More on Chinese Ship Killer

[chuck]

Without further information I would credit the Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile with a miss rate in engaging ship comparable to the miss rate of the patriot mission in engaging Chinese missiles.

I would imagine the problem of a anti-ship ballistic missile warhead looking down against surface clutter trying to pick out ships with state of the art ECM plus shaff and flares is at least as difficult as that of a anti-air missile looking up against a clear background trying to pick out a conspicuous incoming warhead protected by decoys and chaff. I also imagine that chaff and decoys would only work at high atmosphere where the thin air would not quickly separate a heavy warhead from a light decoy. Once the ballistic missile warhead is lower down and separated from its decoys, it could be engaged with large caliber Gatling style guns much more effectively than a sea skimming missile because where as a sea skimmer would not be visible to the gunnery radar until 3 NM out, a ballistic missile warhead will be continuously visible to the ship all the way down, allowing the ship's guns to engage the warhead from much further out.

So perhaps in the future warships might be equipped with 57 or 75mm Gatlin guns with very high elevation, designed to engage incoming ballistic missile warheads 6-8 miles up.

[Gone Asiatic]

Can�t we all just get along? Build models not missiles

....Can we build missile models?

[Charlestonguy]

Yep

[Jack Ray]

Without further information I would credit the Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile with a miss rate in engaging ship comparable to the miss rate of the patriot mission in engaging Chinese missiles.

I would imagine the problem of a anti-ship ballistic missile warhead looking down against surface clutter trying to pick out ships with state of the art ECM plus shaff and flares is at least as difficult as that of a anti-air missile looking up against a clear background trying to pick out a conspicuous incoming warhead protected by decoys and chaff. I also imagine that chaff and decoys would only work at high atmosphere where the thin air would not quickly separate a heavy warhead from a light decoy. Once the ballistic missile warhead is lower down and separated from its decoys, it could be engaged with large caliber Gatling style guns much more effectively than a sea skimming missile because where as a sea skimmer would not be visible to the gunnery radar until 3 NM out, a ballistic missile warhead will be continuously visible to the ship all the way down, allowing the ship's guns to engage the warhead from much further out.

So perhaps in the future warships might be equipped with 57 or 75mm Gatlin guns with very high elevation, designed to engage incoming ballistic missile warheads 6-8 miles up.

Why not the GAU-8?

Jack

[MichelB]

Why not the GAU-8?

Jack

Oh, you mean, like, the Goalkeeper?

[Dave Wooley]

Chuck
There are many ways to track radar is only one.
I agree with Marco the only way they would attack is if the US were being aggressive to start with. We owe China so much money; over the last 7 years we sold most of our prime mortgage debt to them, it would be foolish for all concerned for any such attack by either side.
China has been around for 4000 years, I have a feeling they will be around for a lot more. However, they do want respect, and the government sees aircraft carriers and ballistic missiles as symbols of a super power. Honestly, they are going to be a super power by owning all the banks, these symbols of power are worthless compared to the economic power they will be able to wield.
Can�t we all just get along? Build models not missiles

This is an interesting angle. Which is the most important economic or military power? It could be concluded that China has no need to build carriers or project military might. Presently it is engaged in quietly buying countries around the globe, using its economic might to influence events and of course acquiring the natural resources it needs with out costly military commitments . Chinese pragmatism at work.
Dave Wooley

[Marco_Trigo]

Building economic power is easy, but creating the technology for military power and then the proceedings and protocols to use them properly probably takes a while longer.

As Chuck pointed out, we owing them money isn't enough to keep them safe, although some of Chuck's assumptions do not hold true: it's different for China to export products and for China to contro lthe money in our banks which it does now. The USA would require one hell of a financing to go to war anytime soon and the loan would most likely come from China.

Anyway, I would agree China is indeed doing that: getting some money, becoming the world's greatest credor, and preparing a modern military... in the meantime they will be bluffing a bit. This missile may be one such bluff although the idea appears to have merit. It does: we are just not agreeing on the execution.

Marco

[chuck]

This is an interesting angle. Which is the most important economic or military power? .....
Dave Wooley

If military power is sufficiently overwhelming, and is backed by a sufficiently ruthless will to use it to settle the issue NOW, then military power can trump any economic power in influencing the final outcome.

If the military power is merely superior but is either physically incapable of settling the issue definitively in a reasonably short amount of time, or is not back by a sufficiently ruthless will to use it to that end, then economic power can become more important in influencing the final outcome.

I would say the US is in the latter situation.

[Marco_Trigo]

What Chuck might be saying is, the USA could easily take out Monaco, Switzerland and a couple of Pacific Islands that rely on banks alone.

But China is a bit bigger in every respect.

You need a strong economy and the military to defend it and you need a strong military and the economy to feed it. A strong military without the money to sustain a war is a paper tiger.

Marco