Welp, looks like China has turned their artificial islands into warships of concrete:
76mm rapid firing naval gun (normally deployed on warships) and associated fire-control as well as search radars have been spotted ontop of those island's main structures.
This is mental as fuck.
>>29678000
yeah yeah yeah we get it ching dang. "china strong america weak"
Your anti F35 threads are dying btw
>>29678000
Doesn't make a diffrence, more or less just a effort to avoid being cucked by the US even further.
>>29678000
HMG mounts and 65mm anti-frogmen grenade launchers also have been spotted.
Basically, a warship as a building.
>2016
>static defenses
zozzle
>>29678019
Western intelligence has already forsee something like this happening, by comparing them with the Flak-Towers of Germany in WWII.
>>29678031
knowing Chinese engineering it wont even need to get shot at for it to fall apart.
>>29678030
>2016
>Not realizing it is the age of A2AD
>>29678042
go buy yourself a nice pair of knockoff nikes with those 5 cents zhang
Oh wow, three-inchers, in exposed mountings. Woop de doo
Nice
Can't wait for them to start installing the VLS into them too, like the US's land-based AEGIS
>We live in an age of fortress-islands again
>2016
>Using 3 inch guns
y tho
>>29678059
>three inchers firing 120 rds/min and is radar guided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dESW9hMuA2g
>>29678064
They will likely get Type 730 turrets as well.
Two things:
1. WTF are buildings for in the first place?
2. What's it like to be stationed on one of these things? Like being on a ship that never goes into port?
>>29678113
>1. WTF are buildings for in the first place?
Uh, they're military bases. I'd have thought that was pretty evident from all the soldiers and flags and weapons.
>>29678113
1. For the sake of fortifying their previously submerged reefs and for providing better habitation for the sad marines that had to stay on shitty small huts before.
2. Likely better than the shitty small huts or warships, as you have more space to do things and you grow your veggies yourself.
>>29678094
The ching-chong model has 150 ready rounds, and assuming it has the same range as the soviet model, a max range of 15.5km. I doubt most potential aggressors against these islands would approach that close with something that a 76mm round could hurt before simply destroying the gun.
>>29678031
Chigua Reef in question.
But those buildings have been seen on other new islands as well...
We're going to make these ours the way we made Guam and all those shitty little pacific islands ours.
>>29678157
A different island with the same structure.
Military fortifications are rad, regardless of who builds them.
>>29678157
Are the 76mm cannons on the platforms leading out from the building?
>>29678030
static defenses are fine
machine guns/small cannon on top of apartment buildings are not
I doubt these islands can even support the concrete/steel necessary for fortifying them properly
>>29678157
what purpose could such a design serve...
>>29678152
They can shoot down missiles too, they're DP cannons after all.
>>29678210
I think so.
On every tower one 76mm gun, the FCS at every corner of the main building. Highest top houses the high-rate search/sea-skimmer defense radar.
>>29678212
>I doubt these islands can even support the concrete/steel necessary
Just stop. Right there.
If you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about, stop talking about it.
>Cold War 2.0
>A Three Way between Chinks, Vatniks and Burgers
I don't know whether I should be worried or aroused
>>29678230
?
Islands sink when weight is put on them
Dirt compresses
You start shipping steel & concrete, and suddenly its not an island anymore
cuz the thing sank 20 feet
Well, if woody island is any indication, they will get YJ-62A (somthing like an anti-shipping tomahawk) cruise missiles soon as well.
Those 76mm turrets might serve as close in defense and deterrence against small boats.
>>29678246
>Islands sink when weight is put on them
>>29678030
/thread
>>29678230
well hey in his defense they are man-made islands right? like the ones in dubai? didn't they just recently sink?
>>29678246
Those islands are build on existing coral reefs, that are in return growin on rocky foundation. They could even dig cellars and underground cavities there.
It is not that they simply pile sand on sand. If so, they wouldnt just use their existing reefs but literally build anywhere.
>>29678246
>Dirt compresses
>I DON'T KNOW WHAT FOUNDATIONS ARE
FUCKING CHRIST, STOP. THIS IS EMBARRASSING.
>>29678256
Hmm. That sounds retarded but erosion sure as fuck will sink those islands. If Alameda, CA keeps on sinking fslowly from Erosion, I'm sure these chinkshit islands will sink as well
GREATEST
FUCKING
JOB
EVER
>>29678246
>Islands sink when weight is put on them
>>29678270
could you stop sperging out? like, way to have a faggot reaction, you could just simply explain to the guy what's wrong with his theory, but instead you're throwing a temper tantrum, grow up.
>>29678091
To keep civilian vessels away and to act as a deterrent to spec ops teams. The fishermen would just fuck off, but SEALs aren't likely to try anything if their exit route will get butt pounded by artillery.
>>29678278
>erosion sure as fuck will sink those islands
Yeah, it's not like they can repair erosion damage with their massive fleet of island-constructing dredgers or anything
>>29678285
>>29678296
You are talking about a person who thinks islands sink
You want your hand held through that then you need to get the fuck off this website
>>29678302
>you will never patrol with your bros on an artificial island all day erry day for 3 fucking years
>>29678217
I wonder if the old low-observable cruise missiles will be dusted off?
>>29678310
Islands do sink when millions of tons of concrete and steel is placed atop them
>>29678311
At least sometimes you get trees and natural beaches and shit. But only on the natural islands.
>>29678246
>>29678212
Yeah when the US covered that island with thousands of tons of reinforced concrete and steel it sunk right into the sea instantly
>>29678321
Look, a Shark!
Wait, what?
>>29678278
this for the most part. ocean weather and time is not known for its kindness to man made buildings
mfw all these ching chong islands will be completely dilapidated when something actually goes down
>>29678217
>They can shoot down missiles too, they're DP cannons after all.
>76mm
>CIWS guns
ahahaa no, dude. No. Those guns are there for the same reason modern air-defense warships bristling with fuckin long-range SAMs and anti-ship cruise missiles have them - for shooting shit that gets close, or for when the shooting only starts *after* they've gotten close. That's the bitch about reality, if you're not technically at war with someone, you can't really shoot them till they sail up to your base, and once they HAVE, you don't know if they're just there to scream REEEE CHINA GET OOOOUT and wave PINOY PRIDE WORLD WIDE flags to make your ambassadors cry like babies some more, or if they're planning to shrek you via surprise.
Best to be prepared.
>>29678330
>>29678324
>fort drum
DONT GIVE THEM IDEAS!
>>29678342
>ahahaa no, dude. No
ahahaha, yes, dude, Yes.
Same reason modern ship guns can shoot down anti-ship missiles.
>>29678302
>>29678311
>>29678330
>>29678310
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence
>>29678363
>Same reason modern ship guns can shoot down anti-ship missiles.
They can't. Seriously. 57mm, 76mm and 127mm guns have an anti-air capability (hell they've had it since the first dual-angle guns in the 1940s) but their ROF are nowhere *near* good enough to take on cruise missiles. They can try, but their chances are even worse than normal CIWS guns. Which is why 30mm stuff like Goalkeeper (and the Chinese ripoff of it) exist.
If you think they're trusting defense of these islands to a few peashooters you're nuts; they'll definitely have both point-defense missiles and long-range SAM systems like an HQ-9.
>>29678363
Naval guns CAN intercept missiles, but they're not ideal for it, especially if you're dealing with multiple incoming missiles. Just like CIWS they are a last resort defense against missiles.
>>29678410
>They can't. Seriously
HMS Avenger shot down an Exocet with a 4.5in deck gun back in 1982.
What part of "dual purpose" don't you get?
>>29678352
Few hundred gallons of diesel fuel poured in and lit on fire sure put a quick end to Fort Drum.
>>29678413
Naval guns are fantastic for it
The issue is, if they miss, you don't have time to do anything else
>>29678410
>>29678342
Ey PF, your bullshit inspired me to join the Navy mang.
>>29678000
>basically the same weapons and radars of a Type 054A Frigate
I wonder if the Commander of those fortress is raked captain as well...
I don't think the weaponry is meant to be a serious deterrent, rather just for politics and optics. The real muscle behind these islands and all of China's maritime claims is still the PLAN.
Won't these islands turn to quicksand in an earthquake?
>>29678000
looks like extra targets for the tomahawk strike list
>>29678423
>HMS Avenger shot down an Exocet with a 4.5in deck gun back in 1982.
Pure dumb luck, also I'd love a cite for that, because that's baller as fuck. Point still stands, if they were any good at it why the fuck would anyone build ships with both point-defense guns *and* deck guns? Except gee, they do.
Can't hurt to have them blazing away, but it's not like China can't afford to equip their little sandcastles with long-range SAMs and thick point defenses, you know>
>>29678493
Oh you poor son of a bitch, I am so sorry
>anti-surface application SM-3 is a thing
>Riceniggers BTFO
>>29678651
>anti-surface
>hit-to-kill kinetic warhead
When they said "distributed lethality" they weren't fucking joking were they
>>29678648
I'mma go be a surface sonar tech. I reserve the right to blame you for my poor decision making when the chinks are trying to sink me.
Anyone wondering if they can last through a typhoon or two without serious damage?
>>29678651
You mean SM-6, right?
That's fucking normal, SAM vs surface targets. Ever present in the Chinese arsenal since they got those 48N6s from Russia ages ago.
Their 051C DDG recently took out multiple test-targets with it's SAM in excercises.
>>29678661
1500km range at mach 15.25 for the Block IIa makes my dick hard just thinking about it
>>29678230
> ching chongs literally just piled up sand
Fuck off Zhang
>>29678697
They already have.
The Vietnamese built islands... Not so much.
The gaping difference in technology, industial scale and civil engineering experience between the claimants is staggering.
>>29678672
>surface sonar tech
>chink subs
"Trying" is the operative word there boyo, hahaha. Sonar is fucking neat, man, nice choice. You reach into the abyss with 1/2 technological genius and 1/2 oracle-of-delphi whale fart interpretation and shit. And when you find something, a rocket drops a fucking torpedo on it.
Yeah, man, YEAH.
>>29678699
Probably, he did. What I REALLY want to know is if the SM-6 has an *over the horizon* surface engagement capability. It has its own radar seeker *and* a backup infared imager, both of which could conceivably do the job, but how well is anyone's guess. Whereas line-of-sight you could control the intercept with the datalink quite easily.
>>29678700
SM-3 will never become anything more than a ABM interceptor, you dork.
It's the SM-6 that is surface combat capable. Not the SM-3 with its exoatmospheric kinetic vehicle.
And being exoatmospheric, it wont even be able to intercept DF-21Ds or the WU-14, because both are cruising within atmosphere.
>>29678000
Well that's cute. More targets for the gazillion Tomahawks the islands will eat the second it goes hot.
>>29678262
Kiss my ass, planefag. Static defenses are still useful. They may be taken down, but they've caused you waste your time dedicating inordinate resources to deal with it.
>>29678721
Hence China fears the SM-6 a lot more than the SM-3, which is why they attempt to have an SM-6 equivalent, but ignore the SM-3 type systems and instead want something like the THAAD (the HQ-19).
>>29678715
SM-6 has already proven to have OTH capability.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sm-6-shatters-engagement-distance-record-300231687.html
>>29678732
>Static defenses are still useful.
--Imperial Japanese Navy, 1939
>>29678732
>Inordinate resources
More like time. That's really about all that's wasted. You can build more munitions faster than you can build fortifications.
>>29678715
Praying for Burke of maybe P-3 or P-6 dropping sonobuoys. I'd much prefer a Burke though. Thanks for the support.
I'm waiting for one of these new anthropomorphic chinese islands to secede and declare itself an independent republic like Taiwan II Electric Boogaloo.
>>29678732
>static defense are still good
y halo ther
>>29678042
>A2AD
>without mobile assets
>relying on military assets that the enemy has literally years to locate and integrate into operational plans
O i am laffin
>>29678784
What's the standoff with those things?
>>29678805
However high a B-2 can fly
>>29678256
which is completely true. it depends on the island of course, understand not everything is rock born out of the continental shelf. a coral reef sure is fuck is not the big island.
you ever worked in construction? you understand you can't just throw shit down and build on top of it? if you want to build a big structure, unless you're building directly on bedrock you either have to drive piles down into bedrock or dig a big hole and replace ground and compact it and add layers and compact it again and so on, or some combination of the two.
maybe ditch the silly fucking reaction images.
>>29678784
Sure, but a concrete pillbox is waaaaay cheaper than one of those.
And quicker to throw down, if you're not on full wartime munitions production.
>>29678848
>Implying we won't just blast a pillbox with a 5 inch gun after tomahawking everything else
wew lad
>>29678848
>cost/benefit
>he says to burgerfats
bro.
>>29678848
Yes, you might win the ISK war.
Whoopdi-fucking-do.
>>29678769
If you realize anything, you'd realize that yes, static fortifications served Japan quite well. Remember how much time and effort went in to clearing Iwo Jima and Okinawa? Or that shore batteries kicked the shit out of the Japs at Wake, causing them to waste even MORE time. You're using selective memory here, merely focused on your obsession that fortifications are obsolete because they're destroyable. You of all people should know that's not true.
Or the fact that the Siegfried line completely stonewalled the Allied advance with minimal German forces on the line and caused massive time and resources to be devoted to doing clearing it. This let them group together forces for the counterattack which has become known as the Battle of the Bulge.
>>29678772
Time is a resource. You are using those units to take out fortifications that could be used elsewhere. And the munitions used in removing them need to be replenished, which doesn't magically happen when they're built. For the US, that means sending ships back to port.
>Legitmatly putting shoreline naval batteries as a defense
1948 called, they want their tactics back. What the fuck are they expecting, the USS IOWA to stroll up and bombard the island?
Jesus fucking christ.
>>29678784
bombs can be shot down as well y'know?
>>29678848
I'm pretty sure a general purpose bomb will cost less to build and wreck a pillbox just about instantly.
>>29678784
>pointing out a weapon which can kill a fortification as a means of saying fortifications are obsolete.
You might as well be saying that the DF-21D obsoleted carriers because it could kill them.
>>29678878
>Yes, you might win the ISK war.
>Whoopdi-fucking-do.
fuck me I lol'd
>>29678881
>IT WERKED IN WWII, IT WILL WERK NOW
Chicoms everyone.
>>29678609
good question. but the chinese are not known for their structural engineering.
>>29678881
They're not obsolete because they're destructible, they're it's that they take very little effort to destroy for very little gain on the part of the defender, especially when the USN has a fucking load of ways to destroy it without even making a blip in their stockpiles.
>>29678881
>static fortifications served Japan quite well
You realize, it doesn't matter how cost effective you are if you lose the war.
>>29678270
i are an foundation engineer, we have to engineer foundations because dirt compresses. but hey, don't trust me, trust karl terzaghi. massive fills like those for the islands will have a huge zone of influence and induce a lot of settlement, depending on what they are built on
>>29678700
You're only hitting that range exoatmospheric. basically going to space and flying away. you're not getting that shit against a surface or atmospheric target. not to speak of targetting.
>>29678848
>can't into asymmetric response
And suddenly you're out of escalation cards to play
>>29678881
>Remember how much time and effort went in to clearing Iwo Jima
As an emergency landing strip for B-29s (which were already in range of Japan.) B-52s can reach from CONUS, and there's this little place called Guam you might've heard of.
>shore batteries
>relevant
Sir are you real
>Or the fact that the Siegfried line
>stripped of most of its guns for use on the Eastern front
>"completely stonewalled the Allied advance"
m8
>>29678310
well, what do you know, a man-made island that is settling more than expected ... (27 feet so far)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport#Construction
>>29678909
>>29678917
So I'm a Chicom for saying fortifications aren't obsolete? Fucking hell, mate.
Look. Things never really changed. Fortifications are always doing one basic thing- providing a small force with capability beyond their size. While they take a while to build, they allow a tiny force to slow a force many times their size, which they would not have otherwise been able to do. Fortifications are, by nature, breachable. Nothing is unkillable. But in order to kill them, you have to waste time and resources doing so. This hasn't changed. It will never change.
>>29678609
depends on the gradation of the soil used and the density. i haven't done any filling in hydraulic environments, but i would imagine there is some way to densify the fill mass, maybe vibrocompaction or vibroflotation, or rammed aggregate piers, or something.
geotechnical engineering isn't a particularly old field of engineering, but it's not exactly new either. i imagine there are several potential methods to make sure it won't liquefy under earthquake loading, and unless the chinese are more retarded than i would think, they probably have carefully looked at that issue.
hell, NAVFACS or USACE probably have an unrestricted handbook on this, or it's in part of one of their larger design manuals.
>>29678895
moabs are earthquake bombs. one of those hitting the sea bed close to a fort is going to shake that shit down good and proper. or even just below the surface to generate a wave. those islands are not self sufficient, flood everything out with salt water and people are going to start dying within days unless they can get vital aid by sea. because it's not coming through a usn air embargo.
personally i think it's a waste of time though. the solution to those silly fucking forts is to just bypass them. they are to be used in conjunction with carriers to fill the air defense gaps with a kind of great wall at sea, which is the dumbest fucking idea ever but appeals to the chinese cultural mindset. the solution is to simply sink the carriers and bypass the islands, then attack the ports they depend on for logistics. those islands are dependant on open sealanes for vital resupply, so once those are cut they wither and die. you can be pretty damn sure teh usn has already considered this.
>>29679016
The fundamental problem is this.
>enemy has remotely adequate military intelligence
>has detailed maps of your defensive positions
>be exactly where you expect them to be
>have no way to use that resource to adjust to different enemy plans
>get either outflanked or bombed into oblivion
>odds are, your fortification cost more to construct than it did to kill
>expecting chicoms to innovate
>>29679064
>Those copies
KEK
>>29678958
>As an emergency landing strip for B-29s (which were already in range of Japan.) B-52s can reach from CONUS, and there's this little place called Guam you might've heard of.
You're comically missing the point. Do you think the tiny garrison on Iwo Jima would have been able to hold up the Americans that were there for as long as they did, or do the casualties they were able to do, if they were not fortified? Yes or no? The point is just showing that fortifications caused that small force to have a showing far beyond its normal capabilities. You're caught up trying to rationalize away what actually occurred there as unimportant. Regardless of whether or not Iwo Jima was of strategic importance, look at how difficult it was to clear.
>shore batteries
They kept the Japanese landing forces at bay until they were dealt with. Their existence caused a massive delay in the timetable. Now don't think that just because I pointed to what were guns in this case as me saying that guns are going to be useful. In this case, the existence of Anti-Ship Missiles means that you can't just land on the island. You have to deal with them before you can do so. It's about delaying the enemy for what are really just small investments in force.
>thinking that the Siegfried Line didn't stonewall the allied advance
Do you know ANYTHING of the western front? Look up the troubles that were had breaching the Siegfried line, even while it was being held by shitty troops without proper support. Look up how long the Metz region took to pacify. We're talking MONTHS here. Patton, with his proud cry of "FORTIFICATIONS ARE OBSOLETE" was proven horribly wrong there.
>>29679124
>taking examples of people who lost the war and using them to argue that your strategy works
If you've lost the strategic initiative, and you can't counterattack the enemy and force them to commit their resources, you've lost.
>>29678031
China mixes trash with concrete in their buildings.
>>29679064
what retard added the bottom 4 pairs?
>>29679094
submarines and stealth fighters will isolate the islands. the chinks will starve as they get sieged out.
Japan fortified the hell out of their pacific islands. Yet that could not save them from being cut off and bombed out and then taken by ground troops.
>>29679064
>>29679094
>>29679158
Oh, look the butthurt nipponese samefag brigade arrives.
Do you enjoy your life in England/Holland?
>>29679181
Forget that, burgerland has bunker busters.
Now there's a fun sentence to say.
>>29679064
Wow. That is impressive. Makes you think that the age of espionage is certainly not a dead one.>>29679064
>>29679181
Jap islands in WWII didnt create a 600 km exclusion zone around themselves with long range missiles.
>>29679124
>You're comically missing the point.
no, you're comically missing the point. the point being why the us would have to engage these stationary targets. you've been supplied with a reason why the us had to use an infantry landing 70 years ago. why would they now? consider that question from both a strategic and technological viewpoint and you can probably see why these islands are just a little bit silly.
>>29679201
Mr. Burke and his Standardized friends will see about that.
>>29679201
They have to see what is shooting at them first.
Which is going to be even harder in a sky full of commercial air and sea traffic in the first day or so of conflict.
>>29679201
i would love to see how they supply those long range missiles with long range targetting. i really would.
>>29679201
>have essentially static military battery
>every US military unit in the Pacific knew exactly where it could be located
>fuck with the US
>B-2s casually stroll up and MOP everything
I can't see this working out very well.
>>29679229
>>29679234
satellites and radar-blimps, mostly.
>>29679056
But is that really a problem? How much time and effort are you putting in to clear an objective held by a relatively small amount of men? It's economy of force. A small detachment can achieve outweighted effects. If they're killed, they're killed, but they've done more than they otherwise would have. And besides, costs in wartime aren't in price tags, they're in other things, notably time and lives.
Let's take the example of a single well positioned bunker. A friendly platoon comes across this bunker, and can't advance directly on it, nor do they have the ability to take it on directly. Instead, they set up a base of fire and conduct a maneuver to try and remain outside of its arc of fire. After a while, they are able to get up to the bunker, where they require heavy munitions to do much of anything to it. Let's assume they do have it and take it out. How long does that take them? Half an hour at the very least. You know how many men were inside? Three men and a machinegun. You've just held up an advance for a minimum of thirty minutes for the cost of just three soldiers. That's a pretty good delay, in my book. If they hadn't had the equipment, it'd have taken even longer to bring it up.
Or you could call for air support on the bunker, which would take a while to call in. Half an hour is likely the minimum there.
>>29679244
B-2s wouldnt even fly, when Guam/Hawaii is getting Donged to death.
>>29679201
actually looking at that map who gives a fuck. from what i can tell they sure as fuck don't block the chinese mainland so who cares. they're obviously meant to scare of sea countries, why the us would even have to operate in that theatre i can't see.
>>29679259
you are fucking kidding me right
>>29679272
You're not going to win that exchange. Not by a long shot.
>>29679272
>country with limited nuclear delivery capacity launches first strike ballistic missiles at US military bases
>overpopulation in China is suddenly not a problem anymore
>>29679287
No seriously. China is building Aerostats and radar-blimps to put them on islands without runway.
And those with, get a naval aviation regiment with AEW&C attached.
>>29679272
Anon, it's a B-2.
It can and will fly over from Missouri to cornhole you.
>>29679264
I've had this argument with you before, haven't I?
Also, there actually have been engagements between US forces and large, elaborate bunker complexes.
>120mm HEDP warheads usually win
>>29679272
>chinese launch first strike against US since retarded
>green glass sea part 2; chinese boogaloo
>>29679143
>discounting strategies just because one of the sides who used them lost
What the hell is this bullshit?
Fortifications are all about gaining time with the minimum forces committed. I think we can all recognize that the massive counterattack that was the Battle of the Bulge was only possible because the lines were able to be thinned because of the fortifications which were in place. They were able to mass their counterattacking forces and conduct a massive operation. It was Germany's attempt to regain the strategic initiative. It failed, because the Germans were doomed at that point.
However, that is not to say that the fortifications failed in their purpose of creating time. Why is that so hard to recognize?
> the point being why the us would have to engage these stationary targets.
Because they present a threat which you cannot maneuver around. You have one of these bases with an airfield or some antiship missiles, you need to take it out or have your maneuvering seriously hindered by that threat.
And that is not to say that the islands wouldn't fall. They sure as hell would, I am not denying that fact. What I am saying is that they are far from worthless.
>>29679316
you can't see the problem with this, vs the us navy? not to mention simply the difficulty of finding a cbg with a sattelite, but a radar blimp? seriously?
>>29679314
>>29679334
In the age of underground great wall coupled with DF-41 MIRV'ed ICBMs and rail-road capable missiles, the war will be kept conventional.
China's nukes are on hair-trigger alert as well.
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/03/china-military-nuclear-obama-ICBM/127139/
>>29679272
>riceniggers
>getting the better of a Nuclear exchange
>>29679314
this
>>29679272
it is fucking stupid to launch ballistic missiles when you are a nuclear power. NORAD, NATO, and Russia will fucking piss them selves and start the Happening.
>>29679272
>B-2s
>operating out of Guam
They're based entirely in Missouri, dumbass.
>>29679349
CVBGs are getting tracked since the GF-4 geostat satellite was launched this year.
Shit essentially hovers over the asia-pacific permanently and tracks ships larger than a medium oiler 24/7.
>>29679380
>hypothetical war with china
>US wouldn't shoot down that satellite because of reasons
>>29679348
Here's some fun.
Read some first hand accounts of US forces engaging the Sigfried Line.
What they could do is just move up 155mm guns and direct fire them at pillboxes.
One shell, one dead pillbox, with no risk to any Americans.
And you expect this strategy to work better against an enemy that can drop a 2000 pound general purpose bomb inside a 7 meter radius, for about 20 grand a pop?
>>29679316
Dont forget the OTH-Surface-Wave arrays!
VHF-band with 1500km range works pretty well against stealthy bombers like B-2s in CMANO.
>>29679362
>anyone winning in an nuclear exchange.
>>29679316
>this pile of shit flies over a CBG
>it gets BTFO by deck-mounted .50s
>>29679360
they just have 300 or so nukes, most all of them liquid fueled and easily recognizable.
all the US would be hit with is the truck mounted ones, and even then the interceptors at Greely could catch some
>>29679397
The US is incapable of shooting down satellites on Geostationary Orbit. That's the altitude of GPS satellites. Only lower orbiting spy sats at LEO.
Only China demonstrated that ability with their DN-2 Anti-GSO ASATs in 2013.
>Americans think the Chink wants war with them
>>29679407
>muh magic stealth defeating radar
Enjoy trying to actually guide a missile on target when the enemy has a shitload of EW, HARMs and MALD, and VHF band radar is terrible at providing firing solutions anyway.
>>29679330
>I've had this argument with you before, haven't I?
Probably not.
Two things about the second quote. First, there is no 120mm HEDP round in use by the US. Second, that just plays into my point. It causes you to need to hold up and wait for support. In this case, presumably mortar fire. And it necessitates clean hits on the bunkers, and that the bunkers are weak enough to fail from them, which they may or may not be. Quite possibly are. In any case, setting all this up requires time. Which again, is my point. The fortifications allow this tiny force to be able to delay the enemy for far longer than they should, even without any support.
>>29679421
You know that blimps nowadays get long range radars, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System
The US plans to give one to the Philippines to monitor Chinese activities in the SCS.
>>29679427
oh I forgot. this is the CHINA STRONK thread
>>29679360
you're the one that proposed a chinese first strike.
china would lose any nuclear exchange, first strike or now.
lol it wouldn't even take three minutes to drop some JDAMs on them
>>29679438
A good thing about VHF arrays is that you cant really backtrack the radar source due to their extremely long wave-band and low energy. Hence, you cant detect them by ELINT and cant home a HARM on them.
And with modern software and processing power, the inherent inaccuracy of these VHF radars can be tremendously improved.
That's why even the USA is moving to VHF-band with the E-2D.
>>29679360
DF-41
>not deployed yet
I think that a weapon system that's only been test flighted 5 times and isn't deployed isn't a great threat.
I wonder how many of our warheads are targeted at their 60 ICBM's.
>>29678040
Chinks actually make good gear for their military. It's only the consumer products that are dodgy.
>chinese apartment blocks
Concrete may actually be a mixture of garbage and mortar
>chinese sea forts
Probably made of the best bomb-resistant concrete
>>29679380
Somebody needs to learn the difference between tracking and targeting.
Also, with the amount of heavy and super heavy ships in the SCS, it will be a clusterfuck.
>>29679380
>CVBGs are getting tracked since the GF-4 geostat satellite was launched this year.
i can assure you they're not. the term 'needle in a haystack' applies here.
>>29678173
This looks like a perfect job for the MUHREENZ
I see these aerial photos and wonder hmmm, are there bonefish on those flats?
>>29679484
DF-41 will be deployed this year:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e0ce3744-f70a-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132.html
And it's 15.000km range means that China can launch it from anywhere within their country. Even from the Tibetan plateau and the mountain-ranges of Sichuan, the arsenal province, that are well protected against US first strikes.
>>29679454
M1 Abrams brah.
The US is literally never going to send infantry up against a conventional threat without organic armor, and air support.
This has happened in real life.
During the 1991 and 2003 wars with Iraq, the Iraqis tried to use the same defensive tactics that had served them against Iran.
It not only didn't work, but if anything, defensive positions acted as convenient slaughterhouses for Iraqi infantry.
Literally thousands of fedayeen died in Iraqi bunkers during the fight for Baghdad, and all it cost the US was some ammunition.
>>29679398
Yes, that's how they ended up digging them out. Gotta love those M12s. But you know why they had to use these Long Toms in the direct fire role? They weren't achieving hits with indirect fire. And they were forced to do so because they had nothing else that was capable of it. For EVERY SINGLE BUNKER they came across, they had to suppress it, call up an M12, who would only be safe if the enemy was decently suppressed, who would finally be able to knock the thing out. Do you know how long this entire process took just to take out a single bunker? Or how bloody it was if you didn't have one? Have you read ANY accounts of just how brutal the fighting in this area was?
And you STILL don't seem to get it. Yes, they were taken out, but how much time did they earn? This still applies today. How much time do you have to devote to a fortification before you clear it?
It's for this exact reason that the Mobile Protected Firepower project is a thing.
>>29679498
>needly in haystack
Nimitz carrier sized vessel here. At the resolution of the GF-5's permanent observation mode.
Even without wake, you can see it.
>>29679427
the only reason we can't do it is because of treaties limiting us.
if we could run unbridled we'd have a goddamn minuteman complex on the moon by now.
>>29679484
to ensure destruction, probably 3 or 4 of our nukes per one of their silos.
and even then, we have another few thousand warheads ready to go.
>>29679519
>US first strikes.
we wouldn't do that, ever.
the US's whole nuclear strategy is;
>get nuked
>determine who did it
>figure plan of attack
>make country that nuked US not exist anymore
>>29679533
This looks shopped
>>29679483
>VHF is undectable
Please explain to me how this magic works.
>>29678246
>islands are like washcloths
>>29679519
>Still not afraid of missiles that aren't deployed.
>>29679531
>Yes, they were taken out
If your plan involves this sentence, it isn't a very good plan.
>but we could have won, even though this has never worked
If the enemy is attacking your defenses and you have no mobile reserves to counter-attack, you have, by definition, lost the war.
CHINA
STRONK
>>29679533
Why is the carrier sailing around with a giant red circle surrounding it? Seems a bad strategy.
>>29679519
isnt their CEP retarded high?
I mean, china doesn't release jack shit, but it's based on a ruskie design from the cold war that was inaccurate as fuck.
>>29679551
read radartutorial.
Low energy/long-band = long range, bad accuracy, but blending in with the electromagnetic background noise.
High energy/ultra-high band = low range, good accuracy, but like a lighthouse in the dark.
Modern software and data-processing can adress the bad accuracy problem with the long band radars, which is why all major military powers are returning to the VHF/UHF band again, as it is inherently LPI and counter-stealth.
>>29679533
How far from land are carriers during actual war time operations?
>>29679531
you still don't seem to get it, moabs were brought into service also for collapsing fortifications.
>>29679568
Only on old DF-5 basic variants. And they made it up with having 5 megaton single warheads, the largest ever operationally deployed on any missile in the world.
Ever since Clinton gave them the W88 warhead plans and MIRV-technology by dual use multi-satellite release tech, they improved their CEP tremendously.
The ASBM wouldnt be thinkable without that improved CEP due to Clinton's tech transfer.
>>29679531
no, the point is that the islands are useless because in a shooting war they could be bypassed. why should they waste time taking them out when they could be blockaded and starved out?
>Gen. McArthur throwing "loops of envelopment"
>>29679533
oh sigh.
yes, please locate that in several million square miles of pacific ocean first.
>>29678811
Why did you even reply?
>>29679527
>Abrams
Are only in use in HBCTs. Doesn't have an HEDP round. It DOES have a HEAT round, which has proven to be pretty successful against bunkers.
>The US is literally never going to send infantry up against a conventional threat without organic armor, and air support.
I'm afraid to tell you, but they have. I urge you to look at how the US Army is actually structured. Look at an IBCT. Does it have any tanks in it? Any big, direct fire guns? Not at all. The Army is looking about fixing this with the MPF project.
And it must be said that the Iraqis were incompetent retards who were incredibly overmatched and generally caught with their pants down. With a combination of surprise and simply overmatching the Iraqis in every single way made them a pushover, not to mention how many of them simply didn't want to fight.
The Fedayeen in Baghdad didn't have anything capable of really killing anything they fought, nor did it have capable fighters. They were killed with heavy direct fires from Abrams and Bradleys. Yes, they took out an Abrams, but if you read about that, it was a one in a million shot.
On that topic, I suggest the book Thunder Run.
>>29679607
because the altitude of a B-2 *is* the range.
>>29679600
>the largest ever operationally deployed on any missile in the world.
titan 2 was deployed by the US with a 9 megaton warhead.
also, why the fuck would clinton give them our nuclear secrets?
that's a whole new level of fucking retarded.
>>29679600
>Clinton gave them the W88 warhead plans and MIRV-technology by dual use multi-satellite release tech
Holy shit. Is this the American "Nene Blunder"?
>>29679124
>The point is just showing that fortifications caused that small force to have a showing far beyond its normal capabilities.
Yes, that is indeed the point of fortifications. I'm reminded of an old DOS game called "Castles II." It was very simple, and all about building Castles (unsurprisingly.) One of the core game mechanics was, the attacker always brought their whole army, but the defender could only muster half their forces (communication and mobilization being what it was, back then.) Thus castles were vital just to even the scales for defenders. It's a pretty good demonstration of what fortifications like that are *for.*
The mistake is how often people - through history - see fortifications as a way to block enemy movement through an area. They can't. Short of a castle parked on a mountain pass, they really can't - and there's only so many natural choke-points like that. They simply cannot substitute for maneuver forces. They're purely defensive in nature. Go read up on Julius Ceasar's campaigns - *every* single time his opponent turtles up in a fort, Ceasar promptly penned him in and proceeded to facefuck him. It happened twice, and he almost pulled it off a third time, but they wised up and fled the fort before he pinned them down.
>>29679124
>In this case, the existence of Anti-Ship Missiles means that you can't just land on the island.
Yes, the attacker generally needs to have superiority in force or numbers or both, which is, again, the whole point of fortifications. The problem is that, unless you are fortifying something the enemy directly needs to take, they're fucking pointless. They *cannot* substitute for maneuver forces.
>>29679618
I actually read the book.
The lesson I learned was "don't be in bunkers, they expect you to be in the bunker."
Anyway, I really wouldn't want to have these islands as a military asset in a shooting war.
Most sources say they cost billions to build, and I'm pretty much 100% sure that the US could break them for less than that.
I suspect that these islands are intended as a diplomatic tool rather than a true military capability.
>>29679635
>why the fuck would clinton give them our nuclear secrets?
Money, the Clinton-Rodham Crime Family
>MUH BUNKERS
Is this a Chicom or an Albanian thread?
>>29679124
Iwo Jima was strategically valuable, some Chinese ocean trash is not, if we didn't need to take iwo jima, we simply would have starved the island out, or just fucking left it alone. If a naval force came up against one of these, it would just wait for the soldiers to run out of their week's worth of rice and start eating each other.
>>29679555
Are you just plain retarded at this point? Losses are inevitable in war. That's how it is. The Americans were attacking with overwhelming strength. The forces which were there were going to succumb eventually, that's just a fact.
>but we could have won
>we
>won
Did I say ANYTHING about any of that? Not in the slightest. The defeat of Germany was inevitable. However, because of the fortifications which existed they were able to delay the Americans for far longer than they would have otherwise been able to. Without the fortifications, they would have been overrun an the Western Allies would likely have actually been in Berlin by Christmas. Is this a difficult thing to understand?
>>29679124
>Look up how long the Metz region took to pacify. We're talking MONTHS here.
Also, protip, that had more to do with this vast, super-dense ancient thicket of pure fuck called the Hugerten forest, and a lot less to do with some elaborate network of obsolete bunkers with no guns left in them.
In other words, terrain.
>>29679670
Why would you even mention a military tactic that doesn't improve your chances of winning a war.
Why would you create such a tactic.
>>29679572
>Modern software and data-processing can adress the bad accuracy problem with the long band radars
But no where near enough for targeting.
Furthermore, sophisticated RWR can alert on VHF/UHF signals.
>>29679670
delaying fortifications only works if the attackers HAVE to attack through it. In the chink islands case, they could just be bypassed and starved out since they don't really present much of a threat to the USN.
>>29679670
Prolonging your inevitable defeat doesn't change the fact that you were defeated. A successful defense is measured by how long you can pin down or delay the enemy until you can counterattack, something the Allies knew far better than the Germans.
>>29679533
IIRC the Russians had satellites too.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
Didn't help'em much.
>>29679670
Naval war in pacific with useless static defenses in an ocean vs Land war in Germany, with you know, cities, and roads, and people, and the enemy forces homeland. Totally similar amirite?
these islands don't mean shit, nor do their defenses.
if we ever have to fuck with them, we can just kill their support forces and starve them out, or just call in some B52s and B2s to go Operation Linebacker on the fucking things.
>>29679656
>I suspect that these islands are intended as a diplomatic tool rather than a true military capability.
i suspect they're intended to control the sea access of south east asian countries with limited navies. they're not going to stop the us from accessing the mainland further north.
>>29678898
>number of carriers sunk by chinkshit tech: 0
>number of US carriers sunk post WW2: 0
>>29679654
>They simply cannot substitute for maneuver forces.
And that's the thing, they DON'T. You're manning them with what is effectively a small force, freeing up your maneuver forces for other things. An economy of force role.
>The problem is that, unless you are fortifying something the enemy directly needs to take, they're fucking pointless. They *cannot* substitute for maneuver forces.
Not entirely true. While you may not need to take a fortification, sometimes you need to deny it to your enemy. Fortifications are often places from which you can project power. To take the medieval or early industrial era analogy a bit further, if you bypass a fort its garrison is free to raid your supply lines. In the modern day, it means that the fortifications have airbases or AShM batteries which I need to remove so that I have freedom of maneuver and my supply lines remain unmolested.
In no case do they substitute maneuver forces.
>>29679744
this. so much this.
ask japan if their strategy of creating a cordon defense of islands worked and if the USN didn't simply bypass them.
>>29679656
>The lesson I learned was "don't be in bunkers, they expect you to be in the bunker."
Then you didn't learn much from it.
>I suspect that these islands are intended as a diplomatic tool rather than a true military capability.
They mostly are diplomatic, however in the event of a war they are effectively speed bumps, which prevent the USN and others from simply waltzing around unmolested until they are taken out.
>>29679667
Nice one, made me chuckle.
>>29678648
>if they were any good at it why the fuck would anyone build ships with both point-defense guns *and* deck guns?
Because deck guns are another point defense gun.
It's not a hard concept. Dual purpose.
>>29679785
The US has a long and storied history of rolling over speed bumps at full throttle.
All it takes is a ohio class to surface and just unload and the island is simply gone.
>>29679728
The Russian NOSS were traditional LEO satellites that only passed an area in a given time and at a set schedule.
The GF-4 is something different, though. It is a "Staring-Eye" type of satellite that does not need to pass over an area, but monitors the area 24/7 because it is on geostationary orbit.
Usually, the only observation sats that are on this orbit are wheather satellites with a resolution of 400-600m, which is far too bad for military relevant things, but good enough for detecting typhoons and cloud-formations.
But the GF-4 has a resolution of 50m.
And the Chinese are going to send more and better sister-satellites of the same category in the following years, with unfoldable membrane-based telescopes that can achieve the same sub-meter resolution of LEO-NOSS, but at GSO altitutes and stationary/synchronous position.
>>29679764
Most of the islands CAN be bypassed, those that can't eat a tomahawk. Most of the island defenses seem to be for restricting SEA navies, the USN and USAF can just carve a path through easily.
>>29678648
>Pure dumb luck
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/april/24/newsid_2947000/2947639.stm
A ship aiming at, hitting and destroying a missile is not "pure dumb luck" just because it ruins your argument.
>>29679682
>Hurtgen Forest
>Metz Region
Hell no, Hurtgen Forest wasn't even in the same army's sector. That was a First Army thing, Patton's Third Army was in Metz. Not to mention that the Hurtgen Forest was fortified as well, although it would have been a meatgrinder in any case.
>>29679764
but these aren't dug in, hardened, fortified setups.
at best they're just some buildings on a concrete pad with some missiles.
just bomb the shit out of them with high altitude shit like B2s and call it a day.
>>29679829
2nd gen GF-4 in question.
>>29679764
>Fortifications are often places from which you can project power.
People actually fucking believe this, in 2016. Jesus H. Tiddlywink Christ.
No. A BASE supports your power-projection assets. Like Pearl Harbor, or Subic Bay. Which is why they are important, and thus receive fortifications - such as, say, a very expensive concrete battleship built on top of an island. When it's guarding the harbor that keeps your maneuver forces/power projection assets maintained and fueled, its useful.
When it's on a rock in the middle of fucking nowhere, it's just a fucking target for a Tomahawk - or artillery - or even conventional-armed SRBMs. You name it, they've got a way of fucking it. The hardest part about killing something is finding the fucking thing first. This goes quadruple for naval warfare, because the ocean is pretty fucking big. Anything stationary you can just steer around. The forts have to be everywhere. You only need one narrow lane to punch through the shell. So no matter how many forts they've got, you know where they all are, and you know well ahead of time how much firepower you'll need to knock them out.
They're just a speedbump. A maneuver force suddenly showing up on your flank while you're trying to reduce a fortification is the REAL problem. I heard someone once lost four CVs that way.
>>29679711
>Why would you even mention a military tactic that doesn't improve your chances of winning a war.
Do you understand what's going on? Let me put it this way. Let's assume that a fortified unit can delay a unit one higher level than itself to the degree necessary. Thus, a platoon could delay a company, a company could delay a battalion, and so on. Let's say we have a battalion sized engagement. One company of the defending battalion can already delay the attacking battalion by a sufficient degree, so the other two companies (assuming triangular) of the defending battalion can be used elsewhere, or even as a counter attacking force.
Do you understand now?
>>29679816
Wouldn't it be terrible if those communication uplinks suddenly had... problems?
>>29678000
>born too late for 'nam
>born too early to remove ayy lmao
>born just in time for WWIII
I for one look forward to storming those islands aboard a fleet of pic related with the rest of the Russo-Trumpist Imperial Army.
>>29679822
deck guns can handle maybe 1-3 missiles coming at it, but a saturation attack will overwhelm it. this is why deck guns and CIWS are last ditch stuff, interceptor missiles have much longer range (and more time to respond to) to kill missiles
>>29679848
>micrometer thick optical coatings.
wondering what a little infrared laser energy would do to that flawless optic...
>>29679757
Glad to see that you didn't understand what was said in the slightest.
>>29679848
>>29679829
>>29679816
In the event of a war the US has the perfect reuseable sat killer, the x-37b
>>29679813
>The US has a long and storied history of rolling over speed bumps at full throttle.
Not really, no. Once again, I will point towards Metz. Or the entire Italian campaign.
>>29679816
>star wars lasers mounted on ISS unfold
>ISS starts buttfucking chinkshit surveillance
>>29679892
how about TU95s with JDAMs?
>>29679916
>i will point to terrain that has nothing to do with naval warfare
give up kid.
>>29679922
Less metal, but perfectly acceptable for frying rice.
>>29679916
The Italian Campaign is a great example of the only times pre-prepared defense lines like that actually work - when your enemy can't destroy your shit outright without going through the meatgrinder.
>>29679483
First, you are incorrect about the detectablity of VHF transmitters.
Second, they will be localized prior to hostilities by satellite imaging, so it's not like they'd be safe even if your bullshit was roses.
>>29679916
>terrain as a factor in naval warfare
*gasp* the ocean has forests, mountains, and other terrain features now?!?!
>>29679916
yeah, but this is the goddamn ocean.
we carved a path of death in the pacific and we can sure as shit do it again.
these "bases" are just fucking target practice.
>>29679822
>this cherry-picked anecdote ruins your argument!
http://historylists.org/other/list-of-6-british-ships-sunk-during-the-falklands-war.html
>4 warships with DP deck guns
I have no fucking idea why you care this much. Nobody relies on them for anti-missile defense. Nobody cares if they're bad for shooting down missiles. That's not their job. It doesn't need to be. Even ships that are really fucking good at shooting down missiles still have a gun, because guns are useful, for lots of things.
>>29679916
>Or the entire Italian campaign.
There's this mountain range in the area, you might've heard of it.
>>29678133
Amazing progression.
>>29679820
They can't be bypassed when they have a threat radius which overlaps with other islands. You have to take them out.
And yes, the USN COULD go through them easily. However, doing so would take time. You can't just ignore them like you could otherwise.
>>29679840
>but these aren't dug in, hardened, fortified setups.
What does that matter? The effect is still the same. The enemy has to waste time and forces dealing with it before they can continue. In war, even 4 hours can change things.
>>29679757
Literally not the point dude.
Please stop shitposting, its what the chicoms want.
>>29679813
Like Project Market Garden? Or Omaha Beach? Or Iwo Jima? Or Vietnam in general? Or Afghanistan? Or Iraq? I'd probably say that Grenada is the only time it played out well.
>>29679988
>What does that matter?
because, less time, effort, and resources are required to fuck it.
besides, if its just a warehouse with some guns taped on, it's not gonna take much to make it not exist anymore.
>>29679867
What you fail to realize is that fortifications often ARE bases or that base has fortifications.
>They're just a speedbump.
I haven't claimed otherwise. In fact, I have said exactly that quite a few times. The difference is that you suffer from the belief that the speedbump isn't useful.
>>29679988
We have these neat things called "Submarines", anon. You might have heard of them. Every single class we field has the capability to launch cruise missiles, and there is a finite number of places on these sandbars that you can hide a missile battery.
Do the math.
>>29679960
>That's not their job.
Dual Purpose just isn't entering your head is it
>>29679988
Here's the thing, will the assets that we use for reducing the fortifications used elsewhere? the only way the islands can be cost-effective is through VIRTUAL attrition, if the forces we use could have been used elsewhere. the time you buy MUST be used wisely. meanwhile, the US could just use B-2s, B-52, SSGNs, etc. The USN and USAF can take virtual attrition without blinking while other armed forces can't, because America has a very big military.
>>29679175
COpying vs. innovation
>>29679960
>this cherry-picked anecdote ruins your argument!
You said it's impossible for a deck gun to destroy a missile.
That's a deck gun destroying a missile.
Your argument has been ruined, quoting it as "cherry picked" doesn't change that.
>>29679972
>ignoring arguments because of a minute detail in one of them which gave it a bit more of an advantage
Grow up, Greek, and fight my arguments as what they are, and not what you can meme.
>>29680005
>Market Garden is the US' fault now
Fuck off, Montycocksucker. That's YOUR failing. Fucking own it.
>>29680059
no, your argument is invalid because the primary reason the italian campaign was so bloody was because of TERRAIN, which is not as much of a factor in the open ocean.
