Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Chinese Admiral Wants To "Sink Two US Aircraft Carriers" Over South China Sea

Big ChiefBig Chief Senior MemberPosts: 32,995 Senior Member

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-01/chinese-admiral-wants-sink-two-us-aircraft-carriers-over-south-china-sea

"What the United States fears the most is taking casualties," Admiral Lou declared.

He said the loss of one super carrier would cost the US the lives of 5000 service men and women. Sinking two would double that toll.

"We’ll see how frightened America is."



It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!

Replies

  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,638 Senior Member
    Yeah, I am sure our submariners would stand down for that, not.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,671 Senior Member
    China is similar to North Korea, in that they tend to make threats, when it is in fact that they are the ones afraid. I happen to watch a lot of Lou Dobbs on FOX Business News, and Ed Rollins, the former advisor to Ronald Reagan said that on Dobbs' show last night.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    They are getting more aggressive in that region. They are a threat.

    Te response would be decisive and quick by the US.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Unless U.S. doctrine has changed, there used to be at least one, possibly two, nuclear fast attack subs with the carrier group shadowing them and looking for USSR fast attack subs trying to shadow the fleet. Attacking a U.S. carrier fleet under those conditions would be a suicide mission for surface craft, and not smart for subs.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 1hogfan831hogfan83 Member Posts: 336 Member
    I did watch a YouTube documentary on a Ohio Class Submarine, the USS Pennsilvania.  One Ohio Class sub can destroy any country within minutes.  It was an old sub too, I think it was commissioned in 84.  I don't know how old the doc was.  Many people commented about not being able buy alcohol/guns but drive a multi billion nuclear sub.  
    "Well he shoulda armed him self" William Munney-Unforgiven"
    "You believe there is one God, that is good, even the demons believe and shudder in fear" James 2:19
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    When I was aboard ship, at 19 y.o., I stood different watches armed with a 1911 pistol, but couldn't buy one because I wasn't 21. And was trusted, and trained, to fire the M14, and the M60, M1919, and M2HB 50 cal. machine guns, but being out of state I couldn't buy even a single shot shotgun in my home port. Crazy world.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    edited January 2019 #8
    Lou Yuan is a smoke blowing bumbling fool. No military commander of serious intent would telegraph stragedy to the world.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Authoritarian governments rarely have military geniuses running things - they don't trust them. More 'democratic' governments don't trust them, either. But they keep them around so they can trot them out in an emergency, and dispose of them (politically), later.

    I don't watch enough Lou Dobbs to have an opinion, but he worked at CNN for a long time, so I will verify as much as I can, before assuming anything about him. All of the media outlets are propagandizing heavily, right now, so it's very difficult to pick out the bits of stark truth.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,671 Senior Member
    edited January 2019 #10
    bisley said:
    Authoritarian governments rarely have military geniuses running things - they don't trust them. More 'democratic' governments don't trust them, either. But they keep them around so they can trot them out in an emergency, and dispose of them (politically), later.

    I don't watch enough Lou Dobbs to have an opinion, but he worked at CNN for a long time, so I will verify as much as I can, before assuming anything about him. All of the media outlets are propagandizing heavily, right now, so it's very difficult to pick out the bits of stark truth.
    Lou Dobbs is a Trump supporter and a democrat criticizer, and that's why I like his show. It was Ed Rollins that made the statement about the Chinese getting bellicose because they are afraid, and I was comparing China with North Korea because NK does the same thing. When Dobbs was at CNN I believe he was just a financial news commentator, but at FOX he does more political commentary than Financial. I probably wasn't clear about who said what in my OP.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    China has land based antiship ballistic and cruise missiles. Launch enough of them at a single Target and you can overwhelm the missile defense systems. They can't necessarily project force beyond the immediate region, but they can deter or eliminate our ability to project force in their vacinity. 

    The only question would be our response and If we chose to end the world as we know it by going nuclear or just launch a crap ton of cruise missiles then lick our wounds and go home.
    If an enemy launched a lot of antiship or cruise missiles, there is a defense for that if the missiles are coming in a cluster. The one launching such an attack would be committing an overt act of war. The guided missile cruisers and destroyers may or may not be carrying nuclear tipped missiles. Those missiles can take out a lot of stuff if it is close enough. And the targeting systems on the newer cruisers and destroyers can track and engage a LOT of targets simultaneously. With around 15 to 20 of them in the carrier group that's a crapload of missiles at hand. Some might get through and the CWIS weapons on carriers and escorts would be burning out their barrels to take them out before they could hit the carrier. You greatly underestimate the firepower that can be brought to bear by a carrier fleet group.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 10canyon5310canyon53 Member Posts: 2,122 Senior Member
    This excerpt from the linked article reveals a lot I think:

    "Admiral Lou, who holds an academic military rank - not a service role....."

    In other words, he is a purely political animal, not military.  He may not even realize that he would be biting off more than he can chew.  As previously mentioned, a US carrier battle group represents a mind-numbing amount of firepower.  The question is, how much of that firepower would be utilized if things suddenly went South.  I think the Chinese are all talk, but that is no reason for our Navy to not be on their toes and ready for anything.  If nothing else, a threat like that is a good excuse for our Navy to take their training up a notch.

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    It definitely would be an act of war. Hopefully we'll never have to find out how effective our defenses are. However assuming anything is invincible is a pretty good way to eventually be proven wrong. 
    There would be losses in the carrier group in a really big attack. The destroyer screen has a primary duty to protect the carrier. They have always been expendable assets. That was a given back in the 1970s when I was serving, and it would be no different now. The action afterwards in relation to the attacker would be 'interesting'.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I do not believe most people understand the pure destructive power that a US Navy Carrier Group holds.  I guess because most of it is classified.
    I think common sense tells us that it is much more than google says
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    edited January 2019 #15
    tennmike said:
    China has land based antiship ballistic and cruise missiles. Launch enough of them at a single Target and you can overwhelm the missile defense systems. They can't necessarily project force beyond the immediate region, but they can deter or eliminate our ability to project force in their vacinity. 

    The only question would be our response and If we chose to end the world as we know it by going nuclear or just launch a crap ton of cruise missiles then lick our wounds and go home.
    If an enemy launched a lot of antiship or cruise missiles, there is a defense for that if the missiles are coming in a cluster. The one launching such an attack would be committing an overt act of war. The guided missile cruisers and destroyers may or may not be carrying nuclear tipped missiles. Those missiles can take out a lot of stuff if it is close enough. And the targeting systems on the newer cruisers and destroyers can track and engage a LOT of targets simultaneously. With around 15 to 20 of them in the carrier group that's a crapload of missiles at hand. Some might get through and the CWIS weapons on carriers and escorts would be burning out their barrels to take them out before they could hit the carrier. You greatly underestimate the firepower that can be brought to bear by a carrier fleet group.
    It definitely would be an act of war. Hopefully we'll never have to find out how effective our defenses are. However assuming anything is invincible is a pretty good way to eventually be proven wrong
    Clemson vs Alabama might be a good example of your assertion. I was pulling for Clemson in a vague sort of way, but believed the hype about Alabama's invincibility.

    One of the great things about sports is the way it tests this sort of idea, without having to actually go to war.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    The Arleigh Burke-class DDG is the backbone of the carrier screen right now. Here's the skinny on them and the armament and countermeasures they carry. Not something to sneeze at, by any means.



    As an aside, I KNEW in no uncertain terms what type missiles were aboard the ship I served on. As a member of the security force, I was standing by at either the forward or aft missile loading/unloading area armed with a 1911 and a M-14. Every type missile was painted white, but there was stenciled letter/number nomenclature on each one. And 'certain ones' had another stencil on them that was unmistakable as to warhead type. I suspect it is no different now. And the Navy still will neither confirm nor deny what type missiles are aboard those surface ships.

    It was the same with the ASROC (anti-submarine rocket launcher system). They were also nuclear capable for anti-submarine warfare.


      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Then there's the U.S. spy satellites that can detect launches of ballistic missiles, and they would be watching where China has them, and movements of mobile launch systems. Their man made islands in the South China Sea are also interesting. Wouldn't take that many cruise and other missiles to completely obliterate them. Fixed fortifications are easy targets.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement