China rebuilt an old ukrainian ship into their first aircraft carrier. It is not a very good aircraft carrier, but anything is better than nothing. This is considered a rebellious act toward western civilizations. Now that China can move forces of air power around, something they couldnt do before, it may be considered rebellious.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/1/china-begins-to-build-its-own-aircraft-carrier/?page=all
that is not a good sign
if US national security were my responsibility, this would make me very paranoid
aircraft carriers and submarines are tools that are meant for non-nuclear trans-oceanic warfare
(you don't really need either of these for a nuclear attack, although they may also be used that way)
i mean, who else would they have in mind as a target ? Chile ? Brazil ? Canada ?
this is clearly aimed at us
our economy is in trouble, which makes us vulnerable
they ramp up with a tool like this - makes me very suspicious
Maybe they are coming to foreclose on us :naughty:
Quote from: anunitu on August 11, 2011, 05:12:23 PM
Maybe they are coming to foreclose on us :naughty:
Yep, that would be more likely anunitu.
you think we're unhappy now...
wait until all our tax dollars go to Beijing
Despite the fact that china is pursuing the use of aircraft carriers, they have ONE. It doesn't really post any threat, they will not get a nuclear powered until 2020.
The u.s have had a total of 67 aircraft carriers, great britain have had 40. I think that China is way behind, this is their first one and it wasn't even intended to be used as an aircraft carrier.
I think that this can be the result of the north vs south korean war incident and the military exercise with the use of aircraft carriers. I think that China needs to be more active there too with carriers.
No. They're bringing 50,000 more peasents to work on the private Chinese collectives being built in the state of idaho.
We need to send in a spy to check it out. :eek
Unfortunately, it'll be a suicide mission,...I'm pretty we don't have any chinese assembly programmers here at the MASM forum,...
The next superpower war if it ever happens will be nuclear (nookela if your from Texas) and aircraft carriers will not matter as they are redundant in modern warfare. A great big floating target that cannot be defended against anti-shipping missiles. Modern warfare currently is a mixture of space technology and submarine technology using the more recent very high speed surface to surface missiles. The US has them, Russia has them, China has them and a number of other places like Iran have them and anything on the surface is a sitting duck.
The only use for old junk like aircraft carriers is limited warfare against 2nd and 3rd world targets that don't have modern military hardware to defend themselves. Unless the Tea Party find a way to test out the "First Strike" capacity, I seriously doubt that there will be a superpower war any time soon as its clear there will be no winners. 60s era Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is our friend here. :bg
This kinda makes a lot of things redundant Hutch.
If they get it working,they can hit anywhere in under an hour.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1108/11htv2b/
Quote from above link.
"A hypersonic glider launched Thursday by the U.S. military was lost in flight, the second straight mishap crippling the Pentagon's desire to develop a strategic weapon to deliver conventional munitions anywhere in the world in less than an hour."
I bet all the politicians are regretting laughing at Regan and his Star Wars idea... What do they care really till something is too late... In this day and age they want to cut military spending.... a shame... I think I will start learning Chinese or whatever they speak in Iran.
i seem to recall bush trying to revive that program - or something similar
it failed miserably - a waste of a lot of money
hutch: Anti ship missiles have very limited range compared to inland attack missiles. All ships in a task force is protected by gat guns which can spray down most "normal" missiles. Its very fast and responsive, each ship have them. But normally they would use stealth bombers and tomahawk to take out any missile bases before they put in such expensive ships. There are u.s bases all over the world and they can fire at any target at any time, response time is down to minutes. Aircraft carriers IS a nuclear platform, it carries nuclear bombs (not missiles), so the next nuclear war will definitely be carrier based. (as well as missile based)
hutch, the most important thing about carriers is not so much about a next world war, the important use of them is that the larger your economy the greater need is to have them. China is getting a better economy and apparently they need them too.
anunitu: I read about that yesterday.
Hi,
China has territorial disputs with Taiwan, Japan, and Vietnam.
And economic and political differences with India. They are
the ones that should worry about a Chinese aircraft carrier.
The U.S. should worry about the massive number of missiles
China has if it wants to worry about an armed conflict at all.
Phtt,
Steve N.
zemtex,
Your technology is out of date, try 2500km range.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/18/AW_07_18_2011_p24-347899.xml
YouTube Iranian anti-shipping missile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehd0dmwCcUc
It gets worse,
http://www.metafilter.com/88559/The-Russian-antiship-missile-we-have-no-defense-against
For the last 30 years or so both the US and the Russians have had nuclear submarines that are armed with nuclear missiles that patrol each others borders, aircraft carriers are useless against this type of attack from either direction yet they are an easy target for any of the advanced anti-shipping missiles deployed by the various superpowers. Aircraft carriers may be useful to attack 2nd and 3rd world countries like Iraq or Afghanistan but are a free kick for any advanced military power.
Like battleships, aircraft carriers are a thing of the past, i would imagine that the Chinese rebuilding an old Soviet era carrier is more to do with a status symbol than any real military worth.
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" ?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
You may be interested to know subs can carry small nuclear torpedoes. Guaranteed to destroy anything for a few miles around under water.
Here's a concept that you guys haven't considered yet,...an aircraft carrier would be the perfect platform for launching a BioWar.
Quote from: baltoro on August 12, 2011, 10:20:49 PM
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
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
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.
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
(http://i.imgur.com/uWOtq.png)
You have to apply weight to both attacks. It is in fact the chinese missile attack that is obsolete, not the other way around.
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.
I think the Chinese will simply send two inforcers to break our kneecaps, and tell us to pay up.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 13, 2011, 12:27:03 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 13, 2011, 12:27:03 PM
...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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 13, 2011, 12:27:03 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 13, 2011, 12:27:03 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 13, 2011, 12:27:03 PM
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.
: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.
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
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
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.
QuoteThe 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
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.
Quote from: zemtex on August 13, 2011, 05:03:30 PM
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....
Quote from: oex on August 13, 2011, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: zemtex on August 13, 2011, 05:03:30 PM
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
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
Quote from: dedndave on August 13, 2011, 06:42:27 PM
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 14, 2011, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 14, 2011, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 14, 2011, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 14, 2011, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 14, 2011, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 14, 2011, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 14, 2011, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hutch-- on August 12, 2011, 02:42:47 PM
The Bismark was disabled by a Fairy Delta biplane with a torpedo
Fairy Swordfish.. commonly known as a 'String Bag' - This being the main reason why it was able to get so close to the Bismark and drop it's torpedo.
The AAA (anti-aircraft) shells designed to explode on metal contact, went right through most of the canvas covered aircraft without any effect (except for the solid pieces like the engine) To the AAA gunners on the Bismark the 'verdamdt' Stringbags kept on going. Most were eventually shot down, but only after lauching their torps, most of which were off target, except one - that was all that was needed.
:wink
:bg
Van, yes you are right, I know what the look like but forgot the correct name. I think the Delta was a 50s jet.
:naughty:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/GW,_GHW_and_Jeb_Bush_after_christening_carrier_vessel.jpg)
:cheekygreen:
I've learned the difference between asian war ethics and the western war ethics.
I never heard about holland persecuting or beheadeing a rebels who tried to attack them. If they are neutralized on ward they would be a prisoner. I saw the same thing on USA. Of course, things is different if you do that to japan, or vietnam. We all know it. But what Im affraid for is, racism which is I heard grow in england. This is not going to be good. I guess Im stuck on an "Alien Vs Predator" options. Who ever win, we lose.
If the chinesse occupy my country I bet they would be no differece than japan, calling us a big brother but treating us like a shit. I read it on my history book. But I never heard the holland or any other western country did it. At least, the christian one. I know, german is bad, and also russian, but are they xtian? No I guess.
Honestly, I dont want to take a risk chased by a country intelligence because what I said. But I guess I need to pick a side,.
(http://qausain.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/coin_toss.jpg)
Believe me or not, this coin a lot of times saved me.
....I pick USA.
Quote from: Farabi on August 21, 2011, 07:05:11 PM
Honestly, I dont want to take a risk chased by a country intelligence because what I said. But I guess I need to pick a side,.
Believe me or not, this coin a lot of times saved me.
....I pick USA.
You do not need to pick a side.... You need to realise that there is good and bad to every perspective....
Ask any man to define intelligence and he will fail, whatever his creed or colour, whatever his level of education, because the world is just too big for one human mind....
Perspectives are born of environment, situation, without which the *Human race* cannot reach it's full potential.... If everyone in the human race only coded in ASM *We would be BORG* :lol....
Yes there is a bad side to restricting information just as there is a bad side to having all information freely available and unmonitored....
You can please some people all of the time, you can please everyone some of the time but you cant please everyone all of the time....
Do not let it mess with your zen thing :wink
Thanks oex.
Nice advice.
oex,
> You can please some people all of the time, you can please everyone some of the time but you cant please everyone all of the time....
I like a man who paraphrases Abe Lincoln. :thumbu
Ha, chat with some people on the yahoo chat room.
Some said that USA is dictator. Well I dont really know about the problem from the World war and what causing it. What I know, if Im not involved on that war I will not beeing attacked. From time to time Indonesia is neutral, we are using the non block policy. I guess that is safe enough.
Honestly, I dont want to involve on any war. I need western technology, and I need chinas cheap electronic. Please be wise, I know that if war happened USA did not want any country feeding china with money, but I need their electronics. If my country unable to create our own gadget, I think we will keep trading with china. As far as I know the market share from gadget is not really big, so I hope if war is happened we can keep buy their electronics. Except you can think about another way. Samsung is enough for me, it is from korea, but the price still outreach by me. China cell phone is cheap, I can buy it each 2 weeks, and time to time the tech and quality is getting good. Also I know, there is blood and sweat from the chinese worker on that goods, we will respecting their sacrifice.
My personal opinion is. I dont want to involve on any war. I'll try to persuade everyone here to not involving my country to side to anyone, and we will keep welcoming anyone to come as long as they are peacefull. I think that what Im going to do.
My people is suffer enough, 50 years free from conquer, but we have not ever reach any wealth. War will only make thing worse. I think Im going to consentrate building my country. Or maybe create it as shelter. I dont know, Im not sure, it is up to the mass media to take the decision. I guess they are the one who hold my country right now.