China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[gadgetcool5]

If not...than why worry about it and than talk about it in the first place? Let the PLA do their own thang to see if it's true in the end.

No. That's not a very good way to fight a war (which hopefully it never comes to that, but even in a hypothetical sense). You don't just "do your thang" to experiment what the opposing side's capability is. No, this is, at least, a serious question that needs to be investigated.

 

[Equation]

No. That's not a very good way to fight a war (which hopefully it never comes to that, but even in a hypothetical sense). You don't just "do your thang" to experiment what the opposing side's capability is. No, this is, at least, a serious question that needs to be investigated.

The "serious question ONLY needs to be investigated" is because the rising power (China) is taking over the losing power (US). Bottom line is China is not going to adhere to the bullying of "rule base international order" led by the US and they should NOT have to. World peace does NOT revolve around the US military might.

 

[AssassinsMace]

The US Naval War College has conducted war games simulations on the US Navy attacking China for around three decades. The US Navy has lost every single one of them. They can't get past how China can send swarms of cheap anti-ship missiles at them. They haven't solved that problem in three decades. When the cost of a ASBM is only a fraction of what it cost build a US carrier the logic that China is going to go bankrupt is flawed. If China was building carriers to beat how many the US has, that would be something else. A far less expensive weapon that can destroy a very expensive carrier reigns king.

 

[ougoah]

The US Naval War College has conducted war games simulations on the US Navy attacking China for around three decades. The US Navy has lost every single one of them. They can't get past how China can send swarms of cheap anti-ship missiles at them. They haven't solved that problem in three decades. When the cost of a ASBM is only a fraction of what it cost build a US carrier the logic that China is going to go bankrupt is flawed. If China was building carriers to beat how many the US has, that would be something else. A far less expensive weapon that can destroy a very expensive carrier reigns king.

It's not the cost of AShM or AShBM compared to cost of carrier. It's compared to the cost of an interceptor and an interceptor, even an American one, is probably much cheaper and easier to make than a AShBM and probably about the same as a Chinese AShM or cruise missile. It's complicated by attrition and both sides engaging launching platforms and further complicated by aircraft. They can intercept a good portion of what China can throw at the moment which is why China is not standing still and proliferating various kinds of hypersonic glide and AShBM to add much more weight behind their access denial while strengthening the fleets and aiming towards building an equally capable and numerous carrier and submarine fleet in decades time.

More secretive wonder weapons in the electromagnetic form are scarcely talked about or given public disclosure. Both sides are probably of the understanding that the EM spectrum is where all this naval arms race is fought and won. Imagine being able to disrupt and cripple the entire arsenal of your opponent's wares from their navigation to targeting to weapons to sensors and comms. I think where Russia and then China put a lot of stock into defeating US CBGs with more pure firepower and sophistication in the capabilities of that throwing weight, the US have long focused on the EM spectrum and introduced things like NEMESIS (disclosed albeit shadowy). China has been working on and probably fielded many EMP weapons but China's probably still playing catch up in these departments. Not sure how effective a naval railgun could be if there are hundreds of F-35s coming at you and the targeted surface vessels are out of reach even if your satellites and high altitude drones can provide some tracking.

 

[AssassinsMace]

It's not the cost of AShM or AShBM compared to cost of carrier. It's compared to the cost of an interceptor and an interceptor, even an American one, is probably much cheaper and easier to make than a AShBM and probably about the same as a Chinese AShM or cruise missile. It's complicated by attrition and both sides engaging launching platforms and further complicated by aircraft. They can intercept a good portion of what China can throw at the moment which is why China is not standing still and proliferating various kinds of hypersonic glide and AShBM to add much more weight behind their access denial while strengthening the fleets and aiming towards building an equally capable and numerous carrier and submarine fleet in decades time.

More secretive wonder weapons in the electromagnetic form are scarcely talked about or given public disclosure. Both sides are probably of the understanding that the EM spectrum is where all this naval arms race is fought and won. Imagine being able to disrupt and cripple the entire arsenal of your opponent's wares from their navigation to targeting to weapons to sensors and comms. I think where Russia and then China put a lot of stock into defeating US CBGs with more pure firepower and sophistication in the capabilities of that throwing weight, the US have long focused on the EM spectrum and introduced things like NEMESIS (disclosed albeit shadowy). China has been working on and probably fielded many EMP weapons but China's probably still playing catch up in these departments. Not sure how effective a naval railgun could be if there are hundreds of F-35s coming at you.

That's if you believe their interceptors works as they hype. Every time you see them tested it's two interceptors at one missile and at the most ideal of conditions. Never seen it dealing with a swarm. China is not going to fire one missile and wait to see it it hits before firing another.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

It's compared to the cost of an interceptor and an interceptor, even an American one, is probably much cheaper and easier to make than a AShBM and probably about the same as a Chinese AShM or cruise missile.

---

You sure about that?

If China was building carriers to beat how many the US has, that would be something else.

It's going to, you can be certain of that. China will have both the best defensive and offensive weapons.

 

[ougoah]

That's if you believe their interceptors works as they hype. Every time you see them tested it's two interceptors at one missile and at the most ideal of conditions. Never seen it dealing with a swarm. China is not going to fire one missile and wait to see it it hits before firing another.

Of course though. It's also immensely stupid to imagine their interceptors won't work perfectly and all Chinese missiles will. Prepare for the absolute worst case scenarios and hope for the best. I feel like you're strawmanning a little here. What you said earlier about comparing costs of a Chinese missile vs cost of carrier, well that's not how the situation should be assessed.

---

You sure about that?

It's going to, you can be certain of that. China will have both the best defensive and offensive weapons.

Not sure about that which is why I said probably. I figure Chinese AShBM do cost quite a bit, I imagine it's more than an SM-3 and SM-2 combined. Could be wrong but none of us know.

Let's count our chickens well after they hatch and refrain from Jai Hinding this "will have" "the best" stuff.

 

[Jono]

speaking as an amateur, I believe the USN is facing a real dilemma in the Taiwan Strait and SCS.
sure, the USN is number 1 in the world right now. USN can sail anywhere in the world with impunity.
But, it has never fought a strong and determined peer before.....
China's plethora of anti-ship weapons are real threats, while the USN's defense against them exists only on paper, and untested.
should the USN come to the vicinity of China to fight in a time of crisis and face those real threats?
sure, it might win, perhaps a pyrrhic victory at best.
but it might just lose, and lose mightily. ( 2-3 carriers lost to ASBM ) then America can kiss Asia, and its global hegemony goodbye.
it's a huge gamble, with very high stakes at risk.
my personal bet is that the US political elites won't take it.

 

[quantumlight]

speaking as an amateur, I believe the USN is facing a real dilemma in the Taiwan Strait and SCS.
sure, the USN is number 1 in the world right now. USN can sail anywhere in the world with impunity.
But, it has never fought a strong and determined peer before.....
China's plethora of anti-ship weapons are real threats, while the USN's defense against them exists only on paper, and untested.
should the USN come to the vicinity of China to fight in a time of crisis and face those real threats?
sure, it might win, perhaps a pyrrhic victory at best.
but it might just lose, and lose mightily. ( 2-3 carriers lost to ASBM ) then America can kiss Asia, and its global hegemony goodbye.
it's a huge gamble, with very high stakes at risk.
my personal bet is that the US political elites won't take it.

America has been taking more and more riskier bets lately, some overt, many covert. US views China as THE threat to its global hegemony and knows if status quo that China will win. So I think it's just matter of time before they use this card too...

 

[AssassinsMace]

Of course though. It's also immensely stupid to imagine their interceptors won't work perfectly and all Chinese missiles will. Prepare for the absolute worst case scenarios and hope for the best. I feel like you're strawmanning a little here. What you said earlier about comparing costs of a Chinese missile vs cost of carrier, well that's not how the situation should be assessed.

Yes hence why a swarm. They will have spread their interceptors.