http://gamingtrend.com
July 24, 2014, 11:19:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: China flexing it's military muscle  (Read 1425 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« on: January 08, 2011, 03:21:04 PM »

Quote
“We used be No. 1 at having the leading technology. ... Now, we’re kind of in catch-up mode, where we’ve never really been before.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/07/chinas-new-fighter-jet-pose-terrifying-challenge-fleet/#ixzz1ASQQP8H5

Oh that's just great
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1506


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2011, 03:38:13 PM »

Somehow I feel we're heard that mantra before. Oh yeah, I think it was when the west was worried about the Mig-25 and developed the F-15 to counter it. Then it turned out the Mig-25 wasn't all that after all.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2011, 03:44:10 PM »

If anything, it should at least keep us pushing to get better also.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
ydejin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 981



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2011, 03:48:53 PM »

It continues to amaze me that anyone considers Fox News a real news source:

Quote from: Fox News
The U.S. military's current top-of-the-line fighter is Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor, the world's only operational fifth generation fighter. In 2009, Congress capped production of F-22s at 18, relying on the cheaper F-35. Congress does not appear to be reconsidering the cap, which experts call the only real challenger to China’s J-20.

Uh 18?  There are 168 already built.  Maybe they meant to say 187 (the final planned number to build) and just unintentionally happened to drop off a digit in such a way as to make people think we had only a very small number and should spend more money on defense contracts.

[Edit] I'm far more worried about their anti-carrier missile which has the ability to render all our expensive aircraft carriers useless or at minimum very vulnerable.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 04:05:55 PM by ydejin » Logged
Huw the Poo
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3162


Please feed dog


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2011, 04:02:25 PM »

Well, for one thing this is Fox; even we in the UK know that you have to take any news from Fox with a pinch of salt.  Then we move onto the main interviewee for the piece, Buckley, who used to be a fighter pilot but is now a mouthpiece for a trading consultant.  The article clearly says that he's basing his opinions on photos and a runway video of the jet only.  Who can say how well the stealth technology will perform?  Who outside of China actually has any idea of what the jet is capable of?

I mean, look at this quote from Buckley: "As a former Navy fighter pilot, going up against something that’s stealthy, highly maneuverable and with electronic systems more capable than mine -- that’ll keep me up at night".  How does he know the electronics are so advanced, and pointedly more advanced than anything the USA has?  Don't get me wrong, perhaps he does know, but the article makes absolutely no mention of how he might.

The whole thing is mere scaremongering as far as I'm concerned.
Logged

Resident anti-Steam troll
Steam profile
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1506


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2011, 04:08:32 PM »

Quote from: Huw the Poo on January 08, 2011, 04:02:25 PM

Well, for one thing this is Fox; even we in the UK know that you have to take any news from Fox with a pinch of salt.  Then we move onto the main interviewee for the piece, Buckley, who used to be a fighter pilot but is now a mouthpiece for a trading consultant.  The article clearly says that he's basing his opinions on photos and a runway video of the jet only.  Who can say how well the stealth technology will perform?  Who outside of China actually has any idea of what the jet is capable of?

Exactly. Its the same kind of guessing that intelligence analysts did when trying to analyze the Mig-25. They completely overestimated the Mig's capabilities and misinterpreted it as an air-superiority fighter.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM »

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

I didn't mean for this to turn political, but it amazes me the way people attack something like FoxNews, when a potential Chinese F-22 killer is closer to a reality.

Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8271


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2011, 04:17:58 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

I didn't mean for this to turn political, but it amazes me the way people attack something like FoxNews, when a potential Chinese F-22 killer is closer to a reality.



Why on earth do you nitpick when its perfectly clear what he means? And even we here in Denmark knows that foxnew's arent the most reliable news station.

The article itself is amazingly unclear on its facts and where it got them, and source and fact checking is basic journalism. If you dont report those, your piece of journalism is suspect.
Logged

A new one
Huw the Poo
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3162


Please feed dog


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2011, 04:19:29 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

What?  Are you trying to create an argument out of thin air?  Nowhere did I say I speak for the whole country; why the hell would I make such an absurd claim?  All I meant is that Fox has a bad reputation in the UK for the same reasons that it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans.

Edit: And what Raz said.
Logged

Resident anti-Steam troll
Steam profile
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2011, 04:20:39 PM »

Oh, then by all means point me to the Holy Grail of accurate journalism.

Please, enlighten me.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2011, 04:22:48 PM »

Quote from: Huw the Poo on January 08, 2011, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

What?  Are you trying to create an argument out of thin air?  Nowhere did I say I speak for the whole country; why the hell would I make such an absurd claim?  All I meant is that Fox has a bad reputation in the UK for the same reasons that it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans.

Edit: And what Raz said.

By saying "we in the UK" you have absolutely assumed to speak for all there. And you assumed falsely again by adding "it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans."

Please, point me to this fact.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8271


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2011, 04:23:10 PM »

I suspect that as in Denmark, the US has schools of journalism? Try looking there.

Edit: nevermind, this is pointless.
Logged

A new one
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2011, 04:27:15 PM »

Was it too much to ask that we talk about this plane's possible capabilities, along with China's other potential military advantages in the world? or hell, we could have even talked about any other country's potential military advantages here too.

But I guess attacking FoxNews is the only interest.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12420


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2011, 04:27:36 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: Huw the Poo on January 08, 2011, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

What?  Are you trying to create an argument out of thin air?  Nowhere did I say I speak for the whole country; why the hell would I make such an absurd claim?  All I meant is that Fox has a bad reputation in the UK for the same reasons that it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans.

Edit: And what Raz said.

By saying "we in the UK" you have absolutely assumed to speak for all there. And you assumed falsely again by adding "it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans."

Please, point me to this fact.

Roll Eyes
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2011, 04:29:04 PM »

Quote from: Gratch on January 08, 2011, 04:27:36 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: Huw the Poo on January 08, 2011, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

What?  Are you trying to create an argument out of thin air?  Nowhere did I say I speak for the whole country; why the hell would I make such an absurd claim?  All I meant is that Fox has a bad reputation in the UK for the same reasons that it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans.

Edit: And what Raz said.

By saying "we in the UK" you have absolutely assumed to speak for all there. And you assumed falsely again by adding "it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans."

Please, point me to this fact.

Roll Eyes

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

perhaps you care to point me to the most accurate news source?
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3357



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2011, 04:32:18 PM »

Ugh, I clicked a Fox News link. Not only do I feel unclean, I also feel an inexplicable compulsion to demand more military spending.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12420


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2011, 04:33:10 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:29:04 PM

Quote from: Gratch on January 08, 2011, 04:27:36 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: Huw the Poo on January 08, 2011, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

What?  Are you trying to create an argument out of thin air?  Nowhere did I say I speak for the whole country; why the hell would I make such an absurd claim?  All I meant is that Fox has a bad reputation in the UK for the same reasons that it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans.

Edit: And what Raz said.

By saying "we in the UK" you have absolutely assumed to speak for all there. And you assumed falsely again by adding "it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans."

Please, point me to this fact.

Roll Eyes

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

perhaps you care to point me to the most accurate news source?

EDIT:  Nevermind, I should  know better.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 04:34:48 PM by Gratch » Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2011, 04:34:39 PM »

Quote from: Gratch on January 08, 2011, 04:33:10 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:29:04 PM

Quote from: Gratch on January 08, 2011, 04:27:36 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: Huw the Poo on January 08, 2011, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:14:57 PM

Quote
we in the UK

dude, seriously? You're speaking for the whole of the UK now?

What?  Are you trying to create an argument out of thin air?  Nowhere did I say I speak for the whole country; why the hell would I make such an absurd claim?  All I meant is that Fox has a bad reputation in the UK for the same reasons that it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans.

Edit: And what Raz said.

By saying "we in the UK" you have absolutely assumed to speak for all there. And you assumed falsely again by adding "it has a bad reputation amongst a lot of Americans."

Please, point me to this fact.

Roll Eyes

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

perhaps you care to point me to the most accurate news source?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about which news source you think is most accurate.  The  Roll Eyes was for you starting the same ridiculous bullshit in this thread that you do in every other.

Starting it? hmm, that's an interesting observation.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Huw the Poo
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3162


Please feed dog


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2011, 04:35:02 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:27:15 PM

But I guess attacking FoxNews is the only interest.

Oh my fucking god.  This is ridiculous.  One of the few publications I respect is a UK paper called the Independent.  Now, if the Indie printed that very same article, I would still have dismissed it because it's a pile of unsourced, unprofessional, scaremongering bollocks.  The only reason I mentioned that it's Fox is because of its reputation which is a contributing factor but far from the only reason the article is not worth anyone's attention.

Zekester, I don't know why you're acting this way but you're going way over the top here.  I see little point in continuing this discussion with you when you seem hell-bent on twisting everything that's said that you don't agree with.  Oh, and...

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:22:48 PM

By saying "we in the UK" you have absolutely assumed to speak for all there.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on the internet for a while.  Would it be better for you if I'd said "some Brits think Fox is an unreliable news source"?  Because that's all I meant and I think you know it.  The reason I phrased it the way I did originally was to highlight the fact that despite Fox being an American news company, its reputation is such that even people in other countries are wary of it.  You can disagree with whether that reputation is deserved all you want - I don't give a flying fuck because I'm capable of forming my own opinions - but I'm afraid you can't change the fact that it's how a lot of the world thinks of Fox.
Logged

Resident anti-Steam troll
Steam profile
ydejin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 981



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2011, 04:39:33 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:27:15 PM

Was it too much to ask that we talk about this plane's possible capabilities, along with China's other potential military advantages in the world? or hell, we could have even talked about any other country's potential military advantages here too.

At this point, we don't know much about the new plane's actual capabilities.  We may not know enough to have a meaningful discussion at this point.  From Aviation Week:

Quote
[J]ust because the front end of the J-20 looks like an F-22 does not mean that it is an F-22 clone.

...

[Another] source of error is an attempt to exploit the appearance of a new Chinese or Russian system to support a pre-existing belief system. That's why people who want more defense spending will upsell the threat, and predict that the new whatever-it-is will be operational next week and in production at a rate of 100 per year, and those on the other side will point to the adversary's primitive technology level, and argue that the new aircraft is merely an X-plane. The right answer usually lies between those points, but more importantly, it won't be found that way.

That's from Bill Sweetman, Editor at Aviation Week and Formerly an Editor at Jane's Information Group.  IMO someone who is far more likely to be knowledgeable about this airplane than Fox's decorated former-fighter pilot who works in stock options trading and is no longer in the military or defense industry.
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2011, 04:40:29 PM »

Quote
Would it be better for you if I'd said "some Brits think Fox is an unreliable news source"?  Because that's all I meant and I think you know it.  The reason I phrased it the way I did originally was to highlight the fact that despite Fox being an American news company, its reputation is such that even people in other countries are wary of it.  You can disagree with whether that reputation is deserved all you want - I don't give a flying fuck because I'm capable of forming my own opinions - but I'm afraid you can't change the fact that it's how a lot of the world thinks of Fox.

Uhh, ya it would have been a lot better. I'm glad you realized it.

Now, is anyone interested in continuing anything remotely close to the topic subject here? So China doesn't have anything now, or in the works, that give then a profound military advantage? So this plane is actually a cardboard cutout, and absolutely does not demonstrate the direction the world order could be heading in?

Edit: thanks ydejin
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Gryndyl
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 908



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2011, 04:44:18 PM »

Not much of a concern, according to this guy:

http://www.warisboring.com/2010/12/29/chengdu-j-20-chinas-first-stealth-fighter/
Logged

Twitter: Slush Pile Tweets
Amazon Author Pages: Horror, Humor
ydejin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 981



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2011, 05:03:13 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:40:29 PM

...

Now, is anyone interested in continuing anything remotely close to the topic subject here? So China doesn't have anything now, or in the works, that give then a profound military advantage? So this plane is actually a cardboard cutout, and absolutely does not demonstrate the direction the world order could be heading in?

I'd definitely be interested to see what people think about the new Chinese anti-ship missile system.  It purportedly has a range of around 2000 miles.  Wikipedia claims that an F/A-18 Super-Hornet has a range of 1,275 nautical miles or 1,467 statute miles carrying only a pair of AIM-9 sidewinders.  With full ground strike ordinance, range is much much less at 449 miles.  This means that anywhere where the carrier can go where its planes can actually be of use, the Chinese can hit it.  It seems to me this renders our carriers completely useless, or at least should make planners nervous enough that they may be very reluctant to send carriers in show the flag / show of force situations.  Given the fact that we are heavily dependent on the navy for projecting power, this is a huge deal.

I'm not sure what the answer is.  You could go with smaller, cheaper ships.  But the cost of a ship is always going to be much, much more than the cost of a single anti-ship missile.  You can try to go with stealthy ships like the Littoral Combat Ship.  It certainly seems to me that if China's anti-ship missile technology works well, the days of the big carrier are numbered.
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2011, 05:10:58 PM »

I've always assumed there were submarines still around capable of taking out a carrier anyway, and wouldn't this missile be a bit easier to intercept considering the distance it would assuming to be travelling?
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2011, 05:22:03 PM »

Quote from: ydejin on January 08, 2011, 05:03:13 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:40:29 PM

...

Now, is anyone interested in continuing anything remotely close to the topic subject here? So China doesn't have anything now, or in the works, that give then a profound military advantage? So this plane is actually a cardboard cutout, and absolutely does not demonstrate the direction the world order could be heading in?

I'd definitely be interested to see what people think about the new Chinese anti-ship missile system.  It purportedly has a range of around 2000 miles.  Wikipedia claims that an F/A-18 Super-Hornet has a range of 1,275 nautical miles or 1,467 statute miles carrying only a pair of AIM-9 sidewinders.  With full ground strike ordinance, range is much much less at 449 miles.  This means that anywhere where the carrier can go where its planes can actually be of use, the Chinese can hit it.  It seems to me this renders our carriers completely useless, or at least should make planners nervous enough that they may be very reluctant to send carriers in show the flag / show of force situations.  Given the fact that we are heavily dependent on the navy for projecting power, this is a huge deal.

I'm not sure what the answer is.  You could go with smaller, cheaper ships.  But the cost of a ship is always going to be much, much more than the cost of a single anti-ship missile.  You can try to go with stealthy ships like the Littoral Combat Ship.  It certainly seems to me that if China's anti-ship missile technology works well, the days of the big carrier are numbered.

We do have anti missile technology as well.   A long range missile like that should be somewhat susceptible to something like the Patriot missile system.  That was late 90's tech as well so who knows what they got now or could crank out if need be.  Just slap a few of those on some destroyers flanking our carriers and we could be good to go.


edit:  Zeke, Fox news has a rep as being full of shit so stop trying to start something with our friends across the pond.  This is an interesting topic let's not derail it with something as stupid as a misinterpretation about something trivial.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 05:25:35 PM by morlac » Logged

morlac00 on PSN
ydejin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 981



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2011, 05:24:51 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 05:10:58 PM

I've always assumed there were submarines still around capable of taking out a carrier anyway, and wouldn't this missile be a bit easier to intercept considering the distance it would assuming to be travelling?

This particular missile is a ballistic missile, not a standard surface missile or a cruise missile that our Phalanx anti-missile systems are designed to defend against.  In order to defend against this type of missile you basically need SDI type ABM defense, something that we are only now starting to get online.

I think Submarines are a bit easier to defend against.  A ballistic missile can strike our Carriers in the East China Sea from mainline China with almost no warning.  For a submarine, they'd have to get in position and be vulnerable to our anti-submarine measures.
Logged
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2011, 05:26:30 PM »

Quote from: ydejin on January 08, 2011, 05:24:51 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 05:10:58 PM

I've always assumed there were submarines still around capable of taking out a carrier anyway, and wouldn't this missile be a bit easier to intercept considering the distance it would assuming to be travelling?

This particular missile is a ballistic missile, not a standard surface missile or a cruise missile that our Phalanx anti-missile systems are designed to defend against.  In order to defend against this type of missile you basically need SDI type ABM defense, something that we are only now starting to get online.

I think Submarines are a bit easier to defend against.  A ballistic missile can strike our Carriers in the East China Sea from mainline China with almost no warning.  For a submarine, they'd have to get in position and be vulnerable to our anti-submarine measures.


hmm.  No patriot missiles then...blast it all I was wrong!

edit:


hmm or not?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/

"Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. Patriot (MIM-104) is produced by Raytheon in Massachusetts and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Florida. "
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 05:30:41 PM by morlac » Logged

morlac00 on PSN
ydejin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 981



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2011, 05:30:46 PM »

Quote from: morlac on January 08, 2011, 05:22:03 PM

We do have anti missile technology as well.   A long range missile like that should be somewhat susceptible to something like the Patriot missile system.  That was late 90's tech as well so who knows what they got now or could crank out if need be.  Just slap a few of those on some destroyers flanking our carriers and we could be good to go.

Possibly.  Apparently the Patriots didn't actually work very well, nowhere near as well as was claimed during the Gulf War.  The problem with our aircraft carriers is they really are putting all our eggs in the same basket.  We've only got a dozen of them, and in a crisis situation in for example Taiwan, it's unlikely we'll have more than 2 or maybe 3 there at most.  That means if they get lucky, we could easily lose half or even all of our combat power.  Plus are we really going to stick a multi-billion dollar weapon system along with thousands of crew into a situation where there's a good chance they'll get whacked?  It seems like a more diversified navy with less large expensive targets is going to be a better approach in a world where anti-ship ballistic missiles exist.

[Edit] yeah, my understanding is that Patriots are designed to counter ballistic missiles, they just didn't do a very good job of it.  (In spite of early claims that they worked well.)

Quoting Wikipedia:

Quote
The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%.

...

On April 7, 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a House Committee stating that, according to their independent analysis of video tapes, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 05:34:29 PM by ydejin » Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6314


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2011, 05:33:14 PM »

And here we have yet another thread in which people, for no reason whatsoever, attack and ridicule Zekester even though he's this forum's master of cohesive and well thought out arguments. When shall we all learn that when Zekester speaks, we listen? How can there be a flaw in his arguments? Even he sees this as he never stoops to your level by attempting to answer your pitiful concerns about his arguments. You should know better! Yet you all take it one step further by attacking Zekester's impeccable reputation and his flawless sources. How dare you? HOW DARE YOU?
Logged
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2011, 05:34:19 PM »

Well then we will be forced to crank it to 11 and go with this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6314


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2011, 05:37:52 PM »

Quote from: morlac on January 08, 2011, 05:34:19 PM

Well then we will be forced to crank it to 11 and go with this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment

Ah, one of the major inspirations for Lost. Love it! smile
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2011, 05:41:35 PM »

It's looking like a carrier should be rendered to small-theatre situations only in the future.

It's probably a good thing, as carriers have to be absurdly expensive to operate continuously.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9834


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2011, 05:43:22 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 05:10:58 PM

I've always assumed there were submarines still around capable of taking out a carrier anyway, and wouldn't this missile be a bit easier to intercept considering the distance it would assuming to be travelling?

a missile is a hell of a lot harder to intercept than a sub.

faster top speed which both limits interception jets to just the fastest ones and how long you have before the missile hits.  then you have to wonder how accurate out anti-missile systems are.  they have undoubtedly advanced since the days of the patriot vs scud era, but it's still harder to hit a missile than it is an aircraft with any payload, especially at speed.  

now factor in their ability to strike en masse beyond our ability to take out their defenses and relative availability/cost and you could easily expect a barrage instead of single digit attacks.  

i would expect to see a wider array of support vessels with point defense systems and basically throw up a hail of lead to cut them down in advance.

of course, all this is based on speculation on both sides.  what their capabilities are and tbh, what ours are.  it's not like the US military publishes perfectly accurate data on all our weapon systems.  

pre-post edit.  
so a ballistic system is even more hard to defend against than straight cruise missiles.  which negates our interceptors and ship based anti missile systems.  unless we have actually got star wars running in the backend without letting on we did, there's a great chance of getting hit.  and like ydejin said, it only takes one strike to cripple our combat effectiveness in a strike force.  without an active battle group and carrier, we go on the defensive position.
Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 7897



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2011, 05:55:03 PM »

How the hell does this thread break down into a credibility argument about Fox news. That network's news is thought of as a joke by many a Canadian too. From what I've watched of it I can't really disagree with that - certainly the most blatantly biased military coverage I've ever viewed.

Now back to the main topic. This report is a bit too coincidental with troubles planned sales of the F-35 are having in Canada and other countries. The 9 billion price tag to Canada is getting the F-15SE Silent Eagle, Super Hornet Block III and Eurofighter more than a few looks. I also don't buy the F-35 is so much below the F-22 in capability and that this new Chinese fighter will be super uber. I'll wait for more concrete evidence than a fox news report before crying the "the sky is falling" or actually, "the sky is too silent." slywink
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 05:56:47 PM by kronovan » Logged
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1506


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2011, 06:48:36 PM »

Quote from: ydejin on January 08, 2011, 05:03:13 PM

I'd definitely be interested to see what people think about the new Chinese anti-ship missile system.  It purportedly has a range of around 2000 miles.  Wikipedia claims that an F/A-18 Super-Hornet has a range of 1,275 nautical miles or 1,467 statute miles carrying only a pair of AIM-9 sidewinders.  With full ground strike ordinance, range is much much less at 449 miles.  This means that anywhere where the carrier can go where its planes can actually be of use, the Chinese can hit it.  It seems to me this renders our carriers completely useless, or at least should make planners nervous enough that they may be very reluctant to send carriers in show the flag / show of force situations.  Given the fact that we are heavily dependent on the navy for projecting power, this is a huge deal.

I'm not sure what the answer is.  You could go with smaller, cheaper ships.  But the cost of a ship is always going to be much, much more than the cost of a single anti-ship missile.  You can try to go with stealthy ships like the Littoral Combat Ship.  It certainly seems to me that if China's anti-ship missile technology works well, the days of the big carrier are numbered.

Guys, maybe its all the RTS playing we do but targeting a carrier ain't as simple as seeing it on the computer screen, right clicking, and hitting 'special missile attack'. One has to find the damn carrier first, and that's not all that easy to do. If it were easy to find the carrier then the Navy wouldn't spend time launching E-3 AWAC aircraft or conduct studies to figure out what is the optimum distance to put them from the carrier and in which direction. Not to mention studies on where to put the other carrier supporting vessels in the task force.

Secondly, say you find the carrier. You have to then keep that target in sight, communicate that back to the missile launch facility, and have some sort of sensor tracking the target to provide course corrections to the ballistic missile on its terminal approach.

Third I don't think anyone has ever attempted hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile loaded with a conventional warhead. I doubt very much it can happen and in any case China has to do the testing to prove it. And since we can detect ballistic missile launches they can't exactly keep those tests, and the results of those tests, a secret.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 673



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2011, 07:22:16 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:27:15 PM

Was it too much to ask that we talk about this plane's possible capabilities, along with China's other potential military advantages in the world? or hell, we could have even talked about any other country's potential military advantages here too.

But I guess attacking FoxNews is the only interest.

Are we just supposed to guess at it's capabilities? Maybe it can pinpoint AMPs anywhere in the world.

Ale
Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2011, 08:36:53 PM »

It's ok because everything I buy is made in China now. So if they improve then my items improve.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2011, 08:38:15 PM »

Quote from: Alefroth on January 08, 2011, 07:22:16 PM

Quote from: Zekester on January 08, 2011, 04:27:15 PM

Was it too much to ask that we talk about this plane's possible capabilities, along with China's other potential military advantages in the world? or hell, we could have even talked about any other country's potential military advantages here too.

But I guess attacking FoxNews is the only interest.

Are we just supposed to guess at it's capabilities? Maybe it can pinpoint AMPs anywhere in the world.

Ale

ninjas.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Thin_J
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3409


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2011, 08:38:34 PM »

So China's cars, guns, and basically every other mechanically oriented product they make is generally crap, but we're going to assume this jet of theirs is some marvelous wonder of engineering that should threaten the security of every nation of the world?

Yeah ok. When there's some evidence it's capable of even half of what these talking heads are saying, then I might worry some small amount. Till then? Meh.
Logged

Xbox Live: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 673



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2011, 09:29:47 PM »

In other news...



Ale
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.214 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.058s, 2q)