Presenting the First Chinese Aircraft Carrier

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Please tell me what use your "secret" weapons are when they are so secret that they can't even be deployed in regular combat conditions?

You don't waste an ace of spades when a lesser card will take the trick.

Originally posted by Dimitri DzengalshleviYour "secret" technology is a joke. All countries have secret technology that they've developed autonomously, what makes the US so special?

The US spends more on defense and R&D than most nations' entire GDP.

Originally posted by Dimitri DzengalshleviI'm pretty damn sure that China, which happens to be a 1000s of years old and invented key military weaponry and tactics, knows enough about combat to prepare to fight against the US.

I'm certain ancient history has no bearing on a nation's modern war fighting capability. The Chinese invented gun powder so that means they have a chance against a blue water Navy with 100x the war fighting ability ?

Your arguments do not hold up to scrutiny. You're frothing at the mouth. How's that anti-American kool-aid taste ? Very bitter, I presume ?

Originally posted by Schaden
The US spends more on defense and R&D than most nations' entire GDP.

Yeah, including $1000 hammers and other ridiculous pork-barrel spending. Half of what we spend just goes into some rich ass's pockets and never gets a chance to see good use.

Then like I said, we can build a multi-million dollar aircraft carrier, and Russia can build a missile that renders it useless for only $1 million.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then like I said, we can build a multi-million dollar aircraft carrier, and Russia can build a missile that renders it useless for only $1 million.

Like I've stated before Cat and Mouse Measure/Counter measure.

I'd advise you to get up to speed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cfad26733c7b.jpg[/atsimg]

RIM-162 ESSM
The RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) used to protect ships from attacking missiles, aircraft and surface threats. ESSM is designed to counter supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Like I've stated before Cat and Mouse Measure/Counter measure.

And the cat and mouse game's not over is it?

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Dimitri DzengalshleviYour "secret" technology is a joke. All countries have secret technology that they've developed autonomously, what makes the US so special?

The US spends more on defense and R&D than most nations' entire GDP.

According to globalsecurity.org, US has the highest defense budget with $741,200,000,000 and China is second with $380,000,000,000. Russia is fourth with $82,500,000,000, and they can still kick your ass.

I'm telling you it is not all about money. In fact if you need to spend so much money on defense, then you're probably compensating for something that you severely lack such as a legitimate reason to wage war.

and what is the talibans defense budget in afghanistan

after billions in munitions spent, why the # are they still alive and fighting...boggles the mind...

Originally posted by StellarX
As for the 'tracking unmolested' i have heard about it but have seen no more validation for that claim than the claim that the Soviet union were suspected of deploying mechanical and seismic noise makers in their submarines because many of them were simple louder than they had any right to be with any kind of engineering. The story goes that the Russians practiced this deception hoping that come a shooting war ( they were not patrolling the world as imperial police) the USN would find itself in the uncomfortable situation of trying to track submarines that were much harder to find than what they were used to training for.

That would be pretty brilliant, and I wouldn't put it past the Ruskies.

I'm sure they have people sitting around over there coming up with ideas like this just like we do. It wouldn't be a difficult strategy, either. Thanks for posting this.

reply to post by bsbray11


Just for the record i can't prove that i merely repeat it because it is as least as probable/improbable as the suggestion that the USN could track Russian submarines at will. I think the claim stems from the SOSUS network which were in fact quite effective and could in fact provide the USN/NATO with good information as to what type of Soviet submarines were passing by and where they were currently headed. Obviously this information was only good while the submarines were crossing the 'line' ( and it wasn't a strait or narrow line) and unless the tracking was then taken over by NATO submarine waiting in readiness it would be lost as quickly.

I think what lay people mostly fail to understand is that the USSR were not designing their submarines to survive indefinitely by stealth but to rush en mass for mid Atlantic ( and overwhelm by shear numbers any NATO submarines which failed to get out of the way) and to aid in the initial massed surface force engagements. It's one thing to trade salvo's of cruise missiles ( they launch from ships you launch them from aircraft operating from carriers) when you know the position of enemy surface fleets but it's another when a force of Soviet cruise missile armed submarines move into position some hundreds of km's away to simultaneously ( satellite direction and tracking data) attack with another few dozen supersonic missiles. While the USN could perhaps counter and intercept the swarms of bears and backfire bombers and deal with the cruise missile armed Slava's and the like the added complication of fighting off the unseen cruise missile armed submarines might just have created the situation where the Soviets could simply make it rain cruise missiles longer than the USN could prevent them from scoring incapacitating hits on the carriers. This was pretty much the sentiment of late Admiral Rickover who in 1982 , after being asked, said that the USN would be without carriers 48 hours after the start of the war. I hardly think things would have been that bad but his sentiment on the vulnerability of carriers are clear. The 'problem' with all this is is that once the carrier(s) can no longer operate aircraft ( you most certainly don't have to sink them) the task group has no significant means of intercepting or of fighting remaining surface forces or of intercepting more cruise missile armed bears and backfires. Shooting down cruise missiles really is a hit and miss affair and in these circumstances US task groups would be overcome trough attrition in either the very short of short term.

Another factor few like to discuss is the very probably nuclear nature of the next war and how that affects the war at sea... How is the picture changed when one presumes that a proportion of the cruise missiles/torpedoes are so armed? Would you build a carrier navy based on the presumption that you could shoot down ALL the incoming cruise missiles? The Soviet navy was in my opinion necessarily 'disposable' because they were quite sure that it would be a nuclear war and that concentrated task group type deployments would not for long exist as anything but remaining targets.

Much of the choice of fleet design were simply dictated by logistics; the USN had to protect the men and weaponry, ,requiring convoys of ships on the surface, required to fight off a Soviet drive for the French coast and the Soviets merely had to prevent this to win a European war of attrition.... Many factors to consider and that is perhaps the reason why both could compromise when required thus avoiding a situation were one or both sides might have had their theories explode in their faces.

Stellar

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by centurion1211

 

What does a test of a naval laser heating up a boat have to do with anti-carrier ballistic missiles?

These missiles are launched from land and carry out terminal targeting phases. I fail to see a laser bringing down multiple warheads that are raining down on you, especially when anti-laser countermeasures are already a reality.

edit on 9-4-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Possibly everything ...

one - IF this is only the current state of the technology, it it s a big step to creating a laser version of CWIS.
two - A laser "CWIS" would be capable of much faster response to higher speed targets since it operates at the speed of light which is much faster than a missile or gun.
three - Again, if they are showing this version, what do they really have?

Again, all of you so in love with russian and chinese military capabilities never seem to factor in that they are always chasing a moving target in U.S. capabilities, and that the U.S. would have to technologically stand still for a number of years for the chinese and russians to ever catch up. Not likely to happen. Think about it, would the chinese or russians allow the U.S. to catch them if the situation was reversed.

Keep dreaming ...

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by centurion1211

 

What does a test of a naval laser heating up a boat have to do with anti-carrier ballistic missiles?

These missiles are launched from land and carry out terminal targeting phases. I fail to see a laser bringing down multiple warheads that are raining down on you, especially when anti-laser countermeasures are already a reality.

edit on 9-4-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Possibly everything ...

one - IF this is only the current state of the technology, it it s a big step to creating a laser version of CWIS.
two - A laser "CWIS" would be capable of much faster response to higher speed targets since it operates at the speed of light which is much faster than a missile or gun.
three - Again, if they are showing this version, what do they really have?

1 - Yes, that is true.
2 - First of all, these laser weapons operate by heating up a target. This requires the laser to be hitting the target for a set amount of time until it heats up whatever explosive material there is in the target (whether it is fuel or warheads). There is a huge difference between a boat on the water and a supersonic cruise missile. First off, the missile, in terminal phase, will probably already have a heat shield around it that the laser will have a hard time beating from just aim at the front of the missile (which is the only view your CIWS will see). Secondly, you need to continuously keep hitting this missile with the laser until it defeats it. You're not only going to be threatened by one missile; you can expect dozens of them.
3 - You have no evidence so you're really just posting pure fantasy of imaginary systems that you think your country has developed that no other country could possibly understand.

Again, all of you so in love with russian and chinese military capabilities never seem to factor in that they are always chasing a moving target in U.S. capabilities, and that the U.S. would have to technologically stand still for a number of years for the chinese and russians to ever catch up. Not likely to happen. Think about it, would the chinese or russians allow the U.S. to catch them if the situation was reversed.

Keep dreaming ...

You know what? At least I discuss known and deployed systems. You seem to keep dragging on this whole "we must have something much better than what we claim to have" line. I ask, why do you think this is so? The US military complex is capitalist and involves corporations and investors. Investors need product demonstrations so your weaponry can even be funded in the first place. If anything, we will know much more about advanced American systems than more government-controlled industries like in China, Russia (Soviet, at least), North Korea, Iran, etc. This is probably why most new American weapons seem so high-tech: because that really is most of their top technology and they need to appear to be the best with what they have (not saying they don't have secret projects though).

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


The time required for a laser to destroy a target must be related to the power of the laser vs. any counter measures - if effective.

Here in the U.S., if college teams play pro teams in sports, the cheerleaders for the college team's cheerleaders still show up to cheer even if the outcome of the contest is hardly in doubt.

Seems like we have the same thing going on here.



Yes, you like to talk about "known systems", but it seems you also like to speculate on, or downright inflate the capabilities of those systems.

No one is saying that if there was a conflict, the russians or chinese wouldn't have a few surprises to throw into the conflict. But no one can say the U.S. wouldn't also have a few of its own. And since the U.S. is already ahead technologically, the best the chinese or russians could hope for would be a cancelling out of "surprises" - leaving the U.S still ahead.

reply to post by centurion1211


And from a related news article regarding lasers vs. reflective surface countermeasures:

source

"Every material reflects, but you can overcome this with power; once you get over a certain threshold - measured in multiple kilowatts - then the laser does what it is designed to do," he said.

Mr Booen said that once a material started getting hot, it affected the reflective ability, making the target absorb more energy and eventually leading to its destruction.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Tomahawks can easily be mowed down by a CIWS. The SN-22 Moshkit is the US carrier killer. It is much much faster than the tomahawk and performs evasive and confusing maneuvers at the last stages of its attack as it rips through a US carrier and shreds it to pieces rendering all flight ops useless.

So much for the "great" SN-22 and other supposed weapons capable of "ripping U.S. ships to shreds" ...

source

A futuristic laser mounted on a speeding cruiser successfully blasted a bobbing, weaving boat from the waters of the Pacific Ocean -- the first test at sea of such a gun and a fresh milestone in the Navy's quest to reoutfit the fleet with a host of laser weapons, the Navy announced Friday.

"We were able to have a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target," chief of Naval research Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told FoxNews.com.

and

In a video of the event, the small boat can be seen catching fire and ultimately bursting into flames, a conflagration caused by the navy's distant gun. Some details of the event were classified, including the exact range of the shot, but Carr could provide some information: "We're talking miles, not yards," Carr said.

edit on 4/8/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

These are all hypothetical weapons that are not fielded yet. The Russians have even more powerful missles that are much faster and deadlier. Just because you show me a design concept that someone dreamed up doenst mean jack sh!t.

The sunburn is in production and in use. The laser weapon is not in use. What do you think is gonna happen, as soon as a sn-22 is fired that someone will come and install lasers that are still in development onto the ship to stop the incoming sunburn? LOL

Don't talk about hypothetical systems. Talk in the present. If a war were to break out now, not if a war were to break out in 10 or 20 years. The SN-22 will still rip apart the carrier to shreds with multiple incoming salvo of missles. There is no laser in production that will stop it. It is still unstoppable if launced in a multiple salvo attack.

The only thing that nonproduction, still in test phase laser was able to fry was some rag tag boat. Not a supersonic missle capable of performing evasive maneuvers that is in PRODUCTION.

Your comparison of some nerds setting a boat on fire to stopping a supersonic missle is laughable. The thing is still in the test phases lmao! Even then all they have been able to do is set a boat on fire lmao

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Did not realise that you had meant 'almost' as a honest to god qualification.....

Cavitation normally results from high speed movement ( it depends on engineering but at some point every boat can be tracked that way) and is by no means unique to Russian submarines! The fact that Russian naval doctrine sometimes dictated high speed movement to contact is only a weakness if some blundering NATO submarine did not or could not get out of the way. As for the source there is nothing new about the fact that SOSUS delivered great volumes of useful knowledge and could for at least a few hours indentify and track most submarines crossing it.

In fact i think the following quote is more revealing ( from the cited source) :

In 1990, New York Times journalist John J. O'Connor reported that, "It's been estimated by some intelligence experts that Mr. Walker provided enough code-data information to alter significantly the balance of power between Russia and the United States".[13] Asked later how he had managed to access so much classified information, Walker said, "KMart has better security than the Navy".[14] According to a report presented to the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive in 2002, Walker is one of a handful of spies believed to have earned more than a million dollars in espionage compensation,[5] although The New York Times estimated his income at only $350,000.[13]

If it was that big a secret or regarded as something that provided the USN with a massive advantage you have to wonder if it would not harder for the soviets to uncover it. Either way even back in 1974 Admiral Zumwalt felt that things had already gotten out of control :

Speaking with reporters a month before the interview ( May 1974), Admiral Zumwalt said the Soviet Union had the capacity to control sea lanes in a crisis and foresaw a reversal of that situation only if Congress adequately financed a multibillion-dollar naval construction program he had instituted.

www.mishalov.com...

Once you go look at the data i think you will find that 'Reforger convoys' would had to fight all the way to Europe and whatever remained would have had to fight their way back again. In the critical weeks and months were reinforcements might yet affect the outcome in Europe it's a open question if concentrations of CBG's could have provided sufficient protection for even troop ships crammed with tens of thousands of soldiers. It's easy to say that a cruise missile wont sink a carrier but what will it do to a troop carrier with a regiments worth of soldiers?

Real easy to talk about how strong the USN is but one must remember what sort of strength it would have needed to accomplish the ONLY task that warranted such massive expenditure of resources.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Cavitation normally results from high speed movement ( it depends on engineering but at some point every boat can be tracked that way) and is by no means unique to Russian submarines! The fact that Russian naval doctrine sometimes dictated high speed movement to contact is only a weakness if some blundering NATO submarine did not or could not get out of the way. As for the source there is nothing new about the fact that SOSUS delivered great volumes of useful knowledge and could for at least a few hours indentify and track most submarines crossing it.

I appreciate the response. Good info. Much of it I've already known. However, the link does show what you claimed wasn't available....

but since you do not have any actual sources for yours we can just have these nice chats about history.

You may disagree with it. So be it.

If it was that big a secret or regarded as something that provided the USN with a massive advantage you have to wonder if it would not harder for the soviets to uncover it.

Well wouldn't that be part of the Cat and Mouse game the Soviets and the US played? I think so. Always a case of one upsmenship. One always trying to out do the other. They had their Spies and the US had theirs. Sun Tzu talked a lot about spies. I thought you would have appreciated the Soviets more for their fine example of how easily they penetrated the inner circles of information. Espionage is worth more than it's weight in Gold. That went then and still goes both ways today.

Now, WWIII in Europe. That's an interesting scenario.

The US Navy would have had to not only defend itself but also provide screening cover for the Reforger endeavor. But we weren't just dealing with only the US navy if that were the Case. Sure the Cold War scenario plays out between the US and Warsaw pact alliance. What about the other NATO navies? Combined it would be formidable. As how a real world situation would have unfolded.

Is this the only Scenario that qualities?

Real easy to talk about how strong the USN is but one must remember what sort of strength it would have needed to accomplish the ONLY task that warranted such massive expenditure of resources.

Obviously the reinforcing of Europe is in your opinion the ONLY task that warranted that kind of expenditure apparently. I'm sorry, I disagree although it would be crucial if that was the only possible scenario for a major Naval battle but it's not. There are a few other oceans [3 more I believe] which are of importance as well. Asian allies and commerce and ME Allies and Oil lanes etc. Sailing through the Suez canal isn't the only way to transport commerce, oil or supplies to and fro various regions.

PEACE
Slay

China's first aircraft carrier on horizon
China's navy has added sophisticated nuclear submarines, destroyers and missile systems, but the holy grail of surface ships — an aircraft carrier — has stayed out on the horizon. That may be about to change.

The navy will have one "very soon," says the commander of the East China Fleet, Adm. Xu Hongmeng. The navy's commander, Adm. Wu Shengli, spoke last week of plans for "large combat warships," an apparent reference to carriers.

The comments come ahead of an unprecedented international fleet review on Thursday marking the 60th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy and spotlighting its recent rapid development.

"As China's navy takes on missions that go beyond simple coastal defense, an aircraft carrier becomes an obvious addition to maritime power-projection platforms," said John Pike, a defense analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org.

In his remarks to the official Xinhua news agency, Wu said the navy would speed up development of a technologically advanced, oceangoing fleet, stepping away from its traditional missions of coastal protection and blocking permanent independence for Taiwan.

Operating a carrier would be a step toward a "sea-control capability" in Northeast Asia and the Indian Ocean, a strategy that could bring Beijing into conflict with the U.S., Japan, South Korea and India and raise doubts about Beijing's self-declared defensive military posture, Pike said.

Having a carrier allows a navy to operate fixed-wing aircraft beyond the range of aircraft based on land. That would be key on missions to defend China's territorial aspirations, especially in the South China Sea, where a half-dozen countries have overlapping claims for areas rich in fish and oil.

In China to attend this week's festivities, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of U.S. naval operations, said Sunday there is "no doubt in my mind" that China wants a carrier, but he said American forces would take such a development in stride.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Dimitri, you can use both hands to pull the blanket-sized wedgie out of the crack of yurass - and tone down the contrived nationalism.

The same Nordic SOB's that ran amok through all Europe, including the greater Scotland, Ireland, and British Isles, also were among the same Russ who ran amok in your nation.

I can't speak of Russian top secret technology - after all, your famous T-34 was built on the American Christie design your nation bought a couple of, and of course you had to copy the B-29's that force-landed in Kamchatka and weren't allowed to leave, and of course anyone looking at the Russian version of the Space Shuttle can easily determine the real origin of the design, and of course Russian spies working with the American nuclear development team enabled you to get your first atomic weapons - five years later - even though Russia was getting the plans and documents just about as soon as American were developing them.

And while your scientists were trying a "new" technology against the US, they didn't know that a few Americans were way ahead - and managed to backfeed the probes. Too bad they were nearby and using the Chernobyl site as their source of power. Too much too soon, and insufficient time for proper dispersion.

I can only speak of some of some things I've seen. I can only speak of some technologies I'm aware of, yet have not seen mass production - much less the battlefields - unless in a few "off" tests that I've heard rumors of.

In my previous post - I never said a damned thing about Russia. So your irritation is a bit irrational to my way of thinking.

I was pointing out some historical trends.

You got any to add?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


One other thing. You compare defense spending.

Do you REALLY think the world is seeing our entire progress and development?

Suppose we'll just have to wait and find out.

Originally posted by FarArcher

I can't speak of Russian top secret technology - after all, your famous T-34 was built on the American Christie design your nation bought a couple of, and of course you had to copy the B-29's that force-landed in Kamchatka and weren't allowed to leave, and of course anyone looking at the Russian version of the Space Shuttle can easily determine the real origin of the design, and of course Russian spies working with the American nuclear development team enabled you to get your first atomic weapons - five years later - even though Russia was getting the plans and documents just about as soon as American were developing them.

This is what humans do, mate, they steal from one another -- be it stick and stone technology or aircraft carrier tech.
Despite owning the Christie chassis, the Americans came up with the Sherman, not the T-34. B-29 -- an excellent design, when copied it becomes the Russian Tu-95, which is still in service today. In your examples you forgot to mention the first satellite and the first human in space, Yuri Gagarin. And on the subject of the shuttle, today NASA relies on the Souyz TM rockets to launch their things in space.
Of course, none of this rocketry stuff would be possible without the Nazi scientists. So you see, everybody steals, no need to get patriotic on one side or the other.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


And one more key point many have missed regarding the U.S. military vs. russia or china, and that is combat experience. While the russian and chinese militaries have been doing basically nothing for many years, the U.S. military has accumulated a decade of combat experience. In fact, one could almost say a generation of combat experience. The individual soldiers may come and go, but many of the NCO's and officers with all that experience are still in the military.