Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:46 pm

yeah, I'm well aware of that. Thatcher got her tough reputation from her resolve in the Falklands War because most don't remember that it was her government that got the country into the predicament in the first place. Admiral Sir Henry Leach was the real backbone in the government. I just checked and I have a full bookshelf of 26 books, all on the Falklands War.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2160
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:20 pm

johns624 wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.


The UK and France have carriers but are not (as far as I know) "planning on going to war". We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.
You "project power" so that you hopefully don't have to go to war. Countries perceived as being weak get attacked, not those thought of as strong and able to defend themselves and hurt their attacker badly.


I guess China sees things this way also
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:23 pm

So apparently does Japan.
Maybe China is planning on going to war and wants to try to even the odds against the only power that could stop them - the US Navy

"Japan Starts Conversion Work On Second Izumo-Class DDH". Will be equipped with F-35B's.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... class-ddh/

Will make a nice addition to US Carrier Battle Groups in the western Pacific.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:30 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:

The UK and France have carriers but are not (as far as I know) "planning on going to war". We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.
You "project power" so that you hopefully don't have to go to war. Countries perceived as being weak get attacked, not those thought of as strong and able to defend themselves and hurt their attacker badly.


I guess China sees things this way also


Yes but I do not see any other nation militarising oceans and international SLOC like in the SCS in such a fashion and claiming the majority as their own against international rulings, its just not defensive line that’s territorial expansionism for future resource control.
 
texl1649
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:05 pm

I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:10 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...
Carriers are not "huge floating targets". They are well protected and allow the US to go anywhere in the world. Just like fighter aircraft didn't make bombers obsolete, and tanks and machineguns didn't make infantry obsolete, missiles don't make ships obsolete. The military is on a constant measure/countermeasure development cycle.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:07 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...



So why then is the PRC building carriers? Ego? Make work projects for unemployed shipyard workers? Nope. They got scores to settle and long memories of slights both real and perceived.
 
texl1649
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:22 pm

johns624 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...
Carriers are not "huge floating targets". They are well protected and allow the US to go anywhere in the world. Just like fighter aircraft didn't make bombers obsolete, and tanks and machineguns didn't make infantry obsolete, missiles don't make ships obsolete. The military is on a constant measure/countermeasure development cycle.


This is 20th century thinking. If Starship attains it’s cost/payload to orbit goals, carrier battle groups are obscenely wasteful antiquities, and they arguably are anyway as they are, again, huge targets for near-peers with hypersonic/ballistic weapons etc. The aircraft aboard the CVN’s are mere furniture pieces in the big picture today.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:14 pm

[quote="texl1649"][/quote]

"This is 20th century thinking. If Starship attains it’s cost/payload to orbit goals, carrier battle groups are obscenely wasteful antiquities, and they arguably are anyway as they are, again, huge targets for near-peers with hypersonic/ballistic weapons etc. The aircraft aboard the CVN’s are mere furniture pieces in the big picture today."

Well apparently the PRC, France, UK, Spain, Italy, India, and the US are making really bad investments.

You might be missing their value in a "first-strike" scenario. The strike packages are long gone by the time the not yet in service hypersonic/ballistic missiles are even launched.
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:31 pm

texl1649 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...
Carriers are not "huge floating targets". They are well protected and allow the US to go anywhere in the world. Just like fighter aircraft didn't make bombers obsolete, and tanks and machineguns didn't make infantry obsolete, missiles don't make ships obsolete. The military is on a constant measure/countermeasure development cycle.


This is 20th century thinking. If Starship attains it’s cost/payload to orbit goals, carrier battle groups are obscenely wasteful antiquities, and they arguably are anyway as they are, again, huge targets for near-peers with hypersonic/ballistic weapons etc. The aircraft aboard the CVN’s are mere furniture pieces in the big picture today.
Well then we might as well just get rid of all air forces. If a moving CVN is an easy target, what does that say land airbases? Your whole argument is based on a big "IF". What do you suggest a country use if there aren't any nearby friendly airfields?
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:44 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Don’t think anyone assumes that they are immune from attack hence the heavy escort screen.

From an historical perspective the aircraft carriers showed how more than a military tool but also a diplomatic tool being able to exert influence by its mere presence in an area of political instability as mean to deliver political messages

1972 Buccaneer’s from the Ark Royal overflew Belize when Guatemalan troops were poised to invade.
USN carrier presence off Korea as clear sign of strength to the DPRK that it will continue to support the ROK.
USN carriers regular conduct Freedom of Navigation exercises via both sea-based transit and airspace.
French Carrier Charles De Gaulle conducts many operations in the Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Indian Ocean. and Persian Gulf
texl1649 wrote:

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...

Hardly think it’s an embarrassment more of a show of power from mother nature which is not to be taken for granted, an embarrassment would be when your aircraft carrier deploys with an oceangoing tug as part of its escort group because your only aircraft carrier has reliability problems
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:49 pm

texl1649 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...
Carriers are not "huge floating targets". They are well protected and allow the US to go anywhere in the world. Just like fighter aircraft didn't make bombers obsolete, and tanks and machineguns didn't make infantry obsolete, missiles don't make ships obsolete. The military is on a constant measure/countermeasure development cycle.


This is 20th century thinking. If Starship attains it’s cost/payload to orbit goals, carrier battle groups are obscenely wasteful antiquities, and they arguably are anyway as they are, again, huge targets for near-peers with hypersonic/ballistic weapons etc. The aircraft aboard the CVN’s are mere furniture pieces in the big picture today.


Think its going to be a very long time before the US can make use of Starship as a fast cargo transport in the future and think that anti ballistic weapons will have implications for Starship in the future just like anti-ship/hypersonic weapons have now everything has trade offs
 
muralir
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:49 pm

I understand China's desire to build a blue water navy, but setting that use case aside, I'm curious if China gets any value from these carriers in a battle with Taiwan. My sense is no, not directly. Taiwan is close enough for land-based forces, which would be better protected anyway. But do they have use as essentially a decoy? If China has several carriers full of aircraft, then war planners must assume that they might park them to the east of Taiwan and launch aircraft from there, which means at least some of Taiwan's air and ship defenses must be aimed at its eastern coast. In that way, even if they don't contribute meaningfully to the total numbers of aircraft being launched, do they have use in terms of increasing the options and scenarios that Taiwan's war planners must cover?

(I realize China could attack from the east even from land bases, but that would probably require flying out north, through a larger area of contested waters, before circling back to Taiwan, which would involve more risk, and more importantly, more time to do vs. launching craft from a carrier positioned much closer).

I'm generally in the camp that aircraft carriers have outlived their usefulness as direct assets in a peer-to-peer war, but that doesn't mean they don't have plenty of other uses, both military and political (enough to spend billions per ship on a dozen ships? Maybe not... :-)
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Tue Jul 26, 2022 4:11 pm

johns624 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...
Carriers are not "huge floating targets". They are well protected and allow the US to go anywhere in the world. Just like fighter aircraft didn't make bombers obsolete, and tanks and machineguns didn't make infantry obsolete, missiles don't make ships obsolete. The military is on a constant measure/countermeasure development cycle.


I wouldn’t want to be a tanker today.
 
GDB
Posts: 16191
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Tue Jul 26, 2022 4:45 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...
Carriers are not "huge floating targets". They are well protected and allow the US to go anywhere in the world. Just like fighter aircraft didn't make bombers obsolete, and tanks and machineguns didn't make infantry obsolete, missiles don't make ships obsolete. The military is on a constant measure/countermeasure development cycle.


I wouldn’t want to be a tanker today.


It's always been a dangerous job, I have just read 'Brothers In Arms' by James Holland, about the 11 months of the Sherwood Rangers, a pre war reserve horse cavalry unit that transitioned to armour in the Western Desert, from D-Day to VE Day.
Inspired by the series about the US paratroopers and the highly successful TV series, the casualty rate for the Sherwood Rangers is shocking.

But it's all relative, who indeed would want to be a Russian tanker? Out of date equipment, poor training, worse all arms cooperation, shitty logistics, poor leadership, inflexible and top down command.
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained, all arms cooperation second nature and also what Tanker Ivan lacks, experience in larger scale usually multi national exercises, logistics taken seriously, Junior Officers and NCO's trained to make command decisions with the flexibility that will bring.
Plus you will almost certainly have if not air dominance, air superiority.

All theory? A Challenger 2 took around 70 RPG and 2 MILAN hits and survived, that was just the most extreme of plenty of similar cases.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6405
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:03 pm

GDB wrote:
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained,


Don't forget the air-conditioned cab :cold:

by
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:13 am

GDB wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Carriers are not "huge floating targets". They are well protected and allow the US to go anywhere in the world. Just like fighter aircraft didn't make bombers obsolete, and tanks and machineguns didn't make infantry obsolete, missiles don't make ships obsolete. The military is on a constant measure/countermeasure development cycle.


I wouldn’t want to be a tanker today.


It's always been a dangerous job, I have just read 'Brothers In Arms' by James Holland, about the 11 months of the Sherwood Rangers, a pre war reserve horse cavalry unit that transitioned to armour in the Western Desert, from D-Day to VE Day.
Inspired by the series about the US paratroopers and the highly successful TV series, the casualty rate for the Sherwood Rangers is shocking.

But it's all relative, who indeed would want to be a Russian tanker? Out of date equipment, poor training, worse all arms cooperation, shitty logistics, poor leadership, inflexible and top down command.
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained, all arms cooperation second nature and also what Tanker Ivan lacks, experience in larger scale usually multi national exercises, logistics taken seriously, Junior Officers and NCO's trained to make command decisions with the flexibility that will bring.
Plus you will almost certainly have if not air dominance, air superiority.

All theory? A Challenger 2 took around 70 RPG and 2 MILAN hits and survived, that was just the most extreme of plenty of similar cases.


All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:55 am

Kiwirob wrote:
GDB wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I wouldn’t want to be a tanker today.


It's always been a dangerous job, I have just read 'Brothers In Arms' by James Holland, about the 11 months of the Sherwood Rangers, a pre war reserve horse cavalry unit that transitioned to armour in the Western Desert, from D-Day to VE Day.
Inspired by the series about the US paratroopers and the highly successful TV series, the casualty rate for the Sherwood Rangers is shocking.

But it's all relative, who indeed would want to be a Russian tanker? Out of date equipment, poor training, worse all arms cooperation, shitty logistics, poor leadership, inflexible and top down command.
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained, all arms cooperation second nature and also what Tanker Ivan lacks, experience in larger scale usually multi national exercises, logistics taken seriously, Junior Officers and NCO's trained to make command decisions with the flexibility that will bring.
Plus you will almost certainly have if not air dominance, air superiority.

All theory? A Challenger 2 took around 70 RPG and 2 MILAN hits and survived, that was just the most extreme of plenty of similar cases.


All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.


So what do you suggest is the answer to the problem?
 
GDB
Posts: 16191
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:36 am

Kiwirob wrote:
GDB wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I wouldn’t want to be a tanker today.


It's always been a dangerous job, I have just read 'Brothers In Arms' by James Holland, about the 11 months of the Sherwood Rangers, a pre war reserve horse cavalry unit that transitioned to armour in the Western Desert, from D-Day to VE Day.
Inspired by the series about the US paratroopers and the highly successful TV series, the casualty rate for the Sherwood Rangers is shocking.

But it's all relative, who indeed would want to be a Russian tanker? Out of date equipment, poor training, worse all arms cooperation, shitty logistics, poor leadership, inflexible and top down command.
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained, all arms cooperation second nature and also what Tanker Ivan lacks, experience in larger scale usually multi national exercises, logistics taken seriously, Junior Officers and NCO's trained to make command decisions with the flexibility that will bring.
Plus you will almost certainly have if not air dominance, air superiority.

All theory? A Challenger 2 took around 70 RPG and 2 MILAN hits and survived, that was just the most extreme of plenty of similar cases.


All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.



Maybe, how about being properly trained so you don’t go into say urban without infantry support, any WW2 veteran would tell you that, in the first few days of Ukraine the UK Defence Secretary, himself formerly an Army Officer, was being interviewed on the news, then some new footage came in, showing a couple of Russian tanks entering an urban area, immediately the minister said ‘well that’s no good, sending armour unsupported into an urban area’ then to the news anchor emphasized just how basic that is.

There may be a load of modern, top attack capable weapons out there, somehow I doubt it though, the thing that has shocked me the most is just how Cold War the inventory and tactics of the Russian army is, here’s the thing, their tactics and equipment have been reflected in most of the likely opponents of NATO, it was during the Desert Storm, China likely has many of the same issues, the last time they actually went to war was in 1979 when Vietnam took a heavy toll of them.
We don’t know if beyond the parades and propaganda whether China’s military is as Potemkin Village as Russia when up against a competent military, with in the case of Ukraine a huge determination, neither does China with reference to Taiwan, they will studying this closest of all.

What has been clear in the past 50 years, every state enemy of the ‘decadent West’ being dictatorships seems to mean in comparison to NATO forces, poor training etc.
Even when the numbers and distance is in their favour logistically, as in the South Atlantic 40 years ago, while the UK forces had not had full on state on state conflict since 30 years before in Korea, still the enemies experience was in the previous few years in particular, their part in the murder of 30,000 of their own citizens.
Remember how concerned the Coalition was concerned about the huge Iraqi forces in 1990, not only in size but they were just out of an 8 year war with Iran?

While the Western forces again had last seen state on state in Korea, there was of course 15 years later the NVA but that was mainly a counter insurgency war however the US tried to make it otherwise.
They however learned from that, the draft being the first to go, the Russians are essentially using WW2 tactics, badly, in Ukraine.

There are countermeasures to the type of weapons you describe, both hard and soft kill, while they might not be omnipresent in NATO forces right now, watch that change.
Which is easier to do when you have the technology industry to support the development but also mass deployment of them.
This might not be as much of an issue with China, however with Russia now they are cut off from Western technology and many of those who can develop counterparts leaving the country?

While the above has been about mainly the ground and to a degree the air, this all goes double for the subject concerned, China’s naval ambitions.
Already pointed out that the idea that the NATO forces are only good for ‘bombing from 30,000 ft against targets without proper AD’, is not borne out by recent history, including some of the conflicts above.

I know this, the batshit idea of the UK government in 2010 to have what was a near decade long ‘holiday’ with regards carrier aviation with their sudden withdrawal of the Harrier force, even so all that meant was it just took longer to regenerate the capability with a vastly more complex aircraft type. Still once it started up culminating in last year’s worldwide deployment that by itself gave more experience than China’s carrier naval aviation so far.
As for Russia’s smoke belching semi wreck of a carrier, you shudder to think how that would do in even a semi near peer opponent.
 
bajs11
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:29 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:50 am

GDB wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
GDB wrote:

It's always been a dangerous job, I have just read 'Brothers In Arms' by James Holland, about the 11 months of the Sherwood Rangers, a pre war reserve horse cavalry unit that transitioned to armour in the Western Desert, from D-Day to VE Day.
Inspired by the series about the US paratroopers and the highly successful TV series, the casualty rate for the Sherwood Rangers is shocking.

But it's all relative, who indeed would want to be a Russian tanker? Out of date equipment, poor training, worse all arms cooperation, shitty logistics, poor leadership, inflexible and top down command.
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained, all arms cooperation second nature and also what Tanker Ivan lacks, experience in larger scale usually multi national exercises, logistics taken seriously, Junior Officers and NCO's trained to make command decisions with the flexibility that will bring.
Plus you will almost certainly have if not air dominance, air superiority.

All theory? A Challenger 2 took around 70 RPG and 2 MILAN hits and survived, that was just the most extreme of plenty of similar cases.


All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.



Maybe, how about being properly trained so you don’t go into say urban without infantry support, any WW2 veteran would tell you that, in the first few days of Ukraine the UK Defence Secretary, himself formerly an Army Officer, was being interviewed on the news, then some new footage came in, showing a couple of Russian tanks entering an urban area, immediately the minister said ‘well that’s no good, sending armour unsupported into an urban area’ then to the news anchor emphasized just how basic that is.

There may be a load of modern, top attack capable weapons out there, somehow I doubt it though, the thing that has shocked me the most is just how Cold War the inventory and tactics of the Russian army is, here’s the thing, their tactics and equipment have been reflected in most of the likely opponents of NATO, it was during the Desert Storm, China likely has many of the same issues, the last time they actually went to war was in 1979 when Vietnam took a heavy toll of them.
We don’t know if beyond the parades and propaganda whether China’s military is as Potemkin Village as Russia when up against a competent military, with in the case of Ukraine a huge determination, neither does China with reference to Taiwan, they will studying this closest of all.

What has been clear in the past 50 years, every state enemy of the ‘decadent West’ being dictatorships seems to mean in comparison to NATO forces, poor training etc.
Even when the numbers and distance is in their favour logistically, as in the South Atlantic 40 years ago, while the UK forces had not had full on state on state conflict since 30 years before in Korea, still the enemies experience was in the previous few years in particular, their part in the murder of 30,000 of their own citizens.
Remember how concerned the Coalition was concerned about the huge Iraqi forces in 1990, not only in size but they were just out of an 8 year war with Iran?

While the Western forces again had last seen state on state in Korea, there was of course 15 years later the NVA but that was mainly a counter insurgency war however the US tried to make it otherwise.
They however learned from that, the draft being the first to go, the Russians are essentially using WW2 tactics, badly, in Ukraine.

There are countermeasures to the type of weapons you describe, both hard and soft kill, while they might not be omnipresent in NATO forces right now, watch that change.
Which is easier to do when you have the technology industry to support the development but also mass deployment of them.
This might not be as much of an issue with China, however with Russia now they are cut off from Western technology and many of those who can develop counterparts leaving the country?

While the above has been about mainly the ground and to a degree the air, this all goes double for the subject concerned, China’s naval ambitions.
Already pointed out that the idea that the NATO forces are only good for ‘bombing from 30,000 ft against targets without proper AD’, is not borne out by recent history, including some of the conflicts above.

I know this, the batshit idea of the UK government in 2010 to have what was a near decade long ‘holiday’ with regards carrier aviation with their sudden withdrawal of the Harrier force, even so all that meant was it just took longer to regenerate the capability with a vastly more complex aircraft type. Still once it started up culminating in last year’s worldwide deployment that by itself gave more experience than China’s carrier naval aviation so far.
As for Russia’s smoke belching semi wreck of a carrier, you shudder to think how that would do in even a semi near peer opponent.


Maybe they are trying to do what they did during the Korean war, overwhelm their enemies with numbers
which is why they now have the largest navy and is continuing to build more carriers.
I mean they have 1.4 billion and according to the great chairman he was prepared to lose half of the population in a war with the "evil imperialists".
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:59 am

A101 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
GDB wrote:

It's always been a dangerous job, I have just read 'Brothers In Arms' by James Holland, about the 11 months of the Sherwood Rangers, a pre war reserve horse cavalry unit that transitioned to armour in the Western Desert, from D-Day to VE Day.
Inspired by the series about the US paratroopers and the highly successful TV series, the casualty rate for the Sherwood Rangers is shocking.

But it's all relative, who indeed would want to be a Russian tanker? Out of date equipment, poor training, worse all arms cooperation, shitty logistics, poor leadership, inflexible and top down command.
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained, all arms cooperation second nature and also what Tanker Ivan lacks, experience in larger scale usually multi national exercises, logistics taken seriously, Junior Officers and NCO's trained to make command decisions with the flexibility that will bring.
Plus you will almost certainly have if not air dominance, air superiority.

All theory? A Challenger 2 took around 70 RPG and 2 MILAN hits and survived, that was just the most extreme of plenty of similar cases.


All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.


So what do you suggest is the answer to the problem?


No idea I don’t design tanks for a living.
 
ReverseFlow
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:40 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 9:21 am

GDB wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
GDB wrote:

It's always been a dangerous job, I have just read 'Brothers In Arms' by James Holland, about the 11 months of the Sherwood Rangers, a pre war reserve horse cavalry unit that transitioned to armour in the Western Desert, from D-Day to VE Day.
Inspired by the series about the US paratroopers and the highly successful TV series, the casualty rate for the Sherwood Rangers is shocking.

But it's all relative, who indeed would want to be a Russian tanker? Out of date equipment, poor training, worse all arms cooperation, shitty logistics, poor leadership, inflexible and top down command.
Or you could be a tanker in a modern NATO standard tank, well trained, all arms cooperation second nature and also what Tanker Ivan lacks, experience in larger scale usually multi national exercises, logistics taken seriously, Junior Officers and NCO's trained to make command decisions with the flexibility that will bring.
Plus you will almost certainly have if not air dominance, air superiority.

All theory? A Challenger 2 took around 70 RPG and 2 MILAN hits and survived, that was just the most extreme of plenty of similar cases.


All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.



Maybe, how about being properly trained so you don’t go into say urban without infantry support, any WW2 veteran would tell you that, in the first few days of Ukraine the UK Defence Secretary, himself formerly an Army Officer, was being interviewed on the news, then some new footage came in, showing a couple of Russian tanks entering an urban area, immediately the minister said ‘well that’s no good, sending armour unsupported into an urban area’ then to the news anchor emphasized just how basic that is.

There may be a load of modern, top attack capable weapons out there, somehow I doubt it though, the thing that has shocked me the most is just how Cold War the inventory and tactics of the Russian army is, here’s the thing, their tactics and equipment have been reflected in most of the likely opponents of NATO, it was during the Desert Storm, China likely has many of the same issues, the last time they actually went to war was in 1979 when Vietnam took a heavy toll of them.
We don’t know if beyond the parades and propaganda whether China’s military is as Potemkin Village as Russia when up against a competent military, with in the case of Ukraine a huge determination, neither does China with reference to Taiwan, they will studying this closest of all.

What has been clear in the past 50 years, every state enemy of the ‘decadent West’ being dictatorships seems to mean in comparison to NATO forces, poor training etc.
Even when the numbers and distance is in their favour logistically, as in the South Atlantic 40 years ago, while the UK forces had not had full on state on state conflict since 30 years before in Korea, still the enemies experience was in the previous few years in particular, their part in the murder of 30,000 of their own citizens.
Remember how concerned the Coalition was concerned about the huge Iraqi forces in 1990, not only in size but they were just out of an 8 year war with Iran?

While the Western forces again had last seen state on state in Korea, there was of course 15 years later the NVA but that was mainly a counter insurgency war however the US tried to make it otherwise.
They however learned from that, the draft being the first to go, the Russians are essentially using WW2 tactics, badly, in Ukraine.

There are countermeasures to the type of weapons you describe, both hard and soft kill, while they might not be omnipresent in NATO forces right now, watch that change.
Which is easier to do when you have the technology industry to support the development but also mass deployment of them.
This might not be as much of an issue with China, however with Russia now they are cut off from Western technology and many of those who can develop counterparts leaving the country?

While the above has been about mainly the ground and to a degree the air, this all goes double for the subject concerned, China’s naval ambitions.
Already pointed out that the idea that the NATO forces are only good for ‘bombing from 30,000 ft against targets without proper AD’, is not borne out by recent history, including some of the conflicts above.

I know this, the batshit idea of the UK government in 2010 to have what was a near decade long ‘holiday’ with regards carrier aviation with their sudden withdrawal of the Harrier force, even so all that meant was it just took longer to regenerate the capability with a vastly more complex aircraft type. Still once it started up culminating in last year’s worldwide deployment that by itself gave more experience than China’s carrier naval aviation so far.
As for Russia’s smoke belching semi wreck of a carrier, you shudder to think how that would do in even a semi near peer opponent.
I saw an interesting Youtube video essentially about Russian oil and gas and how Russian exports are mostly via pipelines. And therefore they have a large land army.

(https://youtu.be/Eo6w5R6Uo8Y)

There were strangleholds on the Soviet navy at the G-I-UK gap, the Baltic, Bosporus and to an extent the Japanese Sea.
Therefore the doctrine wasn't to have carriers but more subs etc. And most goods (oil, gas) could be exported via pipelines)

China has also a very large merchant fleet and is dependant on most exports to its markets via ship.
The railyway from China to Europe carries a fraction of what a container ship could take. (Not sure if it's still going? Was it via Russia?)

The only realistic area I would see the Chinese Navy would be able to 'get out from easiest' (for the lack of a better expression) is between Taiwan and Japan. And even that area is tight.
So a carrier (or 2/3) would be useful there to protect the assets that cannot otherwise be protected from land.

Also as someone said above, a carrier east of Taiwan would also give more attack vectors.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:37 am

Kiwirob wrote:
A101 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.


So what do you suggest is the answer to the problem?


No idea I don’t design tanks for a living.


Every one has different view points and each nation have the own Conops

This might give a better appreciation towards Armour

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... ead%20more
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6405
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:50 am

Kiwirob wrote:
All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles,


There are some differences that comes to mind.

The amo for NATO tanks are stored in a separate compartment. No, turret launch.

The NATO turrets are larger. Reduce chance of shrapnel wound.

There maybe others such as auto-fire suppression.

These design feature may not prevent the tank from getting dammaged, but it improve crew survivability and tank salvagability.

bt
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:59 am

Kiwirob wrote:
A101 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

All those NATO tanks have the same issue as the Russian tanks they’re vulnerable to top attack missiles, none of them were designed in an era where missiles hit them from above. A javelin or NLAW would take out an Abram’s or Leo just as easily as it takes out a T72.


So what do you suggest is the answer to the problem?


No idea I don’t design tanks for a living.
Like GDB says, it's tactics. You have infantry leading the tanks and disrupting the aim of the missile launchers. Bikerthai is also correct about our tanks having better storage and fire suppression systems.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6405
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:07 pm

Also tank design related, but not sure if it is true. I noticed that Russian and Ukrainian tankers wear soft helmet where as western tankers (including So. Korea) have hardshell. Perhaps larger tank allow for the crew to more comfortably wear the hardshell which should provide better protection.

bt
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6405
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Wed Jul 27, 2022 1:46 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Perhaps larger tank allow for the crew to more comfortably wear the hardshell which should provide better protection.


LOL. If you want to understand the design differnce of this aspect. Try driving your car with a cap on vs a ski helmet.

bt
 
texl1649
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:12 pm

A101 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I continue to see no impact on trade/geopolitics related to this, or for that matter where/how many super carriers the USN sends to various spots. The world is not a "Top Gun" movie and these huge floating targets are not immune to attack today.

Don’t think anyone assumes that they are immune from attack hence the heavy escort screen.

From an historical perspective the aircraft carriers showed how more than a military tool but also a diplomatic tool being able to exert influence by its mere presence in an area of political instability as mean to deliver political messages

1972 Buccaneer’s from the Ark Royal overflew Belize when Guatemalan troops were poised to invade.
USN carrier presence off Korea as clear sign of strength to the DPRK that it will continue to support the ROK.
USN carriers regular conduct Freedom of Navigation exercises via both sea-based transit and airspace.
French Carrier Charles De Gaulle conducts many operations in the Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Indian Ocean. and Persian Gulf
texl1649 wrote:

Braggadocio/ego does no people a lot of good, but often times it's a source of embarrassment. It's not been too many days since a USN super hornet was blown off a carrier deck...

Hardly think it’s an embarrassment more of a show of power from mother nature which is not to be taken for granted, an embarrassment would be when your aircraft carrier deploys with an oceangoing tug as part of its escort group because your only aircraft carrier has reliability problems


Good post. Here is another perspective, complete with a simulation today.

https://www.imetatronink.com/2022/07/di ... e-sea.html

https://youtu.be/vJXWJ-Px5tU

Ultimately, I’m convinced a USN 2022 carrier battle group would be overwhelmed in the South China Sea today, but I respect those who have served/studied naval warfare as to their disagreement. The SM-6, SM-2, and AMRAAM’s might do well initially, but would be overwhelmed. It’s a simple numbers game, ultimately.

While not focused doctrinally/in procurement today, USN/USAF assets could similarly threaten any putative CCP naval carrier force. Naval air power is today operating/planning as a dinosaur on the battlefield to come, imho, and both the sea-based (ships), defenses/missiles, and aircraft for/from them will need to evolve into a truly new paradigm/mission planning perspective in order to really be survivable moving forward in any near-peer or peer type of conflict.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:46 am

texl1649 wrote:

Good post. Here is another perspective, complete with a simulation today.

https://www.imetatronink.com/2022/07/di ... e-sea.html

https://youtu.be/vJXWJ-Px5tU

Ultimately, I’m convinced a USN 2022 carrier battle group would be overwhelmed in the South China Sea today, but I respect those who have served/studied naval warfare as to their disagreement. The SM-6, SM-2, and AMRAAM’s might do well initially, but would be overwhelmed. It’s a simple numbers game, ultimately.

While not focused doctrinally/in procurement today, USN/USAF assets could similarly threaten any putative CCP naval carrier force. Naval air power is today operating/planning as a dinosaur on the battlefield to come, imho, and both the sea-based (ships), defenses/missiles, and aircraft for/from them will need to evolve into a truly new paradigm/mission planning perspective in order to really be survivable moving forward in any near-peer or peer type of conflict.



Sounds like someone wants to be the next Tom Clancy novelist, one also has to be realistic with the rules of engagement in this environment, its not the Persian Gulf of 88 when the Iran Air Flight 655 was shoot down. And this scenario is based on an unplanned meeting between forces. Whilst a good simulation in areas don’t think its in the margins of real world.

A lone DDG firing at a flight of aircraft I think not, Russian and Americans are used to playing rough when they can. Just as the Chinese will learn in time
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:06 pm

In the past, carriers had stealth going for them; an opponent could never know where they were. Now in the age of satellites, China for example, can know where a carrier is at all times. This brings to mind a claim from a US general circa the Gulf War: "if we can see it, we can kill it".

Why wouldn't the same be true for the Chinese?
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:29 pm

Kiwirob wrote:

Everyone talks about the USN being well versed in naval warfare, better than everyone else, but lets face it the USN hasn't had a fleet on fleet naval confrontation since 1945, bombing the Middle East from a carrier isn't the same as fighting an enemy who will fight back. .


The USN has done every type of naval operations (surface, air, subsurface) with every enabler in every ocean on the planet since 1945.

I know admitting that Americans are good at something is anathema to you Rob, but like it or not, them's the facts.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:31 pm

Vintage wrote:
In the past, carriers had stealth going for them; an opponent could never know where they were. Now in the age of satellites, China for example, can know where a carrier is at all times. This brings to mind a claim from a US general circa the Gulf War: "if we can see it, we can kill it".

Why wouldn't the same be true for the Chinese?


Every kind of combat is a team effort, be it naval, air, ground, space, or cyber. All of these domains have advantages that enable other operations. The true key is in the integration of these operations.

Now, I have no doubt the Americans have their challenges. I also have no doubt, from seeing them up close, that the Americans have capabilities to work in all of these domains in ways few other nations have conceptualized, let alone fielded.
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:46 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
I also have no doubt, from seeing them up close, that the Americans have capabilities to work in all of these domains in ways few other nations have conceptualized, let alone fielded.
That's about what LBJ thought.
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:53 pm

Vintage wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
I also have no doubt, from seeing them up close, that the Americans have capabilities to work in all of these domains in ways few other nations have conceptualized, let alone fielded.
That's about what LBJ thought.
You're not grasping what he's saying.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 767
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:56 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
The USN has done every type of naval operations (surface, air, subsurface) with every enabler in every ocean on the planet since 1945.

I know admitting that Americans are good at something is anathema to you Rob, but like it or not, them's the facts.


That's the problem with winning: everyone who thinks they can do it better chimes in from the security of the stands, but few (if any) step into the ring.

That full-spectrum dominance, far beyond glossy manufacturer's brochure claims and occasionally intimidating hardware, is what the Navy has going for it, and that hasn't been honed by resting on the laurels of bombing ME countries from the NAG but by actually exercising and having an experienced force whom combined arms comes as naturally as the alphabet. That ability to keep fighting after the first punch is something the USN practices every day. The experience and mindset is not something that comes easily, nor will it quickly reappear after decades of subcontracting your security to other nations.

Vintage wrote:
In the past, carriers had stealth going for them; an opponent could never know where they were. Now in the age of satellites, China for example, can know where a carrier is at all times. This brings to mind a claim from a US general circa the Gulf War: "if we can see it, we can kill it".

Why wouldn't the same be true for the Chinese?


If only there was some way to counter technology. Especially in a war and all. Someone might wanna look into that.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6405
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:01 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
Someone might wanna look into that.


Someone more knowledgeable than me would already have thought about hunting down those anti-carrier missile sites before the carriers gets to the area of operation.

It's like the Ukrainian blasting the depots and bridges before moving in with tanks.

bt
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:17 pm

johns624 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
I also have no doubt, from seeing them up close, that the Americans have capabilities to work in all of these domains in ways few other nations have conceptualized, let alone fielded.
That's about what LBJ thought.
You're not grasping what he's saying.
IMO you're both buying into a myth. American exceptionalism as brought to us by John Wayne.

This is an engineering problem we're discussing, not faith in a higher power. Blind faith in American superiority has gotten us in a lot of trouble in the past. But of course all that's been swept under the rug hasn't it? Surely it won't come back to bite us again will it?
Last edited by Vintage on Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:22 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
If only there was some way to counter technology. Especially in a war and all. Someone might wanna look into that.

There you go with your sarcasm again. Do you have anything else in your toolbox? Or do you think that you've perfected sarcasm to the point where you don't need anything else?
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 12:28 am

Vintage wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
That's about what LBJ thought.
You're not grasping what he's saying.
IMO you're both buying into a myth. American exceptionalism as brought to us by John Wayne.

This is an engineering problem we're discussing, not faith in a higher power. Blind faith in American superiority has gotten us in a lot of trouble in the past. But of course all that's been swept under the rug hasn't it? Surely it won't come back to bite us again will it?
Forget Vietnam. Think more of 1991 and Saddam's "mother of all battles". He had all the toys and on paper, looked pretty good. The problem is that his military didn't know the first thing about combined arms or how the West thought. China has the toys but until they can run continuous carrier ops, they aren't us. It's not all about the CBG. You have to think about air force and submarine cruise missile strikes taking out their weapons.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 767
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:51 am

bikerthai wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
Someone might wanna look into that.


Someone more knowledgeable than me would already have thought about hunting down those anti-carrier missile sites before the carriers gets to the area of operation.

It's like the Ukrainian blasting the depots and bridges before moving in with tanks.

bt


Exactly: advancements beget counters.

No competent military wakes up, reads a headline from The Drive or some other rag and thinks "well lads, let's pack it in. Nothing we can do, now. It's all in God's hands".
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:53 am

johns624 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
johns624 wrote:
You're not grasping what he's saying.
IMO you're both buying into a myth. American exceptionalism as brought to us by John Wayne.

This is an engineering problem we're discussing, not faith in a higher power. Blind faith in American superiority has gotten us in a lot of trouble in the past. But of course all that's been swept under the rug hasn't it? Surely it won't come back to bite us again will it?
Forget Vietnam. Think more of 1991 and Saddam's "mother of all battles". He had all the toys and on paper, looked pretty good. The problem is that his military didn't know the first thing about combined arms or how the West thought. China has the toys but until they can run continuous carrier ops, they aren't us. It's not all about the CBG. You have to think about air force and submarine cruise missile strikes taking out their weapons.
If we couldn't take out Iraq's scuds, how would we have grown the ability to take out China's missiles?

You're telling me I'm not grasping what he's saying? You don't seem to be giving this any thought.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6405
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:05 am

Vintage wrote:
If we couldn't take out Iraq's scuds, how would we have grown the ability to take out China's missiles?


I thought that they ultimately did. They just had to devote more assets to the effort. :scratchchin:

bt
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:20 am

bikerthai wrote:
Vintage wrote:
If we couldn't take out Iraq's scuds, how would we have grown the ability to take out China's missiles?


I thought that they ultimately did. They just had to devote more assets to the effort. :scratchchin:

bt
No, they came up virtually empty.

Mr. Miller asserted that the operation destroyed only twelve of Iraq’s twenty-eight fixed launch sites. Of the remaining sixteen, he said, fourteen sustained only “slight” damage and two were untouched. As for attacks on moving Scuds, Mr. Miller said, raids “did not destroy a single mobile launcher.” General Schwarzkopf had said that the allies had identified twenty mobiles possessed by Iraq.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1092scud/


And if you don't know it yet, China has mobile MIRV ICBMs with enough range to launch from Lop Nor and hit anything between there and Hawaii (or even mid Atlantic going the other way). These could become the basis of an anti-carrier missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-41
 
GDB
Posts: 16191
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:33 am

Vintage wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
IMO you're both buying into a myth. American exceptionalism as brought to us by John Wayne.

This is an engineering problem we're discussing, not faith in a higher power. Blind faith in American superiority has gotten us in a lot of trouble in the past. But of course all that's been swept under the rug hasn't it? Surely it won't come back to bite us again will it?
Forget Vietnam. Think more of 1991 and Saddam's "mother of all battles". He had all the toys and on paper, looked pretty good. The problem is that his military didn't know the first thing about combined arms or how the West thought. China has the toys but until they can run continuous carrier ops, they aren't us. It's not all about the CBG. You have to think about air force and submarine cruise missile strikes taking out their weapons.
If we couldn't take out Iraq's scuds, how would we have grown the ability to take out China's missiles?

You're telling me I'm not grasping what he's saying? You don't seem to be giving this any thought.


And what difference did that make to the destruction of what was thought the most comprehensive Air Defence network, not just with Soviet but some Western systems such as Roland?
What difference did it make to the rout of the then third largest army in the world, fresh from 8 years of combat experience, after the also much vaunted Air Force conceded early on?

The hunt from Scuds was purely political, to keep Israel out of the war, to enable the coalition to hold.
They had about as much effect military missile on missile as the V2’s had on the Western Front in 1944/45, though of course many, many more V2’s were fired against mostly the largest city in the world hence the casualties of largely non combatants.
Even then, there were V2 site and factory hunts, involving RAF and USAAF specialized assets, testing one of the latter killed who was seen by his father as an eventual ‘President Kennedy’.

Vietnam? Behave. A US President with little prior experience in foreign policy, seeking what he thought was a solution to a nagging policy problem, itself going back to a simplistic and doctrinaire ‘Domino Theory’ over several administrations, while securing his political flank from the right while he concentrated on his domestic agenda.
Didn’t work out that way did it? Not helped by having the overall commander in theatre not knowing or wanting to know about counter insurgency or Vietnam, his expertise being in artillery, social and political climbing and fiddling the figures on enemy KIA.

To put it mildly, lessons were learned, then some were forgotten by another Texan President with little knowledge of Foreign Policy but unlike LBJ, also a creature of his VP.
Though the main difference this time was the limited domestic blowback as conscription was not used.

But neither Vietnam nor Iraq in 2003 were peer on peer, worth remembering that the last time China went to war, that did not involve massacring unarmed citizens in the nations capital, was with Vietnam in 1979, which did not go according to plan.
They would have learnt from that, ditching the Maoist doctrine that remained for a start, but 1979 Vietnam still recovering from decades of war was hardly peer on peer.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:44 am

johns624 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
johns624 wrote:
You're not grasping what he's saying.
IMO you're both buying into a myth. American exceptionalism as brought to us by John Wayne.

This is an engineering problem we're discussing, not faith in a higher power. Blind faith in American superiority has gotten us in a lot of trouble in the past. But of course all that's been swept under the rug hasn't it? Surely it won't come back to bite us again will it?
Forget Vietnam. Think more of 1991 and Saddam's "mother of all battles". He had all the toys and on paper, looked pretty good. The problem is that his military didn't know the first thing about combined arms or how the West thought. China has the toys but until they can run continuous carrier ops, they aren't us. It's not all about the CBG. You have to think about air force and submarine cruise missile strikes taking out their weapons.



Well actually Vietnam is still a relevant as a training aid in command & Control in force planning of location, suppression, and destruction of enemy air defenses while technology has moved on there are still lessons to be learned
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:49 am

Vintage wrote:

And if you don't know it yet, China has mobile MIRV ICBMs with enough range to launch from Lop Nor and hit anything between there and Hawaii (or even mid Atlantic going the other way). These could become the basis of an anti-carrier missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-41


Unless the Chinese plan to go nuclear early on those mobile ICBM's wont fly because soon as they do the US will let loose as there is no way of knowing if they are conventionally tip or nuclear until they take out its target
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:07 am

GDB wrote:
.......................To put it mildly, lessons were learned, then some were forgotten by another Texan President with little knowledge of Foreign Policy but unlike LBJ, also a creature of his VP. Though the main difference this time was the limited domestic blowback as conscription was not used.

But neither Vietnam nor Iraq in 2003 were peer on peer, worth remembering that the last time China went to war, that did not involve massacring unarmed citizens in the nations capital, was with Vietnam in 1979, which did not go according to plan....................

You issued a lot of words, but I don't get your point (you were responding to me, right?)
I don't agree with your Vietnam history lesson (other than you did get Westmoreland right) but that isn't the topic here.
Conscription or lack of it had nothing to do with the strategic blunder that was GWII.

Any comparison of China with Iraq is specious and completely devoid of meaning. Iraq never even made it's own AK-47s, let alone aircraft, radars computer chips, ICBMs, navy, satellites or space station as China has done and is doing.

I hope the people in the Pentagon are not under the delusions that so many military fans here seem to be.
 
Vintage
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:13 am

A101 wrote:
Unless the Chinese plan to go nuclear early on those mobile ICBM's wont fly because soon as they do the US will let loose as there is no way of knowing if they are conventionally tip or nuclear until they take out its target
Those missiles wouldn't be targeting the US. And exactly how do you think the US would be able to attack those mobile missiles?

BTW, I notice that all the macho crowd here doesn't seem to give a second thought to the idea of targeting the Chinese mainland.

* shakes head *
 
GDB
Posts: 16191
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:10 am

Vintage wrote:
GDB wrote:
.......................To put it mildly, lessons were learned, then some were forgotten by another Texan President with little knowledge of Foreign Policy but unlike LBJ, also a creature of his VP. Though the main difference this time was the limited domestic blowback as conscription was not used.

But neither Vietnam nor Iraq in 2003 were peer on peer, worth remembering that the last time China went to war, that did not involve massacring unarmed citizens in the nations capital, was with Vietnam in 1979, which did not go according to plan....................

You issued a lot of words, but I don't get your point (you were responding to me, right?)
I don't agree with your Vietnam history lesson (other than you did get Westmoreland right) but that isn't the topic here.
Conscription or lack of it had nothing to do with the strategic blunder that was GWII.

Any comparison of China with Iraq is specious and completely devoid of meaning. Iraq never even made it's own AK-47s, let alone aircraft, radars computer chips, ICBMs, navy, satellites or space station as China has done and is doing.

I hope the people in the Pentagon are not under the delusions that so many military fans here seem to be.


You brought up Vietnam, no one else.
You also implied that the Scuds meant anything, which beyond the coalition politics, they did not militarily.
The resources diverted were, in the scheme of things, small.
They were in fact little more than V-2’s on steroids if the analogy escaped you.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:30 am

Vintage wrote:
A101 wrote:
Unless the Chinese plan to go nuclear early on those mobile ICBM's wont fly because soon as they do the US will let loose as there is no way of knowing if they are conventionally tip or nuclear until they take out its target

Those missiles wouldn't be targeting the US. And exactly how do you think the US would be able to attack those mobile missiles?
BTW, I notice that all the macho crowd here doesn't seem to give a second thought to the idea of targeting the Chinese mainland.
* shakes head *


Really how do you know that they will not target the continental USA?

And who said anything about attacking the mobile ICBM launchers, all I said if the Chinese do then they will get a full retaliatory strike, as the US will not know if they are conventionally tipped are nuclear?

Remember you are talking about a ground based IBCM with a supposed range of 15000klm not a 1500klm air launched weapon.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 747classic and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos