It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Navy's Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks!

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dingyibvs

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
If carriers are so vulnerable, why hasn't anyone attacked one yet?

One thing that may already have been noted, is that carriers don't go wandering around alone. Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, subs, and other systems are constantly on guard. So, you don't have a single ships stooging around, you have huge entity, covering hundreds of square miles of sea, moving across the ocean. Good luck messing with them, they do that kind of thing for a living.


Because the U.S. hasn't been involved in a conflict with any nation with an advanced military that's serious enough to necessitate the destruction of a carrier. We've been living in an era of relative peace for the past 50 years or so.


Strange, I heard about this Cold War thing. And Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. But even if we haven't gotten into WWIII yet, you still have to explain how the CVs are sitting ducks.




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
If carriers are so vulnerable, why hasn't anyone attacked one yet?

One thing that may already have been noted, is that carriers don't go wandering around alone. Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, subs, and other systems are constantly on guard. So, you don't have a single ships stooging around, you have huge entity, covering hundreds of square miles of sea, moving across the ocean. Good luck messing with them, they do that kind of thing for a living.


Who have you fought in the last 60 years who has any type of Navy ? Umm no one. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
If there had been a Soviet-NATO conflict carriers wouldn't have lasted very long at all.
America uses carriers as a floating airfield, nothing more. A submarine can apporach them and sink them fairly easily this has been proven time and time again during friendly exercises where the US Navy is set up to win and yet they still can't find the friendly subs before they get into a kill position on a carrier.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Strange, I heard about this Cold War thing. And Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. But even if we haven't gotten into WWIII yet, you still have to explain how the CVs are sitting ducks.


I suggest you look up Cold War because you don't seem to understand the definition. funny you mention those 3 coutries considering America hasn't been able to beat them. Lucky they didn't have a decent Navy otherwise this carrier thread would be irrelevent as there would be no carriers left.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Well all I have to say is that I think its a load of male bovine excrement.

I served on a carrier and I felt pretty safe the whole time we were deployed. We had I think the most fire power floating that I had ever seen. With the multiple different aircraft that could perform tasks from anti-aircraft, anti-sub, radar and electronics jamming, long range engagement. I don't really think we were that much of a target.

Try and take one down. You think they design those things to sink really easy? Or what, that they launch every fighter/bomber and leave no CAP to protect the ship? Or that there wasn't a FastAttack sub in the battlegroup to cover our ass below sealevel?

Yeah I felt pretty unsafe.

Try to find a ship in the middle of the ocean on Google Earth.

I'm not saying we were unsinkable, just that we were and I'm sure still are, totally ready for anything save a nuke. Oh and I'm pretty sure we had Tacticals on board too, no WEPs guys would confirm or deny we had them, but we had them.

I read the OP and chuckled, smiled and shook my head.

Project power, that was and is the Carrier group's main purpose. When you have, what, 20? 30? F/18's, F14's fully loaded with ord. shootin off the deck on night Flight Ops, I would be more worried for the guys at the receiving end of those badboys then me down in the hole makin potwater and watchin LubeOil temps. Meh.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dingyibvs
I know the carriers have a lot of power available to them, but they're still huge targets cruising in the middle of the ocean. Technology has evolved to the point where missiles can hit other missiles, it's really not that far-fetched to think that a warhead, even if a ballistic one, can hit a carrier.


Carriers have always been large targets as the world war two experience proved to all of the nations that employed them. The fact that one could hardly do without them at the time didn't diminish the threat much more than it does today. IF the USN's role were strictly to keep the North Atlantic or global trade routes open it would in my opinion have made as much or more sense to go with the many dozens of heavy cruise missile carrying ships the USSR focused on in the later years but since it's role has always mostly consisted of the means required to terrorize and subjugate third world nations carriers continue to make perfect sense.


As for the U.S. war doctrines, the Chinese are not the Soviets. They're not interested in an actual war with the U.S.. They won't go on the offensive, and they really just don't have the capabilities to conduct offensive missions and hold the conquered territories far beyond their borders.


Perhaps not but since they have been allied with Russia since the late 70's they have never really lacked the means to drag Russia into a war of their own making. The fact that they have chosen not to perhaps proves your point or just that the Chinese have not truly aggressive intent beyond the dominance that can be derivived by economic means.


So they don't need to conquer the seas, they only need to strike the USN hard enough to convince the Americans that a conflict would be too costly.


That's not how the American public would react if a carrier task group got wiped out off the coast of China. I mean FDR had a very hard time dragging Americans into a war with Germany ( until Hitler stupidly declared war on the US) and got many American ships sunk and sailors killed without managing the active participation they so desperately wanted. Having said that sixty years of cold war propaganda have certainly had the effect that such a large attack could not be and would not be 'ignored'.


If a war should break out over Taiwan, you can bet that the Chinese will not quit. They've whipped up the nationalist frenzy already, and the government is expected to finish the job.


Nationalist frenzy? The Chinese? Isn't that what they said about Germans who eventually surrendered without all Germans committing suicide? Where does this idea come from that people 'will not quit' when they understand themselves to be the aggressors who could stop when things go badly wrong?


But can you say the same about the Americans? It's easy to convince the American public to fight Soviets invading western Europe, but will it be as easy to convince them to fight the Chinese invading Taiwan?


It isn't and wasn't easy to even convince Americans to liberate Europeans from Germany and the American public were never consulted when it came to 'resisting' the USSR, fighting the Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqi's or most others. What the American public wants does not feature in the initial war plans even if it's concerted actions can change the courses of wars.

It will be relatively easy to drag the American public into a war with China ( as it was with the USSR) and given the Chinese means to strategically retaliate it will probably be very hard for the American citizenry to extricate themselves from their governments global designs. At least with the current continuing American economic decline ( since the late 70's ) soft targets and limited wars is probably the only thing the American national security state aims for in 2009/10. Provided that the economic crisis does not deepen as much as i believe it will they might seriously look at Iran towards the end of the Obama term but China is more than the US can handle unless world war III happens to the solution they decide on to obscure their culpability ( who minds a global financial meltdown when a few dozen major American cities are destroyed by Chinese nuclear weapons) in destroying the the United States of American in so few decades.

What i will say for sure is that i don't believe the Chinese will be the one's to blame for a regional war with Taiwan or it's escalation.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springheel Jack
I served on a carrier and I felt pretty safe the whole time we were deployed. We had I think the most fire power floating that I had ever seen. With the multiple different aircraft that could perform tasks from anti-aircraft, anti-sub, radar and electronics jamming, long range engagement. I don't really think we were that much of a target.


Gee I wonder why, maybe because you weren't at war. Who is going to sink a carrier during peacetime



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
If carriers are so vulnerable, why hasn't anyone attacked one yet?

One thing that may already have been noted, is that carriers don't go wandering around alone. Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, subs, and other systems are constantly on guard. So, you don't have a single ships stooging around, you have huge entity, covering hundreds of square miles of sea, moving across the ocean. Good luck messing with them, they do that kind of thing for a living.


Who have you fought in the last 60 years who has any type of Navy ? Umm no one. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
If there had been a Soviet-NATO conflict carriers wouldn't have lasted very long at all.
America uses carriers as a floating airfield, nothing more. A submarine can apporach them and sink them fairly easily this has been proven time and time again during friendly exercises where the US Navy is set up to win and yet they still can't find the friendly subs before they get into a kill position on a carrier.


Ever hear of "threat analysis"? You look at capabilities, no intentions, and consider your defenses based on those capabilities. The USN is continuously evaluating threats and devising defenses.

This whole thread seems to be based on woefully lack of knowledge of naval tactics.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Ever hear of "threat analysis"? You look at capabilities, no intentions, and consider your defenses based on those capabilities. The USN is continuously evaluating threats and devising defenses.

This whole thread seems to be based on woefully lack of knowledge of naval tactics.


Ahem "devising" defenses which of course means they currently don't have them
and of course the opposition are devising ways to nullify your "devised" defences. Offensive weapons are proactive and defensive weapons are reactive, once you realize the difference - you might apreciate just how vulnerable American carriers are.
You haven't exactly proven you have a knowledge of naval tactics, so please don't try and insult others who disagree with you.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Ever hear of "threat analysis"? You look at capabilities, no intentions, and consider your defenses based on those capabilities. The USN is continuously evaluating threats and devising defenses.

This whole thread seems to be based on woefully lack of knowledge of naval tactics.


Ahem "devising" defenses which of course means they currently don't have them
and of course the opposition are devising ways to nullify your "devised" defences. Offensive weapons are proactive and defensive weapons are reactive, once you realize the difference - you might apreciate just how vulnerable American carriers are.
You haven't exactly proven you have a knowledge of naval tactics, so please don't try and insult others who disagree with you.


I'll let you insult yourself with your own posts, like the one above. You are assuming that the response/counter response cycle is about 5 minutes long, yes? In other words, you don't know anything about naval tactics, but you accuse me of the same thing.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I'll let you insult yourself with your own posts, like the one above. You are assuming that the response/counter response cycle is about 5 minutes long, yes? In other words, you don't know anything about naval tactics, but you accuse me of the same thing.


Thanks for backing me up, it takes the US Navy years to develop countermeasures and of course in those years a new more effective weapon has been developed. Just so happens right now the offensive carrier killer is the diesel or AIP sub, the US Navy has time and again shown they can't track them, even during exercises where everything is in the favor including the position of the attacking friendly sub. Can they track teh opfor sub ever then ? Hell NO.

Once again what do you know about Naval tactics ? Nothing you have posted shows you have any knowledge


Keep beating your chest if it makes you feel any better, but you have provided no evidence or any type of compelling argument as to why carriers aren't vulnerable.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 


Nice opinion, but you haven't backed it up. Diesel subs can be tracked, I know that for a fact. To prove it, I'll let you get on one and I'll have some friends hunt you.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by rogue1
 


Nice opinion, but you haven't backed it up. Diesel subs can be tracked, I know that for a fact. To prove it, I'll let you get on one and I'll have some friends hunt you.


Of course they can which is why the RAN Collins class subs from Australia easily managed to evade carrier defences during RIMPAC, several times even after the Americans were told exactly where they were and had ASW helicopters using active sonars to ping - guess what they still lost it


The USN had to rent a Swedish AIP sub to try and develop ways to track it, they were largely unsuccessful.

A Chinese sub surfaced within 10 miles of a carrier without the USN knowing it was even there.

Once again you provide no evidence just flippant remarks which have no substance. You seem to lack a certain amount of logic and respond with emotion only. Provide some evidence of what you say, an MA in History doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about Naval tactics than say the local janitor.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by rogue1]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


1)Carriers are offensive weapons in nature. Even when they're in a defensive position, they're in a forward defensive positions, so I agree with you here.

2)Their intents, which is world dominance, the same as just about any powerful nation, is aggressive, but they tend to like to accomplish it passively(i.e. not through warfare). One of the best known Sun Tzu's Art of War quotes is "If you know your enemy and you know yourself, then you will win 100 battles out of 100," and the Chinese government certainly isn't oblivious to the U.S. technological dominance in many areas, so they do not want to fight a war that they cannot win. That's why they're focusing on asymmetric weaponry and economic growth. Economics isn't a zero-sum game like power is--everybody can get rich and happy, but they only care about them being the richest, which may happen in as little as 25 years. So I believe that to the Chinese government, economy is a mean, not an end. Also, while you may well point out that there are many deficiencies in many Chinese systems, you should know that developing asymmetric weaponry is one of their keys to world dominance, it's something that should deter warfare while their economy catches up. So you shouldn't underestimate the Chinese' expertise in areas such as missiles, ASatW, etc.

3)But China hasn't been a cold war enemy since the late 70's, that's about 30 years now, and it wasn't one until '49 when the Communists took over. I'd say the most recent 30 years of thawing relationships and VASTLY strengthened economic ties trumps the earlier 30 years. Also, I don't believe the attack will be out of the blue, the Americans will receive plenty of warning(though obviously nothing specific such as timing and location, etc.). Keep in mind that they want to DETER warfare, at least right now, they're not preparing for a secret attack. So I believe that once the next ~7-10ish Beidou satellites are up in the next couple of years, we'll see the weapon tested and shown to the world. Thus, we should see if it'll work pretty soon. We'll likely still have debates about its ability to track, but we shouldn't have debates about whether it could hit a maneuvering target anymore.

4)The Germans surrendered when their armies were annihilated, it'll take a massive land invasion to do the same for China. The Chinese simply do not believe they would be the aggressors, the state media will make sure of that. The same can't be said about the U.S. public opinion.

5)You can drag the American public into a war, but the American public can drag you out of a war. The Chinese government won't back down for the sake of its own survival, they've whipped up the nationalistic sentiments so they have to leave up to it.

6)I'm not so sure they won't start it. Their current military strategy is to allow its economy time to grow, but once it's matured and the U.S. would hurt just as much economically from a war with China as China would, then the military strategy should also change with it.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by dingyibvs]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
First of all we have to consider, that aircraft carriers are basicly giant, floating nuclear reactors, packed with 80 or more aircraft alongside with all the weapons and fuel for that air wing. Which basicly means, they are "kind of" vunerable to any attack, since the combination is a nasty mix of several dangerous events waiting to happen, if the carrier gets hit even by one missile. So if you remember the Tom Clancy novels, you should know the most effective tactics against a CBG is a so-called Bear Swarm, where a squadron (or even better, several squadrons) of Tu-95 bombers would storm the battle group and launch several missile against them therefore creating a barrage of anti-ship supersonic rockets, which would be really hard to defend even with all the anti-missile systems. And even if just ONE missile came through, that would mean almost certain death for the carrier, since as we have established before, they are highly vunerable. And then of course the ex Sover Navy also had an ace up their sleeves with the Oscar Class cruise missile submarine, which was designed to the sole mission of hunting down U.S.Navy carriers. Not to mention that latest anti-ship technology is just getting better and better and carriers are the same as always - giant, floating targets, only this time giant floating targets with nuclear reactor onboard. In any case, the only reason why some of you think they are invincible is because they never really fought a real naval conflict and never really had a real naval battle, because if it really happened we would quickly realize how vunerable they really are.

[edit on 19/4/09 by Souljah]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dingyibvs
There certainly are a lot of questions about the missile due to a variety of new technologies required to make it functional.


There are few or no new technologies involved and in fact if there were China would be very unlikely to be first to deploy it ; it's just developments on cold war know how.


But then again, if it's so easy to make, many countries, especially the U.S. and Russia would have them.


Presuming that they feel the need? They are USELESS against carrier battle groups unless armed with nuclear weapons. Since both those countries have plenty of those and knows the risk of using ballistic weapons over small distances they logically opted for methods of attack that is more difficult to deal with.


The questions about CEP and the maneuverability in general of the missile IMO, are the most legitimate concerns. I don't think it'll be really hard to find and target a Nimitz if it's operating at an effective distance away from Chinese shores.


Much as i like the discussion your idle speculation about how 'easy' it would be to find US carrier battlegroups pretty much flies in the face of everything we know. This belief in overwhelmingly accurate battlefield knowledge is complete and utter nonsense propagated during conflicts with inferior and inxperienced forces.


You have to keep in mind that the Chinese are not stupid.


And yet we must presume that the Russians and Americans are? Why must i believe that the Aegis system isn't a perfectly good defense system against ballistic targets when such technologies were deployed by both the US and Russia in the early 60's? Why do you think they both went with cruise missile based naval strategies? Why build strategic bombers at all?


They realize that it'll take probably half a century if not longer to match the U.S. air and sea power, so they've concentrated their resources since decades ago to develop asymmetrical strike capabilities such as missiles, EW, ASatW, and to a lesser extent(in terms of asymmetrical), submarines.


The same can be claimed for any outmatched opponent. Fact is there is no easy 'assymetry' to be arranged when you wish to attack carrier sized targets in the open Ocean. I think you are confusing the assymetry of resistance fighters in Ireland/Iraq and Afghanistan with the means a national entity can or will employ provided that it has other options. First world nations does not fight with modern weapons because it's the most 'fun' but because it's the most efficient way to preserve your population numbers; assymetry is normally something you choose out of desperation and weakness.


So it's not impossible that the Chinese missiles could achieve a CEP similar to or even better than the best U.S. ones at around 10m.


There are no US strategic weapons that have CEP's of 10m. In fact without GPS ( which is easy to jam) it's a few hundred meters.


Also, while it's tough to imagine a warhead being highly maneuverable in ballistic mode, it really doesn't have to be. It will be coming in at the ship at Mach 10+, and from the time the warhead is released to the time it strikes the target, you only get at MOST 3-5 minutes of warning.


Nimitz class carriers steam along at quite a brisk pace and if provided with a 3 minute warning they can not only move 5 km's or more but almost reverse course. Obviously this does not mean very much in terms of a nuclear explosion but it will very likely defeat anything conventioanal without the employment of active defense.


The Nimitz, at 90,000 something tons, cannot possible move much, let alone maneuver in a different direction. The massive momentum changes required for a carrier to dodge a missile is difficult to achieve.


It isn't. Again this is no oil tanker and you should go investigate what sort of turns and acceleration aircraft carriers are capable of.


But then again, so is the massive momentum changes a warhead needs to perform to hit a carrier. The problem for carriers is that it's not gonna get any more maneuverable soon, but a missile/warhead may be upgraded constantly, and that's assuming this battle is a draw at this point.


Plenty of assumptions are being made without dealing with perhaps the most important; why didn't the Russians use their large missile cruisers as ballistic missile platforms and instead chose to deploy very, very large cruise missiles with 500 km ranges? Technology has progressed and these are coastal defenses but are they the best way to get the job done?

Stellar



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


1)New technology or upgraded old technology, it doesn't matter, it obviously involves a lot of development, and I wouldn't doubt that China would be the first to deploy it.

2)They're not useless if they work, that's the point of argument. Of course they would be useless if they don't.

3)Battlefield intelligence has certainly changed in the decades of relative peace following WWII, so it's certainly not out of question that a WWII relic like the carrier is easy to track. Other than nuclear power, there has been few significant innovations associated with the carrier.

4)The Russians and the Americans are certainly not stupid. The carrier, at least up until now, have suited their needs for naval offensive capabilities. An AShBM would be useless for an invasion of Hawaii or Sakhalin Island, but they can certainly be useful for a limited defensive conflict. Again, the Chinese have a different philosophy to suit its different needs. Also, have you noticed that the Russians have never built many carriers? Since the advent of advanced AShM's, carriers simply are not terribly effective in a war between advanced nations. They're useful against say Iraq or Georgia, but not against Russia, China, or the U.S.

5)Not sure, I thought there were some that are close to 10m.

6)Reverse course is a meaningless maneuver against just about any missile attack. Since missiles can hit other missiles these days, I don't know why you would state that simple maneuvers would make any conventional weapons useless vs. the carrier.

7)Why did the Russians opt for cruise missiles? Perhaps because it's easier? Why did they use propeller planes in WWII? Perhaps because they didn't have turbojets then? Are you assuming the Chinese cannot develop/deploy this weapon simply because the Americans and the Russians can't/haven't?

5)



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dingyibvs
Also, have you noticed that the Russians have never built many carriers? Since the advent of advanced AShM's, carriers simply are not terribly effective in a war between advanced nations. They're useful against say Iraq or Georgia, but not against Russia, China, or the U.S.


The Russians must not agree with you about carriers being obsolete, because according to military sources within the last few years, they're planning on building at least 6 full deck nuclear powered carriers. They're already started design work on them. The Russians have never had many, but they must still believe in them if they're planning on building new ones, and bringing them into service around 2020.

July 2008:


Sealed and decided: Russia will build aircraft carriers.

After years of debate the naval command and the national leadership seem to have agreed that the navy should have such ships. But this has not always been the case. To understand current thinking, it is necessary to take a look at the history of aircraft carrier building in Russia.

en.rian.ru...


The Russian Navy has announced ambitious plans to turn its navy once again into a force to be reckoned with. Key to Russia’s naval ambitions is the construction of 6 aircraft carrier battle groups, and major upgrades to its fleet of nuclear submarines.

Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky outlined the scale of the ambitious plan, telling reporters assembled in Moscow that:

“Everything should be included in the system, including aircraft carriers.”

According to the Moscow Times, he told reporters that the planned systems would be split between the Russian Navy’s Northern and Pacific Fleets (presumably 3 carrier groups per fleet), and would “operate in close interaction” with Russia’s military-satellite system as well as Air Force and air-defense assets.

Construction of the new Russian aircraft carriers is to begin in 2012, which would see the first carriers coming into operation somewhere around 2020.

www.siberianlight.net...


[edit on 4/20/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Having served on a carrier, I can honestly say that this is sheer malarkey.

When I first got stationed on the carrier, sure, I believed us to be sitting ducks, being a big target and everything. But it wasn't until after having gone through some real battle station situations that I had changed my mind.

1. We had Hornets up and out before final call to battle stations sounded. The Mirages that were flying at us were shot down well before they were in range.

2. I forget what they're called... the R2 looking things, the radar controlled Gatling guns... they went off during a SCUD attack.
That is perhaps one of the coolest sounds I have ever heard. Every incoming was eliminated... and yes, we had scuds shot at us.

3. The carrier is in a battle formation, meaning all those little ships that escort the carrier, well... their primary function during a wartime situation is to stay between us and the enemy. Think of the cowboys and the covered wagons.

4. Our hull was twice as thick as what is considered normal for a ship... plus, it was blistered for a torpedo counter measure.

All of this, ALL OF THIS, safe guarded perhaps the finest vessel during Desert Shield / Storm... the flagship of the Seventh Fleet, USS Midway.

I can only imagine what measures current carriers have, what future carriers are expected to have.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dingyibvs
1)We've got that cleared up now, we'll move on.


What do we have cleared up?


2)A F-18 rising out of the middle of the ocean is a sure sign that a carrier is there, no? That's the point of my argument.


Presuming that one can see them and presuming one knows how far they flew before rising sufficiently high to be seen; ai it may be useful but not as much as you seem to be suggesting.


3)I'm surprised you don't think OTH radars can pick up a bunch of F-18s and warships.


I have never read anything that suggest that OTH can pick up warships or for that matter F-18's.... If you could provide a source my mistake would be easily exposed.....


They do not need to be able to track the targets accurately, that's the job for satellites and UAVs, they just need to narrow the target location down from "millions of square miles."


So we know that the Chinese have satellites capable of this? We know that they have operable UAV's with this capability? Do we know if they have a command system sufficiently integrated to process and combine the data fast enough to make it tactically useful? Despite all their satellites, total air supremacy over Iraq and a relatively well integrated command system the US could not find or prevent scuds being fired in either of the gulf conflicts. In fact the US did not have updated terrain maps for Yugoslavia not so long ago? When did the Chinese become the intelligence and operational masters to beat?


4)USN's carriers are vulnerable to submarine attacks, that has been well-documented. You shouldn't assume that they're useless vs. carriers.


I have posted extensively on the subject ( probably more posts on just the US-USSR/RF naval balance than you have on all topics here) and if you care to check you will find that i am no advocate of US carrier groups in terms of their ASW capacities; there is a reason they ask Canadian, Dutch and other ASW ships to help out ever time some kind of shooting starts.


5)Aegis system is designed to counter massed missile attacks? They're designed to counter missile attacks, not massed missile attacks. How many missiles does each Aegis capable ship carry?


As other posters have outlined even a single Aegis ship should in theory ( if one believes it even partially lives up to design specs) be able to engage and shoot down perhaps a dozen or two dozen cruise missiles in a salvo. Since there are normally several Aegis ships in a Carrier battle group a few dozen air launched missiles with conventional warheads probably wont do the job. The reason why the USSR were so dangerous were not because it could launch massed missile strikes but because it had the capacity to keep doing so with it's literally hundreds of theater/strategic bombers and large naval groups. It wasn't that carrier battle groups were defenseless but simply that the Russians were more than capable of making it rain missiles to make up for however effective Aegis in fact proved to be. I just doubt that the Chinese could generate the same type of sustained cruise missile attacks that could simply or easily overwhelm carrier battle groups. The Chinese also lacks the long range naval/air forces to pursue damaged carrier battle groups


6)The Chinese has no capable blue-water navy fleet to speak of. Thus, they're incapable of launching a naval invasion of Hawaii, but that's not their aim either. They're focused on asymmetrical warfare, which is hardly restricted to naval warfare.


No one has suggested such a lunatic idea so far so why bring up the idea of a naval invasion of that specific American colony? The Chinese armed forces seems to be focusing on building up all the types of forces i would normally associate with fighting a typically modern war? Why would they need to fight 'assymetrically' with a force of approaching 700 F-15 class aircraft and as many F-16 class aircraft? Why operate two dozen destroyers, five dozen frigates and several hundred fast missile and gun boats? Why bother maintaining a army of nearly 2 million personal and systematically upgrading it if your going to fight 'assymetrically'? Why is the Chinese surface to air missile forces expanding so fast that i may overtake those of the Russian federation within a few years?

Why this emphasis of 'assymetry' as if it's something you can rely on?


Their ECM and ECCM capabilities are very advanced. That the U.S. system has been in use for decades longer is of little relevance, a system in use 3 decades ago is just an obsolete system.


And clearly the US have never adapted or expanded it's capabilities? Unless you can present me with a actual reason of how or why the US armed forces fell behind so far so fast i'm just not buying into it.


How long have the British had a navy? Is it stronger than the American Navy? The Chinese have constructed a large part of the communications infrastructure in GB, and would have constructed the backbone of the Australian one if not for security concerns.


Britain is a island nation that have always had the recourse of focusing it's expenditure on it's naval forces; not a luxury China or the vast majority of other nations have. I completely agree that , numbers , experience, technology independently may not show or prove superiority but when one navy has it all i can't but defend the idea that it's very likely to work as advertised.


7)I have my doubts over the capabilities of the ABM systems in place right now. They were pretty ineffective in the 90's vs. SCUD missiles, I doubt they were more advanced in the 60's


Whatever the flaws of the current systems it speaks to the implementation and design focus, not the basic technological feasibility. These technologies were mastered in the 60's and if Aegis fails today it doesn't prove anything more than the failure of the patriot system against cruise missiles does. Perhaps the US military industrial complex and the Pentagon should shift their focus to something other than generating profit and power for itself?


28-Aug-1970 First operational test intercepted a Minuteman RV at 100 mile range.
11- Jan -1971 First dual launch. One intercepted an RV while the other intercepted a fixed point in space.

Another capability that was envisioned for the Improved Spartan was a loiter capability. This involved shutting down the rocket motors and then re-igniting on ground command at a later time to allow a more accurate interception. Due to this loiter capability, the resulting increase in accuracy would allow a warhead yield reduction from 5MT down to 1MT.

The Spartan missile had one more, albeit brief, lease on life in the early 1980s as part of the Strategic Defence Initiative to provide it with an exo-atmosphere interceptor. One concept proposed involved using Homing Intercept Technology (HIT). This is basically an optically guided non-nuclear warhead. Due to its relative simplicity, a single Spartan could hold a number of them instead of the nuclear warhead. Such a design however, contravened SALT agreements and thus never got past a paper concept and HIT was relegated to smaller missiles which were more suited to carry one such warhead. Spartan, and its mission was overtaken by other missiles and concepts.

www.paineless.id.au...



In March 4, 1961, in the area of the A testing ground the V-1000 ABM with a fragmentation-high-explosive warhead successfully intercepted and destroyed at an altitude of 25 kilometers the R-12 BM launched from the State Central Testing Ground with a dummy warhead weighing 500 kilograms. The Dunai-2 radar of the A system detected the BM at a distance of 1,500 kilometers when it appeared over the radio horizon, then the M-40 central computer found parameters of the R-12 trajectory, and prepared target designation for precision homing radars and the launchers. The ABM was launched and its warhead was actuated by the signal from the command post. The warhead of the ABM consisted of 16,000 balls with a carbide-tungsten core, TNT filling, and a steel hull. The warhead had a fragments field shaped as a disk perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the ABM.

The flight tests of the missile, which could intercept targets at altitudes of up to 25 kilometers, started in 1958. The parallel approach to the target at a strictly counter course was chosen as the method of the ABM's homing. The V-1000 was delivered to the trajectory calculated according to the homing method along the regular curve, parameters of which were defined by the predicted target trajectory. P. Kirillov was the Chief Designer of the missile's automatic pilot. On March 26, 1961, the ABM destroyed the warhead of the R-5 BM with 500 kilograms of TNT. Overall, during the trial of the A system 11 launches of ABMs were performed which destroyed warheads of BMs, and experimental ABMs with heat seeking self-homing warhead, radio-controlled fuses, and optical fuses were also launched.

The launched target ballistic missiles were equipped with inflatable false targets Verba, unfolding false targets Kaktus, and Krot active jammers. Overall, the field tests of the A system showed a principle possibility of BM warheads interception. Experiments under the coded name Operation K were conducted (K1, K2, K3, K4, and K5) to check a possibility of the A system functioning under the influence of nuclear explosions at altitudes of 80 to 300 kilometers between 1961 and 1962 at the Sary-Shagan testing ground. The A system showed its capability to function even when a conventional enemy used nuclear weapons.

www.fas.org...


Continued



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

8)It's silly to think that cruise missiles will bring the Chinese military down. In fact, attacks on China proper will likely elicit missile attacks on America.


Cruise missiles didn't defeat the Iraqi's or the Serbs and they most certainly wont defeat the Chinese; declared stockpiles are at ridiculous low levels any ways. I am confident that China will not escalate to a nuclear war based on conventional only attacks. It makes far more sense to fight the conventional war they could never possible lose and reach a settlement as soon as the would be enemy exhausts itself. The disparity in nuclear weapons is such that everyone understands that the Chinese isn't going to use them first but have sufficient numbers to do serious damage to any nation that wishes to escalate a war to that level.


And the Americans will unlikely to launch nuclear attacks because they have enough missiles to counter-attack if those Chinese ICBMs carried nuclear warheads.


Indeed. The American's can not launch a limited strike against China because they are quickly developing their ABM defense and launching the numbers required to devastate China to allow a invasion will leave the US totally exposed to Russian strategic blackmail.

9)Launching a land attack will take time, but a carrier group can reach it faster. The Chinese does want to make sure that the U.S. won't intervene directly, which is the purpose of this AShBM

If it works and as i have described a nuclear explosion near one of it's carrier groups is unlikely to 'convince' the American public that the Chinese should be left alone. The Chinese will wait for the US to act first and in my opinion they will be more likely to absorb the damage inflicted by a limited intervention ( As Germany did when US escort ships supported British Atlantic convoys) than be the one's to escalate it so completely. In fact i don't think the US will get involved in a Chinese takeover of Taiwan however much they protest to the contrary. Either way the Chinese are not going to risk such overt hostility.


However, they certainly will make plans for an U.S. intervention, and the second step would likely be to make sure that the U.S. cannot intervene en masse(i.e. shipping large # of troops to Taiwan) until Taiwan was taken. According to Taiwan, the island can hold out for at most 2 weeks before collapsing, can the U.S. mobilize that many soldiers and ship them to Taiwan if carrier support was taken out?


No, i don't think there is anything practical the US can do to keep the Chinese out of Taiwan if they wanted to occupy it. Sure it will be bloody but the US simply lacks the infantry formations to even attempt staging a short term defense of Taiwan.


10)I'm sure guilty of playing too many RTS games
I thought it would be a fairly simple system, since all components would be the same boat, and being mass-produced without much/any armor, radar, defensive capabilities besides scattering would make it fairly cheap. They can probably be unmanned as well, since all they really need to do is to sail and link up. They'd essentially be little pieces of runway on water. But they don't even need to be that, since if you link say 8 of them together you can probably form a platform stable enough for STOVL planes.


I can see these sort of things happening when war becomes ever more automated but i think that is some ways off given how the imperialist of today rely on subversion down the command chain. Without people to command the whole criminal enterprise that is the military industrial complex will in my opinion come tumbling down.


Of course, that's just a thought. But my overriding concern for the carrier is that it's too large and expensive to be expendable, hence my proposal of an expendable platform


If you can not afford to lose a weapon system you should not be building it. Weapon systems, including human beings, are by the very nature of war designed and equipped to be expendable to varying degrees; you should , and they are ( which is why those 19 yo's don't have the best body armor available to the pentagon), be able to see that 19 yo with the automatic weapon and armor as a piece of ordnance for war planning to make any sense.

As for the carrier question they are perfectly good weapons when used as intended ( bombardment of third world nations) and could be quite efficient in even blue water conditions had the USN been able to respect and allocate the proper funds for it's ASW arm. As it stands it has a hard time finding sufficient ASW platforms for even the wars it has fought so far and relies quite heavily on it's NATO allies for ASW and mine warfare. Funnily, perhaps, the US have lost more ships to mines since world war two than to any other cause.


Sure we can design a weapons system just to protect it, but I think it makes more sense to explore other possibilities.


We can and should always explore alternatives and personal i think the days of manned aviation has been over for a while now. Perhaps it will take world war three for pilots to understand that their combat lifespans are also suddenly measured in tens of minutes as those of infantry have oft been shown to be. DEWS are at best just around the corner and at worse they have already been deployed in a strategic defense role; not the type of weapon that shows any respect for manned aviation.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join