Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on December 15, 2011, 02:26:11 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-satellite-gets-pic-chinese-carrier-180333261.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl2.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FAHxwUVH7ikKP8OmIx8q.pA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjAwMDtjcj0xO2N3PTMwMDA7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTEyNztxPTg1O3c9MTkw%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fap_webfeeds%2F6e0fd19e04924a1c010f6a70670068e3.jpg&hash=73b641307b29e033241ab93017f61570240355e2)
The former Soviet Union started building the carrier, which it called the Varyag, but never finished it. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it ended up in the hands of Ukraine, a former Soviet republic.
China bought the ship from Ukraine in 1998 and spent years refurbishing it. It had no engines, weaponry or navigation systems when China acquired it.
Sorry, but Chinese ships will always be junks on the Yantze River....
They are probably coated in lead paint, also. =D
-
It's one aircraft carrier, whereas we have 11.
And it's half the size of one of ours. And it's an old salvage ship with no Russian tech onboard, and the Chinese have to clobber together whatever they can steal from us or invent themselves that fits the ship's form factor.
Not worried.
-
There's most likely orbital rods of god with that boat on the favorite list
-
Interesting thought, though:
Would one of these smaller carriers make a good candidate for a drone carrier?
Keep your pilots belowdecks, launch more ordnance on smaller aircraft, and carry more aircraft. Also automate landings since pilot comfort/fear/survivability isn't an issue with a drone sea carrier landing.
Dogfighting would be a disadvantage, but if you can launch 5 times the number of drones as a US carrier, and each carries 4 anti-aircraft missiles, that disadvantage is mitigated by lower cost and higher numbers, along with a kamikaze-like pursuit of victory since no lives are at stake when aerial combat involves drones. It also then means that each US pilot would have to be able to shoot down 5 hostile drones, each sending anti-aircraft missiles at him.
-
Interesting thought, though:
Would one of these smaller carriers make a good candidate for a drone carrier?
Keep your pilots belowdecks, launch more ordnance on smaller aircraft, and carry more aircraft. Also automate landings since pilot comfort/fear/survivability isn't an issue with a drone sea carrier landing.
Dogfighting would be a disadvantage, but if you can launch 5 times the number of drones as a US carrier, and each carries 4 anti-aircraft missiles, that disadvantage is mitigated by lower cost and higher numbers, along with a kamikaze-like pursuit of victory since no lives are at stake when aerial combat involves drones. It also then means that each US pilot would have to be able to shoot down 5 hostile drones, each sending anti-aircraft missiles at him.
That's a rather scary scenario. Good thing the Chinese don't have access to any of our superior drone technology... oh, wait.
-
Owning a carrier and successfully operating a carrier are two different issues. Just because the US makes it look easy does not mean it is easy.
-
1. Varyag is a training carrier.
2. There are serious upper limits with how many aircraft you can operate off a carrier. They have to do with air traffic control, not with storage space.
3. Landing a drone plane on a carrier is very difficult and even the United States Navy has only done it in testing.
-
Owning a carrier and successfully operating a carrier are two different issues. Just because the US makes it look easy does not mean it is easy.
My father served in the U.S. Navy in a U.D.T. team during the Korean War, when the Navy was just beginning to use jets on their aircraft carriers. He told me once about sitting on the deck of a nearby destroyer and watching three Navy jets in a row go into the drink. =(
Every so often they still have a jet crash into the stern, or onto the deck, or some other disaster happens and there's an .... explosion.
Some of these are on the web, somewhere...
-
Problem: 1 Chicom "carrier".
Solution: 1 MK-48 ADCAP.
I'd be really surprised if we didn't have a boat in trail on that thing from the time it cleared the breakwater till it is doubled up back at it's pier.
-
Wasn't there a used brit carrier on ebay a while ago that would have been more seaworthy than that chunk of ex com block junk?
-
A Defense Department report to Congress this year said the carrier could become operationally available to the Chinese navy by the end of next year but without aircraft.
"From that point, it will take several additional years before the carrier has an operationally viable air group," Hull-Ryde said in an email.
No planes to fly from it, no pilots trained to fly from it, just another target without air cover.
And color me skeptical, but a civilian satellite just snapping pictures of the ocean happens to catch this thing underway, right.
bob
-
No planes to fly from it, no pilots trained to fly from it, just another target without air cover.
And color me skeptical, but a civilian satellite just snapping pictures of the ocean happens to catch this thing underway, right.
bob
LOL. Nice catch.
-
Interesting thought, though:
Would one of these smaller carriers make a good candidate for a drone carrier?
Keep your pilots belowdecks, launch more ordnance on smaller aircraft, and carry more aircraft. Also automate landings since pilot comfort/fear/survivability isn't an issue with a drone sea carrier landing.
Dogfighting would be a disadvantage, but if you can launch 5 times the number of drones as a US carrier, and each carries 4 anti-aircraft missiles, that disadvantage is mitigated by lower cost and higher numbers, along with a kamikaze-like pursuit of victory since no lives are at stake when aerial combat involves drones. It also then means that each US pilot would have to be able to shoot down 5 hostile drones, each sending anti-aircraft missiles at him.
But as we have found out in the past, just launching hoards of AA missiles doesn't necessarily get the job done. And it only works if you can see the other planes and have the freedom to fire at a decent distance. I wonder what sort of radar the Chinese would bring to the table if they tried to send this carrier out into the ocean.
-
No planes to fly from it, no pilots trained to fly from it, just another target without air cover.
And color me skeptical, but a civilian satellite just snapping pictures of the ocean happens to catch this thing underway, right.
bob
Plus, the small ramp-end carriers are made for STOL/VTOL fighters, like the Harrier, or YAK-whatever the Russians had almost no success with.
So even if you pull off a successful VTOL naval fighter, they tend to have shorter legs than catapult/wire captured fighters.
I'm aware the U.S. Marines operate the Harrier, and there's a VTOL version of the F-35 JSF, but that's a good compliment to their capabilities, which are presumed to take place in the wider arena of U.S. naval and air superiority.
If short legged VTOL's are all you've got. And lumpy-bumpy-frumpy copies of a mediocre-at-best Soviet design that killed a lot of pilots, you're just boned.
Like the UAV secrets in the other thread, it's not even so much the tech itself that's the "secret" it's all the logistics, operations, and supporting systems and organization that make it all work. And that isn't so much even a secret. It's a culture. Either you have it, or you don't.
-
Plus, the small ramp-end carriers are made for STOL/VTOL fighters, like the Harrier, or YAK-whatever the Russians had almost no success with.
So even if you pull off a successful VTOL naval fighter, they tend to have shorter legs than catapult/wire captured fighters.
I'm aware the U.S. Marines operate the Harrier, and there's a VTOL version of the F-35 JSF, but that's a good compliment to their capabilities, which are presumed to take place in the wider arena of U.S. naval and air superiority.
If short legged VTOL's are all you've got. And lumpy-bumpy-frumpy copies of a mediocre-at-best Soviet design that killed a lot of pilots, you're just boned.
Like the UAV secrets in the other thread, it's not even so much the tech itself that's the "secret" it's all the logistics, operations, and supporting systems and organization that make it all work. And that isn't so much even a secret. It's a culture. Either you have it, or you don't.
That carrier was designed to operate the navalized variant of the SU-27, not the forger. Since the Chinese already buy the 27, it is reasonable to assume they want to do the same.
-
Jebus. :-X
They do non STOL/VTOL off a ramp?
Granted, the planes and all the other junk on the straight half of the deck make a touch-n-go off any carrier hairy. But with that ramp just off to your right? I mean, if it works for them, great. Although that tells me the Soviets/Russians were just never serious about naval aviation and force projection.
Like that poster that shows all the carriers of the different countries. It's a real smack upside the head about our capabilites vs. everyone else's.
If it weren't the whole "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal" factor that nukes have, even during the Cold War we were sort of the world's only superpower.
-
But as we have found out in the past, just launching hoards of AA missiles doesn't necessarily get the job done. And it only works if you can see the other planes and have the freedom to fire at a decent distance. I wonder what sort of radar the Chinese would bring to the table if they tried to send this carrier out into the ocean.
Since this class of carrier was originally outfitted with a phased array radar, I'm guessing some sort of variant of the AN/SPY-1 Aegis that they stole from us.
That carrier was designed to operate the navalized variant of the SU-27, not the forger. Since the Chinese already buy the 27, it is reasonable to assume they want to do the same.
Yup, the Sukhoi Su-33 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-33) and now introducing the MiG-29K (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K) developed off the MiG-29M.
-
Jebus. :-X
They do non STOL/VTOL off a ramp?
Granted, the planes and all the other junk on the straight half of the deck make a touch-n-go off any carrier hairy. But with that ramp just off to your right? I mean, if it works for them, great. Although that tells me the Soviets/Russians were just never serious about naval aviation and force projection.
Like that poster that shows all the carriers of the different countries. It's a real smack upside the head about our capabilites vs. everyone else's.
If it weren't the whole "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal" factor that nukes have, even during the Cold War we were sort of the world's only superpower.
This one?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fmilitary%2Fworld%2Fcarriers-2010.gif&hash=ebb260e34b6aaa8fb9516da6638dd9a7e2da8a38)
(Obviously this is dated)
-
I used to drive that one on the bottom left! =D
-
They do non STOL/VTOL off a ramp?
Seems to work OK for them. I just wonder what kind of a payload, if any they can load up and still not dribble off of the pointy end when they run out of deck?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3AMB7ZFF3Q
And the SU-33.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj3o3gNgxg4&feature=related
And this just because it will make you pucker even if it is just a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mmcSF9AuL8
bob
-
Carriers make sense only when a big power is fighting a lesser power and "projecting power" unchallenged by major rivals, otherwise they are extremely vulnerable targets that would not last long in a serious dust-up. If the Chinese want to spend huge sums on carriers to make themselves feel first-rank I say go for it. Too bad, though, we are subsidizing them with our debt.
-
Since this class of carrier was originally outfitted with a phased array radar, I'm guessing some sort of variant of the AN/SPY-1 Aegis that they stole from us.
Gah! I come here to get away from working for a while and SPY still gets talked about. [barf]
-
Granted, the planes and all the other junk on the straight half of the deck make a touch-n-go off any carrier hairy. But with that ramp just off to your right? I mean, if it works for them, great. Although that tells me the Soviets/Russians were just never serious about naval aviation and force projection.
AFAIK, in Soviet doctrine the primary goal of aircraft carriers is not force projection, but helping to fend off a supposed US mass-landing.
-
It's a Navy Cross that's just waiting to happen.
-
Carriers make sense only when a big power is fighting a lesser power and "projecting power" unchallenged by major rivals, otherwise they are extremely vulnerable targets that would not last long in a serious dust-up. If the Chinese want to spend huge sums on carriers to make themselves feel first-rank I say go for it. Too bad, though, we are subsidizing them with our debt.
Naval tactics fail. Carrier Battle Groups are designed and trained to control large areas of ocean to keep sea lanes open. Apparently in the last "serious dust-up" there were some Bavarian dudes in little bitty sinking ships that caused trouble all out of proportion to their size.
The whole force projection thing is something they do because no one is actually trying to close sea lanes.
As to a carrier's vulnerability, they are both very tough ships and very hard to get ordinance to. Even the Soviets, who spent a lot of time and money to figure out how to, were unsure of their ability to sink more Carriers wholesale. The folks that talk about "big easy targets" tend to have been no closer to a navy ship then reading a Tom Clancy novel.
-
As to a carrier's vulnerability, they are both very tough ships and very hard to get ordinance to. Even the Soviets, who spent a lot of time and money to figure out how to, were unsure of their ability to sink more Carriers wholesale. The folks that talk about "big easy targets" tend to have been no closer to a navy ship then reading a Tom Clancy novel.
Not to mention, the battlegroup runs EW interference. Soviet naval bombers failed to get positive target locks on U.S. carriers.
Again: the second most advanced military power at the time failed to get target locks on American ships 300 meters long. American EW interference was that good.
Actual soviet strategy regarding American carrier battlegroups involved launching eight anti-ship missiles carrying 110-kiloton atomic warheads - not to destroy the U.S. carriers, which were expected to survive the strike, but merely to weaken the battlegroup and it's electronic-warfare output to the point that the carriers could be engaged with conventional guided munitions.
-
Electronic counter-measures are no doubt highly effective. But 100 per cent? And effective against, say, a small tactical nuclear warhead on an air-to-ship missile or ballistic missile? When were carriers tested against a major enemy power with modern weapons?
-
As to a carrier's vulnerability, they are both very tough ships and very hard to get ordinance to. Even the Soviets, who spent a lot of time and money to figure out how to, were unsure of their ability to sink more Carriers wholesale. The folks that talk about "big easy targets" tend to have been no closer to a navy ship then reading a Tom Clancy novel.
My view--I can't speak for Tom Clancy--is that there's been a geopolitical Gentleman's Agreement about what "ordnance" is kosher in terms of attacking carriers. The Russians, in an ultimate throw-down, could not take out U.S. carriers? I honestly find that hard to believe. This is a matter of accepting reprisal, not tactical impotence.
-
I always thought the key to carrier attacks were using anti-ship missiles to saturate the defenses. The Aegis cruisers and destroyers only have so many Standard missiles to shoot down the anti-ship missiles, and I had read that the sea-skimmer versions were pretty hard to hit.
-
This certainly.
-
Obviously, this group in uninformed as to the level of Chinese airplane technology.
Chinese Dive Bombers
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clipartguide.com%2F_thumbs%2F0511-1010-0700-3221.jpg&hash=9db79bd69525fdd92d8e7b263c0d01d95a833695)
Chinese Drone Launch
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clipartguide.com%2F_thumbs%2F0511-1002-2301-4521.jpg&hash=8c95aeeb56b10fcebeed9d146e4149a272455433)
Chinese Drone Pilots
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clipartguide.com%2F_thumbs%2F0511-0907-1419-5652.jpg&hash=e8102ea7351cb8606fa12e3acfd75a2fd2868e76)
Chinese SR-71 Knockoff
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clipartguide.com%2F_thumbs%2F0511-1007-2614-1330.jpg&hash=4b15ac75e9e0b0b15ce43d7975399c2d7129625e)
-
My view--I can't speak for Tom Clancy--is that there's been a geopolitical Gentleman's Agreement about what "ordnance" is kosher in terms of attacking carriers. The Russians, in an ultimate throw-down, could not take out U.S. carriers? I honestly find that hard to believe. This is a matter of accepting reprisal, not tactical impotence.
The Russians themselves believed that it would be a seriously difficult mission.
A carrier is a strategic asset, 100,000 tons of national will made manifest. Sure you could eventually kill one, but it would require a huge naval battle. It would require the planning skills, EW capability and air cover of a parity opponent to be able to pull it off with any reliability.
-
Naval tactics fail. Carrier Battle Groups are designed and trained to control large areas of ocean to keep sea lanes open. Apparently in the last "serious dust-up" there were some Bavarian dudes in little bitty sinking ships that caused trouble all out of proportion to their size.
The whole force projection thing is something they do because no one is actually trying to close sea lanes.
As to a carrier's vulnerability, they are both very tough ships and very hard to get ordinance to. Even the Soviets, who spent a lot of time and money to figure out how to, were unsure of their ability to sink more Carriers wholesale. The folks that talk about "big easy targets" tend to have been no closer to a navy ship then reading a Tom Clancy novel.
Our sub guys generally were able to "sink" the carrier in CVBG wargames - IIRC, though, other friendly unterseeboots had somewhat lesser levels of success in such things. Our CO did pass along over the 1MC every time we whacked the sub guys, though - and that was pretty frequent, too. For above the waves, unless you're talking about landing a MIRV warhead on one (not a huge amount that CAN be done about orbital/suborbital threats - though the Aegis guys might surprise you even there, they use Aegis for ABM work, don't they?), a CVBG can stop most surface/airborne threats short of defense saturation by large numbers of missiles. Not impossible, but very very difficult.
-
Our sub guys generally were able to "sink" the carrier in CVBG wargames - IIRC, though, other friendly unterseeboots had somewhat lesser levels of success in such things. Our CO did pass along over the 1MC every time we whacked the sub guys, though - and that was pretty frequent, too. For above the waves, unless you're talking about landing a MIRV warhead on one (not a huge amount that CAN be done about orbital/suborbital threats - though the Aegis guys might surprise you even there, they use Aegis for ABM work, don't they?), a CVBG can stop most surface/airborne threats short of defense saturation by large numbers of missiles. Not impossible, but very very difficult.
Indeed, our subs. And it's possible an Akula is quiet enough to sneak in, but I wouldn't bet the farm. And you'll still need a nuc tipped torp to come close to guaranteeing a fatal hit. A CVN is much tougher built then comparable civilian ships and is designed to take battle damage and remain fighting. Also, the sub that gets in range isn't going to get but 1 spread fired. Then they'll likely be running for their lives.
Anyone know how quiet the Chicom missile boat is? That should be their best bet for sneaking in.
-
The Russians, in an ultimate throw-down, could not take out U.S. carriers? I honestly find that hard to believe. This is a matter of accepting reprisal, not tactical impotence.
Look it up. Enough Soviet doctrine has been made public in the last 20 years. They weren't optimistic. They were going to try, mind you, but their planners didn't call it easy, or even probable. Like Micro said, they planned on nukes. It's the only real shot they had. The Red Navy knew they needed nukes to have a chance at success. Everyone else is just hoping to hit the lotto if they fire on a US Carrier.
-
I'd say our carriers are pretty safe as long as they stay out of range of the Chinese land-based short & med range ballistic missiles across the straights form Taiwan. Just too many of them SOBs. "Too many" as in "likely 10X more than our carrier group has anti-missile munitions." too many.
Then, there is the sort of attack that requires less tech and more brainpower. Asking questions like, "If we fight the Americans over <Taiwan, Japan, S Korea, whatever>, where would they deploy a carrier?" And then post weapon systems where they could range those locations.
-
and I had read that the sea-skimmer versions were pretty hard to hit.
There are certain ones that I hope are never fired at us.
-
Just to reiterate, the entire Soviet Navy, which no other navy now extant (other than ours of course) can even come close to emulating in size, capability, or force projection, operating with full cooperation from all their national level command and control assets and their land-based air and nuclear forces, weren't sure they could take out the two or three carriers (out of a dozen) we would willingly put in a position they could even reach with all those assets in a more-or-less conventional fight.
Long-term it'd be foolish to diminish the Chinese potential to become a more than momentary threat to shipping more than a few hundred miles off their national territory; but as it stands this carrier is just an artificial reef waiting to be emplaced.
-
IMO, the type of missiles that can be fired from outside the normal air patrol of a carrier are not cheap or small or easy to conceal. Enough of those to saturate defenses is something you would think they could see coming and wouldn't sail into. Or at least it would require sacrificing a great number of aircraft to bring them into range. And even then, are you taking out the carrier or escorts? I would think subsurface threats would have a better chance, but I don't know.
-
So why couldn't the Russkies have just lobbed a big long distance nuke missle in the general vicinity of a carrier fleet ???
Could have even launched from a boomer a couple thousand miles away.
I'm sure they had a plan ;)
-
I bet detonating a BIG bomb under a carrier would do the trick.
BIG = nuclear
Under = a thousand or more feet underneath.
Kind of like the Bermuda Triangle theory of how ships sink... if the water has less density than water typically has, ships lose buoyancy. Methane bubbles decomposing on the sea bed and floating up in large batches supposedly can cause this and is how people theorize all the ships disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.
Think of what a couple megaton nuke could do... superheat the water to plasma-steam that rises through the 1000+ feet of colder water above. As that steam emerges under the carrier group, the ship starts to "fall" in the "air" around it rather than floating in the water it was just in a few moments ago.
Not as glamorous as blowing a 1000 ft long ship into little pieces, but it puts it and its assets in the bottom of the drink and exploits a position from which it is rather difficult to defend.
Are there any submarinal Aegis-style defenses to shoot a nuclear submerged missile down? I doubt a conventional torpedo could do the job. I know Iran has submarinal missile systems that are difficult for our ships to interdict, and those are conventional-tipped and intended to physically strike the target rather than cause the phenomenon I described above.
-
So why couldn't the Russkies have just lobbed a big long distance nuke missle in the general vicinity of a carrier fleet ???
Could have even launched from a boomer a couple thousand miles away.
I'm sure they had a plan ;)
One, we'd see it coming, try to shoot it down, and try to get out of the way. Nukes are not as destructive as people think. As Boris says, might work, might not.
Two, big nukes are physically big. Few folks intend to use megaton yield nukes, because multiple several hundred Kt yield warheads are better under most circumstances.
-
Methane bubbles decomposing on the sea bed and floating up in large batches supposedly can cause this and is how people theorize all the ships disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.
Airplanes, too ??? =|
One, we'd see it coming, try to shoot it down, and try to get out of the way.
I thought the "star wars" ABM program was shot down...?
How fast does an ICBM go ... Mach 10 ++ ???
Don't think a carrier can move that fast ;)
Besides, you wouldn't have to sink the carrier - just disrupt things enough to mess up defenses so that other attacks could get through.
-
So why couldn't the Russkies have just lobbed a big long distance nuke missle in the general vicinity of a carrier fleet Huh?
CEP would become an issue.
-
I bet detonating a BIG bomb under a carrier would do the trick.
BIG = nuclear
Under = a thousand or more feet underneath.
Kind of like the Bermuda Triangle theory of how ships sink... if the water has less density than water typically has, ships lose buoyancy. Methane bubbles decomposing on the sea bed and floating up in large batches supposedly can cause this and is how people theorize all the ships disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.
Think of what a couple megaton nuke could do... superheat the water to plasma-steam that rises through the 1000+ feet of colder water above. As that steam emerges under the carrier group, the ship starts to "fall" in the "air" around it rather than floating in the water it was just in a few moments ago.
Not as glamorous as blowing a 1000 ft long ship into little pieces, but it puts it and its assets in the bottom of the drink and exploits a position from which it is rather difficult to defend.
Are there any submarinal Aegis-style defenses to shoot a nuclear submerged missile down? I doubt a conventional torpedo could do the job. I know Iran has submarinal missile systems that are difficult for our ships to interdict, and those are conventional-tipped and intended to physically strike the target rather than cause the phenomenon I described above.
That's actually how some torpedoes work. Instead of physically striking the ship they explode underneath breaking the keel.
-
Carriers are sea-going castles with plenty of knights. Funny how castles don't figure into modern war games very much any more...
I will just repeat my basic thought on this: in a bigtime military confrontation, with everything on the line, carriers, despite all their defensive and offensive capabilties, are going to be highly vulnerable targets.
-
This is a matter of accepting reprisal,
I think the term for that is M.A.D., Mutually Assured Destruction.
every time we whacked the sub guys, though - and that was pretty frequent,
We usually were running a noisemaker to make us sound like "the other guy" during those kind of ops. I remember one exercise we were in with US and NATO forces. We were running the noisemaker, dodging P3 sonar buoys and we didn't get "detected" till we were asked to broach the ship ;/ .
I had a picture taken from the periscope that took 2 frames in low power to get the fantail of the carrier we were working with, nobody ever knew we were there. Our CO had a copy framed and sent it to the CO of the carrier =D. We've also been known to get up close and personal with "the other guy".
That's actually how some torpedoes work. Instead of physically striking the ship they explode underneath breaking the keel.
I don't think anyone is using contact detonation torpedoes anymore. Torpedoes are also fairly long range weapons, 40K yds+
-
Carriers are sea-going castles with plenty of knights. Funny how castles don't figure into modern war games very much any more...
I will just repeat my basic thought on this: in a bigtime military confrontation, with everything on the line, carriers, despite all their defensive and offensive capabilties, are going to be highly vulnerable targets.
Giggles snort.
1. Carriers are not castles, or any other kind of static defensive position.
2. Modern war games do actually include "Castles", or rather defense of fixed positions. They don't have stone walls and catapults, but the concept is alive and well. Play some war games: 1-888-550-1769
3. Several people with actual strategic knowledge have pointed out that the professionals think you're overestimating the ease of sinking a CVN. If you choose to remain uneducated that's on you.
4. Until the Chicoms can realistically neutralize a US Carrier Strike Group AND have ASW assets capable of finding a Seawolf or Virginia class SSN, the only thing their Carrier is projecting is impotence and fuel bills.
-
Carriers are sea-going castles with plenty of knights. Funny how castles don't figure into modern war games very much any more...
Oh? What do you think a Fortified Area is, then?
-
Those things have a demonstrated capacity to destroy a small country's military infrastructure, but somehow Russia and china are going to float more power out into carrier range and fight them. Yeah right.
I would imagine that workplace accidents are a far higher risk to CVN crewmen than any foreign power.
-
Giggles snort.
1. Carriers are not castles, or any other kind of static defensive position.
2. Modern war games do actually include "Castles", or rather defense of fixed positions. They don't have stone walls and catapults, but the concept is alive and well. Play some war games: 1-888-550-1769
3. Several people with actual strategic knowledge have pointed out that the professionals think you're overestimating the ease of sinking a CVN. If you choose to remain uneducated that's on you.
4. Until the Chicoms can realistically neutralize a US Carrier Strike Group AND have ASW assets capable of finding a Seawolf or Virginia class SSN, the only thing their Carrier is projecting is impotence and fuel bills.
Strategic knowledge should be based on actual wartime experience, not computer-generated war game scenarios and hypotheticals. This "knowledge" is theory, nothing more. Yes, carriers are moving castles--at 30 knots--very astute of you to point that out, but it doesn't change the basic point. When the balloon goes up, you are free to hunker down on a carrier, but I won't be joining you there.
Underscore this: I didn't say it would be easy to sink a carrier, I said in a real war between major powers not holding back any carrier would be extremely vulnerable. I'll stick with that view.
-
Seriously, vulnerable to what? I would like to hear what you think is a realistic scenario for sinking one of those beasts
-
Actually, you don't have to sink it, just stop it. If a carrier can't make speed it becomes difficult to impossible to launch planes.
-
^ Or hole the deck? (My strategic knowledge comes from sitting on my couch and reading these things.)
-
Yes, carriers are moving castles--at 30 knots--very astute of you to point that out, but it doesn't change the basic point.
Which you completely missed. A CVN is not a defensive asset in any way, shape or form. It has nothing to do with a Castle, or any of the modern versions of one. A CVN exists to control vast areas of ocean and deny them to the enemy and/or quickly bring offensive assets to places outside the reach of the Army and Air Force's tactical assets prior to deployment. If you absolutely have to use a comparison, It's a first generation BOLO, not a keep.
In an all out, nuclear involved war, there's nowhere that's great to be but an armored, CBRN hardened, mobile and armed platform inside a ring of the worlds best AA/AM platforms and guarded from below by the worlds best fast attack SSN's is one of the better places.
You're just mistaken on this one.
PS: and they're way quicker than 30 kts.
-
I do know what the purpose of a carrier or carrier fleet is. I was not arguing that a carrier is meant to be a purely defensive modality; obviously it is anything but. But neither was a castle, it was a base, and so is a carrier, albeit a moving one.
You're right, in an all-out nuclear-involved war there's no good place to be--we agree on that much--but some places are more obvious targets than others. Certainly carriers or carrier groups will be prime in such a scenario.
I recognize you have more technical background in this area than I do, but maybe, just maybe, your superior knowledge of the technology and specifications are blinding you to the obvious.
-
Which you completely missed. A CVN is not a defensive asset in any way, shape or form. It has nothing to do with a Castle, or any of the modern versions of one. A CVN castle exists to control vast areas of ocean land and deny them to the enemy and/or quickly bring offensive assets to places outside the reach of the Army and Air Force's tactical assets prior to deployment. the greater mass of warriors dispersed in their feudal holdings If you absolutely have to use a comparison, It's a first generation BOLO, not a keep.
In an all out, nuclear involved war, there's nowhere that's great to be but an armored, CBRN hardened, mobile and armed platform inside a ring of the worlds best AA/AM platforms and guarded from below by the worlds best fast attack SSN's is one of the better places.
You're just mistaken on this one.
PS: and they're way quicker than 30 kts.
dogmush, I mostly agree with your point, but you are missing the obvious similarities. Castles were not mere defensive strongholds. When maneuver is limited to hoof & foot, forward emplacement of warriors is an offensive action.
I suspect William the Conqueror could give us a fine explanation of the use of castles as offensive weapons.
-
I thought the "star wars" ABM program was shot down...?
How fast does an ICBM go ... Mach 10 ++ ???
Don't think a carrier can move that fast ;)
Besides, you wouldn't have to sink the carrier - just disrupt things enough to mess up defenses so that other attacks could get through.
Flight time, even at high velocity of an ICBM, from interior of China or Russia to a random point in some random ocean is 15-45 minutes. It's going fast, but it's a friggin long distance. The Enterprise has a top speed of 38.7 mph, which I bet they'd beat when they saw inbound nuclear warheads en route. If the nuke was dead on, they could get 9.7 miles from impact in a worst case scenario, 29 towards best case scenario. Both distances are acceptably survivable in the open against a ≤350 kt warhead, let alone in an armored warship.
Unless they saturation nuke the entire area, the boats have the option of picking the direction in which they want to go. ICBMs are area effect weapons, optimized against fixed targets. They're accurate, but not cruise missile accurate. I don't know the level of course correction in flight, so maybe it is possible to retask the MIRVs onto the moving task force.
No one is saying it is not possible to successfully do so. Everyone is saying, it's possible but not easy. Both the US and Soviet experts, as well as those on APS, pretty much agreed on that point.
-
The other problem is that the enemy has to know where the CVN is, and the surrounding battlegroup to actually hit it. Even if it's a matter of, F-it, the balloon has gone up, it's full on WWIII lets launch ballistic nukes at it!
Perhaps this seems silly to say, but it's a big ocean. And unless sub, aircraft, or satellite has a position on the carrier group, and keeps it updated, even the biggest nukes, or a Hail-Mary spread of MIRV's could be nothing more to that CVN than some glow on the horizon. And presumably, the battle group will be scanning aggressively for aircraft and subs. Probably doing a few things that aren't done in peacetime, even in the most stringent of exercises.
And as to satellites, they don't turn on a dime, fuel is limited, and when one is diverted, it's something like another 90 minutes before it can fly over it's target again. At which point, the CVN could be as much as 45-55 miles "somewhere else" within a circle with a diameter of 90-110 miles. That may not be an insurmountable issue for an airstrike and anti-shipping missiles (not counting the battle group and air cover), but is likely to be a problem for an ICBM/IRBM.
And considering that an Aegis shot down a re-entering satellite as an exercise, granted one that was known to be re-entering, and planned months beforehand. I still have to wonder what our undeclared abilities are in regards to Space War, and God knows what else, when failing to use those no-such-assets is more costly than not using them.
ETA: Rev made the exact same point 1 minute ahead of me. :P
-
All the above skepticism is mostly warranted, but for a CVN to be of any use, it has to be within round-trip (& possible mid-air refuel) range of its attack planes of targets worth bombing(1). This is not a "boundless big ocean" problem, it is a "defined, known max distance from coast and/or target" problem.
Much more likely to get eyes on the CVN in a whole lot smaller area to maneuver. One thing I have learned doing computer-aided analysis is that a decent human brain can make a computationally impossible problem merely difficult and difficult problem relatively simple. I don't think we can count on the Chinese to be stupid on this issue.
Break out a map and ask a few questions, at first:
* What might we want to protect?
* What might we want to attack?
* What is the effective range of our aircraft+in air refueling+high dollar munitions?
* What is the effective range of our aircraft+no in air refueling+dumb munitions (after we ran out of high dollar munitions, but still have targets that need servicing)?
* Have we been able to get any of the military or commercial airfields (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Guam) back into operation after the Chinese turned them into rubble and then bounced the rubble with their short & mid-range ballistic missiles?
* Where is the nearest un-destroyed base at which a CVN can re-arm after tossing every last missile & bullet at Chinese targets?
This bounds the problem a whole lot. If the Air Force still allowed the Navy use of "medium" bombers, it would be a lot harder for the Chinese. On that note, the Air Force will be sucking hind teat and most of our strike aircraft useless after all the airfields are rubbled in allied countries.
(1) A CVN in the Atlantic Ocean is pretty much immune from any Chinese attack. It is also useless to us in a conflict with China.
-
Much more likely to get eyes on the CVN in a whole lot smaller area to maneuver. One thing I have learned doing computer-aided analysis is that a decent human brain can make a computationally impossible problem merely difficult and difficult problem relatively simple. I don't think we can count on the Chinese to be stupid on this issue.
If the PRC starts lobbing ICBMs, sadly, the CVNs are going to be pretty much an afterthought unless they can deliver ordinance to take out the launch sites. Which isn't likely. I always wondered the minimum range on most classes of ICBMs.
SLBMs, I'd wager even money on the AEGIS being able to handle.
-
If the PRC starts lobbing ICBMs, sadly, the CVNs are going to be pretty much an afterthought unless they can deliver ordinance to take out the launch sites. Which isn't likely. I always wondered the minimum range on most classes of ICBMs.
SLBMs, I'd wager even money on the AEGIS being able to handle.
I am not assuming nukes. From Iran, maybe. But, the Chi(sorta)coms are not religious zealots, who'll press the Big Red Button and holler "Marx is Great!"
Here is a terrific graphic as to the relative numbers of which type of missiles and their range. Clicking a missile type will show roughly how far out to sea it can reach. Educational and fun!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/chinese_missile_ranges
Much of China's missile power effectiveness would depend on how far away our carriers could operate away form mainland China. I think anything that tried to sail between China & Taiwan could expect to be toast on a stick.
-
I wonder what kind of sub launched, torpedo/horizontal, or vertical stealth cruise missiles we've got.
I bet the Chinese are wondering too. =D
Stuff even better than the AGM-129A, that we don't get to know about. Or the "Cormorant" concept, or the "Fasthawk" and other hypersonic stuff.
Total ballpark shot in the dark, but I figure that 50% of the stuff shown in Pop Sci, Pop Mech. Av & Space etc. actually does exist, and/or is actually more advanced than the speculation about it.
I am not assuming nukes. From Iran, maybe. But, the Chi(sorta)coms are not religious zealots, who'll press the Big Red Button and holler "Marx is Great!"
Here is a terrific graphic as to the relative numbers of which type of missiles and their range. Clicking a missile type will show roughly how far out to sea it can reach. Educational and fun!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/chinese_missile_ranges
Much of China's missile power effectiveness would depend on how far away our carriers could operate away form mainland China. I think anything that tried to sail between China & Taiwan could expect to be toast on a stick.
I wonder if this is the "old data" before some higher end image analysis and ground penetrating radar data showed the Chinese nuclear tunnel system being several times larger than previous public estimates.
Which means the ICBM "blue" category in that chart might be a bit more than the 0-20 figure gives.
-
I am not assuming nukes. From Iran, maybe. But, the Chi(sorta)coms are not religious zealots, who'll press the Big Red Button and holler "Marx is Great!"
Here is a terrific graphic as to the relative numbers of which type of missiles and their range. Clicking a missile type will show roughly how far out to sea it can reach. Educational and fun!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/chinese_missile_ranges
Much of China's missile power effectiveness would depend on how far away our carriers could operate away form mainland China. I think anything that tried to sail between China & Taiwan could expect to be toast on a stick.
What's the accuracy/CEP of these?
-
What's the accuracy/CEP of these?
I dunno, but way better after the whole Loral/Clinton thing. :-X
-
What's the accuracy/CEP of these?
Some are terminally guided, others not so much. Cheaper, simpler SRBMs are intended to turn our bases in Taiwan & such into rubble with numbers.
Also not listed: cruise missiles and more usual anti-ship missiles, of which there are many.
-
What would be the effect on a carrier groups electronic defenses after a nuke air burst within say, 10 or 15 miles ?
Not to mention morale :O
-
I suspect both would be sucking on high.
-
Perhaps the best way to engage a US carrier task force is to attack it with diving T-bills. Recently I've seen articles indicating the US has finally started gaming financial situations in strategic war games. Good thinking particularly when a future bad guy has the US by the financial short and curlies.
-
If it comes to the point of a country lobbing nuclear missiles at our carriers, I would think that a whole bunch of other nuclear assets would be put into play that would make losing a carrier group the least of our concerns.
Thinking of what AJ Dual said, stuff like the hypersonic missile we just tested would make great delivery vehicles for taking out known launch sites maybe before the enemy could react. I think that would partly depend on how the conflict started and if US leaders had the will to do it.
-
if US leaders had the will to do it.
Aye, there's the rub!
-
Thinking of what AJ Dual said, stuff like the hypersonic missile we just tested would make great delivery vehicles for taking out known launch sites maybe before the enemy could react. I think that would partly depend on how the conflict started and if US leaders had the will to do it.
The best ABM weapon is a missile impacting the enemy's launch site before launch, or alternatively a special forces team landing near the site. A serious combatant in WW3 must have these teams and weapons to contend.
-
Perhaps they have it to eventually have a floating uprising extinguisher for their coastal areas.
-
If a carrier can't make speed it becomes difficult to impossible to launch planes.
Not really. Even way back in the early to mid 70's we were able to launch planes off the pointy end and recover them on the flat end while we were anchored. We did it a bit in the Med during the "fuel crisis" of the 70's.
bob
-
Perhaps they have it to eventually have a floating uprising extinguisher for their coastal areas.
If your uprisings require an aircraft carrier to extinguish, you're probably already screwed.
-
Not really. Even way back in the early to mid 70's we were able to launch planes off the pointy end and recover them on the flat end while we were anchored. We did it a bit in the Med during the "fuel crisis" of the 70's.
bob
True, however, the payload for take off and bring-back is severely limited if not underway--if one assumes the cat is good for 140-160 knots, a 20 knot wind down the deck (due to the speed of the carrier) is good for a 20+% increase in T/O weight, all else being equal, and 20% is the difference between minimal A/A ordnance on a super hornet and a "pound the crap out of something" load out
-
All is not quiet in teh Middle Kingdom:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8969702/Wukan-forces-Chinese-officials-to-release-three-villagers.html
When an authoritarian regime is forced to cough up folks it has snatched, things are looking a mite shaky.
-
All is not quiet in teh Middle Kingdom:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8969702/Wukan-forces-Chinese-officials-to-release-three-villagers.html
When an authoritarian regime is forced to cough up folks it has snatched, things are looking a mite shaky.
AND good for the people of China. Hopefully.
-
True, however, the payload for take off and bring-back is severely limited if not underway--
I agree, but one simple way around that is to load up on payload and not fuel. You launch as heavy as you can with minimal fuel and hit a tanker immediately after takeoff. As airframes have a max limit on take off weight, along with the ability of the cat to get you fast enough to stay in the air once it shoots you off of the pointy end you just choose the type of weight you want to go with, fuel or ordnance.
A logistical challange to get enough tankers in the area to fuel up a large package, but it could be done if it was deemed important enough.
bob
-
I agree, but one simple way around that is to load up on payload and not fuel. You launch as heavy as you can with minimal fuel and hit a tanker immediately after takeoff. As airframes have a max limit on take off weight, along with the ability of the cat to get you fast enough to stay in the air once it shoots you off of the pointy end you just choose the type of weight you want to go with, fuel or ordnance.
A logistical challange to get enough tankers in the area to fuel up a large package, but it could be done if it was deemed important enough.
bob
Kinda limits carrier tankers as well though (buddy store tanks...hey, with no more A-6, does that mean no more KA-6? Do we use 18's with buddy store tanks now?!).
I thought of that, but being dependent on USAF assets for navy projection does limit things--even if it gives you more wings in the battle and local ordnance--lately, fuel loads per mission substantially exceed payload load-outs
-
but being dependent on USAF assets for navy projection does limit things
That is what is happening these days. The Navy has become quite content with the AF providing land based refueling assets for their in flight refueling. With the demise of both the A6 and the S3 tankers about all that is left is an F18 with buddy stores and a hose reel package to provide in flight refueling in close to the boat.
And I have to agree, relying on the AF to put enough tankers in the air to fuel a strike package after launching with a much lower fuel load would limit things quite a bit.
Most of the times we launched from anchorage it was for limited planes doing limited missions, like recco over Cyprus in the early 70's when Greece and Turkey both wanted the island.
bob