Lots of interesting stuff…
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
lol the chinese have managed to crater abit of desert. did they simulate the rest of a task group and its capabilitys? mock ups dont fight back.
Someone with better picture interpretation skills than I can look at that but I am really interested in the size of those craters. They look…well…puny. This thing should be coming in at like 5,000 MPH. By my best guess that crater is 12.5 meters across. Not an inconsiderable hole but the hole in the USS Cole was damn near the same size. It does not look terribly deep (admittedly from bad photos and my less than expert opinion) either.
Compact diesel is interesting. IIRC about a decade ago one was being developed at Shrivenham for motor bikes (the army having re-discovered an enthusuasm for bikes with the advent of Clansman radios with good comms capability without needing a landrover to carry them) because petrol bikes in units were a fuel headache. Was Cox in anyway connected with this?
Had a sniff around their website but nothing specifically on older history
Has some interesting things to say on UAV engines
TSB call for proposals for smaller, cheaper, lighter sensors: http://www.innovateuk.org/content/competition/low-size-weight-power-and-cost-intelligence-survei.ashx
the effectiveness of a ballistic missile against a ship target likely stems from its ability to penetrate from deck to bottom.
Early Fritz-X guided bombs penetrated entire battleships and exploded underneath, for torpedo-like effect. Everything that’s close to its penetrating path was likely to be destroyed, and this would surely be true with a mach five (or so) missile as well. The secondary effects of kerosene fires, possibly ammunition explosions and radiation leaks could be devastating.
You don’t need to sink a carrier if one or two hits send it into drydock for a year.
Finally, the size of a cater depends much on the depth of the explosion AND the size of the warhead. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that test rockets may have carried something else than the real warhead and it’s not unreasonable to assume their fuses would initiate the detonation quite deep in the ground, with much-reduced effects on the surface.
Compare nuclear bomb tests; no real crater if you buried them deep enough.
@Alex: I have a virtual stack of .kmz files I use for work. Sadly, cannot post them!
the cox engine would mke a great APU for MBT/AFV. If i remeber rightly one of the problems with swopping to 120mm smoothbore was storage of the one piece rounds inside the vehicle, so couple that with the fact the more powerful engine that’s in the leopard is also smaller than the current perkins CV12 in place at the moment, then not saying it makes the smoothbore a goer, but it’s a start!!
UK operations in support of the French military in Mali are continuing from Evreux Air Base near Paris.
The Chinese C-17 clone is interesting, a real limitation for the Chinese has been their limited ‘reach’. The more they close that gap the more quite a few countries in this part of the world will start to sweat.
As much as I sometimes find fault with SO’s analysis, this time, I do think he’s close to accurate. An IRBM in ballistic reentry phase runs in at about Mach 15. Don’t think an explosive warhead is really relevant at that speeds. In fact, an explosive warhead may be a liability, self destructing before the maximum amount of kinetic damage can be done. Think of the missile as the sabot round from hell. If it punches through and warps/impacts the keel, you might have to write off the carrier even if it didn’t sink.
Interesting weapon. It really has potential to close not only carriers but all forms of airfields within reach, only strategic bombers from long range and AAR refueled aircraft would be immune due to distance.
@SO & Observer
I am not saying the weapon as theorized won’t work. If you can hit a target at that speed you will do a ton of damage, no doubt. I have a lot of doubts about them making the kill chain for that whole thing work sufficiently well to actual hit a carrier and further doubts about the wisdom of lighting off a few dozen weapons that will look a lot to the outside world like potential nuclear launches. What I am saying is that until I see the thing work in a full up real test scenario (which I have to believe if the Chinese could do they would do) all this really tells me is that they could hit a concrete pad with something. It could be an IRBM or it could be 500 pound bombs.
I am given the most doubt by the fact there there are renewed rumors that the Chinese are after TU-22Ms and their associated missiles. If you had the ability to drop an RV from orbit on a carrier you don’t futz around with buying antique Cold War bombers.
“doubts about the wisdom of lighting off a few dozen weapons that will look a lot to the outside world like potential nuclear launches”
Ah, but now with all the publicity about it, won’t the opposite happen? Now that China’s “carrier killers” are so well published, isn’t it more likely that any BM launch would be assumed to be a conventional weapon, since people now “know” that their IRBMs are part of their local defence strategy?
As for the bombers, there are 2 major questions I would ask before speculating further.
1) Are they really buying them? Rumour and gossip are very very common in defence fields.
2) What are they buying them for? It’s not a given that just because they buy the bombers means that they are going to use it for war. My suspicion runs more along the lines that they want the samples to reverse engineer. Look at their current lineup, mock F-22, mock F-35, C-13 clone, AShM copies from Russia. All copies of other people’s tech. I suspect the potential bomber buy is to reverse engineer and design a future strategic bomber for their Air Force.
I do really think that people drastically overlook the strategic implications of someone firing a ton of ballistic weapons in a war. While I do think you could potentially close some airfields it is fairly accurate to say that the DF-21 is not really more destructive in delivered combat power than a TLAM or V-2. China has, at latest report I can find, about 100 of those. They have a lot of the shorter range stuff they could fire at Taiwan and possibly Japan. Short of using nuclear weapons how persistent could China be in denying sea space and airfields using ballistic weapons? I just don’t see how they can keep it up while their own abilities are being degraded.
The response is likely to be ten times the number of weapons fired back at them. Early in a conflict China would be dealing with hundreds of inbound (and increasingly stealthy) cruise missiles. In short China is well equipped to strike strongly at US/Allied bases that comprise the US periphery in the region but it is likely to face strikes in response that would fall across its key coastal region and that rapidly degrade its ability to deny access to sea for US carrier groups.
I think the DF-21 is a neat idea but what I think it will cause the US to do is turn is strategy on its head. SSGN’s, Strategic Bombers and the like will be used to engage and destroy those assets which would keep the carrier groups at distance. Long-range radars are easy, immobile targets. So are most of the other necessary aspects of waging long-range warfare (big airfields, communication centers ect).
I think people could know. People could also pretend not to “know” if they choose.
For example the USN could drop a story that they are concerned that instead of a conventional weapon China might try an EMP burst with a DF-21.
Or, if you are not afraid of public whining, the next time China fires one off you leak a story that the US briefly went to an elevated defense condition because they could not distinguish the flight profile of a DF-21 from a hypothetical mobile ICBM. Suggest that it is pure and irresponsible speculation to suggest that an SSBN was sent to launch depth 1,000 miles off the Chinese coast.
That game can work both ways for China. It is a very dangerous game and one that was not played in the Cold War for good reason.
The game works both ways yes, but there is one key difference between the USSR and the PRC. Their outward focus. Chinese are much much more lean and hungry than the Russians, belief in manifest destiny and all. Russia might back down. The Chinese just gets more mad and nationalistic. Terrible neighbours countrywise.
Don’t underestimate them just because you don’t like them, that increases the chances of being blindsided. It’s best to assume that the DF-21 can do what it says, in which you are right, long range strategic bomber attacks would be critical in defeating them (think I did mention it too). Just hope the bombers can punch through the air defences, China’s conventional stuff is not cutting edge, but it’s not too shabby too.
I agree with that. I would not assume they can’t do it and would not give them a chance to prove it either. Early targets for bombers with JASSM are everything related to that kill chain as it enables me to bring more combat power into the region. While I respect Chinese air defenses there are a lot of vital targets to break within 50-100 miles of that coast line and making an intercept on a B-1 at around 450 to 500 miles is going to be a cast iron bitch of an air defense problem. Likely as not by the time you see them they are ready to launch and head for home. China has a huge coast line and lots of islands not friendly to them outlying it. Does not make for a friendly fighter intercept environment.
Of course the Pacific Strategy could be 100% deception and when a war with China kicks off, we might actually end up pouring troops in through Burma while they are looking the wrong way.
‘We’ won’t be doing anything with land troops in a war with China- 1st law of warfare old boy:)
Could somebody explain how they made the runway zig-zag whilst making twenty knots or more?
Observer said “we might actually end up pouring troops in through Burma while they are looking the wrong way. ”
IXION, good point, “I”‘ll be the one stuck with the PLA ground advance
OTOH if things had heated up to that level, a Chinese ground attack is almost a foregone conclusion, it’s their forte.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Send me email on comment approval
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.