Anti-Carrier Trump Card

bd popeye said:

No the USN could not send all 12 to sea at once. But last year the USN deployed 7 at once in operation Summer Pulse 2004. USN CV's are constantly being updated. Check that Northrup-Grumman page. All 12 have the same basic capablity. The US has no "second line" active duty forces.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A single missile could not sink a CV unless it was a nuke. Multipule missiles would severly damage a CV but not sink it. In my opinion.

At what cost would the PRC risk to sink a CV? How many losses would the PRC take to possibly sink or damage a CV? The cost would be high. Very high.
How many PLA forces would be nutrelized just to sink a CV?

War Sucks!

Gotta go help my fiance move... Bye 'till tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Given enough time, all 12 carriers can be fielded simultaneously. PLAN and PLAAF are also under the same constrained. All their forces cannot be concentrated and fielded in short notice and with out proper coordination.

In naval warfare, its not how fast or how far your missile can go, its whether you can see your target. In a war footing, a carrier group can travel up to 500 miles a day, does not radiate active radar other than AEW, and have a battle space radius of about 500 miles. If you are in this radius, you are tracked, classified, and targeted. Chances are, you probably will not know it until a harpoon missile is detected crossing the horizon.

MIGleader said:

chinas ot going to loose much if they just keep sitting there and launching missles at the CV. but thats being cheap. most likely the chinese dont have to sink the cvbg, but to damage it, and let it get low on supplies. that may teampt it to leave.

i dont think the u.s would want to put all 12 cvs at china. too risky and pulls em away from iraq...

Click to expand...

IRaq does not require an aircraft carrier. US have airbases in Kuwait and IRaq proper for air cover.

chopsticks said:

yes that is one alternative. fact remains that the carrier is a sitting duck with a big bullseye on its forehead, its like Usa putting all her eggs in one basket. CHina's doctrine is different in the sense she believes in spreading out her forces, so even in EMP attack, she won't lose everything. ie 25 smaller ships wont get wiped out as easily as 1 big ship. (of course China still needs some medium/large sized destroyers for ballistics support)

Click to expand...

If you think 1 carrier battle group is putting "all your eggs in one basket", then you have 11 other baskets to deal with.

Modern US doctrine stress force dispersion and fire power concentration. Thanks to Aegis and modern datalinks, US ships on a battle group do not need to be near each other to operate as a group.

IDonT said:

Given enough time, all 12 carriers can be fielded simultaneously. PLAN and PLAAF are also under the same constrained. All their forces cannot be concentrated and fielded in short notice and with out proper coordination.

In naval warfare, its not how fast or how far your missile can go, its whether you can see your target. In a war footing, a carrier group can travel up to 500 miles a day, does not radiate active radar other than AEW, and have a battle space radius of about 500 miles. If you are in this radius, you are tracked, classified, and targeted. Chances are, you probably will not know it until a harpoon missile is detected crossing the horizon.

Click to expand...

you know as well as I do America will not send all 12 carriers over against China. I'd say 2 to 3 carrier groups is most likely.

tphuang said:

you know as well as I do America will not send all 12 carriers over against China. I'd say 2 to 3 carrier groups is most likely.

Click to expand...

They will send over how many they deem necessary. They will make that assessment early and deploy what they need based upon strategic and tactical considerations. Neither you nor I know what that number is.

Sea Dog said:

They will send over how many they deem necessary. They will make that assessment early and deploy what they need based upon strategic and tactical considerations. Neither you nor I know what that number is.

Click to expand...

Again, America has other agendas to pursue and it needs to keep certain aircraft carriers for terrorist related missions and self defense and such.

But in a war with China, I think the priority would go to destroying China's military. All other priorities would be on the back burner at that point. Don't doubt that for a minute.

Sea Dog said:

But in a war with China, I think the priority would go to destroying China's military. All other priorities would be on the back burner at that point. Don't doubt that for a minute.

Click to expand...

You better believe it. Don't think that if attacked the US would run away and hide. No way. The retaliation would be severe.

Remember while the PRC was attacking the CVN the US would be striking back in one fashion or another.

I think some members in this forum think that if the US took heavy casulities in a first strike that the US forces would widthdraw. This would not happen. History prove this.

Once again I pray there is no war between the US and PRC.

bd popeye said:

You better believe it. Don't think that if attacked the US would run away and hide. No way. The retaliation would be severe.

Remember while the PRC was attacking the CVN the US would be striking back in one fashion or another.

I think some members in this forum think that if the US took heavy casulities in a first strike that the US forces would widthdraw. This would not happen. History prove this.

Once again I pray there is no war between the US and PRC.

Click to expand...

Aye, Aye bd popeye. To everything you say here. I remember that after the 9/11 attack, some peace-loving Democrats I knew surprised me by calling for an immediate and destructive bombing campaign directed at Al Qaeda, who were hiding in Afghanistan. We were ticked. Those feelings would be intensified by 100 if China decided to attack a U.S. CVN. Guaranteed.

And indeed the U.S. would strike back in one fashion or another. It's called USAF Air Power combined with some U.S. Naval Air Power, mixed with a swarm of cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles, and electro-magnetic attacks. Afterward, no more access to our markets. No more cash reserves. No more trade surplus. Go ahead and dump the T-bills. We would survive. Oh yes....China would pay dearly from a United USA.

And like you, I pray that there is no general war between the USA and PRC in the first place. The above scenario could quickly turn into something much uglier. Something we should all want to avoid.

Well, perhaps all the posters here would write a petition to the bush administration to demand that they should stop harassing China with uncalled for accussations after accussations (Avg of one a month). China certainly did not meddle with US governmental business ( actually, No lack of issues to comment on)

1. It accuses china of expanding its military

It is modernising, not expanding. US would like to see China still operating Mig-21s, old warships, 1950's tanks and aa-guns, is no surprise.

2. It accuses china of unbalancing the military balance in the region.

Japan and South Korea is no push over either, while emphasing of US interest. Irony.

3. It accusses china of tentency to block international shipping lanes.

China depended more on the shipping lanes more than anybody. Cute.

4. It accusses China and Russia as an Axis power when they has an military with about 10,000 men.

US, Nato and other allies has probably a hundred such excercises a year, far exceeding 10,000.

5. Human Rights

While I agreed china is lacking it. US is no angel either.