Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How good can it be? The carrier's island is on the wrong side.Watched this the other day, thought it was a bit depressing. Wonder what people here think.
This is unrelated to the first video but also provided food for thought and at least outlined some of the specific technical challenges
How good can it be? The carrier's island is on the wrong side.
Although these wargames and simulations can be somewhat of an eye-opener, there is always some real worlds scenarios that cannot be accounted for, the biggest is failure of equipment. From what I seen (I skipped through some of this) we are looking at the assumption that all the Chinese equipment worked as advertised. Nothing is mentioned about intelligence gathered before the conflict or having assets covertly staged before the shooting begins. In the second video, where is the USAF? Tankers?Give it a watch, then let me know what you think. The pics are obviously not the point, definitely generic.
In 1981/2 just pre-Falklands, Admiral Sandy Woodward led a force of a 6,200 ton County class destroyer, Glamorgan, and 3 frigates tasked with penetrating to within 200 miles of the Coral Sea Carrier Task Group steaming in the Arabian Sea. The USN "sank" the 3 frigates but Woodward got close enough to simulate launch of Glamorgan's 4 Exocets so "killing" the carrier. So within 25 miles. How they did it is rather amusing.BTW, I participated in a RIMPAC exercise in 1998. During a "wargame" an aircraft from my squadron eluded a picket and went in and sank the Kittyhawk with a Harpoon missile. The aircraft was a P-3!
I watched the second video. It was enjoyable.Give it a watch, then let me know what you think. The pics are obviously not the point, definitely generic.
And that's my point with war games and these analysis - while they may be revealing, you have to look at them at worse case or (best case) scenarios. IMO the Chinese still have quality issues through out their industries, although they've made great strides during the past 20/30 years.In 1981/2 just pre-Falklands, Admiral Sandy Woodward led a force of a 6,200 ton County class destroyer, Glamorgan, and 3 frigates tasked with penetrating to within 200 miles of the Coral Sea Carrier Task Group steaming in the Arabian Sea. The USN "sank" the 3 frigates but Woodward got close enough to simulate launch of Glamorgan's 4 Exocets so "killing" the carrier. So within 25 miles. How they did it is rather amusing.
ADMIRAL SIR JOHN ‘SANDY’ WOODWARD
REPUTATIONS Michael E Haskew reviews the career of the fighting...www.keymilitary.com
And don't say it couldn't happen again. Ever heard of the "fog of war"?
And there are tales of British subs successfully penetrating US carrier group screens during exercises. Now the question is whether Chinese subs are sufficiently stealthy to be able to do likewise.
And that's my point with war games and these analysis - while they may be revealing, you have to look at them at worse case or (best case) scenarios. IMO the Chinese still have quality issues through out their industries, although they've made great strides during the past 20/30 years.
Case in point - A Chinese made consumer product I bought for my daughter several years ago. IMO this is still typical in many corners of their industries to include military products.
View attachment 674223
Well so far, if we use the J-20 as a talking point, I wouldn't hold my breath...I don't think we can count on that.
I won't dismiss them at all but at the same time I'm still cautiously suspicious of their true capabilities.Probably, but not necessarily with the J-20 or their various missiles such as their various super / hypersonic cruise and ballistic weapons. I think it's foolish to just dismiss them. Clearly they have reached parity on many high tech systems, like wifi for example. It doesn't hurt them that they have been making all of our iPhones and everything else for the last 20 years.
The other thing is doctrine and planning, and their ability to survive enemy force.
The Chinese have good kit, and probably have solid doctrine for using it (aside from their CVs, which are currently developing that doctrine), but whether it can survive contact with the enemy remains to be seen.
That's especially true when we consider that invading Taiwan involves amphibious and/or airborne ops, which are the two most-difficult infantry deployment evolutions.
Be it noted, I haven't watched the videos, as my wifi here at home is quite limited.
What I got from the video is that our carriers and escorts probably need some accelerated deployment of some of the more advanced anti-ballistic missile systems like the SM-3, and I'm not sure what exactly can be done about the hypervelocity missiles.
Laser and particle beam weaponry certainly seems to be on the table (including for the F35, or so they say) but that is somewhat limited in range from what I understand. I suspect they do have some kind of operational systems on some ships and possibly some (multi engine) aircraft.
Another issue I think is that our own missiles like harpoons and tomahawks have always been comparatively slow. If we got into a conflict with China it would be very helpful to destroy some of their land based and sea based launchers very quickly. Maybe we have other ways of doing that which I don't know of.