Inside China: Admiral says China can destroy destroyers? true or not?

gjy2105 said:

Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.[1]

Click to expand...

It sounds like most of the damage was done by cruise missiles?

solarz said:

It sounds like most of the damage was done by cruise missiles?

Click to expand...

....

which is still a big disruptor.


Soviet Union's Naval doctrine was based on fleet action using cruise missile swarms. when it realized that it will never match Western Navy in term of carrier power.

They were also the first ones that has dedicate big surface combatant designs that based their offensive firepower entirely on missiles.

in contrast with USN which during height of cold war still based their offensive (fleet on fleet) firepower on Carrier aircrafts... which did not have a decent long range striker missile until Harpoon. (all previous ones were short range ones)

sometimes with out a naval tradition to drag down is healthy

Similar thing with the pre-war Japanese Imperial Navy with their emphasis on long lance torpedos, night fighting and carriers strike fleet.



---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

gjy2105 said:

Haha. I'm actually surprised this entire forum isn't familiar with Millennium Challenge 2002. It is basically the most famous modern instance of asymmetric warfare strategies and tactics being used to completely annihilate an overwhelmingly superior conventional force. It was a very huge political inconvenience, which is why they reset the war game and rigged it. There were huge military industrial complex profits/contracts riding on the results.

Click to expand...

right, entirely embarrassing as afar as military-indystry komplex is concerned.

i.e. said:

022 Missile Boats is the low cost Zerglings in the Zerg Swamp. guided by C4SRI assets.

infact I think it is piossible to rig the missile boats so that they do not require any crewing. Set in autopilot go on a course, launch missiles at a particular coordinate and go home...

Click to expand...

Banelings? Or scourges vs Carriers? lol
Maybe if we want to test this out, we should play a hypothetical scenario on Starcraft where one player max out with nothing but Scourges, while the other Protoss or Terran has 10 battecruisers/carriers and the rest as something else like Scouts or corsairs or Vikings or something.

gjy2105 said:

Blue team had far more ships than the 16 that were sunk by cruise missiles. The rest were sunk by small boats.

"another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.[1]"

I know these facts must really trouble people that worship the phallus of conventional military power, but denial is unproductive.

Click to expand...

your article said:

He gained notoriety after the Millennium Challenge 2002 wargame. He played the opposing force commander, and easily sunk a whole carrier battle group in the simulation with an inferior Middle-Eastern "red" team in the first two days.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, a carrier battle group has only one carrier. Destroying the carrier and 10 cruisers sounds like destroying most of the battle group. "Significant portion" does not mean a majority, or even close to a majority.

The problem with your cheerleading is that you're taking the result of one war game simulation and trumpeting it as some kind of proof. What's unproductive is the belief that all US military commanders are dimwits.

Here's a little math: motor boats have an average top speed of around 50mph. Retrofitted fishing boats will be much slower. A destroyer's CIWS system has a range of around 4 km. 50 mph * 1.6 / 60 min = 1.3 km/min. It would take a fast speed boat about 3 minutes to cross the effective range of the CIWS. That's 180 seconds of turkey shoot. How many speed boats would you need to overwhelm one destroyer? How are you even going to move your speed boat forward when dozens of flaming wrecks are in your way?

All those "fire boats" need to dock somewhere. All it takes is an airstrike on the docks to wipe out most of your fire boats.

airsuperiority said:

Banelings? Or scourges vs Carriers? lol
Maybe if we want to test this out, we should play a hypothetical scenario on Starcraft where one player max out with nothing but Scourges, while the other Protoss or Terran has 10 battecruisers/carriers and the rest as something else like Scouts or corsairs or Vikings or something.

Click to expand...

well the french during Napoleonic war challenged the prevailing linear tactics of the day by attacking with bayonet in columns screened by skirmishers. render the 3-round a miniute regular line infantry enturely useless in defending.

As far as RTS game goes it does demonstrate that there is a tactical scenario where numerical superiority can trump technological superiority.

teh tilt does not always go in the direction of mroe technology.

some technology even make the swarming even more useful. i.e. cruise missiles.

another is datalink.
how cheap is a satellite phone? they can send coordinates down to individual boats and the individual boats can determine what the best course of action is. a wooden fishing boat can mount a canister or two of C701 missiles and a sat phone and that would be his entire load.

gjy2105 said:

You're trying to use theory to argue against real world results again. The fact is that he pulled it off. I can see you're still in denial.



Based on the described war game, it sounds like he initiated a simultaneous air-sea-missile strike. It's not like the entire plan was just to send boats.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Based on the description of the war game, the majority of the damage was done by cruise missiles, not by speed boats. I'm not the one in denial.

This scenario also assumes that the "Red" side gets the drop on the "Blue" side. When has that ever happened in real life? Did Saddam dare to launch a pre-emptive attack on the 300k US army massing at his border?

if a small X-Wing piloted by a farm boy from Tatooine can take down a planet size battle station of course a small fishing boat can take down a destroyer! HELLO!!!!!!

BTW yes the good admiral said them BUT it was obviously taken out of context! Why some folks wants to stir crap up I don;t know.. ok maybe I do..

gjy2105 said:

So far:

A) First, you're in denial because the attack involved cruise missiles. So obviously his entire war plan was invalid.

B) Second, you're in denial because "guns are fast and shoot far lol". So his boats can't actually reach the ships. But guess what? They did! And it's not like the CSG was defending against JUST some boats. They had other things to defend against at the same time as well.

C) Third, you're arguing that 15 heavy ships + 1 carrier sunk FROM JUST THE CRUISE MISSILES, isn't an overwhelming victory? The boats had more kills afterwards.

No body here is arguing that a handful of boats alone can sink a CSG. But the reality is that an armada of small boats attacking in conjunction with a cruise missile strike, and aircraft strike, can sink a CSG.

Click to expand...

LOL, you changed your post.

I would say that if your missile attack can sink the enemy's carrier and escorting cruisers, then you don't even need speed boats to finish them off. Just send in attack aircraft, since the enemy just lost their entire airforce. LOL

And that's the really fishy part. Cruise missiles alone can destroy a US CVBG? Check out the "End of Carrier Age" thread. A lot of forumites don't even think AShBMs can reliably take down a carrier, nevermind ordinary cruise missiles.

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

kwaigonegin said:

if a small X-Wing piloted by a farm boy from Tatooine can take down a planet size battle station of course a small fishing boat can take down a destroyer! HELLO!!!!!!

BTW yes the good admiral said them BUT it was obviously taken out of context! Why some folks wants to stir crap up I don;t know.. ok maybe I do..

Click to expand...

Yeah, but only if the Force was with the pilot!

gjy2105 said:

solarz, if you're unhappy about the results of MC02, go yell at Lt. Gen Van Riper instead of me. He's the one that raped an entire CSG using the military resources of a middle eastern shit country.

Click to expand...

LOL, I'm sure Lt. Gen Van Riper would be the first to say that the result of that war game is of great educational value, but should not be taken as what would literally happen in real life.