Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

[Ghent12]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Thanks for the news-bit.

I have a different take however.

Obama has vowed to cut defense spending. The navy, military and air force are running scared. The defense budget cut models spread around by force units are scary - for them.

At times like these, they conjure up an old trick from their back of tricks:

"Oh no, the [insert your favorite enemy] have now gotten a/an [insert your favorite new 'threat' weapon]. We are all doomed"

Then they say the only way to defend is to get more funding to build an anti-weapon or defense against that weapon.

They they get money, they go over-budget and more money is spent on that.

Result: less cuts come through.

Missiong accomplished.

Please keep this in mind when the next scare from the defense sector comes: there'll be plenty of them until the current administration backs off on cuts.

It's just budget politics, that's all.

Your causality is incorrect. This threat was influencing decision making processes long before the election cycle. Don't be so jaded as to think that every budgetary concern is merely politics.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Oh give me a break commando. The Chinese sub absolutely was undetected, every time we did war games on the POS Nimitz the subs went undetected and sunk us to the bottom of the deep blue. Carriers never win.

tombat, sounds like you could be right. If US sonar couldn't detect a nuclear powered US attack sub it would be even less likely to detect a diesel/electric. they're quieter, right?

If an enemy electric sub is so quiet it could sneak right along side so it could fire a torpedo, even a conventional one at point blank range, it renders the ballistic missile unnecessary.

Along those same lines, it seems as though a ballistic missile is the most vulnerable since its' launch creates a huge signature and defending ships will have a fair amount of time to fire against it in a clear sky. Thoughts?

The Chinese are clearly saying to the US: "back off out of our backyard" (which the US has never done when faced with that ultimatum) The main question remains, what is the ultimate Chinese motive? Is it to create a blue water force that projects influence worldwide or is is strictly to protect their supply lines?

[flintlock]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

While this type weapon does give the Chinese more capability, I don't see it as changing things that much. Do you really think China would take out a US carrier group and it not lead to total war? Strategic nukes changed the whole face of warfare between the major powers. Our tactical weapons are intended for use against non-nuke( or weak nuke) capable countries, not against each other, regardless of what they'll have you believe. We've been through all this with the Soviet Union already. These conventional arms races mainly benefit the arms makers like someone else mentioned above. Modern war is war by proxy.

[sutro]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

I think flintlock is on the right track with this,

flintlock Senior iTuliper

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 238

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

---

While this type weapon does give the Chinese more capability, I don't see it as changing things that much. Do you really think China would take out a US carrier group and it not lead to total war? Strategic nukes changed the whole face of warfare between the major powers. Our tactical weapons are intended for use against non-nuke( or weak nuke) capable countries, not against each other, regardless of what they'll have you believe. We've been through all this with the Soviet Union already. These conventional arms races mainly benefit the arms makers like someone else mentioned above. Modern war is war by proxy.

Nukes were the only counter to a Soviet thrust through the Fulda Gap during the Cold War. Today, our Carrier Groups are deployed in depth across the globe. Open sources show their supposed positions:

They could get one or two, maybe, but then what? The the remaining nine or ten go to work (after neutralizing their satellites and other sensors as much as possible)on the potential launch sites, as a prelude to retaliatory strikes on their navy. That would be a conventional response. Otherwise, hitting a Carrier Group triggers an automatic Nuclear response which would lead to MAD unless the US can shoot down China's 100 or so ICBM's and SLBM's. IMHO.

[halcyon]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Thanks for the lecture but what if you are wrong....?

You guys already tried the mushroom cloud trick once.

Not gonna work again - not for a while.

Better just manufacture that mushroom cloud

Really, this scaremongering is silly.

American's should just learn to live with the fact that in 30 years a lot of the people will have spy satellites, ICMBs, nuclear weapons ,nuke-subs, air-carriers and whatnot.

It's called commoditization. Basic economics.

Bad? Perhaps for US supremacy, but that's about it.

[halcyon]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Your causality is incorrect. This threat was influencing decision making processes long before the election cycle.

True, but it was *accelerated* by the electroral win of Obama.

Don't be so jaded as to think that every budgetary concern is merely politics.

Well, in war and business it is. It's just money.

If your livelihood was army, wouldn't you defend it to the last drop of blood, even if it was useless?

Military wants to grow and to use the new toys.

Just like companies want to grow and maker profit, governments want to grow and tax people, etc.

Let's just try to keep those in balance.

[Southernguy]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

All this discussion is about spending more money in useless criminal weapons.
China, as US and Russia and...
have the capability of destroying the whole planet several times.
While the military-industrial complex ask for more money millions of people starve in Asia Africa and Latin America.

[jtabeb]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Thanks for the news-bit.

I have a different take however.

Obama has vowed to cut defense spending. The navy, military and air force are running scared. The defense budget cut models spread around by force units are scary - for them.

At times like these, they conjure up an old trick from their back of tricks:

"Oh no, the [insert your favorite enemy] have now gotten a/an [insert your favorite new 'threat' weapon]. We are all doomed"

Then they say the only way to defend is to get more funding to build an anti-weapon or defense against that weapon.

They they get money, they go over-budget and more money is spent on that.

Result: less cuts come through.

Missiong accomplished.

Please keep this in mind when the next scare from the defense sector comes: there'll be plenty of them until the current administration backs off on cuts.

It's just budget politics, that's all.

Have you read about projected defense procurment?

I'll call "bullshit" on the defense cuts. If you read current budget proposals and can find a "cut", then show me the money.

Right now in the airforce, we are PULLING FORWARD SPENDING, that means bringing projected FUTURE SPENDING into the CURRENT budget.

So basically, we are going to be spending alot of future money, now.

[jtabeb]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Right. Just like the cat and mouse games the US & Soviet Subs played in the Cold War. Occasionally, they'd accidentally bump into each other. All, good, clean fun but deadly serious practice for the real thing.

The Chinese are certainly increasing their Naval strength. Question: Is it to defend their increasingly long supply lines or for offensive operations? Or both?

I disagree with a relatively major point made in the article. It said that the US has no defense against ballistic missiles. Didn't the Lake Erie prove, when it shot down the failing spy satellite, that the US Navy, does indeed have the capability to shoot down a ballistic missile?

Uh, did you read about the ability of the weapon to change trajectory midflight.

A dead satelite doesn't do that, that's the difference.

[allenjs]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

This is purely about deterrence, for an inevitable reunification of Taiwan with China. Currently, the only thing preventing China from reunifying Taiwan is the projected American military power.

The scenario is simple. Taiwan experiences some rough economic times and political instability, and China sends in peace keepers at the request of one of the Taiwanese political parties. The U.S. moves carriers into position, and the Taiwanese Quisling warns the U.S. to "back off", or Taiwan will be forced to ask China to defend them -- and sink some aircraft carriers if necessary.

After the U.S. stands down and the Beijing-friendly government is installed, and the back of the opposition is broken, Taipei and Beijing begin the political reconciliation process.

[KGW]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

This is such old news. . .No doubt, these "chinese" missiles are of russian origin. The russians do not give away their latest generation hardware, so there are even more capable missiles out there. Where where we? Oh, that's right, where did that bogeyman go? :rolleyes:

[cbr]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

well, the problem is it begs the question:

the premise of the entire world economy, for 20 years now, is undisputed US military dominance over any given local situation.

This is the foundation for a global economy, and the only reason for the unheard of lack of conflict in the world (dont give me this minor crap like afghanistan or other small scuffles - I am talking clash of major nations)

if technology available to potential US opponents either 1) asymetrically challenges that dominance, or 2) destroy's the US superiority of information, then the lightswitch will REALLY be turned off.

At some point, it may well become true that offensive missle technology renders carriers and satellites obsolete. He who is ready for that day first will reap the rewards.

when that day comes, the mass destruction of real wars will return to the globe.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Uh, did you read about the ability of the weapon to change trajectory midflight.

A dead satelite doesn't do that, that's the difference.

No, I didn't. Big difference. You're right. But don't our offensive weapons have the same capability?

For that matter, despite its' ability to change course, it ultimately has to reach the target. Which means the defenders can still figure out a likely trajectory, a trajectory that gets narrower and narrower the closer to the target, no?

[KGW]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

well, the problem is it begs the question:

the premise of the entire world economy, for 20 years now, is undisputed US military dominance over any given local situation.

This is the foundation for a global economy

Describe to me the beauty of the present situation, once more; somehow I missed it. . .

[jtabeb]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

No, I didn't. Big difference. You're right. But don't our offensive weapons have the same capability?

For that matter, despite its' ability to change course, it ultimately has to reach the target. Which means the defenders can still figure out a likely trajectory, a trajectory that gets narrower and narrower the closer to the target, no?

It's all about the point of intercept, a manuvering target forces a constanly moving POI, and hence the launch window of engagement is reduced. In the case referenced here, the whole objective of the chinese system is to make it take so long to find a stable trajectory that our defensive system is OUTSIDE of of its engagement window.

Basically we have to hit it while it is relatively near the top of the trajectory. the further down the parabola the chinese missile moves the faster it is going. We can only hit things with with success that are moving slower than "X".

If the chinese system is maneuvering and we can't get "a clear shot" so to speak, then it will be moving too fast for us to get a shot off when it settles down and is flying on a stable flight path to the target.

So the only countermeasure we could employ would be a "boost phase" intercept. And yes we have a system like that see "ABL". But if they shoot MORE than one at a time, our capability to successfully defeat ALL of them, goes down significantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser


Did my attempt at an explanation in layman's terms make sense?