So are the US good for these planes or has the country’s farcical economic situation, military budget cuts pressure and dysfunctional government rendered this deal another pie-in-the-sky promise, a la the F-22 Raptors?
Further, with China having all but developed stealth aircraft and, of course, sporting their shiny new carrier courtesy of their ‘Soviet friends’ - and, indeed, encouraged by America’s influence, both militarily and diplomatically, being as neutered as it’s ever been - their ‘soft push’ into the Asia-Pacific may soon become a jostle.
So, what say you – is the US’ tomfoolery regards its own near-destitute domestic status serving as a convenient distraction for ‘others’ to gain exponential ground on them militarily and strategically, in addition to economically? Can the US even afford the F-35s any longer?!
China doesn’t have a shiny new carrier, as has been explained to you before. They have a 40 year old hull that was that was sold as scrap by the Russian navy, that is currently a stationary rusting hulk.
Fear mongering to stave off any talk of the military budget ever being cut. Only the US military could call it a “budget cut” when someone mentions maybe, possibly rethinking one program. The things will cost a $trillion over its lifeime. If we are so worried about the strategic situation with China then we shouldn’t borrow that trillion dollars from them.
That you still continue to spout this nonsense calling a hulk that began construction in 1985 and is still not yet completed a ‘shiny new carrier’ speaks volumes about you. You might have missed the news, but there hasn’t been a Soviet Union for China to have Soviet friends in since 1991; it did make most of the newspapers though. China bought the hulk at auction from the Ukraine in 1998.
Let’s assume differently, just for the sake of argument. I looked up the original thread, and apparently it’s a rebuild of the Varyag we’re talking about, although the thread’s a little vague on that point.
The Varyag was designed to operate 50 aircraft. I don’t know the technical details, but if I had to guess, I’d say VTOL/STOL Yak-38s? That might mean it can’t operate ANY modern stealth fighter…but again, assuming “worst” case from the US Navy’s viewpoint, let’s say it can somehow deploy 50 modern combat aircraft.
The US Navy operates 11 supercarriers currently. 1 of those (Enterprise) carries 70 aircraft normally…the rest are Nimitz-class, carrying 90, according to Wikipedia.
So, again assuming an adversarial situation not yet in evidence, we’re looking at a confrontation between:
[ul][li]970 embarked aircraft at a high level of training and experience[/li][li]50 embarked aircraft with no experience of fleet operations whatsoever[/ul][/li]
You think maybe they’ve got Sun Tzu in the admiral’s chair and Bruce Lee in the pilot’s lounge?
What makes you assume there’s going to be a war with China that involves the US moving all its carriers to the Pacific?
The reason the US has so many carriers is that at any given time, a certain number will be in extended maintenance periods, a certain number will be training to deploy, and a few will actually be deployed to different parts of the world. Those calculations are not based on some board-game version of a battle with another military, where we need two carriers to take out one of theirs, or whatever other silly calculations one might want to make.
Can you paint me a picture of when the U.S. will be in an air war with a nation with fighter jets where only OUR manned fighters would be able to shoot them down? What nation is this and where would an enemy fighter jet be a threat to the U.S., and I don’t mean our ‘interests’ (empire), I mean the American soil.
First of all, I can’t predict the future. Can you? Did anyone in 1900 U.S. know they would be fighting a major war with *Japan *within the next 50 years?
Second of all, I’m not American, and I didn’t know we were limited to the American point of view.
Third of all, major armies are designed to fight symmetrical wars, even if they have no symmetrical enemies at the moment. That’s because building a military from scratch takes decades, and enemies can appear faster than you’d expect.
Drones are excellent weapons, but they were designed to operate solely in an environment of air speriority. They are, as yet, incapable of *achieving *air superiority by themselves. For that, you need fighters.
Our unmanned aircraft are completely incapable of dealing with any enemy fighter aircraft. There isn’t even anything on the drawing board that would result in a capable fighter drone in the next couple of decades.
So, any war against any enemy with fighter aircraft would qualify under the criteria you give.
The Internet is a bit like that. It, too, is a CIA concoction, after all.
Do people have the star-spangled banner so tightly wrapped around their bulbous heads that the lack of blood-flow precludes them from comprehending the concept of projected power coupled with Communist China’s patently irredentist bent, is a formula for confrontation? Just as with WWII, the expanse of the ocean is nay a buffer that affords Americans to stop their ears to potential issues concerning the ‘global village’.
So why aren’t they shitting their pants in India and Japan and Thailand and Russia and Korea over this news? Or is it only Americans who don’t understand the Chinese threat?
The reason Americans don’t shit their pants over China trying to develop their military is that even if the worst happens and China invades and conquers Taiwan, well, they’ll get Taiwan and the world economy will take a major hit. And America’s vital interests will not be threatened. It ain’t like we want Taiwan to be conquered and annexed, and we’ll go to some effort to try to stop it, but at the end of day Taiwan is not San Diego. So, just like it was a disaster to the South Vietnamese when the NVA drove into Saigon, we here in the United States read the news and shook our heads and then tossed the paper in the trash and went on with our day.
If American prosperity requires that we be able to militarily defeat every nation in any hypothetical conflict, then we’ve already lost. China’s prosperity doesn’t depend on being able to defeat America anywhere and everywhere, does it? I mean, we can project power to Afghanistan, and China can’t do squat to stop us. And this is a disaster for China how?
Yes, really. Continuing to repeat falsehoods that have been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous posters isn’t going to make them magically come true.
What makes you assume I assume that? Just supplying a little perspective in reply to one poster’s assertion that China’s carrier ambitions should “terrify” the US.
The US could in theory throw everything at a terrifying threat.
How about they take possession of (by force) the resource-rich Sengoku / Daioyutai islands region that Japan, The Philippines and Viet Nam lay claim(s) to? Or how about the under current of hatred for what happened in Nanjing c.1937 boils over; and coupled with the aforementioned dispute, forms the basis for conflict between China and its monstrous army and Japan and its feeble ‘defence’ force? Or what if Kim and co. decide the only way to quell the fast-fermenting inquietude within its emaciated (literally) military ranks is to take back what they think is theirs – South K…?
What happens then? The US sit, arms crossed a la 1938?.. because their defence budget hasn’t the elbow room to do what matters, only what yields oil? Does there need to be a ‘Pearl Harbour’ for the ‘world police’ to give a whit?
(There are ‘worse case scenarios’ far more dire than China’s designs on Taiwan coming to fruition).
The people of Hong Kong and Macau want a word with you. Most of them are doing just fine under Chinese rule. China is not stupid enough to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, if they ever got their hands on Taiwan, they’d leave it mostly alone.
