Is This China's New Drone Bomber?

So, roughly 1 meter off the water's surface. Couldn't you just drop a couple 5" shells in front of it and let the spray take care of the missile?

a reply to: Flipper35

yep
and that is a standard defensive tactic is such cases, and the water cannons

a reply to: Flipper35

In WW2 somtimes they would use deck guns to defend against torps if they saw them coming.

a reply to: Flipper35

Not sure the targeting systems are up to that level of accuracy...but at the least, it's theoretically possible.

a reply to: seagull

They wouldn't have to be super accurate. Pretty much anything that would disrupt their flight would work.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: seagull

It is amazing that with all these carrier killers out there, everyone with the ability to, is working like crazy to build their own carriers.

China has made them so obsolete they wanted several of them.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think they just need to get close, if you hitting u.s carrier groups it's going to be nuclear and high KT to MT range warheads

They have ISR capable of locating general target groups

A high Kt maybe even a Mt blast takes away the need for precision strikes.

I think they said that it is conventional.....but come on. If your sinking US carriers might as well use nukes

a reply to: penroc3

Which won't do the job. They already proved that using WWII carriers.

a reply to: Zaphod58

operation crossroads used 'only' a 23Kt charges and at best was only 50m under the water i suggest a 2-500 Kt heck even ANY megaton blast warhead detonated at the right depth would capsize or crack allot of the hulls in half.

or go for a double whammy and do a underwater bust like i said before and then to a high megaton air detonation after the water column is settled back down.


at the very least it would slow them down.





then again in you could hit a moving ship in a HIGH ACM with active AEGIS defensives then even a 20Kt pop in the middle of a ship will sink it. but that's VERY VERY VERY unlikely





ETA:


or reverse what i said above, use a high megaton air blast or a specialized emp warhead to blind sensors then go for you underwater explosions or if you have the accuracy aim for the decks

a reply to: penroc3

How are the russians going to target our fleet? They gotta be pretty close with those warheads. Even megaton ones.

Are you sure russia can trust their satellite data?

a reply to: penroc3

I don't think anyone is going to be so foolish as to use nukes against anything, much less against aircraft carriers...that's an escalation of Brobdingnagian proportions. Sink an aircraft carrier during a war? Cost of doing business, not an escalation, unless you've used that nuke people keep mentioning...that's an oops of major caliber.

a reply to: penroc3

If nuclear weapons are being used, then there are bigger problems than if the carrier is going to survive. A threshold has been crossed and there's no such thing as a limited nuclear war...

a reply to: penroc3

Pretty sure no one is going to go nuclear to take out a battle group due to MAD alone. If they do, the loss of a carrier is the least of our issues.

a reply to: anzha

While you're probably right, we don't know that there's no such thing as a limited nuclear war. After all, there's never been one...

I surely don't wanna find out, though. Got plans for the next thirty years or so...none of which include glowing in the dark.

a reply to: penroc3

First off, to kill a carrier group, you have to target every ship individually because of the distance involved.

Second, while they "only" used 20kt range warheads, the Indy survived two of them, one airburst,one underwater, and only sank years later when they scuttled her off California. If a WWII carrier could survive that, with the technology of the day, what do you think a Nimitz could withstand?

You're also assuming that it would be a direct hit, ground burst. ICBMs are targeted on coordinates, not by themselves, because they're area weapons. If they're off, even a little bit, you're not getting a direct hit. And they'd have to figure out where they started from, how fast they were going, and where they were going to be when the warhead hit. That's not exactly easy, as there are so many variables.

a reply to: Zaphod58

all very true and to be honest was playing a bit of the devil's advocate part


on the other hand you yourself said that it is a concern. I personally don't think that they will be firing megaton yield nukes at any thing with old glory flying on it or any warhead for that matter.


i think IF china were to attack they would take out our space assets, it would cause allot of confusion and communication issuers(for a time) that may enable them to get a few attacks in that they normally wouldn't.

a reply to: penroc3

The DF-21 is a concern. But even if it's only a kinetic impact device, without a warhead, it'll do a lot of damage. They don't need to have megaton range warheads on them.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

sats no, but forward observers with laser rangefinders and GPS updates to missiles targeting systems i think China might have a chance at getting close.



and you don't necessarily DESTROY a ship to take it out of the fight, a neutron blast with and megaton underwater blast would damage ship and crew

a reply to: Sammamishman
IF China were to attack any naval bases group it would get hot REALLY fast and with the size of their land army the use of tactical weapons would almost be a given so why not be the first out of the gate and try and at least DISABLE if you cant destroy some of america's most potent weapon systems

a reply to: Zaphod58

the reason i was thinking over kill on the warhead was for CEP issues