China prepares for ‘sudden, cruel & short’ modern war

[Fooliecoolie]

Wheres that shoddy "aircraft" carrier they bought unfinished from the Russians? You know the one that can't even have aircraft land or take off from it.

China's naval jets are so underpowered, they can't carry a full weapon load and fuel to take off safely from the deck anyways.

- - - Updated - - -

[unbound]

The Chinese navy held a large-scale “live ammunition” drill in the East China Sea, which involved hundreds of ships and submarines from all three fleets of the People’s Liberation Army.

The exercise involving China's East Sea, North Sea and South Sea fleets practiced both offensive and defensive capabilities of the Chinese naval power. The exercise mobilized some 300 ships...

Including their one half-sized carrier that they bought (unfinished) from Russia (the Varyag), no cruisers (they don't have any), some of their 17 destroyers (compared to US' 62), and a few of their 9 nuclear submarines (compared to US' 72). Everything else was small to tiny ships (mostly corvettes, missile boats and gunboats). Scary...

...dozens of fighter planes...

Probably the only fighter planes modern enough to be worth showing out of their 2,500+, mostly really old aircraft (i.e. the largest number of their combat aircraft are based on the MiG-21 design (Chengdu J-7)...from the 1950s).


Always worth paying attention to what the Chinese are doing, but their military capabilities in the air and on the sea are not major threats at this time. They are starting to build a 2nd 1/2 size carrier (compared to the US current fleet of 10 full-sized carriers with more on their way...first Gerald R. Ford class carrier to be commissioned later this year). The bigger threat is what appears to be an alliance between the Russians and the Chinese.

[Deleted]

Europe is bound to follow.

In case of aggression of China to the US fleet sailing in international waters, article V is just automatic.

V doesn't apply to attacks in international waters, it only applies to attacks made to a country's soil. And anyone who thinks Germany would help with any far away wars is living in a dream world, together with Japan they're the most pacifistic country in the world. France also couldn't care less about it. The UK is the only one who would follow, like the lapdog it is.

[ringpriest]

Super Aircraft Carrier >>>>Anything else the world has at the moment.

Unless you wanna go nuclear, and yeah, we got that too.

The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford -- the most expensive warship ever built -- may struggle to launch and recover aircraft, mount a defense and move munitions, according to the Pentagon's top weapons tester. On-board systems for those tasks have poor or unknown reliability issues, according to a June 28 memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

In a scathing statement, Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed his exasperation at yet another setback for the Ford, which has had $2.3 billion in cost overruns to boost the estimated final cost to $13 billion.

Another delivery delay "further demonstrates that key systems still have not demonstrated expected performance," McCain said. "The advanced arresting gear [AAG] cannot recover airplanes. Advanced weapons elevators cannot lift munitions. The dual-band radar cannot integrate two radar bands. Even if everything goes according to the Navy's plan, CVN-78 will be delivered with multiple systems unproven.

The Navy's top acquisition official, Sean Stackley, told Congress earlier this year that the new carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, will deliver to the Navy in September of this year; following deployment preparations called "post shakedown availability" in 2017 and "shock trials" in 2019, the carrier is slated to deploy in 2021, service officials said. "Shock trials" involve testing the large ship in a series of different maritime conditions such as rough seas caused by explosions from combat and enemy fire.

Commanders said delays to the USS Gerald R. Ford have resulted in extended deployments for the operational carriers in order for the Navy to meet its commitments around the world, placing additional stress on sailors and crew members. The report comes just days after the Navy announced the Ford will not be delivered before November 2016 due to unspecified testing issues, walking back testimony from April in which Stackley told Congress the Ford would be ready by September. It was first reported on by Bloomberg.

Now that delivery date could be pushed to 2017, according to the Navy.

Years behind schedule, billions over budget, delayed yet again because it still doesn't work - if nothing else fails - it might be available in 2021; the PLAN doesn't need to defeat a single supercarrier (itself nowhere near as impossible as some like to pretend), it simply needs to wait until the US doesn't have one available before acting. Logistics wins wars, not gee-whiz - and opponents don't act with consideration for your schedule, planning and budget needs in mind.

[Kellhound]

Years behind schedule, billions over budget, delayed yet again because it still doesn't work - if nothing else fails - it might be available in 2021; the PLAN doesn't need to defeat a single supercarrier (itself nowhere near as impossible as some like to pretend), it simply needs to wait until the US doesn't have one available before acting. Logistics wins wars, not gee-whiz - and opponents don't act with consideration for your schedule, planning and budget needs in mind.

Logistics say China would have to wait about 20 years before the US would not be able to deploy a carrier at any time during an emergency even if the US doesnt replace any carriers at end of life. History says rendering a carrier combat ineffective is a possibility, sinking one very difficult, and the costs potentially very high to do so.

[zEmini]

Yes there's a lot of relevant history there but if one thing is true of both nations they have a good propensity for taking advantageous positions regarding the future.

They see the weakening of America both militarily and economically, they see a Europe that will be unrecognizable in a few decades time, they see the forthcoming era where Islamic terror based nations become bonafide regional powers possibly international powers, and they see their alliance as being (inc buzzword) the new world order.

The future will not belong to the West.

If that happens, I hope the red button is pushed. I will never surrender under a theocratic, fascists, communists, or any other for of dictatorship as long as I live.

[TrumpIsPresident]

If that happens, I hope the red button is pushed. I will never surrender under a theocratic, fascists, communists, or any other for of dictatorship as long as I live.

Its likely never to come to that unless the US provokes it. By that time the US will have accepted its position as a second rate power and a second rate nation. It likely wont be in any condition to pose a threat to anybody but rather will have just enough sufficiency, dependency, and means for self defense to just sit quietly as a second world country.

No the threat wont be from Russia and China it will be from the Islamic terror based nation that will likely, by that time, become regional possibly intentional powers. Which is all the more reason for the US to become friendly with Russia and China because we'll be looking to them for protection or in the least submitting to them to keep their neighbors in check much like how the whole Asia theater is currently being played.

[TrumpIsPresident]

xD

This is some quality nonsense right here.

Keep calm and hail Mother Russia.

[Purpleisbetter]

V doesn't apply to attacks in international waters, it only applies to attacks made to a country's soil. And anyone who thinks Germany would help with any far away wars is living in a dream world, together with Japan they're the most pacifistic country in the world. France also couldn't care less about it. The UK is the only one who would follow, like the lapdog it is.

No, not true.

If we go back a bit in time, we were able to put up a first line of defense on the Maro' trials in India thanks to the fact a ship in international waters* is actually considered an extension to the country's soil (and sovereignty).

An attack to the 5th fleet

Erdogan in 2012 succesfully invoked the Aricle V due the Syrian Civil War.

It basically covers ANY KIND aggressive acting toward a member of the treaty, wherever they happen.

[ringpriest]

Logistics say China would have to wait about 20 years before the US would not be able to deploy a carrier at any time during an emergency even if the US doesnt replace any carriers at end of life. History says rendering a carrier combat ineffective is a possibility, sinking one very difficult, and the costs potentially very high to do so.

We're already seeing gaps in carriers on station:

"President Obama’s pivot to Asia will lack a crucial military underpinning next year, when for four months, the Navy will not have an aircraft carrier in the region." (2014)
"As USS Theodore Roosevelt exits, US has no carriers in Persian Gulf" (2015)

All the PLAN needs to do is wait, and seize an appropriate moment for their "short, victorious war" - if they believe that presenting the US with a fait accompli will be sufficient, then the ability to "scramble" a carrier from the other side of the Pacific is worthless in preventing a war (a short one if they're right, a long one if they're wrong).


And as for the difficulty of sinking carriers... Hornet, Lexington, Wasp and Yorktown (along with the entire Kido Butai) disagree - and they were considerably better armored than their modern counterparts, which have lighter armor focused on keeping mission-critical stuff functional against fragmentation and blast. And that is before getting into how what's really going to mission-kill a modern warship is sensors and fire-control, which are unavoidably vulnerable.

(Which in turn leads to the bleakly hilarious image of a WWII-vintage battleship closing in on a modern carrier strike strike group, shrugging off Harpoons and Tomahawks (the Harpoons in particular, with their <500 lb warheads and attack profile targeting just above the waterline are pretty much the worst possible things to try and sink a BB with), while the carrier's tiny air group scrambles to put a heavy JDAM through the BB's deck before it gets into gun range - because the comparative popguns we currently use aren't going to do more than scratch the paint and mess up the superstructure on a BB while its 16" shells turn the modern warships into massive metallic chunks of rapidly sinking navy gray swiss cheese.) There are multiple logistical and tactical problems with such a scenario, of course, and no one is building any new BBs, but the image has a certain dark comedy to it.

[Independent voter]

China is so inferior to the US in military power it's stunning. I think China could defend the homeland easily but projecting power, that's a whole another thing.

The Chinese know they have no rights to Spratly Islands, they are just posturing, hoping the rest of the world will let them get away with seizing the Spratlys.

Vietnam and the Philippines have much more claim to the Spratlys then China ever will.

[Adam Jensen]

Chinese military conducts exercises. Also, ocean water continues to crash against beaches, gravity pulls the moon into Earth's orbit.

This is what militaries do in peacetime. The US and NATO do it too. Don't see why I should worry about this.

[ringpriest]

No, not true.

If we go back a bit in time, we were able to put up a first line of defense on the Maro' trials in India thanks to the fact a ship in international waters* is actually considered an extension to the country's soil (and sovereignty).

An attack to the 5th fleet

Erdogan in 2012 succesfully invoked the Aricle V due the Syrian Civil War.

It basically covers ANY KIND aggressive acting toward a member of the treaty, wherever they happen.

No, he didn't - he tried for Article V, and NATO gave him Article IV instead - "consultation over military matters when the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened"; the only time NATO's Article V has been invoked is 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan.

[Deleted]

No, he didn't - he tried for Article V, and NATO gave him Article IV instead - "consultation over military matters when the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened"; the only time NATO's Article V has been invoked is 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan.

9/11 shouldn't have been able to invoke it, as the attackers were no identifiable nation (well mostly Saudi Arabian, but they unfortnately weren't being invaded).

[Uhaneole]

they are just mad we didn't invite them to RIMPAC (where the rest of the world plays wargames)

[Easo]

(Which in turn leads to the bleakly hilarious image of a WWII-vintage battleship closing in on a modern carrier strike strike group, shrugging off Harpoons and Tomahawks (the Harpoons in particular, with their <500 lb warheads and attack profile targeting just above the waterline are pretty much the worst possible things to try and sink a BB with), while the carrier's tiny air group scrambles to put a heavy JDAM through the BB's deck before it gets into gun range - because the comparative popguns we currently use aren't going to do more than scratch the paint and mess up the superstructure on a BB while its 16" shells turn the modern warships into massive metallic chunks of rapidly sinking navy gray swiss cheese.) There are multiple logistical and tactical problems with such a scenario, of course, and no one is building any new BBs, but the image has a certain dark comedy to it.

Scrambles? Have you forgotten the range of naval aviation? Or you really love your BB's that much? It will need crapload of escort ships providing antiair defense to even survive. And airgroup of one carrier is already more powerful than most of world's air forces.
It will sink, from the first bomb that goes through it's relatively thinly armored deck (because you simply cannot protect everything with 40-50cm of steel) all the way to keel and rips a hole there. Or even better, goes straight through turret roof few stories down into main magazines.
And underestimating antiship missiles? Yeah...

Battleships died for a reason. Get on with the times.

[Kellhound]

We're already seeing gaps in carriers on station:

"President Obama’s pivot to Asia will lack a crucial military underpinning next year, when for four months, the Navy will not have an aircraft carrier in the region." (2014)
"As USS Theodore Roosevelt exits, US has no carriers in Persian Gulf" (2015)

All the PLAN needs to do is wait, and seize an appropriate moment for their "short, victorious war" - if they believe that presenting the US with a fait accompli will be sufficient, then the ability to "scramble" a carrier from the other side of the Pacific is worthless in preventing a war (a short one if they're right, a long one if they're wrong).


And as for the difficulty of sinking carriers... Hornet, Lexington, Wasp and Yorktown (along with the entire Kido Butai) disagree - and they were considerably better armored than their modern counterparts, which have lighter armor focused on keeping mission-critical stuff functional against fragmentation and blast. And that is before getting into how what's really going to mission-kill a modern warship is sensors and fire-control, which are unavoidably vulnerable.

(Which in turn leads to the bleakly hilarious image of a WWII-vintage battleship closing in on a modern carrier strike strike group, shrugging off Harpoons and Tomahawks (the Harpoons in particular, with their <500 lb warheads and attack profile targeting just above the waterline are pretty much the worst possible things to try and sink a BB with), while the carrier's tiny air group scrambles to put a heavy JDAM through the BB's deck before it gets into gun range - because the comparative popguns we currently use aren't going to do more than scratch the paint and mess up the superstructure on a BB while its 16" shells turn the modern warships into massive metallic chunks of rapidly sinking navy gray swiss cheese.) There are multiple logistical and tactical problems with such a scenario, of course, and no one is building any new BBs, but the image has a certain dark comedy to it.

Those gaps are in regular deployments, not the same as an emergency deployment which the carriers are able to do months before their regular deployment on very short notice.

The fleet carriers of WWII were 1/4 the size of a modern carrier. As for difficulty, lets look at the Yorktown: 3 dive bomb hits (~2000lbs armor piercing) (including one that knocked the boilers off-line), 2 aerial torpedo hits (~500lbs warhead), 2 submarine torpedo hits (650-900lbs warhead), and it took 3 days for her to sink with no active damage control the final day. So a 25,000 ton carrier took 3 days to sink after taking 7 hits with sizable warheads and minimal damage control to address the flooding. Compare that to the Forrestal that suffered at least 8 1000lbs bombs going off on its flight deck and having the fires out in a day and the ship mission ready in 7 months.

As for the ability of battleships to stand up to carrier aircraft, ask the crew of the Yamato how well that works. However, not only are countries not building any BBs, no country has the ability to anymore. Also, the US has long range weapons with warheads larger than 1000lbs that can attack the deck of a ship.

Mission killing a carrier requires knocking out its ability to launch and land aircraft, which is why I made the distinction between a mission kill and a hard kill.

[Raptor With a Saber]

Probably China gearing up to hit North K hard and absorb them instead of the U.S doing it now that the N.K are getting more desperate.

[Kellhound]

they are just mad we didn't invite them to RIMPAC (where the rest of the world plays wargames)

Actually, they sent 5 ships to RIMPAC this year.

[Purpleisbetter]

No, he didn't - he tried for Article V, and NATO gave him Article IV instead - "consultation over military matters when the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened"; the only time NATO's Article V has been invoked is 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan.

O dear...you're right.

Getting old here, memory starting to fail... :/