nutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 319 posts, RR: 6 Posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4605 times:
In the news yesterday, it was revealed that China has developed a long range anti-ship missile capable of destroying an aircraft carrier from 900+ miles away.....well before an aircraft carrier can strike targets effectively (ARTICLE ATTACHED).
My thought is that this provides new justification for stealth based fighter jets with the ability to penetrate deep into enemy territory from sizable distances using land based facilities as opposed to aircraft carriers. While this doesn't impact most of the operating area of the US military, China, like the US has the ability to sell arms to other nations possibly putting aircraft carriers in Jeopardy around the world (I know that's an extreme statement).
I think this is a real consideration given that our primary means of projecting power globally has been the aircraft carrier since the 1940's. Does this provide justification for more high-tech non-carrier based weapons systems like the F-22?
What do you guys think?
US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2459 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4543 times:
time to stop wasting money on carriers... (an old topic).. however there are probably enough land based aircraft to cover... plus those pesky subs.. no need to buy more and possibly a reason to buy fewer F-35's
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 661 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4519 times:
Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Thread starter): Does this provide justification for more high-tech non-carrier based weapons systems like the F-22?
While I believe there will never be a manned aircraft again that has the ability to beat an F-22 in this case the F-22 would have to fly to China, drop weapons and fly back which would be beyond its range from current US pacific bases. Tanker support would likely have to fly too close to China to be useful. If anything this kind of report makes a case for more long range bombers with stealth characteristics that actually have the reach to conduct that type of mission.
In both cases though why not wait ten years as the USAF is doing and introduce a true UCAV that has all the benefits and none of the downside of today's UAVs and early UCAVs.
BladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4480 times:
Any anit-ship missile can strike a target, if it can get to it. Aircraft carriers never operate alone and are supported by many other ships and aircraft. Also this is not some sea-skimming missile like an exocet or harpoon that gives little to no notice before it pops over the horizon, this is a 35 foot long 32,000 lb ballistic missile. Any launches will show up on our detection satellites and can be shot down by either the ABM YAL-1A (which if anything happened with China would certainly be up there) or missiles from the carriers fleet, including the ABMDS, which will be fielded to all Ticonderoga class cruisers by the end of the year.
I love how all these articles come out about carrier killing missiles from Iran and China, but they miss out of the fact that that carriers never operate alone. That's why carriers only carry point defense systems.
Dl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4398 times:
This has pretty much been the point of the F-22. Sure we may not need it for our current conflict but the point of the F-22 is to be the superior fighter (and somewhat bomber) to future proof our military. We may not be fighting a large nation right now where stealth is needed but that could easily change overnight.
nutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 319 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4380 times:
Quoting Dl767captain (Reply 4): This has pretty much been the point of the F-22. Sure we may not need it for our current conflict but the point of the F-22 is to be the superior fighter (and somewhat bomber) to future proof our military. We may not be fighting a large nation right now where stealth is needed but that could easily change overnight.
I definitely agree that carrier battle groups are well protected and that there are defensive weapons to limit the likelihood of a successful missile strike. What scares me about these is that they can be used when carriers are at there most vulnerable, perhaps while docked in Japan? In this situation, they don't have the defense of a battlegroup and mainland China is not all that far away from Japan (within the 900 mi. striking range).
More than the threat of a single weapon, this should be a wake-up call to those who believe that all future conflicts will be comprised of street to street Afghanistan style combat. Russia and China are both modernizing their military and neither have proven to be friends of the US on any topic of substance.
US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4372 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 1): time to stop wasting money on carriers... (an old topic).. however there are probably enough land based aircraft to cover... plus those pesky subs.. no need to buy more and possibly a reason to buy fewer F-35's
I think that carriers have a place in the modern military as useful tools to be able to put out a fire pretty much anywhere on the globe. I don't know whether trying to just maintain a fleet of roughly the current size or going with more smaller carriers would be a better idea. But in an all out war, they would be pretty easy targets.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5): If anything hopefully this will renew the F/A-XX replacement for the Super Hornet, something like an all-out ass-kicker on par to the F-22.
How about an FN-22 and the A-12...you know, like they should have had ten years ago?
Quoting Dl767captain (Reply 4): Sure we may not need it for our current conflict but the point of the F-22 is to be the superior fighter (and somewhat bomber) to future proof our military.
Didn't you hear? Gates has determined that all of our future wars will be fought against insurgents in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Dl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4064 times:
Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 6): More than the threat of a single weapon, this should be a wake-up call to those who believe that all future conflicts will be comprised of street to street Afghanistan style combat. Russia and China are both modernizing their military and neither have proven to be friends of the US on any topic of substance.
That's what I don't understand, they act as though all our future wars will be fought in the streets, but we had to adapt our current military to our present situation because we didn't see this as the future of war many years ago, you need to plan for both situations at the same time and that's something that aircraft like the F-22 allow for.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5892 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4062 times:
Remind us again what's the range of the F-22, the political and national priorities that the US must sacrifice to obtain land bases to launch F-22's and tankers, how is this any different that other threats that carriers have faced before, or how does this change the fact that a larger percentage of the worlds nations are reachable by sea?
If as mentioned this missile can hit ports in Japan for example, is that not the same as the current ICBM's, did anyone ever doubt that during the cold war missiles and torpedo's deployed against the US carriers were nuclear tipped, the US never abandoned carriers then why now? If the new killer missile is conventional it can be defended against, is that not what a lot of the star wars technology was all about, intercepting missiles in the boost phase? The capabilities of the missile impressive as they claim does not out-weigh the reason why the US has carriers, but if it becomes the reason why carriers would stay away from the Chinese coast, how long before they are sold to all and sundry who want one, in which case the US could save a lot of money and disband the Navy now, how long will it be before the Chinese improve the technology to be able to target a cruiser or a large destroyer?
The conspiracy theorist in me is now looking for the trillion dollar projects that will be announced to give the US carriers a defense against this new threat, it is only coincedence that the defesne is identified at the same time when financial threats show up against increased defense spending.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3996 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 9): The conspiracy theorist in me is now looking for the trillion dollar projects that will be announced to give the US carriers a defense against this new threat
Are you saying that we shouldn't bother with a countermeasure?
Quoting par13del (Reply 9): it is only coincedence that the defesne is identified at the same time when financial threats show up against increased defense spending.
Of course it isn't a coincidence.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
arniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3954 times:
I am by no means an expert on the matter but aren't the Aegis destroyers that accompany the carrier battle groups equipped with missiles that could even take out a satellite , if the need would exist, let alone a 35 ft missile launched 900 miles away giving them many minutes to respond.
I believe only 1 or 2 years ago they did some kind of demonstration proving this capability with standard weapons from an AEGIS cruiser, right around the time the Chinese where doing the same with experimental rockets shooting at satellites.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3921 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7): Didn't you hear? Gates has determined that all of our future wars will be fought against insurgents in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Great, and we can't even figure out how to win those. (Or at least we don't have the stomach to do what is necessary.)
Quoting par13del (Reply 9): did anyone ever doubt that during the cold war missiles and torpedo's deployed against the US carriers were nuclear tipped, the US never abandoned carriers then why now?
But there is a distinctive difference between conventional and nuclear munitions.
Quoting arniepie (Reply 11): I am by no means an expert on the matter but aren't the Aegis destroyers that accompany the carrier battle groups equipped with missiles that could even take out a satellite , if the need would exist, let alone a 35 ft missile launched 900 miles away giving them many minutes to respond.
But the Chinese would launch tens if not hundreds of these missiles, in salvos, and then therein lies the problem; I'm not sure how many targets one Aegis can realistically assess and suppress. AESA radars on the Super Hornets and Growlers, and the F-35C's in the future, might be able to defeat these missiles quite well, however - but as of now that's all classified and even that assumes that those that be even know.
BladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3894 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
But the Chinese would launch tens if not hundreds of these missiles, in salvos, and then therein lies the problem; I'm not sure how many targets one Aegis can realistically assess and suppress. AESA radars on the Super Hornets and Growlers, and the F-35C's in the future, might be able to defeat these missiles quite well, however - but as of now that's all classified and even that assumes that those that be even know.
The Aegis system was originally designed to combat multiple inbounds from SLCM's and ALCM's from the Russians, the actual figure is not known but the system can plot more than 100 separate targets and is constantly being updated.
Even before a carrier would get into range for such a missile all the known sites would be taken out by submarine launched cruise missiles and stealth bombers. The other, mobile units, would be taken out as spotted by satellites, aircraft, HUMINT, and when they are launched. Once launched they would be taken out by the airborne laser 747, which can loiter many hundreds of miles away, and ship based ABM systems, such as the Standard missile and ship-borne laser systems which are in testing.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5892 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3814 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10): Are you saying that we shouldn't bother with a countermeasure?
Definately not, I just question the doom and gloom crowd, this probably has more to do with the pending cuts, disaster that the current shipbuilding program is in, folks may be looking for additional scapegoats to justify pushing congress to change the number of carriers, the Navy is already looking at creative ways to maintain number while refuelling so....
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12): But there is a distinctive difference between conventional and nuclear munitions
Hence my statement below
Quoting par13del (Reply 9): If the new killer missile is conventional it can be defended against, is that not what a lot of the star wars technology was all about, intercepting missiles in the boost phase?
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 13): The Aegis system was originally designed to combat multiple inbounds from SLCM's and ALCM's from the Russians, the actual figure is not known but the system can plot more than 100 separate targets and is constantly being updated
The main issue with the Aegis System is the number of shots carried, the Tico's carry more than the Burke's and the Burke are now becoming the primary ships defending the carriers, so it is quickly becoming a new numbers game, couple with the fact that ASW assets are diminshed, another hole will need filling once more diesel subs are sold. The a/c on the carriers need longer legs to stay out in "blue waters" and conduct combat operations, that neglect may come back to haunt.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
Quoting arniepie (Reply 11): I am by no means an expert on the matter but aren't the Aegis destroyers that accompany the carrier battle groups equipped with missiles that could even take out a satellite
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12): AESA radars on the Super Hornets and Growlers, and the F-35C's in the future, might be able to defeat these missiles quite well, however - but as of now that's all classified and even that assumes that those that be even know.
If the US deploys the YAL-1A/B, that would be a great advantage to defending the CVNBG. Also, I see no reason why the YAL-1A laser systems cannot be mounted on board a ship. The electrical power requirements and space needed may require recommission the Iowa class BBs, and possible the two remaining South Dakota class BBs, but it could work. AEGIS class CGs (Ticos) and DDGs (Burke class DDGs) can track these incoming RVs now.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5892 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3576 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15): The electrical power requirements and space needed may require recommission the Iowa class BBs, and possible the two remaining South Dakota class BBs, but it could work. AEGIS class CGs (Ticos) and DDGs (Burke class DDGs) can track these incoming RVs now.
Makes you wonder where those aliens went who built these ships and where they took that knowledge, that we are still talking about putting back in service ships that were built decades ago
Is it easier / cheaper to get electrical power from a nuclear powered vessel versus conventional power, there was talk of the new cruisers being nuclear powered, guess the cost bug is biting there also?
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2459 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
this bird will finish it's tests and be stored... no more built, never to be deployed... it's a dead parrot!
Putting the laser on board a ship you'd be shooting through thick (water vapor) air so the effectiveness is drastically reduced.. The YAL-1B did have the advantage of being above the weather and in thinner air.
wingman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1836 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3478 times:
We already have the best countermeasure there is...about $1 trillion dollars in Chinese held Treasury bonds. SInk a carrier and those bonds go "puff!", like so much smoke. That's something the Russkies never had and it changes the very nature of the geopolitical pissing contest that the US and China are engaging in. I have a very tough time imagining a situation where the Chinese would try to take out a carrier, a cruiser or sub would be "smarter" in sending a signal.
nutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 319 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3322 times:
]
Quoting wingman (Reply 19): We already have the best countermeasure there is...about $1 trillion dollars in Chinese held Treasury bonds.
That is a great point....to be safe....lets hurry up and tack on another trillion!
US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 319 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 661 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5892 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4423 posts, 
From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1836 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
