- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 15 Hour
- Reading permission
holy f*cking shit.....|
the following story is taken from http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,259015,00.html
for those of you who cannot access this page(i remember when i was in china, i could not access http://news.bbc.co.uk/), here is the article:
Seven aircraft carriers to move within striking distance of China; Taiwan forces slated to join in drill
The United States is planning a massive show of force in the Pacific Ocean near China to register a point with Beijing.
In an exercise codenamed Operation Summer Pulse 04, it is expected to arrange for an unprecedented seven aircraft carrier strike groups (CSGs) to rendezvous in waters a safe distance away from the Chinese coastline - but still within striking distance - after mid-July.
This will be the first time in US naval history that it sends seven of its 12 CSGs to just one region.
According to a Department of Defence statement, Summer Pulse is to test out a new Fleet Response Plan (FRP) aimed at enhancing the American Navy's combat power and readiness in a time of crisis.
The FRP calls for the despatching of six 'forward deployed' or 'ready to surge' CSGs to a trouble spot within 30 days, and an additional two within 90 days.
Although the statement does not say where the seven CSGs will exercise, the Status of the Navy website said the USS Carl Vinson, Abraham Lincoln, John C Stennis and Kitty Hawk were in the Pacific Ocean as of yesterday.
The USS Enterprise and Harry Truman are in the Atlantic Ocean while USS George Washington is in the Persian Gulf.
According to a posting on Sina.com, an influential website in China, the signs point to a gathering of all seven CSGs in the Pacific.
Sources in Beijing say China's reading is that Summer Pulse is being mounted with it as the target audience, a suspicion reinforced by reports that Taiwanese forces are slated to join in the drill.
Clearly, given Beijing's repeated warning that it will use force, as a last resort and whatever the cost, to stop Taiwanese independence, the US feels it needs to send Beijing a message.
From past deployment patterns, the US usually despatches one CSG to a trouble spot as a reminder of its presence.
It did so several times in the past when tension was high in the Taiwan Strait.
It sends two to indicate serious concern, as was the case when China test-fired missiles over the strait in 1996.
In a combat situation, it deploys three to four, which was what it did in the Gulf War in the early 1990s and the recent Iraqi war.
But never before has it sent in peace time seven CSGs to the same theatre.
The implications for China are grave.
According to Kanwa Defence News, which specialises in Chinese military matters, Beijing can cope with just one CSG currently.
'But in five to 10 years, it can certainly take on seven,' said Mr Chang Hong-yi, head of Kanwa, in an interview with The Straits Times.
'China's military potential is enormous and in terms of military technology, the gap with the US is closing fast,' he added.
However, a Chinese military source who declined to be identified is more sanguine.
'Even now, China can easily take on two CSGs,' he said but conceded that there was no way it could face seven all at the same time.
This means that if China has to wage war over Taiwan, it has to be able to land and seize control of the island within the first 30 days.
Otherwise, under the FRP, six CSGs may well arrive to join in the battle.
'All this leaves China with no choice but to start and end the war with lightning speed,' said the source.
Politically, Summer Pulse is likely to be seen by many Chinese as naked intimidation.
'This is gunboat diplomacy in the 21st century,' the source remarked, adding that it would remind the Chinese people of their century-long deep humiliation by Western powers - and put Sino-US relations at peril.
to put this into perspective, ONE(1) CSG traditionally consists of:
- one nuclear aircraft carrier (Crew Approx 5500)
- two guided missile cruisers (approx. 200 each)
- one destroyer (approx. 200)
- one guided missile destroyer (approx. 200)
- one AEGIS cruiser (approx. 1200)
- one frigate
- two nuclear submarines
- one combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship
Both China and India use supersonic anti-ship missiles.
I don't recall the NATO designation for the Indian/Russian design, but China has taken the Soviet SS-N-22 "Sunburn" missile and improved it.
For a quick rundown on how each of these missile techs work:
The Sunburn flies at around 9ft above sea level (Can be programmed to go higher, to avoid wavecrests in chop) at mach 2.2. The missile flies an S-curve whilst en route to the target (Pulling something like 20g turns!) to avoid the possibility of "Metal Storm" style defenses or regular anti-missile defenses shooting it down. The missile can be tipped with a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. Because it flies so close to the waves, it can't be spotted on RADAR. Because it flies at over mach 2, there's a waiting time of something like 11 seconds between launch (over 100km range - it's an over the horizon job) and the and strike. The antimissile defenses the carrier groups have around 2.5 seconds from spotting the missile to hitting it. And they simply can't do it..
The Indo-Russian Brahmos missile isn't in China's arsenal. It's never going to be either, given that military trade relations between china and india is not well. However, The chinese version is actually more deadly than the Sunburn. It's launched straight up. The motors power the missile up to a height of about 50,000 metres. When it reaches this height the main engines switch off and areofoils guide the trajectory of the rocket to almost directly over the target. When the altitude drops again to about half the height, the engine re-ignites and goes full burn straight down. I think it reaches about Mach 5 by the time it detonates - directly into the flight deck of the carrier. As far as I'm aware, the only way of avoiding this missile is to not piss wielders of this weapon off.
Metal storm type defenses have shown promise when turned over to a feedback controlled kalman filter system, directly controlled by computer. I've worked on civilian versions of these models.
They don't prevent damage to the ship, because even if you DO shoot down the missile when it's 3 tenths of a second off your bow, the explosion rips across the deck killing anyone exposed, but they can frequently prevent direct impact which keeps the ship afloat and largely operational.
The key with the Brahmos missile is to KNOW when it is launched. That's what the AWACS is for. Then in can be intercepted by Airborne cover craft. Sometimes.
The problem with METAL STORM defenses though is that they're slow to reload. If you can get one to go off for the first missile coming in, you need to have the second one ready within the attack window of the second Brahmos.
The other problem with using METAL STORM to attack Brahmos is that you'd have to fire it straight up if it's a carrier based defense and at a very high angle from support ships. This means as soon as one's launched, the sky above the carrier essentially becomes a cloud of shrapnel with gaps in it. This means none of the US aircraft can take off, and nothing can land. If a Brahmos attack is timed correctly, you can play merry hell with the advanced battlefield awareness the Yanks use.
The US is pretty much reliant on it's "just in time" battlefield awareness systems. If denied these tiny windows at the appropriate times, it costs a hell of a lot. If the $3billion dollar ship-launched fighter can't take off or land because the sky's full of lead, it's effectively a denial of service. Only it's their own defense systems which are doing the work for the enemy. I can assure you that a Sunburn missile costs significantly less than a modern US jet fighter.
President 'Shrub' just isn't happy unless he's flexing that military muscle.
I'm not saying that this little show of power isn't necessary, I'm just getting tired of seeing US military forces trying to "make a point" every time I turn around.
Just a thought, but do you think other countries would be more willing to resolve issues diplomatically if the US didn't bomb the piss out of anyone who wouldn't play ball with them? (or in some cases would play ball)