The US Navy commented on the presence of several aircraft carriers in the Philippine Sea

For the first time in a long time, three aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG) of the US Navy operated in the waters of the Philippine Sea. These are groups led by the aircraft carriers "Ronald Reagan" and "Nimitz" (located in the Philippine Sea at the moment), as well as the aircraft carrier "Theodore Roosevelt" (recently left the water area of ​​this sea).

In the USA they note that in this way "a signal was sent to China." This is "a signal that the US is standing guard over the interests of its allies in the region."

The command of the US Navy noted that the reduced number of crew members of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, on board which an outbreak of a coronavirus had previously been detected, "copes with all the tasks." One of the tasks reportedly is to demonstrate support for Taiwan, "which has recently been under Chinese pressure." What kind of "pressure" in question is not reported.

Earlier, the US administration for the first time allowed itself to officially congratulate the President of Taiwan on assuming office. Before that, the United States tried to maintain neutrality, at least in this regard. The gesture of the US administration provoked outrage in Beijing, where it was stated that Washington continues to act to divide the Chinese people. Recall that Beijing is making efforts to actually and legally unite with Taiwan. At the same time, China considers the island of Taiwan to be its territory.

The command staff of the American aircraft carrier Nimitz noted that operations with several aircraft carriers in the Philippine Sea showed the US’s ability to build up striking power in the Indo-Pacific region and "its readiness to withstand those who defied the United States and international standards."

Comments

[To be or not to be]

"... who challenged the US and international norms" .... "
As always, the United States comes first, and then international standards ..
What international standards-shake weapons at the borders of another state thousands of miles from your own?

[Insurgent]

In the USA they note that in this way "a signal was sent to China." This is a "signal that the US is standing guard over the interests of its allies in the region"

Once upon a time, your allies will come out sideways, such "signals" ... And you yourself, at the same time, you will be silent, in a rag ...

[NIKN]

The United States and international standards, this is nonsense .. It is the United States that defies international standards. Insolence is the second happiness .. When you hear this from amers, you just distort it.

[Alex777]

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, from large states, was not signed by the United States and Turkey.

[eklmn]

“What international norms-shake arms at the borders of another state thousands of miles from your own?”
If you live in Russia and are interested in international affairs - the question. Has your country, Russia, been approached by Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia with complaints about China, which squeezes disputed territories / islands, expels / drowns the small fishing schooners of these countries that fish in these territories? On China, which lures in the disputed territories of the island and builds airfields on them and establishes air defense? Did these countries of Russia complain? And if not, then why?
Probably because Russia deeply spit on these countries, Russia is busy satisfying the whims of China.

[Boris ⁣ Shaver]

Quote: eklmn

Probably because Russia spit deep on these countries

In that case, the US shouldn't have to fuss either. For who is on the ball about all other countries - we know very well. And since the United States is still bustling, then your assumption is not correct. Where is the answer then? And the answer, as often happens, is on the surface. Using the defense of the "allies" as an excuse, the states climb with their weapons side by side with their own enemy. If at the same time the states substitute their "allies" - they deeply spit on that. Who, if not us, from which the states "protect" almost our entire perimeter, should clearly understand such things.

[Reserve buildbat]

Showered clowns
It is mattresses that are constantly, impudently and unprincipledly being thrown "a challenge to international standards" And they can be called an exceptional nation only in the form of "extremely impudent"

[Insurgent]

Quote: Stroibat stock

And they can be called an exclusive nation only in the form of "extremely impudent"

And incredibly blunt.

[Reserve buildbat]

You can remember the definition "according to Zadornov", but I already have 4 warnings

[Insurgent]

Quote: Stroibat stock

I already have 4 warnings

Ally

[Reserve buildbat]

I agree. The admins are very strange here))) Last year they gave me a warning and even got banned for a couple of days for the term "Jew"
I laughed heartily

[fider]

(Ivan)
The one who laughs last laughs well. Have you heard such a saying?

[Reserve buildbat]

I've heard it many times, fider. But the joke lies in the fact that the mattresses have thrust three AUG directly into the sight of the SCRC "good neighbor" - China. So these megalokhanks would hardly have lasted long.

[Sergey39]

Quote: Insurgent

And incredibly pontovita.

Yes, they have assembled the entire operating carrier fleet - two and a half aircraft carriers.

[K-612-O]

Oh, you'd better not be dishonored. China has so many RCCs and jump and base airfields on the disputed islands that at least 4 aug have come there, the chickens laugh.
And I'm afraid if not the Japanese, then Beijing will soon squeeze yusnevi from southeast Asia

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K-612-O

China has so many RCCs and jump and base airfields on the disputed islands

And such a "powerful" naval aviation that two American AB would be enough to spread it over the "jump and base airfields."

[K-612-O]

A stationary airdrome is 4 times more efficient than floating it, and we don’t forget that Spratly and air defense, and anti-ship missiles, and TU-16 (N-6), and the PRC fleet also grazes there. There has long been zone A2D2. And you all think that the Chinese have not gone anywhere since Mao.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K-612-O

A stationary airfield is 4 times more efficient than its float

Who told you such nonsense? Take an interest in the experience of the USSR, which usually based on no more than one air regiment at one airbase.

Quote: K-612-O

and do not forget that on Spratly and air defense, and anti-ship missiles, and TU-16 (N-6)

The Tu-16 is a plane on which my father had also flown in search of enemy AUGs. But here’s the problem - since then the AUG technique has taken such a far step forward ... RCC You will not shoot at AUG with Spratly, but you cannot defend air defense on your own against a properly organized air raid.

Quote: K-612-O

and the PRC fleet also grazes there.

What grazes there and one AUG does not get stuck

Quote: K-612-O

There has long been zone A2D2.

There is no such thing, because in history there is no case when land aviation would prevail over an aircraft carrier.

Quote: K-612-O

And you all think that the Chinese have not gone anywhere since Mao.

I, unlike you, know that the Chinese cannot yet build a sane system of naval reconnaissance and target designation. And without it you can fight with the AUG exactly until the moment when its planes arrive

[K-612-O]

This despite the fact that the deployment of a national navigation system and 3 quantum communication satellites has been completed? And how have they been pointing their ballistic anti-ship missiles for 20 years? America overslept China and we must put up with it. Like us, with China they can only cope with the massive use of nuclear weapons.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K-612-O

This despite the fact that the deployment of a national navigation system and 3 quantum communication satellites has been completed?

That is, you are not even able to distinguish between a navigation service and intelligence. Maybe we’ll get the materiel after all? :)))

Quote: K-612-O

And how have they been pointing their ballistic anti-ship missiles for 20 years?

China does not have ballistic anti-ship missiles that can target a mobile (moving) target :))) Dongfeng is the Great Chinese Fake, and it seems that the Chinese themselves have already recognized this. He can shoot at aircraft carriers ... If an aircraft carrier stands in the port in one place for a long time.

[gorecc]

Dongfeng is the Great Chinese Fake

Well, in this case, you must admit that Poseidons, Zircons and so on are also fakes, agree?

[Alex777]

Do you see the difference between the presence of Zircon and the presence of the guidance system of Zircon on an aircraft carrier in the ocean?

[K-612-O]

And what is the Zircon guidance system? Well, Caliber or Bala?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Gorecc

well then you have to admit

To whom did I suddenly become something owed?

Quote: Gorecc

that Poseidons, Zircons and so on are also fakes, agree?

Poseidon is an atomic torpedo that may well exist at the current level of technology. The same goes for hypersonic missiles. But so far no one has managed to come up with a ballistic missile warhead guidance system for a moving target, neither we nor the Americans. And do you seriously believe that the Chinese have dealt with this?

[gorecc]

according to the logic of things should ...

we have not yet seen real hypersonic (not ballistic in space) missiles, no one has created them yet and put them into service. The same goes for underwater wunderwafers (which supposedly can plow the world's oceans and undermine the nuclear charge at the hour of the adversary’s hour), but as I understand it, it doesn’t bother you .. but the ballistic missile guidance system is certainly something fantastic, if only said Russia, then another thing would be taken on faith, but if the Chinese then immediately fake))
Did the Americans really try? In my opinion, in recent decades they have scored ballistic missiles, unlike China, which has been working very hard and very long on this topic. And I fully admit that they could come up with something that would allow their brdsd to hit moving targets .. I certainly also have doubts about this, but I think this is no more a fantasy than poseydons, zircons, petrels and others like them .
Well, I can’t include critical thinking selectively, as some comrades do.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Gorecc

according to the logic of things should ...

I do not know the logic of things, I operate on the logic of people.

Quote: Gorecc

we have not yet seen real hypersonic (not ballistic in space) missiles, no one has created them yet and put them into service.

By itself, access to hypersound in the atmosphere has already been achieved, and quite a while ago.

Quote: Gorecc

The same goes for underwater wunderwaffles (which are supposedly capable of plowing the world's oceans and at X time undermining a nuclear charge off the coast of the adversary

Have you seen them? And what do you need to see? So that during your bath, this torpedo would hit you on the forehead? So you then declare that this is not Poseidon :))))
Miniature reactors are quite real today, such developments have been carried out for quite some time. Accordingly, a torpedo is real.

Quote: Gorecc

but the ballistic missile guidance system is of course something fantastic

Yes, this is fantastic. In the USSR they were engaged, but not mastered. The fundamental science of China is so far infinitely far from the USSR.

Quote: Gorecc

And I fully admit that they could come up with something that would allow their brdsd to hit moving targets ..

Ignorance of the physical problems that need to be solved when pointing warheads.

Quote: Gorecc

but I think this is no more a fantasy than having no analogues in the world of Poseidons, Zircons, petrels and others like them.

Your right. But we are not discussing zircons or Poseidons here.

[K-612-O]

Hand face. Do you not understand that a positioning signal can be intercepted? The Chinese also have a buoy system for detecting ships and submarines, over-the-horizon radars and airborne and space reconnaissance equipment, and coastal missile systems. China is not the same China as 30 years ago in your popular opinion.

[Alex777]

Hand-face ... in your popular print.

You don’t understand who they are colliding with.
A colleague is one of the most respected authors of VO.
Kindly and patiently shares knowledge.

[K-612-O]

And there is a hole in the old woman. Does the author interact with his Chinese comrades in "interesting" areas?

[Alex777]

If you asked a question, then I did not understand it.
What did you want to ask?

[K-612-O]

Yeah, I unfortunately owe the debt of the current job. The guys took it seriously and for a long time.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K-612-O

Hand face.

Just as it should, on a grand scale. Maybe it’s all right ... but the idiot will obviously remain.

Quote: K-612-O

Do you not understand that a positioning signal can be intercepted?

What is the positioning signal? :))) What are you talking about? :)))
The GPS system works as follows - the signal receiver measures the propagation delay of the signal from the satellite to the receiver. From the received signal, the receiver receives data on the location of the satellite. To determine the distance from the satellite to the receiver, the signal delay is multiplied by the speed of light. Signals from three satellites provide data on latitude and longitude, the fourth satellite gives information about the height of the object above the surface. The obtained values ​​can be reduced to a system of equations from which the user coordinate can be found. Thus, to obtain the exact location, it is necessary to carry out 4 measurements of the distances to the satellite (if unlikely results are excluded, three measurements are enough).
That is, in principle, no "positioning signal" is needed to determine its own position.

Quote: K-612-O

The Chinese also have a system of buoys for detecting ships and submarines, over-the-horizon radars and air and space reconnaissance equipment, coastal missile systems

My advice to you - tie with non-erotic fantasies and learn the materiel!
To get started, deal with aerial reconnaissance in China’s naval aviation. I do not urge you to something completely complicated, start with the simplest - but at least with Wikipedia (for you and she is a textbook)

[K298rtm]

The idea of ​​the Chinese to hit the AHG with a ballistic missile is (they themselves could have come up with, good people might have suggested) a repetition of the Soviet experience (in the late 70s, more precisely in 1977, there was a submarine-driven missile carrier with a missile defense). The problem is TSU.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K298rtm

The idea of ​​the Chinese to hit the ACG with a ballistic missile is (they themselves could have come up, maybe good people suggested) a repetition of the experience of the USSR

Yes. But the USSR did not solve the problem of Central Administration

[K298rtm]

They tried to solve (practically): space, aviation. RZK direct tracking, MAPL. And they rejected the idea from the ICBMs - RCC appeared.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K298rtm

Tried to solve (practically)

not quite so ... R-27K "did not take off" because the last correction was out of the atmosphere and according to the passive seeker. It became clear that even with nuclear warheads, the tool is, to put it mildly, unreliable. Makeevtsy realized the need to create a warhead that could homing in the atmospheric phase of the flight, and began development, but did not come to success, and then the project was canceled. In principle, if they were given more time ... who knows, maybe they would have come up with it.

[K-612-O]

Yes, and the radius of carrier-based aviation, so far leaves much to be desired. To use it, you must first neutralize the radar, MAPL and diesel-electric submarines, air defense aviation. The task is not easy, with the high echelon of the above.
And about land aviation: Korea, Vietnam, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Everywhere, the ratio of both the effectiveness and the number of land sorties was much higher than the decks.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K-612-O

Yes, and the radius of carrier-based aviation, so far leaves much to be desired.

And I always expected the best. Nevertheless, not to destroy, but to find AUG was a very difficult task.

Quote: K-612-O

To use it, you must first neutralize the radar, MAPL and diesel-electric submarines, air defense aviation.

Without SMRTS MAPL and DEPL will not be where it is needed, but the radar will still be suppressed during an airstrike. In general, I’ll say simpler - the USSR at the time had a much larger and higher-quality fleet than China today, but the task of identifying and destroying AOGs was considered extremely difficult - it was aerobatics, which we sometimes succeeded (in exercises, esessno), and sometimes not. China, which has ships, has aircraft of outdated models, but there is no school of sailors who went through the Cold War there are practically no chances to defeat the AUG.

Quote: K-612-O

And about land aviation: Korea, Vietnam, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Everywhere, the ratio of both the effectiveness and the number of land sorties was much higher than the decks.

First, you replaced one question with another. I wrote about direct combat clashes between land and naval deck aviation. So the deck always won. And as for efficiency, you are completely wrong, because of the number of sorties, etc. ONE PLANE deck-based aviation does not lose ground. They flew with the same intensity as the land explorers in Iraq.

[K-612-O]

Yes, at the same VO there was an analysis of the use of carrier-based aircraft in Iraq, only 8-10% of the coalition’s sorties, in one campaign, and in the second. At the same aircraft carrier it is impossible to maintain the same supply of fuel, weapons and spare parts, as at the earth's airfield. An elementary problem of logistics, but the steam in the turbine is not endless. This is funny. Last time, carrier-based aircraft won the American-Japanese war, at the moment it is only an auxiliary force, it has become clear since Vietnam.
A radar and air defense will sleep peacefully with air defense systems? And wait for them to work on aircraft with a combat radius of 300-400 km, which is generally not amenable to criticism. Once again, one should not consider the Chinese as untrained boots of the times of the USSR of the 70-80s

[Alex777]

Yes, at the same VO there was an analysis of the use of carrier-based aircraft in Iraq

Look who did the analysis? 50/50 that Andrey.

[K-612-O]

Statistics is a stubborn thing, the number of official sorties by type shows everything. The main load fell on the F-16 and F-15, which took off from the ground. Something like that

[Alex777]

As the real boys say: you confuse the rams with the edges.
What Andrey drew your attention to.
He said that if an aircraft carrier wants to bomb the coast, then there are no examples to date that the coast has fought off. And it’s clear why.
You begin to point out that when the Yankees want to get someone to jam, you are happy to use land aviation. The statement is understandable, but how does this relate to what Andrei said about the results of a possible clash between the state aircraft carrier and land Chinese aircraft? No way. Different topics.
Well, the statistics you refer to (where the number of land departures is greater) is simply because there were much more land planes than aircraft carriers. Therefore, there are more departures.

[K-612-O]

Well, and where are the examples of bombed shores? The intensity of the use of aviation and the density of the use of SVPs are key! It is necessary to ensure the density and mass of the SVP, which only land aviation is capable of. Due to its logistic mobility and freedom in choosing SVP. It was necessary to study operational art, back in the academy. Tactical AUG can solve short-term tasks in a narrow area, but will be quickly suppressed very quickly

[Alex777]

https://vz.ru/world/2020/5/5/1037804.html
Read. I am tired of writing.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Alex777

Look who did the analysis?

It seems, Kaptsov, and Andrei opposed him.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Yes, noble sir!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: K-612-O

Yes, at the same VO there was an analysis of the use of carrier-based aviation in Iraq, only 8-10% of coalition sorties, which is in 1 campaign, that in the second

You are here
https://topwar.ru/105522-i-esche-nemnogo-pro-avianoscy.html
And if you are too lazy, here are the statistics: on average, one Air Force plane during this war made 47,9 sorties, while a decked aircraft - 46,3. You compare warm with soft - it’s clear that land aircraft flew more, because there were much more than aircraft carriers :) But the analysis shows that the decked aircraft practically does not lose to the land one in terms of intensity of use.

Quote: K-612-O

At the same aircraft carrier it is impossible to maintain the same supply of fuel, weapons and spare parts, as at the earth's airfield.

On the contrary, the aircraft carrier is equipped with all this much better than the average aerodrome.

Quote: K-612-O

An elementary problem of logistics, but the steam in the turbine is not endless. This is funny.

Your militant ignorance is ridiculous. On the American aircraft carrier, the number of air wings (pilots + maintenance personnel) = almost 2500 people. How many of them at the airfield jump? :)))))

Quote: K-612-O

Last time, carrier-based aircraft won the American-Japanese war, at the moment it is only an auxiliary force, it has become clear since Vietnam.

The fleet, in principle, cannot replace the ground forces and the Air Force, it has its own tasks. For example, the United States will not be able to defeat China by the forces of the fleet alone. But here the US Navy can defeat the Chinese in a local clash (over the same islands) without particularly straining.

Quote: K-612-O

A radar and air defense will sleep peacefully with air defense systems?

No, they will not do. But if you learn the procedure for applying air strikes (with the suppression of air defense), then you will understand that the shield in this case loses with a bang to the sword.

Quote: K-612-O

And to wait for when aviation with a combat radius of 300-400 km will work on them, which generally does not lend itself to criticism

Here you managed to make as many as 2 errors. Firstly, the radius of carrier-based aviation is slightly more than 300-400 km. I’ll just remind you that the Americans practiced the destruction of the Soviet TAVKR by launching carrier-based strikes from a distance of 1600 km.
And second, it's too early to criticize you, you need to learn the materiel. Read about the Kamchatka Pearl-Khrabor in 1982, when the USSR Pacific Fleet, in all the greatness of its power (no jokes), with its hundreds of aircraft and ships, with data from a special satellite system "Liana", capable of broadcasting intelligence data in almost real time, with aircraft AWACS (Tu-95RTs, though not Hawkai, but still) "safely" slept through an aircraft carrier strike force (Enterprise and Midway), consisting of more than 30 ships that approached 300 miles southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and carried out flights of carrier-based aircraft at a distance of 150 km from our coast.

Quote: K-612-O

Once again, one should not consider the Chinese as untrained boots of the times of the USSR of the 70-80s

Once again - learn the materiel, please

[Liam]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

with data from a special satellite system "Liana"

Generally Legend)

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

capable of broadcasting intelligence in near real time

Yes you...
And how then did this embarrassment happen?

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

safely "slept through the aircraft carrier strike force (" Enterprise "and" Midway "), consisting of more than 30 ships

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Liam

Generally Legend)

Yes, an eyelid.

Quote: Liam

Yes you...
And how then did this embarrassment happen?

This has happened thousands of times. For example, TAVKR "Kiev" in combat service in Mediterranean for about 2,5 months (from late March to early June 1985) during this time contacted Legend 300 times, thanks to which it detected about 1 naval targets, including the Eisenhower aircraft carriers " Clemenceau "and" Foch ". Sometimes the information from the satellite was used simply for reconnaissance purposes, and sometimes - to develop target designations for missiles. Kiev's missile crews worked out the CO 000 times. That is, it was a routine job with which our sailors "had fun" several times a day :)))
And what happened ... The legend never had a full coverage of the earth's surface

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

And, of course, no satellite system, even as perfect as the Legend, is a panacea for the SMRC.

[Liam]

Legend (as befits any Soviet legend) is shrouded in many legends). In real time- this is one of them. It's just a radar that transmitted to the ground everything that it "saw" during the flight. And on the ground, a lot of people and equipment of the environment of hundreds of thousands of signatures were looking for something similar to an aircraft carrier, etc. Then they sent aviation to the proposed area for additional reconnaissance .The approximate time interval in the process is from many hours to many days. And target designation for missiles is not even a legend, but a fable)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Liam

Legend (as befits any Soviet legend) is shrouded in many legends).

Not without that.

Quote: Liam

In real time, this is one of them. It's just a radar that transmitted to the ground everything that it "saw" during the flight. And on the ground, a lot of people and equipment of the environment of hundreds of thousands of signatures were looking for something similar to an aircraft carrier, etc. Then they sent it to the alleged aviation area for additional reconnaissance.

You are greatly mistaken. The fact is that the "Legend" was taught to select well the targets it sees. So when the satellite flew over the search area, it transmitted data not to the ground, but directly to the board of the warship. There was a second lag behind real time, and the control center for missiles was prepared without problems.

Quote: Liam

And target designation for missiles is not even a legend, but a fable)

In this matter, I am much more inclined to trust Kossov, Traube and Zemlyanov - they, unlike you, took an active part in the creation of the "Legend". You have only disbelief that the USSR was able to achieve this :))))

[Samara_63]

+1000 well you explained to a representative of a naive and unaware public

[V1er]

Whatever it was, the Chinese fill the islands, build ships and drive away amers. You can admire the American fleet and power as much as you like, but Americans are like castrati with a bazooka. They can shoot, but otherwise they can’t do anything. True, little can be said about Russia either.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: V1er

Whatever it was, the Chinese fill the islands, build ships and drive away amers.

Yes, this is a big plus for China. What are they trying

Quote: V1er

but Americans like castrati with a bazooka

This is true :)))) But they still can shoot, and I'm talking only about the technical aspect

[V1er]

I want to seize the opportunity and praise your articles. I look forward to new publications, many people read and support you. Many personal thanks from me and my friends.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Thank you very much! Very pleased to hear

[tnc17]

This is precisely why the Americans started the reform of the military transport corps in order to seize these bulk islands with lightning-fast landings, place PCBs on them and send the entire Chinese fleet to the bottom.

[V1er]

They will not succeed. They just started reforms, and the Chinese have already poured islands and now they are baking ships like pies. While the Americans gather, there will already be an armada. Enough for the people. Therefore, we are faced with a new type of threat, a factory country, a billion people, the possibilities are much wider than in smaller countries.

[tnc17]

They will succeed. The more the Chinese will fill the islands, the more dispersed and denser the anti-ship defense will be built. And by the time China stamps an acceptable number of modern ships, kmp will be reformed long ago.

[V1er]

By the time China stamps an acceptable number of modern ships, kmp will be reformed a long time ago.

You overestimate the Americans.

[tnc17]

There is no overestimation here, the strongest economy in the world is quite capable of ensuring sufficient funding for the strongest army in the world to carry out organizational reforms of the military police. And in opposition to the speed of reforming kmp and the speed of the Chinese building a powerful modern fleet, the Americans will obviously win.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: tnc17

There is no overestimation here, the strongest economy in the world is quite capable of ensuring sufficient funding for the strongest army in the world to carry out organizational reforms of the military police. And in opposition to the speed of reforming kmp and the speed of the Chinese building a powerful modern fleet, the Americans will obviously win.

Controversial statement. Mattresses with their own economy have hopelessly lagged behind even in the icebreaker fleet, not to mention the rest, where all their extreme "new buildings" for the Navy show solid imperfections, despite the fact that colossal babos have been invested in them. The myths about the superiority of the United States are certainly an interesting thing, but harmful, since it interferes with being objective.

[tnc17]

Since when has it become fashionable to call truth myths?

[gorecc]

what they started there is not important, the fact is that the Americans do not dare to attack the islands (bulk or not) that are under China, as this would mean a war with all the consequences. Everyone has an instinct for self-preservation, and the Americans are no exception.

place PKR on them and send the entire Chinese fleet to the bottom.

kindergarten daisy

[tnc17]

It doesn’t matter whether they start a war or not, to contain one fact of the possibility of a complete naval blockade of China. And soon such an opportunity will appear.

[Alex777]

We transferred the technology of strategic SPRN to China.
And we still have a lot to share.
The states understand and take this into account.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6964281

[gorecc]

good luck in your naval blockade of a nuclear power

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Quote: K-612-O

China has so many RCCs and jump and base airfields on the disputed islands

And such a "powerful" naval aviation that two American AB would be enough to spread it over the "jump and base airfields."

However, I must admit, mattresses were blown off with North Korea, with much more modest indicators for counteraction than those that China has.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Nyrobsky

However, I must admit, mattresses were blown off with North Korea, with much more modest indicators to counter

"Horses, people, and volleys of thousands of guns mingled in a heap."
Do not confuse the capabilities of the fleet and political decisions. Trump decided to threaten Eunwoo with aircraft carriers. He was not afraid. The Americans withdrew their AB. All these political games have nothing to do with AB's capabilities. Just as the armies of England and France, together with the armed forces of Czechoslovakia, could easily have revived Herr Hitler in 1938, Chamberlain and Daladier preferred the Munich Agreement. The British and French had armed force in more than sufficient quantities, but there was no determination to use it.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Don't be confused fleet capabilities and political decisions.

An interesting approach. You urge not to confuse that which may fully manifest itself only in conjunction... If there is no political decision to use the fleet, then this fleet will simply hang out in the waters of the seas and oceans, acting as a scarecrow. At the same time, the adoption of a political decision will be successful when the power component is involved in its implementation, which includes the fleet. I understand that you are considering the US AUG solely in the context of its combat capabilities, but the fact is that the United States will never again use it against China, since its capabilities to counter the United States have changed a lot over the past 30 years, and not in favor of mattresses ... "Nut" too tough. If Eun wasn't scared, then what can we say about Xi.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The British and French had more than enough armed force, but there was no determination to use it

It depends on what is meant by sufficient forces. What is the use of the French having sufficient armed forces if France surrendered 1 month and 12 days after the German invasion? So the mattresses have a bunch of aircraft carriers, and they can only use them in relation to countries such as the Philippines, Cuba or Peru, since they do not have sufficient capabilities and resources to counteract, and use them against those countries that they relate to their geopolitical opponents their gut is thin, because the outcome of the war in their favor is not obvious.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Nyrobsky

I understand that you are considering the AUG of the USA solely in the context of its combat capabilities, but the fact is that the USA will never go to its use against China

Agree, these are two different questions. One thing is the effectiveness of the ACG in the event of a real military operation against the Chinese fleet, and quite another is the political circumstances as a result of which such an operation can (or cannot) be carried out.
As you rightly noted, I am considering ONLY the first question.

Quote: Nyrobsky

It depends on what is meant by sufficient forces. What is the use of the French having sufficient armed forces if France surrendered 1 month and 12 days after the German invasion?

Because in 1940, the Wehrmacht was superior to the head of the combined Anglo-French army. But the fact is that the Wehrmacht of the 1940 model was several times stronger than the Wehrmacht arr 1939, which invaded Poland, and what the Germans had in 1938 and was not suitable for the soles of the armed forces of the 1939 model. By the way, if you wish , I can send you Muller-Hillebrand, his work on the Wehrmacht is considered a classic (almost no politics, only statistical facts)
In those years, German military power grew by leaps and bounds ...

Quote: Nyrobsky

So the mattresses have a bunch of aircraft carriers, and they can only use them in relation to countries such as the Philippines, Cuba or Peru, since they do not have sufficient capabilities and resources to counteract, and use them against those countries that they relate to their geopolitical opponents they have a small intestine

And why not?

Quote: Nyrobsky

since the outcome of the war in their favor is not obvious.

In chance with China - it is quite obvious. Sorry, but the United States still has enough nuclear power to force China to peace and has enough forces to resolve any territorial dispute outside of China’s borders by conventional force.
The question is different. An attack on another country is carried out not with the aim of defeating it, but with the aim of achieving as a result of this victory a peace that would be better for the aggressor country than pre-war. Otherwise, aggression and victory simply lose their meaning. So, an attack on China to America will not give such a world - and therefore they will not attack. Guts and other appendixes have nothing to do with it.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And why not?
Quote: Nyrobsky
since the outcome of the war in their favor is not obvious.

In chance with China - it is quite obvious. Sorry, but the United States still has enough nuclear power to force China to peace and has enough forces to resolve any territorial dispute outside of China’s borders by conventional force.

Obviously, because the United States does not need a victory achieved at any cost just for the sake of victory. when deciding on the outbreak of hostilities, they are guided by two criteria - the acceptable or unacceptable damage that they may receive during the war and in its finale. It will be cheaper for them if they use financial and economic instruments in the form of sanctions, embargoes, blockades, etc. In principle, you yourself said this only in other words.

An attack on another country is carried out not with the aim of defeating it, but with the aim of achieving as a result of this victory a peace that would be better for the aggressor country than pre-war. Otherwise, aggression and victory simply lose their meaning. So, an attack on China to America will not give such a world - and therefore they will not attack.

For sim

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Nyrobsky

In principle, you yourself said this only in other words.

Without a doubt

Quote: Nyrobsky

For sim

It was nice to talk!

[tralflot1832]

Yes, they got it with their signals. The Chinese did not receive the signal and demand to repeat, they will call the square for the signal to be sent. But they do not guarantee that they will receive it, the passage is poor.

[Samara_63]

3 AUG? China can't handle

[agond]

Quote: K-612-O

A stationary airdrome is 4 times more efficient than its melt, and do not forget

Quote: V1er

Who told you such nonsense? Take an interest in the experience of the USSR, which usually based on no more than one air regiment at one airbase.

At the ground airfield there is a strip over a kilometer (sometimes more than one) plus taxiing, shelter hangars, it can occupy 2-3 square kilometers in area, several planes can take off at the same time, the aircraft carrier against it is clearly losing.

[K-612-O]

Do not destroy the pink beautiful world of aircraft carrier lover

[Alex777]

How many planes simultaneously take off from an aircraft carrier?

[K-612-O]

Not more than 20-25, after another 15-20 an hour with full air wing.

[Alex777]

You did not understand the question you answered.
I have the honor!

[Oleg kubanoid]

If you look at the pace of construction of the Chinese fleet, then the States will soon have to keep all their running ABs in that region ...

[bar]

In the USA they note that in this way "a signal was sent to China."

And can you fax these signals by fax? Or by mail with a delivery receipt at worst. One kerosene would save a bunch of bucks.

[Samara_63]

3-AUG USA will sweep the entire fleet of China and all its not very high-quality air forces

[K-612-O]

Interestingly, the Su-27, Su-33, MiG29, Su-35 low-quality air force? Despite the fact that the flight time of the Chinese is higher than the American. Although the Hornet is a great aircraft, but at least the number of sides is much larger and the sides are no worse and the training of pilots is comparable.

[Alex777]

Interestingly, the Su-27, Su-33, MiG29, Su-35 low-quality air force?

Eh ... You do not read what they write to you at all?
It’s not enough to have airplanes.
Still need to have at all levels of management personnel with experience in combat use.
The Yankees have them in such quantity and quality that the PRC has not dreamed of. Until.

[K-612-O]

I wonder where did you get this? Or do you think that combat training is not carried out in the PLA? We can also say then that kerosene is burned into the air for beauty. Air darts show that the Chinese comrades are quite at a high level.

[Alex777]

I wonder where did you get this? Or do you think that combat training is not carried out in the PLA?

You have no relation to the army.
Therefore, you ask such questions.
No offense.