naive is assuming I'm unaware of crucial facts. I disagree. First, this IS a discussion forum. You nor I can change or affect any international political issue. I agree that as governments as are now and politics as are now, it is not going to happen. However, NO one knows how things pan out. did you 20 years before they happened, predict Desert Storm? did you Predict 911? The fall of the Berlin Wall? Economic Rise of China ans Korea? Tell me now the surprising, world shocking things that will happen in the next 30 years. Most people did not predict these things, yet they happened. A lot of events surprise the world.

Talk is talk, and its healthy and productive for people to discuss what they thing the governments are doing and what the governments should do. If you think the talk is wasting your time, don't participate.

Saying it's impossible or people of Japan are against it is fine. That is good arguments that is true NOW. It might change in the future. The idea that it's not worth discussion because it will never happen is a false statement. Your ability to predict what will happen in twenty years is no more valid than anyone else.

I agree with you and healthy discussion can be rewarding and fun. but the general public never has all the information. There are things we will never know that governments hide from us that includes Japan. We will never know the true facts unless you are the one making policy or one of the elite.

Just now i read article about how Japan is more worried than ever about China's military rise, with China make bolder and more frequent incursions in waters it deems is theirs like the collisions with a Japanese patrol boat. Japan and the US may have their differences but i consider Japan an important partner to the US and vice verse. I feel Japan is worth protecting they are our allies. If the Japanese people chose to protect themselves that would be a decision they made as a country and in their best interest and the US forces would leave.

My point was discussion is if fine it generates ideas and allows us think more freely and maybe learn a thing or two from our peers. However, current truths and future truths can have a discussion in circles in no time.

What i consider a waste of time when is provides information provides a source for that information proving it as fact. The arguments continue because we all see things differently and believe what we want to believe. Sangetsu is a realist and people fail to see why he was so upset about the content of the topics at hand and why he stated it was a waste of time.

I can count 8 different threads started in the past year similar to this topic which eventually always gets closed by a mod and its easy to see why. That is the reason i say its a waste of time.

I think that is a bit of wishful thinking on your part.

It is true that we dont know what the American R&D is working on. It isnt true that Americas military might is incalculable at this moment.

Also this news was released last month. Im not sure how you think the missile already has a countermeasure.

Talk from analysts say the pentagon currently has nothing it can answer it.

The reason this missile is called the carrier buster is because it can evade the air defenses of an entire battlegroup and can hit a carrier on the move.

sorta dongless
 

On a lighter note:

GrEaT sAtAns gIrLfriEnd
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Dongfeng 21D

"The DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

This is significant - mainly because Dongfeng will be a super hot item - a puissant prestige piece d'resistance of desperate despots the world over:

Great Satan ( US ) and China may never have to face off and face the balloon going up over NoKo or Taiwan yet a sitch may arise where Dongfeng may be deployed for attack anywhere Chinese customers may determine.


Streaking towards target at 10 times the speed of sound, Dongfeng could tote either conventional or even new clear payloaded warheads — and most likely be fired off in salvos.

So, is it time to for (US) to xform her carriers into laptops, stripper poles and floating hostels for the homeless?

Hold up comrade admiral!

As best understood, warfighting weapon tech advances don't always mean the end of an era - torpedos didn't mean the end of the battleship, bunker busters haven't made bunkers passe', panzerschrek anti panzermissiles haven't killed off panzers on the battlefield and SAM's haven't ran combat jets off the screen.

"...Time of flight for 900 miles would be on the order of 12-15 minutes, depending on the trajectory. Launch warning from U.S. satellite systems would be nearly instantaneous, and in the remaining ten minutes or so, the carrier can travel 6-8 miles in any direction. This, combined with any errors in the track file, creates what is called an “error ellipse,” which increases over time.

"...To overcome the error ellipse, the DF-21 is presumably equipped with a maneuvering reentry vehicle and a terminal guidance seeker (either radar or IR). This not only drives up the cost and complexity of the missile, it creates additional points of failure that will reduce the overall reliability of the system.

"...Assuming, however, that everything works as advertised, the terminal guidance seeker has a limited field of view (called a basket), and must be directed to a point in space that places the target within that basket.

"...To ensure that this happens, the Chinese would probably fire a salvo of several missiles into the error ellipse, so that at least one missile would pick up the target.

And if Dongfeng lucked out and found a carrier - she'd still have to dodge, evade and make her way through of gauntlet of no quarter players designed to intercept her.

"...Electronic and infrared jamming; decoy deployment; maneuvering; and, of course, shooting back.

"...Standard Missile SM-3 now deployed on Ticonderoga class cruisers and Improved Arleigh Burke class destroyers was designed specifically to engage theater ballistic missiles in their midcourse (free-fall) phase; they have proven very effective in tests. Each cruiser and destroyer will, presumably, carry a dozen or more of these missiles for the defense of the carrier.

"...Plus a shorter-range missile based on the Army's Patriot PAC-3 for "terminal defense."

"...The AEGIS fire control system's Cooperative Engagement Capability will allow the netting of all the sensors in the battle group with external sensors (satellites, reconnaissance aircraft, land-based tracking radar, etc.) to obtain an early and optimal firing solution on any incoming missiles. Assuming two SM-3s and two short-range missiles are aimed at each incoming DF-21, a kill probability in excess of 90 percent is likely.

And if Dongfeng made it through with her honor intact?

"...If it has a conventional warhead, probably not enough to sink the ship, though it might do serious damage. A lot depends on how large its explosive payload is, how fast it is moving when it hits, and where on the ship it impacts.

"...The only way to ensure a carrier kill is to use a nuclear warhead--and if the Chinese do that, all bets are off.

lol.. you mention nothing of the targeting system and the defense systems of the missile. That was meant to be the key point for analysts.

Your post treats it like it was any other ballistic missile. It obviously isnt.

this following text is on a global level thinking. i am not debating on whether its good or not and i understand not wanting/wanting troops stationed for some social/economical reasons in japan.
.......................................................
and so. i dont get it...why the F* any of you still care about this military BS about who is proctecting who?
on avarage USA, Russia both have 6 000 nukes. uk ~300 and then some countrys have them in 50 or so numbers.
so. when itr starts - you really think it is going to matter which side you are on? or how much nukes your country has or whos soldiers are stationed there? seriously?
in 1995 gorbochow (russian president) had his hand on the nuke button because of usa satelite flying over norway thougt to be a nuke. he didnt press it because he was drunk at the time...you think next time will be lucky?

get it over with. there wont be any winners. no "right" side to chose from.

here is a cool video about who has them and what a single one will do to NY city.
YouTube - GOOD: Nuclear Weapons

sort blowing smoke dude
 

get real dude, a DF-21 capablities are nothing revolutionary beyond what todays supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles already have.

The End of the Aircraft Carrier?
Or just one more threat to counter?
BY Stuart Koehl
August 12, 2010

The reason is, the missile is only one part of an extended reconnaissance strike complex, consisting of sensor platforms, communications links, command nodes, and launch systems. The ocean is big, and the carrier is small. I was once on a COD flight that could not find the carrier, even though it knew precisely where the carrier was, because our navigation system was just a little bit out of alignment, and the carrier was operating in EMCON. Now imagine how hard it is to find a CVBG that does not want to be found.

In any case, if the DF-21 becomes a real threat, the U.S. most likely would move towards "pre-launch intercept" (i.e., destroying the missiles on the ground, before they are launched). Though the use of mobile launchers increases the difficulty of targeting them, the advent of persistent surveillance systems--whether space-based or aerial--will eventually allow us to locate, identify, and destroy these missiles on the ground using a combination of cruise missiles, UAVs, and stealth aircraft equipped with tactical standoff missiles.

At the end of the day, the large platform or system with broad-based operational capabilities has the inherent resilience and robustness to defeat a technically clever but operationally narrow threat.

Stuart Koehl is a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.

Maybe...

Im no expert but most articles Ive read say the opposite. They say that the DF21D is fitted with countermeasures which could bypass a carrier and its battlegroup escort defenses and has a payload that can sink a carrier.

Not only that but apparently they are relatively easy to produce and inexpensive.

They also say that the pentagon is concerned.

sorta media hype
 

Notice the date on this excerpt article?


China Has Long Eyes For U.S. Carriers
by James Dunnigan
December 12, 2008

the DF-21 is using reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometers range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar.

FYI US Pershings were decommissioned in the 1980s.

There is no guaranty on a 100% kill on a US carrier with any type of conventional payload that the DF-21 has. That is why it also also has the option of a nuclear payload. Only a DF-21 with a nuclear payload has 100% kill guaranty if it hits near or on the target.

lol.. this is the DF-21D

It just means that its the same model of missile. The D indicates that the missile has been outfitted for a specific purpose.

It could even mean that the only thing left from the original missile is the frame. The engine, targeting system, the countermeasures etc.. are probably all new.

You do realise that most of Americas state of the art airforce and navy uses planes that were orginally designed in the 70s right?

I mean the state of the art F-15E is only similar to the original F-15 in its airframe.

sorta wtf?
 

The DF-21D is using a active radar guidance system that existed on the US Pershing II back in 1983.
The DF-21D does not have a convetional payload that guarantys a 100% kill on a US carrier. That is why it also has the option to carry a nuclear weapons payload. This is the only way to get a 100% kill on a US carrier.

F -15's or any aircraft from a US carrier battle group would not even figure in a defense against a MRBM *(Medium Range Ballistic Missle) which is what a DF-21D is.

The Ageis Cruiser
coupled with other vessels in the CVBG would use SM-3 and medium range missle defense systems.

"...Standard Missile SM-3 now deployed on Ticonderoga class cruisers and Improved Arleigh Burke class destroyers was designed specifically to engage theater ballistic missiles in their midcourse (free-fall) phase; they have proven very effective in tests. Each cruiser and destroyer will, presumably, carry a dozen or more of these missiles for the defense of the carrier-"...Electronic and infrared jamming; decoy deployment; maneuvering; and, of course, shooting back.

China May Turn Missiles into Carrier-KillersBy Noah Shachtman March 31, 2009

The technical challenges still seem daunting, including the fact that ballistic missles aren’t designed for tactical precision strikes of relatively small (in oceanic terms) targets speeding at 30
knots. But the really troubling issue is this: ballistic missiles are strategic weapons (the DF-21 has roughly the same range as a Pershing 2). They’re designed to carry nuclear weapons. Everyone knows they’re designed to carry nukes, and to hurl them long distances. So if the U.S. detects missiles hurtling over the
Pacific, and NORAD has 15 minutes to decide whether it’s a tactical strike on the Nimitz, or if some city is going to be vaporized… Of course, in the rational world of deterrence theory and defense planning, U.S.
decision-makers would know these were tactical weapons and wouldn’t overreact.
Or maybe not.

Read More China May Turn Missiles into Carrier-Killers (Corrected) | Danger Room | Wired.com

Wrong.. the new DF21D's have a GPS based guidance system.

The rest of your post is speculation.

sorta smoke again
 

wrong again dude.
DF-21D uses GPS guidance when it is first fired at a target.. What about those counter measures on board the DF-21D? IR and homing radar - That is called a active guidance system. example:

What about the terminal end of the missles' path as it encounters it's target? The US carriers (CVBG) defensive shield of medium range missles ?

GPS guidance is only good if nobody fires back on your DF-21D? GPS is only one stage of the DF-21Ds guidance to the target the other half is the terminal guidance stage . (closing distance to target)

What about if the target *US carrier has escorts like a Ageis Cruiser which will start lobbing a 'sh*t storm' of SM-3's for example - at your DF-21D?

Your DF-21D has a 'active guidance system' either infrared (IR) homing guidance to evade those US SM-3's, followed by radar homing.

I have included sources and links with my posts from sources that make a living as defense analyst.

I dont know... as I said Im not an expert.

Id like to see your sources though. They are completely at odds with the media sources I have.

All of which say that US Naval analysts were alarmed by the new missile and the Pentagon was taken by surprise by them.

My sources include the Huffington Post, Sinodefence review amongst others and all were dated the latter half of this year.

sorta not
 

Why do you worry about DF-21D which is not proven yet and has a very narrow application? The Chinese navy have submarines that can do a much better job at hunting the US CVBGs' without the use of any ballistic missle for the price of measly torpedo.

Ding Dong, Dong-Feng!
on August 8, 2010 by J.E. Dyer
Allahpundit laid down the gauntlet with this question on China’s new anti-carrier weapon, the Dong Feng-21D ballistic missile:


A submarine nailing the carrier at the keel is a much better bet: take out propulsion, you take out the whole weapon system. Without propulsion, the carrier can’t make the 35 knots of wind over the deck that it needs to recover aircraft. And China has lots of submarines.

Everytime the US defense establishment is threatn'ed with a decrease in next years defense budget they have a 'the skys falling' media blitz to protect their piece of the pie. This next FY Defense Budget is already being fought by the Armed Services , especially the Navy through leaks to the media that will enhance their own pockets.

Ronin your smarter than that. Do you really think the Navy never thought that one day a military would try to develop a missile to sink a US carrier? The counter measures that in place were already touched on by Fluffy. I am willing to bet 10 years of salary that this missile can not bypass an entire carrier group without being pinged, jammed and or fired at. The Carriers alone are fitted with anti missile system sophisticated enough to shoot them out of the air not to mentioned land based interceptors.

If i was going to sink a carrier my first choice would be by submarine as Fluffy stated. But we are seriously off topic so i am going to stop there i suggest we get back on topic before the thread is shut down.

I'm not an expert on this at all but it sounds to me 東風21D is a Frankenstein monster of a ballistic missile and an Air-to-Ship Missile. Delivering an ASM with a ballistic missile is new, but the US sure has tons of counter measures for ASMs. Still, even if the US can shoot down 99% of them, it will still be a great threat, or at least repellant, as it shouldn't be that hard for Chinese to build 100s of them. That plus the submarines China is building may hinder US carrier's access to the seas near China. This brings up an interesting point which I hope is pertinent to the topic.

The US military force in Japan is there mainly to protect Taiwan and Korea. Korea isn't crucial to Japanese survival but Taiwan is, as it is in the way of an important Japanese sea lane and close to Senkaku where there said to be oil, possibly as much as the amount Iraq has. Now the US's main support to Taiwan will be USS George Washington or its successor. And if it becomes hard for carriers to get close to Taiwan, it seems to me that the importance of the airbases in Japan will be more significant, especially the ones in Okinawa.

mmm. I really don't see any practical scenario with which Japan can afford the US military to withdraw completely.

points to consider
 

Has anyone mentioned the threat of North Korea or the decline of the U.S as the sole dominant power of the world?

It is good to have a discussion about the issue of U.S bases in Japan, but it is a matter for the Japanese people to decide, it is their country, isn't it?

Whether this Chinese missile can do what it says has to be tested. The U.S. has been developing air-to-ship missile defenses. Currently, the three ways to take out a ship is: missile, torpedo, or bomb. But then again, this missile was design to go thru that.

The only way to know exactly how effective it is would be to use it in a real confrontation against an American carrier. May it never come to this.

I think for the sake of Japan's safety, the prospect of US forces leaving would be very disastrous to Japan. Furthermore, Allies of the United States of America also get the protection by the world's strongest military power. People like to fancy that the Middle Eastern wars being fought are bloody, but we're not even putting the full focus of our military on the region.

It's remarkably funny how some of these chats go. Lots of Japanese posters fancy trading one protective older brother for another in China, but I think it's silly to even consider that idea, don't all of you agree? Japan has it really good with the United States, and any offenses by American military personnel seriously pales in comparison to the number of rapes, murders, and so forth that occur in Japan on a yearly basis. The only reason that it gets so much coverage is because Japan is still inherently a nationalistic country. The idea of a foreigner committing a crime is that much more heinous there.

I dont know what youve heard... but America is WAY more nationalistic than Japan. Ive lived in both countries by the way.

I think that is kind of a hard statement to make definitively. Nationalism and patriotism are different things.

There are certainly patriotic people (and nationalistic) people in both countries. I think in general Japanese people are more subtle with their patriotism, until it is Japan vs. China in the World Cup.

I dont believe in patriotism. The conscience and the belief in the nation are two entirely different things.

I get your point though.. American nationalism and Japanese nationalism are expressed differently so difficult to measure.

Fair enough.

No. I don' agree.

you think the U.S. should stay. Your main argument is U.S. has been a good Allie and protectorate. Good argument. see your point.
Someone else said the majority of Japanese want the U.S. there. That's the strongest argument so far.


What is 'silly' with wanting our own military? Why can't Japan have a military and remain strong allies with the U.S.? England has a great military. Isn't U.S. and England strong allies?

Why can't japan have an independent relationship with China? Japan should let China know that it can increase it's U.S. involvement if China flexes its might, and likewise let America know that It might deal with China in ways that U.S. might not approve of. Like buying and selling military goods( not too much buying at this time). Keeping trade open even if the U.S. boycotts.


If the only way for the U.S. and Japan to be allies is that Japan lets America keep its military bases in Japan then I think something is wrong with that relationship.

Yes, but you have to remember that we were originally British colonies. We defeated the world's strongest military at the time and become our own country. While England has been awfully nasty to the USA at different points in history, it's never engaged in combat with us since the war of 1812. That was a long time ago and not even remotely close as severe as the repercussions caused by the Axis in World War II.

Over 45,000,000 innocent civilians were butchered by the Axis during World War II. Over 16,000,000 Allied soldiers died in World War II. The Allied forced paid a heavy, almost unbearable price since then. Allied forces, primarily the United States of America, helped build Japan and Germany into the economic powerhouses that they are today, despite the horrific crimes committed by their governments. Japan itself killed over 10,000,000 people from 1937-1945. Do you grasp the enormity of that? I doubt you actually understand it, or else you wouldn't be whining about the lack of a military.

I hope you don't feel too bad. Japan shares it's lack of a military with Germany. Nobody wants Japan or Germany to have the ability to wage war again. I seriously think Germany and Japan came out okay in the end, regardless of the horrible, horrible nature of their crimes against humanity. You actually got your country back, and now you want a military, and it's just not going to happen. This is the truth of the matter, just accept it.

China cannot trust it. :)

Excuse me?

America committed genocide against the Native Americans so you can get off your high horse.

It amazes me how many Americans think WW2 was like the beginning of time or something. :cool:

Anyway... you are an idiot.

The military bases in Japan and Germany have nothing to do with their past and more to do with the cold war and the projection of power. Furthermore, Japan and Germany's lack of military is pretty much self-imposed.

Ronin the points made by Mazikeen are not invalidated by the fact that the US has also committed henious acts in its past. Japan too doesn't have a great history of it's treatment of it's indigenous peoples. Australia doesn't either. In fact don't know if we could find any country in the world where the indigenous peoples weren't treated abysmally. None of that has any bearing though on what happened during WWII and what's occurred since then...

Wait a minute... you actually support his point?

He is trying to say that Japan and Germany should be prevented from having a military because they will naturally go out and try and take over the world again.

I was reminding him that America's track record is not so great either.

Don't know if I agree totally with his points but just saying that the US's treatment of it's indigenous peoples is hardly a valid argument against the points he makes.
Both Japan and Germany are hardly defenceless. Both countries are in the top 10 for military expenditure in the world. For instance Japan spends more than double what Australia does.

One thing I do agree with though is that both Germany and Japan should have some oversight of their military, whether it be from the US or the UN. There really should be some consequences for being the aggressors in what was the biggest loss of human life in the history of mankind through war. You can't just do something like that and expect the world to never ever again be concerned about your military capabilities.

Why not? He was making a righteous argument so I was pointing out he had no right to feel so righteous.

Anyway.. it wasnt the only point I made.

I completely disagree. You dont trust Japan or Germany? What an outdated viewpoint you hold. More important than what countries did in the past is what they are doing now. Im more worried about the actions of America and China than Japan and Germany.

Reason why defense expenditure of Japan is high.

Employment cost
Price of arms

The military power is not proportional to a defense budget.

How much of what they are doing now though is due to the oversight of their military? Worth considering?

I doubt my view is considered all that outdated, even by many Japanese who strongly believe that Japan should remain a peaceful nation without offensive military capabilities. Many here haven't forgotten what happened the last time they let the military and nationalists have their way ;)

I dont know what you meant by that.. please rephrase.

That's not saying the same thing though. You said that Japan and Germany should be overseen by the US because of their past. Its different to saying that Japan and German militaries should be overseen by a civilian government (as it is in the US and most Western nations.)

No, what I said is that there should be consequences for being the aggressors in what was the biggest loss of human life from war in the history of mankind.
Start a world war that kills 10's of millions of people and you lose, there should be consequences. You don't have to agree with me but that's the way I think. And I believe that one of the consequences should be that you lose the right to ever again develop a military force capable of waging a similar worldwide conflict. Germany waged 2 world wars last century. I certainly wouldn't trust them again with a massive military!

That there are consequences for losers in war is just a fact of human history so I dont disagree with that. (I dont know what your point is then if that is all you were saying. I mean I thought you were implying that you believed in US oversight of Japan's military.)

I disagree that WW2 is in any way relevant to whether or not Japan or Germany should be "allowed" to have a military and that it was "the biggest loss of human life from a way in history" means nothing.

As it turns out... should Japan and Germany choose to increase their commitments to their militaries then there is really nothing we can do to stop them so you and Marzikeen had invalid points right from the beginning and I was only really attacking the self-righteous way in which those points were being made.

Yes, unlike the aboriginal people of Japan and Australia, we actually learn about the horrible things we did to the Native Americans while in school, it's especially important to me because I am part Native American. Your counter argument is stupid. You lose.



Yes, this is because they both have a lengthy history of invading other countries, murdering, enslaving, raping, and pillaging the populace. This is more true with Japan than with Germany, WWI and WWII are the primarily reason I don't trust Germany.


What are the US forces doing that's so bad, sweetie? Did we finally top a regime we should have twenty years ago? Hey, I bet Kurds are happy that Saddam Hussein isn't gassing them anymore! And what's your problem with Afghanistan? You might want to talk about the UN forces there about that, considering it's a multi-national effort.

Oh, I'm sorry! When was the last time that Americans put prisoners into pressure chambers until they die, buried them alive, infected their prisoners with diseases, massacred tens of millions on a mere whim, and so forth?

That's right, we've never done that to any foreign nationals, and we were never even remotely like that towards Native Americans.

Here's to another 65 years of Japan and Germany being unable to wage war, ladies and gentlemen. Let us continue praying that another conflict on the levels of the world wars never comes again!

I find this statement very logical. The countries are not the same anymore. Politics should be dealing with whats going on now.

According to Mazikeen logic, all the horrible things one country has don't to another in the past are unimportant except the for Germany and Japan. These two are the only ones that must pay forever.

That is such an "American" way at looking at history.