Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined?

This is a discussion on US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler You sound like you didn't enjoy Battleship! Ill see it when it comes out free ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 19th, 2012   #16
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 57
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
You sound like you didn't enjoy Battleship!
Ill see it when it comes out free on cable, LOL, Im burned out on "Aliens taking over" movies.
USAF77 is offline  
Old September 22nd, 2012   #17
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
It was Meh. The Battles were OK if very unrealistic. Seeing the Missouri fighting was cool and stupid. It was a OK but silly movie with alot of action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF77 View Post
Ill see it when it comes out free on cable, LOL, Im burned out on "Aliens taking over" movies.
Belesari is offline  
Old September 22nd, 2012   #18
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,306
Threads:
I'll get it on "lovefilm.com" when it's virtually free (just the monthly sub) - looking at the trailer, I can't convince myself that anyone in the whole wide world could believe it was anything other than a very sucky film. Liam Neeson can't save you...
StobieWan is offline  
Old September 24th, 2012   #19
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
I'll get it on "lovefilm.com" when it's virtually free (just the monthly sub) - looking at the trailer, I can't convince myself that anyone in the whole wide world could believe it was anything other than a very sucky film. Liam Neeson can't save you...
But, But its LIAM NEESON!!!
Belesari is offline  
Old September 26th, 2012   #20
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 89
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
You're off topic, your dates are several decades off, Great Britain wasn't necessarily the world's greatest military power at the time (France could almost certainly beat us on land), & "a group of farmers" didn't win. How many French troops were there at Yorktown? And how many countries was Great Britain at war with in the early 1780s?

I suggest you read a little history.
Depends on which bit of land you're talking about. India? No. Canada? No. Malta? No. Portugal? No.

It was a classicThe Elephant vs The Whale and ultimately the whale has more options, certainly in terms of finance, and finance always dictates who is the most powerful.
Padfoot is offline  
Old September 27th, 2012   #21
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padfoot View Post
Depends on which bit of land you're talking about. India? No. Canada? No. Malta? No. Portugal? No.

It was a classicThe Elephant vs The Whale and ultimately the whale has more options, certainly in terms of finance, and finance always dictates who is the most powerful.
For gawds sake!
The thread is stupid enough without this tripe
ASSAIL is offline  
Old September 27th, 2012   #22
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,504
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padfoot View Post
Depends on which bit of land you're talking about. India? No. Canada? No. Malta? No. Portugal? No.

It was a classicThe Elephant vs The Whale and ultimately the whale has more options, certainly in terms of finance, and finance always dictates who is the most powerful.
Portugal was decades later: decades of the British economy growing faster than the French. It was also a war which was a sideshow to France, which had far more troops occupied fighting to try to control Spain than ever faced the British & Portuguese armies.

Malta was also a generation after the American rebellion, & we didn't have to fight the French on land. The Maltese did that: they defeated the French garrison & began the siege. We (& for a long time the Portuguese) kept the French from being resupplied & reinforced by sea, & when the Maltese were no longer able to keep a large enough army in the field to maintain the siege provided (along with the Portuguese, for a while) reinforcements - as did the Kingdom of Naples.

You've conflated wars spread over more than 50 years during which British wealth & power was (despite the loss of the North American colonies) growing faster than that of France, & only one of which was fought with mainly 'British' (in a broad sense) troops - & in that one, quite a few of the 'British' troops were on the other side in the American rebellion, e.g. a certain George Washington.
swerve is offline  
Old September 27th, 2012   #23
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 196
Threads:
Bit of a silly discussion but I will play.

What if these fictitious ocean battles weren't fought in open waters?

Envisage a situation such a conflict with China a few decades from now. The Chinese have quickly overwhelmed Taiwan and Korea. The Indians, Russians and other nations in the region all want to remain neutral and have refused to allow the US access to land bases.

Effectively this means the USN will now have to deal with the double threat of the Chinese navy and airforce.

The aim is to liberate Taiwan and Korea ... could they do it?
hauritz is offline  
Old September 27th, 2012   #24
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,642
Threads:
You think that the limitations of the USN are the biggest factor in a land war against the Chinese on their home turf?
Waylander is offline  
Old September 27th, 2012   #25
Banned Member
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 396
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
The aim is to liberate Taiwan and Korea ... could they do it?
Assuming no nukes? I believe the USN can do so. Those Chinese missiles are going to be nasty though, once the USN lands -- maybe in Korea? I'm not so sure if the Red Storm Rising scenario is feasible with all those Burkes, Ticos and F-35s supported by E-2Ds. And, I believe the USN will be able to strike first with all those tomahawks from SSGNs. I also presume that when you say USN, you include the Marines.
fretburner is offline  
Old September 27th, 2012   #26
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 196
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
You think that the limitations of the USN are the biggest factor in a land war against the Chinese on their home turf?
In this particular scenario ... yes.

Before troops could be inserted control of the air and sea would be essential

In the case of Taiwan it may be enough just to create an exclusion zone.

Korea would be trickier in that they would need to conduct a massive D-Day type of amphibious operation ... but over a much greater distance.
hauritz is offline  
Old September 27th, 2012   #27
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 1,643
Threads:
Just one point, any initial battles will be against in theatre forces only.

In the China scenario that puts one (maybe two) carrier groups on station depending on timing, it also puts whatever land based US Forces that are in range, against the whole Chinese airforce and Navy.

In that position, I don't think the US 7th Fleet would have much choice but to withdraw outside the range of the lighter chinese aircraft and operate from there. Not sure how long they could stay without retiring for repairs, replenishment of stores and aircraft either.

Remember a defensive battle is going to fought with what is in theatre, in an offensive situation you have the advantage of being able to use a set piece prepared formation, such as in 2003 with half the US Carrier fleet involved.

Luckily Korea, Singapore and Japan have potent airforces that would likely intervene and significantly even the odds.
StevoJH is offline  
Old October 4th, 2012   #28
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Guangzhou, PRC
Posts: 168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
Just one point, any initial battles will be against in theatre forces only.

In the China scenario that puts one (maybe two) carrier groups on station depending on timing, it also puts whatever land based US Forces that are in range, against the whole Chinese airforce and Navy.

In that position, I don't think the US 7th Fleet would have much choice but to withdraw outside the range of the lighter chinese aircraft and operate from there. Not sure how long they could stay without retiring for repairs, replenishment of stores and aircraft either.

Remember a defensive battle is going to fought with what is in theatre, in an offensive situation you have the advantage of being able to use a set piece prepared formation, such as in 2003 with half the US Carrier fleet involved.

Luckily Korea, Singapore and Japan have potent airforces that would likely intervene and significantly even the odds.

But with the recent announcement that the USN will station 60% of its fleet in Asia, would this not negate any tactical advantage China may have?
Although it would take time to regenerate, the USN reserve fleet is fairly formidable, in itself and would, no doubt, sortie prior to any hostilities.

On the negative side, would not China pre-emptively strike at ROK, Japanese and Taiwanese airfields? Admittedly, not all these nations aircraft would be destroyed but a significant amount of them would, I imagine.

Best scenario, before China "winds up" the ICBM fleet would be to neutralise them first and the SSBNs, Next phase, C4I, air defenses and POL as well as denying PLA-N replenishment.

Overly simplistic but it's hardly rocket science.

The goal wouldn't be actual occupation of the Chinese mainland proper, but to neutralize their ability to strike outside their own littoral areas thus securing allies in the region (strictly naval), no?
exported_kiwi is offline  
Old October 4th, 2012   #29
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 196
Threads:
Rand did a study a decade ago about a potential war against China ... China lost.

However a more recent study produced a different result.

Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War | Danger Room | Wired.com

Things are going to get even more difficult for the west in another decade or so as the Chinese continue to expand their military capability.

The big threat to the USN would be chinese missiles ... thousands of them.

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

The USNs best chance would probably be its submarine fleet rather than airpower. This could be enough to deny Chinese amphibious forces access to Taiwan.

As for establishing a beachhead in South Korea ... that would be a lot more difficult. In fact if the Chinese were to overrun Korea I don't think recapturing using military force would be an option.
hauritz is offline  
Old October 5th, 2012   #30
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 89
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
For gawds sake!
The thread is stupid enough without this tripe
Tripe how?
Padfoot is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33 PM.