USN fearful of PLAN subs

tphuang said:

What kind of government allows fighting between parliament members?

Click to expand...

Eh... Brittain?

Neko said:

Incorrect, friend.

The way the US society works is most easily demonstrated under very specific events:

The burning of Washington by the British during the French-Indian war.
The attack on the WTC, the first time.
The attack on the USS Cole.
The EP-3 downed at Hainan.
The 9-11 attacks.

You bust up one of our ship, and the entire nation, from liberals to conservatives will rally around the battle flag and demand retribution, until vengeance is given. You can believe that although we promote peace throughout the world, we certainly won't hesitate to lay the beat down all over you, and remove any possibility of you ever scratching us again.

"We'll put a boot in yer ass, it's the American way."

Click to expand...

Note: See Japan.

IDonT said:

Note: See Japan.

Click to expand...

I neglected to mention a lot of the glaring obvious. Pearl Harbor should be so damned apparent that mentioning it is a bit of overkill.

china would probably send it's subs to the area where the cvbg is headed and wait there. that way, the cvbg will have to stay too far away to attack.

having subs ambush US carrier is a bad idea. have a sub creen set up along a few surface ships to block off the the US ships. As long as they don't fire the first shot, the US ships are forbidden to shoot you. if they enter chinese waters, you are allowed to shoot them.

Click to expand...

Would America really do that? Follow that rule? It's gonna go around the rules.

most abc's i know love china more than US.

Click to expand...

LOL, good one. The fact is, most don't know anything, some hates it because they prefer the US environment. Some are loyal to where they are born.(And I want no any arguement over this, and nothing direct between the two of you.)

they are for different roles I think:
the bear can carry more weapons and bombs
the backfire is faster

Click to expand...

I thought the Backfire carried more. The Bear was never too good for the bomber role, though.

Also, the diesel subs don't have to move. All we need is to park a lot of subs around Taiwan strait and wait for the American navy. Use some kind of Early warning system to detect if the Americans are within 250 KM of the subs and then fire the antiship missiles from the subs. Remember, all of the subs in China's arsenals are equiped with missiles of 200km+ range.

Click to expand...

When'd China get a sub-launched ASM to fly 200km? Only the C-801Q is here and it goes to 42km.......

PS:
Taiwan's government had long been corrupted. Did you know about Lee? He ruined the government, caused fights, and now Chen is better, but still corrupted.

BrotherofSnake, can you stop posting one-liners.

sumdud said:

BrotherofSnake, can you stop posting one-liners.

Click to expand...

Ok I will try.

The eight new Project 636 submarines currently under construction in Russia to be delivered to china by the end of 2007 are reported to be fitted with the Novator 3M-54E1 submarine-launched anti-ship missile as part of the Klub-S missile system. The missile has a maximum range of 220km and a 450kg high-explosive warhead.

Of course, A) you have to have enough missiles in stock even to defeat a lone aegis ship and B) you need to have a network which would locate targets and navigate the sub launched missiles. In my opinion, they're gonna more useful against taiwanese navy.

Totoro said:

The eight new Project 636 submarines currently under construction in Russia to be delivered to china by the end of 2007 are reported to be fitted with the Novator 3M-54E1 submarine-launched anti-ship missile as part of the Klub-S missile system. The missile has a maximum range of 220km and a 450kg high-explosive warhead.

Of course, A) you have to have enough missiles in stock even to defeat a lone aegis ship and B) you need to have a network which would locate targets and navigate the sub launched missiles. In my opinion, they're gonna more useful against taiwanese navy.

Click to expand...

The primary focus of any Navy designed to defeat a US incursion is the destruction of our carriers. The sheer amount of damage that it takes to destroy a carrier is so massive that it could take all the ordinance of two 636 (Yes, even the ones carrying SS-N-27) to take down a single carrier.

Putting it out of the fight takes considerably less, but to remove it completely? They are so completely compartmented and defended that getting to it to hit is is tough to begin with. Once you get a hit, you had better blow several gaping holes in the hull *and* split the keel if you want any hope of a chance to actually sink the sucker.

And if you decide to go after a CVBG... get the Kitty Hawk first. We're about to decommission her any way.

Putting it out of the fight takes considerably less, but to remove it completely? They are so completely compartmented and defended that getting to it to hit is is tough to begin with. Once you get a hit, you had better blow several gaping holes in the hull *and* split the keel if you want any hope of a chance to actually sink the sucker.

Click to expand...

Neko is so right. It's easy to say.."Oh we will just launch a few missles and sink a carrier".. yea right. Those of you that have never been on a USN CV have no friggin' idea how compartmentlized it is. None. It would be near impossible to sink a carrier with conventional weapons.

Another thing some of you do not take into account is the training in damage control and firefighting of a USN sailor. That training starts in boot camp and never really ends.

Neko is so right. It's easy to say.."Oh we will just launch a few missles and sink a carrier".. yea right. Those of you that have never been on a USN CV have no friggin' idea how compartmentlized it is. None. It would be near impossible to sink a carrier with conventional weapons.

Click to expand...

well thats why almoust all soviet anti-ship missiles where big...so that nuclear warhead could be installed...