Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished

[HeinzG]

Could anyone provide a insight about how would DF-21 guidance system detect the aircraft carrier in a hostile environment with no tracking mechanism of their own?

 

[Dexon]

This topic is very scientific. Topics should be sent to the author.!

 

[313ghazi]

Take your own advice.


Sure it was, and we all know it.


Such as where ? And if you say Iraq, I will embarrass you.


And am willing to say that you know NONE of the technical issues involved in that guidance.


Certainly the aircraft carrier has more combat experience than the anti-ship ballistic missile does.


You want war to be fair ? What recreational hallucinogenic substance are you on ? Plus, your comment reveals you know next to nothing about weaponry in general. If a weapon needs to be 'tested' in war, you failed as a developer.

Sure you went to Iraq to fight terrorism...lol

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html

Need i go on? You might believe the Fox news BS on you're side of the Atlantic - but the rest of us aren't idiots.

As for the impregnable US aircraft carriers - http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...lear-powered-aircraft-carrier-not-china-19990

That was over a decade ago.

Like I said - you guys don't fight wars you think you can't win.

Could anyone provide a insight about how would DF-21 guidance system detect the aircraft carrier in a hostile environment with no tracking mechanism of their own?

That's the whole point, it's designed to operate in environments where it can be supported by tracking mechanisms, including sattelites, drones, AWAC's, even mini subs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

 

[gambit]

Could anyone provide a insight about how would DF-21 guidance system detect the aircraft carrier in a hostile environment with no tracking mechanism of their own?

You will NOT receive such assistance from the Chinese and their suck-ups about that.

To detect a target, you must have sensor capability, of which radar is still the best. So we can safely assume the DF-21D will be radar equipped.

But that is not the difficult part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

Missiles are governed by laws, specifically mathematically derived instruction sets in the form of software. The variables are what make these laws increasingly complex and the most complex is when the attacker and the target are moving.

YOU already performed the basic PN intercept guidance laws in your daily lives. You just did not consciously know it. When you drive, you observe the vehicles in front of you and tries to anticipate their movements and dislocations. Congratulations, you just became a DF-21D -- sort of.

Every analogy has limits. The difference is that you have constant awareness of your driving target while the DF-21D does not of the aircraft carrier. The missile do not have detection of target until it is literally over the general area of where the target is expected to be. At the moment of detection, the descending warhead must make course corrections NOT to where the target is but where the target is GOING TO BE. That is the core of Proportional Navigation ( PN ). It happens in hunting ducks or shooting at clay targets with a shotgun, aka 'leading the target'. You shoot at where you THINK the target is going to be.

Proportional guidance is one of its many derivatives. Keywords search 'intercept guidance laws'. Try it. There are engineers who do nothing but working on these guidance laws. Even the sport of hockey have teams employed specialists to try to gain an advantage.

The maneuvers of the jet fighter and aircraft carrier creates complex variables that basic PN guidance laws cannot compensate, so much more complex guidance laws must be created. So for the AMRAAM or the DF-21D, there are no credible sources that says what combinations of guidance laws governs what kind of intercept schemes. These are national security level secret clearances.

Sure you went to Iraq to fight terrorism...lol

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html

Need i go on? You might believe the Fox news BS on you're side of the Atlantic - but the rest of us aren't idiots.

I told you I would embarrass you...

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...a-and-china-got-those-iraqi-oil-fields/32445/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction.

Donald Trump is a new US president so the US have not taken any oil from Iraq. But as the link above shows, after Saddam Hussein was hanged, it was Russia and China who got the favorable oil contracts from Iraq.

You are too late to the news, kid. As for the rest of your post, I see no need to debate the technical issues with a 12 yr old.

 

[HeinzG]

You will NOT receive such assistance from the Chinese and their suck-ups about that.

To detect a target, you must have sensor capability, of which radar is still the best. So we can safely assume the DF-21D will be radar equipped.

But that is not the difficult part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

Missiles are governed by laws, specifically mathematically derived instruction sets in the form of software. The variables are what make these laws increasingly complex and the most complex is when the attacker and the target are moving.

YOU already performed the basic PN intercept guidance laws in your daily lives. You just did not consciously know it. When you drive, you observe the vehicles in front of you and tries to anticipate their movements and dislocations. Congratulations, you just became a DF-21D -- sort of.

Every analogy has limits. The difference is that you have constant awareness of your driving target while the DF-21D does not of the aircraft carrier. The missile do not have detection of target until it is literally over the general area of where the target is expected to be. At the moment of detection, the descending warhead must make course corrections NOT to where the target is but where the target is GOING TO BE. That is the core of Proportional Navigation ( PN ). It happens in hunting ducks or shooting at clay targets with a shotgun, aka 'leading the target'. You shoot at where you THINK the target is going to be.

Proportional guidance is one of its many derivatives. Keywords search 'intercept guidance laws'. Try it. There are engineers who do nothing but working on these guidance laws. Even the sport of hockey have teams employed specialists to try to gain an advantage.

The maneuvers of the jet fighter and aircraft carrier creates complex variables that basic PN guidance laws cannot compensate, so much more complex guidance laws must be created. So for the AMRAAM or the DF-21D, there are no credible sources that says what combinations of guidance laws governs what kind of intercept schemes. These are national security level secret clearances.

Thank you for the well detailed analysis.

 

[313ghazi]

You will NOT receive such assistance from the Chinese and their suck-ups about that.

To detect a target, you must have sensor capability, of which radar is still the best. So we can safely assume the DF-21D will be radar equipped.

But that is not the difficult part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

Missiles are governed by laws, specifically mathematically derived instruction sets in the form of software. The variables are what make these laws increasingly complex and the most complex is when the attacker and the target are moving.

YOU already performed the basic PN intercept guidance laws in your daily lives. You just did not consciously know it. When you drive, you observe the vehicles in front of you and tries to anticipate their movements and dislocations. Congratulations, you just became a DF-21D -- sort of.

Every analogy has limits. The difference is that you have constant awareness of your driving target while the DF-21D does not of the aircraft carrier. The missile do not have detection of target until it is literally over the general area of where the target is expected to be. At the moment of detection, the descending warhead must make course corrections NOT to where the target is but where the target is GOING TO BE. That is the core of Proportional Navigation ( PN ). It happens in hunting ducks or shooting at clay targets with a shotgun, aka 'leading the target'. You shoot at where you THINK the target is going to be.

Proportional guidance is one of its many derivatives. Keywords search 'intercept guidance laws'. Try it. There are engineers who do nothing but working on these guidance laws. Even the sport of hockey have teams employed specialists to try to gain an advantage.

The maneuvers of the jet fighter and aircraft carrier creates complex variables that basic PN guidance laws cannot compensate, so much more complex guidance laws must be created. So for the AMRAAM or the DF-21D, there are no credible sources that says what combinations of guidance laws governs what kind of intercept schemes. These are national security level secret clearances.


I told you I would embarrass you...

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...a-and-china-got-those-iraqi-oil-fields/32445/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

Donald Trump is a new US president so the US have not taken any oil from Iraq. But as the link above shows, after Saddam Hussein was hanged, it was Russia and China who got the favorable oil contracts from Iraq.

You are too late to the news, kid. As for the rest of your post, I see no need to debate the technical issues with a 12 yr old.

Yeah because the recent tendered deals are all the oil in Iraq right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/ar...-the-u-s-does-have-the-iraqi-oil-trump-wanted

Besides the only reasons you've not got the amount of oil and resources you wanted is because you lost the war. You took the country but failed to keep it. It's been in a state of civil war and the biggest influence there is Iran, not you.

That doesn't change the FACT you went for the oil - you just fucked up.

 

[gambit]

Yeah because the recent tendered deals are all the oil in Iraq right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/ar...-the-u-s-does-have-the-iraqi-oil-trump-wanted

Besides the only reasons you've not got the amount of oil and resources you wanted is because you lost the war. You took the country but failed to keep it. It's been in a state of civil war and the biggest influence there is Iran, not you.

That doesn't change the FACT you went for the oil - you just fucked up.

Deals are not theft, kid. But even so, what you posted is well after Saddam Hussein got hanged and well after Russia and China got their deals. So that make your argument that the US fought Iraq for oil as -- STUPID.

We 'lost' the war ? Try telling that to the Pakistani military academies and see how hard they laughs at you.

 

[313ghazi]

Deals are not theft, kid. But even so, what you posted is well after Saddam Hussein got hanged and well after Russia and China got their deals. So that make your argument that the US fought Iraq for oil as -- STUPID.

We 'lost' the war ? Try telling that to the Pakistani military academies and see how hard they laughs at you.

Of course you lost the war. Look at your objectives.

ccording to the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document endorsed by senior Bush administration officials as far back as 1997, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Saddam's WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility."

The real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fire citing declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important but secondary goal:

"The most important strategic interest lay in expanding global energy supplies, through foreign investment, in some of the world's largest oil reserves – in particular Iraq. This meshed neatly with the secondary aim of securing contracts for their companies. Note that the strategy documents released here tend to refer to 'British and global energy supplies.' British energy security is to be obtained by there being ample global supplies – it is not about the specific flow."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ar-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.


The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

That right there spells out the objectives. You failed to achieve them. You even failed to install a friendly government. Right now you're having to sing to their tune wrt Kurdistan. Iran runs the show in Iraq, their security forces are the ones with feet on the ground defeating ISIS. Your direct opponents have won the contracts for oil from a more independent Iraq.

How did you win? What did you win? A smiley face sticker?

Also you jarheads might think the win is about what happens after the shooting stops and you check the body count, but it's not, it's about what happens after. Afghanistan is somewhere else you've lost. The government is only effective in Kabul, the Taliban are all over the place running a parallel administration and you're government is begging us to help turn the tide. That's not going to happen - now is when we twist the knife.

 

[gambit]

Of course you lost the war. Look at your objectives.

That right there spells out the objectives. You failed to achieve them. You even failed to install a friendly government. Right now you're having to sing to their tune wrt Kurdistan. Iran runs the show in Iraq, their security forces are the ones with feet on the ground defeating ISIS. Your direct opponents have won the contracts for oil from a more independent Iraq.

How did you win? What did you win? A smiley face sticker?

The US have no problems with anyone believing that we 'lost' the war in Iraq. We 'lost' in Korea. We 'lost' in Viet Nam. But then again, the opinions of people like you are irrelevant. It is the opinions of your leaders that matters and so far, none of them dared to challenge US despite the popular opinions that we 'lost'.

 

[313ghazi]

The US have no problems with anyone believing that we 'lost' the war in Iraq. We 'lost' in Korea. We 'lost' in Viet Nam. But then again, the opinions of people like you are irrelevant. It is the opinions of your leaders that matters and so far, none of them dared to challenge US despite the popular opinions that we 'lost'.

You're right - but that's changing. So far no Pakistani leader ever told you to do one - today you're sat in Islamabad begging for our help. Wait until after the election and we shift this government our entirely, see how helpful Imran Khan is...lol

You used to have the same arrogant ideas about Turkey - not anymore. Iran used to be your own back yard, not anymore. Iraq used to be a slave to America too - today they oppose you on Kurdistan, tomorrow it will be something else.

With rising power in China and an ever increasingly aggressive Russia the world is multipolar again, the dominance you had is gone and to make matters worse, you elected trump to deal with all this...LOL

Mind you - Pakistani leaders have been playing America for fools for decades. Zia took your money and your weapons and gave birth to the islamist jihadi groups you are fighting today all over the place. The defence Muslim countries couldn't put up using conventional forces they do using these guys. Most of the Jihadis in Iraq were controlled by the baathists.

Zia lied to your face and we developed nuclear weapons. We sold that tech across the world to cause speed bumps to US hegomony. Musharraf, probably the biggest US lapdog in recent times went on national TV and blamed it all on 1 guy and he even pardoned him! We've also refused to let you guys access him.

Look at crazy old lil Kim - we made him nuclear. That is the very reason Japan and S.Korea can't control him, today he has weapons that reach America with nuclear warheads. You won't be issuing him any threats either - all that action man bluster expressed itself as a fart as you revert back to "containment". This one move has meant you haven't been able to contain China and today China is building military outposts in Africa and in Pakistan, expanding when you want them to be busy trying to defend the waters around them.

Your arrogance was your own downfall, now you get to watch the rest of it in super slo-mo.

 

[Great Sachin]

try attacking US carrier..you will get the answer loud and clear ...

 

[gambit]

You're right - but that's changing. So far no Pakistani leader ever told you to do one - today you're sat in Islamabad begging for our help. Wait until after the election and we shift this government our entirely, see how helpful Imran Khan is...lol

You used to have the same arrogant ideas about Turkey - not anymore. Iran used to be your own back yard, not anymore. Iraq used to be a slave to America too - today they oppose you on Kurdistan, tomorrow it will be something else.

With rising power in China and an ever increasingly aggressive Russia the world is multipolar again, the dominance you had is gone and to make matters worse, you elected trump to deal with all this...LOL

Mind you - Pakistani leaders have been playing America for fools for decades. Zia took your money and your weapons and gave birth to the islamist jihadi groups you are fighting today all over the place. The defence Muslim countries couldn't put up using conventional forces they do using these guys. Most of the Jihadis in Iraq were controlled by the baathists.

Zia lied to your face and we developed nuclear weapons. We sold that tech across the world to cause speed bumps to US hegomony. Musharraf, probably the biggest US lapdog in recent times went on national TV and blamed it all on 1 guy and he even pardoned him! We've also refused to let you guys access him.

Look at crazy old lil Kim - we made him nuclear. That is the very reason Japan and S.Korea can't control him, today he has weapons that reach America with nuclear warheads. You won't be issuing him any threats either - all that action man bluster expressed itself as a fart as you revert back to "containment". This one move has meant you haven't been able to contain China and today China is building military outposts in Africa and in Pakistan, expanding when you want them to be busy trying to defend the waters around them.

Your arrogance was your own downfall, now you get to watch the rest of it in super slo-mo.

Spare me your drivel.

When you cannot even do basic research...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...snapping-up-iraqs-oil/?utm_term=.42e95d075eab

...Iraqi oil is increasingly flowing east, to China.

"China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share

The bulk of US oil imports are from CANADA AND MEXICO.

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

So there is no need for US to take any Iraqi oil at any time. You got suckered, pal.

So yeah...Go on believing that your Pakistan took advantage of US. Every country has someone like you telling their people how 'superior' they are to Americans. And yet every yr their country remains behind US in every way.

 

[My-Analogous]

That doesn't answer my simple doubt. How is U.S or any other country who's intention are to attack a far away nation, supposed to bring their fighters and bombers within their striking range ??? Can you please enlighten ??

What i combat radius mean?

 

[Tom M]

What i combat radius mean?

If you don't know. Please do research. Google is your friend.

 

[LeGenD]

@313ghazi

US attacked Iraq for following reasons:

1. To close the chapter of Saddam Hussein (permanently).
2. To make sure that Iraq is clean of WMDs of any sort.
3. To make sure that Iraq is not hostile to American interests in the region in the forseeable future.

To be honest, US have accomplished most of its objectives in Iraq.

Contrary to the popular belief, US is attempting to reduce its oil imports because it has stimulated its domestic oil production via shale revolution and is rather exploring alternatives in electric revolution and renewable energy sources.