Anti-Carrier Trump Card
- Thread starter Chairman Hu
- Start date
well.... at 1st i would just like to observe and read all d postings but after reading d posts from IDonT, i can sense the typical ignorance & ********** he said their missile is accurate and can strike anywhere in d world, yet there r so many civillain casualties caused by tomahawk missile in Iraq, n what makes him think US knows each & every secret bunker n missile silo china has. AND he is so proud of US nukes capability that he is boasting it to the world n the way he mentioned it is as if US countrymen are heartless & would use it to threat any country dat goes against its will. duh~~ naive boy who never went through d misery of war, there r arguments dat said China defence budget is deflated and wud makes u think they will report d correct figures of nuke they have.
To IDonT, dun always be sure of victories will come wherever d US army goes, they claimed vivtory at Iraq n Afghan yet their military casualties r increasing by the day, there is this saying dat said dun boast of victory when the match had not took place, anything might happen in this world. Wise up boy
To IDonT, dun always be sure of victories will come wherever d US army goes, they claimed vivtory at Iraq n Afghan yet their military casualties r increasing by the day, there is this saying dat said dun boast of victory when the match had not took place, anything might happen in this world. Wise up boy
Last edited by a moderator:
jimmyttl said:
First - You are detracting from the topic
Second - My nuke post were in response to few members here who are so trigger happy about using nukes to hit a CSG. I was just mainly telling the consequence of going nuclear against the US.
Third - US missiles are accurate but they don't discrimate between military personnel and civilian.
4th - Nuclear blast radius + Pin point accuracy ensures target destruction.
5th - I don't exactly know where all the PRC's nukes are hidden. You don't know where they are hidden.
6th - Conquering 2 countries in 2 years tells something about how good US forces are.
7th - Military casualties are due to occupation not military battles. (there is a difference)
8th - I know you will respond with but the US has not win in Iraq/Afghanistan yet. Let answer with this, why do they need to lose their country first before they can get it back. Wouldn't it be better if they did not lose it in the first place
9th - No more posting about nukes, we are trying to assess China's naval capabilities against US carrier groups
10th - I will not reply to any posts about nukes in this thread.
IDonT
IDonT said:
Just as the US has satellites to keep track of the PLAN, China has plenty of satellites to keep an eye on the USN too:
If the USN fleet is positioned 400 miles away from China, it'd be hopeless to think any PLAN surface ships could move toward it without being spotted.
The obvious choice would be to send an air strike and use air-launched anti-ship missiles. No missile defense system is perfect. If you can shoot enough missiles at it, sooner or later you'd score a hit.
In such case the question would be, how well can the PLAAF perform against the F-18's, can enough JH-7A or other strike aircraft get within missile launch range, how many strike aircraft can you send, and what are the anti-ship missile's guidance system, performance, and range.
Under ideal conditions, you'd have PLAAF fighters enage the carrier aircraft, and have your strike aircraft launch long-range "fire and forget" anti-ship missiles in large numbers, then run back to base. i.e. if each JH-7A can carry 4 anti-ship missiles, a squadron of 15 planes = 60 anti-ship missiles.
adeptitus said:
Scenario 1
The main problem with recon sats. is that they are not geo-synchronos. They have a predictable orbit path. Assuming that the sattillites pick up the general direction of the Surface Action group (SAG), it still doesn't provide you with a target solution.
Here is my actions:
Send a maritime survellaince craft to shadow the SAG and keep a radar contact with it. Even without CAP, this is still a very dangerous assignment for the recon unit. The radar detection range of the recon craft must be longer than the range of the Standard ER. IF not, then this will not work. But lets assume that the the recon craft is outside SAM range.
Once radar contact is made, refuel and arm all aircraft capable of carrying anti-ship missiles. Approach the SAG by flying below the horizon to minimize detection and avoid SAM. Flying low reduces aircraft range, therefore ordinance number will not be as great as you will need to carry extra fuel tanks. As soon as radar contact is made, fire the missiles and head for home.
IF the SAG commander is smart, he will know to anticipate a strike and will endevour to move away from aircraft range at flank speed and set up a SAM trap by dispatching part of the SAG towards the threat axis. A sam trap theory is that you move a warship down the anticipated path of the strike. Since attacking aircraft is not anticipating the ship to be closer than expected, they will be caught with heavy ordinance and become targets to Sams.
Overall, attacking 4 Aegis equipped warships is still a hard task. You need to have an immense number of anti-ship missiles to accomplish the task.
That is assuming that the ships play a defensive posture. The two LA subs could preempt the strike by launching tomahawk missiles on the strike aircraft's airfields.
For the other two scenario's they are beyond current PLA's capabilities.
Last edited:
I doubt any of us know the exact number and capability of Chinese spy satellites. I can only cite other sources. As of 1997, the PRC had launched 40 domestically made satellites into orbit, out of which 17 were classified as military use:
Last year, an article on Reuters claim that the PRC intends to put over 100 geosync satellits by 2020 in space over its territory:
As for GPS guidance, I'd point ya'll to the following articles:
"China's GPS accuracy to 12m"
"China joins EU space program to break US GPS monopoly"
And of course, from Sinodefense web page:
Since the Beidou satellites are geostationary, we can conclude that China does have the technology level to launch and maintain such satellites.
=======================
As for anti-ship missiles vs. Aegis-equipped warships, we also need to look at the missile's capability. An effective anti-ship missile today needs to have evasion capability against anti-missile defense systems. The Kongsberg/EADS NSM, for an example, is designed with stealth profile to avoid detection:
(Photo to right is NSM)
Just as missile defense systems have improved, anti-ship missile technology doesn't need to be stuck in the exocet/silkworm era.
In the end, ships at sea are slow moving targets at sea, with limited space for munitions & supplies. Land-based strike aircraft can fly much faster and has almost "unlimited" space for supplies and munitions. Even if a USN sub were able to launch missiles at a PLAAF airfield, the airfield can be quickly repaired and aircraft flown in from elsewhere. A ship at sea does not have such luxery, once damaged you can only perform limited repairs, and munitions spent are gone until replenishment.
Last year, an article on Reuters claim that the PRC intends to put over 100 geosync satellits by 2020 in space over its territory:
As for GPS guidance, I'd point ya'll to the following articles:
"China's GPS accuracy to 12m"
"China joins EU space program to break US GPS monopoly"
And of course, from Sinodefense web page:
Since the Beidou satellites are geostationary, we can conclude that China does have the technology level to launch and maintain such satellites.
=======================
As for anti-ship missiles vs. Aegis-equipped warships, we also need to look at the missile's capability. An effective anti-ship missile today needs to have evasion capability against anti-missile defense systems. The Kongsberg/EADS NSM, for an example, is designed with stealth profile to avoid detection:
(Photo to right is NSM)
Just as missile defense systems have improved, anti-ship missile technology doesn't need to be stuck in the exocet/silkworm era.
In the end, ships at sea are slow moving targets at sea, with limited space for munitions & supplies. Land-based strike aircraft can fly much faster and has almost "unlimited" space for supplies and munitions. Even if a USN sub were able to launch missiles at a PLAAF airfield, the airfield can be quickly repaired and aircraft flown in from elsewhere. A ship at sea does not have such luxery, once damaged you can only perform limited repairs, and munitions spent are gone until replenishment.
Last edited:
TJJH said:
Submarine warfare generally states that the faster you move, the louder you are. The louder you are, the less likely will you hear the other submarine.
How can this missile's guidance system possibly know where a sub is at this speed? How well can it manuever at this speed?
Here is the scenario from the link:
Picture this scenario... A Los Angeles class and a Russian Akula Class submarine hunt each other. The Los Angeles is first to fire, releasing a conventional Mark 48 torpedo into the water. Upon launch of the Mark 48 a retaliatory VA-111 Shkval is fired down the trajectory of the incoming torpedo, straight at the Los Angeles class, forcing it to maneuver and thus cut the guidance wire to its own fish! Furthermore, the close range of modern submarine engagements would in all likelihood result in the Los Angeles class being incapable of maneuvering out of the path of the Shvkal in the fleeting few seconds between launch and impact.
1.) It assumes that the incoming trajectory of the Mk48 ADCAP is where the LA sub is. LA has the capability to manuever their fish to approach their target at any bearing.
2.) It assumes that the Shkval has sonar that it can acquire its target at such speeds while super cavitating.
3.) IT assumes that a Mk 48 ADCAP with its wires cut will become useless and not acquire the Akula.
4.) LA's optimal position for tracking and firing a Russian sub is directly behind them. Russians are blind in the rear. In the cold war, Russian subs always do the crazy IVAN manuever. IF this is the case, can this torpedo do a 180 degree turn at those speeds?