Miscellaneous News

G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
It's fucking expensive as hell to keep building these, especially if you have better ones designed that can be built upon the experience of the former ones. Did you ever think how stupid it is to have have multiple aircraft carriers built, all 5 years old, all obsolete to the ones in construction? And then, did you think how useless they are in a real conflict against 5 US carriers that can 1. outmatch these initial Chinese ships in carrier-to-carrier warfare and 2. that can be sunk by ASBMs without endangering any of our carriers or sailors?
Click to expand...
It is way cheaper to maintain a conventional carrier than a nuclear one. Type 003 is also a vast overmatch against Japanese and South Korean carriers.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Not all US carriers are nuclear ones. And the idea that there always needs to be a symmetric response to every single weapon system is a flawed one.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
So what? That's where we're at? Competing against Japan and SK? Or are we going up against 5 US carriers in the region? Note the original post I was responding to.
Click to expand...
The point of a carrier is more political than military especially if you don't need to project power in a peer conflict.

There is also value in time. Better to have something now to intimidate with, get concessions/deter with it, and not need to use it, than to wait, not be intimidating enough, and lose even more value in either losing political concessions or inviting war by looking weak.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
gelgoog said:
Not all US carriers are nuclear ones. And the idea that there always needs to be a symmetric response to every single weapon system is a flawed one.
Click to expand...
Aside from the nuclear bit, which I said nothing about, this is exactly correct. No need to panic build to meet 5 US carriers with 5 carriers. Build at our own speed, build ones that we have tested and are satisified with, and until we surpass them, use our ASMB fleet if threatened with their carriers.
FairAndUnbiased said:
The point of a carrier is more political than military especially if you don't need to project power in a peer conflict.

There is also value in time. Better to have something now to intimidate with, get concessions/deter with it, and not need to use it, than to wait, not be intimidating enough, and lose even more value in either losing political concessions or inviting war by looking weak.
Click to expand...
We have something now, it's more than every country than the US. I don't understand your point; are you saying that China should have rushed to build more carriers of the current designs without fully testing and improving in order to meet America's planned 5? That's the original argument I was against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top