Military Planners Conclude the Gerald R. Ford And Its Fleet Could Be Destroyed ‘With Certainty’

[Mushroom]

Power projection (or force projection or strength projection), in international relations, is the capacity of a state to deploy and sustain forces outside its territory.[1] The ability of a state to project its power into an area may serve as an effective diplomatic lever, influencing the decision-making process and acting as a potential deterrent on other states' behavior.[2][3][4][5]

Nice quote, but what do subs have to do with that?

That was the very thing I saw when I responded. The US can project force and power because we have a large Navy with a large number of amphibious warfare ships at sea at all times. We also have the largest airlift and sealift capability on the planet, and can move a huge number of our personnel and equipment almost anywhere needed.

That is what "force projection" is. It is not being able to drop bombs on somebody, it is being able to "reach out and touch someone". And that is actually a capability that China almost completely lacks as it has almost no capability of projecting power outside of a nation they share a land border with.

Yes, the Nave is very much capable of projecting force. But not Submarines.

 

[Kruska]

You might wanna look up the capabilities of those platforms that AZrailwhale just posted. No, it's not imagination, it's reality.

On your PC war-games console - sure.

And it isn't about supposed capabilities of individual weapon systems but the feasibility of bringing them into concerted action. Especially into a war theater that is right in front of China, but hundreds and thousands of miles away from the USA or it's military bases.
One must be born in the 19th century to come up with statements like, - B-52's attacking China.

Due to the decreased defensive perimeters of the USN - e.g. by the deployment/replacement with F-35's - the reaction time of a USN task force detetcting a hypersonic missile at a range of a 100mls is less then 1 minute. The effective carrier air cover extends only to around 350mls. - whilst a hypersonic missile has a range of 1400mls and more. Due to the speed of hyper-sonic warheads the air pressure in front of the weapon forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems. That also includes new "experimental defense systems" such as the USN 150kw lasers.

U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10 seconds, the e.g. Zircon missiles will already have traveled 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast enough to catch up. And Russian technology and especially factual deployment of hyper-sonic weapons is more or less zero compared with China.

The "supposedly" intercepted Russian hyper-sonic missile near Kiev; no one here on this forum would have the slightest idea as to what actually really happened. Did the missile dismantle itself to to fatigue? at what range was the carrier aircraft detected, did the missile develop engine issues? aka at what speed was it supposedly traveling and intercepted, etc ?

The most obvious issue/factor in regards to hyper-sonic missiles is that only the USA is playing them down - simply due to the fact that the USA, (due to an errant weapons development policy) is 4-5 years behind e.g. China, and presently up to 8-10 years behind in the deployment of hyper-sonic missiles compared to China.

Presently despite of the tensions, the USA and China are at peace - once the USA would start to bring in added assets (AZrailwhale, in order to fire thousands of missiles) China will have no other choice then to strike first at a hopelessly outgunned USN and it's bases in and around the South-China-Sea.

It's the USA that is looking for trouble in front of China's doorsteps - and not the PLAN roaming around the Caribbean and in front of the California or Hawaiian coast, or the PLA setting up military bases 100-300mls next to the USA. The USA already starts to get frantic about China enhancing it's embassy complex on Cuba.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Thing is, the US picks the opponent, and it's ALWAYS a weak opponent. The US would NOT risk putting the US navy anywhere near the Chinese coast.
Look at D-Day, they weren't that far from the French coast in the UK, even though they chose Normandy instead of Calais. From the closest place in the US to the Chinese coast is much, MUCH further, even from the Philippines it's a long way.

Why would you risk your fleet for nothing?

Normandy made much more sense than Calais. The German fortifications at Calais were much better than at Normandy and the land there favored the defense far more than Normandy (excluding the Bocage, which for some reason the Brits who had been playing tourist in Normandy the home of Willian the Conqueror), failed to note.

The US surface fleet wouldn't be attacking the Chinese on its own, subs would be launching TLAM attacks on Chinese airfields, missile bases and ports. The Air Force would be launching missile attacks from B-52s and B-1Bs at Chinese targets and B-2s would be making precision gravity bomb or missile attacks on hardened targets. The Taiwanese, Vietnamese and Japanese would be launching their own attacks as well.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No one would invade China.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No one would invade China.

Correct. Whatever countries we were allied with and the US would destroy China's air capability, missile launching facilities and the PLAN and its bases. The idea would be to gut China's offensive capabilities and force it back within its borders and out of the china sea.

 

[ABikerSailor]

On your PC war-games console - sure.

And it isn't about supposed capabilities of individual weapon systems but the feasibility of bringing them into concerted action. Especially into a war theater that is right in front of China, but hundreds and thousands of miles away from the USA or it's military bases.
One must be born in the 19th century to come up with statements like, - B-52's attacking China.

Due to the decreased defensive perimeters of the USN - e.g. by the deployment/replacement with F-35's - the reaction time of a USN task force detetcting a hypersonic missile at a range of a 100mls is less then 1 minute. The effective carrier air cover extends only to around 350mls. - whilst a hypersonic missile has a range of 1400mls and more. Due to the speed of hyper-sonic warheads the air pressure in front of the weapon forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems. That also includes new "experimental defense systems" such as the USN 150kw lasers.

U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10 seconds, the e.g. Zircon missiles will already have traveled 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast enough to catch up. And Russian technology and especially factual deployment of hyper-sonic weapons is more or less zero compared with China.

The "supposedly" intercepted Russian hyper-sonic missile near Kiev; no one here on this forum would have the slightest idea as to what actually really happened. Did the missile dismantle itself to to fatigue? at what range was the carrier aircraft detected, did the missile develop engine issues? aka at what speed was it supposedly traveling and intercepted, etc ?

The most obvious issue/factor in regards to hyper-sonic missiles is that only the USA is playing them down - simply due to the fact that the USA, (due to an errant weapons development policy) is 4-5 years behind e.g. China, and presently up to 8-10 years behind in the deployment of hyper-sonic missiles compared to China.

Presently despite of the tensions, the USA and China are at peace - once the USA would start to bring in added assets (AZrailwhale, in order to fire thousands of missiles) China will have no other choice then to strike first at a hopelessly outgunned USN and it's bases in and around the South-China-Sea.

It's the USA that is looking for trouble in front of China's doorsteps - and not the PLAN roaming around the Caribbean and in front of the California or Hawaiian coast, or the PLA setting up military bases 100-300mls next to the USA. The USA already starts to get frantic about China enhancing it's embassy complex on Cuba.

"Right in front of China, but hundreds of thousands of miles away from the USA or it's military bases"? Dude............even if you were standing back to back to someone and decided to walk in the opposite direction, the furthest you would travel wouldn't be "hundreds of thousands of miles" but rather just shy of 25,000, since the circumference of the Earth is only 24,911 miles. Fail on your first point.

As far as combat aircraft of the USN? Still primarily the FA-18 Super Hornet, of which the Navy has 536 with only 131 being used for training. F-35 Lightning II's? The Navy only has 26, of which HALF (13) are used for training. So no, F-35's haven't replaced the Hornet as you claim. Since you're so far off on that simple fact to look up, I'm guessing the rest of your post is bullshit as well.

I'd also like to know where you got your information as to how long the Navy would have for reaction time? I'm guessing you are the one who has been playing video games and thinking it's reality.

As far as the capabilities of the B-52? Might wanna look that up again as well, since they can deploy from the US, fly damn near anywhere in the world because they can refuel in midair and have a fairly decent crew size to allow them to do that, and STILL make it back to the US without having to land anywhere. And, that is a platform that will still be around for a few more years because of it's effectiveness and the fact that it can carry a whole bunch of munitions. BTW.............B-52's are operated by the Air Force in case you didn't know. I say that because your information about Navy aircraft is woefully inadequate.

And................hypersonic missiles aren't a standard weapons platform yet, as there still has to be a LOT of R and D done to figure out how they can fly at hypersonic speeds without melting or tearing themselves up in low atmosphere.

But................if that made up bullshit is what helps you talk at dinner parties, by all means, knock yourself out. But the people who have been there, done that and actually know will be sniggering to themselves at your idiocy behind your back. At least, until they get tired of the bullshit and call you out.

 

[Kruska]

And................hypersonic missiles aren't a standard weapons platform yet, as there still has to be a LOT of R and D done to figure out how they can fly at hypersonic speeds without melting or tearing themselves up in low atmosphere.

The most obvious issue/factor in regards to hyper-sonic missiles is that only the USA is playing them down - simply due to the fact that the USA, (due to an errant weapons development policy) is 4-5 years behind e.g. China, and presently up to 8-10 years behind in the deployment of hyper-sonic missiles compared to China.

But................if that made up bullshit is what helps you talk at dinner parties, by all means, knock yourself out. But the people who have been there, done that and actually know will be sniggering to themselves at your idiocy behind your back. At least, until they get tired of the bullshit and call you out.

Oh boy - another self-appointed PC Armchair general who desperately clings onto the past. And believes that no one else has served longer then himself and therefore knows far less. - keep dreaming and overestimating yourself - you are very good at it.

Also I did not state hundreds of thousands of mls - (you butt-head can't even read) but: hundreds and thousands of miles

 

[ABikerSailor]

The most obvious issue/factor in regards to hyper-sonic missiles is that only the USA is playing them down - simply due to the fact that the USA, (due to an errant weapons development policy) is 4-5 years behind e.g. China, and presently up to 8-10 years behind in the deployment of hyper-sonic missiles compared to China.

Oh boy - another self-appointed PC Armchair general who desperately clings onto the past. And believes that no one else has served longer then himself and therefore knows far less. - keep dreaming and overestimating yourself - you are very good at it.

Also I did not state hundreds of thousands of mls - (you butt-head can't even read) but: hundreds and thousands of miles

Here................educate yourself.

Setting the Record Straight on Hypersonic Weapons

Recent reports would have you believe that hypersonic weapons—an emerging class of low-altitude, high-speed missiles—are poised to revolutionize modern military strategy. A recent op-ed in the New York Times characterized these “game-changing” missiles as the “apotheosis” of airborne weaponry, capab

blog.ucsusa.org

And nope. Not a PC armchair general. Just someone who served in the US Navy for around a bit over 20 years, but was lucky enough to have varied duty stations, which is one of the ways I know you're seriously lacking in what you're saying.

BTW................you never answered when asked about which carriers you were on. I'm asking again, which ones? I'm guessing it was on a tour when it pulled into port, as I would have a very hard time believing you ever deployed with one. Me? USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69) and am a plankowner for the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-73). Deployed on both of them while I was stationed with VFA-131 WILDCATS.

 

[Mushroom]

One must be born in the 19th century to come up with statements like, - B-52's attacking China.

I guess you never heard of Diego Garcia or Guam then. Or Kadena Air Force Base.

Due to the decreased defensive perimeters of the USN - e.g. by the deployment/replacement with F-35's - the reaction time of a USN task force detetcting a hypersonic missile at a range of a 100mls is less then 1 minute.

But the thing is, they can be detected from farther away than that. You see, the hypersonic missiles are really nothing but aircraft launched ballistic missiles. And they fly up to an extreme altitude before they enter their ballistic trajectory. They are only "hypersonic" in the descent phase, completely unpowered and "hypersonic" as any other ballistic weapon is in the terminal phase.

What, you thought it was actually a powered missile like a Harpoon or Silkworm that flew at low altitudes hypersonically? Nope, not even close. Just an air launched ballistic missile. And the magic about how the visible horizon works, the higher in altitude an object goes, the easier it is to detect.

So those "hypersonic missiles" are actually easier to detect than sea skimming ones.

The effective carrier air cover extends only to around 350mls. - whilst a hypersonic missile has a range of 1400mls and more. Due to the speed of hyper-sonic warheads the air pressure in front of the weapon forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems. That also includes new "experimental defense systems" such as the USN 150kw lasers.

Oh that is completely false. A "plasma cloud" making them invisible? What in the hell science fiction story did you pull that out of?

The truth is, that does happen... in the Mesosphere. Where the air density is extremely low. But as it ascends to that altitude there is no such "plasma cloud". And that cloud dissipates quickly as it descends into the lower atmosphere.

U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10 seconds, the e.g. Zircon missiles will already have traveled 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast enough to catch up. And Russian technology and especially factual deployment of hyper-sonic weapons is more or less zero compared with China.

What, you think interceptors chase the targets? No, they are fired in front of them. As the name says, they "intercept", they do not "chase".

Holy hell, you really do not have any clue of what you are talking about, do you?

The "supposedly" intercepted Russian hyper-sonic missile near Kiev; no one here on this forum would have the slightest idea as to what actually really happened. Did the missile dismantle itself to to fatigue? at what range was the carrier aircraft detected, did the missile develop engine issues? aka at what speed was it supposedly traveling and intercepted, etc ?

It was intercepted. But hey, if they have such a high rate of failure that they "dismantle themselves", then that is good also.

The most obvious issue/factor in regards to hyper-sonic missiles is that only the USA is playing them down - simply due to the fact that the USA, (due to an errant weapons development policy) is 4-5 years behind e.g. China, and presently up to 8-10 years behind in the deployment of hyper-sonic missiles compared to China.

No, the US looked into it decades ago actually. They first tested ballistic missiles launched from aircraft 49 years ago actually. And realized it was very possible, but such a silly idea that they never bothered to mess with it after that.

Kinda like any hypersonic aircraft. They were largely not worth the effort and deign ended.

Presently despite of the tensions, the USA and China are at peace - once the USA would start to bring in added assets (AZrailwhale, in order to fire thousands of missiles) China will have no other choice then to strike first at a hopelessly outgunned USN and it's bases in and around the South-China-Sea.

Well. that is a silly claim as the US can strike China with thousands of missiles at any time. No need to "bring in assets" at all. And you are claiming that is all that is needed for China to pre-emptively attack the US and allies? That they are going to attack the US, Japan, and UK?

You really do just make stuff up, don't you?

It's the USA that is looking for trouble in front of China's doorsteps - and not the PLAN roaming around the Caribbean and in front of the California or Hawaiian coast, or the PLA setting up military bases 100-300mls next to the USA. The USA already starts to get frantic about China enhancing it's embassy complex on Cuba.

Uhhhh, did you ever look at a map? The Caribbean is not only home to several islands that are US territory, it also makes up a huge part of the US coastline. Congratulations for the most stupid comment I have read here all day.

And yes, China does not roam around California or Hawaii, they can't. In reality, China has one of the most inexperienced Navies in the world. In reality, it is a green water coast guard and not a navy at all. Because they have never even tried to use it as an actual "Navy". Hell, most of their ships rarely even leave their ports.

I seriously question if the PLAN could even conduct a fleet operation to South America and back, let alone anywhere else in the world. I doubt they could even get a ship to and from the Caribbean if they wanted to. You do not seem to realize that most of the world actually laughs at the PLAN, unless it is a nation right next door to China.

To put it simply, the Chinese Navy has no legs.

 

[Kruska]

Here................educate yourself.

Educate yourself - also in regards to your F-18/F-35 rant.

The USN is way behind schedule - e.g. instead of a planed 150 F-35's by end of 2022 - the USN can now in 2023 show for some 30 - now that wouldn't be China's problem then, would it?
The F-18 Service Life Modification program is also way behind schedule and planing - presently the USN can't even show for 300 operational and deployed F-18's. And e.g. Naval Air Station Fallon is now flying F-16's so that it's F-18 Super Hornets could be relegated to the fleet. etc. etc.

In order to end fighter shortfall in the USN by 2025, instead of two squadrons per air wing with 10 tails, the Navy will now field a single squadron with 14 tails - 20 down to 14 is a 30% reduction!!

You had stated that I was never on a carrier - I informed you that I have been on several (USN and other) there is such a thing as e.g. a NATO air-force/naval aviation liaison officer and other NATO officer exchange programs. And that's all the information you will get from me in that specific regard. I am with the Luftwaffe and aerospace related companies now for over 40 years, and yes I have also been to the USAF Academy at Springs and bases in e.g. Texas and Oklahoma. From what you have stated and forwarded so far I have no reason's to believe that you are or have been a USN pilot with the VFA-131. - but maybe an E-5 to E-8 or if you prefer a PO2 to SCPO.

So don't play dick measurement games with me - but try and stay to facts - and not some puberty driven, unrealistic war-game scenarios - based on an all out war.

BTW - that's me some time ago - and the other photo is from one of the USN carriers

 

[Mushroom]

Here................educate yourself.

He probably believes it is a flat trajectory missile like the Harpoon or Tomahawk. When in reality is is nothing like that, literally just an air launched ballistic missile. And it does not reach hypersonic speeds from any kind of engines, that is just gravity that does that.

And nope. Not a PC armchair general. Just someone who served in the US Navy for around a bit over 20 years, but was lucky enough to have varied duty stations, which is one of the ways I know you're seriously lacking in what you're saying.

It always amazes me when people who never served a day in uniform actually try to tell us who had what our jobs are and how the military operates. I guess that is why I laugh at them so often because they really do not have a clue what they are talking about most times. They get their ideas from games, or simply make it up.

 

[Mushroom]

The USN is way behind schedule - e.g. instead of a planed 150 F-35's by end of 2022 - the USN can now in 2023 show for some 30 - now that wouldn't be China's problem then, would it?

As had always been the plan. There is nothing really extraordinary about that, it was expected. And the main reason they slipped a bit beyond projection is that the International demand for the fighter has been high. The US has only taken possession of around 450 of the over 950 F-35s built. Australia took 50, Israel has 45, Italy has 20, Japan has 30, Norway has 31, South Korea has 40, the UK has 30, etc, etc, etc. Nobody had any idea how high the demand for the aircraft would be once it was offered for sale to allies. And the US made the decision to prioritize deliveries to them over domestic deliveries.

The US has actually delivered more of them to foreign nations than they have taken delivery of themselves. And that was a decision they made as none of our allies have any aircraft even close to this, while the US has other aircraft in similar roles it is still producing and others they can still use. I mean, you are aware that we still operate the F-117, right? Yes the squadrons have been deactivated, but most of the aircraft are still kept in operational condition and they are still flown for training.

While officially retired in 2008, the F-117 Nighthawk have continued to fly, unofficially, from Tonopah Test Range (TTR) airfield in Nevada. As explained in a detailed story, back in 2014, after a few videos and photographs had already appeared online, the U.S. Air Force admitted that the Nighthawk was kept in a “Type 1000” storage at TTR which meant that the type is had to be maintained until called into active service.

Incredible Footage Shows Two F-117 Nighthawks Flying Low Level Over Eastern California

Two Black Jets spotted training on the Sidewinder low level training route. While officially retired in 2008, the F-117 Nighthawk have continued to fly,

theaviationist.com

The Marine Corps was always to get the priority in aircraft delivery. That is because out of all the services they had the most outdated fighters with the Harrier. After that the priority was for the Air Force, as they did not have to be CATOBAR so could be made more quickly. And the Marines and Navy are the only ones on the planet that will be using the C variant.

And it also takes a hell of a long time to get the aircraft certified for carrier operations, then transition the pilots to operating them from a carrier. Building carrier aircraft and training carrier pilots is a hell of a lot more time consuming than regular pilots.

Oh, and the correct numbers delivered are 55 F-35C carrier based fighters to Naval Aviation, not 30. Once again, that is the problem with making things up. Others actually know how to look up the real facts. And the reality is that there are 55 F-35C fighters in service. But then again, I bet that the actual numbers are near 100 as that data was accurate as of June 2022. For example, just 2 months ago VMFA-311 was activated as the newest squadron to operate the F-35C.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Educate yourself - also in regards to your F-18/F-35 rant.

The USN is way behind schedule - e.g. instead of a planed 150 F-35's by end of 2022 - the USN can now in 2023 show for some 30 - now that wouldn't be China's problem then, would it?
The F-18 Service Life Modification program is also way behind schedule and planing - presently the USN can't even show for 300 operational and deployed F-18's. And e.g. Naval Air Station Fallon is now flying F-16's so that it's F-18 Super Hornets could be relegated to the fleet. etc. etc.

In order to end fighter shortfall in the USN by 2025, instead of two squadrons per air wing with 10 tails, the Navy will now field a single squadron with 14 tails - 20 down to 14 is a 30% reduction!!

You had stated that I was never on a carrier - I informed you that I have been on several (USN and other) there is such a thing as e.g. a NATO air-force/naval aviation liaison officer and other NATO officer exchange programs. And that's all the information you will get from me in that specific regard. I am with the Luftwaffe and aerospace related companies now for over 40 years, and yes I have also been to the USAF Academy at Springs and bases in e.g. Texas and Oklahoma. From what you have stated and forwarded so far I have no reason's to believe that you are or have been a USN pilot with the VFA-131. - but maybe an E-5 to E-8 or if you prefer a PO2 to SCPO.

So don't play dick measurement games with me - but try and stay to facts - and not some puberty driven, unrealistic war-game scenarios - based on an all out war.

BTW - that's me some time ago - and the other photo is from one of the USN carriers
View attachment 794979
View attachment 794981

Really? Super Secret Squirrel stuff eh? NATO, Luftwaffe, and aerospace companies? Sounds like someone is padding their resume in a vain attempt to win a dick measuring contest that they started. You still never told me what carriers you were on, just some vague suggestion about your "expertise" with various things that you don't sound like you know much about. And, what website did you screen grab those pics at? They're old as hell from looking at the planes in the background of the tent pitched in the hangar bay. Same with the uniforms that the dudes are wearing who are in camo. Well, nice to meet you Captain Courageous. You've gotta be one of the less interesting armchair generals I've met on a message board. At least the others were a bit more convincing. And, they at least had a passing understanding of flight characteristics and physics that you seem to sorely lack.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ukraine is handling the missiles.

So will the US.

America respects China's weapons and its abilities, but it is now cowed in the slightest by them.

China is second rate and knows it.

 

[Kruska]

Really? Super Secret Squirrel stuff eh? NATO, Luftwaffe, and aerospace companies? Sounds like someone is padding their resume in a vain attempt to win a dick measuring contest that they started. You still never told me what carriers you were on, just some vague suggestion about your "expertise" with various things that you don't sound like you know much about. And, what website did you screen grab those pics at? They're old as hell from looking at the planes in the background of the tent pitched in the hangar bay. Same with the uniforms that the dudes are wearing who are in camo. Well, nice to meet you Captain Courageous. You've gotta be one of the less interesting armchair generals I've met on a message board. At least the others were a bit more convincing. And, they at least had a passing understanding of flight characteristics and physics that you seem to sorely lack.

You started of with - ever been on a carrier.... your dick measurement games failed miserably.

And you are an obvious E-5 idiot - that all there is to you. And idiots wander into ignore -welcome

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are an idiot - that all there is to you.

You are a fake.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It does? When was the last time we actually "picked"?

In WWII, Japan attacked us. In Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait it was because somebody attacked one of our allies.

And in 1990 and 2003 Iraq was hardly a pushover. They had one of the largest military forces in the world, and some of the best imported equipment that was available on the open market.



Of course not, that is stupid and there is no reason to ever do so short of making an amphibious landing.



Uh, try less than 200 miles. Less than 600 miles to mainland China.

And obviously you forgot that the Seventh Fleet and Third Marine Division are both in Japan.



I guess you place no importance in protecting allies. I would hardly call that "nothing".

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Syria, Somalia.....

WW2 was probably the last time the US was forced into a war.

Korea was all about choice. The US wanted to defeat Communism. It didn't have to, it wanted to, same for Vietnam. Kuwait, they didn't need to go in, they went in because they wanted the oil.

Iraq was a MASSIVE push over. What wasn't a push over was the occupation, but that was because Bush messed up by disbanding the military and the police, ridiculous decision. So Iran hired them instead. Great.

So, the US can't just do whatever it wants within range of Chinese missiles.

Okinawa is 500 miles to China. That's a LONG WAY. It was 161 from Portsmouth to Normandy.
The US doesn't give a flying fuck about "allies", if an ally is in danger but the US is going to have to lose it's Pacific fleet, it just won't engage. Look at the Ukraine.... is the US risking anything? Fuck no.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Normandy made much more sense than Calais. The German fortifications at Calais were much better than at Normandy and the land there favored the defense far more than Normandy (excluding the Bocage, which for some reason the Brits who had been playing tourist in Normandy the home of Willian the Conqueror), failed to note.

The US surface fleet wouldn't be attacking the Chinese on its own, subs would be launching TLAM attacks on Chinese airfields, missile bases and ports. The Air Force would be launching missile attacks from B-52s and B-1Bs at Chinese targets and B-2s would be making precision gravity bomb or missile attacks on hardened targets. The Taiwanese, Vietnamese and Japanese would be launching their own attacks as well.

Thing is, the US wouldn't be doing anything.
Did the US attack Iran? Nope.
Imagine, they had Iraq AND Afghanistan.... which country lies in between these two? Iran. There's only one real viable reason why the US stayed in Afghanistan, and that was to use a base to invade Iran.
Why not? The US is clearly superior to Iran in terms of their militaries. But It never even tried. It started out at the basic level of getting the people on board with the war, nothing else.
China is one thousand times HARDER. The US never directly confronted the USSR... China is much bigger than that, and better run.

 

[Mushroom]

And, what website did you screen grab those pics at? They're old as hell from looking at the planes in the background of the tent pitched in the hangar bay. Same with the uniforms that the dudes are wearing who are in camo.

Hell, he already removed them so nobody else can see them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hypersonic weapons could be “catastrophic” for the most potent aircraft carrier group in the US fleet, according to war game simulations run by a team of military planners in China.
Over 20 intense battles, Chinese forces sank the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier fleet with a volley of 24 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, in a simulation run on a mainstream war game software platform used by China’s military.
In the scenario, the US vessels are attacked after continuing to approach a China-claimed island in the South China Sea despite repeated warnings.
A paper detailing the war game was published in May by the Chinese-language Journal of Test and Measurement Technology. It is the first time the results of simulated hypersonic strikes against a US carrier group have been made public.

The researchers, led by Cao Hongsong from the North University of China, said almost every US surface vessel was shattered by the attack and eventually sank in the simulation.
The war games suggested the US carrier group – previously regarded as unsinkable by conventional weapons – could be “destroyed with certainty” by a relatively small number of hypersonic strikes, they said.

SOURCE:
Chinese scientists war-game hypersonic strike on US carrier group

Did they consider the launch sites getting hit by cruise missiles, asking for a friend