Why China can't defeat the US

[Unkotare]

The People's Republic of China now believes it can successfully prevent the United States from intervening in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or some other military assault by Beijing.

No, it doesn't believe that.

 

[Unkotare]

If America was stupid enough to attack China in any significant way, China would dump its trillions of Dollars worth of bonds on the market, causing total collapse of the US economy.

You really are a short-sighted little dimwit. Can you guess what country is China's largest export market? One minus one equals how much, little Freddy?

 

[Unkotare]

Their army is a hell of a lot bigger than ours.

What you meant to say is that they have more men in their armed forces, which would be an impressive factor if we were fighting with swords, on horseback, in the middle of a vast open plain.

 

[westwall]

Their army is a hell of a lot bigger than ours.

What you meant to say is that they have more men in their armed forces, which would be an impressive factor if we were fighting with swords, on horseback, in the middle of a vast open plain.

Germany fought a war of quality vs quantity. They lost. Never, ever forget that fact.

 

[Antares]

I suggest someone look up"Unrestricted Warfare".

 

[Unkotare]

Their army is a hell of a lot bigger than ours.

What you meant to say is that they have more men in their armed forces, which would be an impressive factor if we were fighting with swords, on horseback, in the middle of a vast open plain.

Germany fought a war of quality vs quantity. They lost. Never, ever forget that fact.

They lost on both counts. Never, ever forget that fact.

 

[Sgt_Gath]

They might not need to "defeat" us necessarily. They only need to give us a bloody enough nose to bring us to the table on their terms.

Unfortunately, we have a rather glaring "weak spot" in that regard; our over-reliance on carriers. If they manage to sink one - or God forbid, two - that might very well be "all she wrote" right then and there.

We've got tens of billions invested into those ships, and we don't have the stomach to ramp up production to "total war" levels either. They're essentially irreplaceable assets.

 

[Mushroom]

China's big advantage is that the conflict would be in their backyard. The american response would have to come from halfway around the world.

Nope.

Diego Garcia, Okinawa, Guam, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, and many other islands scattered around the Pacific.

And do not think the US would be acting alone. Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Vietnam, and a great many other nations would also be involved.

 

[Mushroom]

They might not need to "defeat" us necessarily. They only need to give us a bloody enough nose to bring us to the table on their terms.

Unfortunately, we have a rather glaring "weak spot" in that regard; our over-reliance on carriers. If they manage to sink one - or God forbid, two - that might very well be "all she wrote" right then and there.

We've got tens of billions invested into those ships, and we don't have the stomach to ramp up production to "total war" levels either. They're essentially irreplaceable assets.

This is one of the biggest reasons I think at least 1 or 2 Battleships should be brought out of retirement, or modern versions built.

Absolutely unsinkable by any conventional missiles or bombs, one or two of these as a task force would give most any invasion force a serious case of heartburn. Simply place it between the islands and China, and I doubt anything would happen.

 

[SteadyMercury]

This is one of the biggest reasons I think at least 1 or 2 Battleships should be brought out of retirement, or modern versions built.

Absolutely unsinkable by any conventional missiles or bombs, one or two of these as a task force would give most any invasion force a serious case of heartburn. Simply place it between the islands and China, and I doubt anything would happen.

Any ship can be sunk with conventional weapons and a battleship could be rendered an operationally ineffective mission kill way before it was sunk.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

China won't have to beat us in battle. They're already taking us down in a lot of other ways.

The last thing we need is more/bigger military.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Oh please, the current administration seems determined to be defeated by Mexico never mind China.

 

[jasonnfree]

They might not need to "defeat" us necessarily. They only need to give us a bloody enough nose to bring us to the table on their terms.

Unfortunately, we have a rather glaring "weak spot" in that regard; our over-reliance on carriers. If they manage to sink one - or God forbid, two - that might very well be "all she wrote" right then and there.

We've got tens of billions invested into those ships, and we don't have the stomach to ramp up production to "total war" levels either. They're essentially irreplaceable assets.

This is one of the biggest reasons I think at least 1 or 2 Battleships should be brought out of retirement, or modern versions built.

Absolutely unsinkable by any conventional missiles or bombs, one or two of these as a task force would give most any invasion force a serious case of heartburn. Simply place it between the islands and China, and I doubt anything would happen.

I went to San Pedro Sunday to see the USS Iowa. It impressed this ex navy carrier sailor. It will do 39 knots and Pretty impressive those 16 inch guns are. 26 mile range with accuracy, not to mention the tomahawk missiles.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I saw Big Mo in Hawaii a couple years ago, was the hilight of the Pearl Harbor visit.

That said the notion that a WW2 battleship is "absolutely unsinkable by any conventional missiles or bombs" is downright silly. The US Navy sank the Yamato with dumb bombs and torpedoes from a gnat swarm of small aircraft, yet a New Jersey class battleship cannot be sunk in this age of precision guided efficient penetrator weapons? Come on.

Battleships armor is thickest on their sides because they were designed in the 1930s when the threat was big guns shooting at your sides. If I was a USN carrier attacking that ship it would find itself being hit by SLAM-ER and HARM coming from all compass points at once, with SLAM-ERs set to terminal popup to dive into the top of the turrets and the deck where the armor is thinnest and easily penetrated by the 800 lb titanium armor penetrating warhead, with HARM taking out anything soft that emits a signal.

Leave it with raging fires and blind, then commence pot shots with BLU-116 and BLU-109 2000 lb laser guided deep penetrators to finish her off, eventually something will find the magazines and that'll be it.

It wouldn't be easy to sink a ship like that but it can be done, capital ships have been sunk by munitions far less capable than we have today.

 

[indiajo]

[

Under President Obama we are the most powerful military in the history of mankind

Yeah. Rome was that too. Once.

 

[Katzndogz]

Anyone could defeat the US. If a bunch of drug cartels could defeat the US IN the US, China wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Mushroom]

I saw Big Mo in Hawaii a couple years ago, was the hilight of the Pearl Harbor visit.

That said the notion that a WW2 battleship is "absolutely unsinkable by any conventional missiles or bombs" is downright silly. The US Navy sank the Yamato with dumb bombs and torpedoes from a gnat swarm of small aircraft, yet a New Jersey class battleship cannot be sunk in this age of precision guided efficient penetrator weapons? Come on.

Actually it is not. There is not one missile in the entire inventory of any nation on the planet that can penetrate the hull of the Iowa class ships. Even at their thinnest they are over 7" of hardened steel armor.

Modern anti-ship warheads are designed to penetrate 3-5" of aluminum armor, much thinner and less dense.

And yes, the IJN Yamato was sunk by dumb bombs primarily.

In an hour and a half long attack, where waves of over 300 bombers and torpedo aircraft attacked repeatedly. Striking her with at least 12 bombs and 7 torpedoes.

And anybody honestly see a modern military attempting such a stunt on say the USS New Jersey if it was returned to service? And remember, they would have to get up close and personal, no missiles. No aircraft torpedoes, naval aircraft conducting waves of runs with dumb bombs (or even LGB).

Any ways, not gonna happen. Can't see any military in the world even attempting to launch that much firepower at a single ship, not even a carrier or Battleship.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Actually it is not. There is not one missile in the entire inventory of any nation on the planet that can penetrate the hull of the Iowa class ships. Even at their thinnest they are over 7" of hardened steel armor.

I disagree. I believe the SLAM-ER, which doubled the penetrating power of harpoon by using a larger titanium casing WDU-40 penetrator warhead, would go thru the deck, the top of the turrets, and anything softer on the superstructure.

Here is the first battleship buster, the Fritz-X Fritz X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That thing had a 705lb warhead and a couple of them sank the Roma, which had deck armor over 6 inches thick. I have no trouble believing a wave of significantly more advanced warheads from SLAM-ERs could punch thru the deck of Iowa class.

In an hour and a half long attack, where waves of over 300 bombers and torpedo aircraft attacked repeatedly. Striking her with at least 12 bombs and 7 torpedoes.

So a large massively armored battleship can indeed be sunk by conventional munitions carried by small planes.

And anybody honestly see a modern military attempting such a stunt on say the USS New Jersey if it was returned to service? And remember, they would have to get up close and personal, no missiles. No aircraft torpedoes, naval aircraft conducting waves of runs with dumb bombs (or even LGB).

Modern torpedoes with longer range and stronger blast effects from submarines, 2000lb penetrator laser guided bombs hitting the top of turrets and deck, that thing is going mission kill in no-time and sunk shortly afterwards.

 

[Mushroom]

Modern torpedoes with longer range and stronger blast effects from submarines, 2000lb penetrator laser guided bombs hitting the top of turrets and deck, that thing is going mission kill in no-time and sunk shortly afterwards.

Which takes me back full-circle.

What military in the world today other then the US has the kind of assets to throw at taking out a single ship?

No other nation has a Super Carrier. No other nation has multiple Super Carriers which to launch such strikes from. No other nation is going to throw away such a large number of assets just to sink a single ship.

Remember, it took over 300 airplanes to sink the IJN Yamato. And it only had machine guns and small caliber cannons for defense, and it was basically by itself, absolutely no defense ships. No frigates, no destroyers, no cruisers, it was by itself.

Now put in it's place say the USS New Jersey BBBG (Battleship Battle Group). The New Jersey, a Ticonderoga class cruiser, a Kidd or Burke class destroyer, a Spruance class destroyer, and 3 Perry class frigates.

Any aircraft trying to reach the Battleship are going to take a serious pounding, before they even get within range.

You have to realize, I do not just look at these as paper problems, "Weapon A can penetrate X inches of Y hull", but as an entire problem. What to deliver a weapon, of what kind, and how to get there.

The IJN Yamato was alone, and easy pickings. We did not make the same mistake with our modern BBBGs. And I honestly do not think any nation could have taken one out. They lacked the weapons and delivery systems needed.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I agree 100% on a battleship task force survivability, and that Yamato was a turkey shoot.

I'm addressing the argument that a WW2 era battle is somehow impervious to modern weapons because of it's armor, not whether it can be defended with a picket like a CVN.

Iowa class was designed in 1938, before the concept of aircraft punching holes in the deck with munitions landing vertically was on anyone's mind, so their weakness is deck armor. Yamato had thicker deck armor than anything yet 1000lb bombs caused damage and along with torpedoes sunk her, so I can't imagine a modern cruise missile like SLAM-ER that was designed to be able to penetrate concrete hardened land targets as well as ship armor would fail to damage it when in terminal popup to hit down into the top of deck, turret, and superstructure.

Anything can be sunk.