Sorry not sure how my reply got mixed with jib's quote, but my reply is also included in the first two lines of the second quote box.
How good is the US Navy?
- Thread starter Defcon 6
- Start date
'Tis an interesting article, but the author basis for his opinion is anchored (sorry for the bad pun) in examples that have arisen during either exercises or basic everyday operations. Not actual "hot" engagements. There is no way to fully judge any military force, let alone the USN, during peacetime ops. Nevertheless exercises all are good and hopefully more lessons will be learned.
:smokie
:smokie
Regarding the USN, China, and Taiwan. One major point the Chinese have had to face up to is how vulnerable their Nation is to an economic and Naval blackade. They are completly reliant on oil imports, have to import a lot of food, and have a export reliant economy. In short they are a nation who would be deeply hurt by a naval blockade.
The other day a guy I work with said something to the effect, "China is far more powerful then the USA". When I asked him in what way he was unable to answer. Saying something along the lines of how they, "have six times the population as we do". Its strange that Americans almost always give their enemies far more credit as a military danger then they are. Most of all the Liberal Left, which this guy was a member, and who have convinced themselves China is an insurmountable enemy. The truth is many Americans simply have no idea of the reach, and capability, of their military machine. Which is powerful enough to make a nation like China think twice before attacking an Island 100 miles off her shores.
I would say that in Blue water the USN is undefeatable. You cant analyze it on the basis of warships alone, or aircraft. But also, as a force capable of controlling the information battlefield. In other words, we will know where they are at but they will have a hard time knowing where we are at.
The other day a guy I work with said something to the effect, "China is far more powerful then the USA". When I asked him in what way he was unable to answer. Saying something along the lines of how they, "have six times the population as we do". Its strange that Americans almost always give their enemies far more credit as a military danger then they are. Most of all the Liberal Left, which this guy was a member, and who have convinced themselves China is an insurmountable enemy. The truth is many Americans simply have no idea of the reach, and capability, of their military machine. Which is powerful enough to make a nation like China think twice before attacking an Island 100 miles off her shores.
I would say that in Blue water the USN is undefeatable. You cant analyze it on the basis of warships alone, or aircraft. But also, as a force capable of controlling the information battlefield. In other words, we will know where they are at but they will have a hard time knowing where we are at.
Rich:
LOL You hit the nail on the head.
LOL And we were born in the same year. Same first name. Go figure.
LOL But we are dinosaurs. The rest of the world truly believes that the U.S. will roll over and play dead at any moment.
LOL Ive got news for them they arent going to like. LOL
They dont get it:
Its not about Clinton, Bush, Gore or Cheney.
And until they do get it we will get along just fine thank you.
Shoot did I just give away a state secret?????? LOL
LOL You hit the nail on the head.
LOL And we were born in the same year. Same first name. Go figure.
LOL But we are dinosaurs. The rest of the world truly believes that the U.S. will roll over and play dead at any moment.
LOL Ive got news for them they arent going to like. LOL
They dont get it:
Its not about Clinton, Bush, Gore or Cheney.
And until they do get it we will get along just fine thank you.
Shoot did I just give away a state secret?????? LOL
Rich,Rich said:Regarding the USN, China, and Taiwan. One major point the Chinese have had to face up to is how vulnerable their Nation is to an economic and Naval blackade. They are completly reliant on oil imports, have to import a lot of food, and have a export reliant economy. In short they are a nation who would be deeply hurt by a naval blockade.
The other day a guy I work with said something to the effect, "China is far more powerful then the USA". When I asked him in what way he was unable to answer. Saying something along the lines of how they, "have six times the population as we do". Its strange that Americans almost always give their enemies far more credit as a military danger then they are. Most of all the Liberal Left, which this guy was a member, and who have convinced themselves China is an insurmountable enemy. The truth is many Americans simply have no idea of the reach, and capability, of their military machine. Which is powerful enough to make a nation like China think twice before attacking an Island 100 miles off her shores.
I would say that in Blue water the USN is undefeatable. You cant analyze it on the basis of warships alone, or aircraft. But also, as a force capable of controlling the information battlefield. In other words, we will know where they are at but they will have a hard time knowing where we are at.
The USN maybe masters of the seas, but unfortunately, mastery of the seas does not translate to mastery of land. A long time ago, both General Douglas MacArthur and General Charles de Gaulle warned JFK that the Asian mainland was no place to be fighting a non-nuclear land war. There was no end to Asian manpower, MacArthur told the President, and even if we poured a million American infantry soldiers into that continent, we would still find ourselves outnumbered on every side. De Gaulle said the same thing in Paris that spring, pointing out that the French had shown us the hopelessness of trying to fight in that country.
China only has to control the straights for a very short time in order to obtaine success. Granted that a short time is not a couple of hours either, and any crossing of the Taiwan Straits would make the run across the Channel into Normandy look like a spring afternoon paddling around the tidal pool by the Jefferson Monument. Nevertheless, China's strategy has the advantage of having the luxury of concentrating its forces in a small area, and also the tactical advantage of remaining on the defensive vis-a-vis the US.
BTW, the Russkies and Central Asian nations are planning on building oil/gas pipelines into the PRC. That should go a long way to diversify their requirements and reducing the efficiency of a blockade.
:daz
Dog te straights might as well be 1,000 miles wide for all the good it does China. Its true they have a lot of bodies, but they have a limited amphib capability and their chances of a successful operation are about nil. Nobody is considering invading China,"why would we", and they know if Allied forces were over-run in Korea it might trigger a nuclear war. "If" they could even do it in the first place.
Their navy would have serious problems operating outside the cover of land bases. Thus their ability to project power is very limited, and lest face it, they just arent up to western spec.
I would suggest the historical equivalant of the China/Taiwan situation as being the English Channel circa-1941 ,with Taiwan being far better prepared then England was post-Dunkirk, and the spectre of a hyper-power getting involved acting as deterrant to China's ambitions. The USN still rules the roost in the Pacific. And the Chinese know it.
Their navy would have serious problems operating outside the cover of land bases. Thus their ability to project power is very limited, and lest face it, they just arent up to western spec.
I would suggest the historical equivalant of the China/Taiwan situation as being the English Channel circa-1941 ,with Taiwan being far better prepared then England was post-Dunkirk, and the spectre of a hyper-power getting involved acting as deterrant to China's ambitions. The USN still rules the roost in the Pacific. And the Chinese know it.
Charles de Gaul apparantly didn't feel that way when his government authorized the Dien Bein Phu campaign. Neither did McArthur when he pushed farther north than authorized, giving the PLA an excuse to enter the war and turn a significant victory for the US into a bloody stalemate (He got fired for that). These guys were just covering up for their humiliating defeats by exaggerating their enemies, so they wouldn't have to admit they screwed up.Sea Dog said:A long time ago, both General Douglas MacArthur and General Charles de Gaulle warned JFK that the Asian mainland was no place to be fighting a non-nuclear land war. There was no end to Asian manpower, MacArthur told the President, and even if we poured a million American infantry soldiers into that continent, we would still find ourselves outnumbered on every side. De Gaulle said the same thing in Paris that spring, pointing out that the French had shown us the hopelessness of trying to fight in that country.
????KGB said:Charles de Gaul apparantly didn't feel that way when his government authorized the Dien Bein Phu campaign. Neither did McArthur when he pushed farther north than authorized, giving the PLA an excuse to enter the war and turn a significant victory for the US into a bloody stalemate (He got fired for that). These guys were just covering up for their humiliating defeats by exaggerating their enemies, so they wouldn't have to admit they screwed up.
The French-Indochina War occurred from 1946-1954. During that period, Charles de Gaulle was a retired private citizen--he was removed from all active politics from 1946 until 1958. Not being in power or politics during during the French-Indochina War prevented him from having any influence upon the involvement of the French decision-making. It was only in 1958, 4 YEARS AFTER DIEN BIEN PHU, that de Gaulle returned to power and active politics.:rwb
Both MacArthur and de Gaulle gave their very wise advice after both had seen the results of futile military expeditions in the Asian mainland--they had learned their lesson!! JFK ignored them.
C'mon guys. We aren't talking land warfare here were talking naval warfare. The Chinese cant "walk" across the straight, and anything they send across, most of all large amphib ships, would be met by a fusillade of missiles. The Taiwanese arent exactly defenseless and its far from certain the mainlanders can accomplish it even without US assistance. With it? The Chinese don't have a chance.
Not only is invading China not necessary, we'd have to be nuts to do so. A naval blockade would bring them to their knees. Yes they could stir up the Korean peninsula but they must understand even a victory there might ignite a nuclear war. And China would not survive such a war. They would be annihilated!
So thus far American power has check mated them. And most of that power is in a huge and lethal Pacific fleet that the Chinese could not cope with. They have never even fought a major naval battle and their performance in one would be suspect. Even if there was rough parity in forces. Which there isn't.
Not only is invading China not necessary, we'd have to be nuts to do so. A naval blockade would bring them to their knees. Yes they could stir up the Korean peninsula but they must understand even a victory there might ignite a nuclear war. And China would not survive such a war. They would be annihilated!
So thus far American power has check mated them. And most of that power is in a huge and lethal Pacific fleet that the Chinese could not cope with. They have never even fought a major naval battle and their performance in one would be suspect. Even if there was rough parity in forces. Which there isn't.
The Chinese have the advantage of timing and concentration of force. They can decide when to cross, we don't have the option of dictating their moves. The Chinese units are based but 100 nm away. The closest naval base we have is Guam which is about 1600nm. We can't keep BG's hovering around Taiwan forever--not with the reduction in CV's.
A naval blockade would not work and would not bring anything to its kness. Don't think like an American, think like a Chinese. Since when did they give a f**k about the welfare of their people? They can take long term privations, and unfortunately we cannot take long term foreign political pressure. Neither Russia, North Korea, or Burma would respect the blockade and they would allow the use of their port facilities to China. We gonna blockade them too? C'mon!
China does not have much in 'Phib assualt capabilities, but they do have patience, I'll give them that. But, once again, our fleet is far away, and the Chinese choose the time to strike. The key to stopping China crossing the straits is Taiwan's forces, and perhaps our ability to sortie large number of a/c out of Okinawa (only 400nm away)--for the last one we need Japan's ok, and I don't see it coming if Japan does not feel threatened. The 7thFLT would not make the party in time to stop a quick determined invasion.
A naval blockade would not work and would not bring anything to its kness. Don't think like an American, think like a Chinese. Since when did they give a f**k about the welfare of their people? They can take long term privations, and unfortunately we cannot take long term foreign political pressure. Neither Russia, North Korea, or Burma would respect the blockade and they would allow the use of their port facilities to China. We gonna blockade them too? C'mon!
China does not have much in 'Phib assualt capabilities, but they do have patience, I'll give them that. But, once again, our fleet is far away, and the Chinese choose the time to strike. The key to stopping China crossing the straits is Taiwan's forces, and perhaps our ability to sortie large number of a/c out of Okinawa (only 400nm away)--for the last one we need Japan's ok, and I don't see it coming if Japan does not feel threatened. The 7thFLT would not make the party in time to stop a quick determined invasion.
Last edited:
In this era of recon satellites, you have to be really, really good at maskirovka to keep preparations for a large-scale amphibious invasion secret. That kind of intel goof-up does happen, sure, but I wouldn't bet on the Chinese anyway.Sea Dog said:The 7thFLT would not make the party in time to stop a quick determined invasion.
The closest naval base is actually at Japan, and supplemented by Okinawa. More importantly, the USAF can deploy it's expeditionary air groups from these bases as well, and there are always at least one of these groups forward deployed to the region. The prepositioned packages of aircraft already include intercontinental/stealth bombers, and will be operating with the F/A-22 in the next few years. An additional point of fact, multiple USN ESG's, AARG's, subs, and logistic groups transit the straits several times a year.Sea Dog said:The Chinese have the advantage of timing and concentration of force. They can decide when to cross, we don't have the option of dictating their moves. The Chinese units are based but 100 nm away. The closest naval base we have is Guam which is about 1600nm. We can't keep BG's hovering around Taiwan forever--not with the reduction in CV's.
So, actually, the US does keep BG's hovering around Taiwan, constantly.
And recently, the US even surged half of their total CVBG's into the theater simultaneously- to prove to themeselves and the Chinese that they could.
It's unknown how effective a naval blockade would be to the PRC's military logistics- but destroying any PLAN vessel outside an imposed exclusion zone would certainly be a very painful consequense to the PLAN. And the US can certainly do this.Sea Dog said:A naval blockade would not work and would not bring anything to its kness. Don't think like an American, think like a Chinese. Since when did they give a f**k about the welfare of their people? They can take long term privations, and unfortunately we cannot take long term foreign political pressure. Neither Russia, North Korea, or Burma would respect the blockade and they would allow the use of their port facilities to China. We gonna blockade them too? C'mon!
As I stated above, your fleet is never far away. Infact it may not be more than a week's transit time away from an operational position. And of course, there's also the air assets, that can be forward deployed to the theater in a matter of hours. Remember that approximately one third of a carrier's tactical fighters need to be retained aboard the ship for the group's air defence- the remaining squadrons could be forward deployed to the ROC, to provide a very substantial air defense supplement to Taiwan's already very capable air force.Sea Dog said:China does not have much in 'Phib assualt capabilities, but they do have patience, I'll give them that. But, once again, our fleet is far away, and the Chinese choose the time to strike. The key to stopping China crossing the straits is Taiwan's forces, and perhaps our ability to sortie large number of a/c out of Okinawa (only 400nm away)--for the last one we need Japan's ok, and I don't see it coming if Japan does not feel threatened. The 7thFLT would not make the party in time to stop a quick determined invasion.
As to Japan, I am very certain that they would see an unprovoked invasion against Taiwan as sufficiently threatening to allow the US to operate anything they want from Okinawa. Okinawa is Japanese territory, populated by Japanese citizens. It's proximity to the battlespace, and it's importance as a military asset is such that the PRC would have to be as commited to shutting down Okinawa's airbases as they would be to an invasion. So naturally, the threat to Japanese citizens is more than enough to warrant the most serious possible response from Japan, including allowing the American military full basing rights, and probably obviating the the usage of Japanese assets to protect it's own territory from Chinese incursion.
Lasty, Japan ( and South Korea ) recieves it's vital oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, and therefore, transit the Taiwan Straits. A PLAN naval blockade against Taiwan would effectively cut off Japan and S.Korean oil, and thus would be seen as a VERY serious provocation by China. Naturally, these nations will likely be forced to break the PLAN blockade in order to maintain their SLOCs.
Serious Taiwan Concerns
I've read a lot of commentary lately on various blogs as to how the USA will kick China's butt if it ever tries to invade Taiwan, etc, etc.
One of the recurring themes that comes up from ex-USN or Ex Intel guys is how China will not know where our CvBG will be and how we will be able to pick them off at will.
Well, I have witnessed the USA's response to China's sabre rattling antics over the last 15 years and in every case, when I have been in a position to eyeball the results, the USA has reacted in a predictable fashion to the protagonist. Particularly with regard to deploying a carrier battle group to the Taiwan Straits.
We send the carrier and they back off, we think we have won the exchange, etc.
Having worked with and for and in China, I totally disagree with this impression. I believe the Chinese are smoking the USA out to see how the USN will respond in X situation. And we do the same thing time and again.
So, if I am China and I want to take out a USN carrier ( as a prelude to my invasion or what have you) then all I have to do is behave in X and Y manner and said carrier will appear within 4 days at K coordinates. That is not a good thing and what is of greater concern is that we (the USA) have been duped like this in the past.
A CvBG is an extremely powerful force, but if you use it in a series of kneejerk politically motivated responses, then you degrade its ability to fight and you might even endanger key assets within the CvBG and that is my point and that is what I see CINCPAC doing. Why? I do no know.
To coin a phrase; "Lulled into a false sense of security"
I am not impressed and they need to shape up. Just because we have a technological advantage does not mean you can go to sleep at the wheel.
Cheers
I've read a lot of commentary lately on various blogs as to how the USA will kick China's butt if it ever tries to invade Taiwan, etc, etc.
One of the recurring themes that comes up from ex-USN or Ex Intel guys is how China will not know where our CvBG will be and how we will be able to pick them off at will.
Well, I have witnessed the USA's response to China's sabre rattling antics over the last 15 years and in every case, when I have been in a position to eyeball the results, the USA has reacted in a predictable fashion to the protagonist. Particularly with regard to deploying a carrier battle group to the Taiwan Straits.
We send the carrier and they back off, we think we have won the exchange, etc.
Having worked with and for and in China, I totally disagree with this impression. I believe the Chinese are smoking the USA out to see how the USN will respond in X situation. And we do the same thing time and again.
So, if I am China and I want to take out a USN carrier ( as a prelude to my invasion or what have you) then all I have to do is behave in X and Y manner and said carrier will appear within 4 days at K coordinates. That is not a good thing and what is of greater concern is that we (the USA) have been duped like this in the past.
A CvBG is an extremely powerful force, but if you use it in a series of kneejerk politically motivated responses, then you degrade its ability to fight and you might even endanger key assets within the CvBG and that is my point and that is what I see CINCPAC doing. Why? I do no know.
To coin a phrase; "Lulled into a false sense of security"
I am not impressed and they need to shape up. Just because we have a technological advantage does not mean you can go to sleep at the wheel.
Cheers
Sasebo is not a naval base with major assets. Yokosuka is, and just the complexity of the "sea & anchor detail" makes it a base easily bottled up. Guam leads to the open ocean and is more secure from attack. The best naval base is Guam. Prepositioned equipment requires more than just removing the dust and turning the key. Regardless, it takes awhile time to move the troops to the prepositioned equipment--more than 1 week at a minimum.Wild Weasel said:The closest naval base is actually at Japan, and supplemented by Okinawa. More importantly, the USAF can deploy it's expeditionary air groups from these bases as well, and there are always at least one of these groups forward deployed to the region. The prepositioned packages of aircraft already include intercontinental/stealth bombers, and will be operating with the F/A-22 in the next few years. An additional point of fact, multiple USN ESG's, AARG's, subs, and logistic groups transit the straits several times a year.
So, actually, the US does keep BG's hovering around Taiwan, constantly.
And recently, the US even surged half of their total CVBG's into the theater simultaneously- to prove to themeselves and the Chinese that they could.
So if I was Lord Allmighty of the PLAN I would keep my units inside the exclusion zone. More important, I would concentrate all possible assets in a small area (Taiwan Straits) and achieve temporary control so that I can get across.Wild Weasel said:It's unknown how effective a naval blockade would be to the PRC's military logistics- but destroying any PLAN vessel outside an imposed exclusion zone would certainly be a very painful consequense to the PLAN. And the US can certainly do this.
I don't know what "fleet is never far away" you're talking about, the Navy in which I served 8 years as a surface officer does not keep a BG around the Taiwan Straits all the time; heck we even avoid the Straits all together even in peacetime (so as not to tick off the PRC) and transit west of the island of Taiwan. With the current 12 CV fleet soon to be reduced to 10 it is almost guaranteed that a major BG will be nowhere near the East China Sea. Even if the BG out of Yokosuka is all ready and waiting for the order to sail, I will take 3 days to get there. That is if it was ready and waiting, which is not.Wild Weasel said:As I stated above, your fleet is never far away. Infact it may not be more than a week's transit time away from an operational position. And of course, there's also the air assets, that can be forward deployed to the theater in a matter of hours. Remember that approximately one third of a carrier's tactical fighters need to be retained aboard the ship for the group's air defence- the remaining squadrons could be forward deployed to the ROC, to provide a very substantial air defense supplement to Taiwan's already very capable air force.
That is why Okinawa, and air assets there, are of the vital importance. Deployment to the ROC, to locations that we have never worked at, where we have no assets or prepositioned stuff in place, to operate with someone that we have never trained with, while under fire, is not a smart move at all. I would say that it's a trully dumb move of major proportions.
Dude I served in the 7th Fleet (and the 2nd & 6th), and I can assure with almost 100% certainty that the overwhelming majority of large ship movement (specially the super tankers) go west of Taiwan due to the rough and confused seas within the straits--we did all the time with our little puny FFG. And in a shooting war in the Taiwan Straits, it's a safe bet that Lloyd's would demand (re: insist) on such action from any merchant.Wild Weasel said:Lasty, Japan ( and South Korea ) recieves it's vital oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, and therefore, transit the Taiwan Straits. A PLAN naval blockade against Taiwan would effectively cut off Japan and S.Korean oil, and thus would be seen as a VERY serious provocation by China. Naturally, these nations will likely be forced to break the PLAN blockade in order to maintain their SLOCs.
:duel
Last edited:
Nobody has been "duped". In the case of a shooting war deployment of assets will be left to commanders and not Politicians. Did you ever think we were "duping" them?
The main problem the Chinese have is they have to get an army across that straight in shape to fight. They also need air superiority. Sure they can lob all the missiles they want into Taiwan, or they can take the straight and say they own it. But they still have to get a large mechanized army across it or its all a failure.
And yes! That is the purpose of a blockade. To shut down the commerce of the country your at war with. Other nations will get ample warning. If they fail to heed it then its their loss. I dont see other nations lining up to get involved in Chinas war.
C'mon..........thats the point in a war. To win it! Or we can stab in the back a Democratic nation for the sake of $5 shirts at Walmart.
The main problem the Chinese have is they have to get an army across that straight in shape to fight. They also need air superiority. Sure they can lob all the missiles they want into Taiwan, or they can take the straight and say they own it. But they still have to get a large mechanized army across it or its all a failure.
And yes! That is the purpose of a blockade. To shut down the commerce of the country your at war with. Other nations will get ample warning. If they fail to heed it then its their loss. I dont see other nations lining up to get involved in Chinas war.
C'mon..........thats the point in a war. To win it! Or we can stab in the back a Democratic nation for the sake of $5 shirts at Walmart.
That sounds rather prophetic. I hope it does not hold true. And as far as "duped" goes.. That's a big fat YES. I am of the opinion that CINCPAC has been sitting on their laurels and need to step it up a gear. That is all.Rich said:... C'mon..........thats the point in a war. To win it! Or we can stab in the back a Democratic nation for the sake of $5 shirts at Walmart.
If I can work out where a carrier is going to be on 'x' day then I am fairly sure that other people with more resources than I can do the same.
Once is a lucky guess. Twice is maybe holding your luck. Three times and its getting a bit ridiculous and I don't believe I am that lucky,.... or if I was, why can't it (luck) do something useful for me, like win the powerball?
I Dont think many sane people could argue that the United States hasn't got the most powerful navy in the world. That arguement seems to be linked in most peoples minds to Aircraft Carriers And there weakness in the area of ASW. Even if ALL the carriers were sunk, in a "NO Holds Barred" war, im sure the Ohios would make up for it! I Agree that there does seem to be alot of arragance by Americans of other countries capibilities and there own. In Most Areas of Navel Technology, there are assets from other countries that are comparable to US tech, where the US Shines is having SO MUCH HI TECH, for example the De Gualle Is just as advanced the US Flat tops, but is smaller and there is only one not Twelve. Its easy to state that the US Carriers are weak against subs, that may or may not be true, but if that rule holds true for the nation attacking the CVBG that it also works against it, 1 Sub Might sink 1 carrier, but im sure the US Subs would therefore sink the enemies entire Navy (3rd World Small navy). Its All relative.
I Really dont think that the US would be able to stop China, Yes Maybe if it had a build up like in Desert Storm, The move to base more subs and carriers in the Pacific must surly reflect that they dont have the goods at the moment. My Money is on the 200 Su-27/30s with AA-12 over the handfull of F-15s from Kadena and possible the Super Hornets that "Might" be there. They certainly wont be in Taiwan as the 600+ chinese missiles would have made short work of most Airbases, Weapons Dumps, Fuel depots and Navel facilities, including no doubt the majoity of the taiwanese Airforce and Navy. Remenber Also the Chinese have the ability to Air drop supplies and troops also so its not just about phib, Assume it is a surprise attack, how many subs do you think the americans have right now in or near the taiwan strait?, a dam sight less than the chinese, dont tell me that1-2 los angeles can silently destroy All the subs that the chinese have near by at the Mo Maybe 1 or two , subs are about stealth, there isnt much in the way of stealth once youve launched a few torpedos and made some big bangs with other subs around nearby, although im sure a few of you think that you can!
I Really dont think that the US would be able to stop China, Yes Maybe if it had a build up like in Desert Storm, The move to base more subs and carriers in the Pacific must surly reflect that they dont have the goods at the moment. My Money is on the 200 Su-27/30s with AA-12 over the handfull of F-15s from Kadena and possible the Super Hornets that "Might" be there. They certainly wont be in Taiwan as the 600+ chinese missiles would have made short work of most Airbases, Weapons Dumps, Fuel depots and Navel facilities, including no doubt the majoity of the taiwanese Airforce and Navy. Remenber Also the Chinese have the ability to Air drop supplies and troops also so its not just about phib, Assume it is a surprise attack, how many subs do you think the americans have right now in or near the taiwan strait?, a dam sight less than the chinese, dont tell me that1-2 los angeles can silently destroy All the subs that the chinese have near by at the Mo Maybe 1 or two , subs are about stealth, there isnt much in the way of stealth once youve launched a few torpedos and made some big bangs with other subs around nearby, although im sure a few of you think that you can!
You think the Taiwanese are going to have their missile batteries sitting on air bases waiting to be hit? They will be dispersed, camoflaged, and waiting for the ships of the PN to come in range. No doubt they will also be wired into the formost Military Intelligance network in the world too.
The Chinese themselves would be facing a huge and lethal precision attack package from US forces as well. I would also bet a CBG going into a war theatre would be escorted by more then 1 or 2 SSBN's as well, possibly including a Seawolf or Virginia class.
And one last time. You dont take an Island with missiles,aircraft,or submarines.
The Chinese themselves would be facing a huge and lethal precision attack package from US forces as well. I would also bet a CBG going into a war theatre would be escorted by more then 1 or 2 SSBN's as well, possibly including a Seawolf or Virginia class.
And one last time. You dont take an Island with missiles,aircraft,or submarines.
True, but the PLA might be able to realize it's political objectives in Taiwan by a couple of airstrikes. Public opinion there isn't unanimously pro independence I gather. The sabre rattling done by the PLA is for the benefit of the fence sitters - to influence public opinion.Rich said:And one last time. You dont take an Island with missiles,aircraft,or submarines.
But assuming the article's even halfway right, it seems the most solid way to spend your money, if you need to challange the USN, would be to base your navy on diesels subs and land based aviation. Correct me if I'm wrong but surface and especially air based ASW platforms have important roles in detecting SSKs. If land based aviation can hinder their operations (Big If perhaps), the ASW role would have to be taken over by the SSN's. Now SSK's are a lot cheaper so you could field in much more giving you better chances of scoring a carrier hit or even getting a SSN. Just thinking out loud...
Rich said:The Chinese themselves would be facing a huge and lethal precision attack package from US forces as well. I would also bet a CBG going into a war theatre would be escorted by more then 1 or 2 SSBN's as well, possibly including a Seawolf or Virginia class.
quote]
First off, where exactly would the huge and lethal attack come from, working on the assumption that the chinese havent given the Americans 6 months notice of an invasion, im thinking 20 b-2s from whiteman, and possibly, maybe 1 cvbg with what 100 TLAMs. Also you make a major assumption that US Forces would be allowed to act offensively against China and be allowed to attack the mainland, when it is quite possible that they may only be allowed to act purely defensively for taiwan. Dont forget China Isnt Iraq, any attck package would face AWACS, SA-10 Grumble SAMS and Flankers with AA-12, (all more than capible of taking out 70s tech Tomahawks etc)getting back to the issue of the "Political Cost" How many multi billion dollar B-2s could afford to be lost, lets face it, if an obsolete serb SAM can bring down an f-117, then the Chinese, with ALOT better air defence could quite possible take out a couple of b-2s.
Second point, no idiot would take a SSBN into a combat area, the missiles have got an interconental range, why take it to china!