There is a name for the types of weapons you described: targets.
***You’ve fallen into a western-style thinking trap. Just like what the Vietnamese commanders said at the end of the war when they met with the americans and were confronted with the fact that they lost every single battle they were in. “You are correct, and it is irrelevant.” When America sees home videos on CNN of american jets taking out sampans filled with “innocent” civilians, those “targets” would have done their job. If the american jet jocks don’t have the stomach to wipe them out, the Sampan Navy will get in range with their missiles and take out ships.
You have still not addressed the targeting problem.
***OK, the chinese have an extended range missile that they regularly lob at Taiwan whenever they feel like disrupting an election. They have hundreds of these. The Circular Error of Probability (CEP) for those missiles is about a couple of hundred yards, so they can easily hit an aircraft carrier, even today. The chinese have been busy collecting technology such as DSP based targeting systems & infrared sensors and probably have the ability to program their missiles to look for a big, boxy infrared target in the open sea. It ain’t that hard.
As for the rest, do you have any idea how limited the engagement envelope of a “stinger” type missile is? Our aircraft will not need to get within five times the range of a “stinger” to take out a missile boat.
***And such an engagement with a Sampan flotilla will show up on CNN as american meanies taking out migrating villagers who just want to “peacably” settle in Taiwan. If the Americans shoot from their standoff range, they show up on CNN. If they come in close enough for visual confirmation, they get shot at. And if the american aircraft carrier that they sortied from is burning, what are their choices at that time?
Here’s what can happen when one of our own rockets misfires, let alone an enemy engagement:
http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2003/02/images_deck_landings/u124794.jpg
The Hai Ying (Sea Eagle)(the sea launched version of the NATO named Silkworm) only has a range of about 45NM, much less than a Harpoon. ....
***Excellent factual stuff, thanks.
ICBMs loaded with incendiaries?
***No. Long range missiles loaded with incendiaries. You fell into a strawman argument trap. The subpoint about the chinese having ICBM technology is for 2 purposes: 1) most people don’t know they have ICBM capability and 2) If the chinese have ICBM capability, going for shorter range targets is well within their goals.
Do you have ANY expertise in this field at all?
***Well, yes. I consider myself an expert in boundary layer control as well as ethernet and, lately, writing datasheets. But that’s a side note. When you write like that with an exaggeration, it’s intended as a mocking comment. I do not claim to be an expert in military affairs. I don’t have to be an expert to be able to engage in debate about such things on an amateur forum such as this. So either pipe down or back up the points you’re trying to make.
The Chinese do not have the ability to target our carriers with sufficient precision to launch. This also assumes that we let the shooters get within launch distance. Do you think that we don't have the means to defeat these missiles even if they are some how aimed correctly. We have EW, SAMs, and CIWS. That sounds like a pretty good defense in depth for something as big and slow as a Silkworm(v).
An invasion fleet is an invasion fleet. Sink it.
Your post concerning the Forrestal fire is completely irrelevant.
You are out of your league in this discussion and starting to look foolish.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
It seems to me that you are the one who is completely out of his league in this discussion.
