Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/28 22:08:25
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant
Ontario
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/28 22:09:14
DCDA:90-S++G+++MB++I+Pw40k98-D+++A+++/areWD007R++T(S)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/28 22:24:59
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
This is the year 2012. Viking longboats haven't been sighted off the coast of china.
No, but over 200 ships have been boarded this year alone. The majority of them were not military, but a handful of them were.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/28 22:40:59
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 00:08:11
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/29 00:09:08
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 00:45:36
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
ShumaGorath wrote:
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.
ShumaGorath wrote:
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 message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/09/29 00:50:35
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 01:14:52
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
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*
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/29 01:15:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 03:00:59
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
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.
|
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 03:07:49
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant
Ontario
|
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.
|
DCDA:90-S++G+++MB++I+Pw40k98-D+++A+++/areWD007R++T(S)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 03:08:27
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
helps with unemployment issues among men with guns.
Always good to give people opportunities for employment
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 03:40:29
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
BaronIveagh wrote:
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.
|
Avatar 720 wrote:You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters.. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 05:48:27
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
AustonT wrote: Lone Cat wrote: Huffy wrote: 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: BaronIveagh wrote:
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
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/09/29 06:50:18
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/408342.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/29 19:07:52
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Wing Commander
|
BaronIveagh wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:
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.
ShumaGorath wrote:
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.
|
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Phoenix wrote:Well I don't think the battle company would do much to bolster the ranks of my eldar army  so no.
Nonsense. The Battle Company box is perfect for filling out your ranks of aspect warriors with a large contingent from the Screaming Baldies shrine.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 00:56:43
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
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.
|
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 05:56:24
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Silverthorne wrote:
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. Automatically Appended Next Post: BaronIveagh wrote:
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/30 06:12:43
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 15:04:50
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
dogma wrote:
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.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/09/30 16:23:23
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:06:09
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
dogma wrote: Silverthorne wrote:
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.
|
Avatar 720 wrote:You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters.. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:14:03
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
AustonT wrote:
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.
|
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:16:45
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
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?
|
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/408342.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:18:14
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
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
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:18:49
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
BaronIveagh wrote: AustonT wrote:
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.
Faster then the speed of light?
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/video-raytheon-demonstrates-ship-based-solid-state-laser-weapon-incinerating-uav-flight
|
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:28:59
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
Avatar 720 wrote:You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters.. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:42:58
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
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.
|
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/408342.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 17:53:40
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Bryan Ansell
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/09/30 18:05:24
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
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.
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Cat wrote:
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/30 18:10:57
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/01 13:47:43
Subject: Re:China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Little addition, here's an article on the relevancy of aircraft carriers atm.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/31/shipping_out
|
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/01 17:22:29
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
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 (รถสิบล้อ). 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.
|
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/408342.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/01 17:58:34
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
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
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/01 18:33:37
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
|
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 you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/01 18:52:32
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
Avatar 720 wrote:You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters.. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/01 20:20:57
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/01 20:25:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/01 21:08:06
Subject: China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Lone Cat wrote:
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.
|
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
|