WilkTwo things make that statement, and yours above, utterly irrelevant to the Chinese ASBM as touted. First is that, despite a few one-off Y-8 variants and some work on OTH/Skywave radar, the Chinese have not solved the targetting problem.
Since most sources indicate that one of the primary purposes of the PRC’s OTH-B sites is to provide surveillance and targeting information, please provide evidence to prove that this is not true. Also, please provide evidence that all the Chinese have done is “some work” (whatever that means).
Until you can prove that these sites are incapable of performing their primary functions (which are not revolutionary or unique), the only thing that’s utterly irrelevant is your claim.
That part IS visible – look at what the US is doing with BAMS for your cues – and would support the ASBM deployment, but, its just not there. No targetting and no long-range antiship shots ballistic or otherwise.
So now BAMS is required to target a carrier (and by extension, any other naval vessel)?
You cannot be serious.
As for it not being able to stop China, BFD. It was never meant to.
My response was directed at the poster who claimed it was.
On the other hand at some point Aegis will be able to smack Chinese ICBMs as they’re leaving China (that would likely be before they’ve released their warheads) so I wouldn’t get too comfortable with GBIs numbers.
“Aegis” will be able to hit Chinese ICBMs flying over Mongolia/Russia?
Wilk#1 – By your logic, the USA did not have a strong economy until it left the gold standard in 1971. Even after that, interference by the central bank (or other monetary authority) in most nations including the US means that they don’t have a truly floating currency either. Also, Yuan is not fixed but is allowed to float (within a certain range) against a basket of currencies, one of which is the US dollar.
Historically, there have been strong economies with floating currencies and strong economies with fixed currencies. It can therefore be easily proven that a floating currency is not a requirement for a strong economy, and hence, your claim that China does not have a strong economy because of fixed currency (false anyway) is false. Hmmm, is that a double negative?
#2 – Claiming that China owes its growth solely due to US consumption is absurd. One only needs to look at the export numbers (which you yourself quoted) to see that. I’m not going to repeat myself anymore.
#3 – The rest of your post is nothing more than a biased political rant that, despite what you claim, is entirely irrelevant to this topic. With that said, I’m going to quote one line out of it because it’s just too good to pass up:
As long as China does not let its currency float and allow civil rights and media freedom, it won’t be a great power.
This statement sums up your entire contribution to this thread. It has nothing to do with the topic, and is demonstrably wrong on so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But let’s assume that it’s true, and that the above three criteria are indeed requirements for a nation to be a great power. If so, then the USA, USSR, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc. were not great powers because they failed at least one of those criteria for some time in their history. Yet a quick search reveals those nations as great powers even at points in time where they clearly failed those criteria. Furthermore, China is already listed as a great power and even has a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. If your statement is true, how can that be?
WilkHow do you figure “too late”? Do you think an Aegis class is helpless or something?
Did you even read your own post which I responded to?
Here it is again, in case you are too lazy to go back and read it:
Do you think an SSN couldn’t hear a sub launching an antiship missile? And more than one if it wanted to have a chance of actually killing an Aegis class.
How does an SSN detecting an ASM launch help the target of the ASMs?
WilkAt $337.8 million in 2009, US remains by far the largest export market for China. However, EU (not a country) has overtaken US as the largest trade partner. This is because there are many imports from EU to China unlike the US which is a one way street ($71.5 billion in imports from US to China)
$337.8 billion was in 2008. I haven’t seen any totals for 2009 yet. EU is both the largest in exports and the second largest for imports and most statistics I’ve seen count the EU as a single entity. Not that it matters, since whether the EU is counted as one or not, it doesn’t change the fact that the US accounts for less than a fifth of Chinese exports.
I’m not trying to diss the arrangement between US and China, but the fact that China and US have both benefited from the one way flow of cheap services and goods to US is not something I made up.
Of course they have. But saying that US and China benefit from trade is quite different than claiming that China becoming “strong” was solely the result of “offering the blood and sweat of chinese workers to make the lives of americans better.” That was one factor, certainly, but it’s just one of a great number of reasons.
WilkScenarios like you said can be many. Russians may trust the U.S a bit more because they have been through the U.S being a super power and know how to deal with them. They also do not share a common border with them. Russians may yet decide to finish of their smaller neighbour than the U.S.
Personally, I don’t think the Russians trust the Americans one bit, and I’m highly skeptical that they would even bother to “finish off” China rather than just stay out of it at that point. But that’s my opinion, and you have yours, so let’s leave it at that.
It is sadly much more complex that what you say. It is unlikely that some one would know a ballisitc missile launch is nuclear or not. So the use of any ASBM is likely to result in a nuclear response. The U.S can use tactical nukes delivered using cruise missiles, I don’t yet know Chinese capability wrt to that.
There is a big difference between a few SRBMs/IRBMs being launched and a mass ICBM launch. I doubt anyone will launch nukes if they detect a few short-ranged missiles in the air.
WilkDo you think an SSN couldn’t hear a sub launching an antiship missile? And more than one if it wanted to have a chance of actually killing an Aegis class.
Yes it probably would. But by then, it’s a little too late. And it could be too distant to do anything about it; unfortunately for the USN their subs no longer have SUBROC.
WilkYeah, god knows the USN never has SSNs with their battle groups.
The probability of an SSN detecting and identifying a slow moving, non-snorkelling SSK (or modern SSN) before it gets within torpedo/ASM range of the destroyer is miniscule.
As for the E-2 needing to stay alive, the flip side is it needs to be killed. Aegis and E-2s teamed up isn’t going to go away with the wave of one’s hands.
Even ignoring the naval/subsurface element, the moment the opponent deploys a weapon in the R-37/K-100 class this entire strategy becomes very risky.
WilkThe US has nearly 30 and will top out at 44 (40 in AK and 4 in California). Might be 34 total, I’ll have to hunt down the info tomorrow. At one point Gates was going to cut it to whatever they had at the time but then decided to go ahead with either 34 or 44.
Yes, please provide the source. If they truly intend to top out at 34 or 44 then that will be insufficient to cover the increase of PRC ICBMs/SLBMs. By 2015, ICBM warheads will be at least 100, possibly far more depending on MIRV. Sea based will be ~180 for the five Type 94’s with 3 warheads per missile, or more than 300 if they end up completing all seven Type 94s and equip with the maximum 4 MIRV each.
I was just making my point that MAD is not a scenario that is possible in a US – China Nuclear Exchange. There are no winners in a Nuclear war but China will lose more than U.S.
I agree that China would lose far more in terms of structural and human damage. That doesn’t change the fact that the US would be severely crippled, and the Russians and EU would be left to be the “super” powers.
As for the Russians launching it I am sure they have means to know when missiles are directed against them or not.
Sure they do, but it means a longer delay for them to respond. In such a scenario, every second is vital. The Russians are quite aware that any US mass strategic launch is aimed at either them or the Chinese (or both). They may not decide to take that risk. Or better yet, they may even decide to let China and the US nuke each other, then finish the US off… All of these are possible (some much more likely than others, of course).
Consequently, it is *very* difficult to believe that the US leadership will start a nuclear war with China unless the very survival of the USA is at stake. And by making that nuclear strike they are actually putting the survival of the USA in jeopardy.
I have never said they will attack Chinese cities in case of a carrier being destroyed, but you can guarantee a large scale conventional/nuclear strike on Chinese military/PLAN. It is likely to be disproportional as well.
You need to stop using conventional and nuclear interchangeably. There is a colossal difference between the two. A “disporportional” conventional response would be very difficult for the US assuming the carriers are taken out of the picture (either sunk or simply threatened and so outside strike range of the PRC). An example of a potentially effective strategy the US could implement would be to use their huge blue water navy to form a naval blockade of China, which the Chinese would have virtually no chance of defeating. But that involves no daisy cutters or disproportionate nuke strikes, so I know that you’d be disappointed.
Actually outright war is quite simple, behind all the sophistry. If A is much much much bigger than B, A can _always_ win. The only thing B can do is to make it cost A more to attack B than take what B is willing to offer on a negotiating table. Giving examples of Vietnam and Iraq is like saying if the attacker gets disgusted with killing countless numbers of the other side for little benefit and withdraws, then its a military success. Its not, its a moral victory, only possible agaisnt democracies with a (belated) conscience. Imagine if Hitler had attacked Iraq or Vietnam. He would have patiently wiped out every one. Expecting enemy to get tired of killing you with your huge population is not a great military strategy.
No, war is not that simple. The world is not black and white. “Democracies” don’t have a “belated” conscience because a political system does not have a conscience! Vietnam and Iraq are unrelated to mythical Chinese ASBMs, and I hereby invoke Godwin’s Law due to your silly involvement of Hitler in this discussion.
But China has to demonstrate at least ONE top notch weapons systems of its own before people will believe in the super secret F22 killers and Carrier Group killers. Any request for veracity is met with theories of chinese super wisdom and art of war.
No one here has mentioned secret F22 killers (?), chinese super wisdom (?) and art of war (?). A weapon system does not have to be “top notch” to be lethal. An IED can destroy an MBT but few would call an IED “top notch.”
The simple fact is, unlike USSR, China became strong by offering the blood and sweat of chinese workers to make the lives of americans better. Chinese workers get paid far less than fair market rates to provide cheap goods and services to americans, to a total of over $2 trillion. US does not want to lose that, esp in these times. I’m not commenting of the fairness of the system, if it works for both sides, good for them. But, this arrangement is a far far more potent weapon (one which is sharp on both sides) than any mythical super weapons in chinese arsenal. This is what makes US hesitate to paint a target on China in public opinion and go full thrust against them, unlike the cold war. This is why US backs off and downplays incidents when chinese try once in a while to assert themselves militarily.
Yes, yes Chinese working like slaves for the Americans. We’ve heard it all before. Of course, if you’d also done your research you’d know that the US isn’t even China’s largest export customer.
On the original topic, It is my opinion that instead of helping the US govt in painting China as a friendly nation to its citizens, while _quietly_ developing military power, if China continues to brag about what a threat it is to US, then US will be forced to focus on containing China and ensuring their overwhelming superiority is retained. It would be wiser to develop real weapons and keep quiet than put out leaks about super weapons.
I do not believe this ballistic missile threat against Carrier groups will achieve anything other than give USN more budget to acquire even more lethal capabilities (missile shields and stand off weaponry) against China in case of a future disagreement over taiwan. Protection of carrier groups is not merely a defensive action is shooting down incoming stuff, but also offensive action to take out enemy capability to launch.
Thank you for your opinion.
Does China really want US to plan which ballistic missile launch centers in China to take out, even at the start of a simple skirmish ?
I suggest investigating what “road-mobile” means.
WilkChina cannot get enough nukes through for the destruction of the US, because a lot of them will be shot down. The reverse is not true. There is a large gap between the countries in ABM tech.
Don’t know where you got “a lot of them will be shot down.” Unless my information is greatly-out-of-date, the US has only 10 interceptors and phase one deployment of the NMD system is still not complete. Even assuming a 100% success rate, that’s still only 10 shot down.
For the Chinese ICBM/SLBM force, the numbers vary significantly depending on the source, but a rough estimate is about 40-50 missiles which can reach the continental US, although a fraction of those can only hit the western side. A few of those *might* be MIRVed. Also, there’s the JL-2 sub launched missiles which are entering service, so add another dozen there assuming the SSBN survives (might have MIRV too). Even assuming NMD works perfectly and the Type 94 gets taken out by an SSN before launch, that’s still 30-40 missiles. Now go look at a map of the US and remove the 30-40 largest cities. Then calculate the economic cost of the loss of those cities. The US won’t be uninhabitable but it sure won’t be a superpower any longer, and possibly not a cohesive political entity either.
Further to that, and perhaps even more importantly, when the Russians detect a major US strategic launch there is a chance that they will launch too… I think that the Chinese are actually betting on that, which is why they’ve never tried to match the US/Russian arsenals.
WilkYes. US will nuke or use massive ordnance like daisy cutters to flatten all chinese naval ports. What will China do ? Nuke US mainland and invite retaliation on all Chinese cities which are so far untouched ?
After the loss of a carrier, you expect that the US will “flatten” Chinese naval ports using daisy cutters?! Tutpriduri already covered this, but I’d like to know – did you think about this for even one second before you posted it?
You mention nuking all ports on the Chinese mainland. I don’t think you quite understand the implications of using nukes in this manner. A nuclear attack on a nuclear power’s mainland is a guarantee that that nuclear power will respond. They would be silly not to. How can the US leadership that started the nuke strikes ensure that the Chinese won’t immediately retaliate? Is the US leadership going to risk the destruction of the USA and millions of lives over the loss of an aircraft carrier?
As I said earlier, two can play at this game. With the level of asymmetry between them, militarily and economically, China will have to blink a lot earlier in the game than USA. It makes sense to be silent and humble _till_ you are ready to reveal you are as strong or more than the adversary. Threatening someone far stronger than you are only makes them focus on you and make sure the gap is never bridged – one way or other.
USSR used to command equal respect from US because they had a demonstrable and verifiable capablity to match the US hit for hit all the way up the escalation ladder.
Your entire argument can be summed up as: A is bigger than B so A can and will always win against B. Unfortunately for you, the world is much, much more complicated than that. Not that it matters, as nobody here is claiming that China is a military equal of the US.
All China has is the ability to hurt the US a little enough to make US think twice about the cost benefits. As long as keeping China alive is beneficial to US (trade etc) and china does not give any real reason for US to attack, China can pretend to be a great power by spreading myths of sinister and superior weapons.
Yes, we had better watch out for the evil communists’ mythical “sinister” weapons.:diablo:
China can’t even make India scared beyond some sabre rattling at the borders. US is way way way beyond.
I have to say I’m impressed. I’ve never seen anyone simplify international relations in such a way. “I’m not scared of you and that other guy is way way way better than you.” Brings back memories of kindergarten…
Each U.S Carrier is in-effect a city on the move. I think its indoctrinated that the sinking of carrier will be taken as an attack on American soil.
IMHO the Chinese are smart enough not to try that.
No one cares what it’s indoctrinated as. It’s a military vessel fighting inside a war zone. That makes it a legitimate, high-value target. It is highly improbable that the US leadership will initiate MAD over the loss of a warship in conventional combat.
WilkAmerica is not going broke not anytime soon…300 million people have a 14 trillion dollar economy for all the gloom and doom today.
“Enron is not going broke anytime soon… 20,000 employees have a 100 billion dollar revenue for all the gloom and doom today”
“Don’t worry folks, everything is under control. It’s too big to fail!”
More seriously, using calculated GDP as a guarantee of future financial (and political) stability is completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that trillion+ dollar deficits are sustainable?
What does China have with 1.3 billion?
The world’s biggest manufacturing industry, the world’s biggest budget surplus, and the fastest growing major economy to name just a few. For all their faults (and they do have many), they’re aren’t doing too shabby.
It will be suicide for any country to try and take out a American carrier group.
Lol, what? If China (or anyone else) managed to take out a CVBG using conventional weapons, what exactly do you expect the US to do? Nuke China?
WilkI’m sure the USN would just LOVE an enemy to sortie “hundreds” of his aircraft at a couple of orbiting E-2Ds directing SM-6 traffic.
And I’m sure that the PLAN would LOVE to have the USN advertise the position of a few destroyers 200 miles of their coast so that they can get blown away by 636s/Type 39s that, at that range, wouldn’t even need to snorkel to get to them.
WilkEasy. Park a few E-2Ds 200 miles offshore with a few SM-6 armed Aegis up there with it. Use the CEC capability and then have the CVBG 100 miles behind that. Now you’re only 300 miles offshore. You could probably tighten it up further if you wanted to. Go ahead and let your aircraft try to run that gauntlet, it will be expensive.
Easy… since BAMS has ranges of thousands of NM, I just fly my Global Hawks the long way around your E-2Ds and come at the CVBG from behind.
Now you are playing the attrition game with the hope that your adversary runs out of missiles before you do. That isn’t a game I’d want to play without some assurance that I have overwhelming odds in my favor.
So now your BAMS is a missile?
Who said anything about BAMS being a missile? If you’re “parking” E-2Ds a mere 200 miles from the defender’s shore, do you seriously expect the defender not to try to take them out? At only 200 miles, the defender can sortie large numbers of aircraft from many inland airbases that will still have the range to reach the E-2D. Can your carrier keep enough aircraft in the air to protect those E-2Ds against potentially hundreds of inbound bandits that can pop up from as little as 200 miles away? Again, we’re talking about a so-called “US peer state”, or let’s say even the present-day PRC.
WilkIn my laymans logic, this is a useless weapon whose only effect will be to get US congress provide even greater budgets to US navy for strategic anti missile capability.
Not a very smart move by china.
I disagree, seems like a very smart move to me. The Chinese now have a mysterious missile which may or may not exist, and may or may not pose a threat to a carrier. Either way they win – the US either continues going broke by spending billions it doesn’t have to protect itself against a missile which doesn’t exist, or in the event of a conflict, it’s forced to operate its carriers under tighter restrictions in case the missile does exist.
WilkThe concept of outer pickets is nothing new so do try not to sound quite so scandalised!. Yes there would be danger to the decoy group – this would be mitigated by offboard support of course as all effort would, naturally, be made to arrange ahead of time.
You just said the destroyers are 300nm away from the main group, so where and what is this offboard support you speak of? I could just say the ISR assets will be protected by “offboard support” too, all “arranged ahead of time.”
The point was raised that a US peer-state with a comprehensive offshore ISR net could detect, track and engage a US CV group at a range which made the F-35C’s inadequate to task. My point here was that there are techniques to defeat ISR that call that statement into doubt.
The original point by djcross was that ISR could force a fleet to stand off a thousand miles or more from shore. Whether it can actually track a CVN is another question, but it’s not important here. What it does do, as you yourself admitted, is force the carrier group to commit additional resources and maintain a further distance from shore. You mention pickets of ships 300nm from the main group, which themselves will of course be at a minimum 200-300nm from shore. So now the carrier is at least 500-600nm from shore. How do you propose to attack the defender now? Your F-35’s will be forced to strike at the extreme limit of their combat radius, and won’t be able to strike targets far beyond the defender’s shores. Is this becoming the case of the carrier group existing to protect the carrier, as opposed to actually hitting the enemy? On top of this, each of the group’s ships is individually more vulnerable due to the distances between them.
Sign In
