HurricaneDitka - in case you weren’t aware you were hit a midships about half way down the last page and were lost with all hands.
The White House will be updating us sometime after Spicer finally locates his own arse.
Because it would mean that the Chinese, in this instance, have the capability of imaging a carrier across all of the oceans of the world down at intervals of less than an hour every hour of the day. I don’t believe that’s possible. And I’ve seen no evidence that this claim is or could be true. If you want to assert that the Chinese know roughly where the carriers are across the globe to, say, a couple hundred or a thousand or so square kilometers, on average (or something along those lines), sure…I’ll buy that. But are able to image our carriers to that level of precision 30+ times a day, globally (even discounting all of the land and only focused on just the oceans where carriers could be)? No, I don’t believe that. I’m not sure the US, with a far larger number of birds could do that.
(This of course discounts other means, which the Chinese curiously still use, such as air and sea scouting, other commercial assets, etc…though if they have the stated magical capability it begs the question I asked, which is why do they still use this other stuff then?)
[QUOTE=RickJay]
I don’t understand why the takeaway here is that “Trump doesn’t know where USS Carl Vinson is.”
The obvious conclusion is that Trump doesn’t care where USS Carl Vinson is. It never mattered.
[/QUOTE]
It’s more funny, that’s why. I agree, he probably didn’t care, and didn’t care to check enough to lie convincingly. He also probably didn’t care enough to think that people, especially governments would fact check him.
As for it not mattering…I disagree. It DID and DOES matter, IMHO. It’s a serious hit to US credibility, especially with the South Koreans, but also with other regional and even global powers. Whether that matters to TRUMP, of course, is another matter. Obviously he didn’t think it mattered when he was trying to cram his foot once again firmly into his mouth. I think, however, that he’s discovering that it actually is going to matter in the long run.
I agree. “a pretty good idea”. That’s what I said way back in post #50.
That’s certainly true in peacetime. They’re not just symbolic ships though, and in times of war they’d certainly take steps to minimize their electronic signature and conceal their location.
Yes, but I think you were at least an order of magnitude off in precision – possibly 2 orders of magnitude.
But you aren’t giving any reasoning here. Who cares what “it would mean”? It’s either technically possible or it’s not.
Now you are just being silly. It isn’t remotely curious that China would maintain backup and/or redundant intelligence systems. Come on, man.
I’m pretty sure RickJay meant it never mattered to Trump. But cry me a fucking river if we lost “credibility” with the SKs over this. We’re the best fucking ally they have in the entire goddam world, so if they have a problem with us, I’ll happily agree to remove our troops and other military support and let them fend for themselves.
Honest question for anyone for what might be a minor point about the quote above: How long does it take for a carrier group at full speed to turn 180?
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
But you aren’t giving any reasoning here. Who cares what “it would mean”? It’s either technically possible or it’s not.
[/QUOTE]
I did give a reason…I’ve seen no evidence that supports that. I read the cites linked to and I see no evidence that the assertion I was responding to was proved. You asked why I thought it was magical and I told you. If you wish to present other evidence that I have it wrong I’m certainly willing to look at it. I did my own Google searching and couldn’t find any, however, beyond assertions on message boards (and not particularly science or space orbital mechanically oriented ones).
I’m in the same boat you are…come on, man. Are you seriously asserting China goes to the expense and effort to use those other things as a BACKUP?? :dubious: In peacetime? I don’t buy that…again.
At any rate, I think it’s kind of a silly point that has used up pages of wrangling that only diverts from the actual topic of the thread. Whether the Chinese had the level of precision in tracking our carriers across all the worlds oceans or not, they certainly could track them to a degree and would know relatively quickly that they weren’t headed towards Korea. So did most other major powers, no doubt.
And what’s the basis for that thought?
P.S. I’m really not trying to be snarky here, just trying to understand your reasoning. The ISSSP guys estimated “About 16 targeting opportunities, during which the uncertainty in the target’s location is less than 10 km, are available in a day.” A carrier underway at full speed is moving something like 1 km / minute. It’s going to move outside of that 10 km targeting opportunity pretty quickly, and then the Chinese have to wait another ~90 minutes or so for their next precise fix. And a few minutes after that, the information is stale and the uncertainty of the carrier’s location is growing rapidly again, and they’ve got to wait another ~90 minutes to get another accurate location confirmed, etc.
No, we aren’t in the same boat. Because without a doubt your “come on man” question is clownish and my answer is along the lines of basic critical systems design.
Well my initial answer was “within a day’s travel” so we’re in total agreement on that score.
Which is more relevant to the actual issue than the carrying capacity of the European sparrow. But just barely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KnCqcTEOU gives a pretty good overview, but not a precise time. I’d guess a minute or two.
Just last week they had the Ford out for builder’s trials. Again, no precise number, but Rear Admiral Bruce Lindsey, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic wrote in a press release a couple of days ago:
A carrier will rarely be moving at full speed. But we’re not talking about “targeting opportunities” – we’re talking firstly about whether the Chinese realized that Trump and Mattis were wrong. The answer is almost certainly “yes”. And secondly about how precisely they know the location of a carrier fleet in the Pacific – and I’m estimating based on spy satellites and many other forms of intel gathering, it will usually be a matter of miles or hundreds of meters, not hundreds of miles.
Without going into a whole lot of detail, there are surely limitations on the Chinese capability. The orbits of certain satellites are likely optimized for coverage in certain latitudes, and in all likelihood, the Chinese may not care what’s going on in the Med.
But the investment they have made in surveillance satellites is pretty substantial, and if they work as they are supposed to, there is literally no reason to believe they don’t have very substantial capabilities. You can’t just say “I don’t believe it!” and have that taken seriously.
Let’s put this another way, which is not exactly apples-to-apples, but good enough: do you think that the Chinese have satellites that can communicate to mostly any point on earth?
Not to mention that much of the article referenced Soviet capabilities during the Cold War, which is generally considered to have ended in 1991 or so.
Hurricane, here is a thought experiment for you: compare the capabilities of the phone you have now to the phone you had in the 80’s, and extrapolate that to a country’s most sophisticated surveillance satellites.
Of course they do. Because in wartime, one of the first things both sides would do is try to take out each other’s satellites. They would be idiots to not have a backup.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
You can’t just say “I don’t believe it!” and have that taken seriously.
[/QUOTE]
Sure I can. And I’m hardly taken very seriously on this board so that’s not a major concern of mine. 
Here’s the thing…it’s not up to me to prove a negative. Not really possible for me to do so, in any case. I haven’t seen compelling evidence for your claim that they can continuously track a US carrier group even in just the Pacific wrt the specifications you claimed. I don’t believe the Chinese have that capability. This is based more on my admittedly dated time in the Navy and the then satellite tech available. Perhaps the Chinese have far surpassed what the US and the Soviets could do in my day. Prove it.
Certainly they have. And certainly they have substantial capabilities. I don’t believe they are 8 feet tall with curly blonde hair, however. And I don’t believe they can track a carrier group anywhere on the worlds oceans (or even just the south Pacific) 30+ times a day with the precision you were claiming. But perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe Stranger or yourself will come in with compelling cites. Personally, I think the questions is silly and a diversion from the thread, so I haven’t personally spent a lot of time looking for orbital paths of the known Chinese birds and compared their relative capabilities to see if, even theoretically they match with the parameters you are claiming. I did read your cite as well as skimmed a few others presented in this thread and see nothing compelling in there, including the Wiki cite showing the various types and capabilities of Chinese birds to show what you are claiming.
That said, I concede that I could just be locked in a mindset that is dated now. Perhaps the Chinese ARE 8 feet tall with curly blonde hair these days. I know much of the rest of their military is composed of a large percentage of BS and inflation with some real capabilities in there as well, and that they CLAIM a lot but when you dig in they usually lack the substance…but maybe their military satellite program is the hidden gem.
Well, as you say it’s not really apples to apples…having the ability to send communications isn’t the same as having the ability to track a moving group of ships anywhere in the Pacific, say with the sorts of precision you were claiming. But…honestly, I don’t know. Using just their own communications resources? ANY point on the planet all the time? I doubt it, but perhaps they do. Can they? Anywhere? You tell me.
[QUOTE=TonySinclair]
Of course they do. Because in wartime, one of the first things both sides would do is try to take out each other’s satellites. They would be idiots to not have a backup.
[/QUOTE]
We aren’t at war, however. Having a backup plan is essential…using it constantly and incurring the cost of that would be kind of silly and wasteful, assuming you had the capabilities claimed. Entities TEST their backup plans periodically…they don’t run their day to day operations when there isn’t an emergency using their backup contingencies and capabilities. The Chinese DO use air and sea scouting assets on a regular basis, however, as well as other non-satellite (or even non-Chinese and commercial satellite capabilities) on a regular basis. It’s not the silly question CarnalK is making it out to be. Why use that stuff if, indeed the claims of being able to track a carrier group in all the worlds oceans with that level of precision exists for the Chinese? Hell, if the US has it why would WE use other stuff…I mean, if we can track all surface ships world wide less than hourly why would we need anything else?? Our network is a lot more extensive than the Chinese, or at least that’s my impression.
Well, few of us care about that, being taken seriously. Me, I just post here to practice typing.
I kinda like this move, whether it was deliberate or not.
It’s a confusing set of events that should make KJU feel less in control, and make the US look less predictable.
The obvious retort is “But if we make KJU uncomfortable he might just press the red button”! But we can say the same thing about pretty much any action or inaction we do.
Yeah he’s a loose cannon and doing X might make him do the unthinkable. But so might the status quo; he’s been pushing ahead with the weapons program in the face of sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
When the counter-argument is no more precise than “I read what you cited and don’t have any comments other than I don’t believe it” then why should anyone make any more effort to convince you?
This isn’t a claim that the Chinese can run a 3 minute mile. It’s more like a claim that they can run a sub-5 minute mile, when we know that the Americans can run a 4 minute mile.
But whatever. Like you say, this is a diversion, and not sure what the point of drawing it out would be.