Engineer
Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Look at the example of ICBM again: early warning, missile, and nuclear warheads are not test together as a whole. Fighter aircraft are not proven by actually getting shot at by actual A2A and cannon rounds either before being brought into operation. Examples of systems being tested as a whole is not a support that all system must be tested as a whole.when you make a car, you test out the engine, the microprocessor chip, and others components. but eventually you need to put it all together and test it as whole. if you only test the missile, how do you do midcourse correction without satelite, gps system. the missile require those system to work properly.
Once again, fallacy of equivocation; ASBM being technically sound in striking a carrier is not the same as ASBM having achieved Full Operational Capability, even though you can describe both being operational. No one ever claimed ASBM is in FOC except you with your strawman argument. Furthermore, conclusion requires scientific facts, proofs, and evidences, and so far there is no evidence that proves ABM can intercept targets such as ASBM.i never said carrier cannot be sinked. conclusion require scientific facts, prove, and evidences. so far there is not much evidences that prove df21 is in operational status.
In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that ABM can hit DF21 class weapon. ABM being able to hit SCUD like missiles under ideal conditions (no decoys, no countermeasures, etc.) is not evidence that ABM can intercept maneuverable re-entry vehicles. Such ideal tests do not meet the criteria set up by you (and people like you) who insist weapons must be tested multiple time in real battle situation to be qualified as operational; there is no non-parabolic flight path, no decoys, no ECM, no maneuverable re-entry vehicles, and no simultaneous multiple engagement.The ABM is already there on ships, been test in the sea. furthermore i never said ABM can hit ASBM, but it can hit ballistic missile. So its likely/better chance an upgrade/differnent phase of ABM could hit ASBM before df21 deployment.
I think people should wait until ABM has been tested against an actual ASBM, with evidence indicating that anti-ASBM capability is in operational status or more information on such system before saying anything about defending against ASBM. Until then, it is just claiming US has anti-ASBM capability without any evidence to back it up.i think people should wait until ASBM is tested, evidence indicate its in operational status or more information on this system before say anything about how it will end the CVBG. Its like saying US will have rail gun that can hit targets hundreds mile away without any evidence to back it up.
Anyway, if you cannot provide link saying that USA tested ABM against ASBM like weapon or some American officials saying that such capability exists, then any mentioning of CVBG successfully fend of ASBM is just fantasy.anyway, if you can provide link saying china test missile in the ocean or some general/chinese offical saying the df21 is in operational status then ill retract my arguement. otherwise ITS ALL ASSUMPTION, there just too little evidences indicate its operational and can hit a target thousands km away in the sea.
Last edited: