China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[gambit]

You're a moron. An ASBM does not need a CEP on the order of a sub-meter. An Nimitz aircraft carrier is 333 meters long. Why do you need a CEP of a sub-meter to hit a 333-meter aircraft carrier? Do you know what CEP means? I think you're totally clueless.

----------

Anyway, there are too many trolls and morons in this thread. I'm tired of answering stupid questions. I only like good ones and I haven't seen any. See you guys later.

No...It is YOU who are clueless. A CEP is calculated upon a circle. An elongated target does not offer any increase in hit success. If anything, such a target is even more problematic. See 'runway denial' and how successful it really is. Go back to that intellectually dead playground with your nonsense. It had deteriorated into nothing more than a mutual admiration society.

 

[amalakas]

No...It is YOU who are clueless. A CEP is calculated upon a circle. An elongated target does not offer any increase in hit success. If anything, such a target is even more problematic. See 'runway denial' and how successful it really is. Go back to that intellectually dead playground with your nonsense. It had deteriorated into nothing more than a mutual admiration society.

I still cannot see a feasible way for such a system without it being based on nuclear capability.

I can imagine a CNV literally sailing while a rain of warheads drops around it at distance.

I have tried the coordinates at the bottom of Martian2's image about the simulated attack on a carrier deck with the missile.

I didn't see anything that indicates a weapons range. But if someone else would that would be great.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Meanwhile, back in the real world China's nuclear buildup continues.

China has ambitious plans to have more than 100 reactors operating by 2020 to help curb surging demand for coal and imported oil and gas. But development was suspended after Japan's March 2011 tsunami crippled the Fukushima power plant, causing the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

Authorities launched an inspection of China's 13 operating reactors following the Fukushima disaster and said they found no problems. They said they were reviewing work on the 28 reactors under construction.

China nuclear company plans IPO to fund expansion

 

[gambit]

I still cannot see a feasible way for such a system without it being based on nuclear capability.

I can imagine a CNV literally sailing while a rain of warheads drops around it at distance.

I have tried the coordinates at the bottom of Martian2's image about the simulated attack on a carrier deck with the missile.

I didn't see anything that indicates a weapons range. But if someone else would that would be great.

Runway denial is just about the best example of how difficult it will be to take out a moving target.

That is the carrier Hiryu dodging dumb gravity bombs in the Battle of Midway.

What these yayhoos does not understand is the problems of:

- Closing velocity
- Sensor
- Flight Control System response
- Structural stress

Does the DF-21D have an active radar? If yes, what are its scan limits? Nosecones impose physical scan limits and more 'pointy' the warhead, the more restrictive the scan limits. The more restrictive the scan limits, the greater the vulnerability to chaff, which WILL create a radar noise blanket of several hundreds square km, completely blanketing the warhead's radar view. These guys have never seen the inside of aircraft, let alone the nosecone of bomb or a missile warhead. They see the words 'zig zag' and they think the warhead is going to perform some maneuvers straight out of a Hollywood action movie. They do not know the structural stress an aircraft or even a compact warhead will experience during even just one course deviation, let alone a 'zig zag' motion. They cannot explain what kind of flight control mechanisms would be required, aerodynamic exploitations or lateral thrust.

 

[Bombay Dude]

F-18 has a combat radius of 460 miles. The carrier will be long dead before the F-18 takes off. Furthermore, American admirals have stated that no fourth-generation aircraft can penetrate China's overlapping air defenses, which they have characterized as the most formidable in the world.

A few Aegis destroyers won't do any good. They'll be too busy trying to save themselves. They are also unlikely to be successful in defending themselves against a massive simultaneous bombardment of DF-21D ASBMs.

The fundamental problem for the U.S. is that ASBMs are cheap. China can fire hundreds of them cost-effectively at a billion-dollar destroyer or five-billion-dollar aircraft carrier.

This Chinese only throws Lies.

Hornet is capable of 2346 Kms. Nimitz can indeed come near Naha Island and Bomb China without need to Refuel. There will be atleast 4 Burke's in a War Time Situation. Don't know if Nimitz has any LRSAM. But 96 VLS capable Burke Flight 3 will be put forward. Plus A Ohio SSGN with 154 Tomahawks. The Nearest US Base Guam is 2250 Km from Nearest Operating CSG. The Undersea Threat will be taken care by Virginias.

There is No way China can fire Hundreds of ASBMs within Minutes. Ohios, F-18s, B-2s would be Bombing your Launching Facalities since DF-21D can best be effective from only 100 Km from the Shore.

We have not even taken into consideration the Kongos, Atagos and the Sejongs sitting a Couple Hundred Kms away.

The Most Important Point: The Chinese Missile is more of a Psycho-Ops than to be Used in Reality.

Just Imagine, Why Didn't the Soviets make one?

But They Decided to go Cover the Curve starting from Moskva to Ulyanovsk.

And Lastly Remember China is a Land Based Power with No Naval Tradition like US.

 

[Oldman1]

Show me a single credible report of masking an aircraft carrier's radar and infrared signatures.

It doesn't exist unless you can change the laws of physics. I don't care how much money you spend on R&D.

Like I said they will find a way to do something on the ships as well as tactics.

 

[UKBengali]

This Chinese only throws Lies.

Hornet is capable of 2346 Kms. Nimitz can indeed come near Naha Island and Bomb China without need to Refuel. There will be atleast 4 Burke's in a War Time Situation. Don't know if Nimitz has any LRSAM. But 96 VLS capable Burke Flight 3 will be put forward. Plus A Ohio SSGN with 154 Tomahawks. The Nearest US Base Guam is 2250 Km from Nearest Operating CSG. The Undersea Threat will be taken care by Virginias.

There is No way China can fire Hundreds of ASBMs within Minutes. Ohios, F-18s, B-2s would be Bombing your Launching Facalities since DF-21D can best be effective from only 100 Km from the Shore.

We have not even taken into consideration the Kongos, Atagos and the Sejongs sitting a Couple Hundred Kms away.

The Most Important Point: The Chinese Missile is more of a Psycho-Ops than to be Used in Reality.

Just Imagine, Why Didn't the Soviets make one?

But They Decided to go Cover the Curve starting from Moskva to Ulyanovsk.

And Lastly Remember China is a Land Based Power with No Naval Tradition like US.

Soviets did not make one? Sensing technology was nowhere near good enough in those days.

No Naval tradition? Well the US hammered the much more experienced Japanese Navy in WW2.

 

[Oldman1]

F-18 has a combat radius of 460 miles. The carrier will be long dead before the F-18 takes off. Furthermore, American admirals have stated that no fourth-generation aircraft can penetrate China's overlapping air defenses, which they have characterized as the most formidable in the world.

A few Aegis destroyers won't do any good. They'll be too busy trying to save themselves. They are also unlikely to be successful in defending themselves against a massive simultaneous bombardment of DF-21D ASBMs.

The fundamental problem for the U.S. is that ASBMs are cheap. China can fire hundreds of them cost-effectively at a billion-dollar destroyer or five-billion-dollar aircraft carrier.

With that thinking is dangerous if all your intents and purpose is to take on aircrart carriers as the only danger to China. Have you ever thought of long range cruise missiles, submarines, long range bombers and bombs that can hit China from a distance? An SSGN can be quipped with almost 200 cruise missiles can target command and control and SAM batteries which means its useless even before carriers even got there.

 

[UKBengali]

With that thinking is dangerous if all your intents and purpose is to take on aircrart carriers as the only danger to China. Have you ever thought of long range cruise missiles, submarines, long range bombers and bombs that can hit China from a distance? An SSGN can be quipped with almost 200 cruise missiles can target command and control and SAM batteries which means its useless even before carriers even got there.

Most US cruise missiles would be shot down by China's air defences anyway.

This is not Iraq 1991.

China is too rich a target for the US to try that tactic.

 

[Oldman1]

First of all, the DF-21D is not a long range weapon. It is an IRBM and ballistic trajectories can be calculated. Are you saying the US is so backwards it can't even tell the difference between an IRBM and an ICBM?

But let me turn your argument against you.

Nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles.

W80 (nuclear warhead) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can also be delivered by aircraft.

B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if the US launches a single Tomahawk cruise missile or deploys F-35s, China can assume that it is a nuclear first strike. You just gave China the excuse to launch every single DF-31A.

Then China should stop making aircraft and cruise missiles then. Its true that the SSGNs can be equipped with special weapons if decided and you find out too late because you believe it won't happen. Just like in response to launching IRBMs or ICBMs or whatever that goes ballistic in the first place.

 

[Oldman1]

Most US cruise missiles would be shot down by China's air defences anyway.

This is not Iraq 1991.

China is too rich a target for the US to try that tactic.

Oh so you are saying Iraq back in 91 should have taken out all those cruise missiles when it had powerful SAMs and AA guns behind the Soviets back then. Its a rich target to go after.

And all this was back in 91.

 

[UKBengali]

Oh so you are saying Iraq back in 91 should have taken out all those cruise missiles when it had powerful SAMs and AA guns behind the Soviets back then. Its a rich target to go after.

And all this was back in 91.

Iraqi equipment was around 15-20 years behind what the Russians had in 1991.

 

[The SC]

The US might threaten by going nuclear, but how come the fact that if this scenario comes to happen, China would have thought about it and would have prepared itself to go nuclear too also in an innovative way the US has no knowledge of, didn't cross your mind.

 

[gambit]

Most US cruise missiles would be shot down by China's air defences anyway.

This is not Iraq 1991.

China is too rich a target for the US to try that tactic.

What kind of experience does China have regarding air defense against cruise missiles?

 

[Juice]

Soviets did not make one? Sensing technology was nowhere near good enough in those days.

No Naval tradition? Well the US hammered the much more experienced Japanese Navy in WW2.

The Japanese Navy was far from more experienced. They had to buy all their first gen ships abroad, and were new to steam, armor, cannons, etc. The US was still mostly English, and heir to many centuries of naval bad-assery. The Japanese were slightly more experienced than the Chinese of today, but more in the modern Chinese position (just figuring out how to produce their own ships, only a few generation at that time)