China anti-ship ballistic missiles.

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

http://www.upiasia.com/Securit...stockpile_rising/7074/


Many of the missles have 3 warheads each.

This would destroy us, and most likely cause nuclear winter. Our "missle defense" thus far is a joke, and would not contain a launch from China.

You're right, our missile defense IS a joke and would not contain a launch from China. Their forces are still small, and extremely vulnerable to counterforce strikes however as they have a lack of hardened silos, ballistic missile submarines, etc. Several dozen missiles, each with a few warheads, is simply insufficient to turn the US to 'carbon particles'. That's if they all got off the ground, which is highly unlikely.

In fact, from a purely statistical standpoint China is the one major nuclear power that we could, in theory, fight a nuclear war with and win. I'm not suggesting we ever try it for about a zillion different reasons which should all be obvious, but still.

Not to mention that their new MIRV DF-31A warheads are only ~10KT each, or 1/10th of a MT. This is ~20% of the US W88.

 

[JS80]

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?.

Your dad's an idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

So you are basing your ideas on a missile that hasn't even entered service yet, on submarines that haven't entered service yet, based on old technology from the Russians. Then you're assuming that more are built, that they are all at sea, that we can't detect them, that they aren't in maintenance, that they can get within range, etc... etc.

Sorry Ocguy, your analysis isn't very sturdy.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

We have about 60 attack boats active in the US fleet that have crews that trained for basically nothing else over the last 50 years other than shadowing the SSBN assets of a much worthier opponant. We can definitely keep tabs on a couple shoddy Chinese boats.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

~10KT warheads, even if 192 accurately hit, would not be enough to disable the continental US.

Another issue is Chinese SSBN's are only the approximate equal of late 1960's Soviet subs. They are easily stalked, and you can pretty much guarantee that the US Navy could track each and every one at will should the tensions reach that point.

 

[cyclohexane]

So other countries aren't allowed to develop weapons?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Look at the quality of weapons that China builds?

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

You mean like how the Chinese army trains by counter-strike? heh

 

[Arkaign]

This is undoubtedly based around their tensions with Taiwan rather than a grand standoff with the US as a whole.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

So you are basing your ideas on a missile that hasn't even entered service yet, on submarines that haven't entered service yet, based on old technology from the Russians. Then you're assuming that more are built, that they are all at sea, that we can't detect them, that they aren't in maintenance, that they can get within range, etc... etc.

Sorry Ocguy, your analysis isn't very sturdy.

So to get it straight, you do not believe we have a MAD relationship with China?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

So you are basing your ideas on a missile that hasn't even entered service yet, on submarines that haven't entered service yet, based on old technology from the Russians. Then you're assuming that more are built, that they are all at sea, that we can't detect them, that they aren't in maintenance, that they can get within range, etc... etc.

Sorry Ocguy, your analysis isn't very sturdy.

So to get it straight, you do not believe we have a MAD relationship with China?

We do, but it's much more of an economic MAD rather than a military/strategic confrontation.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JS80

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?.

Your dad's an idiot.

:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

So you are basing your ideas on a missile that hasn't even entered service yet, on submarines that haven't entered service yet, based on old technology from the Russians. Then you're assuming that more are built, that they are all at sea, that we can't detect them, that they aren't in maintenance, that they can get within range, etc... etc.

Sorry Ocguy, your analysis isn't very sturdy.

So to get it straight, you do not believe we have a MAD relationship with China?

We most certainly do have a MAD relationship with China. I explained it in my first post about China's nuclear capability. They cannot destroy the US, but they can certainly cause enough damage to us to make nuclear war with them unthinkable. Say they only completely screw up 1/3 of the US... that's still insanely bad.

What I am saying is that you are overestimating Chinese nuclear capability by a significant margin.

 

[Arkaign]

^^ Yep, it's a far cry from the US v USSR MAD, which basically ensured the utter devastation of the entire planet. Full continental blankets of H-Bombs = epic fail.

EDIT : Also note the current Chinese arsenal is in the range of several hundred low-yield warheads, compare to the ~10,000 in the US arsenal, and similarly massive stockpiles from the Soviet end.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

So you are basing your ideas on a missile that hasn't even entered service yet, on submarines that haven't entered service yet, based on old technology from the Russians. Then you're assuming that more are built, that they are all at sea, that we can't detect them, that they aren't in maintenance, that they can get within range, etc... etc.

Sorry Ocguy, your analysis isn't very sturdy.

So to get it straight, you do not believe we have a MAD relationship with China?

We most certainly do have a MAD relationship with China. I explained it in my first post about China's nuclear capability. They cannot destroy the US, but they can certainly cause enough damage to us to make nuclear war with them unthinkable. Say they only completely screw up 1/3 of the US... that's still insanely bad.

What I am saying is that you are overestimating Chinese nuclear capability by a significant margin.

Even in your scenario, my original point stands. Worrying about an anti-ship missle, when 1/3 of the US could be wiped out in an instant, is ludicrous. And that 1/3 of the US that isnt wiped out probably holds less then 1/3 of the population. Maybe youll be fine in rural Wyoming initially, but with no government, food, and contaminated water, you are pretty much done.

If they target Washington and every major military base and state capital, they dont need many to make it here to end at least this country as we know it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Even in your scenario, my original point stands. Worrying about an anti-ship missle, when 1/3 of the US could be wiped out in an instant, is ludicrous. And that 1/3 of the US that isnt wiped out probably holds less then 1/3 of the population. Maybe youll be fine in rural Wyoming initially, but with no government, food, and contaminated water, you are pretty much done.

If they target Washington and every major military base and state capital, they dont need many to make it here to end at least this country as we know it.

It's not ludicrous because the reasons why each weapon would be used are different. China would be far more willing to sink some ships than it would be to engage in all out nuclear war, and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.

"The PLA Navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years."

I hope you can sink all of their subs in a first-strike...


192 sea-based warheads, with some hydrogen bombs mixed in, is the end of the US. Even if they had a 50% failure rate, they would take out every state capital and major population centers, ruining our food and water supply.

So you are basing your ideas on a missile that hasn't even entered service yet, on submarines that haven't entered service yet, based on old technology from the Russians. Then you're assuming that more are built, that they are all at sea, that we can't detect them, that they aren't in maintenance, that they can get within range, etc... etc.

Sorry Ocguy, your analysis isn't very sturdy.

So to get it straight, you do not believe we have a MAD relationship with China?

We most certainly do have a MAD relationship with China. I explained it in my first post about China's nuclear capability. They cannot destroy the US, but they can certainly cause enough damage to us to make nuclear war with them unthinkable. Say they only completely screw up 1/3 of the US... that's still insanely bad.

What I am saying is that you are overestimating Chinese nuclear capability by a significant margin.

Even in your scenario, my original point stands. Worrying about an anti-ship missle, when 1/3 of the US could be wiped out in an instant, is ludicrous. And that 1/3 of the US that isnt wiped out probably holds less then 1/3 of the population. Maybe youll be fine in rural Wyoming initially, but with no government, food, and contaminated water, you are pretty much done.

If they target Washington and every major military base and state capital, they dont need many to make it here to end at least this country as we know it.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I don't see this as any big deal. We'll come up with a counter-measure, China will counter that, etc. Hasn't that been the state of military advancement since like forever? Honestly, with something that big, that slow, in the open with no cover, how the heck is having a missile lobbed at you come as a surprise? Surely counter-measures have already been worked on even if not yet implemented.

 

[theeedude]

Is this based off the Russian Sunburn missile?

 

[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.

 

[Rebel44]

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree.

 

[Atheus]

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.

Things have moved on again since the Fauklands though. I remember reading that the new British type-45 destroyers have a defence system which can hit a cricket ball travelling at mach 4 from several hundred miles away.

 

[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.

 

[cwjerome]

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.

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.