War with Iran.

[Baff1 0]

Collecting money from the U.S.?

When was the last time the U.S. actually paid anyone?

Your money is safer in Russia old son. That place is an investment blackhole.

The U.S. economy is so close to collapse that all financial leverage they have over China is only an accident away from disappearing completely. Further more, they have more leverage over America than America has over them. If China stops lending to them, their economy will collapse. China's on the otherhand will slow down massively and pensioners will have to write off their savings.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Baff1

[pviera11 10]

Hmmmmmmmmmm, i dint take the economy into effect. So yea we are screwed if china decided to attack.

[-Snafu- 77]

What is the logistics chain of an ICBM exactly?

Nuclear war is quite a different beast to conventional war. When you say 'threat to the US military' one logically assumes you are talking about a conventional war of some sort since nuclear weapons are usually aimed at population centres. Even then I don't believe anybody other than the Chinese leadership knows what their actual nuclear capabilities are. Apart from you of course. I'm sure the US would be interested in your expert analysis.

The Chinese have been in the position to start a shooting war with the US for decades. And anybody else for that matter.

You are incorrect. When a nation is in the process of significantly building up its industry and military it is far away from being ready for any sort of major war. For starters the arms industry has to expand then the kit has to be developed, then said kit has to be introduced, tactical and strategic thinking needs to change etc. War is not a game of C&C. Building up a military, especially a modern one, is a lengthy and expensive process. You can't just to tell your military, 'hey go here'. It doesn't work like that.

Let's not forget what I previously stated. The Chinese do not possess the ability to project military power across the globe like France, America and Britain. If the Chinese held the Falklands in 1982 they would not be able to take it back. The key asset in power projection is the aircraft carrier and China doesn't have one. If they are going to be in a major conventional war it will be one near their border.

The other thing they have is the most advanced submarine force in the world. Also the most advanced anti-shipping missiles. They can defend themselves. They can destroy the U.S. logisitcal train to all it's pacific colonies.

This is nothing but half-assed speculation. What is your source for saying they have the most advanced submarines in the world? Where is your source about them having the most advanced anti-ship missiles? They are developing a so called 'carrier killer' missile (I forget the name) and the media, surprise surprise, jumped on the hype. First of all it's not known if it can penetrate defences and do the job. Secondly there is the problem of target acquisition. In other words; speculation. Much like your statement above. In addition you also forget one key thing in your fanciful scenario; the enemy. It gets a vote too.

There was a Pentagon report out on China's military capabilites last week. Worth checking out I expect. I haven't read it myself, just the newspaper reports of it. It pretty much says the same thing they said last year and the year before as far as I can tell.

This year's annual report, according to the news sources, focuses on its continued military build-up and criticises China for its lack of transparency.

[Baff1 0]

You are incorrect. When a nation is in the process of significantly building up its industry and military it is far away from being ready for any sort of major war. For starters the arms industry has to expand then the kit has to be developed, then said kit has to be introduced, tactical and strategic thinking needs to change etc. War is not a game of C&C. Building up a military, especially a modern one, is a lengthy and expensive process. You can't just to tell your military, 'hey go here'. It doesn't work like that..

When your military has ICBM's it can go anywhere in the world. China has had them for decades. Whether or not it has the capability for a minor war is another thing. That Pentagon report said they had amassed the largest stockpile of cruise missiles in the world with range on Taiwan.

With regards to submarines, there is no need for speculation. One of them surfaced uninvited and undetected, in the middle of a U.S. naval exercise. Their ability is proven.

I agree with you about the targeting of their Sunburn equiped missiles, but it should not be lost on you however that this missile was able to successfully target a satellite in orbit. So it's clear it is within their capabilities to hit a slow moving object the size of two football pitches. That said, a satelittle is not a carrier. It must be harder to find the target and I have no idea how much telemetry is involved or the practicallity of focusing it on a ship out to sea. I read that it could be targetted buy satelitte or UAV. One would think that a carrier can be seen from space.

The speed of the missile is known and it is known to be too fast for any anti-missile system around currently.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Baff1

[jakerod 254]

Chinese Sub Came Close to US Ships

Just thought I would post that since I had never heard of it before and save you guys the trouble of searching. CBS was the most reliable source I found in my quick search. Daily Mail was also in there plus a bunch of others that I never heard of.

Granted that doesn't really mean anything. For all we know the US did detect it and just chose to say that it didn't. Being underestimated by your enemy is a major advantage in a war and it could also lead to more US Navy funding. That or our navy really does just suck that much. Probably the latter one.

[Big Mac 19]

Granted that doesn't really mean anything. For all we know the US did detect it and just chose to say that it didn't. Being underestimated by your enemy is a major advantage in a war and it could also lead to more US Navy funding. That or our navy really does just suck that much. Probably the latter one.

It means nothing and everything. It means nothing because during the cold war we NATO and the Russians used to do the same thing. It's about proving a point without actually firing any shots and the point is "If we wanted to we could hurt you badly."

It means everything because although China's surface fleet would turn into the foundation for new coral reefs before they could actually sink a US Naval Aircraft Carrier, their subs are a major concern, because even a kilo class running silent with a good captain and crew has a pretty good chance of slipping past an ASW screen if the conditions are right. They only have to be right once and the US Navy has to be right every time. They could at the most take a aircraft carrier out of action forcing it to go to drydock which could very well tip a naval war in their favor.

[Baff1 0]

The critical naval advantage they hold is shipbuster missles with a 900 mile range.

They can destroy surface vessels before surface vessels can destroy them.

These missiles are land based, ship based and submarine based.

Both countries have anti satellitte weapon systems and I think however that in the event of any war these would be the first to go. Which would change the ball game somewhat.

However I do not beleive these to be viable scenarios as any such war between those two countries I would expect to be solely nuclear in nature.

What China clearly is able to do, is dominate the Pacific versus say Taiwan or even Japan. It has demonstrated to them that American technology is no match for it.

If America was ever caught out of position for example, forced to move it's fleets to Korea or the Middle East or wherever (or even economically forced to disband them), China could take that ground for it's own and never give it back.

With regards to Big Mac's comments of "at most" forcing an aircraft carrier to return to port for repairs, historically speaking almost every single aircraft carrier that has ever taken a hit has sunk. Yorktown being the exception to the rule. I think Yorktown was twice disabled before it was destroyed.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Baff1

[-Snafu- 77]

When your military has ICBM's it can go anywhere in the world. China has had them for decades. Whether or not it has the capability for a minor war is another thing. That Pentagon report said they had amassed the largest stockpile of cruise missiles in the world with range on Taiwan.

Conventional war. Nukes are a threat to the entire country and not just the military.

With regards to submarines, there is no need for speculation. One of them surfaced uninvited and undetected, in the middle of a U.S. naval exercise. Their ability is proven.

I thought you would mention that. None of the articles give any reason why it was undetectable. The USN is the largest and very arguably best navy in the world with a global reach. The crews, repeatedly doing large scale exercises when there is no real threat, simply might have gotten tired and let standards slip. Not all of the necessary facts are known. That incident was also at least four years ago and I fully expect the USN to have shaken up their ASW capability.

To say the Chinese submarines are superior and can wipe out entire fleets with impunity based on that is quite a stretch.

I agree with you about the targeting of their Sunburn equiped missiles, but it should not be lost on you however that this missile was able to successfully target a satellite in orbit. So it's clear it is within their capabilities to hit a slow moving object the size of two football pitches. That said, a satelittle is not a carrier. It must be harder to find the target and I have no idea how much telemetry is involved or the practicallity of focusing it on a ship out to sea. I read that it could be targetted buy satelitte or UAV. One would think that a carrier can be seen from space.

The speed of the missile is known and it is known to be too fast for any anti-missile system around currently.

The position of that satellite was known and it was also undefended. The DF-21D is still in development and might not even work out at all. Targetting will be an issue. I'm sure the USN and US have a few tricks up their sleeve too.

[Big Mac 19]

With regards to Big Mac's comments of "at most" forcing an aircraft carrier to return to port for repairs, historically speaking almost every single aircraft carrier that has ever taken a hit has sunk. Yorktown being the exception to the rule. I think Yorktown was twice disabled before it was destroyed.

Today's aircraft carriers are a lot more advanced that those from WW2 and they're designed to take a great deal more damage before they sink unlike the aircraft carriers of WW2. China would have to throw a lot of anti-ship missiles at a US carrier and even then most of them wouldn't make it through the 3 tier defense system. As for torpedoes they have to shoot a hell of a lot to sink a carrier. Edited August 21, 2010 by Big Mac

[Baff1 0]

Todays aircraft carriers carry more high explosives and more fuel. The armaments used against them are more advanced too.

Armour, fire drills, fire control, magasines, it's not new naval techonology. They had it all in WW2 too. Not to mention WW1.

In the Falklands campaign, ships built later than U.S. aircraft carriers were sunk by single Exocets. The hulls super heat and everybody onboard burns alive.

Aircraft carriers are the most vulnerable of all capital ships.

Just one rocket torpedo is able to break a carriers hull in two by force of it's kinetic speed alone. A nuclear tipped one is able to sink not just a carrier with a single shot, but an entire battle fleet. Further to this, they are all equally as vulnerable to the same attacks that sunk so many the WW2 ones, a single bomb to a crowded flight deck. Some things haven't changed at all.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

In the Falklands campaign, ships built later than U.S. aircraft carriers were sunk by single Exocets. The hulls super heat and everybody onboard burns alive.

Aircraft carriers are the most vulnerable of all capital ships.

You obviously havent read anything about CBGs..

Just one rocket torpedo is able to break a carriers hull in two by force of it's kinetic speed alone. A nuclear tipped one is able to sink not just a carrier with a single shot, but an entire battle fleet. Further to this, they are all equally as vulnerable to the same attacks that sunk so many the WW2 ones, a single bomb to a crowded flight deck. Some things haven't changed at all.

The only kinda of torpedo that can sink a carrier with one shot in nuclear one. A conventional one can seriously damage it, but it would take a great many to sink a carrier.

The modern CBG has a proven 3 tier defense would would mean china would have to deploy a shit load of planes for just a few to get through and bomb a carrier.

Please do you research...

[Daniel 0]

Not true Mac, modern torpedoes do nasty things to surface vessels, if the pressure wave is in the right place.

So if an enemy submarine was allowed to get close enough (debatable given western sonar technology, although the above article seems to suggest otherwise), and if it got a shot on target past the countermeasures (do surface vessels use CM?), it could conceivably take take out a carrier. Even if it didn't sink, I wouldn't imagine the flight deck would be much use. Of course, whether the submarine would escape the CBG is a different story.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Daniel

[Big Mac 19]

Not true Mac, modern torpedoes do nasty things to surface vessels, if the pressure wave is in the right place.

That's a destroyer Danny. They had to use 500 pounds of C4 to turn the USS Oriskany (CV-34) into a coral reef and those 500 pounds of C4 had to be placed at the ships weak points for it to sink. I would cite the USS America (CV-66) also in that they used her as a target ship for the conventional weapons of the US navy and end the end they had to scuttle her the same way they did the USS Oriskany. Edited August 21, 2010 by Big Mac

[Baff1 0]

You obviously havent read anything about CBGs..

The only kinda of torpedo that can sink a carrier with one shot in nuclear one. A conventional one can seriously damage it, but it would take a great many to sink a carrier.

The modern CBG has a proven 3 tier defense would would mean china would have to deploy a shit load of planes for just a few to get through and bomb a carrier.

Please do you research...

There is a reason all the other ships in a fleet try and protect the carrier. It is because it is so vulnerable.

A chinese anti shipping ballistic missile is so fast that it cannot be countered by any means in the U.S. aresenal.

It's range is so long it can be fired from beyond the range of any weapon system in the fleet. A chinese conventional ballistic submarine can carry 12 of these missiles. How many ships are there in a CBG?

And yes if the chinese wished to drop a plane launched bomb, they would need a shitload of planes to break through, but then... they have a shit load of planes.

---------- Post added at 06:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

That's a destroyer Danny. They had to use 500 pounds of C4 to turn the USS Oriskany (CV-34) into a coral reef and those 500 pounds of C4 had to be placed at the ships weak points for it to sink. I would cite the USS America (CV-66) also in that they used her as a target ship for the conventional weapons of the US navy and end the end they had to scuttle her the same way they did the USS Oriskany.

A chinese torpedo has a warhead of 750lbs.

A carrier has more weakspots than a Destroyer. It is also rammed full of stored chemical energy. A giant floating powder keg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEnNUwfDIV4&feature=search

It only takes one. Not that they don't have more than one available of course. I'm sure they could fire quite a few if they needed to.

Historically carriers have been destroyed by torpedoes, but I don't think any have ever survived.

PS your "proven 3 tier defence" was proven not to be effective vs a Chinese sub. Embarrasing.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

PS your "proven 3 tier defence" was proven not to be effective vs a Chinese sub. Embarrasing.

Thats against aircraft and missiles... Usually when a carrier is on a combat deployment it has regular ASW patrols which add another tier to the defense.

A chinese torpedo has a warhead of 750lbs.

A carrier has more weakspots than a Destroyer. It is also rammed full of stored chemical energy. A giant floating powder keg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEnNU...feature=search

It only takes one. Not that they don't have more than one available of course. I'm sure they could fire quite a few if they needed to.

Historically carriers have been destroyed by torpedoes, but I don't think any have ever survived.

Baff you're going on old history and not modern facts. Today's US carriers are designed with these things in mind and those two example if you bother to research before you posted would prove that post WW2 carriers are designed to take a great deal of hits before they sink. The only way you could sink one with one is with a nuke, or catch it with bombs on the flight deck and the bombs are on the flight deck for a VERY short time. The best the chinese can hope for is damage it enough that it would have to pull back to a friendly naval port.

750lbs is not enough to take down a carrier. They threw 10 times as much as that at the USS America and it still floated, they has to scuttle her through a controlled demo. They had to place these charges all through the Oriskany to sink her.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Big Mac

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

No 'proliferation risk' from Iran nuclear power plant: U.S.

The Russian involvement in the reactor, intended for civilian purposes, “underscores that Iran does not need an indigenous enrichment capability if its intentions are purely peaceful,†State Department spokesman Darby Holladay told AFP.

“We recognize that the Bushehr reactor is designed to provide civilian nuclear power and do not view it as a proliferation risk,†he said.

The reactor, said Mr. Holladay, is “under IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards and Russia is providing the needed fuel and taking back the spent nuclear fuel, which would be the principal source of proliferation concerns.â€

Newspeakâ„¢, I'm lovin' it. :icon_eek:

[Zipper5 74]

Russia getting involved? I see the Cold War on the horizon... :rolleyes:

[Baff1 0]

Thats against aircraft and missiles... Usually when a carrier is on a combat deployment it has regular ASW patrols which add another tier to the defense.

Baff you're going on old history and not modern facts. Today's US carriers are designed with these things in mind and those two example if you bother to research before you posted would prove that post WW2 carriers are designed to take a great deal of hits before they sink. The only way you could sink one with one is with a nuke, or catch it with bombs on the flight deck and the bombs are on the flight deck for a VERY short time. The best the chinese can hope for is damage it enough that it would have to pull back to a friendly naval port.

750lbs is not enough to take down a carrier. They threw 10 times as much as that at the USS America and it still floated, they has to scuttle her through a controlled demo. They had to place these charges all through the Oriskany to sink her.

The Titantic was an unsinkable ship too.

What you are forgetting is that those two carriers you are discussion were used as platforms to test weapons on. They didn't want to sink them. They wanted to test the maximum possible amount of weapon systems on it, and measure the results, before sinking it.

Do you think that when two of the most advanced and productive civilisations on the planet spend 60 years developing weapon systems solely designed to sinking aircraft carriers that they have been unable to come up with one? That aircraft carrier design has been somehow able to outpace torpedo design?

If the Americans truely can't sink their own unmanned carriers using their own ordinance, then they truely suck as a navy. I think it would be very foolish indeed to expect the rest of the worlds navies to suck as much as that.

Bombs and aircraft are on the flight deck of a carrier almost constantly when it is in use. The minimum amount of time possible, I'll grant you, but in the end, during a war they will be using it to it's maximum potential. They are always vulnerable in this way.

Further to this, bombs ammunition and fuel will always be present in magasines. All ships are vulnerable to this. All ships can be one shotted. The bigger they are, the more ammo they will be carrying.

Iran has silkworms, mark my words, if an American Carrier is in the Persian Gulf they will not declare war on Iran until it has been moved.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

The Titantic was an unsinkable ship too.

What you are forgetting is that those two carriers you are discussion were used as platforms to test weapons on. They didn't want to sink them. They wanted to test the maximum possible amount of weapon systems on it, and measure the results, before sinking it.

Do you think that when two of the most advanced and productive civilisations on the planet spend 60 years developing weapon systems solely designed to sinking aircraft carriers that they have been unable to come up with one? That aircraft carrier design has been somehow able to outpace torpedo design?

If the Americans truely can't sink their own unmanned carriers using their own ordinance, then they truely suck as a navy. I think it would be very foolish indeed to expect the rest of the worlds navies to suck as much as that.

Bombs and aircraft are on the flight deck of a carrier almost constantly when it is in use. The minimum amount of time possible, I'll grant you, but in the end, during a war they will be using it to it's maximum potential. They are always vulnerable in this way.

Further to this, bombs ammunition and fuel will always be present in magasines. All ships are vulnerable to this. All ships can be one shotted. The bigger they are, the more ammo they will be carrying.

Iran has silkworms, mark my words, if an American Carrier is in the Persian Gulf they will not declare war on Iran until it has been moved.

Theres no point in debating a guy who neither puts forth an actual argument or cites his references. The only reference you seem to use is whatever you pull out of your ass.

[Baff1 0]

Oh, sorry, here is my reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic

Did you really need me to post that or could you have looked it up for yourself?

If you don't seek knowledge, you won't find it.

[Big Mac 19]

Oh, sorry, here is my reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic

Did you really need me to post that or could you have looked it up for yourself?

If you don't seek knowledge, you won't find it.

Last time I check the Titanic wasn't a carrier and I never said carriers were unsinkable..

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Last time I checked a modern torpedo could very well sink a modern carrier.

Btw, some photos of your invincible carriers taken through the periscopes of some old German diesel-electric subs.

The Enterprise

The George Washington

And no, the carriers didn't knew the subs were there and the US admiralty wasn't happy.

[HyperU2 11]

We have to do it for the doggies.

Iran issues fatwa against pets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7966326/Iran-issues-fatwa-against-pets.html

[Big Mac 19]

Last time I checked a modern torpedo could very well sink a modern carrier.

Btw, some photos of your invincible carriers taken through the periscopes of some old German diesel-electric subs.

And no, the carriers didn't knew the subs were there and the US admiralty wasn't happy.

Your post made no sense and proved nothing..

[sk3pt 0]

v1UPG7XwhWw

There's no doubt whatsoever that these new subs, like the German Type 212 (practically undetectable), are able to sink a carrier.