It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 59
1
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Yeah... all of those 800 missile have 100% success rate? I think not. Civilian casualties are bound to happen no matter how sophisticated the tech. Even if the missiles have a 90% success rat which is very good, that means that 80 missile will go of target.

And as I don't care about my exclusion, as much as I agree with our armed force I would personally disagree with them if they decide to put troops in Taiwan. I think the American people will react the same way, sure I have no problem with sending carries and a few subs, but putting troops on the ground will cause the public to disapprove of our actions.




posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
"According to the Cox report, Beijing had already managed to obtain sensitive laser technology enabling them to test miniature nuclear weapons and to assist the Chinese navy in locating hard-to-find U.S. nuclear submarines. "

www.house.gov...



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Nuclear weapons don't matter in this conflict because they wont be used unless both sides want to loose everything. Well ok so we knew about this in 98 and its now 2005 you think we have sat on our A and not done anything bout it?
No one is better at hunting and tracking subs than the U.S. well the soviets were good but they aren't around anymore. We played this game fro 40 years.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah... all of those 800 missile have 100% success rate? I think not. Civilian casualties are bound to happen no matter how sophisticated the tech. Even if the missiles have a 90% success rat which is very good, that means that 80 missile will go of target.


I never said the missiles have 100% success rate.

Read my post, it is accurate to the 10 meters.

The 10% that miss is not going to go to Hawaii. In terms of an Airfield, it will still hit the airfield, for an C&C centre, it will still hit parts of it.


[edit on 31-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah... all of those 800 missile have 100% success rate? I think not. Civilian casualties are bound to happen no matter how sophisticated the tech. Even if the missiles have a 90% success rat which is very good, that means that 80 missile will go of target.


I never said the missiles have 100% success rate.

Read my post, it is accurate to the 10 meters.

The 10% that miss is not going to go to Hawaii, it will land within 10 meters.



As we've seen with the US in Iraq, you can the the most accurate weapons in the world but you are still going to cause civilian casualties. When talking about weapon accuracy, the claim of 10m refers to the 50% of missiles that will fall within a 10 mtere radius the outhers will fall outside it. Besides it would be impossible that all the missiles would work ( more likely a sizable % would fail to land even near thair targets ), hence the reason why China is amassing so many of them.

Any missile offensive will result in civilain casualties as many of the targets would be in or near populated areas.



It is not difficult with today's missiles to strike 99%+ within an area of several meters. Significant civilian casualties are not going to occur from missiles strikes, it will mostly target airfields.


Well it is very difficult to get those success rates, actually I'd say unobtainable even for the US - who we all agree lead the world in precision weaponry.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
After nosing around the web, i see what you mean, the post above will be edited accordingly.

However, this does not change my argument.

The landscape of Iraq and Taiwan is extremely different.

The U.S used missiles to destroy targets like radio stations, tv stations, power stations which are all harboured in civilian areas.

China will not use these missiles to target civilian targets, it will be used to target the bases outside cities, the airfields, C&C centres etc etc etc. Therefore the chances of civilian casulties will be low. In terms of military targets, close enough is good enough.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
China will not use these missiles to target civilian targets, it will be used to target the bases outside cities, the airfields, C&C centres etc etc etc. Therefore the chances of civilian casulties will be low. In terms of military targets, close enough is good enough.


And you can say that with confidence after Tienammen Square 1989?


Military objectives are just..... targets. Civillians or whatever.....



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by rapier28
China will not use these missiles to target civilian targets, it will be used to target the bases outside cities, the airfields, C&C centres etc etc etc. Therefore the chances of civilian casulties will be low. In terms of military targets, close enough is good enough.


And you can say that with confidence after Tienammen Square 1989?


Military objectives are just..... targets. Civillians or whatever.....


I'am analysing this from a pure Military angle.

1. China does not wish to harm Taiwanese civilians, instills hatred and makes insurgence, blah blah blah.

2. 800 Missiles is not enough to do substantial "terror" to the civilian population and we have all seen in the past, terror campaigns do not work. Eg, Bombing of London, Nanjing Massacre, etc.

3. Taiwan's military installations, especially airfields are easy and tempting to target, traditionally and historically, Taiwan has always being a difficult place to defend.

4. I can guarrantee that those missiles will not be used on civilians. The leadership of China is not stupid, all 9 are Engineer graduates from China's top university.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
just a picture to add



China testing out fleet air defences



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Now, now Rapier you know you shouldn't guarantee anything because things never go according to plan. And have you seen the Taiwanese Air Force exercises they are mastering landing their jets in highways and wide avenues incase their airbases get hit.
Now you know what happens when you try to bomb urban areas, 10 meters which is 33 feet is not close enough.

And Lucretus, what is your point with going around posting that picture? To prove that china can shoot down drones with beacons form ships?



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
And you can say that with confidence after Tienammen Square 1989?

I think so, your going to hunch your bet on one incident?
Risky...mate...risky...


Military objectives are just..... targets. Civillians or whatever.....

Actually civilian targets tend to be messages..
Aka shock and awe or to inflict fear...BUT hitting military targets is JUST as effective..
As the american president said " whats the point in sending a 2 million dollar missile into a tent with a fle bitten cammel in it,"



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


And Lucretus, what is your point with going around posting that picture? To prove that china can shoot down drones with beacons form ships?


Fleet air defences... in a thread where Naval power is one of the primal features... I thought it apt to post an image of a PLAN destroyer shooting down an incoming missile... seeing as you seem to think they still try and swat them down with sticks



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
That missile is not incoming, the damn thing is flying level and can it leave bigger heat signature behind it than that trail.
No one thinks they shoot them down with sticks and stones, but no one is going to assume it can defend the ship from everything just because of that picture.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius

Originally posted by WestPoint23


And Lucretus, what is your point with going around posting that picture? To prove that china can shoot down drones with beacons form ships?


Fleet air defences... in a thread where Naval power is one of the primal features... I thought it apt to post an image of a PLAN destroyer shooting down an incoming missile... seeing as you seem to think they still try and swat them down with sticks


The ship appears to be relatively lightly armed, is that an 8 round SAM launcher on the bow ? I would hvae thought in this day and age VLS would have been the way to go. Not to mention the configuration on the Chinese ship makes the SAMS's highly vulnerable to damage.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Lucretius, what ship is that?

Most new Chinese DDG's are just testing platforms for a future model, that's why there are like a new model every year or so. The design is not really finalised.

[edit on 2-4-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
It's an older Jiangwei Class missile frigate in service since 1992

The design is classed as "moderate" in capability, but the design has been proven highly succesfull

There are currently 14 ships of this class in service with the PLAN, some are being upgraded with more modern systems.

Westpoint... that missile is incoming as it goes "against" the vector of the ship... it could be targetting something behind for all we know. A transport ship perhaps, but this excercise I presume is to see how well the PLAN can defend an invasion fleet.

EDIT:... it's lightly armed because it's a smaller frigate class ship... not a destroyer

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Westpoint... that missile is incoming as it goes "against" the vector of the ship... it could be targetting something behind for all we know. A transport ship perhaps, but this excercise I presume is to see how well the PLAN can defend an invasion fleet.


I'm just saying the missile or whatever it is, is flying almost in a straight line.
And an invasion? You think someone is going to invade the fleet with one missile? Try 10's of missiles
And can that anti Missile System shoot down Supersonic or Hypersonic missiles?



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
The Type 053H2G’s surface-to-air missile system is the semi-active radar-homing HQ-61B developed by Shanghai Academy of Space Flight Technology (SAST). A bulk six-cell launcher is installed on the bow deck behind the twin-100mm main gun. The missile has a range of 12km and uses semi-active radar/optical homing to deliver a 14kg fragmentation warhead. The reloading mechanism is manually operated.

The Type 053H3 has been upgraded with an 8-cell HQ-7 semi-active, radar-homing air defence missile system. The missile has an extended range of 13km. The speed is Mach 2.4 and the warhead is 14kg. The system has 8 ready-to-fire missiles and 8 spare missiles, but the reloading mechanism is operated manually.


Nothing special... air defence is not the primary function of this ship

It has extremely potent surface strike firepower however



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
The ship appears to be relatively lightly armed, is that an 8 round SAM launcher on the bow ? I would hvae thought in this day and age VLS would have been the way to go. Not to mention the configuration on the Chinese ship makes the SAMS's highly vulnerable to damage.


Yes the Chinese do have VLS equipped air defence ships with systems similar to the AEGIS now. One just recently built, the Type 052C class. They are armed with HQ-9 missiles which are similar in performance with the Russian S-300 (NATO: SS-N-6 Grumble missiles) (which is very deadly!)

More are coming up.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
HHQ-9s are superior to SS-N-6s. HHQ-9s have 200Km range, max flight altitude of 40km and they are the naval version of HQ-9 which have entered service from 1997 according to the report that I am reading now. I also see a HQ-9A which is a continuation of the design with modifications to reduce reaction speed, seeker abilities and with excellent anti-jamming abilities and have an anti-tactical missile (I'm not sure what anti-tactical missiles are but could it be ABM?) ability.



[edit on 2-4-2005 by COWlan]

[edit on 2-4-2005 by COWlan]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join