This is a discussion on Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics within the Strategic Defense forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by AssassinsMace If this weapon exists, China has every right to have it. My opinion China has every ...
New Member
My opinionOriginally Posted by AssassinsMace
China has every rigth to use it.
China will not use it as it is not in their best interest to broaden the war to include further US reinforcements and further involvement from the US navy.
I highly doubt the Chinese leadership will actively utilize this weapon against the US naval strike groups unless it is for a critical phase of the Taiwanese invasion in which heavy US naval strike groups must be sunk.
Otherwise, I highly believe China would use it with reserve. Remember, the Chinese invasion of Taiwan should be executed with flawless precision and is heavily dependent on execution within a small time frame.
Its aim is to not sink aircraft carriers and excite the American public into war, but instead, avoid US Naval engagement the best they can and by POSSESSing this weapon, its enough to give proper distance away from the US naval involvement in that general vincintiy area.
Its all political. This weapon is equivalent in destruction to nearly an atom bomb. It could quite literally stun a navy into submission. Just by purely boasting about this weapon and displaying it, it is mroe than enough to scare US naval commanders and respect the Chinese navy more effectively. Surely it will not be used lightly. How do YOU know it would not broaden the war into greater China and force the US Navy to send further reinforcements to the area???
Any average person including high military commanders would do the same thing. You surely do not think the American naval commanders would take such a massive lost standing down?
The worst thing China needs is addition US naval reinforcements in the form of more US Naval carriers. That would prolong the war after the Taiwan invasion is complete. Direct confrontation against the US Navy over an extended period of Time is against the Chinese wishes. By blowing US ships out of the water without repercussion, they are just asking for just that.
This is why I don't think this weapon will be used lightly in this war. It will be used with reserve, only when time is right, when carriers must be sunk in critical make or break phases of the war.
Member
The military is doing its job well if there is no war at all. This saying can be applied to this so called "carrier killer" weapon of tomorrow. So i agree with the concept of ASBM would be something that would scare USN out of engagement with PLAN, rather than the silver bullet that could defeat US military.
And yes, Bill Gertz is a warmonger...and Washington Times is one of the most unreliable sources to get news, esp news about the military.
Moderator
What about using ballistic missles to drop heavy homing torpedos in the carrier's vicinity?
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill
Senior Member
One'd have to devise a way to slow down the container carrying the torpedo before it hits the water. And we're talking about slowing down from several mach speed to a parachute glide speed. You'd need a lot of altitude for such a slowdown, which means longer wait time, easier target and so on. Plus the torpedo would have to drop into the water fairly close by, as by then the fleet my very well be alerted and could be steaming at 30 knots away from it.
Member
The US wont go all out if China sinks one of their carriers, its not like Pearl Harbour. Japan knew their consequences and knew they couldn't stop a retaliation if American started one. America dropping nukes on Japan, was a surefire win for America cause they knew Japan didnt have any themselves and couldnt do much about it.
Though if America lobbies nukes to China, China wont sit pretty and see them falling onto their cities they'll retaliate hard.
The outrage of Pearl Harbour is that it was un-provoked, their where having peace. But if America sails their carriers into war with China then they have everyright to take it down without much international uprage. If the Americans didnt want their carrier to be sunk then dont sail it in their.
Also don't see much benefits from America in going to war over China for an island that isnt of much use to America in the first place. They'll fear if Tawain falls to communism than the threat of the "domino effect" will happen. china has lots to gain in taking tawain, they'll be able to obtain deep water faster for their subs.
Moderator
Very true, the deceleration is the most important difficulty, I was thinking maybe the top part of the missle falls of at several thousand feet, I don't know. Although maybe slowing it down isn't quite so important. Just let it fall in some sort of protected container that then falls away in the water. It could be possible, I mean it's done in the opposite direction (sort of) with SLBMs.
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill
Senior Member
Water can be an very unique substance; if you hit it too fast, nothing can survive. It has a tendency to not like being compressed as it will push back hard.
Member
unbroken water acts like concrete anything hitting with velocity will literally shatter upon impact.
New Member
How about a long range torpedo with nuclear warhead?
Member
you dont need nukes to take out Carrier, it is both ineffective and costly. nukes require expansion of splitting of atoms in atmosphere, water is dense and thus prohibits the free movement of atoms splitting as effective as if it were in the air. You wouldve notice by now the increase in importance Chinese airforce has gone through in desiging anti-shipping missles and their platforms. With dedicated surface to surface and air to surface anti-shipping methods you would see that China favours more then the torpedo.
Senior Member
How about a ballistic missile that carries multiple AShMs instead of warheads?
Senior Member
How about we start a nuclear war that leads to Armageddon?
The USN is well trained and well prepared in dealing with saturation attacks... you are going to need at least the entire PLA Air Force in order to potentially saturate a CVBG enough to inflict some damage.
Member
if you mean srbm intended for carrier destruction, then my answer would be...no...the carrier wont be sitting pretty in one spot it'll be moving constantly...with ballistic missle you cannot obtain an accurate target area that is accurate to the degree that it will land on the carrier...ballistic missle landing area is approixmation, given an area of calculated possible strike location it'll land somwhere within. that is unless china can make them extremely accurate.
i don't see how even a well trained and armed force can protect their carrier from a saturated attack it is near impossible...the multiple head ballistic missle if enough is lobbied would overthrough the handling capacity of intercepting system...and if it was and aerial bombardment then i dont see why the whole PLAAF inventory must go in since most of the platforms aren't capable to launch the weapons nor can they reach it.
one of lin bao saying was "hit the enemy where they feel safe," nothing is full proof or safe.
Senior Member
There are enough incidents of where single missiles have gone undetected to believe no one, even the mighty USN, can fully defend themselves from AShMs. So there are holes in defenses that aren't being advertised.
Senior Member
Most of those incidents are through negligence or serious mistakes being made that would not otherwise be made under combat conditions.
Posting Permissions
548Likes
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks