News China lands jet on first aircraft carrier.

[Hlynkacg]

Clearly some random folks on internet forums know more about naval strategy than people who are actually trained for it.

You guys should hire on as defense consultants.

Too late

 

[jedidia]

You've got it completely backwards. A navy without an aircraft carrier is completely at the mercy of one with one

It has to be noted though that Carriers are so far untested against their major enemies: The submarine and an unholy load of cruise missiles (or ballistic ones... even worse to defend against, even if non-nuclear). I do sometimes wonder if in an equal matchup, the carrier could pull its weight economically (i.e., it might happen that one is far cheaper to destroy than it is to build, making the tactical advantages it delivers shrink in the face of how difficult it might proove to protect it).

 

[Ghostrider]

Since the Basement beckons, I'll just throw my cents and run away: carriers, airplanes, missiles and all kind of weapons and vehicles are just tools and assets. What ultimately wins - and loses - wars is your ability of make effective, sometimes creative use of them to achieve few well-defined goals in a well-defined timeframe. Your keywords are "hold", "take", "destroy", "deny". Politics and big words have no place in the battlefield or HQs.

If this means using your assets in different ways than the manufacturers planned, so be it. Anyone remembers the Brits using Vulcans and a string of tanker aircraft to drop a few bombs on Port Stanley, and Argentinians taking an effective potshot on HMS Glamorgan with an Exocet fired from a makeshift launcher? That's the mindset. You make up your mind about what you want to do, and then see what you have to achieve the mission. If you don't have exactly what it takes, you improvise. It's not the business world. It's not school. You don't go to your boss and say "we can't do it because we lack the right tools".

So the bottom line is: if you threaten me with your carrier and force me to sink it, and I'm determined to sink it, because the survival of my nation depends on it, then I hope you have enough lifeboats. If I can't kill it in blue waters, I'll do it with torpedoes or missiles. If I can't, I'll sabotage it when it's docked. Maybe commandeer a liquid gas tanker and detonate it nearby. Or I'll poison the food supplies, whatever. Don't ever make the mistake of thinking your enemy isn't determined to win.

 

[Urwumpe]

It has to be noted though that Carriers are so far untested against their major enemies: The submarine and an unholy load of cruise missiles (or ballistic ones... even worse to defend against, even if non-nuclear). I do sometimes wonder if in an equal matchup, the carrier could pull its weight economically (i.e., it might happen that one is far cheaper to destroy than it is to build, making the tactical advantages it delivers shrink in the face of how difficult it might proove to protect it).

Practically, you can say that the carrier has the better odds there. But odds does not mean immunity. The Ticos and Burkes around a carrier should be able to clean most incoming missiles out of the air, together with F-18s patrolling the outer permeter.

But you can ALWAYS saturate defenses. If the Hamas would be able to launch more missiles at the same target, the Iron Dome would fail.

 

[APDAF]

One P-700 Granit in the right place can sink a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and the Admiral Kuznetsov which is the same class as the 'new' Chinese carrier carries them.

And it is technically not an aircraft carrier, she is a heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser (TAVKR).

 

[Urwumpe]

One P-700 Granit in the right place can sink a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and the Admiral Kuznetsov which is the same class as the 'new' Chinese carrier carries them.

And it is technically not an aircraft carrier, she is a heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser (TAVKR).

Wrong. The Chinese carrier does not have the P-700 Granit. The launchers are removed.

Also, it is not automatically killing a carrier: The P-700 (And the more modern, smaller and faster P-800 Oniks) are very large rockets and thus, pretty large targets for SAMs and CIWS.

If one such missile would hit a carrier though, the effect would be devastating.

 

[Spacethingy]

You're all totally wrong. THIS is how you use an aircraft carrier to best effect:

:lol: Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[TMac3000]

Sole use of an aircraft carrier (since about 1945) is to bully developing/underdeveloped countries with inadequate means to defend themselves. Whether the "victim" had deserved to be bullied is a question for the basement.

They will make very expensive coral reefs if faced against a modern military, especially one with nukes. This goes for aircraft carriers from all countries.

:facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

The confidence in the first jet operations on a Chinese carrier had been high... The chinese lead developer for jet aircraft died of a heart attack while watching the first take-off in the young age of 51 years.

 

[statickid]

i like how the white house keeps glowing as it gets smeared. I wonder what kind of wires they are using

---------- Post added at 07:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 AM ----------

I was curious about current torpedo defense and did a quick search.

instead I found this:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_32/antitorpedo.html

basically its a couple pages talking about how even outdated torpedoes can still be effective.

Are there any missiles that splashdown and become torpedoes?

 

[Urwumpe]

i like how the white house keeps glowing as it gets smeared. I wonder what kind of wires they are using

Wires? It has a zero-point energy module in the Harrison Gallery, thats all.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Practically, you can say that the carrier has the better odds there. But odds does not mean immunity. The Ticos and Burkes around a carrier should be able to clean most incoming missiles out of the air, together with F-18s patrolling the outer permeter.

But you can ALWAYS saturate defenses. If the Hamas would be able to launch more missiles at the same target, the Iron Dome would fail.

This ^ very much this.

The real threat posed by china is that they can sustain a kill/loss rate of 10 or 20 to 1 and still be "Winning".

When I was still attached to Pacific Fleet in the early 2000s the death-trap level quality of chinese submarines was a joke. But it was an open secret that had they decided to make a game of it PacFleet would have exhausted thier stockpile of Mk48s and ASROCs before the Chinese exhausted thier stockpile of Ming and Han class submarines.

I was curious about current torpedo defense and did a quick search.

instead I found this:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_32/antitorpedo.html

basically its a couple pages talking about how even outdated torpedoes can still be effective.

Like Firearms, Torpedos haven't advanced much since the 60s, all the major advances have been in the technology used to aim them.

Are there any missiles that splashdown and become torpedoes?

They're called ASROCs (Anti-Submarine Rockets) and are basically a Rocket-thrown torpedo.

They're less practical against ships because the Torp they throw is a small one and the missile has to fly rather slower than a normal AGM or ASM so that the torpedo will not be damaged on impacting the water.

As you may have guessed from the name they are carried by surface ships for use against subs.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

I think one interesting point in this debate is... so what?

The likelihood of there being a conventional, total war, between two global/super powers in the near future is miniscule as to be almost laughable imo. It simply isn't in any of their economic or political interests, despite what strategic military analysts or top brass might tell you. Such folk always exaggerate the next threat to justify their slice of the defence budget pie.

China is doing what all emerging global/super powers have done throughout history, that is build a navy. It is the most expensive branch of the military and allows you to better enforce your influence globally than any other. It is a status symbol as much as a tool of war. Plus the legacy of the Royal Navy and Mahanian naval strategy still influences thinkers today, especially those who wish for some form of empire. Given that China's economy has a huge global import/export market, which uses sea lanes, it's natural they would wish to expand their navy and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the big boys. It doesn't mean they will actually wish to, or be capable of, doing anything constructive(perhaps destructive) with it.

 

[Urwumpe]

Are there any missiles that splashdown and become torpedoes?

Quite many of them. The Russians have many designs, some of them are even submarine launched. Essentially, they are ballistic missiles that drop a parachute retarded <40 cm torpedo on a target location, which starts a circle search once it splashed into the water.

 

[FADEC]

Hey, leave politics to politicians.

I can't switch off my brain, which is one reason why I never did military service.

 

[Urwumpe]

I can't switch off my brain, which is one reason why I never did military service.

The problem is not the brain, the problem is knowing that "Sometimes, killing a few of mine could solve the problem better than killings millions of theirs."

It is NEVER really bad to think. Especially not about why you are doing this. If you can't enjoy what you are doing, you are in the wrong place. Especially if you are also expected to execute missions, not orders.

Yes, I know that there are MANY soldiers who gave up their brain for joining the army. There are also MANY soldiers who had to join the army for being no longer a danger for their own society.

But generally, those are the first that will die in service, peace or war, and unless you can make them think before they die, they will be no use for you. What you need are people who know what they are doing and why they are doing this.

I went to the army because it was the best place for me to go with my skills and talents. It was fine, much worse than I expected. And there was a life after the army.

 

[statickid]

I think one interesting point in this debate is... so what?

The likelihood of there being a conventional, total war, between two global/super powers in the near future is miniscule as to be almost laughable imo. It simply isn't in any of their economic or political interests, despite what strategic military analysts or top brass might tell you. Such folk always exaggerate the next threat to justify their slice of the defence budget pie.

China is doing what all emerging global/super powers have done throughout history, that is build a navy. It is the most expensive branch of the military and allows you to better enforce your influence globally than any other. It is a status symbol as much as a tool of war. Plus the legacy of the Royal Navy and Mahanian naval strategy still influences thinkers today, especially those who wish for some form of empire. Given that China's economy has a huge global import/export market, which uses sea lanes, it's natural they would wish to expand their navy and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the big boys. It doesn't mean they will actually wish to, or be capable of, doing anything constructive(perhaps destructive) with it.

well not to speak for everyone, but for me the the "so what?" is just that someone posted a news article on a forum, so we're discussing the aspects of the article that are interesting, in this case, it's a warship, so we are discussing ideas about weaponry and warfare. If someone posted a video about a LEO launch system, we'd be talking about that instead. :thumbup:

 

[Ark]

well not to speak for everyone, but for me the the "so what?" is just that someone posted a news article on a forum, so we're discussing the aspects of the article that are interesting, in this case, it's a warship, so we are discussing ideas about weaponry and warfare. If someone posted a video about a LEO launch system, we'd be talking about that instead. :thumbup:

On that subject, I think SLS is a terrible idea and the best thing we can do would be to revive the Constellation program, as it is clearly superior.

*slips out back door*

:lol:

 

[FADEC]

What you need are people who know what they are doing and why they are doing this.

On the other hand, if one really knows why he is sent to Iraq or Vietnam for example, he would refuse and quit military service. Those who go there either do it for money, or because "my government told me so" or because they are patriots who really are convinced that "I am fighting for freedom and for my country". Others know it's pointless but they do it because they consider it "my job".

That's why I never could do military service.

I really pull off my hat to those who invaded Europe for example. It was a necessary operation since that war threatened the entire world. It turned into a justifiable defensive war. But I pity those who today are pointlessly send to small countries on the other side of the planet to defend political propaganda. And I can understand that some justify it, since if you do something it has to seem that it makes sense. But to leave politics to politicians is an inappropriate advice for civilians, especially for surviving dependants who ask "for what?".

 

[TMac3000]

I can't switch off my brain, which is one reason why I never did military service.

Ummmmm, Jeez, man:huh:
You know there are veterans on this forum, right?