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

[Xires]

depends on the objectives of the conflict. you don't always have to win militarily to come out ahead.

china can lose ships left and right and still gain more territory after an armistice is signed when the conflict becomes to expensive/unpopular in the west.

if they manage to sink a carrier it's probably instant peace offerings from the US, they can't take those kind of losses. if they don't it's a bit more up to grabs what happens but chances are china can entrench themselves on some landgrabs early on and not let those go.

Japan thought the same thing when they bombed Pearl Harbor. It cost them their empire. Anyone who underestimates the US militarily has and will get their asses kicked. Land grabs? With what? They have no means of force projection. What could/would they even take? I don't think you understand or know what an aircraft carrier brings with it for protection. lol

- - - Updated - - -

None of these bars China nuking NYC, or some other metropolis on a nuclear exchange.

and none of that bars us from nuking China into the stone age. Your point?

- - - Updated - - -

I dont think US government could actually afford it.

Yes, they could. lol We have plenty of weapons that need to be used.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Only if the left has their way.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

New advanced technology's need time to get right. You still aren't taking into account the TEN super-carriers the US still currently has which trumps anything China has. You also aren't taking into account the support that comes with a single carrier battlegroup. lol

- - - Updated - - -

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.

lol ok, just another anti-american hoping and praying for its fall. Won't happen snowflake, sorry. islamic nation become a WORLD POWER? With what? They have no Navy- they don't know how to build carriers, their tech is so so far behind it is a joke. We will be looking to China and Russia for protection? Russia is broke with an aging and DECREASING population. They will never be a world power ever again. China? How? They don't invent anything- they are thieves. I wonder what world you are living in. lol Because it isn't this one and thus not within reality.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Did you just compare WW2 with 21st century warfare and capabilities? Who has the power to blast their way through a carrier 80 fighters, and computer controlled defense systems? You know very little about modern warfare.

- - - Updated - - -

Naval aviation range then or now? An F6F Hellcat has over twice the combat radius of an F-18 Super Hornet.

I like the idea of BBs, yes - I'm under no illusions that they're practical at present for a whole host of reasons.

The airgroup of a single carrier is around 44 strike aircraft, capable of around 50 sorties a day.

The deck on an Iowa-class is over 20 inches of armor plate spread over three levels; the turret is, as you mentioned, 45cm - nothing an F-18 is packing is going "straight through"; with the exception of low-probability "lucky shots", battleships get beat to death.

I don't believe in underestimating missiles - there's good reason they're not called hittiles.

- - - Updated - - -



Which, if the Chinese are planning to stage a confrontation, gives them a perfect window to take advantage of - by the time the Nimitz-class gets there, the shooting will be over and done with (whether the US then starts shooting again is a whole different bag of rabid kittens) - if you want to deter enemy offensive actions by preparing for war, you need to actually be prepared, not threaten to be prepared in a week or four, please wait here while I go get my supercarrier.




Fair enough - better modern damage control and compartmentalization likely will do a great deal to balance out the much lighter armor and comparatively weak experience at DC (hopefully we'll never have to find out how vulnerable CVNs are). And yes, mission-killing them (then and now) is much, much easier.





Over 250 strike aircraft, multiple submarines, and at least 17 direct hits (and countless damaging near misses) over a battle that took the better part of a day, (after going through the whole war with nothing but minor damage, iirc) would seem to be quite sufficient against a modern CSG with it's puny, short-legged air wing, all other things being equal.



Name one that's not nuclear, please. (Seriously, I can't think one - to the best of my knowledge we don't have any such weapon deployed operationally, which is why the Navy is scrambling to come up with a real, modern anti-ship missile. It's quite possible I'm missing something, and if so, I'm curious to know what.)

You're still comparing WW2 weapons and fighters to 21st century ones. They didn't have computers back then or precision bombing/missiles.
Battleships are obsolete for a reason. They are large, expensive, and can easily be taken out by fighters/bombers before the battleship even knew they were there.
Actually the reason it took so long to destroy it was because the Japanese ran it aground so it couldnt be sunk- it had to be completely destroyed.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, reading some previous posts YOU DON"T NEED TO SINK A SHIP TO RENDER IT INEFFECTIVE FOR COMBAT. I am not sure why people are so obsessed with sinking

- - - Updated - - -



Sorry to break the bad news to you but you haven't won any wars lately. Wars are still on going.

Really? Because the Iraqi army was defeated as was the Taliban initially when we went in using only special ops at the time. That is a win. What you are confusing it with is occupation and an insurgency that hides behind and blends in with civilians. Not even remotely the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that they will start selling your debt way before that, so no worries.

- - - Updated - - -



This must be the joke of the century. The clear victory in Afghanistan it would be to end Al Qaeda. Can't be clearer than this.
As for the stunning success, let me tell you that you are still fighting people on horses and AK-47s and you can't secure victory.

All of your wars were either loss (aka Vietnam), draw or still on going (after over a decade of fighting)

Thinking that the US could take a nation like China is hilarious.

I love it when kids speak on subject that are ignorant on. First, the Iraqi army was defeated. Defeating Al Qaeda was achieved. How? We established an Iraqi government and brought elections to the iraqi people. AK-47's and horses? You think they are riding around on horses? wtf? They hide behind women and children and blend in with the population. We had Iraq secured with an army, police force, and government and it fell apart AFTER we left.
Vietnam we beat the shit out of them militarily but they won politically. A decade of fighting? Well, the United States has NOT gone all out in a war since WW2. As in we didn't bomb their city's and kill tens of thousands in a single night. If we wanted to every single city in Iraq would be dust right now. The US operates under ROE's when it goes to war because of politics.

You thinking that a nation like China could take on the United States conventionally only shows that you need to read a book. Iraq tried ot take us on conventionally in '91 and we ejected them from Kuwait in 3 days and infact after the "highway of death" where we wiped out thousands of iraqi soldiers retreating...the politicians pulled back the reign on the military and told them to leave them be.
Then In 2003 we were in baghdad in 3 weeks while destroying the Iraqi army along the way. The fact that you are trying to compare an insurgency that hides amongst civilians and woman and children to a actual Navy and Air Force just shows that you are 100% clueless on the topic and you should just....stop.

[Kuntantee]

People still think USA wasn't defeated militarily in Vietnam? Interesting.

[Marcellus1986]

People still think USA wasn't defeated militarily in Vietnam? Interesting.

Uh because we weren't? Look at casualty numbers and come back and let me know how that looks like losing to you. It is the pussified population that cost us the war, not military defeat.

[Tommi]

The US military probably has more friendly fire incidents because shit happens in war and the US consists of basically the entire fighting force in Iraq/Afghanistan. Last I checked after the invasion only the US actually did any major combat actions in Iraq/Afghanistan while the rest of NATO was merely support.

I guess both of my cousins must have just imagined combat in Iraq. Both of them left due to US actions. I seem to remember both of them citing the US was too dangerous to fight alongside.

TL;DR: The USA are cunts to their "allies".

[Sodia]

I would be more concern with a country where all get offended because of mean internet coments, and may be so upset over a twitt to send a nuke to another country where this mean and offensive twitt come from .

[Kellhound]

Trying to explain the concept of Total War to a continent of people that have cucked themselves into submission so hard they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag is a fool's errand. You're better off trying to discuss fashion or petite cars.

A war between the US and China would not be a total war.

- - - Updated - - -

None of these bars China nuking NYC, or some other metropolis on a nuclear exchange.

The fact that the US can respond with 10X+ the number of nuclear strikes is the bar.

- - - Updated - - -

People still think USA wasn't defeated militarily in Vietnam? Interesting.

Because it wasnt. It lost the political war, not the military engagement.

[ringpriest]

New advanced technology's need time to get right. You still aren't taking into account the TEN super-carriers the US still currently has which trumps anything China has. You also aren't taking into account the support that comes with a single carrier battlegroup. lol

As I mentioned upthread, the US is having trouble keeping carriers on-station full-time - I suspect you're also over-estimating what a carrier and its escorts are capable of (and you're also out of date, the new term is 'Carrier Strike Group') - we're talking about a grand total of five warships and under 50 combat aircraft; a useful force against massively outclassed opponents who can't strike back effectively against it (though still far from decisive in all but the smallest conflicts) but not exactly the massive engine of military might that most people think of when they hear "carrier battle group". Also, carrier numbers have been on a long, gentle slide downhill for quite some time (as have the number of combat aircraft they carry) - the 10 carriers you brag about are only 2/3's of the USN's carrier strength in 1991.

Or, to put it another way, you seem to be thinking of one of these:

and possibly influenced by some dim idea of this:


But the actual reality is:

You're still comparing WW2 weapons and fighters to 21st century ones. They didn't have computers back then or precision bombing/missiles.
Battleships are obsolete for a reason. They are large, expensive, and can easily be taken out by fighters/bombers before the battleship even knew they were there.
Actually the reason it took so long to destroy it was because the Japanese ran it aground so it couldnt be sunk- it had to be completely destroyed.

Much like you're confusing modern American wishful and grandiose thinking about our military capabilities with the reality, you're confusing Imperial Japan's plans for the Yamato with her actual fate:

"Drawing on US wartime records, an expedition to the South China Sea in 1982 produced some results, but the wreckage discovered could not be clearly identified. A second expedition returned to the site two years later, and the team's photographic and video records were later confirmed by one of the battleship's designers, Shigeru Makino to show the Yamato's last resting place. The wreck lies 290 kilometres (180 mi) southwest of Kyushu under 340 metres (1,120 ft) of water in two main pieces; a bow section comprising the front two thirds of the ship, and a separate stern section."

You really don't have the slightest idea about what you're discussing; argument I can do, and often enjoy, even if it involves strong disagreements - but I draw the line at playing chess with ignorant pigeons. <plonk>

- - - Updated - - -

Again, what part of the "against the states" is beyond your understanding? The conventional wars were won. I never said we "won" the grand strategy goal.

It looks to me like you're verging on willful ignorance here, Kellhound; take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq right now (and at their histories since the US "won" wars against them): Vietnam is a (modern, quasi-capitalist) communist state where the US has had little influence - the US supported government is dead and gone, Afghanistan is still full of American soldiers while the Taliban conduct strikes in the capital on a regular basis and there are no plans to actually abandon the puppet government there because everyone and their pet hamster knows it will go the way of the government of South Vietnam soon after we pull out, and US troops are on the ground in an Iraq in near-constant chaos where large chunks of the country are under the control of hostile powers and the so-called "government" can't recapture one of its own cities until we bomb it into rubble for them.

To quote Clausewitz, "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will." Or alternatively, "War is a continuation of policy by other means." If the result of war is not the successful imposition of a nation's will on its enemies, if its policies are not achieved, then any claim of "victory" is nothing but sophistry. These are the same sort of "victories" won by Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union in its final years - I hope the US will act (and fare) better than those vanished powers.

Or to put it another way, "Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur". (The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not accept his defeat. And the US had been horrible at actually vanquishing its enemies in the 21st century.)

I never said the Chinese would fight exactly as we wished, just that a conflict at sea and on small islands is one fought in our area of strength.

And why do you think the Chinese will be content to confine any war with them to the Spratly's and South China Sea? (Or to "the sea and small islands"?) Their conventional power projection is certainly limited compared to a bona fide superpower, but (presuming the conflict doesn't go nuclear) they have a number of options, including (but not limited to):

-get the North Koreans to invade South Korea
-strikes against US allies in the region
-invade Taiwan
-use their several-dozen diesel-electric subs to attack conventional shipping (and possibly US shipping hubs as well).
-cyber warfare
-arming US-opposed state and non-state organization
-launching unconventional and/or terror attacks against US infrastructure (including distributed but vital US infrastructure, like the Panama canal).

If you're thinking that Sun Tzu's birthplace will fight using Marquess of Queensberry rules, and give up after a losing a round or three in a salle, I'm sadly confident that you will find yourself gravely mistaken. (Though they certainly might pretend to.)

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't been following this thread at all (more interested in Trump).

However the JSOW was just navalized. Evidently another software upgrade to the seeker, like almost all the "navalized" weapons the past few years. That matters more than those older, shorter ranged weapons.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...5361468328409/



The "secret weapon" against Chinese naval power won't be strike fighters. It'll be strategic bombers armed with huge loads of extremely long ranged air launched cruise missiles (like LRASM, which is JASSM-ER with a seeker upgrade) and glide bombs (like JSOW), fed data from things like the P-8 Poseidon. .

B-1Bs can carry 12 JSOWs or 24 LRASM/JASSM-ERs. B-52s can carry 20 LRASMs. B-2s can carry 16 LRASM.

A carrier's airwing is more likely to mop up.

A duty for which they are eminently suited.

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f18e.htm


http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm


So ~591 nauticalmiles fully loaded. Not amazing. Way better than 400. Also the MQ-25A Stingray program's emphasis is on drone based air refueling and being a weapons clip, directly addressing the range need next decade.

It is sacrificing some of it's bomb load, but thank you for the info - almost 600nm is better than I'd thought it could pull off (although I cannot resist point out that the Hellcat can carry the same bomb load with an 800nm combat radius... )

- - - Updated - - -

Combat RADIUS for interdiction is 390nm, or a RANGE of 780nm, and it can do in-flight refueling (Hi-Lo-Hi mission, 4 1000lbs bombs, 2 tanks). I have observed flight ops exceeding 2 sorties per day off a carrier, its called surge operations. Extended combat operations (40+ days) from a Nimitz produces more than 1.2 sorties.

I said the US, not the USN. There is no reason to field a anti-ship weapon designed to destroy a battleship, so there has been no reason to deploy them. The AGM-130 is based on the GBU-15, which is a guided Mk-84 2000lbs bomb. A large ship is a slow moving target btw. The AGM-130C was going to use a 2000lbs penetration BLU-109 in place of the Mk84.

The B-52H has been modified to take the place of the B-52G in maritime interdiction.

If you can provide a source on the B-52H practicing naval interdiction, I'd be grateful...


From, "A Comparison Of Sortie Rates For Land Based And Carrier Based Aircraft In Recent Conflicts" - US CVNs average a little over 1 sortie per day per aircraft.

Efforts to beat that number (imnsho) are just robbing Peter to pay Paul (and with a poor exchange rate at that) - the take planning beforehand, and a heavy toll on crews afterward.

To the best of my knowledge the actually produced AGM-130s had BLU-109 or MK 84 warheads, which packed warheads under 1000 and 500 pounds, respectively.

[Omega10]

Quote Originally Posted by Kuntantee View Post
None of these bars China nuking NYC, or some other metropolis on a nuclear exchange.

The fact that the US can respond with 10X+ the number of nuclear strikes is the bar.

10x the nukes just means they lose a billion+ people while we "only" lose 300 million.
When your top 100 cities goes away, well it means the winners of the war are countries that avoided the conflict in the first place.
Why are you so eager to decimate the US?

[Deleted]

Lol US navy has "experience" in what? Shooting at 3rd world countries with no navies.

[Independent voter]

The top export destinations of China are the
United States ($432B),
Hong Kong ($258B),
Japan ($166B),
Germany ($101B) and
South Korea ($88.9B). The top import origins are
South Korea ($142B),
the United States ($134B),
Other Asia ($131B),
Japan ($131B) and
Germany ($96.7B).

Notice that except for Hong Kong all of China's top trading partners are allies of the US.

[Deleted]

The top export destinations of China are the
United States ($432B),
Hong Kong ($258B),
Japan ($166B),
Germany ($101B) and
South Korea ($88.9B). The top import origins are
South Korea ($142B),
the United States ($134B),
Other Asia ($131B),
Japan ($131B) and
Germany ($96.7B).

Notice that except for Hong Kong all of China's top trading partners are allies of the US.

the US is basically in the pocket of China, this is common knowledge.

Who is China gonna declare war on, really? The title feels like it's misleading.

[Kellhound]

As I mentioned upthread, the US is having trouble keeping carriers on-station full-time - I suspect you're also over-estimating what a carrier and its escorts are capable of (and you're also out of date, the new term is 'Carrier Strike Group') - we're talking about a grand total of five warships and under 50 combat aircraft; a useful force against massively outclassed opponents who can't strike back effectively against it (though still far from decisive in all but the smallest conflicts) but not exactly the massive engine of military might that most people think of when they hear "carrier battle group". Also, carrier numbers have been on a long, gentle slide downhill for quite some time (as have the number of combat aircraft they carry) - the 10 carriers you brag about are only 2/3's of the USN's carrier strength in 1991.

Or, to put it another way, you seem to be thinking of one of these:

and possibly influenced by some dim idea of this:


But the actual reality is:






Much like you're confusing modern American wishful and grandiose thinking about our military capabilities with the reality, you're confusing Imperial Japan's plans for the Yamato with her actual fate:

"Drawing on US wartime records, an expedition to the South China Sea in 1982 produced some results, but the wreckage discovered could not be clearly identified. A second expedition returned to the site two years later, and the team's photographic and video records were later confirmed by one of the battleship's designers, Shigeru Makino to show the Yamato's last resting place. The wreck lies 290 kilometres (180 mi) southwest of Kyushu under 340 metres (1,120 ft) of water in two main pieces; a bow section comprising the front two thirds of the ship, and a separate stern section."

You really don't have the slightest idea about what you're discussing; argument I can do, and often enjoy, even if it involves strong disagreements - but I draw the line at playing chess with ignorant pigeons. <plonk>

- - - Updated - - -



It looks to me like you're verging on willful ignorance here, Kellhound; take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq right now (and at their histories since the US "won" wars against them): Vietnam is a (modern, quasi-capitalist) communist state where the US has had little influence - the US supported government is dead and gone, Afghanistan is still full of American soldiers while the Taliban conduct strikes in the capital on a regular basis and there are no plans to actually abandon the puppet government there because everyone and their pet hamster knows it will go the way of the government of South Vietnam soon after we pull out, and US troops are on the ground in an Iraq in near-constant chaos where large chunks of the country are under the control of hostile powers and the so-called "government" can't recapture one of its own cities until we bomb it into rubble for them.

To quote Clausewitz, "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will." Or alternatively, "War is a continuation of policy by other means." If the result of war is not the successful imposition of a nation's will on its enemies, if its policies are not achieved, then any claim of "victory" is nothing but sophistry. These are the same sort of "victories" won by Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union in its final years - I hope the US will act (and fare) better than those vanished powers.

Or to put it another way, "Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur". (The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not accept his defeat. And the US had been horrible at actually vanquishing its enemies in the 21st century.)




And why do you think the Chinese will be content to confine any war with them to the Spratly's and South China Sea? (Or to "the sea and small islands"?) Their conventional power projection is certainly limited compared to a bona fide superpower, but (presuming the conflict doesn't go nuclear) they have a number of options, including (but not limited to):

-get the North Koreans to invade South Korea
-strikes against US allies in the region
-invade Taiwan
-use their several-dozen diesel-electric subs to attack conventional shipping (and possibly US shipping hubs as well).
-cyber warfare
-arming US-opposed state and non-state organization
-launching unconventional and/or terror attacks against US infrastructure (including distributed but vital US infrastructure, like the Panama canal).

If you're thinking that Sun Tzu's birthplace will fight using Marquess of Queensberry rules, and give up after a losing a round or three in a salle, I'm sadly confident that you will find yourself gravely mistaken. (Though they certainly might pretend to.)

- - - Updated - - -



A duty for which they are eminently suited.



It is sacrificing some of it's bomb load, but thank you for the info - almost 600nm is better than I'd thought it could pull off (although I cannot resist point out that the Hellcat can carry the same bomb load with an 800nm combat radius... )

Two things, modern US cruisers and destroyers are far more capable than the bulk of the fleet in the 1980s, and while CSGs are smaller it is only because they do not need larger escort groups for the missions they actually are undertaking right now. However, the Navy is fully capable of augmenting the size of a carrier's escort should it feel the need. Take CSG1, it actually consists of 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, and 6 destroyers. 4 of those destroyers are usually conducting independent operations, but they are readily deployable as a unified DESRON.

In 1980 the most powerful air defense cruiser class was the Virginia Class with 68 SM-2 missiles. The Ticonderoga's have 122 SM-2/SM-6 missiles. The most common air defense destroyer in 1980, the Adams Class, had 40 SM-1/2 missiles, compared to the Burke's 90-96 SM-2/SM-6 missiles. The size of the fleet has gone down, but not the amount of firepower in a significant manner (1/2 the ships carrying 2x the missiles). The same thing has happened with the aircraft, they are fewer in number but far far far more accurate. The Super Hornets are also not really short legged compared to other naval aircraft, like the F-4 and F-14.

No, it is you that is being willfully ignorant. I have been very clear I am talking only about state on state military action, not occupation, not asymmetric warfare, not nation building. The failure of grand strategy is a political failure, not a military failure in these cases. Quit being obtuse.

China cannot afford to wage a war beyond the SCS, it has far too much to lose. They are as vulnerable as the US w/o the power projection capability.

The F6F-5 had a maximum range with external fuel of ~1560nmi with no other external stores. It could not have a 800nmi combat radius with 4000lbs of bombs. The F/A-18E/F has a max range of ~1660nmi with external fuel and 2 AIM-9s btw. And again the Hornet can refuel in flight, the Hellcat cannot.

The USAF's own fact file points out the B-52s maritime uses.

Your own source proves what I said, a Nimitz can conduct extended flight ops of 1.2 sorties per aircraft per day. It takes no major planning to conduct surge operations, and the toll is on airframes far more than aircrews. I have witnessed surge operations exceed 2 sorties per aircraft per day. It is not sustainable, but it is usually not needed to be sustained either.

The Mk-84 is a 2000lbs bomb filled with 945lbs of explosive, when used as part of a guided bomb, the entire Mk-84 is considered the warhead, same with the BLU-109.

[Elim Garak]

Uh because we weren't? Look at casualty numbers and come back and let me know how that looks like losing to you. It is the pussified population that cost us the war, not military defeat.

I didn't know that the victor in a war is decided based on who's got the least casualties.

[Simmias]

lmfao oh man, look at all the u.s people talking shit. It's hilarious.

[EllissonWatson]

Our naval and air forces would decimate their entire fleet in a matter of hours.

[Elim Garak]

Our naval and air forces would decimate their entire fleet in a matter of hours.

Does Romania even have naval and air forces?

[EllissonWatson]

Does Romania even have naval and air forces?

yes. Google it to get for news about Romania

[Elim Garak]

yes. Google it to get for news about Romania

Cool, so how are they gonna get to China?

[Kellhound]

10x the nukes just means they lose a billion+ people while we "only" lose 300 million.
When your top 100 cities goes away, well it means the winners of the war are countries that avoided the conflict in the first place.
Why are you so eager to decimate the US?

What is it with people not understanding the entire concept of deterrent.... Neither country would use nuclear weapons against the other for the very reason it is too costly.

- - - Updated - - -

Cool, so how are they gonna get to China?

Through the Suez most likely.

[Wycked]

The same United States that can't even hold Afghanistan and Iraq?

more an issue of collateral damage. When you squash a fly like IS or AQ, you have to worry about collateral damage. How you're viewed during and after the war. Against someone like china there would be no mercy. Short of nuking each other, we'd roll over china as quickly as we rolled over iraq.