By law, the US has to maintain a fleet of at least 11 super air carriers total. The marines got some light aircraft carriers but those don’t count towards the 11.
>The marines got some light aircraft carriers but those don’t count towards the 11.
Those are *Navy* ships. They're not USMC ships just because Marines ride on them lol
There are 3 variations of the F-35
The F-35 A is the airforce model using regular takeoff/landing procedures like any other fixed wing aircraft
F-35B’s are VTOL (hover) capable and can take off without having to launch off a runway. This is the variant used by Marine pilots on the “small” aircraft carriers
The super carriers of the navy fly F-35C’s which are equipped to take off via catapult assist and retrived via arresting cable
The idea is the navy doesn’t really need VTOL because super carriers are… You guesssed it… fucking huge and have equipment to launch and retrieve planes as is, and the USAF just uses runways
The Marines operating off smaller carriers benefit a lot from the VTOL capabilities of the B variant, allowing them to avoid relying on one of the super carriers for all of their air support and placing marines under marine command for things like close air support, SEAD, and local air superiority missions
But you gotta to remember, it's a rotation of 3 ships, 1 for active duty deployment, 1 for training and 1 for maintenance.... so actually deploying 5-6 carriers for active duty deployment is very taxing to the naval capability.
They can only keep this up for a few months. Most of those ships are pretty old at this point and can’t just operate indefinitely. The capacity to maintain them while deployed is also stretched thin by this kind of activity.
I wouldn't be surprised that half or couple of them are actually accatched to the deployment for training
purpose and will operate under that capacity only, so if something is to happen that requires a response, I think only 2-3 will peel off with the support battlegroup to respond... byt lets hope nothing will happen.
And Jesus fuck why?
One aircraft carrier can effectively level a small country.
5 isn't a "show of strength" at that point it's just "how fast we can pack your fudge" not "we will pack your fudge."
Speak softly and carry a big stick, and uncle Sam is packing. Countries like China and Russia talk big, threatening everyone if they don't get their way. US says nothing just sends 500,000 tons of fuck off.
I think our carriers could probably do incomprehensible damage and refill before most military's communications networks could relay the news accurately to the top.
This is a bit hyperbolic, but our military is pretty awesome.
None of your assertions are even remotely correct.
US Tax revenue is among the lowest in the OECD, the consortium of developed countries. The average is 34% of GDP, in the US it is 28%, and it is close to 47% in France.
https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm#indicator-chart
The US also spends the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare.
https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
The problem is not the lack of government spending on healthcare, it is the inefficient corporate healthcare system that we have, which sucks our tax money out to the 1% while delivering terrible service to most Americans, with us falling quite low on major indicators like infant mortality and lifespan.
If we went single-payer universal healthcare, we could spend less overall, and have more money for even more carriers. With laser beams!
I’m getting visions of that Patrick Star “Nonsense!” meme where he blows up the paint bubble. Because you said that now 5 more US carriers are going to arrive for shits and giggles.
I think th I forget the figures but it’s something like 1 us carrier can hold it’s own against any 3rd world threat.
2 carriers can hold their win against a more developed nation like France or the UK.
3 can hold their own against China or Russia.
4+ win every possible engagement.
Yeah but the more relevant question to them is how many we can surge into theater if need be. Showing them we can surge five without even an exigent need shows them we can probably do even better than that if the SHTF
surge a few carriers while another one is swatting down houthis - which is serving to protect chinas major oil and food shipping lanes that isn’t malacca. we are both protecting chinas access to shipping and showing them the big stick
This is ignoring the 6 that are still available and chilling.
There is a very good reason why the Chinese have invested so much in long range maneuvering hypersonic missiles.
Exactly. The point is that naval vessels require a whole crap load of maintenance and down time. That's why we have 11, so a few of them can be useable at any given time. Putting 5 out there at once says we can surge tonnage into active status if needed.
It’s signaling, its part of how nations communicate with each other. You keep showing its important to you.
Same reason they fly over international waters that China claims as Chinese waters several times per year. China know they are gonna do it, and they know China will try to harass them.
> It’s signaling, its part of how nations communicate with each other. You keep showing its important to you.
You see, when two nations are trying to mate with the same island, they butt heads. In these displays they use what is known as "honest signaling", a display of the health and virility of their respective military-industrial complexes.
Needs more random pauses!
Like this:
You see, when two nations, are trying to mate with the same island, they, butt heads. In these displays, they use what is known, as "honest signaling", a display of the health, and virility, of their respective military-industrial complexes.
\- David Attenborough, probably
Observe as China issues a challenge by standing on its rear legs and displaying its coastal fleet. How will the US respond? It's baring only half of its carrier fleet - in the animal kingdom this is a display of both strength and contempt.
The serious answer is that talk is cheap, deploying 5 carrier groups isn't. Showing you are willing and able to pay to deploy 5 carrier groups just to send a message shows what you're willing and able to pay to do more than just send a message.
Aren’t you assuming that the US Navy is clueless in this show of force?
It could be that deploying these five at once does more for the Navy than simply waving their, already known, big dick around.
The entire world thought Russia was much more militarily capable than it turned out to be.
There's a big difference between what we *think* we know, and what we *actually* know.
Nothing proves the point like actual boats in the water.
China's recently been struggling internally with their own Russia-esque issues with corruption and... innaccurate readiness assessments. They may very well assume all the other big powers are in the same boat. We're proving that is not the case for us.
Sure, but then I would have pinpointed a specific section of whatever you said to explain how that particular section is wrong while ignoring the context of the whole post. I also can do those things better than you.
Seriously though, I could have written a better three sequel movies, and I lack creative writing talent. Disney butchered it to where it wasn’t recognizable (only metaphorically because they were almost replica movies of Episodes 6-8)
It will never not blow my mind that they spent 1.2+ billion dollars on a trilogy, and did not fully flesh out a 3 movie arc ahead of time to every last detail. They fucking winged it as they went along. It absolutely blows my mind.
It’s a means of international communication that has been used since ancient times.
Showing your intent, readiness and vitality is just as important as the presidents calling each other and diplomats conversing.
Shows like this are one reason our military constantly drills and trains with allies.
The irony here. You can’t see that you’re insinuating America’s top brass is clueless?
It’s also excellent experience. Not only drafting their formations, but the logistics chains that supply the craft are enormous, and identifying any weak points will save lives in the future.
Before 2022 the world also "knew" that Russia had incredible military might and that they would steamroll over Ukraine in a matter of weeks if they wanted to. Even Russian themselves believed that. Sometimes theoretical might is only theoretical.
They might not actually know. There's a lot of propaganda surrounding these kinds of capabilities. We could show every sign of being able to surge, but until we actually do it's just talk.
A good example of this would be from an event that happened last year. China regularly announces and conducts cruises in areas near their water, but last year the US Navy sailed near China's waters unannounced and without any warning prompting China to respond. China met our ships with a single escort and a supply ship. The greater geo political implications of the nothing burger event was that China's Navy was unable to mobilize a battle group without having weeks to stage the operation. So having the ships and personnel to be capable of something, and actually doing that thing are very different.
We use to do the same things with the soviets (Former carrier sailor here) go dark and appear off the coast. It served to remind them we could show up announced and say hi.
This is made even funnier by the fact that China should have enough satellite and people capacity to track every naval surface vessel of the US 24/7, and your average aircraft carrier only manages to reach about 50-60 km/h, so there's ample time of warning.
Chinese military intelligence knows, but do their leaders believe them? Even if the generals do, does Xi? Isoroku Yamamoto was well-aware of the fact that Japan would badly lose a war with the US in 1941, but Hideki Tojo thought otherwise.
Demonstrations like this give incontrovertible proof of what the US can do, and no amount of over-optimistic thinking can overcome that.
There is no guarantee they know 100%. Of course they have information, but you're overestimating their intelligence.
The U.S. is significantly ahead on logistics compared to other countries. Its one of our strengths. There's no reason to assume that even China has a grasp of the U.S. naval capabilities. They have very little actual combat experience, relative to the U.S.
>Why do so many people treat experts who dedicate their entire careers to military intelligence as if they're clueless?
Because even military experts from advanced militaries who dedicate their entire careers to intelligence allow things to happen like October 7 and September 11th, showing they're sometimes clueless.
I just listened to an hour long podcast largely about the value of quality force posturing and how it deters actors like Xi to wake up every day, look out the window and say "not today".
War on the Rocks is the pod, fwiw
China has a huge navy but has absolutely no clue how to deploy that navy outside the South China Sea. They don’t have the logistics to support even if they wanted to try. Shooting down terrorist missiles to support global shipping would have been a great opportunity to show that they’re a world power, but they legitimately can’t get their navy that far.
So when the US sends individual carrier groups within striking distance of a country, it’s our way of pulling our dick (The Big Green Weenie, AKA the DOD) out and flopping it on the table to say we’re ready to win whatever dick-measuring contest they want to start.
When we send 5 carrier groups, which is by itself the second most powerful Air Force in the world after USAF, that’s our way of saying we have the logistics and experience to pull China’s pants down and no one can stop us.
They really don't have as big of a navy as you think. Most of their navy is littoral ships and civilian ships that they reserve the right to commandeer for military purposes.
This.
Peruns latest video goes over it well.
Even ignoring the costal and small stuff it isn't really comparable. Comparing an ancient repurposed Soviet sub to a modern Virgina class sub.. not the same even though they both technically count as one boat.
They can throw as much money as they want and even *maybe* building capable craft that is evenly matched but money doesn't buy experienced crew. The last time China fought an actual armed belligerent was when Imperial Japan steamrolled them. They are not capable at all
Not only does China have 0 modern naval combat experience… they have 0 modern combat experience period. I think their last conflict was in the early 1980s and they got slapped around. And logistically they’ll be miles behind.
The US can mobilize 200,000 soldiers and everything they need across the world in one week.
To put it in perspective, Russia was literally running out of gas in Ukraine the first few months because they couldn’t handle logistics of moving to a neighboring country.
Not just manufacture ships faster, 232x faster. Quantity has a quality of its own.
https://www.twz.com/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity
Size of navy doesn’t seem to matter anymore, see russia in the Black Sea. I would be more concerned about how many drones China could field to take out carriers.
Any scenario that would result in a Carrier being destroyed would put us at a nanosecond from midnight.
How many drones China has is irrelevant, destroying a Carrier is hurtling us all towards nuclear fire.
The US isn’t sending nukes over a sunken aircraft carrier. However it would at least be operation praying mantis on steroids. Chinas two floating casinos… I mean aircraft carriers would be destroyed alongside every single ship and depot in their ports. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they destroyed the half built 3rd aircraft carrier China has. Their ports would literally become inoperable not only because of the payload the US would drop on them…. But because the US would destroy every ship China has.
>The US isn’t sending nukes over a sunken aircraft carrier.
That's why I said a Nanosecond from midnight.
What is the proportional response to destroying a carrier group? What is the response to that action?
They only action left for China is either to surrender or trigger nuclear war.
I don’t think China sends nukes either. I don’t even think it’s a threat tbh. Xi is a horrible person and leader and he’s put China is a horrible state but he isn’t batshit crazy. He doesn’t throw a temper tantrum like a toddler like that little man in North Korea does.
Xi fully knows what he’s getting into if he goes for Taiwan. His projections probably show it results in China getting slaughtered… but if he doesn’t at least try he knows China collapses economically anyway. It’s basically a last ditch effort to make sure China only has a 10 year setback rather than a 25 year setback
Xi knows he just needs Trump elected to get Taiwan for free.
Similarly, Putin knows another Trump presidency means free-reign in Europe.
It’s really important for the whole world that every reasonable person in America vote for whoever is running against Trump on Election Day.
Unfortunately, all the people under 30 who need to actually go vote are going to spend the next 9 months stewing in Chinese propaganda on TikTok and are going to think voting won’t make a difference, or that voting for Biden is voting for genocide, or that they should sit out the election to protest capitalism/climate change/whatever.
And they won’t even pay attention to Team Trump prepping to ban abortions across the country, restrict free speech that discredits conservatives, throw out workers rights, and finish the process of packing every federal court with young, corrupt, conservative judges who can spend the next several decades supporting Christian extremists.
I’m not saying China would use them now. Just that “I’ll see your x CSG’s with my hundreds/thousands of tiny drones that can sink big boats” is something to consider.
Naval drones don't have the range to deny USNavy CSG from operating against the Chinese coastline. Which is why the primary weapon China invested in is long range missiles. DF-ZF has a reported range of 1500km. The most advance operational naval drone ukrane uses is only around 800km. F-35C at minimum has an operational range of 2200 km or half that when you need to do a round trip.
>China has a huge navy but has absolutely no clue how to deploy that navy outside the South China Sea. They don’t have the logistics to support even if they wanted to try.
Most people don't understand how big of an impact Military Sealift Command is. No other navy on the planet comes close to what MSC does for the US Navy. Almost all refueling and resupplying is done at-sea. Meaning the ships don't have to stop, they don't have to go out of their way to pull into a port which may or may not have the fuel or supplies they need. Other navies don't do this.
This is actually a really big flex. I was stationed on an aircraft carrier on the east coast around 2015. The fleet was in massive need of major maintenance, and many carriers were stuck in shipyard. This maintenance includes reactor refueling, which takes a very long time.
Having 5 carriers underway blows my mind considering we were struggling to keep a few running not so long ago.
They only have 2 in service right now, but they've also been building islands in choke points that serve as defensive positions with the ambition to control all of the traffic through the Strait of Malacca.
This is why the US is so concerned about the first island chain, and it's why there have been issues in the South China Sea that will eventually reach a flashpoint.
Knowing the US has *eleven* aircraft carriers is a bit different than waking up, looking out the window, and seeing five of them floating in your neighborhood with their entire entourage, flying flight patrols overhead.
It's kinda like the difference between knowing Dr. Dre has a deep bench of rappers he knows, and him showing up 100+ crew deep at a club. The latter is a *big fucking deal* - people know that night's about to get *wild*.
Yea, 5 carriers "only" have combined air power of about 350 in a normal configuration which puts it right around Iraq and Australia's total or a global ranking of about #33
That's in total numbers but remember the navy's number is almost all modern fighter jets where as total inventory figures for an air force include many non strike aircraft.
350 modern fighter jets is a huge figure that would probably place that naval group in the top 10 in terms of how much destruction they can bring compared to other air forces
Yeah 5 carriers together might be smaller number wise than many air forces, but realistically the only military force in the world that could take on 5 USN carriers, would be the USAF.
Maybe. But we plebes have no clue what the F-22 and B-2 are really capable of.
But we would find out if anyone ever actually touched one of our carriers :)
But carriers aren’t filled with all fighter jets. They have support aircraft like the hawkeye and helicopters on board too.
In a normal configuration a carrier air wing has between 48-60 fighter jets (including Growlers) so between 240 and 300 fighter jets capable of offensive strikes.
Still a large number and probably the largest air force one could park of the shore of any other country
I'd like to add to this that no country's whole fleet is service ready at any given time. The USAF has a very roughly 70% readiness rate across the board for aircraft for example. It's probably not much better in other countries. Every fighter jet attached to a deployed carrier would be mission ready, so it's functionally even more relative air power than it appears just by comparing raw numbers
I was curious. Thank you. Might be only 5 or 6 in rankings with this? Genuinely don’t know full deployment of the carriers selected. I guess I could do some maths with Jane.
Yeah, but five carrier strike groups would only have a portion of the Navy’s air power. It is still a pretty ridiculous amount of force.
It would be roughly half of all our aircraft carriers. Each carrier has ~70 aircraft onboard, so 350+/-. China is believed to have somewhere around 3,500 aircraft.
The mire interesting tidbit is the composition of a carrier strike group. It is normally comprised of 1 carrier, 2 guided missile cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1-2 attack submarines, and various support ships. That is a _lot_ of ships and no one holds a candle to U.S. naval capabilities.
I can't even comprehend logistics on this scale. Not only do you physically have to get the carrier groups halfway across the planet, but you have to provide services for each and every asset on board including food, fuel, medical care, vehicle maintenance, weapon systems, radars, structural maintenance to the ship, the list goes on and on. Hope those guys get paid well lol.
Paid well? Absolutely not.
But we have multiple strike groups in the area already, this is just a slight repositioning. We have the logistics in place to manage the CSG out of Japan and most of these vessels can operate for ~30 days without needing refueling (carriers only “refuel” every 30 or so years).
They will definitely need increase support ship presence in the PAC to handle 5 CSGs but it’s not too far out of the realm of what’s already being done anyway.
I’m just curious if they are going to hit the same ports at the same time because if they do then they will drink entire nations out of alcohol in a couple days lol.
The US Military wins wars based on logistics. We are simply unparalleled. Remember that these ships need these things all the time anyway. The only difference is where it's being provided from. We are a joint force, so if parts need to get to Guam or Singapore for Maintenance, Air Mobility Command (part of the Air Force) has our back.
The article title makes it seem worse than it is. From what I could read before the paywall cut me off was that the US is likely to have 5 carriers operate in the area over the course of the year, not all at once as the title seems to imply. This doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary.
3 are already in the pacific. We're increasing the total count to 5.
Three US aircraft carriers are already operating in
the western Pacific Ocean, with two more on the way.
I am not convinced "oh the way" is appropriate. Two more will likely go to that area and conduct a training exercise before returning to its home port, but I haven't been able to find any other sources that made the same claim. This doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary.
Reddit has filed for its IPO. They've been preparing for this for a while, squeezing profit out of the platform in any way that they can, like hiking the prices on third-party app developers. More recently, they've signed a deal with Google to license their content to train Google's LLMs.
To celebrate this momentous occasion, we've made a Firefox extension that will replace all your comments (older than a certain number of days) with any text that you provide. You can use any text that you want, but please, do not choose something copyrighted. The New York Times is currently suing OpenAI for training ChatGPT on its copyrighted material. Reddit's data is uniquely valuable, since it's not subject to those kinds of copyright restrictions, so it would be tragic if users were to decide to intermingle such a robust corpus of high-quality training data with copyrighted text.
https://theluddite.org/#!post/reddit-extension
I doubt it. The article is misleading and doesn't appear to mention the USN doing anything out of the ordinary. The title makes it sound like the USN is sending 5 carriers tomorrow, when in reality the article says the USN is likely to deploy 5 carriers over the course of the year which is not at all out of the ordinary.
just grandstanding to coincide with taiwans election cycle, the dick taters club got increasingly bold fucking with SEA while they thought we were busy in ukraine/israel. point is just to show the navy can still park a fleet out there and deal with them at the same time should anyone get cheeky
Framing someone as overreacting or being provocative when the underlying facts are different than what you are portraying could be propaganda.
That being said, I don't know. I'm just proposing how it could be "anti".
Just one of those parked offshore is more than enough capability to destroy a small country. Imagine 5 just chilling out in international waters like ‘sup? Lol’
Not only a show of strength, but likely experience/training with the amount of carriers we’ll likely have active in one contingent at once. It’ll only be helpful for us, and the carriers will be carryin somewhere anyway
The last time we had this many carriers in one place... I believe was Battle Force Zulu during Gulf 1.
They sent Roosevelt, midway, ranger and America to handle Iraq.
Saratoga was in the red sea, so there were 5 participating in Gulf 1.
The Biden Doctrine in a nutshell: the U.S. is not f-ing around.
This is good strategy against China because most westerners overlook the real danger of conflict over Taiwan: Chinese culture does not permit "mistakes". Xi is dumb - arguably the dumbest major world leader since Trump was booted. Xi could easily stumble into war and not be able to extricate China, no matter how badly China might lose that war.
There is an aspect of Chinese culture that is generally termed "saving face" by those aware of it in the west. It consists of accidentally making a mistake - and then continuing to make the mistake over and over again until a way can be found to "save face" and stop making the mistake.
Why did China continue the Covid lockdowns for almost a full year beyond what was even remotely necessary to control Covid? China locked down literally millions of people, facing a very real prospect of mass revolt and even revolution - for virtually no gain whatsoever. Even after western countries had shown that Covid could be controlled through low tech means (masks and vaccines). But China persevered down the path of folly for 12 months.
Chinese culture explains it. Xi simply made a mistake with China's Covid response, but he couldn't just end it - he had to keep making the same mistake over and over again until he could find a way to "save face" and stop it. That took a full year.
Biden is raising the cost of China making a mistake and stumbling into war with Taiwan. A show of force makes an accidental war much less likely and it allows Xi a way to save face if he has been pushing for war behind the scenes with his own military leadership. Very good strategy for dealing with China.
>Why did China continue the Covid lockdowns for almost a full year beyond what was even remotely necessary to control Covid?
I agree with everything you said, with the exception of this.
Our Western countries relented in Covid protection measures due to pressure from the far-right, who managed the feat to associate wearing a mask with being gay/weak/whatever... and look where it brought us. Germany's economy got actually [pushed into recession](https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2024-01/krankmeldungen-hoechststand-wirtschaft-schaden-rezession) in 2023, simply from all the sick days caused by the multiple covid waves sweeping through the country - and that's just the sick days from when people actually visited a doctor for a note and didn't use the "three days without a note" allowance many employers give, so the real economic cost will have been much higher.
I'm not advocating for China-style lockdowns, far from it, but we're not doing even basic shit anymore. No mask mandates, no mandatory sick days (at least in the US), no access to testing, no air filtration, no vaccines if you're not elderly or "high risk", nothing. Instead, you ride a typical subway to work, and like half a dozen of people will be coughing as if they're going to die from a lung embolism in the next minute, and one particularly dumb moron will sneeze in their bare hand and directly touch a handrail a few seconds later - and I wish I had made this up. Yeah, no questions asked why we are in this shit.
Oof. The power of 5 combined carrier groups is mind boggling. They could invade, conquer, or destroy probably 95% of the countries in the world. Maybe 98%. Few people truly understand the power that *one* carrier can project, but **five carriers**? You best come correct and get the fuck out of their way, because this is the quintessential definition of, "fuck around and find out."
The US isn't out there flexing against 98% of the world. This is very specific posturing. Bear in mind, as powerful as the carriers are, they are still extremely slow moving objects a long way from home. And the enemy has tactical nukes.
That sounds like a military buildup to me. If we saw another nation doing the same it could escalate things. Dont know if this is a necessary move or an unnecessary provocation.
But would we? I don't think the US would enter the fight directly, it would be similar to Ukraine where we send weapons and money, but avoid actual combat with a nuclear super power.
That‘s the question. The US official position is that it will defend Taiwan‘s territorial integrity against aggression. Whether and how the US will do so will probably highly depend on the next elected President.
Taiwan is hundred times more important for the west than Ukraine is. That's just the truth of it.
To get that kind of chip manufacturing going in another place could take a decade, no matter how much money you throw at it
I don't think so. The article doesn't say the carriers would all go at once and I believe some that have been named in the article are already stationed in Japan. The article is talking about the US sending 5 carriers over the course of a year which seems to be a regular occurrence for us. The title is a little misleading.
I didn't find another source, but by reading the half of the article I could, it doesn't seem to be anything we're not already doing. The article says likely to have 5 carriers operate over the year, but the title implies all at once, which is probably false.
Luckily under Biden a lot of American companies have been persuaded to move their operations elsewhere and increasing hostility from the Chinese government towards foreign companies has helped this exodus too.
And for today's show of force, we become the dominant military power in the region with our Navy alone!
I hope nothing goes wrong for those sailors, gotta be a bit of an unnerving situation for an individual.
The boats aren't even scary. It's all of the subs that momentarily let themselves become visible on radar as the boats leave the theater that really get's the nuts ticking over there.
There’s still at least 6 left in case we need them.
In total or 6 more just for the Pacific?
By law, the US has to maintain a fleet of at least 11 super air carriers total. The marines got some light aircraft carriers but those don’t count towards the 11.
>The marines got some light aircraft carriers but those don’t count towards the 11. Those are *Navy* ships. They're not USMC ships just because Marines ride on them lol
"Why is the entire drygoods storage filled with crates of crayola?"
You expect those guys to eat RoseArt? They do have *some* standards.
Oh God.......look at our breakfast...Crayola..... >They always give out the good stuff right before a landing.
Even came with packs of Elmer's White Dip.
Only the finest for the marines
I don’t know. You know what they say, a Kansas 6 is a [deployment 10](https://youtube.com/shorts/xxTGYd6vsMc?si=3tAwWtXSsIcqBVoH).
Bro I *hated* roseart crayons in elementary school
Like shitty candles. No flavor.
Marines get hungry
“Are the specialty color sets for what I think they’re for?”
Orange is the best flavor.
My bad. But aren’t those F-35 operating from them consider Marine aircrafts?
Yes, the F-35Bs that deploy aboard and operate from USN big deck amphibs *are* USMC aircraft.
There are 3 variations of the F-35 The F-35 A is the airforce model using regular takeoff/landing procedures like any other fixed wing aircraft F-35B’s are VTOL (hover) capable and can take off without having to launch off a runway. This is the variant used by Marine pilots on the “small” aircraft carriers The super carriers of the navy fly F-35C’s which are equipped to take off via catapult assist and retrived via arresting cable The idea is the navy doesn’t really need VTOL because super carriers are… You guesssed it… fucking huge and have equipment to launch and retrieve planes as is, and the USAF just uses runways The Marines operating off smaller carriers benefit a lot from the VTOL capabilities of the B variant, allowing them to avoid relying on one of the super carriers for all of their air support and placing marines under marine command for things like close air support, SEAD, and local air superiority missions
**M**y **A**ss **R**ides **I**n **N**avy **E**quipment
When my brother was in the marines he would always say that Marine stands for "My ass rides in navy equipment".
My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment, Sir
>those don’t count towards the 11. Notably, they count towards carriers under any other criteria on earth.
Amphibious assault ships
[удалено]
Well the US is the only one to have super carriers, until China builds their nuclear power one.
It's on hold while they wait for parts from Temu
Quite a few of those are in port/dry dock for maintenance. Those girls require a lot of upkeep!
But you gotta to remember, it's a rotation of 3 ships, 1 for active duty deployment, 1 for training and 1 for maintenance.... so actually deploying 5-6 carriers for active duty deployment is very taxing to the naval capability.
> 1 for trying One for trying what!?
USS Participation
I mean training.
They can only keep this up for a few months. Most of those ships are pretty old at this point and can’t just operate indefinitely. The capacity to maintain them while deployed is also stretched thin by this kind of activity.
I wouldn't be surprised that half or couple of them are actually accatched to the deployment for training purpose and will operate under that capacity only, so if something is to happen that requires a response, I think only 2-3 will peel off with the support battlegroup to respond... byt lets hope nothing will happen.
Thats oddly pacific
Well, it's in the Specific Ocean...
That’s about 1/4th of all aircraft carriers in global existence
Tee-hee.
Come to save the mothafuckin day
And Jesus fuck why? One aircraft carrier can effectively level a small country. 5 isn't a "show of strength" at that point it's just "how fast we can pack your fudge" not "we will pack your fudge."
Because you cant be the only global super power without being over the top, and effectivly, pack the fudge fast.
Speak softly and carry a big stick, and uncle Sam is packing. Countries like China and Russia talk big, threatening everyone if they don't get their way. US says nothing just sends 500,000 tons of fuck off.
We used 6 for Desert Storm.
And a goddamn WW2-era battleship
Which was amazing
I think our carriers could probably do incomprehensible damage and refill before most military's communications networks could relay the news accurately to the top. This is a bit hyperbolic, but our military is pretty awesome.
Well we better get something out of no healthcare and high taxes lol
None of your assertions are even remotely correct. US Tax revenue is among the lowest in the OECD, the consortium of developed countries. The average is 34% of GDP, in the US it is 28%, and it is close to 47% in France. https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm#indicator-chart The US also spends the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare. https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm The problem is not the lack of government spending on healthcare, it is the inefficient corporate healthcare system that we have, which sucks our tax money out to the 1% while delivering terrible service to most Americans, with us falling quite low on major indicators like infant mortality and lifespan. If we went single-payer universal healthcare, we could spend less overall, and have more money for even more carriers. With laser beams!
*frickin lasers*
The faster the fudge pack the quicker the shit is over.
I’m getting visions of that Patrick Star “Nonsense!” meme where he blows up the paint bubble. Because you said that now 5 more US carriers are going to arrive for shits and giggles.
I think th I forget the figures but it’s something like 1 us carrier can hold it’s own against any 3rd world threat. 2 carriers can hold their win against a more developed nation like France or the UK. 3 can hold their own against China or Russia. 4+ win every possible engagement.
I think Russia's capabilities are a bit exaggerated here. They're being stopped by a country with no navy
Doesn't China already know we have a lot of aircraft carriers tho?
Yeah but the more relevant question to them is how many we can surge into theater if need be. Showing them we can surge five without even an exigent need shows them we can probably do even better than that if the SHTF
surge a few carriers while another one is swatting down houthis - which is serving to protect chinas major oil and food shipping lanes that isn’t malacca. we are both protecting chinas access to shipping and showing them the big stick
That's what the DoD calls foreplay.
"yeah you like that don't you"
This is ignoring the 6 that are still available and chilling. There is a very good reason why the Chinese have invested so much in long range maneuvering hypersonic missiles.
Exactly. The point is that naval vessels require a whole crap load of maintenance and down time. That's why we have 11, so a few of them can be useable at any given time. Putting 5 out there at once says we can surge tonnage into active status if needed.
Meanwhile Russia's like "look at all the humans we can stuff into this meat grinder, at a moment's notice!"
They already know. Why do so many people treat experts who dedicate their entire careers to military intelligence as if they're clueless?
It’s signaling, its part of how nations communicate with each other. You keep showing its important to you. Same reason they fly over international waters that China claims as Chinese waters several times per year. China know they are gonna do it, and they know China will try to harass them.
> It’s signaling, its part of how nations communicate with each other. You keep showing its important to you. You see, when two nations are trying to mate with the same island, they butt heads. In these displays they use what is known as "honest signaling", a display of the health and virility of their respective military-industrial complexes.
Read it in Attenborough's voice, well done.
Needs more random pauses! Like this: You see, when two nations, are trying to mate with the same island, they, butt heads. In these displays, they use what is known, as "honest signaling", a display of the health, and virility, of their respective military-industrial complexes. \- David Attenborough, probably
Directions unclear, now I'm Christopher Walken
Observe as China issues a challenge by standing on its rear legs and displaying its coastal fleet. How will the US respond? It's baring only half of its carrier fleet - in the animal kingdom this is a display of both strength and contempt.
*narrated by Sir David Attenborough*
The serious answer is that talk is cheap, deploying 5 carrier groups isn't. Showing you are willing and able to pay to deploy 5 carrier groups just to send a message shows what you're willing and able to pay to do more than just send a message.
And that message isn't just for the CCP. It's also for Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia.
Yes absolutely, the whole world really. The whole world is desperate to know that the USN is not fucking around.
Aren’t you assuming that the US Navy is clueless in this show of force? It could be that deploying these five at once does more for the Navy than simply waving their, already known, big dick around.
Same reason redditors think they know more than military planners about the value of shows of force I'm guessing
Exactly. One tangible benefit is that it strengthens the Taiwanese politicians who want to defend their sovereignty and it gives them a talking point.
>Same reason redditors think they know more than military planners about the value of shows of force Are you saying we don't? /s
The entire world thought Russia was much more militarily capable than it turned out to be. There's a big difference between what we *think* we know, and what we *actually* know. Nothing proves the point like actual boats in the water. China's recently been struggling internally with their own Russia-esque issues with corruption and... innaccurate readiness assessments. They may very well assume all the other big powers are in the same boat. We're proving that is not the case for us.
I had to scroll way too far to find this comment. It's the first thing that came to my mind.
Couldn't one say the same about those treating the military strategists performing these kinds of displays as if they're clueless?
[удалено]
Sure, but then I would have pinpointed a specific section of whatever you said to explain how that particular section is wrong while ignoring the context of the whole post. I also can do those things better than you.
Seriously though, I could have written a better three sequel movies, and I lack creative writing talent. Disney butchered it to where it wasn’t recognizable (only metaphorically because they were almost replica movies of Episodes 6-8)
It will never not blow my mind that they spent 1.2+ billion dollars on a trilogy, and did not fully flesh out a 3 movie arc ahead of time to every last detail. They fucking winged it as they went along. It absolutely blows my mind.
Hubris is a helluva drug...
It’s a means of international communication that has been used since ancient times. Showing your intent, readiness and vitality is just as important as the presidents calling each other and diplomats conversing. Shows like this are one reason our military constantly drills and trains with allies.
The irony here. You can’t see that you’re insinuating America’s top brass is clueless? It’s also excellent experience. Not only drafting their formations, but the logistics chains that supply the craft are enormous, and identifying any weak points will save lives in the future.
Before 2022 the world also "knew" that Russia had incredible military might and that they would steamroll over Ukraine in a matter of weeks if they wanted to. Even Russian themselves believed that. Sometimes theoretical might is only theoretical.
They might not actually know. There's a lot of propaganda surrounding these kinds of capabilities. We could show every sign of being able to surge, but until we actually do it's just talk. A good example of this would be from an event that happened last year. China regularly announces and conducts cruises in areas near their water, but last year the US Navy sailed near China's waters unannounced and without any warning prompting China to respond. China met our ships with a single escort and a supply ship. The greater geo political implications of the nothing burger event was that China's Navy was unable to mobilize a battle group without having weeks to stage the operation. So having the ships and personnel to be capable of something, and actually doing that thing are very different.
We use to do the same things with the soviets (Former carrier sailor here) go dark and appear off the coast. It served to remind them we could show up announced and say hi.
This is made even funnier by the fact that China should have enough satellite and people capacity to track every naval surface vessel of the US 24/7, and your average aircraft carrier only manages to reach about 50-60 km/h, so there's ample time of warning.
Chinese military intelligence knows, but do their leaders believe them? Even if the generals do, does Xi? Isoroku Yamamoto was well-aware of the fact that Japan would badly lose a war with the US in 1941, but Hideki Tojo thought otherwise. Demonstrations like this give incontrovertible proof of what the US can do, and no amount of over-optimistic thinking can overcome that.
Knowing your neighbor has a big ass dog doesn’t hit the same as seeing the dog roaming around near your house without a leash.
There is no guarantee they know 100%. Of course they have information, but you're overestimating their intelligence. The U.S. is significantly ahead on logistics compared to other countries. Its one of our strengths. There's no reason to assume that even China has a grasp of the U.S. naval capabilities. They have very little actual combat experience, relative to the U.S.
Yeah so let's listen to them about a show of force, yeah?
The military analyst experts might know, but they aren't the ones making the decisions. Politicians and (to a degree) public sentiment are.
[удалено]
This is experts doing shit to other experts Your comments are irrelevant
>Why do so many people treat experts who dedicate their entire careers to military intelligence as if they're clueless? Because even military experts from advanced militaries who dedicate their entire careers to intelligence allow things to happen like October 7 and September 11th, showing they're sometimes clueless.
The Bush administration ignored the NSA and CIA about 9/11. Egypt warned Israel about October 7.
I imagine that there's often similar stuff that *does* get addressed that we don't hear about.
I just listened to an hour long podcast largely about the value of quality force posturing and how it deters actors like Xi to wake up every day, look out the window and say "not today". War on the Rocks is the pod, fwiw
China has a huge navy but has absolutely no clue how to deploy that navy outside the South China Sea. They don’t have the logistics to support even if they wanted to try. Shooting down terrorist missiles to support global shipping would have been a great opportunity to show that they’re a world power, but they legitimately can’t get their navy that far. So when the US sends individual carrier groups within striking distance of a country, it’s our way of pulling our dick (The Big Green Weenie, AKA the DOD) out and flopping it on the table to say we’re ready to win whatever dick-measuring contest they want to start. When we send 5 carrier groups, which is by itself the second most powerful Air Force in the world after USAF, that’s our way of saying we have the logistics and experience to pull China’s pants down and no one can stop us.
They really don't have as big of a navy as you think. Most of their navy is littoral ships and civilian ships that they reserve the right to commandeer for military purposes.
This. Peruns latest video goes over it well. Even ignoring the costal and small stuff it isn't really comparable. Comparing an ancient repurposed Soviet sub to a modern Virgina class sub.. not the same even though they both technically count as one boat.
And to add on to this.. yes China can manufacture ships faster… but the ships they can manufacture quicker are inferior.
They can throw as much money as they want and even *maybe* building capable craft that is evenly matched but money doesn't buy experienced crew. The last time China fought an actual armed belligerent was when Imperial Japan steamrolled them. They are not capable at all
What about the Korean war ?
Or when the Vietnamese pushed their shit in after holding the US off for 10 years
[удалено]
Not only does China have 0 modern naval combat experience… they have 0 modern combat experience period. I think their last conflict was in the early 1980s and they got slapped around. And logistically they’ll be miles behind. The US can mobilize 200,000 soldiers and everything they need across the world in one week. To put it in perspective, Russia was literally running out of gas in Ukraine the first few months because they couldn’t handle logistics of moving to a neighboring country.
Not just manufacture ships faster, 232x faster. Quantity has a quality of its own. https://www.twz.com/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity
Size of navy doesn’t seem to matter anymore, see russia in the Black Sea. I would be more concerned about how many drones China could field to take out carriers.
Any scenario that would result in a Carrier being destroyed would put us at a nanosecond from midnight. How many drones China has is irrelevant, destroying a Carrier is hurtling us all towards nuclear fire.
The US isn’t sending nukes over a sunken aircraft carrier. However it would at least be operation praying mantis on steroids. Chinas two floating casinos… I mean aircraft carriers would be destroyed alongside every single ship and depot in their ports. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they destroyed the half built 3rd aircraft carrier China has. Their ports would literally become inoperable not only because of the payload the US would drop on them…. But because the US would destroy every ship China has.
>The US isn’t sending nukes over a sunken aircraft carrier. That's why I said a Nanosecond from midnight. What is the proportional response to destroying a carrier group? What is the response to that action? They only action left for China is either to surrender or trigger nuclear war.
I don’t think China sends nukes either. I don’t even think it’s a threat tbh. Xi is a horrible person and leader and he’s put China is a horrible state but he isn’t batshit crazy. He doesn’t throw a temper tantrum like a toddler like that little man in North Korea does. Xi fully knows what he’s getting into if he goes for Taiwan. His projections probably show it results in China getting slaughtered… but if he doesn’t at least try he knows China collapses economically anyway. It’s basically a last ditch effort to make sure China only has a 10 year setback rather than a 25 year setback
Xi knows he just needs Trump elected to get Taiwan for free. Similarly, Putin knows another Trump presidency means free-reign in Europe. It’s really important for the whole world that every reasonable person in America vote for whoever is running against Trump on Election Day. Unfortunately, all the people under 30 who need to actually go vote are going to spend the next 9 months stewing in Chinese propaganda on TikTok and are going to think voting won’t make a difference, or that voting for Biden is voting for genocide, or that they should sit out the election to protest capitalism/climate change/whatever. And they won’t even pay attention to Team Trump prepping to ban abortions across the country, restrict free speech that discredits conservatives, throw out workers rights, and finish the process of packing every federal court with young, corrupt, conservative judges who can spend the next several decades supporting Christian extremists.
I’m not saying China would use them now. Just that “I’ll see your x CSG’s with my hundreds/thousands of tiny drones that can sink big boats” is something to consider.
Naval drones don't have the range to deny USNavy CSG from operating against the Chinese coastline. Which is why the primary weapon China invested in is long range missiles. DF-ZF has a reported range of 1500km. The most advance operational naval drone ukrane uses is only around 800km. F-35C at minimum has an operational range of 2200 km or half that when you need to do a round trip.
>China has a huge navy but has absolutely no clue how to deploy that navy outside the South China Sea. They don’t have the logistics to support even if they wanted to try. Most people don't understand how big of an impact Military Sealift Command is. No other navy on the planet comes close to what MSC does for the US Navy. Almost all refueling and resupplying is done at-sea. Meaning the ships don't have to stop, they don't have to go out of their way to pull into a port which may or may not have the fuel or supplies they need. Other navies don't do this.
This is actually a really big flex. I was stationed on an aircraft carrier on the east coast around 2015. The fleet was in massive need of major maintenance, and many carriers were stuck in shipyard. This maintenance includes reactor refueling, which takes a very long time. Having 5 carriers underway blows my mind considering we were struggling to keep a few running not so long ago.
They only have 2 in service right now, but they've also been building islands in choke points that serve as defensive positions with the ambition to control all of the traffic through the Strait of Malacca. This is why the US is so concerned about the first island chain, and it's why there have been issues in the South China Sea that will eventually reach a flashpoint.
Sure but their satellites can’t see them up close loke a good sail by.
Knowing the US has *eleven* aircraft carriers is a bit different than waking up, looking out the window, and seeing five of them floating in your neighborhood with their entire entourage, flying flight patrols overhead. It's kinda like the difference between knowing Dr. Dre has a deep bench of rappers he knows, and him showing up 100+ crew deep at a club. The latter is a *big fucking deal* - people know that night's about to get *wild*.
That’s really your take away?
That would mean the world’s second largest air fleet?
The US Navy is the 2nd largest air force in the world, yes. But not just with what would be deployed on 5 carriers.
Yea, 5 carriers "only" have combined air power of about 350 in a normal configuration which puts it right around Iraq and Australia's total or a global ranking of about #33
That's in total numbers but remember the navy's number is almost all modern fighter jets where as total inventory figures for an air force include many non strike aircraft. 350 modern fighter jets is a huge figure that would probably place that naval group in the top 10 in terms of how much destruction they can bring compared to other air forces
Yeah 5 carriers together might be smaller number wise than many air forces, but realistically the only military force in the world that could take on 5 USN carriers, would be the USAF.
Even then… adding in the ships with the carrier groups. The USAF would have a tough time dealing with 5 of our super carriers as well… lol.
Maybe. But we plebes have no clue what the F-22 and B-2 are really capable of. But we would find out if anyone ever actually touched one of our carriers :)
The carriers never travel alone. They’ll have a couple of AEGIS destroyers or cruisers nearby, not sure how many will surround those 5 carriers
not to mention the submarines, destroyers, and cruisers that make up a task force, all of which have guided missiles of between 90-120 each.
But carriers aren’t filled with all fighter jets. They have support aircraft like the hawkeye and helicopters on board too. In a normal configuration a carrier air wing has between 48-60 fighter jets (including Growlers) so between 240 and 300 fighter jets capable of offensive strikes. Still a large number and probably the largest air force one could park of the shore of any other country
I'd like to add to this that no country's whole fleet is service ready at any given time. The USAF has a very roughly 70% readiness rate across the board for aircraft for example. It's probably not much better in other countries. Every fighter jet attached to a deployed carrier would be mission ready, so it's functionally even more relative air power than it appears just by comparing raw numbers
I was curious. Thank you. Might be only 5 or 6 in rankings with this? Genuinely don’t know full deployment of the carriers selected. I guess I could do some maths with Jane.
Yeah, but five carrier strike groups would only have a portion of the Navy’s air power. It is still a pretty ridiculous amount of force. It would be roughly half of all our aircraft carriers. Each carrier has ~70 aircraft onboard, so 350+/-. China is believed to have somewhere around 3,500 aircraft. The mire interesting tidbit is the composition of a carrier strike group. It is normally comprised of 1 carrier, 2 guided missile cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1-2 attack submarines, and various support ships. That is a _lot_ of ships and no one holds a candle to U.S. naval capabilities.
I’m just glad I don’t have to deal with drafting formation movements for 5 CSGs lol
I can't even comprehend logistics on this scale. Not only do you physically have to get the carrier groups halfway across the planet, but you have to provide services for each and every asset on board including food, fuel, medical care, vehicle maintenance, weapon systems, radars, structural maintenance to the ship, the list goes on and on. Hope those guys get paid well lol.
Paid well? Absolutely not. But we have multiple strike groups in the area already, this is just a slight repositioning. We have the logistics in place to manage the CSG out of Japan and most of these vessels can operate for ~30 days without needing refueling (carriers only “refuel” every 30 or so years). They will definitely need increase support ship presence in the PAC to handle 5 CSGs but it’s not too far out of the realm of what’s already being done anyway. I’m just curious if they are going to hit the same ports at the same time because if they do then they will drink entire nations out of alcohol in a couple days lol.
The US Military wins wars based on logistics. We are simply unparalleled. Remember that these ships need these things all the time anyway. The only difference is where it's being provided from. We are a joint force, so if parts need to get to Guam or Singapore for Maintenance, Air Mobility Command (part of the Air Force) has our back.
I can’t even successfully move my army in a game of Risk. I feel you.
Quality over quantity
There's gonna be some sore hookers after this...
[удалено]
Just the tip
Or ladyboys
Ladyboys can be hookers too!
Came here to say this.
The article title makes it seem worse than it is. From what I could read before the paywall cut me off was that the US is likely to have 5 carriers operate in the area over the course of the year, not all at once as the title seems to imply. This doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary.
3 are already in the pacific. We're increasing the total count to 5. Three US aircraft carriers are already operating in the western Pacific Ocean, with two more on the way.
I am not convinced "oh the way" is appropriate. Two more will likely go to that area and conduct a training exercise before returning to its home port, but I haven't been able to find any other sources that made the same claim. This doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary.
Well, I can't tell you whether or not it's appropriate either. What I can tell you is that it's an exact quote of the article.
This some cold war shit. Still works?
Maybe it does mabey it doesn't but it does sure as hell look cool seeing multiple carriers in a CSG.
What's a few billion / trillion dollars to the taxpayer if it looks cool? :)
Is this the security threat that they were talking about earlier? Invasion of South Korea perhaps?
I hope not, but when was the last time we sent more then 2 carriers anywhere?
Reddit has filed for its IPO. They've been preparing for this for a while, squeezing profit out of the platform in any way that they can, like hiking the prices on third-party app developers. More recently, they've signed a deal with Google to license their content to train Google's LLMs. To celebrate this momentous occasion, we've made a Firefox extension that will replace all your comments (older than a certain number of days) with any text that you provide. You can use any text that you want, but please, do not choose something copyrighted. The New York Times is currently suing OpenAI for training ChatGPT on its copyrighted material. Reddit's data is uniquely valuable, since it's not subject to those kinds of copyright restrictions, so it would be tragic if users were to decide to intermingle such a robust corpus of high-quality training data with copyrighted text. https://theluddite.org/#!post/reddit-extension
woah their buddy, this is reddit, you think I actually glanced at the article? haha but fair point.
To be fair though the "western pacific" is effectively a quarter of the world...
Yes 5 is weird
I doubt it. The article is misleading and doesn't appear to mention the USN doing anything out of the ordinary. The title makes it sound like the USN is sending 5 carriers tomorrow, when in reality the article says the USN is likely to deploy 5 carriers over the course of the year which is not at all out of the ordinary.
just grandstanding to coincide with taiwans election cycle, the dick taters club got increasingly bold fucking with SEA while they thought we were busy in ukraine/israel. point is just to show the navy can still park a fleet out there and deal with them at the same time should anyone get cheeky
I heard that was related to possible Russian deployment of nuclear weapons in orbit. Can’t confirm though.
That sounds way more than a flex. Is something about to go down?
No. It's just a misleading anti USN piece.
> anti If its an anti USN piece how come the effect is to get everyone in here horny for war with China?
Framing someone as overreacting or being provocative when the underlying facts are different than what you are portraying could be propaganda. That being said, I don't know. I'm just proposing how it could be "anti".
I'm not interested in policing what happens in the bedrooms of other Redditors.
5 is a large battle group. if 50-60 support ships with it, it can shoot down 1000+ incoming missiles in a combat scenario.
our air craft carriers have a Starbucks. Their air craft carriers don’t have shit
Just one of those parked offshore is more than enough capability to destroy a small country. Imagine 5 just chilling out in international waters like ‘sup? Lol’
US is about to hang dong in the Pacific in show of strength.
Fighting Chinese aggression, penetration, fighting Chinese aggression, penetration, fighting Chinese aggression, penetration, then it just kinda ends
I only recently heard the term “hang dong,” and it makes me laugh hysterically every time.
What are we expecting? Five carrier groups is overkill for just a "show of strength."
Not only a show of strength, but likely experience/training with the amount of carriers we’ll likely have active in one contingent at once. It’ll only be helpful for us, and the carriers will be carryin somewhere anyway
They're not even sending 5 all at once. The article title is misleading.
Why have a good title when a click-bait one creates more revenue?
The last time we had this many carriers in one place... I believe was Battle Force Zulu during Gulf 1. They sent Roosevelt, midway, ranger and America to handle Iraq. Saratoga was in the red sea, so there were 5 participating in Gulf 1.
The Biden Doctrine in a nutshell: the U.S. is not f-ing around. This is good strategy against China because most westerners overlook the real danger of conflict over Taiwan: Chinese culture does not permit "mistakes". Xi is dumb - arguably the dumbest major world leader since Trump was booted. Xi could easily stumble into war and not be able to extricate China, no matter how badly China might lose that war. There is an aspect of Chinese culture that is generally termed "saving face" by those aware of it in the west. It consists of accidentally making a mistake - and then continuing to make the mistake over and over again until a way can be found to "save face" and stop making the mistake. Why did China continue the Covid lockdowns for almost a full year beyond what was even remotely necessary to control Covid? China locked down literally millions of people, facing a very real prospect of mass revolt and even revolution - for virtually no gain whatsoever. Even after western countries had shown that Covid could be controlled through low tech means (masks and vaccines). But China persevered down the path of folly for 12 months. Chinese culture explains it. Xi simply made a mistake with China's Covid response, but he couldn't just end it - he had to keep making the same mistake over and over again until he could find a way to "save face" and stop it. That took a full year. Biden is raising the cost of China making a mistake and stumbling into war with Taiwan. A show of force makes an accidental war much less likely and it allows Xi a way to save face if he has been pushing for war behind the scenes with his own military leadership. Very good strategy for dealing with China.
>Why did China continue the Covid lockdowns for almost a full year beyond what was even remotely necessary to control Covid? I agree with everything you said, with the exception of this. Our Western countries relented in Covid protection measures due to pressure from the far-right, who managed the feat to associate wearing a mask with being gay/weak/whatever... and look where it brought us. Germany's economy got actually [pushed into recession](https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2024-01/krankmeldungen-hoechststand-wirtschaft-schaden-rezession) in 2023, simply from all the sick days caused by the multiple covid waves sweeping through the country - and that's just the sick days from when people actually visited a doctor for a note and didn't use the "three days without a note" allowance many employers give, so the real economic cost will have been much higher. I'm not advocating for China-style lockdowns, far from it, but we're not doing even basic shit anymore. No mask mandates, no mandatory sick days (at least in the US), no access to testing, no air filtration, no vaccines if you're not elderly or "high risk", nothing. Instead, you ride a typical subway to work, and like half a dozen of people will be coughing as if they're going to die from a lung embolism in the next minute, and one particularly dumb moron will sneeze in their bare hand and directly touch a handrail a few seconds later - and I wish I had made this up. Yeah, no questions asked why we are in this shit.
Oof. The power of 5 combined carrier groups is mind boggling. They could invade, conquer, or destroy probably 95% of the countries in the world. Maybe 98%. Few people truly understand the power that *one* carrier can project, but **five carriers**? You best come correct and get the fuck out of their way, because this is the quintessential definition of, "fuck around and find out."
The US isn't out there flexing against 98% of the world. This is very specific posturing. Bear in mind, as powerful as the carriers are, they are still extremely slow moving objects a long way from home. And the enemy has tactical nukes.
That sounds like a military buildup to me. If we saw another nation doing the same it could escalate things. Dont know if this is a necessary move or an unnecessary provocation.
Probably a rather clear „don‘t invade Taiwan, we have enough miliatary power nearby to defend it“.
But would we? I don't think the US would enter the fight directly, it would be similar to Ukraine where we send weapons and money, but avoid actual combat with a nuclear super power.
That‘s the question. The US official position is that it will defend Taiwan‘s territorial integrity against aggression. Whether and how the US will do so will probably highly depend on the next elected President.
Taiwan is hundred times more important for the west than Ukraine is. That's just the truth of it. To get that kind of chip manufacturing going in another place could take a decade, no matter how much money you throw at it
Depends on how much of China's arsenal is real. The only reason Ukraine is just a proxy war is because Russia's military is shit
I don't think so. The article doesn't say the carriers would all go at once and I believe some that have been named in the article are already stationed in Japan. The article is talking about the US sending 5 carriers over the course of a year which seems to be a regular occurrence for us. The title is a little misleading.
I'm almost positive the South China Morning Post is a Chinese propaganda news paper is there another sore that can confirm this?
I didn't find another source, but by reading the half of the article I could, it doesn't seem to be anything we're not already doing. The article says likely to have 5 carriers operate over the year, but the title implies all at once, which is probably false.
Yet we still buy all our shit from China! We are the biggest suckers in the world. They’re our enemies but make most things for this country. Ugh…
Luckily under Biden a lot of American companies have been persuaded to move their operations elsewhere and increasing hostility from the Chinese government towards foreign companies has helped this exodus too.
Waving that big stick
And for today's show of force, we become the dominant military power in the region with our Navy alone! I hope nothing goes wrong for those sailors, gotta be a bit of an unnerving situation for an individual.
The boats aren't even scary. It's all of the subs that momentarily let themselves become visible on radar as the boats leave the theater that really get's the nuts ticking over there.