To have 2 combat ready & deployed 24/7 at sea in a crisis, at least 6 r needed. Also, 1-2 could be used as decoys to draw forces away from the main action; having them at sea beyond the 1st Island Chain will help to locate hostile CSGs &/ keep them farther away from Taiwan & the SC Sea.
No offense meant, but to use two aircraft carriers as decoys... that is crazy...
they r becoming a global empire; ships r needed to escort CV/Ns, protect SLOCs, islands, EEZ, SSBN bastions, interests, citizens, for diplomacy, SAR, C4IR, disaster relief, & research.
I totally agree, but producing dozens of ships and carriers and subs will lead to rapid growth in potential, but unless the Navy grows with it and learns to manage and control its resources, it is going to look rather more impressive than it actually is. Equally as new hypersonic missiles are deployed having a huge navy is not going to be all that valuable any more... an example would be like comparing a guerilla army and a colonial army... one is largely on foot and can disappear quickly... it is mobile over short distance but as no tactical mobility or strategic mobility... the VC couldn't really move all their forces to concentrate in one area for an attack and then move them back when done, but then that was also an advantage because when US troops moved in Vietnam they would either be in helicopters or vehicles... which these days would be vulnerable to attack using a variety of weapons... that is not to say the guerillas are better off but the motorised side needs to be careful... and clever and use good tactics to get the most of their mobility and fire power.
Not comparable. The US navy during the WW2 could have sustain even a total destruction of its forces in Pearl harbour. They were building ship very fast and had hundreds of them.
What would they have done in the case of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii?
You can say such a landing would be stopped... the British arrogantly believed they would stop the Japs in all sorts of places.... till they didn't.
France has only 1 CdG, 2 mistral and around 10 modern frigates. A sneaky attack on the CdG and french have no more power projection tools. Then Chinese could even take our islands in the Pacific.
The real question is... can they do serious damage and do more than just damage some ships.... can they sink more than one vessel... and would they be prepared to actually do that... as mentioned the french surface ships could fall back to defensive positions and let their subs do the work.
Another question is... what criteria does france have for the use of their nuclear weapons and does china have any ballistic missiles that can reach Paris?
But we are getting ahead of ourselves... China has little more reason to attack France as they have to attack Russia... it is just another American wet dream... I doubt America would care if Paris gets nuked or London does, though if given the choice they would prefer Moscow or New Delhi to glow.
They needs it to protect its belt road. They will use it to keep friendly gov in power in difficult countries mostly in eastern africa and asia because USA willtry to "democratize" any country helping China.
Belt ROAD... I suspect it is more about a global expansion and view of trade for China in the future... which also makes sense for Russia too because in 2040 I doubt US or UK or French carriers will spring in to action to defend a Russian ship or Chinese ship no matter which international law is concerned....
Supporting commercial links makes it worth the money too.
If the USN carriers weren't at sea, their loss would have pronged the war, to say the least. CVs take a long time to build & outfit.
The real problem was not that they didn't get the carriers, it was that they didn't take comms security seriously and were telling the Americans what they intended to do so the Americans knew what the Japs were going to do when the Japs themselves got the orders...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
