PLA would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier

[xunzi]

Let me ask you this. What would China's response be if we launched conventionally armed Trident missiles at your country? Increasingly likely a nuclear response? How would you know its nuclear or conventional?



You couldn't even defeat Vietnam even though the gap between militaries was greater. Or perhaps the Mujahadeen because of the Soviet Union.

We have a no first-use nuclear strike as an official nuclear policy. What you launch at us, we will launch back exactly the same. Kill 1 Chinese, we do our best to kill 1 American. That is our principle.

 

[vostok]

Let me ask you this. What would China's response be if we launched conventionally armed Trident missiles at your country? Increasingly likely a nuclear response? How would you know its nuclear or conventional?

It's a very good question! Turns out that China's use of DF-21 will be interpreted by an early warning system as a nuclear attack!
This will automatically lead to second leg nuclear strike!

 

[Superboy]

How exactly can the US military deal with occupation of China? China has over 4 times the population of America. It would be a nightmare to station US troops in China, dealing with insurgency every single day and suffering hundreds of American soldiers dead every single day. US public support for such a war would dwindle and the US economy would suffer beyond comprehension. Japan lost at least half a million soldiers in China during the Second Sino Japanese War. America wold likely lose at least a million soldiers if it attempts to occupy China, even if for only a decade or so. Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If America wanted to take down China, 1945 was the best bet when America would be the only country possessing nuclear weapons for more than 4 years.

 

[HongWu]

I would trade two carriers for the total destruction of the PLA navy. We have eleven carriers.

You have only 1 Gerald Ford class carrier that will enter service no earlier than 2015. It is equivalent to 3 Nimitz class. Sinking the Gerald Ford class would mean the US Navy is at least 23% incapacitated. If it means sacrificing 40% of PLAN to do that, it is still a favorable exchange for China.

Nine carriers vs. no navy at all ? That's a no-brainer.

Even without a navy our air force and integrated air defense missiles can make short work of any US airstrike. Taking out the Gerald Ford and a few other carriers would be enough to make the US beg for mercy from Beijing.

 

[chhota bheem]

You have only 1 Gerald Ford class carrier that will enter service in 2015. It is equivalent to 3 Nimitz class. Sinking the Gerald Ford class would mean the US Navy is at least 23% incapacitated. If it means sacrificing 40% of PLAN to do that, it is still a favorable exchange for China.

funny logic, god only knows how you came up with 1 GF class is equal to 3 Nimitz class ,even if i take that.....you come with a comparison of % of just the US carrier destroyed to the % of total chinese navy destroyed and you think its favorable exchange for china.

 

[UKBengali]

If US won't go war with China in this next 5 yrs, US won't have the advantage over Chinese military in South China Sea after 2020. This is a fact US poster in here can't accept. All China need are 3 aircraft carrier with the land base anti ships missiles mature and operational, China can effectively push US navy back behind Japan and not venture into South China Sea, With China aircraft carrier stay within South China Sea they can provide air cover for the ships, strike against enemy, protect their airspace, count on anti ship missiles, submarine launch missile, destroyer, speedboat arm with missiles, mines, they can even try to start a space war if China feel the need to do so, let not forget China possess Nuclear weapons and by 2020 they have all the mean to deliver tactic on US soil. China isn't Irag or Iran, US can't achieve victory if US decide to start a war with China on China territory.

This massive expeditionary Navy that the US would like to keep for the next few decades is all going to be for nothing as the Chinese start rolling out their advanced SSNs and supercarriers.

It was useful when there was no opposition but with a strong enough opponent, it would be more of a financial liability.

 

[gambit]

I've see you mention this a couple of times and it made me curious,if you have time can you pls tell me more about this prediction.Thanks in advance.You could do it in a PM if you don't want to get the crowd rilled up in here.

The PLA's prediction was never made public. These things usually do not. But it was informally circulated throughout the UN, especially among the second and third tier countries eager for any negative opinions on how the US will fare against Iraq (Desert Storm). The assessment was so flawed that it triggered the reforms of the PLA that we see today. You can find pictures thread of the PLA in this sub-forum and if you look carefully, you will see American signatures all over. Everything from helmet designs to how troopers hold their weapons to how sailors on the new Chinese aircraft carrier will look like. The PLA got American signatures all over it.

After Desert Storm where everyone was so off base on their individual assessments of US military capabilities and performance, whatever they think they know of how the US wage a war were tossed out the window, and supposedly the India Chief of Staff said this...

What We Should Have Learned in Desert Storm, But Didn't

Other than our preemptive air strikes and passive defense measures, we had few options. In the end, Saddam kept WMD on the shelf. What about next time? India's former Army Chief of Staff said, "The lesson of Desert Storm is, 'Don't fight with the United States without a nuclear weapon.' " If you believe intelligence reports, potential adversaries are taking this lesson to heart.

Desert Storm and the later occupation of Iraq are two different military events. Despite what the ignorant and the gullible here in this forum would like to believe, they have nothing to do with each as far as the generals of the military world are concerned. For them, especially any potential adversaries and that includes Russia and China, on the conventional front, any military exists at the American's leisure. That does not mean we cannot be hurt. We can be and we will be hurt. But the other guy will be gone.

What happened in Yugoslavia was not an American campaign. It was NATO-led. If it was US, it would not have lasted as long as it was and not so many Muslims would have been slaughtered. There is no tie-in of Yugoslavia to American military capabilities.

The PLA is a modern construct and completely of foreign design. All the talk about Sun Tzu are meaningless as the US proved we the better student and applicator of Sun Tzu (and von Clausewitz) than China is. Objective analysts agreed that the brief war between China and Viet Nam was a disaster for the PLA in many ways: organization, philosophy, doctrines, training, experience, and hardware.

This opinion of a 40% casualty rate for the PLAN against the USN is generous, may be not extremely generous, but generous nevertheless. A figure of 50-60% is more realistic. Whatever is leftover of the PLAN will have sh1t stains in their drawers.

 

[Superboy]

Let me know when America stops shutting its own government down, with ever increasing occurrence and duration. Then we can talk about fighting China, one of the greatest civilizations in human history.

 

[boomslang]

Let me know when America stops shutting its own government down, with ever increasing occurrence and length. ...

Not even worth the explanation.

 

[Superboy]

America can't even beat Syria, let alone China.

 

[gambit]

Not even worth the explanation.

His posts indicate he is not here to contribute to the discussion but to merely satisfy his juvenile need to troll.

 

[sincity]

Gambit think US will destroy Russia without Russia retaliate with Nuclear weapon, when nations possess nuclear weapons very highly those nations possess a game changer weapon in their arsenal, conventional war against nuke arm nation will prelude to a nuclear war, Putin made a statement to the US and NATO that Russia still a nuclear arm state in case there is a war against Russia.

 

[Superboy]

Too late. Should have done it back in 1945. Americans have a habit of wasting their advantages. First man on the Moon. Then what? Now China is going to take the Moon.

 

[english_man]

I have to agree with the majority here.......and that is, that as everyday passes, China grows stronger, and the US weaker.

I mean anyone who thinks one US carrier battle group could wipe out 40% of the Chinese naval forces is living in 'cloud cuckoo land'.

To clarify i mean if the US carrier force were to enter the Chinese seas, its small compliment of airplanes would not be enough to protect its surface ships and themselves, from an absolute blitz of missile attacks, from land, sea and air forces.
Once the US carrier aircraft are in the sea, then the Chinese forces could strike first against the US surface ships, as the Chinese anti-ship missiles have a far greater range than the equivalent US missiles.

Though, if it was in the middle of an ocean, then the situation would obviously be different, due to Chinese current lack of air cover, due to lack of carriers!

To be quite honest, its not even worth discussing, as the US couldn't even afford to embark on such a mission in the first place.

 

[Esc8781]

What's with all these nonintellectual posts lately?