- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
The Americans would need to keep their carrier assets at least 3000km away from land then as the Chinese have the DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle that can be mounted on the SF-17 ICBM.Nobody will be placing carriers within range of Chinese land based anti ship missiles.
well thats about 1500 milesNobody will be placing carriers within range of Chinese land based anti ship missiles.
"it's far away" is a master on top of his game.
You seem to think this will render carriers obsolete. These missiles will get destroyed long before they reach the actual carrier. The groups have anti-missiles destroyers along them for a reason. The Navy has been planning for decades for these weapons.well thats about 1500 miles
the new one in development is 5000 mies
and in 2025 a air launched 3000 mile anti ship missile comes into service
So pretty much as of now that would put carriers so far back from taiwan planes couldnt operate over taiwan
with the new one that's pretty much anything east of Hawaii and they are in range ...
It won't. This is just too outlandish.Hypothetically, when does a China/US war turn nuclear? (if at all)
It requires two clinically insane persons leading both sides. Won't happen.Hypothetically, when does a China/US military war turn nuclear? (if at all)
You seem to think this will render carriers obsolete. These missiles will get destroyed long before they reach the actual carrier. The groups have anti-missiles destroyers along them for a reason. The Navy has been planning for decades for these weapons.
The only thing that cancels carriers is nuke-tipped torpedoes.
Impact on naval warfare[edit]
In 2009, the United States Naval Institute stated that there was "currently ... no defense against [a warhead able to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit]" if it worked as theorized. It was reported in 2010 that China was finalizing development of a MaRV warhead for the DF-21. [27][28][29] The United States Navy has responded by switching its focus from a close blockade force of shallow water vessels to return to building deep water ballistic missile defense destroyers.[17] The United States has also assigned most of its ballistic missile defense capable ships to the Pacific, extended the BMD program to all Aegis destroyers and increased procurement of SM-3 BMD missiles.[30] The United States also has a large network optimized for tracking ballistic missile launches which may give carrier groups sufficient warning in order to move away from the target area while the missile is in flight.[31] Kinetic defenses against the DF-21D would be difficult. The Navy's primary ballistic missile interceptor, the SM-3, would not be effective since it is designed to intercept missiles in the mid-course phase in space, so it would have to be launched almost immediately to hit before reentry or from an Aegis ship positioned under its flight path. The SM-2 Block 4 can intercept missiles reentering the atmosphere, but the warhead will be performing high-G maneuvers that may complicate interception.[32] By 2016, the US Navy was testing the vastly more capable SM-6.m which is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the terminal phase.[33] The SM-6 began deployment in 2011.[34]
In late 2013, a Russian Military Analysis report of the DF-21D concluded that the only way to successfully counter it would be through electronic countermeasures. Conventional interceptions of high-speed objectives have worked in the past, with the Russian report citing the 2008 interception of a malfunctioning satellite by a U.S. cruiser, but in that situation the warship had extensive knowledge of its location and trajectory. Against an attack from the Mach 10 DF-21D without knowing the missile's launch point, the U.S. Navy's only way to evade it would be through electronic countermeasures.[35]
Are we talking ballistic missiles or near surface cruise missiles here ?they say electronic countermeasures could be used - this has never been demonstrated against even one missile - let alone the hundreds china coud afford to throw at each carrier ... for sure carriers are not as invulnerable as they once were
as I say with the next generation (which is designed to be even harder to detect and hit of course) they can target a carrier anything east of hawaii ... its going to take a carrier round 5 days to get close enough to launch a plane that can reach the mainland.... china can build over 4000 of these missiles for the cost of a carrier and far more when you put the value of the planes on there as well ... carriers are not going to be effective against china or russia - china has even sold these missiles to saudi...
even patriot missiles are not 100% effective so stopping potentially hundreds of hypersonic missiles over several days when only one needs to get through... i think the odds are firmly on china / russias side
Hypothetically, when does a China/US military war turn nuclear? (if at all)
China has DF21D in service (several hundered)Are we talking ballistic missiles or near surface cruise missiles here ?
Air launched anti ship is standard. As I said, these have been long prepared for.China has DF21D in service (several hundered)
couple of hundred DF26 (which have struck moving ships at range) https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...ring-carrier-killer-missiles/?sh=77f793a35a47
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-struck-moving-ship-in-south-china-sea-report
and the plane launched varient CH-AS-X-13
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...iller-is-worlds-largest-air-launched-missile/
Russi has the air launched mach 10 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
wouldnt want to be on a carrier with dozens of any of those heading my way
China has DF21D in service (several hundered)
couple of hundred DF26 (which have struck moving ships at range) https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...ring-carrier-killer-missiles/?sh=77f793a35a47
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-struck-moving-ship-in-south-china-sea-report
and the plane launched varient CH-AS-X-13
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...iller-is-worlds-largest-air-launched-missile/
Russi has the air launched mach 10 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
wouldnt want to be on a carrier with dozens of any of those heading my way
Its an interesting debate but I think the point being missed is that China can't sink Taiwan and has to project naval power against it also. If USA defense capabilities wane because of tech defeat of aircraft carriers then god help the armada of Chinese ships trying land troops on Taiwan. The US will just sell them more and better missiles.
The US still outspends everyone else on weapon development so this idea of a gap closing is probably a misconception.
Its an interesting debate but I think the point being missed is that China can't sink Taiwan and has to project naval power against it also. If USA defense capabilities wane because of tech defeat of aircraft carriers then god help the armada of Chinese ships trying land troops on Taiwan. The US will just sell them more and better missiles.
The US still outspends everyone else on weapon development so this idea of a gap closing is probably a misconception.
The question isn't necessarily 'who would win a full scale war' (because nobody would - we'd all be nuked) it's 'how much does the US really want to get into a shooting match with a nuclear power over a country on the other side of the planet?'
They're literally a 10 minute flight across the strait
I'll never forget 3 days the USA initiated the war in Iraq, Friedman did a press conference that was almost like a stand up comedy skit. The memorable quote. "Nobody washes a rented car"
Aint that the truth in the current situation in Afghanistan
(Not an endorsement of Friedman, not a fan)
Pretty sure the Chinese don't need carriers to get hundreds of planes over TaiwanSo was France from Britain but it didn't negate the armada of ships the Allies needed for the Normandy invasion.
Which would mean all the problems posters were citing as game changing re US force projection are reversed.
That's some stiff competition, but he's near the top of my list.I don't think there is a shill I can't stand more than Tom Friedman, truly stupid human being.
Ugh... Biden is so cringe worthy in this press conference on Afghanistan. I want to vomit whenever he says, "LOOK!" as if he's arguing with someone. It's usually a sign that he's lying
Just in case you missed today's Biden White House presser, the only new information is that there were several extraction missions outside the airport. He claims there were 160 Americans retrieved
CNN will try to get more information on this from the Pentagon briefing later today
Out of curiosity, what is your background? I'm assuming you are located in the US but are you an immigrant or a native (whatever that means in the context of the US)? Reason I ask is I haven't seen you post previously on other US threads.
His name is Bob and he's from LA.
His name is Bob and he's from LA.
Watched a couple of fascinating docs on YouTube about late 90s Afghanistan. Ahmad Shah Massoud sure had an aura didn't he? Don't know that much about him but he had a certain presence.
His kid is a dead ringer.
Also, check out Sebastian Junger's doc on Massoud.
While everyone is falling over themselves deciding who is to blame for water being wet, I'm far more interested in the intentions of this guy, the VP, and how many people are going to rally behind them.
China has ~300 nukes, most of them would be launched at a single country, maybe a few into India and Europe. Assuming all US response is directed at China, will we "all be dead"? If I was home in India I'd expect to be dead. Some parts of the US also, if they can be reached. Every inch of China.
But not "all."
Let's go and do nuclear war and find out.
Is it? Things I used to consider outlandish are now coming to pass.It won't. This is just too outlandish.
It's quite sad seeing a number of countries near the region building walls to keep people out. Countries who were involved in the conflict themselves in some capacity and should be accepting some responsibility.