#8245

America’s eight-at-a-time submarine picket in or near Chinese waters could be equally destructive to Chinese military plans, especially considering the PLA’s limited anti-submarine skills. “Although China might control the surface of the sea around Taiwan, its ability to find and sink U.S. submarines will be extremely limited for the foreseeable future,” Cliff testified. “Those submarines would likely be able to intercept and sink Chinese amphibious transports as they transited toward Taiwan.”

Clearly you’re not the one reading here, if you don’t want to have a serious discussion, then say so and don’t waste my time.

Every single time we’ve talked about China taking out U.S carriers, you have said China could very easily take out a U.S carrier group. If you want i can go back and find what you said.

But now when China is on the receiving end of U.S subs, we can’t touch them.

I’m almost positive we already are, as we have a fleet near Korea.

No, China wants to expand, and really the only thing standing in their way is the U.S. The Chinese believe war with the U.S is inevitable.

You said.

You then typed this elaborate Special forces plan, without naming any other way China could take Taiwan.

Further proof you did not read the article. The PLA has extremely limited anti sub capabilities, it’s a stretch that they could even locate our subs.

It has always been thought that China needed a huge number of troops to storm Taiwan. It’s always been looked at as tough nut to crack hence the name the “unsinkable aircraft carrier”. Of course it’s easier for China to invade today than it was 40-50 years ago, but it still would be near impossible. This is why China has not made a move for it yet.

Realistically China would just bombard Taiwan into rubble, then occupy it later, there is no need for them to lose possibly hundreds of thousands of troops.

Actually that is what you said in a nut shell, and then went on to say the world has no honor anymore.

THEY ARE THERE MILITARY COMMANDERS. They are the ones saying stupid ass shit like this.

This is true , how ever Taiwan merely has to defend, something i would think would be far easier than capturing a heavily fortified island. Taiwan also has the U.S to advise it and no country has been in more wars in the last 50 years than the U.S.

#8246

Yeah but no angled deck, or catapults pfft. :wink: I’m no expert but according to many its quite a ways behind U.S carriers.

How is it the most advanced? I have trouble believing the U.K with a limited military budget can make the most advanced AA ship. I’m sure it’s one of the most advanced, but certainly not the most.

Again you cannot say an untested piece of equipment is the most advanced in the world. Notice when I’m talking about U.S tech i say “one of the most advanced”.

#8247

I have read up on the AA ship and it appears it is the one of if not the most advanced. But i didn’t find anything saying the subs were the most advanced in the world.

#8248

clearly , you lack the inability to understand what the admiral is discussing , i say again . at no point does he disagree with my point .

he is discussing the open sea around taiwan . that the US would be able to intercept before the Chinese reached the taiwan straight .

which it could with ease as the current chinese navy is not built for the open sea . but that would require the US to launch a pre-emptive strike on the chinese before they even fired a shot towards tawain . thus meaning you would have to ok that with the senate and get the go ahead .

you know as well as i do , that any military action against china would be huge debate politically . this is why i say in the real world you wouldnt react quick enough .

if you did decide to do something , taiwan would have already fell and you would have a Falklands situation where you will have to liberate the island back .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
Every single time we’ve talked about China taking out U.S carriers, you have said China could very easily take out a U.S carrier group. If you want i can go back and find what you said.

But now when China is on the receiving end of U.S subs, we can’t touch them.
[/quote] go back and find them then .
the closet i have ever said that is that had that situation (from the article happened ) in a real situation you would of likely lost your carrier , maybe not sunk but it would have had to be withdrawn .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
I’m almost positive we already are, as we have a fleet near Korea.
[/quote] possibly if china deployed the missiles , but as is the case with AA systems they are not deployed during peacetime due to cost .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
No, China wants to expand, and really the only thing standing in their way is the U.S. The Chinese believe war with the U.S is inevitable
[/quote] yes this is true , china wants to be number one but the cost economically of going to war with you would likely cost them that number one spot anyway .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
You then typed this elaborate Special forces plan, without naming any other way China could take Taiwan.
[/quote] yes , i typed how the opening stages of any invasion would look like . also what a limited strike on taiwan would look like .

of which you agree with me here on

special forces and air , missile power . then occupation later

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
Further proof you did not read the article. The PLA has extremely limited anti sub capabilities, it’s a stretch that they could even locate our subs.
[/quote] further proof you dont use your common sense .

the taiwan straight , even done you a diagram

the area between the two red lines has an average depth of just 60 metres . very easy for sonar to spot anything in that depth .

china places its destroyers at both ends of that strait , and spread them out . as well as support them from land with anti-ship missiles / anti-air
any US submarine would have to pass them or sink them . the moment they did either the chinks would be alerted , allowing them to deploy anti-sub air assets as well as the other destroyers to sink the sub .

thus making any us submarine’s mission near impossible , or suicidal .

out on open sea china wouldnt have a hope in hell but confined in that small straight your subs would find it near impossible to sneak past .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
but it still would be near impossible. This is why China has not made a move for it yet.
[/quote] it would not be near impossible what so ever . taiwan admits themselves they could not defend any longer than a month .

it would take more than that for any sizeable US response .

doesnt matter how many subs you send once the chinks have a beach head they will just cargo kit in with planes and helicopters .
china would get air superiority pretty quickly , they out number taiwan in the air by a huge amount .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
Actually that is what you said in a nut shell, and then went on to say the world has no honor anymore.
[/quote] not its certainly not ,

is what i said .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
THEY ARE THERE MILITARY COMMANDERS. They are the ones saying stupid ass shit like this.
[/quote] no that was their minster of defence . he is a politician if he holds a position in government he is a politician , he does not represent the field commanders who would carry out and plan the operation .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8245, topic:21032”]
Taiwan also has the U.S to advise it and no country has been in more wars in the last 50 years than the U.S.
[/quote] but this is a very different kettle of fish , out of all them wars how many were conventional ? how many involved taking on a power anywhere close the china ?

iraq ? is the closet

but even then that was not fought on 3 levels but only land and air .

in terms of that we actually have the most experience . be it in the Falklands .

#8249

NOOOO, why in gods name would they go any other way than straight across the straight?!!! There is no point, in fact doing that would put them closer to our subs.

Actually I’m not positive on this but the subs in the area are directed to assist our alleys in the region should they come under attack.

It will take my a while, but first i’m finishing this comment.

You don’t understand China will NEVER be number 1 with us in that region. China wants the South China sea for resources and to control shipping lanes, they want Japans islands, and they want Taiwan.
The only thing stopping them is U.S involvement. There fore they will have to remove us, Chinese military commanders have entertained massive missile strikes against our bases, and ships in the region.

But in my opinion that will just kick up a hornets nest and send us to war.

Why even send special forces, it’s not like China needs any living people or intact cities in Taiwan. They just need the island to be able to protect their power in the region. Of course Taiwan would respond back with massive missile strikes but China could give two shits about loss of life.

I’m not certain on this but i’m pretty sure we have naval vessels already in the straight, maybe even subs ill have to look this up.

This depends on how many aircraft China is willing to lose, taking Taiwan could very well weaken them too much.

I’ll go grab the quote.

Look into things their generals have done and said. They replace them like made because the old ones get fired, jailed, executed or put in another position of power. Their generals are not real generals, they are only generals because they are good loyal communists.

Vietnam war. North Vietnam had very advanced AA (courtesy of the Russians) which actually fucked up our early bombing campaigns. They also had the latest migs (also courtesy of the Russians) which surprised us and costed us hugely in the air. It took us a while to pin them down and destroy them.

They simply didn’t have enough of the advanced tech to hold us off, but they were in many ways an advanced military. All this took place only 10-15 years before the Falklands war, so we have the most experience. That war lasted almost 20 years and a fair deal was conventional, it was the guerrillas that gave us trouble.

#8250

ive stated my opinions on that before , its fucking silly .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8246, topic:21032”]
I’m no expert but according to many its quite a ways behind U.S carriers.
[/quote] in some areas yes .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8246, topic:21032”]
How is it the most advanced? I have trouble believing the U.K with a limited military budget can make the most advanced AA ship. I’m sure it’s one of the most advanced, but certainly not the most
[/quote] it is the most advanced on the planet , note im using the word advanced and not best . :wink:

Likewise, the ships’ builders BAE Systems claim; "Able to detect and track hundreds of targets simultaneously, the Type 45 Destroyer is recognised as the most advanced anti-air warfare vessel in the world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

its a ship your fleets enjoy having hanging around them :slight_smile:

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8246, topic:21032”]
Again you cannot say an untested piece of equipment is the most advanced in the world. Notice when I’m talking about U.S tech i say “one of the most advanced”.
[/quote] notice i dont use the word best for the purpose of as you stated we cant compare until they see combat .

the astute class submarine is the most advanced in terms of tech on the planet currently , this is simply down to how new it is ,
your equivalent is the Virginia class which is a chunk cheaper than our i believe

these classes are considered the most advanced on the planet . and guess what ? :slight_smile: they had a show down :slight_smile: to see how they would react at fighting another world class submarine .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2855290/posts

#8251

I compared the two and ours are superior in every way. Nimitz class holds more aircraft, doesn’t have to refuel, is faster, can launch aircraft faster, can land air craft faster.

Maybe we’ll sell you our Nimitz class carriers when we replace them with the Ford class. :wink:

Okay you cannot link forums as a source during an argument. I clicked the the OPs link and it was dead so i’ll take that with a grain of salt.

#8252

im not talking about there im talking the technology on board . not simply the face value of the ship .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8251, topic:21032”]
Okay you cannot link forums as a source during an argument. I clicked the the OPs link and it was dead so i’ll take that with a grain of salt.
[/quote] that wasnt a forum .
how about our governments website then ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hms-astute-arrives-home-from-us-sea-trials--2

Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.

#8253

Well I’m guessing tech wise ours are better too, seeing how they’re better in every other category. It makes sense you would settle for less carriers are expensive the U.K doesn’t need them as much as the U.S does.

Uh,yeah that was…

Good enough for me

> Her sonar can track ships 3,000 miles (4,830km) away and her missiles have a target range of 1,200 miles (1,930km) - with accuracy measured in metres.

Voodoo :smile:

But in all fairness the sonar system on the USS New Mexico is 12 years old, while the Astute system is nearly brand new. Computer Technology advances so much faster than anything else.

I did a tour on the USS Midway, and the super computer on it was huge. It turns out you would need 35,000 of them to equal the power of one iphone. And the midway was only retired in 1995 and it was the pinnacle of technology.

#8254

because they dont house ships in the straight they would have to sail them in which is where the adrimal is saying they could sink them , which you could with fucking ease . but china would move the ships in place before hand likely under the rouse of an exercise and your political process would take too long to launch any pre-emptive strike .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8249, topic:21032”]
Actually I’m not positive on this but the subs in the area are directed to assist our alleys in the region should they come under attack.
[/quote] if part of a fleet then yes , but i cant see that being the case otherwise , that would be against your constitution surely ? i doubt your commander would carry it out as it would mean war with china so he would likely want a go ahead from above .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8249, topic:21032”]
You don’t understand China will NEVER be number 1 with us in that region. China wants the South China sea for resources and to control shipping lanes, they want Japans islands, and they want Taiwan. The only thing stopping them is U.S involvement. There fore they will have to remove us, Chinese military commanders have entertained massive missile strikes against our bases, and ships in the region.

But in my opinion that will just kick up a hornets nest and send us to war.
[/quote] if they get a navy capable of taking yours on at open sea then i think the risk of you getting involved becomes less and less , this is also the common view .

for the last number of years your view has been the accepted one by everyone including china that they would have to a peal harbour on you to keep you back .

but now and more so in 5-10 years time , that seems to be changing as they get more confident in their ability to hold a US counter attack off .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8249, topic:21032”]
Why even send special forces, it’s not like China needs any living people or intact cities in Taiwan. They just need the island to be able to protect their power in the region. Of course Taiwan would respond back with massive missile strikes but China could give two shits about loss of life.
[/quote] special forces ALWAYS go in . to identify targets and guide the rounds in .

even with drones , the human eye is still the preferred means of gathering intelligence. this was my units role . we acted as our bridgade commanders eyes and ears on the ground and he would then build his strategy around what we reported back .

that basically involved driving around until we got shot at then reporting that back so a picture could be drawn of where the enemy are located .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8249, topic:21032”]
I’m not certain on this but i’m pretty sure we have naval vessels already in the straight, maybe even subs ill have to look this up.
[/quote] i very much doubt this , its not so much your ability to sail down it . but the ability to stay hidden , its such a narrow and shallow strait , the chinks or anyone for that matter could have that entire area pinging with sonar , so any movement would be picked up .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8249, topic:21032”]
This depends on how many aircraft China is willing to lose, taking Taiwan could very well weaken them too much.
[/quote]i dont think they would lose to many to taiwan . they would likely wipe taiwans air force out while its on the ground , much like the israelis did to egypt . in operation focus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus

where taiwan is so small it wouldnt be hard to do this as id imagine they dont have many airforce bases so their airforce would be quite compacted .

if china pulled it off , taiwan would be screwed within days , as its ground forces would be easy pickings as would their AA .

if you got involved in the air which you would pretty quickly after being given the go ahead then you would do some damage but i think they would still win on pure numbers as well as you would be in range of their AA .

taiwan and korea i think would be the two worst places to take them on , anywhere other than them too china would lose all day long currently .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8249, topic:21032”]
Vietnam war. North Vietnam had very advanced AA (courtesy of the Russians) which actually fucked up our early bombing campaigns. They also had the latest migs (also courtesy of the Russians) which surprised us and costed us hugely in the air. It took us a while to pin them down and destroy them
[/quote] yes , true but another big power is another story . . china would massively outnumber you due to the location also

#8255

Okay I’m going to have to take at least an hour to find your posts, i always forget that we post about 500 times a day. :smile:

1 Like
#8256

this is depend on the area , i believe we have a new anti-sub system on board which is far more advanced than yours but thats simply down to it being newer .

but there is no question which carriers i would rather us have :slight_smile:

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8253, topic:21032”]
But in all fairness the sonar system on the USS New Mexico is 12 years old, while the Astute system is nearly brand new. Computer Technology advances so much faster than anything else.
[/quote] this is what i mean with our carriers .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8253, topic:21032”]
Good enough for me

> Her sonar can track ships 3,000 miles (4,830km) away and her missiles have a target range of 1,200 miles (1,930km) - with accuracy measured in metres.

Voodoo

But in all fairness the sonar system on the USS New Mexico is 12 years old, while the Astute system is nearly brand new. Computer Technology advances so much faster than anything else.
[/quote] submarines is one of only a few areas will still hold you too a close second :slight_smile:

alot of your commanders come to train with us also , this due to our training being seen as the worlds best , also you dont do much training in shallow waters where as we do alot . your training focuses primarily on deep water

In addition, the U.S. Navy’s focus on nuclear engineering at the expense of combat skills compounds the problem. British submarine officers who have served on exchange with the U.S. Navy have often commented that their American friends spend far too much time and money on nuclear engineering and not enough on seamanship and fighting the ship. Back in 2007, a senior Royal Navy submariner of my acquaintance told me about his experiences after completing a two year tour as an exchange officer with the U.S. Navy. He was not exactly thrilled with how the U.S. Navy trains its submarine skippers.

“There is a conflict between the focus on engineering and warfare. In the USN, engineering wins. Director, Naval Reactors [the admiral in charge of nuclear engineering] is without doubt the most powerful man in the Navy. The self-regulation that they have in place, accepted by the U.S. government, and very successful is paid for by their almost religious concentration on engineering. For example the U.S. submarine Command Course (28 students four times a year) consists of four weeks in the classroom and four weeks at sea and a 9-12 week nuclear engineering course. The average U.S. officer has conducted only two sea going posts at this stage (Junior Officer tour, generally in Engineering) and a Department Head tour. [This means that the U.S. Navy produces better engineers than warriors] The UK split between engineering and warfare is completely correct and many U.S. believe that as well. I have no engineering degree, however am capable of driving a submarine far more effectively than my U.S. counterparts. Experience and not restricting your search for submarine officers to within the engineering community is the key to success. I had 10 years at sea as a warfare officer before I started the Brit “Perisher” course and there were only four of us (six month course with nine weeks in the simulator and four weeks at sea). The difference is staggering. That is not to say that there are some exceptions. My previous U.S. Commodore was a tactical genius, however in 15 rides at sea on different US submarines, I have only found two CO’s who match a Brit.”

In other words, the Royal Navy, unlike the U.S. Navy, does not focus on engineering, and as a result it has a well-established reputation for producing some of the very best submarine captains in the world. In a recent exercise between the new British nuclear submarine HMS Astute and the USS New Mexico, a new Virginia class submarine, the captain of the Astute reported that his ship was easily able to deal with the USS New Mexico: “The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.”(7) Bear in mind that no ship is better than her crew, but it is all too common for people to praise equipment, and forget the human element. Without a well-trained and cohesive crew, the Astute and her excellent sonar would not prevail, and that is something that needs to be addressed in the U.S. Navy.

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2013/take-her-deep-reforming-the-us-silent-service.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/

#8257

good luck :slight_smile: because it doesnt exist anyway :slight_smile:

#8258

no wonder the country is fucked

1 Like
#8259

Doing that without rousing suspicion would be nearly impossible. Anytime China does a drill all our armed forces go on high alert.

It’s complicated. Only congress can declare war but we haven’t declared war since Korea. So if our allies were attacked the commanding officers could very do something.

Unlikely, we have plenty of instances where we’ve had troops killed by China or North Korea along the DMZ and vice versa. All that happens is strong letters of disapproval.

IF our subs caused enough damage to China before they got to Taiwan they would probably fuck off.

I wouldn’t say they are more confident in holding off a counter attack. They are more confident in causing so much damage that we don’t want to take revenge. But i honestly think they’re deeply wrong there.

Why would they need to though? They could literally just blanket the island with long range land missiles, they have plenty of spies there. China mainly just wants the Taiwanese government out of the picture, they see them as a threat to their authority and a rouge province.

Taiwan would have enough AA to cause a lot of damage to the Chinese air force. Like i said they’ve been preparing for this for years.

Well we were pretty much fighting Russia and China during Vietnam. And remember 90% of the battles the NVA had overwhelming numerical superiority. That didn’t stop us from beating the living shit out of them in every major engagement.

South Korea is a very strong military power though, now a days i’d say they’re on par with the U.K and France, they’ve lived in constant fear of an invasion so they dedicated so much time and money to prepare.

#8260

Well our carriers are our pride and joy, and are constantly being upgraded, so they’re almost certainly top notch when it comes to computer systems. After all a carrier relies less on that than a sub does, so i would say thats irrelevant.

By the time an Elizabeth class has 10 jets in the air a Nimitz has 40. :sunglasses: And with the angled deck we have aircraft landing and taking off at the same time. I find it funny you brits invented it and have never built a fucking carrier with one.

#8261

It does, you said that we wouldn’t get involved if Taiwan was attacked, because we trade with China. You then said the world has no honor anymore.

#8262

indeed they do , but the process of getting a green light on attacking them would still take time .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8259, topic:21032”]
It’s complicated. Only congress can declare war but we haven’t declared war since Korea. So if our allies were attacked the commanding officers could very do something.
[/quote] yes but you know as well as i do , a strike on china would be a huge political shit storm unless US forces were attacked of course , but china would play it smart im sure , to prolong your involvement until they were ready for you .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8259, topic:21032”]
Unlikely, we have plenty of instances where we’ve had troops killed by China or North Korea along the DMZ and vice versa. All that happens is strong letters of disapproval.

IF our subs caused enough damage to China before they got to Taiwan they would probably fuck off.
[/quote] indeed , i dont for a second doubt your ability to wipe them out at sea but we both know your military wouldnt get the green light in time , and once they get into the strait , you have issues as now they are in a much more defensive position .

thats the politics of war . no matter how good your armed forces is it will always been slowed down by politicians arguing . democracy problems :slight_smile:

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8259, topic:21032”]
Why would they need to though? They could literally just blanket the island with long range land missiles, they have plenty of spies there. China mainly just wants the Taiwanese government out of the picture, they see them as a threat to their authority and a rouge province.
[/quote] missiles are very expensive :slight_smile: and they are not designed for that anymore but rather pin point strikes .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8259, topic:21032”]
China mainly just wants the Taiwanese government out of the picture, they see them as a threat to their authority and a rouge province.
[/quote] indeed they do , as i mentioned before china has it in law the moment taiwan attempts independence china is free to attack , or if they feel talks are not going their way . no debates needed , just the nod from the president/chairman .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8259, topic:21032”]
Taiwan would have enough AA to cause a lot of damage to the Chinese air force. Like i said they’ve been preparing for this for years.
[/quote] indeed they do WHEN deployed .

which is why china would have to act fast so taiwan does not have time to set up .

as i said before AA is not deployed in peacetime , i was reading an article the other day saying taiwan should be permanently deploying their AA and anti-ship kit because the risk is so real but the issue with that is the cost of having it permanently deployed .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8259, topic:21032”]
Well we were pretty much fighting Russia and China during Vietnam. And remember 90% of the battles the NVA had overwhelming numerical superiority. That didn’t stop us from beating the living shit out of them in every major engagement.
[/quote] yes but its a completely different story fighting proper Chinese troops .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:8259, topic:21032”]
South Korea is a very strong military power though, now a days i’d say they’re on par with the U.K and France, they’ve lived in constant fear of an invasion so they dedicated so much time and money to prepare.
[/quote] i would agree but china could simply steam role along with the NK troops as cannon fodder , and i dont think we would have the power to fight that off .
or even enough rounds :slight_smile:

even in the last korean war , in individual battles we were fucking them up but the pure numbers overwhelmed us .

#8263
#8264

yea a bit like how we invented football , cricket and rugby yet fucking useless at them all :slight_smile: