The French Navy Stands Up to China

[antonius123]

CMDR Evans and MCMDR Perry PROVED YOU WRONG.

Both case, the destroyer or sloop (like a frigate back in 1800s) charge ahead of the ship where Evan charge with 17 to 1 and one of them is the great YAMATO, and Perry charge with 7 to 1 odds (2 Man O War and 3 Sloop and 2 schooner), both case the commander lost their ship, but both case turn out they win the battle in the end.

AND THAT IS THE FACT.

I said you are stupid, I never said Stalin is stupid, I said Stalin is not a Tactician nor Strategist. Which mean quoting war strategy from him you may as well quote private Hitler. Prove me wrong by naming some of their Brilliant Strategy? You may as well quote yourself, which mean nothing.

Were the other factors such as: technology, strategy, experience, training, luck, are the same? Absolutely they were not!! That is where your logical failure is, got it?

CMDR Evans and MCMDR Perry do not prove me wrong, and they can't! The more quantity the bigger chance to win is absolute, if everything else is the same!

It is you who are idiot, always failed to understand and interpret things.

I and Stalin say exactly the same thing: Quantity is all quality on its own, and it refer to military power. Dont blame me if you failed to understand what I and Stalin say

lol 80 tons foods.

First, who ever is stupid enough to bring 80 tons food instead of 80 tons ammo deserved to be shot.

80 ton is fraction (only ~ 1.2%) of 7000 ton destroyer. There is no reason to it cannot bring enough ammo for skirmish sea war.

Secondly, you have no idea how navy works. You cannot have un fresh food when you are at sea, how are you going to keep 60 days food fresh? Fresh food provide the best vitamin and prevent many nautical disease, which you don't have a fully function role 3 and role 4 hospital in a ship which would be a problem, especially for diary, eggs and other protein, which you need for bodily function. Can you store 60 days worth of Dairy? Food gone bad is also a problem for the navy. Food constantly gone bad, and replacement can food would not provide enough nutrient, which mean You can last 1 or 2 days with can food, then you have to have a new supply of fresh food.

Fresh food and Navy are like hams and peas, you cannot goes with one and not the other.

The fact you don't know life at sea is appalling.

60 days of food LOL.

Hellaw ... there are various kind of canned foods, vegetable foods, vitamin tablet, supplement etc .. this is war not vacation...

If China cannot get supply of fresh food and vegetable during the trip or during the war, why should she stop from the war if she still can feed their sailor??

What a logic you are demonstrating here? such an idiotic argument.

lol, how your oiler get fuel from? Do you even know how much fuel is needed for a single ship to operate a day?

How many oiler you had?

LOL

From China herself. From where did Britts get the oil?

prove? From my Serving Relative in the Navy

2 of my relative is Navy, my father is former Navy, my cousin is active Coast Guard.

You want prove? I was on one of the Tico Cruiser for a tiger cruise some years ago and I took this

View attachment 483062

1.) Open day will not let you go INSIDE the ship, usually a walk around. I took this picture INSIDE the hanger
2.) There are no one around, usually you would have a lot of people around if you are in an open day.

Is there enough proof?

LOLs. Whats a joke!

In forum discussion, claim has to be proved with "citation". Claim can't be proved by another claim.

If I say my uncle was US Air Force, will it make my claim become correct?
In other word => you failed to prove your claim!

Dude, did you actually what I wrote? This is what I wrote.

And lol for suggesting using commercial ship. Maybe you can siphon some fuel from the tank if you have an adaptor, but to resupply other stuff, unless you plan to carry each box from commercial ship to your navy ship, you need to open your resupply ship bulkhead for the transfer, if you do it in a commercial ship(If it can actually do it) that ship will sink to the bottom of the ocean. Most merchant ship is either container ship, which lay it on the container, how do you transfer a container from a merchant ship to a Navy ship in high sea when wave swing you around? Ever wondering why Navy need to specifically design replenishment ship for underway replenishment? Really high IQ of you.

I have already said you can refuel using merchant ship

Hot refuelling is doable if YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ADAPTOR. Because you can cable fueling with the nozzle, you just have to have the right adaptor (If that ship is American ship, it usually don't need an adapter) But you won't run them on for long because the fuel merchant ship using is different grade than navy ship. I am talking about the resupplying situation. Are you going to bring each case of mango or whatever you need them? How long does it take to load and unload every case of beer, every tray of mango, every box of supply if you need 10 to 20 tons a day and you did it tray by tray?

Have you read the citation I gave you about Canada rent commercial ship for naval replenishment?

Tell me why Canada can make it.

How did China get to Mediterranean Sea without any port in between? From your 18 replenishment ship lol?

And what is your IQ? Mine is higher than you obviously.

Explained many times already. China can use simple vessel to make her circling globe.

Have you read it?

No, can't be; your IQ should be lower than me and most of people here.

PEOPLE RESPECT ME, GAVE ME A TITLE, GAVE ME 315 POSITIVE RATING.

You get 1.

You want to look at how people see between me and you lol? REALLY?

LOLs. Logical fallacy.

Your friends giving you rating because you are bullshitting doesnt make you more credible. I am not active in this forum, while you like to boasting your self to get other people thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco_Marine_Services
Count it yourself

So your navy can eat oil to survive? Ok, I understand, good to know....LOL

58 replenishment ships my ***! only 6 replenishment vessel in the list there! You cant count?

It hard evidence that your words is untrustworthy

People choose ship according to what they need and the technology, if French is behind China a lot, country like Singapore (Which itself have a large Chinese population) or Middle Eastern Country, which is political neutral, would be buying Chinese ship instead of French Ship.

Are we talking about Armament in General or Navy?

You claim French is not peer to PLAN, prove it or BS.

You sounded like a Loser

No! Singapore tend to buy western arms based on commonality not based on same race consideration! since they have used arms from US long time ago, and Chinese technology catch up US is just recently.

This show you are fraud and have no clue about consideration in arms procurement .

Again, the Brits lost the sea war, as I listed, the Brits win the war DESPITE the naval engagement.

IF brits lost sea war, she can't land her tanks and troops on malvinas.

And lol, Pakistan? I don't think Pakistan will allow support to China in this case, do you even know how much Dealing between French and Pakistan done?

And how are you going to support Chiense fleet globally? Just because you said so? Just because you have 18 replenishment oiler?

No. Pakistan is Chinese ally, and they buy chinese arm many more; do you think they will jeopardize friendshipnes with China by forbidding China use their ports for logistic purpose.

Because THAT WAS INVOLVEMENT. Are you really that dumb?

Not military involvement you idiot.

Where did Britts get logistic supply during Falkland war?

Dude, ASAT is different, Satellite CANNOT move, you cannot move a Satellite in the space, because you move the SAT, you spin it out of orbits. and ship MOVES

And Satellite, unlike Ship did not have defence.

IS THAT YOUR IQ AGAIN?

And the ship in your gif is NOT MOVING, you can see it does not have a wake.

So, suck it.

LOLs. Satellite move!!! only doesn't change trajectory. Where did you learn physics? IQ problem again?

ICBM move, only doesn't change trajectory (if they are non maneuverable).

Ship move, and sometimes change trajectory. So do you think this matter?

How about fighter plane which move and change trajectory often?? according to your logic no supersonic AA missile can take down fighter plane? The fact says AA missile which is supersonic can take down moving fighter plane even with zero chance to escape for the fighter plane though the plane do maneuvers

Again you are demonstrating idiocy, and it confirm your physics score must have been very bad during high school .

Oh my god, you really know shit.

Let me give you a ISTAR for dummy.

Lag time come from all stage of ISTAR.

1.)Intelligence - What is your target.
2.)Surveillance - Where is your target
3.) Target Acquisition - Locking in Your Target.
4.) Reconnaissance - Where did your target goes.

Then you have fuel time, check time and flight time.

You don't just launch a missile and it will hit the carrier immediately. Its not a Fire and Forget missile. First you need a target, is the one you want to shoot is a carrier or an neutral oil tanker? You need to know whether that is your target before you shoot your missile. Then knowing which one is your target, you need to track it, and put in a coordinate for it. You then put those coordinate into your missile guidance system so your missile will fly there. Then once you put the coord into your missile, you need to keep tracking on the target. How quickly your satellite or radar contact refresh and from that refresh to where you get your information, there is a delay. And finally, a feed back from your target monitor, feedback would also come with lag time because you need to make sure that is where your target is going.

The first stage took the most lag, usually in minutes. Otherwise you will just hit anything resemble a carrier, you may or may not hit the actual carrier you want to hit in the end. Then after you secure a target, you need to calculate a trajectory. Depending on how quickly you can do it, it might takes minutes off too.

And a missile like that, all targeting information would cease when the missile is at re-entry and the onboard radar seeker take over, but at that time, you may already missed by kilometres, and in terminal velocity, you cannot manoeuvre to the target that much that fast.

Have you learned physics properly?

In simple words: lagging time happen because the time needed for "wave" to travel from the target to receiver + electronic process.

The amount of lagging time will be considerable if the "distance" between target and the receiver is quite far, and the lag time will matters if the object is very fast moving object, like supersonic fighter, or hypersonic missile or ICBM, because when your radar show the target at certain position actually it is old position due to lag time (say 5 second) while the current position is already different; but it doesnt matter for large & very slow moving object like ship as within the 5 second the ship wont go far!

This lag time can be overcomed by using radar and tracking system on board, so you wont need to depend on ground control system which is normally very far away. Thats why you still can shoot fighter jet though it run very fast

Can you do a ZigZag when you are travelling in 150 miles per hours? You can't, what make you think you can do it in Mach 4? Again, unless you are claiming Chinese missile defied physics, it CANNOT BE DONE. Fluid Dynamic suggest the quicker a object move, the more G force that item is subject to, because the earth would want to pull you back the opposite way you are going (Newton First Law). You can calculate G force from

Are you talking about missile? or man? or car?

Man can't, car will be dangerous, missile can! What make you think missile cant?

Do you know the missile target used to test SM-6 is hypersonic and maneuvered?
Have you seen the video of zigzag YJ-12 at supersonic?

The evidence is there, why denial?

(Object Speed^2/Radius of turn)/32ft/s (1G)

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/question633.htm

At Mach 4, which is 4465 ft/s, Let's say the Radius of turn is 200 ft (Which is very wide turn, which is about 70 meters turn)

The formula is

(4465*4465/200)/32 = 3115G...…

Are you telling me, DF-whatever missle can sustain a 3000G turn?? The sea, at the lowest point, don't even give you 1000G, and it is what scientist called "Absolute Crush Depth" and you are telling me DF-26 missile can sustain that turn and endure 3115G??

And I am talking about a 100 meter turn, you zigzag 100 meter is not exactly zigzagging at all, the G number will be higher. LOL....

@gambit

So, either you are telling me Chinese missile can really sustain 3115G, otherwise you are BSing and if Chinese missile can really sustain that much G force, then that missile must have made from the strongest of the the strongest material on earth, and that did beg a question, if a missile can sustain 3115 G, how would a missile be destroy by its own explosion? LOL

LOLs. Your fallacy is at the "radius 300m". How do you know the zigzag YJ-12 is doing with radius 300m?

Since when did PopSci and Stalin is creditable source?

A Blogger wrote PopSci article you are writing to, with a Master of Information Technology. And Stalin? LOL

And what is your citation that against my PopSci & Stalin?

PopSci could be wrong, but of course it is much much much more credible by far if compared with your mouth

Real threat? Yeah, I can see that, if Chinese missile can endure 3115G., yes, I would consider them a real threat.....LOL

Hahaha ... you use your falls calculation as your citation to debunk my citation?

Rotts is correct when he is saying that you are push people to accept that black is white.



This is my citation about supersonic anti ship missile threat:
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/united-states-supersonic-anti-ship-missile-threat

Dont compare with your mouth or your falls calculation, you are really delusional

I know the quick an object move, the harder to intercept, but can a high speed object move at all?

LOL 3115G and you are talking about IQ...

You mean maneuvers? Absolutely yes!!

Some ICBM do maneuvers (at hypersonic speed)
Supersonic fighter do maneuvers sometimes at high speed, including at supersonic speed.
Air to Air missiles : side winders, aim-120, sparrow, meteor do maneuver at supersonic speed!
Some Antiship supersonic missile like SM-6, YJ-12, YJ18 do maneuver
Satellite do maneuvers, if it change it's trajectory.

So what make you still doubt that maneuver at supersonic is unattainable?

Note:
I know your physics is very bad, but starting from now try to distinguish between "move" and "maneuver (change trajectory)". Every thing move relatively to other thing, it is relativity theory of Albert Einstein.

You do know Runway is a flat land, right? No matter how much you hit it, you can fix it almost immediately. You don't need anything to launch and recover an aircraft if you have TACP. Are you saying you have enough DF-26 to level ALL THE FLAT LAND in Guam?

Let me give you a for instant, Israel would go and bomb Egyptian Airfield with 10 sortie a day and render it useless, by night, the Egyptian would have fix the runway and launch their mig. Bombs, which do more damage than a Poitn to Point missile, did nothing, what make you think Missile can level Guam Anderson airbase beyond repair? When all they need is to level the runway again, and fill the crater.

Unless you are claim Chinese have enough missile to fire at Anderson and other Airfield 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Otherwise you would not be able to put any airfield out of action.

By your logic, bombing airfield with sorties of B-52/Tu/B1/B2/F-16/F-18/Rafale/etc will also render useless, because the airfield and other things can be fixed again, right? but in fact all nations still do that during war right?

But the problem is: fixing airfield is not that fast, especially if it is severely damage, and if the hanger and the planes are also destroyed, then it takes longer time for replacement. Before you can recover the military base, your many of your ships may have been sunk.

And yes, china could have hundreds DF-21/DF-26 that will be enough to destroy military bases not only in Guam, but also Okinawa and Korea.

It prove you dont know much military stuff enough.

Test what? With that flatland and outline like an US Aircraft Carrier? Hey I can fire a rocket and hit a target I draw in the ground as big as a US aircraft carrier. Pay me.

Do you have any footage it being test with actual moving ship? Or at war? If not, then you got shit.

Unlike DF-whatever, Harpoon and Tomahawk is actual combat tried and tested. Can you show the same level of proof with your DF-whatever?

LOL 3115G....

China has tested supersonic YJ-12 and YJ-18 on their own moving ship and hit the target with severe damage. If it can hit chinese moving ship, it should hit any other moving ship.

Now you already know the physics that the faster the target the more difficult to intercept right?

Now the question is: has US test their ships are resistant against supersonic anti ship missiles? can their CIWS handle the supersonic missile?

lol. I am not as stupid as a guy who say a missile can sustain a 3115G turn.

anyway. I don't really think about you lot that much, if I have time, I come fuk you up, and play with you, if I don't have time, I laugh at your post and move on.

Come back to call me stupid WHEN YOU HAVE HALF OF MY POSITIVE RATING.

It is you yourself who are saying the missile do 3115G turn. So you are the stupid guy here

Come back to me when you already have data and a little bit smarter

Dumbass. My family have been serving ALL BRANCH of the US military. My Brother was in the Air Force, My Father was in the Navy, my Cousin is in the Coast Guard, my Brother in Law is in the Navy, my Cousin husband is in the Navy.

I myself is an Army man, and I am an expert in ISTAR (I don't claim much about being an Expert but this is one of my expertise) ISTAR is the same between Army, Navy and the Airforce because we use tri-service equipment (Airforce drone or Navy Drone) and we train together. Whatever I don't know (Such as how long it take to refuel a ship) I can ask my relative who are serving. And I am not asking them any national security secret, so they will tell me what I want to know.

So, what is your background? High School drop out who have nothing to do and always claim he is right and the other was wrong? LOL.

As gambit said, if you are too chitshit to talk about your background, which mean you have none, then welcome to the make believe world of your own ego.

LOL

LOL. So you think your claim could prove another of your claim?

When your claim is debunked, the other whole of your claims and credibility ruins .. as almost all of what you have built and demonstrated here is simply claim backed by your other claim without solid citation.

Who would believe your family and bla bla bla is expert in US Air Force / Navy / Army /bla bla bla? unless you can show your tested quality and capacity in this forum?

 

[Jlaw]

My cute, cute gambit at his best.

I have a pic of him if you want me to post it let me know.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Let's compare modern destroyers France vs China.

France has 2 Horizon-class destroyers.

Total VLS count 96.

China has 9 052D active, 2 sea trial, 2 launched, 6 under construction.
China has 6 052C active.
China has 2 051C active.

Total VLS count of active destroyers: 960.

SM-1 was used as an anti-ship missile during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988.

I don't even want to bother comparing frigates.

The La Fayette-class frigate doesn't have any VLS cells at all. 5 ships active.

Do we want to compare Aquitaine class vs 054A? Is it even necessary?

 

[LeGenD]

Agree! US has greater and more extensive surveillance system than China.

I must say that you have the quality to understand certain realities which is a plus! Appreciated.

But they are not focus only on west pacific region, while china though her surveillance system might not as extensive hers is focussed on east & south china sea.

True, but American surveillance system is so extensive that it is able to monitor 'activities of interest' across the world without gaps:

- and a reasonable amount of 'companion assets' on the ground are reserved for monitoring 'activities of interest' across the Pacific on a 24/7 basis with firm legs in Alaska, Japan, South Korea, Guam, Kwajalein, Kaena Point and Maui. They have organizations such as USPACOM and AFSC* to manage these assets and convert their data into meaningful information for military operations on a 24/7 basis.

*FYI: http://www.afspc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1012596/space-based-infrared-system/

And they have a substantial military presence in the Pacific (i.e. USPACOM).

In brief; US is well-prepared for a conflict in the Pacific at present.

More advanced? I dont think so.

Does US already have "Quantum Satellite"? It is a big leap, the data cannot be intercepted nor cracked.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40294795

Err ... Why does this sound like Titanic?

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...satellites-do-not-herald-unhackable-networks/
https://www.scmagazine.com/research...ryptography-key-vulnerability/article/533389/
https://www.insidescience.org/news/china-leader-quantum-communications
https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06668

Also note the limitations:-

"Despite the latest milestones, there is still much room for improvement in the technology, according to Yin. For instance, since a quantum satellite needs line-of-sight to transfer data, communication coverage by the satellite is very limited -- it has to fly directly over the user. A satellite with a higher orbit can increase its coverage, but will demand higher location tracking accuracy from both the ground receivers and the satellite itself."

I do not think that any quantum network is ready for military operations yet. China is utilizing its quantum network for commercial purposes on top which to me gives the vibe of an alternative to American GPS.

The most secure networks in existence are those which are entirely cut-off from commercial applications, and strictly dedicated to military operations such as Link 16, Block 10 and Block 20 (latest). These systems are virtually impossible to exploit from outside. And their operators are substantially screened before admission so internal sabotage is out of question.

Do you have evidence about countermeasuring AESA? or you mean countermeasuring DF-21 and DF-26?

Well the progress of SM-6 is impressive. We dont know how true or how far that the target in the test replicate DF-21 and DF-26 (speed and maneuverability) but 1 DF-21 could bring , but taking down hypersonic DF-21 and DF-26 by explotion nearby the missile as the technique used by SM-6 is plausible.

They do not disclose everything to public in detail as apparent from this article: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ing-make-chinas-carrier-killer-missiles-18766

I have seen a footage of Phalanx CIWS destroying a sea-skimming cruise missile in an undisclosed test (found this footage after extensive search). I was in disbelief for a moment but then it hit me: AEGIS ... since the warship was an Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

AEGIS proved its effectiveness in Yemeni waters in 2016: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/uss-...ise-missiles-in-yemeni-waters-in-2016.543523/

An outstanding countermeasure against anti-ship missiles is the NULKA decoy:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=587&ct=2
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/nulka

However China can counter this SM-6 by quantity (as I said quantity is quality all its own); destroyer like Arleigh Burke must have limited number of SM-6 that it can carry, if China barrage each US CBG with say 300 of DF-21 (times 5 warhead each = 1500 warheads totally), assuming 1 CBG bring 6 aegis destroyer, most probably the SM-6 in that CBG (= 6 x 50 = 300) will be outnumbered then CBG could be sinked.

Your argument is valid but Chinese inventory isn't that massive yet. Launchers of both DF-21C and DF-21D missiles are limited in numbers (~200 in total), and DF-21C is not optimized for anti-ship engagement (this force is reserved for India in large part). Therefore a chunk of this inventory is not employed for anti-ship engagement.

You should also note that DF-21D was tested on a large stationary target in the Gobi Desert that emulated an American Aircraft Carrier (not in motion). FYI: http://www.businessinsider.com/chin...le-test-proves-df-21d-lives-up-to-name-2013-1

DF-21D is yet to score a hit on a moving and/or maneuvering ship in any test! Same is true for DF-26 class missile. Therefore, these missiles have anti-ship engagement capability on paper thus far.

Learn more from here: https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Erickson_Testimony.pdf

---

Arleigh burke class destroyer pack lot of firepower and defenses on average. Excellent information in this link: https://whitefleet.net/2017/07/31/the-arleigh-burke-class-destroyer-ddg-51-an-in-depth-guide/

Do you expect the AGM-86B from B-52 to hit DF-21D and DF-26 launcher in china mainland?

Yes.

DF-21D has a verified range of 1500 km and DF-26 is expected to be utilized for strikes in distant locations such as Guam and Australia. Their launchers are expected to be stationed near Pacific waters to establish a significant target engagement envelope accordingly; they would be useless otherwise.

American bombers can employ AGM-86B cruise missiles to take out Chinese DF-21D and DF-26 class missile launchers without the need to penetrate Chinese mainland. In-fact, B-2 Spirit bombers have unparalleled stealth and electronic warfare capabilities to penetrate heavily defended (and contested) airspace, execute desirable missions and make it back safely. Other bombers have excellent electronic warfare capabilities at minimum.

Yes B-52 can launched AGM-86B safely beyond the reach of chinese SAM HQ-9 or HQ-19 where the ALCM is intended. But B-52 has almost zero chance to survive VLRAAM PL-15 launched from J-15 intercepting from Liaoning in pacific ocean, or from J-20 or SU-35.

Why? because PL-15 is with range exceed 300km & hypersonic, far from the reach of any US air to air missiles; means J-15/J-20/SU-35 will shoot B-52 & it's escorting fighters FIRST before they are able to shoot or even detect J-15/J-20/SU-35.

In November 2016, a Chinese J-16 strike fighter test-fired a gigantic hypersonic missile, successfully destroying the target drone at a very long range.


Looking at takeoff photos, we estimate the missile is about 28 percent of the length of the J-16, which measures 22 meters (about 72 feet). The puts the missile at about 19 feet, and roughly 13 inches in diameter. The missile appears to have four tailfins. Reports are that the size would put into the category of a very long range air to air missile (VLRAAM) with ranges exceeding 300 km (roughly 186 miles), likely max out between 250 and 310 miles. (As a point of comparison, the smaller 13.8-foot, 15-inch-diameter Russian R-37 missile has a 249-mile range).

This is a big deal: this missile would easily outrange any American (or other NATO) air-to-air missile. Additionally, the VLRAAM's powerful rocket engine will push it to Mach 6 speeds, which will increase the no escape zone (NEZ), that is the area where a target cannot outrun the missile, against even supersonic targets like stealth fighters.

VLRAAM

The gains in range and speed of the VLRAAM pose another significant risk to the concepts of the U.S. military's "Third Offset." U.S. operations are highly dependent on assets like aerial tankers, dedicated electronic warfare aircraft, and AEW&C. For example, without aerial tankers, the relatively short range of the F-35s would become even more of a liability in long range operations in the South China Seas and Taiwan Straits. Similarly, without AEW&C aircraft, F-22s would have to use onboard radars more, raising their risk of detection. Even for stealthy tanker platforms like the planned MQ-25 Stingray drone and proposed KC-Z tanker will be vulnerable to VLRAAMs if detected by emerging dedicated anti-stealth systems such as the Divine Eagle drone and Yuanmeng airship.
https://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile​

VLRAAM is indeed a potent threat, and cannot be ignored in a discussion. Problem is that how would Chinese aircraft detect and track movement of extremely stealthy F-35, F-22 and B-2 in real-time, and take them out. Reports of there detection cannot be taken at face value because SOP of NATO is to operate them with 'radar reflectors' in most situations unless they are tasked to penetrate a highly contested airspace (happened in Syria once when some F-22 took Russian aircraft by surprise and forced them to de-conflict Syrian airspace for American legacy aircraft to execute their missions). In-fact, B-2 is virtually impossible to even detect with existing technologies around the world, and this would be the case even in the years to come.

F-35 pilots had to activate their transponders in order to make their aircraft visible to PAC-3 defensive systems on the ground in a recent exercise, and these defensive systems are state-of-the-art in their class. Not only this, but AEW&C capabilities of F-35 are excellent by any measure: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...-fighter-story-you-havent-heard/#520601ef68cc

Furthermore, as pointed out by me earlier, it is impossible to disable sensors of the entire fleet of F-35 and F-22 with electronic countermeasures due to their robust fusion capabilities.

Aerial refueling tankers won't be operating over Chinese mainland and/or nearby. They would be operating over the Pacific, and enable entire fleets of F-35 and F-22 to execute their missions without much issue. F-22 does not need them much and B-2 doesn't even need them to execute its missions. In-fact, F-35, F-22 and B-2 are not heavily reliant on AEW&C aircraft to execute their missions over highly contested airspaces because of their sensor fusion capabilities.

This image gives you an idea of target acquisition capabilities of single F-35 aircraft:

With sensor fusion in the picture (i.e. multiple F-35 aircraft operating in a region), target acquisition envelope expands manifold.

https://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/f-22-f-35-outsmart-test-ranges-awacs/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22840/f-35-network-test/

---

Chinese J-20 (a milestone for China's defense-related matters) posit substantial challenge to American military assets but it have its share of limitations which can be exploited by Americans. It doesn't have all-aspect stealth like its American counterparts [1] and it is not suitable for picking fights with F-22 and F-35 respectively.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-j-20-stealth-jet-spotted-by-india-air-force-su-30mki-2018-5

Stealthy attributes of F-35 for reference:

Nevertheless, J-20 can be utilized to take out bombers (not counting B-2), AEW&C aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft, drones and 4th generation fighters from considerable distances. However, US have a solution for J-20:

If SURTASS is so effective, why USS Ronald Reagan were sunk by Swedish submarine during the war game/simulation in 2005? Why the simulation doesn't involve SURTASS if the SURTASS is part of the US CBG's defense system against submarines?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...dish-submarine-sunk-us-aircraft-carrier-20503

SURTASS is incredibly effective but it is not featured in many exercises because it harms marine lifeforms with its operations. In-fact, US doesn't like to publicize its capabilities much; limited information on the web.

Conversely, why would US want every country to know what it can do in full?

That is not shortcoming as Growler might not fly in formation of several like F-35.

Chinese ability to jam growler has demonstrated that China electronic warfare cannot be underestimated.

My point is that a single aircraft is vulnerable to electronic countermeasures of the enemy but F-35 and F-22 address this shortcoming with their extraordinary sensor fusion capabilities when next to each other and/or within detection range of each other.

Of-course, Chinese defenses cannot be underestimated. This is why the list of countries which have the technological prowess (and sheer numbers) to take on China, is really small at present. In-fact, you can argue for China to have surpassed Russian conventional military might.

My assessment is that China represent a near-peer adversary to the US and will put up a fight against it in the SCS and otherwise. US will prevail but not without some cost.

Other countries are not even close.

 

[antonius123]

Let's compare modern destroyers France vs China.

France has 2 Horizon-class destroyers.

Total VLS count 96.

China has 9 052D active, 2 sea trial, 2 launched, 6 under construction.
China has 6 052C active.
China has 2 051C active.

Total VLS count of active destroyers: 960.

SM-1 was used as an anti-ship missile during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988.

I don't even want to bother comparing frigates.

The La Fayette-class frigate doesn't have any VLS cells at all. 5 ships active.

Do we want to compare Aquitaine class vs 054A? Is it even necessary?

Thanks for the valuable information. Please go ahead with Aquitaine vs 054A comparison including the strength and weakness of each, it will be an eye opener for those who think France ships have better quality.

Fyi @jhungary - the self proclaimed expert one - think that France Navy is as strong as US Navy in spite of tiny numbers of the ships, tonnage, fire power of France Navy, for him the quantity doesn't count where 2 destroyers could handle 10 destroyers even if everything else the same; this is stock of laugh

 

[xunzi]

Thrust vectoring managed by good control system, will enable zigzag (S-shaped maneuver) at mach 4.

I am surprised you don't know about that

You just owned the two frauds @jhungary and @gambit with these. LOL

These two are notorious at getting sidetrack and using poor analogy to misdirect your argument. It's typical of their argument to reflect the argument into another area that they comfortable dealing with.

Thanks for the valuable information. Please go ahead with Aquitaine vs 054A comparison including the strength and weakness of each, it will be an eye opener for those who think France ships have better quality.

Fyi Jhungary - the self proclaimed expert one - think that France Navy is as strong as US Navy in spite of tiny numbers of the ships, tonnage, fire power of France Navy, for him the quantity doesn't count where 2 destroyers could handle 10 destroyers even if everything else the same; this is stock of laugh

That fraud guy always think anything come out of the West is invincible and that China will just sit back and let France do anything it wants in a war. You masterfully debunk that fraud as anyone who read can tell. Your argument is straight and make perfect sense especially the maneuverability in high speed missile is not impossible. In fact it is very possible if people understand the aerodynamics of missile is built to deflect air friction.

 

[jhungary]

You just owned the two frauds @jhungary and @gambit with these. LOL

These two are notorious at getting sidetrack and using poor analogy to misdirect your argument. It's typical of their argument to reflect the argument into another area that they comfortable dealing with.

LOL, did he "owned" me? His post make no sense, he has no backup, and most important of all, he can dish insult but he could not take it, I did reply to his post and it was taken down by a moderator.

So, tell me, how exactly did he own me? LOL

Thanks for the valuable information. Please go ahead with Aquitaine vs 054A comparison including the strength and weakness of each, it will be an eye opener for those who think France ships have better quality.

Fyi @jhungary - the self proclaimed expert one - think that France Navy is as strong as US Navy in spite of tiny numbers of the ships, tonnage, fire power of France Navy, for him the quantity doesn't count where 2 destroyers could handle 10 destroyers even if everything else the same; this is stock of laugh

And you cannot take insult make me laugh.

LOL, what? Can't take a bit insult when you can only dish it out? So you call a mod and delete my post? That is low, buddy. I thought you want to play that way.

And yes, for me, 2 destroyer can go up against 10 destroyer, that has been done before in history. So suck it.

lol @gambit

You got to love how the Chinese mod handling things here, We have been complaining over and over again over this, but seems like this has not change since.

I like how they bait you into insulting them by insulting you first, then they swoop in and delete your post and not there lol.

Really a nice one.

 

[LeGenD]

@jhungary
@gambit

Both of you are professionals. Why not ignore petty squabbles and stick to arguments at hand?

@antonius123 seems to be a reasonable guy and he is paying attention. No need to look down on him and others.

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary
@gambit

Both of you are professionals. Why not ignore petty squabbles and stick to arguments at hand?

@antonius123 seems to be a reasonable guy and he is paying attention. No need to look down on him and others.

Meh, as I said, I would come here and fuk them up if I have time, and I don't think that @antonius123 is actually right in the head. All his point were wrong, and his knowledge about military history is laughable at best. The other stuff is not even worth mentioning.

The only thing is "owning" us here is the mod. This is what they do, they use insult to bait you to insult them back, and then when you do, he call on his buddy Chinese mod and delete your post, where ignoring their own insult. (You can still check his post and see how he throw personal insult to me) and if that is what you called "reasonable" then I don't know what to say.

I used to report these post and ignore it, but well, what the hack, let's have some fun. But then unlike these folks, I have an actual job and I have other engagement, so I can only come up and fuk them over when I have the time to do so.

 

[antonius123]

LOL, did he "owned" me? His post make no sense, he has no backup, and most important of all, he can dish insult but he could not take it, I did reply to his post and it was taken down by a moderator.

So, tell me, how exactly did he own me? LOL



And you cannot take insult make me laugh.

LOL, what? Can't take a bit insult when you can only dish it out? So you call a mod and delete my post? That is low, buddy. I thought you want to play that way.

And yes, for me, 2 destroyer can go up against 10 destroyer, that has been done before in history. So suck it.

lol @gambit

You got to love how the Chinese mod handling things here, We have been complaining over and over again over this, but seems like this has not change since.

I like how they bait you into insulting them by insulting you first, then they swoop in and delete your post and not there lol.

Really a nice one.

Self proclaim is useless, nobody will buy if you can't demonstrate quality and honesty. Let other member see and judge. You just ruin your credibility to zero when citation you brought show you were lying about Britt's 58 replenishment ships, and everybody can see that.

I dont request moderator anything and i havent seen your intended post, but I am sure your post must be of no value and unhealthy - just circling around and pushing repeated same irrationality and bias argument as usual, that should be the reason your post erased.

And yes, for me, 2 destroyer can go up against 10 destroyer, that has been done before in history. So suck it.

Which history you refer?

You still fail to acknowledge the "keyword" : "everything else (technology, training, experience, luck, etc) remains the same."? if you are not illogical person who can't do simple math.

 

[jhungary]

Self proclaim is useless, nobody will buy if you can't demonstrate quality and honesty. Let other member see and judge. You just ruin your credibility to zero when citation you brought show you were lying about Britt's 58 replenishment ships, and everybody can see that.

I dont request moderator anything and i havent seen your intended post, but I am sure your post must be of no value and unhealthy - just circling around and pushing repeated same irrationality and bias argument as usual, that should be the reason your post erased.

Yeah, and your post is "of no reason" to erase?

People in PDF already made a choice, that's why I have 315 Positive and you have 1 and they gave me a title and you have none. To be honestly, I am quite expected these low hand tactics like this from people like you, when people like you lost the argument, you start to provoke and call in a mod to delete my post. This is not the first time, nor the last, I don't honestly care about it

This section of PDF is uncontrolled troll thread anyway, if I want to open a serious discussion, I would not open a post in this thread, I will open it on Military Tactics and History where moderator is actually doing their job,

So, you can pretend you did not use this low hand tactics, or not, I don't really care.

Which history you refer?

You still fail to acknowledge the "keyword" : "everything else (technology, training, experience, luck, etc) remains the same."? if you are not illogical person who can't do simple math.

You use Falkland to compare to a French-China naval engagement. (There are 21 battles in total during Falkland, only 3 are Naval Engagement), then you don't know what is the different between tactical and strategic objective and say "If naval war failed, they aren't going to land the troop". Then how US landed trooped in Guadalcanal in 1942 if what you said is true? When US fleet was about all but destroyed by the Pearl Harbor strike, and suffer another blow in the first battle of the Guadalcanal? That was on the deleted post. But well.

LOL at your Military history, and yes, you can keep calling me a illogical person or can't do simple maths, or straight up call me an idiots, and you are immune from this section.

 

[antonius123]

Yeah, and your post is "of no reason" to erase?

People in PDF already made a choice, that's why I have 315 Positive and you have 1 and they gave me a title and you have none. To be honestly, I am quite expected these low hand tactics like this from people like you, when people like you lost the argument, you start to provoke and call in a mod to delete my post. This is not the first time, nor the last, I don't honestly care about it

This section of PDF is uncontrolled troll thread anyway, if I want to open a serious discussion, I would not open a post in this thread, I will open it on Military Tactics and History where moderator is actually doing their job,

So, you can pretend you did not use this low hand tactics, or not, I don't really care.

Seems cry baby is the only way you can do when cornered.

You were lucky in other pdf section your fraud were not debunked yet hence your BS prevails, but unfortunately there are a lot of smart guys in this section that have capacity to debunk your BS and ruin your credibility.

You use Falkland to compare to a French-China naval engagement. (There are 21 battles in total during Falkland, only 3 are Naval Engagement), then you don't know what is the different between tactical and strategic objective and say "If naval war failed, they aren't going to land the troop". Then how US landed trooped in Guadalcanal in 1942 if what you said is true? When US fleet was about all but destroyed by the Pearl Harbor strike, and suffer another blow in the first battle of the Guadalcanal? That was on the deleted post. But well.

LOL at your Military history, and yes, you can keep calling me a illogical person or can't do simple maths, or straight up call me an idiots, and you are immune from this section.

Wrong. US naval was not totally destroyed, only pearl harbor destroyed and rebuilt. US still had many carriers and battleship, and her industry could replace the lost.

Again:
You still fail to acknowledge the "keyword" : "everything else (technology, training, experience, luck, etc) remains the same."? You must be illogical person who can't do simple math and stubborn

 

[jhungary]

Seems cry baby is the only way you can do when cornered.

You were lucky in other pdf section your fraud were not debunked yet hence your BS prevails, but unfortunately there are a lot of smart guys in this section that have capacity to debunk your BS and ruin your credibility.

So, you have admitted you have used the low hand tactics to get my post deleted?

Yeah, why not come to the other section and "Debunk" me? Wait, you wouldn't last 5 second in other section. And you will be exposed like a naked baby that your general knowledge is as good as manure.

Have you ever think of why "Smart Guys" only happened in this section? Everyone else look at this section is laugh at the people posting here, every wonder this section and this section only is the rubbish dumb of PDF? That's because trash like you think you.

LOL. I am always ready if you want to try "debunk" me on another section, in fact, I had 27 featured article on the other section waiting for you to debunk, when are you coming?

Wrong. US naval was not totally destroyed, only pearl harbor destroyed and rebuilt. US still had many carriers and battleship, and her industry could replace the lost.

Again:
You still fail to acknowledge the "keyword" : "everything else (technology, training, experience, luck, etc) remains the same."? You must be illogical person who can't do simple math and stubborn

[/quote]

That's why you are dumb, your are wrong with the history AGAIN.

US was running on 3 Carriers (Lexington later replaced by Saratoga when Lex is sunk, Hornet, later replaced by Ranger when Hornet was sunk, and Enterprise) and 0 battleship in the Pacific at any stage during Guadalcanal Campaign, her industry power did not kick in until 1944. And Imperial Japanese Navy have at least 8 Carrier in 1942 (Kaga, Akagi, Shoho, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu and Ryujo), and virtually none of their other capital ship (Yamato, Mushashi, Kongo) was damaged. The Imperial Japanese Navy at least outnumber US Pacific Fleet 20 to 1 as a whole during Guadalcanal campaign.

US Navy was very badly hurt during Pearl, 4 Battleship was sunk outright (Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia and California) of these 4, 2 (West Virginia and California) raised and repaired in 1944. 4 Battleship was seriously damaged (Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland) all but Pennsylvania were only put back to action in late 1942. While Pennsylvania is the sole battleship that is seaworthy after Pearl.

Again, you FAILED to grasp thee history, SAYING ONLY PEARL HARBOUR IS DAMAGED maybe you are too dumb to understand history perhaps?

 

[antonius123]

So, you have admitted you have used the low hand tactics to get my post deleted?

Yeah, why not come to the other section and "Debunk" me? Wait, you wouldn't last 5 second in other section. And you will be exposed like a naked baby that your general knowledge is as good as manure.

Have you ever think of why "Smart Guys" only happened in this section? Everyone else look at this section is laugh at the people posting here, every wonder this section and this section only is the rubbish dumb of PDF? That's because trash like you think you.

LOL. I am always ready if you want to try "debunk" me on another section, in fact, I had 27 featured article on the other section waiting for you to debunk, when are you coming?

Admit it? when? LOLs I pitty your cry baby. Let's wait moderator comment, and we'll see how delusional you are.

Debunked you at other section PDF? what for? I have life, having debunked you here is more than enough.

I have debunked your claims as following:

• France navy as strong as US navy which is stock of laugh.
  
• You can't do math (you think: 2 destroyers is as same strong as 10 destroyers)
  
• You think supersonic missile can't do maneuver. (in fact: AAMs do maneuver)
  
• You dont understand the function of onboard radar & tracking system on missile.
• You dont understand even basic physics (you think satellite dont move, cannot distinguish move and maneuver, etc)
• Your lie about Britts has 58 replenishment ship during falkland war (not trustworthy)
  
• You don understand the consideration in procure arms.
  
• And so many to mention here.

So why dont you invite your supporters to come here to help & defend you instead?

That's why you are dumb, your are wrong with the history AGAIN.

US was running on 3 Carriers (Lexington later replaced by Saratoga when Lex is sunk, Hornet, later replaced by Ranger when Hornet was sunk, and Enterprise) and 0 battleship in the Pacific at any stage during Guadalcanal Campaign, her industry power did not kick in until 1944. And Imperial Japanese Navy have at least 8 Carrier in 1942 (Kaga, Akagi, Shoho, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu and Ryujo), and virtually none of their other capital ship (Yamato, Mushashi, Kongo) was damaged. The Imperial Japanese Navy at least outnumber US Pacific Fleet 20 to 1 as a whole during Guadalcanal campaign.

US Navy was very badly hurt during Pearl, 4 Battleship was sunk outright (Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia and California) of these 4, 2 (West Virginia and California) raised and repaired in 1944. 4 Battleship was seriously damaged (Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland) all but Pennsylvania were only put back to action in late 1942. While Pennsylvania is the sole battleship that is seaworthy after Pearl.

Again, you FAILED to grasp thee history, SAYING ONLY PEARL HARBOUR IS DAMAGED maybe you are too dumb to understand history perhaps?

The more you BS, the more debunked .. remember that.

This is to debunked your last BS:

During WW2 US has more than 40 carriers, and lost 16, that means US still has many carriers and her navy still strong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_World_War_II


And as I told you, US had strong industry that enable her to ressurect her navy:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...rection-the-warships-that-rose-to-fight-again

Have you ever heard "Ulithi Atol"?
In 1944 US began building one of the largest naval bases used in the war. At it's peak, Ulithi Atoll housed 617 ships, had its own 1,200-yard airstrip, and hosted 20,000 troops on its recreation island.
There were more than 40 fully equipped aircraft carriers, 29 fully equipped Battleships, and in addition, the rest were cruisers, destroyers, fleet support ships, and submarines. In November of 1944, there were almost 300 ships there at that one spot. Perhaps it was a larger fleet than Britain, Germany. France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and everyone else’s navy combined.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/hidden-ulithi-naval-base.html


LOLs. I pity you dont know your own history

 

[jhungary]

Admit it? when? LOLs I pitty your cry baby. Let's wait moderator comment, and we'll see how delusional you are.

Debunked you at other section PDF? what for? I have life, having debunked you here is more than enough.

I have debunked your claims as following:

• France navy as strong as US navy which is stock of laugh.
  
• You can't do math (you think: 2 destroyers is as same strong as 10 destroyers)
  
• You think supersonic missile can't do maneuver. (in fact: AAMs do maneuver)
  
• You dont understand the function of onboard radar & tracking system on missile.
• You dont understand even basic physics (you think satellite dont move, cannot distinguish move and maneuver, etc)
• Your lie about Britts has 58 replenishment ship during falkland war (not trustworthy)
  
• You don understand the consideration in procure arms.
  
• And so many to mention here.

So why dont you invite your supporters to come here to help & defend you instead?

1.) I never said 2 destroyer is as strong as 10 destroyer, I said 2 destroyer CAN, and more importantly DID destroy 10 Destroyers.

2.)Supersonic Missile CAN MOVE, but cannot manoeuvre, manouver would pull too much Gs on the missile.

3.) You are the one that don't understand ISTAR and Radar Tracking. At this stage China have no asset overseas, which mean if China have to track a target, China need to task a satellite, which mean lag time.

4.)Satellite DO NOT MOVE, Satellite Orbit, you misunderstood the term move yourself. Space do not have air, hence no friction, hence any movement to the satellite will not be stop by friction, which mean if a satellite move, you will displace the orbit. Orbit is a gravitational pull to an object, that is because the earth itself move (it spin) and the density of the object is subject to earth gravity.

5.)That's because fleet replenishment does not just mean replenishing oil (Where the RFA replenishment oiler were) Bay class not a replenishment vessel but it is a offshore support ship, and other ship in the RFA and Secro Fleet support RN. RN + RFA + Serco have 58 + replenishment vessel.

Also, what you claim is flawed as well, because if you only count replenishment vessel, then China have 11 not 18 replenishment ship, because only Type 903 and Type 903A - 8 ships, Type 905 - 1 ship and Type 908 - 2 ships are Replenishment ship, type 901 and type 904 is general store ship and fleet support.

You yourself misunderstood the concept of Fleet Replenishment/Underway Replenishment (Which mean restock EVERYTHING, not just oil) and Replenishment Ship (Which equipped with fuel tank to refuel other ship)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replenishment_oiler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment

6.)Nope, you don't understand the procedure to procure arms. If US allies only choose Western Arms, then why South Korea uses Russian Tank (T-80U)

7.)Cause I am not you, I don't need to call my supporter here, on the other hand, you need to call help from mod.

all of these were in the post I made and deleted by your mod friend.

The more you BS, the more debunked .. remember that.

Self delusion is not debunking anything. Your lack of knowledge is very easy to see.

This is to debunked your last BS:

During WW2 US has more than 40 carriers, and lost 16, that means US still has many carriers and her navy still strong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_World_War_II


And as I told you, US had strong industry that enable her to ressurect her navy:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...rection-the-warships-that-rose-to-fight-again

Have you ever heard "Ulithi Atol"?
In 1944 US began building one of the largest naval bases used in the war. At it's peak, Ulithi Atoll housed 617 ships, had its own 1,200-yard airstrip, and hosted 20,000 troops on its recreation island.
There were more than 40 fully equipped aircraft carriers, 29 fully equipped Battleships, and in addition, the rest were cruisers, destroyers, fleet support ships, and submarines. In November of 1944, there were almost 300 ships there at that one spot. Perhaps it was a larger fleet than Britain, Germany. France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and everyone else’s navy combined.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/hidden-ulithi-naval-base.html


LOLs. I pity you dont know your own history

OH MY GOD. Do you even know what is the topic and scope I talked about? I talk about SINCE PEARL HARBOUR ATTACK TO GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN BETWEEN 1941 to 1942. HOW MANY CARRIER US HAVE IN THE PACIFIC FLEET DURING 1941 and 1942?

Do you even know when is Guadalcanal Fought? It did not fight in 1944. What US have in 1944 is not a concern to my topic.

You even get that requirement wrong, how "creditable" is the rest of your post is?

HAHA Oh My