Chinese cruise and anti-ship missiles
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
As we have it... the PLAN might have fielded operationally the ASBM system... and to many, it seemed to be the ultimate carrier killers... but I really doubt it. Against nations with one or two carriers, this weapon system might be quite a good deterrence... but against nations like US, who have huge number of escorts with each of their carrier, I really doubt that the ballistic missile might have a chance to hit that carrier.
Also I have this enquiries:
1) How many of these missiles are operational now and in five years time? Ten? Twenty?
2) What is the effectiveness of these missiles, the accuracy of these missiles? Please note that carriers are small in occean, and ballistic missiles are not known for the precision accuracy.
3) Cost of each missile. If it is going to be huge... I doubt that China could or would field a massive number of them.
And from all present statistic or data that we can easily get from the internet, it seemed that US never let their enemy or potential enemy strike first. It is not in their doctrine. Thats why we have premptive strike measures.
And so I doubt US carriers would be in the area when they suspect a strike would be make using this form of weapons, and instead launch their long range missiles to take out these missiles first before moving in.
So seriously, these ASBM might be fanciful and could actually work pretty well... but that is... against what opponents?
Also I have this enquiries:
1) How many of these missiles are operational now and in five years time? Ten? Twenty?
2) What is the effectiveness of these missiles, the accuracy of these missiles? Please note that carriers are small in occean, and ballistic missiles are not known for the precision accuracy.
3) Cost of each missile. If it is going to be huge... I doubt that China could or would field a massive number of them.
And from all present statistic or data that we can easily get from the internet, it seemed that US never let their enemy or potential enemy strike first. It is not in their doctrine. Thats why we have premptive strike measures.
And so I doubt US carriers would be in the area when they suspect a strike would be make using this form of weapons, and instead launch their long range missiles to take out these missiles first before moving in.
So seriously, these ASBM might be fanciful and could actually work pretty well... but that is... against what opponents?
Engineer
Major
Obviously, China must solve this issue inorder to field an ASBM. People who argue against the effectiveness of ASBM keep on making the assumption that ASBM can only be used on static targets, or have the accuracy of a SCUD missile. Essentially, the argument uses the assumption that ASBM doesn't work to prove ASBM doesn't work, which is silly.
If China fields ASBM, then ASBM is effective, period. There is no need to question its effectiveness. Otherwise, it would not be fielded. If China hasn't field ASBM, then that means it isn't effective yet. It's that simple.
Consider China has well over 1000 missiles facing Taiwan alone, there is no reason to doubt that China would not field an enough number to form an effective deterrant.
The same argument could be used to question the carriers effectiveness against China. If China knows that war is imminent, it isn't going to sit around waiting for US to strike first. China would have flattened all US bases in Asia and actively hunting for the carriers, and ASBMs wouldn't be the only threat.
That's a silly question to ask. China has one and only one opponent in mind when investing in the ASBM. As to the system's effectiveness, consider my earlier argument; if China fields ASBM, then ASBM is effective, period. Everything would have been debated down to the last detail long before any design began, and those debates are done by people with a lot more information and technical knowledge than everyone on this board combined.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The ASBM being so cost-prohibitive plus it doesn't work is a contradiction. If it doesn't work, why bother spending the money? Psychological effect? Then all you need to spend is for the shell not what the fantasy technology would actually cost. If it did work, there would be a budget to ensure effective deterrence and not for just a handful.
Last edited:
This is just your assumption. Ever heard of a thing call - Bad decision or wrong decision?
Just because China or any country in this world field something, doesn't automatically mean that something is effective or what. There are always data to collect, information to collect, etc. Who knows, in near future China might just said that the ASBM does not meet their requirement and so they abandone it. Then what arguement are you going to give?
Plus, like I have pointed out before in another thread, we are all wowed by China recent military and technological advancement. But have we seriously taken the advancement of US in consideration?
China is not the only country had is growing. Although her growth is incredible and she achieved alot in recent years, but that is also because she started at quite a low base... But US is already quite established... she had more or less perfected the carrier borne capabilities, she had better information relay systems and she is by no means sitting duck. And if the global strike capabilities or something like that is in place and fully functional... it will give any nation hell.
I remembered the time when China shoot down a decommissioned satellite with their land base missile - the first of any nation... however just one or two years later, US shoot down a satellite too... with seabase missile, they could even track and 'chase' that satellite in a global scenario, which I think is by no mean anything lower than China. Although you could argue that the level is different, China's satellite is higher up (in a sense) but given China's capability now, do you really think she could achieve what the US could, sorry... I really doubt that.
I am not questioning or doubting China's leadership decision... just pointed out some concerns.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
This is from FYJS.
Google translated
Google translated
Not really. they could just pretend that it is fielded to mislead the US. PLA is very opaque
Those 1000 missiles are SRBM. DF-21 is MRBM. Far more costly. And they would really have to be deployed across china´s entire coast, which isnt small. Like the coming USA-SK demonstrates, they cant neglect their north and central coast regions.
Its hard to pretend when all the test can be easily tracked by US satelite..
That is how China ASAT test being exposed by US.
ASBM is no different. It need to be tested long distance strike like at least 1000km and no way, it can be concealed..
US is also no idiot and they can be mislead so easily when you field some non operation stastic model or system with no operation effectiveness.
Engineer
Major
Bad decision? Sure it is possible but highly improbable, and I will explain why in a moment. Beside, now it is you who are making assumptions.
Sure it does. No sane party would invest massively in a weapon system that isn't proven to be effective. Deploying such weapon system therefore implies the system is effective. The more costly the system, the more scrutinies it received before design work began, hence the less chance it would be a bad decision or will not be effective when relied upon, therefore provide more guarantee that the weapon system will be effective when deployed. The scrutiny regarding the requirement of ASBM have long passed, so the chance of it being found "not meeting requirement" just before deployment is zero. The only question remains is whether China actually got it working.
US has always been the standard when we measured China progress. China's advance is incredible because it is incredible compared to what US has achieved in the same amount of time. Had US made advancement by the same percentage, you wouldn't have called China's progress "incredible".
You are now trying to compare what China has now to some unforeseen breakthroughs from the US in the future, which is not a valid comparison. A more valid comparison is what China has done vs. what US has done, and we can see that China already has beaten the US in a few areas with ASAT being the prominent example.
No. You are definitely questioning China's decisions, decisions that have been made after long and hard debates by experts.