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.

I love Dr Strangelove.

For the earlier question: would nuking a carrier have the US nuking China.
After the catastrophic loss of 6000 American sailors and marines and how ever many of that carriers consorts are destroyed. Yes the US would retaliate with nukes. Even if it wasn't a nuke used on the carrier. It's all hypothetical, but a large combat loss lie that in an actual war would signal the beginning of the end.

All of this back and forth is entertaining but we have all (me too) assumed that this boils down to China and the US. I really see India, the Phillipines, Japan, Taiwan, and China as the main players. Once military action begins expect the involvement of New Zealand, Austrailia, and the US to respond.
We seem to forget that wether they are talking about it or not the Aussies and Kiwis are interested parties in The SCS. Militarily it's about securing their naval security in their near (in naval terms) waters. China really is the closest naval threat. That brings the UK in, which would also bring in the US if we weren't already so nosy.
China agitating in the SCS basically brings in the Commonwealth and The US no matter what. It's a militarily untenable position, like the Wehrmacht in the Alsace Lorriene (probably misspelled) . A strong English-speaking presence would send them back to port, a weak showing allows them to keep pushing. The US has a lot to lose, Chinese lending and manufacturing being obvious, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see the Aussies or Kiwis enforcing policy in the SCS.
Stick that in the MoD and smoke it.

Ketara wrote:

Scenario C would probably be the stalemate without war. However, in either A or B, the result is that America is attacking Chinese forces. Which means that if America wants, at any stage, to stop China from just coming back to the SCS whenever the american carrier fleet leaves, they're going to need to station a permanent garrison there. A garrison of multiple carrier group strength. Not only that, they're going to need to disable Chinese land installations/gain control of the chinese coast, in order to nail the submarines, and stop missiles/aircraft being launched at the carrier fleets every other hour. Which means heading within range of land installations, and leaving the SCS in order to attack China proper.

Before continuing on to options A and B, we have to remember that when discussing whether or not two states will enter a war, we can't just consider military power. Given the increas in globalization--and how dependent the Chinese economy is on foreign trade--the temporary deployment of a US Naval Carrier Group to the South CHina Sea could be enough to convince the Chinese that the US means serious business when it comes to the South China Sea.

While the temporary deployment of a carrier group may be insufficient to create a a MILITARY control of the situation, it would be enough to provide enough political baacking to the situation to prvent China from seeking a war.


In all honesty, I view option C as the most likely of all the options. While China stands to gain a little from enforcing control of the Spratley islands by military force, I can't help but feel that it has a lot more to lose by fighting a war with the United States--something that may well happen if the Chinese do make overly strong overtures at the Spratleys in specific and the SCS in general.

But lets forget all that, we'll assume that either option A or B has occured instead.

If the US blows up the Chinese Navy in the SCS, they will not just sit idly by. They WILL be launching missiles and air raids at the american fleet in the region. And unless America has had several weeks notice to build up extra fleets in the SCS and suchlike, the Chinese are MORE than capable of eliminating the one or two carriers that are even anywhere near the region. Several? It would take longer. But if I recall from the report posted a few pages back, the nearest carrier is two days away, and the second one a week. That's plenty of time to pick them off.

So let's presume the US comes in en masse and retakes the SCS. What then? Well, they either establish a massive garrison and leave the equivalent of the Navy of the rest of the world combined sitting there. They can just leave (letting China retake the region). Or they attack China, to destroy the capability to simply waltz in and reclaim the place the second they leave.

You are correct. The Chinese do likely posess the air and missile assets to whittle the US Fleet down enough, and its is true that when the US Fleet leaves the Chinese could just waltz in and take it.

I'd contend with the idea that the US Navy would send its carriers in piecemeal. I think the admirals at Pear would be smart enough to remember what Sun Tzu said about Mass before attacking.

Now, my main problem with your argument is that you're treating any conflict between the US and China as the new World War II, a conflict that will last for years and consume the world in war. I disagree. I beleive that the naval conflict between China and the United States would stay limited to naval and air engagements in the south China Sea.

I do not believe that the US needs to be able to maintain control of the SCS for a long period of time in order to 'win'. The US needs merely to assert its opposition to the idea of a Chinese dominated Spratley Islands forcefully enough that China understands that continuing its attempts to enforce its control of the area by froces means military conflict with the United States. This is something that the Chinese are not going to be fond of in the slightest. That show of force--even if it results in military engagement--may result in China backing off over all.

The US doesn't need to garrison the Spratley's, it just needs to prove to the Chinese that the USN is still the dominant naval power in the world, and the US will fight them for it.

Heh. I'm studying for my MA Hons now in War Studies, and may take it onto PHD level. So I get to pretend my opinion is worth something in this department.

I've no doubt the Americans can project more power into the SCS. I agree there. However, I doubt the Americans sustained ability to project power into the SCS.

Nice, that sounds like something I might want to try to do once I finish my undergrad up here in St. Andrews.

I do agree that the Americans lack the ability to sustain a continued project of power into the SCS. However, I contend that such a lack of ability is irrelevant when compared to what the US mission would be.

LordofHats wrote:
So do we. Well, not four thousand, but a lot. Our ability to achieve air superiority is higher as well.

I genuinely doubt the capability of America to achieve aerial superiority in this region. Why? Because ultimately, it comes down to four factors, of which we have only examined three.

The first is the numerical superiority. This one goes to the Chinese hands down.
The second is Technological capability. This ones goes to the US, and will go a fair way to making up for the numbers.
The third is launch capacity. The Chinese have home airfields, the US have the carriers, and the airfields of allied nation-states. Slight edge to the Chinese here, but not excessively so.

Examining just these three factors implies a slight edge for the Chinese, but far from an overwhelming one. However, taking into account the fourth factor....

....which is local production capacity. AKA. How fast can replacements be made and sent to the front?

The fact is, the Chinese industrial capacity probably outstrips the US anyway in terms of industry that is already set up, and they have the steady advantage of new planes being able to be pressed into action immediately, whilst American planes must be shipped a considerable distance. Being lower tech models, they are also quicker to produce than American planes.

That final fourth factor is absolutely crucial I feel. The US could gain a short, temporary period of aerial superiority, but the aerial battle is ultimately China's for the taking. This ties very nicely into what I said about America having the ability to dominate the SCS, but not sustainably.

I think we're looking at this from two directions. I'm focusing on the history of China's water claims and how this is a part of it and potential for future armed conflict where navies will play an important role.

Yes, two different directions. I'm dealing with the art of possible and potential with current day forces, not the Chinese Navy in ten years time.

Mostly my claim is that they have nothing we don't and we have a lot more of it.

Interestingly enough, there are actually some rumours circulating that they've perfected a new kind of submarine engine muffler that actually exceeds American technical specs on their most recent model. Information is of course, hard to come by, and with any rumour, must be taken with a pinch of salt, but the Chinese have been making such substantial leaps in the field of submarine development recently that its not actually beyond the realm of the possible. America tends not to focus so much on its submarine fleet and research, and spreads its budget more evenly across its navy.

I'd argue a land invasion isn't entirely necessary. Right now, China is completely dependent on foreign finance, one reason why this isn't like to spark conflict anytime soon. Remove what little naval ability they have, air strike them into oblivion and achieve air superiority, all they can do is stare.

Turn that around. The US is heavily dependent on China. One reason why the US would not be keen to pick a fight there, no?

As to the aerial superiority, I've addressed that already.

Agreed. One of the reasons why I think the overly expensive ships in the US navy are becoming obsolete.

You may be interested to know your train of thought has been seen before in military history, most notably with Mahan's classic naval strategies opposed to the Jeune Ecole school of thought. The German U-Boats were originally seen as the successor to the torpedo boat in the Ecole strategy. Instead, naval tactics were adapted to account for submarine action.

However, with the recent massive advent of airpower over the last sixty/seventy years, aerial power and missiles have become a real concern for the big ol' battleships and carriers, taking the place of the submarine.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Before continuing on to options A and B, we have to remember that when discussing whether or not two states will enter a war, we can't just consider military power. Given the increas in globalization--and how dependent the Chinese economy is on foreign trade--the temporary deployment of a US Naval Carrier Group to the South CHina Sea could be enough to convince the Chinese that the US means serious business when it comes to the South China Sea.

While the temporary deployment of a carrier group may be insufficient to create a a MILITARY control of the situation, it would be enough to provide enough political baacking to the situation to prvent China from seeking a war.

Certainly. It would prevent a war, at least temporarily. However, the Chinese would see this as overly provocative, and roll out as big a Navy as they could as soon as they could, to challenge the US for the region, who they would see as meddling in their own back yard. In preventing one war, you could very well be sowing the seeds for the next ten years down the line.

You are correct. The Chinese do likely posess the air and missile assets to whittle the US Fleet down enough, and its is true that when the US Fleet leaves the Chinese could just waltz in and take it.

I'd contend with the idea that the US Navy would send its carriers in piecemeal. I think the admirals at Pear would be smart enough to remember what Sun Tzu said about Mass before attacking.

In that case, we're looking at a delay of a good two months whilst America gathers and outfits its forces for the operation. Time enough for the Chinese to prepare countermeasures.

Now, my main problem with your argument is that you're treating any conflict between the US and China as the new World War II, a conflict that will last for years and consume the world in war. I disagree. I beleive that the naval conflict between China and the United States would stay limited to naval and air engagements in the south China Sea.

I have a nasty feeling personally it would escalate to a nuclear standoff with the americans withdrawing, but that's just my opinion.

I do not believe that the US needs to be able to maintain control of the SCS for a long period of time in order to 'win'. The US needs merely to assert its opposition to the idea of a Chinese dominated Spratley Islands forcefully enough that China understands that continuing its attempts to enforce its control of the area by froces means military conflict with the United States. This is something that the Chinese are not going to be fond of in the slightest. That show of force--even if it results in military engagement--may result in China backing off over all.

I would seriously question America's resolve on how far it would go when it is essentially intruding into China's sphere of influence.

However, presuming the Americans sailed in, sank the chinese fleet, and set up shop in the SCS, and sent fighters/bombers over Chinese airspace in order to gain aerial superiority, do you seriously honestly believe China would simply accept it as a fait accompli? That they wouldn't immediately start launching missiles and waves of aircraft to contest the American attempts to dominate the airspace above their country? Make no mistake about it, if we're in a position whereby America has intruded militarily, they will be launching sorties over mainland China to support their fleet. That's a certainty. The American fleet could not simply sit there and not attempt to start eliminating Chinese airfields and launchers, because otherwise they're risking their own ships as the Chinese airforce brings the fight to them.


I do not personally believe any superpower could ever live with the notion of foreign aircraft dominating the skies above their own bases of power. And if you do, I am genuinely surprised.

Once the American aircraft begin to drop out of the sky, than the battle would be taken by missile and air to the fleet. The fleet will be whittled down, and eventually set sail for home. Chinese losses will be large, but the populace, and vast industrial base can easily compensate for their losses. They can be replaced locally. American ones cannot.


This is presuming we go simply with the notion of an air and sea war, and leave ground forces out of it. Either way, the US will end up overextended and outnumbered.

Nice, that sounds like something I might want to try to do once I finish my undergrad up here in St. Andrews.

I do agree that the Americans lack the ability to sustain a continued project of power into the SCS. However, I contend that such a lack of ability is irrelevant when compared to what the US mission would be.

And I contend that the Americans could engage in such force without it escalating sharply and the US being forced to withdraw. I believe that an American show of force without a clash of arms would potentially avert a struggle, but that such a solution would be a temporary fix of a decade at best before the Chinese re-asserted themselves, and were in a position of power that the US could not hope to contend with.


Thanks for keeping it civil gents. I can be a bit brusque in my debating style at times, but I genuinely do enjoy these debates with your own good selves.

Ketara wrote:Certainly. It would prevent a war, at least temporarily. However, the Chinese would see this as overly provocative, and roll out as big a Navy as they could as soon as they could, to challenge the US for the region, who they would see as meddling in their own back yard. In preventing one war, you could very well be sowing the seeds for the next ten years down the line.

This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.

In that case, we're looking at a delay of a good two months whilst America gathers and outfits its forces for the operation. Time enough for the Chinese to prepare countermeasures.

Really? What specialist equipmeent would it take to move a significant naval force into the SCS? If two carrier groups are at most 2 weeks away, why would it take any longer than that.

I have a nasty feeling personally it would escalate to a nuclear standoff with the americans withdrawing, but that's just my opinion.

Eh, IIRC, US carriers don't carry nukes on them anymore, and the boomers don't need to enter the SCS to be threatening to China.

I would seriously question America's resolve on how far it would go when it is essentially intruding into China's sphere of influence.

However, presuming the Americans sailed in, sank the chinese fleet, and set up shop in the SCS, and sent fighters/bombers over Chinese airspace in order to gain aerial superiority, do you seriously honestly believe China would simply accept it as a fait accompli? That they wouldn't immediately start launching missiles and waves of aircraft to contest the American attempts to dominate the airspace above their country? Make no mistake about it, if we're in a position whereby America has intruded militarily, they will be launching sorties over mainland China to support their fleet. That's a certainty. The American fleet could not simply sit there and not attempt to start eliminating Chinese airfields and launchers, because otherwise they're risking their own ships as the Chinese airforce brings the fight to them.

Firstly, I think you're overestimating how strongly the Chinese will move into the SCS. I don't think they'd commit significant surface assets to the region. At best, they'd send one or two major surface scombatants, mainly relying on smaller craft to seize energy resources. The US navy will likely be more focused in small scale skirmishes against chinese forces occupying oil platforms in ammner similar to the Operation Praying Mantis action against the Iranians. Maybe a few large combatants will be engaged, but the majority of the Chinese fleet will not be commited or engaged.

I don't think Chinese land based ASMs are going to have the range to hit a US fleet at sea espescially one that will be operating closer to friendly nations, yes, missile attack by aircraft will be launched against the US fleet, but I think that you're still exagerting the scale of the conflict I imagine will happen, as I said, I view this conflict will be more similar to the Praying Mantis action than the Falklands War.

I doubt that the US will anticipate staying in the SCS long enough to have to consider supression of Chinese homeland air defense and airfields. I doubt the Chinese will either. Both the Chinese and the Americans are economically dependent on each other, and will want to end this conflict as soon as possible, and resume normal economic relations. While the Chinese will not be happy to deal with this intrusion, I feel like they will recognize fighting a war of attrition will not be in their interest.

They want to normalize relations, and they will accept losing this war...for now at least. They will make asserting themselves navally an even bigger priority, and we may end up with a new nval arms race in the Pacific.

This is presuming we go simply with the notion of an air and sea war, and leave ground forces out of it. Either way, the US will end up overextended and outnumbered.

Indeed. I wouldn't presume to give the US the ability to win a land war in South East Asia if it chose to get involved.

This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.

It might not stay that way. The US Navy is probably the most over bloated of the armed branches of the DoD right now. Our carrier fleet is honestly twice the size it really needs to be (not that I mind having it that big). If economic woes continue to trouble us, the possibility of the Navy suffering budget cuts increases. Budget cuts won't necessarily be absolutely horrible.

We could upgrade our current fleet rather than continually rebuild it which is an option we've never made much use of, but the potential for a weakening US Navy is out there in the very near future.

Indeed, but if we DO see a naval arms race in the Pacific between China and the United States, there might be an incentive to make sure the Navy stays as strong as possible.

ChrisWWII wrote:
This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.

They don't need to be able to overpower the US Navy. Just the US Navy forces in the SCS.

The US has plenty of other commitments for its forces, and will never throw its full naval power into one small region.

Really? What specialist equipmeent would it take to move a significant naval force into the SCS? If two carrier groups are at most 2 weeks away, why would it take any longer than that.

They have two carriers within a weeks travel, but considering you said you doubted they would move in with less than overwhelming force, I'm running with your scenario of gathering several carrier groups. The problem is that any less than three, which would take at least two and a half weeks or so to pull together and get down there, faces serious risks from Chinese airpower and missiles.

Eh, IIRC, US carriers don't carry nukes on them anymore, and the boomers don't need to enter the SCS to be threatening to China.

I meant that China would say, 'get out of our airspace or we launch nukes on your stuff in the region'. I'm not specifying delivery systems.

Firstly, I think you're overestimating how strongly the Chinese will move into the SCS. I don't think they'd commit significant surface assets to the region. At best, they'd send one or two major surface scombatants, mainly relying on smaller craft to seize energy resources. The US navy will likely be more focused in small scale skirmishes against chinese forces occupying oil platforms in ammner similar to the Operation Praying Mantis action against the Iranians. Maybe a few large combatants will be engaged, but the majority of the Chinese fleet will not be commited or engaged.

If we're presuming China is already engaged against India, you'll find considerably more naval mobilisation in the region than that. There's also the factor that if the US decide to move in en masse, it will be quite obvious, possibly resulting in Chinese forces having set up shop around there.

However, you keep changing the scenario on me here. If we're presuming the Chinese Navy is not in the SCS, and we only have a few oil platforms occupied by the Chinese, than why are so many US carriers needed? Either China is prepared to fight here, or they are not. Either they are already engaged here, or they or not. It just feels like you keep moving the goalposts here slightly so you can respond to my points if they were in a slightly different scenario.

I don't think Chinese land based ASMs are going to have the range to hit a US fleet at sea espescially one that will be operating closer to friendly nations, yes, missile attack by aircraft will be launched against the US fleet, but I think that you're still exagerting the scale of the conflict I imagine will happen, as I said, I view this conflict will be more similar to the Praying Mantis action than the Falklands War.

There's one thing here which I think you keep underestimating. You keep referring to how the conflict will 'be in the SCS and not near mainland China'. However, it's called the South China Sea for a reason. Mainly because it backs onto China. Meaning if half a dozen US carrier fleets are in the SCS, they're within relative range to China. Meaning that if they're assaulting Chinese forces in the SCS, regardless of the size, they are within range of Chinese weapons systems which will undoubtably be used.

The Chinese navy is over 500 vessels. If the US engages even a tenth of that, that's fifty ships. Can you honestly see the US engaging a force of that size, and China NOT responding with air and missile strikes? I have a hard time picturing the Chinese High Command....

'Sir, our fleet in the SCS is being attacked by an American fleet. Should we take countermeasures?'
'No. We shall order the retreat, and go for lunch. The Americans are clearly far too mighty. We shall accept the loss of our ships, bow down to American supremacy, and go and drink tea'.
'But sir, we have eight hundred aircraft within striking range and several hundred missiles ready to launch! Our submarines are shadowing them even as we speak! Surely, we shoul-'
'ENOUGH! We shall order the retreat and drink tea!'


I really, really doubt that will happen.

As to missile range, the Chinese have missiles capable of hitting American cities. The SCS is hardly out of accurate striking range. They don't necessarily need to be restricted to rocket attacks from aircraft.

I doubt that the US will anticipate staying in the SCS long enough to have to consider supression of Chinese homeland air defense and airfields. I doubt the Chinese will either. Both the Chinese and the Americans are economically dependent on each other, and will want to end this conflict as soon as possible, and resume normal economic relations. While the Chinese will not be happy to deal with this intrusion, I feel like they will recognize fighting a war of attrition will not be in their interest.

If American ships are sinking Chinese ships, and both sides are opening fire across the SCS, the Chinese are not going to tie both hands behind their back and say, 'It's a fair cop guv! So, about that latest shipment of goods to you...'

They will open up with aircraft and missiles. Which means that US high command in turn will HAVE to consider attacking mainland China, or withdrawing.

They want to normalize relations, and they will accept losing this war...for now at least. They will make asserting themselves navally an even bigger priority, and we may end up with a new nval arms race in the Pacific.

If the US stations a fleet there without conflict, I agree. If two fleets open fire on each other, I very strongly disagree.

LordofHats wrote:

This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.

It might not stay that way. The US Navy is probably the most over bloated of the armed branches of the DoD right now. Our carrier fleet is honestly twice the size it really needs to be (not that I mind having it that big). If economic woes continue to trouble us, the possibility of the Navy suffering budget cuts increases. Budget cuts won't necessarily be absolutely horrible.

We could upgrade our current fleet rather than continually rebuild it which is an option we've never made much use of, but the potential for a weakening US Navy is out there in the very near future.

You have no idea what you are talking about. With the 10 Nimitzs and Big E the navy can only embark about 1/3 of it's total air wing, half of it's fixed wing jets. Not including the heli carriers. There is a shortage of support craft left by the failure of the DD21 and CG-X programs and the early retirement of the first 4 Ticondorogas and the OHP frigates. The Navy, including the Marines is the smallest force, with the largest area of operations, and receives only 1% more of the budget than the Air Force. The Navy's material costs will always be higher than the other forces, easily demonstrated by the Army having the smallest budget and out manning the other two services combined (including the reserves of all three branches). If the economics woes of the US were to actually be solved addressing the 45% of the budget in government provided medical care and pensions (social security) would have to be addressed, since the constitutional requirement to provide a national defense is specific, and the social programs are merely implied (general welfare). But I digress. If anything the Navy is guilty of not spending ENOUGH to expand the DDG fleet to replace aging cruisers with Flight Three Burkes or a new conventional DDG class, to build a naval Fire Support Platform the current answer being cruise missiles which aren't the answer to every fire support request, A sluggish building program to replace the Tarawa LHDs that are finally nearing completion on the lead ship. A failure to show progress towards replacing the SSN fleet at a reasonable cost and numbers,the reduction in the SSBN fleet by the START treaties that forced the SSGNs and no replacement class in sight for the Ohios at all. Basically just because the cold war is over doesn't mean that the Navy's responsibility to project our influence and prprexy our intrest has ceased, in fact it is now greater because a single large threat has been replaced by many small threats, increasing the need for a diverse and numerous naval force.
And I have now gone OT in an OT thread.

Good god. This thread reads like a Tom Clancy novel.

Leave Thailand alone, China!

AustonT wrote:With the 10 Nimitzs and Big E the navy can only embark about 1/3 of it's total air wing, half of it's fixed wing jets.

Enterprise is being decommissioned in 2013. Poor girl is nearly 50 and as far as I know what never intended to live that long (she was kind of a science project). And the Nimitz line is already on the chopping block to begin being replaced by the Gerald Ford class in coming decades. That's a lot of money for a change that isn't really needed. We only just finished the Bush in 2010!

What we need to realize, is that the US navy has more naval tonnage than every other world power navy combined. If we wanted to, we can combat and defeat every other navy in the world (theoretically of course). We have a navy way bigger than we really need it to be, primarily because we maintain an interest in our ability to project force. If that were not an interest, and our navy was purely defensive, we could cut it in half and be fine. We'd still have twice as many carriers than any one nation (not including our support ships which are almost as large as the carriers of other countries). There's just over 20 true aircraft carriers in the world, including ours. Not even the Royal Navy at its peak has what the US Navy has now. We are at this time very realistically unrivaled in naval ability. The RN at least had to compete with France.

The military will suffer as economic woes continue into this decade depending on how events play out. The DoD has a huge budget and congress is very aware I think that some of it isn't needed. The coming years will likely decide if current US military practices continue or end. If they end, the US military is going to get smaller. A lot smaller.

/rollseyes

Enterprise was certainly not a science project, she was supposed to be the lead ship of 6 planned to augment and replace the Kitty Hawk/Forrestals. There's also no "poor girl" in there at all. Nuclear carriers were planned from the outset to have a service life of at LEAST 50 years. The conventional carriers they replaced served nearly 40 years apiece in fact Kitty Hawk was decommissioned at 47. The supercarriers were envisioned from the outset to outlive their builder expectations. The real reason Enterprise will retire is one part money and one part power; electrical power that is. She simy doesn't have the power generation capability to receive any further upgrades. The Bush in contrast has a generous power budget that far exceeds that built into Nimitz. In fact Bush has more in common with Ford than she does with Nimitz.
You clearly don't understand that the carrier fleet is merely receiving incremental upgrades, and at a monumentally slower rate than the Navy received in the Cold War.
The Navy has been in decline since the 70s and has reached critical mass. Ships and submarines have been retired early with no replacement in the works, and more are reaching the end of their service lives with no solution in sight.
Carriers are just the beginning of the Navy's procurement woes. Which range from the submarines, surface combatants, and airplanes that are wearing out and have no successors due to a declining interest in maintaining naval power. You know what read this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166362512952294.html

Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless. It's clearly much more important to put the American people on the dole rather than support her armed forces and discourage dependence on the state.

AustonT wrote:

Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless. It's clearly much more important to put the American people on the dole rather than support her armed forces and discourage dependence on the state.

Hey, it works for us.

Nuclear carriers were planned from the outset to have a service life of at LEAST 50 years. The conventional carriers they replaced served nearly 40 years apiece in fact Kitty Hawk was decommissioned at 47. The supercarriers were envisioned from the outset to outlive their builder expectations. The real reason Enterprise will retire is one part money and one part power; electrical power that is. She simy doesn't have the power generation capability to receive any further upgrades. The Bush in contrast has a generous power budget that far exceeds that built into Nimitz. In fact Bush has more in common with Ford than she does with Nimitz.

These things I was not aware of. I'm an armored warfare nut

The Navy has been in decline since the 70s and has reached critical mass. Ships and submarines have been retired early with no replacement in the works, and more are reaching the end of their service lives with no solution in sight.

Carriers are just the beginning of the Navy's procurement woes. Which range from the submarines, surface combatants, and airplanes that are wearing out and have no successors due to a declining interest in maintaining naval power.

So really what it comes down to is that what I have suggested in this thread may happen has actually already happened and been going on for some time.

Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless.

Whose debating the budget? I'm making an observation about the very large size of the US Navy, which is in fact much larger than it needs to be (need of course depending on what you want it to do). The future of the economy could make the current problem it worse than it already is.

We can make our navy much smaller and not sacrifice national defense, just our overseas projection. Now, don't get me wrong. I want a strong navy. I want the US to be able to project force overseas, especially with China and Inida on the rise and the potential future conflict between the two holds for another world war. I am not advocating decreasing the size of Navy, merely observing that a very real possibility exists for it to become much weaker as time goes on with our current economic trouble. The same thing happened to the Royal Navy after WWII (ignoring that the Royal Navy had trouble going back to before the turn of the century).

LordofHats wrote: The same thing happened to the Royal Navy after WWII (ignoring that the Royal Navy had trouble going back to before the turn of the century).

I don't know about the turn of the century. The reason Lord Fisher cut 150 ships off the Navy then was because the new Dreadnought battleships effectively made all the older ships obsolete. Not so sure about that analogy.

Ketara wrote:

LordofHats wrote: The same thing happened to the Royal Navy after WWII (ignoring that the Royal Navy had trouble going back to before the turn of the century).

I don't know about the turn of the century. The reason Lord Fisher cut 150 ships off the Navy then was because the new Dreadnought battleships effectively made all the older ships obsolete. Not so sure about that analogy.

It's not the same yes. The Royal Navy suffered a very long and slow decline. In WWII, it had ships much older than those used by the Germans, and many were older than those used by the Japanese all because of budgetary problems going back decades. Japan probably had a better navy in the 1920's and 1930's to be honest. The Royal Navy hit a rut at the turn of the century and while it recovered a little it never fully recovered. The end of Imperialism and the changed political climate of post-WWII ended the process of decline.

That's how I understand it anyway. Again, I'm a tank guy

Ketara wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless. It's clearly much more important to put the American people on the dole rather than support her armed forces and discourage dependence on the state.

Hey, it works for us.

Indeed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmwrGCw1uY8


Automatically Appended Next Post:
2:00 To about 2:10 is particularly what I posted it for. But he's still a funny guy.

AustonT wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
2:00 To about 2:10 is particularly what I posted it for. But he's still a funny guy.

I like David Mitchell.

Monster Rain wrote:Good god. This thread reads like a Tom Clancy novel.

Leave Thailand alone, China!

Actually a Tom Clancy game and novel: SSN