gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
The Exocet and its cousins were once touted to be THE weapon against a military with a superior navy. That did not happened. The type of missile remains a credible threat, but not the defeating threat its once reputation had.
The corollary applies to any new weapon that is designed to meet asymmetrically against another weapon. If the new countermeasure weapon fails in combat, not only much investments would be considered wasted, but any war doctrine that rests upon the new weapon will be considered suspicious to achieve successes and most likely will be discarded. Is the military flexible enough in the absence of that particular doctrine ?
Go back to the days of Gen. Billy Mitchell, considered to be the 'father' of the USAF. Much resistance and ridicule were leveled at the aircraft as a viable weapon of war. We would think that even after the experience of WW I, the generals and admirals would have seen at least a glimmer of the aircraft as a potential threat from the third dimension. Not that attack from the third dimension is unknown -- the submarine. We have the benefit of hindsight to extol the foresight virtues of Mitchell but consider how much intellectual and political investments Mitchell made into the aircraft that he risked his career in trying to turn the US military into one uncharted territory of warfare.
The ballistic missile against stationary ground targets is real. Against a moving target, land or sea, is a natural progression. The DF-21D is not an unknown platform like the aircraft was back then but the uncertainty of its efficacy to be a credible combat threat is the same as that of the aircraft back then. Since the end of WW II, no one have done more than the US in advancing the aircraft carrier as a weapon platform in terms of lethality, flexibility, and survivability. All three qualities must advance at the same time and under US tutelage, the aircraft carrier matured into a weapon platform that not even the ballistic missile have matched.
The lethality of the missile is unchallenged. We do not need any debate there. But since the missile is essentially a throw away weapon, its flexibility is limited and its survivability is zero. Regarding flexibility, am not talking about moving it from place to place or different types of warhead it can carry. Am talking about what kind of strategic and tactical doctrines can it produce to give a military as much flexibility as possible which inevitably translate that military into a force to be cautious about. As a strategic and tactical weapon, the aircraft carrier is unmatched in terms of giving any military that dangerous perception about itself, and that perception is not vague but backed up with bloody experience. In warfare, past and modern, a flexible military is a deadly one.
The sword, the spear, and the bow and arrow have not failed in warfare. They were DISPLACED. To date, no weapon platform have managed to displace the aircraft carrier as a deterrence to violence and as an executor of violence. The submarine can threatens only ships, but the aircraft carrier can threaten an entire country.
China is pursuing her status as an aircraft carrier capable military, even if not on the same level as the US currently is. China have no desire the see the DF-21D fails in combat. That does not mean the PLA will not use it other than as a propaganda prop. Too much investments were made, including the intellectual and political risks we can be certain some generals and admirals rendered. But given the decades borne reputation the aircraft carrier has, the PLA is not going to rest its forces on any new strategic and tactical doctrines the DF-21D MAY produce.
