Aircraft carriers are as useless as battleships in an all out war with China or Russia

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,594
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere


However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...
Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now
That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.
Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change
FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for
How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you
Not sure where you're getting your info.

The absolute longest range Russian anti ship missile is about 500 miles. We can easily keep our carriers further offshore than that and refuel enroute with tankers for attack aircraft.

.

While the range of a Chinese anti-ship missile can exceed 2000 miles, that would require very sophisticated ship finding capability. According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, an anti-ship ballistic missile is not useful without additional complex ship detection, data processing and communication systems, all of which, including the missile itself, could be jammed or spoofed.

Another fool mentioning Russia and ignoring China


The DF-26B and the DF-21D are both understood to have maneuvering reentry vehicles capable at least of hitting large ships, such as aircraft carriers or large amphibious assault ships. The DF-21D has a maximum range in excess of 932 miles (1,500 kilometers), according to the Pentagon, while DF-26-series missiles can reportedly strike targets out to 2,500 miles.

Chinese media outlets, including the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, refer to the DF-21D, specifically, as a "carrier killer." The longer-range DF-26 is nicknamed the "Guam Express or Guam Killer," a reference to the strategic U.S. island territory in the western Pacific, which is home to major air and naval bases, but the B model with its maneuverable warhead also often gets referred to as a carrier killer missile, as well. Guam would be an important target for Chinese forces during any large-scale conflict.

Chinese Long-Range Ballistic Missiles Struck Moving Ship In South China Sea: Report (thedrive.com)

Not sure where you get your info junior.

PS China also has more subs than America, so your hypothetical 500 miles from China meaning something is just ignorance
Good article. But it doesn't explain a whole lot. Two missiles hit the target. How many were fired. What speed was the target. And those are the easy questions.

The Article does nothing to expel the fact that there are about 10 items that must go right to hit a target. If even one of those 10 criterias are defeated, the Missile either goes ballistic or misses. And it's going to have to be a Nuclear tipped missile in hopes of defeating a Carrier. Anything short of that will just piss off the carrier. Hitting a Carrier with a conventional 2000lb bomb would put a hole in it X number of decks deep but that would not be enough to put it out of commission. So you knocked at Cat #2 but cat #1 will still be operational. It's going to launch even if it can't recover. The Frigates are going to be tracking the incoming Ballistic Missile so they are going to know what the target is. There will be NO surprise in the attack. And some of those Frigates are able to hit some of the incoming ballistic missiles and warheads. That is going to give the carrier the time to launch his birds and go into defensive measures. When a Carrier decides to leave, not one single support ship will be able to keep up with him. He's going to put lots of miles in a zig zag method and he's going to be near impossible to hit from a reentry warhead traveling at such a speed. And you are going to have to have a near dead on hit even with a Nuclear Warhead for a kill. If it's a conventional warhead, it's going to have to be a dead on hit which is completely impossible.

Let's say you do take out a carrier or damage one bad enough that he has to withdraw and can't recover. Other Carriers will be available for recovery. Even if no carriers are there to recover, the returning pilots will be picked up by the Destroyers. We can quickly make more Aircraft but we can't quickly make pilots.

China would have ONE hit to cripple the regions US Military's ability before things turned. After that, the cavalry arrives. And those Chinese subs start going off like flash bulbs. And it won't be the Carriers taking out the subs and Chinese Surface Ships.

The last thing China wants to do is get into a nuclear exchange with the US. That means their -21 and -26 missiles will NOT be nuclear tipped. That means that a single hit will only be just over 1200 lbs or 600 kg. And you aren't just trying to hit a moving target, you are trying to hit something with the speed of a Speed Boat that is zigging and zagging. And you are going to have to hit it dead on. The chances of that is virtually zero. And China has a nightmare if it tries to go with conventional weapons. They lose their entire coastal regions. Meaning, they just lost their shipping, manufacturing and large military population in a matter of a few days. The US doesn't need to go for a win and land a single boot on the ground. But China has to go for something less than a total loss of their economy. Not a dip in the economy, but a total loss. But if it chooses Nuclear, welcome to the stone age.
 
OP
esalla

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,232
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead


However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...
Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now
That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.
Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change
FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for
How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you
Not sure where you're getting your info.

The absolute longest range Russian anti ship missile is about 500 miles. We can easily keep our carriers further offshore than that and refuel enroute with tankers for attack aircraft.

.

While the range of a Chinese anti-ship missile can exceed 2000 miles, that would require very sophisticated ship finding capability. According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, an anti-ship ballistic missile is not useful without additional complex ship detection, data processing and communication systems, all of which, including the missile itself, could be jammed or spoofed.

Another fool mentioning Russia and ignoring China


The DF-26B and the DF-21D are both understood to have maneuvering reentry vehicles capable at least of hitting large ships, such as aircraft carriers or large amphibious assault ships. The DF-21D has a maximum range in excess of 932 miles (1,500 kilometers), according to the Pentagon, while DF-26-series missiles can reportedly strike targets out to 2,500 miles.

Chinese media outlets, including the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, refer to the DF-21D, specifically, as a "carrier killer." The longer-range DF-26 is nicknamed the "Guam Express or Guam Killer," a reference to the strategic U.S. island territory in the western Pacific, which is home to major air and naval bases, but the B model with its maneuverable warhead also often gets referred to as a carrier killer missile, as well. Guam would be an important target for Chinese forces during any large-scale conflict.

Chinese Long-Range Ballistic Missiles Struck Moving Ship In South China Sea: Report (thedrive.com)

Not sure where you get your info junior.

PS China also has more subs than America, so your hypothetical 500 miles from China meaning something is just ignorance
Good article. But it doesn't explain a whole lot. Two missiles hit the target. How many were fired. What speed was the target. And those are the easy questions.

The Article does nothing to expel the fact that there are about 10 items that must go right to hit a target. If even one of those 10 criterias are defeated, the Missile either goes ballistic or misses. And it's going to have to be a Nuclear tipped missile in hopes of defeating a Carrier. Anything short of that will just piss off the carrier. Hitting a Carrier with a conventional 2000lb bomb would put a hole in it X number of decks deep but that would not be enough to put it out of commission. So you knocked at Cat #2 but cat #1 will still be operational. It's going to launch even if it can't recover. The Frigates are going to be tracking the incoming Ballistic Missile so they are going to know what the target is. There will be NO surprise in the attack. And some of those Frigates are able to hit some of the incoming ballistic missiles and warheads. That is going to give the carrier the time to launch his birds and go into defensive measures. When a Carrier decides to leave, not one single support ship will be able to keep up with him. He's going to put lots of miles in a zig zag method and he's going to be near impossible to hit from a reentry warhead traveling at such a speed. And you are going to have to have a near dead on hit even with a Nuclear Warhead for a kill. If it's a conventional warhead, it's going to have to be a dead on hit which is completely impossible.

Let's say you do take out a carrier or damage one bad enough that he has to withdraw and can't recover. Other Carriers will be available for recovery. Even if no carriers are there to recover, the returning pilots will be picked up by the Destroyers. We can quickly make more Aircraft but we can't quickly make pilots.

China would have ONE hit to cripple the regions US Military's ability before things turned. After that, the cavalry arrives. And those Chinese subs start going off like flash bulbs. And it won't be the Carriers taking out the subs and Chinese Surface Ships.

The last thing China wants to do is get into a nuclear exchange with the US. That means their -21 and -26 missiles will NOT be nuclear tipped. That means that a single hit will only be just over 1200 lbs or 600 kg. And you aren't just trying to hit a moving target, you are trying to hit something with the speed of a Speed Boat that is zigging and zagging. And you are going to have to hit it dead on. The chances of that is virtually zero. And China has a nightmare if it tries to go with conventional weapons. They lose their entire coastal regions. Meaning, they just lost their shipping, manufacturing and large military population in a matter of a few days. The US doesn't need to go for a win and land a single boot on the ground. But China has to go for something less than a total loss of their economy. Not a dip in the economy, but a total loss. But if it chooses Nuclear, welcome to the stone age.
Funny how the Japs did not need nuclear missiles to sink a carrier. LOL the smallest conventional missile is in the range of 10 times more powerful than a Jap bomb was, and missiles hit near the water line not the top deck. Shit just the kinetic energy from a no warhead DF-21 would sink a carrier.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
35,688
Reaction score
11,860
Points
1,410


However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...
Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now
That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.
Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change
FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for
How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you
Not sure where you're getting your info.

The absolute longest range Russian anti ship missile is about 500 miles. We can easily keep our carriers further offshore than that and refuel enroute with tankers for attack aircraft.

.

While the range of a Chinese anti-ship missile can exceed 2000 miles, that would require very sophisticated ship finding capability. According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, an anti-ship ballistic missile is not useful without additional complex ship detection, data processing and communication systems, all of which, including the missile itself, could be jammed or spoofed.

Another fool mentioning Russia and ignoring China


The DF-26B and the DF-21D are both understood to have maneuvering reentry vehicles capable at least of hitting large ships, such as aircraft carriers or large amphibious assault ships. The DF-21D has a maximum range in excess of 932 miles (1,500 kilometers), according to the Pentagon, while DF-26-series missiles can reportedly strike targets out to 2,500 miles.

Chinese media outlets, including the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, refer to the DF-21D, specifically, as a "carrier killer." The longer-range DF-26 is nicknamed the "Guam Express or Guam Killer," a reference to the strategic U.S. island territory in the western Pacific, which is home to major air and naval bases, but the B model with its maneuverable warhead also often gets referred to as a carrier killer missile, as well. Guam would be an important target for Chinese forces during any large-scale conflict.

Chinese Long-Range Ballistic Missiles Struck Moving Ship In South China Sea: Report (thedrive.com)

Not sure where you get your info junior.

PS China also has more subs than America, so your hypothetical 500 miles from China meaning something is just ignorance
Good article. But it doesn't explain a whole lot. Two missiles hit the target. How many were fired. What speed was the target. And those are the easy questions.

The Article does nothing to expel the fact that there are about 10 items that must go right to hit a target. If even one of those 10 criterias are defeated, the Missile either goes ballistic or misses. And it's going to have to be a Nuclear tipped missile in hopes of defeating a Carrier. Anything short of that will just piss off the carrier. Hitting a Carrier with a conventional 2000lb bomb would put a hole in it X number of decks deep but that would not be enough to put it out of commission. So you knocked at Cat #2 but cat #1 will still be operational. It's going to launch even if it can't recover. The Frigates are going to be tracking the incoming Ballistic Missile so they are going to know what the target is. There will be NO surprise in the attack. And some of those Frigates are able to hit some of the incoming ballistic missiles and warheads. That is going to give the carrier the time to launch his birds and go into defensive measures. When a Carrier decides to leave, not one single support ship will be able to keep up with him. He's going to put lots of miles in a zig zag method and he's going to be near impossible to hit from a reentry warhead traveling at such a speed. And you are going to have to have a near dead on hit even with a Nuclear Warhead for a kill. If it's a conventional warhead, it's going to have to be a dead on hit which is completely impossible.

Let's say you do take out a carrier or damage one bad enough that he has to withdraw and can't recover. Other Carriers will be available for recovery. Even if no carriers are there to recover, the returning pilots will be picked up by the Destroyers. We can quickly make more Aircraft but we can't quickly make pilots.

China would have ONE hit to cripple the regions US Military's ability before things turned. After that, the cavalry arrives. And those Chinese subs start going off like flash bulbs. And it won't be the Carriers taking out the subs and Chinese Surface Ships.

The last thing China wants to do is get into a nuclear exchange with the US. That means their -21 and -26 missiles will NOT be nuclear tipped. That means that a single hit will only be just over 1200 lbs or 600 kg. And you aren't just trying to hit a moving target, you are trying to hit something with the speed of a Speed Boat that is zigging and zagging. And you are going to have to hit it dead on. The chances of that is virtually zero. And China has a nightmare if it tries to go with conventional weapons. They lose their entire coastal regions. Meaning, they just lost their shipping, manufacturing and large military population in a matter of a few days. The US doesn't need to go for a win and land a single boot on the ground. But China has to go for something less than a total loss of their economy. Not a dip in the economy, but a total loss. But if it chooses Nuclear, welcome to the stone age.
Funny how the Japs did not need nuclear missiles to sink a carrier. LOL the smallest conventional missile is in the range of 10 times more powerful than a Jap bomb was, and missiles hit near the water line not the top deck. Shit just the kinetic energy from a no warhead DF-21 would sink a carrier.
no it wouldn't
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
4,817
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
No German rocket drone was ever intercepted, there would never even have been time to get a plane in the air. So like the child that you are, you are applying interception as the term is known today to WW2.

Nothing even deterred the Germans slightly until the USA landed.

LOL
Wrong again. The V-1 actually flew very slowly.

In daylight, V-1 chases were chaotic and often unsuccessful until a special defence zone was declared between London and the coast, in which only the fastest fighters were permitted. The first interception of a V-1 was by F/L J. G. Musgrave with a No. 605 Squadron RAF Mosquito night fighter on the night of 14/15 June 1944. As daylight grew stronger after the night attack, a Spitfire was seen to follow closely behind a V-1 over Chislehurst and Lewisham. Between June and 5 September 1944, a handful of 150 Wing Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs,[63] with No. 3 Squadron RAF alone claiming 305. One Tempest pilot, Squadron Leader Joseph Berry (501 Squadron), shot down 59 V-1s, the Belgian ace Squadron Leader Remy Van Lierde (164 Squadron) destroyed 44 (with a further nine shared) and W/C Roland Beamont destroyed 31. A Dutch pilot in 322 Squadron, Jan Leendert Plesman, son of KLM president Albert Plesman, managed to destroy 12 in 1944, flying a Spitfire.[64]
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
4,817
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Useless is a relative term, sure they can scare camels. However having 150 billion dollars worth of ships that can never attack the other 2 major World powers is just silly which is why Russia does not rely on this type of warfare.
They're broke.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
937
Reaction score
925
Points
898
Location
Arizona
Actually kid a carrier could appear out of no where in WW2 because radar and satellite tech did not exist.
Rudimentary radar existed and saved England. It was new and many in charge did not trust the results, what they were seeing on their own screens.

Satellites you are right about.
Did the Japs have radar at Leyte Gulf
Yes
Does anyone else say this, or just you?
The IJN began putting radar on ships in 1942. Yamato had type 21 air and sea search radar installed in July 1943, Musashi had Type 22 and Type 13 radars installed in April of 1944. CV Junyo had Type 21 radar installed July 1942. CA Haguro had a Type 13 radar installed June 1944. CA Mogami had Type 21 radar installed in September 1942. CL Oyodo had a Type 22 radar installed in March 1944. That's just a few ships picked at random. The information is from the tabular ship movements posted on combinedfleet.com.
Did any of them work, and if so what was the maximum range and resolution
Do your own research, they were at least as good as early to mid war USN and RN radars. The IJN didn't have technological problems with radar, they had doctrinal problems with it as well as production problems.
Radar was not entirely consequential in WW2, the British used it first and their huge land based units could see 80 miles. LOL what did that radar do to stop the buzz bombs.

Nothing because radar meant nothing in WW2, shit the Jap invasion of Pearl was seen on radar and no one gave a shit because no one understood how it worked
You are a maroon. Radar allowed the RAF and USAAF to intercept most of the V-1s. It allowed the RAF to intercept and destroy large numbers of Luftwaffe fighters and bombers in the BOB despite being outnumbered and having raids coming in from a third of the compass. Without it the RAF would have been destroyed over its own airfields. It allowed the Cactus Air Force to intercept and destroy the Japanese raids aimed at the various reinforcement convoys for Guadalcanal. It allowed the Luftwaffe to kill hundreds of RAF night bombers that would have been invulnerable without it. It was literally one of the keys to the Pacific victory.
No German rocket drone was ever intercepted, there would never even have been time to get a plane in the air. So like the child that you are, you are applying interception as the term is known today to WW2.

Nothing even deterred the Germans slightly until the USA landed.

LOL
If you are talking about V-2s, you are correct, but the Fritz-X, Hs 293s and V-1s were routinely intercepted and shot down. The SCUDs used by Iraq are far more sophisticated than the V-2s were and were routinely intercepted during Desert Storm by missiles optimized for anti-aircraft use. Your hypothetical Chinese super-missiles don't exist, won't have adequate targeting because the targeting aircraft, satellites or bases won't survive long enough in a war to range on carriers. If we have learned anything after a hundred years of communism, it's that weapons produced in communist factories never live up the the hype.

You seem to have the crazy idea that communist hype can be taken at face value. You also have the mistaken belief that the USN is going to blindly steam into range of the Chinese "super-missiles" blasting away with it's radars so the Chinese can locate the carriers. Nothing the Chinese have is survivable enough to both locate American warships and vector missiles onto them in time of war. For every measure the Chinese have, the USN has a counter measure. The SAMs on American ships are perfectly capable of intercepting ballistic warheads aimed at them. That is the most simple interception there is. They are even capable of intercepting missile crossing their engagement envelopes, but that is harder because of the relative speeds. Your hypersonic "super-missiles" are even simpler targets because at those speeds they can't take effective evasive actions against counter-missiles or gunfire. Speed isn't a defense against radar-controlled gunfire. The missiles will be coming straight at their targets giving a zero deflection shot for the defenses.
 
Last edited:

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
937
Reaction score
925
Points
898
Location
Arizona


However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...
Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now
That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.
Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change
FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for
How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you
Not sure where you're getting your info.

The absolute longest range Russian anti ship missile is about 500 miles. We can easily keep our carriers further offshore than that and refuel enroute with tankers for attack aircraft.

.

While the range of a Chinese anti-ship missile can exceed 2000 miles, that would require very sophisticated ship finding capability. According to a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Roger Cliff, an anti-ship ballistic missile is not useful without additional complex ship detection, data processing and communication systems, all of which, including the missile itself, could be jammed or spoofed.

Another fool mentioning Russia and ignoring China


The DF-26B and the DF-21D are both understood to have maneuvering reentry vehicles capable at least of hitting large ships, such as aircraft carriers or large amphibious assault ships. The DF-21D has a maximum range in excess of 932 miles (1,500 kilometers), according to the Pentagon, while DF-26-series missiles can reportedly strike targets out to 2,500 miles.

Chinese media outlets, including the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, refer to the DF-21D, specifically, as a "carrier killer." The longer-range DF-26 is nicknamed the "Guam Express or Guam Killer," a reference to the strategic U.S. island territory in the western Pacific, which is home to major air and naval bases, but the B model with its maneuverable warhead also often gets referred to as a carrier killer missile, as well. Guam would be an important target for Chinese forces during any large-scale conflict.

Chinese Long-Range Ballistic Missiles Struck Moving Ship In South China Sea: Report (thedrive.com)

Not sure where you get your info junior.

PS China also has more subs than America, so your hypothetical 500 miles from China meaning something is just ignorance
Good article. But it doesn't explain a whole lot. Two missiles hit the target. How many were fired. What speed was the target. And those are the easy questions.

The Article does nothing to expel the fact that there are about 10 items that must go right to hit a target. If even one of those 10 criterias are defeated, the Missile either goes ballistic or misses. And it's going to have to be a Nuclear tipped missile in hopes of defeating a Carrier. Anything short of that will just piss off the carrier. Hitting a Carrier with a conventional 2000lb bomb would put a hole in it X number of decks deep but that would not be enough to put it out of commission. So you knocked at Cat #2 but cat #1 will still be operational. It's going to launch even if it can't recover. The Frigates are going to be tracking the incoming Ballistic Missile so they are going to know what the target is. There will be NO surprise in the attack. And some of those Frigates are able to hit some of the incoming ballistic missiles and warheads. That is going to give the carrier the time to launch his birds and go into defensive measures. When a Carrier decides to leave, not one single support ship will be able to keep up with him. He's going to put lots of miles in a zig zag method and he's going to be near impossible to hit from a reentry warhead traveling at such a speed. And you are going to have to have a near dead on hit even with a Nuclear Warhead for a kill. If it's a conventional warhead, it's going to have to be a dead on hit which is completely impossible.

Let's say you do take out a carrier or damage one bad enough that he has to withdraw and can't recover. Other Carriers will be available for recovery. Even if no carriers are there to recover, the returning pilots will be picked up by the Destroyers. We can quickly make more Aircraft but we can't quickly make pilots.

China would have ONE hit to cripple the regions US Military's ability before things turned. After that, the cavalry arrives. And those Chinese subs start going off like flash bulbs. And it won't be the Carriers taking out the subs and Chinese Surface Ships.

The last thing China wants to do is get into a nuclear exchange with the US. That means their -21 and -26 missiles will NOT be nuclear tipped. That means that a single hit will only be just over 1200 lbs or 600 kg. And you aren't just trying to hit a moving target, you are trying to hit something with the speed of a Speed Boat that is zigging and zagging. And you are going to have to hit it dead on. The chances of that is virtually zero. And China has a nightmare if it tries to go with conventional weapons. They lose their entire coastal regions. Meaning, they just lost their shipping, manufacturing and large military population in a matter of a few days. The US doesn't need to go for a win and land a single boot on the ground. But China has to go for something less than a total loss of their economy. Not a dip in the economy, but a total loss. But if it chooses Nuclear, welcome to the stone age.
Funny how the Japs did not need nuclear missiles to sink a carrier. LOL the smallest conventional missile is in the range of 10 times more powerful than a Jap bomb was, and missiles hit near the water line not the top deck. Shit just the kinetic energy from a no warhead DF-21 would sink a carrier.
The only fleet carriers the Japanese actually sunk were by torpedoes and naval gunfire. Yorktown- submarine torpedo, Wasp- submarine torpedoes, Hornet- destroyer torpedoes, Lexington- gasoline explosion due to poor damage control, Princeton-lost to magazine explosion due to out of control avgas fires Princeton was a converted light carrier and her fuel tanks were unprotected and vulnerable to the dive bomber that killed her. The biggest of those carriers were less than 20,000 tons, modern American carriers are over 100,000 tons and are far tougher and resistant to damage than WWII carriers. They have another advantage, they don't carry hundreds of thousands of gallons of highly flammable avgas, they carry jet fuel which is essentially highly refined kerosene which will burn but not explode like avgas. A modern carrier won't suffer from the raging fires which in all cases were the cause of the WWII carriers being abandoned and destroyed long after hte battle.
 

xyz

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
6,495
Reaction score
797
Points
195


However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...
Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now
That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.
Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change
I don't think it's that extreme. They could probably attack any Latin American country, not that they should. I don't think even Mexico could necessarily sink them if they are far enough away, but it would be a very nasty war.

A lot of countries have one, some even have a couple.

Not saying they are not a tool for hegemony, that's obvious.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top