The United States Navy just came up short on carriers

[Thekri]

People think it can engage it, that is. Still, granting you that, here's what Wiki has to say on ballistic missile boost phases:

Boost-phase intercepts are also generally the most difficult to arrange, as they require the interceptor to be within attack range within the few minutes while the missile engines are firing. Given some sort of positive control over the launch, this means there is only a short time for the weapons to reach their targets after the launch command is given. This requires very high-speed weapons located close to the enemy launchers

Two questions:
1) Why do we have so many threads about aircraft carriers?
2) Why do people post the same nonsense in each one without reading the other ones?

Look at either of these two threads for your answer on the DF-21, which is basically Chinese Propaganda in missile form.

Is it true China only has two aircraft carriers?

China building 4 nuclear powered aircraft carriers

The bottom line, nobody has demonstrated the ability of the DF-21, or any other IRBM to actually hit a maneuvering ship. China has never tested it against a naval vessel, they just claim it can. Also, the warhead on the DF-21 isn't big enough to sink a carrier without multiple hits. Also, China doesn't have the means to target carriers with a DF-21 in the first place, because it would need something else to target for it. Also, just like Russia, China tends to operate tiny numbers of the latest tech, and very large numbers of older tech, then conflate the two. So China likely only has a few hundred DF-21 equivalent tech, and the thousands of missiles are older tech like the C-802, which is itself a version of a 1970s era French missile.

So while people like to talk like China has tons of J-20s and DF-21s and Russia has tons of T-14s and SU-57s and so forth, it is simply not true. They have very small numbers of operational units of their best stuff, and the vast bulk is old tech.

[Teleros]

1) Why do we have so many threads about aircraft carriers?

They're cool? Other than that I've no idea.

2) Why do people post the same nonsense in each one without reading the other ones?

We don't see them?

The bottom line, nobody has demonstrated the ability of the DF-21, or any other IRBM to actually hit a maneuvering ship. China has never tested it against a naval vessel, they just claim it can.

Oh, so the carriers will be fine then . Not sure "we don't think they can do it" is a very good standard to risk a carrier group on, but w/e.

"While exact measurements are not publicly available, a 2015 report by IHS Jane’s assesses its current circular error probable (CEP) at intermediate range to be 150–450 meters"

They estimate the SRBM version (DF-15B) to have a CEP of 5-10 metres, BTW. Of course, the trouble with all this is that it's China, so getting accurate information is rather difficult at best.

Also, the warhead on the DF-21 isn't big enough to sink a carrier without multiple hits.

Doesn't need to in order to mission-kill it.

Also, China doesn't have the means to target carriers with a DF-21 in the first place, because it would need something else to target for it.

Which they definitely don't (and won't) have. Definitely. Absolutely. Positively.

Also, just like Russia, China tends to operate tiny numbers of the latest tech, and very large numbers of older tech, then conflate the two. So China likely only has a few hundred DF-21 equivalent tech, and the thousands of missiles are older tech like the C-802, which is itself a version of a 1970s era French missile.

I'm sure that'll be very reassuring to the carrier group they lob all those missiles at :P . They only need to get lucky once, whereas the defenders have to get lucky every time.

[Kellhound]

People think it can engage it, that is. Still, granting you that, here's what Wiki has to say on ballistic missile boost phases:

Boost-phase intercepts are also generally the most difficult to arrange, as they require the interceptor to be within attack range within the few minutes while the missile engines are firing. Given some sort of positive control over the launch, this means there is only a short time for the weapons to reach their targets after the launch command is given. This requires very high-speed weapons located close to the enemy launchers

Now, bear in mind also that the DF-21 has about 150% the range of the SM-3... intercepting these things is going to be a hell of a job, and that's assuming the Chinese don't just launch more DF-21s than you have SM-3s. A Ticonderoga can have up to 122 vertical-launch missiles aboard, and in practice not all will be SM-3s, but even so... guess who comes out ahead - the Chinese, who launch (Ticonderogas x 123) DF-21s, or the US Navy, which loses a carrier group and with it, all hope of conventional force projection into the entire western Pacific?


Ah, so it'll be fine so long as the other side plays fair? Yeah right .

On the other hand, the fact that Blue team still had more cautious RoEs after sending a 24hr surrender document to the Reds is a huge problem:

1. Let's demand the other side surrender within 24 hours.
2. What, use a more warlike RoE after #1? Don't be stupid, we're still at peace.

If you're going to go to war with Iran (as this exercise was basically all about), and you let a whole bunch of random ships and planes fly about near your USN carrier group, you should never have been promoted past ensign. "Oops, we sank a few foreign fishing trawlers" vs "oops we lost a carrier & 20,000 sailors"... just goes to show how far the rot has spread amongst the top brass if they're making rookie mistakes like that.

The SM-3 Block IIA has 1000km more range than the DF-21 actually.

The Burkes are actually the ships designated for ABM defense, not the Ticos. Also, China is not believed to have anything close to 100 DF-21Ds. Then they have to get past the SM-6s and the fleet's EW defenses. Plus, they have never actually demonstrated the ability to hit a target moving at 30+kts.

What the RoE is in an exercise and what they are when lives are actually at risk are not the same thing. Simply put, the US Navy would not employ a carrier close to shore in confined waters intentionally against a foe capable of hitting it.

- - - Updated - - -

They're cool? Other than that I've no idea.


We don't see them?


Oh, so the carriers will be fine then . Not sure "we don't think they can do it" is a very good standard to risk a carrier group on, but w/e.

"While exact measurements are not publicly available, a 2015 report by IHS Jane’s assesses its current circular error probable (CEP) at intermediate range to be 150–450 meters"

They estimate the SRBM version (DF-15B) to have a CEP of 5-10 metres, BTW. Of course, the trouble with all this is that it's China, so getting accurate information is rather difficult at best.


Doesn't need to in order to mission-kill it.


Which they definitely don't (and won't) have. Definitely. Absolutely. Positively.


I'm sure that'll be very reassuring to the carrier group they lob all those missiles at :P . They only need to get lucky once, whereas the defenders have to get lucky every time.

Those CEP numbers are pointless when attacking a carrier, as they are against a FIXED target. The DF-21D has to use active radar to have any chance of actually hitting anything moving, and radar is susceptible to ECM.

[Thekri]

They're cool? Other than that I've no idea.


We don't see them?


Oh, so the carriers will be fine then . Not sure "we don't think they can do it" is a very good standard to risk a carrier group on, but w/e.

"While exact measurements are not publicly available, a 2015 report by IHS Jane’s assesses its current circular error probable (CEP) at intermediate range to be 150–450 meters"

They estimate the SRBM version (DF-15B) to have a CEP of 5-10 metres, BTW. Of course, the trouble with all this is that it's China, so getting accurate information is rather difficult at best.


Doesn't need to in order to mission-kill it.


Which they definitely don't (and won't) have. Definitely. Absolutely. Positively.


I'm sure that'll be very reassuring to the carrier group they lob all those missiles at :P . They only need to get lucky once, whereas the defenders have to get lucky every time.

Nobody is claiming carriers are invulnerable. But there is a difference between "Potentially vulnerable to a very specific weapon type in very specific circumstances, if they get lucky" and "Floating Coffin". All warships are vulnerable, always have been. There has never been an invulnerable warship and there probably never will be. But right now, the damage that Aircraft carriers can dish out on Chinese targets is probably significantly greater then they are likely to receive in return.

Even if that isn't true, which it might not be in a few more years, the primary purpose of carriers really isn't WWIII scenarios with China and Russia. It is to continue doing what they do best, bullying the shit out of third rate powers to stop wars from breaking out in the first place. A Carrier is one of the best weapon systems in history at stopping a war before it gets started, by being exactly that "Big floating dick meant to show everyone your manhood" that Mihalk described. The US has plenty of tools to deal with China, and if it really feels like China has the upper hand it targeting them, it can pull them out of range, and use them to strangle Chinese interests in the rest of the world. If 90% of the worlds oceans belong to the US, China isn't going to do great in a long war.

After all, America does have two really great and actually unsinkable carriers sitting next to China at all times. We call them South Korea and Japan, and they can launch a lot more planes then a Nimitz or Ford class can. We have no real need to use the carriers unless we feel we can do it safely.

[Teleros]

The SM-3 Block IIA has 1000km more range than the DF-21 actually.

Ah yes, I was going by the standard version. Don't know how many of the IIA variants are out there, or are deployed on warships in the Pacific though.

What the RoE is in an exercise and what they are when lives are actually at risk are not the same thing.

What's the point in exercises then if you're not trying to simulate reality properly in it? "Oh well if this were real life we'd do XYZ" is not something I want to hear from people conducting such an exercise.

Simply put, the US Navy would not employ a carrier close to shore in confined waters intentionally against a foe capable of hitting it.

Explains why they're keeping out of the Persian Gulf then .

Those CEP numbers are pointless when attacking a carrier, as they are against a FIXED target.

Well you got the first half right. The real reason though is because they're estimates from analysts who haven't been able to get a close look.

The DF-21D has to use active radar to have any chance of actually hitting anything moving, and radar is susceptible to ECM.

Yes, that's their best bet of dealing with it from what I've read.

Nobody is claiming carriers are invulnerable. But there is a difference between "Potentially vulnerable to a very specific weapon type in very specific circumstances, if they get lucky" and "Floating Coffin".

I know we're all getting caught up in the ballistic / hypersonic missile thing, but funny how everyone glosses over the subs I mentioned earlier :P .

The US has plenty of tools to deal with China, and if it really feels like China has the upper hand it targeting them, it can pull them out of range, and use them to strangle Chinese interests in the rest of the world. If 90% of the worlds oceans belong to the US, China isn't going to do great in a long war.

Aside from the Belt & Road Initiative, a friendly Russia to the north, and all that good stuff... you forget who has the superior manufacturing capability. It's one thing for the Royal Navy to blockade Napoleon's European empire in 1805 or w/e, but things have changed just a bit since then. Railroads and steam power alone dramatically reduced the power of a naval blockade, so at that point all China has to do is drive the US out of the western Pacific. Short of nuclear war, all the US can do at that point is glare menacingly from Hawaii whilst the Chinese gobble up Taiwan and whatever else they want (probably not much else TBH, but you get the point). The longer the war goes on, the worse it is for the USA - inferior population, inferior manufacturing base, a divided population, and a need to sink (hah) huge resources into an offensive fleet that the Chinese can defend against on the cheap.

From the Chinese POV, that's a clear victory. They establish themselves as a serious military competitor to the USA, they clear the US out of their back yard etc... hooray for them.

[Kellhound]

Ah yes, I was going by the standard version. Don't know how many of the IIA variants are out there, or are deployed on warships in the Pacific though.


What's the point in exercises then if you're not trying to simulate reality properly in it? "Oh well if this were real life we'd do XYZ" is not something I want to hear from people conducting such an exercise.


Explains why they're keeping out of the Persian Gulf then .


Well you got the first half right. The real reason though is because they're estimates from analysts who haven't been able to get a close look.


Yes, that's their best bet of dealing with it from what I've read.


I know we're all getting caught up in the ballistic / hypersonic missile thing, but funny how everyone glosses over the subs I mentioned earlier :P .


Aside from the Belt & Road Initiative, a friendly Russia to the north, and all that good stuff... you forget who has the superior manufacturing capability. It's one thing for the Royal Navy to blockade Napoleon's European empire in 1805 or w/e, but things have changed just a bit since then. Railroads and steam power alone dramatically reduced the power of a naval blockade, so at that point all China has to do is drive the US out of the western Pacific. Short of nuclear war, all the US can do at that point is glare menacingly from Hawaii whilst the Chinese gobble up Taiwan and whatever else they want (probably not much else TBH, but you get the point). The longer the war goes on, the worse it is for the USA - inferior population, inferior manufacturing base, a divided population, and a need to sink (hah) huge resources into an offensive fleet that the Chinese can defend against on the cheap.

From the Chinese POV, that's a clear victory. They establish themselves as a serious military competitor to the USA, they clear the US out of their back yard etc... hooray for them.

The Block IIA is undergoing testing, just as the DF-21D is.

There are MANY reasons the RoE for exercises are restricted, and they have to be known in context to understand why.

The USN puts carriers into the Gulf as a show of force, but history shows they place them 100+ miles outside the Straight of Hormuz when conducting pre-planned strikes against Iran.

What I am saying is even if the regular DF-21 has a 1 meter CEP, it is useless against a carrier because it has to be targeted at a fixed point.

Submarines have long been the biggest threat to surface ships. An AIP diesel sub firing a 21" wake homing torpedo is well known to be the best way to take out a carrier, so long as it is quiet enough to slip past the ASW ships/helos/subs. And it is likely not going to survive its first launch.

The US has multiple bases in the Western Pacific, not really easy to drive us out.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Good, I guess? Any time the military comes up short is a good thing.

[Teleros]

There are MANY reasons the RoE for exercises are restricted, and they have to be known in context to understand why.

"Hurr durr look at our high tech stuff beating the fuzzy-wuzzies" seems to have been the reason this time :P . Too bad they had a competent red team leader though .

Submarines have long been the biggest threat to surface ships. An AIP diesel sub firing a 21" wake homing torpedo is well known to be the best way to take out a carrier, so long as it is quiet enough to slip past the ASW ships/helos/subs. And it is likely not going to survive its first launch.

That's what we call an acceptable trade.

The US has multiple bases in the Western Pacific, not really easy to drive us out.

How effective are those US forces in SK or Japan (etc) going to be without resupply though? The Chinese can win a war of attrition against them at that point, until the US public, and/or the SK / Japanese governments, gets tired and demands they leave.

[Skroe]

How effective are those US forces in SK or Japan (etc) going to be without resupply though? The Chinese can win a war of attrition against them at that point, until the US public, and/or the SK / Japanese governments, gets tired and demands they leave.

The bases in Japan are capable of full overhauls of most ships and aircraft the US deploys to the region. There are ships that have been forward deployed to the country that haven't returned the North American continent in over a decade because they can be fully serviced there. Nagoya, Japan, for example, is the only facilities outside the US (Fort Worth) and Cameri, Italy that do final assembly of the F-35.

The Chinese Navy and Air Force is not large enough (by far), or capable enough to deny the US resupply to the region while engaging in their own force protection.

The most crucial factor is fuel. It was during World War II. It was a major focus of controlling certain regions during the Cold War. And it would be today and tomorrow. The lifeblood of any force is things oil is refined into. China is singularly dependent on imports. Despite increase in refining capacity in recent years, China is extremely depedent on external sources for gas, crude and refined products, almost all of which go through by sea through Strait of Malacca.

Little old, but it gets the point across:




And thus you can kind of see why the US replaced the term "Asia-Pacific region" in the last few years, with "Indo-Pacific region". Because in a war with China, one of the principle things the US would do is to "starve the beast". We'd launch stand-off attacks, likely using bombers armed with extremely long range air launched cruise missiles, to destroy refining capacity and fuel storage locations along the Chinese coastline. And then we'd make China have to defend its fuel supply lines in the eastern Indian Ocean. This is not something China is anywhere close to be able to do. Not in the least since the US has a major base in Diego Garcia. Does that name sound familiar? Nearly 20 years ago it was famous as the principle staging ground for the US attack on Afganistan.

And in this case, it's directly adjacent to the supply lines that would keep China in any fight.



The region is also understood to be covered in persistent surveillance (sonar buoys, undersea sensors, geosynchronous satellites). The US Navy was extremely reluctant to share any undersea maps of the region, and to a degree even ran interference on international efforts, in the search for MH370 for this region. It wasn't too keep on what it has stashed down there being figured out.

The US for its part, gets by far most of its oil imports from Canada with Saudi Arabia a distant second and Mexico and Veneuela basically tied for third. The Saudi Arabia imports primarily go around South Africa and up into the Atlantic, or through the Red Sea, into the Mediterranean, and across the Atlantic. Little oil comes across the Pacific. US refining capacity is concentrated on the Eastern half of the country, namely in the Caribbean, which is an American Lake in all but name.




Also we produce a very large amount of oil for ourselves, which China does not.




It would be very difficult for China to do to the US what we'd do to it in this regard. Without oil, its factories don't run, it's ships and planes don't fight. A war with the US would see their reserved burned through extremely quickly just to hold the line, and the US would have first mover advantage in disrupting their ability to stay in the fight. Simply put: China's geography is its Achilles heel.

The biggest limiting factor in any US-Chinese conflict would be production capacity. During World War II, a key advantage the US had before, during and after the Battle of Midway (which is seen as the point of no return for Japanese ambitions in the Pacific) was that the Second Vinson Act, passed in 1938, had it such that by mid 1942, the ships that were a result of that act were very rapidly entering service. But even then, the build of a single US ship was about 9 months. It would fall to about 45 days by late 1944. Today, it takes about 60 months (5 years) to build a single Virgina-class attack submarine, and about 4.5 years to build a destroyer. You hire more men, add a third 8 hour shift and weekend work (+2 days), and redesign the supplier base for efficiency in production rather than spreading out federal dollars, and you could massively reduce that. But only so much. They're far more sophisticated vessels than World War II era ships. Modern ships and aircraft are highly integrated things, rather than the rather modular / bolt on model that was prevalent until the 1980s (for surface ships, and to a lesser degree aircraft).

Even munitions it is the same. The number I like to give when discussing this before is that at the single US plant capable of manufacturing Tomahawk cruise missiles, operating two, 8 hour shifts, 5 days a week, are able to produce about 25 Tomahawk cruise missiles a month, give or take, or about 300 a year.

To offer context to this number, the US launched about 900 against Iraq in 2003 over the course of 21 days.

Back in 2003, the US stockpile stood at about 10,000 crusie missiles, many of the older variety from the 1980s and 1990s. Almost all of those have since been retired or expended. The current stockpile stands at about 3000 of the latest Tomahawk cruise missiles with a target stockpile of around 6000. The US would burn through 6000 faster than it could replace them in a conflict with China. This is true of our lauded new weapons as well, as effective as they are. The Long Range Anti-Ship cruise missile, which very well may be the most capable anti-ship missile in the world, will only ever be produced in numbers totalling around 120, because the plan is for it to be a stop gap to a permanent solution (an improved version is an option), that will be procured in larger numbers around 2022 or 2023.

This illustrates a few key points to understanding how the US's legs in a fight vs China would look, and some US procurement practices.

First, US stockpiles are too small, and recognized as too small some years ago, which is why Mattis' two budgets focused heavily on munitions procurement, with the intent to grow them to be able to sustain a fight with Russia and China over a number of years. A few weeks ago when Trump said something to the extent of, at the time he became President, "the military had no bullets", this is the source of that statement, before his potato brain processed it into the dumbest form possible. But US stockpiles are growing and are set to continue to grow. And a lot of it is based around the emerging threats of our time: anti-ship, anti-aircraft, anti-missile, and short-rage air defense (anti-drone).

Notably the US is about four years out from deploying two new anti-air missiles: a potential all-in-one replacement for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D that would allow the F-35 to carrier more shots, and an extraordinarily long ranged missile (300+km) known as the AIM-260, that would be a two stage air to air missile to take out Chinese J-20s before they fire their PL-15s (around 150-200 km).

This is important because a decade ago, the US wasn't even talking about any of this. Now it is buying it.

Secondly, rate of production of military equipment is too slow to count on substantial, regardless of country. The US could add a third shift to the Tomahawk production line, and weekends, and with other efficiencies raise the annual production rate of its one plant to somehwere over 500 most likely. But eventually it'll need more plants. And furthermore the one-plant approach introduces a single point of failure. If in 20 years, China has its own hypersonic prompt global strike weapons, as expected, a key target would be Lockheed Facilities at Fort Worth, which is where the F-35 is produced now, and presumably the only location in the US that will produce whatever is coming next. If that got blown up, the US would be unable to reconstitute stealth aircraft production for the remainder of the conflict in all liklihood.

Thirdly, the US model of procurement is largely of "buy to keep", which is very different than the Russian and Chinese model. To explain what I mean, consider the Century-series aircraft in the 1950s and 1960s. There was a lot of innovation at the time in the field, but beyond that the US only gave out contrcts with the understanding it would build a set amount (lets say 1000), fly them for a bit over a decade, and then national guard or scrap them. So they built to several-thousand flying our targets for structural integrity, rather than the 8000, and even insane 20,000 hour targets modern aircraft are built to. There was no assumption we'd build to keep them, whereas today, the F-35s are being bought to fly for 50 years. Even, consider, the Minuteman III ICBM. They've been modularly replaced over the past 40 years (especially in the last 15), but there are components on them still that were fabricated before man landed on the Moon. But they're Rolls Royces. The US takes pristine care of them. Now by contrast, Russia stamps out a Topol or something, fields it for 10 years, and scraps it. And where it can't do that (like with ships), it life extends platforms that weren't designed to last nearly that long, which yields their famously decrepit state.

So in a fight, between the US and Russia, there is the things the US and China would have going into it - the ships and aircraft and missiles you see now, that are produced at slow rates and exist in numbers that would be fairly rapidly exhausted. But what if new types of ships, aircraft and missiles are fabricated with an expected duration of just "the war". That would certainly lower costs. And increase the ability of the US or China to stay in a fight.

One effort on that front is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie


The XQ-58 Valkyrie.

The XQ-58 is meant to demonstrate three concepts:
(1) Loyal Wingman. Basically the stealthy drone is slaved to a man aircraft. The drone can act as a munitions carrier (the manned aircraft can tell the drone to fire munitions), a "flying router" to act as a non-satellite data relay, or as an advanced spotter (the stealthy drone can go into defended airspace ahead of a non-stealthy manned aircraft). In theory, a manned aircraft could be paired with several of them.

(2) illustrate and develop drone-swarming tactics in air combat.

(3) Be rapidly reproducable and inexpensive by relying on 3D printing instead of time and labor intensive machining, wherever possible.

The idea is that in a conflict, being able to produce very large numbers of these via an semi-automated production, and give military aircraft, non-stealthy aircraft and semi-military platforms (such as a Gulfstream-derived business jet acting as a forward air controller) the offensive punch of a stealthy aircraft.

[Teleros]

The bases in Japan are capable of full overhauls of most ships and aircraft the US deploys to the region. There are ships that have been forward deployed to the country that haven't returned the North American continent in over a decade because they can be fully serviced there. Nagoya, Japan, for example, is the only facilities outside the US (Fort Worth) and Cameri, Italy that do final assembly of the F-35.

Better hope the nothing gets sabotaged or broken in Nagoya then...

The Chinese Navy and Air Force is not large enough (by far), or capable enough to deny the US resupply to the region while engaging in their own force protection.

They don't need to do all that much of their own force protection though. Keeping US carrier groups out of the western Pacific means the Chinese navy & airforce has a much easier time dealing with any supply missions, and being a continental power there's only so much damage the remaining US Pacific forces can do to them. A bit like UK vs Germany in WW1, except China's so much bigger than Germany it's not funny.

The most crucial factor is fuel. It was during World War II. It was a major focus of controlling certain regions during the Cold War. And it would be today and tomorrow. The lifeblood of any force is things oil is refined into. China is singularly dependent on imports. Despite increase in refining capacity in recent years, China is extremely depedent on external sources for gas, crude and refined products, almost all of which go through by sea through Strait of Malacca.

Hitting the fuel tankers bound for China (I'm assuming overland pipelines, existing & future, aren't enough for China) risks bringing Russia & Iran into the war though, which the US might not want to do for obvious reasons. The rest of the world will scream bloody murder at blame the US if going after Iranian oil tankers leads to the closure of the Persian Gulf. Oh, those tankers might be Iranian or neutral in name only, but there'll be plenty in the media who'll report it as the US hitting non-Chinese targets and all that fun stuff.

Because in a war with China, one of the principle things the US would do is to "starve the beast".

That requires a long time to work though (again, look how long Germany held out under blockade in the two world wars), and I doubt the ability of the US to maintain that commitment with all the social and political unrest at home. I'm sure the Chinese government won't bat an eye when it comes to rationing critical materials, outright banning petrol vehicles, and so on... but back in the US, you've got to figure on probably half the country being opposed to this war, and that's without all the saboteurs and other shenanigans going on. There's upwards of 4 million Chinese living in the USA, and you can bet there'll be plenty of non-Chinese willing to help out too.

It would be very difficult for China to do to the US what we'd do to it in this regard.

That's true*, but the US equally has serious issues in that it has to project force halfway around the world, and then maintain it, in China's back yard in order to win. The Chinese will have a much easier time because their goals are (a) much more limited, and (b) much closer to home.

*Although the US has its own weaknesses in this regard due to the number of Chinese nationals - ie potential spies & saboteurs - embedded in every level of the US military-industrial complex & government.

But what if new types of ships, aircraft and missiles are fabricated with an expected duration of just "the war". That would certainly lower costs. And increase the ability of the US or China to stay in a fight.

I'd assume that this is the route the Chinese would go down first, and maybe the US later, assuming it's still in the war by that stage. "Good enough" planes & tanks and such can be manufactured at much higher rates, but of course the downside is higher casualties because maybe you need two such tanks to beat an Abrams on average (bit simplified but you get the idea). This goes back to morale though - the Chinese are going to be much better able to absorb high casualties than the USA.

Speaking of bombing campaigns and so on though, don't overestimate their effectiveness. They proved singularly ineffective everywhere from WW2 to Vietnam, so beyond hitting the odd single point of failure, I'm not expecting much from either side in this regard (obviously, we're also talking a non-nuclear war).

[Easo]

I'd assume that this is the route the Chinese would go down first, and maybe the US later, assuming it's still in the war by that stage. "Good enough" planes & tanks and such can be manufactured at much higher rates, but of course the downside is higher casualties because maybe you need two such tanks to beat an Abrams on average (bit simplified but you get the idea). This goes back to morale though - the Chinese are going to be much better able to absorb high casualties than the USA.

Speaking of bombing campaigns and so on though, don't overestimate their effectiveness. They proved singularly ineffective everywhere from WW2 to Vietnam, so beyond hitting the odd single point of failure, I'm not expecting much from either side in this regard (obviously, we're also talking a non-nuclear war).

Good enough today still takes months. Unless you think that people are going to go to war in T-34's after the initial casualties destroy the tank inventory, no, today we are really not going to be building a lot of tanks during war nor would they. Because they have tens of millions of possible recruits does not mean they have magical logistical skill to support them.

It is hard to overestimate. Air power was one of the deciding factors of WW2. It won Pacific, for example. From Midway (and Pearl Harbour, actually, because it started to show the future) to nuking Japan, it enabled the victory.

[Thekri]

Good enough today still takes months. Unless you think that people are going to go to war in T-34's after the initial casualties destroy the tank inventory, no, today we are really not going to be building a lot of tanks during war nor would they. Because they have tens of millions of possible recruits does not mean they have magical logistical skill to support them.

It is hard to overestimate. Air power was one of the deciding factors of WW2. It won Pacific, for example. From Midway (and Pearl Harbour, actually, because it started to show the future) to nuking Japan, it enabled the victory.

Well... I think a better argument would be Submarine warfare actually won the pacific, with Airpower and Ground Offensive pretty much just kicking the extra point to win the game.

In the military we have a saying "Amateurs talk tactics, Professionals talk logistics". It is completely true, logistics is what wins wars, and Submarines are the reigning world champs at screwing over logistical supply lines. The US and China could absolutely boom into mass production of military hardware, but it would take about a year to really hit a stride, with exponential growth every year after that if they could keep their industrial areas from being attacked. In the short term, the submarine war would be key to throttling the others growth and global influence.

It is easy to focus on the big flashy surface ships, that is kind of what they are there for after all, but by far the biggest naval threat to china is our Submarine force. The US currently has 50 SSNs in service, with another 4 SSGNs. (We aren't going to count the SSBNs, because they aren't going to play until about 45 minutes before the war ends...) Each of those SSNs is extremely advanced, very modern, very fast, and incredibly lethal. They can easily sink any surface ship in their Area of Operations, while deploying SOF teams for shore operations, and launching cruise missiles to strike key targets on land. They also dunk on Chinese Submarines hard, due to the lack of Submarine experience in the PLAN, as well as the fact that their modernization and maintenance tends to be crap (All consequences of the Chinese Navy being the bastard child of their army).

The cruise missile threat vastly complicates China's air defense, because it makes every square inch of the Indian and Pacific oceans a potential launching point for a volley of cruise missiles. And 50 of these subs means that nothing leaves port safely.

Again, the US doesn't have any reason to deploy Carriers near China unless it wants too, and feels safe in doing so.

[Kellhound]

"Hurr durr look at our high tech stuff beating the fuzzy-wuzzies" seems to have been the reason this time :P . Too bad they had a competent red team leader though .


That's what we call an acceptable trade.


How effective are those US forces in SK or Japan (etc) going to be without resupply though? The Chinese can win a war of attrition against them at that point, until the US public, and/or the SK / Japanese governments, gets tired and demands they leave.

Spoken as a person with no clue about military affairs.

Damaged carrier for lost high end sub? Not a great long term trade, especially if you are on said sub....

China does not have the naval or air power needed to blockade Japan. The US and Japan have more subs than China and far more ASW assets. The PLA-AF lacks sufficient long range aircraft to take on the USAF/USN/JASDF near friendly bases.

- - - Updated - - -

Better hope the nothing gets sabotaged or broken in Nagoya then...


They don't need to do all that much of their own force protection though. Keeping US carrier groups out of the western Pacific means the Chinese navy & airforce has a much easier time dealing with any supply missions, and being a continental power there's only so much damage the remaining US Pacific forces can do to them. A bit like UK vs Germany in WW1, except China's so much bigger than Germany it's not funny.


Hitting the fuel tankers bound for China (I'm assuming overland pipelines, existing & future, aren't enough for China) risks bringing Russia & Iran into the war though, which the US might not want to do for obvious reasons. The rest of the world will scream bloody murder at blame the US if going after Iranian oil tankers leads to the closure of the Persian Gulf. Oh, those tankers might be Iranian or neutral in name only, but there'll be plenty in the media who'll report it as the US hitting non-Chinese targets and all that fun stuff.


That requires a long time to work though (again, look how long Germany held out under blockade in the two world wars), and I doubt the ability of the US to maintain that commitment with all the social and political unrest at home. I'm sure the Chinese government won't bat an eye when it comes to rationing critical materials, outright banning petrol vehicles, and so on... but back in the US, you've got to figure on probably half the country being opposed to this war, and that's without all the saboteurs and other shenanigans going on. There's upwards of 4 million Chinese living in the USA, and you can bet there'll be plenty of non-Chinese willing to help out too.


That's true*, but the US equally has serious issues in that it has to project force halfway around the world, and then maintain it, in China's back yard in order to win. The Chinese will have a much easier time because their goals are (a) much more limited, and (b) much closer to home.

*Although the US has its own weaknesses in this regard due to the number of Chinese nationals - ie potential spies & saboteurs - embedded in every level of the US military-industrial complex & government.


I'd assume that this is the route the Chinese would go down first, and maybe the US later, assuming it's still in the war by that stage. "Good enough" planes & tanks and such can be manufactured at much higher rates, but of course the downside is higher casualties because maybe you need two such tanks to beat an Abrams on average (bit simplified but you get the idea). This goes back to morale though - the Chinese are going to be much better able to absorb high casualties than the USA.

Speaking of bombing campaigns and so on though, don't overestimate their effectiveness. They proved singularly ineffective everywhere from WW2 to Vietnam, so beyond hitting the odd single point of failure, I'm not expecting much from either side in this regard (obviously, we're also talking a non-nuclear war).

It is the US subs China would be fretting over, not carriers, to defend their SLOCs.

Sabotage inside the US would just harden overall US resolve.

The bombing campaigns of WWII were very effective in totality. Bombing in Vietnam was too limited to have any effect. Single point of failure? Three Gorges Dam.

[Skroe]

Better hope the nothing gets sabotaged or broken in Nagoya then...

The only "sabotage" on the scale you're describing came as a result of the Nazis utilizing forced labor and companies of occupied European countries forced to work with the Nazis doing their best to gum up the works. It's not a real thing with respect to the modern US defense industrial complex. The biggest sabotage concern would be in counterfiet microchips, but the US military has diligently worked (and largely succeeded) and moving its procurement pipeline for that away from China in recent years, while verifying it's buying what it thinks it is buying.

So not a real thing.

They don't need to do all that much of their own force protection though. Keeping US carrier groups out of the western Pacific means the Chinese navy & airforce has a much easier time dealing with any supply missions, and being a continental power there's only so much damage the remaining US Pacific forces can do to them. A bit like UK vs Germany in WW1, except China's so much bigger than Germany it's not funny.

Um... US submarines would make short work of Chinese supply lines. And what those didn't get, long range bombers would.

The US approach would be to gradually move closer to China as China's reach is progressively degraded.

Hitting the fuel tankers bound for China (I'm assuming overland pipelines, existing & future, aren't enough for China) risks bringing Russia & Iran into the war though, which the US might not want to do for obvious reasons. The rest of the world will scream bloody murder at blame the US if going after Iranian oil tankers leads to the closure of the Persian Gulf. Oh, those tankers might be Iranian or neutral in name only, but there'll be plenty in the media who'll report it as the US hitting non-Chinese targets and all that fun stuff.

Nonsense. Complete nonsense. Did you live through the Iraq War period as an adult? The chief priority of every country on Earth was to keep their head down and stay out of the fighting. They didn't want to become a target for US sanctions or consequences later on. This is because the US sternly punished anyone who helped Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War.

Russia and Iran are far more likely to cease oil shipments to China all together, than risk a military confrontation with the US over it. Because a conflict would make a center of global change a military free-fire zone, the price of oil would skyrocket and supply concerns rose. Iran and Russia would find many eager - and willing buyers.

The rest of the world wouldn't do squat because "screaming bloody murder" doesn't actually do anything. If the US commits to a military confrontation with China, it wouldn't do it in a piecemeal fashion. It would be the largest mobilization of the US Armed Forces since World War II. It would be far larger than the Iraq War. Their concern will be the shape of the post-War order and their role in it. Because consider the three outcomes:

(1) The US wins, and China is contained and declawed, in which case the US remains hegenomic in the international system... and it will collect scalps of those who crossed it.
(2) China wins, and the US-era as we know it ends. Unlikely for many reasons, but were it to occur, the risk would be the US taking aggressive steps to reassert its authority. Therefore staying out of it is the most conservative option.
(3) A negotiated standown, probably organized by Germany, Russia, the UK and France, to the status quo ante. Nothing fundamentally changes, and both the US and China remain in a position to exact consequences on those who crossed it.

The international system and broader international community is weak. Very very weak. And Russia, Iran, and others are in no position to make threats they can't follow through with. They'll seek instead to capitalize on the moment to advance their own goals. For Russia, this would likely mean mischief in its near abroad. For Iran, this would likely mean taking advantage of US distraction to prod Saudi Arabia.

That requires a long time to work though (again, look how long Germany held out under blockade in the two world wars), and I doubt the ability of the US to maintain that commitment with all the social and political unrest at home. I'm sure the Chinese government won't bat an eye when it comes to rationing critical materials, outright banning petrol vehicles, and so on... but back in the US, you've got to figure on probably half the country being opposed to this war, and that's without all the saboteurs and other shenanigans going on. There's upwards of 4 million Chinese living in the USA, and you can bet there'll be plenty of non-Chinese willing to help out too.

This is so weird. I'm not sure what to say to it. The US would only engage in such a military conflict if fundamentally provoked - likely an attack on US assets in the Western Pacific. Such an act, as it always does, would galvanize and unfiy US public opinion.

I'm not sure if you're living in the moment too much or what not, but you would be far, far from the first person to mistake American political fighting as something more.

And more to the point, I think the US has destroyed the GHost of Vietnam. I don't understand how you can reasonably say the US wouldn't have legs in the conflict, when it's been at war for nearly 20 years without stopping, and many thousands of US soldiers have died in the wars and results questionable. Military setbacks would more likely galvanize public opinion towards a renewed offensive, rather than a negotiated end. Rapid withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, were never popular, because the American people have understood for years that doing things right is better than doing them fight.

That's true*, but the US equally has serious issues in that it has to project force halfway around the world, and then maintain it, in China's back yard in order to win. The Chinese will have a much easier time because their goals are (a) much more limited, and (b) much closer to home.

First it's not "equal" at all. The US's military capacity in China's region has more power projection than all of China. And the supply lines work in our favor. It would be very, very difficult for China to interdict US supply lines traveling from the US West coast, to Hawaii, to Guam, and to Japan. And Chinese ship going that far for home would be easy prey for ASW and attack subs. Conversely it would relatively straight forward for the US to choke of China's supply lines via the Indian ocean, as I showed in the image above. China would not be able to easy break them, without destroying US naval and air capacity there, which it could not do. It doesn't have the ships or aircraft.

*Although the US has its own weaknesses in this regard due to the number of Chinese nationals - ie potential spies & saboteurs - embedded in every level of the US military-industrial complex & government.

This is just plain old racist. It is this mindset that rationalized Japanese internment during World War II. Anyone who is deemed by US intelligence to be a security risk would be deported well before hostilities began. But to classify a group of people as an intrinsic risk because of ethic background or national origin, is both empirically wrong and historically tried and failed.

Recall: all of the most damaging spies against the US during the Cold War were Americans who the Soviets turned.

The argument you're making - racist in truth - is an argument for a quality counterintelligence operation to find who among all people living in the country is spying.

I'd assume that this is the route the Chinese would go down first, and maybe the US later, assuming it's still in the war by that stage. "Good enough" planes & tanks and such can be manufactured at much higher rates, but of course the downside is higher casualties because maybe you need two such tanks to beat an Abrams on average (bit simplified but you get the idea). This goes back to morale though - the Chinese are going to be much better able to absorb high casualties than the USA.

Flat out wrong. As kellhound relayed above, "Good enough" still means long productions schedules.

As for "Chinese are going to be much better able to absorb high casualties than the USA", this is unfounded, unproven and not to mention condescending to both sides.

On the one hand, do you say that because China has so many people who are so ideological that they don't have families to? That's... pretty fucking racist if so. More realistically, there is no evidence China would respond any which way, because they have no experience in military conflicts that lead to large number of casualties in modern times. More likely, they'd do exactly as Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union did and Russia still does, which is to classify military losses, swear survivors to secrecy, and hold secret burials. Five years ago, Shalcker, voicing Russian state officials, engaged in an entire campaign of disinformation about the casualties Russia endured in Ukraine, which were substantial. Because if the truth had been known, it would have turned Russians against the war.

On the flipside, I'll repeat myself... on what basis do you claim the US would be unable to deal with large numbers of casualties? It has done so in the War on Terror / Iraq War. You may not remember, but there were months in Iraq in 2005-2007 where the US lost hundreds of troops. Public opinion demanded a redesign of the War Strategy - which lead to the Surge - and not rapid withthrawl. I'm not sure how anyone can claim, after the Brushfire wars since 2001, the US is somehow casualty-soft. That's a canard that goes back to Vietnam and time and again proves baseless. Careful and not treating troops as cannon fodder like Russia does doesn't mean soft.

Speaking of bombing campaigns and so on though, don't overestimate their effectiveness. They proved singularly ineffective everywhere from WW2 to Vietnam, so beyond hitting the odd single point of failure, I'm not expecting much from either side in this regard (obviously, we're also talking a non-nuclear war).

This is just so factually wrong I'm not sure what to say. World War II's bombing campaigns were extraordinarily effective at demolishing the war fighting capability of Japan and Germany. And today, a single attack aircraft carries far more effective punch than the bomber squadrons of old, because precision guided munitions will absolutely hit their targets.

[Klok]

This is just plain old racist. It is this mindset that rationalized Japanese internment during World War II. Anyone who is deemed by US intelligence to be a security risk would be deported well before hostilities began. But to classify a group of people as an intrinsic risk because of ethic background or national origin, is both empirically wrong and historically tried and failed.

This is the same person that advocated deporting 100 million plus Hispanics from the US in another thread because he thinks they're going to lead to the destruction of the country somehow.

[ringpriest]

The number of airwings is appropriate for the number of carriers, because one carrier is always undergoing refueling. The size of the airwings is too small as the A-6/KA-6 and S-3/ES-3s were not replaced. The F/A-18F with CFTs is able to replace the F-14, as the latest AMRAAMs are far more reliable than the AIM-54 and almost match it for range. The payload capacity of the A-6 can be matched by the Super Hornet, but not its range. On the other hand, the Super Hornet can self-escort where the A-6 was a sitting duck if not escorted, so its extended range was of limited value. Plus the F-14 and A-6 were maintenance HOGS even under good conditions, and you would be lucky to have 50% fully combat capable underway.

You're right about the need for larger air wings; but if it ever plans on fighting anyone who can shoot back, the USN needs more air wings (or more trained squadrons in places like the TSW), so that it can replace casualties.

Really, the US needs to reduce the carrier fleet to 8: one being refueled, 6 on the West Coast, and one forward deployed to Europe that shares deployments with the French and UK carriers. Cut the airwings to 7, but beef up each wing to have 5 Super Hornet squadrons, 1-2 F-35 squadrons, a 10 plane EA-18G squadron, and split the helicpoter and AEW assets of the 2 disestablished wings to the remaining ones.

That cut to the carrier fleet makes sense if the US chooses to focus on China; but that will only work if the United States is able to disentangle itself from the Middle East (and not worry about any sudden Russian coup de main ).

[arandomuser]

MAGA dont want us to be a geopolitical superpower maga people are like the people in nazi germany who said " oh i heard about the camps but i love hitler because i had a job" they are simple minded, they have no ideology, they dont read, they are a good case against the failures of universal suffrage, now on to how that is relevent, it is clear that trump is destroying our country inside out, but plays the role of a nationalist to the average uneducated common man who has no understanding of the policies trump is doing.

[Teleros]

Damaged carrier for lost high end sub? Not a great long term trade, especially if you are on said sub....

What the people on the sub feel is irrelevant provided they do their duty. Yeah, sometimes you draw the short straw and get sent on the suicide mission.

China does not have the naval or air power needed to blockade Japan. The US and Japan have more subs than China and far more ASW assets. The PLA-AF lacks sufficient long range aircraft to take on the USAF/USN/JASDF near friendly bases.

That rather depends on whether the Japanese join in the war though. It's one thing to remain neutral but allow US forces to use their bases in Japan, it's another to actively go hunting subs.

It is the US subs China would be fretting over, not carriers, to defend their SLOCs.

The point is that if you drive out the carrier groups from the western Pacific you've already achieved one of your main objectives. I mean, unless we're positing some kind of lala-land war where China wants to conquer the continental US or something similarly retarded, then the Chinese objective is kicking the US out of what it sees as its sphere of influence - East Asia. Subs are good at what they do, but projecting power like a carrier group does ain't it.

Sabotage inside the US would just harden overall US resolve.

Possibly, though a lot depends on how it occurs etc. "Chinese bomb kills 20 at Lockheed Martin" will have a very different impact than "Chinese hacker shuts down Intel factory" or "Chinese spy steals F-35 plans" or whatever.

The bombing campaigns of WWII were very effective in totality. Bombing in Vietnam was too limited to have any effect. Single point of failure? Three Gorges Dam.

Good job the USAF has a clear route there over ~1,000km of China .

As for the strategic bombing campaigns in WW2... eh, not really. Years of flattening German cities didn't seem to do much to sap German morale or flatten their war industries, the Blitz was of course a miserable failure, and even after the US dropped two nukes on Japan it wasn't clear that the government would surrender (and in fact it nearly didn't).

Now for the US Airforce... a quick google says they have 744 B-52s, around 100 B-1Bs, and 21 B-2s. That's really not enough to conduct a strategic bombing campaign against a target the size of China. More importantly though, even if US factories can be set up to spam production of new bombers... will the public accept high casualty rates for a tactic that is of dubious utility? Probably not would be my guess.

= = =

The only "sabotage" on the scale you're describing came as a result of the Nazis utilizing forced labor and companies of occupied European countries forced to work with the Nazis doing their best to gum up the works. It's not a real thing with respect to the modern US defense industrial complex. The biggest sabotage concern would be in counterfiet microchips, but the US military has diligently worked (and largely succeeded) and moving its procurement pipeline for that away from China in recent years, while verifying it's buying what it thinks it is buying.

Again, there are an awful lot of Chinese nations working in the USA, including as US citizens. Unless you're going to purge them all in time (and won't that be a fun one for US morale?), then particularly given how reliant modern manufacturing is on computers... the US is going to have problems. The nazis were actually better insulated against this kind of thing because with WW2-era manufacturing it was harder to, as you say, gum up the works. Today though... well look what the Stuxnet virus did, for example.

Um... US submarines would make short work of Chinese supply lines. And what those didn't get, long range bombers would.

See above WRT strategic bombing.

As for US subs, you can't just handwave away how they'd do this when China could very easily get neutrals to ship stuff to them, without the US risking expanding the war to include, say, Iran, Russia, and so on.

Nonsense. Complete nonsense. Did you live through the Iraq War period as an adult?

China =/= Iraq.

Russia and Iran are far more likely to cease oil shipments to China all together, than risk a military confrontation with the US over it.

Says you. Seeing as how they're co-operating together already, and working to reduce US influence in the world, why would they suddenly turn their back on one of their key partners in this project like this? The US could in no way fight the three of them without nukes, and the Russians, Chinese & Iranians know it.

Iran and Russia would find many eager - and willing buyers.

Sounds like a way to persuade other countries (hi, Europe) to stay out of the war whilst they continue to ship stuff to China then.

The rest of the world wouldn't do squat because "screaming bloody murder" doesn't actually do anything.

Except hurt US civilian morale, reduce US reach and influence elsewhere in the world, and so on. What happens if all the European countries tell the USA get their forces out of Europe? I mean, I'm sure Putin won't see this as an opportunity to make sure Europe stays out - and perhaps even encourages them to ship stuff to the Chinese too...

(1) The US wins, and China is contained and declawed, in which case the US remains hegenomic in the international system... and it will collect scalps of those who crossed it.

Have fun fighting the same war in 20 years then. You're not going to be able to "contain and declaw" China without literally dismembering the entire PRC. No more China, hello Manchuria & all those other Europa Universalis IV countries. Otherwise... well look how quickly the Chinese built up their country after the Cultural Revolution. Now factor in too the fact that this war is presumably going to be a nuke-free war... the US just lacks the resources, not to mention the morale, to do this.

(2) China wins, and the US-era as we know it ends. Unlikely for many reasons, but were it to occur, the risk would be the US taking aggressive steps to reassert its authority. Therefore staying out of it is the most conservative option.

There'd be little risk of that, because the US is already getting close to balkanisation and break-up. The USA that fought WW1 and WW2 literally does not exist any more, thanks to the massive amount of immigration that's occurred.

(3) A negotiated standown, probably organized by Germany, Russia, the UK and France, to the status quo ante. Nothing fundamentally changes, and both the US and China remain in a position to exact consequences on those who crossed it.

Doubtful, though I suppose it's possible if it goes badly for the Chinese or something.

This is so weird. I'm not sure what to say to it. The US would only engage in such a military conflict if fundamentally provoked - likely an attack on US assets in the Western Pacific. Such an act, as it always does, would galvanize and unfiy US public opinion.

That worked in WW2, but it was already breaking down in Vietnam, and with the modern media AND the memory of Iraq & Afghanistan still fresh it wouldn't work at all.

And more to the point, I think the US has destroyed the GHost of Vietnam. I don't understand how you can reasonably say the US wouldn't have legs in the conflict, when it's been at war for nearly 20 years without stopping, and many thousands of US soldiers have died in the wars and results questionable. Military setbacks would more likely galvanize public opinion towards a renewed offensive, rather than a negotiated end. Rapid withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, were never popular, because the American people have understood for years that doing things right is better than doing them fight.

We're clearly getting our news from different sources :P .

First it's not "equal" at all. The US's military capacity in China's region has more power projection than all of China. And the supply lines work in our favor. It would be very, very difficult for China to interdict US supply lines traveling from the US West coast, to Hawaii, to Guam, and to Japan.

Intercepting stuff to Guam or Hawaii might be hard, but Japan is another matter, in particular because it's a third country, and therefore subject to Chinese diplomatic pressure. A Sino-American War is very different to one that involves the Japanese as an active participant.

And Chinese ship going that far for home would be easy prey for ASW and attack subs.

Of course it's a risk, maybe even a big one, but equally the Chinese capacity to absorb losses is much higher. That said, it's not like the Chinese aren't catching up with and/or surpassing the US (like the Russians with their hypersonic missiles).

Conversely it would relatively straight forward for the US to choke of China's supply lines via the Indian ocean, as I showed in the image above.

Yes. Provided, again, that the US is willing to sink neutral ships, and risk expanding the war as a consequence.

This is just plain old racist. It is this mindset that rationalized Japanese internment during World War II. Anyone who is deemed by US intelligence to be a security risk would be deported well before hostilities began. But to classify a group of people as an intrinsic risk because of ethic background or national origin, is both empirically wrong and historically tried and failed.

Sorry, I forgot about the Magic Dirt. Yes, yes, you're right: once you step foot on US soil or become a citizen, all your old loyalties and ties just vanish .

Recall: all of the most damaging spies against the US during the Cold War were Americans who the Soviets turned.

Like who exactly? The Rosenbergs (Jewish)? Noshir Gowadia (Indian)? Chi Mak (Chinese)? Larry Wu-Tai Chin (Chinese)? George Trofimoff (Russian)? I could go on, but you get the idea I hope.

As for "Chinese are going to be much better able to absorb high casualties than the USA", this is unfounded, unproven and not to mention condescending to both sides.

1. Compare the response to a few thousand casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq to the likely casualties in any great power war.
2. Compare the nationalism of the Chinese people to the patriotism of the USA. The former is noticeably stronger & more widespread than the latter.
3. Compare the social / political divisions of the USA to those of China.

On the one hand, do you say that because China has so many people who are so ideological that they don't have families to? That's... pretty fucking racist if so.

No, that's you projecting.

More realistically, there is no evidence China would respond any which way, because they have no experience in military conflicts that lead to large number of casualties in modern times. More likely, they'd do exactly as Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union did and Russia still does, which is to classify military losses, swear survivors to secrecy, and hold secret burials.

Probably, but on the other hand, they wiped out about 60 million of their own people under Mao and think nothing of it. Who do you think will maintain civilian morale better in a war?

1. A country where 60 million dead is a day ending in a -y, and with a civilian population used to hardship?
2. A country where a few thousand dead in the Middle East is too much, and with a decadent civilian population utterly unused to hardship?

On the flipside, I'll repeat myself... on what basis do you claim the US would be unable to deal with large numbers of casualties? It has done so in the War on Terror / Iraq War. You may not remember, but there were months in Iraq in 2005-2007 where the US lost hundreds of troops.

God only knows what would have happened if today's public had been confronted with WW1/2 casualties. Widespread civil unrest, probably.

This is just so factually wrong I'm not sure what to say. World War II's bombing campaigns were extraordinarily effective at demolishing the war fighting capability of Japan and Germany.

I know, the Germans collapsed so quickly once the US began bom- oh. No, wait a minute, they didn't. They kept fighting right up until the bitter end. Well, at least the Japanese caved once it happened to the- no, no wait, that's also wrong. In fact, even after they were nuked many of their military leaders wanted to continue fighting, and even tried to mount a coup. Oh, and let's not forget how quickly Britain caved after Coventry was flat- no, that didn't happen either. Huh.

Strategic bombing in WW2 was simply not that effective.

And today, a single attack aircraft carries far more effective punch than the bomber squadrons of old, because precision guided munitions will absolutely hit their targets.

Even when the targets have modern AA and ECM? Okay...

[Kellhound]

You're right about the need for larger air wings; but if it ever plans on fighting anyone who can shoot back, the USN needs more air wings (or more trained squadrons in places like the TSW), so that it can replace casualties.



That cut to the carrier fleet makes sense if the US chooses to focus on China; but that will only work if the United States is able to disentangle itself from the Middle East (and not worry about any sudden Russian coup de main ).

2-3 airwings are always going to be available for attrition, plus the RAG squadrons. In a major war, EVERYONE is going to become short on functional aircraft.

The Middle East doesnt really call for a full time carrier presence, land based aircraft are more than capable of handling any combat.

- - - Updated - - -

What the people on the sub feel is irrelevant provided they do their duty. Yeah, sometimes you draw the short straw and get sent on the suicide mission..............

All of those little islands China built in the SCS are VERY vulnerable to US assault, and the carriers would not be driven far enough away to prevent them from flattening those islands. THAT is what is in play. Japan will not just stay out of a fight when China is involved, too much is at stake.

The bombing of Germany had significant impact on war production. Its not about how much they still made, it is about how much more they were not able to. Then there is the huge outlay of fighters, AAA, and manpower to defend against it.

Really, it seems you are a bit in over your head here.