QuoteThe range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.
The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.
Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.
QuoteIf operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.
Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.
After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.
Quote"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy...the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."
http://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp (http://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp) and http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964 (http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964)
The second link is particularly informational.
If this weapon is indeed operational and deployed in large numbers, what are the implications for the US Navy? Will an entirely new fleet be needed? A change in strategy? Or will it develop a new defensive system (like say... ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS?) that will negate this advantage. Also the latter link points out that even if China and the US don't come to blows over Taiwan or something else, this technology would eventually be picked up by lesser powers, perhaps rogue states/actors that are commonly in opposition to the US. Thoughts? Questions/answers? Bueller?
Oh boy, another third world super weapon. Color me not convinced.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Oh boy, another third world super weapon. Color me not convinced.
Normally I'd agree with you. Vengeance Weapon?!?! LOLZ WHUTEVA
But the USN seems to be taking this quite seriously, so there may be something there. Even if it's not 100% operational now, in ten years something like this would be very formidable if effective counter-measures aren't taken.
This is why foreigners shouldn't be allowed to exist.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 09:27:05 AM
This is why foreigners shouldn't be allowed to exist.
They're smarter than us and there are a lot more of them. :weep:
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 08:46:00 AM
Quote"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy...the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."
http://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp (http://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp) and http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964 (http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964)
The second link is particularly informational.
If by "particularly informational" you mean LOL FUNNAY I agree. "Panic inside the bubble" is particularly hilarious scaremongering.
QuoteIf this weapon is indeed operational and deployed in large numbers, what are the implications for the US Navy? Will an entirely new fleet be needed? A change in strategy? Or will it develop a new defensive system (like say... ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS?) that will negate this advantage. Also the latter link points out that even if China and the US don't come to blows over Taiwan or something else, this technology would eventually be picked up by lesser powers, perhaps rogue states/actors that are commonly in opposition to the US. Thoughts? Questions/answers? Bueller?
The mere existance of a warhead and the thrust and guidance needed to get it near a target create a capability that has to be respected, but it doesn't yield a militarily effective weapns system. The carrier has to be detected, localized, and future position determined to within the target seeking parameters of the missible guidance system (which won't be large for a ballistic warhead, given the speeds at which it will be moving and the size/weight constraints it is under), the command and control systems have to be responsive enough to get the missile going while the data is good (something that requires a fine degree of operational art), and the system has to be able to distinguish a legitimate target in the face of jamming, spoofing, and decoys.
So, I would say that this is a threat system, but not one of such overwhelming impact as to create a "panic inside the bubble." The USN has always been aware of the threat posed by ballistic missiles (whether with conventional or nuclear warheads) and has not to this point embarked on a crash program to counter them because the threat was never seen as sufficiently severe to justify such a program.
The idea that rogue state actors will develop the necessary C3I and operatonal art to deploy such a system anytime in the next coupla decades seems to me to be unlikely, especially when there are more cost-effective ways they can employ their resources (eg attacks in port, like that on the
Cole).
I thought the Aegis system had ABM capability.
Japan- your friendly unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Fuck the navy. Ground based air power is the way (if we're purely talking of a real war of course. For minor beating up of 3rd world countries carriers are grand)
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 10:33:17 AM
So, I would say that this is a threat system, but not one of such overwhelming impact as to create a "panic inside the bubble." The USN has always been aware of the threat posed by ballistic missiles (whether with conventional or nuclear warheads) and has not to this point embarked on a crash program to counter them because the threat was never seen as sufficiently severe to justify such a program.
The idea that rogue state actors will develop the necessary C3I and operatonal art to deploy such a system anytime in the next coupla decades seems to me to be unlikely, especially when there are more cost-effective ways they can employ their resources (eg attacks in port, like that on the Cole).
As far as "panic in the bubble", I don't know. I obviously have no insider information so I have to defer to the authorities on the issue and the people in the know.
But the mere fact the Chinese are developing a system this advanced should be cause for concern for the USN, yes? In what ways could it counter a weapon system such as this? And how expensive and scalable would it be, presuming the Chinese continually enhance this weapon system?
I generally agree with you on rogue states/actors attempting to develop such a system. Probably by the time any such state has a weapon like this at their disposal the US would have already developed effective counter-measure to it. But assuming a weapon system like this eventually is developed to a fuller potential, does it render blue-water navies obsolete? Why commit massive national treasure and resources to a project as expensive as a large navy when it is constantly under immediate threat by accurate and long-range anti-ship ballistic missles? Or more to the point, could the US develop such a weapon system itself?
These are honest questions that I'm too ignorant to answer. Indeed, one of my main objectives in posting this article was to see what you, Ank, and others had to say about this issue.
Quote from: Maximus on April 04, 2009, 10:34:25 AM
I thought the Aegis system had ABM capability.
It does, but not, insofar as I know, terminal phase defense. With the right missile, Aegis can engage ballistic missiles in the boost phase, but I don't think any of the current missiles have fuzing fast enough to engage a warhead in terminal phase (the ballistic warhead is moving so fast in terminal that by the time the interecpting missile arming system tells the intercepting missile warhead to detonate, the ballistic missile warhead is out of range).
It wuld be interesting to see if the PRC has actually "widely deployed" this system without a single test of it (of which there have been none). If they have, then it is almost certainly because they expected the test to fail, and deployed the system purely for propoganda purposes.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 11:13:15 AM
It would be interesting to see if the PRC has actually "widely deployed" this system without a single test of it (of which there have been none). If they have, then it is almost certainly because they expected the test to fail, and deployed the system purely for propoganda purposes.
I'm inclined to agree with this, but I leave open the possibility for the future refinement of the weapon system, eventually to the point of it being effective enough that it deters US ships from operating within its range.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
As far as "panic in the bubble", I don't know. I obviously have no insider information so I have to defer to the authorities on the issue and the people in the know.
But the mere fact the Chinese are developing a system this advanced should be cause for concern for the USN, yes? In what ways could it counter a weapon system such as this? And how expensive and scalable would it be, presuming the Chinese continually enhance this weapon system?
We deon't know that the Chinese are, in fact, developing such a system. We get these "super weapon" rumoprs all the time, and they seldom (maybe never?) pan out.
QuoteI generally agree with you on rogue states/actors attempting to develop such a system. Probably by the time any such state has a weapon like this at their disposal the US would have already developed effective counter-measure to it. But assuming a weapon system like this eventually is developed to a fuller potential, does it render blue-water navies obsolete? Why commit massive national treasure and resources to a project as expensive as a large navy when it is constantly under immediate threat by accurate and long-range anti-ship ballistic missles? Or more to the point, could the US develop such a weapon system itself?
The Chinese system mimics the Pershing almost exactly, save that the Pershing had a nuclear warhead (and the radar system was for terrain mapping). The US never deployed a conventional version of the Pershing because it was redundent and would be very expensive on a per-kill basis (having no targets as valuable as a carrier to shoot at).
The existance of the WW2 equivelent to this system (the Betty bomber eqippped with torppedoes) did not render blue-water navies obsolete, though it did force the major navies to acknowledge that surface fleets without air cover were obsolete when withn range of Japanese LBA.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 11:22:29 AM
I'm inclined to agree with this, but I leave open the possibility for the future refinement of the weapon system, eventually to the point of it being effective enough that it deters US ships from operating within its range.
Anything is possible, of course, but the engineering and operational barriers to the success of such a system are formidable:
(1) Developing a warhead/guidance/maneuvering package that does not significantly exceed the 600kg throw weight of the DF-21, while retaining the ability to hit a taget (guidance and maneuvering) and to hurt it once it hits (warhead, though kinetics alone is enough if guidance and maneuvering can guarantee an actual physical hit)
(2) Developing the recon capacity to detect, localize, and track carriers reliably at or near max range of the missile
(3) Developing and practicing a doctrine which allows the decision to hit the target soon enough after tracking to fire before the tracking data becomes obsolete.
(4) Practicing the doctrine enough that human error will not obviate all the technical and doctrinal development
(5) Anticipating countermeasures successfull so that the missile doesn't become obsolete before it is deployed.
(6) Developing a doctrine to allow the entire detection/control/attack system to be survivable enough to last until it is needed.
these are all non-trivial issues, and they won't be solved overnight.
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 11:26:44 AM
We don't know that the Chinese are, in fact, developing such a system. We get these "super weapon" rumoprs all the time, and they seldom (maybe never?) pan out.
Your skepticism prompted me to see if there really was anything to these rumors. I had a quick perusal of the DoD website.
This is from the DoD's 2008 Annual Report to Congress regarding the military power of the PRC (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html):
QuoteChina is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) as a component of its anti-access strategy. The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km and, when incorporated into a sophisticated command and control system, is a key component of China's anti-access strategy to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships at sea, including aircraft carriers, from great distances.
And from the 2009 Report, the one that recently caused much Chinese ire:
QuoteAnalyses of current and projected force structure improvements suggest that China is seeking the capacity to hold surface ships at risk through a layered capability reaching out to the "second island chain." One area of investment involves combining conventionally-armed anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) based on the CSS-5 (DF-21) airframe, C4ISR for geo-location and tracking of targets, and onboard guidance systems for terminal homing to strike surface ships. As described in an authoritative 2004 article for the Second Artillery Corps, the ASBM could employ "terminal-sensitive penetrating sub-munitions" to "destroy the enemy's carrier-borne planes, the control tower and other easily damaged and vital positions." This capability would have particular significance, as it would provide China with preemptive and coercive options in a regional crisis.
The 2009 Report even has a graphic of a Chinese diagram translated into English for the Congressional Committee:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi76.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj18%2FFunkMonk2000%2Fchina.jpg%3Ft%3D1238864316&hash=1eb31078b1d81e9941a72397fcf30fc1093df52e)
So there is SOMETHING there. The question is how far along it is. If the US had no reason to continue with a similar system (Pershing II) because no other nation had a large enough navy with which to contend the seas, China definitely does. The USN could be considered something of a target-rich environment for them.
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
:blurgh:
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:02:32 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.
Grumbles is the Old Guard. I am the New Guard. :bowler:
Might be something to this; remember the Chinese buying up all those Russian radar planes a year or two ago? There's no doubt that a country with the resources China has could put out a long-range missile that can pack a heavy punch like that, so no surprises there.
That kind of long-range missile guidance needs a healthy dose of good intel, though, and that's where they should be watching for Chinese prodding.
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
I still see the LoA photo and get confused myself! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 11:40:27 AM
(2) Developing the recon capacity to detect, localize, and track carriers reliably at or near max range of the missile
I think this may be the greatest hang-up and most difficult of the things you mentioned. Also, perhaps, the most vulnerable to counter-measure.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 12:15:41 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
I still see the LoA photo and get confused myself! :lol:
:blush:
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:16:13 PM
I think this may be the greatest hang-up and most difficult of the things you mentioned. Also, perhaps, the most vulnerable to counter-measure.
Probably. That sounds like something we can agree on, at least.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:02:32 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.
Grumbles is the Old Guard. I am the New Guard. :bowler:
Young Guard. The Garde Imperiale sneers at your mistake.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:02:32 PM
Just wait until Grumbler discusses Athenian vs Spartan triremes. Grumbler will cut everybody in the thread.
Grumbles is the Old Guard. I am the New Guard. :bowler:
Young Guard. The Garde Imperiale sneers at your mistake.
'Young Guard' is sooo 'Old Guard'. :thumbsdown:
QuoteSo there is SOMETHING there. The question is how far along it is. If the US had no reason to continue with a similar system (Pershing II) because no other nation had a large enough navy with which to contend the seas, China definitely does. The USN could be considered something of a target-rich environment for them.
I do not question the idea that the Chinese are looking to develop something like this. I am just questioning its actual existance as an effective weapon, and noting that the USN has long considered the ASBM threat a future possibility (I worked on a study that examined a Soviet use of such weapons, albeit with nuclear warheads, back in 200BCE). The best counter is obviously a better guidance system on the Standard Missile/SM Followon, combined with a system to counter the C3I and/or seeker.
I would also note that the CBO report indicates a soft-kill system (against the aircraft and/or command system of the carrier, not the carrier itself) which is a far cry from the "Destroy Aircraft Carriers" bit in the title. Obviously, softkill via submunitions is a lot more feasible given throw weight constraints.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:21:53 PM
'Young Guard' is sooo 'Old Guard'. :thumbsdown:
You sneer at the organization of the Garde Imperiale? YOU SICKEN ME.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Grumbles is the Old Guard...
Well, yes, precisely. "Grumbler" is simply the English translation of "grognard," which is the nickname for a member of the Old Guard. That is why I chose it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 12:22:33 PM
QuoteSo there is SOMETHING there. The question is how far along it is. If the US had no reason to continue with a similar system (Pershing II) because no other nation had a large enough navy with which to contend the seas, China definitely does. The USN could be considered something of a target-rich environment for them.
I do not question the idea that the Chinese are looking to develop something like this. I am just questioning its actual existance as an effective weapon, and noting that the USN has long considered the ASBM threat a future possibility (I worked on a study that examined a Soviet use of such weapons, albeit with nuclear warheads, back in 200BCE). The best counter is obviously a better guidance system on the Standard Missile/SM Followon, combined with a system to counter the C3I and/or seeker.
I would also note that the CBO report indicates a soft-kill system (against the aircraft and/or command system of the carrier, not the carrier itself) which is a far cry from the "Destroy Aircraft Carriers" bit in the title. Obviously, softkill via submunitions is a lot more feasible given throw weight constraints.
We agree and I am now filled with knowledge on this subject. :)
Also, :lol: @
QuoteI worked on a study that examined a Soviet use of such weapons, albeit with nuclear warheads, back in 200BCE
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 12:26:05 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Grumbles is the Old Guard...
Well, yes, precisely. "Grumbler" is simply the English translation of "grognard," which is the nickname for a member of the Old Guard. That is why I chose it.
Yes, I remember reading that somewhere a long time ago. I'd like to think it was my 'latent knowledge' seeping through, but it was in fact coincidental that I chose that term. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:24:20 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:21:53 PM
'Young Guard' is sooo 'Old Guard'. :thumbsdown:
You sneer at the organization of the Garde Imperiale? YOU SICKEN ME.
I say to you what I said to Brain: :blurgh: :blurgh: :blurgh:
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:24:20 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 12:21:53 PM
'Young Guard' is sooo 'Old Guard'. :thumbsdown:
You sneer at the organization of the Garde Imperiale? YOU SICKEN ME.
I say to you what I said to Brain: :blurgh: :blurgh: :blurgh:
My blood is getting all angried up.
I'm not going to get wrapped around the axle on this one, namely because it's been no secret that the little yellow fucks have been developing mission-kill strategies to prevent the USN from approaching the Taiwan Straits or the Chinese littoral.
I'd be more worried about their developments in ASAT, since US Navy C3I depends upon it.
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
We would fight over the territorial integrity of the sovereign nation of Taiwan.
Grumbler, considering your work on a study of the Soviet use of such weapons, how long would it have taken them to develop an ASBM sophisticated enough to hit with moderate accuracy a CVN? Would they have ever been able to do it? I know computers and satellites were quite limited back in 200 BCE, so let us suppose they tried to do this using technology of the mid to late 80s. :D
Considering that, how long do you think it would take the Chinese to develop it, using current technology?
Just curious.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
People like to kill things, so we're always inventing new ways to do it. :hug:
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM
Considering that, how long do you think it would take the Chinese to develop it, using current technology they have been busting their asses spying for throughout all US sectors, public and private, by any means available?
Just curious.
Amended for accuracy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:44:02 PM
My blood is getting all angried up.
This should calm you down. :hug:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fameliefr.club.fr%2FRessources%2FM-Davout.JPG&hash=9831754d47a62b9ff8fc228a376c9d6f8dba00a8)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2009, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM
Considering that, how long do you think it would take the Chinese to develop it, using current technology they have been busting their asses spying for throughout all US sectors, public and private, by any means available?
Just curious.
Amended for accuracy.
TRUTH
Is it really a worthwhile use of a ballistic missile, to use a conventional warhead?
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 12:44:02 PM
My blood is getting all angried up.
This should calm you down. :hug:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fameliefr.club.fr%2FRessources%2FM-Davout.JPG&hash=9831754d47a62b9ff8fc228a376c9d6f8dba00a8)
That it does. That it does. You are a good egg. :frog:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
That it does. That it does. You are a good egg. :frog:
I second the sentiment - though he needs to be wearing his glasses.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
That it does. That it does. You are a good egg. :frog:
Who is the dorky looking balding dude? kinda looks like fahdiz.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM
Grumbler, considering your work on a study of the Soviet use of such weapons, how long would it have taken them to develop an ASBM sophisticated enough to hit with moderate accuracy a CVN? Would they have ever been able to do it? I know computers and satellites were quite limited back in 200 BCE, so let us suppose they tried to do this using technology of the mid to late 80s. :D
Considering that, how long do you think it would take the Chinese to develop it, using current technology?
Just curious.
The main problem with a radar-guided warhead on a ballistic missile is related to the main problem shooting one down: the very speed of the warhead means that it has mere seconds within which to light off its radar, detect the target, maneuver, and attack.
That was good enough for Pershing II, which was going to be within a few hundred meters of the target anyway, and just needed to refine a 100m CEP to a 30m one. For an anti-ship warhead, you may need to be able to detect early enough to maneuver for miles, and the airbody itself isn't maneuverable, so you have to use thrusters. That gives you a real engineering problem: normal long-range radars are big, with big antennae. You do you fit them into a small warhead like this? You could use a small, high-frequency radar, but then how to you get the enormous power needed? Lidar was looked at a possible solution, but was also energy-intensive and cannot see through clouds, so required perfect weather (and no countermeasures) to work. Maybe there have been advanced since 200BCE that would make it more suitable.
Nuclear-tipped ASBMs were deemed marginally effective in the studies I was part of, and conventionally-tipped ASBMs were deemed beyond the threat horizon we could extrapolate using even the latest theoretical engineering.
If there are enough weapons to use a barrage attack method, of if there is midcourse guidance using a platform in re-time contact with the target (assuming that the platform can distinguish between the real carrier and the decoys, or there are enough missiles to attack all contacts) none of the conclusions above hold true.
Absent a midcourse guidance platform, I don't see the Chinese developing a successful system any time soon.
And, no, radar satellites won't do the trick.
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 02:26:19 PM
I second the sentiment - though he needs to be wearing his glasses.
He actually called them his "combat glasses" and didn't wear them except in battle. :nerd:
Very cool stuff. :cool: Appreciate the answers.
The obvious solution is to drop nukes on carriers right out of orbit, possibly from the Chinese moonbase.
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2009, 04:18:16 PM
The obvious solution is to drop nukes on carriers right out of orbit, possibly from the Chinese moonbase.
Yep, a nuclear barrage is a way to go, especially if you can dirty up your bombs. Even if you don't get much shock impact on the carrier, washdown and decontamination would take a while.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
The Chinese have long realized they have to many people. The one child policy is effective but long term. They need something quicker.
Quote from: katmai on April 04, 2009, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
That it does. That it does. You are a good egg. :frog:
Who is the dorky looking balding dude? kinda looks like fahdiz.
You are owed one(1) additional kick in the nuts.
That is Marshal Davout, Duc d'Auerstädt, Prince d'Eckmühl. Coolest of the cool. Bestest marshal Napoleon ever had.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 04, 2009, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
That it does. That it does. You are a good egg. :frog:
Who is the dorky looking balding dude? kinda looks like fahdiz.
You are owed one(1) additional kick in the nuts.
That is Marshal Davout, Duc d'Auerstädt, Prince d'Eckmühl. Coolest of the cool. Bestest marshal Napoleon ever had.
Question: What if the Iron Marshal had nuclear weapons? Or more to the point, Napoleon had anti-sea ballistic missiles?
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 04, 2009, 05:09:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 04, 2009, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
That it does. That it does. You are a good egg. :frog:
Who is the dorky looking balding dude? kinda looks like fahdiz.
You are owed one(1) additional kick in the nuts.
That is Marshal Davout, Duc d'Auerstädt, Prince d'Eckmühl. Coolest of the cool. Bestest marshal Napoleon ever had.
Question: What if the Iron Marshal had nuclear weapons? Or more to the point, Napoleon had anti-sea ballistic missiles?
Davout could win with just a stare. If transported to the ACW, he could whip every Southern general with both arms tied behind his back.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 06:54:28 PM
Davout could win with just a stare.
The Man wouldn't even have to stare.
QuoteIf transported to the ACW, he could whip every Southern general with both arms tied behind his back.
He'd whip the M off Marse Bobby, fer sher. Stonewall would be called Stonedead in the history books.
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
The war with China is not going to be fought on the ground.
Untill they invade Europe.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
The war with China is not going to be fought on the ground.
Untill they invade Europe.
Oh I doubt they'll come from Space.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
They are going to expand at one point or another. They claim to be a "soft power", but their riches will bring them a more tech advanced military, and with greater capabilities their goals will eventually change. They will become a superpower no matter what we do, and with superpowerdom comes conflict, whether cold or hot.
The thing that worries me is that China learnt the wrong lessons from their relationship with the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. They understand "power" in a way we in the West see as obsolete. They didn't go through colonialism and imperialism. They were in the receiving end.
I see the US Army fighting chinese 3rd world proxy regimes within a couple decades.
- "Six hundred million screaming Chinamen."
- "Last I heard, there were a billion screaming Chinamen."
- "There *were*. "
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 11:18:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
The war with China is not going to be fought on the ground.
Untill they invade Europe.
Oh I doubt they'll come from Space.
At the height of the Empire, the romans laughed at the barbarians hordes.
I just hope that your words about them coming from space don't prove prophetic. The last thing we need is a chinese orbital bomber.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:38:21 PM
I see the US Army fighting chinese 3rd world proxy regimes within a couple decades.
Great, I'll be out of the Army by then. :thumbsup:
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
He'd whip the M off Marse Bobby, fer sher. Stonewall would be called Stonedead in the history books.
Fuck you grumbler. <_<
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:42:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 11:18:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
The war with China is not going to be fought on the ground.
Untill they invade Europe.
Oh I doubt they'll come from Space.
At the height of the Empire, the romans laughed at the barbarians hordes.
I just hope that your words about them coming from space don't prove prophetic. The last thing we need is a chinese orbital bomber.
:lol: Great analogy Marty. Maybe we should worry about an invasion from Sudan as well!
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 12:58:21 AM
:lol: Great analogy Marty. Maybe we should worry about an invasion from Sudan as well!
Sure, because the chinese are as poor and powerless as the sudanese.
You know, I have seen many people like you. You only see a threat when the enemy is knocking down your door.
Also, the chinese are not white, and not westerner, so they are never going to be a threat, because only the *White Man* is intelligent enough to be a threat.
China is a real and present danger. They want superpowerdom, and they are exploiting the prejudices of people like you to sneak their way to power. There is no "soft rise". To rise to superpower status means a major change in world geopolitics, and violent change of the status quo. Conflict is unevitable.
You can hide your head under the sand as long as you want. China is on the rise, and America is in the way. China is no longer a country of poor farmers. Their cities rise up to the skies, their industry is massive, and their technology is catching up at an increasing rate.
If there is a mistake I refuse to comit in this world, is to understimate my enemies.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 12:15:41 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Right - I officially hate Grumbler-Funkmonk discussions. I think that G is arguing with himself.
I still see the LoA photo and get confused myself! :lol:
:yes: You're devilishly handsome.
Quote from: Siege on April 05, 2009, 01:57:29 AM
You can hide your head under the sand as long as you want. China is on the rise, and America is in the way. China is no longer a country of poor farmers. Their cities rise up to the skies, their industry is massive, and their technology is catching up at an increasing rate.
:yes:
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
They are going to expand at one point or another. They claim to be a "soft power", but their riches will bring them a more tech advanced military, and with greater capabilities their goals will eventually change. They will become a superpower no matter what we do, and with superpowerdom comes conflict, whether cold or hot.
The thing that worries me is that China learnt the wrong lessons from their relationship with the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. They understand "power" in a way we in the West see as obsolete. They didn't go through colonialism and imperialism. They were in the receiving end.
I see the US Army fighting chinese 3rd world proxy regimes within a couple decades.
There will never be a 'hot' war between the US and China.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 04, 2009, 06:54:28 PM
Davout could win with just a stare.
The Man wouldn't even have to stare.
QuoteIf transported to the ACW, he could whip every Southern general with both arms tied behind his back.
He'd whip the M off Marse Bobby, fer sher. Stonewall would be called Stonedead in the history books.
Did Davout know English? If not I think he'll have trouble giving orders, I don't think most Union officers were fluent in French.
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2009, 08:10:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
They are going to expand at one point or another. They claim to be a "soft power", but their riches will bring them a more tech advanced military, and with greater capabilities their goals will eventually change. They will become a superpower no matter what we do, and with superpowerdom comes conflict, whether cold or hot.
The thing that worries me is that China learnt the wrong lessons from their relationship with the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. They understand "power" in a way we in the West see as obsolete. They didn't go through colonialism and imperialism. They were in the receiving end.
I see the US Army fighting chinese 3rd world proxy regimes within a couple decades.
There will never be a 'hot' war between the US and China.
Korea seemed pretty hot to me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2009, 08:10:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
They are going to expand at one point or another. They claim to be a "soft power", but their riches will bring them a more tech advanced military, and with greater capabilities their goals will eventually change. They will become a superpower no matter what we do, and with superpowerdom comes conflict, whether cold or hot.
The thing that worries me is that China learnt the wrong lessons from their relationship with the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. They understand "power" in a way we in the West see as obsolete. They didn't go through colonialism and imperialism. They were in the receiving end.
I see the US Army fighting chinese 3rd world proxy regimes within a couple decades.
There will never be a 'hot' war between the US and China.
Korea seemed pretty hot to me.
Note that 'will never', and 'was never' have two different meanings. Even I know that, and I was educated in French.
I weep for America's children.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
Korea seemed pretty hot to me.
Are you implying she no longer is?
Stand by for incoming.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2009, 06:05:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
Korea seemed pretty hot to me.
Are you implying she no longer is?
Stand by for incoming.
Clearly he's never seen those nude pictures of her.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
The war with China is not going to be fought on the ground.
Untill they invade Europe.
There's this thing called "Asia" in the way, I'm afraid. Its rather a big landmass, you might've heard of it?
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2009, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2009, 08:10:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2009, 01:31:22 PM
So why are they trying to develope weapons to destroy our carriers again? Why would we actually fight a war over anything?
They are going to expand at one point or another. They claim to be a "soft power", but their riches will bring them a more tech advanced military, and with greater capabilities their goals will eventually change. They will become a superpower no matter what we do, and with superpowerdom comes conflict, whether cold or hot.
The thing that worries me is that China learnt the wrong lessons from their relationship with the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. They understand "power" in a way we in the West see as obsolete. They didn't go through colonialism and imperialism. They were in the receiving end.
I see the US Army fighting chinese 3rd world proxy regimes within a couple decades.
There will never be a 'hot' war between the US and China.
Korea seemed pretty hot to me.
Note that 'will never', and 'was never' have two different meanings. Even I know that, and I was educated in French.
I weep for America's children.
You speak french?
Bullshit. You are too uncultivated to speak anything other than english.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 05, 2009, 08:00:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
The war with China is not going to be fought on the ground.
Untill they invade Europe.
There's this thing called "Asia" in the way, I'm afraid. Its rather a big landmass, you might've heard of it?
Oh yeah. It is also called "China's sphere of influence".
As I said, while China expands its control of continental Asia, whether directly or not, we will do nothing.
When they and/or their proxies invade Europe, then the shooting war starts.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:42:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 11:18:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 11:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
How good is the T-55 compared to modern American tanks?
The war with China is not going to be fought on the ground.
Untill they invade Europe.
Oh I doubt they'll come from Space.
At the height of the Empire, the romans laughed at the barbarians hordes.
I doubt the Romans ever laughed at the military prowes of the barbarians, the contrary seems more likely. There's a reason why Caesar calls the Belgae the bravest/fiercest of all Gauls. Not because they were superhuman, but because they were the most barbaric of the Gauls.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 06, 2009, 03:37:35 AMI doubt the Romans ever laughed at the military prowes of the barbarians, the contrary seems more likely. There's a reason why Caesar calls the Belgae the bravest/fiercest of all Gauls. Not because they were superhuman, but because they were the most barbaric of the Gauls.
It also looks better if you play up the strength of an enemy you've conquered. "Yeah, they were tough, and gave a good fight, but proved no match for us."