|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| But mm2 is right, carrier groups can be quite fragile. |
Can you cite any incidents of American carrier groups coming under attack and not holding together, or even suffering damage, 1945 to the present? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| But mm2 is right, carrier groups can be quite fragile. |
Can you cite any incidents of American carrier groups coming under attack and not holding together, or even suffering damage, 1945 to the present? |
No. Oh, shit. My turn.
Can you cite any incidents of American carrier groups being attacked after 1945 . . .
by submarine torpedo(s);
or by cruise missile(s);
or by more than a single aircraft? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
None. Sea and air superiority. And not fragile at all.
See? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| But mm2 is right, carrier groups can be quite fragile. |
Can you cite any incidents of American carrier groups coming under attack and not holding together, or even suffering damage, 1945 to the present? |
As my article indicates an old chinese sub popped up right in the middle of a battlegroup undetected. In a war games situation, that might be considered a major win for the red team.
Not many carrier groups have come under attack from a major super power since 1945. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| I recall the incident. We are neither at war not in a warlike, or cold-warlike relationship with China, our ally in many ways, at the moment, Mindmetoo. Would you have us change that, start treating their small navy as an enemy force just as we treated the Soviets' navy between 1945 and 1990ish? |
Take a chill pill, dude. I'm merely pointing out an incident. I for one think carrier are damn cool and probably justified in the American inventory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CVN-21 would be way cooler if they put some wheels or some tracks on it. Then it could just roll onto the beach and start kicking some serious ass. We're talking deep penetration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Location: somewhere in Korea
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Hammer wrote: |
| CVN-21 would be way cooler if they put some wheels or some tracks on it. Then it could just roll onto the beach and start kicking some serious ass. We're talking deep penetration. |
That was funny  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| As my article indicates an old chinese sub popped up right in the middle of a battlegroup undetected. In a war games situation, that might be considered a major win for the red team. |
Yes, but in a non-game situation, in time of peace, it becomes a bit Pearl Harborish.
I imagine CINCPAC has probably changed carrier groups' operational orders and rules-of-engagement re: the Chinese Navy since then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| As my article indicates an old chinese sub popped up right in the middle of a battlegroup undetected. In a war games situation, that might be considered a major win for the red team. |
Yes, but in a non-game situation, in time of peace, it becomes a bit Pearl Harborish.
I imagine CINCPAC has probably changed carrier groups' operational orders and rules-of-engagement re: the Chinese Navy since then. |
Uhhh... and just which navy got smoked at Pearl? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I really think it would be hard to creep up on an American carrier if one or two American submarines were deployed to shadow it below. Nevertheless, without careful defensive measures, I do believe that carrier groups can be fragile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chinese Boats Stalk George Washington
October 21, 2008: Japan has increased anti-submarine patrols in international waters, just outside Japanese territorial waters. Chinese submarines are apparently exercising there more frequently, looking for Japanese, South Korean and American warships to play tag with. The U.S. has also redirected more of its space based naval search capabilities to assist the Japanese.
Chinese Song class diesel electric and Han class nuclear powered boats were detected and tracked recently. One of each of these was spotted stalking the American carrier USS George Washington, as it headed to South Korea for a visit.
China is rapidly acquiring advanced submarine building capabilities, and providing money (for fuel and spare parts) to send its subs to sea more often. Moreover, new classes of boats are constantly appearing. The new Type 39A, or Yuan class, looks just like the Russian Kilo class. In the late 1990s, the Chinese began ordering Russian Kilo class subs, then one of the latest diesel-electric design available. Russia was selling new Kilos for about $200 million each, which is about half the price other Western nations sell similar boats for. The Kilos weigh 2,300 tons (surface displacement), have six torpedo tubes and a crew of 57. They are quiet, and can travel about 700 kilometers under water at a quiet speed of about five kilometers an hour. Kilos carry 18 torpedoes or SS-N-27 anti-ship missiles (with a range of 300 kilometers and launched underwater from the torpedo tubes.) The combination of quietness and cruise missiles makes Kilo very dangerous to American carriers. North Korea and Iran have also bought Kilos.
The Chinese have already built two Yuans, the second one an improvement on the first. These two boats have been at sea to try out the technology that was pilfered from the Russians. A third Yuan is under construction, and it also appears to be a bit different from the first two. The first Yuan appeared to be a copy of the early model Kilo (the model 877), while the second Yuan (referred to as a Type 39B) appeared to copy the late Kilos (model 636). The third Yuan may end up being a further evolution, or Type 39C.
Preceding the Yuans was the the Type 39, or Song class. This was the first Chinese sub to have the teardrop shaped hull, and was based on the predecessor of the Kilo, the Romeo class. The Type 39A was thought to be just an improved Song, but on closer examination, especially by the Russians, it looked like a clone of the Kilos. The Yaun class also have AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), which allows non-nuclear boats to stay underwater for days at a time. China currently has 13 Song class, 12 Kilo class, one Yuan class and 32 Romeo class boats. There are only two Han class SSNs, as the Chinese are still having a lot of problems with nuclear power in subs. Despite that, the Hans are going to sea, even though they are noisy and easily detected by Western sensors.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20081021.aspx |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| As my article indicates an old chinese sub popped up right in the middle of a battlegroup undetected. In a war games situation, that might be considered a major win for the red team. |
Yes, but in a non-game situation, in time of peace, it becomes a bit Pearl Harborish.
I imagine CINCPAC has probably changed carrier groups' operational orders and rules-of-engagement re: the Chinese Navy since then. |
CINCPAC Op Order #860-1
Okay dumb asses wake the F up and be on the lookout for shit that could blow us outta the water.
New rules-of-engagement
If a red boat does manage to pop up in our formation... Make like William Ayers and drop a bomb on that mofo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Hammer wrote: |
| Uhhh... and just which navy got smoked at Pearl? |
Easy question, Hammer: the same navy that turned around and not only destroyed the attacking navy, but won its unconditional surrender, occupied its homeland, and then, among other things, created bases which it maintains today.
China turned its back on naval power long ago. Just ask those who saw the Chinese fleet disbanded in the fifteenth century. Beijing may want to develop naval power today, and I think they should. These sea lines of communication impact their interests as well as ours. I do not necessarily see them as our enemy, however. And even if they were, they are fielding mostly diesel submarines today and they lack the sea power to get to Taiwan.
Let us keep this in perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Let us keep this in perspective. |
Perspective is not the strong point of many posters here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|