Why U.S. Navy will lose against China's Militia and Navy

[obj 705A]

5. Please provide examples. Which clone of American ICBM-types have Russians and Chinese managed to shoot down in their respective testing regimes? Come on now. Unlike Russia and China, USA does not see much application of Ballistic Missiles in the battlefield. Distinct war-fighting philosophy if you will.

ICBM? Yes because every single missile fired from the Arleigh Burk in a naval war towards China would be an ICBM, and any way I never said that China or Russia could intercept ICBMs, remember we are comparing between these countries in context of naval war (ie: for sure China/Russia have conducted tests to simulate interception of US cruise missiles, obviously you wouldn't hear about it from google since it is top secret).

. There is no cap upon how much of the force USA is willing to commit to a theater. Usually about two Carrier Battle Groups will do in a potential battlefield but the count can be increased as per demand

I'm not a military strategist but I will take a guess & say it would be absolute suicide for them to willingly put all their ships within China's range and risk losing all of it (military strategists cannot take their chances the way armchair generals like us do).

STILL, some may say that the Chinese missiles are not proven technologically as China has not engaged in any war for how many decades, while the adversary is saturated with war experiences as the ultimate “King of Wars” in this Earth as of the 20th century!

Indeed , apparently in order to become combat proven you need to kill people in third world countries, if China wanted to they too could have easily wrecked and invaded some poor third world countries, that would have gained them the "combat proven" badge, if China wrecked 10 poor countries that are populated mainly by farmers then China too would have been looked upon by the world as this fearsome unbeatable empire.

 

[LeGenD]

ICBM? Yes because every single missile fired from the Arleigh Burk in a naval war towards China would be an ICBM, and any way I never said that China or Russia could intercept ICBMs, remember we are comparing between these countries in context of naval war (ie: for sure China/Russia have conducted tests to simulate interception of US cruise missiles, obviously you wouldn't hear about it from google since it is top secret).

Sure.

China and Russia have certainly fielded systems which can intercept different types of missiles but capabilities in this respect are limited for each; this is very expensive form of defense to mass-produce and field. Something that only USA managed by now because it spends too much.

I'm not a military strategist but I will take a guess & say it would be absolute suicide for them to willingly put all their ships within China's range and risk losing all of it (military strategists cannot take their chances the way armchair generals like us do).

True true.

I agree with this.

This is not an easy battle for even USN, far from it. Chances of casualties are there.

 

[Figaro]

Sure.

China and Russia have certainly fielded systems which can intercept different types of missiles but capabilities in this respect are limited for each; this is very expensive form of defense to mass-produce and field. Something that only USA managed by now because it spends too much.


True true.

I agree with this.

This is not an easy battle for even USN, far from it. Chances of casualties are there.

If the conflict was within the First Island Chain, the USN will be facing the toughest conflict in its history (even more difficult than the initial months of World War II against the IJN).

 

[kungfugymnast]

Not a good idea ... the South China Sea is not like the Persian Gulf where swarm attacks can work very effectively due to the narrow waters. The South China Sea is extremely vast by comparison. The only way the PLAN can take on the US navy is by increasing their surface and underwater naval forces, as they have been doing recently.

There was once militants invasion that the militants came in more than 200-300 motor boats in the amphibious beach landing attempting to invade an entire state. If China launched all 700,000 armed fishing boats, US naval fleet would have hard time with that many decoys appearing on radar. Those fishing boats could stick together to form large RCS of destroyer or carrier fooling US naval fleet. US ships standard missiles could be set to air to surface anti-ship mode to take out as many boats as possible. However, these boats could get AWACS assistance to track and launch their anti-ship missiles at US fleet. It will be deadly putting US fleet at serious disadvantage.

 

[Figaro]

There was once militants invasion that the militants came in more than 200-300 motor boats in the amphibious beach landing attempting to invade an entire state. If China launched all 700,000 armed fishing boats, US naval fleet would have hard time with that many decoys appearing on radar. Those fishing boats could stick together to form large RCS of destroyer or carrier fooling US naval fleet. US ships standard missiles could be set to air to surface anti-ship mode to take out as many boats as possible. However, these boats could get AWACS assistance to track and launch their anti-ship missiles at US fleet. It will be deadly putting US fleet at serious disadvantage.

The only problem with this plan is that it would cause enormous casualties for the PLAN. So extremely unrealistic.

 

[kungfugymnast]

The only problem with this plan is that it would cause enormous casualties for the PLAN. So extremely unrealistic.

Casualties will be high but losing cheap fishing boats with few men on board is still better than losing a destroyer with far more crew on board. PLAN strategies for naval battle will be similar to PLAAF air warfare using the many cheap assets as decoys and shields covering the expensive vital assets that will actually win the battle.

The 200-300 speedboats boarded by terrorists to invade a neighboring state separated by sea incident left the naval ships on patrol not sure which ship to engage and launching expensive anti-ship missile at a small speedboat seems to be wasting assets. Getting into close gun range could put the frigate or corvette in jeopardy of being overwhelmed. Submarine launch torpedo at the many speedboats don't seem ideal neither. Sending fighters to straffe those boats with guns and rockets seems ideal if these militants don't have MANPADS, attack helicopters with gun turret is best. B

if China fishing boats, they have SAMs so it won't be easy for US choppers and fighters.

 

[Figaro]

Casualties will be high but losing cheap fishing boats with few men on board is still better than losing a destroyer with far more crew on board. PLAN strategies for naval battle will be similar to PLAAF air warfare using the many cheap assets as decoys and shields covering the expensive vital assets that will actually win the battle.

The 200-300 speedboats boarded by terrorists to invade a neighboring state separated by sea incident left the naval ships on patrol not sure which ship to engage and launching expensive anti-ship missile at a small speedboat seems to be wasting assets. Getting into close gun range could put the frigate or corvette in jeopardy of being overwhelmed. Submarine launch torpedo at the many speedboats don't seem ideal neither. Sending fighters to straffe those boats with guns and rockets seems ideal if these militants don't have MANPADS, attack helicopters with gun turret is best. B

if China fishing boats, they have SAMs so it won't be easy for US choppers and fighters.

The PLA has long discarded the People's War doctrine (which is basically what you're talking about). You underestimate how long it takes to train professional PLAN soldiers ... throwing them into combat like suicide attacks would be a terrible waste of good quality soldiers. Terrorists can do this because the people they send to conduct suicide attacks aren't highly trained and are easily replaceable. I really don't see why this is needed when a anti-ship saturation attacks can suffice. The PLAN are not disposable militia like the Basij of Iran.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

It only takes 4 direct missile hits to sink a USN carrier.
2 Aircraft carriers later and the war with USA is over.

In defense, China will be launching wave after wave of hypersonic land, air and sea launched missiles.
Blitzkriegs of hypersonic, supersonic missiles and LRCA. USN will be firing its missile minus GPS navigation satellite guidance.

It is absolutely stupid and brinkmanship to the limit by the NS Draft Dodger Trump who has never fought a war but does not hesitate to put all the USN sailors lives at great risk.
What are they doing there defending who?
It is suicidal to fight with China iinside her backyard today.
China has been preparing since USN sailed it 2 Aircraft Carrier ls thru the Strait of Taiwan many years ago.

 

[zectech]

Very stupid article, fishing boats vs the US navy? What kind of a joke is that?
I wanted to give a much longer reply to explain why the US would easily win but then I realised the article is so unbelievably stupid that I shouldn't waste anything more than 5 minutes on it.

If S-500s or S-600s ADS flew on weather balloons, a weather balloon could shoot down F-22.

F-22 vs weather balloon. Weather balloon wins.

What matters is what type of radar and tracking do they have and what kind of missiles do they have.

If they have 1st or 2nd gen Chinese missiles with sub-par or lacking radar, they would defeat Japan Navy, I would not use them to defeat US Navy.

In case of war, have these thousands of fishing boats surround Japan. If they had that range. Japan has had their hands tied for 75 years.

 

[kungfugymnast]

The PLA has long discarded the People's War doctrine (which is basically what you're talking about). You underestimate how long it takes to train professional PLAN soldiers ... throwing them into combat like suicide attacks would be a terrible waste of good quality soldiers. Terrorists can do this because the people they send to conduct suicide attacks aren't highly trained and are easily replaceable. I really don't see why this is needed when a anti-ship saturation attacks can suffice. The PLAN are not disposable militia like the Basij of Iran.

Those fishing boats will be handled by militias instead of highly trained PLAN personnel. Numbers of them would serve as decoys and shields for PLAN naval ships just to confuse enemies make them not sure which to target and attack

It only takes 4 direct missile hits to sink a USN carrier.
2 Aircraft carriers later and the war with USA is over.

In defense, China will be launching wave after wave of hypersonic land, air and sea launched missiles.
Blitzkriegs of hypersonic, supersonic missiles and LRCA. USN will be firing its missile minus GPS navigation satellite guidance.

It is absolutely stupid and brinkmanship to the limit by the NS Draft Dodger Trump who has never fought a war but does not hesitate to put all the USN sailors lives at great risk.
What are they doing there defending who?
It is suicidal to fight with China iinside her backyard today.
China has been preparing since USN sailed it 2 Aircraft Carrier ls thru the Strait of Taiwan many years ago.

The US carrier is precious with technology and natural resources to recycle. Attacker would disable the invading US fleet to capture and salvage rather than sinking them. Frigates and destroyers, you can sink but keep few to capture. If the carrier is captured in damage state, there are fighters, choppers, missiles on board that are valuable for reverse engineering purpose.

 

[PakFactor]

Sure.

China and Russia have certainly fielded systems which can intercept different types of missiles but capabilities in this respect are limited for each; this is very expensive form of defense to mass-produce and field. Something that only USA managed by now because it spends too much.


True true.

I agree with this.

This is not an easy battle for even USN, far from it. Chances of casualties are there.

American Military follows the concept of Carl Von Clausewitz On War that the nation state uses all available resources (education, economy and material) for a singular objective to attain victory and domination by brute strength. (Which other nations haven’t learned and failed to adopt this thinking, especially our generals with their Minimum Deterrence thinking). Neither China or any other nation in the world is able to securely access key tech and raw material like the United States, we’ve seen what happened with Japan when they were cut off during WW2. The Americans have developed an eco system which others need to leech onto in order to survive economically thus securing a line to access the raw material when needed.

This article is nonsense, because several years back this scenario was played out by the Naval War College while USN suffered losses by no means it’s fighting power was effected medium to long term. Soon after counter measures were developed to minimize the losses.

I’m not down playing the PLAN but they have a long way to go before challenging the domination of USN. The USN has its own Army and Air Force + USAF which currently would eat up the PLAF + PLAN.

 

[Figaro]

If S-500s or S-600s ADS flew on weather balloons, a weather balloon could shoot down F-22.

F-22 vs weather balloon. Weather balloon wins.

What matters is what type of radar and tracking do they have and what kind of missiles do they have.

If they have 1st or 2nd gen Chinese missiles with sub-par or lacking radar, they would defeat Japan Navy, I would not use them to defeat US Navy.

In case of war, have these thousands of fishing boats surround Japan. If they had that range. Japan has had their hands tied for 75 years.

The Japanese navy is the third or fourth most powerful navy in the world ... I would not underestimate their capabilities. Do you really think old Chinese missiles like the Silkworm could actually hit modern Japanese warships?