PDA

View Full Version : The Chinese have a new toy...and it doesn't bode well for US Fleets


stlrtruck
04-11-2009, 07:50 AM
http://www.military.com/news/article/April-2009/new-concerns-over-chinese-carrier-killer.html?ESRC=dod.nl

April 01, 2009
U.S. Naval Institute

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

I don't care who the POTUS is when the shite hits the fan but whoever it is, better have some brass balls to keep our military strong!!!

MACH1
04-11-2009, 01:06 PM
Nice to see our money is going to good use.

Godfather
04-11-2009, 06:08 PM
Meh...if they have a toy it's probably defective and full of lead.

steelwall
04-11-2009, 07:59 PM
Answer = submarines

tony hipchest
04-11-2009, 08:16 PM
Nice to see our money is going to good use.

amen.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates released a $534 billion budget proposal Monday that would shift money from programs plagued by cost overruns to weapons and systems needed to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The budget proposal, Gates said, "profoundly reforms how this department does business" in defense acquisition. It seeks to balance the needs of troops in combat while modernizing for future threats, he said....

Some programs would grow under the budget proposal, which is up from $515 billion in the current year.

america spends more money per year on its defense budget than the next 25 countries COMBINED. :jawdrop:

dont let the republisheep trick you into thinking obama is slashing DoD spending.

Preacher
04-12-2009, 02:11 AM
The budget for this year (which is a Bush budget) is 654.7billion
Next year, (Obama's first budget) is 663.7billion

The war on terror--which is now called "overseas contingency plans" :rolleyes:(come on, ANYONE would have to admit that is just a SILLY name) is about the same.

So in short, Obama is NOT cutting the military. However, is not really increasing the military funding by that much either. 9 billion is not enough to do what he wants. . . increasing the size of the army and Marines. However, in this economy, it isn't wise to increase the budget either. If this kind of budget restraint was showing throughout the budget, I would be fine with next years budget, given the circumstances.

If he DID increase the size of those two forces, I would be in COMPLETE agreement, provided he didn't do it on the backs of the Airforce and Navy, or spec. ops.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_factsheets/fy10_defense8.pdf

tony hipchest
04-12-2009, 03:20 AM
The budget for this year (which is a Bush budget) is 654.7billion
Next year, (Obama's first budget) is 663.7billion

The war on terror--which is now called "overseas contingency plans" :rolleyes:(come on, ANYONE would have to admit that is just a SILLY name) is about the same.

So in short, Obama is NOT cutting the military. However, is not really increasing the military funding by that much either. 9 billion is not enough to do what he wants. . . increasing the size of the army and Marines. However, in this economy, it isn't wise to increase the budget either. If this kind of budget restraint was showing throughout the budget, I would be fine with next years budget, given the circumstances.

If he DID increase the size of those two forces, I would be in COMPLETE agreement, provided he didn't do it on the backs of the Airforce and Navy, or spec. ops.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_factsheets/fy10_defense8.pdf
i clicked the link you provised and did not see where you are getting your numbers-

The Defense Department (DOD) Budget provides our troops with vital
resources to carry out their missions with their continued high level of
excellence. This Budget also ensures that, while our servicemembers
protect our country, we protect their families with expanded support
here at home. With $533.7 billion for Fiscal Year 2010, the Budget
addresses the Defense Department’s highest priorities.

:rolleyes:(come on, ANYONE would have to admit that is just a SILLY name)

i know. the "axis of evil" was such a better name. :busted:

However, is not really increasing the military funding by that much either. 9 billion is not enough to do what he wants. . .

yeah, and trying to eliminate kickbacks and bribes and reappropriate funds doesnt increase the value of the US :dollar: spent on military either.

everyone knows the haliburton route of charging the govt 50 cents (or so) for a pack of ketchup isnt the way to go.

xfl2001fan
04-12-2009, 06:34 AM
That is, unless you work for Haliburton.

Muppet13
04-12-2009, 07:17 AM
Meh...if they have a toy it's probably defective and full of lead.

:chuckle::chuckle: Nice!!!

steelwall
04-12-2009, 07:22 AM
Saber rattleing by both countries to get more funds for their military. Neither has the desire to go to war.

Preacher
04-12-2009, 10:46 AM
i clicked the link you provised and did not see where you are getting your numbers-



.

Actually Tony, it is in the graph on the right hand side of the page.


And yeah, axis of evil is MUCH more descriptive. But I am talking about changing from "war on terror" to "overseas contingency plans."

TeeJay
04-12-2009, 05:31 PM
Is it Ball in a Cup? And they've stolen it from the Mexicans?

http://www.humorscore.com/videos/Family_Guy_Videos/Family_Guy_-_Ball_In_A_Cup

It is, isn't it.

Those dirty Ba****ds!

tony hipchest
04-12-2009, 06:41 PM
Actually Tony, it is in the graph on the right hand side of the page.


And yeah, axis of evil is MUCH more descriptive. But I am talking about changing from "war on terror" to "overseas contingency plans."after pulling out a magnifying glass.....

it clearly breaks down the costs of
the base defense budget, as well as the incremental costs of ongoing
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2010.

it seems there is the base DoDefense budget that doesnt exactly take into account the Offensive engagements (unpredictable) we are involved in, such as the "overseas contingency plans". it looks like everything green/yellow in the graph is "over budget", so to speak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html

The Bush administration adopted the phrase soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to capture the scope of the threat it perceived and the military operations that would be required to confront it.

In an address to Congress nine days after the attacks, President George W. Bush said, "Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

But critics abroad and at home, including some within the U.S. military, said the terminology mischaracterized the nature of the enemy and its abilities. Some military officers said, for example, that classifying al-Qaeda and other anti-American militant groups as part of a single movement overstated their strength.

Early in Bush's second term, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld promoted a change in wording to "global struggle against violent extremism," or GSAVE. Bush rejected the shift and never softened his position that "global war" accurately describes the conflict that the United States is fighting.


does this mean obama is now adopting rummys failed policies? :toofunny:

steelwall
04-13-2009, 12:05 AM
If this whole thread is going to be about what we are spenging our US dollars one in the way of our military..

The article itself should be a classic example of scare tactics. You think for one second that the boys in brass, have not allready figured out the possibility that a ship and a very large ship (VERY Large) can't be taken out with an ICBM you're crazy.

Regardless of what this article says we allready have the technology to defend against this.

Also let me add, having lived in China for over 5 years now the average Chinese love Americans, and America they can't get enough of McDonalds and the NBA. Just go to your nearest US Consulate office to see the lines of Chinese trying to gat a visa to the US. That being said The Chinese are extremely nationalistic but do not have the first clue about their governemt, and watching Chinese TV they are not well informed. For the most part, life for the Chinese is better than it's been in 100's of years, and the people here are not gonna want to screw that up.

Case in point my wife. Born and raised in a villagein a home with a dirt floor (probably much like Tim Lumber's trailer home) then things started getting better, and she found herself with a college degree. To prove my other point even as a college grad, when I first met her she didnt know who the leader of her country was, and like most Chinese had zero interest in politics.

I'm just sayin...this aint North Korea we're dealing with here, no need to panic and drop another trillion (or a 100)on a defense system that we allready have.

steelreserve
04-13-2009, 04:09 AM
When's the last time China did anything successful militarily? The 1300s? This thing is probably a cheap plastic piece of crap. And the first thing we'd do if we got into a real conflict with another superpower is shoot down their satellites and knock out their communications, which we probably can do.

Also, we've got, like, 10 or 11 aircraft carriers, and the most anyone else has is, like, one. And ours are like 3 or 4 times bigger than anyone else's, and most of the other countries' aircraft carriers are secondhand shit from the 1960s. I don't even think China has any at all. This should really illustrate how far ahead of everyone we are militarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

revefsreleets
04-13-2009, 09:12 AM
I hope these missles are on par quality-wise with their drywall.

I'm not super-duper worried about China just yet. If we get in a war, who's gonna buy all their cheap-shit chotchkies made by 12 year old girls working 120 hours a week for $13? Their economy would collapse without us.

BUT I am worried about one thing: Cutting missle defense. Obama wanting to reduce nukes is fine, but we'll still have many times over enough to destroy this planet. What he should NOT be cutting is missile defense spending, right at the time when N. Korea and Iran are ramping up nuke programs.

Of course, he IS cutting missle defense spending. I guess he considers protecting the US from nukes to be "Cold War Thinking". That's not very smart, when, in fact, we are probably facing a MUCH worse threat than we ever did from these rogue states than we ever did from Russia. The Russkies were pesky and worthy adversaries, but they weren't ever stupid or crazy, and Iran and N. Korea may be both.

Hines0wnz
04-27-2009, 12:47 AM
My first thought is Phalanx would handle it but it hasnt been officially battle tested. Ever. Not that I want it to be in all honesty.