Yahoo: Chinese "Carrier Killer" could shift Pacific power balance

[Larry]

Of course overestimating an enemy can sometimes be almost as bad.

Uh, I'm certainly not sure about that statement.

Underestimating an enemy can lead to losing a war. Certainly something which has the potential to be very, very, costly.

Overestimating one? Worst that can happen, that I can think of, is that you wind up vastly overpowering an enemy which you could have only slightly overpowered.

----------

Remembering a comment made by Schwartzkopf, in the days after Desert Storm. In the days following perhaps the most crushing military victory of the century, the press had decided that something they could nitpick at was how much money it was going to cost the US to ship all of our military hardware back from the war.

Somebody asked Schwartzkopf about how much it was going to cost to ship all of this gear back to the US.

Norm: "Hell, if I knew they were gonna surrender so quick, I wouldn't have brought all this stuff!"

[Larry]

This type of weapon is entirely in line with China's entire military theme. Defense defense defense. Now they have a means to repelling the biggest threat the ocean can deliver to them. Not at all surprising that they'd be designing such a thing.

Everything they do is designed to limit the threat posed to them by the US military. They own US debt and they created an entirely defensive minded military that is massive by any measure.

Uh, while I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your characterization, I'd point out that China has never been threatened by the US military. Ever. The US has never had the military ability to win a war against China.

Now, it's debatable whether we have the ability to defend Taiwan. But that's another matter.

[Larry]

Meh, this just demonstrates China's intent to remain a regional military superpower. They're still a world economic superpower.

I think that both China and India would like it if the US wasn't the dominant naval power in the Indian Ocean. They'd like to fill that role, instead.

[skinfan133]

The dumbest, most moronic thing one can ever do is to under-estimate an adversary.

The only intelligent response is to take the threat seriously.

exactly, I was going to post something along those lines. I don't know why you guys are all laughing about this. At VMI we're gaming very serious scenarios concerning China, and this development only concerns me more. Very soon China is going to be blue-water capable. China over the last 5-6 years has greatly shifted their military strength from numbers to technology. They get it, and they're catching up.

Of course overestimating an enemy can sometimes be almost as bad.

I'm going to take great exception to this. I can't think of a single instance in military history (off the top of my head) in which a superior attacking force overestimated their enemy and paid for it with defeat.

[visionary]

Uh, I'm certainly not sure about that statement.

Underestimating an enemy can lead to losing a war. Certainly something which has the potential to be very, very, costly.

Overestimating one? Worst that can happen, that I can think of, is that you wind up vastly overpowering an enemy which you could have only slightly overpowered.

That's assuming that the course of action taken along with the overestimation is to greatly increase one's own military power and use it against the enemy.

It also doesn't take into account the amount of wasted time and resources, that would be spent unnecessarily towards that effort, or if there is another important threat that's ignored or given less attention because of that overestimation of the supposed main threat.

And of course the action taken because of the overestimation might be entirely different, such as surrendering, constantly avoiding a conflict and giving the enemy time to build up their forces more so that they do pose a bigger threat, or retreating and giving up important strategic positions because of a bluff.

But that's just in general.

In this situation, I think it's best to treat China warily and not take them too lightly.

I do think it would be pretty stupid of them to attack Taiwan however.

[mistertim]

Wondering where people are getting "hypersonic" and "Mach 3", when it comes to these missiles.

Granted, my knowledge comes mostly from articles I've read about anti-tank weaponry, but from what I've read, the technology of a shaped-charge explosive, (necessary to achieve penetration), says that the missile can't be going vaster than about 200 MPH when it hits. (Otherwise, the impact distorts the explosive before the shaped charge's blast wave can develop, forming the penetrator.)

What is it about this weapon that supposedly makes it more likely to get through the elaborate, multiple layers of defense which a CVBG maintains?

Apparently it is more like Mach 10:

While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D — which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads — has been much discussed by military buffs online.

That is incredibly fast and, if true, would make it very hard to intercept. As far as the way the conventional payload would work at those speeds, who knows. I'm not really a munitions expert but I would imagine that if they are building them to do this specific job they wouldn't forget that it would actually need to do damage in order to be effective.

[Larry]

It also doesn't take into account the amount of wasted time and resources, that would be spent unnecessarily towards that effort, or if there is another important threat that's ignored or given less attention because of that overestimation of the supposed main threat.

Agree with your statement which follows this one, but I'll point out that your statement I've quoted, in turn, ignores the effects which this unnecessary military spending has in producing spinoffs.

If the US overestimates the capability of this missile, and spends a bunch of money in upgrading our anti-missile technology, does that spending have other benefits? If we spend the money, today, based on a "Phantom Menace", does that simply mean that 10 years from now, when somebody does invent the technology, then we're already prepared for it?

Isn't the ability to shoot down other people's missiles a technology which we know we're going to need, some day, anyway?

[Larry]

As far as the way the conventional payload would work at those speeds, who knows. I'm not really a munitions expert but I would imagine that if they are building them to do this specific job they wouldn't forget that it would actually need to do damage in order to be effective.

Line I've always liked from 1941. (A Spielberg film that I odn't think gets enough credit.)

The scene is a LA street. Army troops in the street, outside a theater (within which The General is watching Dumbo), hear the sound of John Belushi's (lost) airplane overhead, and conclude that the Japanese are launching a sneak attack on Los Angeles. (They react by attempting to shoot out all of the lights they can, to try to "black out" LA, to protect it from the Japanese.)

The General comes running out to see what all the shooting is about.

"Air Raid, sir! Japanese air raid!"

"Don't you think there's something missing, soldier?"

"What, sir?"

"Bombs, you idiot! Where are all the bombs? You can't have an air raid without bombs! They came all the way from Japan, don't you think they would have remembered to bring bombs?"

[visionary]

Agree with your statement which follows this one, but I'll point out that your statement I've quoted, in turn, ignores the effects which this unnecessary military spending has in producing spinoffs.

If the US overestimates the capability of this missile, and spends a bunch of money in upgrading our anti-missile technology, does that spending have other benefits? If we spend the money, today, based on a "Phantom Menace", does that simply mean that 10 years from now, when somebody does invent the technology, then we're already prepared for it?

Isn't the ability to shoot down other people's missiles a technology which we know we're going to need, some day, anyway?

Good points.

Is missile defense tech something the current administration is spending a lot of time looking into though?

I honestly don't know, but I am curious as to how serious they are about that and if they're worried about this particular threat or not.

[oldskoolskins]

Ever hear of Mk15 Phalanx 20mm radar controlled close in weapon system. This weapon was designed to take out missiles, this gun fires up to 4500 rounds per minute, so I wouldn't be to concerned about a Chinese missile.

[hkHog]

Once it gets down to the chain guns things are rather grave but they are certainly capable.

We have a few toys of our own well beyond that.

Carriers have several rings of defense,but the best ultimate defense is our willingness to bring hells fire down on anyone that attacked one.

Bingo, the way to defend against this is to make it very clear that the moment one of these missiles is fired at a carrier, our subs will fire off a few ballistic missiles of their own.

[mjah]

Wondering where people are getting "hypersonic" and "Mach 3", when it comes to these missiles.

In my case, "Mach 3" came from the Phalanx operators on that carrier about 10 years ago.

But ten years can mean a lot in terms of technological development...

[Larry]

Bingo, the way to defend against this is to make it very clear that the moment one of these missiles is fired at a carrier, our subs will fire off a few ballistic missiles of their own.

I am really, really, glad that you aren't making that decision.

[Hubbs]

The dumbest, most moronic thing one can ever do is to under-estimate an adversary.

The only intelligent response is to take the threat seriously.

Absolutely. And I'm sure the Pentagon agrees. However, for armchair purposes, it's interesting to assess something like this based on known information.

That is incredibly fast and, if true, would make it very hard to intercept. As far as the way the conventional payload would work at those speeds, who knows. I'm not really a munitions expert but I would imagine that if they are building them to do this specific job they wouldn't forget that it would actually need to do damage in order to be effective.

Mach 10 is more of a weakness than a strength for one very good reason - once you're moving that fast, it's incredibly hard to change direction more than a couple degrees. That's why conventionally-armed ballistic missiles have never been a credible threat to carriers. Carriers might be big, but they can move at thirty knots, and despite the fact that it takes them a long time to change direction in their own right, the advanced satellite warning of a ballistic launch would give every carrier battle group in the Pacific ample time to change course in a random direction. Even with guided MIRVs, the odds of actually hitting a carrier (or getting close enough to inflict significant damage) are incredibly small. Supposedly, this Chinese missile deploys guided warheads that adopt more of a cruise trajectory, slowing to Mach 3 as they come as close as they can to leveling off while targeting enemy carriers. And to that I say - I'll believe it when I see it. The Russians would love to have figured out how to do that by now, and they're still ahead of the Chinese technologically.

[Larry]

Mach 10 is more of a weakness than a strength for one very good reason - once you're moving that fast, it's incredibly hard to change direction more than a couple degrees. That's why conventionally-armed ballistic missiles have never been a credible threat to carriers. Carriers might be big, but they can move at thirty knots, and despite the fact that it takes them a long time to change direction in their own right, the advanced satellite warning of a ballistic launch would give every carrier battle group in the Pacific ample time to change course in a random direction. Even with guided MIRVs, the odds of actually hitting a carrier (or getting close enough to inflict significant damage) are incredibly small. Supposedly, this Chinese missile deploys guided warheads that adopt more of a cruise trajectory, slowing to Mach 3 as they come as close as they can to leveling off while targeting enemy carriers. And to that I say - I'll believe it when I see it. The Russians would love to have figured out how to do that by now, and they're still ahead of the Chinese technologically.

Admiral Ozzel came out of hyperspace too close to the target.

[nonniey]

Uh, I'm certainly not sure about that statement.

Underestimating an enemy can lead to losing a war. Certainly something which has the potential to be very, very, costly.

Overestimating one? Worst that can happen, that I can think of, is that you wind up vastly overpowering an enemy which you could have only slightly overpowered.

----------

Remembering a comment made by Schwartzkopf, in the days after Desert Storm. In the days following perhaps the most crushing military victory of the century, the press had decided that something they could nitpick at was how much money it was going to cost the US to ship all of our military hardware back from the war.

Somebody asked Schwartzkopf about how much it was going to cost to ship all of this gear back to the US.

Norm: "Hell, if I knew they were gonna surrender so quick, I wouldn't have brought all this stuff!"

You're mistaken. Overpowering your enemy is the best thing that can happen from overestimating your enemy not the worst. The worst thing that can happen is you get your ass handed to you because you didn't take action when you should have (ie Hooker at Chancellorsville)

[Larry]

You're mistaken. Overpowering your enemy is the best thing that can happen from overestimating your enemy not the worst. The worst thing that can happen is you get your ass handed to you because you didn't take action when you should have (ie Hooker at Chancellorsville)

Trying to understand how overestimating you enemy leads to you doing nothing.

Other than, maybe, "surrendering, because you think you're outgunned."

[nonniey]

Trying to understand how overestimating you enemy leads to you doing nothing.

Other than, maybe, "surrendering, because you think you're outgunned."

Not hard to understand at all. You may decide not to take action because you think the opposing force can stop you when in fact they can't. Just saying at times overestimating your enemy can be almost as bad as underestimating him. The surrender of Singapore in 1942 is a perfect example of overestimating the enemy (the allies digging in at Anzio is another).

[Ryman of the North]

Uh, while I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your characterization, I'd point out that China has never been threatened by the US military. Ever. The US has never had the military ability to win a war against China.

Now, it's debatable whether we have the ability to defend Taiwan. But that's another matter.

actually thats no6t quite true, during the "great leap forward" the US would have had a very good chnace at succsessfully invading china, now keeping anything there would be a vastly different story.

[Ryman of the North]

Not hard to understand at all. You may decide not to take action because you think the opposing force can stop you when in fact they can't. Just saying at times overestimating your enemy can be almost as bad as underestimating him. The surrender of Singapore in 1942 is a perfect example of overestimating the enemy (the allies digging in at Anzio is another).

Crete would be another.

but yes singapore is easily the best example of that

[nonniey]

Uh, while I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your characterization, I'd point out that China has never been threatened by the US military. Ever. The US has never had the military ability to win a war against China.

Now, it's debatable whether we have the ability to defend Taiwan. But that's another matter.

Not sure if you're overestimating China or underestimating the United States in this statement. Which is it? Come on do you really believe the US doesn't and never has had the ablility to win a war against China?

[Larry]

Not sure if you're overestimating China or underestimating the United States in this statement. Which is it? Come on do you really believe the US doesn't and never has had the ablility to win a war against China?

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

The US (IMO) has never had the ability to take territory away from China. (Without nuclear weapons.)

Yes, if the US and China were to fight a war over who's going to control, say, Saudi Arabia, then the US would certainly have a chance at "winning a war against China".

But my post was in response to the claim that China is simply attempting to defend itself against the US.

[nonniey]

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

The US (IMO) has never had the ability to take territory away from China. (Without nuclear weapons.)

Yes, if the US and China were to fight a war over who's going to control, say, Saudi Arabia, then the US would certainly have a chance at "winning a war against China".

But my post was in response to the claim that China is simply attempting to defend itself against the US.

Well, the days of imperialistic conquests are over so the United States won't take territory from the Chinese now however we were more than capable of doing that prior to WWII (a weaker Japan won a war against China and took territory afterall). However, if war erupted today, I'm sure the US could seize and hold Hanan Island for as long as it wanted too.

[Hubbs]

However, if war erupted today, I'm sure the US could seize and hold Hanan Island for as long as it wanted too.

And this matters because....?

[PokerPacker]

Blah Blah Blah....

going to need to see a photoshopped picture before i'll believe a "missile" can pentrate the chain guns and anti missiles and lasers that an AirCraft Carrier has available.

They'll have 800 of those 900 miles to figure it out.

We must have just cut some funding to the Navy... time to roll this article out again..

what about the Iranian photoshopped Shark missile?