Please note that I am not an expert nor do I play one on TV. However my question is if China were to launch a hypersonic missile against a carrier, how much time average would it take for the missile to reach the last position of the carrier ?? That carrier is moving at 30+ knots and probably not going in a straight line and within 15 minutes can be a sizeable distance from the last known point that the missile is coming in at. Do these missiles have some kind of guidance like the slower cruise missiles ??? God Bless !!!

Hypersonics have guidance systems and can maneuver like cruise missiles.

We are developing interceptor missiles.


Lots of stuff in the dark budget we have no idea of until it has been around awhile.

Chatter about the SR-72 and SR91 have been rumored for years.

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
Please note that I am not an expert nor do I play one on TV. However my question is if China were to launch a hypersonic missile against a carrier, how much time average would it take for the missile to reach the last position of the carrier ??

Depends on where its being launched from...

quote:

That carrier is moving at 30+ knots and probably not going in a straight line and within 15 minutes can be a sizeable distance from the last known point that the missile is coming in at. Do these missiles have some kind of guidance like the slower cruise missiles ??? God Bless !!!

Yes they have guidance, which leads the question back to, how much support does such a system require? If you're already in a hot war, then knocking out those supporting systems eliminates that threats ergo, knock-out the satellites, relay stations and sensors. Hypersonics are hitting speeds which generate enough heat that a plasma bubble is formed, which shields electronic transmissions, not sure what new tech has been developed where communications can penetrate that shield but, I'm sure its one of the most highly secretive features of any program.

An aircraft carrier can cover around 700-miles in a 24-hr period, that's a lot of space for a constellation of sensors to scan and track.

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
That carrier is moving at 30+ knots and probably not going in a straight line and within 15 minutes can be a sizeable distance from the last known point that the missile is coming in at. Do these missiles have some kind of guidance like the slower cruise missiles ??? God Bless !!!

In the simplest of distinctions, all missiles have guidance, otherwise they would be a rocket.

Some guidance is more sophisticated than others though for sure.

We can semi accurately hit an ICBM with a missile, it's not too hard at all to hit a 4 acre slow moving target. But we also have defenses. Constant development battle as you can see.

And these would likely be Cruise missiles, most missiles that don't use ballistics to get to a target are types of cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles are not economical or suited well for hitting moving small targets like this.

Ballistic missile = uses ballistics to reach target
Cruise missile = uses powered flight and aerodynamics much like an unmanned plane.

These are just very simple distinctions for terminology sake, but almost always correct.

I'm a bit torn on including this particular news story in this thread. In recognizing that nationalism is practiced by many countries, including the U.S., it's to be expected that other countries are just as inclined as we are to make films that promote their respective successes and victories in battle and, in some cases, flaunt them.

The difference is that the U.S. openly discusses and portrays its failures as well its successes and, often, shows dissent as well as agreement.

The question I have, is just how accurate this movie is, and whether it's done solely as a propaganda piece or whether it has any historical or documentary value. It would be interesting to see how the U.S. and our troops are portrayed. If this movie ever comes to the U.S. with English subtitles I'd like to see it for myself.

Unlike the U.S. though, the CCP government is reported to have sponsored this film, and the fact that the Chinese foreign minister made the effort to congratulate the lead actor, and that it has become the best selling movie of all time in China, in such a short time frame, is what convinced me to include this news story.

We already know that the CCP sponsors electronic billboards in major Chinese cities with patriotic messages urging drivers and pedestrians to prepare for war, and based on this movie's box office success, it looks like that message is being well received.

[Note: photos of a packed Chinese theater, various movie posters, and hyperlinks at linked article website.]

=========================

War movie about defeat of US Army is now China’s biggest film ever

By Andrew Court
November 25, 2021 11:44am Updated

A Chinese propaganda movie depicting the defeat of the US Army has become the country’s highest-grossing film of all time.

The three-hour-long war epic, “The Battle at Lake Changjin,” has made a whopping $892 million in the communist country since it was released there on Sept. 30.

It has now surpassed the 2017 action flick “Wolf Warrior II,” which previously held the record for China’s highest-grossing movie, with $882 million in box office receipts.

As the Chinese box office is the largest in the world, “The Battle at Lake Changjin” is also now the highest-grossing film of 2021 worldwide, according to Variety.

It has even outearned the James Bond flick, “No Time To Die,” which has grossed just north of $700 million internationally.

The film is based on the Battle of Chosin Reservoir — a military campaign that occurred during the Korean War. The brutal, 17-day battle took place in late 1950, shortly after the People’s Republic of China entered the war in support of North Korea.

Against all odds, 120,000 Chinese troops managed to encircle and attack US forces and their allies. While the Americans were eventually able to break free, they were subsequently forced to evacuate the region, marking their complete withdrawal from North Korea.

“The Battle at Lake Changjin” — which cost $200 million to make — was sponsored by the Chinese government, which is said to be delighted at the success of the propaganda film.

Variety reports that the country’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian sent congratulations to Wu Jing, the lead actor in the film.

The movie’s release comes amid growing hostility between China and the United States.

Last week, President Joe Biden said he was “considering” a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing amid ongoing tensions with the country.

China has also been taking an increasingly aggressive approach to Taiwan and has been test-firing hypersonic missiles.

The Diplomat reports that Chinese citizens increasingly support the prospect of military conflicts and that “the massive popularity of ‘The Battle at Lake Changjin’ arguably stems from China’s new view of war.”

China is not known for its film making capability. If the movie is done poorly it would be a hoot to watch.

quote:

Last week, President Joe Biden said he was “considering” a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing amid ongoing tensions with the country.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Boy that will teach em. Come on Brandon!

wolverines

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
wolverines

Ed Zachary!

That's the first reference that came to my mind.

Wasn't the remake of Red Dawn originally about an invasion by China? I seem to recall that the Chicom government objected and forced a change to North Korea.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:


A Chinese propaganda movie depicting the defeat of the US Army has become the country’s highest-grossing film of all time.

And how many tens of thousands of Chinese were forced to be killed in human wave attacks during that war?

Human life is cheap to these assholes.

This article is from @ 10 months ago, but relevant to the discussion.

[Note: hyperlinks found at linked website article.]

===================

US will ‘lose fast’ in war with China, Air Force’s simulation shows

MARCH 11, 2021 RYAN MORGAN

Last fall, the U.S. Air Force played out a war scenario with China, in which China begins its attack by deploying a biological weapon throughout the Indo-Pacific region. the outcome for the U.S. was not a good one, a new report revealed this week.

“The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast,” Air Force Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, told Yahoo News. Many details of the war game remain classified and had not been made public until recently.

In the scenario, set a decade into the future, China uses a biological weapon attack that spreads between bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific and then, under the guise of a major military training exercise, a Chinese invasion force is able to launch a speedy air and amphibious assault to take over Taiwan while targeting crippled U.S. warships and bases in the region with a hail of missile strikes.

The simulation was conducted amid the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic months after aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt was temporarily sidelined with an outbreak of the virus.

Hinote described a trend between past conflict and this most recent scenario.

“More than a decade ago, our war games indicated that the Chinese were doing a good job of investing in military capabilities that would make our preferred model of expeditionary warfare, where we push forces forward and operate out of relatively safe bases and sanctuaries, increasingly difficult,” Hinote said. “At that point the trend in our war games was not just that we were losing, but we were losing faster.”

“After the 2018 war game I distinctly remember one of our gurus of war gaming standing in front of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, and telling them that we should never play this war game scenario [of a Chinese attack on Taiwan] again, because we know what is going to happen,” Hinote continued. “The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast. In that case, an American president would likely be presented with almost a fait accompli.”

A fait accompli is a French term to describe a foregone conclusion, and is often used in U.S. military strategy contexts to describe a scenario in which an adversary of the U.S. is able to defeat a U.S. strategy before it can even be launched. In the example of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, U.S. military planners sometimes see China’s anti-access area denial strategy (A2/AD) as a fait accompli that allows China to make major territorial gains in the Indo-Pacific while blocking the U.S. from launching a counter-attack. A fait accompli presents a dilemma for the U.S. in whether to escalate conflict further or cede captured territories or objectives to China.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, has been described as a fait accompli, as the annexation was accomplished before the Ukraine our other nations could intervene, and the prospect of retaking Crimea from Russia might then suggest open war with Russia.

Hinote’s comments about the Chinese war game come on the same week U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) commander Amdl. Philip Davidson said China might try and annex Taiwan within this decade and possibly within the next six years.

The use of war games has reportedly helped the U.S. better understand how the Chinese strategy in the Indo-Pacific would play out, but some defense analysts are still uncertain the U.S. is heading in a direction to counter China’s strategies.

“Whenever we war-gamed a Taiwan scenario over the years, our Blue Team [those playing the role of the U.S.] routinely got its ass handed to it, because in that scenario time is a precious commodity and it plays to China’s strength in terms of proximity and capabilities,” David Ochmanek, a senior RAND Corporation analyst and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development told Yahoo News. “That kind of lopsided defeat is a visceral experience for U.S. officers on the Blue Team, and as such the war games have been a great consciousness-raising device. But the U.S. military is still not keeping pace with Chinese advances. For that reason, I don’t think we’re much better off than a decade ago when we started taking this challenge more seriously.”

Ochmanek said China has become increasingly confident in its military and that it is showing its confidence with increased aggression and provocative actions in the Indo-Pacific, such as conducting frequent air operations around Taiwan and closely following U.S. Navy ships operating in the region.

Hinote also said, “We’re beginning to understand what kind of U.S. military force it’s going to take to achieve the National Defense Strategy’s goals, but that’s not the force we’re planning and building today.”

Would you like to play a game?

This "the sky is falling" from the defense department is familiar.
I heard it all my younger life as why they always needed more money.
Sounds a lot like the breathless NRA fundraising.
Both have legitimate points but it's sometimes hard to determine what is legit and what is marketing.

quote:

This "the sky is falling" from the defense department is familiar.

Exactly... heard it all my life.

The greatest threat to the US is the commies and cronyism within. Most of what we give to our own government is funding corruption.

The Soviet’s have more missiles than us....

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
The Soviet’s have more missiles than us....

And better, more advanced fighters too.

Then we got a look at some of them after the Soviet Union fell.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
This "the sky is falling" from the defense department is familiar.
I heard it all my younger life as why they always needed more money.
Sounds a lot like the breathless NRA fundraising.
Both have legitimate points but it's sometimes hard to determine what is legit and what is marketing.

Most of us are aware of the waste of tax payer money, not just by the military but most all governmental departments and agencies, so I understand your suspicion. I'm a bit of a fiscal hawk myself.

From 8 years of the Obama administration prioritizing domestic policy funding at the expense of military budgets to 20 years of war which have significantly impacted the planned life of various weapons platforms and have prevented accumulating stockpiles. Factor in inflation and supply chain disruptions that drive up costs and take bigger chunks out of smaller budgets and it's not difficult to see a combination of factors has led to a general and widespread decline in U.S. military readiness, capacity, and capabilities.

These are reports from the Heritage Foundation on current or recent assessments on U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force strength. While there are a few bright spots in these reports, it's obvious that there is a significant decline in force capacities, capabilities, and reserves.

Heritage Foundation assessment of U.S. Air Force strength

Heritage Foundation assessment of U.S. Navy strength

Heritage Foundation assessment of U.S. Marine Corps strength

Heritage Foundation assessment of U.S. Army strength

Several excerpts from the reports;

Air Force-

The summer of 2021 finds the Air Force, like the rest of DOD, recovering from the effects of COVID-19. Recruiting and other training pipelines like pilot training have slowed considerably, and this has affected accessions. The service’s ability to generate sorties and flying hours for training has reached near-historic lows with equally grim readiness levels. All of this comes on the heels of reductions in force size and a drought in readiness from which the Air Force has been trying to recover for the past several years.

Further in the report.

Unlike some of the other services, the Air Force did not grow larger during the post-9/11 buildup. Instead, it grew smaller as acquisitions of new aircraft failed to offset programmed retirements of older aircraft. Following the sequestration debacle in 2012, the Air Force began to trade size for quality.[3]

Presidential defense budgets from 2012 through 2017 during the Obama Administration proved merely aspirational, and as the service sustained the war on terrorism, it struggled also to sustain the type of readiness required to employ in a major regional contingency (MRC) against a near-peer threat.

The Air Force was forced to make strategic trades in capability, capacity, and readiness to meet the operational demands of the war on terrorism and develop the force it needed for the future. The collective effects left the Air Force of 2016 with just 55 total force fighter squadrons, and the readiness levels within those organizations were very low. Just four of the Air Force’s 32 active-duty fighter squadrons were ready for conflict with a near-peer competitor, and just 14 others were considered ready even for low-threat combat operations.[4]

Yet further in the report.

The average age of Air Force aircraft is 31 years, and some fleets, such as the B-52 bomber, average 60 years. In addition, KC-135s comprise 78 percent of the Air Force’s 483 tankers and are more than 59 years old on average. By the end of FY 2022, 71 brand-new KC-46s will make up 15 percent of the tanker inventory, but they will not be capable of refueling aircraft during combat operations—the jet’s primary mission—until sometime in FY 2024.[19]


The average age of the F-15C fleet is more than 37 years,[20] significantly exceeding the programmed service life of a fleet that comprises more than half of USAF air superiority platforms.[21]

The planes in the F-16C/D fleet are almost 31 years old on average,[22] and the service has used up nearly 87 percent of their expected life span. In 2018, the Air Force announced its intent to extend the service lives of 300 F-16s through a major service life extension program (SLEP) that will allow those jets to continue to fly through 2050.[23]

SLEPs lengthen the useful life of airframes, and these F-16 modifications also include funding for the modernization of avionics within those airframes. These modifications are costly, and the added expense reduces the amount of funding the service has to invest in modernization, which is critical to ensuring future capability. Even with a SLEP, there is a direct correlation between aircraft age and the maintainability of those platforms. (See Table 6).

Conclusions.

Scoring the U.S. Air Force

Capacity Score: Marginal

Capability Score: Marginal

Readiness Score: Weak

Overall U.S. Air Force Score: Weak



Navy-

Relative to the above metric, the Navy’s current fleet of 297 warships is inadequate and places greater strain on the ability of ships and crews to meet existing operational requirements. To alleviate the operational stress on an undersized fleet, the Navy has attempted since 2016 to build a larger fleet. However, for myriad reasons, it has been unable to achieve sustained growth. In the past, the Navy has had some success in meeting operational requirements with fewer ships by posturing ships forward as it has done in Rota, Spain, and Guam.

Further in report.

Ship building capacity.

To meet stated fleet-size goals, the Navy must build and maintain ships. Significant shortfalls in shipyards, both government and commercial, make both of these tasks hard to accomplish, and underfunded defense budgets make accomplishing them even more difficult. Given the limited ability to build ships, the Navy will struggle to meet the congressionally mandated 355-ship goal,[21] much less the 400 ships called for in this Index...

...However, subsequent procurement has not kept pace. The Navy purchased 10 new warships in FY 2021 and will purchase another eight in FY 2022,23

but it will not meet congressional mandates for a fleet of 12 aircraft carriers.[24]

Instead, the aircraft carrier fleet could shrink to nine (possibly augmented by a light carrier yet to be defined).[25]


Yet further in the report.

Readiness

In the 1980s, the Navy had nearly 600 ships in the fleet and kept roughly 100 (17 percent) deployed at any one time. As of July 12, 2021, the fleet numbered 297 ships, of which 83 (28 percent) were at sea or deployed. With fewer ships carrying an unchanging operational workload, training schedules become shorter while deployments become longer. The commanding officer’s discretionary time for training and crew familiarization is a precious commodity that is made ever scarcer by the increasing operational demands on fewer ships.


Scoring the U.S. Navy

Capacity Score: Weak

This Index assesses that a battle force consisting of 400 manned ships is required for the U.S. Navy to do what is expected of it today. The Navy’s current battle force fleet of 297 ships and intensified operational tempo combine to reveal a Navy that is much too small relative to its tasks. The result is a score of “weak,” which is unchanged from the 2021 Index. Depending on the Navy’s ability to fund more aggressive growth options and service life extensions, its capacity score could be lower in the next edition of the Index.


Capability Score: Marginal Trending Toward Weak

The overall capability score for the Navy remains “marginal” with downward pressure as the Navy’s technological edge narrows against peer competitors China and Russia. The combination of a fleet that is aging faster than old ships are being replaced and the rapid growth of competitor navies with modern technologies does not bode well for U.S. naval power.


Readiness Score: Marginal Trending Toward Weak

The Navy’s readiness is rated “marginal” trending toward “weak” as the Navy struggles to sustain overdue readiness corrective actions, complicated by an inadequate fleet size and overwhelmed maintenance infrastructure.


Overall U.S. Navy Score: Marginal Trending Toward Weak

The Navy’s overall score for the 2022 Index is “marginal” trending toward “weak.” To correct this trend, the Navy will have to eliminate several readiness and capacity bottlenecks while seeing to it that America has an operational fleet with the numbers and capabilities postured to counter Russian and Chinese naval advances.


Marines-

The Corps operated with 181,200 Marines in FY 2021, with plans to shrink further to 178,500 in FY 2022 to free funding so that it can be reapplied to experimentation, retooling, and reorganization as described in Force Design 2030.[10]

The current size allows for 24 infantry battalions, but future plans will likely see the number shrink to 21 battalions.]11]

Infantry battalions serve as a surrogate measure for the Corps’ total force. As the first to respond to many contingencies, the Marine Corps requires a large degree of flexibility and self-sufficiency, and this drives its approach to organization and deployment of operational formations that, although typically centered on infantry units, are composed of ground, air, and logistics elements. Each of these assets and capabilities is critical to effective deployment of the force, and any one of them can be a limiting factor in the conduct of training and operations.

Further in report.

Service officials have stated repeatedly that the number of manned aircraft, and therefore squadrons, will likely continue to decline as the Corps divests itself of older aircraft without replacing them on a one-for-one basis, shifts investment to unmanned platforms, and retools the force for distributed operations undertaken by smaller units per Force Design 2030.

Further down.

Nevertheless, defense funding has not kept pace with inflation, and there are some things for which the Corps needs additional money.

Yet further down.

Divestiture carries with it some risk unless replacement capabilities are brought into the force as old or legacy capabilities are retired. For example, the Marine Corps’ decision to get rid of tanks and a large percentage of its tube artillery means that the service will not have these capabilities should it be called into battle before new items can be fielded. Early reports of promising replacement capabilities to compensate for the loss of the Abrams main battle tank, for example, are encouraging, but the Corps now no longer has tanks while the improved replacement remains to be fielded.[69]

This has a bearing on readiness to the extent that the force has a current ability to win in combat. The force might be ready, but in a different posture. For a few years, the Marines could be more light-infantry than the middle-weight “two-fisted fighter” proudly described by a former Commandant a decade ago.[70]

Conclusions.

Scoring the U.S. Marine Corps

Capacity Score: Marginal

Capability Score: Strong

Readiness Score: Strong

Overall U.S. Marine Corps Score: Strong


Army-

[Note:I haven't made the time to read the report on the Army, but will include the report scoring.]


Scoring the U.S. Army

Capacity Score: Weak

Capability Score: Marginal

Readiness Score: Very Strong

Overall U.S. Army Score: Marginal

Although not mentioned in the article, in addition to the Grand Forks airbase drone mission, I heard from a different pundit that all Air Force satellite communications go through this base.

[Note: hyperlinks and file photo found at linked website]

===============

Chinese company attempting massive land buy next to US Air Force base

JULY 20, 2022 RYAN MORGAN

A Chinese food processing company is attempting to buy around 370 acres of land in North Dakota, in an area around 12 miles from the Grand Forks Air Force Base, raising concerns among lawmakers that the land purchase could be used to surveil the nearby U.S. base. Lawmakers requested a review of the purchase last week.

Late last year, a major Chinese monosodium glutamate (MSG) and xanthan gum producer known as the Fufeng Group introduced plans to build a corn mill in Grand Forks, the Grand Forks Herald reported. In the ensuing months, critics of the deal have raised concerns about the company’s ties with the Chinese government and the potential that the mill could be used to surveil Grand Forks AFB.

Grand Forks AFB is home to 319th Reconnaissance Wing, which is one of the major operators of the RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicles.

In May the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) published a report which said the location of the proposed Fufeng mill would be “particularly convenient for monitoring air traffic flows in and out of the base, among other security-related concerns.”

USCC said, “Under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), the land’s proximity to a military installation may qualify the transaction for a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)” but said, “There have been no public reports indicating whether CFIUS did or did not review Fufeng’s purchase in Grand Forks.”

Last week Republican North Dakota Sens. John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer joined Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, asking that CFIUS review Fufeng Group’s plans to purchase the land in Grand Forks.

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) is another lawmakers who has raised concerns about the proposed Fufeng facility. Waltz, who serves on the Armed Services Committee, said in a Tuesday interview with Fox News that “You are seeing the Chinese buy up America.”

Waltz said Chia is “buying up major tracts of land, not just in North Dakota, but also in Texas, also near an Air Force base. And in other locations, they’re buying up our food supply. Major chicken and pork producers. They’re buying up key energy producers. And then, of course, they’re pouring that money into their massive military buildup.”

“My question is, why isn’t the Committee on Foreign Investment in the Department of Justice and across the Biden administration, why aren’t they taking a closer look at this?” Waltz asked. “This is what the senators were demanding. And why aren’t they putting a stop to it in some of those cases I just listed, they looked at it and then approved it. That’s unacceptable.”

In addition to the surveillance concerns raised by the Fufeng plant’s proximity to Grand Forks AFB, Waltz also said Chinese agriculture products could dig up and reverse engineer U.S. genetically modified crops.

Waltz said China could reverse engineer U.S. genetically modified crops and feed their people without any dependence on U.S. food suppliers while simultaneously making other nations dependent on Chinese products.

“They can then choke off those supplies and use that as leverage geopolitically,” Waltz said.

In 2011 the China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Corporation purchased Cirrus Aircraft Design and Manufacturing in Duluth Minnesota. The facilities are located on the tarmac not 1000 yards from the 148th fighter wing of the Minnesota Air National Guard. The 148th Fighter Wing is one of only two Air National Guard wings tasked to provide Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) support for our nation. The unit flies the Block 50 F-16CM, Fighting Falcon, the newest and most capable F-16 in the U.S. Air Force Fleet.

At the time I was working for Fed Ex. We were located directly between Cirrus and the guard base. I could be on the tarmac running ground equipment unloading a cargo plane. If I looked to my right I could see the guard base. If I looked to my left I could see the office building of Cirrus. I was the only one at the time that seemed to question if this was a good idea. Anyone sitting in a Cirrus office could watch the comings and goings of the guard base aircraft all day and all night.