Possibly a variety of aircraft, inclusinve of their newly purchased SU-33's from Russia
Posted on 01/04/2007 3:31:25 PM PST by Paul Ross
Your lack of faith in our dynamic capabilities disturbs me.
Of course if you would have stated "our political will as a country" instead of "stolen secrets", it would have made for a thoughtful and interesting discussion on the matter.
Possibly a variety of aircraft, inclusinve of their newly purchased SU-33's from Russia
I have faith when we have political will. But when the evidence is overwhelming that it is absent...or worse...
I suspect the next generation of space travel will only make large military assets like naval vessels even less important in future large-scale warfare.
a carrier makes a pretty big blip on a satellite map. from then on, it is just a ICBM or IRBM targeting issue...
It makes any other Navy merely targets.. very expensive targets..
OH! and then theres our subs.. and many decades of experience with a nuclear Navy..
And a Navy College that studies cases just like this..
"A man has to know his limitations"- Dirty Harry..
A brand new Chinese navy needs some humility..
I'm sure that the Chinese carrier would last about 10 minutes in a shooting war with the United States.
Your post, and the Heritage article, are about Chinese submarines and the size of the Chinese navy in general, and that's a legitimate point to raise. But the Chinese carrier is purely for prestige, period. They can't go carrier-less while regional rival India plans to expand to a 3-carrier navy in the near future. But there's no doubt that we can kill an enemy carrier a lot easier than the Chinese can kill one of ours, at least for the time being.
These military appliances such as the SU-33 are a concern perhaps I'd say,if China decided to take Taiwan back, however not a concern for our own sovereignty.
The lack of political backbone would make for a much greater concern.
After the GHWB Is #78, which unfortunately (in my opinion) is likely to be the Gerald R. Ford. It will also be a new class, which will be (unfortunatley, in my opinion) the Ford Class.
Just watched a program on the History channel about the Russian navy and their various anti ship missiles, some of which are fired in groups of 24 with one taking a high altitude position to mark for the others. If the high one is destroyed another takes its place. Certainly questions the idea of a big Navy unless ships have redundant defenses above and below sea.
And pray tell us just how that magical $100,000 missile gets within effective range and gets properly targetted without something like a comprehensive Blue Water navy?
***I think maybe a $2M missile could do the trick. China has missiles that they lob past Taiwan whenever they want to cause trouble. A little bit of DSP retrofitting could make those missiles target a big infrared box like a carrier. All the more reason to push the AirBorneLaser:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1761844/posts
Lockheed Martin Providing Solutions for American Missile Defense Program
http://www.militaryglobal.com/reports/288 ^
Prior Posting on different thread:
China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1285398/posts?page=1
Posted by Kevin OMalley to neutronsgalore
On News/Activism 12/23/2004 9:43:57 AM PST · 411 of 446
"Their ballistic missile technology is improving every day. It won't be surprising if in 5 to 10 years their tactical ballistic missiles will be accurate enough to pick particular buildings within a targeted base to hit. Send a 100 or more missiles at each base, and there's not enough left standing to mount a defense with. "
With that kind of missile accuracy, hitting as large a target as an aircraft carrier would be just as easy, except that the big boxes move. However, the algorithms for finding a big, boxy radar/infrared signature on the open sea are very straightforward. I'm sure the free traders have already transferred that technology.
Actually, the Navy has been shrinking since Reagan.
I see they like the Russian designed foredeck.
You can't project force without carriers.
Something we tend to do a lot of.
I fear the effects of Clintoon on the military will haunt us for years.
Of the many egregious myths about military matters, one of the biggest myths is a GREATLY exaggerated sense of the ability of satellites to find and track stuff, largely because of inaccurate portrayals of the use of recon satellites in a lot of bad spy movies.
.
NEVER FORGET
"It will take decades to undo the damage these two (The CLINTONS) have done to our Country" ...
...Lt. Gen. HAL G. MOORE (Ret.) - 1998
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set2.htm
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14752
NEVER FORGET
.
"I fear the effects of Clintoon on the military will haunt us for years."
Yep the Chinese gained lots of secrets under the clintuns but they are financing the buildup with yearly $220+ billion trade defecits (and growing) under GW's watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.