Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Uncle Phester 2013-01-26 00:00||
E-Mail||
Front Page|| [477 views ]
Top
#1 Nice flat area to test it.
However, as the article states tracking this over water vs desert is entirely different game, and the Chinese still don't have a very good system for doing it.
Posted by DarthVader 2013-01-26 00:35||
2013-01-26 00:35||
Front PageTop
#2 Of course we have one too! U.S.S. Desert Ship at White Sands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Desert_Ship_(LLS-1)
Posted by George Glaigum7976 2013-01-26 07:54||
2013-01-26 07:54||
Front PageTop
#3 "You sank my bactrian!"
Posted by swksvolFF 2013-01-26 11:30||
2013-01-26 11:30||
Front PageTop
#4 You sir, on on a roll.
Posted by Shipman 2013-01-26 12:15||
2013-01-26 12:15||
Front PageTop
#5 I don't see the big deal. They hit a stationary target. How is that different from every other ballistic missile test? The problem for ballistic missiles is being able to hit moving targets. That's hard to do with a non-nuclear warhead.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2013-01-26 13:56||
2013-01-26 13:56||
Front PageTop
#6 I think they would have been better off paving a big chunk of the desert, driving a remotely controlled truck loaded with sensors back and forth to mimic the movements of a carrier, while having several observation aircraft taking video of the area and recording the distance between missile impact and the location of the truck/carrier. Sounds like an extremely preliminary test.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2013-01-26 14:11||
2013-01-26 14:11||
Front PageTop
#7 "We aimed at the desert and, by gum, we hit it! That's a success in my book" - the Chinese
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2013-01-26 15:20||
2013-01-26 15:20||
Front PageTop
#8 Perhaps they are betting on a set of Rules Of Engagement which will prevent the Carrier from moving out of the way - without prior approval from the lawyer types and ACLU back in Washington D.C.
Entirely possible.
Posted by CrazyFool 2013-01-26 15:32||
2013-01-26 15:32||
Front PageTop
#9 There is no carrier.
Posted by Shipman 2013-01-26 16:27||
2013-01-26 16:27||
Front PageTop
#10 The intent is there. They have to start somewhere. Humble beginnings. Insufferable if they are encouraged by success ....
Posted by gorb 2013-01-26 17:51||
2013-01-26 17:51||
Front PageTop
#11 Carrier of what, AIDS? The clap? Typhoid Mary?
Posted by Cheaderhead 2013-01-26 21:16||
2013-01-26 21:16||
Front PageTop
#12 China knows its new CVT is toast once the US formally decided to intervene on behalf of Japan in the ECS - diplomacy + LRBMS aside, the best it can do right now is vie LR PLAAF + PLAN Submarines.
The real fight for China will be for the ROK + ultimately TAIWAN. China has times made it clear that ...
> it is willing to accept prohibitive casualties in any effort to forcibly militarily conquer
Taiwan.
> it is willing to risk NUCLEAR WAR agz the US or US-Allied for control of Taiwn or to prevent any dedicated Enemy(s) from using Taiwan in milstrikes agz mainland China.
Remember, China desires the Senkakus + Okinawa to guard the approaches to, from TAIWAN, besides also for strategic access into WESTPAC. WIDOUT TAIWAN, IN CHINA'S MIND THERE IS NO "POST-US", FUTURE "WORLD#1", "MANIFEST DESTINY" FOR CHINA.
NOT in the 21st century anyway [2050 < 2100].
IFF MSM-NET CRITICS ARE TO BE BELIEVED, CHINA'S GREATEST WEAPON IS NOT MILITARY, NUKE, OR ECON POWER, BUT POLITICAL, I.E. THE PRO-DIPLOMACY/
COMPROMISE POTUS BAMMER + ADMIN.
Aka alleged Far Left to Commie, Anarchist-for-anti-US-OWG/Globalism POTUS Bammer.
Winning agz China by losing, or vice versy.
Iff China refuses to back down vee Japan, the only way the Bammer may avoid a Limited or Full Nuclear war agz China is to either ...
> Remain neutral, i.e. NOT militarily intervene on the side of Japan or other, despite the US-Japan Security Treaty.
> Force Japan to permamently give up sovereignty over the Senkakus/Daoyus to China.
> Besides getting the Senkakus/Daoyus, China may demand regional de-militarization, espec as per USFK + USFJ [Okinawa] + PHIL.
> Handover of Taiwan, irregardless iff local Taiwanese want it or not - OR, in the alternate, NO US MIL INTERFERENCE IFF CHINA SENDS THE PLA TO "PEACEFULLY" TAKE CONTROL OF TAIWAN ["Hong Kong" Scenario]???
By the above it is clear that it will likely be the US = US-Allies that will be doing the bulk of unilateral concessions in favor of mainland China, NOT China itself as per anti-NucWar
"Price for Peace/World Peace". THE SAME IS IRONICALLY CONSISTENT WID THE BAMMER'S ALLEGED "ANARCHIST" AGENDA, FAR/ULTRA-LEFTIES = COMMIES, AS WELL AS THAT OF "ANTI-US GLOBALISTS".
Pray hard + keep your fingers crossed this 2013.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-01-26 21:59||
2013-01-26 21:59||
Front PageTop
#13 FYI WAFF > RUSSIA WILL NOT SELL Tu-22M3's TO CHINA.
Iff true, just got more difficult for China vee Japan + US Navy, + more likely China will have to resort to using LRBMS + strategic bombers, Subs agz Japan + US???
The more instability in the DPRK, the closer China + PLA will be to Japan + ultimately Taiwan.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-01-26 22:22||
2013-01-26 22:22||
Front PageTop
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
