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  
•       •       •

14150 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | 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