China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[lordwedggie]

Hahaha 'naval bad-assery'. Yeah during the independence war the newly formed US navy performed admirablly against the royal navy. There was an article describing an 1 on 1 engagement between two frigates, the british frigate ended up surrendering. If the US had some 1st rates then it could have been very interesting.

Anyway Bombay Dude (you guys sure say 'dude' a lot, dude), if you read Martian's posts back a few pages, he concluded himself the ASBM is a strategic asset and therefor should never been used. It will likely escalate to nuclear doom. Its mere existence (helped by other more conventional platforms such as subs, stealth fighters, cruise missiles, radars, surface fleets) serves the purpose, which is to prevent/delay US involvement should china find itself in a crisis with neighboring countries.

Gambit, if you think your government taking the ASBM seriously is a mistake, I would suggest you write them a letter instead of posting here? After all isn't this what democracy is all about? Here is your chance to be a patriot and prevent your country to waste your hard-earns on developing new systems to counter a nonexistent fantasy?

If I'm not mistaken the DF21 ASBM are Second Artillery, let's all hope these guys are never called into action.

 

[Oldman1]

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

They buy weapons that money can buy for them.

 

[Juice]

Hahaha 'naval bad-assery'. Yeah during the independence war the newly formed US navy performed admirablly against the royal navy. There was an article describing an 1 on 1 engagement between two frigates, the british frigate ended up surrendering. If the US had some 1st rates then it could have been very interesting.

Anyway Bombay Dude (you guys sure say 'dude' a lot, dude), if you read Martian's posts back a few pages, he concluded himself the ASBM is a strategic asset and therefor should never been used. It will likely escalate to nuclear doom. Its mere existence (helped by other more conventional platforms such as subs, stealth fighters, cruise missiles, radars, surface fleets) serves the purpose, which is to prevent/delay US involvement should china find itself in a crisis with neighboring countries.

Gambit, if you think your government taking the ASBM seriously is a mistake, I would suggest you write them a letter instead of posting here? After all isn't this what democracy is all about? Here is your chance to be a patriot and prevent your country to waste your hard-earns on developing new systems to counter a nonexistent fantasy?

If I'm not mistaken the DF21 ASBM are Second Artillery, let's all hope these guys are never called into action.

Not sure how that matters, the American Revolution was in essence a civil war. And yes, England and the US are heirs to the most sophisticated Naval traditions in world history.

 

[bronx]

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

One could ask the same :

1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?

2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?

3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
(1) & (2) attack as above ?



Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq

 

[anon45]

One could ask the same :

1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?

2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?

3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
(1) & (2) attack as above ?



Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq

1) Gulf War, Operation Praying Mantis

2) Operation Praying Mantis would be the closest comparison as it was defence against anti-ship missiles, even if they weren't ballistic.

3) Again operation Praying Mantis

China would significantly raise the risk of a nuclear response by firing off multiple ballistic missiles simultaneously, because that could be mistaken as a nuclear strike, even more so if China fires off 50's or the 'hundreds' that some forumgoers speculate, as that is how a nuclear first strike is typically envisioned.

The Chances are raised even further if China keeps testing in secret and China decides it should try to surprise us with (from the viewpoint of the US) ballistic missiles with an unknown payload when our intelligence believes China's much touted ASBM's are not operational yet.

Transparency on when these missiles come into service is critical in order to reduce the likelihood of mistakes.

 

[Oldman1]

One could ask the same :

1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?

2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?

3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
(1) & (2) attack as above ?



Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq

We used target drones for that reason since for decades we were prepared for possible war with Soviet Union.

Recently they been testing some other...things.

U.S. Navy Laser Weapon Shoots Down Drone in Test. - YouTube

 

[gambit]

One could ask the same :

1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?

Already answered adequately.

2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?

Ballistic missiles are the same no matter what their targets: land or sea. The only difference is that at sea, the target is moving. This complicate reentry calculation. So the more proper question should be how many countries have experience at fielding a ballistic warhead with real-time maneuverability to match target positional changes? None. But as far as defense against ballistic warheads goes, we have the technology and the current developmental experience that China does not have.

3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
(1) & (2) attack as above ?

When we have such an opponent. But not yet in China.

Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq

The PLA would love to have 1/2 the experience we do with Iraq. Considering how the PLA probably could not have taken on Iraq back then, may be 1/4 would be more appropriate.

 

[UKBengali]

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

They have none, just like the US has virtually none against swarms of sophisticated cruise missiles.

What the Chinese have are AESA AWACs, fighters with look-down/shot-down radars that can guide AAMs to these cruise missiles, a multi-layered ground air defence system that would pick off the cruise missiles at long, medium and short range.

US has little cards to play against China militarily unless it is an engagement in the open Oceans.

 

[Esc8781]

They have none, just like the US has virtually none against swarms of sophisticated cruise missiles.

What the Chinese have are AESA AWACs, fighters with look-down/shot-down radars that can guide AAMs to these cruise missiles, a multi-layered ground air defence system that would pick off the cruise missiles at long, medium and short range.

US has little cards to play against China militarily unless it is an engagement in the open Oceans.

Guess what we have everything you mentioned on there.

 

[bronx]

1) Gulf War, Operation Praying Mantis

2) Operation Praying Mantis would be the closest comparison as it was defence against anti-ship missiles, even if they weren't ballistic.

3) Again operation Praying Mantis

hmm...interesting reading . Thanks for this.

So at least the USN has some experience against this threat , while the PLAN does not have .

I wonder who will be the 1st opponent to test the PLAN out ? Perhaps Phillipines ?

 

[bronx]

The PLA would love to have 1/2 the experience we do with Iraq. Considering how the PLA probably could not have taken on Iraq back then, may be 1/4 would be more appropriate.

Why would the PLA engage in a physical war in Iraq ? They have heaps of other option(s) , given China considerable financial resources available . Just Buy Iraq out (directly or indirectly) ,e.g set up State owned Joint ventures entities with Iraq and reap the rewards OR Have a currency swop with Iraq and charged them higher interest or exchange rate .Both Easy options .

I thought Sun Tzu was complusory reading at West Point ?

Sun Tzu : "Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them "

However, if an invasion is necessary for whatever other reasons (e.g , For Generals to test their new toys) :

1) The PLA could outsource the whole invasion to the US Military . Given the Treasury huge budget deficit , I'm sure some members of the House may well consider the adventure feasible. Both China & US can also veto any UN security council resolutions. Gives them more opportunities to vote on the same side !
.

OR
.


2) The PLA could outsource the whole event to Blackwater , XE or Academi . With a double digit unemployment figure , many vets begging / sleeping on the streets , Academi could well hire many many vet at cheap rates ($9 an hour ?) and successfully tender for the project at $300 million ? And add $20 million to lobby for congressional approval , total $320 million. Pocket change for the PLA / China ...LOL

Everybody wins . The experienced battle hardened vets get jobs, Academi walks away with a pile of profit + cash , China spends some of her treasuries away..

.
.

On a more serious note , I reckon that we will see more private contractors & mercenaries for the next few regional wars ; the shareholders at XE / Academi are smart investors , a niche market that is provides high ROI !

 

[eachus]

One could ask the same :

1) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple cruise missles ?

2) What kind of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against multiple ASBM missles ?

3) What sort of experience does the USN have regarding air defence against a combined
(1) & (2) attack as above ?

Perhaps they are better off confronting less formidable opponents like Iraq

China is on the defense side, China is backed to the corner has no way to avoid the war and has to accept unlimited lose. China should have those as price for any invader

1) number rounds of multiple(100+ each attack) cruise missiles, possible each can emit 100 blooms, any radar can defense?

2) number rounds of multiple(100+ each attack) ASBM missiles, and possible each can emit 100 blooms?

3) number rounds of multiple(100+ each attack) unman aircrafts, and possible each can emit 100 blooms, missiles?

4) 100+ stealthy unman aircrafts, and possible stealthy missiles?

5) submarines, unman submarines, smart bombs,,,,

6) when J20 is ready, add those to the list.

7) 100+ manned aircrafts with missiles.

8) something you and I dont know yet, but exists.

9) possible all of above combined.

[note: do not expect US or China has a single satellite in space. both have abilities to take them all down.]


US attack/invade China, US has option and does care the price/return ratio.
China on the defense side, China has no option can not do calculation for return.

 

[eachus]

in the last 40 years, US did not have a single rival test its military capacity. fight against Iraq and Libia are worse than normal hometown test. those countries have technology at least 2 generations outdated, was that meaningful?

 

[gambit]

in the last 40 years, US did not have a single rival test its military capacity.

Is that our fault? In the last 100 yrs, how many military rivals (not peers) have faced US? Plenty, counting WW II. But how many peers? Just one, the USSR. And whatever commentary/criticism you can level at US, you can do the same for the Soviets and China as well.

fight against Iraq and Libia are worse than normal hometown test. those countries have technology at least 2 generations outdated, was that meaningful?

Yes, they were. China wish the PLA would have 1/4 combat experience of the US military. Keep in mind those countries were armed by the USSR/China alliance.

Why would the PLA engage in a physical war in Iraq ?

Speculative. Every military have a wish it could take on X, Y, or Z opponent in a real fight. Whatever Sun Tzu advised about wining without fighting is a political/strategic issue. But deep down inside, a military is no different than a boxer that itches for a real fight. You think Mike Tyson talked his way to the championship?

 

[doidoi2]

Guys, there is no point arguing in an online forum about the superior quality of Chinese weapons/tactics over Western ones. Remember one of Sun Tzu's tenets.

When able, you must appear unable, and vice versa.

It's to our advantage to let the military be underestimated. Never forget this.

Why do you think the CCP boasted about its many achievements in the 70's and 80's when they're in deplorable form? Why do you think the CCP no longer makes those proclamations of superior ability and instead chooses to emphasize the peaceful aspects of its army?

Don't make the mistake of giving up tactical advantage for a few moments of 逞嘴皮子.