nanook 1 #26 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo you're saying Hyundai and Daewoo make shit for ships? Agreed. Uh no. I'm recollecting how successful our defenses were for the Stark. Lower tech weapons took down the Cole. That's apples and oranges in comparison to the threat cited in this thread. The Stark was hit by an aircraft from a country that wasn't attacking US forces during the Tanker Wars. The aircraft was even labeled as "friendly" by other US assets. Also, the ship's combat lineup was not set up to meet the oncoming missiles. The Cole wasn't able to meet the threat because the Rules of Engagement at the time didn't allow for it. There are procedures in place to meet these threats now, and with the Ballistic Missile Defence and Aegis platforms on crusiers and destroyers guarding the Carriers, the chinese threat can be dealt with accordingly._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 5 #27 January 2, 2011 Its probably a good thing that I'm not in control of ALL this shit@ this moment!!!! We could use the jobs back here in the USA instead of Taiwan, and the peeps in china would not have to worry about 12 miles or 200 miles muchless only being able to have one kid..... AND the muthas over in the sandboX worrying about us meddling in their affairs! PEOPLE all over the world are greedy! (Thanks Adam and Eve!) We ain't seen nothing yet folks..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo you're saying Hyundai and Daewoo make shit for ships? Agreed. Uh no. I'm recollecting how successful our defenses were for the Stark. Lower tech weapons took down the Cole. That's apples and oranges in comparison to the threat cited in this thread. The Stark was hit by an aircraft from a country that wasn't attacking US forces during the Tanker Wars. The aircraft was even labeled as "friendly" by other US assets. Also, the ship's combat lineup was not set up to meet the oncoming missiles. The Cole wasn't able to meet the threat because the Rules of Engagement at the time didn't allow for it. There are procedures in place to meet these threats now, and with the Ballistic Missile Defence and Aegis platforms on crusiers and destroyers guarding the Carriers, the chinese threat can be dealt with accordingly. Wouldn't life be great if it were really that simple? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #29 January 2, 2011 You preceive this as simple? It's not a Tom Clancy novel or a video game._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #30 January 2, 2011 QuoteYou actually think that the "Great and Benevolent Chinese leaders" go without? They get their fair share same as the rest of the country. Since they have so much responsibility on their shoulders, their fair share is adjusted accordingly And that's different from EVERY other country .... how? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #31 January 2, 2011 If it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 5 #32 January 2, 2011 QuoteIf it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. think the powers that be, would hold uP so we could get the last load uP? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #33 January 2, 2011 Quote So you're expecting the ring of ships with electronic globes around each, with multiple systems to detect, respond, and react to that to fail? I seriously doubt it. SERIOUSLY. Not that I know know any top secret capabilities or anything. I can neither confirm nor deny any capabilities our Navy has, only acknowledge the capability exists. Has there been a successful test of a BMD against a steerable re-entry vehicle, or one with multiple dummy warheads or using other likely evasive tactics? Seems that most of the successful tests have been rigged.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #34 January 2, 2011 QuoteIf it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. True but, again, who said anything about sinking them? Conventional weapons have been fired in anger during limited engagements without the nations involved collapsing into all-out war, and it'll happen again too. Diplomacy didn't just suddenly replace war when nuclear weapons came along. Rather, nations have opted for a mix of diplomacy and what I'll euphemistically call "warm force projection" to get what they want. Why do you think we have all these aircraft carriers in the first place? Is this kind of weapon something both the departments of defense and state should keep in the back of their heads? Certainly. Does its development or even its use during an engagement sometime in the future necessitate escalation into an all-out war? No. The idea that we'd have to bring the world to an end over a boat has just as much bravado behind it as the "bring it, we're invincible!" comments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #35 January 2, 2011 QuoteHas there been a successful test of a BMD against a steerable re-entry vehicle, or one with multiple dummy warheads or using other likely evasive tactics? Seems that most of the successful tests have been rigged. How so?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #36 January 2, 2011 QuoteIs this kind of weapon something both the departments of defense and state should keep in the back of their heads? Certainly. Does its development or even its use during an engagement sometime in the future necessitate escalation into an all-out war? No. The idea that we'd have to bring the world to an end over a boat has just as much bravado behind it as the "bring it, we're invincible!" comments. (Not pointed at you) If any weapon, procedure, concept, ect. dealing with the Military, domestic or foreign, is being talked about in the news or other public domain, It is usually very old news for the DOD. And, it is often very simplified, highly inaccurate, and over-fluffed to the point that sometimes it's original use has taken a complete 180. Lots of things talked about here are pretty much off base, but consider the source. DOD only puts out unclassified information. There's no "bravado" here. Nothing's perfect. But there is a lot of needless overreaction when it comes to these types of threads._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #37 January 2, 2011 QuoteWell, if any weapon, procedure, concept, ect. dealing with the Military, domestic or foreign, is being talked about in the news or other public domain, It is usually very old news for the DOD. And, it is often very simplified, highly inaccurate, and over-fluffed to the point that sometimes it's original use has taken a complete 180. Lots of things talked about here are pretty much off base, but consider the source. DOD only puts out unclassified information. There's no "bravado" here. Nothing's perfect. But there is a lot of needlsess overreaction when it comes to these types of threads. To be clear, I wasn't referring to your comments in my mention of bravado. I agree regarding the game of press release telephone. What's interesting to me is the number of directions people can go with their over-reactions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #38 January 2, 2011 QuoteIf it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. Obama would just bow to thier leader and apoligize for our ships being in the way of their bombs! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. Obama would just bow to thier leader and apoligize for our ships being in the way of their bombs! Strokin Strokin Strokin Keep that fringe a strokin Rawhide Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 803 #40 January 2, 2011 The only ones I worked with or am aware of were computer simulated, so it's hard to tell. But looking at a radar screen with 24 inbound targets headed at you is very unsettling I will say. Especially at those speeds. I did enjoy playing with the SM-3 launch simulator. It was the most enjoyable video game I ever played. I took out every aircraft in the entire northeast US. Of course being simulated, as soon as the target went off the radar screen, it blinked right back on. You wonder why they require security clearances sometimes.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #41 January 2, 2011 The "bravado" part was meant to complement your post, especially to those that think systems are infalliable. My bad._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #42 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. True but, again, who said anything about sinking them? Conventional weapons have been fired in anger during limited engagements without the nations involved collapsing into all-out war, and it'll happen again too. Diplomacy didn't just suddenly replace war when nuclear weapons came along. Rather, nations have opted for a mix of diplomacy and what I'll euphemistically call "warm force projection" to get what they want. Why do you think we have all these aircraft carriers in the first place? Is this kind of weapon something both the departments of defense and state should keep in the back of their heads? Certainly. Does its development or even its use during an engagement sometime in the future necessitate escalation into an all-out war? No. The idea that we'd have to bring the world to an end over a boat has just as much bravado behind it as the "bring it, we're invincible!" comments. I guess you can "kill" a carrier without sinking it but if we ever get to the point where it gets to where they fire on a carrier, we as a country are fucked. For starters the world markets would collapse overnight and we would all be digging bomb shelters. Weapons have been fired in limited engagements before, but not by super powers. This is done by second rate countries under the proxy of a super power to test their weapons, but none recently. Why do we have carries? intimidation. They work great with third world nations, not so much with the bigger ones. Back in 84, when I was on the Constellation, we parked off Somalia for a few days. We had the Somali president come on board for a tour. Normally when we had a tour for a dignitary they would let them climb all over the F-14's and even sit in the cockpit. Not this one. They roped off the plane and when they showed it to him, he was not smiling, the situation seemed very tense, I don't know what was said but I think it was a warning for one reason or another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #43 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. Obama would just bow to their leader and apoligize for our ships being in the way of their bombs! Your observations of foreign affairs are truly impressive, thank you for sharing. It is a shame that a man with such powerful and deep insight would waste it here with us on DZ.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #44 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote If it it ever comes down to the Chinese trying to sink our carriers, I think it would be safe to say that the world as we know it is over. Obama would just bow to their leader and apoligize for our ships being in the way of their bombs! Your observations of foreign affairs are truly impressive, thank you for sharing. It is a shame that a man with such powerful and deep insight would waste it here with us on DZ.com. As opposed to yours?reminds me of something I heard once - about glass houses . . .I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jrsample 0 #45 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo you're saying Hyundai and Daewoo make shit for ships? Agreed. Uh no. I'm recollecting how successful our defenses were for the Stark. Lower tech weapons took down the Cole. Seems to me that the US is on a somewhat higher level of alert at this time. JR Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuote Uh no. I'm recollecting how successful our defenses were for the Stark. Lower tech weapons took down the Cole. Seems to me that the US is on a somewhat higher level of alert at this time. JR But after 9 years at this level, is it really a higher level of alert? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHas there been a successful test of a BMD against a steerable re-entry vehicle, or one with multiple dummy warheads or using other likely evasive tactics? Seems that most of the successful tests have been rigged. How so? Some of the targets had homing devices on them, the "defenders" know the test is coming and what type of missile is coming, no countermeasures have been used on the targets, etc., etc. Not one BMD has been tested in a truly realistic manner. Basing any strategy on bogus test results is foolish in the extreme.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #48 January 3, 2011 QuoteI guess you can "kill" a carrier without sinking it but if we ever get to the point where it gets to where they fire on a carrier, we as a country are fucked. For starters the world markets would collapse overnight and we would all be digging bomb shelters. Weapons have been fired in limited engagements before, but not by super powers. This is done by second rate countries under the proxy of a super power to test their weapons, but none recently. Things would suck, and I would not welcome it, but it would not be like the Chinese nuking us or be the end of the world. When you already have nuclear warheads and ICBMs to deliver them, a special purpose conventional weapon that will propel you into all-out war when used in its singular capacity is a completely worthless investment. The Chinese are smart enough to understand that. In fairness to your argument, if the Chinese fired on the George Washington right now, who the hell knows what would happen? But I can envision scenarios where such an attack would be nearer the end of a global crisis than the beginning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 803 #49 January 3, 2011 You do realize that is "the standard" for damn near any test, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #50 January 3, 2011 >Obama would just bow to thier leader and apoligize for our ships being >in the way of their bombs! He'll have to beat out Joe Barton. Which will be tough; when it comes to self-serving, ass-kissing apologies, Joe is hard to beat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
