Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on December 13, 2004, 06:26:49 pm
-
Comes China and Russia, having their first joint excercises in a while.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041213/D86US5QO0.html
It says here that China plans to buy $2 billion in arms from Russia this year. Whee! Let's all militarize! Building up our armies is fun, and we always need to have superpowers facing each other down, especially when they're equipped with nukes! ;)
So...I guess I'm a bit disturbed. I don't really know what to make of it.
-
Do you ever get the feeling that we're all living in a game of Civilization?
-
Wonder what signifigance the recent Taiwanese elections will have...
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Do you ever get the feeling that we're all living in a game of Civilization?
Duh.
So...I guess I'm a bit disturbed. I don't really know what to make of it.
China's military has come a long way from that peasent army they used in Korea, but it still isn't much of a match for the US.....yet.
-
Uhm, you do realize that China has over a billion people, right?
A billion people armed with butter knives could take down any current military. A billion is not a small number, its a big number.
-
Five billion people armed with butter knives could take down any current army in urban situations.
Any modern army that's serious about winning would just shell the area from long range.
-
If the US wanted to invade / take out China, they'd probably just flatten it with conventional airstrikes; IIRC the Chinese airforce is nowhere near the technological level of the US.
Of course, try and do that and the Chinese would probably fire nukes (they have ICBM subs now too, I believe, so it'd be very hard to stop them from doing so), and we'd end up with doomsday.
-
The US can't invade anything without serious popular suppot in the invaded country.
I think that Iraq proved it quite well.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
The US can't invade anything without serious popular suppot in the invaded country.
I think that Iraq proved it quite well.
That depends on what they want to invade for.... i.e. there's no way in hell the US could hold a country bigger than, well, Iraq under occupation (and they're struggling badly as is), so they'd be as likely to turn the area into a car park before sending in troops to clear out the odd key area, and then retreat from the ruins.
-
With a little difference: They cannot do that, we aren't in WWII anymore.
Oh, and another little thing...
If they do they can kiss the economy goodbye...
You cannot bomb one of your main commercial partners and get unpunished... ;)
-
Originally posted by Zarax
With a little difference: They cannot do that, we aren't in WWII anymore.
Oh, and another little thing...
If they do they can kiss the economy goodbye...
You cannot bomb one of your main commercial partners and get unpunished... ;)
Well, yeah. Buf if they did go to war, I think that's how they'd do it....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If the US wanted to invade / take out China, they'd probably just flatten it with conventional airstrikes; IIRC the Chinese airforce is nowhere near the technological level of the US.
200+ Su27/30s, coupled with Krypton supersonic asms. Numerically inferior but remember the US is going to have to launch off carriers unless they can find someone crazy enough to let them use their strips. Aeriel bombardment isnt all that effective anyways, tactically its next to useless unless theres a ground war going on, and strategically it doesnt always work, Vietnam for example. Against a country the size of China its doomed to failure.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Of course, try and do that and the Chinese would probably fire nukes (they have ICBM subs now too, I believe, so it'd be very hard to stop them from doing so), and we'd end up with doomsday.
The odds of that happening are incredibly slim, even if China is getting bombed to dust. The US simply cant take and hold the place, its impossible. China would most likely just take it on the chin, they can afford to.
-
Originally posted by Gank
200+ Su27/30s, coupled with Krypton supersonic asms. Numerically inferior but remember the US is going to have to launch off carriers unless they can find someone crazy enough to let them use their strips. Aeriel bombardment isnt all that effective anyways, tactically its next to useless unless theres a ground war going on, and strategically it doesnt always work, Vietnam for example. Against a country the size of China its doomed to failure.
[/b]
Yep, and those Suhois lack advanced AWACS, long-range weaponry support and everything else that makes the USAF so powerful. Yup. US forces have to either launch from carriers or Taiwan lol, but that mean preciously little, as it has little effect in everything. Actually, the carrier groups, while having fewer planes and stuff, are also mobile and tremendously well-armed and -protected.
Tactically aerial war is only useful in supporting the ground troops, and that's exactly where it's used. Strategically it's excellent and far exceeds other means, except LR missiles - US could lay waste to eastern China's military infrastructure in couple of weeks, but that would be quite useless, as there's no way to actually hold the ground.
The odds of that happening are incredibly slim, even if China is getting bombed to dust. The US simply cant take and hold the place, its impossible. China would most likely just take it on the chin, they can afford to.
US can't. Nobody can, unless Russia suddenly and mystically manages to become a superpower on par with the US, both economically and militarilly. There's too much land to hold. China has a long way to come, too, 20 years at last. And at that point US and other western NATO members are quite different from what they are today.
-
Well, bear in mind I'm talking about a total war - no capture of territory, no reconstruction, just to annihiliate the enemy so they can no longer fight.
In that event, I think all cards would be on the table.
-
Originally posted by Janos
US can't. Nobody can, unless Russia suddenly and mystically manages to become a superpower on par with the US, both economically and militarilly. There's too much land to hold. China has a long way to come, too, 20 years at last. And at that point US and other western NATO members are quite different from what they are today.
Right, but the original point was that Russia and China are collaborating on military matters. I'm saying, look at the possibilities of a new alliance spanning about half the globe... not just a neofascist China in the future, but with Russian allies.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, bear in mind I'm talking about a total war - no capture of territory, no reconstruction, just to annihiliate the enemy so they can no longer fight.
In that event, I think all cards would be on the table.
I money is on USA. Higher techs, better surveillance, huge industrial output if needed, goddamn Pacific Navy and carriers, strategic ability to project power, all the long-range weaponry they have. And the nuclear deterrent which makes China's deterrent practically useless.
-
Yes I believe that the Chinese navy wound be no match for the American Pacific fleet. This is a crucial factor. The USA's mobility would win the for itself. I also believe that if the draft were re-instated there would be pleanty of people to fight the war for America. If America actually got around to it its industrial might would easily overwhelm china's.
If china hit the USA with nukes first I believe the USA would go all out (where they dont care much about enemy civillian casualties and world opinion etc) they would be far more effective that they were in Iraq . If its a matter of survival the USA would for sure win because China has no real way to invade the USA on their own soil (mayb japan though) and therefore couldnt land a knockout punch.
-
Large scale nuclear attack == global knockout punch, therefore not viable for both parts.
Also: chinese strategic situation is not much different from Vietnam.
And there air superiority proved to be as effectibe as a fleas on dogs...
Final point:
You are vastly underestimating the chinese industrial capacity.
In 5 years of intensive production they can deploy effective sheer numerical superiority over anything except maybe India...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Also: chinese strategic situation is not much different from Vietnam.
And there air superiority proved to be as effectibe as a fleas on dogs...
Uhh...no.
If you dont think air superiority wasnt key in veitnam you are terribly mistaken. The helicopters, bombers, etc were basically all we had going for us against the north veitnamese's jungle warfare. The north veitnamese were terrified of our supreme mobility of troops and equipment. Such air superiority would be a key factor on a war of that scale. Imagine how many different kind of nukes or bombs you could drop from a couple of well escorted B-52's?
Also satellite weapons would eventually come into play (for the USA), tipping the balance of the war into one side's favor.
And about the Chinese industrial capacity:
I believe it would be severely crippled because sanctions would most likely be imposed on China thus crippling there ability to import/export things. They would also lose one of their best markets....Japan and US!
-
I know we're all having fun playing CnC Generals out in our minds, but why is it that whenever it's mentioned that China is becomming a rising power in the world that they will somehow go to war with the U.S. ?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, bear in mind I'm talking about a total war - no capture of territory, no reconstruction, just to annihiliate the enemy so they can no longer fight.
only way thats possible is with nukes
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
uhh...no.
If you dont think air superiority wasnt key in veitnam you are terribly mistaken. The helicopters, bombers, etc were basically all we had going for us against the north veitnamese's jungle warfare. The north veitnamese were terrified of our supreme mobility of troops and equipment. Such air superiority would be a key factor on a war of that scale. Imagine how many different kind of nukes or bombs you could drop from a couple of well escorted B-52's?
Not many, particularly not against a country with a well equipped air defense. B52s took losses to NVA SA-2s in the 60s, Chinas SAMs are 5-6 generations ahead. And yoiu're talking about tactical use of air power, not strategic.
Originally posted by Janos
Yep, and those Suhois lack advanced AWACS, long-range weaponry support and everything else that makes the USAF so powerful. Yup. US forces have to either launch from carriers or Taiwan lol, but that mean preciously little, as it has little effect in everything. Actually, the carrier groups, while having fewer planes and stuff, are also mobile and tremendously well-armed and -protected.
And short-ranged. And they have no defence against the Moskit, Yah'konts and Krypton missiles in the Chinese armoury. As for awacs, they're puttting awacs into service very shortly and likely any fights will be in chinese ground radar coverage anyways. The Chinese have a concept called the assassins mace, which involves the uses of stuff like the Moskit to take out much more valuable stuff like carriers, that summer pulse 04 operation the US carried out this year was the US responding to the new chinese doctrine.
Originally posted by Janos
Tactically aerial war is only useful in supporting the ground troops, and that's exactly where it's used. Strategically it's excellent and far exceeds other means, except LR missiles - US could lay waste to eastern China's military infrastructure in couple of weeks, but that would be quite useless, as there's no way to actually hold the ground.
A couple of weeks is probably a bit optimistic, plus it'd probably take them that long to build it up again out of the US's reach. I doubt the US could produce the no of bombs required to destroy Chinas infrasturucture in a couple of months, let alone weeks.
Originally posted by Janos
US can't. Nobody can, unless Russia suddenly and mystically manages to become a superpower on par with the US, both economically and militarilly. There's too much land to hold. China has a long way to come, too, 20 years at last. And at that point US and other western NATO members are quite different from what they are today.
US vs China and Russia would be interesting, unlikely though. These excercises arent exactly unusual though, they've done it a few times before. Neither is the amount of money they're spending on Russian weapons, Chinas been giving a good portion of its military budget to them since relations thawed, and its not being spent on ****e either.
Nother worry for the US in a war with China is the large possible fifth colume inside the US itself.
-
I should point out that the US military is specifically designed to kick the everloving crap out of Soviet-style militaries.... which is exactly what the Chinese military is. I wouldn't bet on China versus the US. The US certainly couldn't hold China, but they can knock all of the dragon's stuffing out.
-
You're about ten years behind the times mate.
-
Or is he? Dun dun duuuuuuuuuun... ;)
-
Originally posted by Gank
You're about ten years behind the times mate.
Really? Would you care to explain why and how?
-
China realised the same thing you just pointed out after the first gulf war, they've been restructuring their military ever. Main focus is dealing with the US's air and naval advantages, hence the purchase of Su-27/30s, the supersonic asms and various other bits of russian equipment, SA-20s and advanced eletronics for example. Most of their inventory is soviet era stuff, but they have enough modern stuff to take on and destroy quite possibly the whole US carrier fleet, and without that the US is toothless.
-
You guys played too many games...
The US forces never faced anything better than 30 years old hardware used by less trained troops than them...
Stuff like MiG-29/31 with AA9 (range:130+km and someone pulled F14 and AIM54 out of service in the meantime) supported by IL76 (or whatever their AWACS now is) can face anything except the stealth fighters/bombers (but they are putting into service their own version in the meantime, not to mention that the russian doctrine also makes large use of IRST that don't care for stealth), and on the ground T80 and 90 with reactive armour and 125mm cannons are equal or better than M1, BMP2/3 taught the US what an IFV is, and finally the Hokum is more than capable to do whatever the AH64 Apache do and more, while the older Hind kicks Blackhawck's ass in every respect.
Finally, the US is sorely lacking on the AAA side.
You sport a grand total of ground 5 veichles (if none have been retired in the meantime) capable of offering short range coverage (IR stinger or sidewinder derivative), while the navy does a little better with the sea sparrow, at least as long as the other side doesn't use a decent radard jammer, after that semiactive guidance == useless.
Now, do you want to face this with at least 10-1 numerical odds in their favor?
-
Originally posted by Gank
China realised the same thing you just pointed out after the first gulf war, they've been restructuring their military ever. Main focus is dealing with the US's air and naval advantages, hence the purchase of Su-27/30s, the supersonic asms and various other bits of russian equipment, SA-20s and advanced eletronics for example. Most of their inventory is soviet era stuff, but they have enough modern stuff to take on and destroy quite possibly the whole US carrier fleet, and without that the US is toothless.
Buying modern Russian doesn't mean foolproof. It's exactly the gear (and almost certainly the training) the modern US military is designed to engage. Supersonic ASMs are great, until you realize they'll have to deal with AWACS and Aegis systems which, again, are specifically designed to defeat exactly those threats. China is not and likely won't for a couple decades at least be able to take on the US and realistically expect to win in the military theatre.
-
But the question is can the US, even today, take on China and expect to win militarilly?
I very much doubt it. As Zarax said, the US is not used to fighting someone of their own size. If a few thousand untrained militiamen with old Soviet technology are giving them such trouble in Iraq, what do you think would happen if they faced down a numerically superior, technologically equal (well, roughly equal) enemy?
-
But the question is can the US, even today, take on China and expect to win militarilly?
Usa would win Air war over China if they do suprise attack. but when ground war start I think Usa could have major proplems with Chinese ground forces
-
Originally posted by Zarax
You guys played too many games...
The US forces never faced anything better than 30 years old hardware used by less trained troops than them...
Stuff like MiG-29/31 with AA9 (range:130+km and someone pulled F14 and AIM54 out of service in the meantime) supported by IL76 (or whatever their AWACS now is) can face anything except the stealth fighters/bombers (but they are putting into service their own version in the meantime, not to mention that the russian doctrine also makes large use of IRST that don't care for stealth), and on the ground T80 and 90 with reactive armour and 125mm cannons are equal or better than M1, BMP2/3 taught the US what an IFV is, and finally the Hokum is more than capable to do whatever the AH64 Apache do and more, while the older Hind kicks Blackhawck's ass in every respect.
Oh God no. NO
T-80 is not that modern. It is actually older than Abrams, and lacks the comfortability, fire control system, training and superior armour of the latter. T-90 is yet another update of T-XX series, with it's strenghts (excellent cross-country ability, durable like nothing, survives service abuse, low profile, Arena, advanced ERA systems) and weaknesses (cramped interior, fire control systems THAT WE KNOW OF obsolete and inferior to Western counterparts, ERA can be surpassed and has little effect on DU Sabot rounds, even more modern 125mm Russian guns are not as good as Rheinmetall-Borsig 120mm guns [both L44 and L55]), lack of training and so on.
BMP-2s are the tanks that were destroyed wit 25mm Bushmasters in Gulf Wars. I know these tanks; I have served with them. They are good IFVs, but obsolete - the rear doors, for example, can be penetrated with standard 7,62x51mm rifle round! Said rear doors also contain fuel tanks, and the tank interior is very open. Once again, fire control in even BMP-2Ks is nothing when compared to, say, Marders, Warriors, Bradleys, AMVs or Strykers. Amphibious capability and cross-country performance are good, although BMP-2 especially has thin tracks. It's footprint is bigger than T-72'/80's. It is BMP-1 with a new turret and more badass look, but nothing special.
BMP-3 is a new design and concept, very different from classical BMP/BMD's. It is impressively armed (100mm and 30mm guns, PKTs and new missiles which can be tube-launced - a feature also in use with later Russian tanks, such as late T-80s and T-90s).
MiG-29 is an impressive piece of weaponry, but agility and sturdiness do not play as big role as training, fire control, support and stealth. Elite MiG-29s with something completely else than AA-9s (it's a 1981 design!) can be a significant threat, especially against unprotected targets or in F/A role. Stuff like F-22 and F-35 are, however, decades newer designs. Hell, even new Falcons and Eagles are younger!
Finally, the US is sorely lacking on the AAA side.
what
You sport a grand total of ground 5 veichles (if none have been retired in the meantime) capable of offering short range coverage (IR stinger or sidewinder derivative), while the navy does a little better with the sea sparrow, at least as long as the other side doesn't use a decent radard jammer, after that semiactive guidance == useless.
Now, do you want to face this with at least 10-1 numerical odds in their favor? [/B]
what
-
Originally posted by Janos
what
what
Correct me if i'm wrong, Tom Clancy "technical" books might not be the best source, but it's the easiest to reach...
Ground forces:
-The old Chaparral (modified sidewinders, no radar)
-The Vulcan armed versions of M113 and Humvee
-The Stinger armed humvee
-Infantry weapons (stingers?)
Naval forces:
-Sea Sparrow (quite good compared to the airborne version but still uses semiactive radar)
-Vulcans/RIM66 (the latter is a crossbreed between stinger and sidewinder, uses the warhead of the former combined with the guidance system of the latter IIRC)
Also, please note i specified "with reactive armor", which proved to be quite effective against HEAT rounds.
And about IFVs, no matter whatever you take any RPG of anything over 12.7mm can take them out quite easily, with the exception of the heavy ones made by the IDF from older/captured tanks...
About the russian 125mm cannon, although less precise than the abrams 120mm smoothbore one (only elite tank squads have proper targeting equipment) it is considered capable of taking out M1s and Leopard 2s.
Finally, US never faced anything better than T72s on the ground and poorly trained crews on the air, and you still forget that in CQB technological advantage is quite a minor thing (with todays equiment a lucky shooter can own any infantryman with a simple and cheap AK47, and even a poor T54/55 will be enough to penetrate even choban armor at point blank range, not to mention RPG armed squads with guerrilla tactics), as shown in Iraq urban combat situations.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Correct me if i'm wrong, Tom Clancy "technical" books might not be the best source, but it's the easiest to reach...
Ground forces:
-The old Chaparral (modified sidewinders, no radar)
-The Vulcan armed versions of M113 and Humvee
-The Stinger armed humvee
-Infantry weapons (stingers?)
Naval forces:
-Sea Sparrow (quite good compared to the airborne version but still uses semiactive radar)
-Vulcans/RIM66 (the latter is a crossbreed between stinger and sidewinder, uses the warhead of the former combined with the guidance system of the latter IIRC)
[/b]
And this makes the US "sorely lacking in AA side"...how?
Plus, lol air force lol
Quantity != quality
Also, please note i specified "with reactive armor", which proved to be quite effective against HEAT rounds.
Yep.
And about IFVs, no matter whatever you take any RPG of anything over 12.7mm can take them out quite easily, with the exception of the heavy ones made by the IDF from older/captured tanks...
About the russian 125mm cannon, although less precise than the abrams 120mm smoothbore one (only elite tank squads have proper targeting equipment) it is considered capable of taking out M1s and Leopard 2s.
There is a difference if an APC hit by an RPG is slighly damaged, totally destroyed or something inbetween, plus the entire crew+soldiers being alive and not. Not THAT many Bradleys have been lost in Iraq, and they are RPG magnets.
And yes, 125mm russian gun is capable of taking out an Abrams or Leo 2, or any MBT. That is, however, not a point for it. It is better against infantry but the AP properties are worse. Combine with greater inaccuracy (especially in long ranges, durrr) and there you see why the 120mm guns are so good.
Finally, US never faced anything better than T72s on the ground and poorly trained crews on the air, and you still forget that in CQB technological advantage is quite a minor thing (with todays equiment a lucky shooter can own any infantryman with a simple and cheap AK47, and even a poor T54/55 will be enough to penetrate even choban armor at point blank range, not to mention RPG armed squads with guerrilla tactics), as shown in Iraq urban combat situations. [/B]
This still quite hugely outweighs the Russian and Chinese experience. They haven't had even that. Russia has been stuck in guerilla wars since Afghanistan, and they haven't even met F-5s or something. China has even less experience. Luck plays a part, but it has rarely won wars. I would absolutely prefer a squad of US infantry on my side over three squads of Russian or Chinese dudes.
BTW, your statement "Russian equipment is better" has now become "well not even the best equipment saves every time".
-
Actually, wasn't Germany in WWII atleast a decade ahead of us when we went to war? I mean, that's where we stole all of our technology from. :p
-
Let's face it, if America and China went to War there would be the same winner as if America and Russia went to War. No-one.
America couldn't hope to contain the Chinese army numerically, whereas China cannot match America technologically, it would either end up as a holocaust, or, more likely drag on into year after year of Orwellian 'Semi-War' which would drain the resources, lives and energy from both countries.
-
Originally posted by Janos
And this makes the US "sorely lacking in AA side"...how?
This still quite hugely outweighs the Russian and Chinese experience. They haven't had even that. Russia has been stuck in guerilla wars since Afghanistan, and they haven't even met F-5s or something. China has even less experience. Luck plays a part, but it has rarely won wars. I would absolutely prefer a squad of US infantry on my side over three squads of Russian or Chinese dudes.
BTW, your statement "Russian equipment is better" has now become "well not even the best equipment saves every time". [/B]
All described weapons == point defence except for the Sparrow but still of limited use.
If you take a look at the russian tech there you will find several different weapon systems ranging from point defence to nearly a hundred kilometers.
The lack of such a capability to seriously defend from aerial threath it's what i call sorely lacking.
Wherever you want to take it it means that any quantity factor that goes over 6-1 in quantity makes things quite ****ty for the little guys on the ground...
True, they will cause massive casualties but once you run out of ammo air superiority is gone.
Also, yes a squad of US dudes will most likely vanquish any numerically equivalent force, but here we're talking about sheer numerical inferiority...
Finally, my statement was more like "russian equipment can be a match for american one" than better :)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Buying modern Russian doesn't mean foolproof. It's exactly the gear (and almost certainly the training) the modern US military is designed to engage. Supersonic ASMs are great, until you realize they'll have to deal with AWACS and Aegis systems which, again, are specifically designed to defeat exactly those threats. China is not and likely won't for a couple decades at least be able to take on the US and realistically expect to win in the military theatre.
Eh, wrong wrong wrong, Missiles like Krypton and Moskit are designed to defeat Awacs and Aegis, not the other way around. Krypton is an anti radiation missile which hits its target at Mach 4.5, Moskit is designed to take out surface combatants impacting at mach 2-3. The US has nothing in service capable of stopping these, time from detection of an inbound moskit to impact is 15 seconds, Krypton is half that. The US has nothing that can take them out, an improved version of the sea sparrow is being developed but its 5-10 years out till its in service. The current sea sparrows cant handle something coming in at that speed and ciws cant track it. Aegis is designed to protect from the likes of subsonic Exokets and Kingfishers, stuff like this was developed to defeat it. Worth noting that bar China the only other country operating these missiles is Iran.
Originally posted by Shrike
China has even less experience. Luck plays a part, but it has rarely won wars. I would absolutely prefer a squad of US infantry on my side over three squads of Russian or Chinese dudes.
Chinas quite a bit of experience, fought a large number of low level conflicts against both Russia and Vietnam. Experience aint everything either though, Serbia had no experience defending its army from massive aeriel bombardment but managed to do quite well, and the US certainly didnt learn anything from its experiences in Vietnam. As for the squads thing, depends what goes with it, if its just infantry I'd think about it a bit more, US infantry wouldnt be worth a **** if you took away the support.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Chinas quite a bit of experience, fought a large number of low level conflicts against both Russia and Vietnam. Experience aint everything either though, Serbia had no experience defending its army from massive aeriel bombardment but managed to do quite well, and the US certainly didnt learn anything from its experiences in Vietnam. As for the squads thing, depends what goes with it, if its just infantry I'd think about it a bit more, US infantry wouldnt be worth a **** if you took away the support.
In 1970s. US and a big part of other NATO countries have participated in war in 1990s and 2000s, on the other hand. And I highly doubt that if someone magically takes away the US support thingamungies (which they will use in war or not go to war at all), their combat value would magically drop beoynd any reasonable level. It depends on whether we're talking about squad or company size or battaillion-division size. The bigger the formation the more severe effect of losing support is. Squads do pretty well without APCs or tanks, but battaillion is in big trouble. That's equally true for Chinese, Russians and so on.
And what do you mean by and the US certainly didnt learn anything from its experiences in Vietnam.
? I am intrigued.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Eh, wrong wrong wrong, Missiles like Krypton and Moskit are designed to defeat Awacs and Aegis, not the other way around. Krypton is an anti radiation missile which hits its target at Mach 4.5, Moskit is designed to take out surface combatants impacting at mach 2-3. The US has nothing in service capable of stopping these, time from detection of an inbound moskit to impact is 15 seconds, Krypton is half that. The US has nothing that can take them out, an improved version of the sea sparrow is being developed but its 5-10 years out till its in service. The current sea sparrows cant handle something coming in at that speed and ciws cant track it. Aegis is designed to protect from the likes of subsonic Exokets and Kingfishers, stuff like this was developed to defeat it. Worth noting that bar China the only other country operating these missiles is Iran.
Uh.... huh. To reiterate my last point, Aegis is specifically designed to stop Soviet-era ASMs, which are big, fast and, erm, fast. Multimach shipkillers carrying 1-ton HE warheads. Moskit is not a new innovation there. You are quite wrong in saying Aegis is designed to defeat subsonic threats - not to mention the AS-6 Kingfish is not subsonic by any means; it's a trisonic attack missile.
Yes, the Moskit is nifty, but its by no means foolproof. I also think you're underestimating the Aegis system and the entire US military's lethality.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Yes, the Moskit is nifty, but its by no means foolproof. I also think you're underestimating the Aegis system and the entire US military's lethality.
Ehh, let me reiterate myself AEGIS CANNOT TAKE DOWN A MOSKIT.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20607
http://www.mcsm.org/1strike.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/190620.shtml
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/966345/posts
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2131524.php
I was wrong about the 15 seconds btw, an Aegis has 2.5 seconds to detect and kill a Sunburn from launch to impact.
And some words on the AEGIS from a man whos actually commanded them:
The Aegis system is very effective as an Air Defence system against air- breathing aircraft, you know sonic or high sub-sonic speeds. It is not highly reliable against incoming missiles. Missiles move at high speeds, at low altitudes so you get very little warning, so Aegis will give you some defence against a missile attack but not anything that will make you comfortable.
http://abc.net.au/4corners/roguestate/interviews/carroll.htm
-
According to Globalsecurity.org, "ut the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery."
However, did you already address the range issue on Sunburn? Claimed ranges vary, most often cited being just 120km. That's not much, and the missile has to be brought to at least that distance from intended to target to be useful. Either insanely large Flanker rush (and I am saying Big Rush) or a lone infiltrator (must use stealth or is ****ed). And there's the entire "find the CV" -issue, again.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Ehh, let me reiterate myself AEGIS CANNOT TAKE DOWN A MOSKIT.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20607
http://www.mcsm.org/1strike.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/190620.shtml
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/966345/posts
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2131524.php
I was wrong about the 15 seconds btw, an Aegis has 2.5 seconds to detect and kill a Sunburn from launch to impact.
Are you reading comprehension deficient? Not one of those articles paid more than a few lines to Aegis - they were focussed on Phalanx and RAM, both of which are close defense systems. It even says 'Phalanx has 2.5 seconds to engage an inbound Moskit'. NOTHING about Aegis.
And some words on the AEGIS from a man whos actually commanded them:
http://abc.net.au/4corners/roguestate/interviews/carroll.htm [/B]
Notice the complete lack of figures? Or anything beyond vague generalities? Hardly an in-depth look at the highs and lows of the Aegis system. Find me a reputable source in a reputable context that actually has relevant, detailed information.
-
You don't need supersonic missiles to take down an Aegis system.
You just need an awful lot of them (IE 200 cruise missiles would work... Aegis carries an operative payload of 96 warheads, after that it takes quite long to recharge).
This is also true for any defence system... Bring a large enough number of them and you'll overload/make them run out of ammo
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Are you reading comprehension deficient? Not one of those articles paid more than a few lines to Aegis - they were focussed on Phalanx and RAM, both of which are close defense systems. It even says 'Phalanx has 2.5 seconds to engage an inbound Moskit'. NOTHING about Aegis.
USS Stark.
edit: bollox, wrong ship, I was thinking of the vincentes, which is aegis and which didnt get hit by two exocets. Anyways
Powered by a liquid-ramjet engine with four solid rocket boosters, The 3M80 missile has the fastest flying speed among all anti-ship missiles in today's world. The missile is supersonic (Mach 2.1), low-flying (7 to 20 m, or about 23 to 66 feet, above the surface of the water) and performs a terminal ‘S’ manoeuvre (pulling up to 15G) to evade close-in defenses at a distance of 5 to 7 km (about 2.7 to 3.8 nautical miles) to its target. The 3M-80E missile, an improved variant of the basic 3M-80, has an operational range of 160 km.
............
During its initial flight stage, the 3M-80E uses inertia guidance with update input from the targeting radar onboard a shipborne helicopter or a space satellite. When it is reaching the final stage of its flight, the missile’s Altair-designed multi-channel seeker uses active radar, anti-radiation and home-on-jam modes to ensure that the missile hits the target.
Its designed to defeat the Aegis system. Older sov missiles like the Kelt and kingfish (was wrong on the subsonic apols) fly at high level and perform a terminal dive on the target, this is why the sams on the Aegis are verticle launch. The sea skimming supersonic moskit is too fast for the missiles to turn and engage quick enough, rendering them useless. Phalanx is next to useless because of the violent terminal manueveurs the moskit performs. Bear in mind this is all presuming the aegis survives the Krypton missiles which have been fired at it, theyre twice as fast as the Moskit.
Originally posted by Shrike
Notice the complete lack of figures? Or anything beyond vague generalities? Hardly an in-depth look at the highs and lows of the Aegis system. Find me a reputable source in a reputable context that actually has relevant, detailed information.
umm, like your posts perhaps, you havent provided anything accept vague assurances that AEGIS can take down a Moskit. Tell you what, YOU go find a reputable source in a reputable context that actually has relevant, detailed information which supports what you're saying, because until you do the vague generalities of a former US navy rear admiral have more weight than your vague generalities, presuming your not a former rear admiral as well. You arent, right?
-
Let's solve it in the simplest way...
Find the specs of:
Sea Sparrow
RIMM96 (phalanx)
Whatever ASM you want.
A crude but unbiased way to see what they can and cannot do...
-
Originally posted by Janos
However, did you already address the range issue on Sunburn? Claimed ranges vary, most often cited being just 120km. That's not much, and the missile has to be brought to at least that distance from intended to target to be useful. Either insanely large Flanker rush (and I am saying Big Rush) or a lone infiltrator (must use stealth or is ****ed). And there's the entire "find the CV" -issue, again.
As we stated before, CVs can hang off and lose range, not something F18s have a lot of, or come in and fight. As for flanker rush, Fantan rush, Flanker in the back. Gonna give you a we bit of credit and presume you can see where that goes. Bear in mind too the Mach 4 Kryptons are designed to hit Awacs as well as ground based radar.
-
Bear in mind that you need IR to hit an AWACS for sure, as their radar jammers aren't something easy to fool...
-
Is this scenario America attacking China or Vice Versa, since China is very big, and that has advantages and disadvantages for both sides?
-
Well, i think that they are describing single tactical scenarios rather than strategic ones...
BTW, what would be really "interesting" would be Russia + China + India against something else...
-
I'm still waiting for a few of these scenarios to blow. India vs. Pakistan, and also China vs. Taiwan. Both of those could have some rather odd effects...
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Is this scenario America attacking China or Vice Versa, since China is very big, and that has advantages and disadvantages for both sides?
Bar the few LRBMs they have China is incapable of attacking the US.
-
Stick to conventional warfare, if you take that to LRBMs then you can chant "this is the end, my friend"
-
Well, all I'll say is that it doesn't matter how good the weapons are if you have to spread them over a massive border then the net of protection os either going to be weak or have holes in it.
China has a massive border, it runs past India, Mongolia, part of Russia in the North, and Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and several other smaller countries in the South. It probably over 5000km of border. You'd need a LOT of weaponry to defend that properly.
My thoughts are that a hypothetical war against China would be similar to Iraq, only worse. America could probably win Militarily, America has had more of the 'luxury' of testing it's equipment against Russian counterparts than vice-versa, however, unless America is prepared to use WMD's of some description, any kind of troop movement inside the border would be impossible. It would be a pointless war.
If the reverse were to happen and China attacked the US, once again, unless they were prepared to use WMD's they wouldn't stand a hope. America can certainly defend it's own soil if need be, and wouldn't hesitate to use WMD's in that situation.
-
LOGISTICS
-
with the amount of privately owned military equipment over here, I'd actualy like to see some nation try to occupy a peice of it.
-
We have nothing other than a .22.. I think... that's in the attic somewhere.