Given the asymmetry of offense and defense how can a carrier

>>31540634

Look, I recognize that this thread is probably bait, so I'm only going to reply once:

But consider this: Do you understand what Aegis is? 1 missile isn't enough. You need many, many missiles fired together in a very small window of time, to have a chance of getting through.

>>31540659
Good thing a missile costs way less than a aircraft carrier.

>>31540634
Normaly i'd point out that a decent tread had to die for you to post this stupid shit, but at this point its more a matter of just replacing shit with new shit.

Since Japan hates China anyway, can Hiroshimoot just make China/Not china flags so we can hide threads made by chinks?

>>31540713
Literally missed his point.

>>31540741
I am an american. I just worry about my nation's defense.

>muh perfect defense
Why do carrier fags always ignore the fact that the outer ships and satellite systems could be taken out first?

>>31540758
Uh-huh

>>31540769
>Why do carrier fags always ignore the fact that the outer ships and satellite systems could be taken out first?

WHY BUILD SHIPS AT ALL THEY WILL ALL BE DESTROYED BY MISSILES IMMEDIATELY

NO MORE WAR

PAX CHINKMISSILE

>>31540659

I'm curious how they test this sort of thing though

Have we ever conducted a weapon test by firing a shitload of AShM equivalents at an Aegis system?

>>31540792
>Have we ever conducted a weapon test by firing a shitload of AShM equivalents at an Aegis system?

honestly I think the reason we haven't had a big war in a while is because nobody is 100% sure all of their weapons will work

>>31540789
False dichotomy. There's no reason a middle ground doesn't exist.
>>31540792
lol no because if it failed the navy would have egg on their face and would have to think about novel strategy for 21st century.

Not that this matters because with nukes we should hopefully just be power projecting and kicking the shit out of weaker states which carriers are great for.

>>31540808
>>31540812

That's kind of a bummer because that would be fucking beautiful to watch regardless of the outcome.

File: 1474584325724.jpg (75KB, 591x608px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 591x608px

>fifty cent threads almost daily now.

>>31540827
Are you unironically this paranoid? China doesn't give a shit about /k/.

the assymetry is in favor of DEFENSE, simply because its impossible to find & track a ship over the horizon.

And the sensors on missiles will always be easily confused.

>>31540824
You are a degenerate.

>>31540812
>False dichotomy. There's no reason a middle ground doesn't exist.

>ships in layered, well-informed modern battlegroups - literally the most secure waterborne objects on earth - cannot defend themselves against missiles
>there will still be a middle ground where ships in other scenarios will be able to defend themselves against missiles

nah

>>31540833
>the assymetry is in favor of DEFENSE
The asymmetry is the cost of a missile vs ship.
Over the horizong radar exists btw as does satellites, subs, planes etc.

>>31540833
>simply because its impossible to find & track a ship over the horizon

FALSE

>>31540849
>Never introduce an element that you cannot afford to lose

You need to stop being so hung up on having the perfect defense, this is only necessary because the carriers are such a huge investment of resources and so important. The idea that you'll get through a major equal conflict without losing men and ships is naive. Distribute the power so no single loss is catastrophic.
Would you also want 20 super moving battle fortresses instead of thousands of MBTs?

I'm not sure why this is so controversial when even the Navy admits their purpose isn't fighting but peacetime power projection and such.
>"The purpose of the Navy," Vie Admiral John Bird, commander of the 7th Fleet, tells me "is not to fight." The mere presence of the Navy should suffice, he argues, to dissuade any attack or attempt to destablize the region.
This gran strategy is great and economic until a major war breaks out.

>>31540863

>The asymmetry is the cost of a missile vs ship.

Missiles don't launch themselves you know.

>>31540863
>>31540913
Large AShM's are not cheap, their launch platforms are not cheap, firing HUNDREDS of them blindly is not cheap, the accompanying airborne radars are not cheap.

Large over the horizon radar arrays are obviously early targets in any way. Also easily confused by bait ships.

>>31540659
AEGIS against ASBMs is, as I understand it, something of a different ballgame.

>>31540833
Satellites, aerial platforms, submarines, etc

Neck yourself

>>31540933

A Russian think tank concluded that China would have to give up 40% of its navy in order to sink 1 US aircraft carrier. Any victory that China would have would be a pyrrhic victory.

>>31540634
>this thread again
YES!

American pigdogs will kneel before our might! The far western Pacific will be ours!

BASED
DF-21D
F
-2
1
D

>>31540659
>aegis
>ballistic missiles
>hypersonic missiles
lel

>>31540952
If Chinks are putting a satellite constellation up in orbit that can real-time track US naval ships, then those constellations will be being shot down in the opening minutes of a war.

>Aerial platforms

If they can see the ships, then they can be seen, and are within range.

>>31540968

>He doesn't know about SM-3

>>31540812
>lol no because if it failed the navy would have egg on their face and would have to think about novel strategy for 21st century.

HA! If only Amriki Pigdogs had foresight to test shitty "AEGIS" system before put on ship. Oh wait -- there is no way to test! BFTO!!!

>>31540959
>A Russian think tank concluded that China would have to give up 40% of its navy in order to sink 1 US aircraft carrier. Any victory that China would have would be a pyrrhic victory.

The U.S. has more than 1 aircraft carrier.

>>31540981
>His Point

File: 1473615214747.jpg (142KB, 1024x720px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x720px

>>31540981

>The U.S. has more than 1 aircraft carrier.

I am well aware of this, anon.

>>31540981
WRONG. American dogs will surrender after one blow.

>>31540959
Source? Curious what date and the details.
You can generally find a think tank to support any point.

"United States" Navy cannot fight war. "United States" Navy is designed only for peacetime. China knows this, China is unafraid.

>>31540989
>>31540990
So, it's pointless to talk about a "Chinese victory" if they must sacrifice 80% of their navy to sink two American carriers.

China has no realistic chance of winning any naval conflict with the U.S.

>>31541008

I'm afraid I don't remember where I read it, so I don't blame you for not believing it.

>>31541016
USA cowards will accept unconditional surrender after loss one carrier.

USA people is weak, no will. Only care is where celebrity is.

>>31541014
China can suck my larger than 3 inch American sailor cock.

>>31541030
"United States" Navy will peacefully surrender all remaining carriers after defeat to People's Liberation Army Navy.

>>31541016

Well, killing two carriers would be a huge victory. It's just that the US has carriers in reserve so it wouldn't change much. Not to mention Virginia submarines would annihilate the remaining Chinese navy afterwards. So yeah, that's why they call it a pyrrhic victory.

>>31541029
>USA cowards will accept unconditional surrender after loss one carrier.
>USA people is weak, no will. Only care is where celebrity is.

LOL no.

If the U.S. actually lost a carrier or two most Americans would react the same way as we reacted after 9/11.

>>31541016
China would only need to sink one carrier to assert control of South China Sea and completely upset power balance in Pacific theater.

>>31541029

I know this is bait, but just ask Japan how well that worked out.

>>31541075
Japan sank exactly zero carriers at Pearl

File: ASROC-Ikara-LAMPS-MPA.png (9KB, 1101x456px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 1101x456px

>>31540965
>DF-21D exists
>China is building a SOSUS-like hydrophone network
Idea time: what if the chinks adapt DF-21D into an anti-submarine weapon? Like ASROC on steroids. Someone in a control center on the mainland could detect and localize the threat remotely via hydrophone network, then push a button and deliver a weapon with mere minutes of flight time. The weapon can either be a guided torpedo or a large enough depth bomb.

>>31541052
>Well, killing two carriers would be a huge victory. It's just that the US has carriers in reserve so it wouldn't change much. Not to mention Virginia submarines would annihilate the remaining Chinese navy afterwards. So yeah, that's why they call it a pyrrhic victory.

I don't see the logic here.

A pyrrhic victory = a shitty way to win BUT at least you won.

If China can somehow sink two American carriers by sacrificing their whole navy, that's not any kind of victory.
The American people will be pissed off.
The U.S. Navy will blockade China's coastline which will quickly crash the Chinese economy.
China without its export-heavy economy = North Korea x 100.
And when their economy tanks the Chinese government will fall. The Chinese people are not going back to the bad old days of the 1950s famines and poverty.
The Chinese government knows this.

THAT is the main reason why there will never be any conflict between China and the U.S.

It's almost pointless to build any of this shit ... because when hundreds of MIRVs come screaming in towards the handful of major metros in China ...

Game over.

>>31540808
It's also the fact that everyone realizes that none of their weapons can be mass-produced and the only ones ready to roll around in the mud are the Russians.

>>31541091

>not understanding that the US pre-WWII doctrine focused on large capital ships and the attack on Pearl forced a transition to a carrier-based navy

Losing a battleship was worse than losing a carrier at the time, stupid.

>>31541170
>It's almost pointless to build any of this shit ... because when hundreds of MIRVs come screaming in towards the handful of major metros in China ...
>Game over.

That wouldn't be necessary. The U.S. navy can cripple China's economy by blockading China's coastline. The U.S. air force can find and destroy China's small nuclear arsenal in a matter of hours.

There's literally no way for China to win any conflict (conventional or nuclear) with the U.S. and the Chinese leaders know it.

China isn't even on par with the USSR circa 1990. As far as strategic nuclear forces, China isn't on par with modern day Russia (which itself is a shadow of its former self).

There won't be any conflict with China anytime soon.

>>31541202
You know this is bullshit historical revisionism that is only spouted to hide the fact that the US government knew Pearl Harbor was gonna happen & allowed it to?

What about the bomber fleet caught on the ground in the phillipines, later in the day?

>>31541054
>>31541075
USA of today is not USA of 1945 or even 2001.
You must accept this.

>>31540634
>ballistic missile warheads that travel in predictable flight paths from launch, through space and into ground targets.

Wrong, its not the 1980s anymore.

>>31541282
Exactly. This is why shitty USA AEGIS "system" is defenseless against hypersonic supermaneuvering terminal Wu-14.

>>31541266
USA need China more than China needs USA. This is why USA will capitulate as soon as one carrier is BFTO by heroic ASBM.

>>31541278

>the US of 1941 is not the US of 1918
>the US of 1918 is not the US of 1898

So on and so forth, it's all bullshit and you know it.

>>31541273

>discounting over half a century of naval doctrine

You're an idiot.

>>31540812
>lol no

Wrong.

>>31540824
He is wrong.

Us target drones are designated MQM.

Get to reading.

>>31541295
>USA need China more than China needs USA.

Top Kek.
o
p

K
e
k

It's exactly the other way around. China without its export-oriented economy is NOTHING.
In the 1950s China was literally a giant North Korea with massive poverty and annual famines.
The Chinese people are not going back to that way of life.
The Chinese leaders know this.

>>31541311
It is impossible to test AEGIS system. There is no reason to believe it will be of any use in conflict.

>>31541295
The SM-3 is not for terminal, so terminal "super" manuvers are pointless.

The Sm-3 has already intercepted a high hypersonic target, and the KV on the SM-3 is hypersonic itself.

The WU-14 is completly unpowered, and low hypersonic, so any manuvers done pre terminal (other than the predicatable atmo skipping) will kill its airspeed and make it that much eaiser for the next SM-3.

Terminal engagement is done in late terminal, post manuvers during its dive with sm-6, where the glider is no longer hypersonic.

>>31541323
>It is impossible to test AEGIS system

Both the radars, the battle network, and the missiles have been extensively tested. Do you need links to these tests?

>>31541336
There is no test against ASBM.

>>31541326
There is not enough SM-6 aboard to counter proper ASBM swarm.

>the glider is no longer hypersonic.
This is false.

>>31541363

So what happens when Ohios tomahawk the missiles before they're launched? 2 Ohios have enough cruise missiles to eliminate virtually all the ASBMs China has.

>>31541363
>There is no test against ASBM.

Sm-3 has already been tested against BMs many times.

>>31541027
>>31541027
Non Chinese subjective intellectual tanks made a CMANO scenario where it stood.

That alone BTFOs the 40% US meme thing.

>>31541363
SM-2s have shown terminal BM defense as well, and there are more SM-6s then there are TELs made for the DF-21D.

>This is false.

So does the UNPOWERED glider use meme magic to propel itself for 1000s of km, do terminal manuvers, and dive though atmo without loseing airspeed?

>>31541379
How you will find mobile TELs? The same way you found Saddam Hussein's Scuds in 1991?

>>31541426

Yeah, we'd use technology a quarter of a century old.

Are you fucking retarded?

>>31541426
I hate to break it to you but ISR capabilitys have vastly increased in 25 years.

>>31541411
Ballistic missile warheads travel and maneuver in space, not air.

>>31541432
>>31541434
You cannot sufficiently track mobile TEL using satellites. Only aircraft carriers.

>>31541446

Yeah, he actually is retarded. How sad.

>>31541440
The WU-14 is in the stratosphere, you idiot.

Its unpowered, so if there is no atmosphere it would not manuver at all.

>>31541446
Oh no hes retarded.

Do the TELs use meme stealth?

>>31541106

Why do all of these sequences presume a nuclear kill system? Is anybody actually using unconventional depth bombs?

>>31541106
>what if the chinks adapt DF-21D into an anti-submarine weapon.

Goes to fast for a torp to survive impact with the water

>>31541170

>The U.S. air force can find and destroy China's small nuclear arsenal in a matter of hours.
This is deeply, deeply untrue.

>>31541295

>USA need China more than China needs USA.
>tfw you still can't diversify your way out of a low-margin export economy despite years of Big Brother picking winners and losers

>>31540634
In short, no, the group won`t survive. Since attack on a carrier means all-out warfare. That means, that the carrier will have enough time to launch the first set of planes at best and then would be overwhelmed by waves of missiles. And those missiles, will still be MUCH cheaper thaan the carrier group.

>>31541500

>deeply untrue

As has been stated a million times, China's nuclear arsenal would he pointless in any war. It has too low a readiness to be used and China wouldn't dare trigger a nuclear conflict with the US.

>>31541500
>tfw your economy cannot function one day without Chinese manufacturing base

>>31541512
Thank you. Amriki dogs will be BFTO.

DF-21D
F
-
2
1
D

>>31541514
Readiness is no worse than of USA.

>>31541305
what fucking doctrine?
the USN knew carriers were important, before WWII started, so they bought a lot of them
they also knew ships are vulnerable to bombers, so they stuffed all teh BBs full of AA, then put some AA on top, then hung smaller AA guns on the side and made it so the main guns (!) could also fire in AA mode
then they invented the AA light cruiser and AA destroyer escorts, because they didn't feel like they had quite enough dakka yet.
so obviously, since they knew the strike was coming, they left the heavy armor in port, where it could hope to blunt the raid and had little to fear from sinking, and moved the vulnerable (but fast!) carriers out of the way
the japanese ace in the hole were the shallow-running torpedoes. the damage they caused with bombs was piddling, in comparison

>>31541402
What do you mean?

>>31541045
why are you putting US in quotes?

>>31541518

>No worse

So, so wrong. US nukes are ready to go right now. If the president wanted Belgium to stop existing or whatever, they could make it happen right now.

China stores it's launchers, delivery systems, and warheads all unfuelled and seperate under seperate leadership and guard. This is to prevent another attempted nuclear coup.

Their readiness is dogshit, which is why China reserves a no first strike policy and a strict minimum deterrence policy.

>>31541512
You forget that the planes themselves can easily shoot down all conventional ashms, and the battlegroup will see the missles comeing from way far off with the E-2D.

The entire battlegroup will then begin shooting off countermeasures, evasive manuvering, and whatnot, all while the missiles are still 500km+ out.

Then, there are a metric fuckton of missles actually defending the carrier, some quadpacked.

>>31541518
>/k/ fag roleplaying as strawman chink because he's a sperg who can't handle discussion
wew

bro i doubt that shit is going mach 10 bro

>>31541518
US readiness is much better, what are you smoking? Did you not pay attention to the Cold War at all?

>>31540833
>he doesnt know the earth is flat and horizon isnt real

>>31541540
United States is on verge on internal collapse.

>>31541523

You still don't understand, every doctrine in the world revolved around battleships.

They may have intentionally ignored warnings about Pearl, in fact this theory is discussed in schools today, but battleships being the cornerstone of naval doctrine worldwide is no secret. It is referred to as "fleet in being"

The US had to rely on carriers, realized their effectiveness, and made the full transition during the war, culminating in the post-war supercarriers.

>>31541570
Is this what they teach at chinese indoctrination class?

>>31541514

Yes?

Mind you, that presupposes that external assessments of the PLA's nuclear stockpile are accurate. I'm not entirely convinced that's the case anymore.

>>31541518

We're a net oil, agricultural, capital goods, and (in the event of a nuclear exchange) nuclear bomb exporter. You are the opposite. Enjoy getting dead by the tens of millions before you can even file all your backwoods rice farmers into slapdash assembly lines.

>>31540659
China actually has the best anti ship missile now, called the Dongfeng-26 or DF-26 for short.
What makes these missiles unique is that they are Ballistic missiles with terminal phase maneuvering capabilities to track and avoid counter measures.
Most ballistic missiles and ICBMs in our arsenal have very little maneuvering capability once the warhead re enters the atmosphere and essentially comes down in a predictable arc. The DF-21 and 26 missiles have this capability as well as stealth shaping and can carry a single or multiple nuclear warheads. This is bad for us because currently we don't have the technology to reliable intercept a nuclear attack with these on America.
On top of that, they are the only country to successfully test a hypersonic glide vehicle. Which is kind of like a hypersonic cruise missile, it flies flat inside the atmosphere and can maneuver freely like a plane but at mach 10-22, they are currently impossible to see at all once they re enter the atmosphere, that missile is called the Wu-14. There are rumours that the Chinese are planning to make their anti ship capability global by fitting a modified Wu-14 warhead to a DF-26 missile which will allow them to destroy any ship anywhere in the world.
Currently only China has the technology to produce anti ship ballistic missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles. We conceptualized the HGV in the late 80s early 90s so fairly recently, but deemed the technology impossible. The CHinese began testing the technology 3 years ago and have since made 5 tests with 4 successes and one failure, we tried again but failed that time too.
All of these technologies are not necessarily frontline technologies to be used in a war. If they wanted to sink our carriers, they have a lot of ways to do so, such as with attack submarines or their YJ series supersonic cruise missiles. But the Wu-14 and DF-21D are part of CHina's "assassin's mace program" which is a portfolio of weapons that we have no defense against.

>>31541570
How so? I want you to explain it.

>>31541588

He's going to imply the US will balkanize, other nations are obsessed with this theory, because they fail to understand that we are always either fighting someone else or ourselves. They've said this since 1776.

>>31541576
>>31541588
USA is in mortal danger from internal unrest alone. This is why Chinese intervention will ultimately not be necessary to achieve domination of Pacific countries.

>>31541588
la raza

>>31541596
Wang, you're fired.

>>31541523
Carriers were still considered scouts before Pearl.

>>31541586
>On top of that, they are the only country to successfully test a hypersonic glide vehicle.

Thats 100% false. The US AHW program built a hypersonic glide vehicle, completely non ballistic, and had it sucessfully hit a target back in 2011.

>>31541611
A prototype which can't be scaled up and may not work aways.

>>31541611
X-51 technology lag demonstrator was failure.

>>31541594
well, being a Croat, I can tell you without a doubt what people think is unrest comes no where near what it was like it the 90s in the balkans...
>>31541596
What specifically, don't just say some "ambiguous" you're-in-peril BS. Why specifically is it in danger of doing the way of the dinosaurs? I could easily say the same thing about China.
>>31541597
I'm not following.

>>31541572
> very doctrine in the world revolved around battleships
by which you mean "shitty brown-water navy of former Russian empire had somehow failed to notice it was not 1898 anymore"
everyone else who mattered, knew
hell, even ze Germanz were building two carriers. the fucking Italians almost managed to get their shit together and launch an almost-working carrier in 1941! and they had only been debating it for two decades!

>>31541586
The more i read, the more i find wrong.

>We conceptualized the HGV in the late 80s early 90s so fairly recently, but deemed the technology impossible.

The tech was not deemed impossible, just to expensive and not enough capability leap for the cost. Furthermore, they all were not gliders, they were POWERED. One was a delivery vehicle going twice the speed (at the absolute high end estimates of the wu-14s speed, more like 3x-4x), the other was a completly sucessful missile test, ALL powered.

>no defense

Current SM-3 upgrades can do it, future will do it better.

>>31541586

50, pls.

>>31541596

I like it when the boogeymen I shitpost about on /pol/ come to life on /k/.

>>31541614
It was a functional weapon brought about by PGS program.

>>31541619
Not talking about X-51, you idiot. X-51 is powered. Im talking about the AHW.

The X-51 was also a complete sucess.

>>31541538
CMANO is used by Australian Navy to hone its naval officers, the same program was used to point out the American inadequacy against Chinese surface fleets.

That alone is worth more than some nameless Russian Study that CNN paid for.

>>31541626

?

How about the RN, IJN, and Germany.

File: 1454372578761.jpg (28KB, 310x310px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 310x310px

>>31541402

>scenario where it stood
Oh here we go.

>>31541608
no they were not, as even casual perusal of contemporary military literature will show
the Yorktown class were actual carriers, not fast escort carriers like the (converted BC) Lexingtons

>>31541664
RN had built some escort carriers and were trying to develop doctrine for a carrier-centric fleet when the war began
IJN was carrier central
Germoney was building the Zeppelin class (also most definitely modern carriers, with an offset island and everything) when the war began

>>31541707

>IJN was carrier-centric

Not until the US showed them the potential of CSGs.

The US was the first to do it. Just because a navy HAS carriers doesn't mean their doctrine revolves around them. The IJN and RN both put their battleships first.

>>31540830
CHina doesnt but Russia does?

>>31541608
jesus christ man look at what the USN was building when the war started
> 11 (ELEVEN, ONE ONE) carriers
> 8 heavy AA battlecruisers (of the new Baltimore class)
> 32 light AA cruisers (of the new Cleveland class)
> about a hundred ASW/AA DDs (Fletcher class)

add them all up, what do you get? eight CBGs, is what, each composed of one carrier, one AA HC, four AA LCs and twelve DDs, with three more carriers under rotation, perhaps used as way-stations for self-deploying aircraft on their way to and from base
a whole new navy...

>>31541523
US ships got AA added to them over the war.

Im pretty sure only japan ever thought a battleships main guns could be used in a dual purpose role. The US DDs and CLs had DP main batteries because they had 5 inch guns which were DP. The first (and only?) large caliber naval gun the US officially considered DP was on the des moines because the autoloading mechanism could be used while the guns were elevated

>>31541717
bullshit. they open the war with a carrier attack on Pearl, but they're somehow BB-centric? why did they not sail in and do shore bombardment, then? They were specifically looking for the USN carriers to sink, but somehow they were BB-centric? fucktard.

>>31541791

You're too stupid to educate. I simply cannot talk my way through the several feet of cranium you possess.

>>31541779
> US ships got AA added to them over the war.
on top of the AA they already had
Baltimore and Cleveland were specifically built as air defense ships!

>>31541754

I would definitely say that Russia cares a great deal more about establishing cache in all avenues of US media than China does. But Russian propagandists are much more experienced in strategic influence than fiddy, so their efforts tend to be more subtle and insidious.

The Chinese, meanwhile, are actually expressly interested in taking over the entire planet, so they concern themselves with larger public projects that are meant to be noticed. Think everything from Confucius Institutes to mass immigration.

>>31541799
hahahaha okay
please, show me how the IJN only operated escort carriers, as is normal for a prewar British-style BB-centric battlegroup!
oh. wait.

DF-21D
F
-
2
1
D

>>31542107
SM-3
M
I
3

>>31541552
Arrival time of modern ASHM (onyx for example) is ~ 20 minutes, Range of fire ~ 500 km. CG will detect incoming threat ~ 10 minutes before impact. Guess, how many planes the carrier could get in the air, before it is sunk. Also, "Onyx" missiles, are mostly launched in a swarm. Plus, I am very sceptical about the ability of F-18 to intercept modern (even not hypersonic) missiles. Too high speed, too little time and too much countermeasures onboard.

>>31542348
And just as a side note. At least 1 or two missiles would carry nuclear warhead. "The only way to be sure" it is.

>>31542348
Source is your ass right?

Put this scenario in CMANO first before talking out of your ass

>>31542348
>Too high speed

Amraams are much faster

>to many countermeasures
Home on jam, etc

To little time

Even the cap can engage damn near detection. The vampires are not going to turn and burn, and are generally going to fly straight at the target.

Hell, the escorts can defacto fire on the vamps at detection with sm-6, this gives the ships multiple engagement opportunities. Then as they get closer the missiles have to deal with quad packed essms and then spam friendly SEARAMs

>>31541066
if its as durable and reliable as any of the other trash the fucking yellow slopes build, the carrier that sinks will in all likelihood be chinese...

i learned all i needed to know about chinese manufacturing by using harbor freight tools.

>>31542348
Nimtiz can launch 1 aircraft every 20 seconds.

4 cats are a hell of a drug.

File: Onix.jpg (53KB, 800x279px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x279px

>>31542444
>>Amraams are much faster
Still need time to be delivered and locked at target.
>>Home on jam, etc
ECM,Chaff,Flares. Modern ASHM are almost just as hard to hit, as a fighter plane.

>>Even the cap can engage damn near detection. The vampires are not going to turn and burn, and are generally going to fly straight at the target.

That`s not the case nowdays. Subsonic missiles do evasion maneuvers, hypersonics, supposedly won`t be bothered with such shit, since time from detection to hit is too low for interception.
>>Nimtiz can launch 1 aircraft every 20 seconds.
In perfect condition. And even if it can, planes are unable to teleport from catapult, straight to the interception position.

All in all, it is really no fucking way to protect CG against missile spam in cost-effective ways. Missiles and their delivery platforms, will allways cost less than their target.

>>31542982
>Still need time to be delivered and locked at target.

The delivery system is the 4 birds, at least, thats flying cap around the carrier. Locking takes minimal time.

>ECM,Chaff,Flares. Modern ASHM are almost just as hard to hit, as a fighter plane.

Except not anywhere close as hard to hit as fighter planes. Fighter planes can run. Missiles dont. I guarantee you a fighter plane is far more manuverable than an p-800 at full burn. Control surfaces alone prove this.

>Subsonic missiles

Are not the topic at hand, and turn that 10 min reaction time to around 30.

Also, the evasion manuvers still move towards the target, just at oblique angles.

>In perfect condition.

So double it if you want. That plus cap is still a significant amount of planes.

> to teleport from catapult, straight to the interception position.

They dont have to teleport anywhere, the missiles are coming straight at them.

>cost effective

Its not about being cost effective, its about whats superior. I can throw rocks at carriers all day for free, it does not mean that rock is better than a carrier.

>>31542444
>The vampires are not going to turn and burn, and are generally going to fly straight at the target.
This is wrong
There's a video of Moskit doing serpentine movements during terminal flight. I believe it was Vostok 2012 or 2014.

>>31540634
>Given the asymmetry of offense and defense how can a carrier group expect to survive in a war against a modern enemy?

But the asymmetry is in favor of the defender no matter the missile system being used against it.

Discounting the killchain that the attacker has to have in order to launch on a target, the defender has multiple defenses that have to be overcome just to score a hit, let alone the vagaries involved in sinking a vessel after it is struck considering damage control and just the randomness of war.

For a small example, an incoming missile has to successfully defeat the following:

>Multiple SAMs
>Evasive maneuvering
>Jamming
>Decoys
>CIWS

Anyway, shitty bait thread. Bravo, you got me and a number of others to reply.

>>31542982
Name a single AShM with chaff and flares let alone ECM.

>>31540713
I crunched the numbers once, using the best-case published stats for the DF-21. China would have to launch between 1100 and 1400 missiles to expect a reasonable chance of achieving enough hits to sink a single carrier.

That's roughly the same cost as a carrier. If you factor for the costs of launch platform attrition, the cost gets closer to 2X the cost of a carrier.

The Wu-14 isn't a factor because it hasn't been fielded as part of a weapons system.

Tl;dr- China can't afford to sink a carrier.

>>31540863
You're really hung up on that cost comparison.

Do you also try to claim that infantry is obsolete because a bullet costs less than a soldier?

>>31543258
Serpentine movements wont get you out of an amraams NEZ, only turning and burning will.

File: shuttle.jpg (49KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 852x480px

>>31541586
>On top of that, they are the only country to successfully test a hypersonic glide vehicle.

>they are currently impossible to see at all once they re enter the atmosphere

hi there

>>31540634

You'll have to be more specific on the scale at which you define "offense" and "defense."

On a tactical scale (in which the CSG is defending against incoming missiles), the advantage does appear to lean towards offense. This is especially true in the case of China's ASBMs, which would likely be difficult to intercept with the Aegis Combat System (ACS). However, anti-missile defenses have never been proven in a peer-to-peer engagement, so it's difficult to say for sure. The bottom line is that carriers seem to bevulnerable when examined at this scale.

However, looking at naval warfare in the Pacific from an operational perspective changes things. The great virtue of carriers should be obvious: they can launch aircraft that are themselves capable of detecting and attacking enemy vessels. Exclusively surface warfare battle groups are at a disadvantage, since their missiles and radar are unlikely to out-range the CGS AND the combat aircraft that they carry. Thus, ASBMs are currently the best asymmetric option for neutralizing a carrier.

ASBMs are land-based, making them inherently limited to defense and area-denial. Furthermore, since they are not shooting a stationary target with a known location, they require long-range radar installations, friendly ships, or satellites to "see" the carrier for them. This dependence on external sources of targeting information makes the ASBM system vulnerable, as opposed to self-sufficient carrier groups.

TL;DR Carriers should still be able to outmatch other naval forces, but ASBMs are a viable threat. Nonetheless, ASBMs are not a perfect solution with inherent limitations and vulnerabilities.

>>31542982
>In perfect condition. And even if it can, planes are unable to teleport from catapult, straight to the interception position.

sure, and the strike group commander just sails his ship into contested waters without CAP or ready planes on the decks too

>>31540997
Said the japs before pearl harbor.

>>31542982
>ECM
Defeated by Home On Jam

>Chaff,Flares
Outdated. Flares won't affect an Amraam at all. Amraams can tell chaff from a flying object

>>31543360
Topkek

File: xIkAuC4.jpg (199KB, 1242x1227px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1242x1227px

>>31541141
>THAT is the main reason why there will never be any conflict between China and the U.S.

Kinda. The main reason neither side wants conflict is economical. You got that part right. An embargo being China's greatest fear... not so much. War between China and the US causes economic chaos in many ways for both parties. At the moment and for the mid-term the US is better prepared to weather that storm, but would obviously rather not deal with it either way.

I agree with you in general though. The PRC knows that economic instability is probably the single greatest threat to their party's stability. However, I would not underestimate the nationalism the commies have instilled in their population. If the US were to be perceived as aggressors most Chinese would not be afraid to take the fight and could solidify support for the party. A rise in unrest, yes, but war with the US does not necessarily make for a revolution in modern day China.

>>31543567
>dude this fuckhuge missile can outmanuver an amraam.

Not going to happen

>>31540634
A missile can either move fast, or it can be maneuverable, simple physics. Hypersonic missiles are a meme because their speed by its very nature makes them easy to predict by trajectory.

>>31541623
China doesn't have literally 100+ million foreigners ready to engage in civil war within its borders

>>31540965
>>31540980
>>31540997

You're trying too hard. Dial it back a little, you'll get more (you)s.

>>31541500
>>The U.S. air force can find and destroy China's small nuclear arsenal in a matter of hours.
>This is deeply, deeply untrue.

Actually it's very true and exactly what the U.S. air force will do in the first 24 - 48 hours of a hypothetical war with China while the U.S. navy hunts down and sinks China's ballistic missile submarines.

You have to be very ignorant and/or delusional to deny this.

>>31542476
Yeah, 4 times before it has to wait until all catapults recharge.
>>31543225
>not anywhere close as hard to hit as fighter planes
Planes can only fly in straight line at Mach 1.4 or so at best near the surface. Missiles like Granit fly at Mach 1.6 and higher while preforming excessive anti-missile maneuvers and electronic countermeasures, while at the same time having sophisticated flight profiles and smart swarm data-link.
>the missiles are coming straight at them
No, they do not.

>>31544831
He's just butthurt /k/ anon who can't handle discussing these things. Has to resort to shitty false flag.

>>31543331
Kek

>>31544733
Most of those foreigners want to enjoy the things that make America great, not tear them down. It's why Amnesty (for those have not committed violent felonies) is a good idea.

>>31544876
>Yeah, 4 times before it has to wait until all catapults recharge.

The catapults are independent and you launch planes one at a time you fucking retard. The cat takes about a 90 seconds to recharge and reset (which is done simultaneously).

>>31544733
Have you ever been around Mexicans? Very few of them believe that shit. Fuck off back to /pol/ racebaiter

>>31543331
>Do you also try to claim that infantry is obsolete because a bullet costs less than a soldier?
I think if you had 10 infantry and your strategy was total defense of them then yeah that's an issue.

>>31544945
Prove it.

>>31544876
>Mach 1.6 and higher while preforming excessive anti-missile maneuvers.

>implying out manuvering a interceptor

Lel.

>ewar

Home on jam, sonny

>muh data link

Pointless for interception.

>No, they do not.

Ahh, they never hit then?

>>31544733
>China doesn't have literally 100+ million foreigners ready to engage in civil war within its borders

China already has a Muslim insurgency in Xinjiang.

>>31544267
youre wrong though

>>31544962
>prove it

Here you go!

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14310_ch4.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi-ncTDnr_PAhUIQSYKHZqTA2EQFggbMAU&usg=AFQjCNF2VVMF8wY3kzXg7sjo3_mgGv36nQ

>>31544918
they want to enjoy it, while they destroy it
Non-whites fundamentally cannot maintain a first world civilization.

>>31544951
bet you'd say the same thing about muslim, you delusional lying fuck

>>31544971
>Implying implications
So far no interceptor has shown a capability to intercept a smart swarm of sea-skimming targets with sophisticated data-link excessively maneuvering at Mach 1.6 or higher. Best you can do is intercept one, flying in a straight line.
>Home on jam can only be an attribute of an intercepting missile, anti-ship missiles have no home on jam
>Missiles only fly in straight lines, they don't have different attack profiles allowing to engage from different directions
Tbqh I bet American missiles still don't, ladm8.
>Alternating flight and attack profiles based on data from other missiles is pointless because I say so
The fox and the grapes, kek.

File: battlenetworks.png (245KB, 640x439px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 640x439px

>>31541106
Idea of a Ballistic Missile ASROC is actually pretty good and the Chinese have been working on that concept to warrant ONI attention.

>>31545020
Quote where exactly does it support your argument.

>>31544892
>bawww why won't people agree with my questionable arguments while I refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary
OP pls

>>31543299
Somehow I seriously doubt even the capability of measuring the cost between the two.

All I care about is the current capacities.

>>31545064
>implying implications

So far no "smart swarm" anti ship missile has shown an ability to attack an entire CSG, just a single target not moving at all.

>anti-ship missiles have no home on jam

Never implied, thanks for agreeing with me though.

>Missiles only fly in straight lines, they don't have different attack profiles allowing to engage from different directions.

Funny how those different directions all lead to the same target. Oh, and good job staggering your impact times, makeing it all that much easier for intercept.

>The fox and the grapes, kek.

I agree, its a shame the russians never figured out CEC.

>>31543299
>China would have to launch between 1100 and 1400 missiles to expect a reasonable chance of achieving enough hits to sink a single carrier.
Wut? A carrier group doesn't have the ammo/capability to shoot down a couple hundred ballistic missiles let alone a thousand.

>>31545078
Are you incapable of reading?

>spoilers, its in the test

>>31545123
Wut. One tico alone has over 100 vls, and those fuckers are basically only for BMD/fleet defense.

>>31545146
So you'll need 9-10 of them in one carrier group?

>>31545173
You said a couple hundred, aka 200, which is the upper limit of a single unaugmented CBG. (And an apoloclyptic strike)

>>31545114
The difference is that the successfullness of such an attack would solely depend on the ability of a CSG to intercept the smart swarm of incoming missiles. And so far the best you can do is intercept one, flying in a straight line.
>different directions all lead to the same target
To different targets. From different directions.
>staggering your impact times
My a margin of a minute, while gaining the ability to attack from different directions.
>russians never figured out CEC
And yet somehow managed to produce missiles that use a similar principle. Decades ago. The fox and the grapes, kek.

>>31545128
>Please, read a bunch of pages and find my argument for me
Post the quote.

I never understand these carrier hate threads. Do chinks and vatniks not know that USA has the most destroyers and nuclear submarines in the world? It's like they think the US navy is mostly carriers when the USA can destroy any country by alternative means.

File: image.jpg (420KB, 1191x1684px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1191x1684px

>>31540833
>simply because its impossible to find & track a ship over the horizon.

>>31545264
US relies to much on carrier.
We should be establishing land based air bases in regions as well as more training and development on rapid air field construction.

>>31541066
>completely upset balance of power in the pacific theatre
...for all of three weeks until the Vinson, Roosevelt, and Nimitz arrive with enough burkes to block out the sun

>>31545253
The difference is that the successfullness of such an attack would solely depend on the ability of a missiles to datalink sucessfully and to figure out where the CSG while its moving at flank, spitting out nixies and shitting out megawatts of ewar and doing its best to kill the incoming missiles.. And so far the best you can do is hit one lone target, dead in the water.

>To different targets. From different directions.

Ahh, there is TWO carriers now? Or will you split your strike among its escorts? Thanks for making it eaiser! The escorts have far more defensive capabilitys than the carrier.

>My a margin of a minute, while gaining the ability to attack from different directions.

And loseing minutues to do so. More intercept opportunities! Easier and easier!

>And yet somehow managed to produce missiles that use a similar principle. Decades ago.

By that you mean tottally ground based senors shareing data, which the us also figured out...decades ago

>>31545259
Its an understanding of the system, the direct question is in the test.

Do you fail to understand the question? Is my source to complex for your feeble intellect? Its 40 measly pages.

>>31541170
>hurdur lets start nuclear war over a ship

>>31541326
>The Sm-3 has already intercepted a high hypersonic target,
Did I miss a memo?

>>31545301
And what will prevent the missiles from doing so?
>Ahh, there is TWO carriers now?
No, there's a CSG. Thanks for proving your incompetence by assuming missiles go solely for the carrier and furthermore implying that it is a right thing to do.
>And loseing minutues to do so
No, losing a margin of a minute for a simultaneous attack form different directions. But then again, in your fairy-tale world missiles going for different targets are easier to intercept, so I assume that for you it is by a virtue of some magic also correct that an attack form different directions is easier to repel.
>He thinks missiles are controlled from the ground
The fox and the fucking grapes, kek. I would say welcome to the 21st century, but this shit was figured out in the 20th one.

>>31545409
Yep, Sat intercept.

>>31541514
>It has too low a readiness to be used

Uhh what?

It has been estimated that they can arm and launch in a day.

Also, the Chinese would raise the alert levels if they expected nuclear war soon.

>>31545315
>Please, read a bunch of pages and find my argument for me
Post the quote.

>>31540634
Carriers are floating airfields. That's a HUGE asset. They may be vulnerable but they sure as fuck aren't going away.

>>31541649
>The X-51 was also a complete sucess.
[Citation needed]

>>31545421
>And what will prevent the missiles from doing so?

Indeed, what will?

>>31545421
>No, there's a CSG. Thanks for proving your incompetence by assuming missiles go solely for the carrier.

Thank you for making it easier to defeat the attack in detail.

>No, losing a margin of a minute for a simultaneous attack form different directions.

Yes, thats a whole lot of chances to keep intercepting.

>is by a virtue of some magic also correct that an attack form different directions is easier to repel.

When you split your force and stagger your attack you tend to have your now smaller forces get defeated by the larger unified force, yes.

>The fox and the fucking grapes

Indeed.

>but this shit was figured out in the 20th one.

Datashareing by ground units? Yep, figured out by damn near everyone.

>>31543331
Yeah, if you had 10 of them?

>>31545442
>Post the quote.

I already told you its in the test.

Sigh. Page 54-55. Does your mother still feed you from her tit?

>>31545451
Obviously but we need to dispel this fiction that they are invulnerable and will remain as useful in a peer war as they are in peacetime power projection.

>>31545428
Not hypersonic.

>>31545521
And we dispel that by apply near mythic properties to weapons that counter them?

Nah. Right now the air is just about as low risk to a carrier as it gets. BMs medium risk, undersea is high risk.

>>31545535
>low orbit
>subsonic

>>31545544
So you admit there is high risk?

>>31545535
The sat was very much going hypersonic my friend.

The closeinf speed was 34 mach. The sm-3 was only going mach 10.

>>31545564
Against a USN peer under the water?

Yes.

So far, that really does not exist however. Nobody has the assets, the number of assets, or the training.

>>31545478
So what will prevent the missiles from doing so?
>He thinks missiles go solely for the carrier
>He thinks it's a right thing to do
>He thinks a simultaneous attack form different directions is easier to repel
Thanks for reaffirming your incompetence, but one time is really enough.
>Anti-ship missiles
>He still thinks missiles are controlled from the ground
The fox and the fucking grapes, top kek.

>>31545506
Pages 54-55 only describe Central Charging Panel arrangement and say nothing that supports your claim. Post the quote.
>>31545535
You just went full retard.

>>31545635
>So what will prevent the missiles from doing so?

I agree, what will prevent missiles from doing so?

>he thinks splitting up his attack and giving the enemy 10% more time to react per group is a good thing.

Thanks for showing your complete incompetence in anything militarily related.

>>He still thinks russians can control ground launched sams from the air.

THE FOX! THE GRAPES!

>>31545650
>Pages 54-55 only describe Central Charging Panel arrangement.

Which is integral to showing how fast the cat can reset, is it not? Furthermore, you completely missed the start of the test.

Here comes the airplane! OPEN WIDE! BRRRRRRRRR.

Not gonna bother reading the thread but all the
>"hurr dis is shilling" niggers kill yourself
No one gives a fuck about /k/. This board literally has 0 impact on anything revolving around weapon design and events. At least /pol/ can claim to events and ideas with effects that originated on /pol/. /pol/ actually matters (no matter how little) they are the only board where shilling actually happens and makes sense.

Fuck off with your
>xd le chicom vatnik shill
They're not shills you fucking mongoloids, no one gives a fuck what anyone on /k/ thinks, it's a back of the room board compared to the rest of the big boards.

Those of you spamming le shill xd; try actually engaging in discussion for once

>>31545713
Nice try, shill.

>>31545713
>>this angry shill is upset at being outed.

No need for those angry feels anon, we get your shilling for /pol/ because the entire chan wants it gone.

>>31545558
not hypersonic != subsonic

>>31545713
Hello there, sir shillington.

Chicom? Vatty? Good ole jews?

>>31545720
>>31545736
That's literally my only post so far and will be my only post aside this one.

Literally no one outside of /k/ gives a fuck about /k/. There are no shills here. There are only delusional vatniks and chinese vatnik equivalents, but they're not shills they're just fucking retarded.

Kill yourself, mongo.

>>31545713
>>31545767


>he does not understand that only shills get upset at being called a shill.

Whatever ever you say, i hope the shekle, the beet, or the .50 yuan was worth it!

>>31545666
You can't agree with a question, since a question is not a statement. So what will prevent the missiles from doing so?
>He thinks attacking a single target in the middle of a CSG instead of attacking offensive and defensive assets of a CSG simultaneously from different directions is a right thing to do
Thanks for once again reaffirming your incompetence, but one time was really enough. No need to openly admit your ignorance in every following post.
>The doesn't know they can, not only from air, but from orbit too
>He still thinks a smart swarm of data-linked missiles is in need of manual control, let alone from the ground
The fucking fox and the fucking grapes, toppest kek.

>>31545767
>NOBODY CARES BOUT THE CHINS, STOP CALLIN US OUT!

No :^)

>>31545699
So where exactly does it support your argument? Post the quote.

>>31540933
>I don't understand what the quote means

Naval warfare with the US is unthinkable. Any nation that attempted would lose, and lose everything in the attempt.

>>31545801
Okay Rome.

>>31545759
>not hypersonic != subsonic
But subsonic is literally not hypersonic. Also:
>7.8 km/s
>not hypersonic

>>31545848
Hypersonic is 8+

>>31545783
>So what will prevent the missiles from doing so?

Intercepting? Like i said, what will? I agree with the validly of the question.

>He thinks splitting his force and attacking at different times is a realistic strategy for victory.

Thanks for once again reaffirming your incompetence, but one time was really enough. No need to openly admit your ignorance in every following post.

>Thinking that cruise missile targeting options is equivalent to SAM targeting options.

FOX! GRAPES!

>>31545713
>Please god give me a "discussion" where I can find release for my unhealthy obsession with future Chinese anti-ship missiles by spouting bullshit and ignoring facts
>Please, please, I NEED this

FOX
R
A
P
E
S

>>31545792
In the test anon.

BRRRRTTTTTTTT. WEW AIRPLANE! COME SUCKLE ON MAMAS TIT, BABBY NEEDS MILK!

>>31545821
Agreed, USA is on verge of collapse.

>>31545867
Hypersonic is mach 5-10. Stop posting.

>>31545783
>He doesn't think launching individual missiles in piecemeal attacks will lead to the dissolution of the United States

FOX
R
A
P
E
S

>>31545912
DUDE BRO.

10 MISSILES.

10 DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS

EATCH ONE MINUTE APART.

INFALLIBLE!

>incredibly complex defense system untested for decades
>this will totally work perfect
Why is /k/ full of blind patrots?

>>31541655
Every posting of cmano i've seen om this board, the carrier group ALWAYS had their pants down. Always. Without fail. Never once have I seen a scenario where both forces are at combat readiness duke it out.

I mean this kinda thing where the cbg is improperly spaced, or doing flight deck inspections in the midst of battle when ghey should be launching fighters. They are told not to engage at all or the entire cbg w ill have its radar off. Fuck those cmano users on this board.

>>31541570
No, we're just having an election year. We get like this every 4 years.

You should get out more, you'd see what I'm talking about

>>31545943
>untested for decades

Funny joke anon.

>>31545759
Low orbit = way faster than hypersonic.

Hypersonic = 5.0–10.0 ma = 1,7–3,4 km/s

Minimal speed object has to keep to stay at low earth orbit = about 7.8 km/s

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

>>31545870
>Intercepting?
The fact that so far the best you can do is intercept one, flying in a straight line.
>I agree with the validly of the question.
So answer it. What will prevent the missiles from figuring out where the CSG is?
>He thinks attacking offensive and defensive assets of a CSG simultaneously from different directions is "splitting the force"
>The thinks the attack is preformed "at different times"
Thanks for yet again reaffirming your incompetence, but one time was indeed enough. there is no necessity in admitting your ignorance in every following post.
>Thinking that this has anything to do with SAMs
The fucking fox and the motherfucking grapes, toppest of all keks. At this point I'm not even sure if you're not acting retarded on purpose.

>>31545936
Pathetic USA CIWS will be overwhelmed within seconds.

>>31545943
THIS
H
I
S

>>31545985
FOX
G
R
A
P
E
S

>>31545912
>>31545936
>individual missiles
>EATCH ONE MINUTE APART
Could be true if we were talking about American missiles.

>>31545886
Still no quote, anon. Post the quote that supports your argument.

>>31545985
>What will prevent the missiles from figuring out where the CSG is?

The fact that the best you can do is hit one target, dead in the water.

>he thinks that splitting up his attack minute(s) apart is anything other than attacking at different times.

Thanks for yet again reaffirming your incompetence, but one time was indeed enough. there is no necessity in admitting your ignorance in every following post.

>He thinks this has anything to do with AShMs.

DUDE MEM- I MEAN FOXGRAPES!

>>31542356
Being the country that starts an offensive nuclear war sounds like a really good way to lose.

>>31546039
Whao anon.

I told you the page. I hand fed you where on the page. Now we are getting into "can you into english/do you have acess to the PDF".

Post the test. I can show you the titty but cant make you suckle.

>>31545957
Whenever test doesn't go the way US Navy wants the whine about it being unfair or change the rules.

File: grapes_625x350_61443376353[1].jpg (38KB, 625x350px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 625x350px

>>31546056
One ICBM will launch, per minute, per target.
ABM BFTO

>>31546019
Anon said a minute apart, his words not mine.

W....whats that sound? I...it sounds like goalposts....moving...

>>31546079
GRAPES!!!! GRAPES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>31546074
Thats not true at all, ageis has had plenty of failures over the years.

You do know there is an entire wiki page dedicated to this, right

>>31546076
HOW CAN WE COMPETE?!?!?

>>31546091
FOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>31546116
IM NOT A FOX IM A GRAPE!!!!!

GRAAAAAAPPPPEEEEEE !!!!!

>>31545971
most any moron can do satellite intercepts, satellites are what you would call cooperative targets, running around on their little tracks in the sky, doing their level best to stay on-schedule
lift a pebble in their path at the right time, and they die
now a fucking telephone pole THAT MANEUVERS while falling directly at you at mach 10... whole different kettle of fish

>>31545123
China doesn't have 1100 DF-21s laying around, either. At this point, we have more defense than they have offense.

>>31541496
If we can develop munitions that can penetrate hundreds of feet of earth, im pretty sure you can design a warhead to pierce through water easily.

>>31546129
You won't be laughing when hypersonic supermaneuvers Wu14 delivers massive payload of grapes onto zero-readiness American obesity carrier

>>31546140
>implications of an unpowered glider outmanuvering a faster, powered, interceptor.

Lel

>>31545971
At this point I think we're just baiting each other in circles.

>>31546156
See
>>31546166

>>31546149
The warhead that penetrates earth does not have to then target and swim for a few kilometers.

>>31546156
You'll probably laugh as I give you a reach around.

>>31546196
It would be funny trying to find the near microscopic chinese dick

File: 1322531398654[1].jpg (42KB, 600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x1066px

who /angry westernized Asian beta male/ here?

>>31546219
Why you just described the entire chinese "middle class".

>>31546190
A multiple stage missile would do, once water penetration has been achieved, a following stage would allow the object to travel a few kilometers, at high speeds.

>>31546166
that unpowered glider has a lot more energy than the interceptor, so things aren't looking good to begin with
then you have to figure out that the glider might just be smart enough to know when/if it's being lit up by the interceptor's terminal guidance radar and it gets downright scary
then you realize what a deflection of one degree means at that speed and... well, let's just say the Gazelle and the Gorgon were nuclear for a reason

>>31546234
Thats about the most asinine fucking way to go about shit anon.

Why not a fucking airbrake and a parachute. It would take a metric fuckton longer, but is actually feasible unlike some kind of sacrificial stage.

>>31546212
That's why we're laughing at the reach around. After all, only one of us is penetrating something.

>>31546239
>that unpowered glider has a lot more energy than the interceptor

Being that the interceptor is powered and faster, no.

>know when/if it's being lit up by the interceptor's terminal guidance radar

Good, the glider will lose airspeed and the interceptor wont.

>>31546256
I dont understand the issue.


With something like that you can still retain the high speed of the first stage, while still being able to operate underwater.

What exactly is the issue with that.

>>31546260
Vaild point.

>>31546219
>angry
Not really.
>westernized
ABC
>beta male
I guess. The house, kids and guns make up for it.

>>31546285
>What exactly is the issue with that.

The fact that the g forces alone will ruin any engine, sensor, control surface, etc, if you hit the water at mach. Its like hitting concrete.

>>31546316

That's funny because the united states has weapons capable of piercing concrete bunkers.

You seem like a very close minded individual, i'm glad people like you aren't in R&D.

>>31546281
A hobby model rocket is powered, does it have more energy?

>>31546334
Yes.

Are you seriously saying a delayed fuze is the same complexity as a FUCKING torpedo?

>>31546334
>the united states has weapons capable of piercing concrete bunkers.
No they don't. Modern advances in concrete and materiels have made bunker busters untenable.
They'll work on old construction though.

>>31546339
Is it going faster then the other model rocket you are compareing it to? If so, yes.

>>31546359
Yes they do.

>>31546359
Iran please, nobody invited you.

>>31545886
You still haven't supported your argument. Not even an out of context quote. Poor bait.

>>31546359
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e41303db616f3133740048f88e795031&tab=core&_cview=1


Keep slurping up that propaganda from Khamenei

>>31546412
See
>>31546068

>>31546386
>>31546394
The Massive Ordinance Penetrator can only penetrate 25 feet or or so of 10,000 psi concrete. That's 8 times less than the claimed "200 ft" penetration of 5000 psi concrete.
So imagine how ineffective it would be against Ultra High Performance Concrete, which can reach 100K+ psi in compression strength.
Granite tops out at around 50k psi.

>>31546419
That's a solicitation for research into this. That backs up what I said, clearly the military understands current bunker busters are inadequate.
>The research white papers/proposals should examine conventional, traditional and non-traditional kinetic weapons to defeat high value/high payoff cut-and-cover bunkers, basement bunkers, and tunnel targets. These targets are becoming increasingly harder, deeper, and more complex in design.

>>31546515
>thinking you know the makeup of the test medium used to test the MOP

Kek

>>31546041
Too bad the difference is that the successfullness of such an attack would solely depend on the ability of a CSG to intercept the smart swarm of incoming missiles. And so far the best you can do is intercept one, flying in a straight line. Going in circles won't help you to win the argument, yo have to try harder.
>The thinks the attack is preformed "minute(s) apart"
Thanks for keeping reaffirming your incompetence, but one time seriously is enough. There is absolutely no necessity in admitting your ignorance in every following post.
>He thinks a discussion about anti-ship missiles has nothing to do with anti-ship missiles
This fox is of broken. Bring another one, the grapes are still fresh.

>>31546515
That was an request made over 5 years ago.

The project has been finished. It exists.

>>31546068
Too bad there is nothing on that page that supports your argument. Still no quote, anon. Post the quote.

>>31546079
I said that the way is fraction of a minute longer. The attack however is preformed simultaneously, from different directions.

>>31546574
>Too bad the difference is that the successfullness of such an attack would solely depend on the ability of the AShM to target, network with other missiles, avoid spoofing, and avoid getting shot down. And so far the best you can do is hit one ship, alone, not emitting, not defending, dead in the water. Going in circles won't help you to win the argument, you have to try harder.

>Is trying to damage control is minute statement.

Thanks for keeping reaffirming your incompetence, but one time seriously is enough. There is absolutely no necessity in admitting your ignorance in every following post.


>He thinks a discussion about anti-missile missiles has nothing to do with anti-missile missiles

The meme has been memed. Please send more GRAOX.

>>31546582
>The project has been finished. It exists.
Source?

>>31546625
>I said that the way is fraction of a minute longer.

>>31545253
>>staggering your impact times
>My a margin of a minute, while gaining the ability to attack from different directions.

Wh...whats that glorious sound?

Is that some goalposts i see moving?

>>31546589

So you DONT have direct acess to it.

Im sorry they dont allow you to see the truth.

>>31546653
2 secret 4 u

>>31546651
What will prevent the missiles from targeting, networking with other missiles, avoiding spoofing, and avoiding getting shot down, if so far the best you can do is intercept one, flying in a straight line?
>The still thinks the attack is preformed "minute(s) apart"
Thanks for keeping reaffirming your incompetence, but one time seriously is enough. There is absolutely no necessity in admitting your ignorance in every following post.
>It was merely an act!
Try harder, please.

>>31546673
>staggering your impact times
>My a margin of a minute
The impact time of the volley.

>>31546686
Oh, so you don't have a quote that supports your argument? That's rather sad for you and the argument you were trying to make. Next time base your statements off some actual facts, not your fantasies.

>>31546813
Are you saying that irs your positions that you want the AShMs prevented from avoiding getting shot down and/or spoofed?

You are slipping, anon.

>>31546842
>The impact time of the volley.

Yes anon. So now you are doubleing down on your statements.

>>31546863
I do, its sad your grasp of english is terribly low, your goverment too oppressive, or your intellect too dim.

>>31546842
>The impact time of the volley.

Wew laddy, this vatnik is incapable of admitting fault, and looking at the above it just keeps getting worse for him.

>>31546881
No, I am saying that since no interceptor has ever preformed an intercept against anything but a sole target flying in a straight line there is zero reason to assume that a CSG defended with such interceptors would preform well against a smart swarm of incoming missiles.
>>31546896
No such thing is happening.

>>31546714
so no source?

>>31546919
The only sad thing is that you keep trying to say something after essentially admitting that you have no quote to support your claim.

>>31546943
>Broken fatnik is projecting
I thought I demanded a new fatnik. This one does not function well enough anymore, a new one is required.

>>31546965
Thats not what you said at all though.

>>31547009
This is exactly what I said and what I keep saying.

>>31546965
>no such thing is happening

This vatnik is confused and lost. Verbatim, you reiterated the same statement two different ways.

>>31547045
So this post >>31546813
is as you want it to be.

>>31545264
It's carrier envy. They can't into carriers, so they shitpost at us because we figured carriers out almost a century ago.

>>31547048
Happens to be a necessity when trying to discuss anything with salty fatniks.

>>31547176
You are argueing 2 contradictory points then.

>>31547205
Now you are imagining things. But don't worry, I heard therapists have pills that can help you with such a misfortune.

>>31547288
>the impact time of the volley will be staggered.

>the impact time is the exact same.

No, im not. Do you need the post numbers?

>>31545487
What, 10 soldiers?

Ok, lets assume that the source of bullets is a machine gun. It manages to shoot maybe 2 or 3 soldiers, then gets knocked out by a grenade from one of the remaining 7. Now you've lost ALL of your bullets, the launch platform, and the crew of the launch platform.

Soldiers are more versatile than bullets, carriers are more versatile than missiles. Bullets and missiles are definitely still dangerous, which is why we have countermeasures. And bullets and missiles of our own.

>>31547319
>the source of all the missiles is one thing in one place
Carrier fag can't fathom distributed force lel.

The US Navy can't even navigate without GPS anymore why do you think they're prepared for a peer war? They're coddled by peacetime and asymmetric war since Navy is not in danger 99.9% of the time.
Let's see how they feel when stuff starts exploding, systems breakdown, and sailors start getting eaten by whitetips.

>>31547313
It is about the same for every missile in a volley. The impact time of the volley itself however is indeed a bit staggered when compared to the shortest possible time it takes for a missile to fly the distance between the launch point and the target, since even for supersonic missiles it takes some time to get into a position to attack the target simultaneously from different directions.

>>31547382
>The impact time of the volley itself however is indeed a bit staggered

>attack the target simultaneously

These two statements are incompatible to a coherent point.

>>31547345
Missile fag cant comprehend a cohesive force working as one.

>>31546076
Except ICBMs can't hit moving targets. Even with nukes, PK is chancy. So now it becomes an issue of how much of their small nuke arsenal is China willing to throw away to sink a carrier?

Actually, it would cost their whole arsenal. The retaliatory strikes would see to that.

>>31546239
>you realize what a deflection of one degree means at that speed

It means missing the target by tens, if not hundreds, of miles. That glider can't replace the energy lost to evasive maneuvers. Each maneuver shrinks the hit basket.

File: 1471699688260.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

Since nobody posted it yet

>>31541016
Do keep in mind that sinking that carrier will result in the deployment of nuclear weapons by the US on a somewhat large scale.

I wouldn't expect the next carrier to be possible with 40% of the navy missing, and the other 60% too radioactive to be on for more than a couple hours.

>>31547367
The US navy is the most non-white branch. I expect most of it would just mutiny in the event of a real war

>>31545564

>>31545591
now he goes to his boss and get promotion you idiot.

>>31540634

Question for everybody:

What's the range on these anti missile systems?

Because - What's to stop anyone from simply detonating a small nuke or two well above a carrier group? Just large enough yield and close enough to damage anti missile equipment or radar dishes, stun personnel, that sort of thing?

>>31546285
have to be 18 to post

>>31548392
Shieeet we're fucked.

From a logical standpoint, big ships are at a disadvantage against AShM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)

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

And neither were swarm attacks.

>>31548471
So .75 yuan? Or considering how China's predatory hierarchical system works, he'll probably get thrown under the bus by another shitposter.

Has anyone gotten them to post pics?