3 ms·

None of what you've written here makes sense. The Russians don't have ballistic anti-ship missiles. There's only one model in the world so far, and it's Chine

by gozur88 10y ago

None of what you've written here makes sense. The Russians don't have ballistic anti-ship missiles. There's only one model in the world so far, and it's Chinese. It's large, expensive, and incredibly complicated, so they don't have many. It relies on a trio of satellites that can be compromised in various ways, and can be destroyed on the ground. It can also be shot down by the SM-3, which is pretty widely deployed by now. I do not believe the US would respond to conventional missiles with nuclear missiles. For one thing, there wouldn't be any need - we could do a whole lot of damage to China with aircraft and cruise missiles, so there wouldn't be any need, and why invite a Chinese nuclear response? That would be suicidal. Russian tanks are still vulnerable to the A-10. If we just want to attack "groups of farmers with AK-47s" there are much more efficient solutions, like Embraer's Super Tucano II, for example.

ceejayoz 10y ago
> It's large, expensive, and incredibly complicated, so they don't have many. From the article: "Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce 1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S. carrier." > It relies on a trio of satellites that can be compromised in various ways... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 indicates China is actively improving and expanding this satellite capacity. > ... and can be destroyed on the ground. You can say that about every weapon system in the world. If China built thousands of these, there's no way you're taking out all of them in a preemptive strike. > It can also be shot down by the SM-3, which is pretty widely deployed by now. Again, China can build thousands. An entire carrier battlegroup is going to have at most a few hundred SM-3s.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >From the article: "Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce 1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S. carrier." Yes, and so what? They have not done it. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 indicates China is actively improving and expanding this satellite capacity. Not as quickly as the US is improving its ability to knock them out. We have literally thousands of missiles that can take out satellites in LEO, and more every day. And that doesn't take into account things like jamming and lasers which could disable a satellite without blowing it up. >You can say that about every weapon system in the world. If China built thousands of these, there's no way you're taking out all of them in a preemptive strike. That's not how it works in real life - you don't have to take them all out. You only have to take out enough that between manufacturing defects, design failures, ECM, control systems degradation, antimissile systems, smoke, chaff, and more exotic stuff like lasers and rail guns, the remaining missiles don't hit a carrier. And remember, these are conventional missiles - they have to actually hit the carrier, which is not an easy thing to do. It's not like lobbing a nuke and calling it a hit if it lands within fifty miles of the target. >Again, China can build thousands. An entire carrier battlegroup is going to have at most a few hundred SM-3s. Again, so what? You're comparing a deployed carrier group today with a Chinese arsenal at some future date following a huge production spree they don't seem particularly interested in undertaking. Saying you can build x missiles for every carrier is a meaningless statistic - it assumes a reasonable response from the US would be to build more carriers instead of upgrading the defenses of the carriers (or, more accurately, the carrier battle groups) we already have.
rdtsc 10y ago
> None of what you've written here makes sense. > The Russians don't have ballistic anti-ship missiles. There's only one model in the world so far, and it's Chinese. So not true. There are ballistic anti-ship missiles, surprise the article specifically mentions it. A Russians have sea skimming missiles. Let's not get hung up on the word "ballistic", it doesn't matter what missile is used, the point is it will easy to take out a large ship. Some of the sea skimming missiles can be launched by aircraft, so that extends their range. > I do not believe the US would respond to conventional missiles with nuclear missiles. Once whole carriers are starting to be taken down, it will be pretty close to that. > we could do a whole lot of damage to China with aircraft and cruise missiles If we do a lot of damage to China, what do you think they are doing to do, sit there and look beweldwered. At that point they'll be launching everything. > Russian tanks are still vulnerable to the A-10 If they are sitting there doing nothing I am sure they are. But they probably have AA systems around.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >So not true. There are ballistic anti-ship missiles, surprise the article specifically mentions it. A Heh. Normally when I write something that's shaping up to be incoherent, I delete it before posting. >Russians have sea skimming missiles. Let's not get hung up on the word "ballistic", it doesn't matter what missile is used, the point is it will easy to take out a large ship. Some of the sea skimming missiles can be launched by aircraft, so that extends their range. I only got "hung up" on the word "ballistic" because that's the type of missile you mentioned. That made the most sense of your post, since conventional anti-ship ballistic missiles are a new threat and relatively difficult to deal with. Yes, many countries have cruise missiles, from Russia to China to France to India to others. And yes, we know how to shoot down cruise missiles. Could we successfully defend a CBG in real life against a massed cruise missile attack? Yes and no. Depends entirely on the scenario. >Once whole carriers are starting to be taken down, it will be pretty close to that. "Pretty close"? What does that mean? >If we do a lot of damage to China, what do you think they are doing to do, sit there and look beweldwered. At that point they'll be launching everything. Again, what does that mean? Certainly we will respond with nukes if the Chinese nuke the US or US naval assets. Other than that there are plenty of things in China they'd rather not have us destroy that we'd probably go about destroying if they attacked our navy. What do you imagine would happen if the Three Gorges Dam were (relatively easily) destroyed? Is there anything China could hope to accomplish in a war that would be worth a catastrophe of that magnitude? >If they are sitting there doing nothing I am sure they are. But they probably have AA systems around. Which is true of any aircraft, and it's why destroying AA is the first phase of any air war. But that's not the point. There are reasons to think the A-10 should be retired, but the inability to destroy tanks (any tanks, not just Russian tanks) isn't one of them.

by gozur88 10y ago

ceejayoz 10y ago

> It's large, expensive, and incredibly complicated, so they don't have many. From the article: "Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce 1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S. carrier." > It relies on a trio of satellites that can be compromised in various ways... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 indicates China is actively improving and expanding this satellite capacity. > ... and can be destroyed on the ground. You can say that about every weapon system in the world. If China built thousands of these, there's no way you're taking out all of them in a preemptive strike. > It can also be shot down by the SM-3, which is pretty widely deployed by now. Again, China can build thousands. An entire carrier battlegroup is going to have at most a few hundred SM-3s.

gozur88 10y ago
>From the article: "Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce 1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S. carrier." Yes, and so what? They have not done it. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 indicates China is actively improving and expanding this satellite capacity. Not as quickly as the US is improving its ability to knock them out. We have literally thousands of missiles that can take out satellites in LEO, and more every day. And that doesn't take into account things like jamming and lasers which could disable a satellite without blowing it up. >You can say that about every weapon system in the world. If China built thousands of these, there's no way you're taking out all of them in a preemptive strike. That's not how it works in real life - you don't have to take them all out. You only have to take out enough that between manufacturing defects, design failures, ECM, control systems degradation, antimissile systems, smoke, chaff, and more exotic stuff like lasers and rail guns, the remaining missiles don't hit a carrier. And remember, these are conventional missiles - they have to actually hit the carrier, which is not an easy thing to do. It's not like lobbing a nuke and calling it a hit if it lands within fifty miles of the target. >Again, China can build thousands. An entire carrier battlegroup is going to have at most a few hundred SM-3s. Again, so what? You're comparing a deployed carrier group today with a Chinese arsenal at some future date following a huge production spree they don't seem particularly interested in undertaking. Saying you can build x missiles for every carrier is a meaningless statistic - it assumes a reasonable response from the US would be to build more carriers instead of upgrading the defenses of the carriers (or, more accurately, the carrier battle groups) we already have.

rdtsc 10y ago

> None of what you've written here makes sense. > The Russians don't have ballistic anti-ship missiles. There's only one model in the world so far, and it's Chinese. So not true. There are ballistic anti-ship missiles, surprise the article specifically mentions it. A Russians have sea skimming missiles. Let's not get hung up on the word "ballistic", it doesn't matter what missile is used, the point is it will easy to take out a large ship. Some of the sea skimming missiles can be launched by aircraft, so that extends their range. > I do not believe the US would respond to conventional missiles with nuclear missiles. Once whole carriers are starting to be taken down, it will be pretty close to that. > we could do a whole lot of damage to China with aircraft and cruise missiles If we do a lot of damage to China, what do you think they are doing to do, sit there and look beweldwered. At that point they'll be launching everything. > Russian tanks are still vulnerable to the A-10 If they are sitting there doing nothing I am sure they are. But they probably have AA systems around.

gozur88 10y ago
>So not true. There are ballistic anti-ship missiles, surprise the article specifically mentions it. A Heh. Normally when I write something that's shaping up to be incoherent, I delete it before posting. >Russians have sea skimming missiles. Let's not get hung up on the word "ballistic", it doesn't matter what missile is used, the point is it will easy to take out a large ship. Some of the sea skimming missiles can be launched by aircraft, so that extends their range. I only got "hung up" on the word "ballistic" because that's the type of missile you mentioned. That made the most sense of your post, since conventional anti-ship ballistic missiles are a new threat and relatively difficult to deal with. Yes, many countries have cruise missiles, from Russia to China to France to India to others. And yes, we know how to shoot down cruise missiles. Could we successfully defend a CBG in real life against a massed cruise missile attack? Yes and no. Depends entirely on the scenario. >Once whole carriers are starting to be taken down, it will be pretty close to that. "Pretty close"? What does that mean? >If we do a lot of damage to China, what do you think they are doing to do, sit there and look beweldwered. At that point they'll be launching everything. Again, what does that mean? Certainly we will respond with nukes if the Chinese nuke the US or US naval assets. Other than that there are plenty of things in China they'd rather not have us destroy that we'd probably go about destroying if they attacked our navy. What do you imagine would happen if the Three Gorges Dam were (relatively easily) destroyed? Is there anything China could hope to accomplish in a war that would be worth a catastrophe of that magnitude? >If they are sitting there doing nothing I am sure they are. But they probably have AA systems around. Which is true of any aircraft, and it's why destroying AA is the first phase of any air war. But that's not the point. There are reasons to think the A-10 should be retired, but the inability to destroy tanks (any tanks, not just Russian tanks) isn't one of them.