China arming their artificial islands with radar controled naval guns

>>29678000
yeah yeah yeah we get it ching dang. "china strong america weak"

Your anti F35 threads are dying btw

>>29678000
Doesn't make a diffrence, more or less just a effort to avoid being cucked by the US even further.

File: HMG mounts on artificial island Chigua Reef Dongmen Jiao.jpg (162KB, 1388x668px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1388x668px

>>29678000
HMG mounts and 65mm anti-frogmen grenade launchers also have been spotted.

Basically, a warship as a building.

>2016
>static defenses

zozzle

File: 14lsyf9.jpg (739KB, 1276x1280px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 1276x1280px

>>29678019
Western intelligence has already forsee something like this happening, by comparing them with the Flak-Towers of Germany in WWII.

>>29678031

knowing Chinese engineering it wont even need to get shot at for it to fall apart.

File: HQ-9 Long Range SAM on artificial island.jpg (66KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 950x633px

>>29678030
>2016
>Not realizing it is the age of A2AD

>>29678042

go buy yourself a nice pair of knockoff nikes with those 5 cents zhang

File: fuck you.gif (196KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 500x281px

Oh wow, three-inchers, in exposed mountings. Woop de doo

Nice

Can't wait for them to start installing the VLS into them too, like the US's land-based AEGIS

File: 1454185478937.jpg (660KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 2560x1440px

>We live in an age of fortress-islands again

>2016
>Using 3 inch guns
y tho

>>29678059
>three inchers firing 120 rds/min and is radar guided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dESW9hMuA2g

File: brrrrrt wut.gif (385KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 300x240px

>>29678064
They will likely get Type 730 turrets as well.

Two things:

1. WTF are buildings for in the first place?

2. What's it like to be stationed on one of these things? Like being on a ship that never goes into port?

>>29678113
>1. WTF are buildings for in the first place?

Uh, they're military bases. I'd have thought that was pretty evident from all the soldiers and flags and weapons.

File: 1290261427032.jpg (296KB, 1140x1198px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1140x1198px

>>29678113
1. For the sake of fortifying their previously submerged reefs and for providing better habitation for the sad marines that had to stay on shitty small huts before.

2. Likely better than the shitty small huts or warships, as you have more space to do things and you grow your veggies yourself.

>>29678094
The ching-chong model has 150 ready rounds, and assuming it has the same range as the soviet model, a max range of 15.5km. I doubt most potential aggressors against these islands would approach that close with something that a 76mm round could hurt before simply destroying the gun.

File: 103715d483ytj440ny7tc8.jpg (537KB, 1990x1611px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1990x1611px

>>29678031
Chigua Reef in question.

But those buildings have been seen on other new islands as well...

File: ching chong.jpg (1MB, 1920x775px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x775px

We're going to make these ours the way we made Guam and all those shitty little pacific islands ours.

File: 223602gamcgacbrapccccs.jpg (1MB, 2000x2420px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2420px

>>29678157
A different island with the same structure.

Military fortifications are rad, regardless of who builds them.

>>29678157
Are the 76mm cannons on the platforms leading out from the building?

>>29678030
static defenses are fine
machine guns/small cannon on top of apartment buildings are not

I doubt these islands can even support the concrete/steel necessary for fortifying them properly

>>29678157
what purpose could such a design serve...

>>29678152
They can shoot down missiles too, they're DP cannons after all.

>>29678210
I think so.

On every tower one 76mm gun, the FCS at every corner of the main building. Highest top houses the high-rate search/sea-skimmer defense radar.

>>29678212
>I doubt these islands can even support the concrete/steel necessary

Just stop. Right there.

If you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about, stop talking about it.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 184x184px

>Cold War 2.0
>A Three Way between Chinks, Vatniks and Burgers
I don't know whether I should be worried or aroused

>>29678230
?
Islands sink when weight is put on them
Dirt compresses
You start shipping steel & concrete, and suddenly its not an island anymore

cuz the thing sank 20 feet

File: yt8tOeV.jpg (112KB, 732x553px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 732x553px

Well, if woody island is any indication, they will get YJ-62A (somthing like an anti-shipping tomahawk) cruise missiles soon as well.

Those 76mm turrets might serve as close in defense and deterrence against small boats.

File: 1454095021533.jpg (146KB, 835x1170px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 835x1170px

>>29678246
>Islands sink when weight is put on them

File: Tomahawk_kiss_of_death1021.jpg (155KB, 1021x580px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1021x580px

>>29678030

/thread

>>29678230

well hey in his defense they are man-made islands right? like the ones in dubai? didn't they just recently sink?

>>29678246
Those islands are build on existing coral reefs, that are in return growin on rocky foundation. They could even dig cellars and underground cavities there.

It is not that they simply pile sand on sand. If so, they wouldnt just use their existing reefs but literally build anywhere.

>>29678246
>Dirt compresses

>I DON'T KNOW WHAT FOUNDATIONS ARE

FUCKING CHRIST, STOP. THIS IS EMBARRASSING.

>>29678256
Hmm. That sounds retarded but erosion sure as fuck will sink those islands. If Alameda, CA keeps on sinking fslowly from Erosion, I'm sure these chinkshit islands will sink as well

File: 1186574977_72724.jpg (149KB, 942x532px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 942x532px

GREATEST
FUCKING
JOB
EVER

File: 1371946352873.gif (2MB, 542x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 542x360px

>>29678246
>Islands sink when weight is put on them

>>29678270

could you stop sperging out? like, way to have a faggot reaction, you could just simply explain to the guy what's wrong with his theory, but instead you're throwing a temper tantrum, grow up.

>>29678091

To keep civilian vessels away and to act as a deterrent to spec ops teams. The fishermen would just fuck off, but SEALs aren't likely to try anything if their exit route will get butt pounded by artillery.

File: CAN'T WAKE UP.jpg (16KB, 302x269px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 302x269px

>>29678278
>erosion sure as fuck will sink those islands

Yeah, it's not like they can repair erosion damage with their massive fleet of island-constructing dredgers or anything

File: 1186574977_91213.jpg (217KB, 942x532px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 942x532px

>>29678285

>>29678296
You are talking about a person who thinks islands sink

You want your hand held through that then you need to get the fuck off this website

File: 1186574977_69651.jpg (168KB, 942x532px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 942x532px

>>29678302
>you will never patrol with your bros on an artificial island all day erry day for 3 fucking years

>>29678217
I wonder if the old low-observable cruise missiles will be dusted off?

>>29678310
Islands do sink when millions of tons of concrete and steel is placed atop them

File: 1186575128_82466.jpg (194KB, 942x532px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 942x532px

>>29678311
At least sometimes you get trees and natural beaches and shit. But only on the natural islands.

File: fort-drum-47.jpg (109KB, 789x538px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 789x538px

>>29678246
>>29678212
Yeah when the US covered that island with thousands of tons of reinforced concrete and steel it sunk right into the sea instantly

File: 1186574977_49912.jpg (204KB, 942x532px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 942x532px

>>29678321
Look, a Shark!

Wait, what?

File: tumblr_lr4e1acsOr1qkq0nf.gif (187KB, 500x410px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x410px

>>29678278
this for the most part. ocean weather and time is not known for its kindness to man made buildings

mfw all these ching chong islands will be completely dilapidated when something actually goes down

>>29678217
>They can shoot down missiles too, they're DP cannons after all.
>76mm
>CIWS guns

ahahaa no, dude. No. Those guns are there for the same reason modern air-defense warships bristling with fuckin long-range SAMs and anti-ship cruise missiles have them - for shooting shit that gets close, or for when the shooting only starts *after* they've gotten close. That's the bitch about reality, if you're not technically at war with someone, you can't really shoot them till they sail up to your base, and once they HAVE, you don't know if they're just there to scream REEEE CHINA GET OOOOUT and wave PINOY PRIDE WORLD WIDE flags to make your ambassadors cry like babies some more, or if they're planning to shrek you via surprise.

Best to be prepared.

File: 4537427457.jpg (69KB, 810x540px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 810x540px

>>29678330

>>29678324
>fort drum

DONT GIVE THEM IDEAS!

>>29678342
>ahahaa no, dude. No

ahahaha, yes, dude, Yes.

Same reason modern ship guns can shoot down anti-ship missiles.

File: 1374967297471.gif (2MB, 249x238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 249x238px

>>29678302
>>29678311
>>29678330

>>29678310
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence

>>29678363
>Same reason modern ship guns can shoot down anti-ship missiles.

They can't. Seriously. 57mm, 76mm and 127mm guns have an anti-air capability (hell they've had it since the first dual-angle guns in the 1940s) but their ROF are nowhere *near* good enough to take on cruise missiles. They can try, but their chances are even worse than normal CIWS guns. Which is why 30mm stuff like Goalkeeper (and the Chinese ripoff of it) exist.

If you think they're trusting defense of these islands to a few peashooters you're nuts; they'll definitely have both point-defense missiles and long-range SAM systems like an HQ-9.

>>29678363
Naval guns CAN intercept missiles, but they're not ideal for it, especially if you're dealing with multiple incoming missiles. Just like CIWS they are a last resort defense against missiles.

>>29678410
>They can't. Seriously

HMS Avenger shot down an Exocet with a 4.5in deck gun back in 1982.

What part of "dual purpose" don't you get?

>>29678352

Few hundred gallons of diesel fuel poured in and lit on fire sure put a quick end to Fort Drum.

>>29678413
Naval guns are fantastic for it
The issue is, if they miss, you don't have time to do anything else

>>29678410
>>29678342
Ey PF, your bullshit inspired me to join the Navy mang.

File: 222048b41ij134m70d55i7.jpg (1MB, 2500x1788px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x1788px

>>29678000
>basically the same weapons and radars of a Type 054A Frigate

I wonder if the Commander of those fortress is raked captain as well...

I don't think the weaponry is meant to be a serious deterrent, rather just for politics and optics. The real muscle behind these islands and all of China's maritime claims is still the PLAN.

Won't these islands turn to quicksand in an earthquake?

>>29678000
looks like extra targets for the tomahawk strike list

File: 1388237232272.jpg (111KB, 511x530px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 511x530px

>>29678423
>HMS Avenger shot down an Exocet with a 4.5in deck gun back in 1982.

Pure dumb luck, also I'd love a cite for that, because that's baller as fuck. Point still stands, if they were any good at it why the fuck would anyone build ships with both point-defense guns *and* deck guns? Except gee, they do.

Can't hurt to have them blazing away, but it's not like China can't afford to equip their little sandcastles with long-range SAMs and thick point defenses, you know>

>>29678493

Oh you poor son of a bitch, I am so sorry

File: RIM-161 SM3 sechesiness.jpg (9KB, 354x529px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 354x529px

>anti-surface application SM-3 is a thing
>Riceniggers BTFO

File: 1457821669454.png (187KB, 675x690px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 675x690px

>>29678651
>anti-surface
>hit-to-kill kinetic warhead

When they said "distributed lethality" they weren't fucking joking were they

>>29678648
I'mma go be a surface sonar tech. I reserve the right to blame you for my poor decision making when the chinks are trying to sink me.

Anyone wondering if they can last through a typhoon or two without serious damage?

File: chinatipo051c.jpg (361KB, 1599x1138px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1599x1138px

>>29678651
You mean SM-6, right?

That's fucking normal, SAM vs surface targets. Ever present in the Chinese arsenal since they got those 48N6s from Russia ages ago.

Their 051C DDG recently took out multiple test-targets with it's SAM in excercises.

>>29678661
1500km range at mach 15.25 for the Block IIa makes my dick hard just thinking about it

>>29678230

> ching chongs literally just piled up sand

Fuck off Zhang

File: Vietnam land reclamation after Typhoon.jpg (270KB, 1000x982px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1000x982px

>>29678697
They already have.

The Vietnamese built islands... Not so much.

The gaping difference in technology, industial scale and civil engineering experience between the claimants is staggering.

>>29678672
>surface sonar tech
>chink subs

"Trying" is the operative word there boyo, hahaha. Sonar is fucking neat, man, nice choice. You reach into the abyss with 1/2 technological genius and 1/2 oracle-of-delphi whale fart interpretation and shit. And when you find something, a rocket drops a fucking torpedo on it.

Yeah, man, YEAH.

>>29678699

Probably, he did. What I REALLY want to know is if the SM-6 has an *over the horizon* surface engagement capability. It has its own radar seeker *and* a backup infared imager, both of which could conceivably do the job, but how well is anyone's guess. Whereas line-of-sight you could control the intercept with the datalink quite easily.

>>29678700
SM-3 will never become anything more than a ABM interceptor, you dork.

It's the SM-6 that is surface combat capable. Not the SM-3 with its exoatmospheric kinetic vehicle.

And being exoatmospheric, it wont even be able to intercept DF-21Ds or the WU-14, because both are cruising within atmosphere.

File: 504.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>29678000
Well that's cute. More targets for the gazillion Tomahawks the islands will eat the second it goes hot.

>>29678262
Kiss my ass, planefag. Static defenses are still useful. They may be taken down, but they've caused you waste your time dedicating inordinate resources to deal with it.

File: HQ-19.jpg (4KB, 97x220px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 97x220px

>>29678721
Hence China fears the SM-6 a lot more than the SM-3, which is why they attempt to have an SM-6 equivalent, but ignore the SM-3 type systems and instead want something like the THAAD (the HQ-19).

>>29678715
SM-6 has already proven to have OTH capability.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sm-6-shatters-engagement-distance-record-300231687.html

File: so sad japan.jpg (136KB, 691x896px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 691x896px

>>29678732
>Static defenses are still useful.

--Imperial Japanese Navy, 1939

>>29678732
>Inordinate resources

More like time. That's really about all that's wasted. You can build more munitions faster than you can build fortifications.

>>29678715
Praying for Burke of maybe P-3 or P-6 dropping sonobuoys. I'd much prefer a Burke though. Thanks for the support.

I'm waiting for one of these new anthropomorphic chinese islands to secede and declare itself an independent republic like Taiwan II Electric Boogaloo.

File: Imma MOP things up.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>>29678732
>static defense are still good

y halo ther

>>29678042
>A2AD
>without mobile assets
>relying on military assets that the enemy has literally years to locate and integrate into operational plans

O i am laffin

>>29678784
What's the standoff with those things?

>>29678805
However high a B-2 can fly

>>29678256
which is completely true. it depends on the island of course, understand not everything is rock born out of the continental shelf. a coral reef sure is fuck is not the big island.

you ever worked in construction? you understand you can't just throw shit down and build on top of it? if you want to build a big structure, unless you're building directly on bedrock you either have to drive piles down into bedrock or dig a big hole and replace ground and compact it and add layers and compact it again and so on, or some combination of the two.

maybe ditch the silly fucking reaction images.

>>29678784
Sure, but a concrete pillbox is waaaaay cheaper than one of those.

And quicker to throw down, if you're not on full wartime munitions production.

>>29678848
>Implying we won't just blast a pillbox with a 5 inch gun after tomahawking everything else

wew lad

File: america burgerflag.gif (263KB, 600x304px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 600x304px

>>29678848
>cost/benefit
>he says to burgerfats

bro.

>>29678848
Yes, you might win the ISK war.
Whoopdi-fucking-do.

>>29678769
If you realize anything, you'd realize that yes, static fortifications served Japan quite well. Remember how much time and effort went in to clearing Iwo Jima and Okinawa? Or that shore batteries kicked the shit out of the Japs at Wake, causing them to waste even MORE time. You're using selective memory here, merely focused on your obsession that fortifications are obsolete because they're destroyable. You of all people should know that's not true.

Or the fact that the Siegfried line completely stonewalled the Allied advance with minimal German forces on the line and caused massive time and resources to be devoted to doing clearing it. This let them group together forces for the counterattack which has become known as the Battle of the Bulge.

>>29678772
Time is a resource. You are using those units to take out fortifications that could be used elsewhere. And the munitions used in removing them need to be replenished, which doesn't magically happen when they're built. For the US, that means sending ships back to port.

>Legitmatly putting shoreline naval batteries as a defense

1948 called, they want their tactics back. What the fuck are they expecting, the USS IOWA to stroll up and bombard the island?

Jesus fucking christ.

>>29678784
bombs can be shot down as well y'know?

>>29678848
I'm pretty sure a general purpose bomb will cost less to build and wreck a pillbox just about instantly.

>>29678784
>pointing out a weapon which can kill a fortification as a means of saying fortifications are obsolete.
You might as well be saying that the DF-21D obsoleted carriers because it could kill them.

File: BEEEEEANS.jpg (148KB, 502x560px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 502x560px

>>29678878
>Yes, you might win the ISK war.
>Whoopdi-fucking-do.

fuck me I lol'd

>>29678881
>IT WERKED IN WWII, IT WILL WERK NOW

Chicoms everyone.

>>29678609
good question. but the chinese are not known for their structural engineering.

>>29678881
They're not obsolete because they're destructible, they're it's that they take very little effort to destroy for very little gain on the part of the defender, especially when the USN has a fucking load of ways to destroy it without even making a blip in their stockpiles.

>>29678881
>static fortifications served Japan quite well

You realize, it doesn't matter how cost effective you are if you lose the war.

>>29678270
i are an foundation engineer, we have to engineer foundations because dirt compresses. but hey, don't trust me, trust karl terzaghi. massive fills like those for the islands will have a huge zone of influence and induce a lot of settlement, depending on what they are built on

>>29678700
You're only hitting that range exoatmospheric. basically going to space and flying away. you're not getting that shit against a surface or atmospheric target. not to speak of targetting.

>>29678848
>can't into asymmetric response

And suddenly you're out of escalation cards to play

File: america get out.jpg (12KB, 133x217px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 133x217px

>>29678881
>Remember how much time and effort went in to clearing Iwo Jima

As an emergency landing strip for B-29s (which were already in range of Japan.) B-52s can reach from CONUS, and there's this little place called Guam you might've heard of.

>shore batteries
>relevant

Sir are you real

>Or the fact that the Siegfried line
>stripped of most of its guns for use on the Eastern front
>"completely stonewalled the Allied advance"

m8

>>29678310
well, what do you know, a man-made island that is settling more than expected ... (27 feet so far)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport#Construction

>>29678909
>>29678917
So I'm a Chicom for saying fortifications aren't obsolete? Fucking hell, mate.

Look. Things never really changed. Fortifications are always doing one basic thing- providing a small force with capability beyond their size. While they take a while to build, they allow a tiny force to slow a force many times their size, which they would not have otherwise been able to do. Fortifications are, by nature, breachable. Nothing is unkillable. But in order to kill them, you have to waste time and resources doing so. This hasn't changed. It will never change.

>>29678609
depends on the gradation of the soil used and the density. i haven't done any filling in hydraulic environments, but i would imagine there is some way to densify the fill mass, maybe vibrocompaction or vibroflotation, or rammed aggregate piers, or something.

geotechnical engineering isn't a particularly old field of engineering, but it's not exactly new either. i imagine there are several potential methods to make sure it won't liquefy under earthquake loading, and unless the chinese are more retarded than i would think, they probably have carefully looked at that issue.

hell, NAVFACS or USACE probably have an unrestricted handbook on this, or it's in part of one of their larger design manuals.

>>29678895
moabs are earthquake bombs. one of those hitting the sea bed close to a fort is going to shake that shit down good and proper. or even just below the surface to generate a wave. those islands are not self sufficient, flood everything out with salt water and people are going to start dying within days unless they can get vital aid by sea. because it's not coming through a usn air embargo.

personally i think it's a waste of time though. the solution to those silly fucking forts is to just bypass them. they are to be used in conjunction with carriers to fill the air defense gaps with a kind of great wall at sea, which is the dumbest fucking idea ever but appeals to the chinese cultural mindset. the solution is to simply sink the carriers and bypass the islands, then attack the ports they depend on for logistics. those islands are dependant on open sealanes for vital resupply, so once those are cut they wither and die. you can be pretty damn sure teh usn has already considered this.

>>29679016
The fundamental problem is this.

>enemy has remotely adequate military intelligence
>has detailed maps of your defensive positions
>be exactly where you expect them to be
>have no way to use that resource to adjust to different enemy plans
>get either outflanked or bombed into oblivion
>odds are, your fortification cost more to construct than it did to kill

File: image.jpg (2MB, 968x7648px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 968x7648px

>expecting chicoms to innovate

File: 8mV2Aro.png (288KB, 1236x888px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1236x888px

>>29679064
>Those copies

KEK

>>29678958
>As an emergency landing strip for B-29s (which were already in range of Japan.) B-52s can reach from CONUS, and there's this little place called Guam you might've heard of.
You're comically missing the point. Do you think the tiny garrison on Iwo Jima would have been able to hold up the Americans that were there for as long as they did, or do the casualties they were able to do, if they were not fortified? Yes or no? The point is just showing that fortifications caused that small force to have a showing far beyond its normal capabilities. You're caught up trying to rationalize away what actually occurred there as unimportant. Regardless of whether or not Iwo Jima was of strategic importance, look at how difficult it was to clear.

>shore batteries
They kept the Japanese landing forces at bay until they were dealt with. Their existence caused a massive delay in the timetable. Now don't think that just because I pointed to what were guns in this case as me saying that guns are going to be useful. In this case, the existence of Anti-Ship Missiles means that you can't just land on the island. You have to deal with them before you can do so. It's about delaying the enemy for what are really just small investments in force.

>thinking that the Siegfried Line didn't stonewall the allied advance
Do you know ANYTHING of the western front? Look up the troubles that were had breaching the Siegfried line, even while it was being held by shitty troops without proper support. Look up how long the Metz region took to pacify. We're talking MONTHS here. Patton, with his proud cry of "FORTIFICATIONS ARE OBSOLETE" was proven horribly wrong there.

>>29679124
>taking examples of people who lost the war and using them to argue that your strategy works

If you've lost the strategic initiative, and you can't counterattack the enemy and force them to commit their resources, you've lost.

File: trash-bridge.jpg (29KB, 381x484px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 381x484px

>>29678031
China mixes trash with concrete in their buildings.

>>29679064
what retard added the bottom 4 pairs?

File: 1455339469543.png (170KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x350px

>>29679094

submarines and stealth fighters will isolate the islands. the chinks will starve as they get sieged out.

Japan fortified the hell out of their pacific islands. Yet that could not save them from being cut off and bombed out and then taken by ground troops.

>>29679064
>>29679094
>>29679158
Oh, look the butthurt nipponese samefag brigade arrives.

Do you enjoy your life in England/Holland?

>>29679181
Forget that, burgerland has bunker busters.

Now there's a fun sentence to say.

>>29679064
Wow. That is impressive. Makes you think that the age of espionage is certainly not a dead one.>>29679064

File: IJxBmSj.jpg (674KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 1920x1080px

>>29679181
Jap islands in WWII didnt create a 600 km exclusion zone around themselves with long range missiles.

>>29679124
>You're comically missing the point.

no, you're comically missing the point. the point being why the us would have to engage these stationary targets. you've been supplied with a reason why the us had to use an infantry landing 70 years ago. why would they now? consider that question from both a strategic and technological viewpoint and you can probably see why these islands are just a little bit silly.

>>29679201
Mr. Burke and his Standardized friends will see about that.

>>29679201
They have to see what is shooting at them first.

Which is going to be even harder in a sky full of commercial air and sea traffic in the first day or so of conflict.

>>29679201
i would love to see how they supply those long range missiles with long range targetting. i really would.

>>29679201
>have essentially static military battery
>every US military unit in the Pacific knew exactly where it could be located
>fuck with the US
>B-2s casually stroll up and MOP everything

I can't see this working out very well.

File: radar blimp.jpg (409KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1024x683px

>>29679229
>>29679234
satellites and radar-blimps, mostly.

>>29679056
But is that really a problem? How much time and effort are you putting in to clear an objective held by a relatively small amount of men? It's economy of force. A small detachment can achieve outweighted effects. If they're killed, they're killed, but they've done more than they otherwise would have. And besides, costs in wartime aren't in price tags, they're in other things, notably time and lives.

Let's take the example of a single well positioned bunker. A friendly platoon comes across this bunker, and can't advance directly on it, nor do they have the ability to take it on directly. Instead, they set up a base of fire and conduct a maneuver to try and remain outside of its arc of fire. After a while, they are able to get up to the bunker, where they require heavy munitions to do much of anything to it. Let's assume they do have it and take it out. How long does that take them? Half an hour at the very least. You know how many men were inside? Three men and a machinegun. You've just held up an advance for a minimum of thirty minutes for the cost of just three soldiers. That's a pretty good delay, in my book. If they hadn't had the equipment, it'd have taken even longer to bring it up.

Or you could call for air support on the bunker, which would take a while to call in. Half an hour is likely the minimum there.

File: 20946059320_ecf459538d_o.jpg (270KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1500x998px

>>29679244
B-2s wouldnt even fly, when Guam/Hawaii is getting Donged to death.

>>29679201
actually looking at that map who gives a fuck. from what i can tell they sure as fuck don't block the chinese mainland so who cares. they're obviously meant to scare of sea countries, why the us would even have to operate in that theatre i can't see.

>>29679259
you are fucking kidding me right

>>29679272
You're not going to win that exchange. Not by a long shot.

>>29679272

>country with limited nuclear delivery capacity launches first strike ballistic missiles at US military bases
>overpopulation in China is suddenly not a problem anymore

File: 20141110051152225.jpg (113KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x667px

>>29679287
No seriously. China is building Aerostats and radar-blimps to put them on islands without runway.

And those with, get a naval aviation regiment with AEW&C attached.

>>29679272
Anon, it's a B-2.

It can and will fly over from Missouri to cornhole you.

>>29679264
I've had this argument with you before, haven't I?

Also, there actually have been engagements between US forces and large, elaborate bunker complexes.

>120mm HEDP warheads usually win

>>29679272
>chinese launch first strike against US since retarded
>green glass sea part 2; chinese boogaloo

>>29679143
>discounting strategies just because one of the sides who used them lost
What the hell is this bullshit?

Fortifications are all about gaining time with the minimum forces committed. I think we can all recognize that the massive counterattack that was the Battle of the Bulge was only possible because the lines were able to be thinned because of the fortifications which were in place. They were able to mass their counterattacking forces and conduct a massive operation. It was Germany's attempt to regain the strategic initiative. It failed, because the Germans were doomed at that point.

However, that is not to say that the fortifications failed in their purpose of creating time. Why is that so hard to recognize?

> the point being why the us would have to engage these stationary targets.
Because they present a threat which you cannot maneuver around. You have one of these bases with an airfield or some antiship missiles, you need to take it out or have your maneuvering seriously hindered by that threat.

And that is not to say that the islands wouldn't fall. They sure as hell would, I am not denying that fact. What I am saying is that they are far from worthless.

>>29679316
you can't see the problem with this, vs the us navy? not to mention simply the difficulty of finding a cbg with a sattelite, but a radar blimp? seriously?

File: 1646364_-_main.jpg (48KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 752x423px

>>29679314
>>29679334
In the age of underground great wall coupled with DF-41 MIRV'ed ICBMs and rail-road capable missiles, the war will be kept conventional.

China's nukes are on hair-trigger alert as well.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/03/china-military-nuclear-obama-ICBM/127139/

File: not sure if bait.png (27KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 527x409px

>>29679272
>riceniggers
>getting the better of a Nuclear exchange

>>29679314
this

>>29679272
it is fucking stupid to launch ballistic missiles when you are a nuclear power. NORAD, NATO, and Russia will fucking piss them selves and start the Happening.

>>29679272
>B-2s
>operating out of Guam

They're based entirely in Missouri, dumbass.

File: YQiRRA8.jpg (188KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x683px

>>29679349
CVBGs are getting tracked since the GF-4 geostat satellite was launched this year.

Shit essentially hovers over the asia-pacific permanently and tracks ships larger than a medium oiler 24/7.

>>29679380
>hypothetical war with china
>US wouldn't shoot down that satellite because of reasons

>>29679348
Here's some fun.

Read some first hand accounts of US forces engaging the Sigfried Line.

What they could do is just move up 155mm guns and direct fire them at pillboxes.

One shell, one dead pillbox, with no risk to any Americans.

And you expect this strategy to work better against an enemy that can drop a 2000 pound general purpose bomb inside a 7 meter radius, for about 20 grand a pop?

File: svj9zt.jpg (547KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1280x1024px

>>29679316
Dont forget the OTH-Surface-Wave arrays!

VHF-band with 1500km range works pretty well against stealthy bombers like B-2s in CMANO.

>>29679362
>anyone winning in an nuclear exchange.

>>29679316
>this pile of shit flies over a CBG
>it gets BTFO by deck-mounted .50s
>>29679360
they just have 300 or so nukes, most all of them liquid fueled and easily recognizable.
all the US would be hit with is the truck mounted ones, and even then the interceptors at Greely could catch some

File: DN-2 anti-GSO satellite missile.jpg (188KB, 440x2453px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 440x2453px

>>29679397
The US is incapable of shooting down satellites on Geostationary Orbit. That's the altitude of GPS satellites. Only lower orbiting spy sats at LEO.

Only China demonstrated that ability with their DN-2 Anti-GSO ASATs in 2013.

>Americans think the Chink wants war with them

>>29679407
>muh magic stealth defeating radar

Enjoy trying to actually guide a missile on target when the enemy has a shitload of EW, HARMs and MALD, and VHF band radar is terrible at providing firing solutions anyway.

>>29679330
>I've had this argument with you before, haven't I?
Probably not.

Two things about the second quote. First, there is no 120mm HEDP round in use by the US. Second, that just plays into my point. It causes you to need to hold up and wait for support. In this case, presumably mortar fire. And it necessitates clean hits on the bunkers, and that the bunkers are weak enough to fail from them, which they may or may not be. Quite possibly are. In any case, setting all this up requires time. Which again, is my point. The fortifications allow this tiny force to be able to delay the enemy for far longer than they should, even without any support.

>>29679421
You know that blimps nowadays get long range radars, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System

The US plans to give one to the Philippines to monitor Chinese activities in the SCS.

>>29679427
oh I forgot. this is the CHINA STRONK thread

>>29679360
you're the one that proposed a chinese first strike.

china would lose any nuclear exchange, first strike or now.

lol it wouldn't even take three minutes to drop some JDAMs on them

>>29679438
A good thing about VHF arrays is that you cant really backtrack the radar source due to their extremely long wave-band and low energy. Hence, you cant detect them by ELINT and cant home a HARM on them.
And with modern software and processing power, the inherent inaccuracy of these VHF radars can be tremendously improved.

That's why even the USA is moving to VHF-band with the E-2D.

>>29679360
DF-41
>not deployed yet

I think that a weapon system that's only been test flighted 5 times and isn't deployed isn't a great threat.

I wonder how many of our warheads are targeted at their 60 ICBM's.

>>29678040
Chinks actually make good gear for their military. It's only the consumer products that are dodgy.

>chinese apartment blocks
Concrete may actually be a mixture of garbage and mortar

>chinese sea forts
Probably made of the best bomb-resistant concrete

>>29679380
Somebody needs to learn the difference between tracking and targeting.

Also, with the amount of heavy and super heavy ships in the SCS, it will be a clusterfuck.

>>29679380
>CVBGs are getting tracked since the GF-4 geostat satellite was launched this year.

i can assure you they're not. the term 'needle in a haystack' applies here.

>>29678173
This looks like a perfect job for the MUHREENZ

File: DSC4484.jpg (154KB, 1499x899px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1499x899px

I see these aerial photos and wonder hmmm, are there bonefish on those flats?

>>29679484
DF-41 will be deployed this year:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e0ce3744-f70a-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132.html

And it's 15.000km range means that China can launch it from anywhere within their country. Even from the Tibetan plateau and the mountain-ranges of Sichuan, the arsenal province, that are well protected against US first strikes.

>>29679454
M1 Abrams brah.

The US is literally never going to send infantry up against a conventional threat without organic armor, and air support.

This has happened in real life.

During the 1991 and 2003 wars with Iraq, the Iraqis tried to use the same defensive tactics that had served them against Iran.

It not only didn't work, but if anything, defensive positions acted as convenient slaughterhouses for Iraqi infantry.

Literally thousands of fedayeen died in Iraqi bunkers during the fight for Baghdad, and all it cost the US was some ammunition.

>>29679398
Yes, that's how they ended up digging them out. Gotta love those M12s. But you know why they had to use these Long Toms in the direct fire role? They weren't achieving hits with indirect fire. And they were forced to do so because they had nothing else that was capable of it. For EVERY SINGLE BUNKER they came across, they had to suppress it, call up an M12, who would only be safe if the enemy was decently suppressed, who would finally be able to knock the thing out. Do you know how long this entire process took just to take out a single bunker? Or how bloody it was if you didn't have one? Have you read ANY accounts of just how brutal the fighting in this area was?

And you STILL don't seem to get it. Yes, they were taken out, but how much time did they earn? This still applies today. How much time do you have to devote to a fortification before you clear it?

It's for this exact reason that the Mobile Protected Firepower project is a thing.

File: 50m res Nimitz carrier red.png (570KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 640x640px

>>29679498
>needly in haystack

Nimitz carrier sized vessel here. At the resolution of the GF-5's permanent observation mode.

Even without wake, you can see it.

>>29679427
the only reason we can't do it is because of treaties limiting us.
if we could run unbridled we'd have a goddamn minuteman complex on the moon by now.
>>29679484
to ensure destruction, probably 3 or 4 of our nukes per one of their silos.
and even then, we have another few thousand warheads ready to go.
>>29679519
>US first strikes.
we wouldn't do that, ever.
the US's whole nuclear strategy is;
>get nuked
>determine who did it
>figure plan of attack
>make country that nuked US not exist anymore

>>29679533
This looks shopped

>>29679483
>VHF is undectable

Please explain to me how this magic works.

>>29678246
>islands are like washcloths

>>29679519
>Still not afraid of missiles that aren't deployed.

>>29679531
>Yes, they were taken out

If your plan involves this sentence, it isn't a very good plan.

>but we could have won, even though this has never worked

If the enemy is attacking your defenses and you have no mobile reserves to counter-attack, you have, by definition, lost the war.

CHINA
STRONK

>>29679533
Why is the carrier sailing around with a giant red circle surrounding it? Seems a bad strategy.

>>29679519
isnt their CEP retarded high?
I mean, china doesn't release jack shit, but it's based on a ruskie design from the cold war that was inaccurate as fuck.

>>29679551
read radartutorial.

Low energy/long-band = long range, bad accuracy, but blending in with the electromagnetic background noise.

High energy/ultra-high band = low range, good accuracy, but like a lighthouse in the dark.

Modern software and data-processing can adress the bad accuracy problem with the long band radars, which is why all major military powers are returning to the VHF/UHF band again, as it is inherently LPI and counter-stealth.

>>29679533
How far from land are carriers during actual war time operations?

>>29679531
you still don't seem to get it, moabs were brought into service also for collapsing fortifications.

>>29679568
Only on old DF-5 basic variants. And they made it up with having 5 megaton single warheads, the largest ever operationally deployed on any missile in the world.

Ever since Clinton gave them the W88 warhead plans and MIRV-technology by dual use multi-satellite release tech, they improved their CEP tremendously.

The ASBM wouldnt be thinkable without that improved CEP due to Clinton's tech transfer.

>>29679531
no, the point is that the islands are useless because in a shooting war they could be bypassed. why should they waste time taking them out when they could be blockaded and starved out?

>Gen. McArthur throwing "loops of envelopment"

>>29679533
oh sigh.

yes, please locate that in several million square miles of pacific ocean first.

>>29678811
Why did you even reply?

>>29679527
>Abrams
Are only in use in HBCTs. Doesn't have an HEDP round. It DOES have a HEAT round, which has proven to be pretty successful against bunkers.

>The US is literally never going to send infantry up against a conventional threat without organic armor, and air support.
I'm afraid to tell you, but they have. I urge you to look at how the US Army is actually structured. Look at an IBCT. Does it have any tanks in it? Any big, direct fire guns? Not at all. The Army is looking about fixing this with the MPF project.

And it must be said that the Iraqis were incompetent retards who were incredibly overmatched and generally caught with their pants down. With a combination of surprise and simply overmatching the Iraqis in every single way made them a pushover, not to mention how many of them simply didn't want to fight.

The Fedayeen in Baghdad didn't have anything capable of really killing anything they fought, nor did it have capable fighters. They were killed with heavy direct fires from Abrams and Bradleys. Yes, they took out an Abrams, but if you read about that, it was a one in a million shot.

On that topic, I suggest the book Thunder Run.

>>29679607
because the altitude of a B-2 *is* the range.

>>29679600
>the largest ever operationally deployed on any missile in the world.
titan 2 was deployed by the US with a 9 megaton warhead.
also, why the fuck would clinton give them our nuclear secrets?
that's a whole new level of fucking retarded.

>>29679600
>Clinton gave them the W88 warhead plans and MIRV-technology by dual use multi-satellite release tech
Holy shit. Is this the American "Nene Blunder"?

>>29679124
>The point is just showing that fortifications caused that small force to have a showing far beyond its normal capabilities.

Yes, that is indeed the point of fortifications. I'm reminded of an old DOS game called "Castles II." It was very simple, and all about building Castles (unsurprisingly.) One of the core game mechanics was, the attacker always brought their whole army, but the defender could only muster half their forces (communication and mobilization being what it was, back then.) Thus castles were vital just to even the scales for defenders. It's a pretty good demonstration of what fortifications like that are *for.*

The mistake is how often people - through history - see fortifications as a way to block enemy movement through an area. They can't. Short of a castle parked on a mountain pass, they really can't - and there's only so many natural choke-points like that. They simply cannot substitute for maneuver forces. They're purely defensive in nature. Go read up on Julius Ceasar's campaigns - *every* single time his opponent turtles up in a fort, Ceasar promptly penned him in and proceeded to facefuck him. It happened twice, and he almost pulled it off a third time, but they wised up and fled the fort before he pinned them down.

>>29679124
>In this case, the existence of Anti-Ship Missiles means that you can't just land on the island.

Yes, the attacker generally needs to have superiority in force or numbers or both, which is, again, the whole point of fortifications. The problem is that, unless you are fortifying something the enemy directly needs to take, they're fucking pointless. They *cannot* substitute for maneuver forces.

>>29679618
I actually read the book.

The lesson I learned was "don't be in bunkers, they expect you to be in the bunker."

Anyway, I really wouldn't want to have these islands as a military asset in a shooting war.

Most sources say they cost billions to build, and I'm pretty much 100% sure that the US could break them for less than that.

I suspect that these islands are intended as a diplomatic tool rather than a true military capability.

>>29679635
>why the fuck would clinton give them our nuclear secrets?
Money, the Clinton-Rodham Crime Family

>>29679348
see>>29679603

>MUH BUNKERS

Is this a Chicom or an Albanian thread?

>>29679124
Iwo Jima was strategically valuable, some Chinese ocean trash is not, if we didn't need to take iwo jima, we simply would have starved the island out, or just fucking left it alone. If a naval force came up against one of these, it would just wait for the soldiers to run out of their week's worth of rice and start eating each other.

>>29679555
Are you just plain retarded at this point? Losses are inevitable in war. That's how it is. The Americans were attacking with overwhelming strength. The forces which were there were going to succumb eventually, that's just a fact.

>but we could have won
>we
>won
Did I say ANYTHING about any of that? Not in the slightest. The defeat of Germany was inevitable. However, because of the fortifications which existed they were able to delay the Americans for far longer than they would have otherwise been able to. Without the fortifications, they would have been overrun an the Western Allies would likely have actually been in Berlin by Christmas. Is this a difficult thing to understand?

>>29679124
>Look up how long the Metz region took to pacify. We're talking MONTHS here.

Also, protip, that had more to do with this vast, super-dense ancient thicket of pure fuck called the Hugerten forest, and a lot less to do with some elaborate network of obsolete bunkers with no guns left in them.

In other words, terrain.

>>29679670
Why would you even mention a military tactic that doesn't improve your chances of winning a war.

Why would you create such a tactic.

>>29679572
>Modern software and data-processing can adress the bad accuracy problem with the long band radars

But no where near enough for targeting.

Furthermore, sophisticated RWR can alert on VHF/UHF signals.

>>29679670
delaying fortifications only works if the attackers HAVE to attack through it. In the chink islands case, they could just be bypassed and starved out since they don't really present much of a threat to the USN.

>>29679670
Prolonging your inevitable defeat doesn't change the fact that you were defeated. A successful defense is measured by how long you can pin down or delay the enemy until you can counterattack, something the Allies knew far better than the Germans.

>>29679533

IIRC the Russians had satellites too.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

Didn't help'em much.

>>29679670
Naval war in pacific with useless static defenses in an ocean vs Land war in Germany, with you know, cities, and roads, and people, and the enemy forces homeland. Totally similar amirite?

these islands don't mean shit, nor do their defenses.
if we ever have to fuck with them, we can just kill their support forces and starve them out, or just call in some B52s and B2s to go Operation Linebacker on the fucking things.

>>29679656
>I suspect that these islands are intended as a diplomatic tool rather than a true military capability.

i suspect they're intended to control the sea access of south east asian countries with limited navies. they're not going to stop the us from accessing the mainland further north.

>>29678898
>number of carriers sunk by chinkshit tech: 0
>number of US carriers sunk post WW2: 0

>>29679654
>They simply cannot substitute for maneuver forces.
And that's the thing, they DON'T. You're manning them with what is effectively a small force, freeing up your maneuver forces for other things. An economy of force role.

>The problem is that, unless you are fortifying something the enemy directly needs to take, they're fucking pointless. They *cannot* substitute for maneuver forces.
Not entirely true. While you may not need to take a fortification, sometimes you need to deny it to your enemy. Fortifications are often places from which you can project power. To take the medieval or early industrial era analogy a bit further, if you bypass a fort its garrison is free to raid your supply lines. In the modern day, it means that the fortifications have airbases or AShM batteries which I need to remove so that I have freedom of maneuver and my supply lines remain unmolested.

In no case do they substitute maneuver forces.

>>29679744
this. so much this.

ask japan if their strategy of creating a cordon defense of islands worked and if the USN didn't simply bypass them.

>>29679656
>The lesson I learned was "don't be in bunkers, they expect you to be in the bunker."
Then you didn't learn much from it.

>I suspect that these islands are intended as a diplomatic tool rather than a true military capability.
They mostly are diplomatic, however in the event of a war they are effectively speed bumps, which prevent the USN and others from simply waltzing around unmolested until they are taken out.

File: 1459721992592.jpg (37KB, 269x294px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 269x294px

>>29679667
Nice one, made me chuckle.

>>29679603
>>29679665
>>29679669
see>>29679764

>>29678648
>if they were any good at it why the fuck would anyone build ships with both point-defense guns *and* deck guns?

Because deck guns are another point defense gun.

It's not a hard concept. Dual purpose.

>>29679785
The US has a long and storied history of rolling over speed bumps at full throttle.

All it takes is a ohio class to surface and just unload and the island is simply gone.

File: Geosynchronous_orbit.gif (410KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 320x240px

>>29679728
The Russian NOSS were traditional LEO satellites that only passed an area in a given time and at a set schedule.

The GF-4 is something different, though. It is a "Staring-Eye" type of satellite that does not need to pass over an area, but monitors the area 24/7 because it is on geostationary orbit.

Usually, the only observation sats that are on this orbit are wheather satellites with a resolution of 400-600m, which is far too bad for military relevant things, but good enough for detecting typhoons and cloud-formations.

But the GF-4 has a resolution of 50m.

And the Chinese are going to send more and better sister-satellites of the same category in the following years, with unfoldable membrane-based telescopes that can achieve the same sub-meter resolution of LEO-NOSS, but at GSO altitutes and stationary/synchronous position.

>>29679764
Most of the islands CAN be bypassed, those that can't eat a tomahawk. Most of the island defenses seem to be for restricting SEA navies, the USN and USAF can just carve a path through easily.

>>29678648
>Pure dumb luck

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/april/24/newsid_2947000/2947639.stm

A ship aiming at, hitting and destroying a missile is not "pure dumb luck" just because it ruins your argument.

>>29679682
>Hurtgen Forest
>Metz Region
Hell no, Hurtgen Forest wasn't even in the same army's sector. That was a First Army thing, Patton's Third Army was in Metz. Not to mention that the Hurtgen Forest was fortified as well, although it would have been a meatgrinder in any case.

File: gghj.jpg (91KB, 685x531px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 685x531px

>>29679816

>>29679764
but these aren't dug in, hardened, fortified setups.
at best they're just some buildings on a concrete pad with some missiles.
just bomb the shit out of them with high altitude shit like B2s and call it a day.

File: gghjj.jpg (252KB, 922x754px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 922x754px

>>29679829
2nd gen GF-4 in question.

File: MIDWAY.jpg (722KB, 1000x1071px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1000x1071px

>>29679764
>Fortifications are often places from which you can project power.

People actually fucking believe this, in 2016. Jesus H. Tiddlywink Christ.

No. A BASE supports your power-projection assets. Like Pearl Harbor, or Subic Bay. Which is why they are important, and thus receive fortifications - such as, say, a very expensive concrete battleship built on top of an island. When it's guarding the harbor that keeps your maneuver forces/power projection assets maintained and fueled, its useful.

When it's on a rock in the middle of fucking nowhere, it's just a fucking target for a Tomahawk - or artillery - or even conventional-armed SRBMs. You name it, they've got a way of fucking it. The hardest part about killing something is finding the fucking thing first. This goes quadruple for naval warfare, because the ocean is pretty fucking big. Anything stationary you can just steer around. The forts have to be everywhere. You only need one narrow lane to punch through the shell. So no matter how many forts they've got, you know where they all are, and you know well ahead of time how much firepower you'll need to knock them out.

They're just a speedbump. A maneuver force suddenly showing up on your flank while you're trying to reduce a fortification is the REAL problem. I heard someone once lost four CVs that way.

>>29679711
>Why would you even mention a military tactic that doesn't improve your chances of winning a war.
Do you understand what's going on? Let me put it this way. Let's assume that a fortified unit can delay a unit one higher level than itself to the degree necessary. Thus, a platoon could delay a company, a company could delay a battalion, and so on. Let's say we have a battalion sized engagement. One company of the defending battalion can already delay the attacking battalion by a sufficient degree, so the other two companies (assuming triangular) of the defending battalion can be used elsewhere, or even as a counter attacking force.

Do you understand now?

File: essex.png (394KB, 598x564px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 598x564px

>>29679816

Wouldn't it be terrible if those communication uplinks suddenly had... problems?

File: 18fczg8uo393rjpg.jpg (38KB, 640x293px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x293px

>>29678000
>born too late for 'nam
>born too early to remove ayy lmao
>born just in time for WWIII
I for one look forward to storming those islands aboard a fleet of pic related with the rest of the Russo-Trumpist Imperial Army.

>>29679822
deck guns can handle maybe 1-3 missiles coming at it, but a saturation attack will overwhelm it. this is why deck guns and CIWS are last ditch stuff, interceptor missiles have much longer range (and more time to respond to) to kill missiles

>>29679848
>micrometer thick optical coatings.

wondering what a little infrared laser energy would do to that flawless optic...

>>29679757
Glad to see that you didn't understand what was said in the slightest.

>>29679848
>>29679829
>>29679816

In the event of a war the US has the perfect reuseable sat killer, the x-37b

>>29679813
>The US has a long and storied history of rolling over speed bumps at full throttle.
Not really, no. Once again, I will point towards Metz. Or the entire Italian campaign.

>>29679816
>star wars lasers mounted on ISS unfold
>ISS starts buttfucking chinkshit surveillance
>>29679892
how about TU95s with JDAMs?

>>29679916
>i will point to terrain that has nothing to do with naval warfare

give up kid.

>>29679922
Less metal, but perfectly acceptable for frying rice.

>>29679916
The Italian Campaign is a great example of the only times pre-prepared defense lines like that actually work - when your enemy can't destroy your shit outright without going through the meatgrinder.

>>29679483
First, you are incorrect about the detectablity of VHF transmitters.

Second, they will be localized prior to hostilities by satellite imaging, so it's not like they'd be safe even if your bullshit was roses.

>>29679916
>terrain as a factor in naval warfare

*gasp* the ocean has forests, mountains, and other terrain features now?!?!

>>29679916
yeah, but this is the goddamn ocean.
we carved a path of death in the pacific and we can sure as shit do it again.
these "bases" are just fucking target practice.

File: 1323991633085.jpg (84KB, 603x556px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 603x556px

>>29679822
>this cherry-picked anecdote ruins your argument!

http://historylists.org/other/list-of-6-british-ships-sunk-during-the-falklands-war.html
>4 warships with DP deck guns

I have no fucking idea why you care this much. Nobody relies on them for anti-missile defense. Nobody cares if they're bad for shooting down missiles. That's not their job. It doesn't need to be. Even ships that are really fucking good at shooting down missiles still have a gun, because guns are useful, for lots of things.

File: 1354169190534.png (246KB, 729x729px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 729x729px

>>29679916
>Or the entire Italian campaign.

There's this mountain range in the area, you might've heard of it.

>>29678133
Amazing progression.

>>29679820
They can't be bypassed when they have a threat radius which overlaps with other islands. You have to take them out.

And yes, the USN COULD go through them easily. However, doing so would take time. You can't just ignore them like you could otherwise.

>>29679840
>but these aren't dug in, hardened, fortified setups.
What does that matter? The effect is still the same. The enemy has to waste time and forces dealing with it before they can continue. In war, even 4 hours can change things.

>>29679757
Literally not the point dude.

Please stop shitposting, its what the chicoms want.

>>29679813

Like Project Market Garden? Or Omaha Beach? Or Iwo Jima? Or Vietnam in general? Or Afghanistan? Or Iraq? I'd probably say that Grenada is the only time it played out well.

>>29679988
>What does that matter?
because, less time, effort, and resources are required to fuck it.
besides, if its just a warehouse with some guns taped on, it's not gonna take much to make it not exist anymore.

>>29679867
What you fail to realize is that fortifications often ARE bases or that base has fortifications.

>They're just a speedbump.
I haven't claimed otherwise. In fact, I have said exactly that quite a few times. The difference is that you suffer from the belief that the speedbump isn't useful.

>>29679988
We have these neat things called "Submarines", anon. You might have heard of them. Every single class we field has the capability to launch cruise missiles, and there is a finite number of places on these sandbars that you can hide a missile battery.

Do the math.

>>29679960
>That's not their job.

Dual Purpose just isn't entering your head is it

>>29679988
Here's the thing, will the assets that we use for reducing the fortifications used elsewhere? the only way the islands can be cost-effective is through VIRTUAL attrition, if the forces we use could have been used elsewhere. the time you buy MUST be used wisely. meanwhile, the US could just use B-2s, B-52, SSGNs, etc. The USN and USAF can take virtual attrition without blinking while other armed forces can't, because America has a very big military.

>>29679175
COpying vs. innovation

>>29679960
>this cherry-picked anecdote ruins your argument!

You said it's impossible for a deck gun to destroy a missile.

That's a deck gun destroying a missile.

Your argument has been ruined, quoting it as "cherry picked" doesn't change that.

>>29679972
>ignoring arguments because of a minute detail in one of them which gave it a bit more of an advantage
Grow up, Greek, and fight my arguments as what they are, and not what you can meme.

>>29680005
>Market Garden is the US' fault now

Fuck off, Montycocksucker. That's YOUR failing. Fucking own it.

>>29680059
no, your argument is invalid because the primary reason the italian campaign was so bloody was because of TERRAIN, which is not as much of a factor in the open ocean.

>>29680035
>The difference is that you suffer from the belief that the speedbump isn't useful.

They don't even qualify as speed bumps, is the issue. They're for a different purpose entirely - namely, dicking around their much weaker local neighbors, and for intelligence coverage. (Despite those fancy satellites, they're still building an awful lot of long-range radars.) At the very least, you know where the enemy intends to attack you by which islands suddenly cease existing.

>>29679960
Only one of those was a warship sunk with an Exocet and it was equipped with an old FCS radar.

Regardless deck guns are fully capable of engaging missiles.

Might I remind you the only time a CIWS has been used in combat against an anti-ship missile it missed? So far deck guns have shot down more than CIWS.

>>29678094
120 rds/min is a fantasy
that's the maximum fire rate for a burst consisting of much less than 120 rds unless you plan on turning the barrel into a wet noodle. No one cares about your short ranged 76 mm gun regardless of how accurate it is especially considering its not 1950 anymore.

File: 1345043129819.png (737KB, 1783x2440px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1783x2440px

>>29680037
>IF IT'S DUAL PURPOSE IT KILLS ALL THINGS THAT ARE FLY

good luck engaging that incoming MIRV with your ZSU-21 bro

>>29680056
>You said it's impossible

>>29678648
>Pure dumb luck

Why do you dumb cumguzzlers resort to semantic goalpost moving when everyone can fucking scroll up and see exactly what everyone said?

>>29678173
Plz decolonize me

>>29680103
You're being deliberately obtuse at this point. Just because the CIWS exists does not mean the deck gun does not also have a job of engaging aerial targets. If the thing is computer controled, computer guided, and computer loaded, there is no reason it can't engage missiles at a greater range than the CIWS.

>>29680014
>because, less time, effort, and resources are required to fuck it.
It'd be the same either way. As many people have pointed out, there are weapons which are entirely focused on defeating big concrete bunkers. In this sort of a scenario, it isn't the armor of the target that makes it more difficult to kill, but its defenses. Which, again, can be got around, but the point is that you have to expend the effort to do so. Armoring them is not worth the effort, but arming them is.

>>29680036
The point is that you have to dedicate a submarine to reduce the obstacle when it could be doing other things. The submarine COULD be out sinking half the PLAN like it's a shitty Tom Clancy novel based off a video game. Instead, it's stuck launching a number of Tomahawks at these islands. And that's if you want to give away the submarine's position when firing, so you have to clear datum FAST.

Further, the Tomahawks will have to be in sufficient quantities to have the mass to overwhelm the defenses, which means a Virginia (without VPM) would have to blow its entire wad, and then some, just to reduce this obstacle to a sufficient degree. A single SSGN could probably take all of them out single handedly, but then you've devoted an SSGN for only that task, when it could be used elsewhere. Same with other assets. What are you willing to expend to reduce the target, and how long will that slow you down?

>>29680081
The terrain was combined with fortifications which worked better than just the terrain alone. And that's completely ignoring the Metz side of things.

>>29680005
>Market Garden

Largely due to poor planning and preparation on the part if the Brits.

>Omaha Beach

One beach out of five that had heavier resistance than expected and natural terrain that heavily favored the Germans. Eventually got rolled up while the other four beaches were cakewalks.

>Iwo Jima

One of the few islands too important for the US to bypass. Heavy losses, but the Japs still ended up losing more.

>Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam

The standing militaries fell in days. Counter insurgency and guerilla warfare is a completely different kind of conflict.

>>29680134
>You said it's impossible

>>29678410
>Same reason modern ship guns can shoot down anti-ship missiles.
>They can't.

There you go. You got called on your bullshit.

File: 1381447279288.jpg (50KB, 602x619px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 602x619px

>>29680059
>fuckhuge mountains
>"it was really the bunkers guys"

holy fucking christ

is anyone else lost since there's like, 4 arguments going on at once?

>>29680134
You straight up said a deck gun can't shoot down a missile. Scroll up you moron.

>>29680139
>but then you've devoted an SSGN for only that task, when it could be used elsewhere.
Doing WHAT? What other targets are worthy of an SSGN parking itself and fucking over in the opening hours of a war? Your entire argument seems to be "You have to devote a weapon to neutralizing it, therefore it has done its job."

The whole point of a weapon is to kill shit. A tank tasked with blowing up a bunker is doing its job, not "being held up when it could be used elsewhere".

>>29680148
Iwo Jima though is where the invaders lost more than the defenders. If I remember correctly, the US suffered around 26,000 casualties while the Japanese 22,000. It was a real bloodbath no joke.

>>29680171
typical of china-threads.

lucky that the economy guy isnt here.

>>29680138
>You're being deliberately obtuse at this point. Just because the CIWS exists does not mean the deck gun does not also have a job of engaging aerial targets. If the thing is computer controled, computer guided, and computer loaded, there is no reason it can't engage missiles at a greater range than the CIWS.

Sure. Bang away. Bang away all you want.

But the chances of it doing fuck-all are pathetically low, even more pathetically low than the dedicated anti-missile system. That's my fucking point. If they were adequate for the job, dedicated CIWS wouldn't fucking exist.

>>29680087
But they do qualify as speed bumps. The Navy can't just sail full speed past them. Let's say any one of these islands requires a dozen Tomahawks to flatten, not accounting for defenses. How much fire are you going to use for a given one? Would you rather use aircraft? Shouldn't you wait until a BDA until you move through its threat radius, just to ensure that you didn't miss something and end up with an unkilled target shooting back?

I won't deny that their primary purpose is political. However, I'm more widely striking back at your belief that fortifications in general are

File: 1331703187049.jpg (6KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x300px

>>29680174
>You straight up said a deck gun can't shoot down a missile.
>he says without a link

>>29680168
Once again, you're ignoring the argument. Good job.

>>29680005
>Or Iraq?
what is Desert Storm?
sure, the occupation went to shit, but we're not talking occupation.
if you're talking bulldozing through the enemy and fucking shit up, Desert Storm, D-Day, and Nam are great fucking examples.

>>29680139
please see>>29680048

the strategy doesn't work because unlike other armed forces, the US has such a large military and so many assets they can take lots of virtual attrition and remain combat effective.

and here's the thing, could the resources used by the chinks for building the islands have been used more wisely elsewhere? :^)

>>29680189
>If the 5-inch DP gun was adequate at its job, the 40mm Bofors wouldn't exist

This is what you sound like. CIWS stands for CLOSE-IN WEAPONS SYSTEM. Maybe that's why you have both on a ship!

>>29680182
Yes, but that's telling the whole story. The US suffered about 7,000 dead and 19,000 wounded. The Japanese were essentially killed to the man with 18,000+ deaths.

>>29680189
>If they were adequate for the job, dedicated CIWS wouldn't fucking exist.

You don't understand the concepts of both dual-purpose OR layered defense.

I'd suggest learning more before commenting next time.

>>29680205
>literally two posts above yours

>>29680155
>>29678410

>>29680189
>If they were adequate for the job, dedicated CIWS wouldn't fucking exist.
Bullshit, which I responded to above. Deck guns come at a higher cost in both weight, space, and power. CIWS, and similar systems, do not take up much in the way of those things. It's worth noting that the Italian version of the Horizon-Class doesn't have CIWS at all, instead having a grand total of three 76mm guns.

>>29680189
>IF A SHIP HAS A DIFFERENT WEAPON ON A EVERY OTHER WEAPON IS USELESS
>THERE'S NO WAY THESE WORK TOGETHER

File: impossibru!.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

CHINA STRATEGIC MASTER RIND. TSU SU. GREAT WALL. IMPENATRABU OCSHREN FORTRESSU

>>29680217
so what I'm gathering from this clusterfuck is that a deck gun is basically a ciws that can't really ciws well?
and on that matter, why do we have deck guns anymore anyway?
we don't do ship-to-ship like we did in ww2, the guns are useless against armor like that anyway, they aren't gonna hit a missile, and they take up space and FCS shit.
if the navy needs firepower like that, why not just bring back a (smaller) version of the battleship loaded down with deck guns and shit?

>>29680178
A SSGN could be doing any number of more productive things- striking bases in mainland China, destroying airfields, communications, command structure, naval bases, army formations, trains and transportation hubs, power, etc. Instead, it's stuck killing far lesser targets.

The point of a weapon is to blow up shit. However, not all shit is of equal value. Is that a difficult to understand concept?

File: Unimpressed.gif (59KB, 300x321px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 300x321px

>>29680259
Congratulations. You have managed to be the dumbest motherfucker in this entire thread, and that includes the Chicom humping his islands like Enver Hoxha humped his bunkers.

File: d553b.jpg (546KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1600x1067px

>>29680189
>But the chances of it doing fuck-all are pathetically low, even more pathetically low than the dedicated anti-missile system.

The fact that the 76mm Oto Melara is used as a CIWS must blow your mind then.

File: 1458592951642.gif (2MB, 390x520px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x520px

>>29678242
You should be both.

>>29680277
>Fortifications work because it gives the enemy more shit to blow up!

The US has more than one submarine, you know.

>>29678113
Its chinas version of section 8 housing

>>29680277
>freeing the South China Sea for operations is not being productive
>opening up another flank is a "lesser target"

>>29680277
>Eliminating an enemy's strategic positions is now a bad thing.

File: wie bitte.png (91KB, 925x790px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 925x790px

>unironically arguing with planefag

Listen here you little shits.

~This~ man has literally no other joy in life, than getting you gullible retards to reply to his fucking backpedaling, dumbfuck arguments.

Why can't you fucking subhumans get this through your heads. You can't win the argument, because he was never making an actual argument to begin with. Even if he was, he will just bait the shit out of you if you prove him wrong.

SO FUCKING CUT IT OUT

>>29680277
I'll give you that one, a sub could be doing other shit.
but, you could fuck these things with bombers.
and if you have Ohio class subs off of the mainland fucking shit up, a landing force rolling in, etc, using say, 10 bombers to hit 5 islands to make sure the invasion goes well isn't wasting forces, and even if it was, its not much.

>>29680215
Sorry, with so many posts to respond to it gets hard to catch them all.

And I would argue that even in this case, fortifications are still useful. You have to ask yourself, if an asset wasn't being used to reduce the fortifications, what else could they hit? If it's a strike from bombers from the United States, it would be a day long operation from start to completion. Would that have been better spent doing something else?

>>29680294
How does that negate what I said? If you had more shit aimed at more important targets on mainland China, it they could kill even more shit deader. Is that difficult to understand?

>>29680299
That's exactly the point. With just this investment, they've created a situation where we have to clear these bases up in order to conduct operations in the SCS. They would never have had to do it if they islands weren't in place, or if they weren't being armed to the extent that they are.

File: wew lad.jpg (101KB, 513x486px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 513x486px

>>29680242

>>29678410
>They can try, but their chances are even worse than normal CIWS guns.

>>29680290
>The fact that the 76mm Oto Melara is used as a CIWS must blow your mind then.

People are retarded all the time, anon.

>>29680363
>They can't. Seriously. 57mm, 76mm and 127mm guns have an anti-air capability (hell they've had it since the first dual-angle guns in the 1940s) but their ROF are nowhere *near* good enough to take on cruise missiles.

Just admit that you were wrong.

>>29679124
>Iwo Jima
>Mountainous Island
>fortifications build into island
>local vegetation
vs
>concrete buildings
>coral island with no vegetation
>completely flat island
???

>>29680325
That's exactly the point. I was saying that BECAUSE the assets were tied up with these little islands, they couldn't be eliminating important Chinese targets.

>>29680375
SEE>>29680354

YOU FUCKING RETARD

YOU CAN'T WIN WHEN THE OTHER GUY ISN'T PLAYING THE SAME GAME AS YOU

File: 084008fes5od7g5tdotspc.jpg (50KB, 660x453px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 660x453px

China knows that normal DP-guns have limited effectiveness against sea-skimmers. That's why they are so obsessed with their new PJ-38s and their capability to fire guided rounds. Since that's what China is currently developing as well - radar guided naval gun rounds for missile defense.

>>29680382
Read the thread.

>>29680362
Those positions aren't going anywhere. Not like they're just going to up and disappear in the time it takes to steamroll those islands.

>>29680388
We.
Have.
More.
Than.
One.
Submarine.
And.
More.
Than.
One.
Bomber.

Get that through your fucking skull. Eliminating an enemy's defenses that they are using to project power into your area of operations is not a waste. They are by definition "important targets"

This is like saying that you shouldn't neutralize German shore batteries defending an invasion beach because you could use your artillery/bombers to hit Germany itself.

>>29680362
>Would that have been better spent doing something else?
other forces are doing that.
we have so big of a military, we can send out shit to the middle of the ocean to flatten some islands and still have an invasion going on.
>>29680388
4 planes aren't making all that much of a difference.
>1 tanker out of 900
>3 bombers out of a few thousand
plus, making sure your supply boats and planes don't get fucked is pretty important, also it's a free airstrip to claim.

>Bunkers and static defenses
>Using WWII and ancient warfare tactics to defend static defenses and fortifications
>In the age of cheap and spammable PGM and stand off weapons

You're retarded.

The US is making guided 40mm UBGL for infantry and you're guaranteed to have at least one infantry with a Javelin or SMAW with a guided warhead targeting a bunker.

Bitch please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

There is no need to worry about a target that has the mobility of an island when all you need is to lob cruise missiles against it.

File: 1461128247913.jpg (44KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x500px

>>29680375

They're not. If you really think fucking deck guns are anything more than a desperate last-ditch gamble against a cruise missile, you're a fucking retard.

>>29680388
Because subs are the only way the US can strike at China, right? It's not like they have bases in Japan and Korea and long range bombers in Guam.

Your argument only works against nations with pitifuly small militaries. The US isn't one of those.

>>29679867
always trust an anime fag to be autistic and miss the point

I thought you weren't retarded but here you go proving me wrong.

>>29680455
I know you're just trying to get a rise out of people, but whatever.
sure, deck guns are a last ditch effort.
but wouldn't you rather have a few deck guns, interceptor missiles, a ciws, and other shit to attempt to save your ass rather than just a ciws or two?

>>29680455
>fully automated turret
>computer aimed and loaded
>can traverse faster than any manually-aimed gun

You're still thinking like these are fucking flak guns that men have to handcrank around and manually load and aim, instead of fully automatic artillery pieces that are hardwired into the ship's radar system.

It's 2016, not 1946. Stop assuming gun tech advancement halted after WW2.

>>29680426
This argument, oh joy. Let's say a SSGN blows its wad. Where can it go to have them replenished? Chinese SSMs make any port out to Guam somewhat of a dangerous proposition, with the possible exception of some Japanese ports, depending on how well AEGIS Ashore works. The distance from Taiwan to Guam is roughly 1500 nautical miles. At 20 knots, a bit fast for an Ohio and definitely not quiet in the slightest, that's a 75 hour trip. Then you have to refill, and then go back 75 hours. An asset taken out of the game for a week is kinda a big deal.

>>29679183
>chinaman
1 yuan has been added to your account

>>29680525
>An asset taken out of the game for a week is kinda a big deal.

Then what? Never use them out of fear a better target will present itself?