carr wrote:
I did some further digging into this Chinese wonder missile. Here's a quote from the World Affairs Board (worldaffairsboard.com):
"Experts say the Dong Feng’s basic design isn’t much different from the Cold War-era Pershing II developed by the United States. But it’s the land-based platform, the payload and the capability of a ballistic missile to redirect in mid-flight that especially concerns U.S. strategists."
This is exactly what I said about the missile being a generation or two behind. Further, the announcement about the missile is just that, an announcement. As far as anyone can tell, there is no evidence that such a missile actually exists. An object purported to be the missile was showcased in a parade, however, there have been no test flights reported in the public literature. Accuracy claims (read propaganda) are based on theoretical calculations (as a bit of perspective, none of our weapon systems have ever met their theoretical claims, why would the Chinese). For all intents and purposes, this appears to be a "wish list" weapon whose only value is its propanganda effect on us. And again, in that respect, it's been wildly successful.
This missile is claimed to have a 1500 - 2000 mile range with mid course correction capability. I'm sorry, but what Chinese (or US, for that matter) targetting system has a 2000 mile range?! None. You can launch a missile that will travel ten times around the world but if you don't know where the target is, it's useless.
Russ is correct that it's never a good idea to underestimate an opponent. On the other hand, we're seeing the result of grossly overestimating. People are pronouncing the carrier obsolete and dead, all without ever seeing this supposed missile fired or having the slightest evidence that it exists.
Regards,
Bob
Bob,
I have not read the world affairs article, but think you are missing the broader point about the implications of Chinese ballistic missiles versus U.S. sea power. Nor is the targeting solution as difficult as you think.
The Federation of American Scientist have several excellent papers on conventionally armed ballistic missiles, the proposed Air-Sea Battle doctrine, Wayne Hughes excellent treatise on naval tactics, and a strategy papers by guys like Andrew Krepinevich, etc. are also help frame the discussion.
The long and short of it is that CVBGs and surface ships are:
1) pretty slow compared to missiles and other aircraft
2) can be tracked and targeted in real time by a number of systems including satellites
3) do not have to be sunk to be put out of action or even effectively destroyed by these weapons
Aircraft, radars and other electronic devices are particularly vulnerable to a number of cheap area effect sub-munitions that can be carried in a ballistic missile. Think of what a hail storm of large ball bearings moving at hypersonic speeds would do to an F-18, a SPY-1 radar, etc. And a ballistic missile can carry *a lot* of sub-munitions. Of course, any hypersonic missile that hits a ship will not need an explosive warhead to bore a large hole right through it. Do the math on how much time a CVBG sitting 500-1500 nm off the coast would have to react to a ballistic missile swarm and it will sober you.
Add to this that the Chinese are in a sea-denial mode - the U.S. and its allies will have to fight their way into Asia to support Taiwan, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore etc..
Login
Register
FAQ
Shovel ready projects 
retard on the "What-If" forum would be stupid enough to suggest there was any use for a ship designed in 1930? Nope. Mr. Guiman, you're wrong, and any possible use for battleships is dead. Just ask Seasick.
A 16” HE round will excavate a crater the size of a tennis court 10 feet deep & an Iowa can throw 9 of them every 2 minutes! No carrier ever invented has ever been able to come close to that kind of firepower & with the introduction of cruise missiles, new propellants & RAP rounds even the range advantage of a carrier (its only advantage) has been lost. Not to mention pilot loss (cruise missiles & 16” rounds don’t have pilots to get shot down & captured!). We’re not suggesting to build 1930s model battle ships, do they build the Yorktown class today? With the advent of new technology (Missiles, Radar, VTOL, Lasers{yes they’re testing a new high powered AA laser} ) the carrier may soon be obsolete & a Large, heavily armed & armored surface warship (a Battleship!) may be the capitol ship of the future, with the carrier becoming just a footnote in history as the temporary usurper.
...didn't have time to read the other posts...it's a point I'm adamant on 
. thought I was replying to a carrier hugger! 
