MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, comrade/them]

US generals are not idiots, they’re not going to sail their Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) straight into a hailstorm of Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs) equipped with either Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicles (MaRVs) or Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) as warheads. The Chinese DF-17 HGV equipped ASBM, and the DF-21D MaRV equipped ASBM, have a range of around 1600km/1000mi. The DF-21 is said to be a Chinese equivalent to the now retired Pershing-II from the United States. So these weapons will act as area denial weapons, with the CSGs remaining outside of their effective range during the majority of their operations. Aircraft will rely on mid air refueling and/or external drop tanks to have the required range to conduct missions from this far out. This of course restricts their operations, but they can still carry out missions. This is also why there’s a huge focus on increasing the internal fuel capacity and range for the US Navy’s 6th generation strike fighter (F/A-XX), and why the F-35C has such a large internal fuel capacity.

Pershing-II (left), hypothesised DF-21D MaRV on top of DF-15 booster stage (centre), DF-21 with nosecone shield (right):

DF-17 with DF-ZF HGV:

We can see this in Yemen in the Red Sea (where ASBMs were used as weapons for the first time in history), where the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier spends the majority of time around Jeddah, around 700-800km away from the Houthi/Ansarallah controlled parts of Yemen, and resupplies at Yanbu. This keeps them out of range of the Zulfiqar Basir MaRV equipped ASBM (700km range) during normal operations, and keeps them out of range of Anti Ship Cruise Missiles like the Abu Mhadi (1000km range) when resupplying.

Zulfiqar Basir, with a close up on the electro optical sensor on the MaRV for terminal guidance:

Area denial is still a great capability to have, but ASBMs aren’t magic wands that can just eliminate CSGs. They have their own limitations, hitting a moving target such as a ship with a ballistic missile, even one equipped with a HGV or MaRV, is quite complex, especially at longer ranges where you’d have to provide midcourse guidance updates and resulting trajectory changes to a ballistic missile in space. This is why longer range ASBMs aren’t there yet. To try extend the effective range of existing ASBM platforms, they could be launched from aircraft, which give a small range boost from the launch point, and allowing the aircraft to fly out over sea before launching, for a combined range extension (aircrafts range + ASBM range). China does have the KF-21, an air launched DF-21. The challenge then becomes avoiding the launch aircraft being intercepted by hostile combat air patrols before launching, such patrols will limit how far out the launch aircraft can fly.

Air launched DF-21 variant mounted on a Xian H-6, the two solid fueled booster rocket stages and MaRV are clearly visible.

The article mentions equipping a longer range ballistic missile like the DF-27 with a DF-ZF HGV, but I don’t think that’s practical over the ranges mentioned (8000km/5000mi). The DF-ZF is not designed to glide at hypersonic speeds for such a long distance, so your glide phase would take up a small part of the overall flight profile, meaning that such a platform would act like a conventional ballistic missile for the majority of it’s flight time. The DF-ZF is also not designed to handle atmospheric re-entry at the higher speeds and loads that such an extended range would require. A new HGV would be needed.

deleted by creator

See this is the exact liberal nonsense I’m talking about. How is Trump “subservient to Russia and China”? Because he views continuing the war in Ukraine as no longer in the United States’ interest? And China? I thought Trump was all about tariffs on Chinese goods and starting a trade war in his last term. I don’t see that as subservient, that’s confrontation. A negative confrontation that just hurt everyone globally, but maybe necessary from a third world perspective, waking up the third world to the reality of the United States and it’s economic warfare. If you’re talking about dialing down the temperature against China in his upcoming term, that would be because the US benefits from Chinese imports and can’t wean itself off of them due to a lack of domestic manufacturing and industry, and because China needs a market to sell their goods to as domestic consumption + exports to the rest of the world can’t make up for US consumption, so they’ll give in to US demands. I fail to see how such a position is “pro China” it’s just self interest.

You have to stop viewing politics through the personalities of world leaders as if it’s some kind of Hollywood movie, and view the material reality. If the USA is no longer interested in pursuing a certain action or decides to escalate on another front in the next four years, ask yourself why is that the case, instead of defaulting to “Trump crazy stupid strongman dictator selling out the USA”. That kind of liberal analysis is not helpful and will leave you lost. Never underestimate your adversary.

For example in Greenland, many people were going on about how Trump is some big idiot that wants a country that looks big on a Mercator projection. Meanwhile, the United States secured a large rare earth metals deposit in Greenland, stoping Chinese mining companies from getting the rights to it. The US company that bought the rights to the rare earth metals deposit signed a contract with the United States Department of Defence to process the metals. While everyone was distracted by Trump talking nonsense, the US pulled of a heist and exerted more political pressure on its allies. When one hand is doing something (in this case Trump’s loud mouth), always look at moves the other hand is making (in this case, the US DoD getting more control in Greenland over their mining deposits). If you fail to do so, the jester will rob you blind. In this case, a large deposit of Rare Earth Ores in Greenland, China excluded and Denmark further vassalised.

Given recent events, I really don’t see how bending the knee to Trump is any different than bending the knee to the Democrats, especially Biden who committed genocide for 15 months. It’s just another capitalist bending the knee to the world hegemon in the United States. Trump is just more straightforward and bombastic about the USA’s position in the world as it’s hegemon and it’s demands, forcing ordinary people, especially liberals in the United States, to confront that reality directly, whilst under Biden that was obfuscated by flowery language and decorum. I guess that decorum and flowery language was enough for US liberals to “turn off” so to speak, and go back to brunch while the world burns.