The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on September 18, 2012, 12:35:51 PM
-
Serious question, as I'm just a humble ground-pounder.
-
I would imagine it would depend on what the mission is, and how much force is being authorized.
-
I would imagine it would depend on what the mission is, and how much force is being authorized.
Keep China bottled in its home waters with a destruction of their strategic projection capabilities.
Keep the Persian Gulf open to maritime traffic while degrading suspected WMD sites with the implied tasking of suppressing any assets that guard them.
-
Keep China bottled in its home waters with a destruction of their strategic projection capabilities.
Keep the Persian Gulf open to maritime traffic while degrading suspected WMD sites with the implied tasking of suppressing any assets that guard them.
'Keeping the Persian gulf open' is going to be essentially an ASW job. Iran's 'Kilo' class diesel subs are tough sonar targets when operating on batteries, and the Persian Gulf is a horrible sonar environment to find them in, in addition to being awfully shallow water to operate a SSN in. Destroyers, frigates and mine sweepers would be tasked from the surface to counter Iran mining the straits (as they've done before), and attacks against shipping from land- and water-borne anti-ship missile platforms, but the primary operators here will be subs.
'Keeping the PLA(N) bottled up in it's home waters' will probably wind up being a large, all hands evolution with air, surface and sub-surface assets drawing a proverbial line in the water and dropping anything that crosses it. Of special significance in this theater would be amphibious assets, possibly headed for Japan or Taiwan, and China's SSBNs. I don't see China's new carrier being a real factor in this - unless they task it to provide air cover for amphibious warfare units - because using one effectively requires experience with the type: something the PLA(N) simply doesn't have and will not have enough of to compete with the USN in the near future.
Once again, all this is predicated upon the US fighting both forces on the bad guy's terms, and not simply using the trump cards available to them to make them think twice (most likely not happening under a President Romney administration, and DEFINITELY not happening under another 4 years of the Comrade Zero regime).
-
Once again, all this is predicated upon the US fighting both forces on the bad guy's terms, and not simply using the trump cards available to them to make them think twice (most likely not happening under a President Romney administration, and DEFINITELY not happening under another 4 years of the Comrade Zero regime).
I would like to think that if China got froggy we would hammer their port and naval facilities with enough ordinance to keep them rebuilding for the next decade rather than bothering decent folk who make good sushi.
Would N Korea get weird if their patron suddenly started losing?
-
I would like to think that if China got froggy we would hammer their port and naval facilities with enough ordinance to keep them rebuilding for the next decade rather than bothering decent folk who make good sushi.
Would N Korea get weird if their patron suddenly started losing?
North Korea is wierd (aka: unpredictable) all on their own, and early signs are that much of what the Chinese government is doing now is because their economy has reached it's natural plateau under socialist control, and the government is looking for external "threats" to distract it's people from forming mobs. I would guess that it's about a 50% - 50% shot that China would "request assistance" from it's "ally" in North Korea early in the game, if only to multiply the number of threat axis we'd have to deal with.
-
North Korea is wierd (aka: unpredictable) all on their own, and early signs are that much of what the Chinese government is doing now is because their economy has reached it's natural plateau under socialist control, and the government is looking for external "threats" to distract it's people from forming mobs. I would guess that it's about a 50% - 50% shot that China would "request assistance" from it's "ally" in North Korea early in the game, if only to multiply the number of threat axis we'd have to deal with.
And that is the part the concerns me.
If NK jumps south then the Navy has to move troops and keep them supplied.
But if China is moving against Japan then not only does that pull the Pacific fleet in 2 directions but the Korean effort has to sail past a hot war.
Of course, I also wonder if Taiwan would consider it to be in their best interests to mute ChiCom naval power while the muting is good. It could be a helluva coalition against PLA(N).
I think the worse thing that would happen for Iran is that while all this was transpiring they would be dealt with rather effortlessly and their plans (punish their neighbors and the world oil supply) would be a side show at best and a rather miserable failure for them. The only thing worse than being seen as a threat is being seen as a impotent threat that can't even get enough attention during a global war.
-
About everything they would seriously want to use their Navy for, i.e contentions with Japan, Russia, or Taiwan, is IN their home waters, and within range of their land-based air. Any involvement in the Persian Gulf is more in the nature of them just ****ing with us for shits and grins, as long as the situation stops short of us occupying Iran and thus controlling its oil (Which, at this point, is really pretty far beyond our land-power capabilities). Unless some pretty strategically-irrational decisions are made in both China and the US, I don't see it happening.
-
Depending on human rationality for peace is a formula guaranteed to produce disappointment every time.
-
Depending on human rationality for peace is a formula guaranteed to produce disappointment every time.
Flippant and amusing, but untrue. You do have to understand the frame of reference and priorities of the decisionmaker, however, failing which has led to innumerable calamities. Sun Tzu understood it perfectly, I commend him to your attention, young rabbit.
-
Not with 0bama in charge. With sane leadership we could do like we did in WW2 and rebuild our military as we fought all over the globe.
-
Any chance that the same corrupt methods China used to build their recently built but crumbling infrastructure was used on their naval vessels?
-
Serious question, as I'm just a humble ground-pounder.
Now, yes. In 20 years? Probably not.
-
Yes, in my opinion. Our Sub forces are second to none, our Carriers have a formidable Air Force. And they are very well protected!
China doesn't have much in Amphibious capabilities, Again, ours is second to none. And we have more ships that can be pulled from mothball if necessary.
If we have any Allies that don't feel thrown under the bus yet, they would be able to augment our ships as well.
Iran, we have the capability to destroy their Navy, Air Force, and most of Their ground forces almost overnight. If we fought a War to win, permanently.