How good is the US Navy?
- Thread starter Defcon 6
- Start date
amasuntz you give no indication what country your from. So I will assume you dont know that B-2s, and other bombers, can be forward deployed at DG and Guam. We have 94 B-52Hs alone, each capable of launching 20 cruise missiles. Ya think we can scramble up a dozen or so every day? Thats about a 250 missile strike package alone, and then throw in the B-2s, a couple of dozen B1bs, the 154 SLCMs of a converted Ohio, about 3 or 5 SSNs emptying a dozen apiece "I meant SSNs not SSBNs".amatsunz said:
I think your overly impressed with Chinese capabilities and equipment. And BTW the Serbs got a lucky shot in. Its not like they tracked the thing. One stealth shot down in 21 years after how many combat sorties????
And do you think for a minute we would allow the Chinese to attack our boys and girls without striking their mainland military targets? Your hysterical here! The Chinese using nukes is a bluff as well. We would annihilate them as a people. From east to west, north to south, we would turn their nation into a radioactive wasteland. I think those guys in their Politburo would rather have an intact country and their wealth, their sons, their mistresses, and their summer homes, then the Island of Taiwan. Remember, we have used them before!
And it only gets better. We have an entire new generation of advanced weapons coming on line in the next Ten years. So I'm not sweating anything now. A concern certainly but the Chinese can count the beans as well as we can. And the beans dont add up for them now, or in the immediate future. They are, after all, a nation only learning modern war. I think they are over-estimated.
And again, a point no-one is agreeing or disagreeing with here, unless they can get a powerful mechanized army across that straight, and successfully take that island, it means nothing......:usa
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok there is a classic example of the type of arrogance only an American Can dish out, Maybe i should have assumed that seen you are american you wouldnt have a clue where ANYTHING other that the 50 or so states are. No Im not American, But im sure i have a much better grasp of geography and geopolitics than most Americans do.
Anyway from the top, Yes you do have all those amazing Bombers, as i said TLAM/ALCM is 70s tech and i dont think that much of a problem for the AWACS/SA-10/SU-27,SU-30?AA-12 mix, also, giving quotes of the total number of bombers is HIGHLY misleading as the actual number of combat coded PAA aircraft is significantly lower, also the B-1s cant carry ALCM, and stand less chance therfore than the others of getting bombs on target. Unless we are dealing with a hyperthetical in 5 years, the Ohio SSGN number just one boat, JUST redelivered, still to do trials etc for the use of such vessels, the Virginia too numbers just one in service ATM (In the wrong ocean) and the seawolf, well once again 2 in the Atlantic and one, in the PAC, are you telling me in a surprise attck senario that the US has its only SSGN and Seawolf in the PAC in TLAM range of China!!!!, do you understand how these vessels are deployed?
I know you would like to think that you would attack the mainland, but that is one MASSIVE assumption, given the American peoples dislike of casulties, and the fact that China Unlike your "Amazing" victory in Iraq, is a major, well equiped NUCLEAR power, who hasnt faced sactions for the last decade, and who weather you like it of not, is a major part of your economy.
Have you learnt nothing of your war in Iraq, its taken your entire army to suppress a bunch of stone and AK weilding milita. I dont mean to sound disrespectful, but this a major global power that you think you can push to the side with ease. Ive got 2 other points
1) Ive spoken to a number of Taiwanese, they basicly feel that the people of the mainland are their brothers, (In many cases they are), You casualy make throw away comments about Nuking the entire mainland, do you actually know who your helping! do you think the people of Taiwan would thank you? or is this not about them, i believe the same policy was use in Vietnam to help the south vietnamese from the north, Burn Village Burn!
2)Stating that they are just learning modern war, have you heard of Sun Zsu, When All your colonists still lived in Ireland and England etc the Chinese where the most advanced nation of war on the planet, the fundementals of war havent changed a bit, you should be aware that the majority of europe views America as a baby with a hand gun, All of Europe And Asia practiced the art of war before your country was concieved. An F-117 might be a modern "Tool" of war, but if you want to understand why it was shoot down, go ask a chinese person if you can read Sun Tzu.
Anyway from the top, Yes you do have all those amazing Bombers, as i said TLAM/ALCM is 70s tech and i dont think that much of a problem for the AWACS/SA-10/SU-27,SU-30?AA-12 mix, also, giving quotes of the total number of bombers is HIGHLY misleading as the actual number of combat coded PAA aircraft is significantly lower, also the B-1s cant carry ALCM, and stand less chance therfore than the others of getting bombs on target. Unless we are dealing with a hyperthetical in 5 years, the Ohio SSGN number just one boat, JUST redelivered, still to do trials etc for the use of such vessels, the Virginia too numbers just one in service ATM (In the wrong ocean) and the seawolf, well once again 2 in the Atlantic and one, in the PAC, are you telling me in a surprise attck senario that the US has its only SSGN and Seawolf in the PAC in TLAM range of China!!!!, do you understand how these vessels are deployed?
I know you would like to think that you would attack the mainland, but that is one MASSIVE assumption, given the American peoples dislike of casulties, and the fact that China Unlike your "Amazing" victory in Iraq, is a major, well equiped NUCLEAR power, who hasnt faced sactions for the last decade, and who weather you like it of not, is a major part of your economy.
Have you learnt nothing of your war in Iraq, its taken your entire army to suppress a bunch of stone and AK weilding milita. I dont mean to sound disrespectful, but this a major global power that you think you can push to the side with ease. Ive got 2 other points
1) Ive spoken to a number of Taiwanese, they basicly feel that the people of the mainland are their brothers, (In many cases they are), You casualy make throw away comments about Nuking the entire mainland, do you actually know who your helping! do you think the people of Taiwan would thank you? or is this not about them, i believe the same policy was use in Vietnam to help the south vietnamese from the north, Burn Village Burn!
2)Stating that they are just learning modern war, have you heard of Sun Zsu, When All your colonists still lived in Ireland and England etc the Chinese where the most advanced nation of war on the planet, the fundementals of war havent changed a bit, you should be aware that the majority of europe views America as a baby with a hand gun, All of Europe And Asia practiced the art of war before your country was concieved. An F-117 might be a modern "Tool" of war, but if you want to understand why it was shoot down, go ask a chinese person if you can read Sun Tzu.
First of all, can everyone calm down and breath for a minute. Let's not start any argumenets and start making pot shots at one another. You guy's don't want to banned for a couple of months for making stupid comments. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
The plus of this forum's is being able to talk to people around the world and hearing their opinions.
In my opinion to think the U.S. Navy would be limited from attacking mainland China during an attack on Tiawan is far-fetched. An attack by land forces is out of the question, because China would kick the U.S.'s ass so bad it wouldn't be funny. The advantage for China's Navy and Airforce would be limited in certain aspects. Yes, they have J-11's (Su-27's) and those would be a worrisome target. China's AWACs capabilites are limited. Also the U.S. has also been shown to quite good at destory airforces and navies at their bases before they can even get out to fight. ALCM cruise missiles are 70's technology, but it has been constantly updated since then. They are a lot more potent then people give them credit for. The B-1B is very capable of launching ALCM. As part of our treaty with Russia these options were removed from the aircraft, and are not allowed to reinstalled. Though the USAF still have all the parts for the capability and could rapidally reinstall them if nesscary in a time of war. SAM's are easy sitting targets, and the shoulder mounted one's are the only that have proved effective in recent conflicts.
The plus of this forum's is being able to talk to people around the world and hearing their opinions.
In my opinion to think the U.S. Navy would be limited from attacking mainland China during an attack on Tiawan is far-fetched. An attack by land forces is out of the question, because China would kick the U.S.'s ass so bad it wouldn't be funny. The advantage for China's Navy and Airforce would be limited in certain aspects. Yes, they have J-11's (Su-27's) and those would be a worrisome target. China's AWACs capabilites are limited. Also the U.S. has also been shown to quite good at destory airforces and navies at their bases before they can even get out to fight. ALCM cruise missiles are 70's technology, but it has been constantly updated since then. They are a lot more potent then people give them credit for. The B-1B is very capable of launching ALCM. As part of our treaty with Russia these options were removed from the aircraft, and are not allowed to reinstalled. Though the USAF still have all the parts for the capability and could rapidally reinstall them if nesscary in a time of war. SAM's are easy sitting targets, and the shoulder mounted one's are the only that have proved effective in recent conflicts.
As I said, assuming that its NOT a desert storm type build up, explain how the USAF would reassemble ALCM cap on the B-!B, train the crew on its usage, and sort out the logistics of supply for the new carriers, AND withdraw out of a Treaty with a forign country, then Re-base them at Guam?
We maybe getting a little off topic here!, Lancer, there is truth to everything you just said, Rich knows alot about modern war, and assume that you do too, There is no doubt in my mind of the US navys ability to dominate the oceans that it sails in, weather you are pro sub or pro carrier, the US Navy sits at the top for numbers and for tech, but the world is a big place! The flight time from china to taiwan for aircraft or missiles is measured in minutes, the deployment time for a stateside CVBG is measured in weeks, the US Navy knows this, that is why they are moving a flatop from the lant to pac and likely basing it it hawaii or guam, the number of ships actually a day or twos sailing from the staits is very limited, in a one on one china vs the US of course the US navy is going to win (still not sure of superbug vs J-11) but come on! the whole of the chinese airforce has land bases you have maybe okinawa, I said b-2s from whiteman before, as in there is no time to base your entire bomber fleet in guam etc, fly strike now! Lets face it by the time the US can bring say 3 cvbg into the area it all over, and there wont be any getting it back once its gone. I think the earler argument of bombers in DG or guam is another type of arrogence, china is not iraq or Serbia the pacific is a big ocean, as much as you might like to think that you can track every sub etc you cant, Chinese subs have missiles that can strike land too, assuming they know they are going to attcack, they may have moved some subs off guam and okinawa, They dont possess the acuracy and numbers too destroy them and there aircraft, but they can disrupt ops long enough to get the job done in taiwan. Lancer, to say that only shoulder fired SAMs have been effective isnt true, eg F-117 uin serbia, my point is though you havent faced an enemy with the SAMs that china has, SA-3s over serbia aint SA-10s over China, Only the b-2 would try it, 4 prowlers in a CVW aint going to add up to the massive strike packages you need to take the chinese down and keep them down in theie own back yard
We maybe getting a little off topic here!, Lancer, there is truth to everything you just said, Rich knows alot about modern war, and assume that you do too, There is no doubt in my mind of the US navys ability to dominate the oceans that it sails in, weather you are pro sub or pro carrier, the US Navy sits at the top for numbers and for tech, but the world is a big place! The flight time from china to taiwan for aircraft or missiles is measured in minutes, the deployment time for a stateside CVBG is measured in weeks, the US Navy knows this, that is why they are moving a flatop from the lant to pac and likely basing it it hawaii or guam, the number of ships actually a day or twos sailing from the staits is very limited, in a one on one china vs the US of course the US navy is going to win (still not sure of superbug vs J-11) but come on! the whole of the chinese airforce has land bases you have maybe okinawa, I said b-2s from whiteman before, as in there is no time to base your entire bomber fleet in guam etc, fly strike now! Lets face it by the time the US can bring say 3 cvbg into the area it all over, and there wont be any getting it back once its gone. I think the earler argument of bombers in DG or guam is another type of arrogence, china is not iraq or Serbia the pacific is a big ocean, as much as you might like to think that you can track every sub etc you cant, Chinese subs have missiles that can strike land too, assuming they know they are going to attcack, they may have moved some subs off guam and okinawa, They dont possess the acuracy and numbers too destroy them and there aircraft, but they can disrupt ops long enough to get the job done in taiwan. Lancer, to say that only shoulder fired SAMs have been effective isnt true, eg F-117 uin serbia, my point is though you havent faced an enemy with the SAMs that china has, SA-3s over serbia aint SA-10s over China, Only the b-2 would try it, 4 prowlers in a CVW aint going to add up to the massive strike packages you need to take the chinese down and keep them down in theie own back yard
Amats my friend there is an awful lot about the US Military a lot of people dont know about. For instance our submarines are shrouded in secrecy even still, as is almost our entire intel infrustructure. They arent going to surprise anyone. The Chinese submarine force, what little there is of it, will not survive in blue water against the American submarine force. This is my opinion and it has nothing to do with arrogance. The world simply hasnt seen what the USN is capable of. Not for a few generations has it.
Its also my opinion that unless the Chinese can take Taiwan they will have lost. They will pay a terrible economic penalty for starting a shooting war and much of their military hardware is going to be destroyed. Its also my opinion that the Chinese are incapable of taking Taiwan by force now, and in the near future, if facing a combined Taiwan/Yank force. And most of all if our allies in the region stand with us. At the least allowing us to use their bases to stage in. As most will surly will, as they are threatened by the Chinese as well.
You just cant look at military toys and judge capability. War, and power projection, are much to fluid to judge effectiveness just by looking at hardware. Shooting down a B-2 or two, or taking out an aircraft carrier is going to win them that war. They still have to pull off a successful amphib op against a heavily armed defensive force. One no doubt that will be strengthened by US marines.
In the coming two decades the Chinese will eventually face a USAF and USN that will be entirely made up of Stealth war planes. Including hypersonic stealth bombers that cant be defended against. They will be facing warships that will be hard to see and hear, shooting hypersonic missiles that cant defend against. The USA yearly spends roughly as much on its Military as they entire world combined, 6 or 7 times as much as China!
None of this means we dont have to improve, train harder, watch closer, and get better. A 20 year career in the US military is basicaly a 20 year training course anyways.
And also, a thought. We have allies in the region which we have legal treaties with and would most surely help us in some way. Im talking countries with first rate militaries of their own, such as England, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand. We would not be alone, heck it wouldnt surprise me if the Vietnamese, Philippines, and even India helped us in some way.
Theres a big picture here. Take care........Rich
Its also my opinion that unless the Chinese can take Taiwan they will have lost. They will pay a terrible economic penalty for starting a shooting war and much of their military hardware is going to be destroyed. Its also my opinion that the Chinese are incapable of taking Taiwan by force now, and in the near future, if facing a combined Taiwan/Yank force. And most of all if our allies in the region stand with us. At the least allowing us to use their bases to stage in. As most will surly will, as they are threatened by the Chinese as well.
You just cant look at military toys and judge capability. War, and power projection, are much to fluid to judge effectiveness just by looking at hardware. Shooting down a B-2 or two, or taking out an aircraft carrier is going to win them that war. They still have to pull off a successful amphib op against a heavily armed defensive force. One no doubt that will be strengthened by US marines.
In the coming two decades the Chinese will eventually face a USAF and USN that will be entirely made up of Stealth war planes. Including hypersonic stealth bombers that cant be defended against. They will be facing warships that will be hard to see and hear, shooting hypersonic missiles that cant defend against. The USA yearly spends roughly as much on its Military as they entire world combined, 6 or 7 times as much as China!
None of this means we dont have to improve, train harder, watch closer, and get better. A 20 year career in the US military is basicaly a 20 year training course anyways.
And also, a thought. We have allies in the region which we have legal treaties with and would most surely help us in some way. Im talking countries with first rate militaries of their own, such as England, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand. We would not be alone, heck it wouldnt surprise me if the Vietnamese, Philippines, and even India helped us in some way.
Theres a big picture here. Take care........Rich
Rich, my friend there is an awful lot about the Chinese military alot of people dont know about. Imagine Americas surprise when they figure out THEY DONT HAVE THE ENTIRE PICTURE. You and other people keep on telling me that US Intell is SOOOO good, Rich, history is littered with examples of bad intel that cost alot of lives, I could list many but i will ask 3 questions of you to keep it relevant to modern US Capibilities
1) Where is Bin Laden
2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction
3) How come you didnt know about the Attacks on NY and the Pentagon till after they happened
To keep it more relevant, on 2nd August 1990 iraq rolled into Kuwait, how come america didnt know about it BEFORE it happened, Do you think it couldnt happen again? This is the Arrogence im talking about, "we have the best, no body could ever trick us or beat us", There is a LONG list of American military intel blunders, you can also add to the 3 above, dropping bombs on the chinese embassy in Serbia, Killing Civilians in a Bagdad Resturant because you thought Saddam was there-He Wasnt. My point, Your Intel Isnt perfect, a major power invaded a Friend in the Mideast and You didnt know, To Take out that power, required 6 months of build up and they were much less of an military threat than China now. To Top it off, you had the use of major facilities in a boardering country and your forces numbered ALOT more than today. Your Intel Isnt that !@#$ hot.
You say you cant judge just by military toys, then procvede to state what amazing weapons you will have in the next 20 years. Why do you think you will advance but nobody else will? Stealth is becoming a known quantity, you cant accuraty say that it wont be irrelavent inthe china equation in a decade
China, like America will advance over the next decade. They may have many more nukes for exanple capible of hitting the US, And better Air defence, Why would you believe that because you have new stuff they will stand still?
Allies in the regon, Mate, You are assuming too much, for starters relating back to intel/missile flight time, SO WHAT!, will you assemble another coalition of the willing? You show you lack of knowledge again, New Zealand has better relations with China than the US, (im a kiwi by the way) and we arent your allie, we dont have an allience with you (we withdrew from ANZUS in 1986) obviously your intel rich is out of date. I dont think you should count on alot of those countries to help you, just as they didnt in Iraq.
1) Where is Bin Laden
2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction
3) How come you didnt know about the Attacks on NY and the Pentagon till after they happened
To keep it more relevant, on 2nd August 1990 iraq rolled into Kuwait, how come america didnt know about it BEFORE it happened, Do you think it couldnt happen again? This is the Arrogence im talking about, "we have the best, no body could ever trick us or beat us", There is a LONG list of American military intel blunders, you can also add to the 3 above, dropping bombs on the chinese embassy in Serbia, Killing Civilians in a Bagdad Resturant because you thought Saddam was there-He Wasnt. My point, Your Intel Isnt perfect, a major power invaded a Friend in the Mideast and You didnt know, To Take out that power, required 6 months of build up and they were much less of an military threat than China now. To Top it off, you had the use of major facilities in a boardering country and your forces numbered ALOT more than today. Your Intel Isnt that !@#$ hot.
You say you cant judge just by military toys, then procvede to state what amazing weapons you will have in the next 20 years. Why do you think you will advance but nobody else will? Stealth is becoming a known quantity, you cant accuraty say that it wont be irrelavent inthe china equation in a decade
China, like America will advance over the next decade. They may have many more nukes for exanple capible of hitting the US, And better Air defence, Why would you believe that because you have new stuff they will stand still?
Allies in the regon, Mate, You are assuming too much, for starters relating back to intel/missile flight time, SO WHAT!, will you assemble another coalition of the willing? You show you lack of knowledge again, New Zealand has better relations with China than the US, (im a kiwi by the way) and we arent your allie, we dont have an allience with you (we withdrew from ANZUS in 1986) obviously your intel rich is out of date. I dont think you should count on alot of those countries to help you, just as they didnt in Iraq.
Amatsunz, I can understand your position and by no means can you take lightly the Military of China. They do have the largest standing army, and second largest air force in the world. While as sophisticated as the PLAAF has become it still behind in command and control capabilities of the US. While the idea the U.S. would be limited in its capabilities to launch aircraft. The U.S. would be able to launch aircraft from Guam and probably Afghanistan. You also assume countries like the U.K. and Japan would not let us use their bases if China attempted an unprovoked attack on Taiwan.
The true capabilities of many of the U.S.'s aircraft and missile are still secret. Yes, under international treaty the U.S. is not allowed to reinstall the equipment for launching ALCM's on the B-1B. The parts do still exist and the manuals on how to operate the weapons do also. If the U.S. did install this equipment it would be a treaty violation, but in a conflict with China its not likely that our Government, who recently turned a blind eye to some of these treaties, would care (Ballistic Missile Defence Program and Airborne Laser). Russia also doesn't have great relations with China, and would probably turn a blind-eye to the re-installation of the equipment, as long US forces don't use the capability against them.
You talk of American stealth capabilities being compromised. You may not be familiar in the aspect that F-117 program was hidden from the world public for over 25 years. Many of the aircraft's capabilities are still top secret. In that time the Cold War has ended but the funding for Black Projects like the B-2 and F-117 have only seen increased funding. How can a foreign nation protect against an enemy when they don't know its true capabilities? There are still rumors of the USAF possessing a hypersonic attack aircraft. The Seawolf attacksub is rumored to have top speed over 45 knots. The B-2 is still in a cloak of secrecy. There is also the F-22, our new attacks subs, and other rumored projects like the, "Switchblade," a mach 3 capable strike bomber.
In any conflict with China, the U.S. and especially its navy would suffer heavy loses. The loss of a carrier and other support ships is completely possible and likely. Though with our superior navy and long range attack capabilities in my opinion the U.S. would prevail. You said the U.S. Navy would only be able to put 3 carriers into the area around Taiwan. Well in 2004, The U.S.N. put to sea 7 carriers strike groups together during one operation "Summer Pulse 2004." The whole exercise was to show that rapidly the USN could deploy 7 carriers to one area in 30 days.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=13621
Yes the Chinese J-11 does have an advantage in the air over the Superhornet, but with the U.S.'s superior training and avionics a Beyond Visual Range engagement would probably be in favor of the SuperHornet. Though if J-11 was able to close in, the advantage would quickly shift to the PLAAF.
In term of SAM's, the SAM that brought down the F-117 in Yugoslavia was due to the aircraft was already on fire due to being hit by 23mm AAA. The missile had a much better target because of the damage. In all recent conflicts, the U.S. has been able to take out Command and Control facilities and radar sites. Now this does not stop all SAM and AAA threats but it severely diminishes the capability to organize effectively against an air attack. Shoulder mounted SAM's have prove effective because in the Close Air Support environment agianst nearly all types of aircraft. They are all vulnerable to these weapons. Plus SAM sites the SAM-10/12/14 are all large stationary targets and not easily hide-able, so easily visible and easy to take out.
The true capabilities of many of the U.S.'s aircraft and missile are still secret. Yes, under international treaty the U.S. is not allowed to reinstall the equipment for launching ALCM's on the B-1B. The parts do still exist and the manuals on how to operate the weapons do also. If the U.S. did install this equipment it would be a treaty violation, but in a conflict with China its not likely that our Government, who recently turned a blind eye to some of these treaties, would care (Ballistic Missile Defence Program and Airborne Laser). Russia also doesn't have great relations with China, and would probably turn a blind-eye to the re-installation of the equipment, as long US forces don't use the capability against them.
You talk of American stealth capabilities being compromised. You may not be familiar in the aspect that F-117 program was hidden from the world public for over 25 years. Many of the aircraft's capabilities are still top secret. In that time the Cold War has ended but the funding for Black Projects like the B-2 and F-117 have only seen increased funding. How can a foreign nation protect against an enemy when they don't know its true capabilities? There are still rumors of the USAF possessing a hypersonic attack aircraft. The Seawolf attacksub is rumored to have top speed over 45 knots. The B-2 is still in a cloak of secrecy. There is also the F-22, our new attacks subs, and other rumored projects like the, "Switchblade," a mach 3 capable strike bomber.
In any conflict with China, the U.S. and especially its navy would suffer heavy loses. The loss of a carrier and other support ships is completely possible and likely. Though with our superior navy and long range attack capabilities in my opinion the U.S. would prevail. You said the U.S. Navy would only be able to put 3 carriers into the area around Taiwan. Well in 2004, The U.S.N. put to sea 7 carriers strike groups together during one operation "Summer Pulse 2004." The whole exercise was to show that rapidly the USN could deploy 7 carriers to one area in 30 days.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=13621
Yes the Chinese J-11 does have an advantage in the air over the Superhornet, but with the U.S.'s superior training and avionics a Beyond Visual Range engagement would probably be in favor of the SuperHornet. Though if J-11 was able to close in, the advantage would quickly shift to the PLAAF.
In term of SAM's, the SAM that brought down the F-117 in Yugoslavia was due to the aircraft was already on fire due to being hit by 23mm AAA. The missile had a much better target because of the damage. In all recent conflicts, the U.S. has been able to take out Command and Control facilities and radar sites. Now this does not stop all SAM and AAA threats but it severely diminishes the capability to organize effectively against an air attack. Shoulder mounted SAM's have prove effective because in the Close Air Support environment agianst nearly all types of aircraft. They are all vulnerable to these weapons. Plus SAM sites the SAM-10/12/14 are all large stationary targets and not easily hide-able, so easily visible and easy to take out.
Im not saying, "were sooooooo good". Im saying were better then the Chinese. No disrespect but you are making all these grand assumptions on what is a totally unproven military organization in modern times. Your irrationality goes further with.............
1) Where is Bin Laden
2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction
3) How come you didn't know about the Attacks on NY and the Pentagon till after they happened
1, I don't know and the question is irrelevant. Using Intel assets to find one human in a large country, or to try and see the inside of a building, is far different then using them to detect and anticipate a huge buildup of troops, materials, and warships prior to a large amphib op.
2, See answer #1.
3, We did know something was happening however Law Enforcement, which Im a part of, was to stupid and Politicaly correct to take action. And regarding your statement towards "weaponry"? Our weaponry is also matched by high standards of readiness and training.
Im bowing out of this as it has stopped making sense.
1) Where is Bin Laden
2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction
3) How come you didn't know about the Attacks on NY and the Pentagon till after they happened
1, I don't know and the question is irrelevant. Using Intel assets to find one human in a large country, or to try and see the inside of a building, is far different then using them to detect and anticipate a huge buildup of troops, materials, and warships prior to a large amphib op.
2, See answer #1.
3, We did know something was happening however Law Enforcement, which Im a part of, was to stupid and Politicaly correct to take action. And regarding your statement towards "weaponry"? Our weaponry is also matched by high standards of readiness and training.
Im bowing out of this as it has stopped making sense.
1) The question isn't whether the PLAN can achieve superiority over the straits or not - with surprise, it can. Nor is it whether the USN can regain it - it will. The question here is, how long will it take the USN to do it, and what will it cost it.
2) The real question is, can the PLAN put ashore enough forces & supplies to decisively defeat the Taiwanese army before its SLOC is cut?
3) I may be wrong, but the way I see it, if the PRC was to achieve military control of Taiwan, it would then - but only then - see it as part of the mainland and if the US then attempted to invade, there would be a very real possibility the PRC would go nuclear.
4) so 3) leads back to 2). The PLAN today is far from possessing the kind of lift capacity to do it. And that is the key factor. And indeed, the PLAN today seems to be building LSTs at a much, much more frantic pace than warships.
5) and so we get back to amatsunz's post about US intelligence efforts. Preparations for a large-scale amphibious invasion should theoretically be very, very hard to hide from the undoubtedly lavish attentions of a lot of KH-whatever satellites.
The PRC is probably/obviously trying to build the kind of lift capacity that would enable them to successfully invade Taiwan quickly enough that conquest of the island would be a fait accompli by the time the USN could regain naval mastery of the straits.
6) So if I were some USN top brass today, I would put a lot of pressure on the politicians to do whatever is required so the Middle East situation does not require significant USN involvement by the end of the decade, and for the State Department to get Japan to agree to send ships in a hurry to Taiwan should a shooting war got started, and to accept forward-basing in Yokosuka of at least one more CVBG.
Note that all this has little to do with the actual level of USN proficiency. While I do tend to think that it has an unwarranted superiority complex, I'd bet a case of champagne any day its sailors are a lot more proficient than the PLAN's, and as the Soviets (wasn't it Lenin?) used to say, quantity has a quality of its own, anyway...
2) The real question is, can the PLAN put ashore enough forces & supplies to decisively defeat the Taiwanese army before its SLOC is cut?
3) I may be wrong, but the way I see it, if the PRC was to achieve military control of Taiwan, it would then - but only then - see it as part of the mainland and if the US then attempted to invade, there would be a very real possibility the PRC would go nuclear.
4) so 3) leads back to 2). The PLAN today is far from possessing the kind of lift capacity to do it. And that is the key factor. And indeed, the PLAN today seems to be building LSTs at a much, much more frantic pace than warships.
5) and so we get back to amatsunz's post about US intelligence efforts. Preparations for a large-scale amphibious invasion should theoretically be very, very hard to hide from the undoubtedly lavish attentions of a lot of KH-whatever satellites.
The PRC is probably/obviously trying to build the kind of lift capacity that would enable them to successfully invade Taiwan quickly enough that conquest of the island would be a fait accompli by the time the USN could regain naval mastery of the straits.
6) So if I were some USN top brass today, I would put a lot of pressure on the politicians to do whatever is required so the Middle East situation does not require significant USN involvement by the end of the decade, and for the State Department to get Japan to agree to send ships in a hurry to Taiwan should a shooting war got started, and to accept forward-basing in Yokosuka of at least one more CVBG.
Note that all this has little to do with the actual level of USN proficiency. While I do tend to think that it has an unwarranted superiority complex, I'd bet a case of champagne any day its sailors are a lot more proficient than the PLAN's, and as the Soviets (wasn't it Lenin?) used to say, quantity has a quality of its own, anyway...
It would be tough for the Chinese to hide an invasion force of the size they would need to take Taiwan and i think the U.S would be able to get there carrier fleets and Submarines to the area in time for a fight and i have no doubt they would lose ships it would not be a one sided affair but the Chinese would have to knock out all the U.S ships and submarines before they could send troops across the straits and i couldn,t see them winning that convincingly.
And even if they managed to achieve that feat they would still have to deal with Anti Ship missiles launched from Taiwan and even if they put Taiwan under huge aerial bombardment they would knock out all there missile sites,it could end up real messy for the Chinese soldiers crossing the straits and be a huge embarrasment for China.
Rich it,s good to be confident but don,t be over confident always respect your opposition no matter who they,the U.S administration went into Iraq never imagining that they would have to deal with what we are seeing now they thought it would be easy.
And even if they managed to achieve that feat they would still have to deal with Anti Ship missiles launched from Taiwan and even if they put Taiwan under huge aerial bombardment they would knock out all there missile sites,it could end up real messy for the Chinese soldiers crossing the straits and be a huge embarrasment for China.
Rich it,s good to be confident but don,t be over confident always respect your opposition no matter who they,the U.S administration went into Iraq never imagining that they would have to deal with what we are seeing now they thought it would be easy.
Im not "over-confident". For the last time ,"Im basing my opinion on an objective analysis of the forces and quality of forces". Most Americans I run into have a inflated opinion of Chinese military capability. They cant express why they feel that way, and when questioned they usually mutter something along the lines of, "Oh but they have human waves they can send at us".
Well, human waves aren't going to win a high tech naval war across a sea straight that you have to pull off a successful amphib operation across,and, land a huge mechanized army. Not only that but supporting it in combat operations as well.
I don't "under-estimate" the Chinese. I simply acknowledge they have never even tried an op like this in their history and have never fought a high tech naval war. As in , "never in all history". We not only play these games very well ; Were the ones who invented them.
They dont even have the amphibious assets available to pull it off in the first place.
Well, human waves aren't going to win a high tech naval war across a sea straight that you have to pull off a successful amphib operation across,and, land a huge mechanized army. Not only that but supporting it in combat operations as well.
I don't "under-estimate" the Chinese. I simply acknowledge they have never even tried an op like this in their history and have never fought a high tech naval war. As in , "never in all history". We not only play these games very well ; Were the ones who invented them.
They dont even have the amphibious assets available to pull it off in the first place.
"While I do tend to think that it has an unwarranted superiority complex,..."
Well I can say I KNOW it doesnt.
Its takes every opportunity to train with any other navy who cares to. The list is endless.
It sends its people and ships to go through other nations training programs at great risk to their perceived "proficiency" in the publics eyes if their is any perception of shortcomings or failures real or imagined.
It takes great pains to integrate warships from any nation who shows a willingness to gain operability in USN battle formations.
It takes great pains to integrate its ships in the battle formations of the alliances it is committed to.
It has evaluated and tested every foreign warship offering and system made available. The list again is quite large
It operates world-wide 24/7, every month, of every year in appreciable numbers a feat no other nation matches, without bragging, as a matter of routine.
They well know their limitations both people wise and hardware wise and work to correct them by training and/or equipment upgrades.
They do this in a very open manner that is scrutinized sometimes scathingly in many public forums unlike any other navy in the world.
They have many challenges to which they are only too painfully aware.
I know that some other nations, navies and discussion board posters have an "inferiority complex" and their main line of addressing their shortcomings and failures is to attack the US and USN.
Maybe they should take a hard look in the mirror and find a way to fix "their shortcoming and failures" without resorting to attacking the US/USN.
The USN's biggest problem at the moment is controlling procurement costs while still staying on the "cutting edge" of technology and being able to purchase in meaningful numbers but I dont know of any navy that doesnt struggle with this.
The USN struggles are well known
A couple of examples of foreign struggles:
The Type 45 ships are nowhere near as capable as was envisioned and many compromises have had to been made due to cost concerns and the program is many years behind and may well be curtailed at six ships vice 12.
The French/Italian Horizon program is likely to only see two ships built per navy.
Their FREMM program may or may not be built in its entirety.
Many nations use existing, proven US technology to not only improve interoperability but to cut costs as well.
New technology is risky and therefore quite expensive. The only way to try and reduce a programs overall cost is to buy in numbers and that is becoming increasingly difficult to do as costs continue to escalate.
The USN's LCS program had hoped to do all this but alas it looks as if this will not now be realized.
Well I can say I KNOW it doesnt.
Its takes every opportunity to train with any other navy who cares to. The list is endless.
It sends its people and ships to go through other nations training programs at great risk to their perceived "proficiency" in the publics eyes if their is any perception of shortcomings or failures real or imagined.
It takes great pains to integrate warships from any nation who shows a willingness to gain operability in USN battle formations.
It takes great pains to integrate its ships in the battle formations of the alliances it is committed to.
It has evaluated and tested every foreign warship offering and system made available. The list again is quite large
It operates world-wide 24/7, every month, of every year in appreciable numbers a feat no other nation matches, without bragging, as a matter of routine.
They well know their limitations both people wise and hardware wise and work to correct them by training and/or equipment upgrades.
They do this in a very open manner that is scrutinized sometimes scathingly in many public forums unlike any other navy in the world.
They have many challenges to which they are only too painfully aware.
I know that some other nations, navies and discussion board posters have an "inferiority complex" and their main line of addressing their shortcomings and failures is to attack the US and USN.
Maybe they should take a hard look in the mirror and find a way to fix "their shortcoming and failures" without resorting to attacking the US/USN.
The USN's biggest problem at the moment is controlling procurement costs while still staying on the "cutting edge" of technology and being able to purchase in meaningful numbers but I dont know of any navy that doesnt struggle with this.
The USN struggles are well known
A couple of examples of foreign struggles:
The Type 45 ships are nowhere near as capable as was envisioned and many compromises have had to been made due to cost concerns and the program is many years behind and may well be curtailed at six ships vice 12.
The French/Italian Horizon program is likely to only see two ships built per navy.
Their FREMM program may or may not be built in its entirety.
Many nations use existing, proven US technology to not only improve interoperability but to cut costs as well.
New technology is risky and therefore quite expensive. The only way to try and reduce a programs overall cost is to buy in numbers and that is becoming increasingly difficult to do as costs continue to escalate.
The USN's LCS program had hoped to do all this but alas it looks as if this will not now be realized.
But, of course! In my opinion Rick pretty much summarized it all.
Some will try to point out the shortcomings of this or that navy for whatever reason, some others (like me) will not give anything for a fact and try to learn what they can about the capabilities and the state of world navies before rushing into conclussions, and whatever the stands, the secrets, the whatabouts, the prides, etc. the fact is that USN is in great shape, and for many years it's been the reference for other Navies, and that doesn't automatically make them have a "superiority complex". They didn't have it in the World Wars, they didn't have it during Cold War, and they don't have it now, yet they're committed to overcome the odds they face each time, which to me is what makes them so undisputably good.
Best regards to the USN comunity by the way!
Some will try to point out the shortcomings of this or that navy for whatever reason, some others (like me) will not give anything for a fact and try to learn what they can about the capabilities and the state of world navies before rushing into conclussions, and whatever the stands, the secrets, the whatabouts, the prides, etc. the fact is that USN is in great shape, and for many years it's been the reference for other Navies, and that doesn't automatically make them have a "superiority complex". They didn't have it in the World Wars, they didn't have it during Cold War, and they don't have it now, yet they're committed to overcome the odds they face each time, which to me is what makes them so undisputably good.
Best regards to the USN comunity by the way!
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Allies
*Geo Politics removed*
The US Navy will be the Arm that defends Taiwan, its sucess will stand on its ability to deploy rapidly. US navy strengths if not dominance will be in Submarines, DDG,s and Carriers, realistically the USAF will not start bombing China for a myriad of Polictical and Military reasons. The US Navy with the worlds second strongest Air force (sure under threat now)will be the key to defence of Taiwan. In terms of surge capability I think perhaps the USN is better now than ever, but what would happen if the pre-emptive strike was launced against a Naval base, and say a soon deploying carrier was made comat ineffective, would that severely impact any deployment capability, and there is always the personnel problem, is the USN still deploying carrier groups undermanned or has this been fixed in the last few years.
*Geo Politics removed*
The US Navy will be the Arm that defends Taiwan, its sucess will stand on its ability to deploy rapidly. US navy strengths if not dominance will be in Submarines, DDG,s and Carriers, realistically the USAF will not start bombing China for a myriad of Polictical and Military reasons. The US Navy with the worlds second strongest Air force (sure under threat now)will be the key to defence of Taiwan. In terms of surge capability I think perhaps the USN is better now than ever, but what would happen if the pre-emptive strike was launced against a Naval base, and say a soon deploying carrier was made comat ineffective, would that severely impact any deployment capability, and there is always the personnel problem, is the USN still deploying carrier groups undermanned or has this been fixed in the last few years.
Last edited:
In regards to the above post and the previous post that it talks about. Both are right and wrong, NZ has no formal alliance with the US (although I think ANZUS is actually not revoked or in force just asleep....if that makes sense.)amatsunz said:
Anyway this is diverting from the topic. The key area seems to be, how fast can the USN surge to a conflict area with little warning. I suggest that you cannot base anything on training because when it hits the fan the book is thrown out the window. And training comes to the fore with initiative and flexability a very important element and something that the USN has.
Last edited:
the questions is how do you define aggressor? US is an agressor, they attacked afganistan and iraq recently. yet afganistan have major international approval and acceptance, but iraq got rejected by the UN and is a illegal invasion of another soverign nation. so in this case, why isn't anyone doing anything like "save iraq from the american invasion"? because US is too powerful and no country in the world cares that much about iraq.
now when it comes to taiwan, it's a completely different story. most nations in the world, especially all the important ones already agrees that taiwan is part of china, therefore if PLA land troops on the island it is only a continuation of a civil war. so it can't be defined as an invasion since there are no aggressor or defender, just two sides of a civil war. so if US decide to help, let's say by landing troops on taiwan. then the US is automatically the aggressor since they are "invading chinese soil" in this case taiwan. also without china, you can just watch the world economy crash and burn, sure chinese economy will crash, but for a nation like china the impact will be better absorbed than a western liberal democracy. also countries like north korea and iran might just decide that US is too busy and try to pull something off.. like testing a nuke for example?
now when it comes to taiwan, it's a completely different story. most nations in the world, especially all the important ones already agrees that taiwan is part of china, therefore if PLA land troops on the island it is only a continuation of a civil war. so it can't be defined as an invasion since there are no aggressor or defender, just two sides of a civil war. so if US decide to help, let's say by landing troops on taiwan. then the US is automatically the aggressor since they are "invading chinese soil" in this case taiwan. also without china, you can just watch the world economy crash and burn, sure chinese economy will crash, but for a nation like china the impact will be better absorbed than a western liberal democracy. also countries like north korea and iran might just decide that US is too busy and try to pull something off.. like testing a nuke for example?