|
stephenthinkpad posted:More evidence they can't let the Taiwanese know they have severe disadvantage in the Taiwan theater, right now the priority is say whatever the Taiwanese like to hear and get them to buy land mines and sea mines laying machines, essentially suicide vest type weapons. My friends seem to think China having home field advantage and a bigger navy and tons of anti ship missiles is like, a surmountable challenge for the US Navy, because Russia was a paper tiger.  Like yeah, Russia burned through their stockpile of the good stuff, because they haven't been able to build up for 30 years, China is pumping out new Type 55 destroyers today.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
skooma512 posted:My friends seem to think China having home field advantage and a bigger navy and tons of anti ship missiles is like, a surmountable challenge for the US Navy, because Russia was a paper tiger. send them this clip https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1678300813981265920?t=JtOT2sM6K_JALPCabD2CBA&s=19
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 06:36
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:My friends seem to think China having home field advantage and a bigger navy and tons of anti ship missiles is like, a surmountable challenge for the US Navy, because Russia was a paper tiger. China's navy is larger, but that's counting stuff really minor stuff like coastal ships. The one thing China is really far behind in atm is the super duper aircraft carriers that the USN projects power with. The PRC's navy is also relatively young and pretty much completely unproven in any large-scale shooting war, and as Ukraine has demonstrated, institutional knowledge and experience does matter. On the flipside of that, any conflict with China would mean fighting on China's terms along its coasts, and the USN will almost certainly have to do that with only a fraction of its entire might, because it also still has to police the world's shipping lanes unless it can bully NATO into doing that job for it while it masses all its fleets into one mega-task force in the Pacific. It really comes down to how fast and hard China can seize Taiwan. If they get bogged down and start needing more troops, that complicates things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 08:32
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:China's navy is larger, but that's counting stuff really minor stuff like coastal ships. The one thing China is really far behind in atm is the super duper aircraft carriers that the USN projects power with. The PRC's navy is also relatively young and pretty much completely unproven in any large-scale shooting war, and as Ukraine has demonstrated, institutional knowledge and experience does matter. On the flipside of that, any conflict with China would mean fighting on China's terms along its coasts, and the USN will almost certainly have to do that with only a fraction of its entire might, because it also still has to police the world's shipping lanes unless it can bully NATO into doing that job for it while it masses all its fleets into one mega-task force in the Pacific. how many non-US ships does NATO even have? also, my guess is china wouldn't attempt to "seize" Taiwan, they would blockade it and wait for them to run out of food/electricity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:China's navy is larger, but that's counting stuff really minor stuff like coastal ships. The one thing China is really far behind in atm is the super duper aircraft carriers that the USN projects power with. quote:In last night’s final presidential debate, Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney charged that the Navy is at its smallest size since 1917. In response, President Obama said,“We also have fewer horses and bayonets” – a zinger that caught on quickly. Below, we round up fact-checks and coverage on the size-of-the-Navy issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:China's navy is larger, but that's counting stuff really minor stuff like coastal ships. The one thing China is really far behind in atm is the super duper aircraft carriers that the USN projects power with. The PRC's navy is also relatively young and pretty much completely unproven in any large-scale shooting war, and as Ukraine has demonstrated, institutional knowledge and experience does matter. On the flipside of that, any conflict with China would mean fighting on China's terms along its coasts, and the USN will almost certainly have to do that with only a fraction of its entire might, because it also still has to police the world's shipping lanes unless it can bully NATO into doing that job for it while it masses all its fleets into one mega-task force in the Pacific. The US Navy hasnt fought a large scale shooting war since World War II. Much like the army and the Navy's army they're a colonial police force used to attack people that can't fight back
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
The last time the US navy sunk an enemy ship was in 1988, and the ship that did it was retired in 2015. Now the only US navy vessel with a ship-to-ship kill is the USS Constitution, which was built in 1794.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 09:03
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:The US Navy hasnt fought a large scale shooting war since World War II. Much like the army and the Navy's army they're a colonial police force used to attack people that can't fight back The British Empire might have some tips for them. Plug Queen Victoria's corpse into the necroscope 2000.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 10:16
|
|
|
How often do PLA navy ships crash into each other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
when was the large-scale naval war the US actually engaged in? does shooting somali fishermen count?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:when was the large-scale naval war the US actually engaged in? does shooting somali fishermen count? World War II
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
the us can't build ships, low levels of seamen, all the existing ships are rust buckets, the admirals spent all the money on hookers and blow, they have no counter to hypersonic missiles, and the navy's power is based entirely on aircraft carriers which would all get instantly obliterated by cruise missiles on day 1 of a peer war. badass
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:the us can't build ships, low levels of seamen, all the existing ships are rust buckets, the admirals spent all the money on hookers and blow, they have no counter to hypersonic missiles, and the navy's power is based entirely on aircraft carriers which would all get instantly obliterated by cruise missiles on day 1 of a peer war. badass 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:when was the large-scale naval war the US actually engaged in? does shooting somali fishermen count? The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club, and they almost lost the USS Forrestal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:the us can't build ships, low levels of seamen, all the existing ships are rust buckets, the admirals spent all the money on hookers and blow, they have no counter to hypersonic missiles, and the navy's power is based entirely on aircraft carriers which would all get instantly obliterated by cruise missiles on day 1 of a peer war. badass It's also really cool to count how many aircraft a carrier can carry. A Nimitz class typically carries 64, and can carry up to 130. It's a lot for bombing a Middle Eastern country, but against China? Especially if you consider that it's extremely unlikely for there to be more than 2 carriers in theatre? I think there are 3-4 at sea at any given time, max, the rest in port or in deep maintenance. Let's be generous and say there will be 2 carriers with a full 130 aircraft each (of which some are not fighters). How long until the missiles run out? Carriers are huge, but their storage space is not infinite. Now, it's not like the PLAAF would want to lose hundreds of aircraft in a direct confrontation, but if they did, if you discount all the anti-air and anti-ship missiles and the navy, the air force by itself still has a huge numerical advantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
If you'll consult the USN's 1980's plan to take on the entire Soviet Northern Fleet, Naval Aviation, PVO and VSS, you might recall than an airbase holds many more aircraft than a carrier and can't be sunk. It has always been a non-starter. "A ship's a fool to fight a fort"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
A carrier was intended to surge sorties over a specific time and place, but no island in WWII was ever taken outside of the range of land based air
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So it looks a Navy ship only slightly ran itself aground this month USS todd howard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
Can you guys explain why can't you make cheap drones to hit ships at sea? What if you can release 100 networked Lancet to go at one ship at a time? A ship is basically a sea tank but 100x times bigger isn't it? Is it a matter of there is currently no technology to have 247 reconnaissance drones to keep track of real time ship movement in SCS?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:A ship is basically a sea tank but 100x times bigger isn't it? no no no no, this is all wrong. a tank is basically a land ship but 100x smaller
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Can you guys explain why can't you make cheap drones to hit ships at sea? What if you can release 100 networked Lancet to go at one ship at a time? A ship is basically a sea tank but 100x times bigger isn't it? They do, they're called anti-ship missiles. stephenthinkpad posted:Is it a matter of there is currently no technology to have 247 reconnaissance drones to keep track of real time ship movement in SCS? lol the ocean is huge. How on earth would you make an aircraft that can stay airborne continuously, detect, receive and transmit over those distances? ELINT usually gives the first indication of naval activity, and then other reconnaissance assets like a satellite pass and then maritime patrol aircraft and helicopters are used for a search. Ships also have impressive radars, but of course, that makes them detectable by ELINT in turn. (Radar needs a return signal to detect something, which means the radar itself can be detected at twice that range) Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 17:15 on Aug 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
and there likely is 24/7 ship monitoring in the scs via space based radar
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:China's navy is larger, but that's counting stuff really minor stuff like coastal ships. The one thing China is really far behind in atm is the super duper aircraft carriers that the USN projects power with. The PRC's navy is also relatively young and pretty much completely unproven in any large-scale shooting war, and as Ukraine has demonstrated, institutional knowledge and experience does matter. On the flipside of that, any conflict with China would mean fighting on China's terms along its coasts, and the USN will almost certainly have to do that with only a fraction of its entire might, because it also still has to police the world's shipping lanes unless it can bully NATO into doing that job for it while it masses all its fleets into one mega-task force in the Pacific. I mean, lolling and lmaoing that the US's institutional experience is going to be an advantage now that it's been fully gutted by decades of de-manning. They can't even keep their ships from crashing into each other, commercial traffic, and stationary objects on a regular basis. Key systems on these ships are inoperable or at reduced capacity semi-permanently because they don't have the money to drydock them and get it all fixed. The US is active shell-gaming the lack of a sustainment budget by just saying that ships are going to be decommissioned (so they don't need maintenance), then pushing the date back repeatedly to keep them in service but with massive functional deficiencies. But more importantly, all those big ships are effectively irreplaceable in wartime. The US does not have the capacity to make good any capital ship loss in war time. China does. That means very simply that the US will be forced into one of two garbage strategies against China: 1) Pull an imperial japan and try to win via knockout blow against an opponent with far superior wartime economics that the US can't effectively threaten militarily short of strategic nuclear weapons. Pretty sure we know how that goes. 2) Deploy conservatively and hoard up those precious capital ships to preserve war power. The problem with this is that China's strategic objectives are all local to them and fighting them conservatively means they just walk in and take all that poo poo. If they "Get bogged down" taking Taiwan it doesn't matter because Taiwan is always going to be sitting inside their ASBM defense envelope. That situation does not improve for the US no matter how long it takes them to break the island with a blockade or amphibious landing because the US is not getting more ships, can't afford to aggressively risk the ones it has, and there's no long-range logistical footprint that leaves China vulnerable to asymmetrical tactics. In fact it's the opposite; the US is the one with the super-long supply train to maintain combat operations in the area; they longer a war goes on the more likely it is that China's sub fleet and missiles start finding weakly defended logistics targets. afaict the main reason China isn't pushing this harder isn't because they wouldn't win already it's because the balance tilts further and further in their favor every year and they may be able to just walk in without shooting a decade from now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Can you guys explain why can't you make cheap drones to hit ships at sea? What if you can release 100 networked Lancet to go at one ship at a time? A ship is basically a sea tank but 100x times bigger isn't it? too slow and too limited range, if the CIWS can detect them a couple miles out then they'll just get shot down in short order. as FF noted missiles are used because they're fast enough to get through CIWS and much longer range
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
That's the other thing. There is no such thing as perfect reconnaissance. Having an idea where to look and when to look is the starting point. That can be the spy ships and trawlers that all major navies use to shadow task forces when they leave base, low-level intelligence assets that report when the fleet is getting ready to put to sea or sailors recalled from leave, and satellites that don't provide perfect information but give an idea of naval activity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:
Church. USNI has a book out about how Mahan and Teddy Roosevelt created American naval thought that, as we've said about the Royal Navy and IJN, won't be shaken as long as the institution exists. The problem is not with the naval theory itself, though like all theories it has limits. The problem is that America is no longer a state that has the political, economic, or ideological ability to actually deliver the force required for this ambition. The Royal Navy accounted for 40 per cent of government expenditure at the height of the British Empire. America can't levy taxes. You figure out how this is going to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:That's the other thing. There is no such thing as perfect reconnaissance. I mean, https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-launches-first-ever-geosynchronous-orbit-sar-satellite It's not perfect but geosynchronous imaging radar with 20 meter resolution is more than good enough to track major capital ships at all times in the monitored area, and it's an all-weather capability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I mean, https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-launches-first-ever-geosynchronous-orbit-sar-satellite Any country it would be used on has tested Anti-satellite weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Any country it would be used on has tested Anti-satellite weapons. Depends on if said country wants to get into a anti-sat war. US and allies are currently trying to ban anti-sat development and deployment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Any country it would be used on has tested Anti-satellite weapons. Yeah but you have to account for the flight time of the missile plus the fact it's probably going to be tracking ships in peace time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Any country it would be used on has tested Anti-satellite weapons. Sure. Against low earth orbit targets, like ~800-100 miles altitude. Geosynchronous orbit is at 22,236 miles. Could you design a weapon to hit a satellite at that altitude? Sure. Is the US going to do that successfully in the next couple of years? Press X to doubt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Can't you just draw a ring around Taiwan, let's say the arc distance is 1000 miles, and each drone has a observation distance of x miles, can't you just constantly send 1000/x drones to cover real time traffic? I know in theory you can also shoot enough spy satellites to cover Taiwan, like Starlink style. But I assume anything with wings are cheaper than sending machines to space.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
Apparently China's 2013 test may have been just that, demonstrating (or developing) the capability to hit satellites in geosynchronous orbit.stephenthinkpad posted:Can't you just draw a ring around Taiwan, let's say the arc distance is 1000 miles, and each drone has a observation distance of x miles, can't you just constantly send 1000/x drones to cover real time traffic? No. Also who is going to collate and analyze all that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Can't you just draw a ring around Taiwan, let's say the arc distance is 1000 miles, and each drone has a observation distance of x miles, can't you just constantly send 1000/x drones to cover real time traffic? The satellite China just launched is high enough up that you don't need a constellation anymore. Here's its approximate observation radius on the ground.  Frosted Flake posted:Apparently China's 2013 test may have been just that, demonstrating (or developing) the capability to hit satellites in geosynchronous orbit. I'm not at all making a wunderwaffen argument that this is an un-counterable silver bullet against naval power. It's just, you need to have a competent MIC that can actually produce the countermeasure in order to counter it. RIP American carrier groups. The Oldest Man has issued a correction as of 17:47 on Aug 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Sure. Against low earth orbit targets, like ~800-100 miles altitude. Geosynchronous orbit is at 22,236 miles. Could you design a weapon to hit a satellite at that altitude? Sure. Is the US going to do that successfully in the next couple of years? Press X to doubt. if they can launch geosync satellites, they can also destroy them by launching an iron ball collider into the same orbit to intercept it, shooting down satellites isn't an issue of capability, but an issue of space trash. you *really* don't want tons and tons of random debris in the geosync orbit, and any satellite kills are going to provoke a response
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Can you guys explain why can't you make cheap drones to hit ships at sea? What if you can release 100 networked Lancet to go at one ship at a time? A ship is basically a sea tank but 100x times bigger isn't it? It is a lot harder to sink a ship than blow up a tank
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
maybe they could bring back the B-70 Valkyrie and have it drop a Dahir Insaat drone pod/awacs platform at 70000 ft and have it hover above the battlefield making GBS threads out drones
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Truga posted:if they can launch geosync satellites, they can also destroy them by launching an iron ball collider into the same orbit to intercept it, shooting down satellites isn't an issue of capability, but an issue of space trash. you *really* don't want tons and tons of random debris in the geosync orbit, and any satellite kills are going to provoke a response This requires giving Lockheed Martin or someone money though and then hoping you get a functional weapons system out of the other end before the war is over so good luck with that
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:maybe they could bring back the B-70 Valkyrie and have it drop a Dahir Insaat drone pod/awacs platform at 70000 ft and have it hover above the battlefield making GBS threads out drones stop trying to sell the B-1R concept boeing!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Hatebag posted:maybe they could bring back the B-70 Valkyrie and have it drop a Dahir Insaat drone pod/awacs platform at 70000 ft and have it hover above the battlefield making GBS threads out drones this is just the Arkbird from Ace Combat
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 17:55
|
|