BF2S Forums China launches first aircraft carrier

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I would think a fleet of Phalanx AEGIS could pour enough lead into the sky to stop it.

Oh well, but the Pacific fleet commander said they're not as capable as they want to be. He didn't say they couldn't, but I guess it's to be interpreted as the same.

You think theyre only gonna launch one missile?

I never said that. I've mentioned plenty of possible counters and programs in development to counter this thing. I don't know why you're all so cynical. There's also the possibility of taking out the missiles before they're launched with other means.

RAIMIUS wrote:

20mm shells and Sea Sparrows against a ballistic missile?

What's your point? You don't think these missiles are bullet proof do you? Travelling at Mach 10 and colliding with 20mm shells is going to be harsh, and lets not begin talking about Block 4 defense and ALLLL the other things I've previously mentioned.


I'm not saying these things are 100% stoppable, I just think you guys are hyping these things up a bit much.

I think Sh1fty is overestimating the simplicity of the problem.

A Phalanx gun against an inbound ballistic warhead is useless. It will be coming essentially straight down at ~9000 mph. Even if you can get the Phalanx on it (which is doubtful), you've still got debris coming straight down at 9000 mph.

The Sea Sparrow isn't designed to intercept a target moving at that speed. Only specifically modified Standard II missiles, linked to the AEGIS system are.

FEOS wrote:

I think Sh1fty is overestimating the simplicity of the problem.

A Phalanx gun against an inbound ballistic warhead is useless. It will be coming essentially straight down at ~9000 mph. Even if you can get the Phalanx on it (which is doubtful), you've still got debris coming straight down at 9000 mph.

The Sea Sparrow isn't designed to intercept a target moving at that speed. Only specifically modified Standard II missiles, linked to the AEGIS system are.

He's also forgetting numbers of other anti ship weapons. China operates dozens of different anti-ship missiles in the Surface to surface and air to surface variety. Many are old Russian ones that the Chinese reverse engineered and remade. Not to mention their sizable submarine fleet. (not as advanced as ours, but a threat nonetheless.)

RAIMIUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think Sh1fty is overestimating the simplicity of the problem.

A Phalanx gun against an inbound ballistic warhead is useless. It will be coming essentially straight down at ~9000 mph. Even if you can get the Phalanx on it (which is doubtful), you've still got debris coming straight down at 9000 mph.

The Sea Sparrow isn't designed to intercept a target moving at that speed. Only specifically modified Standard II missiles, linked to the AEGIS system are.

Exactly.  The problem isn't finding a kinetic effect that will work, it is finding a targeting and guidance system capable of Mach 10+ intercepts that is available when you need it.

yup, you need crazy fast guidance systems to intercept that stuff.

The only thing I know is that the new Ford class has one or two "energy weapons" on board. Don't really know what purpose they serve, perhaps they are meant to destroy those sort of things, though it's all useless as long as you are incapable of tracking these missiles. Don't even know how exactly these energy weapons would work. Besides that, I'm not really sure whether you guys realise what sort of a speed mach 10 actually is, the thing travels a couple miles a second.

Either way, this discussion is pointless. None of you, nor I, have any intricate knowledge of air defences let alone the workings of a fucking carrier group and its hypothetical response to a missile threat. Debating the point is beyond useless, this is the sort of inane shit children argue about.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-16 10:25:35)

M.O.A.B wrote:

Weren't they working on the railgun for that purpose?

Believe it is intended to replace the 5 in guns and others, not for ABM purposes, as it's essentially unguided beyond ballistics.

It was stated in the other thread "on China", but the Chinese really do see events that occurred in decades or even centuries past as recent precedent. I've been following the comments on what the carrier should be named and most often I see either references to Shi Lang, the admiral who conquered Taiwan, or cities such as Nanjing and other locations relevant during world war 2. "To show that Japan is our eternal enemy"....

Why do the mainland asian countries dislike the Japanese so much? Their defense budget is tiny and since the end of WW2 they've kept to themselves.

Shocking wrote:

Why do the mainland asian countries dislike the Japanese so much? Their defense budget is tiny and since the end of WW2 they've kept to themselves.

Because before and during WW2 Japan occupied China and Korea. The Japanese occupation was very brutal, and Japan acts like these atrocities never happened.

It would be like if the German government denied the Holocaust, how would the Jewish population react to that?

That does make sense. The situations were very different as well though, Europe had been through numerous continent enveloping wars before... gives some perspective.

Dangerous economically I can understand, but I was looking at it from a military perspective. (I'm trained to think that way, I'm a military genius by the way, in case you didn't know.)

Shocking wrote:

Why do the mainland asian countries dislike the Japanese so much? Their defense budget is tiny and since the end of WW2 they've kept to themselves.

Asian history.

every one of Japan's neighbors hate them except for Taiwan lol