gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
You are not making the Chinese crowd here look any good. You are now making the entire Chinese contingent here look quite cartoonish.
Chinas Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile Now Opposite Taiwan | Bloomberg
- Thread starter Martian2
- Start date
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
lol most importantly, he is making his supervisor look bad, he may be out of the job from soon....Need to find another line of work instead, maybe a change in the farmland
j20blackdragon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
The amateurs here that harp on and on about proof of the DF-21D's ability to hit a moving target are missing the point.
China now has Prompt Global Strike capability and the US doesn't.
You don't need to hit a moving ship when you can hit a stationary naval base.
In fact, you're doing more long term damage if you hit the naval base anyway.
In other words, hit the beehive instead of the bee.
I'll give you an example: Naval Base Guam.
This is Apra Harbor, Guam.
Now let's zoom in a little.
Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 12/13/2002 in Guam
FEMA Photo Library: Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 12/13/2002 in Guam
FEMA Photo Library: Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 12/13/2002 in Guam
Apra Harbor, GUAM, December 13, 2002 -- Firefighters extinguish fires from jet fuel tanks that were burning out of control due to Supertyphoon Pongsona. The fire blocked access to gasoline supplies for the island and has caused the shutdown of Apra Harbor, the primary supply and fuel delivery point for Guam. Photo by Andrea Booher/FEMA News Photo
See those large, unprotected cylinder fuel tanks in the above photos?
You hit those fuel storage tanks with the DF-21D (or another missile) and you shut down the entire US Navy in East Asia.
The attack will be over in minutes since the DF-21D is hypersonic.
Can Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas traverse distances like these with no fuel?
We all know Nimitz carriers are nuclear, but don't the aircraft onboard need jet fuel?
Will you bring in the carriers with no escort ships?
Will you do underway replenishment back and forth from Hawaii? That would be a joke.
Lastly, the DF-21D may or may not be able to reach Guam.
But I'm willing to bet this 4,000 km conventional missile can.
New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times - People's Daily Online
The DF-21D is merely a single missile in a family of missiles capable of Prompt Global Strike. Get ready.
Just doing a quick update.
I just found the area on Google Maps.
See those large circular fuel storage tanks to the right?
Just hit each of those with a single missile and you shut down all of Guam.
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
The amateurs here that harp on and on about proof of the DF-21D's ability to hit a moving target are missing the point.
China now has Prompt Global Strike capability and the US doesn't.
You don't need to hit a moving ship when you can hit a stationary naval base.
In fact, you're doing more long term damage if you hit the naval base anyway.
In other words, hit the beehive instead of the bee.
I'll give you an example: Naval Base Guam.
This is Apra Harbor, Guam.
Now let's zoom in a little.
Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 12/13/2002 in Guam
FEMA Photo Library: Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 12/13/2002 in Guam
FEMA Photo Library: Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 12/13/2002 in Guam
Apra Harbor, GUAM, December 13, 2002 -- Firefighters extinguish fires from jet fuel tanks that were burning out of control due to Supertyphoon Pongsona. The fire blocked access to gasoline supplies for the island and has caused the shutdown of Apra Harbor, the primary supply and fuel delivery point for Guam. Photo by Andrea Booher/FEMA News Photo
See those large, unprotected cylinder fuel tanks in the above photos?
You hit those fuel storage tanks with the DF-21D (or another missile) and you shut down the entire US Navy in East Asia.
The attack will be over in minutes since the DF-21D is hypersonic.
Can Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas traverse distances like these with no fuel?
We all know Nimitz carriers are nuclear, but don't the aircraft onboard need jet fuel?
Will you bring in the carriers with no escort ships?
Will you do underway replenishment back and forth from Hawaii? That would be a joke.
Lastly, the DF-21D may or may not be able to reach Guam.
But I'm willing to bet this 4,000 km conventional missile can.
New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times - People's Daily Online
The DF-21D is merely a single missile in a family of missiles capable of Prompt Global Strike. Get ready.
gambit and jhungary tore you a new one, I will add that the PGS system uses an in atmosphere flight profile (thus the need for a hypersonic missile) instead of a ballistic flight profile in order for there to be no mistaking PGS launches with nuclear launches. How do you expect China to prevent these misunderstandings?
It would be no joke if China fell into a nuclear war because the US thought China was conducting a nuclear strike on it.
And no, China's NFU declaration is not enough assurance for the US.
Forget about a missile test, do you even have an official picture of the missile?
gambit and jhungary tore you a new one, I will add that the PGS system uses an in atmosphere flight profile (thus the need for a hypersonic missile) instead of a ballistic flight profile in order for there to be no mistaking PGS launches with nuclear launches. How do you expect China to prevent these misunderstandings?
It would be no joke if China fell into a nuclear war because the US thought China was conducting a nuclear strike on it.
And no, China's NFU declaration is not enough assurance for the US.
Forget about a missile test, do you even have an official picture of the missile?
Not really. It was J20blackdragon that tore gambit and Jhungry apart. He debunked all their theories and provided proof. Those two just provide opinions, not proof.
The US hypersonic missile tests has mostly failed and btw we are also developing hypersonic weapons like the US. So the US is doing nothing special really since we are not far behind. We are developing our own PGS.
j20blackdragon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Forget about a missile test, do you even have an official picture of the missile?
Read the first post of this thread. The DF-21D has been deployed according to the US military. You don't believe your own military now?
China’s Anti-Carrier Missile Now Opposite Taiwan, Flynn Says
I personally don't even care about the DF-21D anymore. It's old news.
China has unveiled at least four new ballistic missiles in recent months.
You want pictures?
Unknown 5-axle TEL
Unknown 6-axle TEL
Unknown X-axle TEL
Unknown 8-axle TEL (DF-41?)
This new family of Conventional Prompt Global Strike missiles are ready to smash Guam and Diego Garcia.
j20blackdragon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I know you guys don't believe me, but can you at least believe the Pentagon?
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
We rely on the US at our peril | The Sydney Morning Herald
"We rely on the US at our peril
by Peter Hartcher
May 7, 2013
Illustration: John Shakespeare
US military dominance of Asia rests on the power of its navy, and at the centre of its navy sits the mighty aircraft carrier, the queen of the ocean. And, like a queen, each one travels with an entire court - dozens of smaller vessels, scores of aircraft and at least one submarine.
Each aircraft carrier strike group represents about as much firepower as the entire armed forces of a medium-sized country.
They carry such potency that, for example, when China was threatening to attack Taiwan in 1996, the US only needed to move two of them closer to the area to instantly pacify the Chinese.
The US has 10 in its navy, representing half of all the aircraft carriers on earth, and two more under construction.
So it is bracing to read a report by an American naval captain and military historian that the aircraft carrier ''is in danger of becoming like the battleships it was originally designed to support: big, expensive, vulnerable - and surprisingly irrelevant to the conflicts of the time.'' In a paper published by the Centre for a New American Security in Washington, Captain Henry Hendrix argues that, as muskets and cannons overtook arrows, the aircraft carrier is being overtaken by advances in military technology.
In particular, he cites China's game-changing carrier-killing missile, the DF-21D. This missile was developed by Beijing in direct response to its impotence in the 1996 crisis. It retreated in the face of the two US aircraft carriers, but resolved to develop a way of overcoming them in the future. That future has arrived.
Hendrix points out that China builds a DF-21D missile for an estimated maximum cost of $US11 million apiece. It costs the US $US13.5 billion to build an aircraft carrier. At these prices, ''China could build 1227 DF-21Ds for every carrier the United States builds,'' he writes. ''US defences would have to destroy every missile fired, a tough problem given the magazines of US cruisers and destroyers, while China would need only one of its weapons to survive to effect a mission kill.''
Suddenly, the unchallenged US dominance of the Pacific looks distinctly questionable, even without taking account of the effect of cuts to the US defence budget.
The Australian government has engaged in a delusion that China's rise will bring only happy things. The Gillard government's Asian century white paper sets out a mouth-watering buffet of rich economic and cultural offerings for Australia. Its new defence white paper, delivered last Friday, finds Asia to be more ''complex'' and ''competitive'' but not terribly worrying. How could it be? Judge not by the rhetoric but the harder reality: capability.
The government has cut the defence budget to its smallest as a share of GDP since the 1930s, and while the white paper contains a wish list of major aircraft and submarine acquisitions, the government offers no realistic way to pay for them.
As the Lowy Institute's Rory Medcalf wrote in The Australian Financial Review, the ''chief weakness is about money. Smooth drafting cannot disguise last year's big cuts to the military budget.
''It continues to defy credibility that the promised force of 12 made-in-Adelaide submarines, joint strike fighters and so on, can be delivered unless the budget can be lifted from about 1.5 per cent towards 2 per cent of GDP.'' No such lift is in prospect from Labor.
Strip out the rhetoric and look at the reality of the government's defence policy and this is what you find. Having welcomed US Marines to a new permanent presence in the Northern Territory, Australia has cut its national defence effort to its smallest since before World War II.
In other words, the nation is now freeloading on the implicit guarantee of US protection, at a time when the US's relative power is at its feeblest since World War I. Yet on the very same day the white paper was published, experts assembled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington published this finding: China's new abilities to resist US armed force ''are casting doubt on the ability of the military forces of Japan and the US to operate freely and, if necessary, to prevail in future disputes with Beijing over a variety of contentious national security issues, from maritime territorial and resource rivalries to the handling of crises over Taiwan or North Korea''.
Looking towards 2030, the report said the most likely effect was not all-out war between the US or Japan on the one side and China on the other. Most likely, it suggested, was something more subtle yet almost as pernicious: the mere build-up of Chinese armed forces would allow China to win disputes through coercion without having to declare war. Indeed, we have already seen this, when it intimidated the Philippines into submission in a recent naval standoff.
The Asian century brings tremendous opportunity to Australia, but it also brings the greatest risk to national sovereignty since the Japanese imperial expansion of World War II.
The regions major powers are responding to China's power and assertiveness by arming themselves. Last year Asian countries spent more on defence than European ones. The world's top five arms importers last year were all Asian: China, India, Pakistan, Singapore and South Korea.
The government's defence blueprint, which might best be titled ''The Pollyanna Papers'', is irresponsible. Its redeeming feature is that it has a likely shelf-life as long as the lifespan of a dragonfly, from now until election day.
The Coalition has promised to do better but has yet to say how.
Peter Hartcher is the international editor."
"We rely on the US at our peril
by Peter Hartcher
May 7, 2013
Illustration: John Shakespeare
US military dominance of Asia rests on the power of its navy, and at the centre of its navy sits the mighty aircraft carrier, the queen of the ocean. And, like a queen, each one travels with an entire court - dozens of smaller vessels, scores of aircraft and at least one submarine.
Each aircraft carrier strike group represents about as much firepower as the entire armed forces of a medium-sized country.
They carry such potency that, for example, when China was threatening to attack Taiwan in 1996, the US only needed to move two of them closer to the area to instantly pacify the Chinese.
The US has 10 in its navy, representing half of all the aircraft carriers on earth, and two more under construction.
So it is bracing to read a report by an American naval captain and military historian that the aircraft carrier ''is in danger of becoming like the battleships it was originally designed to support: big, expensive, vulnerable - and surprisingly irrelevant to the conflicts of the time.'' In a paper published by the Centre for a New American Security in Washington, Captain Henry Hendrix argues that, as muskets and cannons overtook arrows, the aircraft carrier is being overtaken by advances in military technology.
In particular, he cites China's game-changing carrier-killing missile, the DF-21D. This missile was developed by Beijing in direct response to its impotence in the 1996 crisis. It retreated in the face of the two US aircraft carriers, but resolved to develop a way of overcoming them in the future. That future has arrived.
Hendrix points out that China builds a DF-21D missile for an estimated maximum cost of $US11 million apiece. It costs the US $US13.5 billion to build an aircraft carrier. At these prices, ''China could build 1227 DF-21Ds for every carrier the United States builds,'' he writes. ''US defences would have to destroy every missile fired, a tough problem given the magazines of US cruisers and destroyers, while China would need only one of its weapons to survive to effect a mission kill.''
Suddenly, the unchallenged US dominance of the Pacific looks distinctly questionable, even without taking account of the effect of cuts to the US defence budget.
The Australian government has engaged in a delusion that China's rise will bring only happy things. The Gillard government's Asian century white paper sets out a mouth-watering buffet of rich economic and cultural offerings for Australia. Its new defence white paper, delivered last Friday, finds Asia to be more ''complex'' and ''competitive'' but not terribly worrying. How could it be? Judge not by the rhetoric but the harder reality: capability.
The government has cut the defence budget to its smallest as a share of GDP since the 1930s, and while the white paper contains a wish list of major aircraft and submarine acquisitions, the government offers no realistic way to pay for them.
As the Lowy Institute's Rory Medcalf wrote in The Australian Financial Review, the ''chief weakness is about money. Smooth drafting cannot disguise last year's big cuts to the military budget.
''It continues to defy credibility that the promised force of 12 made-in-Adelaide submarines, joint strike fighters and so on, can be delivered unless the budget can be lifted from about 1.5 per cent towards 2 per cent of GDP.'' No such lift is in prospect from Labor.
Strip out the rhetoric and look at the reality of the government's defence policy and this is what you find. Having welcomed US Marines to a new permanent presence in the Northern Territory, Australia has cut its national defence effort to its smallest since before World War II.
In other words, the nation is now freeloading on the implicit guarantee of US protection, at a time when the US's relative power is at its feeblest since World War I. Yet on the very same day the white paper was published, experts assembled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington published this finding: China's new abilities to resist US armed force ''are casting doubt on the ability of the military forces of Japan and the US to operate freely and, if necessary, to prevail in future disputes with Beijing over a variety of contentious national security issues, from maritime territorial and resource rivalries to the handling of crises over Taiwan or North Korea''.
Looking towards 2030, the report said the most likely effect was not all-out war between the US or Japan on the one side and China on the other. Most likely, it suggested, was something more subtle yet almost as pernicious: the mere build-up of Chinese armed forces would allow China to win disputes through coercion without having to declare war. Indeed, we have already seen this, when it intimidated the Philippines into submission in a recent naval standoff.
The Asian century brings tremendous opportunity to Australia, but it also brings the greatest risk to national sovereignty since the Japanese imperial expansion of World War II.
The regions major powers are responding to China's power and assertiveness by arming themselves. Last year Asian countries spent more on defence than European ones. The world's top five arms importers last year were all Asian: China, India, Pakistan, Singapore and South Korea.
The government's defence blueprint, which might best be titled ''The Pollyanna Papers'', is irresponsible. Its redeeming feature is that it has a likely shelf-life as long as the lifespan of a dragonfly, from now until election day.
The Coalition has promised to do better but has yet to say how.
Peter Hartcher is the international editor."
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
The latest test was a success, and the DF-21D is characterized as a Ballistic missile, so your talk of Hypersonic weapon development in China is irrelevant. The DF-21D is not a 'Chinese PGS' system.
Read the first post of this thread. The DF-21D has been deployed according to the US military. You don't believe your own military now?
China’s Anti-Carrier Missile Now Opposite Taiwan, Flynn Says
I personally don't even care about the DF-21D anymore. It's old news.
China has unveiled at least four new ballistic missiles in recent months.
You want pictures?
This new family of Conventional Prompt Global Strike missiles are ready to smash Guam and Diego Garcia.
I said a picture of the missile itself... you have one?
Oh I believe the Chinese are working on a ballistic missile they call the DF-21D. I just believe all the mystical capabilities you Chinese and the scaremongering sector of media attribute to it is propaganda and hype.
One way to make this clear to the better informed is an actual firing test. Failing that, at least provide an official verified picture of the missile itself.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Don't waste your time on the trolls
At Chinese members, I would suggest you not bother with the trolls.
The posts in this thread are meant for reasonable people. The trolls have endless and ridiculous demands.
In this thread, I have cited three authorities on the Chinese DF-21D ASBM.
1. Admiral Willard: “To our knowledge, [China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.”
(See post #21)
2. Wang Genbin: "...a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit 'slow-moving targets' with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters."
(See post #21)
3. Pentagon’s top military intelligence officer U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the Defense Intelligence Agency director: "The Chinese military has deployed its new anti-ship ballistic missile."
(See post #1 with citation from Bloomberg)
The trolls have cited no one, except their own useless rhetoric. Please don't feed them and just ignore them.
If the trolls can't read English as spoken by the three authorities on the Chinese DF-21D ASBM, that's their problem. Not yours.
Thank you.
At Chinese members, I would suggest you not bother with the trolls.
The posts in this thread are meant for reasonable people. The trolls have endless and ridiculous demands.
In this thread, I have cited three authorities on the Chinese DF-21D ASBM.
1. Admiral Willard: “To our knowledge, [China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.”
(See post #21)
2. Wang Genbin: "...a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit 'slow-moving targets' with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters."
(See post #21)
3. Pentagon’s top military intelligence officer U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the Defense Intelligence Agency director: "The Chinese military has deployed its new anti-ship ballistic missile."
(See post #1 with citation from Bloomberg)
The trolls have cited no one, except their own useless rhetoric. Please don't feed them and just ignore them.
If the trolls can't read English as spoken by the three authorities on the Chinese DF-21D ASBM, that's their problem. Not yours.
Thank you.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
We can read English just fine. In fact, some of us have relevant technical experience as well as knowing how to read English.
Anyway...NOT ONE of your source showed where China conducted open water testing and we know that China can only conduct such test in one place: between the Japanese and Philippines islands. Where are those tests?
The DF-21D or “Carrier Killer”: An Instrument of Deception? | Flashpoints
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
I know you guys don't believe me, but can you at least believe the Pentagon?
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf
Read the first post of this thread. The DF-21D has been deployed according to the US military. You don't believe your own military now?
China’s Anti-Carrier Missile Now Opposite Taiwan, Flynn Says
I personally don't even care about the DF-21D anymore. It's old news.
China has unveiled at least four new ballistic missiles in recent months.
You want pictures?
This new family of Conventional Prompt Global Strike missiles are ready to smash Guam and Diego Garcia.
A lot of information.
Well, if you think a weapon with range 5000KM can mean "Global" then well, I guess there are no point argue with you anymore now aint it??
according to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
The earth have a Mean "Radius" of 6371 KM.
So Intermediate range Ballistic missile cannot even reach half the globe. How can you called something you cannot reach half the globe "Global" is beyond me. But if you insist, then well, there are nothing more I can say lol
j20blackdragon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
5,000 km is enough for Diego Garcia.
Guam and Diego Garcia will be sucker punched by Chinese Prompt Global Strike in minutes.
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
5,000 km is enough for Diego Garcia.
Guam and Diego Garcia will be sucker punched by Chinese Prompt Global Strike in minutes.
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf
Whatever you say, Dream on
zzzzzzZZZZZZZZSimilar threads
