China Launches it's first Aircraft Carrier for a test run

[Centurion1]

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-first-aircraft-carrier-makes-maiden-sea-trial-000047792.html

Interesting to say the least.

[Papewaio]

Meh there is a much larger aircraft carrier permantly moored off the coast of China about 120km to the east which cannot be easily sunk. China see's it as such a threat they have well over 1,100 missiles aimed at it.

[Major Robert Dump]

But Chinese people can't swim!

[Furunculus]

it's one thing to have the top-end toys, quite another to know to use them as a war-winning capability.

[Papewaio]

it's one thing to have the top-end toys, quite another to know to use them as a war-winning capability.

Well they could ask the US how to use toys successfully... just look at how well Iraq and Afghanistan have gone. :2thumbsup:

=][=

More seriously... I wonder when remote controlled aircraft carriers are going to be deployed...

[Major Robert Dump]

But they don't use carriers in either one of those conflicts.......

[Papewaio]

No special forces teams launched from carriers?

=][=

Serious side... I'd say the value for money has been shown in both the low tech feet on the ground and the high end drones.

By the time China gets their head around carriers there will be next generation predator drones and missiles capable of Mach 20 that will deal with fleets too effectively to make them a great option against another symetrical force.

[PanzerJaeger]

Interesting decision by China. I'm firmly of the belief that, much like the battleship, the days of the super carrier are numbered. We are right on the verge of completely removing pilots from our combat air operations and probably most of the support roles as well, which will allow for far smaller, less expensive, and less vulnerable carriers. I would have thought China would wait until UAV technology went mainstream before jumping into the carrier race, but I guess they already had the Russian one bought and when you're that flush with money, there's no reason to wait. :shrug:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Interesting decision by China. I'm firmly of the belief that, much like the battleship, the days of the super carrier are numbered. We are right on the verge of completely removing pilots from our combat air operations and probably most of the support roles as well, which will allow for far smaller, less expensive, and less vulnerable carriers. I would have thought China would wait until UAV technology went mainstream before jumping into the carrier race, but I guess they already had the Russian one bought and when you're that flush with money, there's no reason to wait. :shrug:

When men want to look like a superpower, they deploy an enormous weapon.

Doesn't matter whether it's of any use, as long as it's big.

[HoreTore]

When men want to look like a superpower, they deploy an enormous weapon.

Doesn't matter whether it's of any use, as long as it's big.

Is this what a saturday night in Banqoustan looks like? ~;)

[Furunculus]

Interesting decision by China. I'm firmly of the belief that, much like the battleship, the days of the super carrier are numbered. We are right on the verge of completely removing pilots from our combat air operations and probably most of the support roles as well, which will allow for far smaller, less expensive, and less vulnerable carriers. I would have thought China would wait until UAV technology went mainstream before jumping into the carrier race, but I guess they already had the Russian one bought and when you're that flush with money, there's no reason to wait. :shrug:

the rise of the UAV is not incompatible with the aircraft carrier, quite the opposite in fact.

[gaelic cowboy]

the rise of the UAV is not incompatible with the aircraft carrier, quite the opposite in fact.


UAV is cheaper than an aircraft carrier with enough of them you could sink an entire fleet, they could be like a swarm of bees the carrier might run out of weapons systems to defend itself.

[Furunculus]

UAV is cheaper than an aircraft carrier with enough of them you could sink an entire fleet, they could be like a swarm of bees the carrier might run out of weapons systems to defend itself.

a uav is a plane without a pilot.

it is still considered useful to fly planes with pilots off aircraft carriers today, just as it will remain useful to fly planes without pilots off carriers tomorrow.

[gaelic cowboy]

a uav is a plane without a pilot.

it is still considered useful to fly planes with pilots off aircraft carriers today, just as it will remain useful to fly planes without pilots off carriers tomorrow.

This changes and sometimes quicker than we like.

An aircraft carrier could potentially run out of UAV's whereas the ground based would be capable of more longterm fighting.

Also people are trying to develop things like underwater UAVs and other cool stuff, I agree with PJ the carrier is likely to head the way of the battleship and sooner than we think.

Everyone was stilll obsessed with battleships in WW2 and they had been already outclassed and no one noticed till it was too late, the same will happen with carriers.

[CBR]

An aircraft carrier could potentially run out of UAV's whereas the ground based would be capable of more longterm fighting.
UAV's are not magic. You could use precisely same argument for ordinary planes yet carriers are still here.


Everyone was stilll obsessed with battleships in WW2 and they had been already outclassed and no one noticed till it was too late, the same will happen with carriers.
Perhaps. But so far that awesome new weapon to outclass the carrier is not here.

[Adrian II]

When men want to look like a superpower, they deploy an enormous weapon.

Doesn't matter whether it's of any use, as long as it's big.

It isn't just big, it projects power onto shores wherever it goes. I guess that is what the Chinese are after. The want control of the South China Sea and a carrier is just the weapon they need in that theatre.

AII

[gaelic cowboy]

UAV's are not magic. You could use precisely same argument for ordinary planes yet carriers are still here.



but they are CHEAP unlike the carrier, jets are the not same in reality they cost millions to run and train the pilots etc, UAV's could be ran autonomously with no need for anything but one fella and a flat field.

[Kagemusha]

I bet China has built it for making itself available for international conflict management. If someone thinks that Chinese are dumb enough to start an arms race with US and spending their wealth by that. I think they are dead wrong. It is far more profitable to keep buying US debt and complain about US defence spending.
The fact is that China does not need a super powerful army to become a superpower and Chinese know that also.

[lars573]

Everyone was stilll obsessed with battleships in WW2 and they had been already outclassed and no one noticed till it was too late, the same will happen with carriers.
And until there is a shooting war that proves that beyond any doubt they will continue to be built. Which you yourself noted.

[CBR]

but they are CHEAP unlike the carrier, jets are the not same in reality they cost millions to run and train the pilots etc, UAV's could be ran autonomously with no need for anything but one fella and a flat field.
a) What makes you think they are cheap. If you look at current costs I doubt many would call them cheap but yeah sure they cost less than F22 and whatnot.

b) UAV's need maintenance like any other craft unless you want them to be used as single shot munitions. And if that is the thing then carriers would also need less crew and could have supply ships deliver more UAV's like they already are getting fuel and ammo.

c) The cheapness and low maintenance of your UAV's is another way of saying that airpower just got even better then before. Carriers now becomes even more important for global power projection.

[Furunculus]

but they are CHEAP unlike the carrier, jets are the not same in reality they cost millions to run and train the pilots etc, UAV's could be ran autonomously with no need for anything but one fella and a flat field.

carrier UAV's will be just as cheap, give or take.

but then just as carriers are expensive so are air-bases, particularly when host-nation-access and host-nation-support comes with a political pricetag attached such as NATO's use of the sicily airbase; oh look, all of a sudden we are willing to take another look at the principle of immigrants always being returned to the first eu nation that gave them access.

carriers may well be superceded, but it hasn't happened yet and it won't be because of UAV's.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Is this what a saturday night in Banqoustan looks like? ~;)

In this damp corner of the world, we have very small weapons and absolutely no desire to use them.

[Centurion1]

carriers are going to be necessary weapons of war for a long time to come.

and uavs will never replace the piloted aircraft.

[Boohugh]

I'd be interested to hear of any significant conflicts within the last 40 years (possibly even since WW2) involving states with operational aircraft carriers where said carriers have not been used? The only one I can think of is Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 but then Russia had a land border so there was no problem in terms of basing and overflight with using land based aircraft. The fact is an aircraft carrier does still have significant practical use in a range of environments and there is nothing to suggest this will change for the time being.

Having said that, however, the launch of this Chinese carrier doesn't really represent any significant change in the situation in the Far East. It should be viewed as a training ship rather than an operational warship and just marks another step in the long chain of events that will eventually lead to China having an operational aircraft carrier.

[HoreTore]

In this damp corner of the world, we have very small weapons and absolutely no desire to use them.

Now I'm confused.

Are we still speaking metaphorically about penises? If so, I do applaud your honesty!!



Though I do feel a little sorry for Ms. Banqou....

[CBR]

...and uavs will never replace the piloted aircraft.
I think you will be surprised...

[Centurion1]

I think you will be surprised...

No I don't think I will...... I live on the base that holds some of the work for the Predator drone (most of it is out in Nevada), the military testing center for the Global Hawk system, the program for the P-7 and F-35. Those are the programs I at least know about. My father is a contractor and troubleshooter for the Navy for their aircraft. Drone work and technology is nowhere near the necessary level required to replace a human pilot. And before you say, now it isn't. I mean it won't be for hundreds of year if ever.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now I'm confused.

Are we still speaking metaphorically about penises? If so, I do applaud your honesty!!

Just as in international relations, a great deal can be achieved with innovative methods that do not rely on penetrative weapons. Only a fool thinks effectiveness is about size. :wink:

[Strike For The South]

That's the 2nd sexual pun I've seen from you today

Let the record show

[HoreTore]

Just as in international relations, a great deal can be achieved with innovative methods that do not rely on penetrative weapons. Only a fool thinks effectiveness is about size. :wink:

:laugh4:

[Centurion1]

Just as in international relations, a great deal can be achieved with innovative methods that do not rely on penetrative weapons. Only a fool thinks effectiveness is about size. :wink:

someone needs to get some....... all these innuendos demonstrate a very antsy gentleman.

[Fisherking]

China acquired the former Russian carrier some time in the early to mid 1990s if my memory serves me correctly.

Someone may know why it took them so long to refit it and put it to sea. On the other hand they are in the process of building their own carrier and may have plans for more.

[Centurion1]

China acquired the former Russian carrier some time in the early to mid 1990s if my memory serves me correctly.

Someone may know why it took them so long to refit it and put it to sea. On the other hand they are in the process of building their own carrier and may have plans for more.

They have to retrofit it for their planes as well as cope with technological advances since the time that russian carrier was commissioned and put to sea.

Retrofitting takes a very long time and they would have to disassemble and then reassemble the carrier for their future plans as well as checking for defunct parts.

[Major Robert Dump]

Papeiwo: I can tell you most assuredly that Special Forces in Afghanistan are not launched or housed or transported in AirCraft Carriers. :)

All: the practical plane vs UAV implications are not the only thing to consider when talking about the effectiveness of a carrier:
-A carrier can transport troops and equipment that can be flown to and from the ship in a manner you cannot muster on a standard vessel.
-Carriers have reactors. They are like their own city. They have enormous humanitarian uses in terms of being able to provide power.

[drone]

China acquired the former Russian carrier some time in the early to mid 1990s if my memory serves me correctly.

Someone may know why it took them so long to refit it and put it to sea. On the other hand they are in the process of building their own carrier and may have plans for more.
They bought the Varyag in 1998. The Soviets/Ukrainians stripped off the weapons, engines, and most systems, so the Chinese essentially bought a hull. They are building 3 others just like it, so I suppose they took it apart for reverse engineering as well. The Chinese had to come up with engines, steering, and just about everything else. Flight ops are a long way off, and until then, I'm not particularly worried. Naval aviation comes with a lot of gotchas.

[Fisherking]

They have to retrofit it for their planes as well as cope with technological advances since the time that russian carrier was commissioned and put to sea.

Retrofitting takes a very long time and they would have to disassemble and then reassemble the carrier for their future plans as well as checking for defunct parts.


ROFLOL!

I know about refitting carriers. But I think I will just leave it at that.

I think they acquired the ship in an uncompleted state and at a time when Russia was not so forthcoming with information needed to complete it.

It has been a long time, but I think it was towed to China and they basically needed to develope the technology to make it work.

At the moment it will a great propaganda weapon.

We will just have to wait and see if they play it safe or if they start trying to intimidate everyone right off the bat.



edit: OK drone.

That adds a little to what I knew.

Thanks.

[Vladimir]

Just as in international relations, a great deal can be achieved with innovative methods that do not rely on penetrative weapons. Only a fool thinks effectiveness is about size. :wink:

Must...hold...puns...

[Centurion1]

ROFLOL!

I know about refitting carriers. But I think I will just leave it at that.

I think they acquired the ship in an uncompleted state and at a time when Russia was not so forthcoming with information needed to complete it.

It has been a long time, but I think it was towed to China and they basically needed to develope the technology to make it work.

At the moment it will a great propaganda weapon.

We will just have to wait and see if they play it safe or if they start trying to intimidate everyone right off the bat.



edit: OK drone.

That adds a little to what I knew.

Thanks.

I have no idea what you find humorous since everything I said was true.

[Fisherking]

I have no idea what you find humorous since everything I said was true.

That was about aircraft carriers and my past history, it was not meant to insult you.

But you might concede that a 13 year refit is just a trifle long.

[Centurion1]

yes of course.

But sometimes retrofitting can actually take longer than starting completely. Look at when you decide to rebuild a house instead of just knocking it down. things you don't expect can come up.

also I accounted for the time they needed to copy it so that they could reverse engineer it later. Sometimes the shell of something is not as easy to work with as you expected. Some things they may have wanted to place on it may not have fitted or been viable and they had to work around all that. Personally if I had been the Chinese I would have bought the hulk studied it for what I needed and then totally started from scratch. Weaponry produced by the nation itself is much more frightening to me than buying other nations scraps and updating its technology. It sort of places you on a separate level when you can build your own aircraft, tanks and aircraft carriers instead of relying on buying them from someone else.

[Tellos Athenaios]

-A carrier can transport troops and equipment that can be flown to and from the ship in a manner you cannot muster on a standard vessel.

I suppose, but the downside to a carrier is that it's very hard to do small deployments. Send away one carrier and that's a huge chunk of power, by contrast converted mercantile ships are more efficient at transport/patrol duty (because: cheap & cheerful way of transporting [attack] helicopters and come with sizeable storage, requires minimal crew).



-Carriers have reactors. They are like their own city. They have enormous humanitarian uses in terms of being able to provide power.
I don't know how that works: I mean that reactor is still only wire up to the carrier itself. Power leads from the carrier while it sits in a harbour? Isn't it easier to just fly in a bunch of dustbin size reactors (the kind which is used for small-ish submarines) and wire them up instead?

Or did you mean as a way to do all sorts of power intensive operations on the carrier itself (i.e. hospitals) ?

[HoreTore]

Anyone thought about checking chinese sources to hear what's up with the carrier? Here's one opinion piece fro the China Daily:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-08/09/content_13079473.htm

[Papewaio]

Papeiwo: I can tell you most assuredly that Special Forces in Afghanistan are not launched or housed or transported in AirCraft Carriers. :)

All: the practical plane vs UAV implications are not the only thing to consider when talking about the effectiveness of a carrier:
-A carrier can transport troops and equipment that can be flown to and from the ship in a manner you cannot muster on a standard vessel.
-Carriers have reactors. They are like their own city. They have enormous humanitarian uses in terms of being able to provide power.

I was thinking about the end of the OBL mission... aren't they used as extraction points and links to hospital ships?

And also for declaring that the mission is over! Worked for GW

=][=

Sorry I've been taking the jarata out of this whole thread. To me I love aircraft carriers as engineering structures that go vroom.

But as a weapon of war? Well they were great in WWII when planes couldn't fly very far. Now that we have weapons that can launch, navigate half way around the world and then the pilot swaps his XBOX controls for the drones controls back at base... it seems to me that AC's are no longer the best or best value for money. Their role seems to be at best propaganda and a place to dump trash from.

However general's always fight current wars with the last wars best.

Considering this is an asymetrical war and may be the face of more things to come. Carriers are really for a symetrical war and probably only a conventional one. So is thinking starting to change about force structure to fight the future wars?

My point of view, China has built a weapon that is not only out of date for its type, but the whole platform is out of date.

[Boohugh]

it seems to me that AC's are no longer the best or best value for money.

It was costing the UK about £60 million a month (on top of normal maintenance costs) at the start of the Libya campaign to fight the air campaign because of the costs of flying all the way from the UK and air-to-air refuelling a number of times and then the cost of transferring all the RAF aircraft/personnel/equipment to Italy. The cost if we still had an aircraft carrier to fight the same campaign? £45 million...a year! There's your cost effectiveness for you.

Oh and regarding Afghanistan and the use of aircraft carriers, just take a look at this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12323351) article.

[CBR]

And before you say, now it isn't. I mean it won't be for hundreds of year if ever.
The USAF is planning for several autonomous systems in their 2009-2047 plan though.

Here is a Popular Mechanics article about it: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/military/4347306

There is very little to suggest that the technological progress is slowing down, AFAIK it is more like accelerating, so there should be nothing that prevents the hardware from delivering what is needed. Our understanding of AI only gets better by the day.

With no risks of dead or captured pilots and unmanned aircraft more and more capable it is only a matter of time before pilots are left at home.

[Centurion1]

The USAF is planning for several autonomous systems in their 2009-2047 plan though.

Here is a Popular Mechanics article about it: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/military/4347306

There is very little to suggest that the technological progress is slowing down, AFAIK it is more like accelerating, so there should be nothing that prevents the hardware from delivering what is needed. Our understanding of AI only gets better by the day.

With no risks of dead or captured pilots and unmanned aircraft more and more capable it is only a matter of time before pilots are left at home.

Jamming, EMP, threats of collateral damage, ethical concerns, the list goes on and on for many different reasons on why manned aircraft can never be truly replaced. You may see more purely attack style UAV's but the kinds of planes needed for air superiority will always be manned by a human being.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA397852

Thats an article which can pretty much sum up the opinions of both sides. The author is pretty pro UAV and I think far too speculative when addressing what he believes to be the future of aviation. Some good stuff in it though.


As for the whole era of the aircraft carrier being over :rolleyes:

FORCE PROJECTION FORCE PROJECTION FORCE PROJECTION why do you think america can maintain such a strong superpower presence? Carriers. Every country wants one and no country wants to lose the ones they have. They are the greatest wartime invention of the navy in the last 100 years.

[Papewaio]

You do realise that EMP shielding is so common nowadays that most houses have at least one shield.

[Centurion1]

You do realise that EMP shielding is so common nowadays that most houses have at least one shield.

:rolleyes: you dont think military grade hardware can cut through even the obvious shielding they likely place on UAVS? And not to mention that if UAVS come to prominence jammers and emp style weaponry will be the new AA guns of the future.

[Papewaio]

EMP isn't such a bad thing for airplanes afterall most can survive a lightning strike. However if a pulse took out the avionics it would down a plane with or without a pilot unless it's a relatively primitive plane.

What would be easier to replace a drone or piloted plane?

[Greyblades]

Are we sure they have a carrier, and arent just using movie footage like they did with the J-10's?

[CBR]

Jamming
Will hurt a robot as much as a human pilot: potentially less info from other sensors and not getting updated orders. It will hurt remotely piloted aircraft which is why autonomy is important.

EMP
If electronics can be hurt so will ordinary airplanes be hurt too as they all need a computer just to stay in the air.


threats of collateral damage, ethical concerns
That assumes robots will be worse than a human being under stress. When Google robotic cars eventual come out as being safer in traffic than human drivers, it won't be long before it will be a public demand for making such tech mandatory. The voices of people who love their freedom to text, talk and kill while they drive will eventually be a minority.

When people realise robots do stuff faster and more accurately in war, then any resistance will slowly fade. When leaders discover that their fancy drones that kill all carriers (heh) still can't win wars by themselves, then sending in the robo boots to hold ground in a "clean" way seems like a great option.

When the poor masses riots because they can't find any jobs that haven't been taken over by robots, the rest of us will happily watch the news of RiotRoboCops beating up rioters making arrests to restore order.

George Lucas will find yet another way of making profit by making CP3O's and R2D2's (and Greedos who shoot first without doubt!) for the ever hungry fans, and the sex industry will give new meaning to the term 3D p0rn.

In other words: robots will be one of the biggest revolutions for humanity and we won't fear them when we eventually understand that a proper algorithm is better than us irrational meatbags taking decisions under severe stress. Flying or no flying.


You may see more purely attack style UAV's but the kinds of planes needed for air superiority will always be manned by a human being.
Actually air superiority will be the easiest as air bases, defenses and planes are easy to keep a check on compared to human targets on the ground. Since stealth also plays a role in air to air some might be tempted into getting smaller and cheaper UAVs that under normal circumstances would not be acceptable to put pilots in.


Thats an article which can pretty much sum up the opinions of both sides.
Article is from 1997 with the author simply dismissing AI by coming up with a list of humans taking good decisions, as well as examples of how hard it is for engineers to come up with all scenarios so a smart UAV might make mistakes. All very nice but that does not mean AI can't get as good. The author got a masters degree in aeronautical engineering in 1992 so not much to do with AI.

Experienced but tired and distracted pilots who get a stall warning might do the stupid and deadly thing and try to pull up. Does that mean we should ban humans from the cockpit? Maybe we should as an AI don't get tired.

He does mention one case from the Gulf War where a pilot prevented a blue on blue, even though the area was supposed to be free from friendlies. But what about all the cases where pilots failed?

So if both the pilots and the AI designers are flawed then it is more a question of who has the least flaws. As it is not easy to improve on the basic Homo Sapiens mark I without turning them into Borg, then the software of the AI might be the future as one can always improve on it.

But it will without doubt take several decades to get there. But we are talking decades and not centuries. If the futurist Raymond Kurzweil is right then we are about 40 years away from the "Technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)" and then things become real interesting and also impossible to predict.

[drone]

Are we sure they have a carrier, and arent just using movie footage like they did with the J-10's? Yes, they definitely bought the Varyag from the Ukrainians.

[Centurion1]

Actually air superiority will be the easiest as air bases, defenses and planes are easy to keep a check on compared to human targets on the ground. Since stealth also plays a role in air to air some might be tempted into getting smaller and cheaper UAVs that under normal circumstances would not be acceptable to put pilots in.

This imo is one of the biggest flaws in the war time western psyche of late. The western world has not been required to truly fight for air superiority since WW2. an air war hasn't been in doubt since. We move into these third world countries that Air superiority is considered to be a given. Air superiority involves a concept known as dogfights. Remotely controlled UAV's can never match a real human pilot in air to air fighting.

[Papewaio]

Airframes can stand more Gs then a human.

An operator could at the same time instruct multiple semi-autonomous drones to engage a target. Each one smaller (harder to hit, see with eyes or radar) and much much more agile. And guess what... The drone pilots will be calmer and learn faster... Because they get to live even if a drone doesn't. Also you can kamikaze a drone

[drone]

Remotely controlled UAV's can never match a real human pilot in air to air fighting.
A fighter-style UAV will be smaller and lighter (no pilot pod and related life support systems), and will pull more Gs than a pilot is capable of sustaining.

[Brenus]

A no-pilot plane killing other planes is called a AA missile.

[Furunculus]

we have the Taranis autonomous UCAV in development today, but britain doesn't expect to field squadrons of such craft until 2035, or halfway through the new QE class carriers lives, and even then they won't replace manned fighter jets for at least another fifteen years after that.

carriers remain the premier tool of sovereign and strategic power projection. end of.

[Adrian II]

This imo is one of the biggest flaws in the war time western psyche of late. The western world has not been required to truly fight for air superiority since WW2. an air war hasn't been in doubt since. We move into these third world countries that Air superiority is considered to be a given. Air superiority involves a concept known as dogfights. Remotely controlled UAV's can never match a real human pilot in air to air fighting.

Good point. In a wider sense, our tech superiority has led us to believe that boots on the ground often aren't necessary to accomplish a mission. In the end, the bloody infantry is going to have to take that hill or town if you want to control an area.

AII

[Centurion1]

Good point. In a wider sense, our tech superiority has led us to believe that boots on the ground often aren't necessary to accomplish a mission. In the end, the bloody infantry is going to have to take that hill or town if you want to control an area.

AII

Not even that. The west has lost touch with the pure carnage that is true conventional war on a large scale. The west does not even truly understand how even the civilian population suffers in large scale war. It is ominous for the future when people become completely immune to the pervading sense of doom that used to accompany war.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Which funnily enough is one good argument for reducing military spending as much as possible, and then some.

[CBR]

... It is ominous for the future when people become completely immune to the pervading sense of doom that used to accompany war.
People cheered in the streets when the war started in 1914, 25 years later not so.

I don't think there ever really has been a sense of impending doom unless people knew they were off to fight an impossible or difficult war. But generally the Western countries don't have citizens that are as willing compared to the good old days.

Some are obviously fearing that modern wars feel too much like video games and wars might become easier to get involved in or just more brutal. That might be a risk although I still doubt we will get back to the senseless slaughter as seen in earlier times.

[Vladimir]

A no-pilot plane killing other planes is called a AA missile.

Exactly! Aerial combat within visual range went out of style in Vietnam so advanced targeting and countermeasures are more important than maneuverability.

[Centurion1]

Exactly! Aerial combat within visual range went out of style in Vietnam so advanced targeting and countermeasures are more important than maneuverability.

actually that was the goal of Vietnam..... they appeared to have jumped the gun. They ended up havignt o put traditional cannons back on the Phantom because they were getting torn up at close range by NVA fighters.

[Vladimir]

actually that was the goal of Vietnam..... they appeared to have jumped the gun. They ended up havignt o put traditional cannons back on the Phantom because they were getting torn up at close range by NVA fighters.

The issue was that when that happened the U.S. fighters didn't even have that option, not that close-in dogfights were the standard.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think people in any era have realized the doom that war brings until their relatives/husband went off or until some sort of bomb/explosive set off near by their house. Every citizen has to see and feel the carnage with their own senses before they realize what it really is like. During times of peace however, this never happens, so the collective naturally becomes more willing to go to war after a decade or two at peace because they forget and new citizens never learned it to begin with. This isn't something that can really be helped. Human psychology is such that we make mistakes over and over again because we like to push out the bad feelings associated with some knowledge we have acquired. It seems to me like being unaware of the carnage of war is this psychological practice on a nationwide scale.

Idk, maybe that is just my poor justification at why countries are willing to go to war so often even if an entire continent was destroyed just a few generations ago.

[Montmorency]

It is ominous for the future when people become completely immune to the pervading sense of doom that used to accompany war.

Pre-modern War - "WAAAAARGGH! Let's kill us some humiez 'not-us's, boyz!" Agrarians: "Aww, go ahead and take the food - again. You bullies. AHHH, NO, WAIT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS! YOU NEEEED MEEEEEEE urrggkk...chchch...

Early Modern War - "Kill the Huegenots!" "Kill the Papists!" "Kill the heathens!" "Hang those bloody rebels!"

WW1 - "Make me a sammich, woman: the war's on. All bets are on the home team."

WW2 - "What, this again? Hey, let's breakdance!"

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/tumblr_lgdyrxY9C21qbjz0go1_500.jpgKorean War - "Who cares?"

European Colonial Wars - "Alright, that's enough."

Vietnam - "Um...WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR, ABSOLUTELY NO-THING, HEUGH, WAR! Yea-yea-yea-yea...

Late 20th Century Interventions - " This ain't so bad. Woohoo, America wins! FOREVER.

Iraq & Afghanistan - "Yeah, git those turbanned terrorists! PEW PEW PEW"

The Next War - "All meatbags must be terminated."


I don't think people in any era have realized the doom that war brings until their relatives/husband went off or until some sort of bomb/explosive set off near by their house. Every citizen has to see and feel the carnage with their own senses before they realize what it really is like. During times of peace however, this never happens, so the collective naturally becomes more willing to go to war after a decade or two at peace because they forget and new citizens never learned it to begin with. This isn't something that can really be helped. Human psychology is such that we make mistakes over and over again because we like to push out the bad feelings associated with some knowledge we have acquired. It seems to me like being unaware of the carnage of war is this psychological practice on a nationwide scale.

As the entrepeneur Clark Blaine once said, "History doesn't repeat - but humans sure do."

[Vladimir]

Pre-modern War - "WAAAAARGGH! Let's kill us some humiez 'not-us's, boyz!" Agrarians: "Aww, go ahead and take the food - again. You bullies. AHHH, NO, WAIT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS! YOU NEEEED MEEEEEEE urrggkk...chchch...

Early Modern War - "Kill the Huegenots!" "Kill the Papists!" "Kill the heathens!" "Hang those bloody rebels!"

WW1 - "Make me a sammich, woman: the war's on. All bets are on the home team."

WW2 - "What, this again? Hey, let's breakdance!"

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/tumblr_lgdyrxY9C21qbjz0go1_500.jpgKorean War - "Who cares?"

European Colonial Wars - "Alright, that's enough."

Vietnam - "Um...WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR, ABSOLUTELY NO-THING, HEUGH, WAR! Yea-yea-yea-yea...

Late 20th Century Interventions - " This ain't so bad. Woohoo, America wins! FOREVER.

Iraq & Afghanistan - "Yeah, git those turbanned terrorists! PEW PEW PEW"

The Next War - "All meatbags must be terminated."



As the entrepeneur Clark Blaine once said, "History doesn't repeat - but humans sure do."

Here you go: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?63332-The-Drunkards-tThread.

[Montmorency]

:rolleyes:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Submarine, unmanned aircraft carriers are next in the pipeline. There is no other way. Super carriers are the battleships of our day, evoking the most nationalist emotion, but being sitting ducks for super-modern war technology.

Information Dissemination (http://www.informationdissemination.net/) is one of my favorite military blogs. The site admin/main writer is a smart guy.


Retired Army Major General Robert Scales gave an entertaining and animated talk, presumably representing “land power” during the CNA forum. Not once—but twice—General Scales blithely dismissed even the possibility of war with China. No, the General indicated, we will continue to face untidy land engagements all over the world and that will dominate our security environment (this is of course, the very basis of the Army’s latest Operational Concept which—in my opinion—enshrines “Ever-war”). During the Q and A—I rose and asked something very much like the following question: “General, we’ve heard speaker after speaker here today repeat how bad we are at predicting the future. But we got it right—really right—once, and no one seems to remember that. In the 1940’s, we made the prediction that a war with the Soviet Union would be ruinous—not just for them, but for us and the rest of the world. That prediction then animated much of our grand strategy for 45 years. In your presentation—I have heard you dismiss even the possibility of war with China twice. Given that such a war would likely be ruinous also, should we not be as a nation, devoting much energy and resources to deterring THAT war?” Scales was gracious in his answer, and he backtracked a bit. He granted the importance of preparing for conflict with China, and he conceded that we had indeed gotten the Cold War prediction right. Which brings me to my point (thanks for staying with me).

We must as a nation, face the possibility that the United States will someday fight a war with China. We must recognize that the way of human existence seems to presuppose conflict between a rising power and the status quo power where interests intersect. We must recognize that this conflict would be ruinous to China, to our nation, and potentially to much of the world. We must recognize that the central tenet of our national security strategy must be to ensure that such a war never happens. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

UAVs will become a tool of the future. They will probably NOT replace all piloted combat planes, but will take over for quite a percentage of them.

As pappy noted above:

You can manuever to the limits of the airframe, not the pilot. Some airframes could handle 20g turns, almost certainly lethal to a human pilot.
You can take risks you would never take with a pilot.
You can pack more of them into a given space for transport/deployment.
You can minimize physical limitations on piloting. A drone with pilots taking over at intervals, can be flown to the limits of required maintenance, not human endurance.
Drone carriers, because of size and recovery differences, could be made (are?) using large submersible hulls for maximum stealth.

The carrier China is fielding is a ramp carrier. This is a no-doubt electronically updated version of what Maggie's mariners sailed into harm's way in the Falklands. Air supremacy did not come quickly in the Falklands and one Chinese carrier cannot radically alter the power projection ability of the Chinese. It will serve as a testbed and training tool, and may be a harbinger of much change in the future, but of itself is a little limited.

The USA is already working hard to move past the supercarrier that has so dominated naval thinking during the last 4 decades. They are too large a target in the era of stealth technology. Though by no means obsolete, the carrier's current iteration isn't really very different in thinking from the Lady Lex, the Shokaku, or the Ark Royal. It needs to move in a different direction entirely.

EDIT: American exceptionalist that I am, I chuckled over the Chinese shipyard crane labels.

[Vladimir]

I'll let you guys make the call on this one:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/the-horribly-tacky-interior-of-chinas-aircraft-carrier-is-perfect-for-karaoke-nights/

[Adrian II]

I'll let you guys make the call on this one:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/the-horribly-tacky-interior-of-chinas-aircraft-carrier-is-perfect-for-karaoke-nights/

Better leave this one for Gregoshi.

AII

[drone]

The Chinese bought the Kiev as well? Being used as a target ship would have been a more dignified end than this. That's decorating straight out of the 70s, all that's missing is orange shag carpeting.

When the Chinese bought the Varyag, I think the original plan was to turn it into a floating casino. Or at least that was the cover story.

[Papewaio]

They are just admitting that it's a gamble and the odds are against them. Still they have plenty of labour and cash to spare on a roll of the dice. Of course they always bet Red...

[Shaka_Khan]

The USAF is planning for several autonomous systems in their 2009-2047 plan though.

Here is a Popular Mechanics article about it: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/military/4347306

There is very little to suggest that the technological progress is slowing down, AFAIK it is more like accelerating, so there should be nothing that prevents the hardware from delivering what is needed. Our understanding of AI only gets better by the day.

With no risks of dead or captured pilots and unmanned aircraft more and more capable it is only a matter of time before pilots are left at home.
Plus, people who control the unmanned aircraft will do more risky maneuvers and do tremendous Gs. They'll get better and better through experience.
This reminds me of the US and Japan in WWII. Different air war policies involving the parachute made the US not run out of experienced pilots when compared to Japan.


I don't think people in any era have realized the doom that war brings until their relatives/husband went off or until some sort of bomb/explosive set off near by their house. Every citizen has to see and feel the carnage with their own senses before they realize what it really is like. During times of peace however, this never happens, so the collective naturally becomes more willing to go to war after a decade or two at peace because they forget and new citizens never learned it to begin with. This isn't something that can really be helped. Human psychology is such that we make mistakes over and over again because we like to push out the bad feelings associated with some knowledge we have acquired. It seems to me like being unaware of the carnage of war is this psychological practice on a nationwide scale.

Idk, maybe that is just my poor justification at why countries are willing to go to war so often even if an entire continent was destroyed just a few generations ago.
I remember wondering if I'd ever want to watch another violent action movie or play a war game after witnessing 9-11.

[Double A]

I must have missed the part of the discussion where it said that UAVs have unlimited range. Can someone tell me why all carriers are supposedly becoming totally obsolete?

[Centurion1]

I must have missed the part of the discussion where it said that UAVs have unlimited range. Can someone tell me why all carriers are supposedly becoming totally obsolete?

They aren't. It appears everybody here seems to missing the concept of Force projection and creating an air field in a theater immeadiately......

[Papewaio]

Part of the reason one needed aircraft carriers are the range of the aircraft.

If UAVs become more common, how is an aircraft carrier going to defend itself against a squadron of UAVs that are doing 20G turns, can fire ordance, and if required ram the carrier with no loss of life from the attacker... and the UAVs could be piloted from the other side of the world or semi-autonomous. Just on a cost per unit... aren't UAVs already cheaper and easier to fly further?

Force projection would be getting boots on the ground... so more ships that can move more people. I can see the aircraft carriers becoming support platforms to aid the local fleet and launch more UAVs and provide emergency landing zones for them.
Carriers for manned aircraft themselves aren't going to be the centrepiece for much longer.

[Furunculus]

how is an airbase going to defend itself?

carriers are going nowhere, but they will certainly have an increasing proportion of UCAV's relative to manned platforms.

carriers are hard to find, and hard to keep pinned-down.
carriers don't come with the political cost of host-nation-support.
carriers obviate many problems with overflight airspace access.
carriers can reduce response time to a fraction that of land-based options.
carriers enable sovereign and strategic power-projection.

[Centurion1]

well when you can teleport me strike fighter in theater from airbases halfway across the world ill admit the dying out of the carrier.

until then anyone arguing the carriers lifespan is almost over appears to have a poor grasp of a modern battlefield, warfare capabilities and just plain foolish.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can imagine an entirely UAV filled carrier stocked with hundreds of UAVs, the crew only there to steer the ship and maintain it and the UAV's. Then when it is time to fight the UAV's all come out like bees from a hive and swarm.

Now that makes me **** bricks. Roaming bee hives except the bees have bombs.

[Centurion1]

I can imagine an entirely UAV filled carrier stocked with hundreds of UAVs, the crew only there to steer the ship and maintain it and the UAV's. Then when it is time to fight the UAV's all come out like bees from a hive and swarm.

Now that makes me **** bricks. Roaming bee hives except the bees have bombs.

the key part of that is that there is still a carrier.....

[a completely inoffensive name]

the key part of that is that there is still a carrier.....

Never denied that there would still be carriers.

[Centurion1]

Never denied that there would still be carriers.

I know i was just playing off what you said of everyone saying carriers are outdated.

I think its all just jealousy of not having your own mobile airbase..... I don't see furnunclus or louis saying carriers are outdated :clown:

[Montmorency]

It never pays to be shortsighted when it comes to military affairs. DARPA, for example, has initiated a Hundred Year Starship Study. (http://www.100yss.org/about.html)


The 100 Year Starship Study aims to culminate in the creation of a self-sustaining organization that will tackle all the issues and challenges inherent in long duration interstellar space flight.

I'm sure that their weapons research programs are similarly far-sighted.

[Papewaio]

Carriers can still be sunk and they are more in danger as technology increases. They are large, slow moving targets which will be even more prone as the UAVs become more modernized.

Just look at the leaps and bounds in the last ten years.

As for strike fighters the only reason they aren't already UAVs is not going to be a technical limitation for long. Remove the cockpit and life-support and you essentially have a lighter fighter that can perform more Gs. How is a manned aircraft going to combat it any better when the missiles are over the horizon threats already?

I can see fighters being dual control with them being UAV capable so the pilot can sleep on long hauls or potentially fly the plane to the airfield where the pilot is waiting. Even a zombie option if the pilot is incapacitated and the airframe still flying.

I think the pinnacle of aircraft carriers for manned craft has peaked.

Helicopter carriers, assault ships, hospital ships and even aircraft carriers will remain... The ac will not be the centerpiece anymore and that will be apparent with the amount of ordnance and the priority of the targets being attacked with UAVs ever increasing.

This will become more apparent when a scenario happens with aircraft carriers and UAVs on both sides of a conflict.

[Shibumi]

Carriers can still be sunk and they are more in danger as technology increases. They are large, slow moving targets which will be even more prone as the UAVs become more modernized.

Just look at the leaps and bounds in the last ten years.

As for strike fighters the only reason they aren't already UAVs is not going to be a technical limitation for long. Remove the cockpit and life-support and you essentially have a lighter fighter that can perform more Gs. How is a manned aircraft going to combat it any better when the missiles are over the horizon threats already?

I can see fighters being dual control with them being UAV capable so the pilot can sleep on long hauls or potentially fly the plane to the airfield where the pilot is waiting. Even a zombie option if the pilot is incapacitated and the airframe still flying.

I think the pinnacle of aircraft carriers for manned craft has peaked.

Helicopter carriers, assault ships, hospital ships and even aircraft carriers will remain... The ac will not be the centerpiece anymore and that will be apparent with the amount of ordnance and the priority of the targets being attacked with UAVs ever increasing.

This will become more apparent when a scenario happens with aircraft carriers and UAVs on both sides of a conflict.

But it wont.

If any of the A nations goes up against another A nation, the world at large will suffer. Much better to play it safe, and bash down C nations, to keep the population in a constant state of warfare without actually having to do all the menial, pesky and bloody things that actual warfare consists of. Such as the enemy fighting back.

George Orwell was clearly the last centurys greatest thinker, but I doubt he wanted 1984 to be read as a manifesto.

And THAT is the reason why UAVs will dominate more and more. It is still such a burden that actual people die in these wars that are not wars, their families will start doing stupid things such as raise complaints. Much better to do the daily drone lost count, keep the nation at a high alert, and have people work their *** off to support the troops.