South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Ray]

Ken,

They are if you're going to use Carrier Battle Groups and surface warships though I'm unsure why you would do that in anything above mid intensity conflict (where they have their uses). In a high intensity fight, the Carrier and surface ships are big fat targets and an impediment until a lot of sanitizing in the objective area has occurred.

A nuclear submarine is noisier than a submarine working on batteries.

The pumps are noisy, then there is the steam noise, and the electric plant puts out a "hum".

This can be detected by any good sonar system. Even the quietest of nuclear submarine makes more noise than a conventional submarine.

And then there is 'environmental fatigue' and so to believe that a nuclear submarine can continue endlessly is not quite correct.

Supplies also have to be given enroute.

Bases just cannot be avoided.

US is refurbishing the submarine base at Guam.

CBGs may be good targets, but then they have their weapon systems that also protect them and are complementary

It's protection hinges on detecting, tracking, engaging and destroying threats before they pose a danger. .

Be it CBG or nuclear submarines, the danger is always there. Just because we cannot observe a submarine unlike a CBG, it does not mean that it is near invincible.

[Ken White]

A nuclear submarine is noisier than a submarine working on batteries...And then there is 'environmental fatigue' and so to believe that a nuclear submarine can continue endlessly is not quite correct.

Of course and I didn't write or even imply endlessly -- long enough with adequate supplies on board to do the job, though, is a capability. The number available is a factor and it is in our favor.

US is refurbishing the submarine base at Guam.

Yes, and that's a political commitment to reassure the Pacific Rim and a time distance saving effort. Both those factors are beneficial but not critical.

CBGs may be good targets... Just because we cannot observe a submarine unlike a CBG, it does not mean that it is near invincible.

Nothing is invincible; any system can be defeated. Most of us are well aware of that and the Nuke boats -- as India will discover -- have their own problems. Still, on balance, they are the inevitable future of sea warfare in major conflicts for the next forty years or so, barring an unseen or not openly known and revolutionary discovery.

The surface stuff is all necessary, certainly for less than total warfare but also for later stages of major conflicts and for operations outside the primary sea battlespace. Bases are also necessary, no question. Those things are not at issue; the issue is one of where things are located and when they are used. Thus it is not a question of needs and capabilities, simply one of employment.

All you say is correct, is well known to most including me and does not change my assessment -- or, I suspect, that of the US Navy. You and others who wish to make China a threat that it is not (to the US, not necessarily true for closer neighbors to the Middle Kingdom... ) may certainly do so.

Even if you are most likely wrong...