It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China launches new type of sub, American intelligence "suprised"

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Yeah, China only has 20 ICBMs, it's got about 400 nukes though.

There's a big difference between a nuke, and a what is basically a spaceship flying through space to different continents to deliver multiple nuclear warheads. Not to mention you need silos for ICBMs, and they're expensive.




posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
Yeah, China only has 20 ICBMs, it's got about 400 nukes though.
Not to mention you need silos for ICBMs, and they're expensive.


Glad you believe it. Even if that were accurate, are we still living in 1999? If there is a tiger in the jungle , you of course can keep reminding youself that it only a big and friendly cat.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
Perfect Communism is indeed a Utopia but is an impossible outcome in the real world.

Planners just dont have the cognative ability to manage resources on a national scale. Also the utility of the planners are imposed on the citizens.

Devilasp - "comunism would work with a good group of people"
no such thing as a good group

Such things as opportunism, shirking, assymetric information.

Were talking about the real world not some poorly constructed facet of your imagination.

buddy there was a lot of things things in the sentance i didnt like for starters
i know a few good people but well strangely enough most of them like it but its a total cliche considering thier anarcists.

also not every one in the world is a stupid A***HOLE that looks out for no.1
belive me MY COUNTRY HAS HUNDREDS OR THEM !!! we are the exsperts at A***hole makeing.
also a good group yeah u pick a good group and frankly it would work.
also would u reframe from makeing comments about my imaganation ,its frankly not nice.


[edit on 19/07/04 by devilwasp]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by Kozzy
Yeah, China only has 20 ICBMs, it's got about 400 nukes though.
Not to mention you need silos for ICBMs, and they're expensive.


Glad you believe it. Even if that were accurate, are we still living in 1999? If there is a tiger in the jungle , you of course can keep reminding youself that it only a big and friendly cat.


They might have built some more since then, maybe they have 30 now.

Either way, I don't care.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
you dont care they copuld have hundreds of ICBM's lying around with nuclear warheads? frankly i would.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   


Devilasp
also a good group yeah u pick a good group and frankly it would work


For starters ill leave the grammer and spellings alone.

Who picks this supposed good group and what do you do with the guys who donot meet the "good" criteria (which still needs specifying from your end)

Ill repeat again - no such thing as a "good group"



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
vangaurd .......your not going to make this easy for me are you?
frankly you know what your good group of people would be and i know what mines would be.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I am new to this forum, but I was interested in this topic to the degree that I chose to join and reply to this thread in a manner that I hope will be informative for any one to read this.

I have noticed that this thread has bounced from the submarine technology employed by the Chinese to the US Navy and the tactics that would be involved in attacking US Naval Forces [US Carrier] to emending invasion of Taiwan, as it would appear based on recent events. Please read this email and understand it before replying.

1. Chinese Naval Forces [Submarine]
There has been much said about the propulsion systems employed by this new class of submarine and the systems that the 688i and Seawolf Class US Submarines us. In a nose on nose engagement, I will bow to the wisdom of many here who have stated the prowess of the US Naval Forces, a 688i or Seawolf class could take out a Kilo or Variant of the class with ease, due to the high standard of training, the countermeasures employed and the their primary ASW weapon, the ADCAP, but this is where the problems arise. If as has been reported, Chinese naval crews have been part of a training program that was listed in the agreement for the 4 Kilo Class Submarines, basically a training program of sorts to get their crews to the level that they could operate their new Kilo Class subs with ease, why is this important? Taken on its own it isn't, but when you factor in the fact that the Chinese have been development Super Sonic Anti Shipping Missiles and the fact that during the 70/80s Soviets used their "Silent" Diesel Subs to ambush US Carrier Groups, a number of incidents in the Mediterranean, Naples to be correct occurred when Soviet Diesel Subs would wait as they passed over head and formed up for entering their Home port [Naples]. The Technology is sound and can be quite effective, as 688 crews can attest as they were tracked and then "Ambushed" by the Royal Navy Guard Ship in the Shallow Straits at a Royal Navy Submarine Base in Scotland. Diesel Electrics when employed with a skilled and well trained crew, can use the advantages of drifting or sitting on the bottom [Please note that Nuc Subs can't do this, as they would damage their sonar domes and their cooling systems] and then lay in wait for their prey. At current their submarine force, do appear to be lacking in areas of training and employment of their equipment, but some thing should be noted here, Chinese employ a wide range of Soviet Technology, including their Doctrine.

That I believe is the most deadly piece of information there. Russian/Soviet naval doctrine dating from the 60s to the present have always believed in using their vessels to assist each other, Bear ASW platforms, directing their friendly subs to their targets, this should not be over looked.

2. Chinese Naval Forces [Yuan vs US Carrier Group]
With a skilled Commander and a well trained crew, I do believe that they could at least evade the outer sonar pickets before attacking the carrier, with a soviet captain and crew, I think its possible, for them to attack the CV and hopefully get out again, but the chances of that are under 30%. Do I think a Variant of the Romeo Class could do with a Chinese crew... Maybe, but they wouldn't becoming home. As have been said already, once they launch their SET torps they had better hope that the Escorts don't hear it, which is very unlikely, but thats a point in itself, the Chinese, I believe would quite happily lose a sub if it could take out a CV, 100 man crew vs 5000+, what ever way you look at it, it is a good trade.

The question is, how would a CV Group deal with a "wolf pack" of these quiet little subs? Lets think about this, 3 subs attacking the CV, all undetected as they lay on the bottom of the ocean, as they hear the CV approaching they come to attack depth [god knows what that would be, but I wouldn't risk losing to much air on firing the torps from too deep or from showing my periscope to hostile radar] The carrier is steam west, say 20 knots, all they have to do is line up North, West, and South of the target CV, let the North Sub launch its torps and cruise missiles and run, the escorts jump on it and I wouldn't think that Chinese sub would be around for long. Now here is the beauty of the trick what would you do if you where a CV? RUN! in the opposite direction of the torps and that my friends would level it for an attack at the southern sub, or for the western one. Tactics, no matter how old or simple can be quite effective when you underestimate the enemy.

3. Chinese Naval Forces [China vs US over Taiwan]
This could blow down to a few things, why do you think that the American Naval Forces keep taking about these wee Diesel Subs? One simple answer is that they know if they ever get into a shooting war it will be one hell of time just trying to find them, that is the reason why the US keeps taking about them, they are a serious threat, and they know it. 4 alone can shut the strait of water between China and Taiwan, to military and civvie transport.

Well the US could use their tactical advantages over the Chinese I hear you say. Heh, there is a problem in that thinking, the underwater sonar arrays that the US and Nato countries depended on to track the Soviet SSNs aren't in the strait of Taiwan, on the most part Towed Arrays can't be employed either due to the depths, MAD passes would be useless unless they knew for use that there was a sub there, due to the number of wrecks in that area, after WW2 [Thanks the US PBY and Bomber Crews, for sinking so many Jap ships in that area of water]. What ever way you look at it, the Chinese could close the strait, to the American carrier group, either through the use of mines [Something which the US already know they will employ] and the use of subs or shore based aircraft.

Now, this is another factor, the US have what... 80 aircraft on a CV, most of those with the means to shoot down other aircraft and in the CV group have at least one Triconada Class Frigate? [I apologise for spelling] Now those where designed to shoot down Soviet Missile attacks directed at the group, and carry at least 200 missiles that it can fire off without reloading. Now, the problem is, say that the US Carrier group "were" to get into the strait, they would be confronted with the worlds, 2/3 largest air force in the world, all within combat radius of the CV group. Sure most of them may be old, and some may be only to carry one anti ship missile, but the numbers would win in the long run, the Soviets proved that in WW2 with the Germans, they had out of date training and equipment but, they kept hitting the Germans until the Germans either ran or ran out of ammunition.

The last statement I will make on a war with these nations over Taiwan is really easy to sum up. Would the American people be willing to trade the State of California for Taiwan? Thats what it would come down to. Just a note, no two nuclear countries have either had a war, which is some thing interesting to remember.

4. Last words.
I thank you for listening to this long and dry email, but I want the people here to realise some thing. I am glad that the American people have pride in their armed forces, as do I in my own [United Kingdom, by the way
] but merely believing that you can kick every bodies asses, is not some thing you could believe in, Germany believed this in WW1 and WW2 and look what happened to them? Also basing the United States lead in combat etc based on fighting with some small nations like Afghanistan or Iraq is just going to lill you into a false sense of being unbeatable, as I stated about the Germans after Poland and France in 1939/1940. China views them selves as a super power and have been developing their military for a very long time, simply saying that you could beat them will not cut the mustard when this nation does finally does decide to invade Taiwan. Which I may add in my opinion, some thing which is on the horizon.

Don't underestimate your enemy.

Yours Faithfully
Phil.


[edit on 25-7-2004 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I far from underestimate them - they are a threat



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
I am new to this forum, but I was interested in this topic to the degree that I chose to join and reply to this thread in a manner that I hope will be informative for any one to read this.
Please read this email and understand it before replying.


gooseuk, thank you very much for the professional analysis of submarine warfare. I wish China has some lone and intelligent torpedos without the need of subs, that will be even more powerful and less risk.

I think the biggest threat for US carrier groups are supersonic and ballistic missiles launched from inner land, submarines, surface ships, and airplanes. Can you analyze whether the battle group can fend off 10 such missiles from 5 different directions? Thanks in advance.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Zcheng, the cruise missiles that will be launched from land would either be destroyed by one of the carriers supporting vessels and from the air good luck there will be 450 US navy aircraft flying around and F-14 are capable of shooting down cruise missile and Chinese ships I don't know if they can get close with US subs and US aircraft patrolling around. And im not even sure if Chinese subs can launch cruise missiles but if they can this is probably the only threat the rest are not that serious but the sub is.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Hey GooseUk Welcome to the scrum....


Originally posted by gooseuk
1. Chinese Naval Forces [Submarine]
and the fact that during the 70/80s Soviets used their "Silent" Diesel Subs to ambush US Carrier Groups, a number of incidents in the Mediterranean, Naples to be correct occurred when Soviet Diesel Subs would wait as they passed over head and formed up for entering their Home port [Naples].
[Please note that Nuc Subs can't do this, as they would damage their sonar domes and their cooling systems]


True, however the Med is really a big littoral (albiet deep in spots) area where diesel subs had an advantage. Also, the CVN were heading into port on a known couse in the instance you site. If deployed I doubt seriously that the CVN's would be anywere near the Taiwan Straight. More likely they would be deployed well out to sea in blue water. Nuc subs can ground when needed. Project IVY BELLS is just one example (the cable taping operation in the sea of Okhosk. The reactors on US subs can cool with natural convection and as long as they don't nose down, they wont damage the dome. In the open ocean the Soviet navy was going to have to use nuc's simply to keep up with the high speed of the carriers. They also planned to use cruise missile subs (Kursk type) to provide standoff attack ability aginst the CBG's


That I believe is the most deadly piece of information there. Russian/Soviet naval doctrine dating from the 60s to the present have always believed in using their vessels to assist each other, Bear ASW platforms, directing their friendly subs to their targets, this should not be over looked.


China lacks the Naval aviation assets that the Russians had. Particlary the Backfire bomber. They tried to buy a few but the deal fell through. The US will have some measure of air superiority (at least in a 300 mile buble around the CBG) so the limited air assests that China has will more likely be a) on the defensive, b) concentrating on Taiwan


2. Chinese Naval Forces [Yuan vs US Carrier Group]
With a skilled Commander and a well trained crew, I do believe that they could at least evade the outer sonar pickets before attacking the carrier, with a soviet captain and crew,


Boy, Im not sure I agree with you there. The CBG's will be pretty far off so the subs will have to snorkel at some point in thier transit. Thier SSN's have to be dealth with (5) but you have to figure at least 1 will be tasked to protect thier SSBN, so that leaves 4. Plus thier Kilo and Romeo class boats. These ships will have to get past, not only the escorts, but S3's, helos, P3 Orions, and more importantly each CBG has 3 subs attached to it. No doubt there will be more than that. Not to mention the SOSUS network and SURTASS ships that may be tasked to the area.


What ever way you look at it, the Chinese could close the strait, to the American carrier group, either through the use of mines [Something which the US already know they will employ] and the use of subs or shore based aircraft.


I don't think it would matter. The US wont put carriers in the straight. To big of a risk of the Chinese being able to saturate the CBG with shore based antiship missiles, also, it puts more of the PLAAF in striking range of the carrier.


Now, this is another factor, the US have what... 80 aircraft on a CV, most of those with the means to shoot down other aircraft and in the CV group have at least one Triconada Class Frigate?


The Nimitz battle group for WESTPAC 03-2 consisted of 2 Ticonderoga class cruisers (127 VLS silos) each, 4 Arleigh Burke (96 cells each), 1 Spruance Class , and 2 OHP Class Frig (36 cells each). Thats anlot of SAMS. But most of the PLAAF will not be in striking range of the CBG, as they will not be sitting offshore. The PLAAF is unlikely to commit all of their most modern planes to an attack as they need to reserve some for homland defence.

No I don't think it will come down to a nuc exchange. The US would in all liklyhood defend Taiwan but not attack the mainland itself. But the missile sheild seems to become more and more important every day



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Greetings,

To be honest, normal [aka without a nuclear payload] missiles used in the numbers that you listed, whither they are in a ballistic arc or sea skimmers, travelling at super sonic speeds or the speeds of the US made cruise missiles are not a real threat to the modern US Carrier group, unless launched at point blank ranges, with in itself is unlikely as many missiles need at least 5nm to arm and then track into the target.

Now why wouldnt these missiles be a threat, even it launched in the numbers listed? The US and NATO navies knew that during the cold war the Warsaw Pact would, if war should arise, would use their long range naval avation arms [TU 22 Backfires] to attack the convoys from America that would be bringing in supplies and material to the European Threate of war and any Nato vessel that should be unlucky enough to be spotted by the Bears that would search out the Convoys and Carrier Battle Groups. The US developed the R2D2 Mounts which have a fast firing Gateling Gun which tracks and fires on the missiles within range on auto, also the Ticonderoga Class Vessels where designed with this in mind, some would get through if there was 50+ but it would take more that one warhead to sink a CV

To be honest, at present that only threat areas that the US Navy, in my opinion are worried about, are the possibilities of a Massed Airborne attack with anti surface missiles, items like the AGM-84A Harpoon and French Exocet [With the Chinese do have in large numbers] and some sources have listed that the Chinese may have purchased the ANS [Anti-Navure Supersonique - Advanced French/German Missile System - Super sonic] not to mention the large amount of AS-5 Kelt and AS-6 Kingfish Missiles that have been built in China for some years.

In my view there are only two means open to the Chinese, that would allow them the chance to attack a US Carrier group with any success would be:

1. A massed attack with Chinese Naval Aviation Units, they are short for a capable bomber force, but they do have a wide range of ground attack and fighter aircraft that can carry anti surface missiles as listed above. These aircraft would have heavy loses and would require more than one attempt, but it is possible. This is in my view, would be best of my two options.

2. A sneak missile attack by a Chinese SSGN, this in all honestly would not be the best of choices for the sub commander, as the defences employed by the escorts could easily shoot down the missile and then attack the sub that launched the missile.

Missile attacks in mass would be more effective, but I believe that a torpedo attack would have a higher chance of success, as the only defence is speed and the nixie system that US vessels employ.

- Phil

PS Ballistic Arc Missiles are rare and fare between as it gives Radar systems the chance to fire on it.

[edit on 25-7-2004 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
To be honest, normal [aka without a nuclear payload] missiles used in the numbers that you listed, whither they are in a ballistic arc or sea skimmers, travelling at super sonic speeds or the speeds of the US made cruise missiles are not a real threat to the modern US Carrier group, unless launched at point blank ranges, with in itself is unlikely as many missiles need at least 5nm to arm and then track into the target.


Thanks gooseuk for the analysis. If US is so confident to deal with these missiles, US sure will attack China and the NMD would already be fully operational today. I think ICBM needs longer time to reach US continent, which means more time for response, and easier to intercept. I am just wondering why US government has not yet inform the US public of this capability, and allow them in sound sleep.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Directed at FredT



True, however the Med is really a big littoral (albiet deep in spots) area where diesel subs had an advantage. Also, the CVN were heading into port on a known couse in the instance you site. If deployed I doubt seriously that the CVN's would be anywere near the Taiwan Straight. More likely they would be deployed well out to sea in blue water. Nuc subs can ground when needed. Project IVY BELLS is just one example (the cable taping operation in the sea of Okhosk. The reactors on US subs can cool with natural convection and as long as they don't nose down, they wont damage the dome. In the open ocean the Soviet navy was going to have to use nuc's simply to keep up with the high speed of the carriers. They also planned to use cruise missile subs (Kursk type) to provide standoff attack ability aginst the CBG's


I agree on most of the points made, but think about it, if you can't attack the enemy head on, you use different methods, if this was a land conflict it would be called Guerrilla Warfare. You attack where you know the enemy will be in a stand down position, or where you know when and where it will be be, you could mine the waters, lay spread of torps, sneak missile attacks etc. The US Carrier group I agree would avoid the Strait, and position themselves to the east of the straits, with in many ways still leave it in a position of having to stay far enough out to avoid Air attacks which in turn limits the range and offensive capabilities of its aircraft. US Subs do and can switch off their pumps for limited periods of time to my knowledge, but they are still restricted from "bottoming out" due to the sonar equipment on the hull and the pumps with can suck in material from the ocean bed, Plus US subs where never designed to work in the brown water operations that a conflict with china and taiwan would involve.



China lacks the Naval aviation assets that the Russians had. Particlary the Backfire bomber. They tried to buy a few but the deal fell through. The US will have some measure of air superiority (at least in a 300 mile buble around the CBG) so the limited air assests that China has will more likely be a) on the defensive, b) concentrating on Taiwan


With the ranges involved a bomber force wouldn't be as important as the Soviets had placed on it during the cold war with the creation of the Harpoon and Exocet Missiles which during the Falklands War, which the Argie Mirage Fighter bombers used to sink 5 RN vessels. Even Ground attack aircraft could be used for naval attack. As we haven't really seen the full scale use of missile technology and their counters, so it is hard to comment on which would be more effective, but it should be noted that the RN did have some of the R2D2 mounts which the US use on its surface vessels. Air Superiority can be countered, US aircraft need fuel, in the long term the Chinese could use its SSN force to gun for the resupply vessels, plus all the chinese have to do is force the Carrier Group far enough out so that its aircraft aren't effective, weither through the use of missiles, air attack, naval surface fleets and submarine attacks.



Boy, Im not sure I agree with you there. The CBG's will be pretty far off so the subs will have to snorkel at some point in thier transit. Thier SSN's have to be dealth with (5) but you have to figure at least 1 will be tasked to protect thier SSBN, so that leaves 4. Plus thier Kilo and Romeo class boats. These ships will have to get past, not only the escorts, but S3's, helos, P3 Orions, and more importantly each CBG has 3 subs attached to it. No doubt there will be more than that. Not to mention the SOSUS network and SURTASS ships that may be tasked to the area.


SOSUS would be usless, as to my knowledge they don't have any in the straits, to my knowledge, as for the surtass fleet, all the chinese naval forces have to do is stay within the strait and the CV group can't touch them, plus the Chinese do have Satalitles, any thing they think could be a fishing traweler with a sonar system, i don't see why the chinese wouldn't sink it without thought. Plus in the shallow waters of the Strait the surtass fleets use would be exetremely limited.

Nothing is impossible, as I am sure 688is have gotten through the Carrier Groups screens before, nothing is impossible with training and a good plan, the US itself is proof of that. As we can't comment on the level of training that the "new" Chinese Submarine Officer Corps is recieving it will be interesting to see if they could, but it shouldn't be over looked.



I don't think it would matter. The US wont put carriers in the straight. To big of a risk of the Chinese being able to saturate the CBG with shore based antiship missiles, also, it puts more of the PLAAF in striking range of the carrier.


I Agree, for the US Carrier Group to be effective it will stay on the pacific side or behind Taiwan, it will depend on just how much the US Carrier Commander will want to stick his neck out




The Nimitz battle group for WESTPAC 03-2 consisted of 2 Ticonderoga class cruisers (127 VLS silos) each, 4 Arleigh Burke (96 cells each), 1 Spruance Class , and 2 OHP Class Frig (36 cells each). Thats anlot of SAMS. But most of the PLAAF will not be in striking range of the CBG, as they will not be sitting offshore. The PLAAF is unlikely to commit all of their most modern planes to an attack as they need to reserve some for homland defence.


I Agree on this too, but the fact is that they still have large resources of older aircraft, which with a few months of updates could launch Anti Surface Missiles [They are worse than the Russians when it comes to getting rid of old equipment, you never know when it will be needed]. Depending on the aircraft any thing from 2 missiles to upto 6 or 8 if using the SU Frogfoot that could launch missiles at the Carrier group, thats a lot of missiles too.

I would hope that conflict isn't on the cards, but from the history and the knowledge that I have gathered tells me that a armed conflict will happen in that region within the next 5-7 years.

- Phil

[edit on 25-7-2004 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

1. A massed attack with Chinese Naval Aviation Units, they are short for a capable bomber force, but they do have a wide range of ground attack and fighter aircraft that can carry anti surface missiles as listed above. These aircraft would have heavy loses and would require more than one attempt, but it is possible. This is in my view, would be best of my two options.


This is the most unlikely strike unless china wants to send its pilots into a one way mission each carrier carries between 70-75 fighter aircraft so there will be a total of approximately 500 US navy jets and Chinese airplanes would not stand a chance to even get close to the carriers like FredT said there would at least be a 300-400 mile bubble around the carriers.Plus china doesn't have the number of jets to keep attack more than once with heavy losses IMO.


The DDG 51 was the first U.S. Navy ship designed to incorporate shaping techniques to reduce radar cross-section to reduce their detectability and likelihood of being targeted by enemy weapons and sensors. Originally designed to defend against Soviet aircraft, cruise missiles, and nuclear attack submarines, this higher capability ship is to be used in high-threat areas to conduct antiair, antisubmarine, antisurface, and strike operations. DDG 51s were constructed in flights, allowing technological advances during construction.



Also Us Navy Destroyers will be a good defense for the Carrier groups as each carrier group has about 2 destroyers each.


Armament FLIGHT I FLIGHT IIA

Two MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (90 Cells)
[Standard missile and Tomahawk ASM/LAM]

Two MK 15 MOD 12 20mm Close-in-Weapons Systems (Phalanx Mounts)

Two Harpoon Anti-shipping Missile
Quad Canisters Two MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (96 Cells)
[Standard missile and Tomahawk ASM/LAM]

(NATO) Evolved Sea Sparrow
One MK 45 MOD 1 5"/54 caliber Gun Mount (lightweight gun)
Two MK 32 MOD 14 Triple Torpedo Tubes (six MK 50/46 Torpedoes)


DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers


[edit on 25-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   


This is the most unlikely strike unless china wants to send its pilots into a one way mission each carrier carries between 70-75 fighter aircraft so there will be a total of approximately 500 US navy jets and Chinese airplanes would not stand a chance to even get close to the carriers like FredT said there would at least be a 300-400 mile bubble around the carriers.Plus china doesn't have the number of jets to keep attack more than once with heavy losses IMO.


Greetings,
Alright to be honest, I am a bit confused by your statement as it appears you have developed a new class of US Carrier that can carry over 5 times the amount of the current US Carrier Class. At the moment we are talking about 1 US Carrier Group, not 7 that has been commented on in a different Thread. So I have been only commenting on the princable of one US Carrier Group working on offensive operations in the Chinese Region.

Please note that US Carrier Groups operate far from their shore bases and as such have the same problems of an invading Army, their Supply lines are spread out, as most of their supplies come over from either Japan or Guam, through the use of Resupply vessels or in a limited degree the COD Transport aircraft. As it has already been mentioned, this new class may have a anti aircraft capability, to me I would assume it would be mounted in the sail and be heatseeking type missile, while these have a limited range, it should be noted that the Israel has also looked into employing a high altiude missile into one of their diesel subs as a test bed.

Now, if, just if I was the Chinese Naval Commander I would be gunning for the one thing I could get my hands on or near, thats the resupply vessels and aircraft, not to mention any skilled Naval Personal. Attacking the CV in port through the same method that the terrorists used on the USS Cole would be another method that I would employ.

As I have only been commenting on 1 CV Group in region to a Chinese Strike using their Diesel Subs so far, as to not to confuse people it would be easier to keep it on this track rather than introducing another 6 carrier groups that have been commented on, in a different area of this forum.

While some of the things I have stated here, I understand may rub nerves but if you fight a war, you play to win.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Zcheng, the cruise missiles that will be launched from land would either be destroyed by one of the carriers supporting vessels and from the air good luck there will be 450 US navy aircraft flying around and F-14 are capable of shooting down cruise missile and Chinese ships I don't know if they can get close with US subs and US aircraft patrolling around. And im not even sure if Chinese subs can launch cruise missiles but if they can this is probably the only threat the rest are not that serious but the sub is.


I'm pretty sure they can launch cruise missles. True the F-14 is capable. In my opinion the F-14 is the best interceptor in existance but some bureocratic idiot is making sure that the last F-14s will be replaced by F-18s by 2008. The F-14 replaced by a buerocracy fighter like the F-18!



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I'm pretty sure they can launch cruise missles.


Cruise missiles from US are slowing flying and easy to intercept or destroy. The ones in my mind are those supersonic missiles and ballistic missile with which the speed can reach 2-4 mach. I do not think US has confident defense against a saturated attack of these missiles like 10, 20, 50 at the same time and from different directions.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Greetings,

To be honest, the US do have the long range SPS radar system needed to track and select targets for their SAMs. As the AS-4 Kitchen Missiles were the main threat to the US Naval Carrier Groups [These were/are the main armament of the TU 22 Naval Air Arm Assets], the R2D2 mounts can also deal with these High mach number missiles.

Please note it takes more than one SAM to take out one hostile missile, now say there are 50 enemy missiles, and the escort has 200 SAMs to counter it, it would, on average take say 3/4 Missiles for one "kill"

So in my view the only way to deal with a modern US Carrier group is a massed Aerial attack, with missiles, from all points of the compass and if possible a submarine attack also. They are not a easy target, but they are not an impossible one.

- Phil



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join