Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Rented Tritium wrote:We can't sit this out if it really goes down. The Philippines are of BOTH strategic and cultural/political importance. If we let them hang they'll never forgive us.
It also sends a message to our other allies: America can't defend one of its best allies, what could you expect from them if it was you?
When was the Phillipines ever an ally? Before WWII we were shooting them. After WWII they were a base with a petty dictator. No the time the US comes to the rescue is past.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
True, that's why we'd have our own submarines and submarine hunters. Which... we do!
Just saying. Carriers aren't deployed unsupported.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
AlmightyWalrus wrote:The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
True, that's why we'd have our own submarines and submarine hunters. Which... we do!
Just saying. Carriers aren't deployed unsupported.
You're going to get into WWIII over... Vietnam? In the words of the immortal bard " that!"
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
No, I'm saying that China doesn't want to get into a war with us either, we're too important to them economically-- as are many of our allies.
China can get away with going to war with India or the regional powers, but NATO or its allies? It doesn't exactly like that idea.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 11:11:59
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:No, I'm saying that China doesn't want to get into a war with us either, we're too important to them economically-- as are many of our allies.
China can get away with going to war with India or the regional powers, but NATO or its allies? It doesn't exactly like that idea.
NATO would not be involved, heck they're barely involved in their own war.
I doubt China wants to go to war with India either. Again, nuclear powers have never gone to war, and the chances of escalation are high, assuming one side doesn't first strike the other. Having said that India's not going to war over that portion either. This is a China/Vietnam/Phillipines/Japan situation. Time to unleash...Godzilla!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 12:32:01
Ketara wrote:I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
Tonnage of ships matters and I just didn't bother covering China's complete lack of any modern naval force, I figured it was a given for a country with no naval tradition and that hasn't really had one since the turn of the twentieth century.
A carrier that weighs twice as much carries twice as many aircraft. Even our smaller ships are large than the norm. It's a waste of money to a certain extent but we have what we have.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles.
China's national hobby for the last 50 years has been throwing around weight. They're a communist one party state. It's typical. They make claims, throw up a talky rant, and life goes on. Its actually very telling that they didn't build a carrier, they bought one. An old one. They are building carriers now though, but I think they're still on the drawing board and they only plan for two. Once those get built, we're talking.
When you throw in hidden submarine pens,
Submarines have proven rather ineffective in dealing with fleets of ships. They have a use sure, but a sub taking out a carrier? I'm only aware of it happening once (And the Japanese had very poor sonar abiliites bordering on none). There are probably other incidents that I've just never heard of but I don't see China which is at least thirty years behind the US in military engineering having any tricks. Missiles are a real threat but counters exist for that too, and we have the same ability and a lot more boats (and China doesn't have the counter measures).
difficult logistics,
The US military is the king of logistical planning. We moved an entire army across an ocean and into the interior of a continent. Moving things across an ocean is much easier. If we were talking about an invasion of mainland China, now that is a daunting task. I doubt it could be done. Russian winter gets all the credit, but its really the size of Russia that foils invaders. The same thing would happen in China. But this is a naval dispute, and things would be pretty desperate if we had to invade China. That's WWIII territory right there.
local airfields,
There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
The scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
No military scenario is simple. But unfortunately China has none of the tools to achieve victory barring total fowl up by the US.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle',
Its not arrogance its fact. You have to have muscle to flex it. China doesn't. For now, its just words. Words that will probably end up in a historical study in a century after they start an armed conflict and everyone starts looking for the causes. That's then though. Right now it doesn't mean much.
the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities.
Which is why its so inconvenient that the US would probably get involved. I think it should, but its still inconvenient
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/05 12:36:45
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
A single submarine is absolutely not mauling a carrier battle group.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The thing you guys have to remember is that China hasn't been preparing to fight us. They've been preparing to fight their neighbors. All the buildup you see is of hardware that would be mostly useless against us, but suuuuper useful against their weak neighbors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 12:36:07
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
You're right. If the Imperial Japanese Navy rears its ugly head we're ready for them. However, if China starts popping hundreds of silkworm missiles at those carriers it may create more of a problem. Especially if some of those have nukes.
Will we win? Of course. America HURR! Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
Actually I'm thinking that if major powers got involved it wouldn't really be a war, just a growling contest.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
Because it would be. Any war with china would be lost by overextending. Keeping it regional (with the usual suite of airstrikes of course) would be the way to go there.
But AGAIN, I want to reiterate that china isn't gunning for us. A war with us would be horrible economically for both of us. China is gunning for its neighbors and will avoid a fight with us whenever possible. It's very likely that the THREAT of us getting into it is going to be what prevents this from happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
You're right. If the Imperial Japanese Navy rears its ugly head we're ready for them. However, if China starts popping hundreds of silkworm missiles at those carriers it may create more of a problem. Especially if some of those have nukes.
Will we win? Of course. America HURR! Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
WUT?
Dude you are in a world of your own here. What are you even talking about? The silkworms are old and slow. They're not so much missiles as unmanned planes and we have the capability to shoot them down in every carrier group.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/10/05 12:54:14
You do know technology has moved beyond the 60s right?
Carriers are two wars ago. Smart missiles are this war. The next war is drone aircraft launching drone missiles at drone ships while other drone missiles take out drone satellites and drone viruses destroy the infrastructure of your opponent.
And remember, no one can outrobot suit the Japanese!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 13:03:52
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:You do know technology has moved beyond the 60s right?
Carriers are two wars ago. Smart missiles are this war. The next war is drone aircraft launching drone missiles at drone ships while other drone missiles take out drone satellites and drone viruses destroy the infrastructure of your opponent.
And remember, no one can outrobot suit the Japanese!
And that's relevant to a conversation about a theoretical south china sea conflict in the next few years HOW?
We are talking about what china has RIGHT NOW and what they can use against us RIGHT NOW and what we would use to go after them RIGHT NOW. Don't change the subject just because you were wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And furthermore, we ABSOLUTELY would go to bat for the philippines. They're a serious ally and if we didn't get into it to help them, our other similar allies would start thinking twice about sticking with us.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 13:09:24
Frazzled wrote:You do know technology has moved beyond the 60s right?
Carriers are two wars ago. Smart missiles are this war. The next war is drone aircraft launching drone missiles at drone ships while other drone missiles take out drone satellites and drone viruses destroy the infrastructure of your opponent.
And remember, no one can outrobot suit the Japanese!
And that's relevant to a conversation about a theoretical south china sea conflict in the next few years HOW?
We are talking about what china has RIGHT NOW and what they can use against us RIGHT NOW and what we would use to go after them RIGHT NOW. Don't change the subject just because you were wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 13:17:18
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Hey frazzled, did you see where they haven't tested it yet and it WILL FOR SURE require people in the area guiding it in? Did you see that part?
That missile has more diplomatic impact than military. I already addressed this in a previous post. That ship killer is too far off and has a big weakness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
EDIT: How on earth is the Phillipines an ally?
BECAUSE THEY ARE LITERALLY LISTED AS AN ALLY BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/10/05 13:18:07
Frazzled wrote:Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
We'll get involved more out of interest of keeping China within its waters more than anything. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines are all allies and the growing power of China keeps us interested in the region. Any conflict that sparks there may or may not involve us depending on the scale.
China invading Vietnam? We won't care (not this time ). China seizing control of foreign and international waters? Yeah. We're probably gonna get involved. With India's interests mixed in? That's the making of World War III (maybe).
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
China's army sucks. Its only advantage is size, which is a good advantage, but what are they going to do? We get involved in fleet actions against China and... they stand on the shores and watch. Invade Japan? They don't have the ability. South Korea? Now there's a possibility. I could see them getting friendly with the North in that case and taking over the South would be easy for them. That could get messy, but China's army can be avoided. For now, it's stuck in China.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 13:24:09
Frazzled wrote:Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
We'll get involved more out of interest of keeping China within its waters more than anything. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines are all allies and the growing power of China keeps us interested in the region. Any conflict that sparks there may or may not involve us depending on the scale.
China invading Vietnam? We won't care (not this time ). China seizing control of foreign and international waters? Yeah. We're probably gonna get involved. With India's interests mixed in? That's the making of World War III (maybe).
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
China's army sucks. Its only advantage is size, which is a good advantage, but what are they going to do? We get involved in fleet actions against China and... they stand on the shores and watch. Invade Japan? They don't have the ability. South Korea? Now there's a possibility. I could see them getting friendly with the North in that case and taking over the South would be easy for them. That could get messy, but China's army can be avoided. For now, it's stuck in China.
The only territory at issue not capable of being reached by the Chinese army is the Phillipines.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:The only territory at issue not capable of being reached by the Chinese army is the Phillipines.
The conflict isn't about the Philippines, its about a couple million buckets of salt water really. For thirty years now, China has claimed sovereignty over waters that are not their own, including international waters. This conflict could ignite that powder keg if China uses military force to seize waters that are not theirs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 13:33:02
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
A single submarine is absolutely not mauling a carrier battle group.
Depends. It's not a carrier battle group without a carrier.
Melissia wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
True, that's why we'd have our own submarines and submarine hunters. Which... we do!
Just saying. Carriers aren't deployed unsupported.
This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
My congratulations to Sweden. A very impressive achievement. You guys don't get the credit your deserve for the quality of your military force. Sweden and Norway have some interesting tech in a number of areas, especially anti-tank. However, that was in 2006. 5 years ago. You don't suspect the US Navy has attempted to account for its flaws? They were obviously observant enough to desire to test themselves. EDIT: One problem is that the Navy has shown more interest in anti-missile defense than anti-submarine.
I personally do not doubt that someday, the age of the carrier is likely to pass. At least the nuclear carrier. Warfare has altered to the cycle where extremely powerful but expensive weapons have become increasingly vulnerable to much cheaper ones. If the submarine or the guided missile don't do in the carrier, the rail gun will.
China is not Sweeden. Its not just a matter of money. They do not use the same propulsion system. Though they are developing a water jet propulsion system, but I'm not an engineer and cannot compare them. We must also remember China holds no advantage that the US doesn't also have. We have guided missiles and submarines and a lot more them than China. No one is saying China will always be non-threatening. Some day, China will be very powerful and we all know it.
My prediction is within a few decades (maybe 2040), China's military ability will surpass that of the US if not sooner (earliest for me is 2025 area). For now though, all they have is a puny fleet, most of it outdated, and they lack the experience of other navies and have no technological advantage over anyone. China's navy vs the US Navy is like Poland vs Nazi German for the immediate future.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/10/05 15:13:18
Warone speaks the truth actually. What is up to 1020 pages?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
My congratulations to Sweden. A very impressive achievement. You guys don't get the credit your deserve for the quality of your military force. Sweden and Norway have some interesting tech in a number of areas, especially anti-tank. However, that was in 2006. 5 years ago. You don't suspect the US Navy has attempted to account for its flaws? They were obviously observant enough to desire to test themselves. EDIT: One problem is that the Navy has shown more interest in anti-missile defense than anti-submarine.
The point I was trying to make was that you (as in generic nation) can have anti-submarine measures in place and still miss a submarine once, which is all it takes.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
My congratulations to Sweden. A very impressive achievement. You guys don't get the credit your deserve for the quality of your military force. Sweden and Norway have some interesting tech in a number of areas, especially anti-tank. However, that was in 2006. 5 years ago. You don't suspect the US Navy has attempted to account for its flaws? They were obviously observant enough to desire to test themselves. EDIT: One problem is that the Navy has shown more interest in anti-missile defense than anti-submarine.
The point I was trying to make was that you (as in generic nation) can have anti-submarine measures in place and still miss a submarine once, which is all it takes.
All it takes to what? Lose an entire war? Because if it's anything but lose an entire war, then we're not concerned with it. Some risk goes along with being in wars. Our naval infra really minimizes them.
that!"
