Brett's weapons of 2017.

Mischief Reef is situated in the Spratly Islands. The area of the island built on the reef is 5,580,000 square meters. The works there started in early 2015. The reef falls within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, lying 129 nautical miles from Palawan. Many have speculated that the by widening the entrance to the reef, China intends to create a naval base on the reclaimed reef. Now Mischief Reef is equipped with an access channel, fortified Seawalls, nine temporary loading piers, nine cement plants, two pre-existing military facilities, a preexisting shelter for fishermen, and three possible satellite communication antennas.


Mischief Reef on January 24, 2012. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Mischief Reef on January 8, 2016. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe



- See more at: https://southfront.org/chinas-artificial-islands-south-china-sea-review/#sthash.JxcI6ids.dpuf

 

Subi Reef is located in the Northern Spratly islands. The area of the island built on the reef is 3,950,000 square meters. Subi Reef was occupied by China during its 1988 push to increase its footprint in the South China Sea. The reef is 14 kilometers from the Thitu Reef cluster occupied by the Philippines. China began construction on Subi and Cuateron Reefs in the early 1990s. China began land reclamation on Subi in July 2014. Reports have emerged that up to 200 troops are deployed there. Currently, Subi Reef is equipped with an access channel 230 meters wide, eleven temporary loading piers, a potential 3000m airstrip, a large multi-level facility with existing structure, seven possible satellite communication antennas, a possible security and surveillance tower with radome, reinforced seawalls, a helipad, a preexisting military facility, and three concrete plants.


Subi Reef on July 27, 2012. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Subi Reef on September 3, 2015. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


January 8, 2016. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe

- See more at: https://southfront.org/chinas-artificial-islands-south-china-sea-review/#sthash.JxcI6ids.dpuf

 

Tell me why do you need US Marines to storm all these islands? All you need is to cut off their supplies, bomb their airfields, and destroy their naval forces....

Ever read a book on Island Hopping?

The reason why WWII we had battles is that those islands had key strategic importance. The ones without strategic importance were bypassed and cut off. McArthur needed Iwo Jima to bomb Japan and provide good supply routes. The US does not need those islands to bomb China and have good supply routes. Chinese homeland is in range of allied airfields.

 

Ever heard of A2/AD ?

https://news.usni.org/tag/a2ad

I appears that's the strategy the Chi-Coms have adopted.

Looking at the type of warships that the Russians have been building they also have adopted A2/AD.

But I digress, back to the Chi-Coms and the South China Sea.

These islands in the Spratly Islands are still under construction and being militarized. Each island could be compared to an entire Carrier Battle Group (CBG) not the current tiny Carrier Strike Groups. (CSG)

Each is an aircraft carrier with it escorts that don't move. But unlike aircraft carriers, islands can't be sunk. But they can't hide either.

There are some liberals in Congress who see it differently and say that islands can capsize and sink into the sea if you put to many U.S. Marines on an island. I ain't bull ******** you.



It's all about freedom of the navigation on the seas and...
Anti-Access/Area Denial: The Evolution of Modern Warfare

excerpt:

 

Look at the location of these islands.


They are quite far flung from China. We don't need to take those islands. They provide no logistical importance. We have airbases in South Korea and Japan. This isn't Iwo Jima where we needed those bases to resupply and use as landing ground.

Yes they have aerial denial weapons there...so? Suppress them. You don't suppress them by sending Marines there. You suppress them with air power and naval power. The aerial denial weapons would be
-Advanced Fighters-J-20 and J-31 Stealth Fighter, their copy of their F-22 and F-35. Escorted by J-10s and J-11s.
-Russian air defenses-S-400, S-300 and the Chinese copy the HQ-9.
-Their Aircraft carrier
-DF-21 anti-ship ballistic ballistic missiles
-Mines
-Diesel powered submarines.

All these assets will have to be destroyed by mainly US air power and US martine capability. So we need to keep a large force of fighters to match China's fighter force. More carriers in the region to take on China's single carrier. The modernization of the AEGIS to shoot down the DF-21 ballistic missiles, and quickly get the F-35 in service which can link AEGIS for SM-6 cruise missile defense. Also hurry our submarine programs and Martime sonar capabilities to better hunt submarines and avoid mines. Suppression of enemy air defenese done by F-35s as well so both military civilain flights can properly supply that route. Once this a done, Chinese ground forces on these reefs would have no food, no ammo resupply, no gas.....they will surrender.

 

When I was in Asscrackistan the taliban learned to spoof FLIR during the winter using frozen blankets. It wasnt perfect, but it made targets very hard to find.

 

It's a training exercise. No Pentagon planner with half a brain would ever allow a real world amphibious assault against a contested beach when we have the technology to avoid it.

 

If you think modern smart bombs are not all weather, then clearly you don't know enough about modern technology and warfare to have an opinion worthy of consideration on this topic.

You are an outmoded dinosaur.

 

That was the rule even back during WW ll.

But some times you only have one option.

The U.S. Navy didn't need Iwo Jima for any reason. They could have just bypassed Iwo Jima and allowed the Japs to starve to death.

But the U.S. Army Air Forces needed an emergency landing strip for it's B-29's.

 

So pray tell, what island does China own that would force us to conduct an amphibious assault against a contested beach?

Every single one of those islands you posted pictures to is a sand bar, reinforced with more dredged sand, barely above the level of the surrounding ocean. They aren't digging bunker complexes on those islands. The island physically can't support buried defenses.

That means all defenses will be above ground. That means all defenses get multiple visits from Mr. Paveway and Mr. JDAM (after already having their radars and SAM sites visited by Mr Tomahawk, Mr JSOW, and Mr JASSM). Those defenses will be smoking ruins long before any Marines would ever land on the island.

 

You can take GPS out of the equation since we now know that the Russians can blind GPS satellites.

That's why a few years ago Navy HQ's put out the word that celestial navigation using a sextant will be reintroduced at the Naval Academy and all NROTC schools. The sextant isn't obsolete and any ship captain who doesn't know how to use a sextant could end up becoming lost at sea not knowing where the **** he is.

Yep...they should have never deactivated all of those obsolete LORAN stations around the world.

Russia is widening the gap in EW

Since 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea and moved into eastern Ukraine, several reports and military assessments have warned of growing Russian EW capabilities. These include airborne jammers that reportedly disabled electronics on a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea, radar jamming of aircraft, GPS jamming of drones and disruption of military communications in Ukraine...-> https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/02/12/russia-ew-capabilities-widening.aspx


Laser are limited. Almost useless for designating targets in jungles, forest, rain, fog, heavy cloud cover.

The same problems the Navy's laser guns are having today.

 

That's why GPS guided bombs have back up inertial guidance. GPS, EO, and inertially guided weapons are totally all weather, and modern laser guidance is perfectly capable of operation through rain, fog, cloud cover etc.

 

The "blinding US destroyers" is nothing but Russian propaganda. The Russians claimed electronic warfare system known as Khibiny added on the SU-24 disabled the USS Donald Cook. However, the actual manufactrer of Khibiny claimed otherwise saying the Khibiny can't even fit on an Su-24...so it's nothing but Russian media propaganda.

GPS on military equipment are very hard to jam. That is because the receiver structure is very hardened. The Tomahawk's GPS receiver is on the topside of the weapon, directing a beam on the receiver is hard unless you have air superiority, and even if the missile is jammed, it still has command guidance, inertial guidance and seekers to find their target. And even with jammers, they could only stop a fraction of missiles since the US has more $$$ to pierce their missile defense. A couple jammer batteries doesn't haven't energy required to jam a swarm of Tomahawks with hundreds of decoys.

 

For interrogation purposes, and, guerilla intentions, we should develop the 'ice gun.' this will be launched at people, tanks and aircraft, icing them up so they stall or plummet to the earth inside a ice sheet that should making capturing their jets or tanks, in a very thick layer of ice.

This would be possible by observing the process that ice making takes - it needs cold and water, of course. this would be where we now observe the process of refrigeration, just boosted through a fusion cell, to ice the equipment up, of course.

 

The thing about jamming is, if you're putting out enough power to actually jam anything, you're also lighting yourself up like a Christmas tree for anyone who has even the most rudimentary ELINT capabilities. And AMRAAMs have home-on-jam guidance, too.

 

You're 100% correct.

Just turning on a search radar exposes your position.

How to Hide a Task Force -> http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

 

Depends on jammer's ELINT in general. Modern jammers can hide their position by sending out signals that make it look like there is nothing there known as deceptive jamming. Noise jamming in general will light up like a Christmas tree for home on jam seekers although if it is layered, like what sensor fusion aircraft like F-22 an F-35 the noise may be so much from multiple areas the missile could miss.

 

Deception jamming, or gate stealing, can be effective against radars however, that's not what I was referring to. A passive ESM system, such as E-2s and E-3s are equipped with, isn't a radar, so it doesn't have a range gate. Anything emitting a significant amount of radar-band energy is going to be lit up like a Christmas tree. As for saturating a missile seeker head, I'm skeptical. A dedicated jamming platform such as Compass Call might be able to do it if it was close enough, but the small, self-protection jamming systems built into combat aircraft don't put out nearly enough power.

 

Catch radar signals depend on how good the ESM system is. Most AESA radars can modulate their frequencies, their scan patterns, have a high bandwith, modulated pulses as well as well as having high gain.

Missile seekers can home on jam against noise jamming since its the missile seeker activates close to target. At long ranges most missiles are guided by datalink from fighter radars. Against seeker the best option is deceptive jamming since that is the best option from being tracked, methods like DRFM. You don't need that much energy to fool a small seeker head. Two fighters facing similar technology, using active radar homing missiles, I expect a fighter needs to fire 1-3 missiles to bring down an enemy fighter.

Compass Call is more for communciations jamming.

 

The Brit's use Javelin missiles, £100,000 a shot to take out mud huts in Afghanistan.
The Afghans use recoiless rifles @ £50

Both work equally well.

Some one in procurement wants shooting. Wars are lost this way.