Reality Check wrote:
thomasglee wrote:Review the naval battles of the Falklands, then let me know if you still fee the same way. Not being condescending, just pointing out how FAR technology has come and the Falklands was 30 years ago. Think even how much further from then anti-ship missiles have come.
Anti-Ship missiles, even very large ones can be launched from four engine and eight engine bombers.
Not sure they are as good as you suggest. But if they are, it is not reasonable to assume the Chinese have the only "good ones".
Look, not trying to get into arguments over semantics, but this is an industry I work in and I'm very familiar with what's going on in the defense electronics industries.
First of all, the anti-ship missiles used in the Falkland were nothing compared to what we have today, yet the Exocet missile still accounted for the most casualties of the war.
Secondly, the Chinese are known to have supersonic anti-ship missiles. Not sure why that seems so hard to believe. No one believes they "only" have the good ones, but it would be ignorant to assume they "only" have inferior ones.
The Chinese The Yingji-83 or YJ-83 (Chinese: 鹰击-83, literally "Eagle Strike"; NATO reporting name: CSS-N- ) is a Chinese anti-ship missile based on the YJ-82, designed as a supersonic successor to the subsonic YJ-82 missile. The export designation is C-803. (LINK
) - for more information on the varieties of supersonic anti-ship missiles the Chinese have, just Google "Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles" and you'll find all kinds of information from Janes and others.
Again, there is a reason we asked the Australians to let us build new bases near Darwin on the northern coast of Australia. We need a land base from which to launch aircraft and drones as the South China Sea is no longer an open water that can be dominated by the US Naval forces without facing serious threats from Chinese technologies.