Obama blocks navy from sailing near disputed Chinese islands.

[Androidpk]

The Obama administration has restricted the U.S. Pacific Command from sending ships and aircraft within 12 miles of disputed Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea, bolstering Beijing’s illegal claims over the vital seaway, Pentagon leaders revealed to Congress on Thursday.

“The administration has continued to restrict our Navy ships from operating within 12 nautical miles of China’s reclaimed islands,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said in opening remarks criticizing the failure to guarantee safe passage for international commercial ships in Asia.

“This is a dangerous mistake that grants de facto recognition of China’s man-made sovereignty claims,” he said.

The South China Sea is a strategic waterway used to transport $5 trillion annually in goods, including $1.2 trillion in trade to the United States.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-blocks-navy-from-sailing-near-disputed-chinese-islands/

[Wrathbringer]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-blocks-navy-from-sailing-near-disputed-chinese-islands/

:crickets:

No one cares because this doesn't matter. I think you just wanted to start another thread.

[Thondalar]

:crickets:

No one cares because this doesn't matter. I think you just wanted to start another thread.

But McCain is criticizing it. That matters!

[Atlanteax]

Obama is a completely chicken-shit President.


Aerial photographs released Sept. 15 by the Japanese Foreign Ministry show natural gas production at several Chinese structures in contested areas of the the East China Sea, Nikkei reported. The recently taken photographs cover 16 marine platforms, four of which are shown with mobile drilling rigs and flames associated with natural gas combustion. Each of the structures is located on the Chinese side of the median line, which Japan wants to serve as a boundary between the two countries’ exclusive economic zones, but China claims a zone extending beyond the line to the edge of the Okinawa Trough.

Looks like China is figuring once it starts energy production on its artificial islands, its territorial claims gain legitimacy.

The only hope is that Obama's pacifism compels Japan to take stronger steps towards militarization.

[Androidpk]

His foreign policy game is limp wristed alright.

[Parkbandit]

His foreign policy game is limp wristed alright.
http://moonbattery.com/barack-obama_bill-clinton.jpg

[Androidpk]

I bet he's wearing mom jeans in that photo.

[Latrinsorm]

Obama is a completely chicken-shit President. Looks like China is figuring once it starts energy production on its artificial islands, its territorial claims gain legitimacy. The only hope is that Obama's pacifism compels Japan to take stronger steps towards militarization.Maybe I'm misreading something, but doesn't your quote say that the islands are on territory that is already China's?

[Tgo01]

Maybe I'm misreading something, but doesn't your quote say that the islands are on territory that is already China's?

No. Dork.

[Latrinsorm]

Each of the structures is located on the Chinese side of the median line?

[Tgo01]

Each of the structures is located on the Chinese side of the median line?

Yes, according to China. Are you unaware of the South China Sea dispute? Huh huh? ARE YOU?!

China claims they own almost the entire sea, their claims butting up almost right next to physical land of other countries.

[Tgo01]

Here's a map to help understand the situation:

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/southchinaseaconference-rajgeet-141129054152-conversion-gate01/95/south-china-sea-dispute-7-638.jpg?cb=1417239769

The red dotted line is what China claims belongs to them. Notice the red dotted line almost touches the land of Malaysia?

The blue dotted line is what should belong to each country according to the UNCLOS agreement that almost every country on the planet has adopted and agreed to. Except the US because USA! USA! USA!

[Candor]

Yes, according to China. Are you unaware of the South China Sea dispute? Huh huh? ARE YOU?!

Yes, although I didn't realize that their claims went that close to the opposite shores. You confident with your map source?

[Tgo01]

Yes, although I didn't realize that their claims went that close to the opposite shores. You confident with your map source?

Have you ever known me to be wrong?

[Warriorbird]

Have you ever known me to be wrong?

Constantly and on purpose.

[Androidpk]

Yes, although I didn't realize that their claims went that close to the opposite shores. You confident with your map source?

http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Territorial-Claims-South-China-Sea-Map1.jpg

[caelric]

If there is a shooting war (not a counter-insurgency) in the world in the next 10-15 years, it will most likely be over China's false claims in the SCS. Probably between China and one of the smaller countries, (Vietnam, Malaysia, etc...) which we (the US) will likely step in by sending a carrier battle group. Then the carrier will get sunk by one of the Chinese ship killer cruise missiles, and then, I honestly don't know what will happen. All bets are off at that point.

[Androidpk]

China launching ballistic missiles at a US Carrier Strike Group would be a huge red line for them to cross and I wouldn't expect that decision to come lightly.

[caelric]

cruise missile =/ ballistic missile. But yes, sinking a major combatant like a carrier is a big step, but...if it's a shooting fight, I can see it happening. And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't launch nukes over the loss of a carrier to a non-nuclear attack

[Tgo01]

And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't launch nukes over the loss of a carrier to a non-nuclear attack

Especially if Obama is still president, he would probably apologize to China for our carrier being in the way of their missile's peaceful exploration mission. Am I right?!

[caelric]

Well, I doubt the carrier would be there in the first place....

[Androidpk]

Depends on how serious things get. That kind of serious shooting would most likely involve anti-satellite attacks, serious cyber warfare and missile attacks against Guam and possibly Japan.

[~Rocktar~]

Likely, the carrier would be there and all the large anti-ship missile bases would likely be hit by things like Tomahawks or the replacements and drone strikes long before a carrier was in range.

[caelric]

-and that escalated quickly...

On a serious note, do you honestly think, that if we pre-emptively bombed bases on mainland China just so our carriers could get there safely, things would not get very ugly, very quickly?

[Tgo01]

This is how I picture a war with China will look like:

http://flockofnerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/risk-1.jpg

[~Rocktar~]

-and that escalated quickly...

On a serious note, do you honestly think, that if we pre-emptively bombed bases on mainland China just so our carriers could get there safely, things would not get very ugly, very quickly?

If we are already shooting them and they are shooting us, you can bet any things like that would be gone real fast. And our carriers don't need to pre-emptively bomb anything, they have quite good defenses for those kinds of things.

[Androidpk]

Likely, the carrier would be there and all the large anti-ship missile bases would likely be hit by things like Tomahawks or the replacements and drone strikes long before a carrier was in range.

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

I think all the conservative China bluster is bullshit.

Since Nixon we haven't done jack to them. Our economies rely on each other.

[Androidpk]

I think all the conservative China bluster is bullshit.

Since Nixon we haven't done jack to them. Our economies rely on each other.

Sure, let's just hand that entire area over to them.

[Thondalar]

cruise missile =/ ballistic missile. But yes, sinking a major combatant like a carrier is a big step, but...if it's a shooting fight, I can see it happening. And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't launch nukes over the loss of a carrier to a non-nuclear attack

I honestly don't see a nuclear option unless another country uses nukes. I could very well see a conventional war with China in my lifetime.

[Androidpk]

I honestly don't see a nuclear option unless another country uses nukes. I could very well see a conventional war with China in my lifetime.

A lot of factors would determine that. While unlikely I'd never rule out the risk.

[Warriorbird]

Sure, let's just hand that entire area over to them.

So... who, post Nixon, has done anything to China?

[Androidpk]

So... who, post Nixon, has done anything to China?

Depends on what you mean by that.

[Warriorbird]

Depends on what you mean by that.

Even Reagan, who Republicans perceive as tough, went to China to make nice so we could send send more business there.

[Androidpk]

Even Reagan, who Republicans perceive as tough, went to China to make nice so we could send send more business there.

Okay? Both Bush's went to China too. What does that have to do with the ongoing tensions in the Pacific?

[Warriorbird]

Okay? Both Bush's went to China too. What does that have to do with the ongoing tensions in the Pacific?

I'm saying that you're all "OBAMA'S SO WEAK!" but nobody's been "STRONG." China's constantly doing horrible shit but they're a huge portion of our economy.

[Parkbandit]

China launching ballistic missiles at a US Carrier Strike Group would be a huge red line for them to cross and I wouldn't expect that decision to come lightly.
http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/obama-red-line-cartoon.jpg

[Androidpk]

I'm saying that you're all "OBAMA'S SO WEAK!" but nobody's been "STRONG." China's constantly doing horrible shit but they're a huge portion of our economy.

Why is it whenever someone critiques Obama or the Democratic party you always interject with pointless blaming? "But they did it too!!1"

[Parkbandit]

I'm saying that you're all "OBAMA'S SO WEAK!" but nobody's been "STRONG." China's constantly doing horrible shit but they're a huge portion of our economy.

So, if we can boil this down:

"Us All" : Obama is weak.
You: BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH REPUBLICANS!

[Parkbandit]

Why is it whenever someone critiques Obama or the Democratic party you always interject with pointless blaming? "But they did it too!!1"

Hi! You must be new to these forums.

I'm Parkbandit, welcome.

[Wrathbringer]

Why is it whenever someone critiques Obama or the Democratic party you always interject with pointless blaming? "But they did it too!!1"


So, if we can boil this down:

"Us All" : Obama is weak.
You: BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH REPUBLICANS!


Hi! You must be new to these forums.

I'm Parkbandit, welcome.

LOL get some, warriortird.

[crb]

People without any military understanding vastly overestimate China's power.

They run a lot of diesel submarines. Ya, diesel ones.

They have no force projection abilities.

A war against them would be self financing, considering all the US debt they own. When you owe a bank a million dollars it is your problem. When you owe a bank a billion dollars it is their problem. China has like a trillion in US debt, which we would simply cancel or take back in the event of an armed conflict.

They have little domestic natural resources, and internally their economy isn't so hot, they rely on importing raw materials and exporting finished products. Considering how much better our navy is, their ports would be the first to go. Their economy would grind to a halt. We would run out of cheap novelty products. They need us more than we need them.

Yes, they have missiles, and nukes, we have more.

Occupying China would be fucking impossible, and a land war would be disastrous, but by sea and air we'd fuck them up so hard. Yes China has one of the largest most powerful militaries in the world, but it still like a high school football team vs the Green Bay Packers. That isn't even bringing NATO into it.

[Androidpk]

Speaking of someone who sounds like they have no military knowledge..

[crb]

Speaking of someone who sounds like they have no military knowledge..

Is anything I said wrong?



No.



Look:

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/lets-sea-the-10-biggest-navies-in-the-world/?view=all

Navies by tonnage.

China, 708k tons, US 3.5 million tons. 5x more, and a lot of that is skewed because all of our ships are newer/better. China has mostly diesel subs, like I said, 1950s technology, we have all nuclear subs. We have 5-6x more nuclear subs than China. They're not really a blue water navy.

Japan, South Korea, & Australia vs China would be an interesting fight. The US vs China would not be.

[Androidpk]

Tonnage/numbers alone don't guarantee victory.

You say they have diesel submarines as if that is a problem. Diesel submarines, while lot as capableas nuclear submarines, are still incredibly dangerous due to how quiet they run. See a couple of years ago when a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a carrier strike group without even being detected.

Ni, they don't have the force projection like we do but in thus situation it doesn't matter as much considering their proximation to the region in question.
The amount of force they can bring to bear is greater than any other country in that region. Their potential A2AD poses a very real threat to the US Pacific fleet operating in that part of the world.

[Astray]

Didn't the US fly some bombers over restricted Chinese air space and fuck all happened?

[Androidpk]

Didn't the US fly some bombers over restricted Chinese air space and fuck all happened?

No.

[Astray]

No.

I could have sworn I read that somewhere.

YEAH! It was during that ridiculous Senkaku Islands dispute China had with Japan.

[crb]

Tonnage/numbers alone don't guarantee victory.

You say they have diesel submarines as if that is a problem. Diesel submarines, while lot as capableas nuclear submarines, are still incredibly dangerous due to how quiet they run. See a couple of years ago when a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a carrier strike group without even being detected.

Ni, they don't have the force projection like we do but in thus situation it doesn't matter as much considering their proximation to the region in question.
The amount of force they can bring to bear is greater than any other country in that region. Their potential A2AD poses a very real threat to the US Pacific fleet operating in that part of the world.

Diesel Submarines run off batteries, charged by internal combustion engines that require AIR to work, necessitating them to surface regularly. Nuclear Submarines do not. It isn't even fucking close.

In the realm of a shooting war, force projection doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that the war would be fought in the south china sea and not in the eastern pacific? Really. We'll be in range to destroy their cities, they would be in range to shoot at our boats.

China, by the way, relies more on oil imports than we do. They also import food. Food.... through ports, that would be in a war zone? How is that going to work out?

[Androidpk]

Usually I consider you a smart poster on these boards but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

[crb]

Usually I consider you a smart poster on these boards but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

Like I said, show me how I'm wrong.

War is a struggle between two militaries, but it is also a struggle between two economies, because it is the economy that fuels the war machine. China has an incredibly fragile economy that lives through its imports, domestic consumption is not strong enough to fuel it. Their ports are clustered in the same geographic area, the US is pretty unique in that we have ports on the two largest world oceans, most countries lack that luxury. Because of China's green water navy, because of their lack of force projection, any war with them is going to take place directly by their ports. Ships can move and hide, docks cannot. In addition to normal power plants and military installations their ports would be early strategic targets for us, we could take them out in a variety of ways (considering how the Chinese like to store chemicals, some may require a single match - I jest). The chinese navy would end up cut off from the chinese mainland without the ability to easily resupply, meanwhile we'd be soaking in imports through our ports on both coasts. Their one aircraft carrier would be lost, and all of their heaviest ships, and our subs would slowly but surely hunt down theirs. Eventually their navy would be no more. We would lose ships, even carriers, but we have more.

It would move to the air, the proximity to land would give the chinese the ability to launch land based missiles, but our air superiority is still... well... superior. We could again lose ships to missiles, but our missile subs could get in close and fire back, not to mention stealth bombers, which can take off from Missouri, and hit China, then fly back.

China could send nukes, but then you enter mutually assured destruction territory. We could have cities hit, Hawaii, Guam, for sure, but not DC, not New York, they'd lose Beijing, and every other.

Their would be cyber attacks, but in a full scale war that is easier to defend against (we know the building they work out of, and lets face it, in a war like this, it would be probable to sever internet connections between continents.) We're also not as shabby there as we lead on (see stuxnet). It is also hard to hack by candlelight.

It'd be overall a really shitty thing, but there would be no doubt who would win.

[Androidpk]

Seriously, stop.

[Taernath]

He's right about their force projection capabilities and the economic impact a war would have. I don't know about Chinese submarines, but we do spend more on defense than the next 7 countries combined, and about 3x as much as China.

[Androidpk]

He's right about their force projection capabilities and the economic impact a war would have. I don't know about Chinese submarines, but we do spend more on defense than the next 7 countries combined, and about 3x as much as China.

Again, we're talking about a theoretical war in China's neighborhood, where do they have force projection capabilities.

[m444w]

Submarines and warships are all stupid in modern warfare between 2 developed nations.

China knows this, so it didn't invest in archaic infrastructure. China has the world's best cyber war unit, and virtually all of our infrastructure would be wiped out within an hour.

China also has the world's largest deposits of rare earth elements, and currently comprises 97% of EXPORTS world wide for all of the fancy devices that are currently needed to construct devices like... computers.

We have around 13% of the remaining rare earth elements, another like 13% is in Eastern Bloc countries, and the remainder is in India, Brasil and a few other places.

The US has not developed the majority of the rights because they are in the Mojave Desert and something about glowing green water...

Anyway, if the US and China got into a war, the most brutal attacks would happen with keystrokes, not an aircraft carrier or submarines.

[Androidpk]

Except China is investing heavily in naval power. They've had nuclear submarines and they're still developing and building new ones. That is in addition to surface warships, amphibious assault ships, etc. You're right though that a conflict like that would involve some serious cyberwarfare and the results could be catastrophic.

[Taernath]

Again, we're talking about a theoretical war in China's neighborhood, where do they have force projection capabilities.

Nobody is saying otherwise. It would be a defensive air and naval war on China's part though, except for maybe our bases in Korea (which I would expect Best Korea to try and take advantage of). We're not going to be landing troops in Beijing and they aren't going to be landing troops in San Francisco.

As far as cyberwarfare, I suspect our capabilities are better than we let on, but we won't know either way unless it comes down to it.

[Warriorbird]

Why is it whenever someone critiques Obama or the Democratic party you always interject with pointless blaming? "But they did it too!!1"

There's no blaming here. I don't fault Republicans or Democrats for it. They are our economy. Of course we're not gonna really do shit to them. Libertarians like ideas like "stop trade with China" "default on all the money we owe" "end all entitlements and let people starve" but none are going to happen.

Why do you act like Republicans are somehow going to be different?

[Androidpk]

Why do you act like Republicans are somehow going to be different?

I don't.

[crb]

Again, we're talking about a theoretical war in China's neighborhood, where do they have force projection capabilities.

I'm wondering why you think a war on your home turf is GOOD for the country at home and bad for the other country?

Think of history, when is having armed conflict at your doorstep a good thing?

Yes, China's military is more of a threat on their turf than on ours, but they're also, you know, much more vulnerable. China wouldn't have much a prayer to damage the US military industrial complex, we would obliterate theirs. Because their navy yards would be within shouting distance of our warships, meanwhile ours are over in Virginia on the other side of the world. This is, actually, a benefit to us. China would not be able to keep us far enough away to keep their infrastructure safe, and while armies do not march on their stomachs anymore, it really is the economic machine feeding the military that wins or loses a war.

[Androidpk]

I'm wondering how you think the US is going to get a fleet within range of China's numerous A2/AD capabilities. Even PACOM realizes the dangers. Though, maybe you should contact them and let them know there is nothing to worry about.

[crb]

Submarines and warships are all stupid in modern warfare between 2 developed nations.

China knows this, so it didn't invest in archaic infrastructure. China has the world's best cyber war unit, and virtually all of our infrastructure would be wiped out within an hour.

China also has the world's largest deposits of rare earth elements, and currently comprises 97% of EXPORTS world wide for all of the fancy devices that are currently needed to construct devices like... computers.

We have around 13% of the remaining rare earth elements, another like 13% is in Eastern Bloc countries, and the remainder is in India, Brasil and a few other places.

The US has not developed the majority of the rights because they are in the Mojave Desert and something about glowing green water...

Anyway, if the US and China got into a war, the most brutal attacks would happen with keystrokes, not an aircraft carrier or submarines.

You vastly overestimate the vulnerability of things. How do you hack into something that isn't connected to the Internet? Most Chinese cyberwar is conducted out of a single building, we know exactly where it is. They're not like a distributed terror network. We're also scary good at such things, I think it is a bit of a stretch to call China the world's best cyber war unit.

But please, explain to me how say, a power plant not connected to the Internet, or say, the interstate highway system, or a steel factory, will be wiped out by Chinese hackers. Also you should watch the Battlestar Galactic miniseries sometimes, very good. Really, "all of the US infrastructure would be wiped out in an hour." I'm not sure if you know what the words "infrastructure" or "hour" mean, because that sentence was ridiculous. I'm sure quite a few websites will be defaced, they might take down Play.net or whitehouse.gov.

You are correct about rare earth elements, the one natural resource china has (one). You're incorrect in that they're needed a lot in computers, they're not. They're needed in battery technology (tablets, phones, teslas). You're also incorrect in that you think they are a war-time strategic resource, they aren't. The US would not need to import rare earth elements for our war effort. Think of all the computers & batteries that get dumped and recycled, really, and we're not talking about barrels of the stuff either, its rare, and you use it in small quantities. Strategic resources would be oil number 1, then things like steel and of course food is always needed, medical supplies. Copper is more important than rare earth in the same sorts of devices (how many millions of miles of wires are in a destroyer?). China imports all of that. They import oil, they import iron ore, they import copper, they import food. They have little domestic sources of any of those (food aside, all those rice patties, but they just have so many people), and most of that is being imported over ocean.

[Androidpk]

The facility attacked by the Stuxnet virus wasn't connected to the internet. And if you think China has all of their cyber warfare capabilities bottled up in one building then I have some bridges to sell you.

[crb]

I'm wondering how you think the US is going to get a fleet within range of China's numerous A2/AD capabilities. Even PACOM realizes the dangers. Though, maybe you should contact them and let them know there is nothing to worry about.

You act as if our ships have no missile defenses.

You act as if we do not have any way of hitting the Chinese mainland that doesn't involve parking a carrier group right off shore as a first strike.

We have missiles too, we have stealth bombers, we have missile submarines. We have far more friends in the region than China does, we could park land based systems like China has all over Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, etc etc etc. Completely bottling them up. They can swim back and forth in their kiddee pool while we pick them off.

[Androidpk]

While the Aegis interception capabilities are nice they aren't built to protect against swarms of cruise and ballistic missiles.

[crb]

The facility attacked by the Stuxnet virus wasn't connected to the internet. And if you think China has all of their cyber warfare capabilities bottled up in one building then I have some bridges to sell you.

I know, and we did it, because we're that good. It required a stupid employee or stupid procedures though, usb ports. I've not been in many nuclear plants (0) but I'm going to go ahead and guess control terminals don't have USB ports, or modems, or ethernet cards. And we're a little smarter about things than the Iranians.

I said most, not all.

[~Rocktar~]

While the Aegis interception capabilities are nice they aren't built to protect against swarms of cruise and ballistic missiles.

Yeah, actually, they were. And when you can intercept 32 targets as fast as you can launch the missiles from the ship, then as soon as they are clear of the ship pick the next 32 and so on, and that is what we know from the offical specs published in the early 80s. Not that they have upgraded the capabilities just a bit or anything like that.

Nevermind, keep living in your bubble.

[crb]

You really think that if we're in a shooting war with China to the extent that you can use the phrase "swarms of cruise and ballistic missiles" that every coastal city they have wouldn't be on fire?

"Mr. President China just shot missiles at one of our carriers"

"How many?"

"A swarm sir."

"How many da fuck is a swarm?"

"Too many to count sir?"

"Don't we have computers that count those things?"

"Too many for the computers to count sir."

"Okay, what should our response be?"

"Send a swarm back?"

"Give that man a cookie, what should we target?"

"Er, we have a lot of missiles sir, everything?"

"Make it so Number One."

[Androidpk]

Thank god neither of you is involved in national security matters.

[Taernath]

Thank god neither of you is involved in national security matters.

Come on now, you were advocating the reintroduction of battleships to the US fleet earlier.

What does the pk stand for, Peking? You a commie sympathizer?

[Androidpk]

Come on now, you were advocating the reintroduction of battleships to the US fleet.

What does the pk stand for, PeKing? You a commie?

Doesn't stand for anything.

I still maintain bringing those ships back is a good idea.

[Androidpk]

And yes, anyone that acts as if victory is absolutely guaranteed in a hypothetical war at an unknown time is dangerously ignorant and borderline bat shit crazy.

[Thondalar]

Again, we're talking about a theoretical war in China's neighborhood, where do they have force projection capabilities.

I'm not sure if you know what force projection means. Which is weird because you should.

Crb is completely correct that we probably couldn't win a land war against China, simply because the region is too vast, and home-grown resistance would be nearly insurmountable over any reasonable time frame. Chinese commoners aren't nearly as well armed as US commoners, so we would have an easier time of it than they would with us, but still...the numerical advantage is pretty stout. 5 to 1 kill ratio sounds great unless there are 20 of me and 500 of you.

However, this wouldn't be that. If the shit really hit the fan, we would obliterate their air force within a few weeks, and then have free reign of the skies...their ground-based Army is a substantive force, but their Navy and Air Force are laughable compared to ours. It would be a bunch of guys sitting around wishing they had boats and planes to attack us with.

[Androidpk]

I am well aware of what force projection means.

[~Rocktar~]

Doesn't stand for anything.

I still maintain bringing those ships back is a good idea.

Sure, let's bring back some oil fired steam boiler driven ships with massive loads of outdated wiring, plumbing and everything else in the ship back into service. Upgrade to nuke propulsion, sure, cut the ships in 3 parts to put in the reactors then rewire the whole thing to use the electricity. Then re-balance the ship to remain afloat. Then consider the fact that an 8 yr old with a cell phone, an app and some wire can make a radar set that will pick the thing up from days away. Lastly, let's consider that the main reason to scrap them was the cost of maintenance, fuel and crew costs. The US Navy, who knows a hell of a lot more than you do about those ships and the challenges faced did the design studies and cost analysis in the 70s and 80s. Even with loads of inflation, lots less entitlement programs and less interest on the debt the costs were not even close to worth it.

A Zumwalt can deliver more firepower faster, at a longer distance and more accurately than the big BB's can and it would cost less to just build a couple more of them than refit the old ships.

The only thing they can possibly do that modern ships can't do is survive in a nuclear battlefield. And that is a slim possibility with advanced targeting being able to put a nuke right on top of one or under it, should things come to that.

Railguns and hyper velocity missiles along with modern sensors make such large beasts with massive armor irrelevant. The only thing that saves carriers is the air group that keeps enemies away from them.

[Androidpk]

Couple of things to address your points Rocktar. There is a reason why the Iowa class ships haven't been scrapped. No other ship can match their naval fire support. In fact there is a congressional mandate saying that until the Navy finds a suitable replacement to fill that mission requirement then the ships Iowa and Missouri must be held in a state where they can be brought back into service. The Zumwalt was supposed to fit the bill but the Navy has decided not to go forward with them. Procurement has dropped from 32 destroyers down to 3. 1 is finished and undergoing trials, the other 2 are being built now. The Pentagon is currently in talks to have the 3rd ship scrapped (even though I believe it is already 40% complete.) While nice looking on paper the ship has some serious problems, one of those problems being survivability.

Yes, the battleships are big. But they're also fast, capable of manuevering at 32 knots. They're also the only ships we have that can withstand the impact of missiles, especially anti-ship cruise missiles.

[~Rocktar~]

The major issue with the Zumwalt is the same thing that is the issue with the F-35 and that is Congress.

[Androidpk]

The major issue with the Zumwalt is the same thing that is the issue with the F-35 and that is Congress.

Explain?

[~Rocktar~]

Major increase in the F-35 project cost came from the second engine project that Congress insisted on. Instead of just allowing the engine to be built in multiple places and by multiple companies, they paid for a fully engineered second engine to be worked on. Double the development costs of the power plant. Then, instead of new tech being added as retrofit, they decided that the whole plane had to be designed to include it. Same bullshit that happened to the Bradley, Congress/politically driven BS added to the design because of idiocy. Click Here (https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA) There must be a cutoff point where you decide what gets done and do it instead of fapping around with the public's money. Zumwalt, Congress decided on a ridiculous set of specs that in some cases were contradictory and changed them a bunch of times. Same thing happened with the Space Shuttle, add congress and the Air Force to the mix and you end up with the most complex machine ever built by man, years later than originally planned, massively over budget and you get only 3 instead of 12-15 like first planned. (Not to even explore the political murder of astronauts committed by pressure from Congress and Hillary)

Try building something where the owner can't make up their mind and once they do, they change it in the middle of construction then complains about the cost. Congress has been doing this shit for a long long time with military equipment, nuclear power plants, mass transit and so on. And this is before the inclusion of the latest pork to the funding bills, the contractor skulduggery and flat out corruption and graft.

[Androidpk]

Congress is only part of the problem, not the entirety.

Procurement issues aside you're still wrong about the Zumwalt. Its two guns have a fire rate of 20 rounds a minute compared to 18 a minute for the 16 inch guns. 2 rounds less but completely negligible considering how much more powerful those shells are compared to the ones used by the 155mm guns. It's true they have a shorter range but modern advances in sabot and scramjet artillery rounds could be used to negate those differences.

[~Rocktar~]

Congress is only part of the problem, not the entirety.

Please point to ANYWHERE that I said or implied that Congress was the ONLY problem. Yeah, that's right, you can't.


Procurement issues aside you're still wrong about the Zumwalt. Its two guns have a fire rate of 20 rounds a minute compared to 18 a minute for the 16 inch guns. 2 rounds less but completely negligible considering how much more powerful those shells are compared to the ones used by the 155mm guns. It's true they have a shorter range but modern advances in sabot and scramjet artillery rounds could be used to negate those differences.

Yes, the guns could be improved to be more accurate and perhaps longer ranged. Still meaningless when you are a massive sitting duck and will never get into a ship to ship battle with those guns. If you are shelling land, missiles and planes carry more, longer and more accuratly, shelling the sea, missiles are far better. The only substantial bonus of those guns is the ability to make a helipad in the middle of the jungle, 16 miles inland while fighting a 4th world power. Oh wait. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_84_bomb)

I would also like to introduce you to the Zumwalt's main gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System) and It's replacement. (http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer) Which is not "being considered" it's going to be deployed.

We need better, newer, more capable and modular ships, not ones designed to fight a war on the sea over 70 years ago. They make great objects of pride, they don't make great monsters of battle anymore in the face of the modern warfare at sea. Way to stick to one system in order to justify everything else by the way.

[Androidpk]

Well I asked for an explanation and the only thing you said is that it is congress' fault.

I'm not sure why you keep saying they're obsolete. Ship to ship combat isnt even the issue, it's naval fire support.
That article about the railgun on the third Zumwalt ship is from the beginning of the year by the way. Like I said the Pentagon is looking to scrap that third ship.

[~Rocktar~]

Well I asked for an explanation and the only thing you said is that it is congress' fault.

Please re-read all my posts on the subject then get back with me when your English comprehension improves.


I'm not sure why you keep saying they're obsolete. Ship to ship combat isnt even the issue, it's naval fire support.
That article about the railgun on the third Zumwalt ship is from the beginning of the year by the way. Like I said the Pentagon is looking to scrap that third ship.

Because other, cheaper to operate ships are far better and more versatile for the job.

[Androidpk]

Please re-read all my posts on the subject then get back with me when your English comprehension improves.


Again, I asked you to clarify your answer of the Zumwalt having the same problem as the F-35. The only answer you gave was to blame Congress.



Because other, cheaper to operate ships are far better and more versatile for the job.

What other ships? There is no other ship capable of providing the kind of naval fire support a BBG can. Versatile? Did you forget they also have Tomahawks and Phalanx defense guns?

Please, go educate yourself about the subject matter at hand before continuing to look like an embarrassment.

[~Rocktar~]

Again, I asked you to clarify your answer of the Zumwalt having the same problem as the F-35. The only answer you gave was to blame Congress.

Read post 79, I answered your question with a description of feature creep, changing specs and ongoing political manuvering that jacked up costs and delayed production. As I said before, go back and read my posts and get back to me when you have some reading comprehension improvement.


What other ships? There is no other ship capable of providing the kind of naval fire support a BBG can. Versatile? Did you forget they also have Tomahawks and Phalanx defense guns?

Iowa DDG: loads of guns, 32 tomahawks, 16 harpoons in 4 quad mounts, 4 CIWS, 2 helicopters, sea and air search radar, countermeasures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

It can shell the land, shoot ships and defend it's self ok.

Ticondaroga class missile cruisers: couple of guns, 122 missiles in VLS system, 8 harpoon missiles in 2 quad mounts, 2 CIWS, a tripple tube 324 mm torpedo mount, 2 helicopters, countermeasures, the most effective sea and air search radar deployed anywhere and the Navy standard Naval Tactical Data System. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ticonderoga/

It can shell the land, shoot ships, shoot down airplanes, hunt subs, shoot down satellites, shoot down ICBMs. Also uses smaller ports, less fuel and less personnel.



Please, go educate yourself about the subject matter at hand before continuing to look like an embarrassment.

Please demonstrate where you think your education in this area exceeds mine without making unfounded statements and spurious feel good statements.

[Androidpk]

Iowa DDG: loads of guns, 32 tomahawks, 16 harpoons in 4 quad mounts, 4 CIWS, 2 helicopters, sea and air search radar, countermeasures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

It can shell the land, shoot ships and defend it's self ok.

Ticondaroga class missile cruisers: couple of guns, 122 missiles in VLS system, 8 harpoon missiles in 2 quad mounts, 2 CIWS, a tripple tube 324 mm torpedo mount, 2 helicopters, countermeasures, the most effective sea and air search radar deployed anywhere and the Navy standard Naval Tactical Data System. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ticonderoga/

It can shell the land, shoot ships, shoot down airplanes, hunt subs, shoot down satellites, shoot down ICBMs. Also uses smaller ports, less fuel and less personnel.





Battleships can provide anti-air defense as well as theater missile defense. Do they use more fuel? Yes, but they also have over double the range of the Ticonderoga cruiser. And saying the cruiser has anti-satellite capabilities is a bit of a misnomer considering the navy has done only one test amd that was against a faalling satellite just as it was about to re-enter the atmosphere.

As far as shelling land.. the Mark 7 gun range is a little bit further than the 5" guns on the Ticonderoga. You're also talking about a 2,700 lb shell versus a 70 lb shell. The cruiser can't even com close to providing the same level of fire support. Not to mention you'd have to be insane to bring a cruiser within 20 miles of land considering its paper-thin armor. Oh wait, oops, it doesn't even have armor, it has kevlar reinforcing in certain critical areas to provide splinter protection. Meanwhile the Iowa class ships have a foot of armor on its belt alone. For all that weight in armor it is still as fast as the Ticonderoga.

Last but not least is pschological presence. As Roosevelt said walk softly and carry a big stick. The psychological effect that these battleships bring with them cannot be matched, and that is just their presence, their artillery capabilty even more so. You can't say the same about aircraft and missiles.

The biggest drawback for the Iowa class ships is the manpower requirement. This could easily be reduced in many ways. For example, remove all the 5 inch guns and replace them with the 155m automated advanced gun system from the Zumwalt, as well as removing the smaller cannons and replacing them more Phalanx systems. You could even remove the rear gun house and have a missile farm with 302 missiles.

[Androidpk]

Read this, he states it all better than I do.

https://www.msu.edu/~stoetze4/IowaBattleships.htm

[crb]

I don't know, I sorta dig the idea of battleships.

I read an article saying they could be used as flag ships, instead of making a couple new flagships, and in the end would be cheaper and more useful.

I also like the idea of using cheaper shells vs missiles.

I'm also a big fan of being prepared for anything. The specific sort of tool they offer is something we don't have. It is one thing to say we don't need it today, and maybe you're right. It is another thing to say we'll never need it again. That I would disagree with, because I can't see the future. For what we spend on a lot of things, and if we were really going to be building new otherwise pointless flagships for even more money, bringing these back seem to make sense.

[subzero]

https://stefansmovies.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/electronic-battleship-4.jpg

[Androidpk]

I don't know, I sorta dig the idea of battleships.

I read an article saying they could be used as flag ships, instead of making a couple new flagships, and in the end would be cheaper and more useful.

I also like the idea of using cheaper shells vs missiles.

I'm also a big fan of being prepared for anything. The specific sort of tool they offer is something we don't have. It is one thing to say we don't need it today, and maybe you're right. It is another thing to say we'll never need it again. That I would disagree with, because I can't see the future. For what we spend on a lot of things, and if we were really going to be building new otherwise pointless flagships for even more money, bringing these back seem to make sense.

:lol2:

[Androidpk]

Looks like Obama has changed his mind and will authorize the Navy patrols in these regions.


“The Obama administration will soon order Navy warships to patrol near man-made islands constructed by China in the South China Sea, a U.S. warning that it will not accept Beijing’s vast territorial claims in the heavily traveled waters, officials said. But a decision to escalate the tit-for-tat jockeying with Beijing carries risks: Depending on how the planned display of U.S. power unfolds, it could be seen by Beijing and American allies in the region as a sign of U.S. strength — or of a reluctance to confront China.

The Pentagon has given President Obama a menu of options that range from sending a lone, lightly armed vessel within the 12-mile territorial waters claimed by China around the dredged islands or a more formidable force of multiple warships and surveillance flights, an official familiar with the discussions said. Although U.S. patrols within 12 miles of the islands in the Spratly archipelago are likely, officials say, Obama has not decided on how large a show of force he wants to make against China, a country with which the U.S. is keen to maintain smooth relations even as it seeks to counter Beijing’s growing assertiveness.”

[Androidpk]

Within the next 24 hours, the U.S. Navy will execute a freedom of navigation mission in the South China Sea that will put the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer USS Lassen within 12 miles of China’s man-made islands. (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/decision-to-send-u-s-navy-ship-near-chinese-man-made-i-1736805779#_ga=1.212463197.856494537.1431573216) Air cover and reconnaissance aircraft will be monitoring the mission nearby in international airspace and waiting to give assistance if need be.

Good.

[Astray]

About fucking time someone stops those guys with the red flag. Oh. Wait. Wrong flag.

[Androidpk]

Wut

[Astray]

Wut

Chinese flag is red. Russian flag has red, but this time I was referring to the commie flag... aw fuck it. WW3's gonna be boring anyways.

[Androidpk]

War is boring.

[Androidpk]

Looks like it happened already.


A senior US defence official told Reuters news agency the warship began its mission early on Tuesday local time near the reefs and would spend several hours there.

The ship would probably be accompanied by a US Navy P-8A surveillance plane and a P-3 surveillance plane, according to the unnamed official, speaking to US media.

Additional patrols could follow in the coming weeks, the official added.