OT: China's new carrier

[ShadoWarrior]

Remember that thing about over-reliance on technology?

Yes. In this case it's replacing a very expensive, technologically very complex manned plane with a much cheaper, less complex unmanned one. So your point is what?

Using something newer isn't automatically bad. Or is nothing short of lining up hordes of troops and having them toss rocks at enemies going to please you? No western country can afford to field a massive "low tech" (50-70s level) army. Hell, the current Libya thing is showing just how poorly Europe is prepared to handle even a short duration 'war' against a third-rate country. Several of the NATO participants are already running low on ammo (which the US is having to supply in the interim), and that's not even the best high-tech stuff such as cruise missiles, just the sort of bombs and missiles that were used as far back as Gulf War I. So any force multiplier, such as cheaper unmanned drones that don't cost friendly lives and a whopping amount of money if lost is a smart idea. The alternative is worse. If you have a better idea regarding using tech to solve manpower and cost problems (other than to not fight at all, which is an entirely different discussion), I'll be interested to hear it.

[RN7]

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?

This is an aerospace technology that could to a certain extent level the playing field. Advanced manned combat jet aircraft are very expensive to develop and manufacture, and this is an area where America is unquestionably ahead of the rest of the world, as America's main competitors dont have the money (Russia), the technology (China, India) or the political will/unity (Europe) to fully compete. The development of combat UCAV's could give other countries a chance to catch up to a degree with American aerospace technological dominance in the future.

[ShadoWarrior]

The UK (RAF) also has their own (and impressive) UCAV development program. They just aren't throwing as much money at it, nor publicizing it as much as the US Navy and Air Force programs.

[RN7]

The UK (RAF) also has their own (and impressive) UCAV development program. They just aren't throwing as much money at it, nor publicizing it as much as the US Navy and Air Force programs.

Well I would consider Britain's aerospace industry among the strongest in the world, mainly due to BAE Systems and Rolls Royce plc. I would also argue that Rolls Royce plc is the most important industrial company in Europe, and its notable how the British government has never let it be taken over by a rival company or a foreign based concern despite its relatively small size.

Unfortunately Britain is part of the EU, and the British government insists on cooperating with other European countries in defence matters, supposedly to save money in R&D and manufacturing. However most of these project always end up over budget and lead to squabling, and usually harm its competiveness and potential marketability.

[Webstral]

I agree with previous posters that eschewing technology becomes almost an article of faith. Nations don,c,"t lose wars because they have incorporated new technologies. Nations lose wars because they have poor strategy, poor doctrine, poor leadership (there are no poor soldiers,c,,"only poor leaders), logistics that aren,c,"t equal to the task, or don,c,"t know how to make the most of the technology they possess. To the degree that reliance on new technology supplants leadership, doctrine, and motivation, it is possible to become over-reliant on technology. However, a military that goes down this path has deeper problems than new gadgets.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

I agree with previous posters that eschewing technology becomes almost an article of faith. Nations don,c,"t lose wars because they have incorporated new technologies. Nations lose wars because they have poor strategy, poor doctrine, poor leadership (there are no poor soldiers,c,,"only poor leaders), logistics that aren,c,"t equal to the task, or don,c,"t know how to make the most of the technology they possess. To the degree that reliance on new technology supplants leadership, doctrine, and motivation, it is possible to become over-reliant on technology. However, a military that goes down this path has deeper problems than new gadgets.

Webstral

Pretty much what I was trying to say. Also over-reliance in technology actualy increases the amount of conflicts a nation is willing to fight.

Increases in technology has reduced casualties, reduced risk and has therefore made governments MORE willing to deploy a military option, believing (mistakenly as history has recently proved) that such technology will enable a quick and bloodless victory.

This lures nations into conflicts where they believe the tech advantage will secure victory in a shot space of time but as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proved, the enemy just develops tactics and stratagies that lower or negate the tech advantage and leaves the more modern nations in a conflict they have not really anticiapted or prepared for.

Hell the Iraq war strategy was nothing more than "blow the bastards to hell with our superior air force, blitzkrieg to Baghdad with our superior armour and enjoy the sun while the Iraqi people shower us in flowers and thank us for ridding them of Saddam"

The resulting mess is mostly due to lack of any real strategy for dealing with an insurgency or rebuilding post-war, we expected to go in, kill the bad guys and go home.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Congratulations to the ChiComs. They now have exactly the same amount of fleet air power that Brazil, Thailand, France, India, Spain, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have.

We've got 11 active and more that could be made active if the need were pressing.

The Soviets never, ever managed to get the Kiev nor its aircraft working right.

I hate to sound like one of "those" Americans, and pride goeth before the fall and blah blah blah but honestly we've perfected blue water Naval ops to a fine art in the 20th century and we're pretty much the only country to do carriers "right", ever.

If China wants to fuck around with a through deck cruiser and join the CV club they're welcome to try. Lots of luck with that 40 year old tub. On the other hand if China wants to put us in our place they should just do it like they're planning to do: via Citibank and the Federal Reserve. A lot simpler and so easy we won't even feel it until its too late. Then our CVNs will in actuality belong to them without them having to sink a one.

Remember the scene in Jericho? "DO NOT FIGHT. CHINA IS YOUR FRIEND."

[LBraden]

Er, I think you got it wrong Sir, the Fleet Air Arm is no longer an effective force due to the Tories cuts, we have NO force, even if we re-activate Ark Royal, all she will be able to use is Lynx and Sea Kings, no attack craft - AT ALL, not until 2018, and that's IF the F-35 actually does work properly.

I have had a friend of mine from Denmark joke that even the Danish Navy could take out the RN now.

[ShadoWarrior]

China is no one's friend. All you have to do is ask the Tibetans, the Vietnamese, or the Indians, just to name a few.

[mikeo80]

IF The Chi-Com's wanted to sink a CVA

IMHO, the Chinese could sink one of our Nimitz class carriers.

Imagine this scenario:

The Chi-com's threaten Taiwan. They start massing what blue water craft the have with loads of landing craft.

The POTUS orders 7th Fleet closer to support Taiwan. Say about 2-300 miles from Taiwan.

As of today, there is one (yes only one!!) Nimitz class carrier based in a forward staging area, the U.S.S. George Washington. Carrier is based in Japan.

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/forces.htm

So, the GW and supporting ships and subs head for Taiwan.

Once on station, the GW could start air power projection flights.

one small problem.

the 1000 - 2000 cigarrette boats that China sends at the 7th fleet. Each carring about 750-1000 pounds of HE.

Will the Chi-coms loose a lot of little boats? Sure....

Will the USA loose a Nimitz class CVA and all of the prestege attached to that ship? At least maybe... And that is with no nukes!! I would think that the CHi-com's do NOT want to poke that particular stick in Uncle Sam's Eye.

my $0.02 !

Mike

[Webstral]

,c,,|over-reliance in technology [actually] increases the amount of conflicts a nation is willing to fight.

Increases in technology has reduced casualties, reduced risk and has therefore made governments MORE willing to deploy a military option, believing (mistakenly as history has recently proved) that such technology will enable a quick and bloodless victory.
This lures nations into conflicts where they believe the tech advantage will secure victory in a shot space of time but as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proved, the enemy just develops tactics and stratagies that lower or negate the tech advantage and leaves the more modern nations in a conflict they have not really anticipated or prepared for.

Over-reliance on technology to solve problems of asymmetrical warfare, which the NLF practiced in Vietnam, is a symptom of a bigger problem. Reliance on mass, patriotic fervor, , (c)lan, reprisals against civilians, etc. are symptomatic of immaturity at the highest levels of command and, in the case of nations with representative governments, immaturity among the body politic. Under the stress of warfare real or threatened, nations reflexively turn to whatever advantage they perceive themselves to possess. In the case of the US during the run-up to American assumption of the main Western effort in Vietnam, a fervent belief in the myth of international Communism combined with more-or-less successful containment efforts in Greece and Indonesia led us down the garden path. Once there, we invested what we had the most of: money. Our investment in Vietnam was characterized less by the use of technology than by a staggering investment of funds. From an ethical standpoint, we also allowed ourselves to benchmark our willingness to take life in the pursuit of objectives against the policy of bombing Japan. Without commenting on whether LeMay,c,"s doctrine was appropriate or necessary, the level of destruction that became associated with victory over Japan led to an excessive hard-heartedness on the part of American commanders charged with saving from Communism the very people on whom they were unleashing unprecedented levels of firepower. American involvement in Vietnam was a product of paranoia about Communism. American investment in Vietnam was characterized by a lavish expenditure of funding on the sorts of things we like to spend money on: hardware, infrastructure (think Cam Ran Bay), things that go boom, and good living for the troops. Technology, though an important component of the overall scheme, was incidental to the willingness to spend, spend, spend and take as many Vietnamese lives as necessary to achieve victory using tools ill-suited to the war actually being fought.

The problem of immaturity is not unique to the United States. I dare say it is ubiquitous. Immaturity at the top of the American leadership ladder and among the body politic is more noticeable in the modern world because the United States has had the means since World War Two to undertake endeavors not possible for other nations. If French and British immaturities appear less pronounced than American immaturity, it,c,"s because circumstances have imposed sharper limits on French and British opportunities for poor decision-making on the global stage. China,c,"s expansion is so remarkable partially because it reflects good decision-making on the part of virtual autocrats who are under limited obligation to make good decisions.

Hell the Iraq war strategy was nothing more than "blow the bastards to hell with our superior air force, blitzkrieg to Baghdad with our superior armour and enjoy the sun while the Iraqi people shower us in flowers and thank us for ridding them of Saddam"

The resulting mess is mostly due to lack of any real strategy for dealing with an insurgency or rebuilding post-war, we expected to go in, kill the bad guys and go home.

This is a perfect example of the maturity challenge. The technologically advanced US military did exactly what it was supposed to do. The defending conventional forces were eliminated at a very low cost in Blue Force casualties and modest civilian casualties. It,c,"s hard to find fault with technology or a so-called over-reliance on it here. The fact that the US military was charged with a mission with no substantive follow-on plan demonstrates that the civilian leadership of the day lacked the maturity to question the underlying assumption that once freed from the thirty-year reign of Saddam Hussein the Iraqi people would promptly become good citizens of a presumably emergent democracy. The voices of reason, like General Shinseki, were thrown out on their ears for suggesting that the US would have to pay for 350,000 troops to keep law and order during the post-liberation process. This has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with simple immaturity. The body politic, who should have reacted to the lack of any decent post-liberation plan of action by demanding that Congress get control of the situation before the troops were committed, instead acted as willing accomplices. Reliance on technology is a symptom of wealth and immaturity.


Webstral

[RN7]

IMHO, the Chinese could sink one of our Nimitz class carriers.

Imagine this scenario:

The Chi-com's threaten Taiwan. They start massing what blue water craft the have with loads of landing craft.

The POTUS orders 7th Fleet closer to support Taiwan. Say about 2-300 miles from Taiwan.

As of today, there is one (yes only one!!) Nimitz class carrier based in a forward staging area, the U.S.S. George Washington. Carrier is based in Japan.

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/forces.htm

So, the GW and supporting ships and subs head for Taiwan.

Once on station, the GW could start air power projection flights.

one small problem.

the 1000 - 2000 cigarrette boats that China sends at the 7th fleet. Each carring about 750-1000 pounds of HE.

Will the Chi-coms loose a lot of little boats? Sure....

Will the USA loose a Nimitz class CVA and all of the prestege attached to that ship? At least maybe... And that is with no nukes!! I would think that the CHi-com's do NOT want to poke that particular stick in Uncle Sam's Eye.

my $0.02 !

Mike

I think a bit of wishfull thinking here. If China seriously started an invasion of Taiwan the US Navy would be sending a lot more than one aircraft carrier into the area, and in addition to the navy fighters there are a lot of Marine and USAF combat aircraft already in the Far East, and a lot more could be there in a few days.

[ShadoWarrior]

I think a bit of wishfull thinking here. If China seriously started an invasion of Taiwan the US Navy would be sending a lot more than one aircraft carrier into the area, and in addition to the navy fighters there are a lot of Marine and USAF combat aircraft already in the Far East, and a lot more could be there in a few days.

True. But the real trick is for the very limited in-theater forces to be able to delay the oncoming Chinese horde long enough for those reserves to make it across the Pacific. The ROC, Japanese, US, Aussie, and ROK military units in the theater really don't have the power to stop an all-out invasion. Only the threat of a US escalation to nuclear really keeps China from munching on Taiwan today.

In the meantime, China continues to play the long game of destabilizing the economies and political will of its opponents and bides its time, hoping that some really stupid future government of Taiwan will cave in to their demands.

[RN7]

True. But the real trick is for the very limited in-theater forces to be able to delay the oncoming Chinese horde long enough for those reserves to make it across the Pacific. The ROC, Japanese, US, Aussie, and ROK military units in the theater really don't have the power to stop an all-out invasion. Only the threat of a US escalation to nuclear really keeps China from munching on Taiwan today.

In the meantime, China continues to play the long game of destabilizing the economies and political will of its opponents and bides its time, hoping that some really stupid future government of Taiwan will cave in to their demands.

But if the Chinese start massing its navy, landing craft and army across the Taiwan Strait I think someone is going to notice this fairly quickly.

[RN7]

How I see this is that China at the moment doesn't have the logistical capability to pull of a sucessful invasion of Taiwan. It also doesn't have the air or naval power to dominate the airspace or seaways around Taiwan once America commits itself to the defence of Taiwan.