We Can't Challenge The U.S. Military

#101
#101
therealUT said:
I think you should look at a world map. The best that China could do would be to set up an alliance with Iran (not implausible); yet, they would then still have to square off with us in Iraq to get to the Arabian Peninsula. Prior to that, we would be alerted to their hostility when they try to push through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (both allies of the US which currently house US Soldiers).

China's options for conquest, as I stated earlier, are limited to South Asia (the furthest west would actually be Bangladesh) and Southeast Asia.
Click to expand...

The world map is taken in context. Imagine if China started exploiting regional issues and got America tied up into a bunch of problems. Start making trade problems making much needed materials rare or extremely costly to the US. We would become weaker and unable to project power either by inadequate material or be busy with trying to police conflicts.

I also think you are overestimating our troop presence and good will with the two Stan's while underestimating China's military.
 
#102
#102
vol4eva said:
Yet they won't...they can't even build their own fighter engine or aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...

They rolled out Aegis which is just as difficult. China probably wont roll out too many carriers because those things are becoming extinct. Watch the number of subs they have and how that grows.
 
#104
#104
MontereyVol said:
They rolled out Aegis which is just as difficult. China probably wont roll out too many carriers because those things are becoming extinct. Watch the number of subs they have and how that grows.
Click to expand...


I'm hardly concerned with a nation that still can't produce their own fighter engine catching up to the U.S. in military technology. China has made clear that they want aircraft carriers. There's a reason why they plan to start training exercises with the old Soviet carrier this fall. They just won't build their own own within the next ten years.
 
#105
#105
MontereyVol said:
They rolled out Aegis which is just as difficult. China probably wont roll out too many carriers because those things are becoming extinct. Watch the number of subs they have and how that grows.
Click to expand...

Carriers are becoming extinct? That's unfortunate considering we have 10 Nimitz class Carriers operational and are planning on replacing them with Gerald R. Ford class Carriers as they are built.
 
Last edited:
#106
#106
BigOrange15 said:
Carriers are becoming extinct? That's unfortunate considering we have 10 Nimitz class Carriers operational and are planning on replacing them with Gerald R. Ford class Carriers.
Click to expand...

We actually operate 11 carrier groups. The USS Enterprise is the other one but it is set to be decommissioned in a couple years and to be replaced by the Ford.
 
#107
#107
BigOrange15 said:
Carriers are becoming extinct? That's unfortunate considering we have 10 Nimitz class Carriers operational and are planning on replacing them with Gerald R. Ford class Carriers as they are built.
Click to expand...

I also think the whole aircraft carriers are becoming extinct is ridiculous. Unless somebody can come up with some other way to project power, then they will be here a long time.
 
#109
#109
They definitely aren't. If they were, every country with a major navy wouldn't be trying to upgrade or replace their carriers.
 
#111
#111
BigOrange15 said:
They definitely aren't. If they were, every country with a major navy wouldn't be trying to upgrade or replace their carriers.
Click to expand...

Countries pre-world war 2 were building big surface battleships, even though their time had already come to an end. Things lag behind strategy sometimes. Carriers are not the trump card they once were, and will be useless if you can't protect them the various sorts of missiles and torpedoes out there now with extreme range.

The US can protect their carriers, most countries cannot.
 
#112
#112
IPorange said:
Countries pre-world war 2 were building big surface battleships, even though their time had already come to an end. Things lag behind strategy sometimes. Carriers are not the trump card they once were, and will be useless if you can't protect them the various sorts of missiles and torpedoes out there now with extreme range.

The US can protect their carriers, most countries cannot.
Click to expand...

Fair point.
 
#115
#115
IPorange said:
Countries pre-world war 2 were building big surface battleships, even though their time had already come to an end. Things lag behind strategy sometimes. Carriers are not the trump card they once were, and will be useless if you can't protect them the various sorts of missiles and torpedoes out there now with extreme range.

The US can protect their carriers, most countries cannot.
Click to expand...

We're losing that ability slowly as potential adversaries develop their own sub fleets and anti-ship missile capabilities.
 
#117
#117
I dont see how 5 acres of nuclear powered, floating US Soil, will go extinct for at least 50 more years

Yes they are huge targets, but I would think/hope we are one step ahead of the bad guys
 
#118
#118
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I dont see how 5 acres of nuclear powered, floating US Soil, will go extinct for at least 50 more years

Yes they are huge targets, but I would think/hope we are one step ahead of the bad guys
Click to expand...

We are well more than a step ahead....and they aren't going extinct any time soon.
 
#119
#119
vol4eva said:
We are well more than a step ahead....and they aren't going extinct any time soon.
Click to expand...

What makes you think we are a step ahead and how long before we aren't?

I'm not saying Carriers will disappear over night but the Navy is looking into phasing them out.

Why:
Too big a target
Psychological impact of a loss to US and its enemies
The fact that enemy submarines have repeatedly broken the inner ring of defense within the last decade.
Inability to defend itself without an air wing
**Most Important** Too expensive

The Navy wants to stay one step ahead and Carriers are not the answer anymore.

BTW the carrier fleet will be reduced to 10 by fiscal year end 2012. The Enterprise is decomming early.
 
#120
#120
We are a step ahead due to the technology and equipment we currently field as well as the current projects that are being worked on. This is not including the billions of dollars being set aside for the black budget. It's unlikely that any nation will surpass the U.S. military in our lifetime unless there are tremendous cuts across the board. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. It would take many years to have the tech, equipment, training, and combat experience to match the U.S. military, and that's if the U.S. sat on it's hands.

As far as the carriers, no, the U.S. Navy is not looking to phase them out. They've authorized 3 new ones to be built, with the Ford due in 2015. They will be here at minimum the next 50 years. The Enterprise was due to be decommed in '12 or '13 to be replaced by the Ford in '15.
 
#121
#121
vol4eva said:
We are a step ahead due to the technology and equipment we currently field as well as the current projects that are being worked on. This is not including the billions of dollars being set aside for the black budget. It's unlikely that any nation will surpass the U.S. military in our lifetime unless there are tremendous cuts across the board. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. It would take many years to have the tech, equipment, training, and combat experience to match the U.S. military, and that's if the U.S. sat on it's hands.

As far as the carriers, no, the U.S. Navy is not looking to phase them out. They've authorized 3 new ones to be built, with the Ford due in 2015. They will be here at minimum the next 50 years. The Enterprise was due to be decommed in '12 or '13 to be replaced by the Ford in '15.
Click to expand...

Military spending isn't necessarily the best way to gauge things since Chinese labor costs pennies on the dollar.
 
#122
#122
We've reached the point that many things that only a carrier could do in terms of projecting power across the world can be replicated with less obvious targets.
 
#123
#123
IPorange said:
We've reached the point that many things that only a carrier could do in terms of projecting power across the world can be replicated with less obvious targets.
Click to expand...

Unless your talking about the new amphibs their building, I don't see how we can provide quick aerial strike capability without the carriers. Until they can come up with a innovative next gen way to provide sea based aerial power the carriers will be here awhile.
 
#124
#124
vol4eva said:
Unless your talking about the new amphibs their building, I don't see how we can provide quick aerial strike capability without the carriers. Until they can come up with a innovative next gen way to provide sea based aerial power the carriers will be here awhile.
Click to expand...

I will be absolutely stunned if aircraft carriers are still used in 50 years as you predicted.
 
#125
#125
vol4eva said:
Unless your talking about the new amphibs their building, I don't see how we can provide quick aerial strike capability without the carriers. Until they can come up with a innovative next gen way to provide sea based aerial power the carriers will be here awhile.
Click to expand...

How are carrier-based strikes quicker than a cruise missile from a sub off the coast?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top