PDA

View Full Version : anti-Aircraft Carrier Missile



sarongsong
2007-Oct-21, 08:59 AM
Shields up!
March 23, 2007
...also called the SS-N-27 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/club-specs.htm)B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level. On final approach, the missile “has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,” including sharp-angled dodges...
nowpublic (http://www.nowpublic.com/navy_lacks_plan_to_defend_against_sizzler_missile)

Alan G. Archer
2007-Oct-21, 02:18 PM
Aircraft carrier commanders are still waiting for an effective defense against torpedoes. Now they will have to wait for an effective defense against these supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Damburger
2007-Oct-21, 02:58 PM
I predict this kind of technology will be critical in the coming decades.

Lets face it, confrontation between China and America is at some point inevitable simply because China is rising quickly and America isn't going to surrender its position as alpha dog of the planet without a scrap. And the most likely location for this conflict is Taiwan.

It'll be like the Falklands war on a much, much bigger scale - A more advanced military force projecting power against a less advanced local force. In that war, anti-ship missiles were critical and nearly lead to an Argentine victory. British commanders have commented that if HMS Hermes had taken a single exocet hit, the task force would've had to retreat and Britain would either have had to negotiate for peace or follow through on Thatchers insane plan for nuking Cordoba.

With China, there is no option of a one-sided nuclear strike, and the designers of the relevant anti-ship missiles won't be giving the US technical information on how to defeat them (as the French did in the Falklands)

Jim
2007-Oct-21, 06:35 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to send the US and China to war. Remember that for more than 30 years the US and USSR teetered on the brink, but never went to blows.

RalofTyr
2007-Oct-21, 07:58 PM
Funny, I saw a program last night about the new super-carriers.

The best defense against are lasers, well, the best defense is denying the enemy range to fire those missiles at the carriers. That's their best defense against torpedos and missiles. Most of a carrier's 70 or so aircraft are used for air defense. However, the Soviets already had an effective way to counter American anti-missile systems. That is, fire a volley. Sure, they can shoot down one missile rather easily, but what about 20?

There's really no need for the US and China to go to war. Walmart would go out of business.

sarongsong
2007-Oct-21, 10:41 PM
...for more than 30 years the US and USSR teetered on the brink, but never went to blows....directly. ---plenty of proxy blows via third parties, tho.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-21, 11:59 PM
It'll be like the Falklands war on a much, much bigger scale - A more advanced military force projecting power against a less advanced local force. In that war, anti-ship missiles were critical and nearly lead to an Argentine victory. British commanders have commented that if HMS Hermes had taken a single exocet hit, the task force would've had to retreat and Britain would either have had to negotiate for peace or follow through on Thatchers insane plan for nuking Cordoba.
(Rushes to put finishing touches on moon rocket.)
Anybody wanna come with?

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 01:39 AM
Right now too much of the U.S. economy depends on China. At least the parts of the economy owned by Washington power brokers and lobbyists. Ditto for the wealthy semi-capitalist Beijing elite. It would take a lot more than saber-rattling to lead to a war between the Big Dawgs.

mfumbesi
2007-Oct-22, 08:41 AM
I am too lazy to search, but a colleague of mine once told me that there is a book he read which stated that no two nations with overlapping/inter-depended economies will ever go to war.(US and China fit that bill nicely)
As I said I am too lazy to search......

Doodler
2007-Oct-22, 12:56 PM
...directly. ---plenty of proxy blows via third parties, tho.

Nah, the western world's too cowardly to get into another global fisticuffs right now.

Taiwan will be conquered without much of a struggle because Americans simply lack the spinal integrity to involve themselves in hard fights for more than a few years before even negligible casualty rates send up screams of bloody murder and withdraw. The next Iron Curtain's gonna drop on the western Pacific coastline and the US and the EU will sit there, just like the western Allies did after WWII when the Soviet Union steamrolled eastern Europe.

Iraq will be the last major US engagement for a VERY long time. Europe and Southeast Asia had better take note if they want to survive against China and a resurgent Russia.

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-22, 01:39 PM
China's takeover of Hong Kong in 1954 demonstrates the impatience of China when it comes to gaining control over territory it sees as its own.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Oct-22, 03:37 PM
If it were going to be a battle over non-economic ideologies (such as religion), or if there were criminally insane despots running the show (that is not intended as an opening for criticisms of our leaders), then I'd say prepare for the worst our current weapons technology has to offer.

But we are too economically dependent on each other. A big war would hurt everybody too much. In a relatively peaceful transition of power, even the loser will gain more than the winner of an all out war. War between these 2 would simply be bad business all around.

I do believe the transition is irreversible at this point. I mean, anything that can happen might happen; but IMO the USA will at least be forced to share the mountaintop, if we can avoid being outright dethroned. No stopping it; our credibility in the eyes of too much of the rest of the world is shot. We had our chance to lead a new world order and got just as greedy and imperialistic as every empire that has ever come into being. To deny that is to be out of touch with reality. 400 years of existence ain't that big a deal, and our 60 or 70 years of domination ain't squat when set against the backdrop of world history.

Not really sure why more people do not see that as clearly as they should. I think maybe too many Americans have only lived the small part of the timeline where we have been dominant and have not bothered to study history with an objective eye. Because they know nothing else, it is assumed the status quo will last forever. Maybe that is the point when states begin to act irresponsibly and with ever-increasing levels of greed. When those in power only personally remember being in power, and never have anything else to go on; the Empire starts behaving badly. Let's hope that those blindered folks are not the ones in power when the transition gets a bit painful economy-wise. They are the type that might pull the trigger as a result of seeing their loss of the right to wear the big foam We're Number One finger as a good enough reason to kill off a few million, or maybe a couple billion humans.

China will only be a temporary stand-in due to the lack of any nation even remotely resembling a party capable of advancing the world order. If and when they get crowned, it will only be as the least evil option; although even as a stand-in, they might produce some kernels of goodness that can blossom later. Kind of like the Greeks. A constantly warring group of city-states that trampled each other into the ground on a regular basis, but did so while at the same time developing during the short term of their rein the beginnings of ideas that would set the tone for the study of humanities and science for 2000 years. Who woulda thunk?

What comes after China? Who knows? Europe seems paralyzed by political correctness reining supreme over practicality and reason. The USA, or whatever it morphs into, will be a long ways off for their next try; but will most likely head down the same paralyzing road as Europe - being more concerned with looking good in priciple than doing good in practice. India?

Fun topic.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 03:42 PM
Not really sure why more people do not see that as clearly as they should. I think maybe too many Americans have only lived the small part of the timeline where we have been dominant and have not bothered to study history with an objective eye. Because they know nothing else, it is assumed the status quo will last forever. Maybe that is the point when states begin to act irresponsibly and with ever-increasing levels of greed. When those in power only personally remember being in power, and never have anything else to go on; the Empire starts behaving badly. Let's hope that those blindered folks are not the ones in power when the transition gets a bit painful economy-wise. They are the type that might pull the trigger as a result of seeing their loss of the right to wear the big foam We're Number One finger as a good enough reason to kill off a few million, or maybe a couple billion humans.
.

Sadly, yes.

Insert Santayana quote here.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 03:45 PM
Kind of like the Greeks. A constantly warring group of city-states that trampled each other into the ground on a regular basis, but did so while at the same time developing during the short term of their rein the beginnings of ideas that would set the tone for the study of humanities and science for 2000 years.

And most of the Greek city-states then willingly threw themselves under the jackboots (jacksandals?) of the Spartans because they throught the Athenian economic hegemony had too much power. Only to find that the Spartans, while good at war, were bad at peace.

Nothing new under the sun.

tofu
2007-Oct-22, 04:29 PM
I read somewhere that there are in the neighborhood of 300 million more males than females in China, thanks to China's "one child" policy. If you look at that another way, it represents hundreds of millions of males that have no possibility of experiencing an exclusive sexual relationship with a female.

The reason I phrase it that way instead of saying "wont have sex" is because I'm sure they will have sex, just not exclusivity. I'm sure we'd all agree, the drive to reproduce is the most powerful of all instincts. We all feel it, even if we don't all act on it. There are a lot of men who choose not to have children, but I think most of them are convinced that they could have children if they wanted to, so that subconscious need is met for them. I think it was Dawkins who suggested that the purpose of the emotion love is to bond a male and female together for three years, long enough to rear a child. So if you've ever had a girlfriend for about three years, you've satisfied that instinct, even if you didn't have a child.

What happens to a heterosexual man with no possible way of doing that? He might be able to have sex occasionally, but never exclusivity, never the feeling that he could pass on his genes if he wanted to.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of depression and a lot of suicide. But I bet there'll also be a lot more risk-taking, a lot of aggression, a lack of concern for the rest of society (why should I care about recycling? The future means nothing to me!) and a lot more crime.

All of that is leading me to this point: China is about to have a ton of expendable soldiers, soldiers who don't care about themselves or think of the future. That's a pretty scary thought. Remember the old REM song, "I hope the Russians love their children too" well guess what, in the next cold war, the answer to that question will be that they have no children and no possibility of having children.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 04:33 PM
The song quote was actually from a Billy Joel song, Russians, I think.

Doodler
2007-Oct-22, 04:52 PM
The song quote was actually from a Billy Joel song, Russians, I think.

Holy crud, people...It was Sting.

Damburger
2007-Oct-22, 05:06 PM
What comes after China? Who knows? Europe seems paralyzed by political correctness reining supreme over practicality and reason. The USA, or whatever it morphs into, will be a long ways off for their next try; but will most likely head down the same paralyzing road as Europe - being more concerned with looking good in priciple than doing good in practice. India?

Paralysed by political correctness? I'd invite you to compare European attitudes towards, say, nudity with those of the United States.

Doodler
2007-Oct-22, 05:14 PM
Paralysed by political correctness? I'd invite you to compare European attitudes towards, say, nudity with those of the United States.

The exact expressions of it are different, but the effect is the same.

Europe is slowly becoming what in the US would be the "Democratic Ideal", plurality to the point of inaction, where the US is slowly becoming more arch-conservative, where we'll be paralyzed for fear of stirring up a hornet's nest of controversy for disturbing the status quo.

Political Correctness covers the whole ideological spectrum. It all boils down to populism ad absurdum.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 05:19 PM
Without getting too political, I think the fact that certain extremely unpopular policies are being continued in the face of mounting discontent shows that the arch-conservatives don't much care about avoiding controversy.

And I think this thread has about wandered into territory where it will be impossible to avoid getting political, so I'll bow out now.

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-22, 10:52 PM
I read somewhere that there are in the neighborhood of 300 million more males than females in China, thanks to China's "one child" policy. If you look at that another way, it represents hundreds of millions of males that have no possibility of experiencing an exclusive sexual relationship with a female.

25 million surplus males, not 300 million.


I'm sure there'll be a lot of depression and a lot of suicide. But I bet there'll also be a lot more risk-taking, a lot of aggression, a lack of concern for the rest of society (why should I care about recycling? The future means nothing to me!) and a lot more crime.

25 million surplus males out of 1.2 billion isn't a lot. However, if China's males "purchase" many brides from the much poorer and smaller bordering nation of North Korea, then North Korea could suffer social problems.

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-22, 11:07 PM
China's takeover of Hong Kong in 1954 demonstrates the impatience of China when it comes to gaining control over territory it sees as its own.

Oh, sorry, I made a mistake. China didn't take over Hong Kong in 1954. They actually waited until 1997 when the treaty the British forced them to sign at gunpoint after China lost a war fought to stop Britian selling them opium expired. For some reason they waited until 1997 despite the fact that Hong Kong was completely dependant on water piped in from the mainland and was more or less at their mercy. Funny that considering how China is well known for its short term thinking and lack of forward planning.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-22, 11:36 PM
And I think this thread has about wandered into territory where it will be impossible to avoid getting political, so I'll bow out now.

Ah yes. Politics. I am reminded of what the great Henry Hale once said: "Do not speak of that of about which we talk of not speaking... about."

farmerjumperdon
2007-Oct-23, 12:31 PM
Paralysed by political correctness? I'd invite you to compare European attitudes towards, say, nudity with those of the United States.

That's more a reflection of Political Correctness' kissing cousin, Religious Correctness. Everybody has their own motivations and style of play for the Looking Good game.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Oct-23, 12:33 PM
Political Correctness covers the whole ideological spectrum. It all boils down to populism ad absurdum.

I like that observation.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Oct-23, 12:39 PM
Ah yes. Politics. I am reminded of what the great Henry Hale once said: "Do not speak of that of about which we talk of not speaking... about."

I was hoping to stay more along the lines of pontificating on the future state of the civilized world; as in where is it likely to go from here based on the lessons of history.

I realize that analysis of the past, especially the recent past, can be highly controversial, but isn't some of this so obvious that it is not really worthy of debate. I mean, is it against the rules to call imperialism for what it is? If so, then this thread would serve as an excellent example of paralyzing effect of the populism Doodler mentioned.

Argos
2007-Oct-23, 12:56 PM
What comes after China?

Look down there...

Doodler
2007-Oct-23, 01:00 PM
Oh, sorry, I made a mistake. China didn't take over Hong Kong in 1954. They actually waited until 1997 when the treaty the British forced them to sign at gunpoint after China lost a war fought to stop Britian selling them opium expired. For some reason they waited until 1997 despite the fact that Hong Kong was completely dependant on water piped in from the mainland and was more or less at their mercy. Funny that considering how China is well known for its short term thinking and lack of forward planning.

Question: Where did this non sequitor about China's level of forethought and patience come from?

Seems a little out of joint in this particular discussion. Honestly, there's no question China's ability to play the slow game is impressive. The Tibetan campaign, their current games being played in Nepal, their ongoing urinating for emotional distance contest with Japan, and their little word games being played with Taiwan.

China knows how to wait. No one is questioning that. The truth is, they're really not a threat to the US or even the Europeans in terms of their imperial ambitions. They don't have the ability to project their military globally beyond their ICBMs. The US and Russia have both had, at their peaks, Navies of some impressive magnitude that could project power at any point on the planet whenever needed. The Russians did it with their submarine fleet, the US relied on supercarriers. I keep hearing about China's groundpounders, but the question I never hear answered is, "Ok, how are they gonna get here from there?".

A friend of mine once came to me and was all hyper about the Chinese marching their army from China to the US from Alaska by traipsing through eastern Siberia. I hadn't laughed that hard in a LONG time.

They've got an impressive military on paper, but they're kinda limited in how far they can project it with any reasonable chance of achieving critical mass on a foreign beach head.

DyerWolf
2007-Oct-23, 01:33 PM
There is a big difference between what China can do and what China wants to do.

I don't think any past experience between the US and the USSR (or even Japan) will foretell anything about the future relations between the US and China.

China wins by making China better - not by taking over the rest of the world militarily. An integrated, robust, first-world economy will make China even more of a force to be reckoned with than it is now.*

They're already getting involved in Africa and South / Central America - securing access to long-term rights to a large variety of raw materials.

It can be alarming to realize that (numerically) China can put more miltary aged males in uniform than the United States has people. This is more of a defensive than an offensive consideration. Raw numbers do not equate to the ability to project force. Much less the desire.

Even though China is rapidly improving its navy and has top-notch tanks, I doubt we will see any real military adventures from China in the next 50 years.

OTOH - there will come a point when China is positioned to say to the West - get your grubby hands out of my cookie jar. When that happens, life in the South China Sea, the Phillipine Sea and the Eastern Pacific will become much more interesting.




*(The Chinese, might however, find that their experience mirrors that of the Romans with the Greeks)

Argos
2007-Oct-23, 01:57 PM
Itīs amazing how people overlook the serious challenges China has to face to become an Empire. For now, it has less power projection capability than Brazil, which has two aircraft carriers. In my opinion, China is only a Wall Street hype.

Doodler
2007-Oct-23, 02:16 PM
Itīs amazing how people overlook the serious challenges China has to face to become an Empire. For now, it has less power projection capability than Brazil, which has two aircraft carriers. In my opinion, China is only a Wall Street hype.

Well, as I said, it does have ICBMs. That is a rather impressive global "power" projection ability that keeps them in the "top" tier.

Moose
2007-Oct-23, 02:32 PM
Well, as I said, it does have ICBMs. That is a rather impressive global "power" projection ability that keeps them in the "top" tier.

Only on paper. ICBMs only have deterrence value. You're not really projecting power with it when its use will cause the immediate end of your power base.

Until China has shipping, the size of their army is largely irrelevant to the Western Hemisphere. Russia's gotta be a bit nervous, though.

Doodler
2007-Oct-23, 02:47 PM
Only on paper. ICBMs only have deterrence value. You're not really projecting power with it when its use will cause the immediate end of your power base.

Until China has shipping, the size of their army is largely irrelevant to the Western Hemisphere. Russia's gotta be a bit nervous, though.

Touche`

sarongsong
2007-Oct-23, 03:35 PM
...Until China has shipping...Does this count? http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
China to test space weapon in launching moon satellite (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SETSN80&show_article=1)

Argos
2007-Oct-23, 04:02 PM
ICBMs only have deterrence value. You're not really projecting power with it when its use will cause the immediate end of your power base.

Yeah, thatīs what I mean. I donīt think ICBMs will ever be used by any power.

DyerWolf
2007-Oct-23, 07:01 PM
Even if they are - they only have a disruptive effect.

Until and unless you're willing to put someone's boots on the ground, you can't begin to conquor.

You can, admittedly, cause a lot of hate and discontent with an ICBM.

Larry Jacks
2007-Oct-23, 07:05 PM
Does this count?
China to test space weapon in launching moon satellite

The article discusses controlling satellites from a submarine. Color me skeptical. Satellites are usually controlled using radio frequencies that don't penetrate water. Would the submarine have to surface to control the satellite? Radiating a lot of RF energy and/or surfacing is the submarine equivalent of screaming, "Kill me! Kill me!" Submarines survive by stealth. This idea doesn't sound at all stealthy to me.

RalofTyr
2007-Oct-23, 07:19 PM
Does this count?
China to test space weapon in launching moon satellite

The article discusses controlling satellites from a submarine. Color me skeptical. Satellites are usually controlled using radio frequencies that don't penetrate water. Would the submarine have to surface to control the satellite? Radiating a lot of RF energy and/or surfacing is the submarine equivalent of screaming, "Kill me! Kill me!" Submarines survive by stealth. This idea doesn't sound at all stealthy to me.


Maybe China's found a way to radio submerged?


About the 25 million Chinamen with no future. India, will/is going to have a similar number of surpluses.

I think I have the plot to the next Dolph Lundgren movie. A small island south of China has to fight off hordes of Chinese male invaders...I smell an Oscar.

Larry Jacks
2007-Oct-23, 08:11 PM
Maybe China's found a way to radio submerged?

That's like saying "maybe Chine's found a way to break the laws of physics." Ultra low frequency (ULF) and very low frequency (VLF) RF signals can penetrate water a fair distance but as the frequencies increase, penetration decreases. When you get into the high megahertz and gigahertz ranges, RF energy pretty well stops at the surface. ULF and VLF frequencies require extremely large antennas and have very low data rates. When I worked at a VLF transmitter site (1980-82), our high speed data rate was 50 bits per second. Our antenna was just 10 feet shorter than the Empire State Building and we radiated something like 100,000 watts of power. Those radio frequencies propagated via ground waves. I don't even know if they would penetrate the ionosphere to be received by a satellite.

One possible way to sign signals to a satellite from a sub would be to mount a small dish antenna on the periscope or some other retractable device. You could briefly raise the dish above the surface, point it at the satellite, and get off a quick set of commands before being detected. It's at least theoritically possible.

I've read that US subs do something of the opposite for communications. They receive a signal via VLF communications to come near the surface, raise an antenna, and downlink a communications signal from a satellite. That's a lot more stealthy than radiating an uplink signal, though.

When I was doing satellite operations, we used large (32', 40', or 60' diameter) remote tracking station antennas. When we needed to uplink ranging signals or commands, the antenna went active with 1000 watts of RF energy. The antennas had extremely narrow beamwidths (< 0.1 degree, IIRC) and very high gains (> 60 dB), so the effective radiated power was over 1 gigawatt. That was used to work with geosynch satellites. Given the very small TT&C antennas on the satellites, the signal strengh received was still extremely weak (< -80 dB).

Communicating with LEO satellites wouldn't require as much power but you'd have a very hard time using an extremely narrow beamwidth high gain antenna from a moving platform. More likely, you'd have a beamwidth of maybe 2-3 degrees and a gain of perhaps 30-35 dB. That would require you to radiate quite a bit of RF power even to communicate with a satellite a few hundred miles away. You might as well send up fireworks and light up strobes. You're going to really stand out - something subs hate doing.

Doodler
2007-Oct-24, 02:08 PM
Ya know, the more I ponder China, the more a very well documented, yet seemingly unrelated issue may yet threaten their viability as a global power.

Pollution.

Arguably, the Soviets were just as bad about this matter, but their land use footprint was significantly smaller than China's by a far margin as well as their substantially less efficient industry methods. China matches Communist disregard for human health with Western industrial efficiency. They're literally killing themselves in the effort to keep up with the West's demands for their production capability.

If armageddon comes to China, it will most likely be a self inflicted wound that causes it.

Jim
2007-Oct-24, 02:50 PM
... China matches Communist disregard for human health with Western industrial efficiency. They're literally killing themselves in the effort to keep up with the West's demands for their production capability.

If armageddon comes to China, it will most likely be a self inflicted wound that causes it.

As witnessed by the recent lead and gluten fiascos.

We do considerable business in China. They want very much to westernize their industrial capabilities, but are willing to overlook worker and community safety to do it.

Their attitude toward people is that they are easily replaced. Anyone injured on the job will be recompensed, even have a job for life; if someone dies, their family is recompensed and the children will have jobs. But, people are replaceable.

The CPI in the US until recently had a moraturium on buying any piping or vessel components that were manufactured in China because they played fast and loose with quality standards. For a while, they even stamped their parts as "Made in India" to try to get around the moratorium. (If you looked closely, you could see where "China" had been machined off and "India" stamped in its place.) Now you buy Chinese parts only with rigourous inspection.

Heck, on some of our projects it was actually less expensive to buy equipment and parts manufactured outside of China and import them than to buy cheaper domestic goods and pay to bring them up to standards.

Argos
2007-Oct-24, 04:03 PM
Pollution.(...) They're literally killing themselves in the effort to keep up with the West's demands for their production capability.

If armageddon comes to China, it will most likely be a self inflicted wound that causes it.

Yeah, thatīs the kind of challenge I mentioned. Thereīs also a looming natural resource shortage. If they run out of resources before having consolidated their 'power projection' capability theyīll be in trouble.

Swift
2007-Oct-24, 04:51 PM
<snip>
I do believe the transition is irreversible at this point. I mean, anything that can happen might happen; but IMO the USA will at least be forced to share the mountaintop, if we can avoid being outright dethroned. No stopping it; our credibility in the eyes of too much of the rest of the world is shot. We had our chance to lead a new world order and got just as greedy and imperialistic as every empire that has ever come into being. To deny that is to be out of touch with reality. 400 years of existence ain't that big a deal, and our 60 or 70 years of domination ain't squat when set against the backdrop of world history.

I know I'm late to this party, and this is an older post, but it raised a point for me.

I agree with farmerjumperdon that the "king of the world" title will probably change in the future. As a citizen of the US, my reaction to that ranges from "so what" to "good". I'm rather tired of the role - sure, there are perks, but the responsibilities are large. I'd just as soon let someone else lead for a while. Norway, for example, has not been leader of the world since maybe Viking days, if ever, yet they have one of the top standards of living in the world. That would be fine by me.

DyerWolf
2007-Oct-24, 05:22 PM
As witnessed by the recent lead and gluten fiascos.

...

Recently some American businesses (Mattel, etc) kow-towed to Beijing and "admitted" that the problem wasn't one of Chinese manufacturing - but of insufficient design by the American business.

I'm not convinced.

Nevertheless - if Mattel and others want to profit by using Chinese labor/manufacturing (and are willing to take the blame for a Chinese company's actions) - The U.S. plaintiff's bar can assist.

At least when the financial pain from lawsuits reaches the Boardrooms / stockholders - the execs might put a little pressure on their Chinese counterparts to make safe products.

The US can't dictate Chinese manufacturing safety procedures - but we can control what we import.

publiusr
2007-Dec-14, 08:38 PM
Hypersonics might be used for missiles first---no sense in that however, as the old all rocket Skybolt was simpler.

Misc. news...

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/New_Thermal_Protection_Technologies_For_Reusable_L aunch_Vehicles_To_Be_Validated_999.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Raytheon_Tests_New_Air_Launched_Missile_Defense_Sy stem_999.html

Check out the latest issue of Pop Sci.

http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/a3bfe2e6fb5c6110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/4.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/blackswift-retu.html

Oh, and by the way--the Air Farce wants a new nuclear bomber and new ICBMs.

I'd rather have Ares.

Come celebrate America's 50 years in space in Alabama's rocket city
http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-defense/20071212/DC0977712122007-1.html

Mister Earl
2007-Dec-17, 05:37 PM
China is only a military juggernaut in China. China doesn't have the capacity to field the entirety of its military force other than in China. They lack the infrastructure required to keep such a force in the field for any prolonged length of time. If China did go to war with anyone, the defender would merely have to disrupt the Chinese supply lines in order to blunt the attack.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-17, 08:31 PM
China is only a military juggernaut in China. China doesn't have the capacity to field the entirety of its military force other than in China. They lack the infrastructure required to keep such a force in the field for any prolonged length of time. If China did go to war with anyone, the defender would merely have to disrupt the Chinese supply lines in order to blunt the attack.

Assuming their goal is occupation, yes. If their goal is just to cripple a country, they could do that quite easily.