• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China warplanes tail U.S. and Japan fighter jets; How Far Will China Go?

Hamster Buddha said:
If they wanted to, they could lock down the East China Sea within moments by preventing any ship from entering the area.
Click to expand...

That is a rather gross overstatement.
 
cpwill said:
Do you know what sailors call a Carrier without a Carrier Strike Group to support it?

HINT: It's also the name of a major retail chain, and it rhymes with "Schmarget". ;) :lol:





59b333386615e86cbd69e7ff166da391.jpg


:lol: this is a toy they are selling in Japan. Recognize that swoop-deck in the background?
Click to expand...

Well if that carrier does find itself in disputed waters during an incident it may well end up joining the Bel Grano.... Showing off your new toys sometimes gets them scratched....
 
Harshaw said:
They do the comparison here with the Ford-class (and by extension, Nimitz-class), but it's arguably more comparable to our Wasp-class. Somewhere in between, I suppose.
Click to expand...

It is by no means comparable to a US Super Carrier. It is larger than the Wasp Class but smaller than the Nimitz Class. It is a Stobar Class which the US doesn't have. There are only three in service; 1 Russian, 1 Indian, and this Chinese Liaoning.
 
Harshaw said:
It's an old Russian carrier they've been futzing with for years. They don't have any operational planes to fly from it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, they do have A/C to fly from it. Did you see the video I posted in this thread?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Unfortunately, they do have A/C to fly from it. Did you see the video I posted in this thread?
Click to expand...

Their J-15 isn't ready; at the moment, it's at best a chopper carrier. You mean the clip from Red October?
 
Harshaw said:
That is a rather gross overstatement.
Click to expand...

Really you say?

The Pentagon has used the term anti-access weapons for missiles and other weapons that can keep U.S. forces away from China’s coasts, and in particular to prevent the rapid deployment of U.S. naval forces in the Western Pacific to aid Taiwan in any future conflict with China. Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said during a speech outlining the administration’s missile-defense priorities that “potential adversaries are planning to employ ballistic missiles in anti-access tactics. Mr. Lynn also said ”Like asymmetric threats, anti-access tactics are designed to offset our conventional dominance. The proliferation of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles will put U.S. forces on land and at sea at increasing risk of ballistic missile attack. This risk could push our forces further from the battlespace, compromising our ability to bring our conventional superiority to bear.”

Let's talk about that capability then. To start, you have to talk about the new unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles). The missile is fired from a mobile truck-mounted launcher into the atmosphere, with over-the-horizon radar, satellite tracking and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles each providing guidance. It also incorporates a manoeuvrable warhead to help find its target.

"The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention. "When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said. Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.


(The Above Came From the Following Three Articles.)
Threat in Asia is anti-ship missiles
Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance
China Takes Aim at U.S. Naval Might
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Really you say?
Click to expand...

Yes, I really say that this:

Hamster Buddha said:
If they wanted to, they could lock down the East China Sea within moments by preventing any ship from entering the area.
Click to expand...

Is a gross overstatement.

The Pentagon has used the term anti-access weapons for missiles and other weapons that can keep U.S. forces away from China’s coasts, and in particular to prevent the rapid deployment of U.S. naval forces in the Western Pacific to aid Taiwan in any future conflict with China. Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said during a speech outlining the administration’s missile-defense priorities that “potential adversaries are planning to employ ballistic missiles in anti-access tactics. Mr. Lynn also said ”Like asymmetric threats, anti-access tactics are designed to offset our conventional dominance. The proliferation of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles will put U.S. forces on land and at sea at increasing risk of ballistic missile attack. This risk could push our forces further from the battlespace, compromising our ability to bring our conventional superiority to bear.”

Then let's talk about that capability then. To start, you have to talk about the new unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles). The missile is fired from a mobile truck-mounted launcher into the atmosphere, with over-the-horizon radar, satellite tracking and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles each providing guidance. It also incorporates a manoeuvrable warhead to help find its target.

"The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention. "When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said. Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.
Click to expand...

This is all about plans, theory, could, maybe. That's a far, far cry from it being reality, as you say it is.

It also entirely discounts any countermeasures on our part.
 
Beaudreaux said:
According the Jane's, they've deployed with aircraft to this event.
Click to expand...

For trials, yes.

But even if it were two fully-operational J-15s, it might as well be nothing. It would be almost entirely combat-ineffective.
 
Starting with the Clinton cuts in the 90s and now with the further enormous damage done by Obama, the United States does not have the naval capability to fight wars on two oceans at the same time. China and all of our other enemies know this.

The liberal idea has always been that if America were very weak, unilaterally disarmed, all of our enemies would put down their arms and be nice to us and it would be playtime and lovey-dovey for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
This is all about plans, theory, could, maybe. That's a far, far cry from it being reality, as you say it is.

It also entirely discounts any countermeasures on our part.
Click to expand...

And most of those counter-measures are still on the drawing board. And as far as the present US Naval Strategies, too many times in military have a nation been caught fighting the last war.
 
Harshaw said:
For trials, yes.

But even if it were two fully-operational J-15s, it might as well be nothing. It would be almost entirely combat-ineffective.
Click to expand...

We can only hope. The Jane's article I read said two squadrons. I did a search and can't find it, and that's why I didn't mention it in the previous post.
 
Beaudreaux said:
We can only hope. The Jane's article I read said two squadrons. I did a search and can't find it, and that's why I didn't mention it in the previous post.
Click to expand...

Even your video (with all the dramatic music) only showed two (552 and 553) with their test markings still on them. I haven't seen anything which indicates they've moved beyond that.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
And most of those counter-measures are still on the drawing board. And as far as the present US Naval Strategies, too many times in military have a nation been caught fighting the last war.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a moot point, considering the things that they're supposed to counter are conjectural themselves at this point. So now, they couldn't shut it down in a few minutes if they wanted to.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, I really say that this:



Is a gross overstatement.

This is all about plans, theory, could, maybe. That's a far, far cry from it being reality, as you say it is.

It also entirely discounts any countermeasures on our part.
Click to expand...

....I'm not sure I would call it a "gross" overstatement". The DF-21D is no joke, and Chinese A2AD is a very serious issue.
 
cpwill said:
....I'm not sure I would call it a "gross" overstatement". The DF-21D is no joke, and Chinese A2AD is a very serious issue.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to say they have no capabilities.
 
Harshaw said:
'Coz it's not their airspace. It's a route we've used for decades.
Click to expand...

In breaking news a huge Chinese fleet is blockading the Suez Canal! Officer commanding the Chinese fleet, Admiral Who Flung Dung, has planted Chinese flag and claimed the Canal for China because "we've used for decades!"
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Well, it's a moot point, considering the things that they're supposed to counter are conjectural themselves at this point. So now, they couldn't shut it down in a few minutes if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

A few minutes? Depends on how you count "few", I suppose. Post-Launch Seeker Radar allows for launch without associated facilities, and China has far more missiles than we do capital ships.

Mind you, it won't come to that. China is not going to actually attack the U.S. Navy over the Senkakus.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It's not their airspace.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out earlier in the thread Japan have been doign the same thing with regards to airspace in the East China sea. Seems to be one set of rules for Japan and another for China
 
The Misanthrope said:
In breaking news a huge Chinese fleet is blockading the Panama Canal! Officer commanding the Chinese fleet, Admiral Who Flung Dung, has planted Chinese flag and claimed the Canal for China because "we've used for decades!"
Click to expand...

:screwy
 
Harshaw said:
Even your video (with all the dramatic music) only showed two (552 and 553) with their test markings still on them. I haven't seen anything which indicates they've moved beyond that.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that. Just saying what I've read, and that I hope you are correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom