Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I disagree.. but we each are entitled to our opinion.
I disagree.. but we each are entitled to our opinion.
Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
China's Electronic Intelligence Satellite Developments:
Implications for U.S. Air and Naval Operations
A review of authoritative Chinese writings indicate that the People’s Republic of China is researching, developing, testing, and deploying a number of electronic intelligence (ELINT) satellites for the tracking and targeting of mobile air defense systems and ships at sea. This program has potentially serious and immediate implications U.S. and allied air and naval operations in the Asia-Pacific region.
China's Electronic Intelligence Satellite Developments:
Implications for U.S. Air and Naval Operations
A review of authoritative Chinese writings indicate that the People’s Republic of China is researching, developing, testing, and deploying a number of electronic intelligence (ELINT) satellites for the tracking and targeting of mobile air defense systems and ships at sea. This program has potentially serious and immediate implications U.S. and allied air and naval operations in the Asia-Pacific region.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Then I'd reckon we'd get those pilots some new sun-glasses, surely the same Laser-reflective paint that can be applied to your delicate Ballistic missiles can be applied to the lenses of a sun-glasses!
Once again, you need to look at the numbers. The ABL has at best a 600 km stand-off range. Longest Range Chinese SAMs only go 200 km, so either get closer or fly a plane. Fly a plane there and get simmered by the ABL's escorts.
Or you could just cover the cock pit's windows. Good pilots can fly using only radar.
I see a TEL and a Missile and a stack of chairs. I don't see a dead carrier.
Well, lets agree to disagree, but the PLAN's air-defense force isn't exactly, much. 6 ships isn't exactly a coast guard. Well, lets back track, a red herring is anything used to divert attention. Maybe it's the cultural differences, but those one liners were to provoke you, not in spirit but in thought. Because apparently 6 Air-defense cruisers can really take on even a portion of the USN's Pacific fleets. We have what? 300 odd Tomahawk missiles loaded on our Cruise-Missile Submarines which are stationed not even 500 km off of Chinese waters. The moment a war breaks out you can expect some strategic assets to be hit, and assuming it stays a clean and non-nuclear fight, your AShMs are effective but against sophisticated defense nets like AEGIS which has SM-2 SAMs, your AShMs are next to useless. Torpedoes? They might work, but our submarine force is bigger than yours, arguably better in quality, and even with an advantage of tactics, the sheer zerg rush of the U.S.N. is not something the PLAN can survive. Air force? Expect trillions of dollars of funding to be poured into the F-22. Expect a superior plane with improved kinematics and sensors. Expect the PLAAF to be a bunch of flopped birds. Yes I am wildly off-topic but I'm just telling you that even on a case to case basis, that if Chinese equipment and or men and strategy is better than us, we still have one thing you don't, we have more. So yes, I do predict, not assume, that the PLAN will be subdued Hollywood-style, and ABLs would zap your DF-21Ds.
Well, you wanted to be realistic? The ABL has shot stuff down already, the F-22 has logged far more hours than the J-20, and we happen to have more F-22s than you have J-20s.
Semantics. How much F-22s we got? How much J-20s you got? Are J-20's even remotely combat ready? They don't even have their sensor equipment. They'll have to rely on AWACs and or sub-par radars.
Wait, so, you have:
1. Imaginary laser pointers
2. An impeccable Air-force
3. A superb SAM force
4. Immaculate Navy
5. Proven and working and produced AShBM
And you say that, "This will stop the Americans cold", compared to:
1. An 187 strong air-armada of top of the line Fighters
2. The most Massive and Sophisticated Navy in the World
3. Flying Laser planes
Seriously, if anybody needs proof, it's you.
Then I'd reckon we'd get those pilots some new sun-glasses, surely the same Laser-reflective paint that can be applied to your delicate Ballistic missiles can be applied to the lenses of a sun-glasses!
Once again, you need to look at the numbers. The ABL has at best a 600 km stand-off range. Longest Range Chinese SAMs only go 200 km, so either get closer or fly a plane. Fly a plane there and get simmered by the ABL's escorts.
Or you could just cover the cock pit's windows. Good pilots can fly using only radar.
I see a TEL and a Missile and a stack of chairs. I don't see a dead carrier.
Well, lets agree to disagree, but the PLAN's air-defense force isn't exactly, much. 6 ships isn't exactly a coast guard. Well, lets back track, a red herring is anything used to divert attention. Maybe it's the cultural differences, but those one liners were to provoke you, not in spirit but in thought. Because apparently 6 Air-defense cruisers can really take on even a portion of the USN's Pacific fleets. We have what? 300 odd Tomahawk missiles loaded on our Cruise-Missile Submarines which are stationed not even 500 km off of Chinese waters. The moment a war breaks out you can expect some strategic assets to be hit, and assuming it stays a clean and non-nuclear fight, your AShMs are effective but against sophisticated defense nets like AEGIS which has SM-2 SAMs, your AShMs are next to useless. Torpedoes? They might work, but our submarine force is bigger than yours, arguably better in quality, and even with an advantage of tactics, the sheer zerg rush of the U.S.N. is not something the PLAN can survive. Air force? Expect trillions of dollars of funding to be poured into the F-22. Expect a superior plane with improved kinematics and sensors. Expect the PLAAF to be a bunch of flopped birds. Yes I am wildly off-topic but I'm just telling you that even on a case to case basis, that if Chinese equipment and or men and strategy is better than us, we still have one thing you don't, we have more. So yes, I do predict, not assume, that the PLAN will be subdued Hollywood-style, and ABLs would zap your DF-21Ds.
Well, you wanted to be realistic? The ABL has shot stuff down already, the F-22 has logged far more hours than the J-20, and we happen to have more F-22s than you have J-20s.
Semantics. How much F-22s we got? How much J-20s you got? Are J-20's even remotely combat ready? They don't even have their sensor equipment. They'll have to rely on AWACs and or sub-par radars.
Wait, so, you have:
1. Imaginary laser pointers
2. An impeccable Air-force
3. A superb SAM force
4. Immaculate Navy
5. Proven and working and produced AShBM
And you say that, "This will stop the Americans cold", compared to:
1. An 187 strong air-armada of top of the line Fighters
2. The most Massive and Sophisticated Navy in the World
3. Flying Laser planes
Seriously, if anybody needs proof, it's you.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
And in the end the Vietnamese were unimpressed.
With the neighbors the US has, Canada and Mexico, they don't need more territorial defense than Argentina. If the colonies like Puerto Rico or Guam were to be lost (and who would take them) they can be won back by a much smaller force than the US deploy. Think Falkland Islands. All the rest is there to impress friends and (potential) enemies.
And in the end the Vietnamese were unimpressed.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Ironsighter not to butt in but before you overcome with your own enthusiasm read this RAND Assesment
F22 is low observable aircraft doesn't mean it disappear from radar specially to new bistatic and L band radar which China has plenty of
[IMAGE]<script src='http://img689.imageshack.us/shareable/?i=lbandantistealthradar.jpg&p=tl' type='text/javascript'></script><noscript></noscript>[/IMAGE]
Ironsighter not to butt in but before you overcome with your own enthusiasm read this RAND Assesment
F22 is low observable aircraft doesn't mean it disappear from radar specially to new bistatic and L band radar which China has plenty of
[IMAGE]<script src='http://img689.imageshack.us/shareable/?i=lbandantistealthradar.jpg&p=tl' type='text/javascript'></script><noscript></noscript>[/IMAGE]
Last edited:
supercat
Colonel
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
The AsBM has reached "Initial Operational Deployment", so it exists for sure. Any large aggregates of F-22, or any types of aircraft on the ground, are subject to Chinese cruise and ballistic missile strikes. So does U.S. fleets and carriers. Conversely, Chinese are facing the same threats from U.S. forces. So it all boils down to logistics: who has more airfields, runways, missiles, and missile launchers, will win. The U.S. has no advantages on this regard if war breaks out on China's turf.
I suspect the war between the two world powers will be a missile war. If U.S. rely too much on airplanes and ships, they will be eventually destroyed by Chinese missiles, like the French Knights who were shot down by the English Longbow men.
The AsBM has reached "Initial Operational Deployment", so it exists for sure. Any large aggregates of F-22, or any types of aircraft on the ground, are subject to Chinese cruise and ballistic missile strikes. So does U.S. fleets and carriers. Conversely, Chinese are facing the same threats from U.S. forces. So it all boils down to logistics: who has more airfields, runways, missiles, and missile launchers, will win. The U.S. has no advantages on this regard if war breaks out on China's turf.
I suspect the war between the two world powers will be a missile war. If U.S. rely too much on airplanes and ships, they will be eventually destroyed by Chinese missiles, like the French Knights who were shot down by the English Longbow men.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Yup the keyword here is Holywood or make believe. Reality is something else in hypothetical conflagration The US airforce will not face a third world airforce but more than its match. That is the conclusion of latest Rand monograph you can download "Shaking the heaven and splitting the earth"
RAND researchers note that although China's air forces have traditionally emphasized defensive operations, that is no longer the case, and will pose an aggressive opponent in the event of a conflict. These attacks, moreover, will be carried out not by China's air force operating in isolation but in coordination with conventional ballistic and cruise missiles.
As a result, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, U.S. air forces would not be able to regard their western Pacific bases as sanctuaries safe from enemy attack in a conflict.
Other key findings:
•If the United States intervenes in a conflict between mainland China and Taiwan, it should expect attacks on its forces and facilities in the western Pacific, including those in Japan.
•U.S. forces should expect their information systems to be subjected to network intrusions or denial-of-service attacks.
•During a conflict with China, the U.S. armed forces should prepare to deal with electronic jamming on a scale larger than it has seen in any conflict since the end of the Cold War.
Yup the keyword here is Holywood or make believe. Reality is something else in hypothetical conflagration The US airforce will not face a third world airforce but more than its match. That is the conclusion of latest Rand monograph you can download "Shaking the heaven and splitting the earth"
RAND researchers note that although China's air forces have traditionally emphasized defensive operations, that is no longer the case, and will pose an aggressive opponent in the event of a conflict. These attacks, moreover, will be carried out not by China's air force operating in isolation but in coordination with conventional ballistic and cruise missiles.
As a result, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, U.S. air forces would not be able to regard their western Pacific bases as sanctuaries safe from enemy attack in a conflict.
Other key findings:
•If the United States intervenes in a conflict between mainland China and Taiwan, it should expect attacks on its forces and facilities in the western Pacific, including those in Japan.
•U.S. forces should expect their information systems to be subjected to network intrusions or denial-of-service attacks.
•During a conflict with China, the U.S. armed forces should prepare to deal with electronic jamming on a scale larger than it has seen in any conflict since the end of the Cold War.
Engineer
Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
The skin of the missile isn't a rectina and doesn't have the see. Like I have pointed out in my previous post, sure you can have a 100% reflective sunglasses, but that means no light go through and the pilots can't see. When the pilots can't see, they can't fly the plane. In addition, changing the reflectivity of the missile to reduce heat absorption from the laser isn't a technology from science fiction. Thermal control based on reflectivity is used on satellites all the time.
For your information, PLAN also has its own airforce. But the reason I call your assumption stupid is because of the way you conviently assume PLAN's air defense has been magically dealth with.
For your first assumption, that's a lot of money. If for the moment, we ignore how money doesn't falls out of the sky, it does illustrate how inefficient the F-22 is. Like I have pointed out in another thread, F-22's invincibility is a myth. And it's this reason why many feel the needs to look down the J-20.
For your second assumption, kinematics are determined by the physical shape of the aircraft and engine. Improvements to either would imply alterations. Alterations to the first isn't physically possible. Alternations to the later might be possible, but unlikely. I can believe sensors will be improved, but China is also improving their's. In fact, China is improving their stuffs faster, that's why we say they are "catching up". Having said that, J-20's capabilities is still an unknown, so one can't really make any comparsion.
For your third assumption, this is truly silly. If US capability is dependent on the failures of its opportunent, then that's not a capability. Anyway, all PLAAF needs to do is not flop and the US would have no way in.
For your forth assumption, I guess China should feel flatter that it will takes the US all its mights to penetrate China's defenses. While it is true that US have more modern equipments, it is also a fact that these assets have to be spreaded out all over the world. At the end of the day, it's not the total number of assets that you have, but the density of assets that can be placed within region that counts. Right now, the US deployment in Asia is what it can mustered against China at the moment. Moving everything is logically and strategically impossible.
For your fifth assumption, lol?
For your last assumption, let me remind you that no one ever says the ABL can't shoot down missiles. The problem was and still is that it won't get close enough to shoot down missiles in China.
What an absurd comparison. Apparently you can't even conceptualize the difference between a mirror and a pane of tinted glass.
The skin of the missile isn't a rectina and doesn't have the see. Like I have pointed out in my previous post, sure you can have a 100% reflective sunglasses, but that means no light go through and the pilots can't see. When the pilots can't see, they can't fly the plane. In addition, changing the reflectivity of the missile to reduce heat absorption from the laser isn't a technology from science fiction. Thermal control based on reflectivity is used on satellites all the time.
Once again, your assumptions are the same ones as before, and as I have pointed out, they are stupid. First, there is no proof that ABL has a stand-off range of 600 km. This is merely a stated design goal against a liquid-fuel missile which you are parroting as if it is a fact. The stated design goal of the ABL can only achieve 300 km against a solid-fuel missile. Second, ballistic missiles don't have to be stationed either on the coast or inland some 1600 km. They can be placed 400 km inland, so even assuming your ABL have a stand-off range of 600 km against a solid-fuel missile, the ABL will be 200 km away and still be in range of China's air defense. Third, China's air defense is not soley consist of SAMs. There is the entire airforce which you have still conviently dismissed. And let's face it, a few escorts flying close to the ABL aren't going to do jack when you can't deploy a picket line, and you can't deploy a picket line because there's no room to run one with the ABL all the way at the very frontline.
Of course you don't see a dead carrier, because that is supposed to be a picture of DF-21D, since you've asked for a shread of proof for the missile.
LOL. Calling a navy being inferior to a coast guard. Again, you are trolling, hard.
For your information, PLAN also has its own airforce. But the reason I call your assumption stupid is because of the way you conviently assume PLAN's air defense has been magically dealth with.
So, you've actually looked it up. I'm impress. So are you ready for some intelligent discussion or are you going to continue with your irrelevency to divert attention from your the stupidity in your assumptions?
So, they were intended to provoke, not to address points. In otherwords, red herring.
And China has a few thousands ballistic missile, the moment a war breaks out you can expect US strategic assets in the area to be hit. Same logic.
Uh huh... like how Tomahawk will be useless against sophisicated defense equipped with ASEA radars and an assortment of short, medium, and long range surface-to-air missiles. Afterall, China's defense is not much different than the defense of a CVBG, as there is an equivilent system in China for every system you found within a CVBG. Seeing arguments like your's always give me a chuckle, because I read it as "my CVBG defense is impenetrable and its offensive capabilities can penetrate the same CVBG defense easily."
Zerg rush? LOL! I guess you are not here for an intelligent discussion?
So, just to confirm I am reading this correctly. First, you assume that trillions of dollars will appear out of no where and spent on the the F-22. Second, you assume kinematics and sensors will be improved. Third, you assume PLAAF will flop. Forth, you assume that US will move everything in its disposal to attack China. Fifth, you assume fantasy occuring in movies will also occur in reality. Finally, you assume ABLs can actually shoot down DF-21s. That's a lot of assumptions, and some of them are quite stupid, but you probably know I am going to say this anyway.
For your first assumption, that's a lot of money. If for the moment, we ignore how money doesn't falls out of the sky, it does illustrate how inefficient the F-22 is. Like I have pointed out in another thread, F-22's invincibility is a myth. And it's this reason why many feel the needs to look down the J-20.
For your second assumption, kinematics are determined by the physical shape of the aircraft and engine. Improvements to either would imply alterations. Alterations to the first isn't physically possible. Alternations to the later might be possible, but unlikely. I can believe sensors will be improved, but China is also improving their's. In fact, China is improving their stuffs faster, that's why we say they are "catching up". Having said that, J-20's capabilities is still an unknown, so one can't really make any comparsion.
For your third assumption, this is truly silly. If US capability is dependent on the failures of its opportunent, then that's not a capability. Anyway, all PLAAF needs to do is not flop and the US would have no way in.
For your forth assumption, I guess China should feel flatter that it will takes the US all its mights to penetrate China's defenses. While it is true that US have more modern equipments, it is also a fact that these assets have to be spreaded out all over the world. At the end of the day, it's not the total number of assets that you have, but the density of assets that can be placed within region that counts. Right now, the US deployment in Asia is what it can mustered against China at the moment. Moving everything is logically and strategically impossible.
For your fifth assumption, lol?
For your last assumption, let me remind you that no one ever says the ABL can't shoot down missiles. The problem was and still is that it won't get close enough to shoot down missiles in China.
Nice try, but this is not a proof that J-20 is less capable than the F-22. It just shows that F-22 is more matured. You are comparing physical airframes and attempt to generalize that one class is superior to the other. This is a flawed argument.
Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, and strawman.
- The imaginary laser pointer is a strawman argument that you've set up.
- You assume China's airforce has zero capability. Saying this assumption is incorrect does not equate to me saying China has an impeccable airforce.
- Pointing out China's air defense consist of more than just SAMs is not the same as claiming a superb SAM force, although China does have a superb SAM force.
- Saying your assumption of PLAN's air defense being magically "dealth with" is stupid does not equate to me claiming China has an immaculate navy.
- Questioning the effectiveness of the ABL is not the same as claiming ASBM is proven, working, and in production.
Nice try putting words into people's mouth. I did not say that.
It's unfortunate that you view things that way. Seriously, you are the one who is making claims here, with some of them being ridiculous. If you can't back up your own arguments and get agitate by people calling you out, then it's your own damn fault. Expecting others to provide proofs to disprove your stupid assumptions is just plain silly. That's not how things work and the burden-of-proof actually lies on you.
Last edited:
