About HOW TO SINK AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER?
|July 6th, 2004||#1|
| || |
HOW TO SINK AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER? info
WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE NEED TO FIGHT SO OFTEN? HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE BABIES?
|July 6th, 2004||#2|
| || |
Great topic, I have wanted to discuss this in English long time ago. And this has been discussed numerous times in Chinese forums in Chinese
I will try to dig out some points there later
From Corporals to Generals. Rising Dragons of Middle Kingdom.
|July 6th, 2004||#3|
| || |
Yes I have always been itching my head when those enormous ships mooves around on the opend sea and they are in combat situations.
I have never heard that one of them in modern warfare have been attacked. "Closest I have come to a posibility to sink one attackdivers"
*lol* Libya did not send any fighters against them, Iraq didn´t send any fighters under the Gulfwar. If I was a nation and I did know that a country with carriers would attack my country then the first thing to take out would be the carriers of my enemy. Even long before they could establish a "bridgehead". 7 December 1941 Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was a success in many ways, sad but true.
Col. Meyers: What\'s your assessment of this situation, Gunny?
Highway: It\'s a cluster ****, sir. Marines shouldn\'t be sitting on their sorry asses filling out requisitions for equipment they should already have.
Col. Meyers: An astute observation.
|July 6th, 2004||#5|
| || |
What about Exocet-style missiles? I know during the Falklands war, the exocets were a big threat to the Royal Navy and that destroyers had sometimes to be sacrificed in order to allow the Aircraft carriers to remain undamaged.
\"There are known knowns. These are the things we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don\'t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don\'t know we don\'t know.\"
|July 6th, 2004||#6|
| || |
you know, the posters on this forum are getting very very creative. Lets qualify things a bit:
1. First is this open to an assault on just any old aircraft carrier? Or specifically, an US Aircraft Carrier, an English Aircraft Carrier, a French Aircraft Carrier, or just the generic type Aircraft carrier? Each national group that has them has diffrent methods to employ them, different methods to protect them.
2. Second, which country is going to do the attacking? Big difference here as well. There would be a world of difference in the capability of the attacker against the target. Lets say the US and the Idonesasia groups are at war. There could be a method for the Indonesasians to absolutely eat the American carrier easily, just based on the tactic used.
3. Do you want it done with regard to the attackers lives, or no consideration. This makes a difference in the method too.
4. One last thing: remember, we are not trying to provide a cookbook or military recipe environment here, as this could really get us in trouble with just about every law abiding country in the free world. What ever answer you post cannot contain details of your countries capabilities that are considered not in the public domain.
So with that in mind, happy hunting the carriers.
“If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down.”— General James H. Doolittle, USAAF
|July 6th, 2004||#7|
| || |
Well that can be a posibility.... But how many got a missile like that? Poore cruiser crews China have anti-ship missiles this one look big.
Maby a score of Ying Ji-82 Anti Ship Missile (C-802) or a score of Russian 3M-54E antiship missiles.
Btw: Great link to the Falkland War 1982
|July 6th, 2004||#8|
| || |
As Mark Conley say what type and country aircraft carrier "do you want to sink?" modern or WW2 carriers? HERO? Don´t know anything more then I know from the game sinking ship Honest I think there is no other way to sink one of those ships modern or old ones then with a large number of Kamikaze suicide pilots and aircrafts armed with anti-ship missiles.
|July 6th, 2004||#9|
| || |
Gentes, please be realistic:
Only Chinese PLA is planning to sink US CBG's
Open sea East of Taiwan, 1000 KM from Chinese coast (1000KM for the fighter jets attacking range).
How can Chinese PLA sink American CBG's.
And the American threat is coming soon
OPERATION SUMMER PULSE 2004
Seven aircraft carriers to move within striking distance of China; Taiwan forces slated to join in drill The United States is planning a massive show of force in the Pacific Ocean near China to register a point with Beijing.
In an exercise codenamed Operation Summer Pulse 04, it is expected to arrange for an unprecedented seven aircraft carrier strike groups (CSGs) to rendezvous in waters a safe distance away from the Chinese coastline - but still within striking distance - after mid-July.
This will be the first time in US naval history that it sends seven of its 12 CSGs to just one region.
July 5, 2004
Crisis in Asia
by Gordon Prather
Foreign ministers attending the Asia Regional Forum – hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in Jakarta, this week – agreed on the need for political reform in Burma and a diplomatic solution to the crisis on the Korean peninsula.
Forum attendees included the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Japan, both Koreas, the European Union and Australia.
Political reform in Burma would require the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest since the Burmese military junta crackdown on her National League for Democracy more than a year ago.
A Korean diplomatic solution would require the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea to agree to "freeze" once again all nuclear programs, peaceful and otherwise. In return, the U.S. would lift decades-long economic sanctions, allowing other nations in the region to provide DPRK appropriate aid.
And compensation. Compensation is required because the U.S .abrogated the original "freeze" agreement in October, 2002 and the DPRK withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a few months later. Hence, none of DPRK’s current nuclear programs are violations of international laws or treaties.
Secretary of State Colin Powell met DPRK Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun on the sidelines of the Forum to further discuss proposals made at the six-party talks held a week earlier in Beijing
There has been a report – not yet denied – that during the six-party talks the U.S. had suggested applying to the DPRK the Nunn-Lugar nuke dismantlement and fissile-material disposition concept successfully applied a decade ago to states of the former Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is proceeding to pull back all U.S. troops from the de-militarized zone in Korea, to transfer about a third of all U.S. troops in Korea to Iraq, to base in Korea a dozen F-117 Stealth fighter-bombers and to begin Operation Summer Pulse – the simultaneous deployment of seven aircraft-carrier strike groups to "demonstrate the ability of the Navy to provide credible combat power across the globe."
The U.S. has twelve such groups and typically deploys only three at a time. There has been media speculation that these seven now being deployed are in addition to the three already deployed. If so, virtually every warship the Navy has that is able to go to sea, will be at sea, "combat" ready, and mostly in the Pacific.
That probably means we are about to apply the Bush Doctrine to some other "rogue state."
But which one?
Do the neo-crazies expect China to take advantage of virtually all our combat troops being pinned-down halfway around the world in Iraq to invade and reabsorb "rogue province" Taiwan?
Well, the war-gamers doubt that China is thinking "invasion." Taiwan is 120 miles off the Chinese mainland. Think back to June 6, 1944, to the vast armada of ships it took to transport a few divisions of troops and their equipment across the English Channel, which is only about 30 miles in places.
On D-Day there were no German naval or air forces available to oppose the invasion. Total Luftwaffe operations that day amounted to one Me-109 pilot and his wing-man making one machine-gun firing pass at allied troops on one beach.
No, the war-gamers are thinking "blockade."
A Chinese naval blockade could bring Taiwan to its knees with relative ease and minimal international protest. A sustained interruption of key sea lines of communications would be economically disastrous for the Taiwanese economy, which relies heavily on shipping for its lifeblood trade and energy needs, some two-thirds of which are fulfilled by fossil fuel imports.
China could easily impose and then enforce a successful blockade.
How to enforce? With Russian-made super-sonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles launched by Russian-made submarines and Russian-made warships.
At present, U.S. warships have no effective defense against the Russian-made Sunburn and Yakhont, both of which travel at Mach 2.5 and execute terminal maneuvers specifically designed to overcome U.S. warship defenses.
China also has several dozen long-range Russian-made Su-30MKK Flanker naval fighters equipped with the Russian-made X-31 supersonic anti-ship missile.
Recall that the Brits very nearly lost the Falklands War because of the Exocet – a French-made air-launched subsonic sea-skimming anti-ship missile. The Argentines had only five Exocets – and no long-range aircraft – but sank two British ships with them, including the vitally important container ship Atlantic Conveyor.
What if the Argentines had had several dozen Exocets and long-range aircraft to deliver them?
Let’s just hope the real neocrazy purpose of Operation Summer Pulse is to get the Burmese junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi.