If China or Russia become militarily stronger than the west

maustin said:
They might want to build a blue water navy to do that. Would be a good start.
Click to expand...

In recent years there have already been stories about a Chinese submarines popping up right next to US carriers undetected, in the middle of all its escorts... and this in the last few days:
Admiral: China progressing on anti-carrier missile system

Take out the US carriers and their ability to wage war abroad is going to be massively reduced.
 
mmj_uk said:
In recent years there have already been stories about a Chinese submarines popping up right next to US carriers undetected, in the middle of all its escorts... and this in the last few days:
Admiral: China progressing on anti-carrier missile system

Take out the US carriers and their ability to wage war abroad is going to be massively reduced.
Click to expand...

That system has been defined for some time and has not yet been proven to work something your linked article acknowledges. It is also assuming that a) they would know where to fire it at b) said Arleigh Burke would not knock it out of the sky for fun c) it could hit a moving target albeit a big one. One of the greatest strengths of the US carrier groups and what has really differentiated them from other countries is more likely to do with the E2 than any amount of F14 or F18's. It allows them to dictate range.

And where are the links of these Chinese super subs - because by my reckoning to pop up next to a US carrier group they would have most likely had to sneak past at least 1 x SSN, 2 x DD, 2 x CGN etc amongst all the patrols from said vessels and the Ospreys + Vikings etc etc Very impressive - I am also very interested not only in where all this Chinese technical supremacy has come from but how they have enabled their personnel to skill up to the level to use such advanced technology so quickly without gained experience to guide etc.
 
Off course the sub poped out with out warning, i find that hard to swallow. As for the anti-carrier missle, i think we had 1 for ages, exocet, harpoon. Even the soviets had there own carrier killers.
 
Don't the aircraft carriers have defences (such as Phalanx) against a range of missiles etc? What does this anti-carrier system offer that others don't?
 
In terms of manpower alone, China is stronger.

Technology wise, there will be some time passed before China and Russia catch up I would have thought.

The fighter jet argue can rage on all day and night but China do not have no aircraft carriers, Russia has one operational carrier and the US have about 10 of them with Ford class carriers planned.

Also, the navies of China and Russia have nothing remotely close to a Seawolf class attack sub. Although there are only 3 of them in service, they are credited with being able to travel at 20 knots submerged and still be quieter than a Los Angeles class boat tied up at pier. They are just about impossible to locate. 3 boats reflects the gargantuan cost with the Virginia class boat built as a cheaper option.

And whoever designed the F22 colour scheme should have their backside felt suggestively. It's a work of art.
 
xibinim said:
Don't the aircraft carriers have defences (such as Phalanx) against a range of missiles etc? What does this anti-carrier system offer that others don't?
Click to expand...

Well it is based upon a land based ballistic missile therefore the trajectory and speed would make it rather hard for such a gun based system to hit it due to the speed the missile would be coming in at and the limited range of such a projectile based system. However the US Navy has already made contingency plans for such things and the Aegis guided destroyers and cruisers can use SM3 missile to hit ballistic missiles with tests hitting around 95% of the time.

So in a carrier battle group where you would have a multitude of VLS missile systems engaging any missile attack the chance of penetration is quite small and that is presuming the ballistic missile would actually hit the target anyway. Getting a ballistic trajectory to hit a carrier would be no easy feat when the carrier is going at flank speed and changing course and again we are presuming they would know where to fire it. So you are looking at a close to Taiwan situation which is unlikely considering the bonding between the two countries in recent history.
 
surely that defense budget of the US includes pay for personnel, and the personnel in the US military probably get paid 20 times more than those in the Chinese military, right?
 
maustin said:
Well it is based upon a land based ballistic missile therefore the trajectory and speed would make it rather hard for such a gun based system to hit it due to the speed the missile would be coming in at and the limited range of such a projectile based system. However the US Navy has already made contingency plans for such things and the Aegis guided destroyers and cruisers can use SM3 missile to hit ballistic missiles with tests hitting around 95% of the time.

So in a carrier battle group where you would have a multitude of VLS missile systems engaging any missile attack the chance of penetration is quite small and that is presuming the ballistic missile would actually hit the target anyway. Getting a ballistic trajectory to hit a carrier would be no easy feat when the carrier is going at flank speed and changing course and again we are presuming they would know where to fire it. So you are looking at a close to Taiwan situation which is unlikely considering the bonding between the two countries in recent history.
Click to expand...

THEADS or something its called. Modified Standard sams that can hit Balistic missiles.
 
maustin said:
Well it is based upon a land based ballistic missile therefore the trajectory and speed would make it rather hard for such a gun based system to hit it due to the speed the missile would be coming in at and the limited range of such a projectile based system. However the US Navy has already made contingency plans for such things and the Aegis guided destroyers and cruisers can use SM3 missile to hit ballistic missiles with tests hitting around 95% of the time.

So in a carrier battle group where you would have a multitude of VLS missile systems engaging any missile attack the chance of penetration is quite small and that is presuming the ballistic missile would actually hit the target anyway. Getting a ballistic trajectory to hit a carrier would be no easy feat when the carrier is going at flank speed and changing course and again we are presuming they would know where to fire it. So you are looking at a close to Taiwan situation which is unlikely considering the bonding between the two countries in recent history.
Click to expand...

Ta :) - love reading about military tech!
 
DAIR said:
Thought they were already stronger (man power)!
Click to expand...

True China and Russia have many more troops, tanks, etc.
The West have by far more technology advanced equipment, and carriers.
I think China have one carrier which they are trying fit out. However they lack the skill and knowledge of carriers which the GB and USA have had for almost a century !
 
frosty03 said:
Quite true, for now.....

Wouldnt it be ironic if China did what the US did to USSR, and essentially bankrupt it by spending more and more......
Click to expand...

China makes it's money from exporting to the USA though. The average Chinese person makes under $1000 a year. How are they going to pay for it without the USA and the West?

The US would just devalue it's currency even further with more QE forcing China to buy it up to avoid their own from becoming too valuable. That would push up food prices and everything else from all this extra printed Chinese money. So they would have A. bad inflation and B. a devalued dollar which makes exporting much more difficult.

If America coupled that with a bunch of protectionism and tariffs it would really hurt China badly, to the point they would likely tip over from civil unrest. China is not a stable country. America could start manufacturing frying pans and ipods back in America. Obama himself has already said his goal is to double US exports within 5 years. They are already doing this stuff. Their only option is to balance the trade deficit and create jobs in America with tariffs and dollar devaluation. China can't do anything because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, plus America has the most epically powerful military in the history of this planet, which reaches in to something like 130 countries.

Just google news "chinese inflation", "chinese labor", etc.

Remember that is a country that had a full on revolution 60 years ago that killed 70 million of it's own people, and still executes and tortures people every day.

I don't know when it became so fashionable to fawn all over the East and the third world, and hate America, but just look at the facts. I think you guys are confusing ham-fisted benignity for weakness.

cgmap3.gif
 
kwerk said:
China makes it's money from exporting to the USA though. The average Chinese person makes under $1000 a year. How are they going to pay for it without the USA and the West?
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe... Got a source? I would think it would be at least double that.
 
aardvark said:
why would china want to do this? they already own america. china has already won the war, the economic war. the us needs china to continue to buy its debt or its currency would be destroyed and its people would starve - you don't need fighter planes in that situation.
Click to expand...

Japan owns just as much and the UK owns half as much.

I guess that means the UK owns half of the USA??

Maybe I should mail you the keys to my house :confused:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
 
Ahleckz said:
I find that hard to believe... Got a source? I would think it would be at least double that.
Click to expand...

Yes it is double that in cities. I don't know what the % of people live in city/rural.

"In 2008, the average income for a worker in rural China was around $690 - while those in the cities earned $2,290 on average. Wages in big cities like Shanghai and Beijing are even higher."

http://www.planetizen.com/node/37009
 
Tysonator said:
True China and Russia have many more troops, tanks, etc.
The West have by far more technology advanced equipment, and carriers.
I think China have one carrier which they are trying fit out. However they lack the skill and knowledge of carriers which the GB and USA have had for almost a century !
Click to expand...

It was a widely held belief in this countries military anyway that the NATO forces in mainland europe would be wiped out in less than a week if the entered into a conventional conflict with the Warsaw pact countries.

There would literally be too many people, tanks and airplanes to shoot down and the NATO forces would be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers.
 
maustin said:
To be honest I would think you are more likely to see China and Russia locking horns over Siberia than any open conflict with the west.

And Castiel European domination for all that time - don't they teach marines the conflicts fought by Ogedai, Ghengis and Batu? That was just about the most dominating Empire ever and if had not been for Ogedai's death we would not have a Europe as we know it now.
Click to expand...

It is unlikely that the Mongols would have been successful in attacking the Holy Roman Empire in the long run, let's not forget that Europe was recovering from years of crusade and Pope Gregory (I forget which number) called crusade against the Mongols shortly before Subotai withdrew forcing Batu to withdraw with him.

Also it after the uniting figures of Genghis and Subutai passed the Empire fell inward on itself.

It would have been interesting though to see what would have happened, considering the Christian Soldiers of the vastly superior northern European Nations (as compared to the Eastern European Nations) were as blood thirsty and fervent as the Mongols ever were. Still if they had overrun Europe an entirely Islamic world might have been a little more peaceful......;)

I was really referring to after the 1400's however and the spread of European Influence (especially the Spanish, Portuguese and British) globally. (I'll be more precise in future...;))
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom