Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Want China Times)   China missile test sinks simulated US aircraft carrier, although the photo clearly shows they need 3 more red pegs   (wantchinatimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, missile test  
•       •       •

14147 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 7:36 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



216 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-31 07:04:08 AM  
Global Times took a common line from China's national defense doctrine before the country acquired an aircraft carrier of its own - namely that carriers are an offensive weapon while anti-ship missiles are defensive. "It can be used like a stick to hit the dog intruding on our backyard, but it can never be used to attack the house where the dog comes from,

So what happens when they put dogshiat on the stick?

Itwillgetoutofcontrolandwe'llbeluckytolivethroughit.jpeg
 
2013-01-31 07:10:43 AM  
Shocker: I can't access the link here.
 
2013-01-31 07:25:24 AM  
I blame the Republicans!
 
2013-01-31 07:37:49 AM  
Well, I guess if your propaganda blog says so.....
 
2013-01-31 07:41:57 AM  
Two hits and it's considered sunk? Milton Bradley...and maybe Rhiannna(I don't care if it's spelled right) might have something to say about that.
 
2013-01-31 07:42:34 AM  

miss diminutive: So what happens when they put dogshiat on the stick?


That's a disqualification.
 
2013-01-31 07:46:13 AM  
Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse? They do realize if they hit a carrier it's game on right?
 
2013-01-31 07:48:17 AM  
If only Navy Carriers stood still on dry land.

Not, say, sail at 30+knots surrounded by cruisers and destroyed with capability to down theater ballistics missiles.
 
2013-01-31 07:48:56 AM  
2,000 km range... these are ballistic missiles I take it?
 
xcv
2013-01-31 07:49:44 AM  

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse?


I think they're saying they want to eat our seamen as a delicacy.
 
2013-01-31 07:50:51 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: If only Navy Carriers stood still on dry land.

Not, say, sail at 30+knots surrounded by cruisers and destroyed with capability to down theater ballistics missiles.



So this seems more along the lines of a first strike "defensive" weapon? Like if we decided to park a carrier group in or near Taiwan?
 
2013-01-31 07:51:57 AM  

Mose: 2,000 km range... these are ballistic missiles I take it?


I'd bet they work like the old AIM-54, ballistic boost phase with radar or ir homing unpowered terminal phase.  Either that or they are big, slow cruise missiles that can be intercepted.
 
2013-01-31 07:52:24 AM  

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse? They do realize if they hit a carrier it's game on right?


Not to mention the fact that we have at least 10 more where that came from. 23 if you count the Amphibs.

And we all remember out calm reaction to the sinking of the USS Maine, to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and to the Gulf of Tonkin incident...
 
2013-01-31 07:52:35 AM  
With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.
 
2013-01-31 07:53:41 AM  

xcv: yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse?

I think they're saying they want to eat our seamen as a delicacy.


I can see this thread is going to go great.
 
2013-01-31 07:55:17 AM  
Yawn.  BTDT, World War 2.  CV-6

www.cv6.org
This was on 10/26/42.  On November 13, she participated in Guadalcanal.
 
2013-01-31 07:55:35 AM  

BronyMedic: Well, I guess if your propaganda blog says so.....


Came here to say this... leaving satisfied.
 
2013-01-31 07:56:02 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


Loved it, especially the part about stir frying pets.  Mmm Mmm
 
2013-01-31 07:56:07 AM  
Hmmm, they sink one of our carriers,we irradiate most of their major cities. Sounds like a fair trade to me.


Your cunning plan. You haven't thought it through.
 
2013-01-31 07:56:12 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: If only Navy Carriers stood still on dry land.

Not, say, sail at 30+knots surrounded by cruisers and destroyed with capability to down theater ballistics missiles.


Yeah, this. I guess if we anchor them off the coast of China they might be a little vulnerable.That and turn off all their countermeasures, too.
 
2013-01-31 07:56:26 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: And we all remember out calm reaction to the sinking of the USS Maine, to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and to the Gulf of Tonkin incident...


You mean all those false flag operations orchestrated by warmongering Presidents?

/ducks
 
2013-01-31 07:56:32 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


i123.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-31 07:56:34 AM  

spentmiles: Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?


This post? Yes.

4/10 for appeal to emotion and baked-in derpitude.
 
2013-01-31 07:59:29 AM  
Interesting.  So they put the outline of a box on the ground, buried some dynamite under it, blew it up and then let the tin foil hat types find it on google earth?

Truly, this is a clever plan by the Chinese to divert our attention from the discussions around infringing up our Second Amendment rights and whether or not Miley Cyrus has a smooth and hair-free vulva and focus is solely on crushing their communist arses.
 
2013-01-31 07:59:33 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


Yeah, but....wait a minute. You almost had me there. 7/10 - good use of imagery
 
2013-01-31 08:00:02 AM  
All that talk about dogs made me hungry.
 
2013-01-31 08:00:18 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


Awesome.  Having a ping pong table as a kid will finally pay off.
 
2013-01-31 08:01:05 AM  
spentmiles: long and crazy troll/joke attempt

*yawn* You're boring

In less hysterical news we'll be just fine.
0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-01-31 08:01:05 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


Troll, or just saw that shiatty Red Dawn remake? Hmmm...
 
2013-01-31 08:01:23 AM  

phamwaa: spentmiles: Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?

This post? Yes.

4/10 for appeal to emotion and baked-in derpitude.


I found doesn't get Spentmiles guy, call off the search.
 
2013-01-31 08:01:40 AM  
China won't ever directly attack us, we owe them way too much money. Should it come to a shooting war, not only would China get it's ass kicked by our superior military, they wouldn't see a dime of that money paid back.
 
2013-01-31 08:03:17 AM  

ronaprhys: Miley Cyrus has a smooth and hair-free vulva


Does she?
 
2013-01-31 08:04:30 AM  

BillCo: I blame the Republicans!


Didn't you post this on another thread

/not that it's wrong or anything, just saying
//wait, China can sink stuff on the open sea? Oh, shiat
 
2013-01-31 08:05:13 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.



That's right...you did not think.
www.pgpf.org  Link
 
2013-01-31 08:06:30 AM  

s1ugg0: spentmiles: long and crazy troll/joke attempt

*yawn* You're boring

In less hysterical news we'll be just fine.
[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 850x967]


That's a bit dated, The JFK, Kitty Hawk, and Big E are all decommed
 
2013-01-31 08:08:34 AM  

ib_thinkin: ronaprhys: Miley Cyrus has a smooth and hair-free vulva

Does she?


I dunno.  It's been some time since it was last seen publicly.  Since I'm at work, I'm not about to start searching.
 
2013-01-31 08:08:53 AM  

ib_thinkin: How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands


LOL... nice one...ping pong paddle.... heh.
 
2013-01-31 08:10:59 AM  
I guess if we ever decide to park one of our carriers in the Gobi, we'll really be in trouble.

Meanwhile, these things are actually going 30 knots out in the middle of the ocean surrounded by half a dozen ships all with anti-missile countermeasures.
 
2013-01-31 08:12:35 AM  
Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?
 
2013-01-31 08:15:49 AM  

Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?


You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.
 
2013-01-31 08:15:56 AM  

Mose: 2,000 km range... these are ballistic missiles I take it?


Solid-fueled IRBMs as per wikipedia's DF-21 page (can't link).
 
2013-01-31 08:15:59 AM  
spentmiles:

1.) How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
2.) How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
3.) How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
4.) How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?


1.) Less discomforting than the thought of an American military-state police doing the same, because that's a more likely scenario. While being the average Chinese citizen sucks more than being the average American citizen, the Chinese mind their own damn business. We're the ones sending troops all over the world on fools' errands.
2.) Delicious actually. Idiot beagle eats better than me.
3.) Sounds motivational
4.) Probably the same as having to play badminton for rations, because I suck at both. I'd probably starve.

The Chinese have defensive weapons, not offense. We have a military with enough funding to invade and hold most countries around the world - hell it only took us 1 month to decimate the world's former 4th largest army.

It's OUR leaders who've spent us into the ground on fruitless unconstitutional wars, demanded warrant free access to our e-mails, indefinite detention of American citizens, created the LARGEST police/prison population in the world, are seeking to revoke more of our 2nd amendment rights, and who are starting to turn our fancy weapons of war towards us. Why sweat a Chinese invasion, when Obama's got 20,000 drones flying over our heads?

In the end, the only power the Chinese have over us is some laughable pieces of paper we've been shoveling to them for their hard labor and raw materials. Paper promises we'll probably soon hyper-inflate away.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Surprisingly, many people think its about foreign invasion. Great and powerful nations don't get conquered overnight. They rot from the inside out long before that happens.
 
2013-01-31 08:17:58 AM  

Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?




Yeah basically. Not to mention Chinas war strategy includes mass manufacturing inexpensive attack drones. Swarm them like locusts.
 
2013-01-31 08:18:01 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


Will those Celestials on the Gulf coast be bringing any General Tso's with them or should I just order some spring rolls from the Vit-man-ese already there? Also, what's the current estimate of how many Chinese soldiers it takes to equal one American soldier? Is it like 12:1 or something? With the cuts because of the entitlement stuff will that fall to 10:1? Worse than 10:1? Because we cannot have that? And which navy's ships are the Chinamen gonna hitch rides to Alabama on? You think they're hiring and cabin boys? 'Cause I think it'd be swell to get in good with them before their boots hit our shores. I think I can make a killing on 100% pure ground manatee penis. It's the shiat for putting the oomph back into your jackhammer; makes rhino horn look like lizard teats. (Well it's really Hereford penis, but I can get the manatee penis once they get here and give me some protection.) If you want you can go in with me on the manatee penis. Sounds like you know a bunch about stuff and junk and it'd be really groovy to have a forward thinking motherf*cker like yourself on my side.
 
2013-01-31 08:19:04 AM  
One of the best things on FARK is seeing all the indignation at the painfully obvious, yet very humorous satirical posts by  spentmiles

Now watch the people who got caught by him vanish from the thread.
 
2013-01-31 08:20:56 AM  

Meethos: One of the best things on FARK is seeing all the indignation at the painfully obvious, yet very humorous satirical posts by  spentmiles

Now watch the people who got caught by him vanish from the thread.


I wouldn't call them particularly humorous.  Mildly amusing, at best.  However, seeing those that respond to him is truly amusing.
 
2013-01-31 08:23:25 AM  
I'm astonished how many people think we'd actually retaliate if one of our carriers were attacked. We'd probably apologize to China for our carrier being there in the first place, then ask to borrow some more money.
 
2013-01-31 08:25:02 AM  

bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.


Oh, I'm not suggesting it's a smart thing to do.  But I am suggesting an expensive surface fleet including nearly as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined might not be a great investment when A) there's no opposing Navy to fight and B) there's a relatively cheap way to disable those expensive ships.
 
2013-01-31 08:29:06 AM  
Those are pretty interesting ejecta patterns. Doesn't seem to be a very oblique trajectory.
 
2013-01-31 08:32:31 AM  

taurusowner: I'm astonished how many people think we'd actually retaliate if one of our carriers were attacked. We'd probably apologize to China for our carrier being there in the first place, then ask to borrow some more money.


Kind of like when they took out one of our spy planes a few years back?
 
2013-01-31 08:32:39 AM  
Oh, scary. If only we had some way of shooting down ballistic missiles.

Oh wait, our Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers can already do that.
 
2013-01-31 08:38:18 AM  
Came here to say I love spentmiles.  no  homo.
 
2013-01-31 08:39:34 AM  

Baryogenesis: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's a smart thing to do.  But I am suggesting an expensive surface fleet including nearly as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined might not be a great investment when A) there's no opposing Navy to fight and B) there's a relatively cheap way to disable those expensive ships.


There may be a cheap way to do it...but we have ways to defeat it (and many of the ships in a carrier group are prepared to do it already)...so it isn't that easy.

And, a large carrier force isn't really about WW3 anymore. It's about showing force in specific areas. Sure, they are expensive and it is highly doubtful we'd ever be in a massive naval war like the pacific in ww2...but the numbers are such a hinderance that there really isn't an avenue for another country to even build up the numbers to compete.

Also, when you mean cheap...sure, one singular missile is cheap. And, a pack of missiles is cheap. But, as you point out, you realize it isn't smart. That's the point. To be successful, they would need to launch a dozen of them. Once that happens, that fake carrier in the Gobi would probably be one of the few places in china not smoking.
 
2013-01-31 08:40:04 AM  

s1ugg0: spentmiles: long and crazy troll/joke attempt

*yawn* You're boring

In less hysterical news we'll be just fine.
[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 850x967]


That picture is part of the reason we are in so much debt.  Our army is bloated
 
2013-01-31 08:43:14 AM  
There is an active PLAAF airfield about 7km from this target. I HIGHLY doubt they are shooting test ballistic missiles at a target so close to the airfield. More than likely these are craters from gravity bombs from the Flankers at the airfield.
 
2013-01-31 08:44:18 AM  
Hit?  Sure.  Sunk?  Not so sure about that.

And the US tends to put bunch of other ships around that big one.  Those might have some measure of effect upon the weapon.
 
2013-01-31 08:44:26 AM  

bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.


Yup. If even one missile hits, China's population will drop from "India" to "Indiana" within 24 hours.
 
2013-01-31 08:44:42 AM  

ltdanman44: s1ugg0: spentmiles: long and crazy troll/joke attempt

*yawn* You're boring

In less hysterical news we'll be just fine.
[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 850x967]

That picture is part of the reason we are in so much debt.  Our army is bloated


That picture would be indicative that our Navy is bloated.  Its also showing some carriers that have been decommissioned.  Which still leaves us with more than anyone else, of course, but just saying...
 
2013-01-31 08:44:59 AM  
Aside from their powerplants and the shape of their decks, Navy carrier design hasn't really changed since 1945. They're all basically built the same way the USS Midway was, which means they're actually designed to survive an impressive amount of battle damage.
 
2013-01-31 08:45:40 AM  
Not only that, the Chinese have recently perfected the means to pee-pee in our Coke.
 
2013-01-31 08:45:43 AM  

bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's a smart thing to do.  But I am suggesting an expensive surface fleet including nearly as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined might not be a great investment when A) there's no opposing Navy to fight and B) there's a relatively cheap way to disable those expensive ships.

There may be a cheap way to do it...but we have ways to defeat it (and many of the ships in a carrier group are prepared to do it already)...so it isn't that easy.

And, a large carrier force isn't really about WW3 anymore. It's about showing force in specific areas. Sure, they are expensive and it is highly doubtful we'd ever be in a massive naval war like the pacific in ww2...but the numbers are such a hinderance that there really isn't an avenue for another country to even build up the numbers to compete.

Also, when you mean cheap...sure, one singular missile is cheap. And, a pack of missiles is cheap. But, as you point out, you realize it isn't smart. That's the point. To be successful, they would need to launch a dozen of them. Once that happens, that fake carrier in the Gobi would probably be one of the few places in china not smoking.


you really think the US would respond with nuclear weapons against cities if it lost carriers?

i find this difficult to believe.
 
2013-01-31 08:47:20 AM  

g4lt: Yawn.  BTDT, World War 2.  CV-6

[www.cv6.org image 564x121]
This was on 10/26/42.  On November 13, she participated in Guadalcanal.


Well clearly they just have to hit  DF-20D, DF-19D, and DF-18D, but the game is basically over.
 
2013-01-31 08:47:53 AM  
If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.
 
2013-01-31 08:48:03 AM  
"the nationalistic Chinese tabloid Global Times stated that the weapon was only designed for self-defense"

I always love the self-defense line when describing weapons.  Who does that actually placate anyway?  It's a long range self-defense guided rocket with lots of self-defense explosives on it.  We're gunna self-defense you till you die from it.
 
2013-01-31 08:48:10 AM  

Zeno-25: Oh, scary. If only we had some way of shooting down ballistic missiles.
Oh wait, our Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers can already do that.


Yeah... imagine if that defenseless white square in the desert had a Phalanx CIWS protecting it.
 
2013-01-31 08:49:45 AM  
No, that is why I didn't say flattened or irradiated or anything. I think it is silly to think the US would react with nuclear weapons if this was a singular act.

If China was going with the "sink a carrier" strategy, I've got to assume that there would be more than just that singular act, though...so who knows what would happen in a full out war.

But, I said "smoking" because I'm sure the sinking of a carrier/carrier group would involve the destruction of one or more bases directly connected with the launching of said missiles.
 
2013-01-31 08:55:00 AM  

King Something: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Yup. If even one missile hits, China's population will drop from "India" to "Indiana" within 24 hours.




I seriously doubt it. At most: we'd probably target whatever they have that could be considered a "capital ship," or "capital junk," if you will. (Probably a paddle-boat or something.) We'd sortie some planes over international (but disputed) waters to see if they wanted to throw away some aircraft as well.
 
2013-01-31 08:55:13 AM  
Others can tell me if I am wrong but I would think it take more then a dozen missiles fire to deal with a carrier.  Form what I have read and know form friends in the navy a carrier group has what like a 400 mile circle that it has ships/aircraft moving in at any time.  Would not the fighters deal with most of them before they go the group itself and the ships deal with the rest.   I would think you need to fire off more like 20-30 to do it. That or be a one way mission via sub that waited stone cold in the water(no power plant on or such) and launched it at the last sec.
 
2013-01-31 08:55:16 AM  

Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.


Oh please; a ballistic missile at terminal speeds is so far outside a CIWS' reaction range that it would hit before the Phalanx even knew it was there. However, just firing a load of MRBM's shotgun style at a CVBG is nothing but desperation; you'd need more than a dozen fired at a time to have a chance of hitting anything, much less one particular ship moving at 30+ knots on an unpredictable course. Do these missiles have some kind of terminal homing guidance? That would help but it cuts down on the warhead size and buys the defenses time to acquire and shoot it down as well.

Of course, they could be putting 10kT warheads on those MRBM's and figuring "close enough is good enough", figuring we wouldn't retaliate in kind if they nuked holes in the ocean. Kind of a risky bet IMO though.
 
2013-01-31 08:55:55 AM  

bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's a smart thing to do.  But I am suggesting an expensive surface fleet including nearly as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined might not be a great investment when A) there's no opposing Navy to fight and B) there's a relatively cheap way to disable those expensive ships.

There may be a cheap way to do it...but we have ways to defeat it (and many of the ships in a carrier group are prepared to do it already)...so it isn't that easy.

And, a large carrier force isn't really about WW3 anymore. It's about showing force in specific areas. Sure, they are expensive and it is highly doubtful we'd ever be in a massive naval war like the pacific in ww2...but the numbers are such a hinderance that there really isn't an avenue for another country to even build up the numbers to compete.

Also, when you mean cheap...sure, one singular missile is cheap. And, a pack of missiles is cheap. But, as you point out, you realize it isn't smart. That's the point. To be successful, they would need to launch a dozen of them. Once that happens, that fake carrier in the Gobi would probably be one of the few places in china not smoking.


A) No one ever fights our navy and we've got a bloated fleet "projecting force" against 3rd world despots.  Waste
B) Shiat actually does go down, but since building a comparable Navy isn't possible for the enemy, the next best thing is probably a swarm missile attack.  A few thousand relatively cheap missiles disable our carrier groups. Waste

Obviously, anti ship missiles aren't a first strike weapon unless you're a terrorist organization, but that's not the point I'm arguing.
 
2013-01-31 08:58:21 AM  
Obviously they just need to install a balistic missle free zone on the carrier and then have nothing to worry about
 
2013-01-31 08:58:49 AM  

Father_Jack: you really think the US would respond with nuclear weapons against cities if it lost carriers?

i find this difficult to believe.


No, if America has learned anything from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's that the world respects disproportionate civilian casualties.
 
2013-01-31 08:59:01 AM  

Bendal: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Oh please; a ballistic missile at terminal speeds is so far outside a CIWS' reaction range that it would hit before the Phalanx even knew it was there. However, just firing a load of MRBM's shotgun style at a CVBG is nothing but desperation; you'd need more than a dozen fired at a time to have a chance of hitting anything, much less one particular ship moving at 30+ knots on an unpredictable course. Do these missiles have some kind of terminal homing guidance? That would help but it cuts down on the warhead size and buys the defenses time to acquire and shoot it down as well.

Of course, they could be putting 10kT warheads on those MRBM's and figuring "close enough is good enough", figuring we wouldn't retaliate in kind if they nuked holes in the ocean. Kind of a risky bet IMO though.


You're telling me a Phalanx system wouldn't be about to shoot down almost any missile targeting a military naval vessel?  Why do they even bother to put them on the ships, then?
 
2013-01-31 08:59:20 AM  

Father_Jack: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's a smart thing to do.  But I am suggesting an expensive surface fleet including nearly as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined might not be a great investment when A) there's no opposing Navy to fight and B) there's a relatively cheap way to disable those expensive ships.

There may be a cheap way to do it...but we have ways to defeat it (and many of the ships in a carrier group are prepared to do it already)...so it isn't that easy.

And, a large carrier force isn't really about WW3 anymore. It's about showing force in specific areas. Sure, they are expensive and it is highly doubtful we'd ever be in a massive naval war like the pacific in ww2...but the numbers are such a hinderance that there really isn't an avenue for another country to even build up the numbers to compete.

Also, when you mean cheap...sure, one singular missile is cheap. And, a pack of missiles is cheap. But, as you point out, you realize it isn't smart. That's the point. To be successful, they would need to launch a dozen of them. Once that happens, that fake carrier in the Gobi would probably be one of the few places in china not smoking.

you really think the US would respond with nuclear weapons against cities if it lost carriers?

i find this difficult to believe.


No, but the CVBG has, at last count, about 5-600 nonnuclear land attack missiles (a 144-cell loadout is typically about half SM-2, half TLAM, with only a few specials, and there's quite a few ships in those rings).  These guys just lost their immediate boss, do you think they're coming home with full magazines?
 
2013-01-31 08:59:44 AM  

Joe Blowme: Obviously they just need to install a balistic missle ballistic missile free zone on the carrier and then have nothing to worry about


FTFM
 
2013-01-31 09:00:09 AM  

Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.


I think their philosophy is: "If one of something can't do the job throw a billion somethings at it." Yes, Phalanx is the sh*t, but don't get all secure feeling. A little bit of healthy doubt / caution is a good thing.
 
2013-01-31 09:01:06 AM  
A few thousand relatively cheap missiles disable our carrier groups. Waste

Now you are getting so far out of the realm of reasonableness that it is silly.

What nation/organization is going to have thousands of these missiles with the ability to send them to all of our carrier groups?

Yes, a dozen or 24 of these things might put a dent in one carrier group. Yes, that would be relatively cheap when thinking of the cost of that carrier group.

That's a pretty specific and overall incomplete picture.
 
2013-01-31 09:02:18 AM  

Cythraul: Bendal: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Oh please; a ballistic missile at terminal speeds is so far outside a CIWS' reaction range that it would hit before the Phalanx even knew it was there. However, just firing a load of MRBM's shotgun style at a CVBG is nothing but desperation; you'd need more than a dozen fired at a time to have a chance of hitting anything, much less one particular ship moving at 30+ knots on an unpredictable course. Do these missiles have some kind of terminal homing guidance? That would help but it cuts down on the warhead size and buys the defenses time to acquire and shoot it down as well.

Of course, they could be putting 10kT warheads on those MRBM's and figuring "close enough is good enough", figuring we wouldn't retaliate in kind if they nuked holes in the ocean. Kind of a risky bet IMO though.

You're telling me a Phalanx system wouldn't be about to shoot down almost any missile targeting a military naval vessel?  Why do they even bother to put them on the ships, then?


http://www.ndu.edu/press/end-of-surface-warships.html
 
2013-01-31 09:02:45 AM  
Besides all the propaganda horse shiat, China and other nations are nonetheless investing in these "carrier-killer" missiles.

The Phalanx CIWS from what I've heard is extremely effective, plus there are other countermeasures, and the surrounding carrier group with their anti-missile systems, and 65+ years of naval doctrine, and the ability of those big ships to really take a beating without sinking.
So is it really a plausible strategy? I mean maybe if you fired off like five hundred of these things at a time. But how much is that going to cost?
I really wonder if US naval strategists consider this a realistic strategy, or if they're concerned about other threats more.
 
2013-01-31 09:02:52 AM  
been created by China's DF-21D anti-ship missile, dubbed the "carrier killer."

aircraft carriers are weird, they don't really have a lot of in-site defenses, it's almost like they need support ships or airplanes or something that can defend them. we outta equip our aircraft carriers with anti-missile defenses of some kind.
 
2013-01-31 09:03:23 AM  

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse? They do realize if they hit a carrier it's game on right?


If they fired the missiles at carriers, the game was already on.

And then what will the US do? Send the remaining carriers for the same helping of woopass?

If there was one thing the Falklands war taught the world was that large ships in a real war are nothing more than money sinks and sitting ducks, even for conventional weapons.

The US knows this, and it was already proven beyond any doubt that their carrier battle groups are a disaster waiting to happen. See the Millenium Challenge 2002 outcome.
 
2013-01-31 09:03:31 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

I think their philosophy is: "If one of something can't do the job throw a billion somethings at it." Yes, Phalanx is the sh*t, but don't get all secure feeling. A little bit of healthy doubt / caution is a good thing.


Unless Bendal is right, I'd imagine overwhelming it with multiple missiles would be one of the few ways to screw over the Phalanx system.
 
2013-01-31 09:03:50 AM  

spamdog: I really wonder if US naval strategists consider this a realistic strategy, or if they're concerned about other threats more.


like funding cuts by a black liberal muslim missile.
 
2013-01-31 09:03:53 AM  

Cythraul: Bendal: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Oh please; a ballistic missile at terminal speeds is so far outside a CIWS' reaction range that it would hit before the Phalanx even knew it was there. However, just firing a load of MRBM's shotgun style at a CVBG is nothing but desperation; you'd need more than a dozen fired at a time to have a chance of hitting anything, much less one particular ship moving at 30+ knots on an unpredictable course. Do these missiles have some kind of terminal homing guidance? That would help but it cuts down on the warhead size and buys the defenses time to acquire and shoot it down as well.

Of course, they could be putting 10kT warheads on those MRBM's and figuring "close enough is good enough", figuring we wouldn't retaliate in kind if they nuked holes in the ocean. Kind of a risky bet IMO though.

You're telling me a Phalanx system wouldn't be about to shoot down almost any missile targeting a military naval vessel?  Why do they even bother to put them on the ships, then?


What don't you understand about Phalanx vs. ballistic missile scenario? The word ballistic?
 
2013-01-31 09:06:08 AM  

Baryogenesis: Cythraul: Bendal: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Oh please; a ballistic missile at terminal speeds is so far outside a CIWS' reaction range that it would hit before the Phalanx even knew it was there. However, just firing a load of MRBM's shotgun style at a CVBG is nothing but desperation; you'd need more than a dozen fired at a time to have a chance of hitting anything, much less one particular ship moving at 30+ knots on an unpredictable course. Do these missiles have some kind of terminal homing guidance? That would help but it cuts down on the warhead size and buys the defenses time to acquire and shoot it down as well.

Of course, they could be putting 10kT warheads on those MRBM's and figuring "close enough is good enough", figuring we wouldn't retaliate in kind if they nuked holes in the ocean. Kind of a risky bet IMO though.

You're telling me a Phalanx system wouldn't be about to shoot down almost any missile targeting a military naval vessel?  Why do they even bother to put them on the ships, then?

http://www.ndu.edu/press/end-of-surface-warships.html

FTA: In other words, the Achilles' heel of every ship-borne system is that it is only effective as long as it has rounds to fire, which take up room on a ship and demand a lot of fuel to haul. So the farther we go from home base, the more expensive resupply becomes and the longer it takes. On the other hand, a land-based missile system can keep firing rounds indefinitely. In other words, all any nation has to do to destroy one of our most valuable military assets-our capital ships-is to keep firing missiles (no matter how cheap or inferior they are) until the ship runs out of the rounds needed to defend itself.


Well, that sucks.
 
2013-01-31 09:06:11 AM  
China sinking one of our carriers would be great.

It's not like we need so farking many of them anyway, and we could just take the cost of it off of the money we owe them... in fact, I'd invite them to sink 2 or 3 of them.
 
2013-01-31 09:06:33 AM  

King Something: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Yup. If even one missile hits, China's population will drop from "India" to "Indiana" within 24 hours.


I doubt (baring a nuclear strike on the continental US) that we would kill a billion (or even a few 10's of millions) people in retaliation for the sinking of a carrier.  I'm pretty "hawkish" in general but I just can't see that type of response ever being made as a rational decision.  Even IF we weren't already in a "hot" conflict - ie. A surprise attack sinking one of our carriers for being too close to the mainland or Taiwan or whatever - I just don't see a nuclear response.

I'd assume we would destroy every single military target we could find using almost exclusively conventional arms... their entire Navy, remote bases, factories, gov't buildings.  But vaporizing the entire east coast of China would (IMHO) only be the response to multiple nuclear missiles used on the US first.
 
2013-01-31 09:07:13 AM  

Old enough to know better: Hmmm, they sink one of our carriers,we irradiate most of their major cities. Sounds like a fair trade to me.




I doubt China's regime will care for that. For years they have been trying to push down their population growth.

And just FYI, China also has nukes, and is quite able to throw them at the US just as easily. And before you go on with a rah rah WW2 propaganda song, China is no nazi Germany, and the next WW will not be such a picknick.
 
2013-01-31 09:07:58 AM  

bulldg4life: A few thousand relatively cheap missiles disable our carrier groups. Waste

Now you are getting so far out of the realm of reasonableness that it is silly.

What nation/organization is going to have thousands of these missiles with the ability to send them to all of our carrier groups?

Yes, a dozen or 24 of these things might put a dent in one carrier group. Yes, that would be relatively cheap when thinking of the cost of that carrier group.

That's a pretty specific and overall incomplete picture.


The only carrier groups that matter would be the ones who could engage the enemy.  Why would a nation on the Pacific care about a US fleet in the Atlantic?  Any carrier group we bring in range will also be in range of their missiles.
 
2013-01-31 09:08:07 AM  

g4lt: These guys just lost their immediate boss, do you think they're coming home with full magazines?


You think they're pointing them at metropolitan areas?
 
2013-01-31 09:08:16 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: Bendal: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Oh please; a ballistic missile at terminal speeds is so far outside a CIWS' reaction range that it would hit before the Phalanx even knew it was there. However, just firing a load of MRBM's shotgun style at a CVBG is nothing but desperation; you'd need more than a dozen fired at a time to have a chance of hitting anything, much less one particular ship moving at 30+ knots on an unpredictable course. Do these missiles have some kind of terminal homing guidance? That would help but it cuts down on the warhead size and buys the defenses time to acquire and shoot it down as well.

Of course, they could be putting 10kT warheads on those MRBM's and figuring "close enough is good enough", figuring we wouldn't retaliate in kind if they nuked holes in the ocean. Kind of a risky bet IMO though.

You're telling me a Phalanx system wouldn't be about to shoot down almost any missile targeting a military naval vessel?  Why do they even bother to put them on the ships, then?

What don't you understand about Phalanx vs. ballistic missile scenario? The word ballistic?


What the fark are you talking about?  Exactly what do you think the word 'ballistic' means?
 
2013-01-31 09:12:12 AM  

Zeno-25: Oh, scary. If only we had some way of shooting down ballistic missiles.

Oh wait, our Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers can already do that.




How sure are you? Because that's the exact same thing the british said about their air defense system when they went to retake the Falklands from Argentina, and they ended up losing 2 destroyers and 2 frigates to a vastly outmatched military.
 
2013-01-31 09:13:49 AM  
Wow. Every single Farker not familiar with spentmiles is in one thread.
 
2013-01-31 09:14:09 AM  

Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.


Can that shoot vertical?
 
2013-01-31 09:14:45 AM  

Cinaed: Hit?  Sure.  Sunk?  Not so sure about that.

And the US tends to put bunch of other ships around that big one.  Those might have some measure of effect upon the weapon.



Countries like China tend to have more than a single missile, and they tend to have enough military people around to be able to fire more than a single missile at a time.

But keep believing in this mysterious invincibility you are imagining, because that will serve you well when the shiat hits the fan.
 
2013-01-31 09:15:20 AM  

maggoo: yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse? They do realize if they hit a carrier it's game on right?

If they fired the missiles at carriers, the game was already on.

And then what will the US do? Send the remaining carriers for the same helping of woopass?

If there was one thing the Falklands war taught the world was that large ships in a real war are nothing more than money sinks and sitting ducks, even for conventional weapons.

The US knows this, and it was already proven beyond any doubt that their carrier battle groups are a disaster waiting to happen. See the Millenium Challenge 2002 outcome.


Did you look at the TOE for MC02?  Of course they were flooded, it was FIVE FRIGGING SHIPS.
 
2013-01-31 09:16:15 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

I think their philosophy is: "If one of something can't do the job throw a billion somethings at it." Yes, Phalanx is the sh*t, but don't get all secure feeling. A little bit of healthy doubt / caution is a good thing.


Swarm tactics.  The Chinese have never been afraid to take casualties.  If they care less about their men imagine their attitude towards hardware.

Besides, if they run out of these things they can always throw iPods.
 
2013-01-31 09:17:16 AM  
Can't point to all the sources, but information gleamed from a couple of dozen articles over the last year or so:

- Maneuverable warheads (nuke or HE, it really don't matter to much) comes down at high hypersonic speeds (Mach 10-15)
- Initial target data from satellites, active radar guidance in the warhead
- Time from initial target acquisition to impact around 20 minutes, meaning the vessels can at best move 20-30 km - well within the maneuvering capabilities of the warhead
- Persistent rumors of a MIRVed missile
- Even if the CIWS manages to hit the approaching warhead the wreckage will still hit the flight deck - at the very least putting the carrier out of commission until the wreckage of all the planes parked there is cleaned up.

Would it be a wise move of China to start taking potshots on US carriers? Not really - but since a DF-21D is a fair bit cheaper than a carrier, it's a good trade from their point of view IF it gets to be a shooting war.
 
2013-01-31 09:17:59 AM  

maggoo: yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse? They do realize if they hit a carrier it's game on right?

If they fired the missiles at carriers, the game was already on.

And then what will the US do? Send the remaining carriers for the same helping of woopass?

If there was one thing the Falklands war taught the world was that large ships in a real war are nothing more than money sinks and sitting ducks, even for conventional weapons.

The US knows this, and it was already proven beyond any doubt that their carrier battle groups are a disaster waiting to happen. See the Millenium Challenge 2002 outcome.


Apologize and beg for forgiveness for being a racist country? If it happens between now and 2016, after that who know what th US would do.
 
2013-01-31 09:18:44 AM  
Mose: "Like if we decided to park a carrier group in or near Taiwan?"

Taiwan is about 100 miles off the coast of mainland China.
So, no, a 2000km range ballistic missile is not about defending China against anything parked in the vicinity of Taiwan.
 
2013-01-31 09:18:51 AM  

Cythraul: You're telling me a Phalanx system wouldn't be about to shoot down almost any missile targeting a military naval vessel? Why do they even bother to put them on the ships, then?




For the same reason militaries supply helmets and ballistic protection gear to their troops: because although they might actually not be effective, they work as a psychological tool to help the soldiers dive head first into a fire fight without worrying too much about all the bullets flying around.
 
2013-01-31 09:18:55 AM  

ib_thinkin: g4lt: These guys just lost their immediate boss, do you think they're coming home with full magazines?

You think they're pointing them at metropolitan areas?


I think that the Tomahawk console is VERY flexible, and could set up to target pretty much anything that the ship knew about when weapons free got called.  On AEgis, that means "whatever the CO wants to level"
 
2013-01-31 09:19:33 AM  

Cythraul: Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

I think their philosophy is: "If one of something can't do the job throw a billion somethings at it." Yes, Phalanx is the sh*t, but don't get all secure feeling. A little bit of healthy doubt / caution is a good thing.

Unless Bendal is right, I'd imagine overwhelming it with multiple missiles would be one of the few ways to screw over the Phalanx system.




I think the Phalanx is awesome, as are the ships that protect carriers, but there are two ways I see an aircraft carrier really getting pounded. First is to be numerically overwhelmed. I would think this would take several dozen missiles incoming nearly simultaneously, at the very least. (A very tough thing to pull off.) The other thing would be if someone truly developed a ballistic missile capable of targeting a moving carrier with very high precision. (This would be hard enough to do with a small nuke, much less a conventional warhead.) I think that this might be an easily obtainable goal to accomplish, though, considering where technology is today. I think the technology is out there that would allow a fire-and-forget type ballistic warhead to optically guide itself onto a large moving target. (Don't know if it's workable yet, or if China has it.) If it's not already been developed, I guarantee someone's working on it. You won't be able to jam it. There are probably other countermeasures you could use, though, but it would be a dangerous farker...
 
2013-01-31 09:19:34 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: Bendal: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Oh please; a ballistic missile at terminal speeds is so far outside a CIWS' reaction range that it would hit before the Phalanx even knew it was there. However, just firing a load of MRBM's shotgun style at a CVBG is nothing but desperation; you'd need more than a dozen fired at a time to have a chance of hitting anything, much less one particular ship moving at 30+ knots on an unpredictable course. Do these missiles have some kind of terminal homing guidance? That would help but it cuts down on the warhead size and buys the defenses time to acquire and shoot it down as well.

Of course, they could be putting 10kT warheads on those MRBM's and figuring "close enough is good enough", figuring we wouldn't retaliate in kind if they nuked holes in the ocean. Kind of a risky bet IMO though.

You're telling me a Phalanx system wouldn't be about to shoot down almost any missile targeting a military naval vessel?  Why do they even bother to put them on the ships, then?

What don't you understand about Phalanx vs. ballistic missile scenario? The word ballistic?


Indeed.  CIWS wouldn't protect against ballistic threats.  You aren't talking about a MACH 2-3 sea skimmer here, you are referring to a mach 10+ rod dropping straight out of the sky.

Besides, CIWS isn't all that super effective/efficient to begin with.  Is it badass?  Certainly.  RAM is better (which is why CIWS is being replaced).  But there is a reason why its a last resort.  SM2's and other intermediate range missiles (ina ddition to a CV's fighters and their weapons) are the primary defense system for incoming missiles

The SM3's used for ballistic missile defense are only effective in boost phase, IIRC (someone please correct me if I am wrong) so depending on how far out the CV is when they launch the Aegis Cruisers may/may not be helpful.  Once these things go terminal the best defense is maneuver, things going that fast don't exactly duck and move.  The US managed to get its ICBM's very accurate (10ish meters I think) but thats against a stationary target.  Striking a moving object like a carrier thats not just moving but actively maneuvering at high speed.  30knots is about 50f/sec, and when interceptions take minutes that ballistic missile better have decent maneuvering and good guidance, or you better have the craziest luck in the world.  In one minute that carrier is just shy of 2/3s of a mile from where it was at launch.
 
2013-01-31 09:19:51 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: China sinking one of our carriers would be great.

It's not like we need so farking many of them anyway, and we could just take the cost of it off of the money we owe them... in fact, I'd invite them to sink 2 or 3 of them.


Yes because those ships are run completely by remote control, and not by thousands of sailors. Asshole
 
2013-01-31 09:21:15 AM  

King Something: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Yup. If even one missile hits, China's population will drop from "India" to "Indiana" within 24 hours.


The problem with that idea is that after that, the population of the US might also take a bit of a hit.  The PLA strategic rocket forces has ballistic missiles that can hit the United States:

 upload.wikimedia.org

Of course, we know where they are, for the most part, and they'd be targeted first, but if it came down to tensions so high that they think sinking a US aircraft carrier is a good idea, they'd probably launch on warning anyway, so our missiles would likely be hitting empty silos.
 
2013-01-31 09:21:56 AM  

WegianWarrior: Can't point to all the sources, but information gleamed from a couple of dozen articles over the last year or so:

- Maneuverable warheads (nuke or HE, it really don't matter to much) comes down at high hypersonic speeds (Mach 10-15)
- Initial target data from satellites, active radar guidance in the warhead
- Time from initial target acquisition to impact around 20 minutes, meaning the vessels can at best move 20-30 km - well within the maneuvering capabilities of the warhead
- Persistent rumors of a MIRVed missile
- Even if the CIWS manages to hit the approaching warhead the wreckage will still hit the flight deck - at the very least putting the carrier out of commission until the wreckage of all the planes parked there is cleaned up.

Would it be a wise move of China to start taking potshots on US carriers? Not really - but since a DF-21D is a fair bit cheaper than a carrier, it's a good trade from their point of view IF it gets to be a shooting war.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System  BOOM
 
2013-01-31 09:23:36 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

I think their philosophy is: "If one of something can't do the job throw a billion somethings at it." Yes, Phalanx is the sh*t, but don't get all secure feeling. A little bit of healthy doubt / caution is a good thing.

Unless Bendal is right, I'd imagine overwhelming it with multiple missiles would be one of the few ways to screw over the Phalanx system.

I think the Phalanx is awesome, as are the ships that protect carriers, but there are two ways I see an aircraft carrier really getting pounded. First is to be numerically overwhelmed. I would think this would take several dozen missiles incoming nearly simultaneously, at the very least. (A very tough thing to pull off.) The other thing would be if someone truly developed a ballistic missile capable of targeting a moving carrier with very high precision. (This would be hard enough to do with a small nuke, much less a conventional warhead.) I think that this might be an easily obtainable goal to accomplish, though, considering where technology is today. I think the technology is out there that would allow a fire-and-forget type ballistic warhead to optically guide itself onto a large moving target. (Don't know if it's workable yet, or if China has it.) If it's not already been developed, I guarantee someone's working on it. You won't be able to jam it. There are probably other countermeasures you could use, though, but it would be a dangerous farker...


I'm not aware of other counter measures.  But from the article someone posted earlier (which mentions your theory), and from other Farker comments, the Phalanx system is not a perfect defense system.

It seems is the missile is fast enough, the CIWS may not be able to react in time, according to a earlier poster.
 
2013-01-31 09:24:26 AM  
Lets assume for just a minute - the missiles are 100% effective either individually or in swarm and the Chinese  have enough of them to sink any carrier group that gets in range.

They lack the means to project power outside of the range of the missiles.  They lack the means to protect from conventional counter missile fire.  Any "war" that would have them seriously consider sinking a US carrier (and again we assume they CAN do it - because the probably could, given the will) either has to go full nuclear or we will completely end their ability to trade economically anywhere using the ocean as a means of transport - even IF we decide NOT to cripple their industrial infrastructure.

Military dick waving aside it would be economic suicide to start a war with the US - we are both their largest trading partner and have the means to deny them the rest of the world.
 
2013-01-31 09:26:55 AM  

Fizpez: Military dick waving aside it would be economic suicide to start a war with the US - we are both their largest trading partner and have the means to deny them the rest of the world.


Yeah, I don't think we'll be going to war with China any time soon.  But let's hope that two things do not come to pass: 1) China no longer needs us economically, and 2) They start to get the imperialist itch.
 
2013-01-31 09:27:14 AM  

g4lt: WegianWarrior: Can't point to all the sources, but information gleamed from a couple of dozen articles over the last year or so:

- Maneuverable warheads (nuke or HE, it really don't matter to much) comes down at high hypersonic speeds (Mach 10-15)
- Initial target data from satellites, active radar guidance in the warhead
- Time from initial target acquisition to impact around 20 minutes, meaning the vessels can at best move 20-30 km - well within the maneuvering capabilities of the warhead
- Persistent rumors of a MIRVed missile
- Even if the CIWS manages to hit the approaching warhead the wreckage will still hit the flight deck - at the very least putting the carrier out of commission until the wreckage of all the planes parked there is cleaned up.

Would it be a wise move of China to start taking potshots on US carriers? Not really - but since a DF-21D is a fair bit cheaper than a carrier, it's a good trade from their point of view IF it gets to be a shooting war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System   BOOM


Then it becomes a question of "how many targets can AEGIS engage at once" vs "How many DF-21Ds can China launch at the same time"? I strongly suspect the later number is larger - more so if the DF-21D is indeed MIRVed...
 
2013-01-31 09:29:51 AM  

maggoo: See the Millenium Challenge 2002 outcome.


Wow. The first go at it was exciting as hell to read, and that was only two days of the two week exercise? And then the rest of it was about as entertaining as watching Top Gun.
 
2013-01-31 09:31:28 AM  

BillCo: I blame the Republicans!


Sanity creeping in?
 
2013-01-31 09:31:34 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Striking a moving object like a carrier thats not just moving but actively maneuvering at high speed.  30knots is about 50f/sec, and when interceptions take minutes that ballistic missile better have decent maneuvering and good guidance, or you better have the craziest luck in the world.  In one minute that carrier is just shy of 2/3s of a mile from where it was at launch.


Small nuke.

The base DF-21 missile is commonly equipped with a nuclear warhead.  Using one in place of a conventional warhead in the "anti-carrier" version would seem to be a no-brainer if you were really serious.
 
2013-01-31 09:32:01 AM  

g4lt: Did you look at the TOE for MC02? Of course they were flooded, it was FIVE FRIGGING SHIPS.


Says they lost sixteen in the first two days. I dunno, but I'm going with Wikipedia on this one.
 
2013-01-31 09:32:46 AM  

Fizpez: Lets assume for just a minute - the missiles are 100% effective either individually or in swarm and the Chinese have enough of them to sink any carrier group that gets in range.

They lack the means to project power outside of the range of the missiles. They lack the means to protect from conventional counter missile fire. Any "war" that would have them seriously consider sinking a US carrier (and again we assume they CAN do it - because the probably could, given the will) either has to go full nuclear or we will completely end their ability to trade economically anywhere using the ocean as a means of transport - even IF we decide NOT to cripple their industrial infrastructure.

Military dick waving aside it would be economic suicide to start a war with the US - we are both their largest trading partner and have the means to deny them the rest of the world.




How sure are you? Because nowadays the only advantage the US has is its wealth and control of a significant number of multinational corportations, and all those corporations happen to make their products in.... China.

In addition, the US is being kept afloat by loans from China, so the US's wealth advantage is actually disappearing quite rapidly.

And as a cherry on top, multinational corporations tend not to be too caught up in allegiances to specific states. If shiat hits the fan, they will just as easily work for the world's current dominating world empire, which is China, instead of sticking with the has-been.
 
2013-01-31 09:33:51 AM  

Freakjob_0: Two hits and it's considered sunk?


Two hits which put craters on the flight deck would render it pretty useless, no?
 
2013-01-31 09:34:38 AM  

g4lt: I think that the Tomahawk console is VERY flexible, and could set up to target pretty much anything that the ship knew about when weapons free got called. On AEgis, that means "whatever the CO wants to level"


I don't doubt that they have the capability to aim at civilians, or even to fire at civilians. Do you think that's what they're going to do?
 
2013-01-31 09:35:09 AM  

WegianWarrior: Then it becomes a question of "how many targets can AEGIS engage at once" vs "How many DF-21Ds can China launch at the same time"? I strongly suspect the later number is larger - more so if the DF-21D is indeed MIRVed...


Why would they MIRV something like that?  MIRVs are great for targets that don't move:  You can program them to head to different places (but still within a very constrained total area:  Physics dominates this).  But for targeting ships that could be maneuvering and decoying?  That just seems like a wasted effort, *AND* it reduces the size of any single warhead.  That's not that big an issue for a nuclear warhead, but it does make a difference for a conventional, or even a simple kinetic warhead.
 
2013-01-31 09:36:27 AM  

WegianWarrior: g4lt: WegianWarrior: Can't point to all the sources, but information gleamed from a couple of dozen articles over the last year or so:

- Maneuverable warheads (nuke or HE, it really don't matter to much) comes down at high hypersonic speeds (Mach 10-15)
- Initial target data from satellites, active radar guidance in the warhead
- Time from initial target acquisition to impact around 20 minutes, meaning the vessels can at best move 20-30 km - well within the maneuvering capabilities of the warhead
- Persistent rumors of a MIRVed missile
- Even if the CIWS manages to hit the approaching warhead the wreckage will still hit the flight deck - at the very least putting the carrier out of commission until the wreckage of all the planes parked there is cleaned up.

Would it be a wise move of China to start taking potshots on US carriers? Not really - but since a DF-21D is a fair bit cheaper than a carrier, it's a good trade from their point of view IF it gets to be a shooting war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System   BOOM

Then it becomes a question of "how many targets can AEGIS engage at once" vs "How many DF-21Ds can China launch at the same time"? I strongly suspect the later number is larger - more so if the DF-21D is indeed MIRVed...


Maybe you didn't get the AEgis part?  I have direct knowledge of 20 simultaneous targets, back in the day.  Mind you, that's not 20 targets timeshared, that's 20 shots ripplefired.  I was sitting approximately 10' from the VLS when it happened, my ears were NOT happy, but the wall was still cool to the touch.
 
2013-01-31 09:39:17 AM  

ib_thinkin: g4lt: Did you look at the TOE for MC02? Of course they were flooded, it was FIVE FRIGGING SHIPS.

Says they lost sixteen in the first two days. I dunno, but I'm going with Wikipedia on this one.


Did wikipedia point out that most of them were Gator Freighters?  I guess you can count a Large Slow Target, but they don't have much to do unto others with...
 
2013-01-31 09:40:17 AM  

Baryogenesis: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's a smart thing to do.  But I am suggesting an expensive surface fleet including nearly as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined might not be a great investment when A) there's no opposing Navy to fight and B) there's a relatively cheap way to disable those expensive ships.


People keep assuming they would be easy to hit or sink.

Carriers operate alone too, with only maybe 1 ship around to help it, and no aircraft, no subs, and no means to defeat incoming missiles.
 
2013-01-31 09:40:27 AM  

Cythraul: Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

I think their philosophy is: "If one of something can't do the job throw a billion somethings at it." Yes, Phalanx is the sh*t, but don't get all secure feeling. A little bit of healthy doubt / caution is a good thing.

Unless Bendal is right, I'd imagine overwhelming it with multiple missiles would be one of the few ways to screw over the Phalanx system.

I think the Phalanx is awesome, as are the ships that protect carriers, but there are two ways I see an aircraft carrier really getting pounded. First is to be numerically overwhelmed. I would think this would take several dozen missiles incoming nearly simultaneously, at the very least. (A very tough thing to pull off.) The other thing would be if someone truly developed a ballistic missile capable of targeting a moving carrier with very high precision. (This would be hard enough to do with a small nuke, much less a conventional warhead.) I think that this might be an easily obtainable goal to accomplish, though, considering where technology is today. I think the technology is out there that would allow a fire-and-forget type ballistic warhead to optically guide itself onto a large moving target. (Don't know if it's workable yet, or if China has it.) If it's not already been developed, I guarantee someone's working on it. You won't be able to jam it. There are probably other countermeasures you could use, though, but it would be a dangerous farker...

I'm not aware of other counter measures.  But from the article someone posted earlier (which mentions your theory), and from other Farker comments, the Phalanx system is not a perfect defense system.

It seems is the missile is fast enough, the CIWS may not be able to react in time, according to a earlier poster.


This type of missile is exactly what the article is about.  There are lots of questions about its maneuvering capabilities, if it has guidance (and if it does, just how good/bad is it), warhead, etc.  But this is precisely what the article is about.  CIWS was designed around destroying targets in the immediate vicinity generally on a horizontal/angular approach.  It was also designed in an era where the highest speed weapon being used against it was mach 3ish, not mach10-20.

I think we are all missing the forest for the trees though: as someone else pointed out this is awfully close to an active airfield for them to just toss MRBMs at.
1)  They are that confident in their systems
2)  They are regular old bomb craters.  (though someone else also pointed out there isn't much debris flung out in any one direction, which could indicate something that isn't moving much horizontally)
 
2013-01-31 09:41:00 AM  

maggoo: Fizpez: Lets assume for just a minute - the missiles are 100% effective either individually or in swarm and the Chinese have enough of them to sink any carrier group that gets in range.

They lack the means to project power outside of the range of the missiles. They lack the means to protect from conventional counter missile fire. Any "war" that would have them seriously consider sinking a US carrier (and again we assume they CAN do it - because the probably could, given the will) either has to go full nuclear or we will completely end their ability to trade economically anywhere using the ocean as a means of transport - even IF we decide NOT to cripple their industrial infrastructure.

Military dick waving aside it would be economic suicide to start a war with the US - we are both their largest trading partner and have the means to deny them the rest of the world.

How sure are you? Because nowadays the only advantage the US has is its wealth and control of a significant number of multinational corportations, and all those corporations happen to make their products in.... China.

In addition, the US is being kept afloat by loans from China, so the US's wealth advantage is actually disappearing quite rapidly.

And as a cherry on top, multinational corporations tend not to be too caught up in allegiances to specific states. If shiat hits the fan, they will just as easily work for the world's current dominating world empire, which is China, instead of sticking with the has-been.


How sure am I?  100% - making iPods and cheap alarm clocks in China is one thing - we still make our own ships, we still control the ocean - I don't think we will care on farking iota what Apple thinks if we are in a shooting war with China.

China holds ~8% of US debt.   US (and our allies) represent like 70+% (more like 80+%) of Chinese export market.  Multinational corporations do not have militaries and they are ALREADY starting to move their production from China because the rising wages of Chinese workers has made moving (again) the short-term profitable decision.
 
2013-01-31 09:41:07 AM  

miss diminutive: Evil Twin Skippy: And we all remember out calm reaction to the sinking of the USS Maine, to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and to the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

You mean all those false flag operations orchestrated by warmongering Presidents?

/ducks


You forgot the WTC "attack."
 
2013-01-31 09:43:52 AM  

ib_thinkin: g4lt: I think that the Tomahawk console is VERY flexible, and could set up to target pretty much anything that the ship knew about when weapons free got called. On AEgis, that means "whatever the CO wants to level"

I don't doubt that they have the capability to aim at civilians, or even to fire at civilians. Do you think that's what they're going to do?


AIM at civvies?  Prolly not, CARE that they hit civvies while aiming at shooters?  Aw, hell naw.  And one or two COs might get the idea to Dresden Peking, just because they can.  Again, not a whole lot of people going to tell them much, because their Admiral is vapor.
 
2013-01-31 09:44:03 AM  

dittybopper: Wicked Chinchilla: Striking a moving object like a carrier thats not just moving but actively maneuvering at high speed.  30knots is about 50f/sec, and when interceptions take minutes that ballistic missile better have decent maneuvering and good guidance, or you better have the craziest luck in the world.  In one minute that carrier is just shy of 2/3s of a mile from where it was at launch.

Small nuke.

The base DF-21 missile is commonly equipped with a nuclear warhead.  Using one in place of a conventional warhead in the "anti-carrier" version would seem to be a no-brainer if you were really serious.


 Oh definitely.  I also think if you are going after a carrier you had better be serious.  The US isn't going to go crazy and launch nukes like some people on here think, but a large retaliation of some sort is a given.

/also agree that MIRVing this would not be as useful as leaving it a singular unit.
 
2013-01-31 09:45:03 AM  

Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.


Oh man, from that Wiki article, the damned platform has killed more people than it has saved because of accidental hits. Has it even once been used in actual combat, I mean besides the one Silkworm missile it tried to down off Iraq where it missed and accidentally hit another ship?

/American might, to big to fail but clumsy enough to hurt more than help
 
2013-01-31 09:45:10 AM  

Thunderpipes: Carriers operate alone too, with only maybe 1 ship around to help it, and no aircraft, no subs, and no means to defeat incoming missiles.


Obviously, the ships escorting the carrier are also magically immune to anything that might conceivabily be thrown at them, and China's military is expected to be packed with morons who can't pull a strategy out of their collective asses even if their lives depended on it.
 
2013-01-31 09:46:46 AM  

Thunderpipes: Carriers operate alone too, with only maybe 1 ship around to help it, and no aircraft, no subs, and no means to defeat incoming missiles.


wat
 
2013-01-31 09:46:46 AM  

Old enough to know better: spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.

Troll, or just saw that shiatty Red Dawn remake? Hmmm...


Actually, just a funny post. I think only humorless libs/progs would think it a "troll."  BTW, please stop calling people who disagree with you trolls. It's old and busted. Virtually everyone knows it's just sandbox-level name calling, used because you don't have any rational arguments. kthxbye
 
2013-01-31 09:51:11 AM  

bulldg4life: I guess if we ever decide to park one of our carriers in the Gobi, we'll really be in trouble.

Meanwhile, these things are actually going 30 knots out in the middle of the ocean surrounded by half a dozen ships all with anti-missile countermeasures.


And a nice big juicy target for a killsat armed with a kinetic energy rail gun. That is my scenario for the next deal breaker.
 
2013-01-31 09:51:52 AM  

Fizpez: How sure am I? 100% - making iPods and cheap alarm clocks in China is one thing - we still make our own ships, we still control the ocean - I don't think we will care on farking iota what Apple thinks if we are in a shooting war with China.

China holds ~8% of US debt. US (and our allies) represent like 70+% (more like 80+%) of Chinese export market. Multinational corporations do not have militaries and they are ALREADY starting to move their production from China because the rising wages of Chinese workers has made moving (again) the short-term profitable decision.




How quaint. So, you are 100% sure because the US is able to spend an additional bunch of billions of dollars in a process that takes a couple of years to make, only to end up in the bottom of the ocean just like the toys that preceded it. That's smart thinking, all right. Meanwhile, it costs the enemy only a million or so to eliminate what cost you billions to put together.

In addition, what you describe as "iPods and cheap alarm clocks" is actually practicaly entire world's industrial production. As an exercise, pick any product you have at arm's reach, check were it was made and count how many of them weren't made in the PRC. I bet that even the clothes you are wearing right now are made in China.
 
2013-01-31 09:52:58 AM  

Dadoody: spentmiles:

1.) How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
2.) How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
3.) How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
4.) How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

1.) Less discomforting than the thought of an American military-state police doing the same, because that's a more likely scenario. While being the average Chinese citizen sucks more than being the average American citizen, the Chinese mind their own damn business. We're the ones sending troops all over the world on fools' errands.
2.) Delicious actually. Idiot beagle eats better than me.
3.) Sounds motivational
4.) Probably the same as having to play badminton for rations, because I suck at both. I'd probably starve.

The Chinese have defensive weapons, not offense. We have a military with enough funding to invade and hold most countries around the world - hell it only took us 1 month to decimate the world's former 4th largest army.

It's OUR leaders who've spent us into the ground on fruitless unconstitutional wars, demanded warrant free access to our e-mails, indefinite detention of American citizens, created the LARGEST police/prison population in the world, are seeking to revoke more of our 2nd amendment rights, and who are starting to turn our fancy weapons of war towards us. Why sweat a Chinese invasion, when Obama's got 20,000 drones flying over our heads?

In the end, the only power the Chinese have over us is some laughable pieces of paper we've been shoveling to them for their hard labor and raw materials. Paper promises we'll probably soon hyper-inflate away.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Surprisingly, many people think its about foreign invasion. Great and powerful nations don't get conquered overnight. They rot from ...


So much this.
 
2013-01-31 09:53:28 AM  
From a previous carrier thread....

<a href="http://s865.photobucket.com/albums/ab214/yakfiend/?action=view& current =coont0.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab214/yakfiend/coont0.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
 
2013-01-31 09:53:35 AM  

Space_Poet: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Oh man, from that Wiki article, the damned platform has killed more people than it has saved because of accidental hits. Has it even once been used in actual combat, I mean besides the one Silkworm missile it tried to down off Iraq where it missed and accidentally hit another ship?

/American might, to big to fail but clumsy enough to hurt more than help


The _USS Lake Champlain_ used its CIWS once to take out two Somali pirate launches.
 
2013-01-31 09:53:52 AM  
We've already lost two wars because of Chinese intervention.  Why would we want to engage them in a third?
 
2013-01-31 09:54:19 AM  
da fuq, Fark. You ate my image.
 
2013-01-31 09:56:58 AM  

xcv: yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse?

I think they're saying they want to eat our seamen as a delicacy.


I lol'd.
 
2013-01-31 09:57:58 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: bulldg4life: I guess if we ever decide to park one of our carriers in the Gobi, we'll really be in trouble.

Meanwhile, these things are actually going 30 knots out in the middle of the ocean surrounded by half a dozen ships all with anti-missile countermeasures.

And a nice big juicy target for a killsat armed with a kinetic energy rail gun. That is my scenario for the next deal breaker.


...which in turn becomes fodder for a SM-3 from ABMDS.  Remember, the test firing of the system was when the _USS Port Royal_ shot down a spy satellite that the DoD REALLY didn't want to get into the wrong hands intact.
 
2013-01-31 09:59:00 AM  

maggoo: Fizpez: How sure am I? 100% - making iPods and cheap alarm clocks in China is one thing - we still make our own ships, we still control the ocean - I don't think we will care on farking iota what Apple thinks if we are in a shooting war with China.

China holds ~8% of US debt. US (and our allies) represent like 70+% (more like 80+%) of Chinese export market. Multinational corporations do not have militaries and they are ALREADY starting to move their production from China because the rising wages of Chinese workers has made moving (again) the short-term profitable decision.

How quaint. So, you are 100% sure because the US is able to spend an additional bunch of billions of dollars in a process that takes a couple of years to make, only to end up in the bottom of the ocean just like the toys that preceded it. That's smart thinking, all right. Meanwhile, it costs the enemy only a million or so to eliminate what cost you billions to put together.

In addition, what you describe as "iPods and cheap alarm clocks" is actually practicaly entire world's industrial production. As an exercise, pick any product you have at arm's reach, check were it was made and count how many of them weren't made in the PRC. I bet that even the clothes you are wearing right now are made in China.


Damn, do you work at being so stupid, or does it come naturally. There's a reason you're a nameless moron posting on an Internet forum and not someone making actual decisions about what does and doesn't work militarily.
 
2013-01-31 09:59:19 AM  
Sure.  When you have more than one carrier of your own, and win against something that shoots back, drop me a line.
 
2013-01-31 10:02:26 AM  

Freakjob_0: Two hits and it's considered sunk? Milton Bradley...and maybe Rhiannna(I don't care if it's spelled right) might have something to say about that.


In related news Rihannas fan base is called Rihanna Navy
/also, leave Rhianna alone
 
2013-01-31 10:03:31 AM  

maggoo: Thunderpipes: Carriers operate alone too, with only maybe 1 ship around to help it, and no aircraft, no subs, and no means to defeat incoming missiles.

Obviously, the ships escorting the carrier are also magically immune to anything that might conceivabily be thrown at them, and China's military is expected to be packed with morons who can't pull a strategy out of their collective asses even if their lives depended on it.


No, I don't think they could. To actually hit one of our carriers would require an enormous effort, and assure that China no longer would have a military shortly afterwards.

This is Fark. People here think China, Russia, Brazil, Canada could somehow kick our asses with magic missiles and supersonic torpedoes and diesel-electric subs. Of course I expect this. You see a picture of a rumored Chinese stealth fighter and all of a sudden the F-15 and F-22 are doomed. The latest Russian tank is encountered in Iraq and the Abrams is doomed. Just never turns out that way.

China probably could damage a carrier if they focused thousands of units against it. It would have to be a surprise attack. Then what? No aircraft, no sub, no surface ship would be able to so much as leave port or take to the air without getting its ass kicked. A hundred million screaming Chinamen on the ground are no use. Nuclear war?
 
2013-01-31 10:05:10 AM  

Carousel Beast: Damn, do you work at being so stupid, or does it come naturally. There's a reason you're a nameless moron posting on an Internet forum and not someone making actual decisions about what does and doesn't work militarily.



I lol'd at how you switched to childish ad-hominems once you realized you actually had to agree with me but still were too butthurt to admit it.
 
2013-01-31 10:09:50 AM  

Cythraul: Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: Feral_and_Preposterous: Cythraul: If they have something that can get past a Phalanx CIWS, then they deserve to down a U.S. aircraft carrier.

I think their philosophy is: "If one of something can't do the job throw a billion somethings at it." Yes, Phalanx is the sh*t, but don't get all secure feeling. A little bit of healthy doubt / caution is a good thing.

Unless Bendal is right, I'd imagine overwhelming it with multiple missiles would be one of the few ways to screw over the Phalanx system.

I think the Phalanx is awesome, as are the ships that protect carriers, but there are two ways I see an aircraft carrier really getting pounded. First is to be numerically overwhelmed. I would think this would take several dozen missiles incoming nearly simultaneously, at the very least. (A very tough thing to pull off.) The other thing would be if someone truly developed a ballistic missile capable of targeting a moving carrier with very high precision. (This would be hard enough to do with a small nuke, much less a conventional warhead.) I think that this might be an easily obtainable goal to accomplish, though, considering where technology is today. I think the technology is out there that would allow a fire-and-forget type ballistic warhead to optically guide itself onto a large moving target. (Don't know if it's workable yet, or if China has it.) If it's not already been developed, I guarantee someone's working on it. You won't be able to jam it. There are probably other countermeasures you could use, though, but it would be a dangerous farker...

I'm not aware of other counter measures.  But from the article someone posted earlier (which mentions your theory), and from other Farker comments, the Phalanx system is not a perfect defense system.

It seems is the missile is fast enough, the CIWS may not be able to react in time, according to a earlier poster.




That was my point. If you have a ballistic missile moving at 10x speed of sound it is going to be hard to defend. I do agree the Chinese "test" sounds fishy for all of the reasons listed above, esp. prox. to airfields, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that if China could make an accurate ballistic missile (and there is no reason to think they can't: we can). The good thing about ballistic missiles is that in their launch phase they're easy to detect. So while we might not be able to stop the missile--it would be obvious where it came from. I doubt China would ever use something like that because of the repercussions. If they ever do it--we'll know without a doubt that they are prepared for war--it's not something they would do lightly.

Good thing is Iran or countries more likely to use the technology (assuming they had it) won't have it for a long time (knock on wood).
 
2013-01-31 10:10:26 AM  

maggoo: Fizpez: How sure am I? 100% - making iPods and cheap alarm clocks in China is one thing - we still make our own ships, we still control the ocean - I don't think we will care on farking iota what Apple thinks if we are in a shooting war with China.

China holds ~8% of US debt. US (and our allies) represent like 70+% (more like 80+%) of Chinese export market. Multinational corporations do not have militaries and they are ALREADY starting to move their production from China because the rising wages of Chinese workers has made moving (again) the short-term profitable decision.

How quaint. So, you are 100% sure because the US is able to spend an additional bunch of billions of dollars in a process that takes a couple of years to make, only to end up in the bottom of the ocean just like the toys that preceded it. That's smart thinking, all right. Meanwhile, it costs the enemy only a million or so to eliminate what cost you billions to put together.

In addition, what you describe as "iPods and cheap alarm clocks" is actually practicaly entire world's industrial production. As an exercise, pick any product you have at arm's reach, check were it was made and count how many of them weren't made in the PRC. I bet that even the clothes you are wearing right now are made in China.


The discussion was no longer what a carrier group costs vs what it would cost China to sink one - we were discussing why it would be an incredibly bad idea for China to engage the US in a war over anything.  You seem to be under the impression that because the Chinese might possess the means to sink a carrier group they automatically gain supremacy over global oceanic trade.

The US still produces more industrial goods (by $) than China.  My clothes and everything in my room may have been made in China but that would be true tomorrow even IF the US sank every single cargo ship leaving China for the next 10 years.  My clothes, clocks and whatever will last a lot longer than the Chinese economy would if they were denied the ability to trade on a global scale.  China is hardly the only place in the world to make things.

China is not some 100% self sufficient juggernaut - they have risen to prominence on the backs of a huge population providing cheap labor and an almost utter lack of pollution controls or worker safety measures.  Economically they could not survive a protracted global embargo enforced by warships.  Yes, they would not cease to exist as a country, yes they could do A LOT of damage, especially to our nearby allies but it would come at a crippling economic cost that would set them back decades.
 
2013-01-31 10:12:30 AM  

s1ugg0: spentmiles: long and crazy troll/joke attempt

*yawn* You're boring

In less hysterical news we'll be just fine.
[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 850x967]


You must be new here
 
2013-01-31 10:18:05 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: /also agree that MIRVing this would not be as useful as leaving it a singular unit.


The neat part is that you really don't need explosives on a warhead like that:  The kinetic energy alone would be enough.  If you make it nearly solid, it might have enough energy to penetrate the entire way through the hull.

That would also make it much harder for an ABM system to destroy an incoming warhead, though you may be able to knock it off course and/or disable it's guidance system, which may be "good enough".

Another interesting possibility is instead of using a single large warhead, use a lot of "small" projectiles, which would still weigh several pounds each.  At Mach 10 impact speed, a bunch of them hitting the flight deck will royally fark up a carrier without necessarily sinking it.  In the context of a dispute short of all-out open warfare between two nations, that might be an attractive option.
 
2013-01-31 10:22:13 AM  

Thunderpipes: No, I don't think they could. To actually hit one of our carriers would require an enormous effort, and assure that China no longer would have a military shortly afterwards.

This is Fark. People here think China, Russia, Brazil, Canada could somehow kick our asses with magic missiles and supersonic torpedoes and diesel-electric subs. Of course I expect this. You see a picture of a rumored Chinese stealth fighter and all of a sudden the F-15 and F-22 are doomed. The latest Russian tank is encountered in Iraq and the Abrams is doomed. Just never turns out that way.

China probably could damage a carrier if they focused thousands of units against it. It would have to be a surprise attack. Then what? No aircraft, no sub, no surface ship would be able to so much as leave port or take to the air without getting its ass kicked. A hundred million screaming Chinamen on the ground are no use. Nuclear war?




That's some strong wishfull thinking right there.

Meanwhile, reality has this habit of contradicting you. We aren't talking about brazil, canada or any other state. This is China we are talking about, and wether you like it or not they are the world's super power now, and they are actually preparing for an inevitable confrontation with a belligerent US, desperate to retake its former relevance.

And your criticism of non-cutting-edge tech only shows how completely ignorant of history you are. Go read on how the soviet union managed to defeat nazi germany, with all its cutting-edge tech, with what essentially amounted to wave after wave of cannon fodder, armed with machine guns assembled in basements and tanks which weren't much more than mass produced crude farm tractors with some armor, a gun on top and a stick to drive them. If push comes to shove, China has 1 billion people and a population grown problem they want to tackle. So, there's that.

In addition, care to tell me how the US managed to fight a war with a vastly out-teched military, such as north-Vietnam, and still lose?

Wishful thinking: it may make you feel good, but it doesn't help you with reality.
 
2013-01-31 10:28:42 AM  
You guys are getting all worried and butt-hurt over this, but you should rest easy.  I have it on good authority that General Tso's chicken.
 
2013-01-31 10:36:37 AM  

dittybopper: Wicked Chinchilla: /also agree that MIRVing this would not be as useful as leaving it a singular unit.

The neat part is that you really don't need explosives on a warhead like that:  The kinetic energy alone would be enough.  If you make it nearly solid, it might have enough energy to penetrate the entire way through the hull.

That would also make it much harder for an ABM system to destroy an incoming warhead, though you may be able to knock it off course and/or disable it's guidance system, which may be "good enough".

Another interesting possibility is instead of using a single large warhead, use a lot of "small" projectiles, which would still weigh several pounds each.  At Mach 10 impact speed, a bunch of them hitting the flight deck will royally fark up a carrier without necessarily sinking it.  In the context of a dispute short of all-out open warfare between two nations, that might be an attractive option.


In the Battle off Samar in WW2, the _USS Kalinin Bay_ actually got hit numerous times with large-caliber shells that were fuzed for armor piercing, given that the Kalinin Bay was a jeep carrier, it didn't have enough armor plating to actually explode the shells, so they passed right through her.  She survived that battle and was decommissioned in 1946..  Holes won't kill a carrier, it takes explosives.
 
2013-01-31 10:36:43 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


I was going to give you a 7/10, but I underestimated how many bites you would actually get, so I'm bumping it to 9.

/Although I kind of wish we would stop using the "troll" label for plainly obvious tongue-in-cheek posts.
 
2013-01-31 10:39:49 AM  

socodog: You guys are getting all worried and butt-hurt over this, but you should rest easy.  I have it on good authority that General Tso's chicken.


I thought it was Colonel Sanders...

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-31 10:40:16 AM  

Baryogenesis: bulldg4life: Baryogenesis: Honestly, a swarm of missiles seem like an effective and relatively cheap counter to an expensive surface fleet.  If 90% of incoming missiles are shot down, how many missiles do you need to fire at a carrier (group) to knock it out?  Is it more than 4.5 billion dollars worth (construction cost of a Nimitz class according to wiki) of missiles?

You probably only need to hit with a couple missiles. Of course, attempting to sink a US carrier group can't be good for the health of your populace.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's a smart thing to do.  But I am suggesting an expensive surface fleet including nearly as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined might not be a great investment when A) there's no opposing Navy to fight and B) there's a relatively cheap way to disable those expensive ships.


It's not about winning sea battles. It's about projecting power ashore. 2-3 aircraft carriers give you air superiority over pretty much any place you're likely to operate. Including, say, the air space over Taiwan. Over-the-horizon, moving airfields have a built-in defensibility that land-based fields don't.

The relatively cheap method of shooting missiles at carriers hundreds of miles out to sea is completely unproven. Sure, they can hit a stationary target in the middle of the desert, with pre-locked-in GPS coordinates. But can they even FIND a carrier group at sea? Even with satellites, that's an iffy proposition, and even if you have a target coordinate, the odds that your missile can get there without being misdirected by electronic countermeasures is quite low. If your missile does get a target lock, it still has multiple layers of air defense to penetrate.

And if one or two of your missiles do hit the carrier, you've basically hit the ship with a 500- to 1,000-pound bomb. Carriers can survive that sort of damage, often while continuing to operate, as the Japanese learned in 1945.
 
2013-01-31 10:42:40 AM  

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Did those farking idiots just call the Navy dogs and our country a doghouse? They do realize if they hit a carrier it's game on right?


I thought it's ok to call people dawgs.. dawg.

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-31 10:42:53 AM  

miss diminutive: Evil Twin Skippy: And we all remember out calm reaction to the sinking of the USS Maine, to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and to the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

You mean all those false flag operations orchestrated by warmongering Presidentsrich people?

/ducks


FTFY
 
2013-01-31 10:46:41 AM  
"Spentmiles" is obviously an anagram for "Melts Penis"

/Personally I don't care for his schtick and have had him on ignore since forever...but he gets quoted all the time so I still end up seeing the occasional post.
//Enjoy your Penis Melts
 
2013-01-31 10:53:23 AM  

pag1107: Mose: 2,000 km range... these are ballistic missiles I take it?

I'd bet they work like the old AIM-54, ballistic boost phase with radar or ir homing unpowered terminal phase.  Either that or they are big, slow cruise missiles that can be intercepted.


actually no... the DF-21 is considered much more effective because it is a ballistic missile no different than an ICBM except it uses conventional warhead instead of nuclear and it tracks moving targets.

Unlike a cruise missile which cruises, the trajectory of the DF-21 is parabolic and comes down from a high altitude with extremely high speed. Very difficult to intercept.

China got really really pissed off when we parked a carrier next to them back in the 1990's and they were ABSOLUTELY powerless to do anything other than complain. They want to make sure that never happens again and this weapon is a good deterrent I guess.
 
2013-01-31 10:55:18 AM  

maggoo: Thunderpipes: No, I don't think they could. To actually hit one of our carriers would require an enormous effort, and assure that China no longer would have a military shortly afterwards.

This is Fark. People here think China, Russia, Brazil, Canada could somehow kick our asses with magic missiles and supersonic torpedoes and diesel-electric subs. Of course I expect this. You see a picture of a rumored Chinese stealth fighter and all of a sudden the F-15 and F-22 are doomed. The latest Russian tank is encountered in Iraq and the Abrams is doomed. Just never turns out that way.

China probably could damage a carrier if they focused thousands of units against it. It would have to be a surprise attack. Then what? No aircraft, no sub, no surface ship would be able to so much as leave port or take to the air without getting its ass kicked. A hundred million screaming Chinamen on the ground are no use. Nuclear war?

That's some strong wishfull thinking right there.

Meanwhile, reality has this habit of contradicting you. We aren't talking about brazil, canada or any other state. This is China we are talking about, and wether you like it or not they are the world's super power now, and they are actually preparing for an inevitable confrontation with a belligerent US, desperate to retake its former relevance.

And your criticism of non-cutting-edge tech only shows how completely ignorant of history you are. Go read on how the soviet union managed to defeat nazi germany, with all its cutting-edge tech, with what essentially amounted to wave after wave of cannon fodder, armed with machine guns assembled in basements and tanks which weren't much more than mass produced crude farm tractors with some armor, a gun on top and a stick to drive them. If push comes to shove, China has 1 billion people and a population grown problem they want to tackle. So, there's that.

In addition, care to tell me how the US managed to fight a war with a vastly out-teched military, such as ...


China's defense budget is less than one-tenth of the U.S. defense budget. China's GDP is less than 1/2 of the U.S. GDP, with four times the population to support. China is sitting on a real estate bubble that's going to make the U.S. 2008 financial collapse look like a Sunday School picnic. The purpose of China's military isn't to confront the U.S., anyway, it's to intimidate its smaller neighbors, all of whom are beefing up their militaries. Combined, the militaries of Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, etc. are superior to the Chinese military, without even considering the U.S.

Also, you have no idea what you're talking about in regard to military history. The Soviet Union's tech was equal or superior to the equivalent German stuff (T-38 > Pzkw IV), just simpler to produce and less polished. The North Vietnamese didn't defeat the U.S. Army; they defeated the South Vietnamese army two years after we left. The Viet Cong were basically wiped out in the Tet Offensive. We "lost" the Vietnam war because we decided it was against our national interest to continue fighting it, not because our military was incapable of continuing to control the southern part of the country indefinitely.

Oh, and assuming you could put a billion troops in the field armed with pitchforks or whatever, and march them toward a border, most of them would die of thirst, hunger and disease within a week or two.
 
2013-01-31 11:05:06 AM  

SuperNinjaToad: pag1107: Mose: 2,000 km range... these are ballistic missiles I take it?

I'd bet they work like the old AIM-54, ballistic boost phase with radar or ir homing unpowered terminal phase.  Either that or they are big, slow cruise missiles that can be intercepted.

actually no... the DF-21 is considered much more effective because it is a ballistic missile no different than an ICBM except it uses conventional warhead instead of nuclear and it tracks moving targets.

Unlike a cruise missile which cruises, the trajectory of the DF-21 is parabolic and comes down from a high altitude with extremely high speed. Very difficult to intercept.

China got really really pissed off when we parked a carrier next to them back in the 1990's and they were ABSOLUTELY powerless to do anything other than complain. They want to make sure that never happens again and this weapon is a good deterrent I guess.


We "park" carriers near them all the time. Like, every couple months there's somebody transiting through international waters that they claim to control, just to make the point that they can't close the sea lanes. Nobody has ever hit a ship with a ballistic missile, and until they do I'll remain skeptical that this is some quantum leap in technology. People forget that Billy Mitchell was WRONG. Strategic bombers didn't make warships obsolete, and neither have missiles.
 
2013-01-31 11:06:23 AM  
Did the "simulation" also include "simulated" fleet of surrounding ships who's purpose it is to screen incoming fire from reaching the carrier?
 
2013-01-31 11:18:36 AM  

g4lt: dittybopper: Wicked Chinchilla: /also agree that MIRVing this would not be as useful as leaving it a singular unit.

The neat part is that you really don't need explosives on a warhead like that:  The kinetic energy alone would be enough.  If you make it nearly solid, it might have enough energy to penetrate the entire way through the hull.

That would also make it much harder for an ABM system to destroy an incoming warhead, though you may be able to knock it off course and/or disable it's guidance system, which may be "good enough".

Another interesting possibility is instead of using a single large warhead, use a lot of "small" projectiles, which would still weigh several pounds each.  At Mach 10 impact speed, a bunch of them hitting the flight deck will royally fark up a carrier without necessarily sinking it.  In the context of a dispute short of all-out open warfare between two nations, that might be an attractive option.

In the Battle off Samar in WW2, the _USS Kalinin Bay_ actually got hit numerous times with large-caliber shells that were fuzed for armor piercing, given that the Kalinin Bay was a jeep carrier, it didn't have enough armor plating to actually explode the shells, so they passed right through her.  She survived that battle and was decommissioned in 1946..  Holes won't kill a carrier, it takes explosives.


There is a big difference between shells that are moving at approximately 2,000 fps, and projectiles that are moving at well over 10,000 fps.

A projectile moving at the slower speed, assuming it doesn't explode, will just punch a hole, as was seen with Taffy 3.  A hefty projectile moving at hypervelocity will tend to have more spectacular effects, including heating and possibly pyrophoric effects.

Besides which, I wasn't talking about *SINKING* the carrier.  Read what I wrote:

Another interesting possibility is instead of using a single large warhead, use a lot of "small" projectiles, which would still weigh several pounds each.   At Mach 10 impact speed, a bunch of them hitting the flight deck will royally fark up a carrier without necessarily sinking it. In the context of a dispute short of all-out open warfare between two nations, that might be an attractive option.

You can perform a "mission kill", preventing the carrier from deploying aircraft (and probably destroying a number of the aircraft in the process), without sinking the carrier, and in a limited conflict, this might be an attractive option.   Actually sinking the carrier might be seen as escalating a conflict, and it would certainly piss people in the US off.  Not sinking it, but merely putting it out of commission for a while, probably wouldn't upset us as much.
 
2013-01-31 11:19:30 AM  

g4lt: dittybopper: Wicked Chinchilla: /also agree that MIRVing this would not be as useful as leaving it a singular unit.

The neat part is that you really don't need explosives on a warhead like that:  The kinetic energy alone would be enough.  If you make it nearly solid, it might have enough energy to penetrate the entire way through the hull.

That would also make it much harder for an ABM system to destroy an incoming warhead, though you may be able to knock it off course and/or disable it's guidance system, which may be "good enough".

Another interesting possibility is instead of using a single large warhead, use a lot of "small" projectiles, which would still weigh several pounds each.  At Mach 10 impact speed, a bunch of them hitting the flight deck will royally fark up a carrier without necessarily sinking it.  In the context of a dispute short of all-out open warfare between two nations, that might be an attractive option.

In the Battle off Samar in WW2, the _USS Kalinin Bay_ actually got hit numerous times with large-caliber shells that were fuzed for armor piercing, given that the Kalinin Bay was a jeep carrier, it didn't have enough armor plating to actually explode the shells, so they passed right through her.  She survived that battle and was decommissioned in 1946..  Holes won't kill a carrier, it takes explosives.


This is true, but its complicated by the fact that the kinetic energy involved in a large projectile rocketing down from space in double digit mach numbers vastly outstrips that found in the large caliber shells.  I would put a kinetic energy "warhead" being far more destructive potentially than putting a large warhead on said missile.  Doubly so because in contrast to the steel capped 18inch AP shells you wouldn't design the space penetrator for armor piercing.  With the given mass and velocity involved you wouldn't have to.  Put a shallow convex nose on it (for stability purposes, flat is bad) and its a space bludgeon, rather than a spike which could pass through and out the bottom.

The Ballistic missile "shotgun" approach by dittybopper is interesting.  One complication is the pellet release.  You want it to happen early enough in the approach so your accuracy can be a bit off and still score a hit.  But you can't do it that early because all of your little cannonballs are going to decelerate due to air resistance, steadily reducing their impact.  Its a really interesting concept though...hmmmmm
 
2013-01-31 11:30:44 AM  

maggoo: This is China we are talking about, and wether you like it or not they are the world's super power now


LOLWUT?

Did you mean to say "a" superpower?  Or do you simply not understand what makes a country a superpower?

They may have an economy growing at a faster rate, and if things proceed exactly as they are now for the foreseeable future they will have a larger economy than the US in a couple decades...but as of NOW our's is still much much larger.

/And that is just the economy, nevermind the military power
//Or the strength of the people
/Although a lot of Americans do take their lifestyle for granted and seem less inclined to work hard to make a better society...or maybe I am just getting older...
 
2013-01-31 11:34:35 AM  

dittybopper: You can perform a "mission kill", preventing the carrier from deploying aircraft (and probably destroying a number of the aircraft in the process), without sinking the carrier, and in a limited conflict, this might be an attractive option.


Even in an actual war you don't necessarily need to sink the carrier entirely. Putting it out of action is good enough. One hit is likely enough to score a mission kill, requiring at least weeks of repair (if not months or years).

I don't know that China would seriously be ever considering a drawn out intense conflict with the US... that is historically a fairly bad idea. A short term conflict where they can turn a carrier group or two into glorified surface action flotillas in order to be able to project their own power in the South China Sea area, sure. But they'd probably be hoping the whole thing blew over before it really went nuts. I don't think we'd have anything like the capability needed to invade the mainland, but we sure have the ability to strangle China (good old maritime exclusion zones) from outside resources and make a domestic uprising against the government a strong possibility.

Really, though, I see it all as nothing more than saber rattling. T'were I in China's position I'd definitely want the ability to threaten a US CBG, but no way in hell would I ever want to actually have to carry out such an act.
 
2013-01-31 11:38:01 AM  

Fizpez: Lets assume for just a minute - the missiles are 100% effective either individually or in swarm and the Chinese  have enough of them to sink any carrier group that gets in range.

They lack the means to project power outside of the range of the missiles.  They lack the means to protect from conventional counter missile fire.  Any "war" that would have them seriously consider sinking a US carrier (and again we assume they CAN do it - because the probably could, given the will) either has to go full nuclear or we will completely end their ability to trade economically anywhere using the ocean as a means of transport - even IF we decide NOT to cripple their industrial infrastructure.

Military dick waving aside it would be economic suicide to start a war with the US - we are both their largest trading partner and have the means to deny them the rest of the world.


but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.
 
2013-01-31 11:39:55 AM  

maggoo: Thunderpipes: No, I don't think they could. To actually hit one of our carriers would require an enormous effort, and assure that China no longer would have a military shortly afterwards.

This is Fark. People here think China, Russia, Brazil, Canada could somehow kick our asses with magic missiles and supersonic torpedoes and diesel-electric subs. Of course I expect this. You see a picture of a rumored Chinese stealth fighter and all of a sudden the F-15 and F-22 are doomed. The latest Russian tank is encountered in Iraq and the Abrams is doomed. Just never turns out that way.

China probably could damage a carrier if they focused thousands of units against it. It would have to be a surprise attack. Then what? No aircraft, no sub, no surface ship would be able to so much as leave port or take to the air without getting its ass kicked. A hundred million screaming Chinamen on the ground are no use. Nuclear war?

That's some strong wishfull thinking right there.

Meanwhile, reality has this habit of contradicting you. We aren't talking about brazil, canada or any other state. This is China we are talking about, and wether you like it or not they are the world's super power now, and they are actually preparing for an inevitable confrontation with a belligerent US, desperate to retake its former relevance.

And your criticism of non-cutting-edge tech only shows how completely ignorant of history you are. Go read on how the soviet union managed to defeat nazi germany, with all its cutting-edge tech, with what essentially amounted to wave after wave of cannon fodder, armed with machine guns assembled in basements and tanks which weren't much more than mass produced crude farm tractors with some armor, a gun on top and a stick to drive them. If push comes to shove, China has 1 billion people and a population grown problem they want to tackle. So, there's that.

In addition, care to tell me how the US managed to fight a war with a vastly out-teched military, such as ...


Reality is, I am right, you are wrong. Heard the same arguments when we went in to Iraq.

I know libs hate their country, and Fark is more left than that. Comparing Soviet union to a modern armor? Really? You think war is even remotely the same now as it was in the 1940s?

Stupid.
 
2013-01-31 11:41:50 AM  

g4lt: WegianWarrior:
Then it becomes a question of "how many targets can AEGIS engage at once" vs "How many DF-21Ds can China launch at the same time"? I strongly suspect the later number is larger - more so if the DF-21D is indeed MIRVed...

Maybe you didn't get the AEgis part?  I have direct knowledge of 20 simultaneous targets, back in the day.  Mind you, that's not 20 targets timeshared, that's 20 shots ripplefired.  I was sitting approximately 10' from the VLS when it happened, my ears were NOT happy, but the wall was still cool to the touch.


That would be 5 DF-21Ds, assuming 4 warheads per missile - as most sources that mentions MIRVed missiles do. Is five the limit the Chinese can fire at once? How about ten? How about fireing five at a time several times?

The AEGIS is an awesome and very capable system, no one is denying that. But it can - and will - be swamped if the Chinese think it's worth hurling enough missiles at a carrier group... if not before then at least when the carrier group runs out of missiles to launch at the incoming warheads.
 
2013-01-31 11:47:09 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: The Ballistic missile "shotgun" approach by dittybopper is interesting.  One complication is the pellet release.  You want it to happen early enough in the approach so your accuracy can be a bit off and still score a hit.  But you can't do it that early because all of your little cannonballs are going to decelerate due to air resistance, steadily reducing their impact.  Its a really interesting concept though...hmmmmm


My thinking is that they would be similar in construction to the APFSDS tank rounds, but without the sabot.  In essence, long pointy rods that due to their high sectional density, wouldn't slow down that much.

But yeah, I hadn't worked out all the details in my head.  I suppose you could go both ways with it:  Open the warhead prior to reentry and get a fairly large pattern, hoping that at least a few would hit, or open it up later, during reentry, and keep the pattern fairly tight.
 
2013-01-31 11:49:35 AM  

Zenith: but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.


Actually, Germany went out of the way to avoid getting the US involved in both WWI and WWII.  In both instances, the military (read: Kaiserliche Marine in WWI, and Kriegsmarine in WWII) was told in no uncertain terms by the political leadership to avoid incidents with US ships as much as possible.
 
2013-01-31 11:49:44 AM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


Legit question: Did you serve? Which branch?  Where were you deployed?

If yes, thank you for your service.

If not.

I think if China attacked the US, they would take out the most populated areas by ICBM/nuclear on the West Coast, then make landfall.  The Russians would come in from the North via Alaska, through Canada into Montana (less population density).

I am pretty sure China is aware of how many guns we have in this country, but I would probably bet that most American's would cower and not use them.  Sadly, the majority of our current citizens would much rather live under Chinese rule than die fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military _a nd_paramilitary_personnel

Also, all China needs to do is stop making our stuff.  Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year.
 
2013-01-31 11:50:12 AM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: maggoo: This is China we are talking about, and wether you like it or not they are the world's super power now

LOLWUT?

Did you mean to say "a" superpower?  Or do you simply not understand what makes a country a superpower?

They may have an economy growing at a faster rate, and if things proceed exactly as they are now for the foreseeable future they will have a larger economy than the US in a couple decades...but as of NOW our's is still much much larger.

/And that is just the economy, nevermind the military power
//Or the strength of the people
/Although a lot of Americans do take their lifestyle for granted and seem less inclined to work hard to make a better society...or maybe I am just getting older...


Thinking this guy might be trolling.  Hard to tell though.  The phrases he's using make him appear outright delusional, not grounded in reality, or quite possibly an insane Chinese guy whipping himself up into a frenzy for the glory of the homeland.  Surprised he didn't use terms like "weak empire of the US", "capitalist dogs", "paper tiger" or "glorious people's army of China".

Anyone crazy enough to try to take out a carrier group will be in for one hell of a beat down by conventional means from any number of our land bases in the near by regions, plus any other carrier group(s) that just happen to be near by.  We wouldn't have to go nuclear.  The only way another country can cripple is to go nuclear, but then they lose as well, something... something... MAD comes into play at that point.  Magoo seems quite short sighted in his bizarre scenarios.
 
2013-01-31 11:51:04 AM  

Thunderpipes: You think war is even remotely the same now as it was in the 1940s?


History rhymes.  It won't be exactly the same, but the basic principles will still apply.
 
2013-01-31 12:10:41 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: This is true, but its complicated by the fact that the kinetic energy involved in a large projectile rocketing down from space in double digit mach numbers vastly outstrips that found in the large caliber shells. I would put a kinetic energy "warhead" being far more destructive potentially than putting a large warhead on said missile. Doubly so because in contrast to the steel capped 18inch AP shells you wouldn't design the space penetrator for armor piercing. With the given mass and velocity involved you wouldn't have to. Put a shallow convex nose on it (for stability purposes, flat is bad) and its a space bludgeon, rather than a spike which could pass through and out the bottom.


The more kinetic energy that the warhead has, the harder it is to adjust to its target. The carriers will know that fire is incoming. They will be manuvering. If doesn't matter how much enegery the warhead has if it can't hit the target.
 
2013-01-31 12:21:57 PM  
sid244:
Legit question: Did you serve? Which branch?  Where were you deployed?

Yes.  Marine Core.  Middle East mostly, though during the IRA heyday, we did a lot of spy work in Ireland.  When I left, they'd taken me off active duty and put me in a cushy job on an Australian beach.  I got bored, thirsty for combat, so I retired and got into UFC.  An early injury sidelined me, but I'm about to do some damage come this circuit.
 
2013-01-31 12:24:27 PM  

Zenith: Fizpez: Lets assume for just a minute - the missiles are 100% effective either individually or in swarm and the Chinese  have enough of them to sink any carrier group that gets in range.

They lack the means to project power outside of the range of the missiles.  They lack the means to protect from conventional counter missile fire.  Any "war" that would have them seriously consider sinking a US carrier (and again we assume they CAN do it - because the probably could, given the will) either has to go full nuclear or we will completely end their ability to trade economically anywhere using the ocean as a means of transport - even IF we decide NOT to cripple their industrial infrastructure.

Military dick waving aside it would be economic suicide to start a war with the US - we are both their largest trading partner and have the means to deny them the rest of the world.

but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.


Germany was on a manifest destiny kick supported by some shoddy racial purity ideologies. I don't know you can drum enough of the former up in China, but they certainly have the latter. They think all non-Chinese are barbarians, basically.
 
2013-01-31 12:25:32 PM  

sid244: Also, all China needs to do is stop making our stuff.  Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year.


I disagree.

Sure, we'd be in a rough time, but we could tool up and be making our own stuff within a year. Or Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, and others would pick up the slack quite happily.

In the meantime, China would have shut the tap off of the one major source they have for foreign currency. They would end up with vast swaths of unemployed and no ability to buy things like oil. They'd give us the economic equivalent of walking pneumonia, only to catch some bizarre combination of the Spanish Flu, Ebola, and AIDS.
 
2013-01-31 12:42:00 PM  
It's amusing to see the confusion between the Aegis Combat System as a fully integrated defense network, and the individual R2D2 phalanx of CIWS.  Each individual phalanx is simply a part of the CIWS.  Aegis BMD is certainly capable of defeating ballistic threats - it was designed to.
 
2013-01-31 12:44:16 PM  

akula: sid244: Also, all China needs to do is stop making our stuff.  Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year.

I disagree.

Sure, we'd be in a rough time, but we could tool up and be making our own stuff within a year. Or Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, and others would pick up the slack quite happily.

In the meantime, China would have shut the tap off of the one major source they have for foreign currency. They would end up with vast swaths of unemployed and no ability to buy things like oil. They'd give us the economic equivalent of walking pneumonia, only to catch some bizarre combination of the Spanish Flu, Ebola, and AIDS.


Exactly.  I don't know where people get this crazy notion that we don't make anything at all in the US any more.  Or that other countries aren't chomping at the bit to chip into manufacturing goods, the countries you listed are already picking up in terms of manufacturing goods.  We also still have quite a few industrial, and manufacturing sectors within our borders that are doing just fine.  The mentality that we have absolutely no manufacturing here, or the inability to do so, is quite staggering.  China would be hurt the most if they turned off said tap.
 
2013-01-31 12:58:11 PM  
Can't shoot

dhandler: Zeno-25: Oh, scary. If only we had some way of shooting down ballistic missiles.
Oh wait, our Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers can already do that.

Yeah... imagine if that defenseless white square in the desert had a Phalanx CIWS protecting it.


Can shoot it down if you don't know it's coming....

i165.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-31 12:59:02 PM  
*can't*

/Goddammit
 
2013-01-31 01:11:54 PM  

Chuck Wagon: Wicked Chinchilla: This is true, but its complicated by the fact that the kinetic energy involved in a large projectile rocketing down from space in double digit mach numbers vastly outstrips that found in the large caliber shells. I would put a kinetic energy "warhead" being far more destructive potentially than putting a large warhead on said missile. Doubly so because in contrast to the steel capped 18inch AP shells you wouldn't design the space penetrator for armor piercing. With the given mass and velocity involved you wouldn't have to. Put a shallow convex nose on it (for stability purposes, flat is bad) and its a space bludgeon, rather than a spike which could pass through and out the bottom.

The more kinetic energy that the warhead has, the harder it is to adjust to its target. The carriers will know that fire is incoming. They will be manuvering. If doesn't matter how much enegery the warhead has if it can't hit the target.


Undoubtedly.  This is why I am suspicious how everytime one of these articles gets released its usually around some kind of major budget decision.  The DF21 is a threat, but its not "The end of the Carrier!!! AHAHAHHH!" some may wish it to be.  What it does do is provide China a capability to respond to us parking a CV and her entourage, and give us some pause before we churn up some algae in their front yard.

Its fun to engage in a little thought experiment, but something weighing a ton or more screaming down from space at mach 15 needs some monster thrusters, or maneuvering surfaces constructed out of some hardcore material to do any sort of significant terminal guidance.  There are good reasons to be skeptical about the efficacy of such a weapon (at least in the singular, a salvo from a number of launchers is something else)
 
2013-01-31 01:19:41 PM  

spentmiles: sid244:
Legit question: Did you serve? Which branch?  Where were you deployed?

Yes.  Marine Core.  Middle East mostly, though during the IRA heyday, we did a lot of spy work in Ireland.  When I left, they'd taken me off active duty and put me in a cushy job on an Australian beach.  I got bored, thirsty for combat, so I retired and got into UFC.  An early injury sidelined me, but I'm about to do some damage come this circuit.


Again, thank you!!!

thisweconfess.files.wordpress.com

/Army brat
 
2013-01-31 01:22:28 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Chuck Wagon: Wicked Chinchilla: This is true, but its complicated by the fact that the kinetic energy involved in a large projectile rocketing down from space in double digit mach numbers vastly outstrips that found in the large caliber shells. I would put a kinetic energy "warhead" being far more destructive potentially than putting a large warhead on said missile. Doubly so because in contrast to the steel capped 18inch AP shells you wouldn't design the space penetrator for armor piercing. With the given mass and velocity involved you wouldn't have to. Put a shallow convex nose on it (for stability purposes, flat is bad) and its a space bludgeon, rather than a spike which could pass through and out the bottom.

The more kinetic energy that the warhead has, the harder it is to adjust to its target. The carriers will know that fire is incoming. They will be manuvering. If doesn't matter how much enegery the warhead has if it can't hit the target.

Undoubtedly.  This is why I am suspicious how everytime one of these articles gets released its usually around some kind of major budget decision.  The DF21 is a threat, but its not "The end of the Carrier!!! AHAHAHHH!" some may wish it to be.  What it does do is provide China a capability to respond to us parking a CV and her entourage, and give us some pause before we churn up some algae in their front yard.

Its fun to engage in a little thought experiment, but something weighing a ton or more screaming down from space at mach 15 needs some monster thrusters, or maneuvering surfaces constructed out of some hardcore material to do any sort of significant terminal guidance.  There are good reasons to be skeptical about the efficacy of such a weapon (at least in the singular, a salvo from a number of launchers is something else)



Like dolomite! The tough black mineral that won't cop out when there's heat all about!
 
2013-01-31 01:26:22 PM  

Zeno-25: Oh, scary. If only we had some way of shooting down ballistic missiles.

Oh wait, our Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers can already do that.


Shhhh.... the Chinese think they have an advantage.  Don't do their homework for them.

/better to let your enemy brag about how he can defeat you than help him do so by showing him why he's wrong
//not saying China's our enemy - unless they choose to be
 
2013-01-31 01:41:21 PM  

bedtundy: akula: sid244: Also, all China needs to do is stop making our stuff.  Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year.

I disagree.

Sure, we'd be in a rough time, but we could tool up and be making our own stuff within a year. Or Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, and others would pick up the slack quite happily.

In the meantime, China would have shut the tap off of the one major source they have for foreign currency. They would end up with vast swaths of unemployed and no ability to buy things like oil. They'd give us the economic equivalent of walking pneumonia, only to catch some bizarre combination of the Spanish Flu, Ebola, and AIDS.

Exactly.  I don't know where people get this crazy notion that we don't make anything at all in the US any more.  Or that other countries aren't chomping at the bit to chip into manufacturing goods, the countries you listed are already picking up in terms of manufacturing goods.  We also still have quite a few industrial, and manufacturing sectors within our borders that are doing just fine.  The mentality that we have absolutely no manufacturing here, or the inability to do so, is quite staggering.  China would be hurt the most if they turned off said tap.


Think of it this way.  The #1 retailer, Wal-Mart, has a lot of their products made in China.  China says we need to make more guns for are army and less shovels for your Spring season openers.  Wal-Mart loses customers because they run out of stock of items made in China.  Their company stock tanks because of poor sales.  The investors who have stock in Wal-Mart are broke.  The investors have to shut down their small business of making wind turbines in the US because they can't pay their workers.  The wind turbine works are now on unemployment benefits.  And keep this going as far as you want.

I am not saying that things still aren't made in this country. Hyundai's are made in Alabama.  GE still has plants in PA, OH, TX and KY.  But most of your retailers have things most made in China as well as other countries, but mostly China. Mostly.

Hyundai URL - http://www.hmmausa.com/
GE URL - http://files.gereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GEFacilitiesRev i sionA_Big.jpg

One last tidbit, if every American died in a war with China, and they same number of Chinese died in that war, there would still be over a billion Chinese left.
 
2013-01-31 01:54:19 PM  

sid244: One last tidbit, if every American died in a war with China, and they same number of Chinese died in that war...


Now that's just being ridiculous
 
2013-01-31 02:00:22 PM  
I just read Tom Clancy's Vector Threat so I am really getting a kick out of this thread.

I'm sure China want to influence the South China Sea but I can't see any way shape or reason for a full scale confrontation with the US (or us with them on the Asian Continent)  China is too dependent on tenuous shipping lanes for imports of oil and foods and exports to support their economy to risk isolation.  And shutting shipping down is what a Carrier Group could do very easily and very well,  and they could do that from 2000 miles away from the mainland. Also, CBG's don't exist in a vacuumn, they always have the threat of retaliation by submarines covering their asses.
 
2013-01-31 02:01:32 PM  

MmmmBacon: China won't ever directly attack us, we owe them way too much money. Should it come to a shooting war, not only would China get it's ass kicked by our superior military, they wouldn't see a dime of that money paid back.


They only own about $1.8 trillion of federal reserve bonds. There is much greater value than that in the technology and infrastructure owned by US companies operating in China.
 
2013-01-31 02:09:27 PM  

sid244: Think of it this way.  The #1 retailer, Wal-Mart, has a lot of their products made in China.  China says we need to make more guns for are army and less shovels for your Spring season openers.  Wal-Mart loses customers because they run out of stock of items made in China.  Their company stock tanks because of poor sales.  The investors who have stock in Wal-Mart are broke.  The investors have to shut down their small business of making wind turbines in the US because they can't pay their workers.  The wind turbine works are now on unemployment benefits.  And keep this going as far as you want.


You're assuming losing something like WMT will cascade like that. I don't know that it's a given. As I said, we wouldn't be without pain, but I don't see you accounting for where China gets the money to do their stuff. The products they quit selling here aren't going to be bought by Europe or Africa. That's products they won't be making.

They also can't just throw a switch and go from making cheap T shirts for WMT and start churning out AKs... different machinery, different skill sets, etc. In the time it takes them to switch over others will pick up the slack, at least some of it.

Moreover, any attempt to tank us will result in our closing of the Malacca Strait, which will shut off their oil. Without oil they're doing fark-all.

I think you greatly underestimate how badly China needs our money- even more than we need their products.
 
2013-01-31 02:11:10 PM  

ib_thinkin: ronaprhys: Miley Cyrus has a smooth and hair-free vulva

Does she?


She does, in my mind.
 
2013-01-31 02:36:48 PM  

sid244: bedtundy: akula: sid244: Also, all China needs to do is stop making our stuff.  Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year.

I disagree.

Sure, we'd be in a rough time, but we could tool up and be making our own stuff within a year. Or Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, and others would pick up the slack quite happily.

In the meantime, China would have shut the tap off of the one major source they have for foreign currency. They would end up with vast swaths of unemployed and no ability to buy things like oil. They'd give us the economic equivalent of walking pneumonia, only to catch some bizarre combination of the Spanish Flu, Ebola, and AIDS.

Exactly.  I don't know where people get this crazy notion that we don't make anything at all in the US any more.  Or that other countries aren't chomping at the bit to chip into manufacturing goods, the countries you listed are already picking up in terms of manufacturing goods.  We also still have quite a few industrial, and manufacturing sectors within our borders that are doing just fine.  The mentality that we have absolutely no manufacturing here, or the inability to do so, is quite staggering.  China would be hurt the most if they turned off said tap.

Think of it this way.  The #1 retailer, Wal-Mart, has a lot of their products made in China.  China says we need to make more guns for are army and less shovels for your Spring season openers.  Wal-Mart loses customers because they run out of stock of items made in China.  Their company stock tanks because of poor sales.  The investors who have stock in Wal-Mart are broke.  The investors have to shut down their small business of making wind turbines in the US because they can't pay their workers.  The wind turbine works are now on unemployment benefits.  And keep this going as far as you want.

I am not saying that things still aren't made in this country. Hyundai's are made in Alabama.  GE still ...


Your scenario is so unrealistic in such a high degree that it could never happen.  Once Wal-Mart starts to lose customers due to China's insane move to shoot themselves in the foot with your bizarre scenario, the "investors" will simply shift their assets to safer havens WAY before any real damage is done. The customers will simply shop elsewhere if they have to.  Also acting like these "investors" you brought into play ONLY have stock in Wal-Mart is a bit out there.  Most investors in major companies have their wealth spread out to avoid the scenario that you think will tank the US economy.  All they have to do is move their money out of Wal-Mart and put it into the hands of other companies willing to use it for their own financial gain.  I don't think your scenario would play out the way you think it will.  Most investors aren't stupid, or short sighted when it comes to their money.  Nor is China crazy enough to want to cut off their #1 customer base.  If China does something as crazy as you propose they would not come out on the winning side.

You're the one that said "China needs to do is stop making our stuff.  Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year."

There are other retailers besides Wal-Mart.  There are other countries that could easily step into the void (and have been for quite some time so there wouldn't be much of a void for very long) if China does what you stated above.   There are tons of other manufacturing companies other than the ones you listed.  The US has the ability to retool its manufacturing base rather quickly.

And your other scenario is quite ridiculous, think MAD.
 
2013-01-31 02:37:58 PM  

s1ugg0: spentmiles: long and crazy troll/joke attempt

*yawn* You're boring

In less hysterical news we'll be just fine.
[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 850x967]


Wait. Thailand has an aircraft carrier?

Thailand has a NAVY?

I can only imagine what their version of the Village People singing 'In The Navy' looks like...
 
2013-01-31 03:38:00 PM  

sid244: bedtundy: akula: sid244: Also, all China needs to do is stop making our stuff.  Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year.

I disagree.

Sure, we'd be in a rough time, but we could tool up and be making our own stuff within a year. Or Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, and others would pick up the slack quite happily.

In the meantime, China would have shut the tap off of the one major source they have for foreign currency. They would end up with vast swaths of unemployed and no ability to buy things like oil. They'd give us the economic equivalent of walking pneumonia, only to catch some bizarre combination of the Spanish Flu, Ebola, and AIDS.

Exactly.  I don't know where people get this crazy notion that we don't make anything at all in the US any more.  Or that other countries aren't chomping at the bit to chip into manufacturing goods, the countries you listed are already picking up in terms of manufacturing goods.  We also still have quite a few industrial, and manufacturing sectors within our borders that are doing just fine.  The mentality that we have absolutely no manufacturing here, or the inability to do so, is quite staggering.  China would be hurt the most if they turned off said tap.

Think of it this way.  The #1 retailer, Wal-Mart, has a lot of their products made in China.  China says we need to make more guns for are army and less shovels for your Spring season openers.  Wal-Mart loses customers because they run out of stock of items made in China.  Their company stock tanks because of poor sales.  The investors who have stock in Wal-Mart are broke.  The investors have to shut down their small business of making wind turbines in the US because they can't pay their workers.  The wind turbine works are now on unemployment benefits.  And keep this going as far as you want.

I am not saying that things still aren't made in this country. Hyundai's are made in Alabama.  GE still ...


You believed Spentmiles when he said he was in the "Marine Core"...your argument is invalid.
 
2013-01-31 03:38:04 PM  
If you haven't seen it, check out this 2008 RAND powerpoint about a study gaming out a US-China air battle scenario in the Taiwan Strait/South China Sea/Philippine Sea area:

Air Combat, Past, Present and Future [PDF]

It's largely a quantity (PLA basing) vs. quality (US stealth) debate, and China's got more

/stubmitter
 
2013-01-31 03:50:58 PM  
Oh, also, anyone who thinks the supply of cheap crap to Wal Mart is the cheif lever in the import/export side of things, has obviously never missed a meal in their life.

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

"In the realm of food, The United States remains at the top, unchallenged. The United States has the position of being the largest producer and exporter of food"

So sure, we won't have electric flyswatters or snow globes for a few months...but they won't have enough food to feed their people.  Which populace do you think will lose their faith in their leadership first?
 
2013-01-31 03:57:10 PM  

dittybopper: g4lt: dittybopper: Wicked Chinchilla: /also agree that MIRVing this would not be as useful as leaving it a singular unit.

The neat part is that you really don't need explosives on a warhead like that:  The kinetic energy alone would be enough.  If you make it nearly solid, it might have enough energy to penetrate the entire way through the hull.

That would also make it much harder for an ABM system to destroy an incoming warhead, though you may be able to knock it off course and/or disable it's guidance system, which may be "good enough".

Another interesting possibility is instead of using a single large warhead, use a lot of "small" projectiles, which would still weigh several pounds each.  At Mach 10 impact speed, a bunch of them hitting the flight deck will royally fark up a carrier without necessarily sinking it.  In the context of a dispute short of all-out open warfare between two nations, that might be an attractive option.

In the Battle off Samar in WW2, the _USS Kalinin Bay_ actually got hit numerous times with large-caliber shells that were fuzed for armor piercing, given that the Kalinin Bay was a jeep carrier, it didn't have enough armor plating to actually explode the shells, so they passed right through her.  She survived that battle and was decommissioned in 1946..  Holes won't kill a carrier, it takes explosives.

There is a big difference between shells that are moving at approximately 2,000 fps, and projectiles that are moving at well over 10,000 fps.

A projectile moving at the slower speed, assuming it doesn't explode, will just punch a hole, as was seen with Taffy 3.  A hefty projectile moving at hypervelocity will tend to have more spectacular effects, including heating and possibly pyrophoric effects.

Besides which, I wasn't talking about *SINKING* the carrier.  Read what I wrote:

Another interesting possibility is instead of using a single large warhead, use a lot of "small" projectiles, which would still weigh several pounds each.   At ...


Well, I THINK the air wing recovered to the Kalinin Bay, along with the air wings from the stricken St Lo and Gambier Bay, but there was some confusion on that score, as the entire wing at least once landed on what would later become Clark, precisely because it looked as if the Kalinin Bay was a goner
 
2013-01-31 04:02:09 PM  

dittybopper: Zenith: but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.

Actually, Germany went out of the way to avoid getting the US involved in both WWI and WWII.  In both instances, the military (read: Kaiserliche Marine in WWI, and Kriegsmarine in WWII) was told in no uncertain terms by the political leadership to avoid incidents with US ships as much as possible.


Ask the _USS Reuben James_ how well the Kreigsmarine listened to that.  Sunk, Halloween, 1941  WW2 officially started 12/7/41.
 
2013-01-31 04:04:12 PM  
kevo.dasaku.net
SOON
 
2013-01-31 04:09:14 PM  

Five Tails of Fury: s1ugg0: spentmiles: long and crazy troll/joke attempt

*yawn* You're boring

In less hysterical news we'll be just fine.
[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 850x967]

Wait. Thailand has an aircraft carrier?

Thailand has a NAVY?

I can only imagine what their version of the Village People singing 'In The Navy' looks like...


Meh, Navies don't impress me much after I found out Bolivia has one.  Extra bonus: it's not the only landlocked nation with one, nor particularly unique in its reasoning
 
2013-01-31 04:15:45 PM  
It's not that unlikely, honestly. Most nations seem to consider a blue naval force to be kind of passé due to the ability to field a cruise missile or twelve in a matter of seconds. No warning, just explosions. I'm not envious of our sailors.
 
2013-01-31 04:20:24 PM  

spentmiles: With the current administration pushing massive defense spending cuts (by way of refusing to make the cuts in entitlements), America will soon lose its ranking as the largest, most powerful military in the world.  We'll fall second to China, then third to India, and soon we'll be pillow fighting with the rest of the pre-teens at the bottom-of-the-list-sleepover.  We won't be sending forces to help quell the Greek riots or any other humanitarian or security missions.  We'll be welcoming Chinese soldiers to our gulf coasts and other disaster prone areas.  How does that make you feel?

How does the thought of a Chinese soldier laying his bayonet next to your daughter's bed make you feel?
How does the vision of your wife stir frying the household pets for the "visiting" platoon sound?
How does the sound of "OOOOHHHHAAAAAAAA...." beginning the answer to even simple questions make you feel?
How does that ping pong paddle feel in your hands as your forced to compete for rations?

Probably makes you a little sick, doesn't it?  Well, you could always join the American Armed Forces and do something about it - or, do something about it as a private citizen, while you still have your Second Amendment rights.

Or you could go back to bed and snuggle yourself to sleep in your warm comforter.  Tell me, American slave, was it sewn in the USA?

I didn't think so.


The US military budget is still more than every other country in the world combined.

Your argument is politically motivated nonsense
 
2013-01-31 04:21:36 PM  
And spentmiles continues to get bites.  Amazing.
 
2013-01-31 04:54:21 PM  
BillCo

I blame the Republicans!


Trying to decide which is funnier
A) That you've posted that in so many threads today
B) That the moderators are so cowardly that when someone posts "I blame Democrats" the post gets deleted.
 
2013-01-31 06:56:52 PM  

Thunderpipes: maggoo: Thunderpipes: Carriers operate alone too, with only maybe 1 ship around to help it, and no aircraft, no subs, and no means to defeat incoming missiles.

Obviously, the ships escorting the carrier are also magically immune to anything that might conceivabily be thrown at them, and China's military is expected to be packed with morons who can't pull a strategy out of their collective asses even if their lives depended on it.

No, I don't think they could. To actually hit one of our carriers would require an enormous effort, and assure that China no longer would have a military shortly afterwards.

This is Fark. People here think China, Russia, Brazil, Canada could somehow kick our asses with magic missiles and supersonic torpedoes and diesel-electric subs. Of course I expect this. You see a picture of a rumored Chinese stealth fighter and all of a sudden the F-15 and F-22 are doomed. The latest Russian tank is encountered in Iraq and the Abrams is doomed. Just never turns out that way.

China probably could damage a carrier if they focused thousands of units against it. It would have to be a surprise attack. Then what? No aircraft, no sub, no surface ship would be able to so much as leave port or take to the air without getting its ass kicked. A hundred million screaming Chinamen on the ground are no use. Nuclear war?


you're a racist lil prick aren't ya?
 
2013-01-31 08:36:04 PM  

mbillips: We "lost" the Vietnam war because we decided it was against our national interest to continue fighting it, not because our military was incapable of continuing to control the southern part of the country indefinitely.


www.slantmagazine.com
"Do we get to win this time?"
 
2013-01-31 08:42:15 PM  

sid244: Also, all China needs to do is stop making our stuff. Our business would collapse, the financial sector would go bankrupt and we would become a third world country in about a year.


I don't think that's quite right. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's quite wrong. There are lots of other countries to get cheap labor from; China's just really convenient.
 
2013-01-31 08:53:08 PM  
They are easy to sink, so we should sell them some carriers to pay off the debt and BO's vacations.
 
2013-01-31 09:54:14 PM  

taurusowner: I'm astonished how many people think we'd actually retaliate if one of our carriers were attacked. We'd probably apologize to China for our carrier being there in the first place, then ask to borrow some more money.


Probably. Plus Obama would bow to their Emperor Secretary General.
 
2013-02-01 07:37:23 AM  

dhandler: Zeno-25: Oh, scary. If only we had some way of shooting down ballistic missiles.
Oh wait, our Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers can already do that.

Yeah... imagine if that defenseless white square in the desert had a Phalanx CIWS protecting it.


I suspect if you got the missle high enough that it was basically a propelled bomb, it might be tough for some of these CIWS to be effective.
 
2013-02-01 07:50:13 AM  

g4lt: dittybopper: Zenith: but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.

Actually, Germany went out of the way to avoid getting the US involved in both WWI and WWII.  In both instances, the military (read: Kaiserliche Marine in WWI, and Kriegsmarine in WWII) was told in no uncertain terms by the political leadership to avoid incidents with US ships as much as possible.

Ask the _USS Reuben James_ how well the Kreigsmarine listened to that.  Sunk, Halloween, 1941  WW2 officially started 12/7/41.


Yep.  And guess what?  The USS Reuben James was hit at 05:25 on October 31st.  It was dark out.  Ever try to see a flag at night, with no lights?

The USS Reuben James was actively escorting a British convoy.  That alone is a violation of neutrality.  Even in October of 1941, U-boat commanders were told to avoid incidents with US ships, but that doesn't mean they were to avoid attacking convoys.
 
2013-02-01 07:51:28 AM  
I should point out that if you are going to argue with me about the finer points of the U-bootswaffe during WWII, you're probably going to lose unless you were actually there.   It's one of my "areas of interest".
 
2013-02-01 10:09:45 PM  

dittybopper: g4lt: dittybopper: Zenith: but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.

Actually, Germany went out of the way to avoid getting the US involved in both WWI and WWII.  In both instances, the military (read: Kaiserliche Marine in WWI, and Kriegsmarine in WWII) was told in no uncertain terms by the political leadership to avoid incidents with US ships as much as possible.

Ask the _USS Reuben James_ how well the Kreigsmarine listened to that.  Sunk, Halloween, 1941  WW2 officially started 12/7/41.

Yep.  And guess what?  The USS Reuben James was hit at 05:25 on October 31st.  It was dark out.  Ever try to see a flag at night, with no lights?

The USS Reuben James was actively escorting a British convoy.  That alone is a violation of neutrality.  Even in October of 1941, U-boat commanders were told to avoid incidents with US ships, but that doesn't mean they were to avoid attacking convoys.


Had that been an isolated incident, you might have a point, but the Reuben James was the second ship hit and the first sunk.
 
2013-02-02 12:25:48 AM  

g4lt: dittybopper: g4lt: dittybopper: Zenith: but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.

Actually, Germany went out of the way to avoid getting the US involved in both WWI and WWII.  In both instances, the military (read: Kaiserliche Marine in WWI, and Kriegsmarine in WWII) was told in no uncertain terms by the political leadership to avoid incidents with US ships as much as possible.

Ask the _USS Reuben James_ how well the Kreigsmarine listened to that.  Sunk, Halloween, 1941  WW2 officially started 12/7/41.

Yep.  And guess what?  The USS Reuben James was hit at 05:25 on October 31st.  It was dark out.  Ever try to see a flag at night, with no lights?

The USS Reuben James was actively escorting a British convoy.  That alone is a violation of neutrality.  Even in October of 1941, U-boat commanders were told to avoid incidents with US ships, but that doesn't mean they were to avoid attacking convoys.

Had that been an isolated incident, you might have a point, but the Reuben James was the second ship hit and the first sunk.


We were actively violating neutrality by escorting British ships.  Standing orders to the Ubootwaffe were to avoid attacking US flagged ships if possible.

Also, we fired first:   First shots the US fired in WWII were by the USS Niblack at a German U-boat in April of 1941, almost 6 moths before the Reuben James was sunk.
 
2013-02-02 01:10:43 AM  

dittybopper: g4lt: dittybopper: g4lt: dittybopper: Zenith: but this sort of scenario didn't stop Germany in the first and second world wars.

Actually, Germany went out of the way to avoid getting the US involved in both WWI and WWII.  In both instances, the military (read: Kaiserliche Marine in WWI, and Kriegsmarine in WWII) was told in no uncertain terms by the political leadership to avoid incidents with US ships as much as possible.

Ask the _USS Reuben James_ how well the Kreigsmarine listened to that.  Sunk, Halloween, 1941  WW2 officially started 12/7/41.

Yep.  And guess what?  The USS Reuben James was hit at 05:25 on October 31st.  It was dark out.  Ever try to see a flag at night, with no lights?

The USS Reuben James was actively escorting a British convoy.  That alone is a violation of neutrality.  Even in October of 1941, U-boat commanders were told to avoid incidents with US ships, but that doesn't mean they were to avoid attacking convoys.

Had that been an isolated incident, you might have a point, but the Reuben James was the second ship hit and the first sunk.

We were actively violating neutrality by escorting British ships.  Standing orders to the Ubootwaffe were to avoid attacking US flagged ships if possible.

Also, we fired first:   First shots the US fired in WWII were by the USS Niblack at a German U-boat in April of 1941, almost 6 moths before the Reuben James was sunk.


The first shots fired were also fired at what was NS Argentia, a US Naval base.  Not really what I'd call "avoid[ing] incidents with the US".
 
Displayed 216 of 216 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report