China's New "Carrier-Killing" Missile Is Overrated

[1000VA]

Gee thanks, I wouldn't have got the point of you subtle article without your coloring the text bright red and underlining everything.

Well ... Thanks man

 

[gambit]

AC are over-rated.

Symbolism I guess, the bigger game is geopolitical chess for the SE Asia I think. A CBG in the east sea is a kin to moving a chess piece about.

If the symbol is powerful enough to effect desirable behaviors, then an aircraft carrier is not overrated.

Why use an AC when you have airfields on land that are much larger and much less vulnerable to attack.

True that a land air force base can station and deploy more aircrafts. But wrong that an aircraft carrier is more vulnerable. An aircraft carrier's greatest strength is its mobility in a large area. A land base's location is fixed and known, especially in this day of satellite reconnaissance.

AC's are weapons for pounding the unruly and unorganized natives, they become a liability against well organized armed forces.

Iraq's military was organized enough.

 

[no_name]

Commanders need to know where their carrier's are, so if the communication link can be decoded then people can know the location of the carriers.

 

[CardSharp]

True that a land air force base can station and deploy more aircrafts. But wrong that an aircraft carrier is more vulnerable. An aircraft carrier's greatest strength is its mobility in a large area. A land base's location is fixed and known, especially in this day of satellite reconnaissance.

Land doesn't sink and my statement was for those who thinks the India's AC will play a major role in future Indu-pakistani war.

If the symbol is powerful enough to effect desirable behaviors, then an aircraft carrier is not overrated.

What desirable effect?

Iraq's military was organized enough.

The containment strategy championed by the pentagon did an excellent job in demoralizing and disassembling the Iraqi military between gulf wars. It was a shadow of the army that fought the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[gambit]

Land doesn't sink and my statement was for those who thinks the India's AC will play a major role in future Indu-pakistani war.

Of course not. Land can only be heavily pockmarked enough to retard operation.

Something like this...

What desirable effect?

May be to back off?

The containment strategy championed by the pentagon did an excellent job in demoralizing and disassembling the Iraqi military between gulf wars. It was a shadow of the army that fought the Iran-Iraq war.

Am talking about Desert Storm. Before Desert Storm, there were no shortage of dire predictions for US, even that we could lose an aircraft carrier because of the Chinese bought Silkworms.

 

[Thomas]

Well the point the author is trying to make is CBG are difficult to find, grain of sand in an ocean.

Won't debate whether that is true or not since there's many other military professionals who can do that, but there's no evidence that carriers are only useful against unorganized or poorly armed forces. The Empire of Japan was highly organized and well armed, and so were the Argentines with their Exocet missiles. In fact the Falklands War demonstrates that even when heavily outnumbered (Argentines had hundreds vs the British's 34 harriers) what a carrier allows is for you to dictate range and lower enemy loiter time to minutes.

In fact if I wanted to fight unorganized or poorly armed forces I would rather have battleships than carriers. Battleships have firepower carriers can only dream of, and most importantly sustained firepower unlike the puny warhead of a Tomahawk or temporary aircraft flying overhead.

Important lessons were learned from the Falklands war. Also naval and air warfare has vastly changed since then. Gone are the days of Pukra fighters being able to get close to ships. Or even Mirage jets firing Exocet missiles from distance, without be detected and fired on.

 

[CardSharp]

Of course not. Land can only be heavily pockmarked enough to retard operation.

Something like this...

May be to back off?


Am talking about Desert Storm. Before Desert Storm, there were no shortage of dire predictions for US, even that we could lose an aircraft carrier because of the Chinese bought Silkworms.

It's still a liability against a prepared foe/without air superiority IMO. If you agree AC are important symbols then you can agree that losing one with half the hands will constitute a national trauma.

 

[CardSharp]

In fact if I wanted to fight unorganized or poorly armed forces I would rather have battleships than carriers. Battleships have firepower carriers can only dream of, and most importantly sustained firepower unlike the puny warhead of a Tomahawk or temporary aircraft flying overhead.

Wow I hadn't bothered reading what you wrote until Thomas quoted it, but really?

So the baddies moves more than 50 km inland, you're personally going to drag that baby over land to get em? Think it through.

 

[gambit]

It's still a liability against a prepared foe/without air superiority IMO. If you agree AC are important symbols then you can agree that losing one with half the hands will constitute a national trauma.

An aircraft carrier provide long duration, not permanent, air power projection once deterrence no longer deemed viable. An aircraft carrier will be out of land sight long before any shooting begin. All weapons systems have liabilities. The question is whether liabilities can be offset by strengths. Losing one in combat will be traumatic for US but the cost to the enemy will be prohibitive. Glad we do not have your fears.

 

[gambit]

Wow I hadn't bothered reading what you wrote until Thomas quoted it, but really?

So the baddies moves more than 50 km inland, you're personally going to drag that baby over land to get em? Think it through.

That would be 50 km that the US Marines can land upon.

 

[CardSharp]

An aircraft carrier provide long duration, not permanent, air power projection once deterrence no longer deemed viable. An aircraft carrier will be out of land sight long before any shooting begin. All weapons systems have liabilities. The question is whether liabilities can be offset by strengths. Losing one in combat will be traumatic for US but the cost to the enemy will be prohibitive. Glad we do not have your fears.

Seeing as there are no present threats to the CBG, it's a moot point.

That would be 50 km that the US Marines can land upon.

But he didn't say battleship AND marines. I was just pointing out how stupid it would be to choose a battleship over "puny warhead of a Tomahawk or temporary aircraft flying overhead"

 

[gambit]

Seeing as there are no present threats to the CBG, it's a moot point.

There are always threats. Issue is whether the damages that the threat implied is crippling enough for the ship.

But he didn't say battleship AND marines. I was just pointing out how stupid it would be to choose a battleship over "puny warhead of a Tomahawk or temporary aircraft flying overhead"

That is just in case the carrier air wing managed to force the enemy to cede ground. He might just have to lose that land air force base for US to control.

 

[roach]

The Battle of Midway was a turning point in the Pacific Theatre in WWII. Four Japanese aircraft carriers and a heavy cruiser were sunk in exchange for one American aircraft carrier and a destroyer.

Battle of Midway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A decisive factor in the Falklands war was the presence of the 34 Sea Harriers operated from aircraft carriers. Arguably, the war would have been very different without them.

In the 1971 war, The Vikrant played a significant operational and strategic role. Don't forget that the Ghazi was sent out after the Vikrant, and probably sank after an accident- but it was the Vikrant it was after.

Wishing to yourself that the days of Aircraft Carriers are over ain't going to make it happen. Those babies will be capable of kicking *** for a long time to come, and will remain a nation's most important assets for projecting power beyond borders.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Wow I hadn't bothered reading what you wrote until Thomas quoted it, but really?

So the baddies moves more than 50 km inland, you're personally going to drag that baby over land to get em? Think it through.

I did think it through. NGFS is the main role of the battleship in modern times and it doesn't matter if they move 50 km inland. It's not my fault you have no idea what a battleship is used for so assume non-existence of marines, when this is implied. It's also not my fault you conveniently forgot about the Falklands war disproving your claim that carriers have always been used on an inferior force.

P.S. Thomas' post absolutely does not support your idea that carriers are more vulnerable than land strips. He is saying the main disadvantages of carriers have been negated by technology, which makes your case worse, not better.

 

[Nahraf]

Did any of you’ll read post #1? The author claims the missile is overrated.

They may be overrated but concept is sound. It may take time to perfect the technology but Aircraft Carrier busting missiles are cost effective deterrent for Pakistan. The range, accuracy and numbers of these missile might keep Indian ACs at bay.