"China thinks it can defeat America in battle"

[LegendKiller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile#Threat_posed

Hence SEARAM. That gets around skimmers pretty well and is being more widely deployed.

 

[Orignal Earl]

ROFL - the 095 is reported to be about as loud as a 688 or maybe an i688 but nowhere near as quiet as the Virginia. Apparently their 093s didn't work too well. As with many things made in China, looks good on paper, ends up being shit in actual use.

Are you in the Navy?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Hence SEARAM. That gets around skimmers pretty well and is being more widely deployed.

Limitations of gun systems[edit]
Short range: The maximum effective range of 20 mm gun systems is about 4500 m; systems with lighter projectiles have even shorter range. The expected real-world kill-distance of an incoming anti-ship missile is about 500 m or less,[3] still close enough to possibly cause damage to the ship's sensor or communication arrays, or to wound or even kill exposed personnel. This also makes the timeframe for interception relatively short; for supersonic missiles moving at 1500 m/s it is approximately one-third of a second.
Limited kill probability: even if the missile is hit and damaged, this may not be enough to destroy it entirely or to alter its course enough to prevent the missile, or fragments from it, from hitting its intended target, particularly as the interception distance is short. This is especially true if the gun fires kinetic-energy-only projectiles.
Guns can only fire at one target at a time; switching targets may take up to one second to re-train the gun.
A gun must predict the target's course and aim at the predicted position. Modern anti-ship missiles make intentional erratic moves before impact, reducing the probability of being hit by unguided projectiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapons_system

 

[LegendKiller]

Are you in the Navy?

No but I have a lot of friends who are.

 

[LegendKiller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapons_system

Do you know the difference between cwis (gun) and searam (missile)?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Do you know the difference between cwis (gun) and searam (missile)?

I do, sorry about that.

Drawback of the missile system is (in combat) the low number of immediately available projectiles and longer reload cycles and higher costs per shot in training

Your friends no doubt told you Chinese ships all have similar systems, and that the American versions are superior

 

[rudder]

If the U.S. Went to war with China the U.S. would run out of chips used in fighters and missiles.

 

[Orignal Earl]

If the U.S. Went to war with China the U.S. would run out of chips used in fighters and missiles.

Heh
You may have something there

 

[Mai72]

Who cares?

No one.

Obama wouldn't do sh*t anyway.

And if Hillary gets in office that's not going to change.

So who cares?

 

[Zebo]

Maybe China can we havnt won a war in like 50 years and against way littler ppl than China. Um like their brothers in Vietnam for example with sticks and AKs and handed us our ass. Taliban...Iraqi terrorists.. list goes on.

If you think it will go nuclear..well then nobody wins so all those SSBNs are useless. Well not entirely. Your buddy on sub might live longer than most people on earth until they have to surface.

Last war we "won" we only half won with Korea in the 1950s. Before that you have to go back to the 1940s.

 

[NetWareHead]

Nuclear-powered submarines aren't that scary or decisive. Now the submarines that carry nuclear warheads, that's another matter. Author seems to like to conflate the two.

nuclear attack submarines are silent and can stay submerged for months at a time. Modern day torpedoes nowadays detonate a few feet under the keel of a ship, breaking its spine and causing it to disintegrate/sink. Torpedos dont work like in world war 2 anymore merely striking against the side of a hull. Each modern day anti-shipping torpedo can be expected to sink one ship each, especialyl when you are talking about small vessels; typical destroyers, cruisers, invasion vessels etc... Exception supercarriers, tankers etc, but thats when you use more than one. At the very least, any ship hit with one torpedo is mission killed, even if not sunk

US attack subs also carry Harpoon anti ship missiles and tomahawk missiles including anti shipping varieties. These subs also can carry nuclear tipped torpedoes and tomahawks. Attack subs truly are a well armed silent hunter with phenomenal endurance, also capable of operating in wolfpacks.

 

[WackyDan]

,.. because we rocked face in the Middle East,... right.

If we were to wage war as war should be waged... Instead we are locked into complex rules of engagement and political handicapping from the white house on down.

One can argue that if we went into war and waged it as we did WWII that yes, we'd be getting something fucking accomplished.

 

[NetWareHead]

That article is assuming that China can ONLY send in an invasion force by boat.

What about paratroopers? Or Air Transport?

After those guys land on the ground, then what? They are going to try and hold the ground but they need to be reinforced with other units and resupplied. The rest of the invading force (from sea) needs to catch up to them. Modern military transports are big slow flying bags of fuel and demand air superiority. Air units like this are never used alone and need cooperation from other military units for any success.

 

[Zebo]

If we were to wage war as war should be waged... Instead we are locked into complex rules of engagement and political handicapping from the white house on down.

One can argue that if we went into war and waged it as we did WWII that yes, we'd be getting something fucking accomplished.

Yup

1. Rounded up American potential enemies.
2. Leveled whole cities so they get message all will die or unconditionally surrender. Your choice.
3. Banned their Nazism and issued Shinto Directive in japan separating Church and state. Rewrote all their books.
4. Wrote both thier constitutions.
5. Still have troops there 70 years later.

Good luck with that today. We wrote the Genevas that prevent all that.

 

[Mai72]

After those guys land on the ground, then what? They are going to try and hold the ground but they need to be reinforced with other units and resupplied. The rest of the invading force (from sea) needs to catch up to them. Modern military transports are big slow flying bags of fuel and demand air superiority. Air units like this are never used alone and need cooperation from other military units for any success.

That's when we kick in the draft. Everybody goes to war! Women and teens included! We need all the people we can muster if we plan to invade China.

 

[inf1nity]

I knew the "One Child Policy" wasn't a good thing...

 

[alcoholbob]

The best Diesel subs are in fact quieter than nuclear powered ones by quite a bit. The US sub fleet could probably win by sheer numbers at this point but if China acquires a large enough fleet of silent diesels i don't like the US chances in an underwater duel.

 

[CitizenKain]

The anti-freedoms and anti-Americans in this thread are sickening, especially only a few days after Independence Day.

If being a realist and intelligent is now anti-American then so be it.

Correct, Russia would likely have gone into France and Benelux and never left. Not to mention the fact we were supplying Russia with tremendous amounts of arms, industrial capability, etc. and also tied up 1 million+ German soldiers and their equipment in the western front. There's also the inconvenient little fact that the US and Britain destroyed Germany's industry as well.

Also, "barely helped" is not what the other allies thought of US involvement in WWI either and I'm sure the 2 million US troops who served didn't think they "barely helped" either.

Was that the industry that was cranking out more weapons at the end of the war then the beginning? The bombing campaign was one of the largest wastes of lives and material in the war.
If the Russians had wanted to keep going after Germany, the US army would have provided a difficult speedbump as the Russians moved onto France. The size of the Red Army was staggering at the end of the war, they had better tanks, they had comparable planes and more importantly, they had the ability to get material to the front.

 

[alcoholbob]

That's when we kick in the draft. Everybody goes to war! Women and teens included! We need all the people we can muster if we plan to invade China.

8 colonial powers combined in their heyday were never able to fully colonize China. The US alone in its current state has no chance of successfully conquering China in a conventional war.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

If China wanted to attack the US all they'd need to do is have some nukes end up in the hands of Al Qaida and help smuggle them into the US. By making certain those that know where they came from die they'd have Al Qaida blow up nukes in several major US cities and all they'd have to do is wait for the US economy to fully collapse. Although that would also hit the Chinese economy pretty badly.

Imagine several nukes going off on US soil, hundreds of billions or more worth of damage, millions of lives lost. The US would have no choice but to start another 'war on terrorism' and go hunt down what's left of Al Qaida. Since there's quite a few hiding in places like Sudan too it would require fighting in many diffferent countries, costing lots of money which the US doesn't have and which it also needs to clean up the mess left behind and start rebuilding.

Would the US then even blink an eye if China invaded Taiwan? Even if they'd also take Japan while they're at it?

 

[Zebo]

I think it would be more than a "war on terror". More like Armageddon and elites go underground generational facilities, come out in 200 years. 99% all die on earth. Prolly not the best of plans.

 

[davmat787]

The best Diesel subs are in fact quieter than nuclear powered ones by quite a bit. The US sub fleet could probably win by sheer numbers at this point but if China acquires a large enough fleet of silent diesels i don't like the US chances in an underwater duel.

All this talk about sub capabilities between the two countries and I don't think anyone has mentioned the new P-8, the newest anti submarine aircraft. It's based on a 737-700 fuselage, but has 737-800 wings like the BBJ, but has raked wingtips instead of winglets.

It's capabilities are of course classified, they won't even allow photos of the interior. Rumor has it being able to detect any submarine, but again just a rumor.

And it has offensive weapons too, seeing torpedo pylons on a 737 is quite the sight.
http://a392.idata.over-*********/4/22/09/08/USA/USNavy/P-8A-Poseidon/MK-54-torpedo-test-03-2012.jpg

 

[davmat787]

If being a realist and intelligent is now anti-American then so be it.



Was that the industry that was cranking out more weapons at the end of the war then the beginning? The bombing campaign was one of the largest wastes of lives and material in the war.
If the Russians had wanted to keep going after Germany, the US army would have provided a difficult speedbump as the Russians moved onto France. The size of the Red Army was staggering at the end of the war, they had better tanks, they had comparable planes and more importantly, they had the ability to get material to the front.

Wasn't the bolded largely due to the US lend lease program so the red army could become mechanized? Before all the Studebakers and such they were very slow moving IIRC.

 

[pcgeek11]

Nuclear-powered submarines aren't that scary or decisive. Now the submarines that carry nuclear warheads, that's another matter. Author seems to like to conflate the two.

I see. You have never served on one or know anything about them.

OK.

 

[pcgeek11]

nuclear attack submarines are silent and can stay submerged for months at a time. Modern day torpedoes nowadays detonate a few feet under the keel of a ship, breaking its spine and causing it to disintegrate/sink. Torpedos dont work like in world war 2 anymore merely striking against the side of a hull. Each modern day anti-shipping torpedo can be expected to sink one ship each, especialyl when you are talking about small vessels; typical destroyers, cruisers, invasion vessels etc... Exception supercarriers, tankers etc, but thats when you use more than one. At the very least, any ship hit with one torpedo is mission killed, even if not sunk

US attack subs also carry Harpoon anti ship missiles and tomahawk missiles including anti shipping varieties. These subs also can carry nuclear tipped torpedoes and tomahawks. Attack subs truly are a well armed silent hunter with phenomenal endurance, also capable of operating in wolfpacks.

The US Navy has not carried any Torpedoes with a Nuclear Warhead since the mid 1970's when we stopped using the Mark 45 Torpedoes.

If we have replaced them when and with what exactly?