Excellent piece on the American Navy versus China.... Worth reading

[Manonthestreet]

Electricity can be easily restored in almost every case, especially if it was done by hacking on-line systems.

Not for the whole country

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not for the whole country

Why not? All you do is disconnect the computers.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm glad the Navy can defend against a hypersonic missile, but hypersonic missiles are moving at least 3-4X the speed of sound, that is several thousand MPH. Then multiply that by 200?

Speed does not matter, they are intercepting not chasing.

And while the realistic number based on launchers is only around 100, it still does not matter. There is going to be at least one or two cruiser and 3 or more destroyers or frigates as escorts. Each capable with their AEGIS arrays to track 100 different targets. So more than enough capability to eliminate all of the threats.

Of course, how they would even find and be able to target the carrier is another subject entirely. Something they are pretty much unable to do.

 

[Mushroom]

They have yet to demonstrate they can hit the broad side of a barn with a bass fiddle much less hit anything with a hypersonic missile. Unless they are using a nuclear warhead, missing by 100 yards is almost as good as a mile with a conventional warhead.

Especially considering the CEP of ballistic missiles is larger than the size of a carrier deck. Quite literally, even if the carrier is parked at a dead stop at a known location, the basic inaccuracy of the missile will make it miss more often than it would hit.

There is a reason why the US looked into this kind of technology over 60 years ago, and abandoned it. It was realized that there was no real use for it in a military sense. And why no nation other than China has ever seriously considered using ballistic missiles against moving targets.

That is, unless the missile was armed with a nuclear warhead. Because that is a very expensive way to launch a missile that is more likely to miss the target than hit it. And the only times coming close matters is in horseshoes, hand grenades and thermonuclear war.

And the Navy has known for almost 80 years how effective nukes are against our ships. And unless it is damned close, not much.



There were 2 carriers that were within 600 meters of 2 bombs, and while damaged they were not sunk or destroyed.

And it can be guaranteed, if China was to make the mistake of nuking a US fleet the gates of hell would open up on them. If anything should have been learned, you do not mess with the US Navy. If China was to do that, then the US would have to get "proportional" on them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Thank you for the post and video.

My first cruiser where I spent three years took part in that battle. I had transferred to shore duty, but the radar mode that they used to attack the patrol boats was one I proposed and conducted on a test firing at AFWTF in the Caribbean when I was the fire control radar division officer. I guess practice made perfect.

 

[Donald H]

The 'half' debate is doing well in boosting confidence at least!

I can fill in the other side of the debate if anybody has the courage and the stomach to hear it.

By appointment only. P.m. me.

 

[Mushroom]

My first cruiser where I spent three years took part in that battle.

And I knew some Marines that took part on the oil rigs.

One of the Battalions even "liberated" a ZU-23 and had it on display in front of their HQ. I can't think of any other Marine Battalions that had a Soviet AA gun on their lawn.

And one thing I know is that the PATRIOT is in many ways just as ground based and smaller version of the AEGIS with the AGM-67. I have talked to some older Raytheon employees about 15 years ago, and a lot of the concepts they borrowed for PATRIOT came from the AEGIS system that was being developed at the same time.

One of them being that in the future they would be able to develop more specialty missiles, and load differing missiles onto a single launcher. Something that took another decade to develop, as first they had to get working the ABM capability. Something they were actually in the "Alpha" phase of testing in 1989-1990 when the Gulf War broke out.

 

[Donald H]

Why would the Chinese want to take over the Us when we are their biggest customer?

If a US aircraft carrier was involved in a fight over Taiwan, would China destroy it with hypersonic missiles.

It's been said that China couldn't even find all of them! Some think that China has all of them spotted and tracked to within a meter, 24/7/365!

appointment to debate/discuss is necessary.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If a US aircraft carrier was involved in a fight over Taiwan, would China destroy it with hypersonic missiles.

It's been said that China couldn't even find all of them! Some think that China has all of them spotted and tracked to within a meter, 24/7/365!

appointment to debate/discuss is necessary.

With what? A magic eight ball or Ouija board?

 

[Mushroom]

If a US aircraft carrier was involved in a fight over Taiwan, would China destroy it with hypersonic missiles.

It's been said that China couldn't even find all of them! Some think that China has all of them spotted and tracked to within a meter, 24/7/365!

There is in general only one of them within range at any time. And they sure as hell can not locate them with that kind of accuracy, let alone in real time.

Plus here is a basic thing about missiles, the faster they are the less maneuverable they are. Don't believe the nonsense some try to spread, higher speed equals lower maneuverability.

Want simple proof? Cruise around in a large parking lot at 5 mph. You can turn on a dime and make all kinds of radical changes in direction. Now try that at 50 mph. Good luck, even small turns will take a significant distance to make. Trying to turn too fast will likely result in a roll-over. In a missile, it would result in the control surfaces breaking away as it enters a phase of rapid disassembly.

That is another reason why the US decades ago abandoned the idea of "hypersonic missiles". They have to operate at very high altitudes, and the lack of maneuverability means they can pretty much only fly directly at their target. Where as missiles like the Tomahawk operate at extremely low altitudes, and can make rapid and radical course changes.

 

[Mushroom]

Why would the Chinese want to take over the Us when we are their biggest customer?

That actually matters little in warfare. Most times, warfare is one of the most illogical responses.

The largest trading partner of Germany in 1938 was Poland. Followed by the Soviet Union in second place. France was their third largest trading partner, followed by the UK in 4th.

Prior to the embargos, before 1940 the largest trading partner of Japan was the United States.

In 1990, the largest trading partner of Iraq was the United States. And the largest holder of Iraq debt was Kuwait.

And before 2014, the nation that Russia conducted the most trade with was Ukraine. But that ended because of their embargos after Crimea was invaded.

Contrary to "popular belief", it is extremely common for nations to attack their largest trading partners. If for no other reason, why buy something when you can just take it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That actually matters little in warfare. Most times, warfare is one of the most illogical responses.

The largest trading partner of Germany in 1938 was Poland. Followed by the Soviet Union in second place. France was their third largest trading partner, followed by the UK in 4th.

Prior to the embargos, before 1940 the largest trading partner of Japan was the United States.

In 1990, the largest trading partner of Iraq was the United States. And the largest holder of Iraq debt was Kuwait.

And before 2014, the nation that Russia conducted the most trade with was Ukraine. But that ended because of their embargos after Crimea was invaded.

Contrary to "popular belief", it is extremely common for nations to attack their largest trading partners. If for no other reason, why buy something when you can just take it?

That statement defies any and all logic. Once you concur a country, they will no longer be able to buy your products. If you want to conquer a country for their resources, that is the exact opposite of conquering your customer base.

Japan conquered territory to access raw materials needed for their industries. They were not attacking China for trade reasons. Trade in the 1930s and 40s was inconsequential to political aims, worldwide.

Iraq wanted to conquer Kuwait mainly to absolve that debt in an additional benefit to themselves. Oil was the main issue. Iran and Iraq fought for political and religious reasons. Other trade was not a factor.

You normally have an exceptionally keen grasp on matters such as this, but I have to say, on this topic you blew it bigtime.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Turning the electricity off in Nevada will close the casinos but not impact a CVBG in any way. Nobody cares.

I think the power outage in Iberia was a trial run

 

[Mushroom]

That statement defies any and all logic.

You are missing that invading another nation is in general an irrational act.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think the power outage in Iberia was a trial run

No, that was green energy failing like it always will.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are missing that invading another nation is in general an irrational act.

Usually, it is not irrational. That's where you are incorrect.

 

[Donald H]

And they sure as hell can not locate them with that kind of accuracy, let alone in real time.

That alone is the first reason why there needs to be two sides in the debate. So far it's all just your condidence building armchair analysis!

Apply by p.m. for an appointment.

 

[Mushroom]

That alone is the first reason why there needs to be two sides in the debate. So far it's all just your condidence building armchair analysis!

Apply by p.m. for an appointment.

Then explain how any nation can locate something with absolute precision (as in under 1 meter) from over the horizon.

This is not really "rocket science", it is just common sense. And it is not "armchair analysis", as this kind of thing was actually my profession for decades. You can't hit a moving target that you can't see other than through dumb luck.

Once again, this is a common pattern with you. Somebody says something you do not like, you simply say they are wrong, but give no explanation why they are wrong. And refuse to actually discuss any facts or merit at all.

 

[Donald H]

Then explain how any nation can locate something with absolute precision (as in under 1 meter) from over the horizon.

This is not really "rocket science", it is just common sense. And it is not "armchair analysis", as this kind of thing was actually my profession for decades. You can't hit a moving target that you can't see other than through dumb luck.

Once again, this is a common pattern with you. Somebody says something you do not like, you simply say they are wrong, but give no explanation why they are wrong. And refuse to actually discuss any facts or merit at all.

Very easily. P.m. me to make an appointment for a discussion.

 

[Mushroom]

Very easily. P.m. me to make an appointment for a discussion.

Naw, I got a better solution for those who refuse to actually debate anything and deny without facts.