Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

[occdude]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Just off the top of my head. What if we deployed a counter measure to this that resembled a huge shotgun blast instead of an Aegis system? I see huge smooth bored cannon that would fire intermediate range shot to thwart a missile or multiples. When hunters are shooting birds they use shotgun shells.

[metalman]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

this ain't exactly new news, is it? don't submariners simply refer to surface ships as 'targets'?

[vanvaley1]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

I don't know what one of these missiles costs but it cant be that much compared to an aircraft carrier. I think we need to be VERY careful about projection of power.

The Chinese again are showing their superior knowledge of economics by devoloping a low cost, efficient countermeasure to a ponderous western elephant. I think when a country "gets into the economic zone of thinking" they truly do become great in ALL aspects because they get it. The "it" being that efficiency is paramount, doing more with less is key and that "cause and effect" are principles that should run a peoples thinking.

Resources are scarce and have to be adequately deployed despite individual preferences and a one missile to carrier ratio is pretty devastating, even if it took a hundred missiles to one carrier.

The Chinese are on the ascendence. I don't take any joy in that statement, but they sure look a lot like we used to look like. One can only hope we rediscover what truely made us great and to pursue those principles again.

Made us great? Mercantilism, half a continent of unexploited resources, ingenuity, animal spirits, and technologically inferior cultures unable to defend their land and bodies. Don't think we're gonna find too many of the above in the present world. Pick the ones from above that are still viable and do the best ya can...cuz the rest aren't available anymore.

[vanvaley1]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Just off the top of my head. What if we deployed a counter measure to this that resembled a huge shotgun blast instead of an Aegis system? I see huge smooth bored cannon that would fire intermediate range shot to thwart a missile or multiples. When hunters are shooting birds they use shotgun shells.

If the birds are carrying a nuke ya'd better have a long range shotgun. Gives a whole new perspective on bird hunting when they're foul fowl.

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

It is very pro-russian, that is very different that being pro-russina govt'.

Clue1, Your right I am ignorant about anti-ship missiles and ship-based weapon system. I was only an Electronic Warfare Operator(basically anti- ship missile defense and strategic/tactical intelligence) in the U.S. Navy for years. The reason that there is no defense for ballistic anti-ship missiles is that there is no currently verifiable operational anti-ship ballistic missile systems.

People complain about the military wasting money, yet you seem to advocate the the military develop defenses for things that do not exist. They may exist in the future, but it would be more prudent and wise use of taxpayer dollars to see the operational capabilities of the weapons system before trying to develop a defense against it.

There you go again mixing anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles a common problem. Cruise missiles such as the ss-n-2, exocet, harpoon, ss-n-22, Gabriel, css-n-1, and such are much easier to decoy, shoot down and general defeat when compared to ballistic missiles. The Scud is slow for a ballistic missile, but very fast when compare to a cruise missile, please try not to confuse the 2 completely different classes of weapon systems. The defenses for one will probably not be particular effective against the other, like the Patriot missile system, it was originally design for anti-aircraft defense and was pressed in to service as a anti- ballistic missile defense system, being modified along the way.

My take on this Chinese Anti-ship ballistic weapons system is that it is a way for the U.S. Navy to help justify current funding levels, in what most people can see(for the foreseeable future) as a declining funding environment. Weather it actually exists or not, it is just a way to stir up fear about loosing naval dominance.

Using Nuke tipped anti-ship missiles is not the same as use conventional anti-ship missiles, period. Going nuclear on a ship is the same a going nuclear on a city, It will quickly lead to full scale nuclear war. So the argument that all they have to do to kill a carrier battle group is to go nuclear is blindingly obvious for ANY weapon system and specious at best.

[metalman]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

It is very pro-russian, that is very different that being pro-russina govt'.

Clue1, Your right I am ignorant about anti-ship missiles and ship-based weapon system. I was only an Electronic Warfare Operator(basically anti- ship missile defense and strategic/tactical intelligence) in the U.S. Navy for years. The reason that there is no defense for ballistic anti-ship missiles is that there is no currently verifiable operational anti-ship ballistic missile systems.

People complain about the military wasting money, yet you seem to advocate the the military develop defenses for things that do not exist. They may exist in the future, but it would be more prudent and wise use of taxpayer dollars to see the operational capabilities of the weapons system before trying to develop a defense against it.

There you go again mixing anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles a common problem. Cruise missiles such as the ss-n-2, exocet, harpoon, ss-n-22, Gabriel, css-n-1, and such are much easier to decoy, shoot down and general defeat when compared to ballistic missiles. The Scud is slow for a ballistic missile, but very fast when compare to a cruise missile, please try not to confuse the 2 completely different classes of weapon systems. The defenses for one will probably not be particular effective against the other, like the Patriot missile system, it was originally design for anti-aircraft defense and was pressed in to service as a anti- ballistic missile defense system, being modified along the way.

My take on this Chinese Anti-ship ballistic weapons system is that it is a way for the U.S. Navy to help justify current funding levels, in what most people can see(for the foreseeable future) as a declining funding environment. Weather it actually exists or not, it is just a way to stir up fear about loosing naval dominance.

Using Nuke tipped anti-ship missiles is not the same as use conventional anti-ship missiles, period. Going nuclear on a ship is the same a going nuclear on a city, It will quickly lead to full scale nuclear war. So the argument that all they have to do to kill a carrier battle group is to go nuclear is blindingly obvious for ANY weapon system and specious at best.

ah, the voice of personal experience, as pure as gold. thanks! at times the obvious explanation is the correct one... the weapons firms need business.

[c1ue]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Yes, please clarify your role as a Electronic Warfare specialist.

Were you developing the systems? Maintaining the systems? Installing the systems? Or just reading the computer monitors?

As for your assertion that no ballistic missile systems exist - again you failed to even cursorily examine the article. The article specifically said that the Harpoon - a missile introduced 30 years ago - becomes a ballistic missile system once it has approached the target.

Your other brilliant point: a nuclear armed missile hitting a US carrier group is prelude to war.

I suppose a normal missile striking a US carrier group is not?

What about a torpedo? Maybe you can provide a nice graph showing when the US considers an armed attack on its Navy grounds for war, vs. a response consisting solely of international posturing?

Finally the Exiled Online. Please show me some examples of how the Exiled Online is 'Pro Russia'.

Is it the scathing way the point out corruption at all levels of Russian society?

Or perhaps the photographs of Russians doing stupid things?

Article series on death due to crime in Russia called Death Porn?

Or perhaps the photographs of hot Russian chicks makes you think it is Pro Russia?

Get a grip.

Exiled Online picks on everyone and everything. Its what they do.

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Just to clarify, I maintained, operated and gathered info.

The Harpoon does a pop up maneuver in its terminal phase of flight, that does not make it a ballistic missile, as properly defined.

I said it was a prelude to full scale nuclear war, a conventional attack would be a prelude to a conventional war. Either way bad things happen immediately afterward, the only difference is a death toll of couple of hundred thousand or a couple billion, chose carefully.

Per international law, whether you believe the US provides lip service or not to it, attacking a sovereign nations warship is defined as an act of war. The country attacked, of course does not have to pursue this course of action. The country would be justified under international law in doing so. It is entirely up to the attacked nation. I hope you would agree. Torpedoes included.

As for the Exile, it is the impression that I got from the article that you linked to. I will admit that I am not an avid follower of them, nor do I know of past articles they have written. Regardless, they would not (in my opinion) be a credible source for defense related information.


I give up c1ue, I refuse to quibble over definitions anymore. You seem convinced that this weapons system exist. I am also sure that the US Navy is happy that you think it exist. Write your congressman/woman on how that US Navy needs new ships to replace the carriers or a new weapon system to defeat this threat, either way the US Navy wins

[Ghent12]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Yes, please clarify your role as a Electronic Warfare specialist.

Were you developing the systems? Maintaining the systems? Installing the systems? Or just reading the computer monitors?

As for your assertion that no ballistic missile systems exist - again you failed to even cursorily examine the article. The article specifically said that the Harpoon - a missile introduced 30 years ago - becomes a ballistic missile system once it has approached the target.

Your other brilliant point: a nuclear armed missile hitting a US carrier group is prelude to war.

I suppose a normal missile striking a US carrier group is not?

What about a torpedo? Maybe you can provide a nice graph showing when the US considers an armed attack on its Navy grounds for war, vs. a response consisting solely of international posturing?

Finally the Exiled Online. Please show me some examples of how the Exiled Online is 'Pro Russia'.

Is it the scathing way the point out corruption at all levels of Russian society?

Or perhaps the photographs of Russians doing stupid things?

Article series on death due to crime in Russia called Death Porn?

Or perhaps the photographs of hot Russian chicks makes you think it is Pro Russia?

Get a grip.

Exiled Online picks on everyone and everything. Its what they do.

I have a question. Why do you try to call out someone's ignorance on systems under the following conditions: a) they clearly have some technical knowledge of the subject; b) your 'evidence' to the contrary is an article that essentially says surface vessels are useless because a ship was sunk in the 1960's; and c) you continually fail to differentiate between terms for what appears to be purely devil's advocacy?

Just curious as to why you disproportionately balance credence between two sources that are fairly clearly speaking on different levels of credibility and knowledge. Has your website never been wrong in its existance?


It does seem to be a blatant case for "don't cut MY project!"

[Supercilious]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Yes, please clarify your role as a Electronic Warfare specialist.

Were you developing the systems? Maintaining the systems? Installing the systems? Or just reading the computer monitors?

As for your assertion that no ballistic missile systems exist - again you failed to even cursorily examine the article. The article specifically said that the Harpoon - a missile introduced 30 years ago - becomes a ballistic missile system once it has approached the target.

C'mon c1lue you continue to ask for the passport of everybody who dares to contradict you version of truth? This is really a reflex of a militsya sergeant. Stop drinking all day long with your MVD buddies. Maybe it helps.

I find it funny how you try to dismiss jacobcoates, who clearly knows what is he talking about while you clearly don't have a clue,.... you have just a big mouth .

We all know you dream of a world ruled by Russia ( or by Russia with China's help) and you become aggressive and arrogant whenever somebody tries to point that your dream is not realistic... we all got that, and some of us got tired with all your cheap siloviki impertinence, which may be OK on the Russia Today forum ...but this is the iTulip forum and people don't come here to sing praises to Comrade Putin.

So please, if it's possible, tone down your siloviki arrogant behaviour. Thanks in advance.

[c1ue]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

I have a question. Why do you try to call out someone's ignorance on systems under the following conditions: a) they clearly have some technical knowledge of the subject; b) your 'evidence' to the contrary is an article that essentially says surface vessels are useless because a ship was sunk in the 1960's; and c) you continually fail to differentiate between terms for what appears to be purely devil's advocacy?

I call out anyone who makes vague presentiments on supposed knowledge and who fails to address specific statements.

While JacobDCoates certainly MAY be what he seems - the beauty of the internet is such that anyone can say anything or pretend to be anything.

Thus supposed expertise as alleged by the presenter is as credible as a Treasury Secretary and ex-CEO from an investment bank saying the TARP is necessary for the health of the overall economy - because he's part of government and is there to help us.

The War Nerd certainly may be smoking crack, but he is very clear on where his information comes from, what his background is, and so forth.

Those who profess information without either specifically refuting statements or expounding from the anonymous high horse of supposed expertise are not going to get a pass from me.

C'mon c1lue you continue to ask for the passport of everybody who dares to contradict you version of truth? This is really a reflex of a militsya sergeant. Stop drinking all day long with your MVD buddies. Maybe it helps.

Yes, jump on in here. Apparently you still need to make vague references and personal attacks - while your supposed theory still has zero checkpoints and a references to which it can be determined to be correct or not.

You'll note I never attacked Jacob personally - until he started making vague references to his background and smart cracks about things he had zero background in. Well, I've spent a lot of time over many years on the internet and refuse to accept anything either factually based or from an unimpeachable source. Whatever I spit out - I post the links and or data or put out a clear delineation on why I have my conclusions. The rare instances where I do spout off on subjects I consider to have some personal involvement in, I also clearly outline what my specific role was by which said expertise comes from.

The reason I appreciate iTulip is that EJ and others here base their views on specific factual references to publicly available data.

EJ doesn't say that 'this is so' because he is a venture capitalist, or ex-CEO, etc etc.

iTulip theories have clear compilations of data pointed toward proposed explanations.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have $#* who creates fantastic theories invoking the 'smart money who never loses' - by the way I'm STILL waiting for some of these examples - and the projections of economic theorists vainly trying to model the black hole of China's actual financial situation to conclude that somehow there is a gigantic Ponzi scheme there - perhaps bigger than the American one.

A classic case of 'Look over there!'

[cjppjc]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

And they're back at it. This thread now has the possibility of going till May.

Easy boys.

[Supercilious]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

c1ue, jacobcoates gave his qualifications in the area of ballistic missiles and no other iTuliper member of in any branch of armed forces spotted any flaws.

Your qualifications in this field are ? ...
(Being a moronic and aggressive repeater of Russian propaganda is not a qualification ;))

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

Here you go c1ue, some credibility for knowing what I talk about. I do not post very often and it is usually when I have a question about a particular economic theory or forecast. My background is not economics, but military and philosophy. For a list of some of the training I received in the US Navy. This is the professional association for Electronic Warfare, they do classified and unclassified training. I received my training courtesy of the US. Navy.

https://www.myaoc.org/EWEB/DynamicPa...de=EW09_Course.

I'm sorry if I offended you about one of you favorite news organizations on the internet, but again that was the impression that I got from reading the article, opinion are like asshole everyones got one and they may not be right, mine is no different

[jtabeb]

Re: Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

The article specifically said that the Harpoon - a missile introduced 30 years ago - becomes a ballistic missile system once it has approached the target.

Dude, you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.

True, it's ballistic, IN THE TERMINAL "POP-UP" PHASE!!!!

To compare the terminal attack of a Harpoon to a true Ballistic missile system is like comparing apples to yugos.

BTW the harpoon is doing maybe 500 KTS (e.g. "sub-sonic") in it's terminal dive, a ballistic missile is doing like 4200 KTS +++++ ( that's for a target at MACH 7)