China Can Sink Our Aircraft Carriers...This kind of gets frightening.

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
defensetech.org 12/28/2010 - China’s Carrier Killer Ballistic Missiles are Operational

"Adm. Robert Willard, the top U.S. officer in the Pacific said this week that China’s new DF-21D anti-ship balistic missiles, with their 900-mile range, have reached an early operational status."


Phoenix-
Just the flare of multiple ballistic missile launches would indeed be a risky but calculated move once U.S. projected trajectory - calculation being would U.S. launch on mainland China as a response or would they wait to see how CBG defence worked out first before responding at a higher level.


DF-21D appears to be deployed on mobile launchers. This gives them the preemptive edge and what would be the point in hunting down mobile launchers that have already fired their salvos?


So what prize is worth taking on a U.S. carrier battle Group in a future scenario where China is ready to risk open warfare?


It is very simple. Supercarriers are assumed to be invincible. If one or more can be destroyed, then American morale and war support plummets drastically.


With something worth the fallout (no pun intended) how would you then use the DF21D's?


You just can't use anti-carrier missiles by themselves, they are a component in a larger assault. If a CBG encountered a Chinese naval group, then there would be ship to ship combat and air combat. Submarines would play a major role too, and considering it would probably happen around China, I'm sure there would be more Chinese subs involved than American ones.

American systems would already be heavily engaged so sending in a dozen ASBMs would probably over-power the CBG's defenses. Seems like even one hit from a DF-21 will probably cripple a carrier and destroy 30+ aircraft. If it can take out the flightdeck, catapult and/or aircraft elevators, then the carrier becomes useless.


The Soviets had most of the elements the Chinese have except the ballistic missile component and it was worrisome at the time from what I've read, The Chinese have added another element that if effective at all adds another dimension to protecting a CBG from losing it's prime offensive strike capability which is the sole reason for its existence.


Soviets have always lead with ballistic missile technology. They've had anti-carrier ballistic missiles designed and deployed for decades, even arming their own ships with them. One older example is the SS-N-22 Sunburn (the P-270 Moskit), deployed in the 70s on ships, aircraft, land vehicles, and even subs. It definitely shows how the Soviets/Russians have always had anti-ship ballistic missiles ready to use through many deployment methods, while the Chinese are just developing such systems in relevant terms.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: stupid linking errors




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
If its so easy for them to sink our carriers why would china be building/acquiring carriers
www.globalsecurity.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Even if they have a missile that can hit a US carrier the US has many ways to take out one of there's.

And then there is the US navy's rail gun program.
a rail-gun system would be the perfect gun for taking out high speed mach 10 missiles.
gizmodo.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
If its so easy for them to sink our carriers why would china be building/acquiring carriers
www.globalsecurity.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


Probably because a carrier battle group represents a serious strategic naval force which can independently wage their own battles?


Even if they have a missile that can hit a US carrier the US has many ways to take out one of there's.


Aside from submarines, what specific anti-carrier technology does the US have deployed? Remember, carriers require more effort to destroy than regular ships, so basic anti-ship missiles are not the same as anti-carrier missiles.

And look at Russia. They've pioneered anti-carrier missile technology yet they still maintain the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier flagship of the Northern Fleet, and have plans for two more CBGs in a decade.

The whole point of a CBG is force projection. If you have a CBG, then you have a major naval-aerial force; if you destroy a CBG, then the enemy loses a major naval-aerial force.


And then there is the US navy's rail gun program.
a rail-gun system would be the perfect gun for taking out high speed mach 10 missiles.
gizmodo.com...


No, the railgun is not perfect for destroying hypersonic missiles. I fail to see how a gun can track and shoot down a missile that is going at Mach 10. The railgun is an artillery platform.

However, the railgun could be useful for shooting large penetrating-HE rounds at ships or even an enemy carrier. The US is still a long ways away from perfecting railgun technology though so I don't expect to see much deployment of combat railguns within the next 10 years.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
DF-21D appears to be deployed on mobile launchers. This gives them the preemptive edge and what would be the point in hunting down mobile launchers that have already fired their salvos?

The DF-21D has a fairly limited range compared to other ballistic missiles and carrier based aircraft, I wouldn't rely on commanders to drive a valuable USCG right into anti-surface range without establishing air superiority and eliminating the threat first.


It is very simple. Supercarriers are assumed to be invincible. If one or more can be destroyed, then American morale and war support plummets drastically.

If they were assumed to be invincible they would not be so heavily protected, given the United States expertise with misinformation it might be used to enrage the American public toward some war cause, like 9/11.


You just can't use anti-carrier missiles by themselves, they are a component in a larger assault. If a CBG encountered a Chinese naval group, then there would be ship to ship combat and air combat. Submarines would play a major role too, and considering it would probably happen around China, I'm sure there would be more Chinese subs involved than American ones.

The PLAN does not have much in the way of surface vessels, it's major strength is the amount of low tech (but quiet) attack submarines. The surface vessels they do have suffer mostly from lack of long range SSMs and effective missile defense systems, an encounter with the US Navy would be a one sided battle. IMHO, China's best bet against an attacking USCG would be a number of their quiet submarines, which would still be difficult because the US has some very good passive sonar systems aboard their submarines (a number of these would be accompanying a USCG far out front to detect subs) as well as specialized mine and submarine hunting ships. The US has quite a few methods of detecting submarines actually, many of these vessels are very slow for listening purposes as well, slowing down the entire group if it is advancing.

People's Liberation Army Navy
Submarines
Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines 5
Nuclear Attack Submarines 5
Conventional Ballistic Missile Submarines 1
Conventional Attack Submarines 47
Total Submarines 58
Principal Surface Combatants
Aircraft Carriers 0
Destroyers 26
Frigates 51

US Navy
Aircraft Carriers
Class No. of Hulls
CVN 65 1
CVN 68 10
Ballistic Missile Submarines
Class No. of Hulls
SSBN 726 14
Guided Missile Submarines
Class No. of Hulls
SSGN 726 4
Surface Combatants
Class No. of Hulls
CG 47 22
DDG 51 59
FFG 7 19
LCS 1 1
LCS 2 1
Nuclear Attack Submarines
Class No. of Hulls
SSN 21 3
SSN 688 43
SSN 774 7

I apologize for the difference in the charts they are from different sources. As you can see, even by numbers they stack up in favor of the US Navy. If you examine the individual ships and subs, you can see that any US Navy ship is by far superior to any given PLAN ship. I am not even trying to brag or anything, this is just plain cold hard fact.


American systems would already be heavily engaged so sending in a dozen ASBMs would probably over-power the CBG's defenses. Seems like even one hit from a DF-21 will probably cripple a carrier and destroy 30+ aircraft. If it can take out the flightdeck, catapult and/or aircraft elevators, then the carrier becomes useless.

Again this is assuming a USCG would even get within range of it before it was destroyed. Guided missile cruisers and destroyers in the US Navy have separate systems for engaging ballistic missiles and cruise missiles/airborne threats, with the ballistic missile variant also capable of engaging airborne threats and satellites. Some of these missiles are also able to be used as last ditch anti-surface weapons, it is a very advanced defense system and any commander hostile to US forces would be a fool to take this lightly. Even if it were to happen, the number of missiles required to penetrate the AEGIS defense is getting ridiculous as the technology advances. The fact that the DF-21D is a hypersonic missile helps(like the sunburn), but it is still subject, just because it goes fast doesn't make it immune to a defensive missile system. All the speed does is effectively cut in half the number of missiles required to make a hit. Also I believe (I could be wrong) the RIM-161 SM-3, if the containing vessel is close enough, is capable of targeting it all the way up to its orbital re-entry maneuver as well.
see:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...


Soviets have always lead with ballistic missile technology. They've had anti-carrier ballistic missiles designed and deployed for decades, even arming their own ships with them. One older example is the SS-N-22 Sunburn (the P-270 Moskit), deployed in the 70s on ships, aircraft, land vehicles, and even subs. It definitely shows how the Soviets/Russians have always had anti-ship ballistic missiles ready to use through many deployment methods, while the Chinese are just developing such systems in relevant terms.

To say that they have led ballistic missile technology is a bit of an opinion, as both nations actively concentrated on different aspects of hypersonic missiles for different purposes. The same hypersonic missiles the US Navy uses for defense are also capable of attacking surface targets, though the warhead is small, it is effective as a swarm weapon, it only takes one missile to impact the right place to disable a ship sometimes. That aside, the SS-N-22 is a weapon that I have always admired, even though it is incredibly short ranged by todays standards (it burns fuel very fast). The US Navy has always concentrated on air attack power and used hypersonic missiles as primarily a defensive system, many people do not know that they are also capable of attacking ships.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Aside from submarines, what specific anti-carrier technology does the US have deployed? Remember, carriers require more effort to destroy than regular ships, so basic anti-ship missiles are not the same as anti-carrier missiles.

The United States has advanced air superiority aircraft and other assets capable of cleanly shooting down the aircraft that the carrier contains, why would they even need to target the carrier itself? Most other nations don't have anything close to US missile defense systems, so anti-ship missiles are the same as anti-carrier missiles.


And look at Russia. They've pioneered anti-carrier missile technology yet they still maintain the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier flagship of the Northern Fleet, and have plans for two more CBGs in a decade.

What anti-carrier missile technology are you referring to? The technology I think you are talking about it very old (1960s) and no longer pursued, an anti-carrier missile is nothing more than a standard anti-ship missile designed to penetrate heavy defenses, though it is still subject to those same defenses. If they were smart they would start packing missiles with leading edges covered in radar absorbent material. This might do the job a little better, but is very expensive considering missiles are meant to be expendable, also, the faster a missile goes the bigger the signature it makes while traveling through the air, this might make radar absorbent missiles obsolete all together, I don't know I'm not a rocket scientist.


No, the railgun is not perfect for destroying hypersonic missiles. I fail to see how a gun can track and shoot down a missile that is going at Mach 10. The railgun is an artillery platform.

However, the railgun could be useful for shooting large penetrating-HE rounds at ships or even an enemy carrier. The US is still a long ways away from perfecting railgun technology though so I don't expect to see much deployment of combat railguns within the next 10 years.

There are no missiles that go Mach 10 unless you count the projectile from the railgun itself, which does not contain a warhead. Railguns would be, in theory, very effective at shooting down A missile, but they consume massive amounts of energy, generate a lot of heat, have a slow reload time and would be difficult to accurately hit a missile with, but it is possible. really its kind of fitting for a nuclear guided missile cruiser given they find a way to rapidly fire it. However railguns are probably quite effective at attacking surface ships and land based targets due to the amount of kinetic energy they transfer upon impact. In short I agree with you on this.

For the record, the US is making aircraft that can outrun any missile from any nation. You think the rest of the world has the edge on the US in missile technology, take a look at this very impressive, but nasty weapon:
www.futurefirepower.com...

Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.
edit on 2-1-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
DF-21D appears to be deployed on mobile launchers. This gives them the preemptive edge and what would be the point in hunting down mobile launchers that have already fired their salvos?

The DF-21D has a fairly limited range compared to other ballistic missiles and carrier based aircraft, I wouldn't rely on commanders to drive a valuable USCG right into anti-surface range without establishing air superiority and eliminating the threat first




Looks like the DF-21 has pretty damn good range to me. US pacific commanders think so too, according to their explanation for why China has deployed an operational carrier-killer system ahead of US intel predictions (just like how the Chinese are going to have their carrier deployed ahead of schedule too).


I apologize for the difference in the charts they are from different sources. As you can see, even by numbers they stack up in favor of the US Navy. If you examine the individual ships and subs, you can see that any US Navy ship is by far superior to any given PLAN ship. I am not even trying to brag or anything, this is just plain cold hard fact.


Like I said before, if China was to engage the US in a naval encounter, it would be around Chinese waters. American navy is outstretched all over the world while China will focus most of their known naval forces around their own territory. I honestly doubt the US will have more or even match Chinese numbers in a naval confrontation. Then you have to take into account that in this territory, China will be able to send aircraft, ballistic missiles and artillery from land for support.

I say China has the advantage around Chinese territorial waters.


Guided missile cruisers and destroyers in the US Navy have separate systems for engaging ballistic missiles and cruise missiles/airborne threats, with the ballistic missile variant also capable of engaging airborne threats and satellites.


Like what, ABM systems? Patriot missiles use in actual combat has proven it to be highly effective (I think its success rate against basic Scuds in the Gulf War was 3%). PAC-3 probably has some improvements, THAAD might be the best bet, but all ABM systems are inferior to modern ballistic missiles in terms of counter measures and maneuverability.

I've said it many times before on ATS: American weapons look pretty nice when tested in a controlled, optimum environment... but I severely doubt their reliability in a real combat scenario against a capable opponent force. The more complex the systems are, the easier they are to be overpowered or simply malfunction.

In a true naval engagement between American and Chinese/Russian armadas, anti-carrier missiles will be used when the American vessels are engaged in combat. In all of the haze of combat, and after other damage has already been done and a lot of ammo has already been depleted, then the carrier-killing missiles will become a very serious threat.


Even if it were to happen, the number of missiles required to penetrate the AEGIS defense is getting ridiculous as the technology advances.


AEGIS defense is nothing more than an integrated naval and air defense network. It looks nice in theory, but any real commander knows that it will fall to pieces if key targets are taken out. AWACS craft from the carrier would be a good start. A few anti-radiation missiles to radar coms on ships would further cut apart the network. AEGIS is really just a nice way of saying that American forces are no longer trained to fight independently because they should always be a part of a bigger force, but when the force breaks down then it all falls to pieces.


just because it goes fast doesn't make it immune to a defensive missile system. All the speed does is effectively cut in half the number of missiles required to make a hit.


The defensive missiles need to be fast enough to even get close enough to make the kill, which they can't because they aren't hypersonic.


The US Navy has always concentrated on air attack power and used hypersonic missiles as primarily a defensive system, many people do not know that they are also capable of attacking ships.


The US has hypersonic missiles? In defensive roles?

Yeah, they can be used to attack ships. So can all of the anti-surface missiles that the Soviets/Russians have deployed on their ships. I don't know much about Chinese anti-surface missiles though.


The United States has advanced air superiority aircraft and other assets capable of cleanly shooting down the aircraft that the carrier contains, why would they even need to target the carrier itself?


American stealth aircraft are far from what they are cracked up to be, and can already be targeted by at least the SAMs that Russia develops. Most of their stealth comes from ECM too, and American commanders even say that the S-300 can track and destroy the F-35 until the F-35 gets ECM upgrades in 7 years or so.


What anti-carrier missile technology are you referring to? The technology I think you are talking about it very old (1960s) and no longer pursued, an anti-carrier missile is nothing more than a standard anti-ship missile designed to penetrate heavy defenses, though it is still subject to those same defenses. If they were smart they would start packing missiles with leading edges covered in radar absorbent material. This might do the job a little better, but is very expensive considering missiles are meant to be expendable, also, the faster a missile goes the bigger the signature it makes while traveling through the air, this might make radar absorbent missiles obsolete all together, I don't know I'm not a rocket scientist.


Anti-carrier missiles have a special trajectory that is designed to avoid and out-maneuver most defensive naval systems. They also carry heavier warheads.

Russians have developed many types of anti-carrier missiles, and their modern ballistic missiles have advanced countermeasures like decoys, radar-absorbing material, laser-resistant coatings, ability to change flight path, etc etc.


There are no missiles that go Mach 10 unless you count the projectile from the railgun itself, which does not contain a warhead


haha, for one, I said that because that's exactly what you said. Secondly, I have little doubt that Russia has advanced cruise missiles that go Mach 10+ (like the X-90 GELA).

And yes, a rail gun projectile can indeed carry a warhead. Kinetic prospects are only a first in the field.


For the record, the US is making aircraft that can outrun any missile from any nation. You think the rest of the world has the edge on the US in missile technology


I know what the X-51 is, and it's old technology compared to what Russia has been testing since the early 90s. Only difference is that Russia doesn't show off their scariest technology.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I think aside from having these missiles, the most scary thing is that China can sneak up on your carriers with their relatively primitive submarines undetected, in a combat situation, that is perhaps what ends 4000 lives. I however, genuinely believe that the US could not match China in an open conflict; there are more Chinese, they are fanatically loyal to their state and they know their terrain (and that of the surrounding nations) and they have less to lose.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Looks like the DF-21 has pretty damn good range to me. US pacific commanders think so too, according to their explanation for why China has deployed an operational carrier-killer system ahead of US intel predictions (just like how the Chinese are going to have their carrier deployed ahead of schedule too).

Honestly I would not consider that to be a very good range compared to other ballistic missiles, though it is considerable and effective enough to cover the waters around China. It is not beyond the range of American cruise missiles, bombers and attack aircraft though.


Like I said before, if China was to engage the US in a naval encounter, it would be around Chinese waters. American navy is outstretched all over the world while China will focus most of their known naval forces around their own territory. I honestly doubt the US will have more or even match Chinese numbers in a naval confrontation. Then you have to take into account that in this territory, China will be able to send aircraft, ballistic missiles and artillery from land for support.

I say China has the advantage around Chinese territorial waters.

I'll give you this one, China would have a good advantage in Chinese territorial waters. Chances are though if there was a major conflict with a country like China the US would probably stop messing with countries in the middle east. I'm leaving Japan and Russia out of this conversation, unless you want to talk about diplomatic relations with those countries.


Like what, ABM systems? Patriot missiles use in actual combat has proven it to be highly effective (I think its success rate against basic Scuds in the Gulf War was 3%). PAC-3 probably has some improvements, THAAD might be the best bet, but all ABM systems are inferior to modern ballistic missiles in terms of counter measures and maneuverability.

PAC-3s and THAADs are ground based batteries. Also, I'm not sure about this but I thought the PAC-3 was a swarm missile defense system? I do know that it packs a LOT of ammo compared to other SAM batteries.


I've said it many times before on ATS: American weapons look pretty nice when tested in a controlled, optimum environment... but I severely doubt their reliability in a real combat scenario against a capable opponent force. The more complex the systems are, the easier they are to be overpowered or simply malfunction.

In a true naval engagement between American and Chinese/Russian armadas, anti-carrier missiles will be used when the American vessels are engaged in combat. In all of the haze of combat, and after other damage has already been done and a lot of ammo has already been depleted, then the carrier-killing missiles will become a very serious threat.


Well, you have the right to your opinion, but they are designed to do what they do. The US military has made mistakes before, but I don't believe their missile defense system is one of them, it is very advanced. Like I said before it may be a mistake for an enemy commander to underestimate the abilities of a USCG.

Given that an entire USCG ran out of ammunition yes it would be vulnerable, I want to note that SSMs and even ballistic missiles at a certain point are also vulnerable to aircraft launched AMRAAMs.


AEGIS defense is nothing more than an integrated naval and air defense network. It looks nice in theory, but any real commander knows that it will fall to pieces if key targets are taken out. AWACS craft from the carrier would be a good start. A few anti-radiation missiles to radar coms on ships would further cut apart the network. AEGIS is really just a nice way of saying that American forces are no longer trained to fight independently because they should always be a part of a bigger force, but when the force breaks down then it all falls to pieces.


Well, you would have to disable all the defensive ships and guided missile cruisers/destroyers in a USCG, as they are all able to operate independently, they are just there to protect the carrier which is not designed to repel an attack by itself. Keep in mind that anti-radiation missiles can be shot down just like any other missile, might as well just use hypersonic SSMs instead. Anti-radiation missiles are designed for use against SAMs and lone targets really, not to attack a carrier group. USCGs are packed full of sensory equipment and aircraft, you would have to take them all out, this takes more firepower than most nations have.


The defensive missiles need to be fast enough to even get close enough to make the kill, which they can't because they aren't hypersonic.


All USN defensive missiles are hypersonic by far, at least the RIM series used by guided missile cruisers/destroyers protecting a carrier is, you might be able to find an obsolete missile somewhere that isn't, but it isn't used anymore. Even if they weren't, they are converging on their target head on so really they wouldn't have to be.


The US has hypersonic missiles? In defensive roles?

Yeah, they can be used to attack ships. So can all of the anti-surface missiles that the Soviets/Russians have deployed on their ships. I don't know much about Chinese anti-surface missiles though.


Yes, all defensive missiles employed by the US Navy are hypersonic, for defensive and anti-surface roles its the same propulsion system, no cruise missiles like the harpoon are though. I'm not positive about Chinese missiles either, I only know because I did some research on the DF-21 series after reading this thread. I admit if I was in charge I would invest in some hypersonic cruise missiles like Russia does as well though, they are incredibly short ranged but useful in some situations, I would at least pack a few on each missile block for some last ditch penetration goodness, maybe firing harpoons ahead of them for a destructive decoy. On the other hand we don't need to spend the taxpayer money when we already have so much long range crap to shoot # with.


American stealth aircraft are far from what they are cracked up to be, and can already be targeted by at least the SAMs that Russia develops. Most of their stealth comes from ECM too, and American commanders even say that the S-300 can track and destroy the F-35 until the F-35 gets ECM upgrades in 7 years or so.


Well, I would beg to differ on that stealth issue, but it doesn't take a stealth aircraft to fire a 100+ nm AMRAAM. F/A-18 Super Hornets are incredibly capable carrier based aircraft and they are 4th generation non-stealth attack platforms. The DOD already knows there is nothing stealthy about a carrier group and its aircraft, you can see them coming from all the way across the world. I think the UK is planning to operate JSFs from a carrier though if I'm not mistaken, but I haven't heard anything about the US doing that.


Anti-carrier missiles have a special trajectory that is designed to avoid and out-maneuver most defensive naval systems. They also carry heavier warheads.


You are either referring to a ballistic missile or what is called a 'terminal maneuver', one example of which is when a cruise missile does a 'pop up' to acquire a target on the last stretch then descends to near sea level and accelerates. Nowadays, most US cruise missiles have capabilities like these and are programmable upon launch and in flight. The Russians are, and have always been, very ingenuous in their missile approach and design in this aspect so I will have to agree with you here. The DF-21Ds approach is actually very primitive compared to Russia and the US. Either way, this is already known and has been accounted for in defensive missiles systems.


And yes, a rail gun projectile can indeed carry a warhead. Kinetic prospects are only a first in the field.


Wow really? Link? I haven't heard this.


I know what the X-51 is, and it's old technology compared to what Russia has been testing since the early 90s. Only difference is that Russia doesn't show off their scariest technology.


Again, I'm interested, link?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
Honestly I would not consider that to be a very good range compared to other ballistic missiles, though it is considerable and effective enough to cover the waters around China. It is not beyond the range of American cruise missiles, bombers and attack aircraft though.


We're not talking about other ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are in classes, such as anti-surface, anti-ship, ICBM, etc. The DF-21 is a missile specifically designed to move extremely fast (short range) to take out a large ship, like a carrier. It has adequate range for its purpose, the DF-21D itself adding over 800mile range to the original DF-21.


I'll give you this one, China would have a good advantage in Chinese territorial waters. Chances are though if there was a major conflict with a country like China the US would probably stop messing with countries in the middle east. I'm leaving Japan and Russia out of this conversation, unless you want to talk about diplomatic relations with those countries.


If the US moved its forces away from the middle east, which they would have to do in order to support a war effort in Asia anyways, then they will lose a lot of influence in that region (just like the Soviets did). The CBGs in the middle east are mostly there as a show of force against Iran.

When I said the American navy is spread out, I meant all over the world. Most of their subs are conducting long range surveillance missions or lingering near specific territorial waters (like Russia) in case of nuclear war. There is no way that the US can amass most of its naval power against one enemy, because they use their navy to stalk the entire world and to keep rivals in check.

Japan and Russia are definitely two major allies for the opposing sides in this hypothetical conflict, but I doubt they would be in the direct confrontations that the US and China would likely be engaged in.


PAC-3s and THAADs are ground based batteries. Also, I'm not sure about this but I thought the PAC-3 was a swarm missile defense system? I do know that it packs a LOT of ammo compared to other SAM batteries.


PAC-3 also has like half the range of the PAC-2 as well, and if I recall correctly, is designed as a kinetic weapon which makes it even less accurate than a missile with a proximity fuse.


The US military has made mistakes before, but I don't believe their missile defense system is one of them, it is very advanced.


In complete honesty, from what I have seen, their missile defense systems are completely overhyped and have a high malfunction rate. Obviously all missile systems anywhere are prone to malfunctions, especially during their development phases, but the US system has rarely proven to be nearly as effective in combat as it is during testing.

I'm not saying that their systems won't be more effective in the future, but just look at how their military machine works. They rely on corporations to build their weapons, and it has resulted to the US government spending insane amounts of money on bloated projects like the F-35 and new squad-level rifles that will cost $25,000+ a piece to produce (like the XM25).

This is why I prefer Russian weapons; cost-effective and highly efficient.


Well, you would have to disable all the defensive ships and guided missile cruisers/destroyers in a USCG, as they are all able to operate independently, they are just there to protect the carrier which is not designed to repel an attack by itself. Keep in mind that anti-radiation missiles can be shot down just like any other missile, might as well just use hypersonic SSMs instead. Anti-radiation missiles are designed for use against SAMs and lone targets really, not to attack a carrier group. USCGs are packed full of sensory equipment and aircraft, you would have to take them all out, this takes more firepower than most nations have.


There's so many factors in actual combat conditions that can never be predicted through discussion, planning or simulation. American strategy treats combat like surgery; routine, precise and predictable. However, I haven't seen them fight an enemy that is on their own level, one and one even. In the case of China especially, I would expect electronic warfare to be an advantage for the Chinese, and they would probably be able to disable some electronic elements among the US forces through electronic warfare techniques. I'm not very experienced in this new theater of war, but it is obvious to me that the more involvement in an electronic network, closed in or not, the better chance a capable enemy has at tampering with it.

Anti-radiation missiles target whatever is producing "radiation", which is what radar domes do in order to track targets of their own. They would be very useful in countering the AEGIS threat by disabling com towers, which reduces the overall capability for the CBG to defend itself.


All USN defensive missiles are hypersonic by far, at least the RIM series used by guided missile cruisers/destroyers protecting a carrier is, you might be able to find an obsolete missile somewhere that isn't, but it isn't used anymore. Even if they weren't, they are converging on their target head on so really they wouldn't have to be.


Describe what you view hypersonic as. I'm probably incorrect with my labeling here.

When I describe hypersonic, I'm talking about modern anti-surface ballistic missiles with ramjet/scramjet engines, typically those of Russia.


Well, I would beg to differ on that stealth issue, but it doesn't take a stealth aircraft to fire a 100+ nm AMRAAM. F/A-18 Super Hornets are incredibly capable carrier based aircraft and they are 4th generation non-stealth attack platforms.


I mentioned the F-35 because there is a carrier variant planned.

F-18Cs are indeed capable aircraft, but I don't know how well they would match up against Chinese J-15s (which are inferior copies of the naval Su-33), which will be arming the refurbished Varyag carrier.



And yes, a rail gun projectile can indeed carry a warhead. Kinetic prospects are only a first in the field.


Wow really? Link? I haven't heard this.


It's common sense really. Rail guns shoot a projectile without a detonation, perfect for launching nukes without being detected by satellites (or at least that's what the MGS producers thought
). Adding additional payloads will increase the desired effect.

If I had a rail gun system, I would use it specifically in my navy because only a ship can really lug one of those things around. I would load it with rounds designed to penetrate an enemy ship and explode on the inside, hopefully detonating fuel and ammo reserves.



I know what the X-51 is, and it's old technology compared to what Russia has been testing since the early 90s. Only difference is that Russia doesn't show off their scariest technology.


Again, I'm interested, link?


They have a lot of crazy, advanced technology. Their Polyus satellite laser system is a good example, they even manage to send up at least one known prototype before the USSR collapsed. The Soviets built a few facilities where they actively tested ground-based anti-satellite laser systems. They had an airborne laser system in the 90s similar to the 747 model recently tested. They now have massive Borei class subs and have conducted a few successful tests of the SS-X-30 Bulava (the sub version of the Topol-M, which is arguably the most efficient mobile nuclear-armed ICBM deployed in the world). The list goes on...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
bloody hell if they can sink an aircraft carrier i feel sorry for our small ships lol they prolly take em out with small arms fire



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
We're not talking about other ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are in classes, such as anti-surface, anti-ship, ICBM, etc. The DF-21 is a missile specifically designed to move extremely fast (short range) to take out a large ship, like a carrier. It has adequate range for its purpose, the DF-21D itself adding over 800mile range to the original DF-21.


Personally, I would destroy it before I got within its range. The US has this capability through various means, even from just the USCG itself.


When I said the American navy is spread out, I meant all over the world. Most of their subs are conducting long range surveillance missions or lingering near specific territorial waters (like Russia) in case of nuclear war. There is no way that the US can amass most of its naval power against one enemy, because they use their navy to stalk the entire world and to keep rivals in check.


USN subs are very valuable and powerful, so their locations are classified (which questions how you know where they are) and I doubt they would be anywhere dangerously close to another nations waters in the event of a conflict, the TLAMs they carry have a very long range so they don't have to put themselves in danger, it is common practice to have one or two of them screening for a USCG though. Despite US advancements in sonar technology, because of its comparably short range sonar is not a very effective surveillance method unless they have some other classified means of watching from subs, from what I have read subs don't typically try to emit anything unless its for the purpose of gaining a targeting solution or firing ballistic missiles. Targets are identified through other means (AWACs, converted recon fighters) and the missiles would be guided to the target after they are launched and follow a preset course via GPS satellites. The newest US subs (the only ones still in use) can also play host to Navy seal teams for special operations. The game is as old as the cold war, missile submarines are always in range of America therefore we will always have subs in range of them, seems fair enough, but probably not a bright idea for all parties involved to actually make use of this fact.

The US also has stationary sensors on the ocean floor all around territorial waters that can hear larger ships and seismic activity from halfway across the world, as you probably know sound travels well through water. Due to them being located below 'the layer' they are also quite good at detecting subs. Submarines and sonar technology has always been an interest of mine.


In complete honesty, from what I have seen, their missile defense systems are completely overhyped and have a high malfunction rate. Obviously all missile systems anywhere are prone to malfunctions, especially during their development phases, but the US system has rarely proven to be nearly as effective in combat as it is during testing.


Name a USN AEGIS warship that has been impacted by a SSM? One malfunction with the propulsion system occurred in a 2003 prototype test fire, other than that the system has even demonstrated its reliability. All errors are sorted out in the development and testing of these weapons. It is not that it is overhyped, nobody cares about the AEGIS system except people like you and me, so I will have to disagree with you.


This is why I prefer Russian weapons; cost-effective and highly efficient.


I will agree that Russians seem to be good at making weapons, but so is the US IMHO, it takes two to tango.


Anti-radiation missiles target whatever is producing "radiation", which is what radar domes do in order to track targets of their own. They would be very useful in countering the AEGIS threat by disabling com towers, which reduces the overall capability for the CBG to defend itself.


I know, what I am saying is that there is so much radiation being emitted from so many different sources in a USCG, you would have to disable practically every single one of them and it may even confuse the missiles guidance systems, might as well just attack with destructive warheads because anti-radiation missiles can be targeted and destroyed all the same, they are meant to be used against lone targets like SAMs. The sheer amount of radiation being emitted from the SPY-1D and SPY-3D radars can down a helicopter (and kill a person) all by itself at close range within its cone, a USCG is not a stealth target by any means and an anti-radiation attack might as well be a full on conventional attack. In the unlikely event that someone did manage to destroy every single radar in the group, targeting solutions could still be relayed through a carrier based AWACs. This is all assuming you could get through the fighter screen to fire the missile in the first place, which happens to contain some of the most advanced intercept aircraft in the world.



All USN defensive missiles are hypersonic by far, at least the RIM series used by guided missile cruisers/destroyers protecting a carrier is, you might be able to find an obsolete missile somewhere that isn't, but it isn't used anymore. Even if they weren't, they are converging on their target head on so really they wouldn't have to be.


Describe what you view hypersonic as. I'm probably incorrect with my labeling here.

When I describe hypersonic, I'm talking about modern anti-surface ballistic missiles with ramjet/scramjet engines, typically those of Russia.


Faster than sound, that's what hypersonic means literally. They travel up to 6k+ mph and can do this all the way up to low orbit. This interceptor missile is not a pushover and was designed by the same company that gave rise to the SR-71 and other technologies.

The thing about ramjet/scramjet propulsion systems is that they cannot function at lower speeds, they require the air intake produced by their velocity to function, so they must be fired from a craft that is already moving fast. The US also has missiles based on these propulsion systems, but no country has very many of them (mostly prototypes, if not all). Seems like a good way to reach orbit though.


And yes, a rail gun projectile can indeed carry a warhead. Kinetic prospects are only a first in the field.

It's common sense really. Rail guns shoot a projectile without a detonation, perfect for launching nukes without being detected by satellites (or at least that's what the MGS producers thought
). Adding additional payloads will increase the desired effect.


It's not as simple as that. You can't just put a warhead, especially a nuke, in a railgun. So no, in this case its not common sense, its how much you know about railguns. The process of firing a railgun generates a massive amount of heat and other forces that would destroy a payloads ability to detonate (and may even detonate it), so much so it destroys the gun itself if certain expensive materials aren't used for it's construction. The kinetic energy from a projectile that fast impacting an object is significant enough to cause a LOT of damage by itself, without the risk of carrying explosive ammunition or WMDs.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
This is probably another round of DOD fear tactics warmongeling defense budget excuses.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Sure, it'll find it's target after-
Sea Sparrow rocket arrays from the strike group
Decoy chaff systems
AA guns, such as the automated 2''
SQL-32 electronic jammers
Phalanx CIWS

Haha, that is the funniest thing I've heard, ever! China can't even keep their citizens in line, they need not worry about making second-rate rocketry...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Bits and pieces of this may have been posted already, but I'm going to summarize all of it into one. There are two major reasons that the Chinese can't sink our Carriers, they're called CIWS Phalanx, and PATRIOT. They both shoot down missiles. Also, they may be able to sink our carriers, but so can we, so it's not going to tip the balance of power. Our submarines are equipped with torpedoes that create gas bubbles so large underneath of a ship that it will fall into itself when that bubble rises and literally break the ship in half. I've seen them. They aren't classified, but I don't remember what they're called. Also, we have non-nuclear inter-continental missiles that aren't nuclear, just huge, or if we can't use those, use a good ol' fashion MOP GBU-57 and take those missile positions out. But to be frank, I don't think that the Chinese are planning on shooting them at us any time soon. They'd still lose. But it is a nice missile that I bet we'll inevitably get the plans to and just replicate.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Aside from submarines, what specific anti-carrier technology does the US have deployed?


B2 bombers with gravity bombs or cruise missiles.



There are two major reasons that the Chinese can't sink our Carriers, they're called CIWS Phalanx, and PATRIOT. They both shoot down missiles.


There's missiles, and then there's missiles.

The warhead on a 900 km range ballistic missiles is coming in (nearly straight down) very, very fast. The re-entry vehicles are tough as they have to withstand re-entry heat.

The real issue is targeting. The warhead has little opportunity to maneuver--and if can, how does it know exactly where to go?

It is not really feasible to put any kind of camera or sensor on the nose as it would be burned off in re-entry. And it's very hard to receive signals from outside because of the ionization.

This is why ballistic missiles are generally used against stationary targets, as they're inertially guided (i.e. following gravity after precise computations taken from stars in space).

The unknown question is "how will the Chinese missile hit a relatively small moving target?" If they can do that, then they may have achieved something scientifically spectacular, because the best ballistic missiles from the USA and Russia can do at best maybe 100 meters accuracy against a stationary target.

This is why such missiles use nuclear warheads.

The science necessary to get that accuracy is quite advanced, requiring exceptionally detailed maps about the fluctuations in the gravitational fields due to density differences, perhaps even including seasonal changes in polar ice.

So either the chinese missile is nuclear-only, or has a really different technical strategy, or is very hyped and functions as deterrent propaganda.

edit on 10-1-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Aside from submarines, what specific anti-carrier technology does the US have deployed?


B2 bombers with gravity bombs or cruise missiles.


Cruise missiles that are designed to attack stationary ground targets through GPS guidance/homing beacons/laser designators?

B2 bombers are strategic weapon platforms. I seriously doubt the US would send in $2 billion dollar aircraft to engage in a naval battle, especially one that's probably swarming with enemy fighters. That's what tactical strike fighters are for armed with anti-ship missiles. Maybe if the US was planning on dropping a nuke on the enemy fleet, a B2 might come in use, but then again that's why they have nuclear torpedoes.

And I'm just going to say it now, the B2 is stealthy, not invisible. I have little doubt that China has the capability and tactics necessary to observe B2s and intercept them. This is why the B2 is a strategic bomber, you don't use them in a battle, you use them to bomb or nuke enemy ground fortifications/cities in a preemptive fashion.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by EchoSix
Bits and pieces of this may have been posted already, but I'm going to summarize all of it into one. There are two major reasons that the Chinese can't sink our Carriers, they're called CIWS Phalanx, and PATRIOT. They both shoot down missiles. Also, they may be able to sink our carriers, but so can we, so it's not going to tip the balance of power. Our submarines are equipped with torpedoes that create gas bubbles so large underneath of a ship that it will fall into itself when that bubble rises and literally break the ship in half. I've seen them. They aren't classified, but I don't remember what they're called. Also, we have non-nuclear inter-continental missiles that aren't nuclear, just huge, or if we can't use those, use a good ol' fashion MOP GBU-57 and take those missile positions out. But to be frank, I don't think that the Chinese are planning on shooting them at us any time soon. They'd still lose. But it is a nice missile that I bet we'll inevitably get the plans to and just replicate.


Carriers do not have patriot missiles, those are an Army system.

I doubt a CIWS is going to have any impact on a ballstic missile coming straight down. And think about it, if that missile is coming right down on the carrier, and the CIWS is being used to knock it out, even if it did get a hit, its still all coming straight down anyways. I really do not see that weapon being useful at all against an inbound missile like a DF-21

But, hitting a carrier with a DF-21 is still no easy task at all. Probably what it could be used for mostly is disrupting flight ops and complicating combat operations for the carrier battle group



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by EchoSix
Bits and pieces of this may have been posted already, but I'm going to summarize all of it into one. There are two major reasons that the Chinese can't sink our Carriers, they're called CIWS Phalanx, and PATRIOT. They both shoot down missiles. Also, they may be able to sink our carriers, but so can we, so it's not going to tip the balance of power. Our submarines are equipped with torpedoes that create gas bubbles so large underneath of a ship that it will fall into itself when that bubble rises and literally break the ship in half. I've seen them. They aren't classified, but I don't remember what they're called. Also, we have non-nuclear inter-continental missiles that aren't nuclear, just huge, or if we can't use those, use a good ol' fashion MOP GBU-57 and take those missile positions out. But to be frank, I don't think that the Chinese are planning on shooting them at us any time soon. They'd still lose. But it is a nice missile that I bet we'll inevitably get the plans to and just replicate.


Carriers do not have patriot missiles, those are an Army system.

I doubt a CIWS is going to have any impact on a ballstic missile coming straight down. And think about it, if that missile is coming right down on the carrier, and the CIWS is being used to knock it out, even if it did get a hit, its still all coming straight down anyways. I really do not see that weapon being useful at all against an inbound missile like a DF-21

But, hitting a carrier with a DF-21 is still no easy task at all. Probably what it could be used for mostly is disrupting flight ops and complicating combat operations for the carrier battle group


anyway, thouse a re nice army system.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Spot on.
And I believe the US has no intentions of paying them back.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I'm sure that by now someone's mentioned that they've proven they can shoot down our satellites out of the sky as well. Wonder if they provide parts for or build any of weapons for us yet? Maybe even for our very ships and satellites? Maybe even with some convenient disabling backdoors or booby traps or override mechanisms built right in. Maybe not but it wouldn't surprise me...and we might never know. Profit comes before national security after all. A few years back it was reported that IBM or some such company provided them with schematics and passwords and pretty much everything they needed to gain access to the computer systems running the DoD satellites? Something like that....memory is fuzzy...anyone remember?. I'm sure (ahem...not really) that steps were taken to secure this...I wouldn't bet a single dollar on it though. Or a yuan.

Not too worried about this relatively minor impact...a few carriers. China pretty much has us and our entire country by the proverbial balls already anyway, and not just economically. We could be infiltrated with millions of parts embedded with microbombs and the detonators could be in their satellites. To top all this off, probably tens upon tens of thousands of containers from China come into our ports daily, virtually uninspected. Perspective. Risk being taking for us by people who care about nothing but their own profit...and certainly don't give a hoot about national "security."
edit on 1/10/2011 by ~Lucidity because: the paragraph was too long.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

]Cruise missiles that are designed to attack stationary ground targets through GPS guidance/homing beacons/laser designators?


Presumably adapting a targeting system and laser designator for a naval target is not particularly difficult.

In Gulf War I, laser-targeted bombs from F15's hit airborne Iraqi helicopters.



B2 bombers are strategic weapon platforms. I seriously doubt the US would send in $2 billion dollar aircraft to engage in a naval battle, especially one that's probably swarming with enemy fighters.


The US sent in a 2 billion dollar aircraft to drop bombs on a ""parking lot"" (a.k.a. Chinese Embassy) in Belgrade.



That's what tactical strike fighters are for armed with anti-ship missiles. Maybe if the US was planning on dropping a nuke on the enemy fleet, a B2 might come in use, but then again that's why they have nuclear torpedoes.

And I'm just going to say it now, the B2 is stealthy, not invisible. I have little doubt that China has the capability and tactics necessary to observe B2s and intercept them.


Detection---at some range, yes. Interception could be pretty difficult. I was assuming a circumstance of US air superiority or at least air parity which would be probable in my hypothetical circumstance.

The reason I think it would be the leading option is that it would be fairly quick to deploy, very effective. This is the most accurate weapon system and to ensure political palatability, relies on human target identification (you don't want to


This is why the B2 is a strategic bomber, you don't use them in a battle, you use them to bomb or nuke enemy ground fortifications/cities in a preemptive fashion.


Offshore the radar capabilities are lower. If we're talking about a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan, then stopping this naval fleet would be a #1 priority and the US would use its maximum non-nuclear capabilities.

This situation isn't like 1945 or Cold War, where you have to think about a long-term conflict or many waves and waves of bombings on many targets.



new topics
 
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join