Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2574216 United States 10/23/2015 12:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 67963972 United States 10/23/2015 12:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands Yeah, I still kinda wonder if they will send the USS Fort Worth after all (newer Littoral-class). But by sending the old destroyer, it makes me wonder more and more if the ship (and its crew) are considered expendable. |
Psy User ID: 70633795 United States 10/23/2015 12:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands Though I doubt they will. China knows our Navy assets in the area alone could wipe those islands from the map in under an hour. "Nothing happens unexpectedly, everything has an indication; we just have to observe the connections." |
Ramen Expert User ID: 70633694 United States 10/23/2015 12:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 67963972 United States 10/23/2015 12:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2574216 United States 10/23/2015 01:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 67963972 United States 10/23/2015 01:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Ramen Expert User ID: 70633694 United States 10/23/2015 01:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Flying Elvii User ID: 69926142 United States 10/23/2015 01:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands I figured it would be a destroyer they sent to run the gauntlet of those islands and not anything more valuable. Surprised they couldn't dig up an old tug boat for it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2574216 USS Lassen is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, built fairly recently, based in Yokosuka. It 's primary mission is air and sea missile defense for the carriers. So it seems to be a good choice for this task. If you are going to send a ship in, do it with something the Chinese are going to have to think really hard about going after, that will require sizable assets to counter it. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 67963972 United States 10/23/2015 01:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands "If you are going to send a ship in, do it with something the Chinese are going to have to think really hard about going after, that will require sizable assets to counter it." Following that logic, why not a carrier group? Or two? No sarcasm. Honest question. |
Psy User ID: 70633795 United States 10/23/2015 01:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands Got to also weigh the opportunity cost of it. What if it really does get sunk? A carrier is a much larger target, and much more valuable. What if China uses an exotic weapon? Better to have the other ships in safe waters on standby ready to retaliate. Also, it seems that this ship has it's own countermeasures for missiles, which is another plus. It won't have to rely as much on the aid of other vessels. "Nothing happens unexpectedly, everything has an indication; we just have to observe the connections." |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 67963972 United States 10/23/2015 01:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Resister User ID: 36421936 United States 10/23/2015 01:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands "If you are going to send a ship in, do it with something the Chinese are going to have to think really hard about going after, that will require sizable assets to counter it." Quoting: Adytum Following that logic, why not a carrier group? Or two? No sarcasm. Honest question. My personal conjecture: A measured size of force asserts the desired presence without inviting a larger response. China, the whole world knows that we have the largest most powerful Navy in the world. It is also a very big deal when you send an entire carrier group. This measured message is one of presence, not war. Last Edited by Resister on 10/23/2015 01:25 PM "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty... Let them take arms... What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. " - Thomas Jefferson in 1787 |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 67963972 United States 10/23/2015 01:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands My real question is: in an age of missiles, does it really matter who has the "most powerful Navy in the world"? If China does not wish to tolerate any naval presence in what it claims to be its waters, does it have to? Are we fooling ourselves really about the status of our Navy? Again, have we not perhaps entered a new era of naval combat as when carriers kind of took over from destroyers? Are we operating from an outdated military outlook? |
Resister User ID: 36421936 United States 10/23/2015 01:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands My real question is: in an age of missiles, does it really matter who has the "most powerful Navy in the world"? Quoting: Adytum If China does not wish to tolerate any naval presence in what it claims to be its waters, does it have to? Are we fooling ourselves really about the status of our Navy? Again, have we not perhaps entered a new era of naval combat as when carriers kind of took over from destroyers? Are we operating from an outdated military outlook? Depends on how capable the enemy is and how effective our countermeasures are. You have to add though the largest naval military powers of the world have not been in a hot war against each other since WWII. No one is itching to let that happen again any time soon. "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty... Let them take arms... What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. " - Thomas Jefferson in 1787 |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 67963972 United States 10/23/2015 02:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Per US Navy Chief: USS Lassen (detroyer) on standby to make transit of South China Sea/Spratly Islands I think we are in an era where we perhaps need to completely re-evaluate our technology and the future of warfare -- especially naval warfare -- as we did in WWII. I agree, it would not be wise to send in a carrier or a carrier group (or more than one) as I think they no longer represent naval "superiority". Given present missile technology (among all the major powers), carriers are no longer invulnerable and are, in fact, of questionable value. In short, no country can really impose itself by naval forces alone on the waters of any other country. The country that attempts to do so in 2015 may learn that lesson the hard way. This is no longer a unipolar world in that regard. The oceans are not ours any more than they are England's at this point. That is reality. But human beings have never been very fond of reality. |