Budget Cutting, The Chinese, and the U.S. Carrier Fleet

[JWBooth]

First the Chinese debut their handy dandy carrier killer missile (link).
Now, one of their submarines pops up in the middle of a carrier task force completely undetected. As the article points out, the US Navy set aside their anti-submarine warfare capabilities at the end of the cold war. The premier class of ASW platforms, the Spruance Class destroyers, were scrapped and used for target practice during the Clinton and early Bush II administrations.

Way back when I was in A school, the bubbleheads used to say that there were two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Guess they were right.

With the financial crisis that is currently being faced, reconsidering the super carrier direction of the Navy is something that should be done.

 

[loosecannon]

Taking on China in an arms race is like a friend's description of the second law of thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, and you have to play.

 

[shintao]

First the Chinese debut their handy dandy carrier killer missile (link).
Now, one of their submarines pops up in the middle of a carrier task force completely undetected. As the article points out, the US Navy set aside their anti-submarine warfare capabilities at the end of the cold war. The premier class of ASW platforms, the Spruance Class destroyers, were scrapped and used for target practice during the Clinton and early Bush II administrations.

Way back when I was in A school, the bubbleheads used to say that there were two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Guess they were right.

With the financial crisis that is currently being faced, reconsidering the super carrier direction of the Navy is something that should be done.

Hmm, as long as a submarine can't come ashore, who cares?

 

[JWBooth]

First the Chinese debut their handy dandy carrier killer missile (link).
Now, one of their submarines pops up in the middle of a carrier task force completely undetected. As the article points out, the US Navy set aside their anti-submarine warfare capabilities at the end of the cold war. The premier class of ASW platforms, the Spruance Class destroyers, were scrapped and used for target practice during the Clinton and early Bush II administrations.

Way back when I was in A school, the bubbleheads used to say that there were two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Guess they were right.

With the financial crisis that is currently being faced, reconsidering the super carrier direction of the Navy is something that should be done.

Hmm, as long as a submarine can't come ashore, who cares?

Where it matters is negating the use of carrier power as a matter of force projection.

 

[rightwinger]

Taking on China in an arms race is like a friend's description of the second law of thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, and you have to play.

Whats wrong with taking on China in an arms race? They still have 600 million people living as peasants, poor infrastructure, inadequate medical care..

They have a long way to go. China has the largest army in the world with the vast majority of them needed to keep their own people in line..

 

[editec]

First the Chinese debut their handy dandy carrier killer missile (link).
Now, one of their submarines pops up in the middle of a carrier task force completely undetected. As the article points out, the US Navy set aside their anti-submarine warfare capabilities at the end of the cold war. The premier class of ASW platforms, the Spruance Class destroyers, were scrapped and used for target practice during the Clinton and early Bush II administrations.

Way back when I was in A school, the bubbleheads used to say that there were two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Guess they were right.

With the financial crisis that is currently being faced, reconsidering the super carrier direction of the Navy is something that should be done.

Oh don't worrry about it.

The Chinese (former communists) who run that nation are our bestest best friends.

I think we ought to chip off still MORE of our industry to them.

They're take care of our security because they just love us to death.

 

[VaYank5150]

First the Chinese debut their handy dandy carrier killer missile (link).
Now, one of their submarines pops up in the middle of a carrier task force completely undetected. As the article points out, the US Navy set aside their anti-submarine warfare capabilities at the end of the cold war. The premier class of ASW platforms, the Spruance Class destroyers, were scrapped and used for target practice during the Clinton and early Bush II administrations.

Way back when I was in A school, the bubbleheads used to say that there were two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Guess they were right.

With the financial crisis that is currently being faced, reconsidering the super carrier direction of the Navy is something that should be done.

I agree. The super carrier program needs to be scrapped. We simply cannot afford it and we have more effiecient methods of protecting our country.

 

[waltky]

China gearin' up to invade Taiwan?...

China adds ‘carrier killer’ to missiles facing Taiwan
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 - WARNING: Pentagon sources said that China’s positioning of the ‘carrier killer’ missiles was a warning to the US to stay well clear of the area in case of a cross-strait conflict

China has based its new anti-ship Dong Feng-21D (DF-21D) “carrier killer” missiles along the coast facing Taiwan, US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn said in testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee. Flynn said that Beijing was enhancing the firepower of the more than 1,200 conventional short-range ballistic missiles deployed opposite Taiwan with a limited, but growing, number of conventionally armed, medium-range ballistic missiles, including the DF-21D. “China is developing a tiered ballistic missile defense system and has successfully tested the upper-tier capability on two occasions,” he said.

Flynn said that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was building a modern military capable of defending China’s “core interests” of protecting territorial integrity, including Taiwan. “Preparation for a Taiwan conflict with US intervention remains the primary driver of the PLA’s evolving force structure, weapons development, operational planning and training,” Flynn said, adding that “China has spent as much as US$215 billion on military-related goods and services in 2012, in contrast to the US$107 billion Beijing reported in its official military budget.” “Even as the Chinese military plans for conflict and continues its build-up across from Taiwan, cross-strait relations have remained good following President Ma Ying-jeou’s re-election,” he added.

Flynn said the PLA Navy was also developing a JIN-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine and JL-2 submarine-launched missiles. He said that China’s investment in naval weapons is focused primarily on anti-air and anti-surface capabilities to achieve periodic and local sea and air superiority. Flynn said that the Chinese air force was transforming from a force oriented solely toward territorial defense into one capable of both offshore offensive and defensive roles, including strike, air and missile defense, as well as early warning and reconnaissance.

While Flynn did not say why China had deployed the new “carrier-killer” missiles opposite Taiwan, Pentagon sources said it was a clear warning to the US to stay well clear of the area in case of a conflict. However, a report published earlier this month by Ronald O’Rourke, the Congressional Research Service’s specialist in naval affairs, said the missile could be defeated with a combination of active and passive measures along its “kill chain.” O’Rourke said the US Navy could reduce the aircraft carrier electromagnetic emissions used by the missile and even release false emissions to fool it. In addition, the US Navy could disable the missile’s targeting systems, destroy it in flight or use decoys to confuse it as it approached its target, he added.

China adds ?carrier killer? to missiles facing Taiwan - Taipei Times

 

[Old Rocks]

In an all out war, given the advanced in all types of missiles, the life span of a surface ship is about 1 hour or less. Aircraft carriers, when dealing with second and third world nations, are useful. When dealing with Russia or China, those ships, theirs and ours, are just targets that will gone after the first hour of the war.

 

[candycorn]

In an all out war, given the advanced in all types of missiles, the life span of a surface ship is about 1 hour or less. Aircraft carriers, when dealing with second and third world nations, are useful. When dealing with Russia or China, those ships, theirs and ours, are just targets that will gone after the first hour of the war.

If they can find them.

 

[martybegan]

In an all out war, given the advanced in all types of missiles, the life span of a surface ship is about 1 hour or less. Aircraft carriers, when dealing with second and third world nations, are useful. When dealing with Russia or China, those ships, theirs and ours, are just targets that will gone after the first hour of the war.

Every few years someone comes up with the "Weapon platform X" is obsolete, and every time the US figures out a countermeasure for the new "superweapon"

 

[jwoodie]

First the Chinese debut their handy dandy carrier killer missile (link).
Now, one of their submarines pops up in the middle of a carrier task force completely undetected. As the article points out, the US Navy set aside their anti-submarine warfare capabilities at the end of the cold war. The premier class of ASW platforms, the Spruance Class destroyers, were scrapped and used for target practice during the Clinton and early Bush II administrations.

Way back when I was in A school, the bubbleheads used to say that there were two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Guess they were right.

With the financial crisis that is currently being faced, reconsidering the super carrier direction of the Navy is something that should be done.

I agree. The super carrier program needs to be scrapped. We simply cannot afford it and we have more effiecient methods of protecting our country.

1. What "more efficient methods" are you referring to?

2. Should we defend our allies if they are threatened or attacked? If so, how?

3. Do you prefer a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction?