open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked China's first battlestar
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

baltec1
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:17:00 - [31]
 

The Chinese melted American spy satalites the other year so I'd say they arn't all that great.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:23:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: baltec1
The Chinese melted American spy satalites the other year so I'd say they arn't all that great.


Yeah, Anti-Satellite weaponry is becoming a big thing now that people are realizing the power they have. I'm sure China doesn't have anything special in that department, but they're probably the only ones bold enough to use it to rattle America's cage.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:42:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Caleidascope
I think your version of reality is a bit different from mine.


Maybe because it's a subject i've spent a good amount of time researching.


I can be a theologian doesnt mean god or unicorns are real.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.08.10 21:32:00 - [34]
 

China has demonstrated an anti satellite ballistic missile. I don't think China, USA, Russia want the pressure from a public arms race for space. But instead will develop flexible multi role ballistic missile platforms and other tech that has space potential.

China is about 10-20 years behind the USA in being able to deliver a high tech capable working military platform be it a fighter jet, submarine or aircraft carrier. For example utilizing new material technology is very tricky. I saw a documentary about the F-35 joint strike fighter. Getting carbon fiber sheets to gel with each other was very problamatic.

China's military build up is a typical text book example of a pre eminient rising economic power seeking to alloy itself with the credibility and prestige of a capable military to cement a balance of power.

I don't think China or the USA want a unmitigated arms race but there will be always be a degree of intransigence between the two powers I think simply because Han Chinese don't want to follow the lead from predominately white Christian USA and vice-versa.

In the mean time there is a slow gradual military build up and re alignment of other countries around China, some aligned to the US military complex. There are going to be a lot more submarines in the Asian Pacific area in the future.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.12 12:58:00 - [35]
 


Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.12 14:49:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
In an amusing follow up, America wants to know what China needs the carrier for.

Vietnam is buying submarines and jets. That is pretty standard naval tactic.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.08.12 17:33:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
In an amusing follow up, America wants to know what China needs the carrier for.


I wonder if the US will give us info on their black projectsLaughing

Sgt Blade
Caldari
Save Yourself Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.13 01:44:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
In an amusing follow up, America wants to know what China needs the carrier for.


Why does any country have any sort of military equipment? What kind of stupid question is that. Why doesn't America just simply tell China they think they are incapable of doing anything and should just give up and become lap dogs. And people wonder why some countries dislike America Rolling Eyes

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2011.08.13 07:28:00 - [39]
 


Mostly this is probably just something for their navy to play with and gain some experience. There's also an element of "See - we've got an Aircraft Carrier too!" that has to do with international stature and prestige. Makes the countries that don't have Aircraft Carriers jealous.

The older VSTOL aircraft this looks like it uses (ski jump) have very poor capability. They're kind of a niche weapon. For the US Marines - it made a lot of sense. They already had all these things that look like carriers for their helicopters - putting some Harriers on them gave them an added capability - that was right there when the ARG deployed some where. For that - they put up with the rest of that aircraft types problems. Then there were the nations who couldn't afford a carrier that could launch conventional aircraft - where a jump jet carrier was better than nothing. The UK got some good use out of such ships in '82 but they lost pretty much all of their initial Harrier complement to operational problems. The UK suffered terribly though for not being able to operate more capable aircraft.

All in all - the Falklands War is a real demonstration of how badly things can go without a modern carrier.

My memory may well be faulty on this ... it has been a while but as I recall ... The Argentinians had an old British Carrier they had A-4 Sky Hawks on - but - it was so old that even though it had catapults - with the aircraft bombed up - it couldn't get enough wind across the deck to launch. They kept chugging along into what wind there was, hoping it would pick up ... but it didn't and they were getting to close to the British Fleet - so they had to give up and go back to port. Those same A-4's were then sent from land bases to attack the British Fleet - where they did substantial damage. It could have been far worse - had their orders not been to avoid combat with the Harriers. As many as were lost operationally ... the loss of just a few more in air combat would have used them all up. Fortunately for the UK - they got a container ship carrying some RN & RAF Harriers that they sent off to the Hermes and Invincible - shortly before that ship was sunk by an Exocet.

Apologies if I screwed any of that up ...


In any case ... the point of all that was to show what type of operations you end up with using ships like this.


It's my understanding that the UK & France are both building newer, better Carriers.


Still, it is better than no carrier at all.

*shrug*


Links:

Future Chinese Aircraft Carrier


Falklands War

New UK Carrier



.

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.08.13 10:05:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

There's also an element of "See - we've got an Aircraft Carrier too!" that has to do with international stature and prestige.


It has far less to do with international stature and prestige and more to do with feeding nationalistic trumpetings and rhetoric to their own people.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.08.13 10:19:00 - [41]
 

tbh with the recent developments on railguns, I wonder if we'll start to see a resurgence on battleship-class ships in deteriment of carriers, however.

Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.08.13 12:20:00 - [42]
 

I am sure it will sink very well for them

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.13 15:57:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Grimpak
tbh with the recent developments on railguns, I wonder if we'll start to see a resurgence on battleship-class ships in deteriment of carriers, however.


Russians have super sonic anti ship to ship ballistic missiles than can range around 1000km. (Current railguns estimated max range is around 200 miles to be mounted on the next destroyer) At which speeds they theoretically can make it past Phalanx systems. They were designed to be launched in smaller fleets to draw less attention and kill Carriers.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.08.13 17:03:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel
Originally by: Grimpak
tbh with the recent developments on railguns, I wonder if we'll start to see a resurgence on battleship-class ships in deteriment of carriers, however.


Russians have super sonic anti ship to ship ballistic missiles than can range around 1000km. (Current railguns estimated max range is around 200 miles to be mounted on the next destroyer) At which speeds they theoretically can make it past Phalanx systems. They were designed to be launched in smaller fleets to draw less attention and kill Carriers.
well, if you, however, manage to create a battleship the size of a Iowa or Yamato class, power it with a high-yeld nuclear reactor and fit railguns with high-yeld capacitors I think you could double or even triple said range.

railguns do seem to have the potential to replace cruise missiles simply by the fact that you can create a concentrated barrage in a target with great precision for a fraction of the cost of current long range missile tech, and nigh-impossible to catch.

this is pure theory tho. I might be wrong.


also, destroyers equiped with said rails could also provide coastal bombardment for also a fraction of the cost.
my theory-mongering self does believe that railguns will one day replace anything but long range air-air combat weapons (and even then I do have doubts), due to the non-reliance on chemical propellants, since a mass-driver weapon like the railgun, shoots slugs that are no more than an aerodynamic lump of metal that may or may not have a sabot.

mercyonman
Caldari
SmellsOFelderbarry
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2011.08.13 17:45:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217
Originally by: Akita T
I'm still waiting for (nearly) unmanned, remote-controlled and partially autonomous, self-maintaining and massively redundant seafaring supercarriers with oversized nuclear reactors and a huge fleet of drones, preferably with drone fabrication lines right there on the ship.

...yes, I have probably been playing too much Total Annihilation // Supreme Commander Twisted Evil


Firstly, you can never play enough TA/Supcom.

This is almost certainly the future of warfare anyway. Think of Supcom like free training for tomorrows army. YARRRR!!

i dont want tomorrow's battles to lag my screen though :(

mama guru
Gallente
Thundercats
Posted - 2011.08.13 18:29:00 - [46]
 

It's kinda funny that nations still waste money on those floating money sinks, yeah sure they give you the logistics needed to blow up 3rd world nations but they wont save you in a real war. In naval warfare there are only two kinds of ships: Submarines and Targets.


Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.13 19:39:00 - [47]
 

I don't think such behemoths are very cost-effective. The Nimitz class carriers for example have building costs of 4.5 bil. US-$ each. Now add all the systems to it, the planes stationed there and the ships surrounding it (they usually don't travel all alone) and you end up somewhere close to 10 billion.

All this can be taken out by a rather cheap SS 27 Topol M (over 10.000 km range, 550 kT yield warhead) that can be fired anywhere on earth and reach the supercarrier no matter where it is - and that costs only a tiny fraction compared to value of the carrier fleet (human lives not included).

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.13 20:55:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: mama guru
It's kinda funny that nations still waste money on those floating money sinks, yeah sure they give you the logistics needed to blow up 3rd world nations but they wont save you in a real war. In naval warfare there are only two kinds of ships: Submarines and Targets.




Indeed. I had a similar discussion on the World of Tanks forum, about a naval combat game. You just wouldn't be able to include subs at all in one, because the rage towards them would be overwhelming. Everyone wants war to be fair in games, you see. Wink

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.13 23:20:00 - [49]
 

People seem to forget that carriers aren't primarily for striking on their own rather support for expeditionary forces. If youre another nation thats not the US or has bases all around the world and wish to invade far off or extend current lines of communication over water. You're not going to use subs.

And while there are various systems in place that have striking capability globally they also lack ability to provide CAS or sustainability over the battlefield in support of such operations. Drones currently aren't as fast nor carry as much fire power. They further need an airfield near the AO. Carriers have the ability to station in the AO for months at a time as well (If they dont have a navy or its been destroyed there's little someone else can do... Navies are expensive after all.

Ballistic weapons also have difficulty hitting multiple mobile targets and assessment of impact is difficult.(Cruise missiles are designed to use against stationary targets)

So while yes there are cheaper ways to simply strike a target the carrier wasnt primarily designed for that. Rather to be used with "en masse" tactics. As far as naval combat is concerned aircraft can simply cover a greater area with refueling capabilities. And there are plenty of anti sub capable aircraft that just need to create a buoy net to pin point a sub and drop a few homing torpedoes, or now launch drone torpedoes.

Are carriers the end all in Naval warfare? IN WW2 they nearly were, but not so much now. However still quite effective, and have a role or else no one would want/use them.

Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.14 00:40:00 - [50]
 

This is why carriers are outdated (unless they are used against underdeveloped countries): Operation Crossroads - Shot Baker. A 21kT Nuke exploding 500m from the carrier USS Saratoga made it sink in 8 hours, dozens of other ships along with it. Now imagine what a 550kT nuke (such as the Topol M) will do to a carrier.

Ustrello
Posted - 2011.08.14 00:54:00 - [51]
 

Pretty sure that the chinese just bought this from the russians or that was the indians

Muent Dai
Posted - 2011.08.14 00:56:00 - [52]
 

If you require a nuclear warhead to take it out, we're all ****ed anyway. Once that nuke detonates it opens the door to the rest of them and a carrier group is the least of anyone's concern.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2011.08.14 02:19:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 14/08/2011 02:24:03

Uh ... the response concerning internal consumption as a reason for building the thing would be part of it. People seldom spend lots of money for only 1 reason.



Now ... as to Carriers in Some Future War - nobody ****ing knows.

For every anti-carrier weapon - there's a counter weapon. The only question is ... how well would they work - which nobody ****ing knows. Before WWII nobody really knew how things would work out. Lots of people had theories but most of the theorists were proven wrong, at least to some degree, about how things would actually work. Once people started going at each other, then tactics and strategies evolved - though not always correctly. Even after the war there was a lot of heated discussion about how some things had actually worked. Of course - it's not just technology - it's tactics and training and the skill with which things are done. Some people made good use of poor equipment while others didn't get as much out of theirs as they could have. Initially, the attacker has a lot of advantages - as he knows what he's going to do - whereas the defender is just responding. The problem there - is that success can often hide fundamental, underlying flaws that can, in the end, prove devastating.


As to using nukes against a carrier task force? Right - you do that and your capital is cinders. Oh - you sank a lot of expensive ships - but your country has been wiped off the face of the earth. Great trade. The only scenario in which nukes would be used - is one involving a general nuclear war - about which nobody ****ing knows.

The only real chance for someone to use a nuke with impunity - is if they are terrorists - who don't have a home to bomb. For the moment ... they don't have any nukes either ... I hope ...


Things have changed a lot since the last war involving major industrial countries - directly fighting each other rather than through proxies. All the wars since WWII have either been local wars for local reasons - or proxie wars. Thus - if major powers started flailing away at each other - *shrug* - no one ****ing knows just exactly how all that would play out.



Carriers can go anywhere on the earth's oceans. They can then project power a good distance inland if they're one of the big ones. For nations that have world wide interests - it's helpful to have a navy there to look out for them and carriers are the long arm of that navy. Yes ... I know ... cruise missiles ... but you can't refuel a cruise missile in flight ... or call it back. You can detonate them - but you can't call them back and use them some other time.


Now ... as to the smart ass sub guys ... well ... the carrier groups often have a sub of their own - as you well know - since escorting carriers was what some of you spent a good bit of time doing.

As to being big fat targets ... yeah ... but then they're not that easy to sink. Look at the Oriskany, Enterprise and Saratoga off Vietnam. Flight deck accidents set off lots of ordinance putting gigantic holes in the flight decks - but they still steamed home under their own power. The US Navy learned a lot during WWII about damage control and built it into it's later ship designs, especially the CV's. The ships that have really suffered have been the lighter ships that were constructed using lighter materials.



.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.14 06:24:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Ustrello
Pretty sure that the chinese just bought this from the russians or that was the indians

lol
Update your calendar dude. You are about ten years behind the rest of the world.

Nariya Kentaya
Coalition Of Gentlemen.
Posted - 2011.08.14 15:43:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Nariya Kentaya on 14/08/2011 15:43:55
Originally by: Caleidascope
Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Caleidascope
A. Satellites in low orbit eventually fall down into gravity well.
B. Satellites in orbit are extremely difficult to reload.

While satellite warfare is fascinating, I doubt it will be used much, if ever.


Once again, you're a little behind on things. There's no reloading microwave or laser weapons, and for quite awhile now satellites can correct or even change their orbits when needed. When they finally run out of power, which only really happens with the oldest models, they are moved to what is called a 'graveyard orbit' instead of sending them hurtling towards Earth.

Are that simple? Really?

A. Firing lasers and microwave emitters will wear them out. And let us not forget other junk that floats in space and various forms of radiation, they will degrade the systems too.
B. Corrections use fuel. When fuel is gone, no more corrections unless you refuel.

Yes, you can do satellite warfare, have fun paying for it.


also, short of an onboard nuclear reactor to power it, you wouldnt be able to attack the land, considering putting enough power into a microwave beam would effectively sterilize an entire region of all life (and frying electronics, but majority of building A-OK).

problem is with a lser, that much energy would rip a hole in the atmosphere for a few seconds and superheat all the air in the region, which would damage an area far wider then the target zone, and screwing up a whole regions ecology.

satellite warfare, less than efficient, more than ******ed.

edit *though a kinetic strike would eb more precise and more controlled, it WOULD require reloading (though so would that nuclear reactor powering the lasers)

Nariya Kentaya
Coalition Of Gentlemen.
Posted - 2011.08.14 15:57:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 14/08/2011 02:24:03

Uh ... the response concerning internal consumption as a reason for building the thing would be part of it. People seldom spend lots of money for only 1 reason.



Now ... as to Carriers in Some Future War - nobody ****ing knows.

For every anti-carrier weapon - there's a counter weapon. The only question is ... how well would they work - which nobody ****ing knows. Before WWII nobody really knew how things would work out. Lots of people had theories but most of the theorists were proven wrong, at least to some degree, about how things would actually work. Once people started going at each other, then tactics and strategies evolved - though not always correctly. Even after the war there was a lot of heated discussion about how some things had actually worked. Of course - it's not just technology - it's tactics and training and the skill with which things are done. Some people made good use of poor equipment while others didn't get as much out of theirs as they could have. Initially, the attacker has a lot of advantages - as he knows what he's going to do - whereas the defender is just responding. The problem there - is that success can often hide fundamental, underlying flaws that can, in the end, prove devastating.


As to using nukes against a carrier task force? Right - you do that and your capital is cinders. Oh - you sank a lot of expensive ships - but your country has been wiped off the face of the earth. Great trade. The only scenario in which nukes would be used - is one involving a general nuclear war - about which nobody ****ing knows.

The only real chance for someone to use a nuke with impunity - is if they are terrorists - who don't have a home to bomb. For the moment ... they don't have any nukes either ... I hope ...


Things have changed a lot since the last war involving major industrial countries - directly fighting each other rather than through proxies. All the wars since WWII have either been local wars for local reasons - or proxie wars. Thus - if major powers started flailing away at each other - *shrug* - no one ****ing knows just exactly how all that would play out.



Carriers can go anywhere on the earth's oceans. They can then project power a good distance inland if they're one of the big ones. For nations that have world wide interests - it's helpful to have a navy there to look out for them and carriers are the long arm of that navy. Yes ... I know ... cruise missiles ... but you can't refuel a cruise missile in flight ... or call it back. You can detonate them - but you can't call them back and use them some other time.


Now ... as to the smart ass sub guys ... well ... the carrier groups often have a sub of their own - as you well know - since escorting carriers was what some of you spent a good bit of time doing.

As to being big fat targets ... yeah ... but then they're not that easy to sink. Look at the Oriskany, Enterprise and Saratoga off Vietnam. Flight deck accidents set off lots of ordinance putting gigantic holes in the flight decks - but they still steamed home under their own power. The US Navy learned a lot during WWII about damage control and built it into it's later ship designs, especially the CV's. The ships that have really suffered have been the lighter ships that were constructed using lighter materials.



.



or back in WW2, i think it was called yorktown, the companion carrier for enterprise, was reported as taking so much damage it sank by the japanese multiple times, but each time it was resilient enough to just get a quick patch and carry on, it rather difficult to cause permanent damage to a ship the size of a city block.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2011.08.14 17:03:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 14/08/2011 17:17:26


Actually CV-5, the first Yorktown, (Sister Ship of the Enterprise CV-6 and the Hornet CV-8), was heavily damaged at the Battle of the Coral Sea (where Lexington CV-2 was sunk) - but was hurriedly repaired in time to participate in the Battle of Midway. Here - CV-5 took enough damage from bombs and torpedo's that she was abandoned - but - after the Japanese were defeated (they lost Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi & Kaga) crews were put aboard to attempt to salvage her. A Japanese submarine found her and sank her and the destroyer Hammond which was alongside providing power.

Enterprise was heavily damaged a number of times but survived the war, only to be scrapped.

Hornet was sunk at the Battle of Santa Cruz.

Wasp CV-7 was sunk by a Japanese Submarine, while Saratoga was torpedoed a number of times but only damaged and repaired.

That was it for the US Fleet Carrier losses - though a number of the CVE & CVL's were lost. The CVE's were merchant ship conversions while the CVL's were light cruiser conversions.

I believe there were a number of ships that were claimed sunk several times by the Japanese, including Enterprise but I don't remember them all. There were also members of the later Essex class carriers which were named after the Wasp, Hornet, Yorktown and Lexington.


Later in the war, especially from Kamikaze attacks - a number of fleet carriers received much worse damage than that which sank some of the earlier carriers (especially Wasp & Lexington) - but - damage control was much better and the US never lost control of the battle space (why Hornet had to be sacrificed).






Zachstar
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:30:00 - [58]
 

I don't really understand why they would want to go on this crazy path.

Anyone in the know ought to understand that drone warfare is the future. A mass of drones will overwhelm just about any countermeasure currently in existence. (Not an EVE reference)

The thing is a floating target in any serious conflict. Read "Red Storm Rising" By Tom Clancy to know just how easy it would be to negate even our major CV forces.

In my opinion China needs to stop trying to match anyone's military. They already have a stupidly large economy that can dominate through the markets.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:37:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Zachstar
I don't really understand why they would want to go on this crazy path.

Anyone in the know ought to understand that drone warfare is the future. A mass of drones will overwhelm just about any countermeasure currently in existence. (Not an EVE reference)

The thing is a floating target in any serious conflict. Read "Red Storm Rising" By Tom Clancy to know just how easy it would be to negate even our major CV forces.

In my opinion China needs to stop trying to match anyone's military. They already have a stupidly large economy that can dominate through the markets.


You need something to provide air cover for a fleet, even drones need a home from home.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:43:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Zachstar
I don't really understand why they would want to go on this crazy path.

Anyone in the know ought to understand that drone warfare is the future. A mass of drones will overwhelm just about any countermeasure currently in existence. (Not an EVE reference)

The thing is a floating target in any serious conflict. Read "Red Storm Rising" By Tom Clancy to know just how easy it would be to negate even our major CV forces.

In my opinion China needs to stop trying to match anyone's military. They already have a stupidly large economy that can dominate through the markets.




1) Drones fall into the category of - we don't know how it would ****ing work. If you are using remote control - there stands the possibility of being jammed or of the drone even being taken over by the enemy. Thinking that they couldn't do that ... is setting yourself up for them TO do that. Jamming and Cyber Attacks are the kinds of things where we won't really know how effective it is - until they try it. Then - they won't know how effectively we can counter what they're doing - until we try it. Now - this is different for pre-programmed or autonomous drones - but you're not going to use pre-programmed drones for dynamic combat and autonomous drones with authority to fire weapons - is not something we are likely to see a lot of in the near future - or - know how well they work - until they are engaged.

2) Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising was the best thing he ever wrote - but it was a novel. Nothing that took place in that book would necessarily have happened the way it happened in that book. Since we never fought WWIII with the Soviet Union - we'll never know what would have happened.

3) China is going to be one of the worlds great powers in the not so distant future. There's all kinds of things that go with that. Having a blue water navy that can create a presence in the strategic areas of the world is part of it. That's just the way it is.

4) What you're seeing from China now - is nothing - compared to what you may see in the future.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only