Chinese cruise and anti-ship missiles

cloyce

Junior Member
1. Not all areas can be heavily defended, as no nation has the ability to heavily protect all of their assets across a large area. There will be gaps, and those gaps will be exploited.

2. GPS guided munitions are not rendered useless due to jamming of the GPS signal. GPS guided munitions are primarily INS guided, with GPS used to fine tune the targeting. In such cases, the CEP usually increases, but such increases are still within acceptable limits.

1. China has no holes in airspace defence. Big long wave radars and other passive sensors has 300-1000 km range.

2. These munitions receive their starting position from the launching aircraft, which has to rely on GPS signal for precise positioning since it has already flew thousands of km from base. INS guidance is useless if your starting position is not enough precise.
 

mkhan

New Member
"Under international law, you cannot deliberately target civilians with lethal force. In war, you must do your utmost best to preserve civilian life, and if any civilian is caught in acts of sabotage, they must be charged criminally, or let go"


I have no idea what world are you living in but international law means crap when it confronts major world powers. Or have you been sleeping through the various current wars US and its allies are involved in?

Iraq war was illegal under international law and guess what happened? There have been thousands of afghan and iraqi civilian casualties (The number is much much higher according to UN reports) caused as a direct result of Allies bombings and yet there is no war crimes investigation... nada zilch.

As for civilians that have to be let go.... have you ever heard of Guantanamo bay? Hundreds of people were held there for years.... a large number were released later (after being tortured for years ) without any legal proceedings ever brought against them... and most of them did not even get so much as a "ooopss our bad" from US.

So much for the international law.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
This is getting ridiculous! :rolleyes:

1. Not all areas can be heavily defended, as no nation has the ability to heavily protect all of their assets across a large area. There will be gaps, and those gaps will be exploited.

In order to take out heavily fortified hard targets, you will need to use heavy penetrators. And these typically don't have a very long range. That means you need to fly very close to the target to drop your weapon. In this case, it pretty much means overflying the Chinese mainland.

The B2 is not some magical invisible plane that cannot be found or shot down. Low frequency radars have been proven to be able to detect stealth aircraft. Not with nearly enough degree of accuracy to guide a missile with, but certainly enough to vector fighters in with.

In addition, stealth aircraft are not invisible to radar, they just reduce the effective range of radars. You get a powerful enough radar close enough and it will get a return. This will be especially true if the radar is hitting the stealth from a sub-optimal angle for stealth.

Even if your B2s slip past the fighter screen, there is every chance such important nodes will be point defended. An S300 or HQ9 battery sitting on the node will make the B2's day very interesting trying to get that close to one of the most powerful air search radars in operation without being detected. Even some Tors/HQ7s and or LD2000s etc deployed on site will make the attacker's job much harder, since you now need to try and saturate the defenses as well.

If you send B2s against targets in mainland China without first gaining air superiority, they will get shot down. Maybe not all of them, but at two billion a piece, do you really want to make that trade?

GPS guided munitions are not rendered useless due to jamming of the GPS signal. GPS guided munitions are primarily INS guided, with GPS used to fine tune the targeting. In such cases, the CEP usually increases, but such increases are still within acceptable limits.

Oh really? How big do you think these nodes will be?

Under international law, you cannot deliberately target civilians with lethal force. In war, you must do your utmost best to preserve civilian life, and if any civilian is caught in acts of sabotage, they must be charged criminally, or let go.

Civilians engaging in military activities are no-longer civilians. As soon as you actively target military infrastructure or even aids in carrying out such attacks, you make yourself a 'combatant' and valid target.

Besides, all talk of international law is pure BS. If you go recruiting skippers with the promise that if they get blown to bits doing what you ask then you will take the attacker to court, maybe, and they will tell you where to stick your offer.

There are any number of things China can do to counter such a pathetic attempt of an attack. The simplest and most cost effective would be to declare those areas as mined. Drop a few mines there for the cameras and sink anything unfriendly that wonders in say they hit mines. If you go wondering into a clearly marked minefield, its your own bloody fault if you get blown to bits.

No it isn't; its a civil court issue. In short, you can only sue the person who might have cut the cable, and only to recover the cost of repairs.
.

You clearly have no idea about law, and the very idea is plainly ridiculous.

Deliberate sabotage of key military infrastructure not a mere civil claims court issue as you seem to think. You can face massive fines and prison time or worse if tried and found guilty of such an office in pretty much every country, and China is not particularly forgiving of such offenses, so its plain laughable that even someone caught doing this is peacetime could hope to get away with no other consequence than being ordered to pay the cost of repairs.

In addition, in times or war, normal rules go out the window. If you disregard clear warnings and plain common sense to actively engage in offensive attacks on someone's military infrastructure in an active war zone, then you need to be retarded to not think you will get shot as soon as you get caught in the act.

What more, as has already been pointed out. All China needs to do is to lay its cables in its EEZ and no foreign trawler will ever have any valid excuse to be trawling anywhere near it. Try and the Chinese coast guard will round them up all day long, laughing while they do it.

So this bright idea is plain stupid no matter when you try it.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
1. China has no holes in airspace defence. Big long wave radars and other passive sensors has 300-1000 km range.

Thats plain wrong. No nation on earth can hope to claim there are no holes in their air defense.

The second point is valid provided GPS jamming works. However, this has not been proven to be effective yet.
 

Engineer

Major
It is valid on a technical level due to the nature of networks.
Nope. It is invalid because you are still comparing China to Iraq.

1. Not all areas can be heavily defended, as no nation has the ability to heavily protect all of their assets across a large area. There will be gaps, and those gaps will be exploited.
There is no need to defend every square meter of a nation, only those that are deemed important; important targets like those communication nodes that you claimed to be so easily taken down by assuming that they will be under gaps of air defense.

2. GPS guided munitions are not rendered useless due to jamming of the GPS signal. GPS guided munitions are primarily INS guided, with GPS used to fine tune the targeting. In such cases, the CEP usually increases, but such increases are still within acceptable limits.
Hand waving in the air with "acceptable limits", but what exactly is acceptable and what is the limit? GPS is there for a reason. If the bombs can always find themselves to be in the "acceptable" CEP with INS, there won't even be any need to include GPS. Even when GPS is working, there are still a lot of collateral damages (bombs not hitting their intended targets) suggesting that a) the bombs are really not as accurate as myths portrait them to be and b) there are whole lot more that could go wrong other than bomb guidance.

All that is required is to give trawler crews areas they are to trawl, and let the individual captains of the trawlers to make their decision as to how they wish to proceed.
Directing trawlers to an area is a form of coordination. Like I've said, military operation requires coordination no matter how "small" it is, thus require equipments for coordination, specifically equipments that enable secure communications. Even when assuming these equipments are available, you still fail to explain how hundred of trawlers can move up and down off the coastline of China unhindered. You failed to explain how these trawlers, being private assets, can be used by the military. You failed to explain how civilian crews would be suicidial enough to go on such sucide missions. You also failed to explain how military crew can operate a fishing trawler and its specialized equipments with no prior experience.

Under international law, you cannot deliberately target civilians with lethal force. In war, you must do your utmost best to preserve civilian life, and if any civilian is caught in acts of sabotage, they must be charged criminally, or let go.
During a war, trawlers that attempts to cut cables wouldn't be civilians; these would be military trawlers. The burden of proof would lie on them if they are caught performing military activities in a warzone. And who say these trawlers have to be sunk by military vessels? If fishing trawlers can complete military operations by two clicks of a mouse like in a strategy game, then any ship attempting to cut China's submarine cables can also be sunk by fishing trawlers from China's side. Get real!

No it isn't; its a civil court issue. In short, you can only sue the person who might have cut the cable, and only to recover the cost of repairs.
By your absurd interpetation of "free passage", any nation can fill up a civilian tanker with explosives, ram it into the port of another nation, wipe out half of whatever city in the resulting explosion, then cite "civilians" and claim free of responsibilities; you can only sue the person actually rammed the ship to port. But that's not how reality works. So yes, it is a violation if International Law, and it is a violation because sabotage action is not innocent passage.

Trawling activity is capable of moving 25 tonne boulders with ease and slice into the ground 20cm on each pass, with most trawlers making multiple passes in the same area.
Boulders gets moved by the bottom of the net, which differes from the mechanisms by which cables are damaged. As for those 20cm gouges, they are hardly considered "deep", particular when compared to the 1.5m depth in which cables can be buried. Even if we assumed the cables are only buried up to 1m deep, that still means it is 80cm away from the gouge. In otherwords, trawling activities wouldn't even begins to scratch the surface of the buried cable. Again, cable burying is invented to protect the cables specifically from activities such as trawling. The fact that cable burial is pursued show that it is effective against activities such as trawling and runs contrary to the premise of your argument.

In the East Asia Sea, on average, there are 20-30 instances of submarine cables being cut by civilian activities each year, usually through trawling. A higher concentration of cables means the more likelihood of cables being damaged.

I will also add that trawling activity has also damaged underwater oil pipes, which are more durable than underwater cables.
This has no substance whatsoever. Which part of the East Asia Sea are you talking about, out of which 20-30 instances are actually contributed to trawling, how many of these cables are buried, and how does 20-30 compare to the total number of cables in East Asia Sea?

Any damage from trawling activities at peace time can be repaired. In a warzone, there won't be trawling activities.
 

Engineer

Major
1. China has no holes in airspace defence. Big long wave radars and other passive sensors has 300-1000 km range.
Ground base air defense isn't magical, that's why there is airforce, but you still can't guarantee there is no hole in your defence. That's why you concentrate your defence to places that matter.
 

cloyce

Junior Member
Thats plain wrong. No nation on earth can hope to claim there are no holes in their air defense.

The only air defence holes maybe at their north-west, central-north regions, where you don't expect an american B-2 coming.

I know that their costal regions + sino-indian border are pretty well surveilled.
 

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
ground based air-defense is kind of like having a home security system. It will make the OPFOR think twice and modify its operations but in the end would not stop a proactive air force from hitting a target package. Having a good air-force would be like having a police officer at your home. There are very good examples with Israel hitting targets at will against fairly good ground based defenses such as Syria and Iraq but not having a very good air force.

The better air-force will always control the tempo of operations.
 

cloyce

Junior Member
When you are defending an airspace, the might of your airforce is not only measured by the strengh or the number of your aircrafts, but it's mainly measured by your eyes and ears. (quotation from a famous soviet official, don't remember who)

In other words, having a good surveillance system is more important than having many aircrafts.

You need to detect B-2 bombers before ordering your interceptors to take off.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
The only air defence holes maybe at their north-west, central-north regions, where you don't expect an american B-2 coming.

I know that their costal regions + sino-indian border are pretty well surveilled.

Having decent radar coverage is completely different from having 'no holes' in air defense.

In addition, the detection range against stealth targets like the B2 will be a fraction what it is against conventional aircraft. If you appreciated how vast China is and how long its boarders are, you would realise that it is cost prohibitive to guard it all. Even more so against stealth targets.

China cannot afford nor need to build some impregnable SAM network that can stop B2s from getting into China undetected. China can and do however, have sufficient assets in place to make sure there would be a very high probability that an B2s that try to attack key strategic targets in China with free-fall bombs and unsupported would be detected and destroyed.
 
Top