Posted on 09/15/2020 1:26:58 PM PDT by cba123
That picture from Morgan looks like 2 more freighters not carriers.
It will be the Greatest Sh!tshow on Earth!"
No Inspection Ready unit was ever Combat Ready.
No Combat Ready unit was ever Inspection Ready.
the Chinese are adopting the same loser strategy the Russians adopted during the Cold War, numbers over quality, it didn’t work then and its doubtful it will work now.
Had they come through the Fulda Gap, their first rest stop was 6km behind us; they would have been at the English Channel in 72 hours - no matter what forces in the region countered them, no matter the use of tactical nukes. Quantity would have overrun quality.
In the real world today, the US has all these wonder weapons you mention, but the limitation is that you can only get so many on station at one time; each has only so many missiles/planes. When faced with a long supply line, getting more back on station becomes problematical in a contested space. China, on the other hand, has a very short supply line and can quickly replenish stores to its relatively cheap platforms.
The US has never faced a situation where the enemy has gone after their AWACs and refuelers plus the US GPS satellite system. I suppose it needs to be pointed out the the Chinese are perfecting their antisatellite systems on which all of those US wonder weapons rely to greater or lessor extent.
“Of course the Pentagon is saying these things, that kind of scare tactic and endless war are how they continue to demand more money from Congress. “
You seem to be arguing for uniliteral disarmament. The pentagon uses just a small percent of the GDP that it did decades ago and will continue to shrink as entitlements grow.
Who won the cold war? Also, if the Russians thought they could have won they would have attacked, but they didn’t because they knew their crappy quality equipment would have been destroyed quickly. The proof is in the pudding. Even the Riskiest didn’t believe in their numbers over quality, yet you do. Interesting to say the least.
And of course you believe all the chinese propaganda about all their new weapons. And of course you believe they’re developing all these wonder weapons in a vacuum where the US is doing nothing to counter these threats. Stop being stuck on stupid is the nicest thing I can say about your opinion on this. You’re just not very well informed about the truth.
Russia did not attack for a host of other reasons - mainly because they new the situation would quickly escalate into strategic exchanges; it had nothing to do with crappy equipment.
My comment was based on classified info I had access to at the time. You just speculate.
The life expectancy of a helicopter in such a conflict was 15 seconds, tanks one minute of less. You have no idea of the scale.
There seems to be no middle ground with you on this topic. Like do many here you think everything has to have a link to prove a fact or point. If that is not provided then launch into ‘opinion-based’ attack, while accusing the other guy of “not knowing the truth”. Perhaps you would be more at home over on DU.
They do - the Chinese set up a CATOBAR simulator facility ashore for testing and training. It’s basically the top third of a CATOBAR carrier.
The problems with EMALS are software related, the hardware works fine. Also, the USN has theirs working just fine now.
The Chinese are a crafty people. If most of what we buy, including military components, are made there then no one should say they don’t have the industry to pull it off. They do, they really, really do. I work with Chinese and they are well educated and very capable.
Still cannot sortie fast enough for a combat situation; ship is relegated to training missions for foreseeable future. EMALS least of worries besetting ill thought out ship as befits the naval hubris and stupidity
According to a lot of Freepers we should just scuttle our worthless carrier fleet.
Actually, they do have it down to about a minute between launches now - while not the specified 45 seconds, it’s enough that it is acceptable for a combat situation. Also enough to get the air wing conducting normal cycle test operations instead of controlled single tests. They even finally seem to have started to get a handle on the weapons elevators.
I am not speculating at all. Believe whatever you want to believe. I don’t care what you choose to believe but I will continue to tell the truth. All of our weapons and platforms and sensors and combat systems are way better than those of our communist enemies. So stay stuck on stupid, keep believing the chinese and russian propaganda and the western sources that are in the chinese employ, it matters not to me.
that’s good.
How about the radar and the toilets?
My point is that despite the paper prowess of those weapons there simply are not enough of them to take out the expected missile warms and fighter swarms. There was an article not long ago about the lack of defense against this tactic. You are definitely a True Believer: as we used to say in Russian pravda-ji-til-nic swallowing whole cloth
I don’t think the radar will be working, but Enterprise didn’t have a working radar for a lot of her career anyway.
Ok I believe you now. So we should just surrender to the commies of the world. I mean you just claimed you got your info about missile swarms from a news article. Most likely this was Chinese propaganda. Many western news outlets are really just propaganda mills for China. Nice try but it’s obvious you don’t know shit about shinola. All you do is repeat the typical conventional wisdom, which is 90% of the time BS and disinformation. Again nice try but you’ve exposed yourself.
Missile swarms are like arty barrages one or two rounds might get the job done but 100 works better - didn’t you ever learn that when you were in the mil?
Go back to DU
I hope that was sarcasm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.