China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[amalakas]

What is the combat radius of the F-117 and from which airbase is it operating from?

Also what is with the image again? You use this for the DF-21D! you are going to use the same missile to hit military bases too? what it is a swiss army knife of missiles this one?

You are forgetting these are first strike weapons, they don't advertise their presence when they are about to be used.

So if they were meant to be used, they would be and then be long gone afterwards. And you and other table top strategists can go guessing where they flew from or not.

The point was that there is something you don't know. And that is that nothing works the way you think.

What you do is counting numbers of planes and tanks and think that is what matters. It is not.

and I tried to explain this to you boys a number of times.

China doesn't even have the experience to conduct operations. Simply because it hasn't conducted any.

You have clearly time and time again demonstrated a lack of appreciation for strategic objectives and means to achieve them. You only count numbers.

 

[gambit]

Exactly.

He thinks B-2s can fly unescorted into China with no air superiority and open those bomb bays without being detected.

I say go ahead and do it.

And your no experience is showing.

In order for the weapons bay to have any adverse effects on RCS, the seeking radar HAS TO BE ON THE AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If the radar beam sweeps over the B-2 before it begins its weapons release procedures, its delivery WILL NOT be detected until...errr...TOO FRACKING LATE.

This is why I get more of an intellectual challenge working on my bike than from you Chinese boys -- COMBINED.

What's stopping the US from doing it right now?

Our magnanimity.

 

[Firemaster]

And your no experience is showing.

In order for the weapons bay to have any adverse effects on RCS, the seeking radar HAS TO BE ON THE AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If the radar beam sweeps over the B-2 before it begins its weapons release procedures, its delivery WILL NOT be detected until...errr...TOO FRACKING LATE.

This is why I get more of an intellectual challenge working on my bike than from you Chinese boys -- COMBINED.


Our magnanimity.

Sir although it doesn't seem a right place to ask a question but Visitor message service is off so I am asking it here.
In one of your post I read that nothing is invisible on a radar even RCS of a bird but you said that things like size of a bird are automatically rejected by the radar as clutter even if those are flying at mach 1.
Now, can we not implement an algorithm in radar processing module to reject RCS of a bird's size only when if it is flying slower than 500Km/h in order to detect a stealth aircraft?

magnanimity.

New word added to my vocabulary

 

[j20blackdragon]

Also what is with the image again? You use this for the DF-21D! you are going to use the same missile to hit military bases too? what it is a swiss army knife of missiles this one?

It's like I'm talking to a child.

The DF-21D is for ships.

China has other missiles for the military bases.

I'll even post the pictures for you so you don't get confused.

 

[amalakas]

Sir although it doesn't seem a right place to ask a question but Visitor message service is off so I am asking it here.
In one of your post I read that nothing is invisible on a radar even RCS of a bird but you said that things like size of a bird are automatically rejected by the radar as clutter even if those are flying at mach 1.
Now, can we not implement an algorithm in radar processing module to reject RCS of a bird's size only when if it is flying slower than 500Km/h in order to detect a stealth aircraft?



New word added to my vocabulary

We can and we have.

But that is not the point. The point is that if you were to see the returns from a relatively modern and modestly powerful radar froma fighter plane, you would be amazed by how much it picks up. It is hard to for any algorithm to separate echoes that may or may not be travelling at high speeds.

they are simply too many. Now you can do this, but there is only so much a dedicated unit can do. if you make it search for the supersonic bird, it may not be able to do much else..

It's like I'm talking to a child.

The DF-21D is for ships.

China has other missiles for the military bases.

I'll even post the pictures for you so you don't get confused.

you'll have to excuse me, you keep posting the same images... i tend to lose the point after a while ..

 

[j20blackdragon]

you'll have to excuse me, you keep posting the same images... i tend to lose the point after a while ..

I want everyone to see how China is going to destroy all your forward bases.

Go ahead and attack.

All talk and no action?

And your no experience is showing.

In order for the weapons bay to have any adverse effects on RCS, the seeking radar HAS TO BE ON THE AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If the radar beam sweeps over the B-2 before it begins its weapons release procedures, its delivery WILL NOT be detected until...errr...TOO FRACKING LATE.

If that's the case, the J-20 will open its weapon bays and drop some glide bombs straight through the deck of your carrier.

 

[Mercenary]

From Wikipedia: DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, The U.S. arsenal has a “variety of potential countermeasures” and the “kill chain” of a potential DF-21D attack would be so “complicated” that it would provide a “number of opportunities to defeat the attack”.
He also stated the unless one country integrates an “entire system of systems” to make this work, the missile itself would be pretty “useless”.[27]

“Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.”[27] - Roger Cliff

 

[amalakas]

From Wikipedia: DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, The U.S. arsenal has a “variety of potential countermeasures” and the “kill chain” of a potential DF-21D attack would be so “complicated” that it would provide a “number of opportunities to defeat the attack”.
He also stated the unless one country integrates an “entire system of systems” to make this work, the missile itself would be pretty “useless”.[27]

“Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.”[27] - Roger Cliff

which agrees with what has been said so far.

 

[Esc8781]

I want everyone to see how China is going to destroy all your forward bases.

Go ahead and attack.

All talk and no action?

If that's the case, the J-20 will open its weapon bays and drop some glide bombs straight through the deck of your carrier.

Wait hold on if China can detect our B-2 why can't we detect the j-20 if we started stealth before China did? Plus why aren't you sure that f-18 super hornets and f-35C aren't around the carrier to defend it from the j-20 how does that make any sense someone tell me!

 

[Martian2]

$1 trillion cuts in the U.S. military budget over the next ten years

You anti-China haters need to live in the real world. The U.S. military is in the process of being gutted.

There is $1 trillion over ten years being cut from the Pentagon budget starting January 2013 (right after the presidential election). In ten years, the U.S. military will be a shadow of its current self.

There will be no significant U.S. attempt to counterbalance China in Asia. If you're broke, you can't do squat. That's a fact.

----------

Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study | Reuters

"Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study
WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:34pm EDT
...
The Pentagon "has not adequately articulated the strategy behind its force posture planning nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities," CSIS said in its report.

While the Pentagon is planning to make nearly $500 billion in cuts to projected spending over the next 10 years, it is seeking to stave off an additional $500 billion in potential cuts under a process known as 'sequestration.'"

[Note: Thank you to Paul Yih for the newslink.]

[Additional note: Sequestration is an automatic across-the-board cut to the annual U.S. budget, unless the Democrats and Republicans can agree on a budget deal. We all know hell will freeze over before Democrats (more taxes on the rich) and Republicans (lower taxes on the rich and reduced spending on everything except the military) can agree to aforesaid budget deal. Therefore, sequestration is inevitable.]

 

[amalakas]

$1 trillion cuts in the U.S. military budget over the next ten years

You anti-China haters need to live in the real world. The U.S. military is in the process of being gutted.

There is $1 trillion over ten years being cut from the Pentagon budget starting January 2013 (right after the presidential election). In ten years, the U.S. military will be a shadow of its current self.

There will be no significant U.S. attempt to counterbalance China in Asia. If you're broke, you can't do squat. That's a fact.

----------

Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study | Reuters

"Pentagon plans for pivot to Asia need work: study
WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:34pm EDT
...
The Pentagon "has not adequately articulated the strategy behind its force posture planning nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities," CSIS said in its report.

While the Pentagon is planning to make nearly $500 billion in cuts to projected spending over the next 10 years, it is seeking to stave off an additional $500 billion in potential cuts under a process known as 'sequestration.'"

[Note: Thank you to Paul Yih for the newslink.]

[Additional note: Sequestration is an automatic across-the-board cut to the annual U.S. budget, unless the Democrats and Republicans can agree on a budget deal. We all know hell will freeze over before Democrats (more taxes on the rich) and Republicans (lower taxes on the rich and reduced spending on everything except the military) can agree to aforesaid budget deal. Therefore, sequestration is inevitable.]

That is what you don''t get. We (or at least I) am no china hater. What I hate is the amount of misinformation people like you spread based on a minute understanding and teenage chest thumping.

Most of the things you personally post are misconceptions, misunderstandings and a mix of own egotistical based interpretations of facts.

I don't like to play this game but I don't like people like you to insult all I have learned all these years because that way I allow you to insult all the people who taught me as well.

Your posts on Chinese GDP over and over again, (along with the other member, dragon), you current post on US cutting military budget, you bitter comments about us being China haters because our respective countries are going south, these are highly indicative of a person with an agenda, personal and psychologically motivated, by what, I don't know.

Where we come from, has no bearing on out intelligence and on what we know and we have been taught.
I have tried to show you a number of times how erroneous your interpretations of China's economic growth is, but you don't seem to want to see. That is fine by me.

We tried this issue in terms of politics, technology, systems integration and everything else along the way. You don't seem to listen nor understand. That is fine by me also.

You have a very twisted world perspective and that is sad. What is sadder is that we can probably paint a far more accurate picture of Chinese foreign policy intentions and military directions and goals than you guys do, and you are supposed to be chinese or chinese fans. Sad really.

 

[gambit]

In one of your post I read that nothing is invisible on a radar even RCS of a bird but you said that things like size of a bird are automatically rejected by the radar as clutter even if those are flying at mach 1.

Yes.

Now, can we not implement an algorithm in radar processing module to reject RCS of a bird's size only when if it is flying slower than 500Km/h in order to detect a stealth aircraft?

It is called 'moving target indicator' radar, or more precisely -- mode.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...-raptor-detailed-analasis-25.html#post1926961

The argument 'no bird flies at Mach 1' have been posited before as some sort of antidote for 'stealth'. The MTI mode have very lmited utility in trying to detect an F-117 class body.

Track-before-detect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In radar technology and similar fields, track-before-detect (TBD) is a concept according to which a signal is tracked before declaring it a target.

Detect-before-track is when there is a trespass of a threshold (clutter rejection) over time. Then the violator is marked as a 'target' and tracked. In DBT, we set a threshold where we say that any RCS value that matches this threshold and BELOW we do not want to display, in other words, the operator is not informed at all.

IEEE Xplore - Signal-to-noise ratio threshold effect in track before detect

Track before detect (TBD) refers to simultaneous detection and tracking using unthresholded sensor responses over time.

IEEE Xplore - Hidden Markov based target detection for track-before-detect

Track-before-detect (TBD) techniques avoid the usage of a detection threshold...

Unthresholded and avoid a threshold.

In track-before-detect (TBD), we lower the threshold to the point where we basically see everything, possibly signals as low as cosmic background radiation (CBR), then we track them ALL over time. We do not consider the Doppler component of any response like in MTI mode. We simply monitor the spatial progress of EVERYTHING. The filter(s) that we introduce at this point can be anything, from RCS to speed to altitude to heading. If anything matches our filter criteria, it is 'detected'. Hence, track-before-detect.

The main technical issue is that of data processing. The wider the beamwidth the greater the amount of data. The narrower the beamwidth, the less data but at the expense of volume scan over time. The data processing power alone is not yet allowable for a fighter class radar. It is more feasible for a ground station but the volume is still a hurdle, especially when combat urgency (time) is factored in.

This is why currently, the bi-static radar is still the better threat to 'stealth' but it has its own limitations, technical and logistical issues as well.

If that's the case, the J-20 will open its weapon bays and drop some glide bombs straight through the deck of your carrier.

Big if. You are assuming that the J-20 is even in the same class as the F-117. The J-20's flippity-floppity canards in flight is going to holler: 'Here I am, come get me!!!'

 

[gambit]

Dear Gambit,

History has shown that McCarthyism does not equate to patriotism. In fact, history has proved that McCarthyism is a betrayal of the fundamental American values of fairness and freedom from a political witch hunt.

I am merely an armchair general exercising my constitutional right to discuss potential military scenarios. There is nothing patriotic or unpatriotic in my behavior. I'm pursuing my hobby, just like you.

However, unlike you, I don't take cheap shots at your patriotism or other personal issues. It's called respecting others.

Sincerely,

Armchair General Martin

It is hilarious and an irony so delicious that you would invoke your US Constitutional rights when your emotional alliance is with those who do not care about such rights.

I met plenty of Chinese-Americans in my days, in and out of the military, US borned and naturalized citizens. The difference between them and the Chinese-Americans here is that they do not criticize the US to destroy whilst the lot of you potential traitors Chinese-Americans here criticize the US precisely to destroy her. Their criticisms of the US are always accompanied by solutions, no matter how flawed or ill informed they are earnest attempts nonetheless, and those solutions are always on how to fix the US to maintain her high status in the world. For the Chinese-Americans on this forum, you criticize the US in the hope that others will abandon her.

I do not need to channel the ghost of McCarthy to see you for what you are. I only need to read your posts.

 

[j20blackdragon]

B-2s entered service in 1997.

And I'm still waiting for them to bomb China.

Where are they?

All talk and no action?

 

[amalakas]

B-2s entered service in 1997.

And I'm still waiting for them to bomb China.

Where are they?

All talk and no action?

Did you even see the image you posted ?