Please take a look at yourself before calling others thick
Just the fact that the carrier will be parked so much further out will mean that the amount of sorties that it can make against the target area will drastically reduce, unless you think that pilots do not get tired or need to go to the toilet ever.
Also this refuelling plane will be a target magnet to be shot down. A massive number of fighters will need to be deployed just to protect it and so reducing the amount of planes available to act against the enemy.
if the DF-21D reduces the amount of US aircraft available to fight against China, then it has done it's job.
I just want to ask you one question.
Are you REALLY this stupid, just seeing something I said does not make sense and start attacking, or you are just pretending to be stupid and seek attention?
When I said our carrier can launch strike from Washington naval yard to strike china which set about 11-12 thousand km away, I was making a point that our carrier can launch a sortie anywhere outside the effective range of counter weapon, in this case DF-21
Please do tell me, if the effective range of DF-21 is 10,000 km or merely 2700 km?
For that, we can simply just sit 3000 km away with 1 tanker, then we can do the job. Then why we need to sit 10,000 kilometre away?
If china did have a tactical weapon that can strike precisely over a single target over 10,000 km, that make our carrier sit inside our dock in mainland, then we should decommission out whole military and surrender
![Lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/lol.gif)
as China have achieve something no one can, that precise global strike capability, by then China won't need to do anything but sending missile to out tactical important target, anytime they want, anywhere they want. You do know what is the different between tactical and stragetical target right?
This is the capacity that even us, can only dream of.
To your tanker attack question, how do you know where our tanker will be? Ground radar is out of range if the tanker stayed outside the 1000 km from shore. If your answer is using either ship borne or air borne radar, then would the agressive force not need need to devote air set asset to protect those AWAC or ship? So the threat is cancelling out each other. You will be risk losing your AWAC and we will be risking a merely tanker, can you guess which has more? The agressor have more AWEC and sea picket destroyer? Or we have more KC10 and KC-135?
Or do we suppose to announce to the aggressor where our combat asset is at?
And finally to the last stupid question about long range raid and crew management. At a good day, a carrier can do 2 sortie of F-18
Then they can do no more, for a round trip of 6000 km, with 1 or possible 2 refuelling, I would say the AIS strike will take no longer than 4 hours each. That make the quota of 2 sortie a day per plane
And we did actually send bomber and fighter for long range run frequently, virtually all B-1 and B-2 mission in the Middle East were originated from mainland US, naming Nevada. And the famous operation black buck was to use multiple air refuelling to contact a deep strike by RAF Vulcan to strike from Ascension Island in mid Atlantic to falkland island in south Atlantic, which is 8000 km by the way.
So is a long range strike possible, damn right it does
There is something, 2 inches above and behind your nose, called your brain, USE IT, once in a whole, it wouldn't kill you