Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Engineer

Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

We already had that discussion in this forum years ago and nothing was proven at all. According to many members in this forum any thing the west has especially the US China has a magic bullet that can defeat it.
Isn't that the attitude many people take when they look at Chinese equipments as well? Anything China comes up with, US has a magic bullet to defeat that.
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Ha ha!! ^^ you are too smart engineer..too smart.

Too many Americans think of US military hardware as being the "be all that will end all". The fact is the rest of the World including China is catching up and is passing the US in many aspects of military hardware...Fact.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Ha ha!! ^^ you are too smart engineer..too smart.

Too many Americans think of US military hardware as being the "be all that will end all". The fact is the rest of the World including China is catching up and is passing the US in many aspects of military hardware...Fact.

Thank you Popeye, I think that simple acknowledgement is all that a lot of people have been waiting to hear (not from you particularly but from the US as a whole).

Do go back to the picture of the Carrier Deck mock up in the Gobi. I still maintain that it looks mobile to me and that it is metal (like a Carrier Deck), not concrete and that it rotates - hence creating the circle around the decks circumference. If you loom you can see that the deck has been peeled back (metal) rather than pulverised (concrete) and the debris pattern emanating from below the deck shows the characteristics of penetration and then explosion.
 

delft

Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper wrote:

"The ABL destroyed a target missile like a few months ago, it's operational, it's just that no one wants to buy it.

And if you shoot 6, we'll blow up 6, thing is multi-shot."

A system is only operational if it is inducted into a military organisation and ready for use, with trained crews, organized maintenance, command organisation &c.

If you are able to destroy the first missile, you will be to late to hit the others before their engines have completed their work.
 

delft

Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

IronsightSniper wrote:
"No, it's not the destruction itself, it's the killing of the crew. Most likely only 1000-3000 crewmen may die if sunk by a missile, and that's if Recovery efforts go fine. If Pakistan decides to nuke our asset we'll nuke Pakistan's assets. If they decide to blow up more assets, we'll blow up more assets. A nuke is answered by a nuke, they should know that, even if it's in self-defense.

An analogy would be shooting a kid with a shotgun because he punched you in the nuts. Overreaction will be treated with a larger one."

Remember this is an absurd example. But how can you speak of overreaction? If the Pakistani authorities were to think, that the USN attack might mean the destruction of Pakistan? Do you contend, that they are not allowed to defend themselves with weapons that are not illegal because the attacker is the USN?

Another way to ask the original question: What is the maximum number of crew the USN is prepared to loose in the destruction of a single ship and why is it buying ships with a larger crew?
 
Last edited:

IronsightSniper

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

So the PLAAF and PLANAF sits this scenario out? :rolleyes:

And you need to better separate reality from fantasy if you think any airborne laser can detonate a missile in 'barely a second'. There are clips on Youtube for crying out loud.

Remember, those clips aren't real time. The Airborne laser blows up a generic ballistic missile in 3-5 seconds depending on it's fuel.

Well, lets admit it, until the PLAAF/PLANAF gets anything in the realm of Stealthy in large numbers, they're paper tigers to anybody with a Stealth airforce, i.e., until you get J-20s, F-22s will walk right through you.

Reference for that silly "close-range interceptor with laser-pointer" strawman of yours? That is your strawman argument, not mine, so the burden of proof lies on you to show that a dazzler system can't work in any other way. Nice try.

Can we not metaphor? It hurts my head. :)


It doesn't matter where they are made from. Sunglasses don't reflect laser.

That's what they want you to believe. Type 99 drivers just have it better than the rest of us huh?


What a fitting description of your posts that you have made so far. You know, like how's there's not even a shred of proof that the ABL won't get shot down.

Not even a shred of proof of a DF-21D too.


Yet another strawman. No one here brings up the idea of them being the same except you. And I believe I have made no ambigiuity when pointing out that you are a loyal devotee to said religion. You clearly didn't get the hint to stop with your red herrings... or perhaps you simply have no intention to participate in any form of constructive discussion on this forum to begin with.

Perhaps we're two of the same, as these red herrings were to divert your red herrings, but it so seems that I have unleashed the beast in you.


You are clearly having difficulties, so I'm going to help you:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-- the true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact or reality; a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like; the state or character of being true; actuality or actual existence; an obvious or accepted fact.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-- something taken for granted; a supposition; the act of taking for granted or supposing; arrogance; presumption.

But you would agree that 187 F-22s v.s. 2 Prototypes, the F-22s win? Or is this not reality?


Lol, now even you acknowledge it is an assumption. I rest my case.

But hey, I'm still right :p


You sure are trolling hard.

A single F-22 isn't all that difficult to defeat. That F-22 being invincible is just a myth.

Well, if you're just going to be ignorant and assume anything I type are attempts at trolling than why are we still talking?

IronsightSniper wrote:

"The ABL destroyed a target missile like a few months ago, it's operational, it's just that no one wants to buy it.

And if you shoot 6, we'll blow up 6, thing is multi-shot."

A system is only operational if it is inducted into a military organisation and ready for use, with trained crews, organized maintenance, command organisation &c.

If you are able to destroy the first missile, you will be to late to hit the others before their engines have completed their work.

Again, the thing takes seconds to switch to another target. You'll have to shoot more missiles than we can blow up to counter it, unless you want to use all those costly alternatives from a page back.

Remember this is an absurd example. But how can you speak of overreaction? If the Pakistani authorities were to think, that the USN attack might mean the destruction of Pakistan? Do you contend, that they are not allowed to defend themselves with weapons that are not illegal because the attacker is the USN?

Another way to ask the original question: What is the maximum number of crew the USN is prepared to loose in the destruction of a single ship and why is it buying ships with a larger crew?

A single U.S.N. CBG is not a sign of doom, it is only if you're country is small and poor. Pakistan has enough conventional weapons to handle a CBG, they would consider nuking it a final option but they'd know full well that nuking one U.S. ship will equate to Lahore or some Industrial/Economically vital city getting nuked.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Gents..this discussion is excellent..however let us stop the US Vs Pakistan nuke war scenario.

bd popeye super moderator

Thank you Popeye, I think that simple acknowledgment is all that a lot of people have been waiting to hear (not from you particularly but from the US as a whole).

Thank you..

I must state this.. The US holds a tremendous advantage numerically over the rest of the World. That is the US greatest advantage. Particularly among Navies of this Earth.

Technologically wise the rest of the World is catching up. That's a fact.
 
Last edited:

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Gents..this discussion is excellent..however let us stop the US Vs Pakistan nuke war scenario.

bd popeye super moderator



Thank you..

I must state this.. The US holds a tremendous advantage numerically over the rest of the World. That is the US greatest advantage. Particularly among Navies of this Earth.

Technologically wise the rest of the World is catching up. That's a fact.


One thing is undeniablly certain:

Don't matter the "technology" or the "tactic" gap, sums up all the US naval fleet at one hand, and sums up the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD's naval fleet at the other hand, a non-nuke convitional battle at present time, US will win, even win with ease.

But that still don't give the US govt nor her citizens "An ease" when they simply have the ability to mess up the whole world. Someone's nuts still being cracked even the baby being gunned - at abovementioned scenario.

A gentle reminder to some netizens around, some attitude down there may not be deemed "bully around", but it is still "provokable enough" to sink an empire (and her citizens) even faster.
 

Engineer

Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Can we not metaphor? It hurts my head. :)
That's most unfortunate. It's very simple really, shooting a beam of laser just powerful enough to blind the pilots of the ABL and the ABL is essentially mission-killed. If you think this is so unreasonable, then you can't blame anyone except the US for throwing stones in a glass house in the first place (playing around with lasers). The other way to neutralize the ABL is simply sending fighters to blow it out of the sky. An ABL within range to hit targets inland of China is an ABL within range of China's air defense.

That's what they want you to believe. Type 99 drivers just have it better than the rest of us huh?
Huh? Sunglasses don't reflect laser, period. The only absolute protection against dazzler (laser for blinding) is for the pilots to wear sunglasses that block out 100% of the light, but that means they won't be able to see anything at all. Making sunglasses block less than 100%, and the pilots are still exposed to the risk of being blinded by a laser, because the laser output could always be larger than the atteunation provided by the sunglasses.

Not even a shred of proof of a DF-21D too.
Not so.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You don't seem to understand the concept of proof. Show me a credible document that says ABL won't get shot down.

Perhaps we're two of the same, as these red herrings were to divert your red herrings, but it so seems that I have unleashed the beast in you.
It so seems that you actually don't know what red herring means. Destroying your arguments by pointing out the stupidity of your assumptions is not red herring. In case you forgot, the assumptions in question are that China's air defense only consists soley of SAMs; that a strategic asset such as an ABL being placed on the very frontline; that PLAN air-defense is conviently non-existance. Other forum members have pointed out the exact same flaws in your arguments. On the other hand, side-stepping those issues and throwing silly one liners; that's red herring.

But you would agree that 187 F-22s v.s. 2 Prototypes, the F-22s win? Or is this not reality?
So it isn't "a single F-22" anymore eh? And China only has 2 prototypes to defend its sky?
I can come up with absurd scenario too: so, would you agree that a Q-5 firing rockets at a F-22 which is parked on the ground, the Q-5 wins hand down? :roll:

But hey, I'm still right :p
Huh? You claimed that "it wasn't an assumption... F-22s v.s. J-20s, F-22s wins hands down", then by your own admittance that was an assumption. As far as I see, you are not right, but you just debunk your own argument.

Well, if you're just going to be ignorant and assume anything I type are attempts at trolling than why are we still talking?
No. You assume that I assume that anything you type are attempts at trolling. Go back and read my previous post and you will see that I called you out on your trolling for a particular statement. And you should ask yourself your own question. If you believe you are so right, then why are we still talking and trying to hard so get our validation?
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

I must state this.. The US holds a tremendous advantage numerically over the rest of the World. That is the US greatest advantage. Particularly among Navies of this Earth.

Technologically wise the rest of the World is catching up. That's a fact.
I would argue that the greatest advantage the US has is not technology or numerical superority, but rather its geographical location.
 
Top