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  
•       •       •

14140 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 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.
 
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 »
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