Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 - Aircraft of World War II

syscom3 · 04-01-2009, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

No such thing!

It sure does exist.

If there isnt a "threat", then they sure dont have work.

FLYBOYJ · 04-01-2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

It sure does exist.

Show us who they are???

where do they meet?
how are they creating a threat and selling the threat to the government?
How are they connected to the government????

Maybe Tony Stark is real?

And don't say "follow the money."

Since the time IKE made that famous speech, defence contractors have shrunk at least by 50% if not more. Although everyone touts defense procurement abuse and influence by the remaining contractors, there's actually a ton of oversight, more than ever and I too have been working defense contracts for at least 25 years and I've seen the abuse waste and stupidity on both sides of the fence and is isn't becuase of an "MIC." The "MIC" is a myth needed to explain why so much money is spent and sometimes wasted on defense spending, and many times the problem isn't a perceived "fat cat" sitting in a office at Boeing or Northrop, its a bureaucrat sitting in a cubical in the Pentagon or at Tinker AFB who never served in the military and who hasn't a clue about the products he or she is procuring for his or her employer - the US Tax Payer!

timshatz · 04-01-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Then theres the maneuverability issue. Anything flying at mach 10 and expected to pull high gee's will need one strongly reinforced airframe, which impacts on the size of the warhead.
.

My sentiments exactly. Tough to get something like that working. Especially for guys who's track record isn't that good.

Then again, they said that about the A6M as well and look what happened there.

Jeez, I'm arguing with myself.

mkloby · 04-01-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

It sure does exist.

If there isnt a "threat", then they sure dont have work.

That's a pretty weak argument for the military industrial complex's existence.

There are current actual threats and potential threats to prepare against. Did the MIC invent the IED threat in order to develop and market the MRAP? Was the stockpiling of weaons in caches in the desert created in order to market more UAS support? The threat of hostility that collateral damage creates propogated in order to bring PGMs to the table? Oh, and the manpad threat is also created so the MIC can market ASE gear too?

Come on man - Maybe if it was your A** on the line in combat instead of in your safe, comfortable home you'd feel a different way...

syscom3 · 04-01-2009, 11:48 AM

Hmmmm ..... weve had the fighter gap and bomber gap in the 50's, missle gap in the 60's. The big bad highly trained and motivated Soviet military of the 70's.

And now we have a chinese missle that has created panic.

LOL.

mkloby · 04-01-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Hmmmm ..... weve had the fighter gap and bomber gap in the 50's, missle gap in the 60's. The big bad highly trained and motivated Soviet military of the 70's.

And now we have a chinese missle that has created panic.

LOL.

Well that seals it... the MIC does exist!

Who's in panic btw???

FLYBOYJ · 04-01-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Hmmmm ..... weve had the fighter gap and bomber gap in the 50's, missle gap in the 60's.

And WHO came up with those terms? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a defense contractor!

And in some cases they turned out to be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The big bad highly trained and motivated Soviet military of the 70's.

And that they were when compared to a "Carter Adminstration" military. Different story after 1981...

Glider · 04-01-2009, 01:56 PM

Digressing I know but I have heard that the Chinese Navy have a problem with their vaunted carriers. Russia has cancelled the order for 50 Su33 aircraft that China placed.
Russia has just twigged that China has a habit of producing cheaper versions of almost anything they buy, in this case the Su27 in direct violation of signed agreements. China bought 200 Su27's (J-11) and then produced their own version (J-11B), in itself not allowed in the original agreement and offered this for export in direct competition with the Russian version, which has really ticked the Russians off.

This leaves China with a problem as to where to get their carrier aircraft from. We can take it as read the USA isn't going to sell them any and the only other producer of carrier aircraft, is France.

FLYBOYJ · 04-01-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Digressing I know but I have heard that the Chinese Navy have a problem with their vaunted carriers. Russia has cancelled the order for 50 Su33 aircraft that China placed.
Russia has just twigged that China has a habit of producing cheaper versions of almost anything they buy, in this case the Su27 in direct violation of signed agreements. China bought 200 Su27's (J-11) and then produced their own version (J-11B), in itself not allowed in the original agreement and offered this for export in direct competition with the Russian version, which has really ticked the Russians off.

This leaves China with a problem as to where to get their carrier aircraft from. We can take it as read the USA isn't going to sell them any and the only other producer of carrier aircraft, is France.

Interesting thoughts there Glider - I'll worry a lot more about the Chinese the day they field 10 ro 20 "capable" aircraft carriers.

mkloby · 04-01-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Interesting thoughts there Glider - I'll worry a lot more about the Chinese the day they field 10 ro 20 "capable" aircraft carriers.

Power projection is what it is all about, and seems to be what the Chinese are ultimately seeking...

Glider · 04-01-2009, 06:32 PM

Thats true. Its going to get interesting and a little scary on two fronts. Taiwan is the obvious problem but India is currently the Naval power of the area and the only one with carriers. Both would be happy to see the Chinese Navy have problems with their carriers.

Anyway back to the topic. I would be surprised if the Chinese had the technical assets in place for such a weapon. They have satellites but not I would have thought to be able to cover the area needed and these would have to be able to track and report in real time any changes in the position of the target. They may also need to be used in communicating changes in the missiles flight . Also the misiles will need to have countermeasures and dummies to overcome Aegis missile systems. Its a bit of a tall order for me.

Matt308 · 04-01-2009, 09:57 PM

A mach 10 airbreathing missile is pure folly for the ChiComs. No truth to it whatsoever. I don't know why you guys are wasting your breath on this subject.

FLYBOYJ · 04-01-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

A mach 10 airbreathing missile is pure folly for the ChiComs. No truth to it whatsoever. I don't know why you guys are wasting your breath on this subject.

Matt, If I was president I'd appoint you UN ambassador!

freebird · 04-01-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

Mach 10? Unless it has a ballistic missile profile... B$llshit. Pure propaganda.

And then if it does, it is just another Aegis target.

Can Aegis work against a ballistic missile warhead?

At that point it would no longer be a missile that can be shot down, just a warhead?

Suppose the first missile carries EMP to detonate over the target? Makes thing much more interesting for the rest?

RabidAlien · 04-03-2009, 09:29 AM

Heh. Considerign the date of most of these posts, I'm still waiting for someone to pop up and yell "April Fools"!

04-01-2009, 11:48 AM	#20
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,786	Hmmmm ..... weve had the fighter gap and bomber gap in the 50's, missle gap in the 60's. The big bad highly trained and motivated Soviet military of the 70's. And now we have a chinese missle that has created panic. LOL. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

04-01-2009, 09:57 PM	#27
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,993	A mach 10 airbreathing missile is pure folly for the ChiComs. No truth to it whatsoever. I don't know why you guys are wasting your breath on this subject. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

04-03-2009, 09:29 AM	#30
RabidAlien Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hurst, Texas Posts: 3,441	Heh. Considerign the date of most of these posts, I'm still waiting for someone to pop up and yell "April Fools"! __________________ Pillage, then burn. Argue not with dragons, for thou art crunchy and go well on toast.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-01-2009, 01:56 PM	#23
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,904	Digressing I know but I have heard that the Chinese Navy have a problem with their vaunted carriers. Russia has cancelled the order for 50 Su33 aircraft that China placed. Russia has just twigged that China has a habit of producing cheaper versions of almost anything they buy, in this case the Su27 in direct violation of signed agreements. China bought 200 Su27's (J-11) and then produced their own version (J-11B), in itself not allowed in the original agreement and offered this for export in direct competition with the Russian version, which has really ticked the Russians off. This leaves China with a problem as to where to get their carrier aircraft from. We can take it as read the USA isn't going to sell them any and the only other producer of carrier aircraft, is France.

04-01-2009, 06:32 PM	#26
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,904	Thats true. Its going to get interesting and a little scary on two fronts. Taiwan is the obvious problem but India is currently the Naval power of the area and the only one with carriers. Both would be happy to see the Chinese Navy have problems with their carriers. Anyway back to the topic. I would be surprised if the Chinese had the technical assets in place for such a weapon. They have satellites but not I would have thought to be able to cover the area needed and these would have to be able to track and report in real time any changes in the position of the target. They may also need to be used in communicating changes in the missiles flight . Also the misiles will need to have countermeasures and dummies to overcome Aegis missile systems. Its a bit of a tall order for me.