I don't know if it's the poor English used in some posts above, but could someone explain why some people are under the belief that guidance and seekers do not work under deceleration or any other non-inertial frames. How then do all guided munitions work when they are accelerating and/or decelerating? Using a ballistic missile's warhead to target a HUGE and SLOWLY moving target like a supercarrier is only selectively more difficult than hitting a stationary target. The CEP of modern ballistic missiles is exceptional against stationary targets. The last two factors remaining are tracking of moving target and guidance for adjustment of trajectory. Both of which exist at least in their basic ingredients. We know Chinese MIRVs in ICBMs and SLBM like JL-2 have the ability to maneuver and change trajectory several times in an attempt to fool BMD and make its job a little harder. We know Russian MIRVs do this too. Therefore the main source of doubt is really in the guidance part. SAMs, AAMs, and AGMs flying at around Mach 3-5 are perfectly well guided. Why is Mach 10 or similar speeds all of a sudden impossible? And why does the warhead need to be slowed to Mach 1 or 2? Could all those western physics geniuses speak up please. They all seem to gobble up these words of reassurance like a drug addicted lunatic.
PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
The material said is purely for reassuring the subgroups that need reassuring. Behind the scenes, they are genuinely working towards countering AShBM and continuing the perpetual arms race. All western politicians say one thing and do another. Often they say several contradictory things... all of it is simply to pay lip service to the brainless masses that think and vote a certain way and mustn't have their feelings hurt or their dogmatic world order put into question.
Human being are nearly always motivated by emotional prejudices rather than forming well-reasoned rational thinking and changing one's understanding using evidence and thoughtfulness. Democracy is a failure because it allows for the positive feedback loop of politicians telling lies that the population wants to hear. When has a western politician not only told the harsh truth, persisted with policies that resolved the problem, and remained in power throughout?! Not once in democracy's history. Reason isn't the leadership, rather it is the low intelligence of the general population. Chinese people are no different and the country has its own set of problems that come with authoritarianism. But in the context of this conversation, the French admiral's words are about as factually accurate as Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Western consumers are gobbling it up because it is what they want to hear and hope to be the truth. Despite the obvious problems with the words and lack of specifics. Sure they'll say they can't give specifics about why a warhead cannot be guided or why a warhead must be slowed down so it can be guided. None of these idiots hold degrees in physics so do not even understand high school kinematics let alone what the limitations are in reentry vehicle guidance, but they feel qualified in making a judgment and spreading it. This is actually good. The more the west likes to base things off bullshit and the further they carry that bullshit, the better it is for the rest of the world. Unfortunately for us, they are double dipping. One on side, they talk about how this is impossible and China could not have a working AShBM at the moment (just like how China could not possibly create a stealth fighter or conduct ASAT or survive the trade war) and on the other side and behind the scenes, they are in panic mode doing everything they can to push China back even resorting to literal kidnapping.
You've done a good job in directly finding a clear contradiction in his words. How do some missiles have guidance at mach 6 yet a reentry vehicle cannot possibly have reliable guidance and maneuverability at slightly higher speeds when the requirements for maneuverability for the latter is so much lower than that of a SAM or AA missile. Not to mention the Russian "ballistic" missiles that are ground launched and air launched, all with perfectly operating guidance. Against a slow moving target like a carrier? As long as there is tracking and real time knowledge of where it is, there's nothing preventing AShBM from being guided to the target. Maybe they're struggling with the semantics of the word ballistic. Technically none of these things are ballistic missiles because they DO move, ARE propelled, and have been guided for years if not decades now. The ONLY reason the Soviets and 70s/80s Americans did not persist with their AShBM programs back in the day is because the tracking and reentry warhead guidance technology did not exist/ were not mature or capable enough back then. Now the Americans can easily develop something similar but there's no reason to. China's got two carriers and a relatively small and less capable navy. Conventionally, PLAN is easy enough today for USN pacific fleet to handle. Russians are broke.
Agree on most points except this
PLAN is easy enough today for USN pacific fleet to handle. Russians are broke
I don't think it is that easy 20 years ago that might be true Not anymore Rand did all kind of simulation on the naval war in western pacific and the outcome is not all favorable to the US and her allies
See they have to fight the tyranny of the distance one those forward bases are gone There aren't that many
and those bases are not hardened
With every years the Chinese navy are growing better quantitatively and more numerous
Russian submarines are still potent and dangerous Recently they add new model and new missiles So I won't dismissed Russian sub as irrelevant
It's honestly a naval stalemate here. I said this purely in comparison of numbers and technology which the USN dominates. In reality, the USN cannot handle the PLAN without loses of its bases in the Pacific and Japan. Why on Earth would China keep itself on a leash if all out war is started? The US side will eventually win purely because it has a far larger navy, but that will push China into using WMDs once everything is lost. Therefore it is a stalemate because everyone loses once that tipping point is passed. The US has still not had a reason (or even has a reason) to develop AShBM because these things add no further value to the USN which can conventionally handle PLAN. It is the defensive side that requires such a weapon. Part of the chain which is aimed at stopping all the F-35s from becoming shipped within range of striking important targets in China.
So first to go are all the bases then the game shifts to defending seas from entrance by carrier groups. That's going to be difficult for PLAN. As long as all entry points are secured, it is possible to defend China and surrounding seas from USN even if AShBM do not work at all. If at this point, the US decides to use cruise missiles and conventional ballistic missiles against Chinese bases within China, China could not respond in kind. That's where the main imbalance is. At this point, if losses are too great, defeat is inevitable and use of WMDs may become a forced hand. What PLAN is slowly working towards is the ability to have equal exchange with US mainland. A large blue water navy is necessary for that. dozens of nuclear subs, at least 10 carriers launching 5th gens, J-15s, and support aircraft and drones, and many dozens of Type 055s and 052Ds that are well supported. When those numbers are reached, the USN will be even larger with far more F-35s and technology would have evolved at least a generation further. This is why PLAN does a lot of small batch trialing of new platforms.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
And you think it is easy to pass the gauntlet of integrated missile defenses system SOC did some study few years back And he said the missile gas are closed That was some 5 years ago He has an excellent blog at one time maybe it is not updated anymore. Now China has much more SAM and they modernized the SAM with layer of defense consisting of HQ 9B, S 300 and S400 for the first tier and KS series and HQ22 for the 2nd tier
The only advantage that US has is the silent service But I am not even sure it is true anymore By now the great underwater wall should be in placed Add that the numerous KQ 200 and 3 Surtass Add to that roughly 50 modern diesel sub and 3 SURTASS ship nearing commissioning China ASW is improving by leap and bound
Why can't china not respond in kind? I don't understand your logic once an all out war happened Those bases are fair game and will be under intense missile barrage As I said there aren't that many and probable 10 or 15 air bases and maybe 10 naval bases
Once those bases are gone US has to bring everything from the west coast of US and they have to run the gauntlet of ASBM and cruise missile By now the surveillance system should be in place wit redundacy. It is not easy
What I mean is for China to strike military targets inside the US mainland and take out bases, manufacturing, storages etc. That is currently not easy or even likely for China while the reverse is not true. The US do have methods of overwhelming and overcoming air defenses. Even if China takes out US bases in the area and only has to deal with carrier battle groups, they can still strike at targets inside China using cruise missiles and conventionally armed ballistic missiles. China needs to save its own for end of world type scenarios. Anyway that's pure guesswork and speculation on my part.
The US mainland is simply too far away for a Chinese fleet to have an equal exchange with the USA.
Operating against the land masses in the First Island Chain is straightforward because it is within 1000km of the Chinese mainland.
But then Guam is 3000km from the Chinese mainland, so Chinese naval forces would have limited land-based support. And Guam is a major base supported by its own naval fleets.
Then there is Hawaii which is 6000km from Guam. So Chinese naval forces would have no land support and would be operating at the end of a long vulnerable supply line.
Again, Hawaii is a major base, and would be supported by its own naval fleets.
Then the continental USA is another 4000km from Hawaii.
---
My view is that China just needs to focus on securing the Western Pacific. And for that to be sustainable, it will primarily have to be a political/economic settlement, not a military one.
It would be relatively doable on the USA part to strike the Chinese coast or even conduct land assaults. The Japanese did it in the Sino-Japanese War. Although China had much more of a material difference back then. But the Japanese never managed to control the interior of China. China is quite large.
To a large degree much of the Chinese military industrial base is even today located in the interior of the country. I mean just look at where Chengdu is on a map. So to a large degree their industries are somewhat resilient against conventional naval strikes. The problem is most of the population lives in the coastal areas, like in most countries, so it means they would sustain heavy civilian casualties in case such a scenario did happen.
The USA spent too many resources on complex systems like kinetic kill interceptors and not enough on relatively more conventional defense systems. But it is not like they could not import such systems if they needed them on a hurry. The Israelis have multi-layered defense systems at nearly all types of envelopes and to a large degree they source the components from the USA to begin with. The USN also has the AEGIS system and the SM-3 in its many variants. That is a highly capable system.
I think the longer the USA waits the harder it will be for them to be able to win such a fight against China on their own turf. The window is closing fast. Of course invading the USA is basically a pipe dream. Those people who think something like that will happen have probably spent too much time watching the movie Red Dawn. It is not something doable. The USA is basically too large and too easy to ressuply. Even if China could somehow invade the West Coast (unlikely) there would still be the the East Coast to contend with. Unlike in China where the Western parts neither have port access, nor do they have a significant amount of population. That is not the case with the USA. I think you would need to have a foothold somewhere and have naval and air supremacy and it would take months to land troops before you could even begin a USA invasion. Plus the amount of troops the USA has is nothing to sneeze at once you consider not just the US Army and US Navy numbers but the US Coast Guard and the US National Guard in those numbers too.
China is focused on their own part of the Pacific. Basically to dominate the first and second island chains and deny the use of the third island chain.
China is focused on their own part of the Pacific. Basically to dominate the first and second island chains and deny the use of the third island chain.
China need to dominate the sea inside of the first island chains. Chinese SSBNs (2nd hit) today only could operate in the SCS, and the island chains could be closed by USN- and Japan subs. That's the reason of USN "freedom of navigation - operations" in the SCS.
And China need to pass the first island chains for operations in the western pacific. That's one of the jobs CV 001 and 002 (Type 001 and 001A) have to do, supported by land based planes (including AEW and tankers).
And China need to pass the first island chains for operations in the western pacific. That's one of the jobs CV 001 and 002 (Type 001 and 001A) have to do, supported by land based planes (including AEW and tankers).
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I think this whole island chain theory is outdated and quite frankly wrong
If China wants to operate in the Pacific they can
its all about prioritys
If China wants to operate in the Pacific they can
its all about prioritys