China and Russia Defeat the US says...

[Moose-Knuckle]

People don't realize how inherently unstable China is. It looks like a fine watch that just keeps ticking, but it has a bunch of springs that will screw everything up if knocked out of alignment.

Their Achilles heel is the Three Gorges Dam. It's an enormous stretch of fresh water that backs up almost 400 miles on the Yangtze river. It covers and area of roughly 400 square miles and is home to the world's largest installed capacity power station. The dam is about a mile and half long and 600ft high, if breached it would be catastrophic and there are more than a few things that can punch holes in it.

[sundance435]

Russia’s subs are definitely as good as ours, if not better, FYI. Their navy is a real threat and while the Chinese subs may not be as good, we have some weaknesses that would be very easily exploited. Also, we definitely do not have a civilian populace that is better armed than either army. IDGAF how many ARs and Vickers classes you have, PKMs are PKMs. Plus, number of guns doesn’t mean shit when you don’t have enough people and/or ammo for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All 3 +/- that were laid down after the breakup? No. None of their subs are close to the Seawolf or Virginia class. The refit Akulas can probably hold their own against, maybe even slightly outclass, the most up-to-date LA class. The backbone of their attack sub fleet are various 70s and 80s vintage subs, with maybe 2-3 "modernized" Akulas and the 1 Yasen that's active. We have, at the moment (only increasing), double what the Russkies can field for attack subs in Virginia class boats alone.

Well aircraft carriers are obsolete and stupid, just huge targets for anti-ship missiles that cost relatively little. They’re also extremely noisy and easy to detect by submarines. The Chinese don’t need a deep water Navy or the best submarines to keep US carrier groups so far out that the airplanes they carry are not combat effective. Unfortunately US Navy brass consist of lot’s of aviators that refuse to accept this reality. So we spend more money on antiques. Carriers are really good for flexing on 3rd world opponents with no anti-ship capability, I have doubts they’re relevant for projecting power ashore against a peer or near peer opponent.

That's overstated. Carriers are needed for force projection anywhere, since no one's come up with anything better. Are they vulnerable to China's myriad A2/AD? Yes. That's why they roll with a bunch of ships whose main job is to protect the carrier. I will say the mindset of the Navy and the American public is that we can't lose a single carrier and that to do so would change the political calculus in any conflict, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume they're complete sitting ducks (yes, I know you can find numerous articles stating they are). I also think the Navy needs to be seriously investing in more countermeasures to protect carriers, if they're serious about the possibility of confronting China/Russia. If the FFG(X) comes to fruition with anything less than 12-16 VLS capacity (preferably scalable upwards), then we'll know they aren't taking it seriously. There's also a design out there that would turn LPDs into floating VLS platforms. That would go a long way to protecting a carrier from A2/AD threats.

I don't think so, look at the issues that were brought to light as a result of the McCain and Fitzgerald incidents.

Plus, they are talking about retiring the USS Truman (CVN-75) early instead of refueling her reactor in 2024. This would essentially cut 20 years of the Truman's service life.

The Navy has to worry about keeping two shipyards in particular in business: Newport News, which is reported to be the only shipyard in the world capable of building a nuclear powered carrier, and Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, which is the largest builder of nuclear subs.

In other news, the Pentagon is wanting to order a bunch of F-15x's, the Air Force may not be so anxious to get the new 'old' fighters: https://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-f15x-purchase-f35

I think the Truman decommissioning is just Navy posturing ahead of the defense budget debate. They know it's DOA in Congress, so they'll try to use it as leverage for more funding. As for the F15X, I think it makes perfect sense to procure them. Most of the 15Cs are 30+ years old and they ain't low-stress B-52 airframes we're talking about. Even if it were possible to ramp F35 production up to 90+ a year right now (which it's not, according to the AF), it'll be 10 years at least before there are enough to replace the F-15C. The Air Force has to have a Hi-Lo mix at all times - that should be an absolute necessity. Subbing newer F-16s to retire the F-15C makes zero sense, either. An F-15X, as a long-range AA missile truck, still has a role to play in future conflicts, besides being the best Gen 4+ interceptor out there. If they go through with the F-15X purchase in the upcoming budget cycle, it'll be one of the most forward-thinking decisions the AF has made in years. The main resistance is coming from the same quarters that don't want a dedicated prop-CAS force - they want all Gen 5 or nothing.

Admiral: We need a report.

Rand: Mo’ money?

Admiral: My man!

Yeah, Rand is good for that. It's almost a given that will be their conclusion. They ain't wrong about this or the Baltics scenario that came out a few years ago, but you have to keep their fiscal predilections in mind when making any conclusions from their reports.

[Wake27]

All 3 +/- that were laid down after the breakup? No. None of their subs are close to the Seawolf or Virginia class. The refit Akulas can probably hold their own against, maybe even slightly outclass, the most up-to-date LA class. The backbone of their attack sub fleet are various 70s and 80s vintage subs, with maybe 2-3 "modernized" Akulas and the 1 Yasen that's active. We have, at the moment (only increasing), double what the Russkies can field for attack subs in Virginia class boats alone.

My understanding is that their subs are far quieter than ours and are able to dive significantly deeper. Also, they learned quite a bit from the Cold War and have done a good job preparing to exploit our weaknesses while they cover their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillBrink]

My understanding is that their subs are far quieter than ours and are able to dive significantly deeper. Also, they learned quite a bit from the Cold War and have done a good job preparing to exploit our weaknesses while they cover their own.

My understanding is more in line with what sundance435 said, they have nothing even close to our newest subs and we have substantially more of them.

[Adrenaline_6]

Quieter? Didn't the LA attack class subs look for the "hole" in the background noise to find the Ohio class subs in training exercises? If so, how much quieter do you need to be?

[WillBrink]

Quieter? Didn't the LA attack class subs look for the "hole" in the background noise to find the Ohio class subs in training exercises? If so, how much quieter do you need to be?

As quiet as required to prevent the other side tech from detecting you. I assume that tech is always improving and a sub can't be too quite.

[chuckman]

Chinese military tech is only as good as they can reverse engineer or build off stolen plans.

Our current sub capability is more in-depth than what Jane's or Proceedings will publish.

As for carriers, if we can surround them with a group, they can control the battle. Our problem is we can't build them as fast as we are retiring them.

[chuckman]

As quiet as required to prevent the other side tech from detecting you. I assume that tech is always improving and a sub can't be too quite.

Our subs are pretty quiet 😉

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...d-us-sub-24500

[WillBrink]

Our subs are pretty quiet ��

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...d-us-sub-24500

It would appear we didn't detect them either from what I gathered, but was also a while ago so I'd think better tech developed since that time.

[sundance435]

My understanding is that their subs are far quieter than ours and are able to dive significantly deeper. Also, they learned quite a bit from the Cold War and have done a good job preparing to exploit our weaknesses while they cover their own.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you thinking of the caterpillar drive? Seriously though, based on generally available/accepted information, including firsthand accounts from submariners, they don't have an attack sub that's even close to the Seawolf or Virginia in terms of quietness. Same has been said for the Ohio-class (just look up a picture of a Russia Delta SSBN and tell me that thing is remotely quiet). Only their newest subs feature pump-jet propulsion technology (no "screw"), which is huge for quietness - they did experiment with it earlier than we did, but never implemented it to any degree until their newest SSBNs. The Sierra-class, of which the Russians have 2 active (first launched in the late 80's, early 90's), do use titanium to some degree in their hull design, so theoretically they can dive deeper than what we know officially about American subs, but it's a poorly-kept secret that our subs are capable of diving much deeper than what's published.

Don't get me wrong, the Russians have come a long way in sub tech, but it's still one of the few areas where we have undisputed primacy. That, plus, as with any Russian military procurement after the mid-80's, none of their weapons are produced to any scale beyond trials, i.e., Su-57, T-14, etc. They love to tout weapons they end up building 10 of.