At last, the great satan and its western lackeys will suffer. Long live the revolution! Workers of the world unite!
From BBC news
China's first aircraft carrier has entered into service, the Defence Ministry says.
The 300m (990ft) Liaoning - named after the province where it was refitted - is a refurbished Soviet ship purchased from Ukraine.
For now the carrier has no operational aircraft and will be used for training.
But China says the vessel, which has undergone extensive sea trials, will increase its capacity to defend state interests.
The delivery of the aircraft carrier comes at a time when Japan and other countries in the region have expressed concern at China's growing naval strength.
China and Japan are embroiled in a row over disputed islands in the East China Sea. Several South East Asian nations are also at odds with China over overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea.
It also comes weeks ahead of a party congress expected to see the transition of power to a new generation of Chinese leaders.
'Defend interests'
The Liaoning was formally handed over to the navy at a ceremony attended by top Chinese leaders at Dalian Port, state-run Xinhua news agency said.
"Having the aircraft carrier enter the ranks will be of important significance in raising the overall fighting capacity of our nation's navy to a modern level," China's Defence Ministry said in a statement.
The vessel will "increase [China's] capacity to defend, develop its capacity to co-operate on the high seas in dealing with non-traditional security threats and will be effective in defending the interests of state sovereignty, security and development", it added.
The official commissioning of the country's first aircraft carrier signals China's status as a rising power, says the BBC's Damian Grammaticas in Beijing.
The country's Communist leaders are spending billions modernising their armed forces so they can project military power far beyond China's borders, our correspondent adds.
The Liaoning, formerly known as the Varyag, was constructed in the 1980s for the Soviet navy but was never completed.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Varyag sat in Ukraine's dockyards.
A Chinese company with links to China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) bought the ship just as Soviet warships were being cut for scrap.
It said it wanted to turn the Varyag into a floating casino in Macau and in 2001 the ship was towed to China.
The Chinese military confirmed in June 2011 that it was being refitted to serve as the nation's first aircraft carrier.
Analysts say it will take years to outfit the carrier with aircraft and make it fully operational. But Chinese officials say that the Liaoning advances the country's military modernisation.
"The development of aircraft carriers is an important part of China's national defence modernisation, in particular its naval forces, and this aircraft carrier is an essential stepping stone toward its own more advanced aircraft carriers in the future," China's Rear Admiral Yang Yi wrote in state-run China Daily newspaper.
The carrier will be mostly used "for scientific research and training missions" so China could build "a more advanced aircraft carrier platform in the future", he added.
Analysis by Jonathon Marcus, BBC defence guy
The commissioning of China's first aircraft carrier - the Liaoning (a former Soviet vessel, the Varyag) - sends a signal to other countries in the region that Beijing's maritime ambitions are growing.
The fact that this comes at a time of heightened tensions in the East China Sea only underlines the message.
But China's new carrier is more a symbol of a future capability than a potent naval threat itself.
Getting into the carrier business takes time; a whole range of skills has to be learnt; and carriers have to operate with other ships, requiring a new mindset across the navy as a whole.
It could be a steep learning curve, but China is moving ahead steadily, taking the first steps on the path to having a fully-fledged carrier force.
The world's carriers
US: 11 in service, with 3 under construction
Russia: One, the Admiral Kuznetsov
UK: One, HMS Illustrious which only carries helicopters - two under construction
China: One, the Liaoning
France: One, the Charles de Gaulle
India: One, the Viraat, formerly known as HMS Hermes, but converting another, the Admiral Gorshkov, into the Vikramaditya. A third is under construction
Italy: Two, the Giuseppe Garibaldi and the Cavour
Spain: One, the Principe De Asturias
It's missing Brazil, Spain's second, And Thailand. Not to mention of the BBC counts the Lusty they are missing Japan's aircraft carting destroyers and the Wasp and America class LHAs that are more carriers than Lusty was in her best days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?
Zaire?
China has a pretty legit need for a maritime force, it's not exactly landlocked.
I get why they need a navy. I just don't see in what way they actually see a carrier helping with a war effort. They have plenty of strike fighters than can reach china or even japan.
I guess it's symbolic, I'd just think there would be better uses of a naval budget.
Polonius wrote: Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?
Well
1. China has a massive coastline/coastal waters.
2. China is claiming most of the nearby seas, including waters right up to the shores of Japan, Vietnam, and the Phillipines. You need a blue water navy if you're going to get all "colonial."
I expect a CHinese version of HMS Pinafore presently. "For he is a Chinese Maaaaannn."
Polonius wrote:I get why they need a navy. I just don't see in what way they actually see a carrier helping with a war effort. They have plenty of strike fighters than can reach china or even japan.
I guess it's symbolic, I'd just think there would be better uses of a naval budget.
I would hope Chinese fighters could reach China...
Carriers are about projecting power, I would imagine China intends to use its carrier and future carrier fleet to expand its influence beyond East Asia, you know like Africa, the ME, or Thier best friend India's back yard.
Government has tried in recent years to boost consumer spending with discount vouchers on appliances, furniture and cars
Many aspire to material goods, but a 2010 survey found they were more concerned with saving for education, healthcare and retirement
The carrier, once a much vaunted opportunity for a casino, will be used for training and the testing of technologies for the next gen of Chinese carriers.
Expect it to be a few years before they complete a carrier or two for active service.
China will use the idea of their future carrier force to project power and influence.
I notice the title doesn't say "aircraft carrier", just "carrier". Funny, but appropriate since they don't have any planes to put on the carrier yet or pilots that can land those planes on the carrier yet.
"Two of the greatest things in life are a good landing and a good bowel movement, a night carrier landing is a chance to experience both at the same time." (Actually, the original quote was 3 things and "bowel movement" was phrased differently, but you get the point).
Mr. Burning wrote:The carrier, once a much vaunted opportunity for a casino, will be used for training and the testing of technologies for the next gen of Chinese carriers.
Expect it to be a few years before they complete a carrier or two for active service.
China will use the idea of their future carrier force to project power and influence.
The Kiev they actually turned into a hotel, but after Melbourne I don't think anyone in the West actually believed that casino hooey for Ark Royal or Varyag. I wonder what they plan on doing with Minsk.
Mr. Burning wrote: The carrier, once a much vaunted opportunity for a casino, will be used for training and the testing of technologies for the next gen of Chinese carriers.
Expect it to be a few years before they complete a carrier or two for active service.
China will use the idea of their future carrier force to project power and influence.
This, in a nutshell. If you read the article closely, you'll note that it's actually an ex-soviet carrier purchased over a decade ago. China has been studying and reverse engineering carrier technology for a considerable time now. They've refrained from rushing into building the things, because aircraft carriers are currently exceptionally vulnerable to drone attacks, missile technology, and suchlike. There's actually been a fair bit of academic debate on whether or not the things are even of any use anymore(like the battleship). The general consensus is that they very much still are, but from China's point of view, there's absolutely no point in building a Carrier if its going to be subpar to those of every other nation in everyway. Carriers are expensive, so rather than rushing into construction, China has been taking it's time, and gradually developing the electronic warfare capabilities required to build a carrier that could be considered a threat, as opposed to a floating target.
Now the Chinese have spent a few decades examining Russian carrier technology with the three that they purchased (although only the Varyag was retained for military use). They also bought and broke down piece by piece the HMAS Melbourne from Australia, so they could examine a Western designed carrier. Combined with designs and information gained through spying and business negotiations, the Chinese have by now, more or less, got a handle on how a contemporary up to date aircraft carrier is built. The newly launched Liaoning is to be their practice run at operating the things, training pilots to land and take off, and generally work out teething issues with the machinery. It is essentially a very expensive prototype.
What's worrying America more than the Liaoning, is the two to four carriers supposedly under construction that are planned for completion by 2015. As things stand, the US rules supreme with carrier based technology and in terms of carrier numerical superiority. Once China has five carriers in service and the capability to build more, America is going to be very hard pressed to maintain dominance in that area of the world whilst meeting their commitments elsewhere.
From the Chinese perspective, they are a growing nation, and the China Sea, both East and South, is entirely within their sphere of influence. They are also aware that they do not currently have the capability to force the issue at the moment with the US involved however. The obvious solution), is to build a large enough fleet locally that it can overmatch anything the Americans can bring to bear without America being forced to desert other defence commitments. This should logically force the Americans to withdraw from the Chinese sphere of influence, and allow them to seize the China Sea and start browbeating everyone else in the neighbourhood. It also allows them to intimidate India, who plan to have a total of three carriers by 2015.
In short, the Chinese want to control their own backyard. The American Government though, accustomed to being the unchallenged and dominant power for twenty odd years now, is reluctant to lose that position, and enter one in which they are not the undisputed military masters of the world and able to interfere and dictate as they please.
I'd probably be on China's side, if they had anything approaching democracy. As things stand though, I'd rather have the US as the primary military world power than China by a long shot.
Curiously enough, history is actually repeating itself here. If we look back to 1900, you'll note that Germany and Britain were in the same position as China and the US. Germany was a young, expanding nation, desperate to secure its own holdings and resources, and Britain was the worldwide naval power that restrained those ambitions. As a result, Tirpitz initiated a large Dreadnought battleship construction programme, arguing that if Germany had enough naval power to threaten Britain locally, it would counter Britain's greater worldwide numerical superiority (as Britain would never focus the number of ships necessary to counter them in that part of the world). That would grant Germany the capacity to act more or less as they wanted without the threat of British interference.
Unfortunately, what happened in reality was that Britain scrapped the majority of its older ships, built two new Dreadnoughts for every one Germany built, and stationed them in the Home Fleet locally. The Germans never once thought the British would be prepared to sacrifice the security of their Empire to contain them, nor expend the vast amounts that they did on naval construction to keep on top of them. Come 1914, the British Home fleet was still bigger than Germany's, and still capable of containing them fairly securely.
It will be interesting to see over the next ten years if America will follow Britain's earlier example, or instead choose to withdraw and cede the locality to China.
If you don't use a proper cat to launch your fighters you may as well not have a carrier frankly. *snorts* ski jumps! I swear it's military technology by way of Monty Python.
That said I do find it amusing that the Marine Corps 'gator fleet's LPDs and LHDs
(these things)
mount similar airpower to a lot of other nation's full size carriers, and we even stick a bunch of extra tanks, vehicles and extremely grumpy grunts in the bottom of ours.
Also, it's considered proper for in the military industrial complex to get very worried about any new deployment by another nation, because that justifies more spending on defense.
The Africa thing makes the most sense, actually. I was fixated on China's interests in east Asia, and forgot that they want to be a power broker in Africa.
As it stands, unless the Chinese are a lot more advanced in terms of counter measures than the US, our fighter wings in Korea and Okinawa could seriously threaten a blue water fleet.
Anybody know how good Chinese Anti-Submarine Warfare is?
Don't say that the Chinese may bully any nations with these military might for annual tribute payment in a near future
About Diaoyu Daitang / Senkaku dispuite claims. I bet Chinese will win. both Taiwanese and Japanese needs backups. the USA.
- Taiwan needs more manpower to safeguard its 'soverign' and to make the world recognize them as an independent nation state
- Japan had been 'declawed' since the end of WW2. the present constitution prevents the mobilization of 'an army that capable of a successful invasion against any nation state on earth' so the only military strenghs are the so called "Self Defense Forces" barely enough to defend its homeland should China stage a full scale invasion (and annex Japan!). They may have built a 'new Yamato Battleship' however
China did also declared itself supporter to Mugabe and had prepared Zimbabwe a 'high quality Military officiers' should the "White Empires" try any 'reconquista'.
Polonius wrote: Also, it's considered proper for in the military industrial complex to get very worried about any new deployment by another nation, because that justifies more spending on defense.
The Africa thing makes the most sense, actually. I was fixated on China's interests in east Asia, and forgot that they want to be a power broker in Africa.
As it stands, unless the Chinese are a lot more advanced in terms of counter measures than the US, our fighter wings in Korea and Okinawa could seriously threaten a blue water fleet.
Anybody know how good Chinese Anti-Submarine Warfare is?
The Chinese, as well as the russians, have studied and poured imense amounts into understanding Western (read US) warfighting tactics. That Chinese 'Stealth' flighter that was unveiled recently will probably be used as a long range interceptor tasked with destroying AWACS other C3 air assets and other force multipliers, such as ankers. Take these out and it makes the game a lot harder for The US and it's allies.
Los Angeles era boats could still put a dent in a Chinese surface fleet but I wouldn't put my money on easy victories. The Chinese are improving their ASW performance and there are plenty of effective decoys around. It's a matter of training and technique and so long as they get that right it could be anyones game.
While its anyone's guess my take on PLANs ASW capability is that it is at best marginal. The PLAN simply doesn't put to sea to train as much as they should or could and simulations only give so much. Even of they weren't 20 years behind in military technology, and they are. It seems by the design of thier destroyers tha they are more concerned with the AA role than ASW, which is follow with number of possible opponents China faces with submarines of really good quality.
Polonius wrote: Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?
India? China is just flexing it's muscle with this, though it won't be a combat platform for years. Chinas maritime efforts have focused on the defense, they're lacking in force projection since they don't care to project force. This carrier is more prestige than anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: My question is, how well will it function once a B-2 drops 16 tons of high explosives onto it's deck? My guess is "not terribly well."
Shortly followed by the explosion of the more expensive B-2 as it's similarly aged ass gets knocked out.
AustonT wrote: While its anyone's guess my take on PLANs ASW capability is that it is at best marginal. The PLAN simply doesn't put to sea to train as much as they should or could and simulations only give so much. Even of they weren't 20 years behind in military technology, and they are. It seems by the design of thier destroyers tha they are more concerned with the AA role than ASW, which is follow with number of possible opponents China faces with submarines of really good quality.
They a littoral force at the monent, their Navy is geared up to AA and anti surface/anti ship. In order to provide some support to inavsion fleets and to defend their coastline/attack their closer neighbours. I still wouldn't put it past Th PLAN to be able to aquire and develop effective ASW in the next few years and to ramp up their time at sea.
As for B-2's, they wouldn't be used, anti ship missiles would constitute the main threat. Cana B2 even leave it's hanger without its RAM coating being damaged, that's if you can find one thats mission capable.
Vulcan wrote:My question is, how well will it function once a B-2 drops 16 tons of high explosives onto it's deck? My guess is "not terribly well."
To my knowledge the B2 is not capable of hitting a warship at sea or more likely would not even be slated for that type of mission. Missiles and torpedoes, most likely launched from submarine constitute the major threat to carriers at sea, or you know the defeat of their air wing by another carrier.
Mr. Burning wrote:
AustonT wrote: While its anyone's guess my take on PLANs ASW capability is that it is at best marginal. The PLAN simply doesn't put to sea to train as much as they should or could and simulations only give so much. Even of they weren't 20 years behind in military technology, and they are. It seems by the design of thier destroyers tha they are more concerned with the AA role than ASW, which is folly with number of possible opponents China faces with submarines of really good quality.
They a littoral force at the monent, their Navy is geared up to AA and anti surface/anti ship. In order to provide some support to inavsion fleets and to defend their coastline/attack their closer neighbours. I still wouldn't put it past Th PLAN to be able to aquire and develop effective ASW in the next few years and to ramp up their time at sea.
As for B-2's, they wouldn't be used, anti ship missiles would constitute the main threat. Cana B2 even leave it's hanger without its RAM coating being damaged, that's if you can find one thats mission capable.
1. I have no doubt China can deveolop or steal decent hardware but it wont be soon. China's aircraft industry has grown by leaps and bounds but do we really think they have jumped from copying 30 year old Sukhois and making watered down Gripens The Pakistanis wish were Block 15 F-16, to a homegrown 5th Gen Fighter? I for one do not. Until China builds not just the production capability but the ability to innovate new technologies they will continue to lag a decade or more behind whoever IS in the lead. And lets be honest the leader is not the US Navy, it's too big. I think in the next 10 years China will show us how to use 1980's or 90's ASW tech at a proficient level while the Swedes or the Germans show us what 2020 tech looks like
They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.
IF and thats a huge if Iran develops the bomb how long do you think it will be before there is a "spontaneous revolution"? Its in the regime's best interests to keep threatening and make no progress. It keeps them relevant and in power instead of assassinated and nuclear.
Vulcan wrote:My question is, how well will it function once a B-2 drops 16 tons of high explosives onto it's deck? My guess is "not terribly well."
To my knowledge the B2 is not capable of hitting a warship at sea or more likely would not even be slated for that type of mission. Missiles and torpedoes, most likely launched from submarine constitute the major threat to carriers at sea, or you know the defeat of their air wing by another carrier.
Mr. Burning wrote:
AustonT wrote: While its anyone's guess my take on PLANs ASW capability is that it is at best marginal. The PLAN simply doesn't put to sea to train as much as they should or could and simulations only give so much. Even of they weren't 20 years behind in military technology, and they are. It seems by the design of thier destroyers tha they are more concerned with the AA role than ASW, which is folly with number of possible opponents China faces with submarines of really good quality.
They a littoral force at the monent, their Navy is geared up to AA and anti surface/anti ship. In order to provide some support to inavsion fleets and to defend their coastline/attack their closer neighbours. I still wouldn't put it past Th PLAN to be able to aquire and develop effective ASW in the next few years and to ramp up their time at sea.
As for B-2's, they wouldn't be used, anti ship missiles would constitute the main threat. Cana B2 even leave it's hanger without its RAM coating being damaged, that's if you can find one thats mission capable.
1. I have no doubt China can deveolop or steal decent hardware but it wont be soon. China's aircraft industry has grown by leaps and bounds but do we really think they have jumped from copying 30 year old Sukhois and making watered down Gripens The Pakistanis wish were Block 15 F-16, to a homegrown 5th Gen Fighter? I for one do not. Until China builds not just the production capability but the ability to innovate new technologies they will continue to lag a decade or more behind whoever IS in the lead. And lets be honest the leader is not the US Navy, it's too big. I think in the next 10 years China will show us how to use 1980's or 90's ASW tech at a proficient level while the Swedes or the Germans show us what 2020 tech looks like
B-2 can be armed with cruise missles.... so, the ships wont see them.
However, it won't be the B-2s... it'll be the subs...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If you don't use a proper cat to launch your fighters you may as well not have a carrier frankly. *snorts* ski jumps! I swear it's military technology by way of Monty Python.
That said I do find it amusing that the Marine Corps 'gator fleet's LPDs and LHDs
(these things)
mount similar airpower to a lot of other nation's full size carriers, and we even stick a bunch of extra tanks, vehicles and extremely grumpy grunts in the bottom of ours.
Here's a fun video on how MEUs do business:
Those sailors need to paint that float. Cool video.
AustonT wrote: They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.
I also believe the general thought being that the Japanese Navy would beat the living stuffing out of the PLAN even if they went to war today. There's a FP article on the issue, which accounts for better training, tech, and experience
AustonT wrote: They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.
I also believe the general thought being that the Japanese Navy would beat the living stuffing out of the PLAN even if they went to war today. There's a FP article on the issue, which accounts for better training, tech, and experience
Lets be realistic, the FP article stated that in a straight engagement the PLAs navy would beat the japanese due to sheer numerical superiority. It then spent three pages desperately trying to set up scenarios where that wouldn't occur. The entire article is further based on the ludicrous idea that the U.S. wouldn't intervene.
The Chinese had Krupp artillery during the opium war, it didn't do them much good.
A lot of this sort of histeria is people assuming that the world will shift from American hegemony to Chinese hegemony. There's no reason to think that it will, and given how strong the opposition to Chinese foreign policy is in the region, China know full well that there's very little they can do in terms of hard power.
And remember - the US Navy is badass. God bless the USA
Testify wrote: The Chinese had Krupp artillery during the opium war, it didn't do them much good.
A lot of this sort of histeria is people assuming that the world will shift from American hegemony to Chinese hegemony. There's no reason to think that it will, and given how strong the opposition to Chinese foreign policy is in the region, China know full well that there's very little they can do in terms of hard power.
And remember - the US Navy is badass. God bless the USA
Curiously enough, history is actually repeating itself here. If we look back to 1900, you'll note that Germany and Britain were in the same position as China and the US. Germany was a young, expanding nation, desperate to secure its own holdings and resources, and Britain was the worldwide naval power that restrained those ambitions. As a result, Tirpitz initiated a large Dreadnought battleship construction programme, arguing that if Germany had enough naval power to threaten Britain locally, it would counter Britain's greater worldwide numerical superiority (as Britain would never focus the number of ships necessary to counter them in that part of the world). That would grant Germany the capacity to act more or less as they wanted without the threat of British interference.
Unfortunately, what happened in reality was that Britain scrapped the majority of its older ships, built two new Dreadnoughts for every one Germany built, and stationed them in the Home Fleet locally. The Germans never once thought the British would be prepared to sacrifice the security of their Empire to contain them, nor expend the vast amounts that they did on naval construction to keep on top of them. Come 1914, the British Home fleet was still bigger than Germany's, and still capable of containing them fairly securely.
It will be interesting to see over the next ten years if America will follow Britain's earlier example, or instead choose to withdraw and cede the locality to China.
That's a good analagy, though it is flawed in one very crucial way - Britain is and was an island nation. For that reason, it is capable of spending far more of its defence expenditure on the navy than comparable powers. Germany wanted to maintain the largest land army on earth, while Britain had barely a few thousand volunteers. Even with a larger economy than the UK's, Britain was still capable of outspending Germany on the navy by 2 to 1. The united states, by contrast, has a)land borders and b)crucially, two huge shore lines. Even though the other side of the Atlantic is fairly stable (for the time being), the US will always need some sort of naval presence in the Caribbean, while China have a single coastline.
The United States does have two things going for it though -
1)The inherant instability of the Chinese state. The entire beurocracy is utterly curruprt, and being an authoritarian state it is very difficult to stamp out. It is almost definite that the Chinese state over-estimate their own strength for this reason
2)The Chinese economy is rotten. They have a property boom the size of the German economy waiting to burst. The government's refusal to truly liberalise the economy means there are all sorts of distortions and bubbles in the system that a single event could cause to collapse. They have insane wage inflation, constant industrial strife that is virtually unreported in or out of the country, and entire cities full of empty apartments and shops.
And of course, the US at present still has a huge military advantage, as well as virtually everyone in the area hating the Chinese.
Testify wrote: The Chinese had Krupp artillery during the opium war, it didn't do them much good.
A lot of this sort of histeria is people assuming that the world will shift from American hegemony to Chinese hegemony. There's no reason to think that it will,
I disagree. Whilst I do not see China possessing the kind of power and influence America currently enjoys globally in the forseeable future, I can certainly see them forcing out the American influence in that part of the world over the next twenty or thirty years. I'd place good money on that occurring. I also would predict the US withdrawing more and more from global affairs over the same period, simply because the government is finally realising that not everyone wants good old Uncle Sam's apple pie (with a suitable repayment schedule), and that fighting insurgency campaigns is considerably different to racing to build guns against the Soviets.
If the US can find a way of backing out of its defence commitments to the region(Asia) without losing face, commercial capacity, or severely damaging its capabilities for home defence, they will do so. It simply is not in their interests to be forced to pick sides over a number of uninhabited rocks in the middle of an ocean half a planet away. The Falklands was bad enough for us, but we at least had the reason that it was us personally being invaded, and there were our citizens living on it. Factors which the Senkaku Islands and the ones in the South China Sea do not enjoy with regards to America.
That's a good analagy, though it is flawed in one very crucial way - Britain is and was an island nation. For that reason, it is capable of spending far more of its defence expenditure on the navy than comparable powers. Germany wanted to maintain the largest land army on earth, while Britain had barely a few thousand volunteers. Even with a larger economy than the UK's, Britain was still capable of outspending Germany on the navy by 2 to 1.
You missed the point of the analogy. It was never about who could outspend who necessarily, Germany had no intention of rivalling the British Navy in total size or power. It was about possessing a fleet local to Europe that outmatched the British home fleet, or at least was on even enough terms with it that it would force Britain to tread more warily around German politics. In the Boer War, Germany had been very critical of Britain's policy, but entirely impotent and ignored by the British. The Kaiser wanted to make it so that the British would have to deal with Germany as a nation of consequence, and the best way to do that was to pose a threat locally to the home islands. Not a large enough threat to cause a panic or require extreme expenditure and investment in the Navy on their part, but a credible enough threat that Britain would think twice before dismissing them on anything of global importance or working against Germany's interests.
In a similar way, China does not have to outmatch the US in sum strength or military capacity. It merely has to possess enough naval strength locally that the US would be unwillingly to force a confrontation if or when they choose to start throwing their weight around. If China has seven carrier fleets and decides to invade and colonise Burma (unlikely, but for the sake of an example), the US would consider it to be too much trouble to even begin to be worth interfering with or creating problems for the Chinese over. On a similar note, if China has seven carrier fleets, and declares that they own the Senkaku islands, the senkaku islands are theirs regardless of what the Japanese may think on the matter.
However, the Chinese plan is to build up gradually, and thus not risk any snap confrontation where the US gets pulled in. In thirty years though, Asia is going to be seriously under the Chinese sphere of influence. And I don't see Washington forking out to station ten carrier fleets off Japan when there's little in it for them.
Testify wrote: The Chinese had Krupp artillery during the opium war, it didn't do them much good.
A lot of this sort of histeria is people assuming that the world will shift from American hegemony to Chinese hegemony. There's no reason to think that it will, and given how strong the opposition to Chinese foreign policy is in the region, China know full well that there's very little they can do in terms of hard power.
And remember - the US Navy is badass. God bless the USA
The US Navy will not go to war to protect Vietnam. I doubt at this point we'd go to war for Taiwan or the Phillipines.
This is a good thing.
Japan? I don't know. They are also a major trading partner, and have better chances of success, but I don't know. No two nuclear powers have gone to war. I wouldn't want to for, well any country.
I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat.
Warfare is so backwards now. A weak country can be a big player by owning a couple big bombs, with a piece of junk ground army and a sub-par air force.I'm not talking about russia, just in general.
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat. .
Yes, don't worry about their boomers, bomber fleet, or the 8 bazillion nuclear warheads they have. I'd ask if you have a brain in your head but that would be wrong and impolite. Instead I suggest you read up on current force metrics. I'm sure they are a shell of what they were, but they still have more nukes than god.
Carriers are the battleship row of the next big war. great against little guys, not so good against someone who can shoot back.
Drone launching supersubcarriers of ultimate doom, dodging hammerbombs dropped from satellite, now thats the future. I feel like I should watch some manga for the first time in decades....
The US Navy will not go to war to protect Vietnam.
Really? Britain, France, Germany, the USA and Russia went to war over Serbia, you don't think the USA would intervene to stop China from annexing a sovereign state?
That would be a truly tragic day for the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat.
To you, maybe. They still make Europe feel nervous, especially with a castrated Germany.
The US Navy will not go to war to protect Vietnam.
Really? Britain, France, Germany, the USA and Russia went to war over Serbia, you don't think the USA would intervene to stop China from annexing a sovereign state?
That would be a truly tragic day for the world.
You missed that whole "they didn't have nukes" thing didn't you?
Two nuclear powers have never gone to war. What you're talking about is war. Wars escalate. When wars escalate they use everything they can. If the powers in the fight have nukes then what remains gets to play Mad Max with the ruins.
Above all the US should not get into a nuke war with China over some island. Thanks but no thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat.
To you, maybe. They still make Europe feel nervous, especially with a castrated Germany.
Not enough for them to have any sort of real defense budget though.
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat.
Warfare is so backwards now. A weak country can be a big player by owning a couple big bombs, with a piece of junk ground army and a sub-par air force.I'm not talking about russia, just in general.
The united states is the only country on Earth that has intercontinental force projection capabilities. Pretty much everyone else on the planet is left with attacking people along their borders. It's one of the primary arguments for why our military spending is ludicrous. There's no one around to actually fight.
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat. .
Yes, don't worry about their boomers, bomber fleet, or the 8 bazillion nuclear warheads they have. I'd ask if you have a brain in your head but that would be wrong and impolite. Instead I suggest you read up on current force metrics. I'm sure they are a shell of what they were, but they still have more nukes than god.
Carriers are the battleship row of the next big war. great against little guys, not so good against someone who can shoot back.
Drone launching supersubcarriers of ultimate doom, dodging hammerbombs dropped from satellite, now thats the future. I feel like I should watch some manga for the first time in decades....
Russia barely has any of what you just listed. Their nuclear arsenal is in disrepair, their airforce is in shambles (and lacks anything close to a skilled force of pilots), their navy might as well be cardboard cutouts. Their only real military feats are first strike nuclear capability which isn't known at present and a couple of their nukes would probably explode in the silos and their giant fleet of outdated tanks. Russia isn't a threat to anyone but itself and poland now. Possession of nukes doesn't make you a military powerhouse as nukes have no realistic use in a war scenario against another nuclear armed country. They just ensure that no one can capture large swathes of territory of fundamentally threaten the existence of the nation itself.
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat. .
Yes, don't worry about their boomers, bomber fleet, or the 8 bazillion nuclear warheads they have. I'd ask if you have a brain in your head but that would be wrong and impolite. Instead I suggest you read up on current force metrics. I'm sure they are a shell of what they were, but they still have more nukes than god.
Carriers are the battleship row of the next big war. great against little guys, not so good against someone who can shoot back.
Drone launching supersubcarriers of ultimate doom, dodging hammerbombs dropped from satellite, now thats the future. I feel like I should watch some manga for the first time in decades....
No, I'm well aware of all of those things. Russia is definitely not weak, it just surprised me. Frankly, the idea of power projection by sea power is kind of outdated. The russians were smart enough to realize that it was a waste of money. Plus, they have plenty of submarines, which are the real players of the sea.
Edit: I'm sure shuma is going to say they don't have as many submarines as I think they do, so I'll acknowledge that I'm probably wrong, and my knowledge is limited to The Hunt For Red October
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat. .
Yes, don't worry about their boomers, bomber fleet, or the 8 bazillion nuclear warheads they have. I'd ask if you have a brain in your head but that would be wrong and impolite. Instead I suggest you read up on current force metrics. I'm sure they are a shell of what they were, but they still have more nukes than god.
Carriers are the battleship row of the next big war. great against little guys, not so good against someone who can shoot back.
Drone launching supersubcarriers of ultimate doom, dodging hammerbombs dropped from satellite, now thats the future. I feel like I should watch some manga for the first time in decades....
No, I'm well aware of all of those things. Russia is definitely not weak, it just surprised me. Frankly, the idea of power projection by sea power is kind of outdated. The russians were smart enough to realize that it was a waste of money. Plus, they have plenty of submarines, which are the real players of the sea.
Edit: I'm sure shuma is going to say they don't have as many submarines as I think they do, so I'll acknowledge that I'm probably wrong, and my knowledge is limited to The Hunt For Red October
Russia and the soviet union are not the same. The collapse hollowed out their military in almost every way. Russia is certainly one of the more powerful military nations in the world, but military power has moved towards homogeneous blocks, their ability to overwhelm the french, for instance, is useless since the English or Germans would intervene. Nations (other than the U.S.) can only realistically threaten their direct neighbors these days.
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat.
Warfare is so backwards now. A weak country can be a big player by owning a couple big bombs, with a piece of junk ground army and a sub-par air force.I'm not talking about russia, just in general.
I'm sorry lolwhut? Here's the Federation
Russia doesn't NEED a carrier force to project power, they have borders. Her carrier spends most of her time in the Baltic and the Med because that's where Russia needs to project its extracontinental influence. You know by having most of Asia and Eastern Europe covered. Russia is still in the midst of decades long reform to her conventional forces that will not be sorted out for decades to come, because her primary problem is leadership. As weak as they are if I was any one country with no allies I wouldn't want to poke the bear, weak doesn't mean impotent.
and lacks anything close to a skilled force of pilots)
I will look for an article that I read last month that had a mock wargame near Australia were Russia's 1980's Su 27 and 30's vs f-35 and 22's and got their asses handed to them by the Russian pilots.
and lacks anything close to a skilled force of pilots)
I will look for an article that I read last month that had a mock wargame near Australia were Russia's 1980's Su 27 and 30's vs f-35 and 22's and got their asses handed to them by the Russian pilots.
If F22s got their asses handed to them by anything the RussiaNs had that would imply a level of technology that doesn't exist in Sukhoi model craft. That would have panicked the DoD.
Samus_aran115 wrote: I didn't know Russia only had one Carrier. That's not much of a threat at all. It doesn't matter how good your aircraft and special forces are; if you don't have the power projection of a carrier, you're not a threat.
Warfare is so backwards now. A weak country can be a big player by owning a couple big bombs, with a piece of junk ground army and a sub-par air force.I'm not talking about russia, just in general.
I'm sorry lolwhut? Here's the Federation
Russia doesn't NEED a carrier force to project power, they have borders. Her carrier spends most of her time in the Baltic and the Med because that's where Russia needs to project its extracontinental influence. You know by having most of Asia and Eastern Europe covered. Russia is still in the midst of decades long reform to her conventional forces that will not be sorted out for decades to come, because her primary problem is leadership. As weak as they are if I was any one country with no allies I wouldn't want to poke the bear, weak doesn't mean impotent.
Indeed. Even in her decrepit state no power outside of CHina has the strength to challenge her in a major confrontation. PLus they don't have bases and carriers spread across the globe. Must be nice.
The US Navy will not go to war to protect Vietnam.
Really? Britain, France, Germany, the USA and Russia went to war over Serbia, you don't think the USA would intervene to stop China from annexing a sovereign state?
That would be a truly tragic day for the world.
I'm sorry to break your bubble, but China has already tried invading Vietnam in 1979 and the west didn't do anything about it, only the Soviets made some noise.
Of course, like it happened before when any other country invaded Vietnam, the Chinese got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese...
Given the nature of modern chinese land and sea disputes with vietnam, I'd wager that a modern war would go differently. China is an order of magnitude more capable now and Vietnam has stagnated. Chinas interests with the region are now purely resource based as well, meaning that their isn't an ideological aspect to the confrontation to rouse insurgent efforts.
Frazzled wrote: Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.
However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.
China has taken control of Vietnam four times in history. It's not afghanistan, it's been grabbed time and time again.
Easy to grab. Hard to keep.
China had it for over 100, over 500, and over 400 years. The last one was 20 years, but Ming dynasty expansion was weird. Either way, they've had it for coming on 1000 years. There's precedent for it getting kept.
Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.
However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.
Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?
The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.
Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.
However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.
Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?
Supplies, I suppose. Viet Nam is surrounded by stalwart allies of China. Once naval routes are cut off, the country is virtually isolated from the outside world.
Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.
However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.
Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?
The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.
EDIT: I doubt it would be much beyond that. There doesn't need to be on China's behalf.
Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.
However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.
Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?
The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.
I don't see it. There's nothing to be gained by dominating the Vietnamese coast. See the US-Vietnam conflict. Nam is more likely to fight it out with thier Kilo boats and pull thier main surface units....not much to begin with to the extreme south.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: However, attempting to blockade the huge vietnamese coastline seems... well, impossible.
The threat of having your ships sunk would cause civilian trade to practically vanish. Sure, some would be able to get through, but few would try. Overland routes would become incredibly valuable at that point.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: However, attempting to blockade the huge vietnamese coastline seems... well, impossible.
They don't have to. China is saying the South China Sea is theirs so they just blast any Vietnamese naval asset they come across. Its not like Vietnam has a massive fleet to worry about to begin with.
Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.
However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.
Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?
The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.
I don't see it. There's nothing to be gained by dominating the Vietnamese coast. See the US-Vietnam conflict. Nam is more likely to fight it out with thier Kilo boats and pull thier main surface units....not much to begin with to the extreme south.
As just noted, they don't have to. China is claiming the entire sea. They just take out any Vietnamese assets they come across in their water, assuming a game of naval pushy shovey sabre rattling doesn't work. Effectively, China could treat the Vietnamese navy like pirates and destroy as opportunities arise. Its a low risk strategy for them. After all, what is Vietnam going to do?
Agent_Tremolo wrote: However, attempting to blockade the huge vietnamese coastline seems... well, impossible.
They don't have to. China is saying the South China Sea is theirs so they just blast any Vietnamese naval asset they come across. Its not like Vietnam has a massive fleet to worry about to begin with.
Now this starting to sound more plausible than an hypothetical land grab to "extend" chinese sovereignity over the South China Sea. They just deny the vietnamese control over their own territorial waters, become the de facto rulers of the sea, and scr*w international law.
Yep.
I'd proffer they will push as hard as they can on all the bordering countries on the sea to get as much as they can without a major fight. Its what Frazzled would do.
Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.
However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.
Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?
The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.
Incorrect.
As things currently stand, the Vietnamese are making no real attempt to mine those offshore resources, they have neither the funds nor the technology. The same thing that prevents them from contesting their naval space from China is the same thing that prevents them from exploiting their sea based resources.
No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India. As of July this year, India's state owned and run Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (or ONGC) renewed their partnership with the Vietnamese Government to continue to exploit offshore resources in those zones ruled as belonging to vietnam by the UN (all of which more or less fall under China's claims). As such, Vietnam's Navy is neither here nor there. The main problem for China is that whilst Vietnam still exists as a state, they can continue to license their offshore resources for extraction by India. And indeed are keen to do so, as they view India's naval power as their guarantee of safety against Chinese aggression.
This means that if China moved to solely seize control of the aquatic zones owned by Vietnam, they'd run into conflict with the Indian Navy, not the Chinese Navy. And that of course, is an entirely different kettle of fish. The Indians only have a single aircraft carrier presently (and that's the World War 2 era ex British Carrier HMS Hermes) and a Landing Platform Dock, but that's due to shortly change. And exceptionally so.
India bought the Russian built carrier Admiral Gorshkov about eight years ago, and it's due to enter service this year after an extremely expensive upgrading and refitting in the USA. India is also mid-construction on two of their own home designed Vikrant Class aircraft Carriers, and is drawing up plans for an even larger Aircraft Carrier which they aim to have finished construction on by 2017 (although a more realistic date would be 2020). Add on a reasonable number of destroyers, frigates, submarines, MiG's and Harrier Jump jets, and you realise that the Indian Navy is genuinely not too shabby.
These plans mean that India is likely to possess four carriers in five years time, making them the obvious threat to China's naval ambitions around Vietnam. Obviously, having to engage in a full Blue Water fleet naval war against a similarly armed opponent is entirely undesirable, and should be avoided if at all possible. The best way to circumvent such a thing would be to annex Vietnam. If Vietnam no longer possesses a Government or exists as a nation, India would be forced to either withdraw, negotiate with China for new licenses, or claim the south china sea as their own (unlikely).
I do not see this as being very likely to happen personally, but it illustrates a perfect example as to why the Chinese Government would be inclined to pursue a land war against Vietnam. If war is in the works, it certainly be a more digestible and certain prospect than engaging in a naval war with India.
No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.
(and Japan and South Korea, as well as fishing rights for Indonesia)
You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Shuma.
This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Japan and South Korea are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of little consequence to them.
No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.
(and Japan and South Korea, as well as fishing rights for Indonesia)
You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Shuma.
This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Japan and South Korea are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of little consequence to them.
You see this map? You see the part that says ocean? The one that's on the other side of the world from japan, china, the Phillipines, and Indonesia? It has their fishing boats in it. A lot of them. You think the distance between the north and south china seas is meaningful? Do you honestly think, with a straight face, that South Korea and japan don't have major economic interests in those waters and the historical clout and economic base to utilize them? Ignoring the fact that I claimed Indonesia as well, inferring a pan Asian interest in the large body of (one vital to Asian shipping lanes and stuck between several industrialized nations) water in the first place.
You really have a pretty poor read of Asian economics if you don't think the south china sea is meaningful to the second and fourth largest Asian economies, both largely export driven with huge interests in sea resources.
No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.
(and Japan and South Korea, as well as fishing rights for Indonesia)
You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Shuma.
This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Japan and South Korea are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of little consequence to them.
You see this map? You see the part that says ocean? The one that's on the other side of the world from japan, china, the Phillipines, and Indonesia? It has their fishing boats in it. A lot of them. You think the distance between the north and south china seas is meaningful? Do you honestly think, with a straight face, that South Korea and japan don't have major economic interests in those waters and the historical clout and economic base to utilize them? Ignoring the fact that I claimed Indonesia as well, inferring a pan Asian interest in the large body of (one vital to Asian shipping lanes and stuck between several industrialized nations) water in the first place.
You really have a pretty poor read of Asian economics if you don't think the south china sea is meaningful to the second and fourth largest Asian economies, both largely export driven with huge interests in sea resources.
No my dear sir, I understand all of that. But in the same way you misread me as saying 'South China Sea' as 'China Sea' and are now desperately trying to backtrack and cover it, you're making the same mistake of not reading what I said properly. Allow me to reiterate for you.
No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.
The real or main issue. Not the only one. That's why I bypassed Indonesia and general trade and shipping. China is not likely to suddenly impose tariffs on all Japanese and Korean shipping, and a minor Indonesian fishing rights dispute does not figure on the same scale as oil and gas rights off of Vietnam currently. Neither Japan nor Korea nor Indonesia have any real clashes have any substantial issues with China with regards to the South China Sea as things stand.
Do try to read what I say before jumping to contradict.
The carrier thing is really overhyped massively. China has no fighter jets to launch from it and won't for several years since the Russians cancelled the Su-33 deal with them (forcing them to basically illegally copy it as the J-15, which won't be around for several years). Moreover it's quite a small ship for carrier standards. Lastly, it's mostly being used as a technology demonstrator and training ship so that eventually China can put a real carrier in service. And given that it took them roughly 15 years to refit an 80%-built Soviet ship, that won't be for a while.
One has to keep in mind that currently, the count is 11 supercarriers for the US (and about 10 mini-carriers) whereas the rest of the world combined has 0 supercarriers and 9 mini-carriers. Even if China manages to eventually put 1 supercarrier into service, the huge military discrepancy won't even come close to being closed. If the Chinese are smart, they won't try to do what the Soviets did and keep trying to build a supercarrier that just ends up being a wasted investment eventually ending up as a ASW ship or coastal defense craft.
No my dear sir, I understand all of that. But in the same way you misread me as saying 'South China Sea' as 'China Sea' and are now desperately trying to backtrack and cover it, you're making the same mistake of not reading what I said properly. Allow me to reiterate for you.
The south china sea is the primary shipping lane to the east of africa, the south of western asia, and the middle east from Japan and South Korea. It's one of the most important shipping lanes in the history of mankind, if not the most important. Don't talk down to me, you obviously lack context for this beyond what specificity was provided for you by an article on Indian oil exploration if you're going to pretend that those economies aren't inherently reliant on areas that the Chinese are attempting to place borders around.
The real or main issue. Not the only one.
Tell that to Indonesia, the Phillipines, and Malaysia. If you wanted to speak to specific instances of conflict you should have specified that that was the driving motivation in sino veitnamese disputes. The monetary value of those oil fields is peanuts compared to other effects of the redesignation of the SCS.
That's why I bypassed Indonesia and general trade and shipping. China is not likely to suddenly impose tariffs on all Japanese and Korean shipping, and a minor Indonesian fishing rights dispute does not figure on the same scale as oil and gas rights off of Vietnam currently.
There is significant historical precedent for China imposing tarifs on asian trade goods and every indication that they wouldn't be opposed to doing so now. Given their current disputes with both SK and Japan and the soft power control of modern shipping this would grant it's highly likely there would be efforts to do exactly that, especially in the case of a slowing or recessionary Chinese economy.
Neither Japan nor Korea nor Indonesia have any real clashes have any substantial issues with China with regards to the South China Sea as things stand.
Again, you have a poor read on the intention of Chinese expansion into the south china sea. One of the primary pillars of the communist parties continued dominance is the continuous absorption of historically Chinese territories. The south china sea is considered such, as are the hotly disputed spratly islands and Senkaku islands. China is willing to push it's economic might around in east asia, but the driving forces between the south china sea and island based disputes is as much nationalist as it is resource driven. The Senkaku islands aren't in the SCS, but sino japanese conflict isn't limited to that space, nor is the threat of blockade or naval conflict. Japan needs the SCS to stay open and would be foolish to trust the Chinese to not misuse control of the waters.
Do try to read what I say before jumping to contradict.
Do try to read what you say before hitting submit and using overly vague generalizations to describe a complex issue with a dozen sides.
The south china sea is the primary shipping lane to the east of africa, the south of western asia, and the middle east from Japan and South Korea. It's one of the most important shipping lanes in the history of mankind, if not the most important. Don't talk down to me, you obviously lack context for this beyond what specificity was provided for you by an article on Indian oil exploration if you're going to pretend that those economies aren't inherently reliant on areas that the Chinese are attempting to place borders around.
and
There is significant historical precedent for China imposing tarifs on asian trade goods and every indication that they wouldn't be opposed to doing so now. Given their current disputes with both SK and Japan and the soft power control of modern shipping this would grant it's highly likely there would be efforts to do exactly that, especially in the case of a slowing or recessionary Chinese economy.
This is all very well and good, but completely and entirely irrelevant. You do like to spin irrelevancies to cover up for the fact that you're trying to contradict things I never said. Korean and Japanese shipping in the South China Sea, whilst unquestionably important, is not currently an area of conflict. There are no Chinese boarding parties attacking international shipping, and little risk that they suddenly will begin to do so.
As to your laughable claims that China would suddenly attempt to impose tariffs on all shipping in the South China Sea, that's not going to happen any time soon. Why? Because it is:-
a) Physically impossible, China does not currently have the naval assets required to blockade the entire South China Sea and board and force all merchant shipping into paying their tariffs, and
b) the one thing guaranteed to start a major war.
Nevertheless, this is all highly diversionary and irrelevant to my main point, which was that the current major issue and risk of conflict in the South China Sea is between India and China off Vietnam. Trying to pretend that you have some bigger picture and then mentioning an irrelevant fact about how important shipping through there is like its a major revelation, is guaranteed to make you seem like you're erecting strawmen.
The real or main issue. Not the only one.
Tell that to Indonesia, the Phillipines, and Malaysia. If you wanted to speak to specific instances of conflict you should have specified that that was the driving motivation in sino veitnamese disputes. The monetary value of those oil fields is peanuts compared to other effects of the redesignation of the SCS.
Redesignation? China has claimed the place. It has in no way attempted to enforce that claim upon international shipping and will not do so for the reasons given above.
As to the scale of conflict being measurable, I would consider it the main one currently. Feel free to disagree, and then designate another and reason as to why it is larger and more important.
Neither Japan nor Korea nor Indonesia have any real clashes have any substantial issues with China with regards to the South China Sea as things stand.
Again, you have a poor read on the intention of Chinese expansion into the south china sea. One of the primary pillars of the communist parties continued dominance is the continuous absorption of historically Chinese territories. The south china sea is considered such, as are the hotly disputed spratly islands and Senkaku islands. China is willing to push it's economic might around in east asia, but the driving forces between the south china sea and island based disputes is as much nationalist as it is resource driven. The Senkaku islands aren't in the SCS, but sino japanese conflict isn't limited to that space, nor is the threat of blockade or naval conflict. Japan needs the SCS to stay open and would be foolish to trust the Chinese to not misuse control of the waters.
All very pretty, but not what I was talking about really. My comment was on specific areas of conflict, not on the impact of general Chinese expansionist policy . I'm dealing with specific cases of conflict, not the general thrust of Chinese policy. To reiterate:-
Do try to read what I say before jumping to contradict.
You still appear to not have read it. The issue you currently quarrel with is that I claimed that the main (or largest) conflict in the SCS currently is between Vietnam, China, and India. You are now arguing that general Chinese expansionist policy and its impact in the area is a more important conflict. Which is nice, but not really a counter to anything I said, as the two things are on a different scale. What you're attempting to argue now is akin to entering a discussion on the most important battle in Russia in WW2, and claiming that the Russian campaign was the most important conflict.
Your consistent strawmen and continuous changing of what you're attempting to argue merely confirm to me that you misread what I wrote originally, took offence at my mildly patronising correction, and are now desperately scrabbling around for something to argue back with.
This is all very well and good, but completely and entirely irrelevant. You do like to spin irrelevancies to cover up for the fact that you're trying to contradict things I never said. Korean and Japanese shipping in the South China Sea, whilst unquestionably important, is not currently an area of conflict. There are no Chinese boarding parties attacking international shipping, and little risk that they suddenly will begin to do so.
And you love to laser focus on things to the exclusion of surrounding events and sometimes even reality. If you don't think there is risk of the Chinese boarding international shipping and fishing vessels you haven't paid attention to the last few years of news. They've done that and more. Certainly not en masse, but with increasing frequency.
As to your laughable claims that China would suddenly attempt to impose tariffs on all naval shipping in the South China Sea, that's not going to happen any time soon. Why? Because it is:-
a) Physically impossible, China does not currently have the naval assets required to blockade the entire South China Sea and board and force all merchant shipping into paying their tariffs, and
b) the one thing guaranteed to start a major war.
Why do people always think that a blockade has to be a giant concrete wall to stop shipping? All it has to do is make it uneconomical for shipping companies to use those routes. A few seized ships will do, china doesn't need to prevent black market shipping or blockade runners because those are a fractional margin of the shipping that would be stopped due to simple risk mitigation by the entities involved (non Chinese entities of course).
As for causing war, well yes. It would. This thread has touched on that subject numerous times. It would certainly be damaging to Chinese interests, so I don't suspect such a thing would occur without significant leadup. Leadup like the major Sino Japanese disputes currently escalating and which have already become violent combined with territorial expansion into a contested body of water by an emerging superpower under critical strain to expand it's resource base. To assume that no nation would act in an aggressive manner against it's current self interest is to ignore the majority of wars in human history.
Nevertheless, this is all highly diversionary and irrelevant to my main point, which was that the current major issue and risk of conflict in the South China Sea is between India and China off Vietnam.
Oh, last time you said it was India. It's as if your first point was badly stated. Mitt.
Trying to pretend that you have some bigger picture and then mentioning an irrelevant fact about how important shipping through there is like its a major revelation, is guaranteed to make you seem like you're erecting strawmen.
There is a very real and escalating conflict over the sprately islands that is every bit as real as the tensions with Vietnam. Chinas aggressive attitude toward japans acquisition of the senkakku islands has escalated beyond both of those situations. Pretending that these event's aren't interlinked is foolish.
All very pretty, but not what I was talking about really. My comment was on specific areas of conflict, not on the impact of general Chinese expansionist policy . I'm dealing with specific cases of conflict, not the general thrust of Chinese policy. To reiterate:-
Your comment directly stated that there was a shadow conflict between Indian oil interests and the Politburo and that it was the real conflict of the south china sea. Not Indonesian fishing interests (which have the most common occurance of incidents) or the Spratelys (which have actual land territory under escalating military dispute). Your comment was badly stated and implied ignorance. Get over it.
Your consistent strawmen and continuous changing of what you're attempting to argue merely confirm to me that you misread what I wrote originally, took offence at my mildly patronising correction, and are now desperately scrabbling around for something to argue back with.
If I was misread it it's because it was badly written. Which it was, since you've decided to backfill on it up until the point where it was fleshed out to a reasonable degree. Stating that something is the "Real conflict" in a region like that is foolish. There are several major territorial disputes, and the ones that have actually involved guns firing aren't the ones you seem to think are "real". Is Vietnam under the greatest existential threat? Sure. But oil conflict exists between China and every nation claiming the Parcels, and the Phillipines effectively annexed them last year.
And you love to laser focus on things to the exclusion of surrounding events and sometimes even reality. If you don't think there is risk of the Chinese boarding international shipping and fishing vessels you haven't paid attention to the last few years of news. They've done that and more. Certainly not en masse, but with increasing frequency.
I wasn't 'laser focusing' on anything. I was talking about an issue, namely a reason why China might decide to invade Vietnam by land. That reason was the Indian angle. You appear to have taken great offence that my reasoning for a land war in Vietnam has not encompassed fishing rights with uninvolved nations, and the impact of Chinese expansionist policy on Japan and Korea (to return to your original comments).
As for causing war, well yes. It would. This thread has touched on that subject numerous times. It would certainly be damaging to Chinese interests, so I don't suspect such a thing would occur without significant leadup. Leadup like the major Sino Japanese disputes currently escalating and which have already become violent combined with territorial expansion into a contested body of water by an emerging superpower under critical strain to expand it's resource base. To assume that no nation would act in an aggressive manner against it's current self interest is to ignore the majority of wars in human history.
Oh, last time you said it was India. It's as if your first point was badly stated. Mitt.
There is a very real and escalating conflict over the sprately islands that is every bit as real as the tensions with Vietnam. Chinas aggressive attitude toward japans acquisition of the senkakku islands has escalated beyond both of those situations. Pretending that these event's aren't interlinked is foolish.
Your comment directly stated that there was a shadow conflict between Indian oil interests and the Politburo and that it was the real conflict of the south china sea. Not Indonesian fishing interests (which have the most common occurance of incidents) or the Spratelys (which have actual land territory under escalating military dispute). Your comment was badly stated and implied ignorance. Get over it.
If I was misread it it's because it was badly written. Which it was, since you've decided to backfill on it up until the point where it was fleshed out to a reasonable degree. Stating that something is the "Real conflict" in a region like that is foolish. There are several major territorial disputes, and the ones that have actually involved guns firing aren't the ones you seem to think are "real". Is Vietnam under the greatest existential threat? Sure. But oil conflict exists between China and every nation claiming the Parcels, and the Phillipines effectively annexed them last year.
The funny thing is that I actually just went back re-read the context, and realised this is absolutely ridiculous. Here it is for posterity's sake:-
As things currently stand, the Vietnamese are making no real attempt to mine those offshore resources, they have neither the funds nor the technology. The same thing that prevents them from contesting their naval space from China is the same thing that prevents them from exploiting their sea based resources.
No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India. As of July this year, India's state owned and run Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (or ONGC) renewed their partnership with the Vietnamese Government to continue to exploit offshore resources in those zones ruled as belonging to vietnam by the UN (all of which more or less fall under China's claims). As such, Vietnam's Navy is neither here nor there.
Funny thing that quote, 'the real issue'. I just realised that when placed in context, as opposed to read through endless quote bars and irrelevant dialogue, the meaning changes substantially, rendering my initial defences inaccurate, and your attacks on it utterly absurd. I apologise Shuma. Your misreading was so woefully inaccurate and delusional from your second counter, I got caught up in it as well, and began to think I'd said something I simply didn't. So allow me to reclarify and retrace this profound absurdity back to the beginning, and please do forgive me for going along with your reasoning without realising it.
The phrase 'the real issue in the South China sea is India', is referring to how it is not the Vietnamese government and their naval capabilities which is to be considered with regards to a naval war, but rather those of India. Context is such a wonderful thing. I do indeed regard this particular conflict as the premier conflict issue in that area, but that is actually entirely unrelated to the original point. The initial topic of discussion and quote are to do with China going to war Vietnam, and the naval/land forces that are involved.
So no, it is not 'badly written'. It has not been 'fleshed out'. It was simply completely removed from context in order contradict me on something, and by involving things like shipping and expansionist policy, diverted and mutilated beyond all recognition. All because you didn't want to admit that you misread 'South China Sea' as 'China Sea'. Although I wouldn't ascribe your arguments as being deliberately manipulative to that end, rather more of a case of you making an initial mistake and then desperately grasping at something to debate with due to disliking the tone in which I was addressing you.
Having said that, I'm probably slightly to blame there, a patronising tone rarely garners a positive reaction, especially with you Shummie (judging by our past history).
Jihadin wrote:Do believe China has VTOL aircraft to operate off the carrier.
Even the Russians aren't using VTOL fighters on their carriers anymore and haven't since some time in the 80's when the Kievs stopped carrying them. The Kuznetsov class was envisioned with more conventional aircraft in mind. China does produce a version of the Su-33 so there's no real reason they can't use them.
The phrase 'the real issue in the South China sea is India', is referring to how it is not the Vietnamese government and their naval capabilities which is to be considered with regards to a naval war, but rather those of India. Context is such a wonderful thing.
You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Ketara.
This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia are in relation to it. I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of great importance to them.
So no, it is not 'badly written'. It has not been 'fleshed out'. It was simply completely removed from context in order contradict me on something, and by involving things like shipping and expansionist policy, diverted and mutilated beyond all recognition.
You stated that the "Real issue in the South China Sea" is india. You used it in the context to mean Vietnamese efforts to exploit oil reserves, but my initial comment and the area I quoted were both in relation your claim of primacy of conflict in the South China Sea. It doesn't matter what context you use this in because it's hyperbolic and incorrect. I off handedly retorted with three other states that have major current issues within the south china sea and China relating to fishing.
You could have chosen to walk back what could be considered a rather ignorant and offensive statement (we don't have much in the way of Japanese or Indonesians on this board though, so you dodged that bullet), but instead you patronized me by implying that states without a border on a body of water don't have interests there and questioned if I know fething geography.
Having said that, I'm probably slightly to blame there, a patronising tone rarely garners a positive reaction, especially with you Shummie (judging by our past history).
Your patronizing tone, following my offhanded comment questioning (or at the least pointing out) the inelegance of your words certainly did turn this into a kerfufle, but I maintain that you probably shouldn't claim that there's an order of importance in conflicts or a dynamic of realness to them. Grammatically your two paragraphs (separated by a double line break) implies two separate, but somewhat interlinked thoughts. Vietnam can't exploit it's oil resources and India is the primary country of conflict in the south china sea due to that. You didn't contextualize India to be the divisive issue in sino Vietnamese relations, you contextualized it into being the primary area of conflict in the region.
The phrase 'the real issue in the South China sea is India', is referring to how it is not the Vietnamese government and their naval capabilities which is to be considered with regards to a naval war, but rather those of India. Context is such a wonderful thing.
You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Ketara.
This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of great importance to them.
You would be correct in your assumption. I would still however, query the relevance of the point, before moving on to counter the following reasoning.
You stated that the "Real issue in the South China Sea" is india. You used it in the context to mean Vietnamese efforts to exploit oil reserves, but my initial comment and the area I quoted were both in relation your claim of primacy of conflict in the South China Sea.It doesn't matter what context you use this in because it's hyperbolic and incorrect. I off handedly retorted with three other states that have major current issues within the south china sea and China relating to fishing.
No. Context is always important. You attempted to slate me earlier for ignoring context, its not something to turn on and off at will. A quote pulled out of context can always change the meaning considerably, as I believe this little incident has demonstrated. If I said, 'God is good at cooking', you can simply pull 'God is good', and then proceed to argue as to the morality of God, something which would not necessarily have anything to do with the original topic.
Similarly, if when referring to war between China and Vietnam I claim 'India is the real issue here', I am not necessarily referring to a broader analysis of Chinese foreign policy and its consequences.
Your patronizing tone, following my offhanded comment questioning (or at the least pointing out) the inelegance of your words certainly did turn this into a kerfufle
You claim my words are 'inelegant'. To me that says, 'I misread them'. But communication is a two way street. Tell you what. Shall we just agree on that one that it could have been phrased better, but the meaning was implicit if read carefully within context? Or something along those lines? Because there's really no productive point in arguing it any further.
I maintain that you probably shouldn't claim that there's an order of importance in conflicts or a dynamic of realness to them.
This would be a separate topic to my original point, and we've kind of half-arsedly gone into it. We should probably start it afresh with clearly delineated points if we're going to carry it on.
Although I would like to say here and now that you and I have been rather snarky and offensive to each other, both here and in the past. Would you care to call it quits there and declare a truce of mutual respect old bean? Gentlemanly debate is always far more interesting when both sides are more interested in learning than proving the other wrong, and when our arguments take their usual hostile air, I doubt either of us would ever care to admit to fault consciously or subconsciously, or give any ground whatsoever. You're an intelligent if slightly pernickety chap, and I'd rather have constructive discussions with you than insult laced arguments with a thin veneer of bare civility, if that's at all possible.
Ketara wrote:No. Context is always important. You attempted to slate me earlier for ignoring context, its not something to turn on and off at will. A quote pulled out of context can always change the meaning considerably, as I believe this little incident has demonstrated. If I said, 'God is good at cooking', you can simply pull 'God is good', and then proceed to argue as to the morality of God, something which would not necessarily have anything to do with the original topic.
Similarly, if when referring to war between China and Vietnam I claim 'India is the real issue here', I am not necessarily referring to a broader analysis of Chinese foreign policy and its consequences.
But you said "In the south china sea", not "here". That is a dramatic broadening of terms. To use a similar example to your own, there is a difference between saying "The real action is over at joes bar" and saying "the real action is downtown". Even in a conversation about Joes bar you have now created a hierarchy of importance for the locales within downtown. A fan of Mikes Bar might disagree with your statement since it's (perhaps unintended) implication is to lesson the significance of exterior players within the set you described. I didn't misread your statement, I was commenting on phraseology that implied this particular series of events was the central one within the south china sea by listing several other nations and a specific controversy.
You claim my words are 'inelegant'. To me that says, 'I misread them'. But communication is a two way street. Tell you what. Shall we just agree on that one that it could have been phrased better, but the meaning was implicit if read carefully within context? Or something along those lines? Because there's really no productive point in arguing it any further.
I will agree that it could have been phrased better, but that the meaning could have been directly parsed from within an understanding of the argumentative position you held. A careful and literal interperetation of your words doesn't bare that out, but a certain level of trust and assumption must be made for conversations like these to work. I could have simply asked you to rephrase or questioned your verbage more directly, rather than moving to snark or corrections.
This would be a separate topic to my original point, and we've kind of half-arsedly gone into it. We should probably start it afresh with clearly delineated points if we're going to carry it on.
I think in the meta-discussion we've already determined where our stumbling blocks were and what our points are, so I don't think it's really necessary for us to continue.
Although I would like to say here and now that you and I have been rather snarky and offensive to each other, both here and in the past. Would you care to call it quits there and declare a truce of mutual respect old bean? Gentlemanly debate is always far more interesting when both sides are more interested in learning than proving the other wrong, and when our arguments take their usual hostile air, I doubt either of us would ever care to admit to fault consciously or subconsciously, or give any ground whatsoever. You're an intelligent if slightly pernickety chap, and I'd rather have constructive discussions with you than insult laced arguments with a thin veneer of bare civility, if that's at all possible.
Jihadin wrote: Do believe China has VTOL aircraft to operate off the carrier.
They don't. There's only 2 VTOL fighters. First is the harrier, which they don't have. Second is the old Soviet Yak-38, which is no longer used by anyone and they don't have either. F-35B will be a 3rd type but obviously that's not in Chinese hands either.
The Chinese planned to operate the Russian Su-33 from the carrier but they cancelled the deal due to their anger with China illegally copying a number of Russian weapons in the past. China however seems to have managed to copy the Su-33 anyway as the J-15, but it won't be in service for a number of years.
For the time being the ship will operate as a research/training craft with potentially launching ASW/MPA Helicopters.
Jihadin wrote: Do believe China has VTOL aircraft to operate off the carrier.
They don't. There's only 2 VTOL fighters. First is the harrier, which they don't have. Second is the old Soviet Yak-38, which is no longer used by anyone and they don't have either. F-35B will be a 3rd type but obviously that's not in Chinese hands either.
The Chinese planned to operate the Russian Su-33 from the carrier but they cancelled the deal due to their anger with China illegally copying a number of Russian weapons in the past. China however seems to have managed to copy the Su-33 anyway as the J-15, but it won't be in service for a number of years.
For the time being the ship will operate as a research/training craft with potentially launching ASW/MPA Helicopters.
Aren't helicopters VTOL craft by definition? I was under the impression that an aircraft carrier that was only helicopter capable was still considered one. The Japanese carriers are Heli only, aren't they?
Well VTOL aircraft usually refers only to fixed wing, but if you want to go into semantics I guess it would count.
A helicopter carrier and an aircraft carrier really mean completely different things. Helicopter carriers can provide ASW , maritime patrol, and limited interdiction support (if they're Heli's equipped with ASM's like the British Lynx) but it still can't come anywhere close to the capabilities of a full carrier.
The Japanese ones are helicopter only, yes. However there's a good chance the future class of planned JSDF helicopter carriers will operate fixed wing aircraft. They'll be well within the size to be able to, the Japanese have dabbled into the concept. It would probably;y be either the F-35 or a variant of their own upcoming stealth fighter, the Shinshin.
Was under the impression without a S/VTOL plane like the jump jet F35(c?) those would remain heli only, but they have plans for even larger "destroyers" with flat decks.
Honestly, I thought I heard somewhere that the South China Sea is a pretty major trade route, and hence would interest more than just the people with a geographic connection.
Hence, that is why it is of interest to the US as well. Therefore, messing aroudn with claims to the South China Sea is essentailly poking a lot of people with a stick.
Also, the Indian Navy has been a big part of anti-pirate activity around the horn of Africa too right?
Honestly, I thought I heard somewhere that the South China Sea is a pretty major trade route, and hence would interest more than just the people with a geographic connection.
Hence, that is why it is of interest to the US as well. Therefore, messing aroudn with claims to the South China Sea is essentailly poking a lot of people with a stick.
Also, the Indian Navy has been a big part of anti-pirate activity around the horn of Africa too right?
They have been operating out of Madagascar at with a strength and optempo that makes thier African port all but an official station. They also have berthing rights in Na Trang Vietnam. The Indian Navy is absolutely involved in the SCS where they have considerable economic interests.
Are aircraft carriers going the way of battleships?
Maybe someday. They're more vulnerable now than they were 30 years ago, but the value of a mobile sea born airbase is hard to ignore.
Why would China need a carrier or two to invade Taiwan?
Constant air coverage. The distance between a carrier and Taiwan is significantly shorter than to China's nearest land base. This also means aircraft can spend more time in the air attacking before needing more fuel.
Their airforce could provide cover, and drop a few paratroop divisions onto the island proper.
The ability of China to deploy paratroopers I think is still in question. They have 3 divisions, but they don't have enough aircraft to deploy them all. The capability of their aircraft and their training is also suspect.
Will America hold true to its historical pledge to defend the Philippines?
Maybe. The conflict over the SCS though doesn't really need the Phillipinnes to get the US involved. Most of the world would be justified to intervene in China's attempt to claim international waters.
Constant air coverage. The distance between a carrier and Taiwan is significantly shorter than to China's nearest land base. This also means aircraft can spend more time in the air attacking before needing more fuel.
This is probably counterbalanced by the fact that Taiwans primary purchases from the U.S. have been anti ship weaponry and short ranged accurate missiles. The PLA likely recognizes that their carrier would be sunk in the opening days of such a conflict if it was used in such a role. I doubt that they would commit it fully until after Taiwan had begun to expend it's strike capabilities or China had dismantled them. China doesn't have the anti missile or aircraft fleet assets that the U.S. navy attaches to every carrier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ability of China to deploy paratroopers I think is still in question. They have 3 divisions, but they don't have enough aircraft to deploy them all. The capability of their aircraft and their training is also suspect.
Some well defended transport ships would probably be the preferred method of moving mass numbers of PLA troopers into Taiwan. They certainly have the naval assets to get them there. China doesn't have much for force projection, but almost everything that they have can get to Taiwan due to simple proximity.
Very true. I doubt any such attempt would ever come soon (it may never come). China's navy is still too young. The launch of this carrier is just step 1. I doubt it'll ever see combat actually. It's their test run. A practical model on which to begin developing for the future while their real carriers get built.
LordofHats wrote: Very true. I doubt any such attempt would ever come soon (it may never come). China's navy is still too young. The launch of this carrier is just step 1. I doubt it'll ever see combat actually. It's their test run. A practical model on which to begin developing for the future while their real carriers get built.
True enough. I'm hesitant to think that the PLA will invest heavily into carriers though, their interest doesn't seem to be in force projection outside of their immediate coastal waters. Politically there is certainly little interest in interventionism, and they're happy to deal with the devil rather than promote specific ideologies. That's assuming they stay on a straight trajectory with foreign policy though, who knows what their populace may demand or how far the reclamation of historical territories will take them.
I think they'll have carriers. Not as many as the US, cause frankly we're excessive by more than a small margin with our carrier force.
I think China is gonna build two. They will never need more than that practically, but I think they'll want them to be able to say they have them and to present their navy as modern.
LordofHats wrote: I think they'll have carriers. Not as many as the US, cause frankly we're excessive by more than a small margin with our carrier force.
I think China is gonna build two. They will never need more than that practically, but I think they'll want them to be able to say they have them and to present their navy as modern.
Exactly, they'll have enough to show they're a major power. But they wont build ludicrous amounts of them. It's the same reason you dont see France, Russia, or the UK having 10 super carriers. They can operate fine with only a few normal sized ones
LordofHats wrote: Very true. I doubt any such attempt would ever come soon (it may never come). China's navy is still too young. The launch of this carrier is just step 1. I doubt it'll ever see combat actually. It's their test run. A practical model on which to begin developing for the future while their real carriers get built.
True enough. I'm hesitant to think that the PLA will invest heavily into carriers though, their interest doesn't seem to be in force projection outside of their immediate coastal waters.
I cant say about their motivations but they seem pretty dedicated to moving forward with 2 55,000 +/- 8,000ton type 089 conventional carriers in 2015 and 2 type 085 90,000 ton nuclear carriers by 2020 assuming they cover the technology gap in powering such large ships.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I think they'll have carriers. Not as many as the US, cause frankly we're excessive by more than a small margin with our carrier force.
I think China is gonna build two. They will never need more than that practically, but I think they'll want them to be able to say they have them and to present their navy as modern.
Our carrier force is build like our boomer force. On the assumption it takes 3 comparable units in inventory to have one on station. Which is one on deployment, one returning for refit, one ending refit and deploying.
AustonT wrote: They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.
I also believe the general thought being that the Japanese Navy would beat the living stuffing out of the PLAN even if they went to war today. There's a FP article on the issue, which accounts for better training, tech, and experience
Does Japanese Self Defense Fleet has enough strengh to witstand Chinese naval offensive and even the odds. forcin' em to drop the claims over Diaoyu Daitang? the said fleet is NOT an IJN of the former Imperial self. China did have the 'Imperial' strengh. AND its shipbuilding industry is capable of doing military export. look at Royal Thai Navy Pattani class frigate.
^ HTMS Pattani by the time of its delivery
^ HTMS Pattani, present. noticed that naval main gun is added up later
This "offshore PT boat" (it looks closer to Destroyer IMAO) is made in China. but... many HITECH pieces added up to the ships are all from either European or American manufacturers. by the time this naval machine is being assembled. won't Chinese bother to reverse engineering many HITECH Import pieces? the ship itself is delivered by the time China was building the Carrier. so at this moment, Chinese Navy should have upgraded its hardware with these techs by now. many Destroyers they own should've been upgraded with technology gleaned from the construction of Pattani class warship.
the Pattani class warship did participate in the recent international joint campaigns against Somalian corsairs. its 'public-announced success' was the crew caught 'tagged' Somalian corsair speedboats. I doubt how could its full potential be? because the operations this ship partook has no amphibious assault operations. otherwise the RTN may release more HTMS Pattani P.R. things.
for anyone saying that 'Carrier is defensive-oriented warship' (And China is still focusing on defensive rather than offensive naval warfare). please review any facts relating to Pacific Campaigns of the WW2. Before the WW2 broke out (even as early as the roaring twenties). not many military sages aware the potential of the aircraft as an 'ammunition' by its own right rather than 'just another ordnance carrying machine filling the Hussars role', and very few aware that a flat deck 'warship' that's barely 'armed' but housing 20 or more warplanes are significantly superior to the victorian Dreadnought-style battleships evolving from baroque Ship of the Line (and expected to serve that function) and therefore can beat the 'most advanced Battleship any nation can possibly built'. the Aircraft carrier however, has no Ship 2 Ship secondary weapons (anti submarine weapons may be possible to add up later ) (which other classes of warships had, and still equipped that way), Carrier may be vulnerable if ALL aircrafts it houses are all destroyed before the ship is resupplied with the new fresh flights, (and other hostile warship is near :p). compare to other class of warships. carrier is NOT defense-oriented. so the new Chinese carrier being launched means that China will try to destroy Japanese self defense fleets and take the whole dispuited rocks by land forces. the USMC "Multifunction LCVP/Carrier/Gunboat hybrid" is considered 'fancy' for them (but they might working on the said warships by now o.O !!!)
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If you don't use a proper cat to launch your fighters you may as well not have a carrier frankly. *snorts* ski jumps! I swear it's military technology by way of Monty Python.
That said I do find it amusing that the Marine Corps 'gator fleet's LPDs and LHDs
(these things)
mount similar airpower to a lot of other nation's full size carriers, and we even stick a bunch of extra tanks, vehicles and extremely grumpy grunts in the bottom of ours.
Not to mention the long running leak in the Boxer that forced it into drydock finally after only.... 5 years of sailing around with a hole in the bottom of the ship as long as an Abrams...
AustonT wrote: They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.
This "offshore PT boat" (it looks closer to Destroyer IMAO)
I doubt how could its full potential be? because the operations this ship partook has no amphibious assault operations. otherwise the RTN may release more HTMS Pattani P.R. things.
It looks like a modern patrol unit, it fits into the mold of a corvette though in modern designation it is larger than a corvette but smaller than a frigate which is a wide and imprecise gap. What it's just plain not is a destroyer. It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.
AustonT wrote: It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.
I hate to point this out, but there are a few advantages to manual operation over automation. There's usually more crew aboard than there are autoloaders, in the event of emergency.
AustonT wrote: It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.
I hate to point this out, but there are a few advantages to manual operation over automation. There's usually more crew aboard than there are autoloaders, in the event of emergency.
What kind of emergency is improved by having more people, likely untrained to deal with the specific emergency, in an enclosed space and with lives to lose?
AustonT wrote: It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.
I hate to point this out, but there are a few advantages to manual operation over automation. There's usually more crew aboard than there are autoloaders, in the event of emergency.
I'd be interested to hear what advantage you think having 5x the crew of comparable vessels has in terms of combat capabilities.
This is the year 2012. Viking longboats haven't been sighted off the coast of china.
Hey man, a question was asked, I provided a correct answer.
Also, boarding actions happen all the time nowadays, admittedly not so much between naval vessels, but it still happens. The British who got captured by the Iranian Republican Guard for instance.
ShumaGorath wrote:
What kind of emergency is improved by having more people, likely untrained to deal with the specific emergency, in an enclosed space and with lives to lose?
I highly recommend not leaving port with untrained crew. Ideally every man has at least some familiarity with each task on ship (this training philosophy may sound familiar to the marine corps as well). An example. My brother in law is a petty officer and a cook. He's also a welder and a medic, as needed, and a pool shark, if the marines are to be believed.
AustonT wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what advantage you think having 5x the crew of comparable vessels has in terms of combat capabilities.
Anti-pirate actions spring to mind. In a naval engagement, even in those nice littoral combat ships that you sneeze on them and they sink, most of the time, you'll lose crew faster than you'll lose the ship. Ships are massive. Even holed badly, they take a while to die. You'll have fires, spalling, secondary explosions, even stupid things like guys falling down ladders or through hatchways, or even drowning if a compartment seals with them in it. Those things might not overly impair the ships mechanical ability to engage the enemy, but definitely reduce the number of men available to man the guns, as it were.
The idea that being hit by a missile instantly equates death is largely a myth, but modern ship design increasingly makes it a self fulfilling prophecy. The idea of lighter faster CIWS focused designs almost guarantees that the next generation of missiles will be lighter and faster to beat CIWS. Smaller crews may be more cost effective at the budget table, but if taken by surprise in port means that you're most likely going to lose the ship, whereas a larger crew might be able to hold out long enough to get underway. It also means that if you do take a hit and key people are killed, you increase the odds that someone else might not possess the same skill set as the deceased.
No, but over 200 ships have been boarded this year alone. The majority of them were not military, but a handful of them were.
And how many of those military vessels actually resisted being boarded at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I highly recommend not leaving port with untrained crew. Ideally every man has at least some familiarity with each task on ship (this training philosophy may sound familiar to the marine corps as well). An example. My brother in law is a petty officer and a cook. He's also a welder and a medic, as needed, and a pool shark, if the marines are to be believed.
Having twice as many people aboard while your ships on fire isn't the most helpful thing. Not all tasks, especially vital ones, are improved by having an excess of labor when space is at a premium.
And how many of those military vessels actually resisted being boarded at all?
You may have a point there. I'll have to look into how many were resisted, though I'm willing to bet I can find a few unsuccessful ones like the one a few months back where they were boarded by two dozen men with knives and machetes in straits of Malacca.
Having twice as many people aboard while your ships on fire isn't the most helpful thing. Not all tasks, especially vital ones, are improved by having an excess of labor when space is at a premium.
True, but the flip side of that is that modern warships are getting into the range where there's not enough people on board to perform vital tasks. A Zumwalt is designed with a crew in mind around 300. It's the same size as a Mississippi class battleship which had 700+ men. Now, granted, there's a big difference between the two outside over all dimensions, but both are big targets, no matter how 'stealthy' ships like the DDX are.
I'll be the first to admit that we have not seen them in combat so this is all conjecture, but I have the distinct feeling that they're going to have a hard time of it. The current philosophy is that the Navy will never come under fire without some sort of high tech being involved, but the problem is that all the ECM in the world doesn't stop a beach gunner from picking up a pair of binoculars.
I'll put it this way: General John Sedgwick once opened his mouth and claimed: 'They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!'. Maybe not, but they could certainly hit a Major General.
There's also a new technology that's being put into use, some on tankers going through the Indian ocean: sonic weapons. Basically a giant boom box that resonates a high frequency sound wave that will cause intense pain and destroy your sense of balance. If you don't have specific ear muffs, you won't be able to block it.
This is the year 2012. Viking longboats haven't been sighted off the coast of china.
That's what you say now, but when the zombie cyborg vikings attack I'll be ready! *sharpens light saber battle ax*
LordofHats wrote: There's also a new technology that's being put into use, some on tankers going through the Indian ocean: sonic weapons. Basically a giant boom box that resonates a high frequency sound wave that will cause intense pain and destroy your sense of balance. If you don't have specific ear muffs, you won't be able to block it.
The problem with those is firing them off usually also bags any members of your crew not carrying theirs. It should be pointed out that the number one most successful anti-boarding technology deployed against the Somali pirates, for example, has been a very retro tech system called 'men with guns'. They've been found to be nearly 95% effective at preventing pirate boarding actions off Somalia so far, and this is a technology I can get behind. It's cheap, easy to acquire, and helps with unemployment issues among men with guns.
The problem with those is firing them off usually also bags any members of your crew not carrying theirs. It should be pointed out that the number one most successful anti-boarding technology deployed against the Somali pirates, for example, has been a very retro tech system called 'men with guns'. They've been found to be nearly 95% effective at preventing pirate boarding actions off Somalia so far, and this is a technology I can get behind. It's cheap, easy to acquire, and helps with unemployment issues among men with guns
It could also be said that the root cause of Somali Pirates is the unemployment of men with guns.
AustonT wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what advantage you think having 5x the crew of comparable vessels has in terms of combat capabilities.
Anti-pirate actions spring to mind. In a naval engagement, even in those nice littoral combat ships that you sneeze on them and they sink, most of the time, you'll lose crew faster than you'll lose the ship. Ships are massive. Even holed badly, they take a while to die. You'll have fires, spalling, secondary explosions, even stupid things like guys falling down ladders or through hatchways, or even drowning if a compartment seals with them in it. Those things might not overly impair the ships mechanical ability to engage the enemy, but definitely reduce the number of men available to man the guns, as it were.
The idea that being hit by a missile instantly equates death is largely a myth, but modern ship design increasingly makes it a self fulfilling prophecy. The idea of lighter faster CIWS focused designs almost guarantees that the next generation of missiles will be lighter and faster to beat CIWS. Smaller crews may be more cost effective at the budget table, but if taken by surprise in port means that you're most likely going to lose the ship, whereas a larger crew might be able to hold out long enough to get underway. It also means that if you do take a hit and key people are killed, you increase the odds that someone else might not possess the same skill set as the deceased.
I largely disagree with you, but I suppose we will find out if the Thais ever see the elephant.
AustonT wrote: They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.
This "offshore PT boat" (it looks closer to Destroyer IMAO)
I doubt how could its full potential be? because the operations this ship partook has no amphibious assault operations. otherwise the RTN may release more HTMS Pattani P.R. things.
It looks like a modern patrol unit, it fits into the mold of a corvette though in modern designation it is larger than a corvette but smaller than a frigate which is a wide and imprecise gap. What it's just plain not is a destroyer. It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.
Edit:wtf
of course. the design is to respond to 911 threats. its intended enemies are not a fully recognized nation, but pirates/corsairs/privateers/bouccanieers/ or someone that could sink USS Cole.
in the end. the design concept is actually a revival of antique Caribbean pirate warfare. the crews are intended to board an enemy vessel and capture it intact rather than to sink it.
IF I were an RTN Commander in Chief. and judging this design/project. I will reject this design and considers USMC 'multifunction warship' instead a warship of the similar size housing similar number of crews but can do more is better.
AustonT wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what advantage you think having 5x the crew of comparable vessels has in terms of combat capabilities.
Anti-pirate actions spring to mind. In a naval engagement, even in those nice littoral combat ships that you sneeze on them and they sink, most of the time, you'll lose crew faster than you'll lose the ship. Ships are massive. Even holed badly, they take a while to die. You'll have fires, spalling, secondary explosions, even stupid things like guys falling down ladders or through hatchways, or even drowning if a compartment seals with them in it. Those things might not overly impair the ships mechanical ability to engage the enemy, but definitely reduce the number of men available to man the guns, as it were.
The idea that being hit by a missile instantly equates death is largely a myth, but modern ship design increasingly makes it a self fulfilling prophecy. The idea of lighter faster CIWS focused designs almost guarantees that the next generation of missiles will be lighter and faster to beat CIWS. Smaller crews may be more cost effective at the budget table, but if taken by surprise in port means that you're most likely going to lose the ship, whereas a larger crew might be able to hold out long enough to get underway. It also means that if you do take a hit and key people are killed, you increase the odds that someone else might not possess the same skill set as the deceased.
I largely disagree with you, but I suppose we will find out if the Thais ever see the elephant.
I've seen livin' elephants before. i've been riding ones few years ago. in a small village near a city of Surin =^.^=
since this is not a discussion of war elephants. i've another reasons why RTN designs this type of warship.
the threats of Mallacca straits pirate is still persistence and increasing. It becomes a higher priority threats than a rumours (or facts) that the rivaling nations owning a fleet of superior ships. the (supposed to be Malaysian, or Indonesian) pirates raid ships no matter who owns it. they stings merchant fleets of the two nations, regardless if the fleet nationality. and ever since my nation. Thailand, becomes more and more industrialized over time (guess what? Automotive Industry!) the needs to protects its products delivery is increasing. whoever doing this shippings, be they MAERSK, HANJIN, LINFOX, CS, equally worths protection. (all of them have their offices both in Bangkok, KL, Singhapore, and Laem Chabang, Chonburi)
Mallacca pirate threat is universal. it becomes multinational operations and therefore every nations located within, near, or next to the straits must participate. this includes Andaman fleets of RTN, the Malaysian Navy, the Indonesian, and the Singhaporeans. someone else might have joined the operations by now
And how many of those military vessels actually resisted being boarded at all?
You may have a point there. I'll have to look into how many were resisted, though I'm willing to bet I can find a few unsuccessful ones like the one a few months back where they were boarded by two dozen men with knives and machetes in straits of Malacca.
Having twice as many people aboard while your ships on fire isn't the most helpful thing. Not all tasks, especially vital ones, are improved by having an excess of labor when space is at a premium.
True, but the flip side of that is that modern warships are getting into the range where there's not enough people on board to perform vital tasks. A Zumwalt is designed with a crew in mind around 300. It's the same size as a Mississippi class battleship which had 700+ men. Now, granted, there's a big difference between the two outside over all dimensions, but both are big targets, no matter how 'stealthy' ships like the DDX are.
I'll be the first to admit that we have not seen them in combat so this is all conjecture, but I have the distinct feeling that they're going to have a hard time of it. The current philosophy is that the Navy will never come under fire without some sort of high tech being involved, but the problem is that all the ECM in the world doesn't stop a beach gunner from picking up a pair of binoculars.
I'll put it this way: General John Sedgwick once opened his mouth and claimed: 'They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!'. Maybe not, but they could certainly hit a Major General.
This.
I did a tour on a ddg, in deck (flashes gang sign). Any surface warfare officer worth his salt will tell you that ships are critically undermanned right now BY DESIGN, much less this while ERB perform to serve debacle the Navy has been suffering through. It's not just an issue of not having enough guys once the bad people start poking holes in the waterproof box that you live in, it effects every area of readiness. If you have to stretch someone across three or four areas of expertise because you don't have the bodies for them to specialize, they just straight up aren't going to be as good at any of their jobs as a specialist would. If you are using first class fire controllmen to bust rust or paint because you don't have any deck seamen for grunt work, those guys are not going to be as sharp at running their consoles or doing maintenance on their systems.
The sad fact is that an old Fletcher class could take on an flight 2 or later ddg and have an excellent chance of coming out on top. As in, greater than 50%. I'll go on the record and say that again- the destroyers we built in 1943 could defeat flight 2a destroyers in a surface action, and pretty handily. That's a bit moot, because the assumption is that the destroyer always operates in a SAG or a CSG or something that cover's its weakness, but there were plenty of times that I was on the bridge getting harassed by a Chinese destroyer (with the carrier a thousand miles a way) and you can't help but notice 'Man that guy has a ton more guns than I do' and realize he could put you on the bottom before any of the fighter attack guys stopped admiring themselves in the mirrors and took off. One of the big reasons you didn't have that fear in the old fletchers was that despite being only 2/3rds the size of a modern destroyer, they had nearly twice the crew. You can read numerous instances of them just getting the ever living crap blown out of them, but managing to drag themselves back into port because they could take big personnel losses (IE 290 KIA, so the entire crew of a modern DDG) and still survive.
Fun fact- we (the US) had a pretty solid plan for keeping the PLA(N) in their box a few years ago. Namely the idea was to give the Indians the old Constellation and Kitty Hawk when we decommissioned them, gratis, if they agreed to buy US aircraft to populate the air wings. Talk about a win-win. We don't have to pay the demobilization cost, we get to sell around 190 aircraft, and the balance of power in the East just took a big step away from our two biggest antagonists, Pakistan and China. Of course, Congress killed the plan, shortly before voting themselves a new pay raise. Must. Keep. Rage. In. Check.
200m or so to bring a battleship worth, by the navy's admission, 10-20 Zumwalts, back to full operational condition with a full modern upgrade. 200m for 1, vs 3-4 billion per Zumwalt that it's worth 10-20 of.
While the battleship is, by most mods of thought, obsolete, it is not due to it's lack of effectiveness. During the first Gulf War, the Mo out performed the rest of the Navy for fire support.
It's due to cost.
Battleships require huge crews, comparatively, and huge resources to maintain. Can missiles and bombs sink them? Of course. But they're much harder to kill than anything else afloat.
How hard?
Pretty damn hard.
5 battleships present (IIRC), 2 sunk, one due to being flipped over by the 23 kiloton nuke. The black spot is most likely all 27,000 tons of the Arkansas being thrown into the air, due to being only 170 odd yards from ground zero.
Fun fact- we (the US) had a pretty solid plan for keeping the PLA(N) in their box a few years ago. Namely the idea was to give the Indians the old Constellation and Kitty Hawk when we decommissioned them, gratis, if they agreed to buy US aircraft to populate the air wings. Talk about a win-win. We don't have to pay the demobilization cost, we get to sell around 190 aircraft, and the balance of power in the East just took a big step away from our two biggest antagonists, Pakistan and China. Of course, Congress killed the plan, shortly before voting themselves a new pay raise. Must. Keep. Rage. In. Check.
I remember that, the IAF was also a party to the problem. The Russians gave them a better deal on the SU-30, we offered them a carrier in order to make the F/A-18 more attractive.
5 battleships present (IIRC), 2 sunk, one due to being flipped over by the 23 kiloton nuke. The black spot is most likely all 27,000 tons of the Arkansas being thrown into the air, due to being only 170 odd yards from ground zero.
No, neither ABLE nor BAKER had 5 battleships present. Arkansas was present at both though.
No, neither ABLE nor BAKER had 5 battleships present. Arkansas was present at both though.
Baker did, the Nagato frequently gets glossed over as part of 'three surrendered ships'. The battleships of the target fleet consisted of Nagato, New York, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Nevada.
Nagato and Arkansas were both sunk by Baker.
Here are the declassified post test inspections for New York, Pennsylvania and Nevada following exposure to Baker.
Fun fact- we (the US) had a pretty solid plan for keeping the PLA(N) in their box a few years ago. Namely the idea was to give the Indians the old Constellation and Kitty Hawk when we decommissioned them, gratis, if they agreed to buy US aircraft to populate the air wings. Talk about a win-win. We don't have to pay the demobilization cost, we get to sell around 190 aircraft, and the balance of power in the East just took a big step away from our two biggest antagonists, Pakistan and China. Of course, Congress killed the plan, shortly before voting themselves a new pay raise. Must. Keep. Rage. In. Check.
I remember that, the IAF was also a party to the problem. The Russians gave them a better deal on the SU-30, we offered them a carrier in order to make the F/A-18 more attractive.
How sure are you about that? I know the IAF made a large purchase of the Su30s to become their primary fighters but those were hardly their first purchase. I think the choice to go with Russian planes on land and sea had more to do with the fact that Russia is offering front line fighters instead of the interim jack of all trades bs our Navy seems to love so much. The tipping point could have easily been based on cost and performance.
How sure are you about that? I know the IAF made a large purchase of the Su30s to become their primary fighters but those were hardly their first purchase. I think the choice to go with Russian planes on land and sea had more to do with the fact that Russia is offering front line fighters instead of the interim jack of all trades bs our Navy seems to love so much. The tipping point could have easily been based on cost and performance.
That's not the only Russian hot commodity in surface warfare right now. A lot of countries are picking up Sunburn. I've seen the test data, but AFAIK no one has used any in a shooting war yet.
Eventually missile speed will reach a point that there's no practical way CIWS can keep up. Then it's off to increased armor land.
so did anyone try to upgrade battleship using following?
- Replacing either diesel or oil-fired steam engine with nuclear power plant and electromotive propulsion
- a Helo deck with a seaking sittin' on it (antisub warfare)
- Phalanx anti-guided missile system
- Cruise missile system
- UAV launch deck
and is it stil obsolete with this upgrade? does digitalized cruiser REALLY replace (slow) Battleship? if it can't. what makes those oldschool dreads battleworthy in the age of digitalized weapons?
for Battleship VS Carrier. any seriously industrialized nation that can maintain an unbroken supply lines will consider choosing carrier and dismiss the proposed battleship projects. why? streamlined aluminium hull plane flies farther than cannon shells and may have some chances to return to the carrier (i.e. the plane can be re-used, shells are one-off) that is! both classes of ships require escorting by smaller (and faster) warships. don'tchu think?
or anyone can argue that those old dreads never obsolette. or it will make a big comback?
Let's return to the original discussion of China invading Taiwan. I remain unconvinced that China needs a carrier for such an action. Any Chinese attack is likely to be a surprise attack - Paratroop divisions, Air Force providing cover from the mainland etc.
By the time America and it's allies react, the Chinese are more than likely to be in full control and dug in, with the island itself being easy to reinforce from the mainland. Thus Taiwan becomes a giant carrier. Any American counter-attack will need to be bold and rapid a la Inchon or it will probably descend into a long and grinding battle.
And of course, there is the political implications. If China fights a limited war to regain what was originally part of China anyway, would America really want to fight WW3 for Taiwan? Would the American republic accept more foreign wars after Iraq and Af'stan?
I love Sunday newspapers
How sure are you about that? I know the IAF made a large purchase of the Su30s to become their primary fighters but those were hardly their first purchase. I think the choice to go with Russian planes on land and sea had more to do with the fact that Russia is offering front line fighters instead of the interim jack of all trades bs our Navy seems to love so much. The tipping point could have easily been based on cost and performance.
That's not the only Russian hot commodity in surface warfare right now. A lot of countries are picking up Sunburn. I've seen the test data, but AFAIK no one has used any in a shooting war yet.
Eventually missile speed will reach a point that there's no practical way CIWS can keep up. Then it's off to increased armor land.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Let's return to the original discussion of China invading Taiwan.
As the OP you would think that you'd know that Taiwan was never the original topic of this thread.
Lone Cat wrote:so did anyone try to upgrade battleship using following?
- Replacing either diesel or oil-fired steam engine with nuclear power plant and electromotive propulsion
- a Helo deck with a seaking sittin' on it (antisub warfare)
- Phalanx anti-guided missile system
- Cruise missile system
- UAV launch deck
No engine replacements were done or feasible.
Helicopters routinely landed on New Jersey and Iowa, there is ample deck space. ASW is not the role of battleships however that's what escorts are for.
All of the Battleships still in service in the 80's recieved Phalanx CIWS, Harpoons, and Tomahawks.
Wisconsin carried a Pioneer in Desert Storm.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's return to the original discussion of China invading Taiwan. I remain unconvinced that China needs a carrier for such an action. Any Chinese attack is likely to be a surprise attack - Paratroop divisions, Air Force providing cover from the mainland etc.
By the time America and it's allies react, the Chinese are more than likely to be in full control and dug in, with the island itself being easy to reinforce from the mainland. Thus Taiwan becomes a giant carrier. Any American counter-attack will need to be bold and rapid a la Inchon or it will probably descend into a long and grinding battle.
And of course, there is the political implications. If China fights a limited war to regain what was originally part of China anyway, would America really want to fight WW3 for Taiwan? Would the American republic accept more foreign wars after Iraq and Af'stan?
I love Sunday newspapers
"Red" Chinese want to finish off what they've not done 60 years ago. but first China needs smaller nations elsewhere to see things in the same way as theirs. they need Diaoyu Daitang firmly in their hands, the victory itself is a propaganda by its own right
China has so many vassalages in Africa. many african nations (or its leaders) are happier under this millenium-old vassalage system, and of course. those africans never view whites better than being 'slaver, oppressor, tyrant, bandit, gangster, outlaws, anachist... or even the Devil'. for now, Africa (or much of it) is theirs. in the southeaste asia.. however, many nations (or its leaders at a given time) are either opposing them, or treats China as trade partners, rather than masters, or doubledealing with its enemies, or.. .impartial. Southeast Asian nations (all became ASEAN memberships) sees no profit by siding with any of the rivaling global powers (or worse! some ASEAN leaders want this lil confederacy to rival China itself!).
If China to make its claims over Taiwan (and other 'rebel nations') legitimate. they don't just need military might. they need any decisive MILITARY VICTORY over its weaker neighbours. once Diaoyu falls. Taiwan may either kneel (and renounce their 'sovereignity claims') peacefully, or yield to an onslaught of red horde. also other 'neutral' nations will be 'bullied' by Diaoyu annexions.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's return to the original discussion of China invading Taiwan. I remain unconvinced that China needs a carrier for such an action. Any Chinese attack is likely to be a surprise attack - Paratroop divisions, Air Force providing cover from the mainland etc.
By the time America and it's allies react, the Chinese are more than likely to be in full control and dug in, with the island itself being easy to reinforce from the mainland. Thus Taiwan becomes a giant carrier. Any American counter-attack will need to be bold and rapid a la Inchon or it will probably descend into a long and grinding battle.
And of course, there is the political implications. If China fights a limited war to regain what was originally part of China anyway, would America really want to fight WW3 for Taiwan? Would the American republic accept more foreign wars after Iraq and Af'stan?
I love Sunday newspapers
IMO The US has supported Taiwan as a thorn in the mainlands backside. China flexing its muscles and becoming a dominant power kind of reverses that ass pain back to the sender. I think the US would be reluctant to become embroiled in a shooting war against China BUT may have to intervene to keep its political pull with other nations in the Pacific.
In such an action against Taiwan Chinese carriers could either support Amphibious landings, providing top cover etc. And/Or they will perform strikes against mainland Taiwan and be in a position to deny The US or its allies sea and air space. Once China can develop decent carrier born AWACS/ and AEW They can project even further. The latter option would be better for the Chinese. Of course China needs first rate escorts, destroyers and frigates, to protect their their carrier assets first.
Improvements to Chinese power projection makes military responses to a 'rejoining' more unlikely.
Lone Cat wrote:so did anyone try to upgrade battleship using following?
- Replacing either diesel or oil-fired steam engine with nuclear power plant and electromotive propulsion
- a Helo deck with a seaking sittin' on it (antisub warfare)
- Phalanx anti-guided missile system
- Cruise missile system
- UAV launch deck
and is it stil obsolete with this upgrade? does digitalized cruiser REALLY replace (slow) Battleship? if it can't. what makes those oldschool dreads battleworthy in the age of digitalized weapons?
for Battleship VS Carrier. any seriously industrialized nation that can maintain an unbroken supply lines will consider choosing carrier and dismiss the proposed battleship projects. why? streamlined aluminium hull plane flies farther than cannon shells and may have some chances to return to the carrier (i.e. the plane can be re-used, shells are one-off) that is! both classes of ships require escorting by smaller (and faster) warships. don'tchu think?
or anyone can argue that those old dreads never obsolette. or it will make a big comback?
Yes, the Russians did, it's called the Kirov class (though USN categorizes it as a battlecruiser or sometimes a super heavy battlecruiser) and their introduction was one of several reasons that the US recommissioned it's battleships under Reagan. They were basically designed to wipe out entire US carrier task forces.
As is sadly common with Russian ships, they have issues with their reactors, but are otherwise formidable, according to most accounts.
As far as 'carriers vs battleships' goes... carriers lose combat effectiveness as they lose aircraft, which are, compared to a battleship turret, easy to kill. Battleships lack range, but can withstand tremendous damage above the waterline and keep fighting. Without aircraft, carriers are largely naked. A battleship is hard to catch unarmed (though off guard is quite possible). For close fire support, a battleship can maintain a sustained fire, with greater effectiveness, though somewhat less accuracy. During Gulf War 1, between aircraft, guided missiles, and 16 inch shells, the Mo won hands down when it came to blasting shore defenses. AARs and post war studies revealed that cruise missiles had over all not performed as well as the Pentagon had claimed they would pre war.
The Iowa class has proven it's superiority are a direct fire platform on every occasion that it has been deployed. (it's also, btw, not appreciably slower than, say, a guided missile cruiser or fleet carrier, at 32 knots).
If you look at the majority of WWII battleship losses, most involve underwater shocks of some sort. (Torpedoes, bomb misses, etc) Plastering their superstructures with explosives was much less effective.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Faster then the speed of light?
Raython has been promising those since the 1990's, and the problems with them are pretty extensive. The largest of which is that only a nuclear powered ship can fire more than one or two of them at once. The next biggest problem is that they can't engage targets over the horizon.
If China to make its claims over Taiwan (and other 'rebel nations') legitimate. they don't just need military might. they need any decisive MILITARY VICTORY over its weaker neighbours. once Diaoyu falls. Taiwan may either kneel (and renounce their 'sovereignity claims') peacefully, or yield to an onslaught of red horde. also other 'neutral' nations will be 'bullied' by Diaoyu annexions.
The problem is if they lose. It'd be a massive loss of face, and if the US severs trade ties, it would be vastly more crippling to China's economy than it would be to the US.
Of course! as of now Chinese did really have a long range anti warship missile that seems to have similar size as (and maybe compatible with the existing Weishi rocket artillery). China might as well sell it (or production license) to lesser client states. As of now Turkey and Thailand got the production license (or actually purchase the whole products of) of Weishi system. (in case of Royal Thai Army. it is a response to Cambodge BM21 Grad MLRS)
IF one says that this missile is compatible with Submarine launching tubes. then the missile is submersible too!!!! a smart design to completely avoid Phalances
^ RTA Weishi MLRS (I don't understand why the commander in chief choose to buy a massive Weishi system.. which it is a crossbreed between SCUD and BM21. does Weishi really outranges BM21?)
^ Chinese antiship missile, and a launching truck which appears to be any typical ten wheeler (รถสิบล้à¸). the missile might as well compatible with Weishi launch tubes.
if the said missile can outrange the carrier (How could it be!)
1. It means that Carrier as we've know may be obsolette. unless the new naval fighter jet have the same range do the odds evened.
one of a possible alternative is to place manned fighter jets into secondary lines and convert every Pacific fleet carriers into UAV compatible (the Navy seems to be working on this project already, developing UAVs that fles very far), and the new carrier being assembled must be reconfigurated to fit the new weapons.
2. For China and its client states. Will the interests in Palmerston-style fort (with the new antiship missile batteries installed instead of old naval guns) renewed?
3. Is there any possibility that the new Battleship will be built and it can beat those missile thing? Is it possible for US-Navy to perfect its anti-ship missile to be small enough to fit in Battleship turret mount and yet. fly as far as those Chinese ones or outranges it?
4. And is it possible to build a missile cruiser that replace both Battleships and Carriers? (and faster)
Auston, you're right, the original discussion was about the carrier, but discussing a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan makes for a more engaging debate.
Anyway, as China grows, and America declines, such an invasion grows likely. American memories of Vietnam are likely to make the USA reluctant to get involved IMO.
Anyway, just like the battle of Midway, Admiral Ackbar's Royal Navy taskforce would save the day
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Auston, you're right, the original discussion was about the carrier, but discussing a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan makes for a more engaging debate.
Anyway, as China grows, and America declines, such an invasion grows likely. American memories of Vietnam are likely to make the USA reluctant to get involved IMO.
Anyway, just like the battle of Midway, Admiral Ackbar's Royal Navy taskforce would save the day
The battle in Vietnam and a prospective battle over Taiwan would be very different. Likely we'd simply strike Chinese military targets and try to blunt their ability to project force as much as possible, rather than get bogged down over territorial concerns. Any conflict directly involving Taiwan though would inevitably turn into a largescale conflict between the China, the U.S., India, and Probably Japan.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Auston, you're right, the original discussion was about the carrier, but discussing a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan makes for a more engaging debate.
Anyway, as China grows, and America declines, such an invasion grows likely. American memories of Vietnam are likely to make the USA reluctant to get involved IMO.
Anyway, just like the battle of Midway, Admiral Ackbar's Royal Navy taskforce would save the day
Fair enough.
I don't agree about the prospects of PRChina invading ROChina. China is kind of in a tight spot, they've made no secret of their enmity with Russia or India plus a host of smaller nations, but should the PRC try to expand on land including Taiwan, expect one or more of her modern enemies to rip into her with a quickness. The Indians and Russians are just waiting to smell blood in the water. Russia especially needs/wants a military victory to parade around for another 50 years of decay.
Going to war when/if China declares war on Taiwan makes sense simply because Taiwan is no slouch when it comes to defending their own islands. Given enough time, the Chinese could do it, but it would be costly as the ROC military is designed for the singular purpose of holding Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. They have focused on sea lane defense, short range fighters, anti-missile defense and sea lane interdiction. They also still have mandatory conscription with all males 18 years old having to at least attend basic training.
Once China commits to an invasion of the ROC, she has to throw most of her air and naval assets at it or she risks getting bogged down in a costly amphibious invasion. Provided enough fore-warning of an invasion means the US can preposition enough assets to make an invasion a VERY costly proposition. China can't dictate where they will invade as the island is too small - the only means of surprise they have are strategic. Can they convince the ROC, and more importantly, the US that the invasion is not coming? Doubtful as the amount of men and material needed would be tough to conceal.
Although it might be somewhat callous. You can let the ROC be the anvil that takes the Chinese hammer strike and then reply with a concentrated strike right at the PLAN when they are most vulnerable (which is during the prosecution of the amphibious invasion).
Keep in mind that the Chinese have 60 years of operational experience in littoral combat, blue ocean combat, and all the ancillary tasks that go along with it to catch up on.
If the chinese want to go to war with ASEAN and the US, I predict that the US Sea Wolf and Los Angeles class subs would wreak absolute havoc against both Chinese surface and subsurface combatants. US SSNs have been shadowing Soviet, Russian, and pretty much any other ocean going vessel that mattered for the last 50-60 years.
3. Is there any possibility that the new Battleship will be built and it can beat those missile thing? Is it possible for US-Navy to perfect its anti-ship missile to be small enough to fit in Battleship turret mount and yet. fly as far as those Chinese ones or outranges it?
4. And is it possible to build a missile cruiser that replace both Battleships and Carriers? (and faster)
L.
RAM launchers can, in theory, be small enough to fit in the back of a pickup truck. Fitting on the exterior of a battleship turret is easy.
As far as beating those missile things, in theory, an existing Iowa class can withstand it to a degree, simply because they use an interior armor belt rather than an exterior one. Modern anti-ship missiles being two stage affairs that explode a small charge on contact to pen and then detonate the larger charge once inside the ship. In the case of an interior armor belt the outer hull acts as spaced armor, causing the armor piercing warhead to detonate prematurely. To achieve their current degree of performance, modern anti-ship missiles have limited mass, meaning you can only pack so much explosive into them without degrading performance (aka being shot down by CIWS).
As far as war with Taiwan, my money says war with Japan is more likely in the short term.
Of course! as of now Chinese did really have a long range anti warship missile that seems to have similar size as (and maybe compatible with the existing Weishi rocket artillery). China might as well sell it (or production license) to lesser client states. As of now Turkey and Thailand got the production license (or actually purchase the whole products of) of Weishi system. (in case of Royal Thai Army. it is a response to Cambodge BM21 Grad MLRS)
IF one says that this missile is compatible with Submarine launching tubes. then the missile is submersible too!!!! a smart design to completely avoid Phalances
^ RTA Weishi MLRS (I don't understand why the commander in chief choose to buy a massive Weishi system.. which it is a crossbreed between SCUD and BM21. does Weishi really outranges BM21?)
^ Chinese antiship missile, and a launching truck which appears to be any typical ten wheeler (รถสิบล้à¸). the missile might as well compatible with Weishi launch tubes.
if the said missile can outrange the carrier (How could it be!)
1. It means that Carrier as we've know may be obsolette. unless the new naval fighter jet have the same range do the odds evened.
one of a possible alternative is to place manned fighter jets into secondary lines and convert every Pacific fleet carriers into UAV compatible (the Navy seems to be working on this project already, developing UAVs that fles very far), and the new carrier being assembled must be reconfigurated to fit the new weapons.
2. For China and its client states. Will the interests in Palmerston-style fort (with the new antiship missile batteries installed instead of old naval guns) renewed?
3. Is there any possibility that the new Battleship will be built and it can beat those missile thing? Is it possible for US-Navy to perfect its anti-ship missile to be small enough to fit in Battleship turret mount and yet. fly as far as those Chinese ones or outranges it?
4. And is it possible to build a missile cruiser that replace both Battleships and Carriers? (and faster)
L
.
Spoiler'd cause long.
Just because a missile can be sublaunched does not make the missile submersible, that would make it a torpedo as opposed to a missile. Sub launched missiles consist of a booster phase that gets them out of the water and then the standard weapon system from there. The American Harpoon and Tomahawk can be launched in this way as well as all versions of US Sub launched ICBMs.
Just because a missile can be sublaunched does not make the missile submersible, that would make it a torpedo as opposed to a missile. Sub launched missiles consist of a booster phase that gets them out of the water and then the standard weapon system from there. The American Harpoon and Tomahawk can be launched in this way as well as all versions of US Sub launched ICBMs.
Just because a missile can be sublaunched does not make the missile submersible, that would make it a torpedo as opposed to a missile. Sub launched missiles consist of a booster phase that gets them out of the water and then the standard weapon system from there. The American Harpoon and Tomahawk can be launched in this way as well as all versions of US Sub launched ICBMs.
In short, SLCM does not an SSBN make.
More, SLCM does not a carrier killer make. Even high speed SLCMs are gonna have issues with CIWS and EW suites. Torpedoes on the the other hand have a whole variety of issues on their own from decoys and the like to the ever popular "Shoot the thing!"
Just because a missile can be sublaunched does not make the missile submersible, that would make it a torpedo as opposed to a missile. Sub launched missiles consist of a booster phase that gets them out of the water and then the standard weapon system from there. The American Harpoon and Tomahawk can be launched in this way as well as all versions of US Sub launched ICBMs.
In short, SLCM does not an SSBN make.
But does it make a SSGN? The answer is yes and yet none of our SSNs have reclassified, just the boomers. We have a silly navy(yes I know why they aren't bothering to reclassify the SSN hulls)
More, SLCM does not a carrier killer make. Even high speed SLCMs are gonna have issues with CIWS and EW suites. Torpedoes on the the other hand have a whole variety of issues on their own from decoys and the like to the ever popular "Shoot the thing!"
Don't forget the ever popular torpedo bulge.
A 16 inch shell, however, once it's on it''s way, it's on it's way, you just have to get in range.
Just because a missile can be sublaunched does not make the missile submersible, that would make it a torpedo as opposed to a missile. Sub launched missiles consist of a booster phase that gets them out of the water and then the standard weapon system from there. The American Harpoon and Tomahawk can be launched in this way as well as all versions of US Sub launched ICBMs.
In short, SLCM does not an SSBN make.
But does it make a SSGN? The answer is yes and yet none of our SSNs have reclassified, just the boomers. We have a silly navy(yes I know why they aren't bothering to reclassify the SSN hulls)
I actually agree with the SSBN/SSGN/SSN distinctions but that's just me. The latter of the three hulls is completely different for one and designed for an entirely different purpose then just wandering around as a stealthy missile barge like the former two no matter what they're carrying.
Just because a missile can be sublaunched does not make the missile submersible, that would make it a torpedo as opposed to a missile. Sub launched missiles consist of a booster phase that gets them out of the water and then the standard weapon system from there. The American Harpoon and Tomahawk can be launched in this way as well as all versions of US Sub launched ICBMs.
In short, SLCM does not an SSBN make.
But does it make a SSGN? The answer is yes and yet none of our SSNs have reclassified, just the boomers. We have a silly navy(yes I know why they aren't bothering to reclassify the SSN hulls)
I actually agree with the SSBN/SSGN/SSN distinctions but that's just me. The latter of the three hulls is completely different for one and designed for an entirely different purpose then just wandering around as a stealthy missile barge like the former two no matter what they're carrying.
I actually do too but the point is OUR navy came up with SSGN and withing OUR structure we RN SSNs SSGNs, but not so our SSNs with VLS. At the Very least the last flight of Los Angeles boats and the Virginia boats should be classed SSN(G) because they have dedicated launch systems for cruise missiles instead of tube launching them like the older LAs and Seawolfs. It's an internecine web but at the end of the day I think USN needs to split the SSGN designation into guided missle attack and guided missile ballistic. It's super nitpicky but that kind of defines military intelligence.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Auston, you're right, the original discussion was about the carrier, but discussing a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan makes for a more engaging debate.
Anyway, as China grows, and America declines, such an invasion grows likely. American memories of Vietnam are likely to make the USA reluctant to get involved IMO.
Anyway, just like the battle of Midway, Admiral Ackbar's Royal Navy taskforce would save the day
Fair enough.
I don't agree about the prospects of PRChina invading ROChina. China is kind of in a tight spot, they've made no secret of their enmity with Russia or India plus a host of smaller nations, but should the PRC try to expand on land including Taiwan, expect one or more of her modern enemies to rip into her with a quickness. The Indians and Russians are just waiting to smell blood in the water. Russia especially needs/wants a military victory to parade around for another 50 years of decay.
If India will declare war against Chian on the reasons of Tibet oppression. (and its concerns over Chinese dominance over its neighbours, Pakistan and Nepal. now all tibetans are denied entry to Nepal and will be sent to Chinese 'slaughterhouse' where they're at the (extremely limited) mercy of Han slaver)
What are the reasons the new Russia to go to war agaisnt China?
A. somewhere outside the two countries. Chinese merchantress did a catfight match against Russian modelswoman (This is unlikely meow. just for fun meow.)
B. Xinjiang/Eastern Turkmenistan. Through the years. Chinese oppressed them. and villify them as barbarians. (while call themself 'the only civilized people on earth')
C. Inner Mongolia; I don't think those Mongols have anything against Han masters.
D. Another lifeless rock(s) floating between the borders of the two countries. Through the years. Russia did try to avoid a useless war against China. to the point of making a deal, dropping its claims over one dispuited isle to China. i can't remember the name of the isle but it may not be so significant to keep it.
E. Russian gangs (which it seems to be Moscow fifth column elsewhere) VS Triads. and either of the two seized 'secret military hardware' of the opposites.
F. PRC officials 'henked' russians "without proper reasons"
G. Russian gangs kidnapped, harrassed, or killed Chinese citizen or the descendants of the Chinese on foreign soil. this happens in Pattaya. where Russian wants to create its lil Tsardom there once the've replaced Germans and Americans as a dominant foreign gangster power.
H. an unidentified Pirate raids Chinese merchant ships and later. counter piracy taskforce dispatched by the PRC rescued the crew, and ship. also uncovered a secret order from Moscow amongs the pirate.
I. Sino - Indian war (as described above), Russia will claim its 'protector' status over India and declares war against China.
J. Else....?
Bwahahah I just read that India's Russian carrier suffered a massive propulsion failure on trials in mid September, and delivery is now delayed another 10 months while Sevmash cuts out 7 of her 8 boilers to replace them.
AustonT wrote: Bwahahah I just read that India's Russian carrier suffered a massive propulsion failure on trials in mid September, and delivery is now delayed another 10 months while Sevmash cuts out 7 of her 8 boilers to replace them.
Got to love those Russian power plants. I'll take a Babcock and Wilcox any day.
AustonT wrote: Bwahahah I just read that India's Russian carrier suffered a massive propulsion failure on trials in mid September, and delivery is now delayed another 10 months while Sevmash cuts out 7 of her 8 boilers to replace them.
Got to love those Russian power plants. I'll take a Babcock and Wilcox any day.
Their aviation power plants have a similar reputation. I'm quite the fan of the four Rolls Royces the C-130J has under her hoods. Much better longevity.
AustonT wrote: Bwahahah I just read that India's Russian carrier suffered a massive propulsion failure on trials in mid September, and delivery is now delayed another 10 months while Sevmash cuts out 7 of her 8 boilers to replace them.
Got to love those Russian power plants. I'll take a Babcock and Wilcox any day.
Their aviation power plants have a similar reputation. I'm quite the fan of the four Rolls Royces the C-130J has under her hoods. Much better longevity.
Everytime I see the mention of a C130.
Pilot: Number 3 engine missing.
Maintenance Section: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
AustonT wrote: Bwahahah I just read that India's Russian carrier suffered a massive propulsion failure on trials in mid September, and delivery is now delayed another 10 months while Sevmash cuts out 7 of her 8 boilers to replace them.
So the Russo-Indian alliances 'believe' is proved correct!
China will have more bargains to bully India over Tibet struggle. or maybe not ??
Everytime I see the mention of a C130.
Pilot: Number 3 engine missing.
Maintenance Section: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
I remember a B17 lost it's tail over France. Tail gunner fell all the way down thinking the plane was going down only to have the tail glide in and land. About half the plane flew back to England.
Now that's American Avionics. 50% of the entire plane can be shot off, and still successfully return to base.
They don't make em like that anymore. My example has always been Loach or Huey pilots who had two, three or four airplanes shot out from under them IN A DAY. You can't crash a Balckhawk and walk away (yeah I know there are exceptions).
How sure are you about that? I know the IAF made a large purchase of the Su30s to become their primary fighters but those were hardly their first purchase. I think the choice to go with Russian planes on land and sea had more to do with the fact that Russia is offering front line fighters instead of the interim jack of all trades bs our Navy seems to love so much. The tipping point could have easily been based on cost and performance.
Well, it was only a problem on our end. The SU-30 was a better choice for them for many reasons, and we made attempts to make F-18 more attractive by offering decommissioned carriers.
AustonT wrote: They don't make em like that anymore. My example has always been Loach or Huey pilots who had two, three or four airplanes shot out from under them IN A DAY. You can't crash a Balckhawk and walk away (yeah I know there are exceptions).
[i[switching the rail[/i]
1. Are you taling about the fabled 'Black Hawk Down!' thing? (and saying that many Joes slain in Indochine is pretty forgotten ??)
2. One of Discovery Channel shows told us that Huey is the 'best' Helo ever. I'm sure that it is still in use in the US, and elsewhere. It is so Iconic that it might survive another decade until better helos or tiltrotor multifunction flyer has been perfected.
AustonT wrote: They don't make em like that anymore. My example has always been Loach or Huey pilots who had two, three or four airplanes shot out from under them IN A DAY. You can't crash a Balckhawk and walk away (yeah I know there are exceptions).
[i[switching the rail[/i]
1. Are you taling about the fabled 'Black Hawk Down!' thing? (and saying that many Joes slain in Indochine is pretty forgotten ??)
2. One of Discovery Channel shows told us that Huey is the 'best' Helo ever. I'm sure that it is still in use in the US, and elsewhere. It is so Iconic that it might survive another decade until better helos or tiltrotor multifunction flyer has been perfected.
Hueys aren't going any where.
Meet the UH-1Y and the AH-1Z designated "Venom" and "Viper" respectively these new block Hueys and Super Cobras are fresh off the line and will keep the airframe in the Marine Corps inventory for a long time to come. That said the famous "sound" is gone as the twin rotors have been replaced with quad rotors.
Good!
Those new Hueys. if upgraded that way. is still being so deadly, and i think it's cost-efficient than buying fresh new helos. pretty same reasons why US Army keeps M113 around.
Also these Hueys are actually real life 'Valks' and 'Vendettas' don'tchu think?
the RTA doesn't need to replace those oldie hueys with the new Blackhawks. (much of RTA purchase orders are overpriced. it is said that the commanders get some 'cuts' for each new hardware purchased)
@KM unless they have been totally replaced by the Lakotas there are still twin blade Hueys in the Army. We had a Huey that flew down from somewhere in New England to Georgia and stayed for a week until relieved by another crew. The problem is Bell has become notorious for cost overruns and late delivery on everything from new builds to refits.
AustonT wrote: @KM unless they have been totally replaced by the Lakotas there are still twin blade Hueys in the Army. We had a Huey that flew down from somewhere in New England to Georgia and stayed for a week until relieved by another crew. The problem is Bell has become notorious for cost overruns and late delivery on everything from new builds to refits.
I actually didn't know the Army had any Hueys left in their inventory, thought it was all down to Blackhawks, 'Nooks, etc. Guessing they're used as utility birds as opposed to battle birds now? The UH-1Ns are still numerous in the fleet skid squadrons, whole Corps changes like the venom/viper upgrade takes forever, the one place the "sound" will be preserved for sure is my SAR unit out of Yuma that flies the HH-1N as previously mentioned. Due to safety concerns and some technical reasons we can't actually upgrade even to UH-1Ns much less the Venom package. (Short version, our block of Huey is more reliable for low, tight space terrain flying.)
Edit: Ah... Bird 4... such fond memories of taking a JP-5 bath under you on the flight line...
I could be off by a month or two but the last CONUS Army Hueys retired in Jan 2011 IIRC.
The last time I saw one was in 2008.
They were being used for stateside MEDEVAC and in the Egyptian mission. That's why I said I don't know if Lakota had fully replaced them, they were bought for CONUS only use.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The classic aircraft data sheet story we got told in my squadron was allegedly one of our 'Nam era birds. The entry read something like.
1135: Aircraft tail shot off by ground fire.
1500: Tail replaced, in service.
I dunno if that was 'nam. My grandfather told me about the time he went out with the Black Cats. He was chief electrician's mate on the USS Half Moon, and they were way behind the lines, hitting Japanese shipping. Problem was they were burning through waist gunners on those PBY's faster than they could replace them. So Gallery, he says, we need 'volunteers'. At which point grandpa was 'voluntold' that he would be a waist gunner for a mission or two. Now, the thing with PBY's is they got blister turrets in the waist, so the waist gunners can see fore and aft on the bird. Well, he gets in his position, and they take off. After a while, out in the dark, he sees some lights way off and figures 'that's the japs'. All the sudden, big things started flying past in the dark. So they're coming up and coming up and gak starts hitting the plane and they're right down on the deck. He said he started to think that the pilots were dead and they were gonna ram the side of this ship they were flying at.
All the sudden, the torps drop, the bombs drop, and the plane is a few tons lighter. Jumps right up over the deck, and the old man said he was so close he could see their expressions in the muzzleflash of his machinegun. He lets go of the trigger, and the damn thing kept shooting. Shot till the belt ran out. So they fly back, and as they're going grandpa noticed that it felt a bit breezy in the waist, but he didn't really think anything of it till they landed.
AA fire had sawn the tail almost off, and when the PBY landed the force of it was hard enough the tail fell off! They managed to coast it over to the ship, he got off (and told his CO that he'd happily run at, swim at, or even dive under water after the enemy, but they could toss him in the brig before he'd fly through the air at them again) but they had that sucker winched up, fixed, and back in the air again for a second run that night.
Man, tail shot off AND a run away gun? Gotta love it when your sear wears ALL the way down like that. But no this particular sea story was definitely a Huey.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Man, tail shot off AND a run away gun? Gotta love it when your sear wears ALL the way down like that. But no this particular sea story was definitely a Huey.
The real question you have to ask yourself is who keeps 40 year old gripe sheets? Or my first question: Where's the continuation card?
Almost totally believable, except I doubt the tail was actually shot off. Something something no tail rotor. Somethingsomething crash.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Man, tail shot off AND a run away gun? Gotta love it when your sear wears ALL the way down like that. But no this particular sea story was definitely a Huey.
The real question you have to ask yourself is who keeps 40 year old gripe sheets? Or my first question: Where's the continuation card?
Almost totally believable, except I doubt the tail was actually shot off. Something something no tail rotor. Somethingsomething crash.
I would completely believe that the Marine Corps has EVERY gripe sheet entered since A.A. Cunningham made his first flight, the first Marine Aviation flight EVER somewhere in the Naval Archives.
The real question you have to ask yourself is who keeps 40 year old gripe sheets?
I've read written complaints filed from the hundred years war. (One of my ancestors even wrote one up the chain of command to King Charles VII of France. This should tell you how long a military will remember your screw ups))
I know the USN has them back to the War of 1812. (IIRC most of the earlier ones burned with DC)
US Military tracks everything....I mean everything....I had to pay for a "Gomer" pile cap I was issued in '90 recently as I cleared CIF...which I didn't recieve a new one since they are no longer issued.
Jihadin wrote: US Military tracks everything....I mean everything....I had to pay for a "Gomer" pile cap I was issued in '90 recently as I cleared CIF...which I didn't recieve a new one since they are no longer issued.
That's the Army.
With the few rare exceptions everything the Air Force buys me, is mine. Not counting chem gear, or field gear, there has only been 3 items that the AF has ever issued me that I had to return.
Jihadin wrote: What about the toolboxes? Actually we heard a AF mechanic is issued his/her toolbox that they maintain till they ETS out the service?
I'm in Operations, not Maintanence, but from what I understand that is not correct. Work equipment is still controlled by the Air Force. I don't take the PC I forecast with home with me. They don't take their toolkits with them. SF doesn't take their M-4's home.
My last deployment I was issued 4 new sets of ABU's, 3 sets of cold weather undergarments, several pairs of wool socks, a camel pack, leatherman, ballistic sunglasses, and a few other odds and ends...
My last deployment I was issued 4 new sets of ABU's, 3 sets of cold weather undergarments, several pairs of wool socks, a camel pack, leatherman, ballistic sunglasses, and a few other odds and ends...
You get to keep those as expendables. Any clothing article that touches skin doesn't get turned in. Was your ABU coated with Fire Retardent? How many boots have you in the closet? lol
My last deployment I was issued 4 new sets of ABU's, 3 sets of cold weather undergarments, several pairs of wool socks, a camel pack, leatherman, ballistic sunglasses, and a few other odds and ends...
You get to keep those as expendables. Any clothing article that touches skin doesn't get turned in. Was your ABU coated with Fire Retardent? How many boots have you in the closet? lol
I probably have about 10 pairs of boots that have never touched my feet. Every set of ABU they gave me was the same as well, because I just wore my everyday ones that I already had broken in.
When my wife left the Army they made her turn everything back in, including all the uniforms that she wore.
I got a lovely gear issue when I graduated from Aircrew Candidate School, we called it the "Tom Cruise Starter Kit" two flight suits to start us off, a pair of flight boots that Marines couldn't wear in uniform (that I still have and love wearing, full leather upper, steel toe, reinforced heel and ankle, non-slip tread, oil proof, non-conducting, etc) and a pair of flight jackets including the $400 leather one that you see in all the movies. And all of that was mine. I'm sure they tracked that it all went to me, but nothing else other then that.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Man, tail shot off AND a run away gun? Gotta love it when your sear wears ALL the way down like that. But no this particular sea story was definitely a Huey.
The real question you have to ask yourself is who keeps 40 year old gripe sheets? Or my first question: Where's the continuation card?
Almost totally believable, except I doubt the tail was actually shot off. Something something no tail rotor. Somethingsomething crash.
I would completely believe that the Marine Corps has EVERY gripe sheet entered since A.A. Cunningham made his first flight, the first Marine Aviation flight EVER somewhere in the Naval Archives.
Could be a corps thing. I'm pretty sure we destroyed our 13-1s after 6 months with everything else in the 6 month file unless we were field testing something, and then we were just mailing it back to NG, which as far as we are concerned is destroyed.
Jihadin wrote:US Military tracks everything....I mean everything....I had to pay for a "Gomer" pile cap I was issued in '90 recently as I cleared CIF...which I didn't recieve a new one since they are no longer issued.
That's seven shades of slowed. They let me keep damn near everything; wtf am I supposed to do with one half of a shelter half? I really expected them to ask for my A2CUs and a bunch of other pricey gear, but a pile cap. Your CIF is run by a gakker.
Automatically Appended Next Post: to be clear "gakker" isn't even close to what I said
With the right names on the paperwork, you'd be astonished what you can keep. (But try and get a tank through customs even with the right paperwork sometime.)
(But try and get a tank through customs even with the right paperwork sometime.)
Its easy.
Only when they belong to the government. Privately owned? Whole 'nother ball game. The two biggest pains are: Verifying the French really did sell the tanks, and they were not on loan (meaning 'we want to seize your tanks but have no legitimate reason to') and that you have all the correct licenses for 'destructive devices' and machine guns (meaning 'What do you mean all the papers are in order? Call BATF to harass him and maybe he'll leave them for us.')
Expect a given non-US tank to spend six weeks being inspected by everyone and their goat. US made tanks are easier, just tell customs you bought it off an overseas collector and are bringing it back to American soil, where it belongs! (and keep a straight face when saying this and claim the damage was from rough transport, not a near hit from a Yugoslavian T-55).
Jihadin wrote: Like I said its easy. Its the HAZDEC that you have to get right. The HAZDEC is what gets you in trouble.
No, paperwork was fine, but they wanted to verify everything, so they impounded them while they made sure I wasn't smuggling tanks with fake documents. (Mind you, these are air droppable light tanks [AMX-13/105]. If I was going to smuggle them, wouldn't common sense be that I'd fly them over the Mexican boarder and drop them someplace in Arizona?)
Additional list of US Navy aviation capable ships(non-nuclear powered CVNs). Most of the other countries would call these Carriers. We call them "gator freighters". Amphibious assault(Marines).
USS Wasp (LHD 1), Norfolk, VA
USS Essex (LHD 2), Sasebo, Japan
USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), Norfolk, VA
USS Boxer (LHD 4), San Diego, CA USS Bataan (LHD 5), Norfolk, VA
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), San Diego, CA USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), Norfolk, VA
USS Makin Island (LHD 8), San Diego, CA USS Nassau (LHA 4), Norfolk, VA
USS Peleliu (LHA 5), San Diego, CA
I've been on the Boxer. She's ok. Sort of a tub, but hard to sink. She sailed around the Gulf with a 20 foot hole they took five years to get around to repairing beyond a basic patch job that never lasted two months.
No Transportation Control Number. You only get those when shipping to or for DoD. The US gear was a mostly intact tank destroyer, so the story about it being bought from a collector looked legit. (It had been modified over the years in a Yugoslavian depot, and was surplus following the breakup of Yugoslavia, but I hear that it's being restored)
BaronIveagh wrote: If I was going to smuggle them, wouldn't common sense be that I'd fly them over the Mexican boarder and drop them someplace in Arizona?)
I'm not going to tell you how to do your own job (smuggling), but I would suggest not trying this.
I'm not going to tell you how to do your own job (smuggling), but I would suggest not trying this.
Yeah, the local people would beat the police there to see if they were full of cocaine. And, no, I was being sarcastic. If you want to get stuff like this smuggled in, you have a paid guy in charge of a national park and sail it in a 'historic vessel'. Customs doesn't check the boat if you're literally sailing into the arms of the Park Service. AMX's are not that big.
)
(these things)
