055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Equation]

The problem is that they wouldn't be dispersed over the entirety of China, only the eastern portion of China, and mostly the northeastern portion, otherwise the missiles wouldn't have the range to strike the continental US or have the civilian and environmental cover to hide in.

That disperse area alone is even hard to detect and destroy for any opposing force if their strike force can make it pass the A2/AD line without a scratch.

 

[Iron Man]

That disperse area alone is even hard to detect and destroy for any opposing force if their strike force can make it pass the A2/AD line without a scratch.

That's what satellites, nukes, and long range cruise missiles are for. No need to penetrate an A2/AD line.

 

[Equation]

That's what satellites, nukes, and long range cruise missiles are for. No need to penetrate an A2/AD line.

That's what ASAT and DF-21D and DF-26 are for. Even cruise missiles needs satellites to get close enough to shore to strike it's targets, not to mention guidance as well.

 

[Iron Man]

That's what ASAT and DF-21D and DF-26 are for. Even cruise missiles needs satellites to get close enough to shore to strike it's targets, not to mention guidance as well.

DF-21D and DF-26 have no role in the preventing the US from targeting inland TELs for destruction. Submarines launching cruise missiles from a thousand km away and Minuteman IIIs launched from Wyoming are not affected by either of those missiles. As for ASAT, it's not some kind of magic bullet that will immediately and completely nullify US sat intel. It will be a matter of attrition, and just as China has backup plans to immediately replace destroyed satellites (e.g. using its LM-11 fast-launch rocket), the US also has backup plans to replace satellites.

 

[Equation]

DF-21D and DF-26 have no role in the preventing the US from targeting inland TELs for destruction. Submarines launching cruise missiles from a thousand km away and Minuteman IIIs launched from Wyoming are not affected by either of those missiles. As for ASAT, it's not some kind of magic bullet that will immediately and completely nullify US sat intel. It will be a matter of attrition, and just as China has backup plans to immediately replace destroyed satellites (e.g. using its LM-11 fast-launch rocket), the US also has backup plans to replace satellites.

Gotta find those inland TELs first before firing, that alone is difficult to find. Other wise China can also return fire with their hidden silos and SSBN as well.

 

[Iron Man]

I'm not saying finding those TELs are easy. If it were easy there would be no point in having TELs in the first place. My point is that TELs will not be dispersed over ALL of China, only certain parts, and that this will increase their vulnerability more than would be implied if they could actually deploy anywhere inside China.

 

[Equation]

I'm not saying finding those TELs are easy. If it were easy there would be no point in having TELs in the first place. My point is that TELs will not be dispersed over ALL of China, only certain parts, and that this will increase their vulnerability more than would be implied if they could actually deploy anywhere inside China.

And I am saying it is not. China is a huge enough country to hide the majority of those TELs even just on the eastern part alone is hard already to find them. It's like searching the TELs that covers from the east coast of the US from the state of Main to Florida which is a daunting task for any adversary in a limited number of time before getting discovered and get shot back.

 

[Iron Man]

And I am saying it is not. China is a huge enough country to hide the majority of those TELs even just on the eastern part alone is hard already to find them. It's like searching the TELs that covers from the east coast of the US from the state of Main to Florida which is a daunting task for any adversary in a limited number of time before getting discovered and get shot back.

We disagree, that is all.

 

[Richard Santos]

I think SSBNs are useful, but also distinctly vulnerable because if you lose one, it is a huge portion of the nuclear deterrent.

It would be better? to have a number of road-mobile missiles that can disperse and hide over China's landmass which is the same size as the continental USA.

Land based road mobile missiles are still restricted to the host country's contiguous territory, unless the country is as extensive as Russia and all of it is utilized for hosting missiles, road mobile missiles still represent a well defined threat tube for American ballistic missile defense, unless the Df-41 has a unacknowledged fractional orbit bombardment capability.

SSBN on the other hand, can potentially threaten the target from any direction. Thus an effective SSBN force able to truly patrol in distant oceans represents an exponentially more difficult problem for area ballistic missile defense than land based road mobile ballistic missiles.

 

[antiterror13]

Land based road mobile missiles are still restricted to the host country's contiguous territory, unless the country is as extensive as Russia and all of it is utilized for hosting missiles, road mobile missiles still represent a well defined threat tube for American ballistic missile defense, unless the Df-41 has a unacknowledged fractional orbit bombardment capability.

SSBN on the other hand, can potentially threaten the target from any direction. Thus an effective SSBN force able to truly patrol in distant oceans represents an exponentially more difficult problem for area ballistic missile defense than land based road mobile ballistic missiles.

very true ... the best approach (if you can afford it) is like China, Russia and the US ... having the TRIAD (Land, Sea and Air) launchers