Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Navy

[t_co]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

New START at a Glance | Arms Control Association

Trident submarines converted to carry conventional cruise missiles would not be counted under the treaty, nor would formerly nuclear-capable bombers that have been fully converted to conventional missions, such as the B-1B.

Interesting - did not know that, thanks.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

Ticonderoga is a cruiser. You may look up the difference between an arsenal ship which is basically a missile platform and a cruiser which is to provide a protective screen for ACs. Again why use an arsenal ship when there are far better tools?

You did not get the point I was making. I am not talking about a Ticonderoga itself, but the basic hull. I am talking about a Ticonderoga class ship. So, the threat it presents on an aircraft radar is similar as the Ticonderoga.

The fact that USN keep building means that they think it is worth the cost. How much does your arsenal ship costs?

You are confusing yourself. The USN is building SSBNs. The only SSGNs they have are the four oldest Ohio class subs which were converted as part of the START treaties to reduce forward deployed nuclear missiles. They did not build brand new subs as SSGNs.

You tell me you expecting your arsenal ship to launch all their missiles , get back to some naval base and going out again? seriously???

Yes, I am. This is the case for other ships too.

You still dont get it. 4 SSGNS with 600 missiles are far far more dangerouse than one lone arsenal ship. It is far easier to detect an arsenal ship than it is to detect nuclear submarines. Never heard the expression dont put all your eggs in one basket? What assets are you gonna use to protect it? Assets that are needed to protect your ACs. Think hard on this.

You still don't get the point. What if the USN needs 1000 missiles for an operation. An admiral being given all 4 SSGNs for a single mission is IMPOSSIBLE. An admiral being given 2 arsenal ships within a CBG that he already operates is definitely possible.

And USN already showed you that they are not looking for specialized ships like arsenal ships. They are looking for versatile ships that can be fitted for different missions. When professional navy like USN, the russians etc are investing heavily in nuclear subs instead of big bloated arsenal ships, what does that tell you?

That's only a part of the answer. Arsenal ships were canceled due to budget cuts, nothing else.

The Russians are planning on activating the Kirov class battlecruisers. All 3 of them, apart from the one that is operational. The Russians are currently designing new 15000 tonne nuclear powered destroyers too.

Currently nobody is investing in SSGNs, only SSNs and SSBNs, at least when it comes to the US and Russia.

Trident submarines converted to carry conventional cruise missiles would not be counted under the treaty, nor would formerly nuclear-capable bombers that have been fully converted to conventional missions, such as the B-1B.

Yes, that was the purpose for converting the SSBNs to SSGNs. It was to reduce forward deployed ballistic missiles on subs.

Also, my first sentence that you quoted should have said ballistic missile submarines, not cruise missiles. But the following sentences should clear that.

Budget cuts pushed most of USN projects into the can. Submarines and even destroyers. Luckily only carriers survived.

 

[ice berg]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

You did not get the point I was making. I am not talking about a Ticonderoga itself, but the basic hull. I am talking about a Ticonderoga class ship. So, the threat it presents on an aircraft radar is similar as the Ticonderoga.

You didnt answer my question. How many surface to air missiles does your arsenal ship carry and how many land attack missiles?A Ticonderoga ship can fend for herself, what about your arsenal ship?

You are confusing yourself. The USN is building SSBNs. The only SSGNs they have are the four oldest Ohio class subs which were converted as part of the START treaties to reduce forward deployed nuclear missiles. They did not build brand new subs as SSGNs.

Why do they need to build brand new SSGNS when they can convert old SSBNs? Your post dont make sense.

Yes, I am. This is the case for other ships too.



You still don't get the point. What if the USN needs 1000 missiles for an operation. An admiral being given all 4 SSGNs for a single mission is IMPOSSIBLE. An admiral being given 2 arsenal ships within a CBG that he already operates is definitely possible.

Eh,, ever heard of the 11 nuclear ACs? CBGs? SSGNs are only part of a strike force. If you think that USN only got 4 SSGNs to launch missiles then you are way way out of your depth.
All 12 U.S. submarines and two UK submarines (HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent) launched TLAMs against Iraq during operation Iraq Freedom.Why you want bloated arsenal ships when you got SSNs , SSGNs that can go anywhere they want virtually undetected? Son, the USN disagree with your assesment og their actions speak louder than words.
QUOTE]

That's only a part of the answer. Arsenal ships were canceled due to budget cuts, nothing else.

ANd because USN already got better platforms.

The Russians are planning on activating the Kirov class battlecruisers. All 3 of them, apart from the one that is operational. The Russians are currently designing new 15000 tonne nuclear powered destroyers too.

Planning is the keyword here yes. Keep us updated when they actually are in the water.

Currently nobody is investing in SSGNs, only SSNs and SSBNs, at least when it comes to the US and Russia.

You need to do your homework, son. Most SSns are been converted for land attack roles as well. Including Los Angels class SSNs. Btw there are 40 odd Los Angels class SSNs....

Yes, that was the purpose for converting the SSBNs to SSGNs. It was to reduce forward deployed ballistic missiles on subs.

Also, my first sentence that you quoted should have said ballistic missile submarines, not cruise missiles. But the following sentences should clear that.

Budget cuts pushed most of USN projects into the can. Submarines and even destroyers. Luckily only carriers survived.

Budget cuts or not, they are still more powerful than the next 10 navies put together.

 

[ice berg]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

You still don't get the point. What if the USN needs 1000 missiles for an operation. An admiral being given all 4 SSGNs for a single mission is IMPOSSIBLE. An admiral being given 2 arsenal ships within a CBG that he already operates is definitely possible.

Sorry, here is my source:

Submarine Warriors Return From Operation Iraq Freedom

Operating from both the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf, U.S. submarines fired over one-third of the more than 800 Tomahawks launched by naval forces during the conflict.

Submarines are the future of naval warfares, not your bloated arsenal ships.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

You didnt answer my question. How many surface to air missiles does your arsenal ship carry and how many land attack missiles?A Ticonderoga ship can fend for herself, what about your arsenal ship?

None. Only LACMs. The point is to stop an invasion.

Why should the Arsenal ship fend for itself when it acts within a CBG. Two of these ships within a CBG can be protected by the CBG's multi-tier defences.

Why do they need to build brand new SSGNS when they can convert old SSBNs? Your post dont make sense.

Obvious. To keep up with the times.

Even conversion takes a lot of money. Far lesser to build an arsenal ship from scratch.

Eh,, ever heard of the 11 nuclear ACs? CBGs? SSGNs are only part of a strike force. If you think that USN only got 4 SSGNs to launch missiles then you are way way out of your depth.
All 12 U.S. submarines and two UK submarines (HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent) launched TLAMs against Iraq during operation Iraq Freedom.Why you want bloated arsenal ships when you got SSNs , SSGNs that can go anywhere they want virtually undetected? Son, the USN disagree with your assesment og their actions speak louder than words.

They canceled the F-22 program, reduced Zumwalt numbers, canceled Sea wolf class subs, all because of budget cuts. Arsenal ships was part of the budget cuts. Not some kind of a conspiracy here.

Submarines have multiple roles, arsenal ships simply take away the simplest role, a role where the submarine is the most vulnerable while at the same time the arsenal ship can deliver twice or thrice the firepower.

You need to do your homework, son. Most SSns are been converted for land attack roles as well. Including Los Angels class SSNs. Btw there are 40 odd Los Angels class SSNs....

But firepower? I am talking about 250-500 missiles on a single vessel. You are talking about distributing this on multiple vessels when they are required for a more pressing need for capability based roles like ASW and ASuW.

Sorry, here is my source:

Submarine Warriors Return From Operation Iraq Freedom

Operating from both the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf, U.S. submarines fired over one-third of the more than 800 Tomahawks launched by naval forces during the conflict.

Submarines are the future of naval warfares, not your bloated arsenal ships.

Meaning two-thirds of the missiles were still launched by surface ships, even though the USN has over 50 subs capable of launching Tomahawks.

Submarines have other roles. Transfer the simplest and most dangerous role to a ship that can handle it with significantly lesser loses when lost.

Firing missiles over Iraq when you are 500 Km away from the shore is completely different when facing a better equipped adversary like Russia which has a capable engagement capability within that radius of action.

Submarines are expensive to built, maintain and operate compared to most surface ships. I could probably operate 5 Arsenal ships for the price of one Ohio class.

 

[ice berg]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

None. Only LACMs. The point is to stop an invasion.

Why should the Arsenal ship fend for itself when it acts within a CBG. Two of these ships within a CBG can be protected by the CBG's multi-tier defences.

In other words your CBG have to divert resources to defend your bloated arsenal ship. You do know that Burks and Ticonderoga are to protect CVs, right? Now you assign them a new mission to protect your arsenal ship instead? For USN CVs are the center piece. Everything else are to support CVs. You are suggesting assets to protect both arsenal ships and CVs. You do know LACMs are for fixed assets right? You gonna use LACMs to attack moving targets? Bombs are cheaper and can be delievered by air crafts.

Obvious. To keep up with the times.

Even conversion takes a lot of money. Far lesser to build an arsenal ship from scratch.

Pure speculation. You still dont have a pricetag for an arsenal ship. If they got cut because of budget, then they certainly aint cheap.

They canceled the F-22 program, reduced Zumwalt numbers, canceled Sea wolf class subs, all because of budget cuts. Arsenal ships was part of the budget cuts. Not some kind of a conspiracy here.

If the USN deemed it too expensive among other reason, who is gonna afford it?

Submarines have multiple roles, arsenal ships simply take away the simplest role, a role where the submarine is the most vulnerable while at the same time the arsenal ship can deliver twice or thrice the firepower.

That is why navies all over the world prefer subs instead of bloated arsenal ships. A submarine can do lots of things,. your bloated arsenal ship can only do noe thing and need other assets to protect them too. If a submarine is vulnerable then what about your bloated arsenal ships? The fact that USN is using more and more subs for land attack roles, contraditing your arguements.

But firepower? I am talking about 250-500 missiles on a single vessel. You are talking about distributing this on multiple vessels when they are required for a more pressing need for capability based roles like ASW and ASuW.

It is risk vs rewards. Your bloated ship will be the first one enemy searching for. Imagine the big firework when one missile hits your bloated arsenal ship. How many assets you gonna use to protect your bloated ship?

Meaning two-thirds of the missiles were still launched by surface ships, even though the USN has over 50 subs capable of launching Tomahawks.

And that is the general trend. More and more subs with multirole. NO need for bloated arsenal ships.

Submarines have other roles. Transfer the simplest and most dangerous role to a ship that can handle it with significantly lesser loses when lost.

Face plam , you still dont get it. It is precisely because it is dangerous that a sub should handle it. She can conceal herself far far better than a gigantic arsenal ship carrying what 250-500 missiles!

Firing missiles over Iraq when you are 500 Km away from the shore is completely different when facing a better equipped adversary like Russia which has a capable engagement capability within that radius of action.

A sub will have a better chance than your bloated arsenal ship.

Submarines are expensive to built, maintain and operate compared to most surface ships. I could probably operate 5 Arsenal ships for the price of one Ohio class.

BS. An Ohio class costs like 2-3 billions. Same goes for the new Virginia class SSNs. It can do anti shipping, anti submarine, land attack and can operate all on her own. Your bloated arsenal ship can only do land attack, it can not operate on it own cause you are not assign it any weapons and is definately gonna costs you more than 500 milions dollars. It needs escorts anywhere it goes. Assets that may be needed somewhere else. Dont forget your missiles aint free either. You lose one, and you lose the ship pluss your 250-500 missiles.

You are argueing for the sake of arguement. No one has any plans for a bloated arsenal ship with 250-500 missiles. That is the reality. You need to wake up.

 

[t_co]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

None. Only LACMs. The point is to stop an invasion.

Why couldn't SDBs + synthetic aperture radar do much the same thing against mobile ground targets, instead of expensive and one-shot missiles?

Why should the Arsenal ship fend for itself when it acts within a CBG. Two of these ships within a CBG can be protected by the CBG's multi-tier defences.

Obvious. To keep up with the times.

Even conversion takes a lot of money. Far lesser to build an arsenal ship from scratch.

Even accepting this argument as true, a SSGN has much more survivability than an arsenal ship (CG is my guess as to what designation you're aiming for). And it's best that most ships in a CVBG have some degree of self-survivability, or else their performance in a real combat situation will be called into doubt, as you can be sure that any halfway competent opponent will try to break your naval formations at very start of any conflict.

They canceled the F-22 program, reduced Zumwalt numbers, canceled Sea wolf class subs, all because of budget cuts. Arsenal ships was part of the budget cuts. Not some kind of a conspiracy here.

True.

Submarines have multiple roles, arsenal ships simply take away the simplest role, a role where the submarine is the most vulnerable while at the same time the arsenal ship can deliver twice or thrice the firepower.

Again, the point is that the striking power of an arsenal ship is magnified by the undetectability of a submarine. Not only is it hard for an enemy to target a submarine if he knows it's nearby, it's hard for an enemy to know the sub is there in the first place - and it's that element of operational surprise that lets those 150 cruise missiles have such an outsized impact.

But firepower? I am talking about 250-500 missiles on a single vessel. You are talking about distributing this on multiple vessels when they are required for a more pressing need for capability based roles like ASW and ASuW.

So? The primary point of a carrier group is AAW, ASW, and ASuW, in that order - land bombardment is a distant fourth. Any decent admiral will tell you he'd gladly trade additional LACMs if it meant his fleet was more survivable and could better dominate the air and underwater environs.

Meaning two-thirds of the missiles were still launched by surface ships, even though the USN has over 50 subs capable of launching Tomahawks.

Submarines have other roles. Transfer the simplest and most dangerous role to a ship that can handle it with significantly lesser loses when lost.

No sub has ever been lost while launching cruise missiles at an enemy position.

Firing missiles over Iraq when you are 500 Km away from the shore is completely different when facing a better equipped adversary like Russia which has a capable engagement capability within that radius of action.

An arsenal ship would fare infinitely worse than a sub in such an engagement - any halfway competent opponent, to say nothing of nations like China or Russia, would be able to punch holes through an arsenal ship in under an hour after it starts firing, since firing will give away its position, and AShMs have a much longer range and much faster speed than ASW weapons.

Submarines are expensive to built, maintain and operate compared to most surface ships. I could probably operate 5 Arsenal ships for the price of one Ohio class.

So what's the point? You would need to manufacture thousands of LACMs to make such a ship economical - which would cost a ton of money as well. Why not put that money into stealthy, supersonic strikers that can do deep penetration strikes and a degree of air combat, and also make it back to base to get rearmed for additional sorties, rather than one-shot missiels?

 

[lookieloo]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

The Ohio-class SSGNs will not be replaced on a 1-for-1 basis with a similar type. Rather, Virginia-class boats built after 2019 will have a mid-section plug able to hold an extra 28 Tomahawks in addition to the 12 already carried up front on current models, spreading the capability over a larger number of multi-role platforms. Perhaps taking a lesson from India, there's also the possibility that each of the four 7-Tomahawk tubes in the plug could instead carry larger, hypersonic weapons.

http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/issues/archives/issue_47/virginia_2.html

...Another example of payload middleware is a common submarine launch system. U.S. attack submarines currently carry only torpedoes, which are launched hydraulically, and encapsulated Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are ejected from the capsule with gas pressure. However, potential future payloads could range from a more advanced and higher-speed strike weapon to unmanned surveillance systems and decoys. The Navy cannot afford to acquire and support a different launch mechanism for each individual payload...

 

[Mariner HK]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

Yea, India is next to Indian Ocean, but if two forces are too far apart it won't matter. Besides, China has a allie in Pakistan and may have one in Sri Lanka.

Thats a Joke.Srilanka has no option but to support India for its survival.Srilanka cant have support of China all the time,After all She is not fool to be India's enemy It will be matter of days India will invade Srilanka.Stop ur wet dreams.And now Pakistan.Sure pakistan will go against India but whats the use ? Pakistan's naval power is not even close to IN.I dont know what made u to think Indian Navy so poorly Armed.Indian Navy is a nghtmare for CHINA.

Of course, as a growing economic and military power, India can't stay in India forever can she? You don't want any interests abroad? If you do, how are you going to protect them?

Sure but India wont invade or threaten any nation even it has Huge Power.We Share profits among us.Unlike China who play a bully .No country will Like it if they have an opyion to Chose between India and China :azn:

Once China settles South China Sea either claim or some sort of settlement, China will have uninterrupted passage of fuel and reinforcements from the mainland. While China can wait for India to come out and attack, by just interrupting ships to Indian shores. Though this assuming China can have naval base in neighboring countries.

Dude are u serious ?China can claim South china sea by forces ?Hehe stop ur wet dreams.Even Taiwan STARE at china.Why dint u take or Claim Taiwan first? And All south China sea countries are hand in golves to take on CHINESE.China may have large number But when compared to SCS countries Its nothing.It will be a sucide attempt by china .

Which to me is likely because, unless there is a hegemony going on in South Asia, the neighbors will always like the far away countries better as no conflict of interests.

False

P-8I Neptune is going to be sold to everyone, well almost. This isn't the most cutting edge technology. I'm talking carriers, 5th gen, engines that are actually good, and a few other types of ships and missiles, drones as well as satellite technology.

Dude i agree India not doing any thing .But India right now dont want to be seen as aggresser.I know its a Stupid Idealogy by Indian politician.But u should also know if India start moving it coins to beat Chinese the MOVES will be check mate.If india want it can block 80%of Chinese trade and cripple its economy But just sinking old ships as a wreck.These are many things in can do and Ll do at the right time.U just carried away Just think about Andaman &Nicobase Naval base its Tri camand.Its going to be Check mate for China.With Bramos to add its capability

Maybe you will have the same number or more carriers, I have no clue what the Chinese plan actually is, but seeing as how the dates for the second steam powered carrier to be 2025. I am not too worried about it. And looking at past examples, it may or may not get delayed.

A Carrier group needs more than carriers, it needs the other ships to complement it. Can India build them and constantly upgrading it?

As far as Navy is concerned India can mass produce its own ships which are far better than Chinese ships with Bamos and Israel Tech.Its just matter of months India to decide to building ships at Forign ship yards to keep up the phase.If it get go ahead.Its a diffrent ball game dude. And for ur kind imformation Indian Navy to add more than 100 war ships by 2018-2025 Chinese wont even Think about attacking India at sea.It will be SUCIDE

China most likely will be looking at more than one group, things tend to escalate quickly in China due to greed, just look at the rea estate build up. Need it or not it's getting built. Especially now that more and more is being privatized. Business will be lining up to build more and won't be taking no as an answer.

Buying new ships is not cost effective, as coast guards are not actual combat ships and don't need to be as powerful, while any old system can be upgraded to newer ones.

I guess the Indian navy is used, not sure if the Chinese navy is used or not I will have to check.

China will build 3 more carrier by 2030 But its takes more than beingf a owner to fight war with carrier.Chinese as far as i know.It dont have any experience.U belive in Huge number to overwhelm But ur number games are also comming to an end .All south china sea nations are buying more Warshipsthan before.South China sea will be full of Submarine and its total SUCIDE Pill for CHINA .


STOP ur wet dreams wake up Smell the COFFE China is not Super Power as it claims.U have the world's largest out dated weapon.After 2014-2015 large number of Chinese weapons will be DUD When india equals china with numbers with High Tech weapons.Thats the only reason china might attack India by 2014 Beyound that Its just a wet dream.

 

[vram]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

Thats a Joke.Srilanka has no option but to support India for its survival.Srilanka cant have support of China all the time,After all She is not fool to be India's enemy It will be matter of days India will invade Srilanka.Stop ur wet dreams.And now Pakistan.Sure pakistan will go against India but whats the use ? Pakistan's naval power is not even close to IN.I dont know what made u to think Indian Navy so poorly Armed.Indian Navy is a nghtmare for CHINA.

'Chinese ship caught spying on India'

The above article belies your claim.
They don't have to be an in your face anti-India nation like Cuba has been doing for USA. But they can subtly play a supportive role in boosting chinese naval infrastructure in the Indian Ocean. Also do not forget during the 1971 India Pakistan war Sri Lanka provided a replenishment port for sea based traffic between east and west Pakistan. After that in the 80's there was apprehension that they will provide the USA a naval base to monitor on India as we had by then tilted towards the soviets. This was stifled after a lot of back door manoeuvring from us .
Lankan politics has always had a Anti-Inda tilt going back by long years. The first step towards failure is under estimating the enemy.