[Keflavik76]

In a war at sea it would be a race between our subs and our carriers as to who would sink more.

It would be the Battle of Midway on steroids? It is not in the interests of the U.S. or China to have a maritime conflict. China probably doesn't want to find out how well their new shiny ships and hyper missiles perform against the U.S. Navy and its allies.  The British won the Falkland war but lost six ships to an inferior Navy.

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

The British won the Falkland war but lost six ships to an inferior Navy

'Scuse me, but I recall that most if not all of those Brit losses were to land-based aircraft armed with Exocet missiles. Argentine Navy did mostly transport duty along with get shot up by Brit helicopters.

JMHO those six ships were lost because some staff types ignored every bit of the knowledge re naval air that was gathered during WWII (including Midway) and sent their little fleet halfway 'round the world with about ten percent of the air muscle required to do the job.

Overall, a thorough validation of the Five P rule by all involved. (Proper Planning Prevents Pi$$ Poor Performance.

[LonePalm]

It would be the Battle of Midway on steroids? It is not in the interests of the U.S. or China to have a maritime conflict. China probably doesn't want to find out how well their new shiny ships and hyper missiles perform against the U.S. Navy and its allies. The British won the Falkland war but lost six ships to an inferior Navy.

I think it would be a battle of Midway but with the US Navy having six Essex-class carriers, perfect intelligence, and 1945 era aircraft and pilots. The Japanese would have one carrier with 1945 aircraft and pilots.

The RN lost their ships to the Argentine Air Force. The Argentine Navy only managed to get their flagship the General Belgrano sunk. Interestingly enough, the General Belgrano was the former USS Phoenix (CL-46) and the last surviving ship that was at Pearl Harbor.

If the British had even one Forrestal-class carrier present it is likely that they would not have lost a single ship. They would have had AWACS aircraft and fixed wing fighters. They could have then let the Harriers just harass the Argentine soldiers.

I was in a school with some Brit EW civilians at the time. They were getting called out of class to talk with people in the Admiralty. The Brit EW systems were seeing the Argentine Exocet missiles as friendly. They were told, "Yes we know this is a non-secure line. Just tell us how to beat these things, NOW." I'm sure the Admiralty were not that polite.

What they came up with was to park a Lynx helo over their ships whenever they knew a raid was inbound. As the missile neared, the helo pilot would pull up on the collective rising vertically and creating an expanding target in the missile's seeker head. This is just what the missile would expect to see as it approached a target and would aim for center mass. Only now there was only air between the ship an the helo.

It was an Exocet that had been decoyed by this method during an attack on HMS Broadsword that hit and sank the MV Atlantic Conveyor. It is thought that the missile never acquired Atlantic Conveyor and just happened to fly into it. In addition to losing 7-8 helos the Brits lost a major part of the fleet supply of toilet paper.

WWG1WGA

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)