It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The funny thing about your argument is that the US Navy were given the positions of the submarines during exercises and still managed to lose them. What chance do they have against a foe that isn't going to radio in their position.
The US Navy has leased a Swedish sub to practice countermeasures against it, none of which have been effective to date.
Well come on list a source which aren't Tom Clancy books.
Many of her escort ships cannot maintain 30 knots indefinately. Therefore stripping her of her protective screen.
If the CBG is travelling at 30 knots then their passive sonars would be uslesss in detecting submarine traffic, they can barely track AIP atm, well actually they can't really.
Actually she is probably more vulnerable than most people think. Fact is the carriers have never been engage with an adversary which has a significant Navy since WWII. This IMO has bred a certain arrogance about their survivability.
My thoughts it doesn't matter if a carrier is sunk the end result for the country who did it, would be catastrophic, their home infrastructure would be left destroyed and put back 20 years at least and this with conventional weapons.
Originally posted by FredT
OH MY GOD Hypothetical weapon A has doomed the carrier yet again :shk:
1) As Zaphod points out a carrier at sea is a moving target. Even IF you used a RORSAT they can still hide. Lets say the ChiComs use UAV's and subs, you making an assumption that they are going to be simply allowed unmolested to loiter around a CBG?
Originally posted by dingyibvs
reply to post by StellarX
1)Carriers are offensive weapons in nature. Even when they're in a defensive position, they're in a forward defensive positions, so I agree with you here.
2)Their intents, which is world dominance, the same as just about any powerful nation, is aggressive, but they tend to like to accomplish it passively(i.e. not through warfare). One of the best known Sun Tzu's Art of War quotes is "If you know your enemy and you know yourself, then you will win 100 battles out of 100," and the Chinese government certainly isn't oblivious to the U.S. technological dominance in many areas, so they do not want to fight a war that they cannot win. That's why they're focusing on asymmetric weaponry and economic growth. Economics isn't a zero-sum game like power is--everybody can get rich and happy, but they only care about them being the richest, which may happen in as little as 25 years. So I believe that to the Chinese government, economy is a mean, not an end. Also, while you may well point out that there are many deficiencies in many Chinese systems, you should know that developing asymmetric weaponry is one of their keys to world dominance, it's something that should deter warfare while their economy catches up. So you shouldn't underestimate the Chinese' expertise in areas such as missiles, ASatW, etc.
3)But China hasn't been a cold war enemy since the late 70's, that's about 30 years now, and it wasn't one until '49 when the Communists took over. I'd say the most recent 30 years of thawing relationships and VASTLY strengthened economic ties trumps the earlier 30 years. Also, I don't believe the attack will be out of the blue, the Americans will receive plenty of warning(though obviously nothing specific such as timing and location, etc.). Keep in mind that they want to DETER warfare, at least right now, they're not preparing for a secret attack. So I believe that once the next ~7-10ish Beidou satellites are up in the next couple of years, we'll see the weapon tested and shown to the world. Thus, we should see if it'll work pretty soon. We'll likely still have debates about its ability to track, but we shouldn't have debates about whether it could hit a maneuvering target anymore.
4)The Germans surrendered when their armies were annihilated, it'll take a massive land invasion to do the same for China. The Chinese simply do not believe they would be the aggressors, the state media will make sure of that. The same can't be said about the U.S. public opinion.
5)You can drag the American public into a war, but the American public can drag you out of a war. The Chinese government won't back down for the sake of its own survival, they've whipped up the nationalistic sentiments so they have to leave up to it.
6)I'm not so sure they won't start it. Their current military strategy is to allow its economy time to grow, but once it's matured and the U.S. would hurt just as much economically from a war with China as China would, then the military strategy should also change with it.
[edit on 19-4-2009 by dingyibvs]
Originally posted by Dallas87
Also just alittle add in ... around the air craft carriers there are 7 other supportships waiting for any immediaate threat we can stop then mirror and destroy who and whatever sent it.... The Navy is well aware of what is going on in, on, and outside the planet fellow believers
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
First, I'll admit to not reading every post, so if I repeat...
Several flaws with the OP. First, carriers never travel alone. They travel with a complete carrier group capable of handling any threat on the surface or under it. Any air threat can be handled by the onboard air wing. Second, carriers are still effective as they can put our air power within striking distance of any place on Earth. The Navy and Marines have more aircreft than the Air Force. I think recent conflicts have shown the importance of air superiority.
Originally posted by Dallas87
What do you call WWll ya idiot came in from all sides of europe and conquored one of the fiercest militaries of all time the Germans were not weak by any means and still aren't they are a strong nation