Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Scratch said:

I liked that "HailStorm" technology you introduced. Those pallats seem to deliver much energy (high speed) onto small spots while causing little momentum (small, light weight) to the CM. But when firing lots of them in short time from all three guns, will that CM still maintain a stable flight path?

Click to expand...

With the use of high capability microporcessors and digital flight controls...yes, stability could be maintained. I did not go into that level of techical detail or discussion in the book, but something of that sort would necessarily be required, though with electronic ignition, the problem is not as bad as with say the 30mm cannon on an A-10!

Scratch said:

The first LRASD attack on CTF 77. Those devices were lauched from great distance and traveling with close to 50kts(?) How fast travels a CTF, 25kts? That speed advantages is not much so the "killer whales" must be send on a direct intercept course to run into the middle of a CTF in a sea as big as the pacific. Was it just luck and the worst case for the CTF, or would it be that "easy" to hit the CTF?
Awefull weapons, though.

Click to expand...

In the book, the Chinese had used significant resource before the outbreak of hostilities, years before, to do digital terrain mapping of the ocean floor in order to use their anticipated surprsie attack to draw the US Navy Task Forces into their killing field, while being able to surveil them as they came. So, it was not really easy, and it was possible at such distances that first time because of the circumstances.

Scratch said:

I somehow think nuke powered SSTO tech. is still some more years off, but on the other hand R&D is possibly increased significantly in war.

Click to expand...

Actually, a whole lot of R&D has already been done on this technology and lifting method...dating back to the 1950s in the US.

Scratch said:

Somewhere in another thread you mentioned the retireing of the Tomcat/Phoenix combo saying the navy had no adequate alternativ. AESAs can surely fill the sensor gap. But if I'm correct "your" navy was relying on -120Ds. Don't you think ramjet powered missiles could play a vital role in the future of fleet-defence?

Click to expand...

In the book, I do rely on the AMRAAM, but thought later I had introduced the LRAAM in the book. I believe some form of LRAAM, however powered. is necessary for strong fleet defense in the current threat environment as well as for future, projected threats.

Thanks for the excellent questions and comment...Ausgezeichnet! This is what I really like about such a thread...lots of room for differring opinions, discussion and creativity without any rancor, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or emotions associated with the political issues.

Thanks for the quick answers. And you even speak german, well at least one word
There are still more things I'd like to talk about, but right now I'm too tired and sat before my PC too long. I'll read some of the military aspects again and then ask some more questions in the coming days.

Ok, after I had a day to think some further thoughts.

That modular ship design (container ships being converted) is interesting.
Do you think this could be done both ways? I'ts a bit like that US airliners have to have a certain transport capability ready for US troop transports when required. Now my point is if somethig similar could be done with ships. Of course this is a much bigger scale and would therefore take much longer. But just the concept in itself. These ships would be in use during peace time (therefore always in a good shape) and be ready for the USN in an urgent need. You don't have to make carriers out of them, but lightly armed replenishment ships or heavy armed arsenal ships( without any sensors, just "missile trucks").

One more on the "killer whales". Getting a ship killer close to a fleet by rocketing it towards that fleet submerged (no way of long range defence for the fleet, [until the end]) and then poping up into the air for target acquisition and terminal engagement is a good idea. And honestly I really once thought about such a possibility.
Now do you think there will ever be a way for such a device to acquire a target (vessel) while submerged? It would be a great thing, especially for anti-torp torpedos.
Oh and btw did you here about the Barracuda super-cavitating technology demonstrator developed by Dielh-BGT-defence.
I still can't find much info, even much less in english.
Development seems to have finished in '05, it's rather small (no details) since it was designed as a defensive weapon (torpedo interceptor) in the first place. I think I read somewhere it was already shown on a defence show, somewhere is SE Asia.
It has a moveable nose-cone to change direction. Official speed is 194kts, there are reports indicating 432kts and saying it could intercept a shkval.
They say it's world leading in that technology and ten years ahead of everything the americans have.



edit: re LRAAM: the reason I mentioned ramjet were end-game-energy aspects. I think all of the current AAMs burn their rocket-motor and then rely on their kinetic energy. I think if you have a weapon accelerating to M4 to travel to it's target at long ranges, that is a waste of energy. Whereas Meteor for example could travel to the target at say M2,5 and save energy/fuel (due to the much lower drag) for the end-game seconds. And solid-fuel AAMs wich burn for the whole time of the long flight makes them rather big, I think. So my main point was not so much about ramjet specificly, but more generally on AAMs that have the ability to control the burning of their fuel.
Has anything come out in the US of that Raytheon ERAAM/FMRAAM project that was aimed at getting the UK BVRAAM order for EF

So far, I'll come up with more later on.

Jeff Head said:

No problem, did not take them wrong or negatively and appreciate all honset commentary...good or bad. I have no lock-on these types of things.

Copy that,,,and glad the two of you are on herebantering!

Thank you for those wishes. I am certainly no Clancy. He has written many, many great books. Most all of which I have read. I still like his Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising best I think, particularly Red Storm Rising from an overall, large scale World War standpoint. No one has really written such a novel since IMHO...and that is what I set out to do.

Later, particularly with The Bear and the Dragon, although the scenario itself I felt was plausible, the way he handled the US technology being an absolute panacea for every thing the Chinese threw at it, was just a little too overdone for me. That's another reason I wrote the series because I believe that adversaries, when confronted on this scale, can and will find means to overcome those advantages.

For example, as Stalin I believe is reported to have said...Qauntity has a quality all it's own, when speaking of Soviet tank production in WW II when pitted against the (at the time) more technically capable German tanks.

Click to expand...

It was a real disappointment reading Clancy's SSN, it seems that he has done extensive research on US weaponary, but little on the Chinese side, that's also the case with the his war fighting Docterine from both militaries. I hope your book will provide more entertainment value that that one

Eitherway, if God forbit it ever comes to a major war between China and US, I don't expect any side come out as the "winner" - it should be a "who is the lesser of a loser" contest

Finn McCool said:

I hardly think that it is necessary to insult Jeff. Trust me I had some problems with political viewpoints espoused in the book but I hardly would call it racist (read The Bear and the Dragon by Tom Clancy if you want to see racism, there is an old thread here about how much of a joke that book is, I couldn't even read it after a while).

I would like to comment on how you deflect Jeff's criticism of the Chinese government's authoritarianism by offering examples of American human rights violations, etc. This is less for you dioditto and more for Americans. Every time we allow things like "indefinate detentions" at Guantanamo to happen, we undermine the case for democracy everywhere by allowing people to make the argument that dioditto is making here. And that makes us less secure as Americans. It's not a legitimate argument but it is fig leaf anyone can hide behind. It is a fact that as dioditto sarcastically stated the the US is the beacon of democracy (and I don't mean that in an insincere neoconservative way), and when that beacon is dimmed, it becomes easier for the ships it is guiding to crash on the rocks.

Sorry for the politics, I just wanted to make a point to all Americans out there.

Click to expand...

I am a Chinese, just want to say that like you said, human rights issues are better left by your own people to judge. While from the outside you still think China as a totalitarian government, there has been huge improvements made inside China. It is fair to say that the Chinese generation now enjoys far more freedom compare to even 10 years ago. As far as most Chinese's concern, democracy is not our number 1 goal - development is. One must be able to survive first before one starts to enjoy the life...

The Chinese government currently are made of a group of engineers, none of them have the power and background to dictate on any issue. The difference between the conservative force and the reformists inside CCP is a lot bigger than that of democrates and republicans, Hu himself still need to maintain the balance of the power from his position. Calling China a totalitarin country and assume automatically that it is a one man show is quite naive and only shows your ignorance on the Chinese sciety...

As far as us Chinese concern, we want polical reforms, but everything must be in baby steps. We couldn't afford anything like what USSR experienced which would easily cost us millions of lifes. As long as the progress is been made day by day, and the sciety is becoming more transparent and free and open, we are happy:china:

I fully expect China to become a free sciety in near future, but it won't be US style demacracy - China needs to figure out her own way and create a system that works for herself. Any western pressure on human rights at this stage could risk been counter productive, make the CCP leadership question about their true intention, and slow down the progress instead of speeding it up...

[EDIT] didn't mean to make this a political thread, just wanted to provide some view points from the Chinese side

Back to the book reading...

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Scratch said:

These ships would be in use during peace time (therefore always in a good shape) and be ready for the USN in an urgent need. You don't have to make carriers out of them, but lightly armed replenishment ships or heavy armed arsenal ships.

Click to expand...

Well, during World war II the US did exactly that with the merchant marine service, using civilain volunteers, training them, having them man commercial shipping put to war time use. They commercial vessels were armed and they fought their way across the Oceans to provide men and material to the war fronts. it is sad that this serive suffered the highest casualty rate of any of the regular armed services in the war. My guess is, that in a large, protracted war, the US would do the same today.

Scratch said:

One more on the "killer whales". Getting a ship killer close to a fleet by rocketing it towards that fleet submerged (no way of long range defence for the fleet, [until the end]) and then poping up into the air for target acquisition and terminal engagement is a good idea. And honestly I really once thought about such a possibility.
Now do you think there will ever be a way for such a device to acquire a target (vessel) while submerged? It would be a great thing, especially for anti-torp torpedos.

Click to expand...

As the device approaches its taregt area under conventional power it could use passive means to acquire targets, or, in the "limpit" mode, as it sat in it's target area it could use either passive means, or as the one incident in the books indicates, it could deploy sensors to float on the surface as it waited for targets to pass, to identify, acquire, and target them.

Scratch said:

Oh and btw did you here about the Barracuda super-cavitating technology demonstrator developed by Dielh-BGT-defence.
I still can't find much info, even much less in english.
Development seems to have finished in '05, it's rather small (no details) since it was designed as a defensive weapon (torpedo interceptor) in the first place. I think I read somewhere it was already shown on a defence show, somewhere is SE Asia.
It has a moveable nose-cone to change direction. Official speed is 194kts, there are reports indicating 432kts and saying it could intercept a shkval.
They say it's world leading in that technology and ten years ahead of everything the americans have.

Click to expand...

Although they started develpoment in 1998 I believe, they did not announce this particular project until after I had already started writing the series. The US has looked at using hyper-velocity projecticles (as opposed to small missiles) for super-cavitating defense to its ships. I do not believe Diehl includes that type of technlogy when they indicate that they are ahead of the US...it's just a different means to the same end. US research (and by this time probably testing as well) in this regard is where I derived my initial US responses came in on US ships in the form of an underwater CIWS turret or recess on US vessels to counter the LRASDs. Later, the US developes and fields its own offensive supercavitating weapon in the book.

Scratch said:

re LRAAM: the reason I mentioned ramjet were end-game-energy aspects. I think all of the current AAMs burn their rocket-motor and then rely on their kinetic energy. I think if you have a weapon accelerating to M4 to travel to it's target at long ranges, that is a waste of energy. Whereas Meteor for example could travel to the target at say M2,5 and save energy/fuel (due to the much lower drag) for the end-game seconds. And solid-fuel AAMs wich burn for the whole time of the long flight makes them rather big, I think. So my main point was not so much about ramjet specificly, but more generally on AAMs that have the ability to control the burning of their fuel.
Has anything come out in the US of that Raytheon ERAAM/FMRAAM project that was aimed at getting the UK BVRAAM order for EF

Click to expand...

A press release from Septemebr 14, 2006 about a third test firing of the meteor can be found here:

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

UFOArriving said:

It was a real disappointment reading Clancy's SSN, it seems that he has done extensive research on US weaponary, but little on the Chinese side, that's also the case with the his war fighting Docterine from both militaries. I hope your book will provide more entertainment value that that one

...I fully expect China to become a free sciety in near future, but it won't be US style demacracy - China needs to figure out her own way and create a system that works for herself. Any western pressure on human rights at this stage could risk been counter productive, make the CCP leadership question about their true intention, and slow down the progress instead of speeding it up...

Back to the book reading...

Click to expand...

Thanks for reading the book...I am presuming you downloaded the Adobe eBook version.

Also thanks for your reasoned and non-caustic remarks. I agree with you, China will ultimately be free, and they will have to come by that freedom (hopefully) on their own and in their own way...but I do not believe personally that the CCP will go away easily, or quietly...but that is simply my own opinion.

I hope you enjoy the book...it is a fictional techno-thriller about a potential World War III, and it certainly does not take the tact that Clancy does.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Hi Jeff,

I actually read a few chapters of your book, I think it was the attack chapter and the aftermath. I must admit it felt like a clancy book (read many, red storm rising, clear and present danger, hunt for red october to name a few).

About your comments on the CCP, I have this to say ( I have been in HK since 1998 after the handover), I cannot see anything "communist" about it (though I do not profess to know much about ideology).

My observation has been that it's main focus in the past 10 years has been wealth accumulation and to advance it's economy. It has been behaving very "capitalistic" if you like. You could say it is like Singapore X 300 (to account for the population diff.) Because I really cannot see any difference between how the singapore government behaves and how the chinese government behaves.

But then dont take my word for it, you should come out to this part of the world and take a look for yourself (spend a few months).


Regards,
Michael

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

mickchew said:

Hi Jeff,

I actually read a few chapters of your book, I think it was the attack chapter and the aftermath. I must admit it felt like a clancy book (read many, red storm rising, clear and present danger, hunt for red october to name a few).

Click to expand...

Thank you, it is an honor to be compared to those particular works of Clancy's. I personally feel that his "Bear and the Dragon" missed the boat however.

mickchew said:

About your comments on the CCP, I have this to say ( I have been in HK since 1998 after the handover), I cannot see anything "communist" about it (though I do not profess to know much about ideology). My observation has been that it's main focus in the past 10 years has been wealth accumulation and to advance it's economy. It has been behaving very "capitalistic" if you like. But then dont take my word for it, you should come out to this part of the world and take a look for yourself (spend a few months).

Click to expand...

I have been, on numerous occassions to that part of the world in my business travels. I was in Hong Kong a couple of times in the late 1990s after the handover. Also spent a lot of time in and around Taiwan...at times for 6-8 weeks on end.

I did notice personally, in Hong Kong, that the customs people and what not were a lot different in their attitudes at that time (IMHO much less open and much more suspicious than before the hand over)...albeit Hong Kong has continued to prosper and will continue to do so. The PRC, IMHO, has adopted a very aggressive, capitalistic economic model that I, again IMHO, believe is more akin to a fascist model (ie. some ownership is allowed, but the state regulates that ownership completely) than anythin Stalinist or Maoist model. And they had to, to avoid bankruptcy.

Anyhow, as I have said, I believe that more liberty is coming to mainland China. it is just a matter of time. I pray it is the chinese people themselveds who foster it and adopt more republican methods of governance.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Just a try of an untalented person, but is the drawing in the pic below similar to what you had in mind with the sea-controll carriers?


BTW, are you still looking for an answer to the points of my previous post or haven't you noticed? though I don't want to hurry you. (correct expression?)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Scratch said:

Just a try of an untalented person, but is the drawing in the pic below similar to what you had in mind with the sea-controll carriers?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BTW, are you still looking for an answer to the points of my previous post or haven't you noticed? though I don't want to hurry you. (correct expression?)

Click to expand...

That's a pretty nice pic. Thanks for taking the time to put something together. All I had done to date were the top and side views which were included in the book.

As to answers, did you see THIS POST, up thread?

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Hm, didn't see your answers post before, thanks.
Maybe I try to draw the attack or assault ship as well ...