

Why so?

Escalation. You build a better gun, I build better armor.

You can give the US lots of crap for a lot of different reasons, and you can certainly claim that our military is overpriced, but we make up for that by buying more of it.

I can 100% guarantee that countermeasures are in development which will render these missiles useless.

If they aren't already...the purpose of a battle group is to support the carrier, and the purpose of the carrier is to support the planes, and the purpose of the planes is to take the enemy all the way down to small arms and thus protect the battle group. A long range aerial first-strike, a cruise missile attack from the retrofitted Ohios (154 Tomahawks per boat), and/or an upgraded version of the active defense systems that already exist would suffice to keep these missiles at bay.

Obviously that's not to say that the threat should be ignored or brushed off, but it's not a game changer, just some shuffling on the line of scrimmage.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: jagec

Obviously that's not to say that the threat should be ignored or brushed off, but it's not a game changer, just some shuffling on the line of scrimmage.

But then how often throughout history has one tactic taken down the major power when they get complacent and act as though they are impervious.
Kinda like how the battleship/dreadnought ruled the seas, until a few carriers showed up to wreck havok on navies that used expensive surface fleets that cost whole national treasures to build and keep afloat.
All empires fall.
Maybe the next step is all submarine warfare? How long will it be until we have undersea carriers for example?
Or maybe the next step is to land orbitally out of reach. who knows?
I am sure the military industrial complex is figuring it out at our expense as you say.
Big question is: who the hell is going to pay? China?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

China's missile plans put US naval power in a weaker spot.

To counter the Asia-Pacific focus of the US Navy, China is reportedly planning to deploy ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads and special guidance systems to hit moving surface ships at sea in the western Pacific before they can get within range of Chinese targets.....

It started out as innocent American fund cheap Chinese toys, then made in China American flags, and end up with American steel made into Chinese war heads that going to take over the world.

My dad had a saying. ?The American are evil but at least they let us eat, unlike the Communist (Chinese/Russian) they would rape us till we die?.

so whats the big freakin deal????
You think for a minute we do not have something similar??

I could be that the West have something similar, but the missiles will render the US Naval useless in the Pacific surrounding Taiwan/Japan/S. Korea.

Counter measures are cheap
And quite varied

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: jagec

Obviously that's not to say that the threat should be ignored or brushed off, but it's not a game changer, just some shuffling on the line of scrimmage.

But then how often throughout history has one tactic taken down the major power when they get complacent and act as though they are impervious.
Kinda like how the battleship/dreadnought ruled the seas, until a few carriers showed up to wreck havok on navies that used expensive surface fleets that cost whole national treasures to build and keep afloat.
All empires fall.
Maybe the next step is all submarine warfare? How long will it be until we have undersea carriers for example?
Or maybe the next step is to land orbitally out of reach. who knows?
I am sure the military industrial complex is figuring it out at our expense as you say.
Big question is: who the hell is going to pay? China?

Search internet cable cut. They come in 3's

 

[heyheybooboo]

USS Stark - 1987

 

[Zebo]

China will be our strongest ally if/when they get political and social freedom. I'm not too worried and think it's a mistake to egg them on or demonize them as war mongers. Same goes for Iran.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
USS Stark - 1987

That was an example of incompetent leadership for which the ships senior officers were relieved of duty. Against prepared defenses, these Chinese missiles would have a much tougher time hitting their targets.

Your example is very poor.

 

[Gibsons]

One problem with this is launching ballistic missiles lights up everyone's nuclear threat warning net. Sattelites will detect it and you'll not only alert the carrier battle groups, but U.S. based ICBMs. Even though these are conventionally armed, the U.S. (and Russia for that matter) can't assume that it's conventional when their only info is "three ballistic missiles in flight."

I suspect the best countermeasure will be some sort of disguise/jamming. The warheads will need some sort of terminal guidance (radar? IR?) and if you can spoof that, it's a cheap way to defeat a very expensive weapon.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

China's missile plans put US naval power in a weaker spot.

To counter the Asia-Pacific focus of the US Navy, China is reportedly planning to deploy ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads and special guidance systems to hit moving surface ships at sea in the western Pacific before they can get within range of Chinese targets.....

It started out as innocent American fund cheap Chinese toys, then made in China American flags, and end up with American steel made into Chinese war heads that going to take over the world.

My dad had a saying. ?The American are evil but at least they let us eat, unlike the Communist (Chinese/Russian) they would rape us till we die?.

so whats the big freakin deal????
You think for a minute we do not have something similar??

I could be that the West have something similar, but the missiles will render the US Naval useless in the Pacific surrounding Taiwan/Japan/S. Korea.

I somehow doubt that.

 

[JTsyo]

Chinese missiles meet CIWS.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
USS Stark - 1987

That was an example of incompetent leadership for which the ships senior officers were relieved of duty. Against prepared defenses, these Chinese missiles would have a much tougher time hitting their targets.

Your example is very poor.

The defensive weapons on US Navy ships work quite well in real world situations (or testing if they have yet to have any actual combat use).

 

[EagleKeeper]

Look at the quality of weapons that China builds?

And then the quality of the training that their people have?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Chinese missiles meet CIWS.

Assuming the threat is a ballistic warhead the Phalanx wouldn't be effective. Standard missiles from the Aegis ships and possibly the SeaRam system as a last resort would be used.

I do however question if the Chinese actually have the technical expertise to construct and deploy such a weapon system effectively. Any such attack would most certainly result in a one way trip for most of the Chinese fleet to the bottom of the Pacific.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Chinese missiles meet CIWS.

Unfortunately with a large ballistic missile the CIWS is limited in its ability to fully stop it. In that by the time that gun has engaged and destroyed the missile it is so close in that you are still going to be struck by parts of the missile because the missile just travels so much faster than say a shorter range missile.

Of course that is why the US is also using this system now which allows a intercept farther out from the ship - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...irframe_Missile#SeaRAM

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

China's missile plans put US naval power in a weaker spot.

To counter the Asia-Pacific focus of the US Navy, China is reportedly planning to deploy ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads and special guidance systems to hit moving surface ships at sea in the western Pacific before they can get within range of Chinese targets.....

It started out as innocent American fund cheap Chinese toys, then made in China American flags, and end up with American steel made into Chinese war heads that going to take over the world.

My dad had a saying. ?The American are evil but at least they let us eat, unlike the Communist (Chinese/Russian) they would rape us till we die?.

Good thing the US has been developing ABM capability for the Aegis system.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Chinese missiles meet CIWS.

CIWS is not intended for use against ballistic missiles, neither is goalkeeper. Both would be utterly useless against an anti-ship ballistic missile.

I for one have a very hard time believing that China has the technology to field such a missile however. Even if that re-entry vehicle is 'maneuverable', I bet you it's still not particularly maneuverable. In addition, you need to know what you're shooting at. How are they tracking our ships reliably over such distances? As the article mentions, you're going to hit a moving target, at sea, from 3,000 miles away, with a weapon with extremely limited maneuverability? Sure you are.

 

[Atreus21]

On some level this is a good thing.

It'll keep our military on its toes. Russia has a missile, I think called Yakhont, that we have yet to design an effective countermeasure for.

At least, that's what I heard last. Here she is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakhont

I'm not even sure if the US has a supersonic anti-ship missile. Most I can find is longer range subsonic weapons. I guess they don't really need them.

But let's be realistic. Is one advantage in favor of Russia or China going to make up for 100 advantages in favor of the US? Germany had higher tech stuff during world war II, but couldn't compete with America and the Allies' resources.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Chinese missiles meet CIWS.

CIWS is not intended for use against ballistic missiles, neither is goalkeeper. Both would be utterly useless against an anti-ship ballistic missile.

I for one have a very hard time believing that China has the technology to field such a missile however. Even if that re-entry vehicle is 'maneuverable', I bet you it's still not particularly maneuverable. In addition, you need to know what you're shooting at. How are they tracking our ships reliably over such distances? As the article mentions, you're going to hit a moving target, at sea, from 3,000 miles away, with a weapon with extremely limited maneuverability? Sure you are.

I highly doubt this also. Considering that even the best ICBMs have certain error margins, misses that can be made with 1/2 mile, or even 1/4mi on a fixed target. To think that they'd be able to home in on something that's moving at 30 knots is ridiculous. The guidance package would make it pretty bulky and limit the amount of warheads to likely a single one. At that point you have Aegis, which is continually improving through new blocks of missiles.

I think this is nothing more than sabre rattling.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
On some level this is a good thing.

It'll keep our military on its toes. Russia has a missile, I think called Yakhont, that we have yet to design an effective countermeasure for.

At least, that's what I heard last. Here she is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakhont

But let's be realistic. Is one advantage in favor of Russia or China going to make up for 100 advantages in favor of the US? Germany had higher tech stuff during world war II, but couldn't compete with America and the Allies' resources.

The Navy deployed the SeaRam system to help defeat high speed cruise missiles. Supposedly it is very effective.