Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:.
This may blow your mind, but the report that paper was supposed to be linked to (to my knowledge the space carrier paper was never completed) "Airforce 2025" was written in 1995. It's intreresting if you flip through it to see what's still in place, what already happened and even what thier worries were. There's a little graph in the "Strikestar" paper that talks about defense spending, one of the labels was "Global Recession 2018"
I think most of the issues you mentioned were up front in the abstract, and I have to figure without a significant break through in propulsion technology there's little feasability. But I thougt it was interesting nonetheless.

I find it an interesting concept strategically speaking, and it could very well make carriers obsolete for the US, but only after significant technological advancement. It may have been slated for 2025, but they did think we'd be in hovercars by now in the fifties, technology never quite evolves how you think it will.

I doubt that without some amazing new breakthrough in miniaturised mass fuel generators (could happen I guess) that aircraft will ever be capable of redeploying back to the space hook after an operation. Far more likely would be the construction of a space elevator using current advances in carbon nanotubes, and a dozen or so space hooks placed strategically in orbit with transport craft ferrying the aircraft between them. However, even then, there would be a use for carriers, simply because if you intend to keep a sustained air coverage in one part of the world, aircraft would need to be being revolved continuously between the hooks, occupying space elevator capacity 24/7. Standard carriers are far more economically viable still in such a situation.

As such, until the invention of some uber new method of fueling aircraft, its still not really viable, thinking it through. Nice concept though, and one I'll remember.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

WARORK93 wrote:Silly Chinese...

Freedom of the seas is for America!

Not for ever, look at the Pax Britannia...
Ships will always be at the mercy of submarines I would have thought. Also, have they removed the ski ramp on that, or is it just because it's a top down picture?

It's the top down, the ski jump is intact.

Lol, looks like a toy.

Oh hey Carl Vinson, you're looking well today...


That's a good looking carrier. Ramps are stupid.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Lol, looks like a toy.

Sailing side by side this ship would be more comparable to a Nimitz class ship than anything sailed by an allied navy. The De Gaulle and Ocean look like toys when sailing in company. The Varyag is in fact quite similar in length and beam to the JFK.

AustonT wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Lol, looks like a toy.

Sailing side by side this ship would be more comparable to a Nimitz class ship than anything sailed by an allied navy. The De Gaulle and Ocean look like toys when sailing in company. The Varyag is in fact quite similar in length and beam to the JFK.

That's a good picture. Explains it pretty well. I like the look of the de gaulle better though.. Looks more american, just a little smaller

Found it here while looking at the de gaulle on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fleet_5_nations.jpg

AustonT wrote:Sailing side by side this ship would be more comparable to a Nimitz class ship than anything sailed by an allied navy. The De Gaulle and Ocean look like toys when sailing in company.

HMS Ocean isn't a carrier it's an assault ship. It's not meant to be comparable to the others.

George Spiggott wrote:

AustonT wrote:Sailing side by side this ship would be more comparable to a Nimitz class ship than anything sailed by an allied navy. The De Gaulle and Ocean look like toys when sailing in company.

HMS Ocean isn't a carrier it's an assault ship. It's not meant to be comparable to the others.

True dat. It's the current flagship of the British Navy, but it sticks true to the concept of Britain being a nation reliant on amphibious assault power.

why does everyone seem to care so much, its just the Chinese navy?

Ketara wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

AustonT wrote:Sailing side by side this ship would be more comparable to a Nimitz class ship than anything sailed by an allied navy. The De Gaulle and Ocean look like toys when sailing in company.

HMS Ocean isn't a carrier it's an assault ship. It's not meant to be comparable to the others.

True dat. It's the current flagship of the British Navy, but it sticks true to the concept of Britain being a nation reliant on amphibious assault power.

I was under the impression Bulwark was the current flagship.

George: Semantics.

AustonT wrote:George: Semantics.

Can you launch a fighter plane off HMS Semantics? Because you can't off HMS Ocean.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:why does everyone seem to care so much, its just the Chinese navy?

Not sure if sarcastic...

Samus_aran115 wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Lol, looks like a toy.

Sailing side by side this ship would be more comparable to a Nimitz class ship than anything sailed by an allied navy. The De Gaulle and Ocean look like toys when sailing in company. The Varyag is in fact quite similar in length and beam to the JFK.

That's a good picture. Explains it pretty well. I like the look of the de gaulle better though.. Looks more american, just a little smaller

Found it here while looking at the de gaulle on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fleet_5_nations.jpg

What?!?! I love the look of the soviet style carriers..ah if only there were more

George Spiggott wrote:

AustonT wrote:George: Semantics.

Can you launch a fighter plane off HMS Semantics? Because you can't off HMS Ocean.

As a point of fact you can.

Although officially known as a Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) ship HMS Ocean is also referred to as a Commando Carrier and Assault Ship.She can carry and operate a variety of helicopters from the twin rotor Chinook through to the Apache Attack Helicopter and Lynx utility helicopter. It is also possible to operate the Harrier Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) should the need arise

And since you are so fond of semantics, the HMS Illustrious is also an LPH, not carrying fighters anymore and whatnot. The spaghetti heads Garibaldi operate Harriers from the shorter and smaller ship, we can circle around this all you want but the NATO term LPH is described as a "large helicopter CARRIER" through deck ships are carriers, semantics.

Huffy wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Lol, looks like a toy.

Sailing side by side this ship would be more comparable to a Nimitz class ship than anything sailed by an allied navy. The De Gaulle and Ocean look like toys when sailing in company. The Varyag is in fact quite similar in length and beam to the JFK.

That's a good picture. Explains it pretty well. I like the look of the de gaulle better though.. Looks more american, just a little smaller

Found it here while looking at the de gaulle on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fleet_5_nations.jpg

What?!?! I love the look of the soviet style carriers..ah if only there were more

The Kiev class is interesting, although I suspect its trying to do everything meant it wouldn't have been able to do anything particularly well.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

The Kiev class is interesting, although I suspect its trying to do everything meant it wouldn't have been able to do anything particularly well.

That the one that was missiles and helicopters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another note, does anyone know if this is a nuclear power ship or no?

ParatrooperSimon wrote:why does everyone seem to care so much, its just the Chinese navy?

Because Westerners love Asian culture that's why shows like Pokemon and Dragon Ball Z are so popular (and why so many students at our colleges are Asian) because we love Asians.

Cheesecat wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:why does everyone seem to care so much, its just the Chinese navy?

Because Westerners love Asian culture that's why shows like Pokemon and Dragon Ball Z are so popular (and why so many students at our colleges are Asian) because we love Asians.

And watching a regional power rise is incredibly interesting

Huffy wrote:

Lux_Lucis wrote:

The Kiev class is interesting, although I suspect its trying to do everything meant it wouldn't have been able to do anything particularly well.

That the one that was missiles and helicopters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another note, does anyone know if this is a nuclear power ship or no?

Which one.
The Kievs and Kuznetsovs were built with steam turbines. Although the next Chinese carrier may be based heavily on the cancelled Russian nuclear supercarrier with modifications from Chinas case studies of that majestic class.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:5) do any of that for cheaper than a carrier air wing

Play Grey Knights.

Vulcan wrote:All right; I'll bite. How do you make a battleship either...

1) outrange naval aircraft and air-lauched cruise missiles

2) pack a heavier punch at the same range

3) survive taking hits from aircraft-lauched weapons while closing to its own effective range

4) hit a target a thousand miles inland

5) do any of that for cheaper than a carrier air wing

1) Railgun. Okay, perhaps 200 miles isn't enough to outrange that, but the number of defensive systems you can load onto a battlewagon, and their effectiveness, will exceed the capability of ASM and naval aircraft to damage it. Meanwhile there is no known defensive system capable of acting against an incoming railgun sabot.
2) Railguns, anti-ship missiles, ASROC.
3) See the Falkland Island War. British warship struck by an exocet anti-ship missile, considered one of the most effective anti ship weapons systems on the market, took hours and hours to sink. Hell the crew had time to sit on the deck while it took on water and sing "Always look on the bright side of life" from Monty Python for christs sake.
4) The Air Force does a much better job of delivering massive ordnance to inland sites than the Navy ever did. Cruise missiles from a battleship or an SSGN can also accomplish the task better than a CAW.
5) Are you kidding me? The loss of a single carrier is $5+ billion USD, plus the environmental damage caused by the multiple nuclear reactors on board, plus 5000+ American lives, plus another $10+ billion USD (possibly more) in aircraft. Then there is the fact that each carrier has what basically amounts to an entire fleet of warships dedicated entirely to protecting it from harm, thats thousands more personnel and materiel that does little else but provide a cordon to the carrier. Not to mention that the prevailing naval doctrine/theory of the US means that these warships are ill-equipped to operate independently in an offensive manner.

I disagree. We've reached a certain zenith of technological capability slightly unforseen by the likes of Mahan and Corbett, however many of the principles of maritime power projection still remain the same. Bar the development of submarine based carriers, an idea that was abandoned a good sixty years ago, the ability to provide localised air dominance is something critical to the conducting of amphibious operations, and will remain so.

When was the last time we conducted an amphibious operation like that? Inchon? Some point during Vietnam? The last time we were prepared for such an operation was Gulf War 1... the Air Force had airbases less than a couple hundred miles away from which it was sortieing from constantly... There are already talks in Washington about cutting the Marine Corps and rolling their duty into the Army (which by the way has been and continues to be historically capable of conducting amphibious operations itself, though not necessarily with the same level of skill and preparation as the Corps). Otherwise I agree with you, carriers are essential and largely irreplaceable in that role BUT I'm thinking part of the push behind development of the F-35B, an aircraft which is otherwise ineffective for its seemingly intended role (seriously, a hundred million+ dollar stealth STOVL airframe with what is perhaps the most effective air-to-air radar system in existence is expected to operate from amphibs and austere airfields to provide close air support to grunts? sounds kind of unlikely...), is to try to mitigate the potential loss of a carrier to one of China's ballistic carrier-killers...

chaos0xomega wrote:
1) Railgun. Okay, perhaps 200 miles isn't enough to outrange that, but the number of defensive systems you can load onto a battlewagon, and their effectiveness, will exceed the capability of ASM and naval aircraft to damage it.

Who said that the only threats were aircraft, or naval?

Ultimately, with what you're proposing you run into the same issues seen with carrier groups in that you're investing a large amount of money in a single ship, and now need to find a way to protect it. The only difference is that your hypothetical railgun-armed battleship has nowhere near the flexibility of an aircraft carrier, and lacks the capacity to deploy air cover.

chaos0xomega wrote:
When was the last time we conducted an amphibious operation like that? Inchon?

When was the last time we needed to engage a hostile, blue water fleet?

This scares the gak outta me between chinas modern land army with near endless supply of man power, modern airforce with 5th gen aircraft in develpment and now this they are quickly overtaking every other country in the world as far as military power goes.

Now excuse me I am going to go brush up on my mandarin how do I say I surrender?

Jubear wrote:This scares the gak outta me between chinas modern land army with near endless supply of man power, modern airforce with 5th gen aircraft in develpment and now this they are quickly overtaking every other country in the world as far as military power goes.

Now excuse me I am going to go brush up on my mandarin how do I say I surrender?

I believe "STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER, YOU COMMIE BASTARDS" is the proper way to surrender to the Chinese.

Coolyo294 wrote:

Jubear wrote:This scares the gak outta me between chinas modern land army with near endless supply of man power, modern airforce with 5th gen aircraft in develpment and now this they are quickly overtaking every other country in the world as far as military power goes.

Now excuse me I am going to go brush up on my mandarin how do I say I surrender?

I believe "STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER, YOU COMMIE BASTARDS" is the proper way to surrender to the Chinese.

Im aussie mate that makes no sense

I for one welcome our new communist overlords.

Jubear wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:

Jubear wrote:This scares the gak outta me between chinas modern land army with near endless supply of man power, modern airforce with 5th gen aircraft in develpment and now this they are quickly overtaking every other country in the world as far as military power goes.

Now excuse me I am going to go brush up on my mandarin how do I say I surrender?

I believe "STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER, YOU COMMIE BASTARDS" is the proper way to surrender to the Chinese.

Im aussie mate that makes no sense

I for one welcome our new communist overlords.

No offense but the Aussie Military compared to most is kinda bad in that its so small its just sad. Hell look at New Zealand its smaller.

BTW I am an aussie. The US Navy will not attack the Chinese and the Chinese will not attack the US they are such good business partners they would actually lose money if they attacked each other.

What we have is first class we just dont have enuff.

Dosent really matter I am not sure any country could stop china and that was the point I was making.

Jubear wrote:What we have is first class we just dont have enuff.

Dosent really matter I am not sure any country could stop china and that was the point I was making.

Uhh. The EU and the United Nations would like to have a word with you. Just because they have more numbers does not mean they can beat everyone. The World has something called millions of exceptionally well trained soldiers. The Chinese are known for just throwing people in the army and calling it a day.

They have numbers and a first rate military. I am not sure if they could beat the world by themselves but if it ever came to that I doubt they would be fighting by themselves.

Remember china's standing army is bigger then the most countries populations let alone what they could raise via conscription. They have first rate equipment and would most likely be able to produce soldiers of similar or better quality then most first world nations.

May I ask why you assume that the training of its soldiers would be of a lower class then any other countries? They are actually extremely well equipped have excellent AFVs and air support not to mention a nuclear arsenal.

I 100% sure that as of now they are the strongest military in the world. Backed up by the strongest manufacturing abilities of any country.

America's got nuc-ya-ler missiles. If China makes a move against the red, white and blue the entire world gets blown to hell while the President leans back on a comfy chair in an air conditioned bunker. So as an American, I have absolutely no fear (assuming I can sneak into a bunker).

Asherian Command wrote:The World has something called millions of exceptionally well trained soldiers. The Chinese are known for just throwing people in the army and calling it a day.

There are plenty of instances throughout history in which ye olde human wave has proven effective.

Also, I don't know where you're getting the idea that Chinese training is poor. If anything, its an unknown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jubear wrote:
I 100% sure that as of now they are the strongest military in the world. Backed up by the strongest manufacturing abilities of any country.

Military strength isn't really something you can place a ruler against, and declare "Yep, mine is bigger."

Putting nuclear weapons aside for the moment, China would lose any open engagement with the US that did not occur in, or near, Chinese territory (and they would still probably lose most of those). However, the US is equally incapable of occupying China. Indeed, its likely that the remainder of the world, given a fully united mission, would get beyond struggling to do so.