China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[Sanchez]

It's ridiculous to hear so much exaggeration about US carriers from Asians. US navy is unbeatable on open waters but not when it fights close to our coast. If the carriers are being used in the war then they will be sunk by us at every possible cost.

 

[gambit]

It's ridiculous to hear so much exaggeration about US carriers from Asians. US navy is unbeatable on open waters but not when it fights close to our coast. If the carriers are being used in the war then they will be sunk by us at every possible cost.

Flight operations require room to maneuver the ship, around 200nm from shore is acceptable. So it is useless to even speculate that an American aircraft carrier will enter littoral waters. We are not talking about helo carriers but capital ships like the USS Enterprise class.

 

[Sanchez]

Flight operations require room to maneuver the ship, around 200nm from shore is acceptable. So it is useless to even speculate that an American aircraft carrier will enter littoral waters. We are not talking about helo carriers but capital ships like the USS Enterprise class.

Who said US carriers would enter littoral waters? Chinese are adopting US doctrines to keep wars outside her territory so that China is trying to build a credible coastal defence at a distance of 1000nm. Right now I would believe 1000kms from the coastal line is defendable in case of a military threat.

 

[gpit]

Fundamentalist...??? What the hell does that mean?


...

fun·da·men·tal·ism audio (fnd-mntl-zm) KEY

NOUN:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

fundamentalism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

 

[gambit]

fun·da·men·tal·ism audio (fnd-mntl-zm) KEY

NOUN:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

fundamentalism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

Never thought of asking people to abide by and support their arguments with the laws of physics would make me a 'religious fundamentalist'.

 

[Martian2]

The majority of American citizens do not want to become involved in the Chinese Civil War over Taiwan. However, they don't get to make the decisions. The elites are in charge of the U.S. government and my instinct tells me that they may very well go to war.

If China is serious about using its ASBMs, she had better build hundreds of MIRVed ICBMs to prevent the U.S. from escalating a conventional war over Taiwan into a nuclear one. Otherwise, in my judgment, the sinking of an U.S. carrier with thousands of sailors will cross a U.S. "red line." The U.S. will almost definitely escalate and Beijing may indeed become the first casualty.

As a retired "armchair general," I cannot resist a final parting shot. For those who questioned my military analysis, please note that today's Wall Street Journal has published an article by a real retired general that expresses similar insights.

China Needs Weapons to Deter Nuclear Attack, Military Paper Says - WSJ.com

"* APRIL 22, 2010, 11:19 A.M. ET

China Needs Weapons to Deter Nuclear Attack, Military Paper Says

By GORDON FAIRCLOUGH

SHANGHAI—China needs weapons capable of retaliating against any nuclear attack on the country, according to a commentary in the nation's main military newspaper that sought to explain the strategic thinking behind Beijing's push to modernize its atomic arsenal.

The commentary, published Thursday in the official Liberation Army Daily, also reiterated China's longstanding stated policy that it "will never be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances."

Written by a retired general, the newspaper piece follows last week's international nuclear-security summit in Washington and comes amid questions in the U.S., Japan and elsewhere about the intent behind China's efforts to strengthen its nuclear forces.

In recent years, China has been expanding its arsenal of ballistic missiles and investing in weapons that are more mobile and more sophisticated. The country has also developed a new generation of submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons.

Even so, China's atomic arsenal—with fewer than 100 long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads, according to the Pentagon's 2009 estimate of Chinese military power —remains far smaller than those of the U.S. or Russia. Washington and Moscow recently agreed to limit their number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 each.

However, opponents of arms reductions by the U.S. have argued that such cuts could make it easier for China to catch up in terms of nuclear capability. And officials in the U.S. and elsewhere have called on Beijing to better explain the motives behind the Chinese government's increased spending on both nuclear and conventional forces.

The commentary's author, Xu Guangyu, who now works for the state-run China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said in an interview Thursday that he was responding to complaints from abroad that China's nuclear intentions are "not transparent." Gen. Xu said he wanted to dispel "misunderstandings" and challenge those who "promote a China-threat theory by exaggerating China's nuclear capabilities."

China has developed solid fuel-powered rockets that can be moved by truck, making them easier to launch and harder for foreign militaries to track than the liquid-fueled, silo-based missiles that previously had been the mainstay of China's nuclear force. The country also appears intent on deploying nuclear-armed submarines.

The point of such steps, Gen. Xu wrote, is "to really possess, and to convince the other side that it faces an intolerable second-strike nuclear capability, thereby deterring an enemy from using nuclear weapons against us." Other states, he said, "must grasp, without the least ambiguity, that we possess a deterrent." He also stressed that China "adheres to a defensive nuclear strategy."

In its annual report on the Chinese military last year, the U.S. Defense Department said China has developed a "more survivable and flexible strategic nuclear force" that "would be able to inflict significant damage on most large American cities." But the report concluded that: "There is no evidence that China's doctrine of 'no first use' has changed."

—Gao Sen in Beijing contributed to this article."

 

[Martian2]

I leave future analyses to the next generation of armchair generals. However, here is my parting article on "China's Nuclear Strike Force."

Regarding the discussion on whether China has an adequate number of nuclear ICBMs, I don't believe that this problem has been overlooked by the competent government of China.

1) China has the 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall." You can hide a lot of ICBMs in a 5,000 KM underground facility. See Board Message

2) The 20 silo-based "city-buster" ICBMs (i.e. 1 to 4 megatons) alone can destroy 20 American cities. If you annihilate the top 20 American cities, you are talking about roughly 30 million dead plus nuclear fallout. This is called nuclear deterrence.

3) China has road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBM launchers.

Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal

"Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal
Kanwa Information Center ^

Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:19:59 PM by Filibuster_60

Kanwa was informed that the development of train-borne DF31 ICBM is already completed, and the deployment of these missiles has also been prepared. The development of DF31A, a upgraded version of DF31, has also already been completed.

In order to further enhance the mobile nuclear striking power and the capability to survive attacks, China has developed new types of DF31 series ICBMs similar to the former Soviet Union train-borne SS-24. In normal days, these missiles are moved along the railroads, while at time of war, they can be transported to selected sites and then launch nuclear assaults upon the enemy. DF31 is manufactured in Sichuan at Sichuan Areospace Industry Corporation. Reliable sources from China military industry say the major difference between DF31 and DF31A lies in their warheads. The former has single warhead, while the latter has multi-warheads."

4) China has Type 094 Jin-class submarines carrying JL-2 SLBMs.

5) Nuclear-capable DH-10 cruise missiles have been added to the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

6) I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. However, for the sake of completeness, I want to point out that "It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force."

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesofthe...sile_detail.asp

"The CSS-9 is an effective strategic system that has significantly increased the PRC’s nuclear strike capabilities. Though the PRC’s land-based systems are unable to directly threaten much beyond the west coast of the United States, the CSS-9 is a modern ICBM system that threatens Russia and India, two major PRC rivals. However, the CSS-9 missile system can easily reach all of the US with the placement aboard cargo ships disguised as shipping containers. The self-contained launch system could easily be placed on a PRC ship and launched against targets in the US. It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force. Similarly, these containers could be smuggled into and stored in PRC controlled warehouses throughout the Americas. The modular nature of these modern missile systems makes them extremely dangerous since they do not need to follow tradition missile tactics. Even with modern satellite systems, the combination of hidden road and cross-country mobile launchers, missile silos, and rail/ship launchers make it impossible to destroy most of these missiles prior to launch."

7) China is developing the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile with a terminal supersonic phase. Just like the DH-10 cruise missile, it is reasonable to expect that the HN-2000 will also be nuclear-capable. See http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."

8) Have you ever watched the movie "WarGames"? A nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. will cause both nations to launch an all-out attack on all countries of the world. Russia and the U.S. will not foolishly destroy only each other and let China become the de facto superpower.

Similarly, in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, China has plenty of thermonuclear SRBMs and IRBMs (especially the ones located in Tibet; see newslinks below). China will "wipe out" most Russian cities. In retaliation, the Russians will take everyone else with them. Just as it was depicted in WarGames, Russian nuclear missiles will radiate to every major city in the world. Everybody dies, except for the lucky few in underground military facilities built to withstand a nuclear war.

In essence, China can "borrow" the Russian nuclear arsenal in the final exchange against the U.S. The Russians are not going to let the U.S. become the de facto superpower survivor.


http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/extens...ntral-china.php

"Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China



More than 50 launch pads for nuclear ballistic missiles have been identified scattered across a 2,000 square kilometer (772 square miles) area of central China, according to analysis of satellite images.

By Hans M. Kristensen

Analysis of new commercial satellite photos has identified an extensive deployment area with nearly 60 launch pads for medium-range nuclear ballistic missiles in Central China near Delingha and Da Qaidam.

The region has long been rumored to house nuclear missiles and I have previously described some of the facilities in a report and a blog. But the new analysis reveals a significantly larger deployment area than previously known, different types of launch pads, command and control facilities, and missile deployment equipment at a large facility in downtown Delingha.

The U.S. government often highlights China’s deployment of new mobile missiles as a concern but keeps the details secret, so the discovery of the deployment area provides the first opportunity for the public to better understand how China operates its mobile ballistic missiles."

http://rupeenews.com/2009/09/07/beijings-m...china-tensions/

"Beijing’s Missile in Tibet, & Hainan Naval base scare Delhi: Dramatic rise in India-China tensions

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Moin Ansari

The Chinese Red dragon’s reach has scared the pants off the Indian elephant. Many have predicted a war between India and China within the next few years. Some called that prediction alarmist. First there were repeated statements from Delhi that China was their biggest enemy and threat. Then news stories that China has built a huge infrastructure on the undefined and undemarcated Mcmohan line (the de factor border between India and China). Now the escalating tensions are sounding alarm bells around the world. The Federation of American Scientist has just published pictures of Chinese missiles which can target all of India. The incompetent intelligence agencies of India didn’t have a clue about the missiles. Any high school drop out could have paid a commercial satellite a nickel and gotten the pictures of the satellites. The fact that the FAS pictures has so unnerved Delhi that it has decided to form to new intelligence agencies is a subject of much discussion around the world..."

 

[Martian2]

As many of you know, I have asserted that China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers because the American government and military say it is so. I have provided numerous newslinks to the statements of Pentagon military officials. Despite the overwhelming evidence, there has been a die-hard naysayer, who insists that China's ASBM is speculative and merely a hypothetical worst-case-scenario.

I have previously shown you a picture of China's very real ASBM at China's 60th anniversary parade. I hope that the following news article from the front page of the New York Times will finally put to rest the silly claim of "speculative" missile. "The leader of the United States Pacific Command," Admiral Robert F. Willard, had testified to Congress that China has already "tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers."

In conclusion, does China have a dangerous ASBM that poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers? The answer lies in the "plain English doctrine." Can a person understand the plain English in the following paragraph from the New York Times?

China Expands Naval Power to Waters U.S. Dominates - NYTimes.com

"In late March, Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of the United States Pacific Command, said in Congressional testimony that recent Chinese military developments were “pretty dramatic.” China has tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers, he said. After years of denials, Chinese officials have confirmed that they intend to deploy an aircraft carrier group within a few years.

China is also developing a sophisticated submarine fleet that could try to prevent foreign naval vessels from entering its strategic waters if a conflict erupted in the region, said Admiral Willard and military analysts."

 

[gambit]

As many of you know, I have asserted that China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers because the American government and military say it is so. I have provided numerous newslinks to the statements of Pentagon military officials. Despite the overwhelming evidence, there has been a die-hard naysayer, who insists that China's ASBM is speculative and merely a hypothetical worst-case-scenario.

I have previously shown you a picture of China's very real ASBM at China's 60th anniversary parade. I hope that the following news article from the front page of the New York Times will finally put to rest the silly claim of "speculative" missile. "The leader of the United States Pacific Command," Admiral Robert F. Willard, had testified to Congress that China has already "tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers."

In conclusion, does China have a dangerous ASBM that poses a grave threat to U.S. carriers? The answer lies in the "plain English doctrine." Can a person understand the plain English in the following paragraph from the New York Times?

China Expands Naval Power to Waters U.S. Dominates - NYTimes.com

"In late March, Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of the United States Pacific Command, said in Congressional testimony that recent Chinese military developments were “pretty dramatic.” China has tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers, he said. After years of denials, Chinese officials have confirmed that they intend to deploy an aircraft carrier group within a few years.

China is also developing a sophisticated submarine fleet that could try to prevent foreign naval vessels from entering its strategic waters if a conflict erupted in the region, said Admiral Willard and military analysts."

Readers,

I caution you not to be misled by overly eager Chinese fanboys seeking validation of their ignorance. Please note the highlighted words. Throughout these so called 'evidences', you will see many: if, could, possibly and may be. No one dispute what was said. But what is and should be disputed are the fanboys' interpretation of what was said.

AN/FPS-108 COBRA DANE

First deployed in 1977, the AN/FPS-108 radar operates in the 1215-1400 MHz band using a 29m phased array antenna. The primary mission is to track and collect data on foreign intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) test launches to the Kamchatka impact area and the broad ocean impact areas in the Pacific Ocean. The metric and signature data collected support START 2 and INF treaty monitoring, and scientific and technical intelligence efforts.

MissileThreat :: Cobra Dane Radar

Designed to track Russian missile launches during the Cold War, its northern location also makes the Cobra Dane radar of especial use for tracking missile launches coming from North Korea or China.

Pave Paws is Cobra Dane's cousin. Pave Paws is capable of detecting 10 meter square targets at 3000 nm. For the same target dimension that Pave Paws can detect, which is roughly the dimension of a MIRV warhead, Cobra Dane can provide less than one meter range resolution. In other words, at any given distance, Cobra Dane can provide the target's location with less than one meter accuracy.

COBRA JUDY (U)

Data collected by COBRA JUDY is required by Congress for arms control verification. COBRA JUDY is the only radar sensor capable of collecting the metric and signature data needed for strategic missile treaty verification, as well as strategic and theater missile defense development efforts. As such, it's requirements are critical for the foreseeable future, even beyond the FYDP.

Cobra Judy is a smaller and mobile -- shipborne -- version of Cobra Dane.

Next is the radar horizon calculator...

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

The reader can vary the airborne target's altitude with any figure.

Next...The reader can look at a map of China, specifically the coastal regions. The reader can see that China will have limited testing areas before infringing upon the neighbors, alarming them and revealing relevant technical information of a missile test. As shown, Cobra Dane on US territory can already detect any ballistic trajectory launched from mainland China, which the DF-21 most likely will be. That mean Cobra Judy will have a very limited search and monitor area for any Chinese ballistic missile testing whilst staying well outside of China's territorial waters. The reader can verify this information with the above radar horizon calculator.

If any descending warhead is capable of maneuvers, two things must happen:

1- Change in descent velocity.
2- Lateral acceleration.

Against a land based and fixed target, like a city or a missile base, the goal is to descent fast to give the enemy little or no time to respond. That mean item one must occur BEFORE the warhead's seeker can attempt to acquire a moving target, and since the goal is to impact a moving target, the test must produce exactly that, which should give both Cobra Dane and Cobra Judy lateral acceleration information.

China would also have incremental tests, meaning the first few will be for fixed target acquisitions. These first few will give US an idea of the general testing area: scope and range. That is all Cobra Judy need from Cobra Dane. So if we can record the time of the start of the change in descent velocity and if available the time of the lateral acceleration, we can infer much about the DF-21's capability. The lower the altitude the change in descent velocity and lateral acceleration as the warhead seek a moving test target, the more lethal is the weapon. It does not matter if the target is aircraft carrier or dingy size. The descent should be fast enough to compress the defender's response time and if the seeker-guidance and maneuvering mechanisms are exceptional, any abrupt change by the warhead at as low an altitude as possible would further compress that response time, possibly to nothing.

So if the DF-21 is deployable, US military chiefs would not have filled their report with ifs, possibles, coulds, and may bes. If they are questioned, of course they are obliged to give policy makers the proverbial 'worst case' scenario, for their forces and the effects on foreign policy. Instead of giving the readers relevant general but technical information/explanation like above, these fanboys could only flood the discussion with nothing but the same report worded differently by different people, giving the impression that US military chiefs are 'alarmed' or 'in a panic' or 'worried' and other hyperboles.

 

[gpit]

Readers,

...

We see well your fundamentalistic approach: if we don’t see it, it does not exist. Thus if US doesn’t detect a maneuvering DF-21, or maneuvering in that lethal way, according to you, nothing is there.

Case should be rested by now.

Just remind you, when MacArthur was approaching Yalu River, he didn’t see, neither believed, any Chinese troops in Korea land: how dare the poor and backward you (China) touch the hair of giant America with world forces? When he did hear some reports of the army, he still didn’t think China dared to send troops, because of the same pathetic mentality.

You are only 1/10000 of MacArthur in capability.

Again, it is more about mentality, not about physics. If you have wrong mentality, even if physics is right, you still won’t believe it because you explain things with the laws in wrong places.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Yawwwnnnnnnnn . Lack of history studies seems to inhibit the way you kids think. Great idea for China to whack off the USN. Reminds me of that same great idea which Japan had. Repayment for that great idea to Japan was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't truly believe that Uncle Sam will stop at just Beijing if the Chinese had to sink his prized ships.

 

[gambit]

Case should be rested by now.

I just closed it.

 

[Martian2]

I just closed it.

I found a quote from gambit's grandfather!

Record Low Temperatures Hit Northeast : Now! Hampshire

"Jul 14, 2009 ... supersonic flight is impossible, splitting atoms and harnessing nuclear energy is impossible, the universe revolves about the earth, ..."

 

[Awesome]

The United States won't come in range and then fight, it will first fight when its enemies are in range. The thing is the US does not usually do Gung Ho, Jonh Woo style a gun in each hand shooting everyone on the scene type of attacks.

The US is rumored to have Inter Continental Cruise Missiles and many other tricks for long range attacks, remember those B2's can fly to China and back from the continental US. The US's tactic would definitely be to soften its target and gradually increase the intensity of its attacks.

Can't give you a play by play, but thats what the US trend in recent years suggests.

This gives some advantage to China - if China takes over Taiwan, the US isn't probably going to come guns blazing down on China. For the past 5-10 years, this has been the focus of military assumption by the Chinese defence that a big naval armada would come down knocking on their door.

They should think about other things as well.

 

[no_name]

Which is why china is developing anti satellite weapons.

All US's intel and long range attack option will depend on it.

They are also testing ground based lasers for targeting satellites