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.

Check out this map:



The South and East China Seas are not very big. That whole area can be covered by land-based aircraft.

If you want to move beyond that, for force projection, fine, but to go where? If you have no territories beyond that area, what is the point? If you suspect they will TAKE territory thru hostile means, fine, but I highly doubt that will go over well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
The only instance of a modern tank shooting at a modern tank in Desert Storm were the few unfortunate friendly fire incidents we had.

I guess we differ on the meaning of modern. If the oldest Abrams in Desert Storm was 16 years older than the newest Iraqi tank is considered modern vs ancient, then yes, you would be correct. However, I honestly think you are stretching it.

And the M1 alone didn't win the war. It was the system. The US would have won if they were using the T-72s and the the Iraqis the Abrams.

To expand on what jhe90 has said just because a carrier can be sunk (of course it can, but I'll go more into that in a bit), it absolutely doesn't mean that it's easy, even with all the new-fangled anti-ship missiles out there. The AAW capabilities of the Type 45 destroyer are similarly tough nuts to crack as the various Aegis-equipped vessels like the Ticonderoga class CGs and variations of the Arleigh Burke DDGs:




As well with anti-ship missile bombers, we should note that back in the 70s even with the introduction of the Tu-22M Backfire and the AS-4 Kitchen anti-ship missile Soviet Naval Aviation was not sanguine about its chances of attenuating the US carrier threat in the event of open war; a mass raid against a carrier battle group was expected to have a 50% attrition rate, independent of whether or not it scored any hits on a carrier (see page 18: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/b2ec1735-8652-40b0-ae04-a9e30a5597cd/Kamikazes--The-Soviet-Legacy.aspx).

700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Agiel wrote:
To expand on what jhe90 has said just because a carrier can be sunk (of course it can, but I'll go more into that in a bit), it absolutely doesn't mean that it's easy, even with all the new-fangled anti-ship missiles out there. The AAW capabilities of the Type 45 destroyer are similarly tough nuts to crack as the various Aegis-equipped vessels like the Ticonderoga class CGs and variations of the Arleigh Burke DDGs:




As well with anti-ship missile bombers, we should note that back in the 70s even with the introduction of the Tu-22M Backfire and the AS-4 Kitchen anti-ship missile Soviet Naval Aviation was not sanguine about its chances of attenuating the US carrier threat in the event of open war; a mass raid against a carrier battle group was expected to have a 50% attrition rate, independent of whether or not it scored any hits on a carrier (see page 18: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/b2ec1735-8652-40b0-ae04-a9e30a5597cd/Kamikazes--The-Soviet-Legacy.aspx).

Yeah a type 45 has heavy AA abaility,
they state something like tracking mach 2 tennis balls, tracking, engaging, some 48 targets in under 20 seconds of being sighted on radars with Various AA and anti ship missiles.

and thats the specs they reveal...

@KTG17

It should also be noted that the terrain can also significantly complicate targeting of carriers; NATO war plans for the North Atlantic included sending carriers into bastions on the Finnmark coast where the clutter would confuse maritime search radars and the active radar seekers of anti-ship missiles.

Since y'all are talking about projected PLAN development and the new Type 055 rolled out of docks on Wed.:

http://plarealtalk.com/2016/05/31/chinese-navy-2020-projecting-the-surface-combatant-fleet/

 avantgarde wrote:
Since y'all are talking about projected PLAN development and the new Type 055 rolled out of docks on Wed.:

http://plarealtalk.com/2016/05/31/chinese-navy-2020-projecting-the-surface-combatant-fleet/

while they may be effective there names are rather dull
number classes, least name tham after cool people or stuff.

like ... CLass Destroyer.

 djones520 wrote:
700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Thats what those artificial islands are for.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Thats what those artificial islands are for.

Yeah... but can you sink an artificial island?

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, Aircraft Carriers are still the king of the sea, and are going to be for a long time yet.

Here is a somewhat basic look at why killing an aircraft carrier is a pretty daunting task.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/five-reasons-us-aircraft-carriers-are-nearly-impossible-sink-17318

Great article. However, in mentioning the electronic tie-in of all the defense systems, etc., I can only think what would happen to all of the active and passive defense systems if a sizeable EMP device was employed close to the carrier? Would it effectively make it dead in the water and vulnerable or is everything shielded to avoid this type of attack?

 MDSW wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, Aircraft Carriers are still the king of the sea, and are going to be for a long time yet.

Here is a somewhat basic look at why killing an aircraft carrier is a pretty daunting task.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/five-reasons-us-aircraft-carriers-are-nearly-impossible-sink-17318

Great article. However, in mentioning the electronic tie-in of all the defense systems, etc., I can only think what would happen to all of the active and passive defense systems if a sizeable EMP device was employed close to the carrier? Would it effectively make it dead in the water and vulnerable or is everything shielded to avoid this type of attack?

Most are hardened against EMP.

Not sure what the means exactly... but the military has multi-decades to figure out how to prevent EMPs from knocking out their critical systems.

On non-Military equipment/infrastructure... we're boned.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Thats what those artificial islands are for.

Yeah... but can you sink an artificial island?

I have been reliably informed you can with a large enough armored formation. Now we just need some floating tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MDSW wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, Aircraft Carriers are still the king of the sea, and are going to be for a long time yet.

Here is a somewhat basic look at why killing an aircraft carrier is a pretty daunting task.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/five-reasons-us-aircraft-carriers-are-nearly-impossible-sink-17318

Great article. However, in mentioning the electronic tie-in of all the defense systems, etc., I can only think what would happen to all of the active and passive defense systems if a sizeable EMP device was employed close to the carrier? Would it effectively make it dead in the water and vulnerable or is everything shielded to avoid this type of attack?

or computer viruses kick in. Damn Cylons!

You can render any ground based airfield inoperable with the right type of munitions. Given that these islands are not going to have easy access to the heavy equipment required to make repairs to an airfield, they are actually more vulnerable to being taken out than either mainland airbases (which can be repaired) or carriers (which are hard to find).

Also, China is doing a lot of power projection into the Indian Ocean and has plenty of client states in Africa and the middle East. Their carrier ambitions may be more about supremacy over India than about challenging America.

China has plenty of overseas corporate assets that they want major force projection to supplement, just like the US.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Thats what those artificial islands are for.

Yeah... but can you sink an artificial island?

I have been reliably informed you can with a large enough armored formation. Now we just need some floating tanks.

They're mothballed at the moment... the Iowa-class battleships.

I think we're glossing over this Cylon / China alliance thing..

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Thats what those artificial islands are for.

Yeah... but can you sink an artificial island?

I have been reliably informed you can with a large enough armored formation. Now we just need some floating tanks.

They're mothballed at the moment... the Iowa-class battleships.

If there good ernough to pound Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and others. They equal opportunity 16 inch delivery platforms.
They will sink a island some 20 tons of HE a minute sustained fire, 100 foot crators able to punch holes in some 21 foot of concrete.

Also those old analogue... Ships. That's a massive fariday cage with muli hundred compartments and multiple auxiliary systems...
Should work in a EMP...

 djones520 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

Desert Storm.

No, not even close. The Iraqi's most modern battle tank in Desert Storm was 20 years old at that point, or using 20 year old technology, in the case of the Lion of Babylon tanks. The Soviets/Russians had already been replacing their T-72's with the T-80 five years prior to Desert Storm. In contrast, the M1 Abrams was state of the art at the time.

What are you talking about? The Adrams entered service in 1980. Does that mean in 2017 the Abrams is obsolete and junk today? Of course not, its still an ass-kicking tank. Just because one had more capabilities than the other doesn't mean they weren't modern.

The Abrams has constantly been updated throughout its life. The M1A2 variant that we operate now is worlds beyond the M1A1 that we used in 1991 (the oldest variant at the time was 4 years old). The best tank the Iraqi's had was 1971 technology, the worst was late 40's, where the US and its allies were using 1986+ technology.

The only instance of a modern tank shooting at a modern tank in Desert Storm were the few unfortunate friendly fire incidents we had.

It would be a bit like saying that the M16A4 is outdated because the M16 debuted in the 60's. Just because it hasn't been replaced with an entirely new system doesn't mean it isn't up to date. Hell, even the M4's from the 90's are getting replaced by the M4A1.

The M1A2, while not necessarily the most advanced tank in the world (some of the, albeit untested in battle, Korean or Japanese tanks might hold that honor , the Type 10 is a particularity cool bit of tech, and the Leopard 2 always exists), is a thoroughly modern tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Thats what those artificial islands are for.

Yeah... but can you sink an artificial island?

I have been reliably informed you can with a large enough armored formation. Now we just need some floating tanks.

They're mothballed at the moment... the Iowa-class battleships.

If there good ernough to pound Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and others. They equal opportunity 16 inch delivery platforms.
They will sink a island some 20 tons of HE a minute sustained fire, 100 foot crators able to punch holes in some 21 foot of concrete.

Also those old analogue... Ships. That's a massive fariday cage with muli hundred compartments and multiple auxiliary systems...
Should work in a EMP...

Go bit or go home, bring out those old Montana-class designs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

Desert Storm.

No, not even close. The Iraqi's most modern battle tank in Desert Storm was 20 years old at that point, or using 20 year old technology, in the case of the Lion of Babylon tanks. The Soviets/Russians had already been replacing their T-72's with the T-80 five years prior to Desert Storm. In contrast, the M1 Abrams was state of the art at the time.

What are you talking about? The Adrams entered service in 1980. Does that mean in 2017 the Abrams is obsolete and junk today? Of course not, its still an ass-kicking tank. Just because one had more capabilities than the other doesn't mean they weren't modern.

The Abrams has constantly been updated throughout its life. The M1A2 variant that we operate now is worlds beyond the M1A1 that we used in 1991 (the oldest variant at the time was 4 years old). The best tank the Iraqi's had was 1971 technology, the worst was late 40's, where the US and its allies were using 1986+ technology.

The only instance of a modern tank shooting at a modern tank in Desert Storm were the few unfortunate friendly fire incidents we had.

It would be a bit like saying that the M16A4 is outdated because the M16 debuted in the 60's. Just because it hasn't been replaced with an entirely new system doesn't mean it isn't up to date. Hell, even the M4's from the 90's are getting replaced by the M4A1.

The M1A2, while not necessarily the most advanced tank in the world (some of the, albeit untested in battle, Korean or Japanese tanks might hold that honor , the Type 10 is a particularity cool bit of tech, and the Leopard 2 always exists), is a thoroughly modern tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
700 miles to the Spratly islands from the southern most Chinese airfield. That's the one way distance that an SU-27 can fly while carrying an operational load. That means it has zero loiter time.

China has a very small fleet of aerial refuelers, so you cannot rely on that for your ability to control the skies in a contested zone.

Their primary aircraft, the J-10, can't even fly half that range on an operational payload. So no, the Chinese cannot effectively provide air support with ground based aircraft to the South China Sea.

Thats what those artificial islands are for.

Yeah... but can you sink an artificial island?

I have been reliably informed you can with a large enough armored formation. Now we just need some floating tanks.

They're mothballed at the moment... the Iowa-class battleships.

If there good ernough to pound Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and others. They equal opportunity 16 inch delivery platforms.
They will sink a island some 20 tons of HE a minute sustained fire, 100 foot crators able to punch holes in some 21 foot of concrete.

Also those old analogue... Ships. That's a massive fariday cage with muli hundred compartments and multiple auxiliary systems...
Should work in a EMP...

Go bit or go home, bring out those old Montana-class designs.

Lol. Well they sure boost US steel Industry!
But they are basically a larger, slightly slower heavy Iowa class, better armour, 3 extra guns. There not too different
Iowas ain't shabby!

And the US tank might not be mosts high tech but its combat tested. Its kinks are ironed out and been put through conditions only real combat operations can truely test of it and lessons learned.

Its passed pretty well, tech is proven, crew training is solid, tactics solid.

Pretty much, yeah, but I hold a special place in my heart for any tank that can go 70kph backwards.

Some very good points here, but looking to the future, what about things like advanced underwater drones? Or Modern day Kamikazes? Or surface swarm tactics?

Yeah, I appreciate that carriers have all sorts of defence systems, but sheer weight of numbers might overwhelm a carrier.

I still think the very careful use of one, and only one, nuclear warhead could also be a major weapon. Like I said earlier, if for example, the US lost a carrier fleet to one nuke, they're unlikely to hit the red button in return, and would probably chalk the lose up to 'acceptable losses.'

For example, during the Cold War, NATO had the plan to use the Rhine as a defence line and tactical nuke anything across the Rhine.

The Russians knew this, wargamed for it, factored it into their invasion plans, but NATO using small nukes on the battlefield was never a red line for the Russians to launch their nukes against Washington.

China might be tempted to gamble in a similar situation. Cities getting wiped out is one thing, but a US fleet getting sunk in the middle of the Pacific is another thing entirely.

Aside from the obvious prestige reasons, I think the main aim of the Chinese carrier development is to counter the US carrier fleet; if they can project an air power bubble 500-1000 miles off their coast they have effectively neutralised the US ability to strike at them (short of lobbing ballistic missiles around and I don't think anyone wants that!)

 Jadenim wrote:
Aside from the obvious prestige reasons, I think the main aim of the Chinese carrier development is to counter the US carrier fleet; if they can project an air power bubble 500-1000 miles off their coast they have effectively neutralised the US ability to strike at them (short of lobbing ballistic missiles around and I don't think anyone wants that!)

I read somewhere that China is going for the land empire - Eurasia, as opposed to the maritime empire.

Matitime Empires are a new thing, the British Empire being the most famous example.

China is well aware that it is 'encircled' by US allies, with Taiwan being the most obvious example. For sure, they need a decent sized fleet for power projection, but I suspect that the land empire strategy is their overall goal. Look at the inroads being made in Africa as an example.

Aircraft carriers are important to China IMO, but not as important as they are to the US which has it's own geographical problems to overcome i.e distance across the Pacific.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Some very good points here, but looking to the future, what about things like advanced underwater drones? Or Modern day Kamikazes? Or surface swarm tactics?

Yeah, I appreciate that carriers have all sorts of defence systems, but sheer weight of numbers might overwhelm a carrier.

I still think the very careful use of one, and only one, nuclear warhead could also be a major weapon. Like I said earlier, if for example, the US lost a carrier fleet to one nuke, they're unlikely to hit the red button in return, and would probably chalk the lose up to 'acceptable losses.'

For example, during the Cold War, NATO had the plan to use the Rhine as a defence line and tactical nuke anything across the Rhine.

The Russians knew this, wargamed for it, factored it into their invasion plans, but NATO using small nukes on the battlefield was never a red line for the Russians to launch their nukes against Washington.

China might be tempted to gamble in a similar situation. Cities getting wiped out is one thing, but a US fleet getting sunk in the middle of the Pacific is another thing entirely.

But then again drones could also be defensive with own command ships. A drone carrier that acts as another layer in the defensive position.
Ie could operate a picket line of drones, and also say launch high speed drones to sacrifice to take torps or missiles for the fleet. Also maybe guided depth charge etc to counter subs.

The carrier is force projection.
The drone ship can attack but also defensive layers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
China is well aware that it is 'encircled' by US allies, with Taiwan being the most obvious example. For sure, they need a decent sized fleet for power projection, but I suspect that the land empire strategy is their overall goal. Look at the inroads being made in Africa as an example.

Carriers would be convenient if they want to quickly help some African puppet state without having men and planes stationed in the country. It's exactly what the US often does with it's carrier groups, after all. And keeping India in check is also a good motivation, seeing as they sit smack dab in the middle of the best route for shipping stuff to and from Africa.

The Athenian Empire, established about 500BC, was a maritime empire.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Athenian Empire, established about 500BC, was a maritime empire.

Depends on what you put the threshold at for "Empire".

Even at it's height, the Delian league was pitifully tiny. Hardly really deserving of the term "Empire". It also didn't even last 80 years. And about 1/3 of that time was the war that ended the league.

Phoenician Empire was also maritime. The Romans had to fight several wars with them and their colonies for control of the Mediterranean.

Indeed. They actually went all around the Mediterranean, and potentially even further if some fairly obscure evidence is to be believed. They may have even landed in Brazil.

I think we'd also be remiss to not mention that the US is fielding as well as developing equally terrifying anti-ship missiles from the Norwegian-made NSM (tested on deck mountings on the LCS):




As well as the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C LRASM launched from B-1B Lancers and carrier strike fighters (surface-launched version has since been shelved, probably in favour of the NSM replacing the Harpoons mounts on the stern of ships):