Why don't we just bomb the Liaoning?

>>34681636
>Torpedo an aircraft carrier
>successfully hide it
pick one

>>34681652
Just send some SEALs carrying a torpedo and sink it into the dock

File: 1491697448082.jpg (91KB, 640x801px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x801px

>>34681636
we worked bretty hard on that one, komrad. pls dont

>>34681659
>Just send some SEALs carrying a torpedo and sink it into the dock
Oh, yeah, it's that simple.

>>34681672
Hide them on a trash barge (china has a lot of trash) just have them slip out when it passes the navel yard and send her away

>>34681636

Because China will destroy White House in retaliation

File: 2-astute-class.jpg (130KB, 600x416px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 600x416px

>>34681636

The Astute is probably the only sub that could get close to it undetected, But I guess the Brits don't want a war with China

>>34681636
Why sink it instead of letting it take care of any pirates or militants in south china sea or surrounding region and save money from playing world police in the region?

>>34681636
because

>ramp
>32 jet complement

All these meme carriers (looking at you too britcucks) dont matter in the grand scheme of things theyre just boys toys for nationlets who aren't in the real league

It would only be worthwhile if you could frame the DPRK

File: 4356326.jpg (32KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 323x323px

>>34681724

>>34681865
The amount doesn't matter because the J-11 is bigger and better than any naval plane.

>>34681742
Why not bribe pirates to sink it?

File: fishing_boat_02.jpg (726KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 2048x1365px

>>34681724
>a fucking conehead ship
>sneaking up on anything
You can see that thing from miles away, it looks fucking ridiculous.

If you want a REAL stealth ship, you make it look like this.

>>34681865
>32 jet
No, 32 aircraft. They only carry 20-24 jets on them. The rest are helicopters.

>>34681636
>>34681652
honestly its a good idea. who cares about hiding it, theyll never start a nuclear war

During wartime, yes, it'll be sunk by torpedoes, and within the first moments of any conflict.

Most of China's major combatants will be sunk in short order by SSNs.

China will get some of their own hits in on escorts, but it'll pale in comparison.

>>34681636
why isn't cruise torpedo a real thing ?
a slow moving torpedo launched from 200+ nmi away

>>34682779
Mostly by the time the torpedo arrives the target is long gone.

Remember that most torpedoes run at 50 knots.

They would just build another one in 16 months.

>>34682779
Technically, they did exist. However, they're not ideal unless you put a nuclear depth charge on them.

>>34682121

I think he was talking about the Astute,

Ironically the boat that you missed in the picture

>>34681636
>>34682204
What a bunch of peace-loving people you are.

Go to bed Bannon, nobody likes you.

>>34681636
I have better idea, why not just nuked Washington to dust and frame it to China? In that way Americunts can finally have WW3/Fallout 5 they want so much.

File: status-6-1.jpg (75KB, 900x534px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 900x534px

>>34682779
>He doesn't know

They're really only useful against stationary targets, and that's with a nuke as the warhead.

What would make more sense would be a "SubRoc 2.0" of sorts that combines a rocket booster for launch from the sub to the atmosphere with a supersonic cruising mid-stage that drops an ADCAP for terminal-phase evasion of CIWS defences.

Even then, such a weapon would be a monster the size of a Granít that you'd need to completely redesign your attack subs around.

>>34681688
Sure thing chang

>>34682901
Severely underrated post

>>34681684
Moves too fast and doesn't get close enough to the trash barges.

i would send a seal team with one of those mini subs into its harbor. stick mines under the hull. about where the fuel and engine are. blow them charges once she is going out to sea. some place where she will go completely underwater and make salvage a proper pain in the ass, and still be a navigation hazard for that port.

>>34682973
>status 6 meme

Love it. My favorite part is the nonsense of people thinking it could cause a tidal wave through the power of nukes being magic.

>>34684686
If it was detonated close to shore it would create a large single wave that would undoubtedly do damage to coastal areas.

So wait, now I'm confused China.

Are carriers obsolete sitting ducks that will surely be destroyed at the onset of a conflict? Or are they heavily protected and practically invincible? Where are the shills when you need them

>>34685993
Both statements are correct

>>34685993
These things are not mutually exclusive for the most part.

They are sitting ducks in an open conflict.
They are untouchable dick-waving platforms to disperse your ideology from when not fighting a first world nation.

China doesn't want to fight USA. They profit from the US tremendously and Chinese are merely the Jews of East Asia. Nothing gets between them and shekels.

However, bringing democracy to some poor shitholes like Laos and other garbage on their borders that hog resources Chinese could make much better use of?
Now these people are whom they make their army for.

>>34685993
Think of Aircraft Carriers the way you think of artillery. Really good offensive power but also shitty defense.

File: F-35C-Planform.jpg (632KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1024x731px

>>34682067
You rang?

>>34686338
Or they can just pay the locals, Laos and Cambodia is already their puppet.

>>34681684
Why not import a couple torpedoes of foreign manufacture and set up some Chinese dissidents to do it for us?