China is rebelling

[zemtex]

Some missiles are definitely hard to target and have very long range, the majority of anti ship missiles have too little range to even be considered a threat.

A major mistake in your analysis of "super missiles" vs carriers is that you don't consider the loss on both sides. The loss as a result from a carrier strike is devastating before it is potentially sunk. The loss on the other side will be devastating and the loss on the carrier-side will be much less, considering personell and material.

You seem to be in a world of thinking that IF the carrier is lost, "the war is partially won", but you are mistaken. There will be loss on the other side too and like I said you seem to have somehow "pushed" that fact down somewhere in the subconsciousness where it doesnt apply anymore. I don't know why or when you applied that philosophy, but the damage done by a carrier strike force will not be less due to it being vounerable to a missile attack.

From what you have said so far, here is my interpretation of what you are saying:

1: Missiles are advanced enough to make an unnoticed pass to a carrier strike group.
2: Therefore a conflict between a carrier strike group and china's missile payload will be won by china.

I can not make a sane conclusion from this considering what a terrible payload a carrier strike group has, I don't think many are aware of what kind of a terrible payload it carries. Deep beneath the strike force, several hundred metres are submarines following along and they also carry tomahawk missiles.

hutch, my question to you is what makes you think that this payload is "outdated" ?

[Gunner]

Actually take out our carriers, and you will have a much better a chance of winning a war with us.  Our fully stocked bases are here.... Over seas sure we have bases,  If there is a conflict somewhere, it's the carriers that are their first because we can strike from international waters, whereas we cant launch attacks from our overseas bases without permission from the host country

[hutch--]

For much the same reason as battleships are out of date. The Bismark was disabled by a Fairy Delta biplane with a torpedo, shortly after the Japanese effectively used air attack on battleships with the losses at Pearl Harbour and the English loss of the Prince Of Wales in Singapore.

Current sea based battle groups suffer the same problem, technology has changed and conbined submarine and missile technology will take out a surface battle group. One anti-shipping missile with a 200kt nuclear warhead and you can kiss your arse goodbye to the carrier. Foeget old tech like Phalanx machine guns, they don't get the targetting time to hit an incoming missile performing violent manouvers at mach 4.5 and higher.

The days of large concentrated groups are over, the action is in deployment, stealth and range. Hit a battle group in the guts with a couple of nukes and its finished and everyone knows it, thats why all of the superpowers are concentrating on faster, better and quieter submarines.

Even aircrafts are becoming obsolete, they serve only as ordinance platforms, whats the point of deploying 1000 fighters when they cannot touch an ICBM. 15 to 20 minutes was the response time between the US and the old Soviet in both directions. Aircrafts may be useful bombing civilians and terrorists armed with small arms but forget it with a 1st world superpower, they can shoot back with appropriate hardware that is fast enough.

The only areas of military growth is space based military hardware and detection couples with long range missiles and submarines to reduce the response time. The rest is old cold war junk.

[zemtex]

I see no good arguments for why a carrier strike group is outdated, this is at best a wild claim. In any way I can think of, a carrier group have the advantage. I refer to my previous post for some of the reasons.

When you say "outdated" are you talking about the ship design or the ship itself? Or are you talking about its payload?

[Astro]

If China wanted to hurt America, they'd do it via financial means. They know that war with the US will end only one way - nuclear - and neither country want that.

China may be renegade, but they're not stupid.

[MichaelW]

I would be surprised if the surveillance satellites cannot track submarines, and they are at least as vulnerable to a nuke as a surface ship.

[Astro]

You may be interested to know subs can carry small nuclear torpedoes. Guaranteed to destroy anything for a few miles around under water.

[baltoro]

Here's a concept that you guys haven't considered yet,...an aircraft carrier would be the perfect platform for launching a BioWar.

[Gunner]

Here's a concept that you guys haven't considered yet,...an aircraft carrier would be the perfect platform for launching a BioWar.

I disagree, a human is the perfect platform...  Infect someone with something then give them a plane ticket... Thats it

[zemtex]

Isn't everything a platform, how can a platform become outdated.  I think that it is what is stacked on that platform that matters, weapon payloads will change over time, they don't use the same equipment for 20 years, they change equipment. I would argue that a platform that is able to move have an advantage over non-moving platforms. Ofcourse there is a problem that it may sink, but land platforms can be destroyed too.

Land platforms can also have wheels attached to it so that it can move on land, that is a well worth distinction  :lol But since the earth surface is over 2/3 water a carrier platform is obviously more mobile. On land you cannot just roll your wheel-based platforms through foreign land just like that. Apparently while at sea you can move pretty much all over the planet, ultimately dominating more territory, controlling and influencing both foes and friends.

All wars will be settled by sea power. -Erich Raeder

[hutch--]

zemtex,

You have not read the technical data on anti-shipping missiles. ALL of the superpowers have anti-shipping missiles that cannot be defeated by defensive means, the technical data on the Iranian Sunburn missile should be enough and there are many others, US, Chinese, Russian, various European etc ....

Out of date means the enemy can sink the carrier with anti-shipping missiles and in some cases from thousands of miles away. The range is extended even further in that many aircrafts can carry anti-shipping missiles, I have seen photos of FA18 carrying Harpoon missiles so its not like the US is lagging behind here.

This leaves two areas that are competitive, space based platforms and surviellance and submarines, something that ALL of the superpowers already have in place. the rest is old cold war junk that may be useful for attacking a 2nd or 3rd world power like Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan. The Russians flattened Chechnya with conventional bombers but then the Chechnyan airforce simply did not exist, neither did their deterrent missile capacity.

More bad news for aircraft carriers.
http://i.gizmodo.com/5199587/new-chinese-missile-can-destroy-us-supercarrier-in-one-go

At least the US Navy know this problem.

Fortress at Sea? The Carrier Invulnerability Myth
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-01/fortress-sea-carrier-invulnerability-myth

There is a very good reason why the US Navy are building high tech submarines, they are still viable in a 1st world military context, carriers are past it.

[zemtex]

hutch.

A platform CAN'T be obsolete by definition, it is a platform, no matter how many types of weapons they will produce to take out ships with, a platform will never become obsolete.
Do you understand that? Do you understand that it is the payload presented on that platform that decides whether the platform becomes obsolete?

The payload on the carrier will continue to evolve as it have done in the past.

Now down to lesser relevant details:

About the harpoon missile launch, the carrier have radar and it can launch aircrafts against this type of attacks.

I think that the main problem you have is that when a new weapon is introduced with extreme range, it can probably target anything, that is not the case, it doesn't render anything obsolete. The platform may itself have weaponry that could defeat that.

I am going to explain this to you one more time, it is the counter weapons on the carrier that is relevant, how can a carrier become obsolete if they too have similar missiles or even missiles at all on board. The damage done is not only one way, it is mutual/two-way. How can you say that carriers are outdated because they can be hit, well sir, a carrier can hit you too and it can't be stopped, does that make china obsolete? What a chinese super missile can't do, it can't stop the carrier strike group from launching a devastating attack straight back at you. This attack will cause a much bigger "hole" in the ground than what the missile will do to a task force. So how can you say that carriers are obsolete when the damage done is greater by the carrier group.

Besides all of that, the carrier is very relevant as countries like india and china are pursuing carriers, why are countries all over the world pursuing, planning for future aircraft carriers if they are obsolete or "outdated". Shouldnt there have been a report on the table for the decision makers.

Forget this last point, just read my first words :)

I made a funny painting  :bg



You have to apply weight to both attacks. It is in fact the chinese missile attack that is obsolete, not the other way around.

[hutch--]

Fortunately the US navy don't see it that way, that is why I offered you the link. Any missile is an awful lot cheaper than an aircraft carrier. If your theory holds, why is the US not spending billions on new Battleships, not the old WW2 ones they may still have mothballed ?

The answer is simple, they were out of date before the end of WW2. Aircraft made them obsolete, just like unstoppable anti-shipping missiles have rendered aircraft carriers obsolete. YES a platform CAN be made obsolete by changing technology.

> a platform will never become obsolete

WW1 Airships. Battleships, sailing ships, triplanes, horse drawn chariots, Viking attack ships etc etc etc .... try winning a ground war with Saddam's old T3 Russian tanks.

A weapon platform becomes obsolete when the enemy can destroy it. This is why the US and other superpowers are building nuclear submarines, long range stealth bombers, space surviellance and weapon deployment etc etc .... Just remember that the Sunburn anti-shipping is something like 10 years in front of US defense technology and they have nothing to stop it, much the same problem for the Russians and Chinese, this is why neither are trying to match the US in ship counts, it no longer matters.

[anunitu]

I think the Chinese will simply send two inforcers to break our kneecaps, and tell us to pay up.

[zemtex]

Fortunately the US navy don't see it that way, that is why I offered you the link. Any missile is an awful lot cheaper than an aircraft carrier. If your theory holds, why is the US not spending billions on new Battleships, not the old WW2 ones they may still have mothballed ?

We still produce battleships, they don't use large shells anymore, it is replaced with missiles. They are called cruisers/missile cruisers today. The platform remains, the weaponry is changed. Ofcourse armor is also reduced but then again armor will always have variaties.

...just like unstoppable anti-shipping missiles have rendered aircraft carriers obsolete. YES a platform CAN be made obsolete by changing technology.

That depends how you define an aircraft carrier, if they change the types of airplanes they have on it and you want to call it something different than "aircraft carrier", do so by all means, but I will still call it an aircraft carrier. You obviously said that aircraft carriers were outdated.

WW1 Airships. Battleships, sailing ships, triplanes, horse drawn chariots, Viking attack ships etc etc etc .... try winning a ground war with Saddam's old T3 Russian tanks.

I think you misunderstood "platform". If you strip the aircraft carrier clean, it is merely an extension of land mass. It is basically land mass that is mobile, you can stack equipment on top of it. A platform can't become obsolete in that sense and it will not become less useful under any circumstances, not now not in the near future. Both mobile platforms and stationary land platforms are both targets in some way or another so it makes little sense to make a negative impression of a mobile platform, both can be hit, so there is no reason to neglect a mobile carrier platform.

A weapon platform becomes obsolete when the enemy can destroy it. This is why the US and other superpowers are building nuclear submarines

Chinese super missiles can also be destroyed. You see, the point of obsolete boils down to who can do most damage. An aircraft carrier have the advantage, it CAN do most damage and it WILL in any planned situation win the situation considering losses.

The u.s always wants to be invincible and untouchable that will be a goal of the future and that is a good goal, but in realistic terms, useful terms the carrier is by no means obsolete. By definition the carrier platform can't be obsolete, in practical terms it will do most damage, in mobile terms it can be present anywhere in the world.

Just remember that the Sunburn anti-shipping is something like 10 years in front of US defense technology and they have nothing to stop it, much the same problem for the Russians and Chinese, this is why neither are trying to match the US in ship counts, it no longer matters.

Aircraft carriers are very expensive to construct and very expensive to keep in service, maintenance. Most countries can't even afford to feed the amount of aircraft a carrier holds. A missile can not replace an aircraft carrier in any way, the response time, the precision, the ability to re-plan, correct and apply different strategies all from the same platform can not be replaced by a missile. Aircraft carriers have a wide variety of operations it performs, patrolling, rescue, bombing, air superiority, surveillance work (they have spy planes on it), nuclear bombing and even in wartime invasions when you need to protect the invasion force.

There is no way that a sunburst missile can replace an aircraft carrier.  :naughty:

ONE thing about sunburst missiles is that is that they are desperate attempts to survive, but they are not practical in any ways. The idea that a bubble of flame or mushroom explosion can solve problems all in one go is at best a james bond movie idea. We have seen thousands of such explosions by iraqi terrorists and they still havent won anything in Iraq so far. Explosions in itself is no solution, it is the ability to to dynamically stretch yourself that wins a war.

Not being diffcult with you hutch, I honestly think that you have underestimated carriers big time.