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 216
    More: Interesting, missile test  
•       •       •

14138 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 7:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report