GoldenDragonWhy would you want to attack France? :confused:
Why not? China is a worse choice.
Nuclear Warhead on torpedo required to sink a carrier with 5000 dead.
The CVN have double hulls making a normal heavy weight torpedo not so effective. 😉
When a torpedo strikes, anything can happen. The Hood blew up after being hit with one shot. What part of lucky torpedo strike did you not understand?
Sinking a CVN is not as easy as you think. It has a lot of little friends around it like Aegis cruisers, Spurance destroyers, Perry frigates and the odd sub or two that the attackers have to get past, after they have survived the CVBG air assets . 😀
Yes, I already mentioned that as a waste of resources. On rumors of submarines, the task force would spend much of its resources protecting the carrier (while the Air Force prosecute the war.)
Its more likely to be doing a mercy mission than trying to stomp them (Indonesia anybody) how to make friends and influence people the easy way.
A carrier would make you friends? Like I said, if the Russians or Chinese park a carrier off of New York City, we’ll see how friendly New Yorkers would be. Okay, maybe a floating casino or themepark carrier (the only kinds China has) would make a few friends off New York. But definitely not one full of Su-33s.
In fact GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE USA, IN SUPPORT OF THE JAPS, not the other way around. :p
The US Navy was sticking its nose into the Germany U-Boat campaign against the Brits. It was a nosy, crappy thing to do, according to many German-Americans like Lindbergh, anyways.
When the Japs did bomb Pearl Harbor, Hitler thought he had some carriers to play with and stupidly declared war first. Again, carriers led to a nation overreaching itself.
Oh dear, not from the American mid west are we??? :rolleyes:
East coast. I went to a Salvation Army Sunday school. I’m a semi-Christian. Since I’m Chinese-American, the pagan part of me will always remain. Will sacrifice a chicken when I lose control on a full moon.
FALKLANDS 1982, and the USAF didn’t play (and in fact OUR carrier aircraft WON!!!! against a much larger land based air force) 😎
You won due to blind luck and the fact that Argentine A-4 drivers pressed their attacks so close and so ferociously that armor-piercing bombs were passing completely through British ships and exploding on the other side. There could very well been a major disaster with half the Brit fleet sunk around Port Stanley.
The Argentinian navy also handled itself poorly (except for the Mirage-Exorcet combination that sank two RN warships.) They got their cruiser sunk. Worse, their submarines were not in position.
Even so the RN pretty much had expended all its anti-sub ordinance during the campaign. They would have been sitting ducks if Argentina had more than two submarines. ASW was and still a very inexact science.
Revolt of the Admirals :diablo: , give them their due, stood up and told the congress and the Truman administration that the USAF were talking sh*t
Selfish old men, every knew that the air force was the future. Ever since Mitchell sank the USS Indiana (Navy hid it for awhile.)
You would have won Vietnam (THE USMC small wars manual was used by the British in Op Firedog and we won that one.
The USMC were the first to study Chairman Mao and Chinese guerilla tactics.
Plus having met a few USMC, US Army and a lot of USAF guys on a certain operation that started in March 2003, I’d rate the USMC the best of the US forces by a long shot
Without doubt. Greatest landwarriors put forth by the US.
But they still don’t need an air arm bigger than the RAF.
One USAF Peasant even thought I was FRENCH!!!! 😡 (With a UJ on my desert combats??? :confused: )).
That’s because you probably didn’t speak proper English.
GoldenDragonA great aircraft. Gone are the days when a naval program can become the frontline aircraft of the Air Force.
GoldenDragonThe top three shipbuilding nations for the past decade in term of orders are Korea, Japan and China. Korea has a huge advantage with like 50% of the orders, Japan with 25% and China around 15-20%.
China is the fastest growing industry and is actually fueled by mainly internal orders. Korea makes mostly exports. Because of the way ships are ordered and built (deliveries take years and the market has to support them,) China will eventually overtake Korea for numbers built simply on capacity and the home market. Actually, the current spike in ship building even by Japan and Korea is for transports related to the Chinese economic boom.
Europe as a whole (France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) is in the top three in tonnage. This is off the top of my head from reading trade pubs.
GoldenDragonAgain, the most pointless air arms are those that replicate the roles already performed by others.
In which case, the air arms of Lesotho or Bhutan are not pointless since they are there for their nation and fullfill a capacity not occupied by another agency.
GoldenDragonROTFLMAO!!!! I guess the same goes for SSBNs and ICBMs huh? It’s only “proper” if a long range bomber can do the job. :rolleyes:
No, the SSBNs have their place as a second strike capability. The ICBMs pretty much belong to the Air Force anyways so they can stay.
Carriers are dead, dead, dead against anyone that can up submarines in the littoral or large numbers of coastal aviation. No carrier or even combinations of carriers can take out the coastal defense of China or France for example without incurring the possibility of a single loss ending in national tragedy. Can you imagine losing 5000 men on one ship to a lucky torpedo strike? Air force aircraft based on landbases from the UK, South Korea or Taiwan would present a far better risk-reward scenario.
Of course, if your protecting your homeland, any risk-reward goes out the window. You fight to the death, at in the Far East, that is the case. Again, the carrier is fighting far away from home and those who are going after it are fighting for their homeland and families. The carrier is nothing but a big target that a halfway potent nation fighting at home would try to sink as a way to end the war quickly.
Of course, there is blue ocean warfare. The carrier would reign supreme, having a longer reach than any surface ship borne weapon/sensor combination.
But there is NO other blue water navy in the world that isn’t a NATO country. The carrier is a white elephant in search of a mouse to stomp. If it stomps too near the mudhuts of 300 angry natives, someone is going to throw a spear that might pierce an eye.
What about it? I notice Hitler didn’t seem to have a problem with mindless aggression and he didn’t have any aircraft carriers.
Hitler didn’t bother the US did he? Charles Lindhberg — and many other Americans beside — was rather peeved that Roosevelt decided to interfere in Germany’s war with the UK. But without the carriers, the Japanese would never have bombed Pearl Harbor and the Germans would have taken care of the USSR and we would never have had the Cold War or godless commies.
I guess China’s all gungho to get aircraft carriers because they want to be mindlessly aggressive huh?
Actually, American speculators are gunho about Chinese carriers. I haven’t heard a word from China that they are gunho about carriers. If they are then they are doing the US a favor because a carrier is dead, dead, dead in the Taiwan Strait. By the way, the only Chinese carriers around are floating museums and casinos.
Nor as effective. Something that has been demonstrated time after time that you seem to be missing is that the presence of a few carrier battle groups appearing on the scene often will diffuse the situation. Try doing that with a submarine.
A carrier cowing people is pretty much a western conceit. Wow, we can scare these natives into behaving better with our big ships. Sorry, I don’t think world works that way. It actually causes anger and backlash. Think about it, if a Chinese or Russian carrier parks off New Jersey or New York would the locals be “cowed” into behaving better or they would be p1ssed off?
Uh yeah. Tell me, when is the last time a USAF aircraft depolyed from an amphibious assualt ship?
When was the last time an amphibious assault was actually necessary? The Air Force clears everything out of the way first. Take Gulf War I, the US Navy got lucky and shot down a couple of MiG-21s while two Hornets on a strike mission were enroute to target. Barely a sniff of opposing aircraft for the Navy and Marine airwings afterwards.
Give the USAF the Marine’s budget too and I’m sure they’d be happy to.
Remember the “Revolt of the Admirals in the 1950s?” The DoD came very close to taking away the carriers and reducing the Marines to ship police. Give it to the Air Force. They deserve it. What the heck are grunts doing with fighter jets anyways?
GoldenDragonElp, nice insightful take on the Taiwan scenario though it was surprising to find it on this particular thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sferrin
There are never going to be enough F-22s built to put the number in theater to deal with China. Every other US aircraft is at a disadvantage against the Flanker. Those same Flankers will also keep US bombers from getting into launch range with cruise missiles (unless all you’re interested in hitting are coastal installations).Interesting theory. First, not much is going to stop an F-22 from bringing down emmitters in an NCW environ. SDB I and II can be dropped well over 50 miles away. Where there won’t be much getting any kind of lock on that. The mail will get through. Further, that GBU32 and even better GBU35 JDAM ( BLU-110 ) will do most of the work of any cruise missile for less money. Any Flanker user will be out-matched. Assuming they even get off the ground. More times than not, we always strike first…. and at night.
You think what, 6 or 7 B-2s are going to be able to cover a country the size of China? JASSM is too short ranged (as the ER will be when it comes into service) and Tomahawks value goes WAY down when you’ve got double-digit SAMs to deal with.
First… ANY…. weapons that land on mainland China, will prompt an instant nuclear response. They have as much said so. So doing some kind of strike on the mainland is just stupid. JASSM is not short ranged when you figure out that something like a B-2 can drop them. Double digit SAM systems are stupid expensive. They can be overwhelmed and cut down. Responding to some fantasy Taiwan scenario. ( That’s exactly what it is: fantasy…) doesn’t need force on force issues. There is no need to play their game of direct force to direct force ( to push the fantasy Taiwan strike even further….
-Chicom leaders like the nice little rice bowl they get out of the current system. Lots of cash. They aren’t going to mess that up. Taiwan is a large, large trading partner. All of the other inport / export business holds weight. Not some dumb old school red china idea to take Taiwan. That dumb play would also increase the rising civil unrest in the country. Not to mention, people would want… and most likely get… old school chicom leaders killed for messing up a good thing. The sabre rattling is just that. But lets push the fantasy even further…. China hits Tiawan with a bunch of stuff. First what we can do requires…. No direct force. 70-80% of their oil goes through the Indian Ocean and up through the South China Sea. Even if it was only 30%, it would still be a large problem. We have a hardcore deep water navy. They don’t. Their oil reserves might be good for 6 months, if that. As for finding someone to make our McDonalds Happy Meal Toys and other Walmart inspired crap…. Suppliers have long went for back up providers just in case China did become unstable. Would whole economies be cripped for a while? Yup. They would. However, any push to take Taiwan is, in the long run, a losing play for Chicom leaders. It isn’t practical and it doesn’t make sense. Chicoms are not stupid, most days of the week.
GoldenDragonAs long as you have airbases in range. If not you are FUBARed. Let’s see the USAF do an amphibious assault. Let’s see the USAF set up shop in a new warzone as fast as a carrier battle group. The USAF has a lot of planes but there are some things they just aren’t the best choice for. They certainly don’t have the intimidation factor that several carrier battle groups showing up on your front door do.
First of all, if you have no airbase in the area, you shouldn’t be bombing people there. Aircraft carriers, in general, lead to mindless aggression and over extension. Take the Japanese attack by carrier on Pearl Harbor.
Secondly, aircraft carriers in the littoral spend more time protecting itself than actually doing things that can affect the course of war. Iraq and others don’t have the submarines to pose a threat to carriers so the US have not had to deal with possible threats. But in the end, using carriers on third world nations without a navy is like using an expensive white elephant to crush an ant. It could be done in many different ways. Of course, those ways are not as “cool” as an aircraft carrier. I’ll grant you that.
The USMC air wings are nothing but mindless and wasteful renditions of the USAF.
That said, I actually love the history and machines of the USN/USMC. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are wasteful and simply replicate dutie that should be handled by the USAF.
GoldenDragonGreat pictures of the FT-5s, J-6s, F-7As and H-5s!
GoldenDragonCanopy of the two-seat J-10B
GoldenDragonHere’s an enthusiast’s 3-sided view of the production variant J-10:
GoldenDragon:rolleyes: Why are you posting British engines on a WS-10 thread? Do the British need your advertisement? Like China, they’re a P5 country.
Repeat after me, Flogger, just because China makes lots of turbojet engines, it does not mean Japan is “uncapable” or the UK “does not make military aircraft.”
Don’t make up phoney arguments and then argue against yourself.
GoldenDragonThe US Navy and Marines air arms. Overkill. The USAF is more than enough.
GoldenDragonSo now AVIC II does not count?
Huh?
why if Japan is so uncapable why are they building the jet engine that will power the ARJ-21?
Who said Japan is uncapable? Again, you bring up a stupid idea that that you made up and then you go and answer it. Flogger, you don’t debate. You make up disjointed questions which you then give the obvious answer to.
Japan is one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth. How can they be “uncapable”? Why this phoney and stupid argument that only you have brought up?
Japan has made more turbojets than China?
Again, repeat after me, Japan is an advance technological nation. China, on the other hand, is a member of the Permanent Five in the UN Security Council and it is one of the three most prolific military jet engines makers in the post WWII war era.
Just because China makes lots of turbojet engines, it does not mean Japan is “uncapable” or the UK “does not make military aircraft.” Don’t make up stupid assumptions and then argue against yourself, Flogger.
GoldenDragonFlogger, who are you arguing with? Who, except for you, said Britain didn’t build military jets? Why would anyone, other than you, make up such a stupid assumption and then answer it himself?
Is UK not a P5 country like China? Did the UK not give the USSR the base engine for the MiG-15 and all the MiGs that followed?
Who are you arguing with? Yourself?
Repeat after me, the UK is a P5 nation like China. It had made thousands of military jet engines. Out of 191 nations registered with the UN, there are four others with the same capacity to build engines as China. And those are fellow members of China in the P5.
That said, the Chinese mil jet engine industry is one of the three most prolific in the world. It trailed only the US and the former USSR during the Cold War and it trails only the US and Russia after the fall of the USSR in 1991 in numbers produced.
GoldenDragonIt is widely accepted in many publications that the YF-23 was the superior design on paper.
But there were many in both the US defense department and civilian undustry who said Northrop could not have built the YF-23 in numbers or within the $80 million-per-plane upper price range envisioned in the 1980s. (With the F-22A probably costing around three times that, all those considerations were for naught 😀 )
Adding more doubt to Northrop’s ability to produce such an important plane in affordable numbers was the B1 project which Northrop was running at the time. The B1 program was a horrorshow of cost overruns and a Washington whipping boy at the time.
Sign In
