As China Launches Aircraft Carrier, Taiwan Touts ‘Aircraft Carrier Killer’
53 replies, posted
[quote]anti-ship cruise missile[/quote]
The Soviets and later the Russians have had this capability for decades. Just a reaction to a perceived threat with a little marketing overhype. It's nothing special at all.
[editline]11th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;31670394]Them and what boats?
They don't have the navy necessary to GET HERE, much less inflict damage. Even assuming they magically pulled an amphibious assault force out of their ass, they would face the US Navy, who would slaughter them so hard it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]
Why bother? Either side taking any real action amounts to a Mexican standoff and the U.S. Navy seems like it isn't [url=http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Why-The-U.S.-Navy-Is-Falling-Apart-7-25-2011.asp]looking too hot[/url] there days. Anyone who still believes in "total American military dominance" are simply naïve. They remind me of the folks who proclaimed back in 1999 that American air power would wipe the Serbian Army off the face of Kosovo in a matter of days or even hours.
Besides, the PLAN *does* have an amphibious fleet that is suitable for a landing a force in Taiwan. But as it has been often said, it will never be used to the reasons I stated above.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;31671204]With what navy?
China has 1 newly built aircraft carrier.
US has 11.[/QUOTE]
How about
PLAN: 0
U.S. Navy: 11
Even then, there are only [i]nine[/i] Carrier Strike Groups, and it is misleading to compare total naval strength between the two sides, as for the United States, all these forces would never be engaged in just one theater.
[quote]Isn't Taiwan like, the real china anyway? As far as I know Taiwan's government is the one that ran the mainland before communism took over[/quote]
One would wish that the United States got actively involved in the Chinese Civil War on the side of the Nationalists, hm? ;D
Besides, even when the PLAN gets its "for-real" aircraft carriers, the airpower on the PRC side would still very much be land-based aviation in the mutually destructive PRC-ROC war.
If there was a PRC/ROC war, the ROC would be fighting a war of attrition, and probably a blockade.
Just your usual PRC/ROC posturing, which will no doubt be followed by some ambiguously phrased US messages.
[QUOTE=sam.clarke;31667187]Do you really want the East in an arms race? They could very quickly become a worry for the West if they ever decided to join forces.[/QUOTE]
With mostly 20-30 year old military technology, a 90's carrier, and only one at that. The Navy has 11 carriers, 30 amphibious warfare vessels, 22 ticondergoa class cruisers, 60 arleigh burke class destroyers, 19 oliver hazard perry class frigates, and 71 submarines. I think we're good.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;31670185]I still lol when I see that the Chinese need a ramp to get their birds in the air.[/QUOTE] It's so the planes can get in tge air on their own power without using a massive slingshot like a typical carrier.
The real reason why the Soviets decided to choose ski jumps over catapults was because their aircraft-carrying cruisers were required to operate with the Red Banner North Fleet. When a steam catapult is in operation, steam inevitably escapes from the catapult track; in cold arctic weather this causes ice deposits which may cause the catapult shoe to jam, putting the catapult out of action.
Though that did not stop them from installing two steam catapults on their now-canceled [i]Ulyanovsk[/i] class vessels.
Isn't Varyag just a refurbished Soviet Kuznetsov-class anyway?
[QUOTE=GunFox;31670394]Them and what boats?
They don't have the navy necessary to GET HERE, much less inflict damage. Even assuming they magically pulled an amphibious assault force out of their ass, they would face the US Navy, who would slaughter them so hard it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]
Good to see not everyone thinks armies teleport themselves around.
Even if China managed to draft 200 million troops, what are they going to do with them? Swim across the ocean? Load them onto boats without adequate air and navy support and have them cross the entire pacific under fire from the US? Go towards Europe, through absurdly difficult terrain, several countries, and again without the adequate support and transports?
You know what they say, never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Yes, it's going to be a test and trials vessel anyways to provide experience for their future aircraft carrier program. I do not see it as a carrier that they'll put out as a "for-real" vessel.
[editline]15th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=acds;31748481]Good to see not everyone thinks armies teleport themselves around.
Even if China managed to draft 200 million troops, what are they going to do with them? Swim across the ocean? Load them onto boats without adequate air and navy support and have them cross the entire pacific under fire from the US? Go towards Europe, through absurdly difficult terrain, several countries, and again without the adequate support and transports?[/QUOTE]
Why would they [i]need[/i] to have them fight in an expeditionary manner?
[quote]On the day China began sea trials of its first aircraft carrier, Taiwan made what can only be described as a provocative move, displaying its newest anti-ship cruise missile in front of an illustration of what appeared to be China’s new carrier being hit by missiles.[/quote]
Taiwan's really trying to pull China's string in ticking them off
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;31671204]With what navy?
[B]China has 1 newly built aircraft carrier.[/B]
US has 11.[/QUOTE]
It's not exactly newly built either.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;31748177]With mostly 20-30 year old military technology, a 90's carrier, and only one at that. The Navy has 11 carriers, 30 amphibious warfare vessels, 22 ticondergoa class cruisers, 60 arleigh burke class destroyers, 19 oliver hazard perry class frigates, and 71 submarines. I think we're good.[/QUOTE]
Yeah well, if you go by number of boats alone, Disney has the 4th largest navy. So what now?!
[QUOTE=GunFox;31670394]Them and what boats?
They don't have the navy necessary to GET HERE, much less inflict damage. Even assuming they magically pulled an amphibious assault force out of their ass, they would face the US Navy, who would slaughter them so hard it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]
The known long range nuclear arsenal of china consists of
DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) ICBM 20 13,000+ km
DF-31A (CSS-9 Mod 2) road-mobile ICBM 24 11,200+ km
DF-31 (CSS-9) road-mobile ICBM 12 7,200+ km
DF-4 (CSS-3) ICBM 10 5,500 km
JL-2 SLBM 24 7,200+ km (possible MIRV)
44 of which would be able to hit anywhere within the continental US + everything closer within minuets
36 of which would be able to hit the west coast, Europe and everything closer
10 of which would be able to hit Asia, eastern Europe and the Indian ocean
24 of those missiles are thought to be MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicles) fired from submarines (up to 4 warheads per missile)
This comes to 186 nuclear warheads that can hit American cities, foreign military bases and fleets within minuets.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg[/IMG]
THE IMPORTANT BIT IS THIS:
This means that with or without an aircraft carrier the us cannot have a war with china. The consequences of a war with china would be the loss of the majority of US citizens and the loss of all economic centers and the destruction of most of it's military. Along with the global environmental, economic and humanitarian consequences that would happen during WORLD WAR 3. (This is ignoring the fact that both countries have allies)
SO THERE IS NO POINT SAYING "HERP DERP, BUT WE HAVE MORE CARRIERS/MORE MISSILES"
because it doesn't matter what the US does with it's military, there cannot be a direct engagement between the two nations, because the consequences of such are so terrible.
The worrying thing is, that due to US treaty's with Taiwan and both countries alliances, There is a high chance that if china attacks Taiwan that the rest of the world will get dragged in.
Uhh...
I always recommend [i]anyone[/i] thinking about a "Sino-American War" to read this article published in the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine. No need to wave around American or PRC military dicks.
[url]http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-07/chinese-missiles-and-walmart-factor[/url]
[QUOTE=Catesby;31754955]The known long range nuclear arsenal of china consists of
DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) ICBM 20 13,000+ km
DF-31A (CSS-9 Mod 2) road-mobile ICBM 24 11,200+ km
DF-31 (CSS-9) road-mobile ICBM 12 7,200+ km
DF-4 (CSS-3) ICBM 10 5,500 km
JL-2 SLBM 24 7,200+ km (possible MIRV)
44 of which would be able to hit anywhere within the continental US + everything closer within minuets
36 of which would be able to hit the west coast, Europe and everything closer
10 of which would be able to hit Asia, eastern Europe and the Indian ocean
24 of those missiles are thought to be MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicles) fired from submarines (up to 4 warheads per missile)
This comes to 186 nuclear warheads that can hit American cities, foreign military bases and fleets within minuets.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg[/IMG]
THE IMPORTANT BIT IS THIS:
This means that with or without an aircraft carrier the us cannot have a war with china. The consequences of a war with china would be the loss of the majority of US citizens and the loss of all economic centers and the destruction of most of it's military. Along with the global environmental, economic and humanitarian consequences that would happen during WORLD WAR 3. (This is ignoring the fact that both countries have allies)
SO THERE IS NO POINT SAYING "HERP DERP, BUT WE HAVE MORE CARRIERS/MORE MISSILES"
because it doesn't matter what the US does with it's military, there cannot be a direct engagement between the two nations, because the consequences of such are so terrible.
The worrying thing is, that due to US treaty's with Taiwan and both countries alliances, There is a high chance that if china attacks Taiwan that the rest of the world will get dragged in.[/QUOTE]
It won't happen because every other country would fire their missiles at china, no one's dumb enough to do that anyway, this isn't a worry.
Wouldn't we just shoot down their ICBMs?
[QUOTE=Apache249;31755238]Wouldn't we just shoot down their ICBMs?[/QUOTE]
Numbers can overwhelm everything, while many would be shot down, most of them would impact.
[QUOTE=Apache249;31755238]Wouldn't we just shoot down their ICBMs?[/QUOTE]
No. Minuteman missile silos have been around a while, but they didn't even put a dent in the absolute certainty of MAD. Nukes launched from simple, disposable silos are cheaper and more effective than defensive missiles with their powerful radar arrays and less-than-100% success rate.
[QUOTE=Catesby;31754955]The known long range nuclear arsenal of china consists of
DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) ICBM 20 13,000+ km
DF-31A (CSS-9 Mod 2) road-mobile ICBM 24 11,200+ km
DF-31 (CSS-9) road-mobile ICBM 12 7,200+ km
DF-4 (CSS-3) ICBM 10 5,500 km
JL-2 SLBM 24 7,200+ km (possible MIRV)
44 of which would be able to hit anywhere within the continental US + everything closer within minuets
36 of which would be able to hit the west coast, Europe and everything closer
10 of which would be able to hit Asia, eastern Europe and the Indian ocean
24 of those missiles are thought to be MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicles) fired from submarines (up to 4 warheads per missile)
This comes to 186 nuclear warheads that can hit American cities, foreign military bases and fleets within minuets.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg[/IMG]
THE IMPORTANT BIT IS THIS:
This means that with or without an aircraft carrier the us cannot have a war with china. The consequences of a war with china would be the loss of the majority of US citizens and the loss of all economic centers and the destruction of most of it's military. Along with the global environmental, economic and humanitarian consequences that would happen during WORLD WAR 3. (This is ignoring the fact that both countries have allies)
SO THERE IS NO POINT SAYING "HERP DERP, BUT WE HAVE MORE CARRIERS/MORE MISSILES"
because it doesn't matter what the US does with it's military, there cannot be a direct engagement between the two nations, because the consequences of such are so terrible.
The worrying thing is, that due to US treaty's with Taiwan and both countries alliances, There is a high chance that if china attacks Taiwan that the rest of the world will get dragged in.[/QUOTE]
If China goes nuclear, they get wiped off the map, permanently.
This makes it highly unlikely that in the event we move in to defend Taiwan that they would go nuclear.
MAD makes full scale conflict impossible, but it doesn't prevent border disputes and smaller scale conflicts. Given the amount of R&D that the Chinese put into specifically designing counters for US hardware, they seem to agree with this assessment.
You know, its sad when Taiwan is still using M-60 Patton tanks.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31757190]If China goes nuclear, they get wiped off the map, permanently.
This makes it highly unlikely that in the event we move in to defend Taiwan that they would go nuclear.
MAD makes full scale conflict impossible, but it doesn't prevent border disputes and smaller scale conflicts. Given the amount of R&D that the Chinese put into specifically designing counters for US hardware, they seem to agree with this assessment.[/QUOTE]
If either country goes nuclear, both get wiped off the map, permanently.
This makes it highly unlikely that in the event China attacks Taiwan, the US would risk intervening and potentially causing world war 3.
MAD makes full scale conflict unimaginably terrible, but it doesn't mean that everyone in both nuclear command structures is totally rational, or that these weapons wouldn't be used in the face of defeat. The world has come close to the brink of nuclear war several times without a war between the powers. "In the thermonuclear age, any misjudgment on either side about the intentions of the other could rain more devastation in several hours than has been wrought in all the wars of humanity.":JFK
Given the amount of R&D that the US puts into specifically designing counters for nuclear weapons, they seem to agree with this assessment.
50 years ago but still relevant.
[video=youtube;5R87YhYbnkA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R87YhYbnkA[/video]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.