What's new

China sends its second aircraft carrier (the first domestically-made one) to the South China Sea

Whatever deployment mode is used, LRASM can cover the entire distance between China’s coast and the island chain stretching from the Philippines through Taiwan to the Japanese archipelago. China’s naval planners have been trying to turn this area into a sanctuary from which they can exclude U.S. military forces—even though it contains international shipping routes—but with LRASM, the sanctuary turns into a trap for Beijing’s maritime aspirations. China’s navy has little means to counter a maneuvering weapon that generates no trackable radar return or infrared signature.

LRASM is built by Lockheed Martin, which is also the prime contractor for the Air Force missile from which it is derived. Its high-tech seeker was created by BAE Systems. Both companies contribute to my think tank and are consulting clients, which has enabled me to learn a fair amount about how the munition works. It is the epitome of a smart weapon, able to precisely target hostile warships even when enemies are jamming GPS signals, and hit the most vulnerable part of the target. Targeting coordinates can be updated in flight from local or overhead sources, but the seeker is designed to operate autonomously once it is near its target.



It is devilishly difficult to defeat an incoming missile that you can’t see, and that operates in multiple frequencies to find its aimpoint. Once that aimpoint is reached, the missile’s thousand-pound blast fragmentation warhead would make quick work of most Chinese warships. Stealthy smart weapons are intrinsically more efficient that other munitions, because they almost always reach their targets, so few rounds are wasted. Because it is so agile, LRASM can approach well-defended targets only a few feet above the water (that’s called sea-skimming) and it can identify its intended target with high reliability.

As if all of this were not enough, Lockheed Martin has built the missile to be compact so that it fits readily into existing launch systems. If deployed on a U.S. destroyer, for example, the warship can continue to perform its air and missile defense mission even as it assumes a more robust anti-ship role. And growth margin has been incorporated into the munition to allow further refinements as new technology becomes available. The system has been successfully demonstrated on carrier-based F/A-18 fighters and Air Force B-1 bombers (a B-1 can carry two dozen of the weapons, enough to destroy an entire Chinese naval task force).

The goal, of course, is not to threaten China but to enforce U.S. maritime rights in the Western Pacific. Once LRASM is deployed in numbers, Beijing will know that any aggressive move at sea could be stopped in its tracks at relatively low cost to U.S. forces. In other words, the weapon is a potent deterrent—a low-cost, easily deployed, highly lethal system. Years of testing have demonstrated that LRASM works as advertised, so now the question is how widely it will be deployed with Navy and Marine units.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...avy-firepower-for-defeating-hostile-warships/

As I repeated, the LRASM is a subsonic missile which has been confirmed by the US military.

You cannot expect such inferior to overcome the much more superior family of the Dongfeng express.

Just like you have the unrealistic expectation of a pistol to overcome a machine gun.
 
.
What a stupid claim. Hard to believe this is a post from some one who has spent years on searching and reading defense topics.

Apply your logic, China's yearly defense spending is 1.2trillion RMB (government number), enough to build 60 Shandong carriers.
In the economics it’s called focus on certain thing.
Vietnam’s defense budget is about $5.5 billion. How can the navy have acquired a submarine fleet with all necessary weapons and infrastructure by the cost that is equally the entire sum?
 
. .
In the economics it’s called focus on certain thing.
Vietnam’s defense budget is about $5.5 billion. How can the navy have acquired a submarine fleet with all necessary weapons and infrastructure by the cost that is equally the entire sum?

China's military expenditure is around $200 billion, but it can acquire more weapons than the $1 trillion military expenditure from the US.

Your $5.5 billion is just a peanut, and you can save it for few more fishing boats.
 
.
China's military expenditure is around $200 billion, but it can acquire more weapons than the $1 trillion military expenditure from the US.

Your $5.5 billion is just a peanut, and you can save it for few more fishing boats.
Ok you forgot we only have an enemy on the northern flank, while you fight on multiple fronts from north to south to west! You have to spread out the army thin. From $200 billion I would guess only $10b left that is allocated to fighting Vietnam. Well that sounds ok to me.

If we increase our military spendings to $10 billion that is expected to happen in 5 years then we are on equal footing, my friend.
 
.
In the economics it’s called focus on certain thing.
Vietnam’s defense budget is about $5.5 billion. How can the navy have acquired a submarine fleet with all necessary weapons and infrastructure by the cost that is equally the entire sum?
vn has a few kilos, so Japan will have 40 Izumos? I cannot get any relationship between the two points. Or may be it is the logic that could only be sensed by vn refugee that grown up in Germany?
 
.
Ok you forgot we only have an enemy on the northern flank, while you fight on multiple fronts from north to south to west! You have to spread out the army thin. From $200 billion I would guess only $10b left that is allocated to fighting Vietnam. Well that sounds ok to me.

If we increase our military spendings to $10 billion that is expected to happen in 5 years then we are on equal footing, my friend.
That's the dumbest shit i ever heard. Hahahhaha
 
.
That's the dumbest shit i ever heard. Hahahhaha
What you can expect from her? She even thinks Japan will have 40 Izumos, simply because Japan's yearly defense budget put in total could pay the bill of 40 Izumos. She thinks the defense budget allocation is as simple as kindergarten math.
 
.
vn has a few kilos, so Japan will have 40 Izumos? I cannot get any relationship between the two points. Or may be it is the logic that could only be sensed by vn refugee that grown up in Germany?
Pls don’t resort to personal attack
Ok ou are too clueless I tell you a secret. What JP makes in military spendings that has immediate effect on VN.
what do you think why VN invites every country in the world to drill oil in the SC sea? No not because the more people the better the party. No, we want more fighting nations involved. The more enemies for you the better for us. Win win.
 
.
You are too clueless. What JP makes in military spendings that has effect on VN.
what do you think why VN invites every country in the world to drill oil in the SC sea? No not because the more people the better the party. No, we want more fighting nations involved. The more enemies for you the better for us. Win win.
Show the proof that "Japan will have 40 Izumos" please.

I can do you a favor by sending you the link of Japan's defense budget report. Find us the proof about "40 Izumos" please. Thanks.
https://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/index.html
 
.
Show the proof that "Japan will have 40 Izumos" please.

I can do you a favor by sending you the link of Japan's defense budget report. Find us the proof about "40 Izumos" please. Thanks.
https://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/index.html
You can’t read!
I said JP 5.3 trillion yen defense money can pay 40 Izumo in theory but JP is ok with 5 or 10 Izumo.

Then JP should build larger carriers than waste money on more Izumo.
 
.
I said JP 5.3 trillion yen defense money can pay 40 Izumo in theory
No, Japan cannot pay 40 Izumo even in theory. MSDF (or the Japan Navy) only get 1/4 of the total budget. And a very large portion of it will go to the personnel cost and fuel/maintenance/repair etc. Only a small share could eventually go to new equipment procurement.

By saying Japan could pay 40 Izumo in theory, is like saying vn could pay the bill of a Ford class carrier. the vn defense budget is 5.5 billion. Save it for two years, you get a Ford class. Nice! ask vcp to make it happen!
upload_2019-12-20_12-37-26.png
 
.
Ok you forgot we only have an enemy on the northern flank, while you fight on multiple fronts from north to south to west! You have to spread out the army thin. From $200 billion I would guess only $10b left that is allocated to fighting Vietnam. Well that sounds ok to me.

If we increase our military spendings to $10 billion that is expected to happen in 5 years then we are on equal footing, my friend.

You have to first match our southern fleet which will consist 2 ACs, 20 Aegis destroyers, and 20 nuclear subs by 2025.
 
Last edited:
.
From $200 billion I would guess only $10b left that is allocated to fighting Vietnam. Well that sounds ok to me.

If we increase our military spendings to $10 billion that is expected to happen in 5 years then we are on equal footing, my friend.
What a theory from the so called "scientific proven higher IQ Vietnamese", you never ceased to amaze me every day.
 
Last edited:
.
What's the reason for that Vietnamese to talk about Japan possibility to build over 40 helicopter carriers to match the Chinese Naval buildup? From what i understand is that China has been constructing at a nonstop pace very modern warships for years but the Japanese aren't keep up with the same kind of expansion. What is the value of producing 40 helicopter carriers when Japanese Navy doesn't have the kind of number of warships to protect these large targets? Anyone ever heard of using helicopters for battle in the high seas? Dog food seems to lower intelligence.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom