Planned stealth destroyer could underpin US Navy's China strategy

[DarkTower87]

A super-stealthy warship that could underpin the U.S. navy's China strategy will be able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns" right out of a sci-fi movie. But at more than $3 billion a pop, critics say the new DDG-1000 destroyer sucks away funds that could be better used to bolster a thinly stretched conventional fleet. One outspoken admiral in China has scoffed that all it would take to sink the high-tech American ship is an armada of explosive-laden fishing boats.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1wwCFzyeF

[Urbanfox]

China's military has a GIGANTIC military.
































































It's just ridiculously outdated and under-trained.

















































Work is so boring today.

[Blackops_2]

Lol Urban.

Other than debt china's military doesn't scare me too much. Though they're coming along, they still are the same country that uses the cheapest manufacture methods i can think of.

[Sephiroth]

3billion dollar destroyer?

Throw a bunch of fishboats at it!

did he acutally say explosive laiden fishboats attacking a 3billion dollar destroyer?


That's not some hyped up media BS is it?


better make sure he has the bows and arrows ready to fight off the M1 abrams while he's at it.

[onewecallgod]

He's kind of got a point. Remember USS Cole? A fairly different scenario, but still proof that an old-school kaboom can do a lot of damage.

Get a ton of fishing boats, give them a bunch of torpedoes/missiles (same idea as PT boats) and all of a sudden any capital ship seems a lot more vulnerable from mass-attacks.

[Sephiroth]

Sure. You could take an ambrams out if you strapped a few lbs of dynamite inside while it was parked at the base too.

His reference was in reaction to the fact that this thing could lay-off an entire city before the Chinese even knew it was there though, and that an appropriate and effective retaliation to that would be scrounge up a bunch of fishing boats for some suicide missions.

The U.S. has a big advantage on the high seas, but improvements in China's navy could make it harder for U.S. ships to fight in shallower waters, called littorals. The stealth destroyers designed to do both. In the meantime, the Navy will begin deploying smaller Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore later this year.
Officially, China has been quiet on the possible addition of the destroyers to Asian waters.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1wxen0qEW
But Rear Adm. Zhang Zhaozhong, an outspoken commentator affiliated with China's National Defense University, scoffed at the hype surrounding the ship, saying that despite its high-tech design it could be overwhelmed by a swarm of fishing boats laden with explosives. If enough boats were mobilized some could get through to blow a hole in its hull, he said
j

the whole article is BS though, they're talking about this thing like we're in a second cold war and playing who's got the biggest shlong or who can talk the most **** about the other's military capabilities.
The first sentence in the artile is this thing could sneakup on coastlines and and pound targets?

We owe these people trillions of dollars and we thank them by blabbing that we're spending it on destroyers to wipe them out electronically? LOL.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by onewecallgod

He's kind of got a point. Remember USS Cole? A fairly different scenario, but still proof that an old-school kaboom can do a lot of damage.

Get a ton of fishing boats, give them a bunch of torpedoes/missiles (same idea as PT boats) and all of a sudden any capital ship seems a lot more vulnerable from mass-attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...ck_Units#Boats

[Orac]

well its all very well and nice saying that you aint scared of chinas outdated, undertrained militery, but you are forgetting lessons learned from WWII. the german Tiger tanks could out gun and destroy tanks like the sherman and the soviet t26 with supior weapon and training of crew, yet in places like starlinggrad and kursk the germans didnt fair so well - heck even look at you own history, the war of independence springs to mind, american troops out numbered british by something like 3 to 1 (not only for us brits loosing but you get the point i am trying to make)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Orac

well its all very well and nice saying that you aint scared of chinas outdated, undertrained militery, but you are forgetting lessons learned from WWII. the german Tiger tanks could out gun and destroy tanks like the sherman and the soviet t26 with supior weapon and training of crew, yet in places like starlinggrad and kursk the germans didnt fair so well - heck even look at you own history, the war of independence springs to mind, american troops out numbered british by something like 3 to 1 (not only for us brits loosing but you get the point i am trying to make)

Kursk was ultimately lost because we invaded italy, and german tanks were ultimately defeated by weather. Ultimately, German tanks broke down because of the cold climate. Hitler's decision to invade Russia without considering that his forces were ill-prepared for it is why they lost.

Similar to Napoleon. Hitler violted the first rule of european warfare; Don't invade Russia.



stealth technology in itself has proven to be extremely powerful However. It's a game changer against an enemy that's 20 years behind in every way.

How many stealth bombers did we loose in all of the middle east conflicts since the 80s to date? Even against huge amounts of ground AA fire?

[Urbanfox]

Originally Posted by Orac

well its all very well and nice saying that you aint scared of chinas outdated, undertrained militery, but you are forgetting lessons learned from WWII. the german Tiger tanks could out gun and destroy tanks like the sherman and the soviet t26 with supior weapon and training of crew, yet in places like starlinggrad and kursk the germans didnt fair so well - heck even look at you own history, the war of independence springs to mind, american troops out numbered british by something like 3 to 1 (not only for us brits loosing but you get the point i am trying to make)

The point you make is irrelevant. You are comparing completely different time periods and scenarios.

[lexandro]

No the point he makes is entirely valid. Superior technology does not gaurantee victory. It doesnt matter how stealthy the destroyer is, its still vulernable to convential attacks. All the stealth does is give it a possible first strike edge. All the Chinese have to do is flood the area with explosive laden wooden boats and they are just as "stealthy" as the destroyer, meaning they can sneak up and launch an attack run. With enough boats they could easily overwhelm the ships defenses.

The American military are obsessed with stealth and the latest technologies rather than focusing on core issues like better training and discipline.

[Urbanfox]

Originally Posted by lexandro

No the point he makes is entirely valid. Superior technology does not gaurantee victory. It doesnt matter how stealthy the destroyer is, its still vulernable to convential attacks. All the stealth does is give it a possible first strike edge. All the Chinese have to do is flood the area with explosive laden wooden boats and they are just as "stealthy" as the destroyer, meaning they can sneak up and launch an attack run. With enough boats they could easily overwhelm the ships defenses.

I was talking military vs. military (without nukes). I never once mentioned the stealth destroyer.

As for THAT scenario, does anyone really think if that was to happen we would send just ONE boat to attack another country? No other (air???) support?

Additional Comment:

Regardless, no major player is attacking another one anytime soon.

[Orac]

you think. if something in iran goes belly up, you will ahve to deal with both russia and china and i can garantee no matter how fanct your tech is, the number of those 2 countries combine is going to overwhelm any militery power on the planet

[Urbanfox]

Originally Posted by Orac

you think. if something in iran goes belly up, you will ahve to deal with both russia and china and i can garantee no matter how fanct your tech is, the number of those 2 countries combine is going to overwhelm any militery power on the planet

You must live in a dream world. Better yet, a video game.

Let me explain to you major player world politics to you: you can be pricks to each other, but you need each other.

It is in the best interest of EVERY large power to maintain peace.

If the US (and it's allies) were to go to war against Russia/China and their allies, it would just end in nuclear war. Let's say for ****s and giggles nukes didn't exist, The US/Britain would have the upper hand against Russia/China.

Regardless, let's all theorize on **** that's not going to happen.

[Orac]

large power yes, small power no, iran + nukes + plus emargos from large powers = on ****ed nation that can blow the world to hell and back.

as in life its not the big people you gotta be careful of, its the little ones that leg sweep you when you least expect it. think about it logically, the size of US militry vs the size of alqieda, or the vietgong. why is that the might of the us was unable to defete them with the supior weapons and supior size and spending power, how many helicopter gun ships did the vietgong loose during the vietman conflict.

its going to happen sooner or later that us is going to knowcked of it pedistal and come crashing down the everyone elses level with bump - heck is happened to england one more than a few occasions.

beside if peace is best for the large powers, why is the largest of them making weapon to defend themselves against a country that is not an enemy???

peace does not reguire weapons of any type.

[Urbanfox]

There will always be weapons. Peace has nothing to do with that. As for Iran, the day they have a functioning nuclear weapon is the day I would imagine Israel launches theirs.

Regardless, I don't think any of Iran's large allies would be very supportive or protective if Iran tried to launch a nuclear weapon...

In the end, even though work has been historically boring this week, going round and round with you is worse.

[Orac]

argu as you may, peace does not reguire weapons, and dont underestimate what big states will do for there smallere allies

[Slizzo]

Originally Posted by lexandro

The American military are obsessed with stealth and the latest technologies rather than focusing on core issues like better training and discipline.

Our military is one of the best trained, most disciplined in the world. Yes there are bad apples in our military, but that happens everywhere.

For an all-volunteer force, this of course is true. If we conscripted troops (such as we did during the Vietnam conflict) then yes, there would be a higher occurrence of said "bad apples".