China Lands Aircraft On Their Carrier

[ATOMonkey]

1. I would agree completely if the MiG-21 were still its top-tier equipment. The problem is that s of the most recent information I found, they have 200 new J-10 fighters, 76 Sukhoi Su-30, 140 J-11 (Chinese-built Su-27), and 76 Su-27 fighters in addition to the many antiques. Further, they are just about ready to begin production of the JF-17 which may not be the equal of our new equipment but will certainly not be any pushover, and God knows how many of those they will build in addition to continuing to produce local copies of Russkie equipment. After all, these people are building entire new modern cities which remain ghost towns just because they don't have anything better to do with their money--and here lies the problem. Once they get sorted out what they want to do and get ready to do it, they are going to go all in, and paying cash as they go.

2. The technology gap is closing. Conventional wisdom is that our equipment still has an edge over Russian/Chinese technology, but it is close enough that it is far from the old days in which we had first-generation examples of the F-14, -15, -16, and -18 fighters armed with guided missiles against slow old ChiCom fighters armed with machine guns. We also enjoy an advantage in numbers with approx 825 F-15 C/D/E fighters and 1250 F-16s of all models we still employ. The problem is that once China decides to start building in earnest, they have the resources to do it.

Very few of those planes are flyable, unfortunately.

Everyone inflates their readiness level, because that is what they're evaluated on. You run into this all the time. A company may have 15 HMMWVs listed as operational. The first time you go on a training mission, 3 will barely start much less run, and 5 will break down half way through. It's not the fault of the service men either. They're not professional mechanics, which is what it takes to keep any kind of vehicle operating the way it should.

The F-15 fleet is literally falling apart. They are down to reduced hours and G-loads to keep what few they have operational in the air.

The F-16 is not in the same kind of trouble as the 15, but I would say that half of that number is actually combat ready, and the clock is ticking on those airframes as well. You can only bend aluminum so many times until it just gives up the ghost.

The F-18 is doing better, because the USMC is good at tricking congress into getting new reqs by labeling a brand new airplane as an "upgrade."

Our airfleet is failing, and rapidly so. We have aaaaaaaaay more aviators than we have seats, and it's only going to get worse.

The F35 and F22, while technologically far superior to anything anyone else is flying will be insufficient.

Also, more tech just means more of a chance that something will break. It's a statistical fact.

If you have one component that is 90% reliable, then you can plan on a 90% readiness level.

If you require 2 components to make something work and both of those are 90% reliable, then the chance of both of them working at the same time is .9*.9 or 81% reliable. And so on and so forth.

So, then you have to double up on systems to get your reliability back up. Now they cost more, are more difficult to maintain, so you can't field as many.

It's a logistical nightmare, and it won't matter how advanced our planes are if they're sitting on the runway waiting for maintenance.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

There come's a point where technological advantage overwhelms numbers.

see:
egyptian chariot Mud
greek phalanx Fire
roman phalanx/legion formation Slaves/Germans/Brits

There is a tipping point where no matter how many rocks david slings, goliath isn't going down. I am of the opinion that we are well beyond that point technologically. The issue is that we are financially incapable of sustaining a protracted war against a single or alliance of nation-state enemies.

Everything has a weakness, the ability to exploit it is what wins, be it the hand of God or blind luck.

I'll take God and a rock over an aircraft carrier any day of the week.

 

[jedi]

Those are political weapons. They are strategic, not tactical.

Yes we (USA) think that those terms. But the EAST does not think like the WEST. And the MIDDLE EAST thinks even differenlty than the EAST and WEST all together!

We (USA) might not be wiling to shot an ICBM but I'm sure the MIDDLE EAST if given the chance would as for China I give them a 75% chance that they would. Sure they would lose people as well but they have enough people that they can/are willing to lose as well.

To say nothing of the fact China has them as well.

I was referring to China and it's ICBMs not ours.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I didn't realize how big a deal an aircraft carrier really was...20 in the world. 11 of them US.

Here's a graphic of the disparity:

 

[jedi]

I'm shocked that the UK being the oldest naval power in the world only has 2 and they are tiny compared to what we have!

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm shocked that the UK being the oldest naval power in the world only has 2 and they are tiny compared to what we have!

Shocking it is, and their decline from where we are now didn't happen until after World War II.

 

[jedi]

Shocking it is, and their decline from where we are now didn't happen until after World War II.

Who had the most battleships prior to WW II?
I know that the Battleshipp **WAS** the mark of naval strenght before the plane came to be.

 

[lucky4034]

A lot of jokes about this event in this thread... but this is a HUGE and scary event.

The US Naval dominance around the world is what makes us the super power we are.... Having a large, motivated country with the economy of China begin building carrier groups can significantly level the playing field.

For me, this is much more significant than Iran building nuclear weapons....

We may be 20 years ahead of the rest of the worlds militarily... but we will have to absorb a large financial collapse in the next 20 years and don't have room in our budget to continue to build our military at the rate of China... Not significant now... but see me in 30 years.

 

[lucky4034]

Yes we (USA) think that those terms. But the EAST does not think like the WEST. And the MIDDLE EAST thinks even differenlty than the EAST and WEST all together!

We (USA) might not be wiling to shot an ICBM but I'm sure the MIDDLE EAST if given the chance would as for China I give them a 75% chance that they would. Sure they would lose people as well but they have enough people that they can/are willing to lose as well.



I was referring to China and it's ICBMs not ours.

Don't put it past the US to use nuclear force... afterall, we introduced it to the world on a couple of Japanese Cities.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who had the most battleships prior to WW II?
I know that the Battleshipp **WAS** the mark of naval strenght before the plane came to be.

Although Britain was allotted 19 under the Washington Naval Treaty, the Brits had 15 in service at the beginning of the war in service (3 of which were of post-WWI construction) and we right behind them (including two new ships), the Japanese had, if memory serves, 10, none of which were of post WWI construction (with two new ones nearing completion), Germany had 2 battlecruisers up and running with the two Bismarck-class battleships under construction, and Italy had a handful of old battleships with three new one nearing completion, maybe one of which was in service before 9/1939. The Russians had a couple of WWI ships still in service but the communists never did manage to get a new one built in spite of a couple of abortive attempts. As that goes, they didn't do such a great job of maintaining and preserving the ones they inherited from the tsar.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Who had the most battleships prior to WW II?
I know that the Battleshipp **WAS** the mark of naval strenght before the plane came to be.

Britain had the most, 4 I think. Germany had two, sank two of the British ships.

Britain relied mostly on faster lighter armored "battleships" to save money. Bismark hammered them to the bottom of the sea.

 

[Birds Away]

GB had many more than four battleships. Even if you don't include the Hood, which was a battlecruiser. From which date do you wish to say the war started? If you want to start on December 7, 1941 we can do that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Now you all are making me think. Britain had the King George V, Nelson, Rodney, 5 Queen Elizabeth class, 5 Royal Oak class, Hood, Renown, and Repulse. I can't remember the US roster, although I do recall that the two Washington class ships had been completed by the beginning of the war and we were a couple of ships behind Britain. Germany had the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau plus two turn of the century relics that anyone not under treaty requirements that basically forbade constructing an effective navy would have scrapped in addition to the Bismarck and Tirpitz under construction. Japan has the 2 Nagato and Mutsu (which were not actually completed until after World War I but were of wartime design), the 4 Kongo class, Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, and Hyuga, as well as three Yamato class vessels, two of which were completed according to original plans as battleships entering service after the war started and the third was converted during construction to an aircraft carrier.

 

[IndyDave1776]

GB had many more than four battleships. Even if you don't include the Hood, which was a battlecruiser. From which date do you wish to say the war started? If you want to start on December 7, 1941 we can do that.

No distinction was made for treaty purposes or general counting for a difference between battleships and battlecruisers, especially as by the time of World War II the two had essentially merged into the fast battleship.

 

[jedi]

Don't put it past the US to use nuclear force... afterall, we introduced it to the world on a couple of Japanese Cities.

A different time and a different beast what we did to Japan.
Japan could not "fight back" against an A-Bomb.
No current and/or former president of the US would think of using a nuke knowing the other side can use one as well on us. The majority of the WEST does not think like that.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

GB had many more than four battleships. Even if you don't include the Hood, which was a battlecruiser. From which date do you wish to say the war started? If you want to start on December 7, 1941 we can do that.

I just looked it up, four CLASSES, about 10 total ships during the war.

 

[Birds Away]

No distinction was made for treaty purposes or general counting for a difference between battleships and battlecruisers, especially as by the time of World War II the two had essentially merged into the fast battleship.

The difference between the battleship and the battlecruiser had to do with armor protection. Battlecruisers had lightly armored decks. This is what made Hood so vulnerable to the falling shot of the Bismarck.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The difference between the battleship and the battlecruiser had to do with armor protection. Battlecruisers had lightly armored decks. This is what made Hood so vulnerable to the falling shot of the Bismarck.

I understand that. My point is that for accounting purposes, no difference was made under the 1922 naval treaty and hence no difference was made for general accounting purposes. I was not saying that the politics nullified the physical differences. Also, the two types in terms of physical differences largely ceased to exist as by the time of World War II, new construction featured both adequate armor and higher speeds effectively merging the two types.

 

[Birds Away]

I understand that. My point is that for accounting purposes, no difference was made under the 1922 naval treaty and hence no difference was made for general accounting purposes. I was not saying that the politics nullified the physical differences. Also, the two types in terms of physical differences largely ceased to exist as by the time of World War II, new construction featured both adequate armor and higher speeds effectively merging the two types.

Yes, that is all true. Case in point is the Iowa class. Although designed to absorb direct hits from the Japanese 18.1" rounds they were still fast enough to steam with the fast carrier battle groups. Prior to that naval shipbuilders would sacrifice armor for increased speed and vice versa. The Iowa class was the last and best example of the steel, all big gun (post-Dreadnought) battleships.

 

[Caleb]

Don't put it past the US to use nuclear force... afterall, we introduced it to the world on a couple of Japanese Cities.

I don't think we will ever use nuke as a first strike in the future, maybe as a retaliation...