Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/24/2012 9:30:40 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: James C. Bennett
China's new DF-21D ballistic missile—the only device on Earth capable of sinking an aircraft carrier—four and a half acres of sovereign US territory—with one shot.

Liberals would be mildly amusing, if they couldn't vote.

2 posted on 07/24/2012 9:33:56 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett
Nice dam you got in there in the Three Rivers Gorge.

It would be a pity if anything should happen to it...

3 posted on 07/24/2012 9:34:38 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1281 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Heroes aren't made Frank, they're cornered...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett
There's a reason they call them missiles, and hittiles.

/johnny

4 posted on 07/24/2012 9:35:20 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

That set of Yaogan satellites would have a very short life expectancy if things heated up over there.

A missile that takes out a US carrier would be better named “The Nuclear War Initiator”.

Any administration that did not counter-strike VERY powerfully after a carrier sinking would doom their party to at least 2 generations out of power.


5 posted on 07/24/2012 9:38:44 PM PDT by Bobalu (It is not obama we are fighting, it is the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

I was predicting the onset of this missile more than 5 years ago. Other freepers told me I was naive.


6 posted on 07/24/2012 9:40:10 PM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett
Its single fuel-air explosive warhead packs 200 to 500 kilotons.

Somehow, I don't think this person is very well informed; either that or he's very bad at math. Also, I don't think he grasps the capabilities of the Aegis class cruisers and destroyers escorting those carriers. Finally, I don't think the missile has been tested against a maneuvering target; no knows how well it will work.
7 posted on 07/24/2012 9:40:53 PM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

Amazing. And since they’ve been working on it since the 70’s, there’s absolutely no chance that the US would have tried to develop counter measures, like jamming their radio/radar signals, high-speed defensive missiles, or other measures that we haven’t even thought of. Wow...we just have to sit back and take it in the shorts.


8 posted on 07/24/2012 9:44:41 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett; Talisker; null and void; JRandomFreeper; Bobalu

As of right now, a single Ohio class SSBN carries 96 nuclear warheads(W76 or W88).

That is more than enough to destroy the economic potential of China.

An attack on one of our CVNs would provoke a nuclear response.


10 posted on 07/24/2012 9:48:42 PM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

If they ever do it I suspect life is going to change for a whole lot of us, regardless of who’s President.


11 posted on 07/24/2012 9:50:24 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: topher
A couple of points:

The US has been experimenting with OTH since the 1980's, so they would know alot about that.

Also, since the 1980's, the US has been looking at Lasers to knock down missiles at distances.

What was the 1980's -- the Reagan Defense build up. Maybe we need to need to have a Manhattan type project for Lasers weapons that can take out incoming missiles of any kind.

Screw the treaties, full speed ahead...

18 posted on 07/24/2012 10:19:34 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

“...the only device on Earth capable of sinking an aircraft carrier...”

Really? Nothing else? Not even a Trident?


21 posted on 07/24/2012 10:35:25 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett
"200 to 500 kilotons"

No way.

22 posted on 07/24/2012 10:36:21 PM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

Meanwhile in the U. S., we’re busy figuring out which three quarters of the military we’re going to gut.

We’re heading into WWIII shouting, “Paddle faster...”, and the guys in back are yelling back, “You guys eliminated the paddles in the sixth round of cutbacks.”


23 posted on 07/24/2012 10:45:30 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

Seems to me a very small yield nuke should pluck this sort of device from the sky. It would need to be small enough to prevent IMP damage to our forces.


24 posted on 07/24/2012 10:48:23 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

Seems to me a very small yield nuke should pluck this sort of device from the sky. It would need to be small enough to prevent IMP damage to our forces.

Excuse me. That should have read EMP.


25 posted on 07/24/2012 10:48:55 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett
Alarmist bullcrap. The idea of using a ballistic missile to sink a carrier is ridiculous for several reasons.

Targeting: The process of targeting, authorizing and launching a ballistic missile takes time. It isn't just time-to-target but from the ID of the location of the carrier, programming in the targeting package, authorizing the launch and then travel time for the missile to get there. During this time the carrier group is moving along at a very fast clip (~30 knots) which means the area of uncertainty for where the carrier is going to be grows and grows. The Pentagon experimented with this idea for a while and found it was completely impractical because ballistic missiles are very dumb weapons (that whole ballistic trajectory part) and they aren't going to be able to reliably get within 100 miles of a carrier group, let alone close enough for a kill.

It's a ballistic missile: Do you know why the US has never mounted conventional warheads on ballistic missiles? Because there is no way to tell the difference between a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead and one with a conventional one and we aren't stupid enough to risk a nuclear confrontation just to enable a delivery method which doesn't have many non-nuclear applications in the first place (there are much better ways to do rapid response conventional bombing).

SM-3: 'nuff said.

You don't attack Carrier groups with conventional munitions: This should be obvious but sinking of a US fleet carrier by anyone would immediately trigger an overwhelming response of the instant sunshine variety. This is not just hyperbole--sinking a US carrier is seen as the same thing as a nuclear attack in the first place so why develop a conventional capability that isn't even that great in order to try and do so?

28 posted on 07/24/2012 10:52:52 PM PDT by slippy_toad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

200 to 500 kilotons in a fuel air bomb?... um no. Not even close. Maybe 2 to 5 at absolute max, and that’s a big fuel air bomb.


32 posted on 07/24/2012 11:06:51 PM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett
Its single fuel-air explosive warhead packs 200 to 500 kilotons.

Bat guano.

The kind of fuel that packs kilotons into a warhead doesn't give a rat's ass about air. LOL!

33 posted on 07/24/2012 11:17:51 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

Transmit fake images.


39 posted on 07/25/2012 12:23:55 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: James C. Bennett

Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Based on my extensive experience of playing Harpoon on computer, the ONLY way I could take out a US carrier (as the Russians) was to launch absolutely EVERYTHING, and hope one of the nukes got through.

I doubt this system would be particularly effective.


42 posted on 07/25/2012 3:11:19 AM PDT by Figure11 (There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he doesn't know whether he believes in it or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson