SinoDefence Forum

SampanViking

Never be afraid to fly a kite Finn, its the way people make progress. Although I think there is quite a bit of development needed to get to that from where we are today. It does however need to start from somewhere and here is where we are

The difference between the missiles notion and the Star Wars satellites, is that the missiles have a parallel with the building of HMS Dreadnought. The ship itself was revolutionary, but nothing about it was "new", what it did was incorporate the best of proven design into a highly refined package and by doing so blew the rest of the field away and changed things forever.

That's a fair point and follows the same territory as Jeffs comments. With regards the issue of timing, you can only view it in the timescale of the Procurement/Deployment Process. The question then is what are those tasked with beginning the next phase of their nations procurement, thinking about the nature of the security environment that they will face in the 2nd and 3rd Quarters of this century? I suspect that the level of effort being invested worldwide in missile technology, provides the answer for us already.

victtodd says
Not only has a Strike Carrier got to get into range to launch its aircraft, but those aircraft have to be able to achieve something after penetrating enemy airspace in order to make the exercise worthwhile. Over the course of this decade we are going to see the Russian and Chinese perfect their next generation fighters as discussed in other threads on this board. The difference though is that while aircraft like the F22 and F35 are about kicking doors open the Russian and Chinese models are far more about slamming it shut. They do not have to feature the full spec of the attacking models and of course will be designed to work as part of integrated air defences and be far cheaper/quicker to build.
The next part is based on my understanding of China's anti-hegemony policy "We will never seek to impose hegemony, we are opposed to hegemony" My reading is that over the next few decades China intends to crash production values for all of these types of system to make advanced SAM's ASBM and Next Generation Fighters affordable by even many developing nations. This not only attempts to create a near monopoly for them in the International Military Aviation Market, but also creates a global environment where Strike Carriers and even their most advanced Aircraft are deemed at too high a risk to be used. There comes a point where either disaster strikes or even the most die hard supporter has to question the wisdom of continuation of the platform.

Very clearly Carriers are not going to go away, but the days that Big Carrier groups can sale within Strike Range of a country and unleash its bombers with impunity are looking very short indeed.

Depends on the objective of the mission. If it is to dissuade an aggressive nation, then the ability to damage key defence infrastructure in this way could be highly effective. Likewise if you wanted to clear the path for an Amphibious Assault Group its a cheap and low risk option.

Will big nations use this system against each other? well would big nations want to use any system against each other. I could however have a big impact on proxies and the protection of Client States.


Thanks, which I am sure was a major factor in German High Commands decision making at the time and as real a factor (if not more so) now as then.

Other people have raised many excellent points and my apologies for not trying to answer them directly. I hope much of the territory has been covered with the answers that have been provided. If anyone things I have ducked anything significant, pleased raw my attention to it and I will give it my best shot.

__________________
For uncensored Chinese Politics and Current Affairs join us all at New Century China Forum -http://www.newcenturychina.org/forums

Finn McCool

Also, I want to note that I think that directed energy weapons will increase survivability of larger surface ships in coming years. When it comes down to physics, it's easier to aim a beam of particles at a missile than it is to hit it with another missile. It's just a matter of making the beam powerful enough.

__________________
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill

williamhou

How about making the beam powerful enough that it can burn and sink surface ships and other targets?

latenlazy

I'm just pointing out how the need for physical presence in some missions will continue to make the carrier group highly relevant. Even if your primary objective is to soften defenses for other purposes like amphibious assaults, having that physical presence acting as a mobile base is a very powerful asset.

marclees

You have opened Pandora's box by even suggesting that Carriers may soon be obsolete .

Any causal observer reading similar threads here may well be led to believe that US Naval Carriers are unsunkable ...LOL

But look at the reality , Even if US planners come to realize that the aircraft carrier battle groups (which are the mainstay of the US Navy and the main instrument of US power projection worldwide), have been rendered
vulnerable or obsolete by a changing naval landscape , can it ever be acknowledged ?


The US cannot simply change strategy or discard such a weapons
system. To change strategy or "retool" would mean wasting
hundreds of billions of dollars invested in those highly
sophisticated systems. The strong lobbying of influential defense
contractors making those systems would make change extremely
difficult.

For defense authorities to admit the strategic blunder constitutes
an almost insurmountable barrier to a change of strategy. And
finally, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs related to those
systems may be politically and economically unbearable for any
US administration to bear should the program for the aircraft
carrier battle groups be scrapped.

Because of these factors,America may be stuck with an obsolete system that is too expensive to maintain but will may not best serve US interest when
employed in a major conflict.

We'll well into the 21st century . Yet there are 19th Century mindset & relics hovering around ; and some of them sincerely believe that US Naval Carriers cannot be sunk.

The Chinese Admirals must be very happy ...

Lion

To sink another fleet. You can do it without carrier but to occupy a distant foreign land. You definitely need one or 2 to do the jobs.

I believe more or less carrier is only useful for taking on much weaker forces without strong aircover and navy forces.

But in a fair conventional warfare of both modern forces fighting each other. Sending a fleet of carrier trying to attack yout foes is sucide.

globedweller

We all talk about the carrier to project power, but the mayor problem will by the way we protect the GPS orbital sattelite's
Because most weapon system run on it.

bladerunner

NO Its the American Admirals that would be very happy if the Pro Carrier Element in the Chinese Navy had their way.

marclees

But the Chinese Pro Carrier elements did not get the toys they wanted ; instead China Navy embarked on a regime of submarines , Missiles , and Carrier Killers ASBM ....

So that means now there are 2 unhappy admirals , the American Admirals , and the Chinese Pro carrier admirals...

bladerunner

What about the Varyag and possibly two others over the next decade?

cloyce

One experience carrier + other two will not be too expensive for China.

SampanViking

There is; as previously stated, a big difference between Marine Aviation and the Carrier Strike Group. If you read the other Carrier threads, there are many instances of posters from both sides of the argument bemoaning that Varyag and the other Chinese Carriers will not be the size and complexity of the Nimitz Class Strike Carrier and only seem to follow the Russian doctrine.

Maybe now we know why.

__________________
For uncensored Chinese Politics and Current Affairs join us all at New Century China Forum -http://www.newcenturychina.org/forums

bladerunner

Very True

Infra_Man99

DARPA FALCON: Going Hypersonic: Flying FALCON for Defense. Basically, it is an air strike from the US to China within 2 hours.

FALCON technology (high altitude, hypersonic flight) can be used on drones or on manned flights: Darpa Plans Test for Hypersonic Weapon | Danger Room | Wired.com.


I still think carriers have their worthy advantages:

1. It functions as a moving base of operations.
2. Super fast airplanes operating on strategically located carriers can result in ridiculously fast air strikes.
3. It can carry a bunch of equipment and people inside its armored body and plentiful defense systems.
4. It is a moving target, although it is a lot more expensive to fix than ground airfields.

Roger604

^ Most of the hypersonic programs were terminated in the last budget. Even a rudimentary hypersonic vehicle is at least 10 years from operational service. This could explain why there is an increased interest in using ICBM or SLBM for global strike.