The US Navy has sailed a carrier into disputed waters in the South China Sea along with two cruisers and two destroyers.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2016/03/03/stennis-strike-group-deployed-to-south-china-sea/81270736/
I just want enough feathers to be ruffled in China for something exciting to happen.
How are those jets supposed to take off?
>>29141500
The jets are stored below deck and brought up as needed so the flight deck isnt packed.
The only reason they are all on deck is for a show of force.
>>29141500
They move the excess ones below deck when they're not dickwaving
>>29141478
china aint gonna do jack squat. they're nothing without us. we literally drive their economy.
>everyone of those troops costing the US over 200k a year
>Have them do fucking photoop bullshit like this
uh huh
>>29141478
Meow!
How often are CSGs deployed there?
Also, isn't two Ticos unusual for a single CSG?
>>29141478
China won't do anything. The most likely thing that will happen is:
- Pinoys win the ICJ court case and commence bilateral negotiations with China. The Chinese will have to give up scarborough, which they dont have a presence on i dont think, and likely their claim on the spratleys, which was weak anyway,
- China remains in possession of the Paracels, because its within their EEZ and they fought a war over it with both vietnams and won.
>>29141580
>it costs maintenance upkeep no matter what
>might as well use that money for something, like aggressive diplomacy
Adjust your aperture.
>>29141676
China won't give up anything despite being legally required to.
>>29141650
>Also, isn't two Ticos unusual for a single CSG?
Depends on Burke availability. Most of the time it's 1 Tico and 3-4 Burkes. Sometimes it's 2 Ticos and 2 Burkes.
>>29141798
What's the better mix, if we're talking later Burkes vs a Tico?
>>29141819
You really only need the one Tico for the air defense command and fleet C4SIR facilities. A second one just means an extra 26 VLS cells compared to a Burke. 2+2 vs 1+3, I'd probably prefer the two Ticos just for extra VLS cells. 2+2 vs 1+4, definitely one Tico, 4 Burkes.
>>29141819
well the Burkes are 90 to 96 VLS each, to the Tico's 122
so it really isn't a major deal
4 Burks and 1 Tico would be highest firepower.
but it's a case of threat eval, Burkes are morecapable for ASW as far as I know where as the 2 tico's could cast a much wider air defense picket by flanking the carrier
>>29141879
>2+2 vs 1+4, definitely one Tico, 4 Burkes.
I take it that's from a firepower as well as dispersal perspective?
>>29141929
yup. better ASW dispertion being important and all.
Also, don't forget that there's at least one SSN screening for this CSG, probably two to maximize short range/low power EM vacuuming from close in plus take pics etc.
>>29141923
>Burkes are morecapable for ASW as far as I know where as the 2 tico's could cast a much wider air defense picket by flanking the carrier
Their systems are pretty much standard and equal; same towed array, same LAMPS systems, hell I think even the bow arrays are standardized on the 53C now. Might be some small differences in processing, but they're close enough to be practically equal.
>>29141971
Yeah I'm fairly well across other aspects of the groups - just wasn't sure where the Tico class fit into the structure these days and if they were steering away from them.
Has the retirement of the OHP frigates changed much?
>>29141923
>>29142002
Oh, and the air defense capabilities are almost equal. AN/SPY-1A/B vs the AN/SPY-1D on the Burkes. The AN/SPS-49 air search radar is a Tico advantage, but it's just complimentary to the SPY-1A/B, not really added capability. The Ticos just get more processing and command facilities so they can operate as the air defense command node.
>>29142022
>Yeah I'm fairly well across other aspects of the groups - just wasn't sure where the Tico class fit into the structure these days and if they were steering away from them.
They're modernizing all of them. Completely updated processing hardware and a number of other lower cost/high benefit things to keep them effective.
Expect to see them around another 20 years at least. I would not be shocked if they announced a major upgrade on them in the next decade.
>>29141478
>disputed
Disputed refers to a difference in recognition of legitimacy between sovereigns. China doesn't pretend to have legitimacy, they just say fuck it.
>>29142022
>Has the retirement of the OHP frigates changed much?
Just that we're seeing the LCS/SSC/FFs coming online. That's what's going to be filling that OHP ASW patrol/screening hole as far as blue water ops. With the added benefit of mine warfare (those Avengers are getting OLD for wood-hulled ships) and dealing with smaller surface combatants.
>>29141478
>>29142077
>>29142102
Thanks for the insight
>those Avengers are getting OLD for wood-hulled ships
I love the anti-mine warfare haha
>>29142261
why is japon saying nanjing
>>29141478
>disputed waters
Only if they broke the 7nm area. Which I know did not happen.
man, can't we just get a trident class sub out there and nuke the norks while we're out there?
shit, china would just invade and take the land.
we pull out, china gets a shithole, norks are gone, problem fucking solved.
>>29141708
>international law
>legally required
Hahahahahaahahahahahaahhahaahah
America hasn't even signed the UNCLOS treaty. No one gives a shit about ILaw except for those who are powerless.
>>29142077
Jesus these ships will be 60 by then.
>>29142080
>doesn't pretend
Welcome to the 9 dash line and international relations. No one gives a shit about International law if it doesn't favor them.
>>29141478
That's a big ship
>US sailing it's shit on the other side of the planet from the homeland
>"China you're so evil claiming the waters right next you"
Fucking rich
>>29144765
>Chinese government employee getting paid $0.50 per post to shill MUH CHINA STRONK on a Turkmeni Crochet forum
Not fucking rich. Fairly poor, in fact.
>>29144809
Pretty rich post considering China's GDP PPP is higher than the USAs.
The average Chinese middleman is richer than you lad. It's the asian century :^)
>>29144851
>implying I'm American, or indeed on median income
Extra soy sauce with my dim sims thanks Chinese Charlie
Ausfag here.
Should I be worried? My country's ramping up military spending and I heard a little while ago pressure is being put upon our military to stand against China on our own feet, rather than relying on the US.
>>29142492
china claims 20nm
>>29145365
no dont worry, it just means you are a fucking respectable country that doesn't expect the US to subsidize your defense.
>>29144851
Try again
>South China Sea
>USA
>one carrier
>four squadrons of F-18s
>China
>over 200 fighters ready at any time in that area
>virtually unlimited supply.
>>29141500
That's a PR shot. A carrier doesn't actually store its fighters that way when it's performing actual operations.
My brother is stationed on the Stennis :(
>>29148461
>virtually unlimited supply
>can't even get 1 carrier operational
>>29148461
Yep. Let's ignore all of the overseas USN and USAF bases in the Pacific, as well as all of the regional Asian allies who are more than happy to hose American forces if it keeps China away from their doorstep.
>>29148613
>Yep. Let's ignore all of the overseas USN and USAF bases in the Pacific
Nothing in the region
>as well as all of the regional Asian allies who are more than happy to hose American forces if it keeps China away from their doorste
wanted to be involved in a conflict.
No.
>>29141580
>US can afford to waste some money
Stop being poor
>>29141676
More like Pinoys win the ICJ court case, China gives them the finger anyway, they go cry to the Security Council about it and absolutely nothing happens because China happens to be a veto power on the SC.
>>29144851
Have fun pretending that GDP is more important than GNP, Mr. Wang.
>>29141500
They have to launch backwards over the angled deck (where they'd normally land) until the numbers reduce.
>>29142102
Is the LCS fit for blue water ops though?
It's fine for the littoral zone -and the argument over whether or not that mission should exist is for another thread- but with no SAMs other than the RAM, how can it be expected to replace the OHP as a convoy and low-intensity screening vessel?
>>29144851
>posts China's GDP PPP
So 4x the people make 6% more overall.
>average Chinese
You mean per capita? Let's see...
Burgers:
>#10: US $54k
Asians:
>#19: Taiwan $46k
>#28: Japan $37k
>#30: W. Korea $35k
>#88: China $13k
At least your rank is lucky. As usual,
>TAIWAN NUMBA 1
>>29149174
>It's fine for the littoral zone -and the argument over whether or not that mission should exist is for another thread- but with no SAMs other than the RAM, how can it be expected to replace the OHP as a convoy and low-intensity screening vessel?
It's excellent in a supplimentary role for blue water ops. Obviously, that's not the primary mission, but there are several areas where it would be incredibly useful:
>ASW, obviously, as it might have a better ASW suite including processing than even Burkes and Ticos
>Extra multi-purpose sensor and screening node for surface and air defense as well - remember those extremely oversized aviation facilities? LAMPS plus two Firescouts is not an inconsequential loadout for sensor coverage, plus the easy lily-padding for other rotary wing assets in the CSG pushing their screening ranges further out.
>Better coordination with sprint-and-drift SSN escorts screening - the LCS can actually keep up with flank speed VAs, so CSGs with only one SSN for screening duty can actually work with the LCS running sprint and drift patterns alternating, which a Burke or Tico cannot do due to their close air defense mission on the carrier.
Yes, I understand the lack of obvious weapons on the LCS hull means that it's hard to think of it performing well in blue water. But the fact is it can screen 100km in front of the CSG and still be 140km inside the SM-6 and E-2D coverage from the Tico/Burkes and carrier, not to mention over 800km inside LRASM range. It doesn't NEED to carry them itself to be an effective force multiplier as an advanced sensor node. Also, LAMPS and the Firescouts are significant offensive and sensor assets that people tend to completely ignore. It's got aviation facilities better than a 7,500ton Type 052D on less than half the displacement. Nothing in it's weight class compares.
cont.
>>29149174
The OHP had no missiles to speak of at all. LCS will be covered by the AEGIS umbrella and has RIM-116 for CIWS. It will be another platform for anti-sub and anti-mine warfare allowing the Burkes to focus on air defense.
>>29149174
>>29149310
Is it meant to go blue water SUW hunting on it's own? Fuck no, it's an ASW and mine warfare specialist. Is it a very valuable addition to a CSG in blue water combat? Absolutely. The modern US military, and the USN especially, is all about sensor nodes, datalinks and "sensor shooters". Just because you don't see the weapons on a specific hull's loadout does not mean it's not a significant link in many possible kill chains for that weapon.
>>29149310
I wasn't talking about how well it performs as a part of a CSG. While Burkes and Ticos usually ran as part of a CSG or DESRON, the Perry's would cover an Amphibious Ready Group (alongside DDGs and CGs) or escorting Military Sealift Command vessels generally on their own. That's my understanding of how it used to work. It still would be nice if they had some sort of short to medium range missiles like ESSM if they're alone.
>>29149313
My bad, I forgot that once the SM-1 was retired, the Perry's didn't get anything to replace it. Why couldn't the SM-2s be fitted to the FFGs?
>>29151715
Because the OHPs didn't have VLS cells.
>>29151782
The Mark 13 single-arm misile launcher is compatible with SM-2s.
>>29151715
>I wasn't talking about how well it performs as a part of a CSG. While Burkes and Ticos usually ran as part of a CSG or DESRON, the Perry's would cover an Amphibious Ready Group (alongside DDGs and CGs) or escorting Military Sealift Command vessels generally on their own. That's my understanding of how it used to work. It still would be nice if they had some sort of short to medium range missiles like ESSM if they're alone.
Not by the 90's, they weren't escorting high value convoys alone in high threat areas or elevated threat levels. Remember that they removed the Mk 13s from them back in 2003 when they retired the SM-1 from service. At that point, no Perrys had any AA or ASh missile at all.
OHPs weren't doing solo blue water work with high value assets after about 1990 in high threat/readiness levels. Sure, in the 70's-80's, but not recently. You should do a little homework on how those OHPs were armed - they barely had any functional AA by today's standards. Hell, by 1990 even the Spruance class ships were getting 61 Mk 41 VLS cells. The single launcher arm on the Mk 13 just no longer signified as reasonable AA protection.
>>29151899
No, it wasn't. It's possible some of the later foreign sold launchers were upgraded for SM-2 capability, but none of the USN launchers were ever compatible with the RIM-66C/D or RIM-67. Do your homework - there's a reason all the launchers started disappearing 12 years before the last Perry was decommissioned.
>>29151899
The initial SM-2s were only put onto Ticos, and later were only made to be launched from Mk26 and Mk41 launchers.
As always the US can show strenth to its own population and its Allies in the region without actually doing anything.
The Chinese leadership can show the state and the people its strength and that it wont budge against the west.
They probably coordinated the whole thing to get the best effect out of it for both sides. The US forces will sail away, China will keep its isles and non Chinese vessels will still not enter the area.
>>29151944
I stand corrected.
What do you think of the RAN's Adelaide class frigates getting outfitted with an 8-cell Mk.41 for ESSMs?
>>29152089
Long overdue, and necessary if they're going to keep the hulls in commission and relevant in their role for Australia - remember that the Aussies don't have Burkes or Ticos to centerpiece convoy/high value escort schemes.
The US, with 84 current Ticos and Burkes in commission and more Burkes on the way, can afford to build LCS escort groups around a Tico or Burke if necessary. 84 ships means 57 available at any given time, working with a 33% refit/maintenance availability ballpark, roughly 44 Burkes and 16 Ticos. Even if the USN surges 7 active carriers and 5 active LHD/LHAs for 7 CSGs and 5 ESGs (31ish Burkes, 12 Ticos), you've still got 13 Burkes and 4 Ticos to play with. 2 Ticos and 8 Burkes plus 20 LCSs on a rotating basis lets you get 10 convoys/high value assets escorted at a VERY high protection level (as far as surface assets - still need land based patrol craft, fighters where possible and an SSN) with 2 Ticos and 5 Burkes left over for detached/SAG duties. And that's not even at surge levels, where you'd get another dozen Burkes and Ticos with which to play.
The real limiting factor for USN wartime convoy escort against Russia or China in 20 years is SSNs - the USN currently only has 53 of those in commission (39 688/688I, 3 Seawolf, 12 VA). Roughly 36 available at any given time. At the levels above with 12 CSGs and ESGs active, that leaves a maximum of 24 available for both convoy escort and essential secret squirrel/ASW patrol/harbor watching and infiltration/screening and scouting/EM intel/strike/merchant and combatant raiding/etc. Seems like a lot of boats, but it's really not considering that along with carriers, SSNs are the backbone of USN offensive capability and lynch pins of ASW offensive/defensive missions.
>>29144726
for you
>>29141478
Flipfag here, should I launch a sounding rocket over Chinese artificial island bases?
I would at least shamelessly plug /k/-related items on the rocket payload, alongside a shitload of glitter and dank memes printed on cardboard with a diameter of 3.5 inches.
I just really need funds and time to acquire materials for the fuel.
>>29152722
There's no way this can go wrong.
>>29152781
Well the plan is to have the rocket be shot down by the chink anti-air defenses so as to scatter the payload over the island.
>Rocket zooms above
>hory shet rocket above ersperce get out MEOW!
>anti-air intercepts missile
>Kaboom! Missile obliterated!
>Suddenly, glitter and memes rain down the island base
>>29152722
I think the risks are acceptable.
>>29152816
Unless they are completely asleep, it'll get popped at least ten miles away from any island, and any payload will flutter down into the ocean. Then cue international bleeding from the anus on all sides, followed by your incarceration for being an immense pain in the ass to your government.
I'd just like to thank all the Navy grognards in this thread. I dunno where you guys came from or how many of you there are, but it's fun to read your your high-information infodumps.
>>29152887
I don't see how this goes wrong
>>29141478
It's honestly pretty generous of the navy to help showcase China's new investment in carrier killer missiles.
Reminder that everything up to Australia is rightfully Chinese soil because of ZHENG HE
>>29154605
It's also pretty generous for the Chinese to help me showcase my meme-fueled anti-missile missile >>29152722.
>hypersonic
>not using memes as a defense
>>29142261
USA in these things always reminds me of Cartman.
>>29145365
>Should I be worried that my country will surpass the british and stand on a respectable level with our allies in the region?
mate
>>29154605
yeah, they take down one and the other nine show up and turn their country to glass
>>29141676
>Pinoys win the ICJ court case and commence bilateral negotiations with China. The Chinese will do whatever they want and laugh for a thousand years.
Actually they won't be haughty or make arrogant comments, they will just take whatever land/sea they want and we will do absolutely nothing, because they have nukes and no fear of us whatsoever nor should they.
>>29158147
Honestly speaking though if China took out a US carrier in disputed waters claiming self-defense, would the US be prepared to go to war?
Like really? really really? Finger on the trigger really?
>>29158215
Do you actually need an answer to that question?
Haha
People really think a carrier has a chance against the impressive Chinese navy?
>>29158215
>"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
They wouldn't dream of doing that.
You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
In what circumstance would provoking a war with your greatest trading partner be considered a good thing?
