New Chinese Carrier, any thoughts?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Soviet carriers hold nearly two dozen heavy anti-ship missiles, and a ton of SAMs in VLS.
Kirov battlecruisers, had they made it into widespread service, hold the same AShM armament and close to three hundred SAMs, 100 of which are long-range weapons. It's an air defence cruiser with massive anti-ship capability.

There's a reason the Russians don't call their carriers 'aircraft carriers', they call them 'heavy aircraft carrying cruisers'. The only carrier that would have been an actual carrier was the cancelled Ulyanovsk.

I believe that the Chinese refits of the Varyag into the Liaoning remedied that, largely by removing the integral SSM weaponry and converting the vessel into a full-time carrier.

I know.
Liaoning's only related to Kuznetsov in its hull and superstructure now, it shares nothing else.
I was responding entirely to the point everyone seems to hold which is "russian carriers are shit cos ther smaller and have less aircraft than MURRICAN carriers".

Also, neither the UK nor France have supercarriers. In fact, now that the Harrier has been pulled without ready replacement (wtfbbq), the Royal Navy operate no fixed wing aircraft from their carriers, using them entirely as helicopter carriers

.

First, the UK has carrier, not carriers, until the first QE-class is completed. Second, I believe that the decision not to immediately replace the Harrier was due to the desire to have the QE carry F-35s, and no desire to spend money developing a new-generation STOVL aircraft (which is what it would have to be, in order to operate from rather titchy HMS Illustrious), only to have it just coming into service as the full-size carrier, with more capable F-35s onboard, enters service.

wiki said that the RN had two carriers in service, one being the Illustrious and I didn't see the name of the second.
The problem I've always had with the scrapping of the Harrier is that the F-35 hasn't yet replaced it and won't do for some time. Which means that the scrapping has left the UK with no fixed-wing naval aviation.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

That said, the AC is simply a big floating target for missiles and subs, that best serves as a forward operating base for key missions. It works fine against countries that don't know what they're doing, but use them against countries with decent militaries, and they're gone.

If a nation that knows how to use carriers and their support vessels faces off against a nation with a decent military, they aren't necessarily gone.

Britain came close to losing carriers in the Falklands. If the sinking of the Belgrano hadn't forced the Argentinian fleet to return to port, the air war over the islands could have turned out very differently.

[New Chalcedon]

First, the UK has carrier, not carriers, until the first QE-class is completed. Second, I believe that the decision not to immediately replace the Harrier was due to the desire to have the QE carry F-35s, and no desire to spend money developing a new-generation STOVL aircraft (which is what it would have to be, in order to operate from rather titchy HMS Illustrious), only to have it just coming into service as the full-size carrier, with more capable F-35s onboard, enters service.

wiki said that the RN had two carriers in service, one being the Illustrious and I didn't see the name of the second.
The problem I've always had with the scrapping of the Harrier is that the F-35 hasn't yet replaced it and won't do for some time. Which means that the scrapping has left the UK with no fixed-wing naval aviation.

Yeah, fair enough. But remember that the decision to not replace the Harrier II was made years ago, back when they thought the F35 would be entering service next year. It's not exactly the Admiralty's fault that they didn't predict the huge cost and time over-runs the F35 has faced.

The larger problems is that America's allies are far too dependent upon the US for their military hardware - as we've seen, it doesn't take malice for one nation's decision to outsource procurement to another to fuck up royally. Rather than criticising one specific procurement decision, it would be better to critique the whole approach.

[Elan Valleys]

Sinking a US carrier isn't just sinking a ship, it's sinking one of the most potent representations of America.

It's killing thousands of American servicemen and sending a message 'We are serious'.

The real 'is it worth it?' is whether inviting the massive retribution this implies is worth sending that message.

We're talking about a scenario where the AC is already used in battle. When the US declares war, and uses ACs in that war - they're fair game.

But once it's sunk good luck getting a vaguely acceptable peace treaty.

[Forsher]

I suppose this is where The UK in Exile has been unable to get the cost to the defender out of his head. That said, if one has plenty of Harpoons the loss of ten (especially if as a result a reward is earnt) is not worth as much... it doesn't matter so much. And that's the heart of my idea, cost relative to means.

the reason I can't get it out of my head is because its relevant. you can't chop out important details you don't like and say "well now it makes sense". any military strategy that flat out ignores the enemy makes as much sense as sticking your pants on your head and saying..... "wibble"

It's just occurred to me now that the thought you have miserably failed in expressinf may be that an attacker considers how much it costs the defender to successfully defend an attack when making the attack. Thinking further along this just means that taking the prize costs more for the attacker. Which is, to those who understand what I have been saying, quite clearly at the heart of my idea.

As an example I will use two made up militaries of an extremely low capability. A ship has forty missiles. If ten are fired one can be expected to hit a carrier without defensive interference. The carrier has forty defensive missiles. It takes two missiles to deal with one attacking missile. For whatever reason the carrier has no other defences, cannot attack and the ship and its missiles are the only resources available to attack with. As such, the cost of sinking the ship is thirty missiles because the defence makes the cost twenty missiles only having forty and the attacker needs to use ten to be certain one will hit. As the prize is a carrier this price is seen as being worthwhile.

The enemy is not ignored. I still don't know quite what you think I'm saying but I'm pretty damn certain that it isn't what I am saying.

Um, it wasn't and that you seem to somehow think it should be shows you don't understand.

Go on then.
Explain why I and the Soviet Navy was wrong.

First explain to me what you think I'm saying. I'll then correct anything that's wrong (and I maintain that it will be wrong given that you think that the cost is too great in your example) and wait to see if you still think that this request is worth my time to fulfil and yours to repeat.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

What you appear be saying is that firing salvoes of missiles, which is standard operating procedure in pretty much any military (except the UK for some reason), is not worth the expenditure despite approaching a guarantee of hit and kill versus a capital ship, of which the US operates just eleven in total.

[Forsher]

What you appear be saying is that firing salvoes of missiles, which is standard operating procedure in pretty much any military (except the UK for some reason), is not worth the expenditure despite approaching a guarantee of hit and kill versus a capital ship, of which the US operates just eleven in total.

What I am saying and it hasn't been that hard because I've had to say it many times now is removed from any physical actions as specific as that.

What I am saying is that an attacker won't launch an attack if they think that the cost is too high when compared to the reward.

Pretend the Chinese Navy is considering sinking a US carrier (and that's all they're attacking, examples are about simplicity). The Chinese Navy is the attacker. They have two ships that they can use in this attack with twenty offensive missiles each and twenty defensive ones (each). The US carrier is the defender. The carrier has eighty missiles, forty of which are defensive and forty that are offensive. The aeroplanes are not present in this example. This is the lay of the land. It is important to note that it takes two defensive missiles to destroy one offensive missile.

Now, the Chinese Navy attacks. They fire five missiles from each ship. The Carrier fires five offensive missiles at each ship and launches the twenty defensive missiles it has. The Chinese Navy uses twenty defensive missiles to stay afloat. Now, both stocks of defensive missiles have been halved but the Chinese Navy as the attacker has used only a quarter of its offensive potential available. The Carrier has used half of its offensive potential.

The second round repeats. However, for the third round the Carrier can now neither attack nor defend and a carrier is sunk for a cost of thirty missiles out of forty. The reward here is gained very cheaply. Attacking is worth it.

Now, let's say that the aeroplanes are on board and the Chinese Navy is using its best frigates. The Carrier scrambles when the missiles are launched and the boats are sunk with only two salvoes fired. However, they use ten missiles a time this time so that carrier still goes down. This time the cost is forty missiles and the two best ships for one carrier... this is still worth it. Especially considering that there's a decent chance some of those aeroplanes won't land before their fuel runs out.

In this third example the Chinese Navy has its best men on its best ships as well with its best missiles but they are unable to fire more than five missiles at a time. Also, the Carrier is old, soon to be replaced with the minimum defensive crew and the aeroplanes will all easily make land. They fire quickly so the Carrier still gets sunk. However, they lose their best everything for one pretty rubbish carrier. In this case the example is not worth it because the cost is high and the reward is low (and there's no guarantee that they can launch the missiles fast enough to get enough in the air).

In this final example, the best the Chinese Navy has is pitted against a US Carrier with more offensive missiles than in the previous examples. There's a chance that the Chinese Boats won't manage to launch all the missiles needed before being sunk. The cost in this case is too high because no reward is earnt, obviously the cost is far too great in proportion to the reward. And even if the carrier were sunk the value of the Chinese Navy's vessels is increased in the sense that they're the only ships guarding this approach. Their worth increases and so the cost of losing them is much greater than previously.

So, hopefully we can see:

• The defender only matters to the extent that what they do decides the cost of the reward/prize.
• It's about what the value of what's lost (the cost) to the attacker and the value of what's gained (the prize/reward) to the attacker.
• Even though I haven't incorporated time into the example (in the manner I explained earlier) there's a place for it. This is more apparent in outcome four of the example where losing those ships now is a problem as they have no cover.
• My idea is expressed simply thus: an attacker won't attack if the cost (to them) is too high for the reward gained by them for that cost.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Removing the Chinese Navy Battlegroup layout (which is probably still under consideration for all I know and care, which is why I've been referring to what Soviet Navy doctrine could have been) and therefore all the other ships, armament, detection and defence that entails, and doing the same for the American fleet, including their aircraft, makes your example wholly worthless.

Furthermore, the Gerald R. Ford-class, the future US Supercarrier, has no 'offensive' missiles. Only SAMs and CIWS.

[Forsher]

Removing the Chinese Navy Battlegroup layout (which is probably still under consideration for all I know and care, which is why I've been referring to what Soviet Navy doctrine could have been) and therefore all the other ships, armament, detection and defence that entails, and doing the same for the American fleet, including their aircraft, makes your example wholly worthless.

Furthermore, the Gerald R. Ford-class, the future US Supercarrier, has no 'offensive' missiles. Only SAMs and CIWS.

How so? The fact is it doesn't. The additional stuff only alters the costs and rewards involved.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yes.
It turns it into a realistic point, because it then factors in all the additional ships and systems that would be present on either side.

Weighing up one carrier to another (factoring in bizarre missiles that the US carriers don't even carry) is pointless, as there will be one carrier on each side, making up part of a battlegroup of maybe ten or twelve warships in total, and maybe some attached supply ships and definitely a couple of subs.

Weighing up things like this is like saying that the Sherman had inferior firepower and armour to the Tiger 2, and therefore the Germans won WWII.
Because you've failed to take into account everything else that the war entailed, partly the fact that the Tiger 2 made up an appalling minority of the (latewar) German tank fleet, while the Sherman formed an overwhelming majority of the entire allied tank force, for example.

[Forsher]

Yes.
It turns it into a realistic point, because it then factors in all the additional ships and systems that would be present on either side.

Weighing up one carrier to another (factoring in bizarre missiles that the US carriers don't even carry) is pointless, as there will be one carrier on each side, making up part of a battlegroup of maybe ten or twelve warships in total, and maybe some attached supply ships and definitely a couple of subs.

Weighing up things like this is like saying that the Sherman had inferior firepower and armour to the Tiger 2, and therefore the Germans won WWII.
Because you've failed to take into account everything else that the war entailed, partly the fact that the Tiger 2 made up an appalling minority of the (latewar) German tank fleet, while the Sherman formed an overwhelming majority of the entire allied tank force, for example.

This is a random example, remember this.

Here's my challenge to you. Explain why that stuff isn't included within the costs and rewards. If you cannot do this you should in theory have nothing more to say because, well, cost versus reward is all I am talking about.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Your cost is a small fraction of your missile armament on a single ship, smaller fraction still across your battlegroup.
Your reward is the sinking of the enemy carrier - that battlegroup's flagship, one of only five in Third Fleet (Pacific) and of just eleven in the world. It also brings with it a loss of the astonishing number of ninety aircraft and several thousand naval personnel.

I think the ??? Profit meme works well here.

[The UK in Exile]

Yes.
It turns it into a realistic point, because it then factors in all the additional ships and systems that would be present on either side.

Weighing up one carrier to another (factoring in bizarre missiles that the US carriers don't even carry) is pointless, as there will be one carrier on each side, making up part of a battlegroup of maybe ten or twelve warships in total, and maybe some attached supply ships and definitely a couple of subs.

Weighing up things like this is like saying that the Sherman had inferior firepower and armour to the Tiger 2, and therefore the Germans won WWII.
Because you've failed to take into account everything else that the war entailed, partly the fact that the Tiger 2 made up an appalling minority of the (latewar) German tank fleet, while the Sherman formed an overwhelming majority of the entire allied tank force, for example.

This is a random example, remember this.

Here's my challenge to you. Explain why that stuff isn't included within the costs and rewards. If you cannot do this you should in theory have nothing more to say because, well, cost versus reward is all I am talking about.

you are correct in saying that military commanders need to consider Cost Vs Reward.

you are incorrect in how you have applied this in every statement and example you have offered in this thread.

which is why we have struggled to grasp you point.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This "carrier vs. Missiles" discussion is almost entirely irrelevant. You guys aren't considering that the US has the ability to remove the lionyang and most of the Chinese navy and air force from the map in about two hours of the decision being made. China's air defence network is as loose as a king's cross whore. See Israel and the middle east for examples.

The only legitimate threat to the US is Russia. China is just a pain in the ass because they happen to be on the security council.

[Shofercia]

That said, the AC is simply a big floating target for missiles and subs, that best serves as a forward operating base for key missions. It works fine against countries that don't know what they're doing, but use them against countries with decent militaries, and they're gone.

If a nation that knows how to use carriers and their support vessels faces off against a nation with a decent military, they aren't necessarily gone.

An AC serves as a forward operating base, so it has to be within a certain range of combat in order to be used. I doubt many would copy France's idiocy during the Libyan Civil War, where France had a carrier sitting there as a target, going "please no one hit us, please!" the US certainly wouldn't, but you have to have your carriers within a certain range. If I'm China, I'd zerg rush your carriers with subs, and I'd construct several hundred subs. What's your response?

Additionally, there was Operation Millenium Challenge, where a brilliant US Marine sank half of the attacking US Fleet with tugboats and crappy missiles. Sure, now USN has defenses against that, but what about subs doing the exact same thing?

The Shofercian Military Doctrine, (yeah yeah, I know, OCC ) is to hit you with spotters, missiles and subs as you land. The reason it's proven effective, is that your bombers would be useless, as would air superiority. Your fleet is moving in, my subs are hidden, they get first strike if they're as stealthy as the Gotland Class. (Just realized there's a pun there - got land? ) While you're landing, your armed forces are at their most vulnerable points, and that's exactly when I hit.

That's why, if the US was to invade Iran, US would have to do it through another Middle Eastern country, as an amphibious landing would be suicidal. However, in a case of a war against China, we're talking about the US assaulting Taiwan, or Mainland China, which, if China manages to take control of Taiwan's coast line, would be extremely tough to do.

[PapaJacky]

This "carrier vs. Missiles" discussion is almost entirely irrelevant. You guys aren't considering that the US has the ability to remove the lionyang and most of the Chinese navy and air force from the map in about two hours of the decision being made. China's air defence network is as loose as a king's cross whore. See Israel and the middle east for examples.

The only legitimate threat to the US is Russia. China is just a pain in the ass because they happen to be on the security council.

Chinese IADS capabilities are second only to Russia's. Israeli dominance over Syria was literally all due to their AEW capabilities. From experience, China hacks into the U.S. every now and not often vise versa.

Also, Russia's not a security threat.

[Shofercia]

This "carrier vs. Missiles" discussion is almost entirely irrelevant. You guys aren't considering that the US has the ability to remove the lionyang and most of the Chinese navy and air force from the map in about two hours of the decision being made. China's air defence network is as loose as a king's cross whore. See Israel and the middle east for examples.

The only legitimate threat to the US is Russia. China is just a pain in the ass because they happen to be on the security council.

Chinese IADS capabilities are second only to Russia's. Israeli dominance over Syria was literally all due to their AEW capabilities. From experience, China hacks into the U.S. every now and not often vise versa.

Also, Russia's not a security threat.

Just to add a bit to this: Russia isn't currently a security threat, because there's no Cold War. Should Romney get elected and restart the Cold War, Russia might become a security threat. Interestingly enough, I like a part of Obama's approach on Russia that says:

"Get Russian experts working with American experts on joint treaties, and minimize political interference on those treaties." That's how the current OMNT, or Start II, (or is it III,) was written.

What's more interesting is that the Republicans gotta appeal to Neocons and Libertarians, meaning that they gotta play US World Force Police, while abstaining from military intervention abroad. Should be interesting

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yes.
It turns it into a realistic point, because it then factors in all the additional ships and systems that would be present on either side.

Weighing up one carrier to another (factoring in bizarre missiles that the US carriers don't even carry) is pointless, as there will be one carrier on each side, making up part of a battlegroup of maybe ten or twelve warships in total, and maybe some attached supply ships and definitely a couple of subs.

Weighing up things like this is like saying that the Sherman had inferior firepower and armour to the Tiger 2, and therefore the Germans won WWII.
Because you've failed to take into account everything else that the war entailed, partly the fact that the Tiger 2 made up an appalling minority of the (latewar) German tank fleet, while the Sherman formed an overwhelming majority of the entire allied tank force, for example.

This is a random example, remember this.

Here's my challenge to you. Explain why that stuff isn't included within the costs and rewards. If you cannot do this you should in theory have nothing more to say because, well, cost versus reward is all I am talking about.

Your cost is a small fraction of your missile armament on a single ship, smaller fraction still across your battlegroup.
Your reward is the sinking of the enemy carrier - that battlegroup's flagship, one of only five in Third Fleet (Pacific) and of just eleven in the world. It also brings with it a loss of the astonishing number of ninety aircraft and several thousand naval personnel.

I think the ??? Profit meme works well here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium ... ise_action
To further add to the points eschewed by those who aren't you.

Seems pretty decisive that even resorting to suicide attacks still puts you in profit for 'cost versus reward' when engaging a large shipping fleet.
Also looks like Millennium Challenge was used as the basis for CHERUB: The General, there's a lot of parallels. In fact, it reads identically, only The General was a land battle

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yes.
It turns it into a realistic point, because it then factors in all the additional ships and systems that would be present on either side.

Weighing up one carrier to another (factoring in bizarre missiles that the US carriers don't even carry) is pointless, as there will be one carrier on each side, making up part of a battlegroup of maybe ten or twelve warships in total, and maybe some attached supply ships and definitely a couple of subs.

Weighing up things like this is like saying that the Sherman had inferior firepower and armour to the Tiger 2, and therefore the Germans won WWII.
Because you've failed to take into account everything else that the war entailed, partly the fact that the Tiger 2 made up an appalling minority of the (latewar) German tank fleet, while the Sherman formed an overwhelming majority of the entire allied tank force, for example.

This is a random example, remember this.

Here's my challenge to you. Explain why that stuff isn't included within the costs and rewards. If you cannot do this you should in theory have nothing more to say because, well, cost versus reward is all I am talking about.

Your cost is a small fraction of your missile armament on a single ship, smaller fraction still across your battlegroup.
Your reward is the sinking of the enemy carrier - that battlegroup's flagship, one of only five in Third Fleet (Pacific) and of just eleven in the world. It also brings with it a loss of the astonishing number of ninety aircraft and several thousand naval personnel.

I think the ??? Profit meme works well here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium ... ise_action
To further add to the points eschewed by those who aren't you.

Seems pretty decisive that even resorting to suicide attacks still puts you in profit for 'cost versus reward' when engaging a large shipping fleet.
Also looks like Millennium Challenge was used as the basis for CHERUB: The General, there's a lot of parallels. In fact, it reads identically, only The General was a land battle

[The UK in Exile]

This is a random example, remember this.

Here's my challenge to you. Explain why that stuff isn't included within the costs and rewards. If you cannot do this you should in theory have nothing more to say because, well, cost versus reward is all I am talking about.

Your cost is a small fraction of your missile armament on a single ship, smaller fraction still across your battlegroup.
Your reward is the sinking of the enemy carrier - that battlegroup's flagship, one of only five in Third Fleet (Pacific) and of just eleven in the world. It also brings with it a loss of the astonishing number of ninety aircraft and several thousand naval personnel.

I think the ??? Profit meme works well here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium ... ise_action
To further add to the points eschewed by those who aren't you.

Seems pretty decisive that even resorting to suicide attacks still puts you in profit for 'cost versus reward' when engaging a large shipping fleet.
Also looks like Millennium Challenge was used as the basis for CHERUB: The General, there's a lot of parallels. In fact, it reads identically, only The General was a land battle

though wasn't the millennium challenge fought sand-table style? hence the general in charge of red force got away with with handwaving away weight requirements for his AshMs and the the level of co-ordination required to make it happen?

because the level of effort required to co-ordinate hundreds of boats and planes launching a co-ordinated attack on a carrier makes me shudder.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Some of it was live-fire, some tabletop.

I've literally only read the wiki article (I just saw it mentioned in another thread and googled).

To be fair, if he was "Middle Eastern", he could handwave as having stockpiles of the heavyweight supersonic Soviet AShMs - as have been previously discussed ITT, many middle eastern states are indeed equipped with, and several of them do have land launcher modules.

[The UK in Exile]

Some of it was live-fire, some tabletop.

I've literally only read the wiki article (I just saw it mentioned in another thread and googled).

ah shame, I'd like to know more about it, I've read criticisms of both sides plus the umpires. its hard to tell what the real story is.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Some of it was live-fire, some tabletop.

I've literally only read the wiki article (I just saw it mentioned in another thread and googled).

ah shame, I'd like to know more about it, I've read criticisms of both sides plus the umpires. its hard to tell what the real story is.

To be fair, I wouldn't have been at all surprised if Van Riper's account was the correct one.
It does sound like something I can imagine the Bush Administration doing.

"wer better dan dem durn turdburglahs"

[The UK in Exile]

ah shame, I'd like to know more about it, I've read criticisms of both sides plus the umpires. its hard to tell what the real story is.

To be fair, I wouldn't have been at all surprised if Van Riper's account was the correct one.
It does sound like something I can imagine the Bush Administration doing.

"wer better dan dem durn turdburglahs"

*shrug*

if we didn't listen to any officer who was prepared to raise hell for what he thought we wouldn't have the F-16 and F-15.

then again.....

if we listened to every officer who was prepared to raise hell for what he thought we would have fought WW2 with huge pykrete ice-craft carriers.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I wonder what Pykrete's efficiency against shaped charges would have been?

To be fair, Pykrete would probably have worked in the Atlantic and North Sea up to a point.