The USAF flew two B-52's into China's Air Defense Identification Zone. NBG. No Big Deal. Not big fucking deal. Just...no big deal.
It matters not. Its not flexing muscle and its the same thing that we have setup. The UK too. Japan, Australia, S. Korea...practically everyone has it.
But an advanced Carrier Battle Group? That my friends is a VBFD. A VERY BIG FUCKING DEAL.
No throw back to Russian single ship operations.
No hybrid type fleet.
They are practically saying that they will meet the US Navy on the high seas, face off with them and that they're planning on winning.
Read about this development here. Also make note of the escorts. Air Defense Ships. Harpoons won't get it done. LRASM (subsonic) will get shot down. And we're cutting defense. Experts say parity in 20 years. I say 10...if we're lucky.
Our hope is that we have an SSN force that can sink their carrier or our allies have SSK's that can make their life very difficult
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, a carrier battle group: whoa! But on the other hand, part of me is saying, "so what." At least in regards to the scenario envisioned in the post. When was the last time two capable carrier forces engaged in war-at-sea against each other successfully? I would think we'd have to look all the back to ... 1943? The Falklands was the last time I think there was a chance of carriers engaging. But even then, as Nicky hits on, it was the SSN threat that chased the Argentine Navy off the high seas.
ReplyDeletebut that's part of the problem. have you noticed that no one is pointing out that our carrier fleet will win the day? everyone always points to our sub supremacy. if we know it so do the Chinese. have you heard the news that they've laid down the same type of system we used against Soviet subs during the cold war? i just don't know if we're so far ahead even with subs not to be concerned.
DeleteIt's not that I don't think our carriers wouldn't win the day. It's that I don't think they'd ever need a chance. Our carriers have been pretty much optimized for the role they've been doing since the Gulf War: hitting targets on land. Why would we endanger our ability to project power ashore by having our carrier attack the Chinese carrier when we have other assets to do the job with?
DeleteOn the other side, how do you imagine the Chinese using their carrier? Are you thinking their going to sortie out onto the high seas for a "decisive battle" with the US?
One thing about the US sub threat, I would say we only have to get lucky once for the Chinese start thinking twice about how much they want to risk their major combatants.
try this on for size.
Deletefive years ago who would believe that the Chinese would have not one but two stealth aircraft in service. how about putting a carrier battle group to sea? how about the idea of setting up a base on the moon?
all i'm saying is that if you project five years forward you're going to see a US Navy in decline and a much more powerful Chinese navy.
its not hard for me to imagine and it seems to be almost a done deal.
the "brainiacs" hollering for change are letting it all slip away...and in my opinion this is but one of the many canaries letting us know that we're soon going to be in trouble.
"stealth" aircraft. No one knows their capability, especially the J-31. No one can build a successful 5th gen fighter that quickly and expect it to work properly. If we are having this much trouble fielding the F-35 who is to say they aren't as well? The J-20 and J-31 could be shit for all we know - especially if they had to steal the technology (meaning they don't fully understand it to begin with). If I cheat on a math test and get an A+, it is safe to say I don't fully understand the math problems and if I had to take the test on my own I would probably do pretty poorly. They may be able to steal individual technology and make carbon copies, but there is still key technology the chicoms don't understand or may not be able to successfully build. Take their concept of a 4th generation engine for instance, they have failed to be able to create them which is why they have to import saturns from Russia.
Delete@Matt:
DeleteI agree wuth what you are saying about the capabilities. There's too many unknowns right now. It is prudent to plan for the worst, I guess. With regards to this "stealing" that so many western media gets caught up on though, I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture. The Chinese don't "steal" as much as they "reverse-engineer". Reverse engineering is an extremely difficult art and one that requires mastery of the techniques involved. It isn't the same as just swiping the blueprints and then just feeding it to the factory. It is a careful, top-down, and deliberate decomposition of all parts to understand the relations between the parts and most important of all, the reason for a particular arrangement of parts. Reverse engineering is the essence and lifeblood of all great scientific discoveries. We invented Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics to help us reverse engineer the natural world.
If we don't have enough SSN's, I think the US Navy should buy some SSK's and post them in Guam to act as mobile Minefield and Intelligence outpost
ReplyDeleteI'm quite certain the there is a Seawolf shadowing the CBG all the way...if not more than one. They are all posted in Kitsap for a very good reason, they are the quietest and most powerful (8 21in Tubes) SSN's every made, perfect to put the whole CBG down to Davy Jones locker in minutes.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Do they have a working air group yet? Not just being able to land and take off. Being able to work together. Also because the carrier doesn't have catapults that means the planes have to carry very light loads.
ReplyDeletePush comes to shove, I'd give a Japanese destroyer group odds at sinking her.
Hey,LMT don't be in any kind of rush....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a39b07e9c-d962-456b-bd3b-f0482a15c1c0
Here are a few statistics from the tests:
26 total deck touchdowns
21 of those were touch and gos
five catapult launchs and five trap landings
five wave offs (two planned and three owing to software logic the automatically conducted a wave off owing to extreme wind conditions).
I suppose you missed Russia's sly announcement just the other day that the SU-33 is air to air only, capable Sol?
ReplyDeleteSo that makes the carrier, carrying nothing but local versions of SU-33's, rather less of a threat, doesn't? It's escorts are also air defence ships, so does that suggest they are thinking offensively or defensively?
Learn to read between the lines a bit Sol and stop drinking the APA kool aid. Hell, even Eric hasn't completely dismissed the LRASM just yet. Being subsonic means it's useless? So 99% of all in-service weapons are useless, are they? That sort of mindset is delirious on Kool aid.
Out of interest, maybe you should do a post on just why the majority of frontline ASM's used by Sino/Soviet forces (the subsonic Club Missile family) the "Sizzler", the "Switchblade" and the C-802 missile systems, basically the overwhelming majority of missiles faced by Western forces, are all subsonic, and exactly why Russia and China combined would have bothered to invest in them, as they have?
Why India who possesses the supersonic Yakhont / Brahmos in-service is still buying Harpoon Block II as fast as it can manage...
the Chinese modify weapons to fit their needs. they've shown the ability to do that. additionally you can bet your bottom dollar that with stolen tech from the F-35 they're fully integrating its ground attack ability across their entire fleet.
Deletei don't swallow anyone nonsense and APA, Sweetman, ELP and others were right. we can't afford the F-35 and the program is looking more and more fraudulent everyday.
its not a matter of drinking kool-aide, its a matter of taking off the blinders and seeing things as they are. NOT AS I WANT THEM TO BE.
we're mortgaging our entire defense establishment to pay for one airplane.
that's wrong.
historians will laugh at the utter stupidity shown by people like you. especially when the evidence of whats happening is staring you in the face.
When you post things like "LRASM is subsonic and will therefore be shot down" you are showing that you've drunk the Kool Aid and can't divest yourself from it.
ReplyDeleteYou're talking about a weapon that isn't yet even in DEVELOPMENT. It's a test program run by DARPA for god sakes and you've based your opinion on the fact that this TEST weapon is subsonic (because it's based on the JASSM airframe) whilst ignoring the elephant in the room, that the overwhelming majority of weapons in the world ARE subsonic.
Hey Sol, just as a diversion from your fantasy that the F-35 is the root of all evil in the world, wanna take a guess at what Harpoon, Exocet, JSM, JASSM, JSOW, Storm Shadow, SCALP, TAURUS, Club, Novator, Sizzler, C-802, Turkish SOW and SLAM-ER have in common?
That's right, 14 major air launched weapon systems designed and built by 9 different countries including Russia, China, USA, France, Germany and the UK, either in-service or in development and all of them have ONE thing in common.
They are ALL subsonic...
So ALL these weapons are unable to achieve their missions are they? Out of interest, here's a JSOW impacting.
http://youtu.be/bIvQ4-4Q8bk
Not so very "slow" in reality is it? And it isn't even powered, not to mention launched from the "super slow" (or is it "Super Dog" I forget) Hornet...
If you'd prefer. Here's JSM hitting a frigate. Another of those "rubbish" subsonic missiles (brand spanking new I might add and subsonic by choice).
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/jspEovlEK-w
These vids show the problem with house of cards arguments that you seem to prefer. Tug gently on one of them and the rest of the argument crumbles with it.
A small word on anti-ship missiles:
ReplyDelete-Not all subsonic missiles are alike:the Exocet and the Kormoran are sea-skimming missiles that hit the ship just above the water line.The Harpoon improves this by doing a final pop up maneuveur and diving against the target to confuse the ships CIWS...the Sea Eagle can also do this.Bouth can be used in salvo mode,were several missiles attack the target from multiple directions...Chinese war ships cannot defend against this type of coordinated attack...they can shoot down one or two but several more missiles will be used against a given ship.The LRASM will make this even worst for the chinese as it is almost a kamikaze drone...it can pick routes on its on and share data with outher missiles...it can perform evasive maneuveurs and it is VLO -http://aviationintel.com/lrasm-is-basically-a-suicidal-ucav/
None of the supersonic ASM as the range of the Tomahawk missile ...
In theory the Exocet is the most easy missile to defend against,but consider this:it is smaller than most rivals and harder to hit,and while it flyes straight to the target,the ships radars can only detect it at 6000m(it does not matter the type of radar used in defense ,because this is due to radar horizon)...the MM-40 version can also perform swarm attacks and strike land targets.
The Chinese and Russian need supersonic missiles because the USN uses AEW aircrafts and has many fighters on patrol...they also do not master the art of stealth as the US.
The only way the USN is going to defeat these supersonic ASM is by killing the archer and not the arrow.Bouth the Super Hornet and the JSF are awful fighters at this mission.The SuperHornet will perform better this mission if the navy gets its hands on the CFTs and the new engines...an internal IRST would also be dandy.The JSF only carries 4(or 6,depending on litterature) AMRAAMs.With external missiles it should move as fast as an Harrier and its range will be very deminushed.It is actually worst than the SuperHornet at defending the fleet...you could have had something better ,but thats anouther talk for anouther day http://aviationintel.com/it-could-have-been-the-attack-super-tomcat-21/
P.S-Jason Simmons you are a douchebag...did i spell that correctly...
Sorry Solomon for the bad english,but remmenber that i am portuguese...
while its progress on the chinese level but its one thing to have planes and ships but we have been using carriers for 70-80 years, we know how to handle carrier operations (even if we have used them in sea to ground operations because we havent had a fleet to fight) but chinese will need to integrate into their navy doctrine, tactics, flight operations, etc. Also the ski jump without a catapult, size of the ship will limit how many aircraft it can carry and what kind and how well trained pilots are, weapons payload, etc. The talk has mostly been around this carrier being a test bed to train these kind of leaders for their own domestic carrier program, while certainly i think its a concerning step considering their beligerience i think they have a long way to go to match us, but they are making steps in teh right direction. also our virginia class subs are coming in under budget, quicker than normal and performing very well (http://defense-update.com/20120503_mississippi_delivered.html)
ReplyDeleteon chinas carrier capability via wikipedia: On 26 December 2012, the People's Daily reported that it will take 4 to 5 years for the Liaoning to reach full capacity, mainly due to training and coordination which will take significant amount of time for Chinese PLA Navy to complete as this is the first aircraft carrier in their possession. [41]
As it is a training ship, the Liaoning is not assigned to any of China's operation fleets.[42]
Aircraft handling
On 4 November 2012, it was described in an article on the PLA official newspaper PLA Daily (Chinese: 解放军报) that J-15s had performed carrier touch-and-go training.[43][44] On 25 November 2012, Chinese media announced that five J-15s had made successful arrested landings on the Liaoning.[45][46][47] The first pilot to land on the Liaoning was revealed to be Dai Mingmeng (戴明盟).[48]
In June 2013, a second round of flight tests began on board the Liaoning, with personnel from the fleet air arm of the Brazilian Navy providing carrier training support to the Chinese Navy.[49] Five Chinese pilots were certified the next month for carrier operations.[50]
In September 2013, SMN reported that the Liaoning was still unable to operate J-15s with a heavy weapons/fuel load because of the ship's limited size and lack of catapults.[51] The U.S. Department of Defense notes that the J-15 will have below normal range and armament when operating from the carrier, due to limits imposed by the ski-jump takeoff and arrested carrier landings.[52]
A Canadian government report casts doubt on Chinese claims that the Liaoning has even tested aircraft operations in anything other than perfect visibility and calm seas.[53]
and some of their links
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/29/uk-china-carrier-idUKBRE87R15Z20120829
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130928/DEFREG/309280009/Chinese-Media-Takes-Aim-J-15-Fighter
from our DOD "The J-15 aircraft conducted its first takeoffs and landings from the Liaoning on November 26, 2012. Subsequently, at least two aircraft conducted multiple landings and takeoffs from the ship. "The J-15 carrier-based fighter is the Chinese version of the Russian Su-33. The J-15 is designed for ski-jump takeoffs and arrested landings, as required by the configuration of the Liaoning. Although the J-15 has a land-based combat radius of 1200 km, the aircraft will be limited in range and armament when operating from the carrier, due to limits imposed by the ski-jump takeoff and arrested carrier landings."
but does go on to say
"The formation of carrier battle groups will enable the PLA Navy to conduct comprehensive operations and enhance its long-range operational capabilities. Although reports have surfaced regarding the construction of a second Chinese aircraft carrier in Shanghai, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense has dismissed these claims."
other links as well:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Chinese+aircraft+carrier+fails+make+splash+with+Canadian+military/9161349/story.html
Happy thanksgiving all!
Joe