|
Btw...for the people that are posting gifs of US missiles..ABMD (the only relevant program for the discussion at hand) will NOT be able to stop this in a saturation attack if it really works as advertised. The "problem" is whether it even works. In the end though, this is not much of an issue because if said attack happens, we would be probably running for the shelters soon anyway. And the Chinese do not really seem like the YOLO type, being around for 6k+ years or so.. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jan 29, 2019 |
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Damnit, we must go to war now before they close the capability gap even further! *ahem* sorry, got a bit late-19th-century there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Btw...for the people that are posting gifs of US missiles..ABMD (the only relevant program for the discussion at hand) will NOT be able to stop this in a saturation attack if it really works as advertised. This is exactly my point. Sure the US systems can stop 3-4 maybe even 5-6 launches and delivery vehicles, they sure are not going to stop what the Chinese would fire off. Lets not even get into the fact you can stick a nuke on the end of the DF-26, a 200kt party favor...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why are you telling us about getting trolled by your friend in the navy for being an idiot? Pretty sure thats a "my uncle at nintendo" style joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Allow me to introduce you to the part of the Army’s operational concept called “prevent.” Can’t lose a war if you prevent one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
If the Chinese are launching saturation attacks on a CVNBG, much less tactical nukes, the US is sending canned sunshine in return. Them having that capability is a problem because it forces USN assets further out to sea and gives them credible control of the water near them, but in an actual shooting war it’s kind of moot because we’re deep into MAD territory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:This is exactly my point. Well of course, the system is developed for saturation attacks. They are designed to be fielded by the dozen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
The real speed of the carrier is easily deduced, even if it is classified (is it?), because it's proportional to the square root of the length of the hull. Fortunately the DF-26 does nothing to prevent us from mining the poo poo out of their harbors and causing mayhem with submarines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Allow me to introduce you to the part of the Army’s operational concept called “prevent.” Can’t lose a war if you prevent one. What about the "triple option" operational concept for offense?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:And the Chinese do not really seem like the YOLO type, being around for 6k+ years or so.. Chinese history is chock fuckin full of events with absolutely eye-watering bodycounts
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If the Chinese are launching saturation attacks on a CVNBG, much less tactical nukes, the US is sending canned sunshine in return. I think this is exactly's China's point of the DF-26.... Especially with the poo poo they are pulling in the South China Seas. I mean look at this bullshit from earlier today: https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/new...ink-tank/story/
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The real speed of the carrier is easily deduced, even if it is classified (is it?), because it's proportional to the square root of the length of the hull. The loss of even one carrier for the US could lead to the loss of 2700 Sailors and Marines in one shot, not to mention the carrier support group losses. Something like this would instantly turn US public opinion against any type of shooting war. Again, playing right into the PLA's strengths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Btw...for the people that are posting gifs of US missiles..ABMD (the only relevant program for the discussion at hand) will NOT be able to stop this in a saturation attack if it really works as advertised. These aren't really designed for saturation attacks in the traditional sense...they're designed to penetrate ABM systems. They're exorbitantly expensive, especially by PLA standards. That isn't to say that they wouldn't try lobbing some more primitive missiles at a strike group with the hopes of depleting some magazines, but this missile as specced is intended to penetrate with a single shot. Also I think that there's a pretty broad space along the continuum of conflict that allows conventional engagement of warships at sea without the conflict ending life on earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:13
|
|
Dante80 posted:Btw...for the people that are posting gifs of US missiles..ABMD (the only relevant program for the discussion at hand) will NOT be able to stop this in a saturation attack if it really works as advertised. The missile I posted was a Minuteman launch out of Vandenberg. If the Chinese are launching a saturation ballistic missile attack against a US carrier group they're going to get a lot of radiation dosage shortly after.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What about the "triple option" operational concept for offense? You jest but I read a document about the new FM 3-0 that explicitly said there would be no triple envelopment addition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ thats good, really good  EvilMerlin posted:Something like this would instantly turn US public opinion against any type of shooting war. Do you remember 9/12/2001 until... uhhh 2008ish?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:The loss of even one carrier for the US could lead to the loss of 2700 Sailors and Marines in one shot, not to mention the carrier support group losses. How do you figure that a direct attack on a carrier with the loss of most/all hands would lead to US public opinion turning against a shooting war? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Also I think that there's a pretty broad space along the continuum of conflict that allows conventional engagement of warships at sea without the conflict ending life on earth. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:The loss of even one carrier for the US could lead to the loss of 2700 Sailors and Marines in one shot, not to mention the carrier support group losses. In that case you're left with two options, if you absolutely can't shoot it down: 1. Keep the carrier out of range 2. Keep the carrier out of sight I'm not clear on what the carrier does in a big war with China anyway that requires it to be close and seen. The way I see a fight playing out is we send in our SSNs to blockade China, and use subs and/or bombers to drop tons and tons and tons of naval mines. ~95% of China's trade is by sea and they're dependent on sea trade for all sorts of important inputs. I guess the carriers could be used to provide air defense against patrol aircraft, and defend our patrol aircraft against fighters? Ice Fist posted:How do you figure that a direct attack on a carrier with the loss of most/all hands would lead to US public opinion turning against a shooting war? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here? Yes, when the Argentines sank HMS Sheffield it hardened public opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
That Works posted:The missile I posted was a Minuteman launch out of Vandenberg. I was more replying to the Standard post above. Having said that, take into account the fact that these weapons - while they can take nuclear heads - are designed as conventional weapons. This is done on purpose, both due to Chinas' NFU policy and to the fact that they can be used against any surface combatant, not only USN units. So, sending the whole kitchen out as a response to conventional war is seen - doctrine wise - as a big escalation point that burdens the opponent. Think of the following (while keeping in mind that we are not really talking about realistic stuff here). Let's say the US sends in a couple of CVBGs to bomb to smithereens PLA forces that are attacking Taiwan. Then PLARF launches a dozen conventionally armed ASBMs and sinks one of the Carriers. Is the next immediate response total thermonuclear war by the US? Wouldn't that immediately trigger Chinas' second strike cap against counter-value targets in the US? bewbies posted:These aren't really designed for saturation attacks in the traditional sense...they're designed to penetrate ABM systems. They're exorbitantly expensive, especially by PLA standards. That isn't to say that they wouldn't try lobbing some more primitive missiles at a strike group with the hopes of depleting some magazines, but this missile as specced is intended to penetrate with a single shot. PLARF has stated that these are to be used en masse. They are certainly making a lot of them, cost be damned. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Also I think that there's a pretty broad space along the continuum of conflict that allows conventional engagement of warships at sea without the conflict ending life on earth. I definitely don't think the loss of an aircraft carrier is the threshold where we say "gently caress it all, they're definitely going to destroy every major US city anyway!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
My guess is you're probably launching ICBMs before the carriers get hit. If we are talking about a mass launch. Still no way to know if your group sitting there is getting nuked and if maybe a couple of those missiles still going up are gonna come down on Kadena, Guam etc at the same time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
That Works posted:Still no way to know if your group sitting there is getting nuked and if maybe a couple of those missiles still going up are gonna come down on Kadena, Guam etc at the same time. That’s not how ballistic missiles work. For now, their head fake is limited to making interceptors less accurate, not tricking you into not noticing what 500 mile radius area they might land in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:30
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That’s not how ballistic missiles work. For now, their head fake is limited to making interceptors less accurate, not tricking you into not noticing what 500 mile radius area they might land in. Figured on the 1st 3rd of ascent or so it would be difficult? No experience with this. Still, I think the biggest deterrent to not trying to sink US carriers is still our nuclear arsenal.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
I think the only thing that would actually get us to use a nuclear weapon is someone else using a nuclear weapon, which means in order to descend into MAD territory we'd have to obligate China to use a nuclear weapon in order to achieve its strategic objectives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:How do you figure that a direct attack on a carrier with the loss of most/all hands would lead to US public opinion turning against a shooting war? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here? If the US started the war then yeah it would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:edit: ^^^ thats good, really good Yeah I do. No carriers lost in that entire timeframe. In fact in that whole timeframe the US lost about as many service members in combat as would be lost on one carrier if all went down...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:The loss of even one carrier for the US could lead to the loss of 2700 Sailors and Marines in one shot, not to mention the carrier support group losses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
As a general rule, the larger and longer range the missile, the easier it is to detect and tell where it’s going. The US is pretty damned good at that stuff. And systems cue each other to keep eyes on missiles in flight. This is part of what hypersonic weapons get after: a way to be very quick delivery, but to be harder to predict flight path and target.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
That Works posted:Still, I think the biggest deterrent to not trying to sink US carriers is still our nuclear arsenal. Probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I'm struggling to think of a historical example where heavy losses at the beginning of a war had the effect you're describing. Lots of examples come to mind where people made similar claims that turned out to be completely wrong, but I'm drawing a blank for when those claims have proved true. Thats because there are not, but its a new age now where America's citizens are not the type of watch poo poo go down like this. They, for the most part, want the US to stop being World Police. Losing a carrier and all its compliment would be a big rally point for the anti-war folks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Thats because there are not, but its a new age now where America's citizens are not the type of watch poo poo go down like this. They, for the most part, want the US to stop being World Police. Losing a carrier and all its compliment would be a big rally point for the anti-war folks. Would losing 4 battleships also be a big rally point for the anti-war folks? edit: okay, fine world police. What if we had a ship bombed in the middle of, say, the Gulf of Tonkin?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:If the US started the war then yeah it would. I would agree the context matters. But from what I've been reading we're discussing the opening blows in conflict with China. I would assume something along the lines of "US responds to Chinese doing <insert something here> in the South China Sea" and the Chinese responding with an open attack on the carrier group. In that case I can't imagine a direct attack on a US carrier doing anything but cause unbridled rage in the American public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:PLARF has stated that these are to be used en masse. Where? That Works posted:Figured on the 1st 3rd of ascent or so it would be difficult? No experience with this. Broadly speaking we'd know within a pretty small ellipse where a missile is going to land almost immediately after launch. Think of them like giant bullets shot in the air. In related news: this particular capability is a BIG bet by the PLA that the US nuclear threshold really is as high as we'd all like to think it is. The big question really isn't attacking a carrier (full disclosure: I don't think there's any way on earth that we retaliate with nukes after a conventional attack on a warship), it is more what we'd do if military facilities all along the second island chain are targeted...conventionally, we hope. bewbies fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:45
|
|
mlmp08 posted:As a general rule, the larger and longer range the missile, the easier it is to detect and tell where it’s going. The US is pretty damned good at that stuff. And systems cue each other to keep eyes on missiles in flight. Ah got it, thanks. EvilMerlin posted:Thats because there are not, but its a new age now where America's citizens are not the type of watch poo poo go down like this. They, for the most part, want the US to stop being World Police. Losing a carrier and all its compliment would be a big rally point for the anti-war folks. Honestly I see that going down 100% opposite. The only thing we've shown is that the only thing we can come together and be bipartisan over as a nation is blowing poo poo up.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If the Chinese are launching saturation attacks on a CVNBG, much less tactical nukes, the US is sending canned sunshine in return. That Works posted:The missile I posted was a Minuteman launch out of Vandenberg. Don't agree with this analysis A naval ship engaging in operations is a valid military target in wartime. If you're engaging enemy targets with your ship, then it is also a valid target to be engaged. The United States is not going to unilaterally escalate to a first strike on another nuclear power and trigger global thermonuclear war in the case of one of its warships getting engaged. That Works posted:Figured on the 1st 3rd of ascent or so it would be difficult? No experience with this. It's not, facing the considerable conventional might of the United States military forces is the consequence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Would losing 4 battleships also be a big rally point for the anti-war folks? This isn't the 1940's or early 1960's anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:50
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Don't agree with this analysis China can roll the dice on that one. Losing your closest carrier group to the problem might push some escalation. Also with things getting so bad to the point that we are openly shooting at each other for 2 superpowers it's likely just a matter of time before someone either accidentally or not provokes a worse response.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:I would agree the context matters. But from what I've been reading we're discussing the opening blows in conflict with China. I would assume something along the lines of "US responds to Chinese doing <insert something here> in the South China Sea" and the Chinese responding with an open attack on the carrier group. In that case I can't imagine a direct attack on a US carrier doing anything but cause unbridled rage in the American public. This about the only situation where I see the US supporting it. The US is in the SCS, and a carrier or larger ship gets sunk by the Chinese. That would not go well. The US starting something and taking a major loss however, would not go over well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:This isn't the 1940's or early 1960's anymore. What has fundamentally changed? But AFAIK the Japanese were arguing exactly what you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:54
|
|
