Aircraft Carriers?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by mindseye

Yeah! And they should be able to take-off and land on small, rough airstrips.

Anybody else remember that Three Stooges movie involving the submarine with tank treads and a helicopter rotor?

No I don't, which is surprising considering how many hours I spent watching the Stooges in childhood.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Even against the most deadly (conventional) "realistic" foe out there, The assets the Carriers provide would be enough to wreck shop on the enemy airforce. The PLAAF itselfonly has 430 high-end modern aircraft, and that's if we toss in the Su-30 trainers and assume they'll be used in combat operations, and also assuming the J-10 production line has started. 5 American Carriers easily outnumber that (and we can bet mroe than 5 would be utilize in such an operation), not counting whatever the USAF can fly out of Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, or Japan.

You don't need just modern aircraft to do real damage, if even an older model gets through. This is of course ignoring the possibility of tactical nuclear use, and the dangers from older Chinese model susb the closer you actually get to China. While a Carrier would be invaluable to defending a fleet from Chinese air attack, carriers alone would not allow the US to project air power into China. That would have to come from land based aircraft. This is a moot point since the US could not realistically project land power into China unless it had friendly land bases. Marines would not cut it.

Again, our most likely enemy with a "big ole air force" can't even muster 500 modern airplanes...which speaks for a good reason to have large carriers that can carrier 80-odd jets, not a bad one.

EDIT: Whoops, that should be 430 modern aircraft, if we include the J-11's...my bad. But my point remains.

1. That is only today. New carriers would be out in 4 years. Given the rate of Chinese military modernization, by 2010 the number will be much higher, if only through purchasing. And again, even older models can do damage-do you honestly think the US could stop every single older model from getting through? That is simply not realistic.

Also, how many of those 80 aircraft are fighters? NOt all of them, for sure.

And of course, land bases don't sink. Carriers do, and enemy aircraft are not the only danger to ships. Enemy subs are actually a much bigger one, and again, the closer a carrier got to China, the worse the submarine threat would be.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Frigats can't move as fast as planes. When a sub is found you need to drop a torpedo right on its head. Bottom line, ships just are extremely vulnerable without aircover.

frigates have choppers that can drop torps on enemy subs. They don't use depth charges like the old days. The chopper is the one that gets the kill.

[Dis]

I really don't know how modern naval combat will play out. These things can be difficult to predict. No one could predict how ww2 naval combat played out in the pacific.

I do know Aircraft carriers have severe limitations. But yet, they are invaluable at conducting wars on small nations in isolated parts of the world. They have proven their worth in this regard.

But in a war with a major world power? I'm not so sure they would fare well. It's too bad we never got into ww3 with the USSR to find out. . I think most admirals would use them too conservatively for them to be any use. They would never want to risk losing one. The navy brass just isn't as aggressive as it was during WW2. WW2 was just amazing in terms of naval tactics.

[Patroklos]

Gepap,

With all due respect, you have the same misconceptions that young Air Force officers at joint commands have. Coupled with the fact that you have absolutely no operational experience it is understandable that you would come to such amateurish conclusions.

China's air assets are of little threat to the US in a non-surprise scenario. The simple fact is that should a conflict arise there would be a joint, theater wide offensive to not occupy, but control China's costal areas. This is not a Russia, where they have tank corps waiting to blitz across contiguous borders. If the flash point is Taiwan, we would have weeks to mount an offensive against China itself if one is necessary.

Five Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs, there is no such thing as a Battle Group any more) would bring over 400 aircraft into a battle space that is not only controlled in its totality by us, but whose strategic geometry is dictated by us. It almost doesn't matter if China has double its modern aircraft assets, do you think it is likely that China would be able to locate carriers over contested airspace searching over 10,000s of square miles of ocean?

But talking about carriers like they are some solitary weapon system to be taken on by them selves is pointless. Besides the aircraft they would bring 25 Aegis capable surface combatants with them. That is 25 256nm range phased arrays, each one more powerful than the largest and most capable of Chinas land based radars, let alone sea based. They would also bring with them over 1200 SAMs.

And then there are the 10 submarines.

But all these assessments are flawed. The CSGs and the weapons we are assuming will be carried on them are all tailored to sustained year round worldwide power PRESENCE missions. If we know we are going to China for the immediate dominance and destruction of their Air Force and Navy, and since this would be a major balls to the wall war, to think that 5 carriers and 25 surface combatants is a viable response is ridiculous. That was the response to Afghanistan. There is absolutely no reason to think we could not put at least 7 carriers and upwards of 75 missile shooters in theater in a few weeks. Definitely more than 20 submarines. Nor would we have to maintain these force ratios indefinitely. The air war would be over in days, China's surface navy would be gone in the same time frame.

I am not sure why you think China's ability to repulse a conventional invasion is of any relevance. Can you think of any good reason to ever attempt such a thing? Once its air force and navy is gone China can do absolutely nothing but absorb damage, which is what we want. I am not sure how long they would helplessly watch us destroy their infrastructure until they realize they are just hurting themselves, but they would give in eventually because they have no way to harm their first world enemies besides nuclear, and without an invasion it is doubtful they would resort to that.

Note that if not trying to invade there would never be a reason to approach to within shore missile battery range. Incidentally, that means far outside a diesel submarines operational range and away from where they have any advantage over our subs, the littorals.

Do we need to even get into what the USAF brings to the table?

As far as China's growing military might this is true, but people talk about this as if America and the West are in a standstill. China's latest fighters (as well as Sweden's, France's, Italy, etc.) are basically the equivalent to what we fielded in the 70s. China just launched its first phased array surface combatant last year. 25 years after the [I]Ticonderoga[I] made its début.

But far more damning is that China has no operational experience. Our Aegis ships are absolutely noting like the ones from 5 years ago let alone 25. The things we have learned about the arrays and the tricks to using them effectively are just as important as the physical equipment. This was made abundantly clear when we started selling the arrays but not the expertise to our allies.

And then there is the build. What is China going to do with 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, or 10 new aircraft? It would take them decades to reach parity, or even a critical mass where these solitary examples of advanced weaponry are nothing but cool explosion videoclips circulating the email inboxes of the world.

Meanwhile, we just fielded a new fighter 2 generations ahead of China's newest, a nuclear submarine 10 generations ahead of their newest, and we will field a destroyer in 4 years 3 generations ahead of their brand new class.

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

Back to carrier obsolesance, the "missile barge" idea was put through the process and rejected. Single mission capable platforms are simply loser ideas. The SSGN is the closest thing you will ever see to that concept put into action.

It would be stupid to think that guided munitions are somehow a universal solution to battlefield problems. How do you take out a moving tank corps with TLAMS? How do I conduct close air support?

[Harry Tuttle]

I say, that's a large can of whoopass.

Oh yeah, The U.S. would open up a can on China too.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Or if China is going to attack us.

Yes, you've argued many times in favour of elaborate weapons systems to counter the Chinese non-threat.

[Kuciwalker]

Whether China is actually a threat has nothing to do with my post.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We should build submarine carriers that are also battleships with really thick armor and ****ing HUGE railguns just because it would be completely awesome.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Whether China is actually a threat has nothing to do with my post.

Explain.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Endebting America to China, to pay for weapons to use against... China. The only way that strategy works is if you're actually going to attack China in the near future. Otherwise the economic burden will become intolerable.

The strategy also works if China is going to attack you.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Now you've done it Gepap...Hell have no fury like a SWO scorned.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The strategy also works if China is going to attack you.

Ohhh, wait, this is your semantic thing isn't it? Sorry, I mistook your objection for something sensible.

[Kuciwalker]

How is my argument semantic?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Now you've done it Gepap...Hell have no fury like a SWO scorned.

You think I actually read that? At best I skimmed it. Standard procedure with Patrokolos posts.