Yeah, I was in the service. That doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to buy into the idea that they need to waste all my tax money on unnecessary boats. They already have the top of the line boats, things like this are just another way to waste tax money. Like the blue angels, 100% waste of tax money. Every time they go up, the cost of the fuel, the cost of transporting them, the pilots' paychecks, for what? So everyone knows our jets fly? We see that every day without wasting extra money.
Honestly I don't find the ship's shape as intimidating--it looks a bit goofy. GD should never forget attention to aesthetics--this is part of the ship's deterrence!
@HeadSHOT604 You are an oxymoron. You speak contradiction of your argument with your own words, let me quote your words "France helped design it" and "they just took ideas from their ships". US COPIED IT. Case closed.
@ThePizazzy Oxymoron? Are you fucking stupid oxymoron is a term used to describe two words that mean the opposite, go back to school first asshole then talk. The fact they helped it by giving their designs isn't copying dumbfuck.
Proudly built by Americans in the city of Mobile, Alabama and located just above the Twin Tunnels on Interstate 10 as you pass through you can see other ships just like this one being assembled inside the hugh hangers in the shipyard at Austal Marine...Awesome work being done there !
@nveesky General Dynamics Designed the ship. All the shipboard electronics are being built by General Dynamics in Pittsfield MA. Austal is the ship building company out of Alabama building and assembling the LCS.
Lol a stealth ship. I would rather a sub. Don’t get me wrong it looks good and im sure fulfills a niche function but a sub seems so much better all around.
@unambitious we already have some bad ass attack subs plus new attack subs are being developed this is more for spec ops support and helicopter support its relatively lightly armed
The front looks like a real waste of space. A large side target for other ships/submarines and no available space for crew/cargo/ammo/fuel or helipads..
@yvanster LOL, except all the Navy will be allowed to do is hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya. We need to just sink the little bastards and shell their ports.
Anyway I think a certain detail here is being ignored, mainly because in the wars of the last 20 years the US Navy has mostly used Cruise Missiles and Aircraft to attack its "enemies".
Realistically the US could allow itself only to deploy about 3-4 Aircraft Carriers, 3-6 Cruisers, 12-16 Destroyers, and 6-8 Submarines in a regional conflict with China(I exclude any kind of Amphibious Assault ships because their use is very unlikely in Chinese territorial seas). There are other theaters(Middle East for example) the US must maintain a presence and these would use up other resources. It is very unlikely the US could concentrate all of its Military resources to attack China.
Amphibious Assault Ships are only potential mass graves against a modern Military. And even if the US did somehow manage to land Marines on Chinese territory, how many hours would they survive?
This sounds as realistic as Hitler's plan to defeat the USSR within several weeks. Maybe around 1950 the US could have attempted an invasion of China, but today such an invasion would have slightly greater than zero chance for success.
@cr9527 Well considering they do have a larger army but not the same support for airforce power nor naval power, you can't invade a country that is 5000 miles away without a large force of combined branches. Sorry but China would be better off taking over eastern europe.
China's Military does not have to take over any continents, they are making economic and military agreements with countries in the Middle East, Africa, and South America which help China expand influence at little cost to China. China has mainly avoided US style "gunboat diplomacy" with other countries.
Chinese economy is far too fragile to be pulling strings against the US.
US Navy's goal was to make a point to India that the US got Pakistan's back. This is why they made no attempt to conceal it.
And again, you fail to see how SEAD works, MANPADs will shoot down some UAVs, but this will not be a big issue as if the defenses will only be using MANPADs to save the heavy equipment, then this effectively leaves them highly vulnerable to heavy bomber attacks.
One of the most import dependent economies is that of the US. I don't see how China's economy is more fragile than that of the US.
Whatever the intentions, the US was unable to successfully support Pakistan and Pakistan was defeated by India. My point originally - the US Navy was unable to move into the Indian ocean without the USSR detecting it.
I know perfectly well how Air Defenses are defeated, in theory. But this requires the Attacker's aircraft bases to be intact.
The Chinese Economy's only real weakness is dependence on imports of oil and natural gas, most of which comes from Russia and Central Asia, there is little threat of this supply disappearing.
No, but Bangladesh is no longer part of Pakistan.
How long is "quickly"? 1 week, 1 month?
I care about official statements of NATO as much as I do about the official statements of Adolf Hitler.
This is true for any nation which seeks to become a Superpower.
China does not only export to the US and has a diversified export Economy, losing the US market would damage the Chinese Economy but the sudden loss of cheap imports for the US would cause rapid inflation and shortages.
The US goal was to help Pakistan defeat India, which did not happen.
If much of the personnel of the airfield is dead who will repair it?
Rumors? I already said what NATO's goal was, every other statement was NATO propaganda.
The sudden loss of exports to the US would destroy the major source of income for China. Then you have the added effects of a naval blockade effectively cutting off all sea based trade.
The US goal was to prevent the conquering of Pakistan.
Do you know how much warhead a Chinese missile carries?
Typically 500lb-2000lb conventional.
There are roughly 300 missiles that can actually reach some US bases, about 20-50 that can reach Guam. An F-18 wing can do more damage.
And if they are torpedoed by Chinese Submarines with the loss of 100's of men who will be responsible?
Chinese Reservists armed only with bolt action rifles could overwhelm any US Marine Battalions that would try to land on Chinese territory simply with numerical superiority. Considering that in reality they have more than enough weapons to quickly mobilize several Reservist Infantry Divisions anywhere in China a US invasion of China is highly unlikely.
Numerical superiority means didly squat in todays battlefield, with massive support from both naval and air, a massed military force would simply be plowed through.
The US is always seeking numerical superiority, otherwise it would not be building up a massive fleet of Cruisers and Destroyers.
On land the US also depends on numerical superiority, it after all did not invade Iraq with one Regiment.
When your opponent is not weak you need large numbers of soldiers, and the more you have the better. Especially when these soldiers are equipped with modern weapons. Chinese Military leaders obviously understand this.
And what about all of the other US "allies"(human shields) like Germany? The original US tactic of "bombing them into the Stone Age" did not work because they already live like that. For the last 9 years the war in Afghanistan has been the similar to what the Soviet Army experienced, minus of course the Western financed supplies of Stingers and Pakistani Chinese made weapons.
It wouldn't be easy to spot from a satellite. Despite the movies depicting satellites as the hovering eyes in the sky, you actually have a very limited window and even then it is difficult to spot something this tiny from all the way up there.
@cr9527 There is a way as you proplably know, you allmost always have a sattelite above your house, sure they are going about 22,500 Km/h but still you have one above your house. So, if you know the general position, then all you need to do is contact multipul sattelites and relay the position to those sattelites.
And that is how you can have a constant survallance of an area.
And when were these occasions? The USSR was one of the few countries that developed a working Satellite Naval Reconnaissance System("Legenda"), which allowed the use of "over the horizon" targeting for long range Anti-Ship missiles. After 1991 the satellites stopped working as their service life came to an end, as of today this system is no longer operational.
@TheMightyBlighty LOL looks more like a plan for an invasion of Canada to counter an Anglo-Japanese axis if it emerged. Never happened and the Pentagon still plans for scenarios like this to this day. Actions count, not contingency planning.
This the bigger version of the Navy trimaran built by the Brits a few years ago. The US Navy was also involve in the British sea trials & I guest they use that experience in making their next gen fighting ship.
@cr9527 more than three, but yeah, its all sorts of a technical nightmare to do it, as far as being more likely to get hit, depends on what you are talking about, if you mean by mines and subs, sure, destroyers and crusiers are more likely, but if you are talking about ballistic and air strikes, those are usually saved for the bigger ships like our old Iowa's and our carriers
Typically, ballistic missiles won't harm a carrier or battleship too much, their payload is just tiny. Unless they go nuclear, but that would defeat the purpose of trying to minimize radiation, wouldn't it?
As for air strikes... they have as much chance of striking the carrier/battleship(now) as trying to bomb the moscow with a single B-52 in 1970s...
@cr9527 really? cause China just got a ballistic missle design from Russia that can sink a carrier no problem, or so they claim. As well, there is the VA-111 Shkval torpedo as well, said to be able to sink a capital ship. Really, I dont know all that much since Im not an engineer and so much of the spec's on any of these things tend to be classified.
1. The effectiveness of the DF-21D will require the operators to know the location of their target, this could be very complicated if China does not develop its own Naval Satellite Recon. System as the DF-21D would require target location updates. The next step is making sure the warhead or warheads hit their target(directly) at supersonic speeds. This will require some type of imaging infrared guidance on the warhead. After this all that is needed is enough explosive.
1. There are many ways to locate a target, including something as simple as a fishing trawler with a radio.
2. Complicated new weapons may require many years of testing to reach desired accuracy, an Aircraft Carrier does not require 3-5 meter accuracy.
3. 23 years ago a Soviet Warship was sunk accidentally by an Anti-Ship missile that was being used as a target drone to test Air Defense missiles, the missile did not have any explosives, it caused an explosion of the on board weapons.
1. China does not have to use them. China just has to have them within range of a US Carrier Group.
2. By estimating the speed, the distance traveled, and the direction a US Carrier Group would be going the approximate location could be determined from sources like a "neutral" fishing trawler.
3. Which could be achieved using imaging infrared guidance, all US Warships produce a large amount of heat.
1. It would not be sufficient to destroy a CVG, or even a CV.
2. US Carrier can turn. Also keep in mind, the distance between the CV and it's guardians like DDGs, is considerable, and at a time of war, the group wouldn't let any civilian boat close enough to the CV to see it.
3. In the re-entry? The amount of heat produced during the re-entry process would blind the sensors.
4. Weeks of repair during war time, months during peace time.
2. Yes it can turn, but the course of a Carrier Group can be predicted based on its likely intended mission, besides this China has digital Optical and Radar Spy Satellites which would help to visually locate a Carrier Group after it has been detected using other methods.
3. After re-entry, the sensors would be covered by a heat shield.
|23 years ago a Soviet Warship was sunk accidentally by an Anti-Ship missile that was being used as a target drone to test Air Defense missiles, the missile did not have any explosives, it caused an explosion of the on board weapons.|
Soviet ships have far less tolerances than American ships.
Look at USS Liberty, a huge hole, and still managed to sale herself to safety.
1. DF-21 Ballistic Missiles are entirely a Chinese domestic program, Russia would never sell a regional competitor long range Nuclear delivery systems(that could be used against Russia!).
2. The DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile is still untested.
3. The "Shkval" is an unguided underwater rocket, it is not a torpedo. It is also not a primary anti-shipping weapon, it was designed as a "last chance" weapon to retaliate against an attacking enemy at close range.
Ballistic Missiles with independently guided warheads(that detach when approaching a target) would not be as useless against Aircraft Carriers as you claim, especially if they are carrying 500kg of explosive.
4, US navy has tested numerous explosive weapons against their fleet of ships, including the USS america, with several tens of tons of explosives and failed to sink the ship.
5. China or any sane nation would not dare to launch a Ballistic Missile against the US during a time of war. The US doctrine has always dictated that should a POTENTIAL nuclear strike be targeted and launched against the US, the US would retaliate with Nuclear Weapons.
4. In 1967 a small unguided rocket accidentally exploded and nearly destroyed the flight deck of the USS "Forrestal". Secondary explosions from fuel and weapons stores are the greatest threat to any Aircraft Carrier.
5. I don't think you understand the purpose of the DF-21D missile. It is a deterrent weapon designed to keep the US Navy out of Chinese territorial waters and deny US Navy Cruisers and Destroyers use of their most effective weapons - Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles.
|nearly destroyed the flight deck of the USS "Forrestal".|
Which would've been repaired in weeks. Plus, USN has learned from that incident.
|I don't think you understand the purpose of the DF-21D missile. It is a deterrent weapon designed to keep the US Navy out of Chinese territorial waters|
I never denied it is a deterrent, much like the S-300 system Iran was buying, but it in no way is an effective method to counter a US attack.
1. It required several months to repair. And it was not a supersonic warhead penetrating the hull and exploding within the ship(which would cause more damage than the "Forrestal" fire did).
2. It is just 1 deterrent out of several new programs China is developing that are intended to operate together to form an integrated multi-layered defense.
American UAV's operating within Chinese territory - next to impossible. China's Air Defenses have improved greatly, even 50 years ago American Spy Planes were shot down inside China. China continues to add several new Air Defense Missile types(HQ-9[Chinese version of S-300], HQ-12, and QW series of shoulder fired SAM's).
There are also many similar looking Ballistic Missile Launchers in Chinese service that look like the DF-21D(DF-11 and DF-15) - making identification difficult.
Tomahawk Cruise Missiles may be very capable weapons, but their Subsonic speed makes them good targets for any modern integrated network of Air Defenses(a Chinese soldier with a QW-1 shoulder fired missile can destroy them). Only US Submarines would be able to operate close enough to China's territory to launch them.
AEGIS system(together with SM-3 missiles) works well in a test environment against single targets, what happens when 100's of decoys will be used?
1. In fact the 1st successful use of Anti-Aircraft Missiles against an enemy aircraft(not on a test range) was in China in 1958(although the missiles came from a Soviet made S-75 missile battery with Soviet officers as advisors, the crew was Chinese).
2. Tomahawk missiles fly at the same speed as jet airliners. And have been shot down repeatedly, just the US uses such large numbers in its invasions and acts of aggression few notice when this happens.
|In fact the 1st successful use of Anti-Aircraft Missiles against an enemy aircraft(not on a test range) was in China in 1958|
Irrelevant. Those were spy planes, unescorted, and defenseless.
|Tomahawk missiles fly at the same speed as jet airliners. And have been shot down repeatedly, just the US uses such large numbers in its invasions and acts of aggression|
|Only US Submarines would be able to operate close enough to China's territory to launch them.|
Wrong, US DDGs will be within range as well as numerous other guided munitions such as JDAMs, SDBs, JSOWs, and JASSMs.
Each AEGIS warship has the capability to track onto more than 100 targets, as well as engage up to ~100 of them at the same time. China would not have the time to launch 100s of decoys before being wiped out by SEAD
US Destroyer/Cruisers would then be within range of Chinese Coastal Defense missiles.
JDAM's, JSOW's, and JASSM's all need an aircraft to carry them, those aircraft would have to operate from bases or Carriers within range of Chinese missiles.
Radars with the ability to track 100 objects have existed for more than 30 years. Realistically the AEGIS system can only actually engage about 12-16 targets at the same time. Decoy warheads would be carried inside of the DF-21D.
|US Destroyer/Cruisers would then be within range of Chinese Coastal Defense missiles.|
Horizon limits the coastal defenses to less than 100km.
|operate from bases or Carriers within range of Chinese missiles.|
AEGIS, B-2s, Engineers, and oh yeah, ballistic missiles are the only ones capable of reaching the bases and carriers resulting in plausible nuclear retaliation. China isn't that stupid or brave.
|Decoy warheads would be carried inside of the DF-21D|
1. This limitation is more problematic on ships than it is for land based systems. Radars for land based systems can be placed on hills or on high antenna posts and there are passive detection systems that detect enemy radar signals over the horizon. And China likely is using its current Radar satellites to develop an over the horizon targeting system.
2. China currently possesses land based Cruise Missiles that will reach US bases in the Pacific.
1. Radar detection ranges vary based on the actual size and altitude(height) of the target. One fact about American Carrier Groups, they don't cross Oceans in complete radio silence, that is how the USSR used to track them.
2. And destroy fuel and weapons storage sites, destroy aircraft hangars, and likely kill and injure a large number of base personnel. US Air Defenses are mostly aimed at high altitude Ballistic Missiles.
In 1971 during the India-Pakistan War the US deployed a Carrier Group to the Indian Ocean to support Pakistan. Information about this deployment was not publicized, but upon arriving near Sri Lanka the US fleet found itself surrounded by Soviet Submarines, which had been deployed to block the US deployment(there was no problem detecting it).
If B-2 Bombers are destroyed by Chinese missiles at a US base it is very unlikely the US will be able to replace them quickly.
Pakistan was supported by the US, while India was supported by the USSR. The Soviet Navy was convinced the US intended to attack India's Military Command structure to give Pakistan some advantage. The mission of the Soviet Navy in the region was to warn the US that there would be a reaction if the US ships tried to attack India.
If there is a threat of a US attack against China, China is unlikely to wait to be attacked.
UAV's can be shot down by those same shoulder fired SAM's.
Spy satellites are limited by weather and terrain, China's territory is not a flat open desert with zero cloud cover. Besides, China has Anti-Satellite weapons if needed is not likely to hesitate to use them.
4. US has enough surveillance satellites as well as drone coverage to give up to date intel. Chinese ASAT capabilities are extremely poor as demonstrated by their numerous failures.
5. US only require a 6 month armed conflict (not counting deployment) with China to topple the CCP or destroy their military and industrial capabilities.
4. Satellites are, as I already said, limited by weather and terrain. And the PLA can and would shoot down any American UAV's crossing into Chinese territory.
5. The US with complete Aerial, Naval, and Ground Force superiority was not able to destroy the Yugoslav Army within 3 months. You are expecting Chinese to march out in a straight line directly in front of American weapons, this is never going to happen.
China has a variety of ways of detecting threats from potential "partners" also.
HARM missiles are not very effective against soldiers with shoulder fired missiles and mobile anti-aircraft guns(the cheapest ways to shoot down a UAV).
NATO attacked a country with 12 million people(Yugoslavia). NATO had a 50 to 1 advantage in aircraft, 40 to 1 Naval advantage, and the US had more soldiers in Europe than there were soldiers in the Yugoslavian Army.
The goal of the attack was to destroy the Yugoslavian Army, when this goal was not reached after several days NATO began targeting schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets to terrorize Yugoslavians into giving in to US demands.
There were factions within Afghanistan's Government hostile to the USSR in 1979 as well as Militants trying to seize power outside Kabul, these could not be defeated with a small number of mostly unarmed Advisors.
The NATO bombings were NEVER intended to destroy any army.
This is from NATO's own website.
goals of bombing:
1. stop military action
2. withdraw from kosovo
3. stationing of international presence in kosovo
4. safe return of refugees
5. confirm to international charter.
No, when pentagon talked about 2 wars, they mean 2 wars against a developed, well armed nation. They sometimes refer to 2 and a half wars, where the half refers to guerrilla like somalia/afghan.
I remember 1999 very well, NATO's goals reflected the greater geopolitical goals of the US. The united Yugoslavia had to be destroyed, the US was not against cooperating with the #1 smugglers(organs, weapons, narcotics) in Europe(Albanian mafia). Since Yugoslavian Government forces were destroying the Albanian mafia/KLA the US jumped into the conflict. The goal from the start was to destroy the Yugoslavian Military and then divide the country into easily controlled parts.
And the Soviet Army took over Afghanistan in 3 days in 1979. But with US, Pakistani, and Arab support various organized Militant groups were able to continue fighting the Soviet Army in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years. Just as 9 years later NATO is still fighting various Militant groups in Afghanistan after having "defeated" the Taliban.
The only thing that would become easier targets are NATO aircraft, without which NATO soldiers in their separate outposts would have problems.
Also, like I already said the DF-21D is just 1 type of weapon in China's integrated multi-layer defense network. This network includes the vast number of different types of Subsonic and Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles organized as Coastal Defense batteries as well as on Chinese Warships(like the growing number of Type 22 Missile Boats and Type 39 Submarines) and Aircraft(like the J-10 and J-11). As well as the Air Defense Missiles I mentioned earlier.
They would first need to know WHERE those same coastal batteries are, which are mobile as well would be protected by Air Defenses. F-35 is not in service.
Type 22 is "non-factor" to you, you ask anyone who has to find such small fast moving targets which are difficult to detect, they won't share your opinion.
Why would Chinese Submarines have to follow US Warships entering coastal waters of China? They only have to wait for US ships to enter firing range of their weapons.
@Maloross |protected by Air Defenses.| SEAD/DEAD |F-35 is not in service.| You think China will be in war against US in the next 5-7 years? If so, then Growlers with SEAD. |Type 22 is "non-factor" to you, you ask anyone who has to find such small fast moving targets which are difficult to detect, they won't share your opinion.| It can do 3 things, swarm, ambush, or escort. Escort - Easily located and destroyed Ambush - Patrols Swarm - VLS, Patrols They are pointless in fighting the USN.
I don't think the US would risk anything more than a short term(1-6 months) conflict with China. And it would be regional, with limited skirmishes in disputed territory(like the recent US show of force in the South China Sea or near the Korean peninsula). The USA is an Empire, it can't concentrate all of its Military power in one region, therefore it would be a large Falklands style conflict, with a likely cease fire after several months.
|The USA is an Empire, it can't concentrate all of its Military power in one region|
US military doctrine has always (post ww2) been to be able to fight 2 large conventional wars simultaneously. Fighting a one sided war would be no challenge.
Military Doctrines frequently don't reflect reality, the US has been "defeating" the "Taliban" now for how many years in its "un-conventional" conflict in Afghanistan? What if hundreds of Chinese made anti-aircraft missiles appeared in Afghan hands?
Question is what are considered "acceptable" losses for the US in a hypothetical war with China? 20 thousand, 30 thousand, 50 thousand dead? Before public opinion in the West completely turns against this conflict.
|Question is what are considered "acceptable" losses for the US in a hypothetical war with China? 20 thousand, 30 thousand, 50 thousand dead?|
Depends on the reason, US can kick off the CCP with less than 20k deaths(US side).
|Realistically the US could allow itself only to deploy about 3-4 Aircraft Carriers, 3-6 Cruisers, 12-16 Destroyers, and 6-8 Submarines in a regional conflict with China|
I would say you are being "optimistic". China's Government has changed many times but nobody has managed to erase China from the map.
You are suggesting the US would deploy half of its major Naval forces in one location, not counting Aircraft Carriers. This is unrealistic, not only are you not considering that a percentage of these ships would require maintenance and crew training, but that simply they would not be able to support this huge "armada" at sea with current resources.
|This is unrealistic, not only are you not considering that a percentage of these ships would require maintenance and crew training, but that simply they would not be able to support this huge "armada" |
Logistics were all set in place to fight 2 fronts against 2 nations far from each other. All that needed to be done is to move them. US is already deploying more and more ships to the region.
Yeah, I was in the service. That doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to buy into the idea that they need to waste all my tax money on unnecessary boats. They already have the top of the line boats, things like this are just another way to waste tax money. Like the blue angels, 100% waste of tax money. Every time they go up, the cost of the fuel, the cost of transporting them, the pilots' paychecks, for what? So everyone knows our jets fly? We see that every day without wasting extra money.
poop4u2scoop 2 months ago
this is the same ship design as in the movie CARS 2
Verliebt 3 months ago
Nice ship.
But it seems fit for only coastal duty. Looks too small to carry on sustained ops.
And bad news. I heard GD forgot to install the corrosion magnets on this ship while it was in wet dock for 2 years.
They said the hull is being eaten away literally.
slobhinav 4 months ago
@slobhinav yeah I read that
isn't it being made by an aussi company, how in the hell did they forget
tHeWasTeDYouTh 4 months ago
Honestly I don't find the ship's shape as intimidating--it looks a bit goofy. GD should never forget attention to aesthetics--this is part of the ship's deterrence!
jazzcatmatt 4 months ago
Copy from France.
ThePizazzy 4 months ago
@ThePizazzy It's not a copy you dumbass France helped design it they just took ideas from their ships....
HeadSHOT604 4 months ago
@HeadSHOT604 You are an oxymoron. You speak contradiction of your argument with your own words, let me quote your words "France helped design it" and "they just took ideas from their ships". US COPIED IT. Case closed.
ThePizazzy 4 months ago
@ThePizazzy Oxymoron? Are you fucking stupid oxymoron is a term used to describe two words that mean the opposite, go back to school first asshole then talk. The fact they helped it by giving their designs isn't copying dumbfuck.
HeadSHOT604 4 months ago
Haja ignorância! There is ignorance! peace please..
TheRubensALE 4 months ago
thats pretty sweet looking and its hauling ass...
HamTheDog 5 months ago
Designed by George Lucas? :)
Nochsled 5 months ago
is this ship smaller than it looks, or is that helipad fucking huge?
ddioppp 5 months ago
なんだ？ なんだ？ なんだ？ なんだ？ なんだ？？？？？
0011OK 5 months ago
She just stopped in Tampabay.
lst1195 5 months ago
So, I guess what its missing in firepower it makes up for in speed and/or agility?
MrRandomness119 6 months ago
Proudly built by Americans in the city of Mobile, Alabama and located just above the Twin Tunnels on Interstate 10 as you pass through you can see other ships just like this one being assembled inside the hugh hangers in the shipyard at Austal Marine...Awesome work being done there !
DocGolres 6 months ago
Loveship gaycourt.
agalambao 6 months ago
looks like the Imperial spaceship from the first scene in Starwars.
PoIiticaIIylncorrect 6 months ago 2
shiz dos enginez are powafull maaaaaaaaaannnnnnn, i wanna surf down on one of dos wakes!
PaperbatVGFAN67 6 months ago
no spray or wake from the bow. cool, slicing through water.
tsarrite 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Think before you buy.
vylet271 7 months ago
me scrace! no! but you go bankrupt, yes!
Orange6oy 7 months ago
yes yes yes yes yes. we need to fukk china now!!!!!
BuBzIeNYNY 7 months ago
It would make one he'll of a second home sweet
cliffordb47 7 months ago
Thats not General Dynamics. Its Austal USA.
nveesky 7 months ago
@nveesky General Dynamics Designed the ship. All the shipboard electronics are being built by General Dynamics in Pittsfield MA. Austal is the ship building company out of Alabama building and assembling the LCS.
Bagoapes 6 months ago
Lol a stealth ship. I would rather a sub. Don’t get me wrong it looks good and im sure fulfills a niche function but a sub seems so much better all around.
unambitious 7 months ago
@unambitious we already have some bad ass attack subs plus new attack subs are being developed this is more for spec ops support and helicopter support its relatively lightly armed
metalfrommaine 6 months ago
it isn't heavily armed though, it seems. It doesn't look like it'll be more usefull combat-wise than a corvette or some such.
epicfail86 8 months ago
its a shame that this thing is so critically handicapped right now...
theothertylaxguy 8 months ago
does it use turbine powered pump jets like ferries?
jeetendrag10acc2 8 months ago
its like a carrier for helicopters
Manolonda 8 months ago
That's a bad ass looking ship. Very advanced looking.
PulsarFusion 8 months ago
Reminds me of a chick with a really fat ass.
damaged01 9 months ago
It's one of the most beautiful ships I've ever seen, I hope it's nuclear powered !!!
goatanything 9 months ago
@goatanything It's actually powered by dilithium crystals.
FantasticBob7000 8 months ago
looks like a swordfish..
DarkstarNovembr 9 months ago
The front looks like a real waste of space. A large side target for other ships/submarines and no available space for crew/cargo/ammo/fuel or helipads..
IuTiubTM 10 months ago
i want to stand on the back and sing im on a boat
thechucknorrisraper 10 months ago
All they need is a super attack helicopter that can give this thing some real strike capacity.
kovona 10 months ago
Why is there a basketball court on the backside?
Imphipis 11 months ago 46
@Imphipis
For helicopters to take off & land.
arronlee33 11 months ago 14
@arronlee33 Well thank you mister obvious.
Imphipis 11 months ago
@arronlee33 helicopters can't play basketball....
manonthemount 2 months ago
@manonthemount you don't remember NBA Jam? The helicopter! From downtown! He's on Firrrreee!!!!!
guitardc59 1 month ago
@Imphipis for recreation of course
NAVYGunner40 10 months ago
@Imphipis for the black crew members
poyanator 10 months ago
@Imphipis Gotta Do Something While You Are Underweigh. It is for landing aircraft.
Desoto875 9 months ago
@Imphipis haha lol...that just made my day!
monkeycheeseking 8 months ago
@Imphipis
To play basketball dumb ass
carnagerpm 8 months ago
@Imphipis
that's for when obama visits.
Prototheria 8 months ago
@Imphipis Sometimes when morale is down the captain will get some games for the crew to play.
Kirkzzy 8 months ago
@Imphipis So all da sailors wit hoop dreams can have a nautical NBA
Sunburn2007 5 months ago
@Imphipis It's not a basketball court, it's a pokemon arena!
Fabuelo 4 months ago 2
@Imphipis Moron those are tennis courts , please be more educated
maximusprr 3 months ago
Where's my trimaran super-carrier?
bujoun76 11 months ago
nice
epinifr1n 11 months ago
this ship is in jax,fla getting worked on- was amazing site
beachsided 11 months ago
Forget girls.
I want to make love to this!
bujoun76 11 months ago
awesome ship, just looks so cool
KevinFirm 1 year ago
Somali Pirates are gonna shit their pants when they see one of these bearing down on them...
yvanster 1 year ago 44
@yvanster LOL, except all the Navy will be allowed to do is hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya. We need to just sink the little bastards and shell their ports.
PRM2643 10 months ago
@PRM2643 Couple shots from the 57mm cannon on deck. Let the sharks do the cleanup.
yvanster 10 months ago
@yvanster
Until they see the weapons loadout. Then they'll laugh.
sferrin2 9 months ago
@sferrin2 they'll laugh at faggots like you making fun of the navy's vessels that could easily make you shit your pants
snypekid 8 months ago
@yvanster shit bricks, black ones.
Ahamster1 7 months ago
wowwwwww tht is one koooool looking ship dang it looks really fast thts wht i call good tax money at work
gregoryy2010 1 year ago 7
Anyway I think a certain detail here is being ignored, mainly because in the wars of the last 20 years the US Navy has mostly used Cruise Missiles and Aircraft to attack its "enemies".
Maloross 1 year ago
Realistically the US could allow itself only to deploy about 3-4 Aircraft Carriers, 3-6 Cruisers, 12-16 Destroyers, and 6-8 Submarines in a regional conflict with China(I exclude any kind of Amphibious Assault ships because their use is very unlikely in Chinese territorial seas). There are other theaters(Middle East for example) the US must maintain a presence and these would use up other resources. It is very unlikely the US could concentrate all of its Military resources to attack China.
Maloross 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maloross
|I exclude any kind of Amphibious Assault ships because their use is very unlikely in Chinese territorial seas|
They are essential to deliver troops to Chinese territory.
|It is very unlikely the US could concentrate all of its Military resources to attack China.|
Don't need to dedicate all, even 30% is enough to destroy PLAAF, PLAN, devastate PLAGF, and knock out the CCP regime.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
Amphibious Assault Ships are only potential mass graves against a modern Military. And even if the US did somehow manage to land Marines on Chinese territory, how many hours would they survive?
This sounds as realistic as Hitler's plan to defeat the USSR within several weeks. Maybe around 1950 the US could have attempted an invasion of China, but today such an invasion would have slightly greater than zero chance for success.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|Amphibious Assault Ships are only potential mass graves against a modern Military|
Not with proper naval support.
|how many hours would they survive?|
Indefinitely. Chinese number superiority would only be a large advantage in a large front.
|but today such an invasion would have slightly greater than zero chance for success. |
You'll be surprised.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 Well considering they do have a larger army but not the same support for airforce power nor naval power, you can't invade a country that is 5000 miles away without a large force of combined branches. Sorry but China would be better off taking over eastern europe.
DaTaFiEnD7 1 year ago
@DaTaFiEnD7
China's Military does not have to take over any continents, they are making economic and military agreements with countries in the Middle East, Africa, and South America which help China expand influence at little cost to China. China has mainly avoided US style "gunboat diplomacy" with other countries.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
Chinese economy is far too fragile to be pulling strings against the US.
US Navy's goal was to make a point to India that the US got Pakistan's back. This is why they made no attempt to conceal it.
And again, you fail to see how SEAD works, MANPADs will shoot down some UAVs, but this will not be a big issue as if the defenses will only be using MANPADs to save the heavy equipment, then this effectively leaves them highly vulnerable to heavy bomber attacks.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
One of the most import dependent economies is that of the US. I don't see how China's economy is more fragile than that of the US.
Whatever the intentions, the US was unable to successfully support Pakistan and Pakistan was defeated by India. My point originally - the US Navy was unable to move into the Indian ocean without the USSR detecting it.
I know perfectly well how Air Defenses are defeated, in theory. But this requires the Attacker's aircraft bases to be intact.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
China is heavy on Exports, while US is heavy on Imports. This makes US less dependent than China.
Is Pakistan a part of India now? No?
A damaged airbase can be quickly repaired, a destroyed air fleet cannot.
You want to argue against the official NATO statement about their intentions?
US seeks both numerical and technological superiority. Then again, so does everyone else, but they can actually achieve it.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
The Chinese Economy's only real weakness is dependence on imports of oil and natural gas, most of which comes from Russia and Central Asia, there is little threat of this supply disappearing.
No, but Bangladesh is no longer part of Pakistan.
How long is "quickly"? 1 week, 1 month?
I care about official statements of NATO as much as I do about the official statements of Adolf Hitler.
This is true for any nation which seeks to become a Superpower.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
Chinese economy is heavily dependent on foreign companies and investors. Without them, their economy would rapidly collapse.
Was the US goal to keep Bangladesh a part of Pakistan? Or to prevent India from taking over Pakistan?
A damaged airfield can be operable in 2-3 days, and back to full combat capability in a week.
So, you will ignore the evidence (official statements), and instead go by rumors and guesses?
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
China does not only export to the US and has a diversified export Economy, losing the US market would damage the Chinese Economy but the sudden loss of cheap imports for the US would cause rapid inflation and shortages.
The US goal was to help Pakistan defeat India, which did not happen.
If much of the personnel of the airfield is dead who will repair it?
Rumors? I already said what NATO's goal was, every other statement was NATO propaganda.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
The sudden loss of exports to the US would destroy the major source of income for China. Then you have the added effects of a naval blockade effectively cutting off all sea based trade.
The US goal was to prevent the conquering of Pakistan.
Do you know how much warhead a Chinese missile carries?
Typically 500lb-2000lb conventional.
There are roughly 300 missiles that can actually reach some US bases, about 20-50 that can reach Guam. An F-18 wing can do more damage.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
And if they are torpedoed by Chinese Submarines with the loss of 100's of men who will be responsible?
Chinese Reservists armed only with bolt action rifles could overwhelm any US Marine Battalions that would try to land on Chinese territory simply with numerical superiority. Considering that in reality they have more than enough weapons to quickly mobilize several Reservist Infantry Divisions anywhere in China a US invasion of China is highly unlikely.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
Numerical superiority means didly squat in todays battlefield, with massive support from both naval and air, a massed military force would simply be plowed through.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
The US is always seeking numerical superiority, otherwise it would not be building up a massive fleet of Cruisers and Destroyers.
On land the US also depends on numerical superiority, it after all did not invade Iraq with one Regiment.
When your opponent is not weak you need large numbers of soldiers, and the more you have the better. Especially when these soldiers are equipped with modern weapons. Chinese Military leaders obviously understand this.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross so why did america only send 15 thousand troops to afghan?
101andrewj 1 year ago
@101andrewj
And what about all of the other US "allies"(human shields) like Germany? The original US tactic of "bombing them into the Stone Age" did not work because they already live like that. For the last 9 years the war in Afghanistan has been the similar to what the Soviet Army experienced, minus of course the Western financed supplies of Stingers and Pakistani Chinese made weapons.
Maloross 1 year ago
no doubt US is number 1 :D
jaypher2000 1 year ago
Almost looks like a yacht.
RebelFleetCommander 1 year ago
wow, the design looks like it came from a science fiction. The future indeed is interesting.
magicstorm1 1 year ago
Seriously?
That leaves a pretty big wake...
Looks like it displaces to much water, it would be easy to spot that with a sattelite.
flightrulez 1 year ago
@flightrulez
It wouldn't be easy to spot from a satellite. Despite the movies depicting satellites as the hovering eyes in the sky, you actually have a very limited window and even then it is difficult to spot something this tiny from all the way up there.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 There is a way as you proplably know, you allmost always have a sattelite above your house, sure they are going about 22,500 Km/h but still you have one above your house. So, if you know the general position, then all you need to do is contact multipul sattelites and relay the position to those sattelites.
And that is how you can have a constant survallance of an area.
flightrulez 1 year ago
@flightrulez
A house is a fixed object, you can easily tell the satellite where to look to find it.
For a moving target which nobody knows where it is, it would be extremely difficult to find such a small object in the ocean.
By the time the last known area of the LCS is reported and noticed by the command, it is most likely far gone.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 You can still scan an area with a sattelite, if they can find aircraft carriers, then they can find the LCS.
flightrulez 1 year ago
@flightrulez
Even aircraft Carriers are extremely difficult to find, US has on more than one occasion surprised the Soviets with their carrier battle groups.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
And when were these occasions? The USSR was one of the few countries that developed a working Satellite Naval Reconnaissance System("Legenda"), which allowed the use of "over the horizon" targeting for long range Anti-Ship missiles. After 1991 the satellites stopped working as their service life came to an end, as of today this system is no longer operational.
Maloross 1 year ago
beautiful ship :D
SmrtJugoslaviji 1 year ago
@TheMightyBlighty LOL looks more like a plan for an invasion of Canada to counter an Anglo-Japanese axis if it emerged. Never happened and the Pentagon still plans for scenarios like this to this day. Actions count, not contingency planning.
dorbie 1 year ago
MEIN BOOT::::::::::::::::
salvatorearcilesi 1 year ago
the whole HULL is Aluminium!
TacomaTRD01 1 year ago
that thing is ugly
Magnedudewon2 1 year ago
This the bigger version of the Navy trimaran built by the Brits a few years ago. The US Navy was also involve in the British sea trials & I guest they use that experience in making their next gen fighting ship.
TogieTung 1 year ago
Now there's a gas guzzler.
iiiset 1 year ago
@iiiset my guess is that it's probably nuclear powered
LaBrantt23 1 year ago
@LaBrantt23
For the LCS? Are you kidding?
Not even the US Cruisers get nuclear power!
This is a Littoral Ship, a tiny class, no way will it use nuclear power.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 acutally there are quite a few crusier class ships that are nuke powered, like the California and Long Beach class
nariiscryer 1 year ago
@nariiscryer
Isn't there only 3 nuclear cruisers.. ever?
nevertheless, a it is impractical, and dangerous to put a nuclear reactor in anything less than a capital ship.
The chances of a frigate/destroyer being hit are far greater than that of a carrier or battleship.
And when it does get hit, theres a LOT of radiological problems.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 more than three, but yeah, its all sorts of a technical nightmare to do it, as far as being more likely to get hit, depends on what you are talking about, if you mean by mines and subs, sure, destroyers and crusiers are more likely, but if you are talking about ballistic and air strikes, those are usually saved for the bigger ships like our old Iowa's and our carriers
nariiscryer 1 year ago
@nariiscryer
Typically, ballistic missiles won't harm a carrier or battleship too much, their payload is just tiny. Unless they go nuclear, but that would defeat the purpose of trying to minimize radiation, wouldn't it?
As for air strikes... they have as much chance of striking the carrier/battleship(now) as trying to bomb the moscow with a single B-52 in 1970s...
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 really? cause China just got a ballistic missle design from Russia that can sink a carrier no problem, or so they claim. As well, there is the VA-111 Shkval torpedo as well, said to be able to sink a capital ship. Really, I dont know all that much since Im not an engineer and so much of the spec's on any of these things tend to be classified.
nariiscryer 1 year ago
@nariiscryer
According to the Chinese themselves, their anti-ship ballistic missile, should they work, CANNOT destroy a carrier.
This along with the fact that any launch of a ballistic missile in times of war warrants a nuclear retaliation.
Furthermore, do you have ANY idea the range of a Shkval torpedo?
The submarine would have to be awfully close, somewhere around 3km for a high probability of hit.
It is nearly impossible for a sub to get this close to a Carrier.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. The effectiveness of the DF-21D will require the operators to know the location of their target, this could be very complicated if China does not develop its own Naval Satellite Recon. System as the DF-21D would require target location updates. The next step is making sure the warhead or warheads hit their target(directly) at supersonic speeds. This will require some type of imaging infrared guidance on the warhead. After this all that is needed is enough explosive.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
1, China has no capability to track onto a carrier several hundreds of kilometers away SOME where.
2, China has not demonstrated the required accuracy to hit a moving target with the DF-21D
3, DF-21 CANNOT carry a large enough conventional warhead to destroy a carrier. At best it will disable the carrier's flight operations for a week.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. There are many ways to locate a target, including something as simple as a fishing trawler with a radio.
2. Complicated new weapons may require many years of testing to reach desired accuracy, an Aircraft Carrier does not require 3-5 meter accuracy.
3. 23 years ago a Soviet Warship was sunk accidentally by an Anti-Ship missile that was being used as a target drone to test Air Defense missiles, the missile did not have any explosives, it caused an explosion of the on board weapons.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|deny US Navy Cruisers and Destroyers use of their most effective weapons - Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles.|
China would never be stupid enough to use DF-21s against destroyers or cruisers.
|There are many ways to locate a target, including something as simple as a fishing trawler with a radio.|
Out dated Info, by the time it reaches high command, the carrier would be miles away.
|an Aircraft Carrier does not require 3-5 meter accuracy.|
You need at least 10-20m CEP.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. China does not have to use them. China just has to have them within range of a US Carrier Group.
2. By estimating the speed, the distance traveled, and the direction a US Carrier Group would be going the approximate location could be determined from sources like a "neutral" fishing trawler.
3. Which could be achieved using imaging infrared guidance, all US Warships produce a large amount of heat.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
1. It would not be sufficient to destroy a CVG, or even a CV.
2. US Carrier can turn. Also keep in mind, the distance between the CV and it's guardians like DDGs, is considerable, and at a time of war, the group wouldn't let any civilian boat close enough to the CV to see it.
3. In the re-entry? The amount of heat produced during the re-entry process would blind the sensors.
4. Weeks of repair during war time, months during peace time.
5. US is clearly not deterred.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. I disagree here.
2. Yes it can turn, but the course of a Carrier Group can be predicted based on its likely intended mission, besides this China has digital Optical and Radar Spy Satellites which would help to visually locate a Carrier Group after it has been detected using other methods.
3. After re-entry, the sensors would be covered by a heat shield.
4. During the Vietnam War it was nearly 6 months.
5. That is the USA's problem.
Maloross 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maloross
|23 years ago a Soviet Warship was sunk accidentally by an Anti-Ship missile that was being used as a target drone to test Air Defense missiles, the missile did not have any explosives, it caused an explosion of the on board weapons.|
Soviet ships have far less tolerances than American ships.
Look at USS Liberty, a huge hole, and still managed to sale herself to safety.
cr9527 1 year ago
@nariiscryer
1. DF-21 Ballistic Missiles are entirely a Chinese domestic program, Russia would never sell a regional competitor long range Nuclear delivery systems(that could be used against Russia!).
2. The DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile is still untested.
3. The "Shkval" is an unguided underwater rocket, it is not a torpedo. It is also not a primary anti-shipping weapon, it was designed as a "last chance" weapon to retaliate against an attacking enemy at close range.
Maloross 1 year ago
@cr9527
Ballistic Missiles with independently guided warheads(that detach when approaching a target) would not be as useless against Aircraft Carriers as you claim, especially if they are carrying 500kg of explosive.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
4, US navy has tested numerous explosive weapons against their fleet of ships, including the USS america, with several tens of tons of explosives and failed to sink the ship.
5. China or any sane nation would not dare to launch a Ballistic Missile against the US during a time of war. The US doctrine has always dictated that should a POTENTIAL nuclear strike be targeted and launched against the US, the US would retaliate with Nuclear Weapons.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
4. In 1967 a small unguided rocket accidentally exploded and nearly destroyed the flight deck of the USS "Forrestal". Secondary explosions from fuel and weapons stores are the greatest threat to any Aircraft Carrier.
5. I don't think you understand the purpose of the DF-21D missile. It is a deterrent weapon designed to keep the US Navy out of Chinese territorial waters and deny US Navy Cruisers and Destroyers use of their most effective weapons - Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|nearly destroyed the flight deck of the USS "Forrestal".|
Which would've been repaired in weeks. Plus, USN has learned from that incident.
|I don't think you understand the purpose of the DF-21D missile. It is a deterrent weapon designed to keep the US Navy out of Chinese territorial waters|
I never denied it is a deterrent, much like the S-300 system Iran was buying, but it in no way is an effective method to counter a US attack.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. It required several months to repair. And it was not a supersonic warhead penetrating the hull and exploding within the ship(which would cause more damage than the "Forrestal" fire did).
2. It is just 1 deterrent out of several new programs China is developing that are intended to operate together to form an integrated multi-layered defense.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
Land based launchers of DF-21 would be spotted by UAVs and destroyed by Tomahawks very early on, as well as any SAM sights, Command and control, etc.
It is a whole lot easier to try to find a launcher than the target.
Furthermore, US has AEGIS system, specifically designed to nullify Ballistic Missiles.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
American UAV's operating within Chinese territory - next to impossible. China's Air Defenses have improved greatly, even 50 years ago American Spy Planes were shot down inside China. China continues to add several new Air Defense Missile types(HQ-9[Chinese version of S-300], HQ-12, and QW series of shoulder fired SAM's).
There are also many similar looking Ballistic Missile Launchers in Chinese service that look like the DF-21D(DF-11 and DF-15) - making identification difficult.
Maloross 1 year ago
Tomahawk Cruise Missiles may be very capable weapons, but their Subsonic speed makes them good targets for any modern integrated network of Air Defenses(a Chinese soldier with a QW-1 shoulder fired missile can destroy them). Only US Submarines would be able to operate close enough to China's territory to launch them.
AEGIS system(together with SM-3 missiles) works well in a test environment against single targets, what happens when 100's of decoys will be used?
Maloross 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maloross
|even 50 years ago American Spy Planes were shot down inside China.|
Congrats, China shot down some defenseless, unescorted spy planes. This is Hardly a battle situation.
|a Chinese soldier with a QW-1 shoulder fired missile can destroy them|
Don't make me laugh. Tomahawks are very difficult to spot, the chances of some soldiers shooting them down is astronomically small.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. In fact the 1st successful use of Anti-Aircraft Missiles against an enemy aircraft(not on a test range) was in China in 1958(although the missiles came from a Soviet made S-75 missile battery with Soviet officers as advisors, the crew was Chinese).
2. Tomahawk missiles fly at the same speed as jet airliners. And have been shot down repeatedly, just the US uses such large numbers in its invasions and acts of aggression few notice when this happens.
Maloross 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maloross
|In fact the 1st successful use of Anti-Aircraft Missiles against an enemy aircraft(not on a test range) was in China in 1958|
Irrelevant. Those were spy planes, unescorted, and defenseless.
|Tomahawk missiles fly at the same speed as jet airliners. And have been shot down repeatedly, just the US uses such large numbers in its invasions and acts of aggression|
Yeah? What do you think the modified Ohios do?
cr9527 1 year ago
@Maloross
|Only US Submarines would be able to operate close enough to China's territory to launch them.|
Wrong, US DDGs will be within range as well as numerous other guided munitions such as JDAMs, SDBs, JSOWs, and JASSMs.
Each AEGIS warship has the capability to track onto more than 100 targets, as well as engage up to ~100 of them at the same time. China would not have the time to launch 100s of decoys before being wiped out by SEAD
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
US Destroyer/Cruisers would then be within range of Chinese Coastal Defense missiles.
JDAM's, JSOW's, and JASSM's all need an aircraft to carry them, those aircraft would have to operate from bases or Carriers within range of Chinese missiles.
Radars with the ability to track 100 objects have existed for more than 30 years. Realistically the AEGIS system can only actually engage about 12-16 targets at the same time. Decoy warheads would be carried inside of the DF-21D.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|US Destroyer/Cruisers would then be within range of Chinese Coastal Defense missiles.|
Horizon limits the coastal defenses to less than 100km.
|operate from bases or Carriers within range of Chinese missiles.|
AEGIS, B-2s, Engineers, and oh yeah, ballistic missiles are the only ones capable of reaching the bases and carriers resulting in plausible nuclear retaliation. China isn't that stupid or brave.
|Decoy warheads would be carried inside of the DF-21D|
AEGIS kills Mid-course
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. This limitation is more problematic on ships than it is for land based systems. Radars for land based systems can be placed on hills or on high antenna posts and there are passive detection systems that detect enemy radar signals over the horizon. And China likely is using its current Radar satellites to develop an over the horizon targeting system.
2. China currently possesses land based Cruise Missiles that will reach US bases in the Pacific.
3. 500km in space?
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
1. You can put a radar or sensors ontop of Mount Chomolungma, and still will be limited to 340km range. Thats more than 8KM above sea level.
For over the horizon targeting, you'll need aerial presence. Something the Chinese cannot maintain.
2. A cruise missile will maybe make a few pot holes in the runways at best, which would be repaired in hours, and at worst, they'd be long shot down.
3. what 500km in space?
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
1. Radar detection ranges vary based on the actual size and altitude(height) of the target. One fact about American Carrier Groups, they don't cross Oceans in complete radio silence, that is how the USSR used to track them.
2. And destroy fuel and weapons storage sites, destroy aircraft hangars, and likely kill and injure a large number of base personnel. US Air Defenses are mostly aimed at high altitude Ballistic Missiles.
3. Yes in space.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|they don't cross Oceans in complete radio silence, that is how the USSR used to track them.|
USSR has on many occasions failed to even spot a nearby carrier.
|And destroy fuel and weapons storage sites, destroy aircraft hangars, and likely kill and injure a large number of base personnel.|
A few, it won't be catastrophic nor would it halt operations for longer than a month.
|Yes in space.| What is in space?
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
In 1971 during the India-Pakistan War the US deployed a Carrier Group to the Indian Ocean to support Pakistan. Information about this deployment was not publicized, but upon arriving near Sri Lanka the US fleet found itself surrounded by Soviet Submarines, which had been deployed to block the US deployment(there was no problem detecting it).
If B-2 Bombers are destroyed by Chinese missiles at a US base it is very unlikely the US will be able to replace them quickly.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|Sri Lanka the US fleet found itself surrounded by Soviet Submarines, |
The purpose of this deployment was to give presence against India, not to fight or avoid detection. The goal was to warn India.
|If B-2 Bombers are destroyed by Chinese missiles at a US base|
B-2s would be already in air when China begins to mobilize.
|HARM missiles are not very effective against soldiers with shoulder fired missiles and mobile anti-aircraft guns|
Hellfires on board drones.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
Pakistan was supported by the US, while India was supported by the USSR. The Soviet Navy was convinced the US intended to attack India's Military Command structure to give Pakistan some advantage. The mission of the Soviet Navy in the region was to warn the US that there would be a reaction if the US ships tried to attack India.
If there is a threat of a US attack against China, China is unlikely to wait to be attacked.
UAV's can be shot down by those same shoulder fired SAM's.
Maloross 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maloross
|Radars with the ability to track 100 objects have existed for more than 30 years.|
Aegis is more than the radar, it is a system. With several AEGIS ships in the area, you have a web of highly capable defense.
|They would first need to know WHERE those same coastal batteries are, which are mobile|
SEAD/DEAD, Recon, Satellite, etc. It is much easier to find the batteries when you got an approximate region.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
I know what AEGIS is.
Spy satellites are limited by weather and terrain, China's territory is not a flat open desert with zero cloud cover. Besides, China has Anti-Satellite weapons if needed is not likely to hesitate to use them.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
4. US has enough surveillance satellites as well as drone coverage to give up to date intel. Chinese ASAT capabilities are extremely poor as demonstrated by their numerous failures.
5. US only require a 6 month armed conflict (not counting deployment) with China to topple the CCP or destroy their military and industrial capabilities.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
4. Satellites are, as I already said, limited by weather and terrain. And the PLA can and would shoot down any American UAV's crossing into Chinese territory.
5. The US with complete Aerial, Naval, and Ground Force superiority was not able to destroy the Yugoslav Army within 3 months. You are expecting Chinese to march out in a straight line directly in front of American weapons, this is never going to happen.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|Satellites are, as I already said, limited by weather and terrain. |
UAVs, continuous air cover, etc. US has more than one system to target the enemy.
|PLA can and would shoot down any American UAV's crossing into Chinese territory.|
And any assets used to shoot down the UAVs would be annihilated via SEAD.
|The US with complete Aerial, Naval, and Ground Force superiority was not able to destroy the Yugoslav Army within 3 months. |
how was that complete aerial, naval or ground?
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
China has a variety of ways of detecting threats from potential "partners" also.
HARM missiles are not very effective against soldiers with shoulder fired missiles and mobile anti-aircraft guns(the cheapest ways to shoot down a UAV).
NATO attacked a country with 12 million people(Yugoslavia). NATO had a 50 to 1 advantage in aircraft, 40 to 1 Naval advantage, and the US had more soldiers in Europe than there were soldiers in the Yugoslavian Army.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|NATO attacked a country with 12 million people(Yugoslavia).|
The attack was never intended to destroy Yugoslavia, nor was it intended to overrun them.
|the Soviet Army took over Afghanistan in 3 days in 1979.|
Soviets were invited in to afghanistan by the afghan government while the US toppled the ruling government.
|nobody has managed to erase China from the map|
You don't need to to achieve your goal.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
The goal of the attack was to destroy the Yugoslavian Army, when this goal was not reached after several days NATO began targeting schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets to terrorize Yugoslavians into giving in to US demands.
There were factions within Afghanistan's Government hostile to the USSR in 1979 as well as Militants trying to seize power outside Kabul, these could not be defeated with a small number of mostly unarmed Advisors.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
The NATO bombings were NEVER intended to destroy any army.
This is from NATO's own website.
goals of bombing:
1. stop military action
2. withdraw from kosovo
3. stationing of international presence in kosovo
4. safe return of refugees
5. confirm to international charter.
No, when pentagon talked about 2 wars, they mean 2 wars against a developed, well armed nation. They sometimes refer to 2 and a half wars, where the half refers to guerrilla like somalia/afghan.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
I remember 1999 very well, NATO's goals reflected the greater geopolitical goals of the US. The united Yugoslavia had to be destroyed, the US was not against cooperating with the #1 smugglers(organs, weapons, narcotics) in Europe(Albanian mafia). Since Yugoslavian Government forces were destroying the Albanian mafia/KLA the US jumped into the conflict. The goal from the start was to destroy the Yugoslavian Military and then divide the country into easily controlled parts.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|the US has been "defeating" the "Taliban" now for how many years in its "un-conventional" conflict in Afghanistan? |
Taliban was kicked out of power in the first few months of the war. This was my point from the beginning.
|What if hundreds of Chinese made anti-aircraft missiles appeared in Afghan hands?|
Then they wouldn't be guerrillas, and instead be easier targets.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
And the Soviet Army took over Afghanistan in 3 days in 1979. But with US, Pakistani, and Arab support various organized Militant groups were able to continue fighting the Soviet Army in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years. Just as 9 years later NATO is still fighting various Militant groups in Afghanistan after having "defeated" the Taliban.
The only thing that would become easier targets are NATO aircraft, without which NATO soldiers in their separate outposts would have problems.
Maloross 1 year ago
Also, like I already said the DF-21D is just 1 type of weapon in China's integrated multi-layer defense network. This network includes the vast number of different types of Subsonic and Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles organized as Coastal Defense batteries as well as on Chinese Warships(like the growing number of Type 22 Missile Boats and Type 39 Submarines) and Aircraft(like the J-10 and J-11). As well as the Air Defense Missiles I mentioned earlier.
Maloross 1 year ago
@Maloross
|like I already said the DF-21D is just 1 type of weapon in China's integrated multi-layer defense network|
All of which the US is capable of destroying.
Coastal Batteries will be annihilated the first few hours of war by Virginias, los angeles and Ohios. Later supported by Burkes and F-35s.
The Houbei class is a non-factor against the USN, it would be a turkey shoot.
Song class can't even freaking follow the US warships while submerged, what do you expect it to do?
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
They would first need to know WHERE those same coastal batteries are, which are mobile as well would be protected by Air Defenses. F-35 is not in service.
Type 22 is "non-factor" to you, you ask anyone who has to find such small fast moving targets which are difficult to detect, they won't share your opinion.
Why would Chinese Submarines have to follow US Warships entering coastal waters of China? They only have to wait for US ships to enter firing range of their weapons.
Maloross 1 year ago
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
I don't think the US would risk anything more than a short term(1-6 months) conflict with China. And it would be regional, with limited skirmishes in disputed territory(like the recent US show of force in the South China Sea or near the Korean peninsula). The USA is an Empire, it can't concentrate all of its Military power in one region, therefore it would be a large Falklands style conflict, with a likely cease fire after several months.
Maloross 1 year ago
|The USA is an Empire, it can't concentrate all of its Military power in one region|
US military doctrine has always (post ww2) been to be able to fight 2 large conventional wars simultaneously. Fighting a one sided war would be no challenge.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
Military Doctrines frequently don't reflect reality, the US has been "defeating" the "Taliban" now for how many years in its "un-conventional" conflict in Afghanistan? What if hundreds of Chinese made anti-aircraft missiles appeared in Afghan hands?
Question is what are considered "acceptable" losses for the US in a hypothetical war with China? 20 thousand, 30 thousand, 50 thousand dead? Before public opinion in the West completely turns against this conflict.
Maloross 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maloross
|Question is what are considered "acceptable" losses for the US in a hypothetical war with China? 20 thousand, 30 thousand, 50 thousand dead?|
Depends on the reason, US can kick off the CCP with less than 20k deaths(US side).
|Realistically the US could allow itself only to deploy about 3-4 Aircraft Carriers, 3-6 Cruisers, 12-16 Destroyers, and 6-8 Submarines in a regional conflict with China|
30 Destroyers, 10 Cruisers, 35 Submarines.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527
I would say you are being "optimistic". China's Government has changed many times but nobody has managed to erase China from the map.
You are suggesting the US would deploy half of its major Naval forces in one location, not counting Aircraft Carriers. This is unrealistic, not only are you not considering that a percentage of these ships would require maintenance and crew training, but that simply they would not be able to support this huge "armada" at sea with current resources.
Maloross 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maloross
|This is unrealistic, not only are you not considering that a percentage of these ships would require maintenance and crew training, but that simply they would not be able to support this huge "armada" |
Logistics were all set in place to fight 2 fronts against 2 nations far from each other. All that needed to be done is to move them. US is already deploying more and more ships to the region.
cr9527 1 year ago