• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

‘Sink two aircraft carriers’ PLA Admiral's proposal for business - Chow Ang Moh news reports

Ang4MohTrump

Alfrescian
Loyal
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/w...a/news-story/aaa8c33d57da62e7d5e28e791aa26e0f










0:53
/
1:37


14ef7af202207320d3bd0a6419cf5975

e46e9e158c20fed9d3b78fbae4be370b

Chinese Military Might
World
‘Sink two aircraft carriers’: Chinese Admiral’s chilling recipe to dominate the South China Sea
Jamie Seidel, News Corp Australia Network
January 2, 2019 7:17am
They’re the pride of the US fleet: enormous 100,000 tonne, 333m long nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. But Beijing thinks they’re Washington’s achilles heel.
Rear Admiral Lou Yuan has told an audience in Shenzhen that the ongoing disputes over the ownership of the East and South China Seas could be resolved by sinking two US super carriers.
Taiwan’s Central News Agency (CNA) reports Admiral Lou gave a wide-ranging speech on the state of Sino-US relations. The high-profile, hawkish military commentator reportedly declared the current trade spat was “definitely not simply friction over economics and trade,” but was instead a “prime strategic issue”.
RELATED: China’s island fortresses ‘impossible’ to defeat
His speech, delivered on December 20 to the 2018 Military Industry List summit, declared that China’s new and highly capable anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles were more than capable of hitting US carriers, despite them being at the centre of a ‘bubble’ of defensive escorts.
“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.”
59e298bebcf361eeb43574b6c25f5f85

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman is silhouetted during a sunset. The ability of such ships to survive a modern battlefield is being questioned. Picture: USNFIGHTING WORDS
Rear Admiral Lou Yuan is deputy head of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences.
In his speech, he said there were ‘five cornerstones of the United States’ open to exploitation: their military, their money, their talent, their voting system — and their fear of adversaries.
Admiral Lou, who holds an academic military rank — not a service role — said China should “use its strength to attack the enemy’s shortcomings. Attack wherever the enemy is afraid of being hit. Wherever the enemy is weak …”
It’s not the controversial commentator’s first aggressive outburst.
And its part of a steadily escalating war of words between the two nations.
Earlier in December, the Chinese state-run Global Times published the views of a panel of such ‘military commentators’ concerning Beijing’s sovereignty claims over Taiwan and the East and South China Seas.
“If the US naval fleet dares to stop in Taiwan, it is time for the People’s Liberation Army to deploy troops to promote national unity on (invade) the island,” Admiral Lou said.
a2a1479e0992dac5d49cae1518bc5d9d
Chinese troops engage in mock combat. Beijing has increasingly been suggesting it is open to the idea of invading Taiwan. Picture: PLA
“Achieving China’s complete unity is a necessary requirement. The achievement of the past 40 years of reform and opening-up has given us the capability and confidence to safeguard our sovereignty. Those who are trying to stir up trouble in the South China Sea and Taiwan should be careful about their future.”
SPECIAL REPORT: China’s exploding military might
It was just one of a string of similarly hawkish views.
“The PLA is capable of taking over Taiwan within 100 hours with only a few dozen casualties,” said retired lieutenant general Wang Hongguang. “2018 is a year of turmoil for Taiwan, and a possible military conflict may take place in Taiwan soon. (But) As long as the US doesn’t attack China-built islands and reefs in the South China Sea, no war will take place in the area.”
Beijing has annexed several reefs in the South China Sea, engaging in an enormous geo-engineering project to build artificial islands upon which it has placed heavily fortified airfields and ports.
3e6ec5606233ec6b1f50c08ed443d408
The aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) in the western Pacific Ocean. The US has been sending these enormous symbols of power into the South and East China Sea to challenge Beijing’ unlawful claims. Picture: USNSTEEL DINOSAURS?
The United States’ enormous aircraft carriers are considered the centrepieces of its navy and highly visible embodiments of that nation’s power.
At $US8.5 billion ($A12 billion) each, they’re also a huge economic investment.
And questions have been growing over their continued relevance to modern warfare.
As with the ‘gunboat diplomacy’ of huge armoured and heavily gunned battleships before World War II, some military analysts technological advances have made these ships obsolete.

Once, aircraft carriers were able to project military might (through their aircraft) while unseen and outside the reach of defences.
_

Now, with modern satellite and over-the-horizon radar systems, they can no longer rely upon being unseen. And land-based missiles potentially out-reach their aircraft — forcing carriers to move into ‘danger zones’ before they can be effective.
SPECIAL REPORT: How hypersonic weapons will change warfare forever
But heavily networked radars, decoys and antimissile systems aboard the aircraft carriers themselves and their escorts are believed capable of warding off attacks from current-generation missiles.
However, both China and Russia have claimed they are rapidly bringing into service a new generation of hypersonic weapons which simply move too fast to counteract.
6399a6cb972534b28e6a117d5202c410
China's aircraft carrier Liaoning, with a close escort of two destroyers. Such mobile airfields would be well positioned to reinforce Beijing's 'unsinkable' island airfields if the need arises. Picture: PLA




0:00
/
1:05

4

71c48092b3d503350bd54c61b21943f0

4cd1a8293a54bcbcd3a3c39d5a8c605f

China has won the South China Sea
Originally published as China’s plot to force US ‘surrender’
 

war is best form of peace

Alfrescian
Loyal
Today's PLA can do that and much more easily without even stepping out of their camps. All of US Navy's warships above 5000 tons in Pacific (there should be a hundred approx) can be sunk within less than 1hr, directly by firing DF missiles right from inside Rocket Army's units, just from within their camps.

This can be done even without reloading missiles, if the US Navy came closer to Chinese water, which means only smaller cheaper missiles can do the job and they have plenty of those. When the targets are further, then only the larger & more expensive DFs can reach, and then re-loading will become necessary.

If Dotard sent 2 carrier battle groups to say, Okinawa, and China decided to wipe them out. They will be all gone within 20 mins or so. Rocket Army will have more than sufficient DF-21D & DF-15 & DF-16 to sink them all. The range to Okinawa only takes few mins for missiles to hit. After hitting give them 15 mins to sink. Don't sink can whack more missiles until sink. They have hundreds of launchers with ready to launch missiles can reach Okinawa without necessary to drive out of camp.

US warships can at the most intercept first 2 to 3 dozen of missiles, within first 10 mins, after which they will be out of interception missiles & close-in ammos and become sitting ducks. They can only reload by returning to base, but they won't because they had been sunk.

If the Dotard's fleets were all in Kobe / Osaka then DF-15 & DF-16 cannot reach. Hence more expensive DF.21D, DF-17, DF-26 are needed. But there is sufficient number of ready to launch missiles to sink all of 2 carrier battle groups which about 20 warships above 5000 tons displacement to sink. Smaller warship below 5000 tons are quite insignificant and unworthy to spend missiles on them, although ships as tiny as 1000 tons can be sunk by (not so cheap) DF missiles. Whatever small ships left of a battle group are no threat and they are actually even unable to cope with search and rescue to pickup corpses of their sunken friends - they will be overload & overwhelmed already. If they tried to pickup all their own corpse they will sink already.

So no need to fire missiles on them.

If US Navy Fleets were in Guam, it will take at least Df-26 or DF-17 to sink them, DF-21 & below is unable to reach. to sink 2 battle groups @ Guam, may not need reload, but will really nearly use up all those missiles that are on the TEL trucks, must reload afterwards.

If USA Navy fleets were in Pearl Harbour, even DF-16 & DF-17 can not reach. Hence DF-31GM or DF-ZF would be needed. There is no officially disclosed model number for the latest HGV WU-14 fitting on 50ton missiles, but they have got them in Rocket Army. These are all rather huge and heavy, However reload is unnecessary, as DF-31 etc are MIRV meaning each will carry 10 or more warheads. Most of them are nukes anyway. They can reach anywhere including continental USA, US Navy warships in e.g. San Diego naval base can be wiped out by a single DF-31, if the tips were nukes then more than just a San Diego naval base can be wiped out by a single DF-31, naval bases at e.g. Oregon Portland, & Seattle ca also be hit by the same DF-31.
 
Last edited:
Top