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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

... 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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!"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/...jz0go1_500.jpg

Korean 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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACIN

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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!"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/...jz0go1_500.jpg

Korean 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/showt...nkards-tThread.

:rolleyes:

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 is one of my favorite military blogs. The site admin/main writer is a smart guy.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...araoke-nights/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...araoke-nights/

---

Better leave this one for Gregoshi.

AII

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

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/tech...litary/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I remember wondering if I'd ever want to watch another violent action movie or play a war game after witnessing 9-11.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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

---

Never denied that there would still be carriers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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:

It never pays to be shortsighted when it comes to military affairs. DARPA, for example, has initiated a Hundred Year Starship Study.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.