U.S. sails massive, F-35-laden warship in disputed South China Sea
Japan Times [Tokyo, Japan],
by
Jesse Johnson
Original Article
Posted By: LittleHoodedMonk,
4/9/2019 11:47:32 AM
In the latest show of military muscle in the South China Sea, the U.S. has apparently sailed its USS Wasp amphibious assault ship near a strategic reef claimed by Beijing and Manila that lies just 230 km (140 miles) from the Philippine coast. (Snip) China covets Scarborough Shoal for its strategic significance, experts say, as it would be the crowning jewel in a bid to solidify Beijing’s iron grip over the South China Sea. They say building at Scarborough would create a large “strategic triangle” comprising Woody Island in the Paracel Islands to the northwest and its Spratly islet outposts to the south, giving Beijing the ability to police
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Michaelus 4/9/2019 12:27:26 PM (No. 28465)
Gosh I pray that some slow moving cargo ship does not sink her....
13 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
snowoutlaw 4/9/2019 12:30:55 PM (No. 28452)
The shoal belongs to the Philippines not China. The big bully needs to be repulsed and our friends supported.
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 4/9/2019 12:34:02 PM (No. 28469)
What a ridiculous thought, #1.
A relative flew Harriers against ISIS off Wasp a few years ago.
10 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
grampus 4/9/2019 2:53:21 PM (No. 28454)
Massive ships make massive targets. Where are the battleships of yesterday? Where will the carriers be tomorrow? Times change. Weapons change. Strategies and tactics change.
11 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DVC 4/9/2019 3:24:54 PM (No. 28462)
#4, and massive ships have real military striking power, not penny ante BS. Even this small aircraft carrier (actually an amphibious assault ship) has 6-10 F-35s on board. That is a pretty solid power projection, in addition to the USMC amphibious landing and air assault capabilities. This one ship carries a world of hurt with it.
Do ships get sunk? Sure, always a possibility, and why you do not only have one or two. USN currently has 8 LHD amphibious assault ships like the USS Wasp.
We started WW2 with a total of seven aircraft carriers, including the newly commissioned USS Hornet. Starting Dec 1941 and over the next 10 months, four of the six in the Pacific were sunk and one (USS Saratoga)was torpedoed and in drydock for repairs for many months. USS Hornet only floated for a year. We were down to ONE operational carrier in the Pacific, USS Enterprise, and one in the Atlantic, the smaller USS Ranger by the end of Oct ´42.
But, by Dec 1942 the first of what would be 24 new big aircraft carriers, and 122 small escort carriers built during WW2 was launched.
Yes, aircraft carriers CAN be sunk, but they are still necessary for projecting power.
12 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Strike3 4/9/2019 3:33:28 PM (No. 28468)
It won´t be too long before we will have planes that can fly half-way around the world at speed and the need for carriers will go away.
I believe that #1 was referring to the several unexplained crashes of a couple of Navy ships in the recent past. The investigation is still "ongoing" as to how a large tanker could collide with a smaller, faster ship, even deliberately.
10 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
DVC 4/9/2019 3:57:08 PM (No. 28458)
#6, we have had aircraft which can fly ALL the way around the world since 1957, and we still need aircraft carriers.
How many of those aircraft do we have? Well, we have exactly 21 B-2 bombers. They are pretty survivable because of stealth.
Add in our 1950s vintage remaining B-52s and you have 58 of those, but they cannot survive at all in modern defended air space, only useful when we have total air superiority, including no SAMs.
So, basically 21 aircraft, total.
One aircraft carrier has 100 aircrat, +/- a few.
8 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Vesicant 4/9/2019 4:37:52 PM (No. 28453)
Let´s hope the F-35s brought their umbrellas in case of rain. And backup oxygen tanks in case the pilots need to, you know, breath.
9 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
toddh 4/9/2019 5:35:14 PM (No. 28459)
We also have 62 B-1B Lancers, our heaviest bomber, they have been nuke neutered by treaty but are fast. Oh and this one has 10 F-35B and if you want change there it is!
7 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 4/9/2019 5:48:31 PM (No. 28463)
#8, those are counterfactual comments. A relative flies F-35 in USMC, those problems occurred years ago, for short periods during development. You should really keep up if you want to make criticisms, and have a few facts.
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 4/9/2019 5:55:03 PM (No. 28461)
Yes, thank you #9, I overlooked the B-1s. They, like the B-52s, are somewhat marginally survivable in modern, high density air defense system for a well defended area due to their minimal stealth. The B model is better than the A model in that regard, the blended spine rather than vertical spine helps reduce RCS a lot, but still pretty easily seen at long range by radars, so can be engaged by some of the more modern long range (~150+ miles) SAMs. Low enough and with enough decoys and ECM, some would make it to target.
Still, add them all together and you have 1.5 aircraft carriers worth of aircraft. And soon many of the carrier aircraft will be stealthy F-35s.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
3XALADY 4/9/2019 6:11:27 PM (No. 28457)
Above posters - thank you for sharing so much knowledge on something many of us would know nothing about.
9 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
hoosierblue 4/9/2019 6:14:08 PM (No. 28466)
Hey, if those islands are open China to build bases, they are open to anyone. Lets start building islands of our own right on their door step and see how they like it.
8 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 4/9/2019 7:54:32 PM (No. 28456)
#13, that is one of the better ideas I have heard on the topic. Sounds good. Maybe partner with the Philippines and build a joint base.
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Highlander 4/9/2019 8:09:53 PM (No. 28460)
I’d like to see China blink on this one.
5 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Mike22 4/9/2019 8:16:32 PM (No. 28464)
Thanks for all the good info and the point/counterpoint discussion.
Didn´t the B1B get stand off weapons a while ago? Would they still be effective?
If still effective, could the stand off weapons be switched from conventional to nuclear easily?
5 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
chance_232 4/9/2019 9:23:13 PM (No. 28455)
Yes, wh have aircraft that can fly around the world, if refueled in flight.
Fighters and attack aircraft that fly at supersonic speeds have a limited range.
The point of an aircraft carrier is to put sorte after sorte of aircraft over a target in minutes, not 12 plus hours.
I think that what we are going to see in the future is a smaller aircraft carrier loaded up with drones.
8 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DVC 4/10/2019 3:20:02 AM (No. 28467)
#16, yes. Standoff nuclear attack missiles (AGM-69)was one of the solutions to the ever decreasing chance for a non-stealthy large bomber to penetrate airspace protected by modern air defense SAMs and more. When the START treaty moved the B1B off of the nuclear forces list, the SRAM, AGM-69 was no longer available.
So, we designed newer, conventional stand off weapons. For short distances, where you have pretty much air superiority, except for shoulder fired short range SAMs, they can drop JDAMs, with a modest range (~15 miles), basically a bomb with a bit of glide capability. For serious long range standoff, the B1B can carry the AGM-158A (225 miles) or 158B (600 miles) conventional warhead standoff cruise missiles. The really great news is that a B1B can carry 24 of these cruise missiles. That is a pretty solid punch. If they can get within 600 miles of the target safely, then the B1B/AGM-158B package is a good one. The one fairly large fly in the ointment is that we are unsure REALLY how good the Russian´s S-300/400 SAM system is at engaging cruise missiles. AGM-158 is called ´semi-stealthy´ which is difficult to pin down, but the Russians make great claims (don´t they always) for the ability of the S-300 and S-400 SAM system´s ability to shoot down cruise missiles. China has about 300 S-300 launchers known, and maybe half upgraded range versions to 125 miles. So, even with a cloud of cruise missiles coming, how many will actually get through to target? We really don´t know.
Stealthy aircraft like F-35 may have a better chance. Mixing the stealth aircraft and swarms of semi-stealthy cruise missiles is even better.
5 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
DVC 4/10/2019 3:37:00 AM (No. 28470)
The next typical arguement of the "the aircraft carrier is obsolete" naysayers is that China "has maneuvering ballistic missiles that can kill the carriers and the Navy has no way to defend against it". This is the DF-21 or 26 Chinese missiles.
OK, well, check this, if you are interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM
Open source info. Likely actual capability is better, kept under wraps.
7 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "LittleHoodedMonk"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
President Trump is doing his best to keep China from militarily dominating the most important South China Sea shipping lanes. Of course, with a future dRATS infanticide party "win", they could give this up to spend the money instead of social engineering and climate change. Be very afraid and remember to vote GOP. Of course, that includes the Middle East and South America, as both Russia and China are trying to take hold surreptitiously.