China anti-ship ballistic missiles.

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Is this based off the Russian Sunburn missile?

No, completely different. Sunburn/moskit isn't ballistic, it's a very big and fast sea-skimmer. Text

 

[Lemon law]

I suppose cwjerome has a right to say, " If I had a P&N wish Lemon law, it would be for you to stop interjecting into serious military discussions... especially those involving equipment and tactics. Your words are pitifully laughable to the informed.

Sorry not to add to the OP, but good lord, it is painful to see such a post."

I have no problem with your crying, but please prove where I am wrong before you assert your superior knowledge with nothing but bias driven denial. For all conventional technologically based powers, this is going to be a moving target, what is true today may not be true tomorrow, but the trend lines are clear.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I suppose cwjerome has a right to say, " If I had a P&N wish Lemon law, it would be for you to stop interjecting into serious military discussions... especially those involving equipment and tactics. Your words are pitifully laughable to the informed.

Sorry not to add to the OP, but good lord, it is painful to see such a post."

I have no problem with your crying, but please prove where I am wrong before you assert your superior knowledge with nothing but bias driven denial. For all conventional technologically based powers, this is going to be a moving target, what is true today may not be true tomorrow, but the trend lines are clear.

LL, with all due respect, and I do agree with more than a few of your perspectives and posts, your information and ideas regarding contemporary military technology and tactics are a bit less than fully informed.

I have many relatives in various branches of military service, and have studied at great length the history of warfare, particularly of the 20th century and modern technology. Although I am a civilian, and not a professor or research specialist, I can confidently say that it would do you well to put some further study into such issues if you want to contribute meaningfully to such a discussion.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of the major military powers on earth, which China is joining, land or ship based missiles make conventional air craft carriers sitting ducks. Or for that matter any surface ship in any Navy. The days of the WW2 aircraft carriers as a means projecting force against another conventional major conventional power is as obsolete as the buggy whip, and has been since the Fauklands war when a cheap exocet missile
took out a first class warship. Sure, various defensive system can greatly reduce the hit percentage, but when the defender can use a $5,000 dollar missile to take out a 10 billion dollar air craft carrier, you don't need a big hit percentage to win.

But cheer up, US aircraft carriers are still the cats meow for projecting force against the weak, so game still on, use proxy wars and never pick on anyone your own size. Take a small man out and whip em, its so satisfying, as a US citizen, its makes so proud that I could puke. To Paraphrase George C. Wallace, brutality now, brutality forever.

I don't think you understand configurations such as Aegis, and modern Naval warfare technology.

Also, Exocets are quite expensive (think $500k+/ea for newer models, and as low as ~$100k for older models), and would be utterly ineffective against a CBG.

Do I agree with our globe-stomping foreign policy? Far from it, but that's no reason to be ignorant of the combat capability of a modern strike force. A carrier battle group will not be a lone aircraft carrier without protection, closing to missile range of an enemy. You'll have a blanket of satellite-aided air supremacy for hundreds of miles in all directions, and an armada of support ships, on the surface AND below, with converging coverage for all incoming problems.

This.

A battle group is very solid. There are not many chinks in the armor so to speak. A battle group has basically land/sea/air superiority for a few hundred MILES. The supporting ships are there mainly to defend the carrier, but also can provide offensive support if need be. A carrier group during actual combat situations are highly protected....
Do some research

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I suppose cwjerome has a right to say, " If I had a P&N wish Lemon law, it would be for you to stop interjecting into serious military discussions... especially those involving equipment and tactics. Your words are pitifully laughable to the informed.

Sorry not to add to the OP, but good lord, it is painful to see such a post."

I have no problem with your crying, but please prove where I am wrong before you assert your superior knowledge with nothing but bias driven denial. For all conventional technologically based powers, this is going to be a moving target, what is true today may not be true tomorrow, but the trend lines are clear.

LL, with all due respect, and I do agree with more than a few of your perspectives and posts, your information and ideas regarding contemporary military technology and tactics are a bit less than fully informed.

I have many relatives in various branches of military service, and have studied at great length the history of warfare, particularly of the 20th century and modern technology. Although I am a civilian, and not a professor or research specialist, I can confidently say that it would do you well to put some further study into such issues if you want to contribute meaningfully to such a discussion.

^Very nice politically correct way of saying STFU. I admire your ettiquette, but what good would come from all of your knowledge , if not to correct those with less, especially here in P&N ?

 

[Lemon law]

The Arkaign myth is and remains, that defensive measures will not increase faster than offensive measures, despite your over confident relatives.

We have already reached the Mad point and add new Mad powers, when are we going to learn to step away? Oh goodie, lets keep fueling the arms races, I am so not feeling safer yet.

 

[gevorg]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Arkaign myth is and remains, that defensive measures will not increase faster than offensive measures, despite your over confident relatives.

We have already reached the Mad point and add new Mad powers, when are we going to learn to step away? Oh goodie, lets keep fueling the arms races, I am so not feeling safer yet.

Exactly!

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: K1052
Arguably we do not have a real MAD relationship with China. That would require them to be able to mount a overwhelming counterstrike in a US first strike scenario. SLBMs launched from minimum distances on depressed trajectories would eliminate their silo based forces, C&C, and decapitate the political wing with almost no warning. They only have one functional SSBN and it is basically garbage which rarely sails from Chinese waters.

The biggest problem would be the DF-31/DF-31A mobile launchers but those are in very limited quantities (less than 10 deployed) and have a long history of launch failures which is why they haven't seen wide deployment. Even assuming some of those MIRVed versions get out of their launchers without exploding they'll still have to contend with the US mid course interceptors based at Greely and Vandenburg. Even a 20% successful interception rate would probably be sufficient to stop the strike.

This difference is also actually relevant in a strategic sense.

China really doesn't have the option of trying to nuke say one US city and trying to get the US to capitulate on the matter at hand because the US could respond with a nuclear strike to wipe out the rest of the Chinese arsenal capable of reaching US territory (and have an attack sub take out the SSBN if its at sea.) In fact use of any nuke at all against any target by China risks this sort of response.

It should be noted that Chinese diesel submarines are a poor option for tracking down US Ohio Class Submarines, which would be the platform to launch the SLBMs, particularly due to the small area the Chinese diesel subs can cover before having to run their engines to recharge their batteries which makes a bunch of noise. Even if they actually manage to temporarily detect one of the Ohio SSBNs prior to hostilities starting, they would quickly run out their battery capacity trying to successfully trail the SSBN, at which point its simply impossible for the diesel sub to continue to continue to conceal its presence and the Ohio SSBN can take steps to ensure they successfully break contact.

 

[palehorse]

I wonder if the OP knows what we say in the West about assumptions...

 

[dmcowen674]

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?.

Topic Title: China anti-ship ballistic missiles.
Topic Summary: is about to render US war ships into sitting ducks.

So who's fault is this???

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Arkaign cites , "You'll have a blanket of satellite-aided air supremacy for hundreds of miles in all directions." Wow, a whole few hundreds of miles, for major powers, the conventional boomer type sub will simply be augmented by even conventional power subs able to fire semi intercontinental anti ship missiles from 500 miles away, which will come down at supersonic speeds. It still shifts the advantage to the technology adept defender, and China has already demonstrated the ability to take out Satellites. Even if the missile costs 5 million, you only need one hit in 2000 against a 10 billion dollar carrier to break even.

As for recent tests of Reagan's star war fantasies, if we know when its coming, from where its coming, and the incoming missile employs no cloaking, we can sometimes shoot one down.

The key limiting capability is launch capability. Lets assume you can get 10 diesel electric submarines within 500 miles of a Carrier Battle Group. How many missiles can those submarines carry. A supersonic missile with a range of 500 miles is going to be quite large. The Kursk was a missile carrying submarines and carried 24 SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles. This missile weighed around 7000kg and had a range of 550-600kms. However for the sake of argument we will consider that the missile has a range of 500 miles. Actually if your missile has a range of only 500 miles you probably want to be around 400 miles when you launch. So we will say the missile has a range of 600 miles which allows a launch between 500-550 miles from the Carrier Battle Group. We are assuming over a 50% increase in range. The Kursk had a displacement of over 15,000 tons fully loaded. This is quite large for a Diesel electric submarine.

We will assume that the these submarines can each carry and fire 12 missiles. So if a carrier Battle Group has in bound 120 SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles assuming that all launch successfully and all start heading towards there targets. A single Aegis Cruiser has the capability of carrying 122 missiles. A Carrier BattleGroup can have between 1-2 Aegis cruisers and between 2-3 guided missile destroyers. Each of these destroyers can carry 90 missiles. We can easily assume that every inbound missile will have at least 2 missiles targeted on it for intercept. Also the carrier battle group planes will be able to mount intercepts on the inbound missiles using missiles like a AIM-120. Once the missiles get really close they are dealing with close in defense systems like the CIWS and like RIM-116 system plus the normal chaff. However even with worse case scenario. You have several missiles that get through and strike a US carrier. The US has spent years building survivability into there carriers and probably the carrier will survive several missiles striking it. One of the things the US navy does very well and that is damage control. Also the carriers are built tough, especially the Nimitz class. These ships where designed to take missile hits from exactly these type of missiles. It would probably be knocked out of action. If a smaller ship was struck the ship would almost certainly be a total lost. However those submarines would never launch again.

The US Submarine fleet is the best fleet in the world and is backed up by devices like the SOSUS. This entire scenario assumes that the Chinese are in a first launch surprise attack scenario. If the US was already at war the Chinese submarines would probably never make it into a launch position. The US would know exactly where those submarines are and maybe 2-3 of those Chinese submarines would make it back to port if any. The US has multiple Carrier Battle groups and more resources would be transferred to the Pacific. The US has had decades of experience on how best to protect its Carrier Battle groups from exactly this type of scenario, since this was the same plan the Soviets had for taking out the US Carrier Battlegroups.

China just doesn't have the capability to seriously threaten the US navy. Give them a couple of decades and they might have the capability.

 

[Lemon law]

The dmcowen674 lack of any insight question is to ask, "So who's fault is this???"

Well blame technology, blame mankind's progress, or cut to the chase, blame all females because Eve ate the apple. Whatever.

But give us all a big dopeslap, go back to the heady days of the 1970's when smarter leaders than the ones we have now took the first steps back from mutual assured destruction by crafting the first ballistic missile treaties. Implicit in those treaties was the no brainer realization that any side that tried to develop anti ballistic missile technology might acquire a first strike capacity and in so doing fuel a new arms
race that would defeat the original treaties.

Well confuckingradulations human dummies, we have developed such technology, and now all sides will put R&D money into what amounts to a rathole, and instead of mankind using the money to make the human condition better, we pee it down ratholes that benefit no one.

It makes the average pet rock look smarter in comparison.

 

[cwjerome]

Brovane, I appreciate your patience.

 

[Imdmn04]

China will build whatever the fuck it can afford to build, just like United States. America aint gonna do shit about it either, because America can only bully countries that fight with camels and sticks.

This is a dog eat dog world, you are always gonna have several super powers to keep each other in check. It is actually better for America that way, so we don't go off and invade every country just because we can.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

China will build whatever the fuck it can afford to build, just like United States. America aint gonna do shit about it either, because America can only bully countries that fight with camels and sticks.

This is a dog eat dog world, you are always gonna have several super powers to keep each other in check. It is actually better for America that way, so we don't go off and invade every country just because we can.

Don't you think China and the alike bully their neighbors?

I understand the dog eat dog world concept, but in this case American is funding their down fall.

Little third world countries are a threat to America therefore the US must invade them, such as the Cuban Commies that have to be embargo. However, King Daddy Commies China is absolutely safe to trade with, because they are perfectly good people that liberate neighboring countries from their own government.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Arkaign cites , "You'll have a blanket of satellite-aided air supremacy for hundreds of miles in all directions." Wow, a whole few hundreds of miles, for major powers, the conventional boomer type sub will simply be augmented by even conventional power subs able to fire semi intercontinental anti ship missiles from 500 miles away, which will come down at supersonic speeds. It still shifts the advantage to the technology adept defender, and China has already demonstrated the ability to take out Satellites. Even if the missile costs 5 million, you only need one hit in 2000 against a 10 billion dollar carrier to break even.

As for recent tests of Reagan's star war fantasies, if we know when its coming, from where its coming, and the incoming missile employs no cloaking, we can sometimes shoot one down.

The key limiting capability is launch capability. Lets assume you can get 10 diesel electric submarines within 500 miles of a Carrier Battle Group. How many missiles can those submarines carry. A supersonic missile with a range of 500 miles is going to be quite large. The Kursk was a missile carrying submarines and carried 24 SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles. This missile weighed around 7000kg and had a range of 550-600kms. However for the sake of argument we will consider that the missile has a range of 500 miles. Actually if your missile has a range of only 500 miles you probably want to be around 400 miles when you launch. So we will say the missile has a range of 600 miles which allows a launch between 500-550 miles from the Carrier Battle Group. We are assuming over a 50% increase in range. The Kursk had a displacement of over 15,000 tons fully loaded. This is quite large for a Diesel electric submarine.

We will assume that the these submarines can each carry and fire 12 missiles. So if a carrier Battle Group has in bound 120 SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles assuming that all launch successfully and all start heading towards there targets. A single Aegis Cruiser has the capability of carrying 122 missiles. A Carrier BattleGroup can have between 1-2 Aegis cruisers and between 2-3 guided missile destroyers. Each of these destroyers can carry 90 missiles. We can easily assume that every inbound missile will have at least 2 missiles targeted on it for intercept. Also the carrier battle group planes will be able to mount intercepts on the inbound missiles using missiles like a AIM-120. Once the missiles get really close they are dealing with close in defense systems like the CIWS and like RIM-116 system plus the normal chaff. However even with worse case scenario. You have several missiles that get through and strike a US carrier. The US has spent years building survivability into there carriers and probably the carrier will survive several missiles striking it. One of the things the US navy does very well and that is damage control. Also the carriers are built tough, especially the Nimitz class. These ships where designed to take missile hits from exactly these type of missiles. It would probably be knocked out of action. If a smaller ship was struck the ship would almost certainly be a total lost. However those submarines would never launch again.

The US Submarine fleet is the best fleet in the world and is backed up by devices like the SOSUS. This entire scenario assumes that the Chinese are in a first launch surprise attack scenario. If the US was already at war the Chinese submarines would probably never make it into a launch position. The US would know exactly where those submarines are and maybe 2-3 of those Chinese submarines would make it back to port if any. The US has multiple Carrier Battle groups and more resources would be transferred to the Pacific. The US has had decades of experience on how best to protect its Carrier Battle groups from exactly this type of scenario, since this was the same plan the Soviets had for taking out the US Carrier Battlegroups.

China just doesn't have the capability to seriously threaten the US navy. Give them a couple of decades and they might have the capability.

Thanks for having the patience to write all of that out. LL, while an intelligent person, obviously lacks both the basics and the complexities of modern naval warfare. Of all the aspects of the US's military abilities, our naval prowess, and in particular, the carrier battle groups, are absolutely unmatched. We have constantly improved them at every level from training to operating range to survivability, and the bulk of this was done during the cold war, facing a potential enemy many many times more deadly than the current Chinese navy and anti-ship capabilities.

China *is* improving, and spending a lot on defense. They do have the potential, if they see fit, to become a genuine rival, if they dedicate a similar amount of manpower and resources, both technical/intellectual/scientific/research, and industrial/production-wise, towards that end. I sincerely doubt they will take this route. It's much more logical, and likely, that they will arm themselves to be a target that nobody would attack outside of an armageddon-like scenario. Much of what they do is probably guided by their policies with Taiwan.

 

[RichardE]

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

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.

Resources being the manufacturing base, I wonder if our factories numbers are up or down since than.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Deeko
Silly NoShangriLa. The US military is far and away the most advanced in the world. You think that because China deployed some anti-ship missiles that our Navy has been rendered useless? lol at that.

Some dudes in caves have rendered the army essentially useless

Always because of politicians.

Turn the military lose to fight and they will win.

Handicap them by rules that benefit the opponent and you have a unnecessary loss of life.

*shrug*

What's the counter for the roadside bomb again?

The US military may be powerful, but it certainly isn't invincible. A war against China would not go as well as Iraq. Some ships would be lost.

Carpet bombing.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I usually assume that if I know our military has something awesome then they have something even more awesomely awesome that I don't know about.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
So other countries aren't allowed to develop weapons?

Why should they?

Sorry but this "Fair war" is bullshit fall on your own sword ideology. World peace is nothing more than utter dominance of a power. If the US can be so dominant as to make war such an unthinkable action than you will generally have less world conflict than you would if multiple countries were of the same strength. History has multiple examples of this.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
So other countries aren't allowed to develop weapons?

Why should they?

Sorry but this "Fair war" is bullshit fall on your own sword ideology. World peace is nothing more than utter dominance of a power. If the US can be so dominant as to make war such an unthinkable action than you will generally have less world conflict than you would if multiple countries were of the same strength. History has multiple examples of this.

The problem is that war is HUGELY profitable to the most powerful corporations and politically connected elites, even if the superpowers don't actually commit forces to the battles that are waged, it's enough that demand for weapons and military supplies rise with conflict. The existence of massive powers will not dissuade anything but WW2-like scenarios of ultimate conflict. Things like the Israel v. Hamas, Sudan genocide, Russia v. Georgia, will go on unabated for probably centuries to come.