 Editor in Chief Bill   | 16 Apr 2022 4:50 a.m. PST |
China's investment in anti-ship weaponry poses a "major problem" for the US Navy's ability to fight in the Indo-Pacific, a Singapore-based analyst told Breaking Defense. Breaking Defense: link |
| doc mcb | 16 Apr 2022 8:29 a.m. PST |
No doubt. Otoh, Ukraine's success against the Black Sea fleet must have the Chinese thinking about what Taiwan's land-based missiles could do. |
| Thresher01 | 16 Apr 2022 9:37 a.m. PST |
I really don't see why, since the Soviets/Russians had antiship weaponry too, and I imagine a lot of their tech isn't as good as that of their neighbors who developed their weaponry over the course of 45 – 77 years. |
Tortorella  | 16 Apr 2022 9:41 a.m. PST |
Good point doc. I also wonder how good the Chinese navy is, newer, but not necessarily top notch. |
| microgeorge | 16 Apr 2022 3:44 p.m. PST |
Carrier launched low signature drones to neutralize any threats. The MQ-25 would make a good platform. |
| Zephyr1 | 16 Apr 2022 8:13 p.m. PST |
Time to bring back battleships with 18-inch armor… ;-) |
| Striker | 17 Apr 2022 7:22 a.m. PST |
They should learn that the problems of fighting in the pacific aren't fixed now that we have fancy missiles or think our tech will save us. Case in point: USMC on islands that are unsupportable, sounds like pre-1941 all over again. |
| emckinney | 17 Apr 2022 6:57 p.m. PST |
"Time to bring back battleships with 18-inch armor… ;-)" Substantially unworkable, bit modern warships are extremely vulnerable in ways that probably need to be addressed. Certainly, the missile tubes on the Moskva didn't seem to be armored enough, if at all. They're absolutely huge when you walk through the passage just inboard of them. I think that there was a presumption that either they'd be launched before anything hit the ship or that it'd be sunk by American aircraft before it could fire because you couldn't possibly armor the ship enough to survive the bombs. Or the SAMs would fight off all of the attackers. But a presumption that surviving hits was way, way down the list of priorities. |
| gregmita2 | 17 Apr 2022 7:31 p.m. PST |
Supersonic cruise missiles were a big worry for US carrier battlegroups during the Cold War. The US Navy has practiced against supersonic drones, but no one really knows how effective a swarm of missiles like that will be.
On the other hand, China's big ships suffer from exactly the same problem, with arguably less capable escorts and air defense systems. Both sides can play the asymmetric game in the Taiwan Strait. |
| Striker | 17 Apr 2022 9:39 p.m. PST |
The problem with confronting the PRC is they're much more closer to their objectives than we are (assuming Taiwan, PI, SE Asia, etc). |
| Thresher01 | 18 Apr 2022 6:58 a.m. PST |
Yep, in modern naval warfare, strike first or you lose. |
| gregmita2 | 19 Apr 2022 11:05 a.m. PST |
The problem with confronting the PRC is they're much more closer to their objectives than we are That can be a two-edged sword. It also means they are much more vulnerable right on their doorstep. Missiles can be placed right on the First Island Chain to engage in A2AD against their shipping, which they need a lot more to function. Their military-industrial complex (e.g. shipyards, etc., in Qingdao, Shanghai, and Hainan) are much closer to the potential warzone and in range of a variety of weapons. |
