From the Center for a New American Security.
http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-u ... svDD0CMc8C
Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
Moderator: MOD_Command
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
Every ships from a ducky to a uber-massive container freighter are sharing one single characteristics: all can be sunk under numerous circumstances.
The point is not posturing the dangerousness of big and high-value vessel, but the absolute needs to acquire as many defensive measures into it as possible. Nimitz and Ford are big, but surely big enough to add and perform some countermeasures against threats of many kinds, and not just about ASB/CM or torpedo.
The point is not posturing the dangerousness of big and high-value vessel, but the absolute needs to acquire as many defensive measures into it as possible. Nimitz and Ford are big, but surely big enough to add and perform some countermeasures against threats of many kinds, and not just about ASB/CM or torpedo.
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
Nice, thanks for sharing.
B
B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
-
jimcarravall
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
ORIGINAL: Eslin
From the Center for a New American Security.
http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-u ... svDD0CMc8C
Interesting that the board of directors and the board of advisers are all defense industry executives or lobbiests.
Brings to question whether the "threat" involves security of aircraft carriers, or a reduced business because Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the military acquisition community research and development operations aren't allocating enough resources to keep all the vendors profitable.
Having worked defense acquisition, I can say that the vendors, some of whom were my vendors, were very patriotic and concerned about "threats" when there was cash around to pay them to chase new projects, but pretty dismissive of "threat" when design design solutions needed to be changed at their expense because they would cause more harm than good to the military personnel using them.
Take care,
jim
jim
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
Yes... This is so...
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
That is why I avoid reading the first-hand report about military. As a Chinese self, I get both news from original source, and the redistributed report/article with analysis in it. See what the original media being hyped about, and then the analysis's response to know what's behind the news.
It is usually a pro when you have a person in a middle of both sides, to read both of their perspectives. Rather than a single-sided bias I usually confronted. But for some languages other than English and Chinese, they still get the best of me.
It is usually a pro when you have a person in a middle of both sides, to read both of their perspectives. Rather than a single-sided bias I usually confronted. But for some languages other than English and Chinese, they still get the best of me.
-
jimcarravall
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
ORIGINAL: Dysta
That is why I avoid reading the first-hand report about military. As a Chinese self, I get both news from original source, and the redistributed report/article with analysis in it. See what the original media being hyped about, and then the analysis's response to know what's behind the news.
It is usually a pro when you have a person in a middle of both sides, to read both of their perspectives. Rather than a single-sided bias I usually confronted. But for some languages other than English and Chinese, they still get the best of me.
You need to consider the source.
There is information put out to inform (news), information put out to influence (opinion on news, some "think tank" reports, and political lobbying reports), and information put out to market (vendor press releases).
Take care,
jim
jim
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
You need to consider the source.
There is information put out to inform (news), information put out to influence (opinion on news, some "think tank" reports, and political lobbying reports), and information put out to market (vendor press releases).
Still nowhere more accurate than a real war demonstrated their actual capabilities and weaknesses.
Though, let's be thankful when we find some sources, low or expertized, to learn about military for now. I may not be contented, but still worth to read what's people in their mind, more than just military equipment. Good for scenario backdrops, but not helpful for improving DB3000.
-
SSN754planker
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:48 pm
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
I still dont think the Chinese military would stand up very long against a full CVBG thats pissed off, aware, and ready to fight.
MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754
ST1/SS SSN 754
-
AdmiralSteve
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:32 pm
- Location: Red Bluff, CA
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
I'm curious though if the current US Navy ECM could defeat current ASM threats, such as the Sizzler, BrahMos or DF-21D?ORIGINAL: SSN754planker
I still dont think the Chinese military would stand up very long against a full CVBG thats pissed off, aware, and ready to fight.
Time for a CMANO test scenario.
“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959
-
BrianinMinnie
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 3:12 pm
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
I’m looking for input.
“Conclusion
No longer will aircraft carriers and their associated air wings be able to operate with impunity?”
Why would they think that they would be operating with impunity?
Why would they sailing there in the first place?
War with China?
I’ve always assumed that if we’re in a shooting war with China, the gloves are off. Not the Middle East Type intervention or police actions in the Baltic’s, but a World War type situation.
How come we’re always to assume US carriers are just going to go sailing into harm’s way without the many variables accounted for?
I’ve assumed also that the only way it’s going to start is an attack on a US ally or friend and that all diplomatic efforts have been crushed and now a state of war exists with China.
That being said let’s talk about what that possibly means.
Most US Naval Fleets and possibly NATO, will be sailing or already sailed from all around the globe to join the Party, Check.
The Air Forces are spooled up, check.
Massive cruise missile attacks to so called knock the door down while massive cyber and anti space or denial attacks will have the Mainland China isolated from forces abroad from most of their communications and targeting satellites. (I also assume China will be doing similar attacks against the US and or its allies)
Weapons free tasking for all submarine’s against China’s assets from Ships, Airfields, CC, to Ports, to Refineries to even Pipelines deep inside the mainland itself.
At this point the US will assume that the all armed forces including the Carrier forces are at war and will do all that possible to assure its survivability
The US would attempt to not allow for any Naval Fleet to be destroyed without massive degradation of attacking forces.
With Chinese satellites degraded (i.e. X-37’s maybe could be released from conducting space “experiments”….), how’s that whole ABM/Over the Horizon targeting thing going to work out?
The Chinese are becoming very capable but the sheer weight of numbers of weapons arrayed against them in waves from all directions appear daunting.
When was the last time Chinese forces were under fire? How good are damage control and repair forces? Simulations are great, history teaches better techniques.
So to “win” what will be the options?
Nobody is going to want to invade mainland china to throw out the people’s party.
Any enemy should remember that only the US has used nuclear weapons in a fight, and depending on the situation, I assume could crazy enough to use them again, Hoping "cooler" heads would prevent a full exchange.
Now that sounds stupid right? But with the bullets flying over Taiwan or Japan or the Philippines or India, or wherever, Massive casualties will already be occurring. So to force a “quick” lets negotiate attitude, a “tactical” strike could be considered.
What would China want to “win” anyways?
A smoking Island that used to be Taiwan, from what I can see, they’re not rolling over or giving up, period and so would have to be bombed into submission right? Not much to “win” left over.
Clear sailing lanes for the movement of oil and commerce, not much chance of that.
What? To poke the decadent\crazy West in the eye? Show us who’s Boss? Who’s going to buy and sell the healthy portions of the goods the Chinese people want or need?
The US seems like a fractured mess nowadays but nothing like a war to eliminate petty differences.
It doesn’t make any obvious sense to the avg joe and while I’ve greatly oversimplified the situation I've laid out, I did start out this out reading about
“Red Alert: The Growing Threat to US Aircraft Carriers” Right?
Click bait, I know
Simple. Not so much
What think you all?
“Conclusion
No longer will aircraft carriers and their associated air wings be able to operate with impunity?”
Why would they think that they would be operating with impunity?
Why would they sailing there in the first place?
War with China?
I’ve always assumed that if we’re in a shooting war with China, the gloves are off. Not the Middle East Type intervention or police actions in the Baltic’s, but a World War type situation.
How come we’re always to assume US carriers are just going to go sailing into harm’s way without the many variables accounted for?
I’ve assumed also that the only way it’s going to start is an attack on a US ally or friend and that all diplomatic efforts have been crushed and now a state of war exists with China.
That being said let’s talk about what that possibly means.
Most US Naval Fleets and possibly NATO, will be sailing or already sailed from all around the globe to join the Party, Check.
The Air Forces are spooled up, check.
Massive cruise missile attacks to so called knock the door down while massive cyber and anti space or denial attacks will have the Mainland China isolated from forces abroad from most of their communications and targeting satellites. (I also assume China will be doing similar attacks against the US and or its allies)
Weapons free tasking for all submarine’s against China’s assets from Ships, Airfields, CC, to Ports, to Refineries to even Pipelines deep inside the mainland itself.
At this point the US will assume that the all armed forces including the Carrier forces are at war and will do all that possible to assure its survivability
The US would attempt to not allow for any Naval Fleet to be destroyed without massive degradation of attacking forces.
With Chinese satellites degraded (i.e. X-37’s maybe could be released from conducting space “experiments”….), how’s that whole ABM/Over the Horizon targeting thing going to work out?
The Chinese are becoming very capable but the sheer weight of numbers of weapons arrayed against them in waves from all directions appear daunting.
When was the last time Chinese forces were under fire? How good are damage control and repair forces? Simulations are great, history teaches better techniques.
So to “win” what will be the options?
Nobody is going to want to invade mainland china to throw out the people’s party.
Any enemy should remember that only the US has used nuclear weapons in a fight, and depending on the situation, I assume could crazy enough to use them again, Hoping "cooler" heads would prevent a full exchange.
Now that sounds stupid right? But with the bullets flying over Taiwan or Japan or the Philippines or India, or wherever, Massive casualties will already be occurring. So to force a “quick” lets negotiate attitude, a “tactical” strike could be considered.
What would China want to “win” anyways?
A smoking Island that used to be Taiwan, from what I can see, they’re not rolling over or giving up, period and so would have to be bombed into submission right? Not much to “win” left over.
Clear sailing lanes for the movement of oil and commerce, not much chance of that.
What? To poke the decadent\crazy West in the eye? Show us who’s Boss? Who’s going to buy and sell the healthy portions of the goods the Chinese people want or need?
The US seems like a fractured mess nowadays but nothing like a war to eliminate petty differences.
It doesn’t make any obvious sense to the avg joe and while I’ve greatly oversimplified the situation I've laid out, I did start out this out reading about
“Red Alert: The Growing Threat to US Aircraft Carriers” Right?
Click bait, I know
Simple. Not so much
What think you all?
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
The most simple answer is: MAD.
Someone still forget China can still use nuclear weapon for 'testing' in their own territory (I don't add quotation mark here again). If it breaks out, China will no longer care about their current campaign, and rebalance the world with Plutonium and Uranium.
But l agree, a massive click bait for this article. 100KT of Diplomacy can cruise all the corner of sea, and so does the 500KT of Economy. It is only matters to these countries what they want to achieve behind all these threat-mongering and anti-globalization agendas. If it's not, and the modern world decided to replicate the Punic Wars, then diplomacy and economy aren't matters anymore.
The only issue is the 'Fouth Punic War' surely not fighting with stones and sticks, though.
Someone still forget China can still use nuclear weapon for 'testing' in their own territory (I don't add quotation mark here again). If it breaks out, China will no longer care about their current campaign, and rebalance the world with Plutonium and Uranium.
But l agree, a massive click bait for this article. 100KT of Diplomacy can cruise all the corner of sea, and so does the 500KT of Economy. It is only matters to these countries what they want to achieve behind all these threat-mongering and anti-globalization agendas. If it's not, and the modern world decided to replicate the Punic Wars, then diplomacy and economy aren't matters anymore.
The only issue is the 'Fouth Punic War' surely not fighting with stones and sticks, though.
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
About degrading satellites, I'll have two words: Kessler syndrome.
X-37 and the like wouldn't be enough to seriously threaten the Chinese satellite net : you would need a fleet of them, and they would need to already sit right next to their targets, orbit-wise (they wouldn't have the fuel to manoeuvre close to them otherwise - plane change, in particular, take a ridiculous amount of fuel).
To take satellites down, they would need missiles. A capability both sides demonstrated, so there would probably be retaliation.
Meaning that we would end up with a sky full of debris occupied at blowing satellites up to create more debris until there is nothing but debris in orbit and we can't launch anything but big, armoured (read: hideously expensive) crafts for the next months, years or maybe even decades.
And the few of those Ford-carrier-priced satellites would probably be debris cleaners anyway.
A Kessler cascade is depicted in the film Gravity, caused by one satellite blowing up. This is considered credible enough that there was an uproar when the Chinese blew one of their satellites up to test their anti-satellite missile. I'm pretty sure the word "irresponsible" was used.
But with dozens of satellites blowing up, an immediate Kessler cascade would be pretty much certain.
By the way, is Command able to simulate the loss of satellite support? For example, can GPS guidance stop working?
Then again, if I was the US and had a few months, I would blockade maritime traffic from outside of Chinese range. Given how much China is depending on sea trade, it would bring them to their knees. (For the slightly more time-constrained, a few key strikes on their industrial and energy infrastructure may speed is up a bit). Assuming the US can resist the world economy going low enough to discover exciting new geology.
Then again, right now Internet is about as sturdy as a bridge made of matches (as anyone working in the field will tell you), and the kind of cyber-actions they would start are akin to flamethrowers...
X-37 and the like wouldn't be enough to seriously threaten the Chinese satellite net : you would need a fleet of them, and they would need to already sit right next to their targets, orbit-wise (they wouldn't have the fuel to manoeuvre close to them otherwise - plane change, in particular, take a ridiculous amount of fuel).
To take satellites down, they would need missiles. A capability both sides demonstrated, so there would probably be retaliation.
Meaning that we would end up with a sky full of debris occupied at blowing satellites up to create more debris until there is nothing but debris in orbit and we can't launch anything but big, armoured (read: hideously expensive) crafts for the next months, years or maybe even decades.
And the few of those Ford-carrier-priced satellites would probably be debris cleaners anyway.
A Kessler cascade is depicted in the film Gravity, caused by one satellite blowing up. This is considered credible enough that there was an uproar when the Chinese blew one of their satellites up to test their anti-satellite missile. I'm pretty sure the word "irresponsible" was used.
But with dozens of satellites blowing up, an immediate Kessler cascade would be pretty much certain.
By the way, is Command able to simulate the loss of satellite support? For example, can GPS guidance stop working?
Then again, if I was the US and had a few months, I would blockade maritime traffic from outside of Chinese range. Given how much China is depending on sea trade, it would bring them to their knees. (For the slightly more time-constrained, a few key strikes on their industrial and energy infrastructure may speed is up a bit). Assuming the US can resist the world economy going low enough to discover exciting new geology.
Then again, right now Internet is about as sturdy as a bridge made of matches (as anyone working in the field will tell you), and the kind of cyber-actions they would start are akin to flamethrowers...
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
... And mass illegal immigrants are like a forest fire.
-
SSN754planker
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:48 pm
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
The last time the Chinese military did any fighting was in 1979 in a border war with Vietnam and they pretty much got their asses handed to them by Vietnam. This was a land war, the navy was not involved, so to really draw conclusions from that is moot.
MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754
ST1/SS SSN 754
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
But that doesn't mean land based warfare cannot be conducted for somewhere else. 12 countries neighboring with China same as Russia from land, and that makes Australia, United States and Japan are Elysiums because the sea are big enough to surround nearly all the countries (if counting on Canada is also work with US).ORIGINAL: SSN754planker
The last time the Chinese military did any fighting was in 1979 in a border war with Vietnam and they pretty much got their asses handed to them by Vietnam. This was a land war, the navy was not involved, so to really draw conclusions from that is moot.
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
Please don't use Gravity as an indication for anything to do with orbital mechanics; it's a pretty and enjoyable film but has close to no relation to the real world in that regard.
The rest of this thread looks like it's degenerating into a pissing contest (-My cruise missiles can beat your CVBG! -Well, my dad can beat yours up!) Out of all the actors on the world stage right now, the one with the best grasp on the unpredictability of a military approach to geopolitics seems to be China. They have a lot to gain by slowly growing into a superpower while avoiding overt confrontation, and much to lose they get entangled in open conflicts. For all the sabre-rattling around Taiwan, they have huge resources invested in a soft-power approach to annexing the island. This tells me the PLAN is quite aware of it's capabilities and shortcomings when it comes to conducting an operation of that magnitude.
In short: I don't expect China to go starting wars as of yet. It's much more likely we'll see a growing trend of deployments to hot zones around the world to test their equipment and doctrines and find out what works and what not; all while trying not to sour their relations with other major powers too much.
The rest of this thread looks like it's degenerating into a pissing contest (-My cruise missiles can beat your CVBG! -Well, my dad can beat yours up!) Out of all the actors on the world stage right now, the one with the best grasp on the unpredictability of a military approach to geopolitics seems to be China. They have a lot to gain by slowly growing into a superpower while avoiding overt confrontation, and much to lose they get entangled in open conflicts. For all the sabre-rattling around Taiwan, they have huge resources invested in a soft-power approach to annexing the island. This tells me the PLAN is quite aware of it's capabilities and shortcomings when it comes to conducting an operation of that magnitude.
In short: I don't expect China to go starting wars as of yet. It's much more likely we'll see a growing trend of deployments to hot zones around the world to test their equipment and doctrines and find out what works and what not; all while trying not to sour their relations with other major powers too much.
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
ORIGINAL: Aivlis
I don't expect China to go starting wars as of yet. It's much more likely we'll see a growing trend of deployments to hot zones around the world to test their equipment and doctrines and find out what works and what not; all while trying not to sour their relations with other major powers too much.
Maybe PLA is still playing chess with a pigeon. But I am sure when they are ready, the pigeon will no longer making rules over a real battleground. Only the problem is, will China ended up a hunt down a pigeon, or get hunted like a mealworm?
"Learning is stealing.", as China will always behind the others if they are only learning what superior already innovated and discovered. It is not a lie that China wants the latter, to innovate and discover their own characteristics, militarily and technologically. Yet peace and prosperity contradict their military power, while social inequality and barbarism hindering their technological applications. It won't be improving fast enough to make world believe China is getting more powerful, but still better than stuck and learn nothing.
Enough of the figure of speech, don't we remember the 1996? The apex of tension to Taiwan and US caused China make no choice but to take all the shortcuts and ludicrous measures to build up their military. It is receding after 10 years, as ballistic missiles and missile boats will eventually find little use than their new destroyers and sea-skimming cruise missiles.
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
This linked report basically says range is the only thing that matters and I think a lot of their facts based on range are wrong anyway.
It implies that a 1000nm radius A-6 is better than F-18E/Fs, what would you rather have going into a fight?
It says a J-10 has a 600nm combat radius, does a J-10 have a longer range than say a F-16? I doubt it.
It says the J-20 has a 1000nm combat radius. Really?
It raises concern about a swarm of harpy uav within 215nm. Doesn't seem too scary to me.
And that is just a few points that are flawed.
Even if the above stated ranges are correct, there is so many other factors as was stated earlier, I feel dumber after reading this report
It implies that a 1000nm radius A-6 is better than F-18E/Fs, what would you rather have going into a fight?
It says a J-10 has a 600nm combat radius, does a J-10 have a longer range than say a F-16? I doubt it.
It says the J-20 has a 1000nm combat radius. Really?
It raises concern about a swarm of harpy uav within 215nm. Doesn't seem too scary to me.
And that is just a few points that are flawed.
Even if the above stated ranges are correct, there is so many other factors as was stated earlier, I feel dumber after reading this report
RE: Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers.
Subarines are and always will be a threat.
ASBM are/will be a threat, if they work how say but I don't think they are to that point yet.
If AEGIS ships work as designed, than there is a counter to all these "threats" anyway, they could be overwhelmed but so could everything else, including China's offensive and defensive forces on the mainland.
These reports saying aircraft carriers are obsolete are ridiculous
ASBM are/will be a threat, if they work how say but I don't think they are to that point yet.
If AEGIS ships work as designed, than there is a counter to all these "threats" anyway, they could be overwhelmed but so could everything else, including China's offensive and defensive forces on the mainland.
These reports saying aircraft carriers are obsolete are ridiculous