China is rebelling

[hutch--]

 :bg

Now come on, you are playing with semantics here, a Battleship is a well defined object yet the last ones made by the US were done during WW2 and they never saw action as their primary purpose, the war in the Pacific was won by aircrafts from carriers. The largest most powerful Battleship ever built was the Japanese Yamato and it was sunk by about 250 US carrier based aircrafts while on its last suicide mission.

> They are called cruisers/missile cruisers today.

No, what you are talking about here are cruisers and missile cruisers. A naval ship must do more than float to be a Battleship, look at the old Missouri to see one of the last series made by the US.

RE: The notion that any platform is a platform, an aircraft carrier that has been sunk is no longer a platform, its garbage on the sea bottom and that is the problem with anything that big and slow, no matter what you pack around it, it is an easy target for modern missiles and they are getting faster and have longer range.

Superpowers can routinely bash places like Tibet, Chechnya, Afghanistan and the like with more or less anything as they cannot fight back but try using this junk against a nuclear armed 1st world power, you are forgetting that they all have tactical nuclear weapons, stealth bombers with massive range, nuclear armed and powered submarines that can defeat 1st strike mentalities.

You general theory about any "platform" is simply wrong, platforms are subject to destruction and while you may be able to theorise about taking out missiles, they are far cheaper and are deployed over a far wider range than an aircraft carrier. I will make the same point, no-one has any reason to worry about China refitting an old Russian carrier, even if it gets up to date its will still be useless, the US have missile capacity that could take it out, just like the Chinese and Russians can do the same.

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

They don't have to but they can sink them and there is no defense against them.

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

No, they have been a premium platform for most of my lifetime but there days are over, you will never see Battleships with 16 inch guns bashing it out like early ww2 when the Bismark sank the Hood over the horizon and badly damaged the Prince Of Wales as well, those days are finished. Aircraft carriers have gone the same way, an easy target for far cheaper anti-shipping missiles. There only place left is as a decoration for a navy that wants to have one as a status symbol.

[dedndave]

i think, more than anything, they use carriers as a quick way to set up a central command post
and, of course, it gives them a temporary location from which to fly sorties
nonetheless, it does establish a presence and represents a show of force

while they may be vulnerable, it is also suicidal to go after one - lol
this doesn't seem to be a problem for some of our contemporary enemies

[anunitu]

The truth is that these days the Future of warfare is in space. If you have nukes hanging up in space just waiting for a target,there really isn't much of a defense. it dosen't even have to hit the ground,an airburst can and does cause more damage. And there are nutron bombs that do no physical damage,but kill all living things within an area. Nutron bombs create VERY high radioactive output. I think the ultra sonic ship they are working on has that objective in mind. Travling at Mach 9.6(offical number) it is going to fast to even shoot down.

Nutron bomb link.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/neutron-bomb.htm

[zemtex]

The topic about battleships is really irrelevant to the discussion. It's a shame you brought it up, now we have to discuss this too.

I am well aware of the definition of battleships, well aware of yamato, bismarck, denmark strait incident, the u.s bombing of yamato, suicide missions and everything that follows.

But MY point is that cruisers have more so replaced battleships than what aircraft carriers have, despite it is being said that aircraft carriers replaced battleships. Battleships and aircraft carriers have coexisted for a very long time, back then they didnt replace one another, they coexisted and supported each other. My opinion is that modern missile cruisers have more so replaced battleships than what aircraft carriers have done.

Back on topic:

You are right that a sunk aircraft carrier is a dead platform. There is nothing to argue here, every platform is vounerable, also land platforms. Just because there is rock beneath a platform on land doesn't mean it can be re-used again easily.

About nuclear armed submarines, I have not discussed them in this thread, my comment here about nuclear armed submarines is my first one now. And they do pose a serious threat, they don't even have to be at the border of the country they wish to launch at, nuclear armed submarines can shoot from inside their own borders and still hit the enemy.

Missiles are cheaper, but not cheap. Missiles are shoot-and-forget weapons, they cannot be redeployed again, aircraft carriers can redeploy aircrafts again, that is a different worth noticing. While it is really irrelevant to the topic we discussed initially, I'm just mentioning it because you mentioned it. Missiles are not effective if you plan to sit at home and target your enemies in a foreign country, moving targets all over the place, you would obviously need aircrafts present, attack helicopters and a carrier.

About the sunburst missile again, in the post before your last post you said, quote:
"unstoppable anti-shipping missiles have rendered aircraft carriers obsolete."

.........and in your last post you said, quote:
"They don't have to but they can sink them and there is no defense against them."

You obviously said in your post before that "antishipping missiles rendered carriers obsolete", I clearly gave arguments for the wide variety of use that carriers have and that no subburst missile, nor any other missile can replace them whatsoever. There is nothing more to discuss on that part.

The way I see it, aircraft carriers have always been vounerable, in world war 2 they were vounerable to uboat attacks, and it has been vounerable ever since, but they are still useful, thats why they are willing to spend so much tax money on it.

About what you said that china rebuilt an old russian carrier just for "fun", that is not entirely correct, china is planning several new carriers, nuclear powered carriers. So your statement does not necessaily hold ground here.

[dedndave]

The topic about battleships is really irrelevant to the discussion.
It's a shame you brought it up, now we have to discuss this too.

perhaps you have lost sight of the original post and subject   :bg
maybe i am missing something

[zemtex]

dedndave: I've seen these kind of debate many times before, they always end up discussing something that is beyond the topic. Wild statements, random guesses, random statements, crazy outbursts, bashing, throwing potatos, and finally down to godwins law.  :bg that is why I try very hard to stay on topic, as you can see. I happen to know a great deal about debate tactics. If you switch focus often enough you will eventually win a statement and cover up a bad one and so the entire discussion eventually turns out pointless, really just pointless.  :bdg

It is perfectly okay agreeing to disagree, but in my opinion, shall we have any progress there must be some form of consensus too. We can actually create consensus on this topic right now based upon the facts that we do hold. In my opinion, my facts hold true. hutch's facts are partially true while some of his claims are not true.

Then again, debates are not always about true or false, it may be just for fun.  :dazzled:

------------------------------

I want to summarize my points, just to avvoid confusion:

1: I strongly believe that sunburst missiles in no way can replace an aircraft carrier and the job a carrier performs.
2: I strongly believe that a sunburst missile does not render a carrier obsolete as the carrier can still perform worse damage than the missile will do.
3: I strongly believe that carriers will not be obsolete in the future, but they will be improved and become even more dangerous.
4: I strongly believe that carriers is a key strategy to controlling this world, right now in this moment it surely is.
5: I strongly believe that countries like russia and china DEVELOPED such dangerous missiles precicely because they recognize the carrier as NOT obsolete.
6: I strongly believe that carriers are cool looking things  :lol

hutch, I leave the judgement up to you. I will not object to it, but I will curse at you in my thoughts from time to time.

[oex]

dedndave: I've seen these kind of debate many times before, they always end up discussing something that is beyond the topic.

Ah I see the problem here.... You are making a forum post, creating a discussion, where in fact you want to try and make a statement!.... This requires a website!....

Discussions require looking at a bigger picture, discussing a wider subject matter and finding wider perspective....

A website has only one perspective, that of the author.... The subject matter on a website can indeed be controlled and biased by it's author....

[zemtex]

dedndave: I've seen these kind of debate many times before, they always end up discussing something that is beyond the topic.

Ah I see the problem here.... You are making a forum post, creating a discussion, where in fact you want to try and make a statement!.... This requires a website!....

Discussions require looking at a bigger picture, discussing a wider subject matter and finding wider perspective....

A website has only one perspective, that of the author.... The subject matter on a website can indeed be controlled and biased by it's author....

The outcome of that statement was to try to keep the topic on carriers not outdated battleships.  :U

[dedndave]

i'd say general naval deployment is within the scope of the topic - lol

anyways, i take 3 things from the article
1) China has realized that naval deployment is huge in non-nuclear warfare
2) that they lack these resources
3) they are doing something to change that

zemtex is probably right in that their immediate interest is in having a hand in local issues like Korea
but, it represents a beginning
their next logical step is nuclear-powered submarines
don't underestimate China
they can ramp up to speed pretty fast

[zemtex]

don't underestimate China
they can ramp up to speed pretty fast

According to what China have said to America about the economic situation that they should cut military spending before anything else. If this holds true in China too, then they will obviously not overheat the economy on the military.

My personal belief is that China wants to fill gaps, not only the military gap, but any gap. They want to have several feet to stand on, they are not quite exactly sure where they want to go, but having a few carriers in the future might give the startup boost to carry out an extensive military buildup if they deside to go that way.

India is getting a heck of a lot of carriers too, so this might be a step in the direction to try to close that gap too. Having a neighbour with 4-6 carriers in the future and you have none yourself is not a good thing.

Starting from ground-zero takes time, they simply want to fill gaps. If america is having difficulties in the future, they might just consider growing a larger military and choosing that direction. This new carrier that they have now is without doubt meant for north and south korea and the other countries in this backyard. They want to have options if they need them.

[hutch--]

I raised the battleship issue for one clear reason, technology goes out of date when the enemy can destroy it and with many technologies of the past, this has happened. Nostalgia keeps massive things like the Missouri alive until rust takes over and the same faded sense of superiority plays its part in the last 50 years of aircraft carriers but the world has changed. In early ww2 the Ark Royal was a state of the art aircraft carrier that extended the range of naval warfare to that of the aircrafts it could carry and more specifically the war in the Pacific was primarily over horizon aircraft warfare fought from carriers but both sides lost carriers to both aerial bombing and torpedo attack.

Fast forward to more recent times and the missile attack range is far greater than aircraft, generally far faster and far in advance of anti-missile technology. Its hard to overemphasise just how much damage a single hit from an anti-shipping missile can do with nuclear payloads in the 200 kiloton range. Forget damage, any aircraft carrier turns to vapour when hit with ordinance of that power. To put this in a context, if China built a dozen high tech aircraft carriers and deployed them over a wide enough distribution in the area of the Indian sub continent, India could simply sink the lot using current nuclear anti-shipping missiles.

Ditto to any other large power that has the capacity to deploy aircraft carriers. This is why nobody is seriously building them for 1st world superpower warfare. They will continue to have a life against low tech 2nd and 3rd world countries just like the Missouri was used in the Lebanon war in the 1980s to shell Syrian positions inland from the coast but as a 1st world item of warfare they are simply past it. Now its not like aircraft carriers are not without use, you could turn them into floating casinos, amusement parks for the kids, refit them as supply ships in peacetime.

Now regarding the Missouri, long long ago I saw it parked in Sydney Harbour but sad to say they did not have any public instections. It was so large it took up a bay across the harbour near the zoo. I even suffered a Steve Seagal movie for no other reason that it was shot on the Missouri as it was a stunning example of surviving ww2 firepower. Perhaps in the future the Enterprise will become a floating tourist attraction that people can look at. If you ever go to Vietnam, the kids play on old F4 fighters that are mounted in public parks.

Now as far as the US having anything to worry about with China refitting an old Russian carrier, forget it, it may be a threat to Vietnam or even Taiwan but if it was deployed against the US, its a 1 missile hit to oblivion.

[Gunner]

My 1 cent....  Battleships, frigates, cruisers, destroyers.... in my opinion are/will be outdated and are not needed... Carriers and especially Amphibious Assault Ships (This is how us Marines get around  :bg  I had the pleasure of being aboard the Wasp for a bit), won't for a while for one reason... CQB (Close Quater Combat).... a guy sitting thousands of miles away can direct a missle or a drone with increasing accuracy sure... but, going house to house and clearing each one takes a highly trained CQB professional... how do we get around?  Mainly with Amphibs, and carriers... Yes I am biased since I was Infantry, but Battleships cause collateral damages with their weapons...

As for "Nuclear" powered Chinese ships... that just means they can stay out at sea for longer periods without refueling (They just have to take on supplies)..  Nah, the US shouldn't worry about China building ships....

[zemtex]

hutch, ships have come and gone one after another for the last hundred years. But in the lifespan of the carrier, it has not gone yet, it has stayed so far. It is becoming a very old concept. While you can visit ark royal tourist attraction in gibraltar if you desire, but beware that the u.s and britain are working on new classes of aircraft carriers that will have a lifespan another 20-40 years into the future. You can do both, you can visit tourist attractions and you can also visit the new generation carriers.

You are right that carriers will not be the primary choice of weapon in a serious conflict between the one and only super power, the u.s and great powers like Russia and China, but carriers will be a very important weapon of choice. Carriers strike groups can be used as a disrupting element in a major conflict, as a fast and powerful response unit, also used to wage war for air superiority. Carriers can also be used for daisy chaining, which is a very cool concept. These are all things that are serious matters which cannot be dealt with ease. Let us just imagine if the u.s have 11 carrier strike groups nearby, each with double catapults and some 800 aircrafts ready to deliver whatever is necessary. Not to mention all the support vessels that follow these carriers, the quantity of missiles fired, there can be no doubt that this poses a serious secondary threat which cannot be dealt with easily. Some countries can't even match the number of aircrafts with that, which in itself is quite crazy.

The aircraft carrier have a wide variety of operation. I can repeat some of them:

1: Air superiority, take control of the air and force strange forces out of there, keep the air dominance
2: Patrolling, radar coverage and information warfare
3: Rescue operations
4: Bombing raids or air-to-air operations
5: Nuclear bombing
6. Amphibian operations
7. Protection of ground troops, fighting off other ground troops
8: Delivery of resources/goods
9: Anti air operation, the carrier can do that too, as well as its support vessels
10: Anti missile operation, aircrafts on the carrier can patrol areas and shoot down missiles, so can the carrier itself and its support vessels
11: Can operate as a fear factor object
... and the list goes on.

A sunburst missile can hardly do any of these operations, missiles have very limited capabilities. When launching a missile 2500 kilometres away trying to make sense in a conflict, it is like turning on mouse-trails in windows, when you move your mouse the trails will always be pointing in a position that is irrelevant. Doing warfare in such a way makes little sense. You need dynamics and accuracy.

[hutch--]

Same problem, old tech recycled, there will not be a 1st world air war, response time between the US and Russia is about 20 minutes, neither side could do anything useful in that time.

The technology does not exist to shoot down anti-shipping missiles, no-one has a defense against them. There will be no bombing raids or air to air operations in a 1st world nuclear war.

The so called advantages of aircraft carrier you are assuming are only useful in limited contextx like 2nd and 3rd world enemies.

> this poses a serious secondary threat which cannot be dealt with easily

No it isn't, sink the aircraft carrier and it all falls to pieces, thats why no-one is going to try and wage 1st world war with old cold war junk like carriers.

Nuclear powered and armed submarines are viable, space technology in weapons and surviellance is viable and the rest is old junk.

You could still use a ww2 B29 against many countries around the world and use much of the old cold war junk to flaunt it against 3rd world countries but this old junk will not cut it against a 1st world high tech enemy.

As before, even if China developed a fleet of current high tech aircraft carriers and deployed them to their maximum advantage, US space technology could easily locate them and US anti-shipping missiles could sink them. Same wirth any other superpower.

[zemtex]

Same problem, old tech recycled, there will not be a 1st world air war,

A new carrier design is not old tech, it is obviously new. Hence "new design". The hull of the new american carriers is very different and who knows what weapon systems they will mount on it. Now that anti missile systems is on the rise, who knows what could happen in the future. A carrier with anti missile capabilities would be a living nightmare. The point is, just because new generations carriers LOOK more or less the same as previous carriers does not mean it is old junk, it just means that they have taken big parts of the design to the new generations because it worked, so they reuse parts of it. There is no reason to take away what is working.

response time between the US and Russia is about 20 minutes, neither side could do anything useful in that time.

If a world war should begin, it is a given that one of the sides must start it, if the war is started by the one who posesses the carriers, there could be no such thing as a response time when and if the carriers is the unit that is engaged first. the damage is already underway and the air strike will be very hard to deal with. The amount of planes RUSSA is posessing (we're not discussing China anymore obviously) is very limited.

The technology does not exist to shoot down anti-shipping missiles, no-one has a defense against them. There will be no bombing raids or air to air operations in a 1st world nuclear war.

The carrier have technology to shoot down anti shipping missiles and it is designed for that purpose. It is not specially designed for that purpose, but that is part of the whole unit.

About the "There will be no bombing raids or air to air operations" see my second argument in this post. If the war is engaged by the country who posesses the carriers, a serious air superiority mission might already have been engaged. You are assuming that Russia/China have started it, which is a faulty assumption.

The so called advantages of aircraft carrier you are assuming are only useful in limited contextx like 2nd and 3rd world enemies.

The carrier has proven useful in a world war before, where they had nuclear weapons available at limited quantity, it is not a full worth test, but it has gone through that stage in a limited way. The test remains to see if it do well in a modern nuclear war, hopefully we will not see that. But to say that it will not be useful in a future war based upon your own understanding of the carrier is subject to scrutiny.

No it isn't, sink the aircraft carrier and it all falls to pieces, thats why no-one is going to try and wage 1st world war with old cold war junk like carriers.

Nuclear powered and armed submarines are viable, space technology in weapons and surviellance is viable and the rest is old junk.

Again, this boils down to my second argument.

You could still use a ww2 B29 against many countries around the world and use much of the old cold war junk to flaunt it against 3rd world countries but this old junk will not cut it against a 1st world high tech enemy.

You can not compare an outdated aircraft against a country that has no defense with a situation where a carrier with nuclear bombs, hyper modern aircrafts (which will be renewed shortly too), that is a bad comparison. An aircraft carrier strike group carries modern equipment, this is where your analysis fails. You can't really compare an outdated aircraft against a defenseless country against this.

As before, even if China developed a fleet of current high tech aircraft carriers and deployed them to their maximum advantage, US space technology could easily locate them and US anti-shipping missiles could sink them. Same wirth any other superpower.

Satellites are also targets under a conflict. I did not say carriers is a major choice of weapon, but it can be part of a bigger problem and it certainly carries and is guarded by devastating weapons, nuclear bombs, missiles, aircrafts, anti air weaponry etc.

EDIT: You know what hutch, i'm going to take a new twist here, it seems like you disagree for the most part, I will ask you, how far into the future do you see carriers disappearing from the world stage? My second question is, your whole strategy which seems to be entirely missile based, how far do you see missile lifespan into the future, now that we have anti missile systems on the rise and other high tech systems that is to fight missiles.

EDIT2: I am withdrawing from this thread, I've spent too much time here. Thanks for all opinions.