|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-10-2010, 08:17 PM
Quote:
Talk is talk, and its healthy and productive for people to discuss what they thing the governments are doing and what the governments should do. If you think the talk is wasting your time, don't participate. Saying it's impossible or people of Japan are against it is fine. That is good arguments that is true NOW. It might change in the future. The idea that it's not worth discussion because it will never happen is a false statement. Your ability to predict what will happen in twenty years is no more valid than anyone else. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-10-2010, 08:55 PM
Quote:
Just now i read article about how Japan is more worried than ever about China's military rise, with China make bolder and more frequent incursions in waters it deems is theirs like the collisions with a Japanese patrol boat. Japan and the US may have their differences but i consider Japan an important partner to the US and vice verse. I feel Japan is worth protecting they are our allies. If the Japanese people chose to protect themselves that would be a decision they made as a country and in their best interest and the US forces would leave. My point was discussion is if fine it generates ideas and allows us think more freely and maybe learn a thing or two from our peers. However, current truths and future truths can have a discussion in circles in no time. What i consider a waste of time when is provides information provides a source for that information proving it as fact. The arguments continue because we all see things differently and believe what we want to believe. Sangetsu is a realist and people fail to see why he was so upset about the content of the topics at hand and why he stated it was a waste of time. I can count 8 different threads started in the past year similar to this topic which eventually always gets closed by a mod and its easy to see why. That is the reason i say its a waste of time. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-10-2010, 09:17 PM
Quote:
It is true that we dont know what the American R&D is working on. It isnt true that Americas military might is incalculable at this moment. Also this news was released last month. Im not sure how you think the missile already has a countermeasure. Talk from analysts say the pentagon currently has nothing it can answer it. The reason this missile is called the carrier buster is because it can evade the air defenses of an entire battlegroup and can hit a carrier on the move.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sorta dongless -
09-10-2010, 10:04 PM
On a lighter note:
GrEaT sAtAns gIrLfriEnd Saturday, August 14, 2010 Dongfeng 21D "The DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose." This is significant - mainly because Dongfeng will be a super hot item - a puissant prestige piece d'resistance of desperate despots the world over: Great Satan ( US ) and China may never have to face off and face the balloon going up over NoKo or Taiwan yet a sitch may arise where Dongfeng may be deployed for attack anywhere Chinese customers may determine. Streaking towards target at 10 times the speed of sound, Dongfeng could tote either conventional or even new clear payloaded warheads — and most likely be fired off in salvos. So, is it time to for (US) to xform her carriers into laptops, stripper poles and floating hostels for the homeless? Hold up comrade admiral! As best understood, warfighting weapon tech advances don't always mean the end of an era - torpedos didn't mean the end of the battleship, bunker busters haven't made bunkers passe', panzerschrek anti panzermissiles haven't killed off panzers on the battlefield and SAM's haven't ran combat jets off the screen. "...Time of flight for 900 miles would be on the order of 12-15 minutes, depending on the trajectory. Launch warning from U.S. satellite systems would be nearly instantaneous, and in the remaining ten minutes or so, the carrier can travel 6-8 miles in any direction. This, combined with any errors in the track file, creates what is called an “error ellipse,” which increases over time. "...To overcome the error ellipse, the DF-21 is presumably equipped with a maneuvering reentry vehicle and a terminal guidance seeker (either radar or IR). This not only drives up the cost and complexity of the missile, it creates additional points of failure that will reduce the overall reliability of the system. "...Assuming, however, that everything works as advertised, the terminal guidance seeker has a limited field of view (called a basket), and must be directed to a point in space that places the target within that basket. "...To ensure that this happens, the Chinese would probably fire a salvo of several missiles into the error ellipse, so that at least one missile would pick up the target. And if Dongfeng lucked out and found a carrier - she'd still have to dodge, evade and make her way through of gauntlet of no quarter players designed to intercept her. "...Electronic and infrared jamming; decoy deployment; maneuvering; and, of course, shooting back. "...Standard Missile SM-3 now deployed on Ticonderoga class cruisers and Improved Arleigh Burke class destroyers was designed specifically to engage theater ballistic missiles in their midcourse (free-fall) phase; they have proven very effective in tests. Each cruiser and destroyer will, presumably, carry a dozen or more of these missiles for the defense of the carrier. "...Plus a shorter-range missile based on the Army's Patriot PAC-3 for "terminal defense." "...The AEGIS fire control system's Cooperative Engagement Capability will allow the netting of all the sensors in the battle group with external sensors (satellites, reconnaissance aircraft, land-based tracking radar, etc.) to obtain an early and optimal firing solution on any incoming missiles. Assuming two SM-3s and two short-range missiles are aimed at each incoming DF-21, a kill probability in excess of 90 percent is likely. And if Dongfeng made it through with her honor intact? "...If it has a conventional warhead, probably not enough to sink the ship, though it might do serious damage. A lot depends on how large its explosive payload is, how fast it is moving when it hits, and where on the ship it impacts. "...The only way to ensure a carrier kill is to use a nuclear warhead--and if the Chinese do that, all bets are off.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-10-2010, 10:40 PM
lol.. you mention nothing of the targeting system and the defense systems of the missile. That was meant to be the key point for analysts.
Your post treats it like it was any other ballistic missile. It obviously isnt.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-10-2010, 10:57 PM
this following text is on a global level thinking. i am not debating on whether its good or not and i understand not wanting/wanting troops stationed for some social/economical reasons in japan.
....................................................... and so. i dont get it...why the F* any of you still care about this military BS about who is proctecting who? on avarage USA, Russia both have 6 000 nukes. uk ~300 and then some countrys have them in 50 or so numbers. so. when itr starts - you really think it is going to matter which side you are on? or how much nukes your country has or whos soldiers are stationed there? seriously? in 1995 gorbochow (russian president) had his hand on the nuke button because of usa satelite flying over norway thougt to be a nuke. he didnt press it because he was drunk at the time...you think next time will be lucky? get it over with. there wont be any winners. no "right" side to chose from. here is a cool video about who has them and what a single one will do to NY city. YouTube - GOOD: Nuclear Weapons
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sort blowing smoke dude -
09-11-2010, 12:15 AM
get real dude, a DF-21 capablities are nothing revolutionary beyond what todays supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles already have.
The End of the Aircraft Carrier? Or just one more threat to counter? BY Stuart Koehl August 12, 2010 The reason is, the missile is only one part of an extended reconnaissance strike complex, consisting of sensor platforms, communications links, command nodes, and launch systems. The ocean is big, and the carrier is small. I was once on a COD flight that could not find the carrier, even though it knew precisely where the carrier was, because our navigation system was just a little bit out of alignment, and the carrier was operating in EMCON. Now imagine how hard it is to find a CVBG that does not want to be found. In any case, if the DF-21 becomes a real threat, the U.S. most likely would move towards "pre-launch intercept" (i.e., destroying the missiles on the ground, before they are launched). Though the use of mobile launchers increases the difficulty of targeting them, the advent of persistent surveillance systems--whether space-based or aerial--will eventually allow us to locate, identify, and destroy these missiles on the ground using a combination of cruise missiles, UAVs, and stealth aircraft equipped with tactical standoff missiles. At the end of the day, the large platform or system with broad-based operational capabilities has the inherent resilience and robustness to defeat a technically clever but operationally narrow threat. Stuart Koehl is a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-11-2010, 12:23 AM
Maybe...
Im no expert but most articles Ive read say the opposite. They say that the DF21D is fitted with countermeasures which could bypass a carrier and its battlegroup escort defenses and has a payload that can sink a carrier. Not only that but apparently they are relatively easy to produce and inexpensive. They also say that the pentagon is concerned.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sorta media hype -
09-11-2010, 12:42 AM
Notice the date on this excerpt article?
China Has Long Eyes For U.S. Carriers by James Dunnigan December 12, 2008 the DF-21 is using reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometers range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. FYI US Pershings were decommissioned in the 1980s. There is no guaranty on a 100% kill on a US carrier with any type of conventional payload that the DF-21 has. That is why it also also has the option of a nuclear payload. Only a DF-21 with a nuclear payload has 100% kill guaranty if it hits near or on the target.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-11-2010, 12:57 AM
Quote:
It just means that its the same model of missile. The D indicates that the missile has been outfitted for a specific purpose. It could even mean that the only thing left from the original missile is the frame. The engine, targeting system, the countermeasures etc.. are probably all new. You do realise that most of Americas state of the art airforce and navy uses planes that were orginally designed in the 70s right? I mean the state of the art F-15E is only similar to the original F-15 in its airframe.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
