China Lands Aircraft On Their Carrier

[cobber]

Bump.

Palace Intrigue: Chinese Soldiers Storm Replica of Taiwan Presidential Office - China Real Time Report - WSJ

China states that Taiwan is a province of the mainland. They're just preparing for when radical terrorists seize the reins of government and local authorities are unable to react in force.

Or so they will say...


If Obama or the Dems ever pull on Taiwan what Atchison did to the ROK, we can see the writing on the wall.

 

[T.Lex]

Just a question, I don't claim to be an expert. Is the aircraft carrier becoming obsolete? Is it the last war's technology? Yes, they give us the the ability to project power against inferior military's, but it's my understanding they are very vulnerable to the latest air and land based missile technology. The kind we would face against Russia or China. In addition, Stealth Bombers give us that ability to project power without being as big a target. Any Navy expert want to weigh in on the vulnerability?

Not an expert, and in full disclosure, I'm the son of a naval aviator. So, my answer will be no, they are not obsolete - not by a long shot. (Pardon the pun.)

First, when it comes to projecting power, carriers are mobile sovereignty on a huge scale. It isn't just the carrier, it is the entire Carrier Battle Group (CBG).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group

That's a bunch of muscle right there.

Second, functionally, the carrier is an airbase. So, it has an effective range only limited by the amount of jet fuel it (or its tenders) can carry. F/A-18s can "buddy" refuel, which is where one Hornet refuels another Hornet - not using those big refuelers. Although, if those are around, it certainly helps. So, where a battleship's guns measure range in tens of miles, a carrier can reach out and touch someone hundreds of miles away. The sphere of influence is huge.

Plus, the new carrier based aircraft (if it ever gets out of trials) will be stealthy. That will really help.


Now, of course, the vulnerabilities. China, and to a lesser extent Russia, has been working on strategies to take out carriers. We don't really know yet how effective they will be, but I'm sure there are very smart (and nervous) people working on those counter-strategies. Specifically with regard to missiles, part of the idea of having aircraft is to deny the enemy the opportunity to get close enough to shoot the missiles. If one does get inside the "fence," there are some amazing radar-directed gatling guns that can take out incoming missiles. I think there are also anti-missile missiles. Think Star Wars defenses for carriers.

None of that is foolproof, but it doesn't really need to be. Carriers are high value targets for the enemy, but taking one out would almost guarantee a huge response from the US - possibly even nukes. In those terms, it becomes a high risk, low reward endeavor.

 

[Birds Away]

Targeting an aircraft carrier with missiles is much more difficult than it sounds. Also, a CVBG has a layered defense. Some layers are obvious and some less so. Modern naval warfare is very complex and involves some aspects which are not apparent to the casual observer.

 

[actaeon277]

Bump.

Palace Intrigue: Chinese Soldiers Storm Replica of Taiwan Presidential Office - China Real Time Report - WSJ

Well, certain forces are kept at bay by our guarantee of protection.
Recently, that guarantee seems to be useless.

 

[Birds Away]

Well, certain forces are kept at bay by our guarantee of protection.
Recently, that guarantee seems to be useless.

Very true.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Russia realized they would never be a true surface naval power and gave up. They can meet their national security needs (not to mention territorial grabs) without a great surface navy. China on the other hand, may have delusions of grandeur about challenging US supremacy in the Pacific. Not any time soon fellas.

Just a question, I don't claim to be an expert. Is the aircraft carrier becoming obsolete? Is it the last war's technology? Yes, they give us the the ability to project power against inferior military's, but it's my understanding they are very vulnerable to the latest air and land based missile technology. The kind we would face against Russia or China. In addition, Stealth Bombers give us that ability to project power without being as big a target. Any Navy expert want to weigh in on the vulnerability?

OK, the first thing is that the Russians did NOT sell that carrier. The Ukraine, with no chance in the universe of completing it or being able to afford operating it did. What is truly pitiful is that we could have picked it up for a song and a dance before it was sold to China via a fictional intermediate stop and our state department screamed up a lung about it. Pure stupidity in action!

China may not be in a position to challenge us soon, but if we don't get a grip on things, like our leaky security, they will eventually. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was the United States, and there is no reason that China cannot do exactly what we did.

Russia worked for decades to develop supersonic antiship missiles for the primary purpose of attacking aircraft carriers with a missile which would be especially difficult to counteract. These along with a number of other trinkets from the old combloc R&D department have potential to be realistic threats. The question is not really whether the concept of the aircraft carrier is obsolete but rather if the ships we now have in service are becoming obsolete. The other side of the coin is that our R&D people are hard at work devising better defenses and solutions specific to the new threats their foreign counterparts are dreaming up. It isn't really a matter of an absolute answer, but rather who is ahead in this race. For the time being, we are, but that is subject to change if we grow complacent. Birds Away covered the overall situation adequately for the purpose at hand.

It is also important to remember that we have only a scant few stealth bombers and the same R&D battle applies here. Just as we strive to make stealth stealthier, our foreign rivals seek to make it less stealthy through development of better sensors. Again, there is no absolute answer, but rather the score of who is ahead in the race.

Another consideration: Unlike the battleships of generations past, the aircraft carrier does not wade into the fray and hostile attention will assuredly be paid any person, vessel, or aircraft attempting to penetrate the carrier's zone of operation.

 

[Grease]

Since they will soon own everything and manufacture everything, they need to get in position to defend it all. They are good planners for the long range.

The Asian mindset has ALWAYS been the long view while we here in the West have only gotten more myopic since our founding. WW2 and our dealings with the Russian thereafter is a good example of this, also the reason Patton was killed....

Asians do not think of themselves or today, they aren't even looking at tomorrow, instead, they are planning for next week, next month, next year.

 

[Grease]

OK, the first thing is that the Russians did NOT sell that carrier. The Ukraine, with no chance in the universe of completing it or being able to afford operating it did. What is truly pitiful is that we could have picked it up for a song and a dance before it was sold to China via a fictional intermediate stop and our state department screamed up a lung about it. Pure stupidity in action!

China may not be in a position to challenge us soon, but if we don't get a grip on things, like our leaky security, they will eventually. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was the United States, and there is no reason that China cannot do exactly what we did.

---snip----

The chinese are pushing against both Japan and South Korea while also building and fortifying artificial islands over the top of barrier reefs in the South China Sea. They use North Korea as a puppet/unruly child to draw attention away from their actions. This forces the U.S. To ask China to intercede on its behalf thus putting us in a post of "owing" China something.

 

[IndyDave1776]

---snip----

The chinese are pushing against both Japan and South Korea while also building and fortifying artificial islands over the top of barrier reefs in the South China Sea. They use North Korea as a puppet/unruly child to draw attention away from their actions. This forces the U.S. To ask China to intercede on its behalf thus putting us in a post of "owing" China something.

This is true, but as for the last, I would argue that we could make the same argument in return, that we allow China to deal with Little Kim as they did with dad and grandpa on its terms rather than taking care of the problem ourselves, thus no debt owed on account of affording them that courtesy.