New Chinese Carrier, any thoughts?

[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.

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.

Russia is really the only nation that comes close to being able to mount as challenge to the US. China isn't quite in the big league just yet. You don't make up seventy years of military deficit in two decades regardless of how much money and espionage you throw at the problem. China, until recently, could not conceptualize, design and manufacture their own military equipment. In fact, debate still remains over how much conceptualizing they actually do. China doesn't have seventy years of cold war research to draw from. China doesn't have legit combat experience, the US on the otherhand has fought in more places than I care to remember since 1945. Hopefully without sounding too pro-US, allow me to reiterate that the US knows how to wage a modern combat whereas China is still trying to learn.

[PapaJacky]

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.

Russia is really the only nation that comes close to being able to mount as challenge to the US. China isn't quite in the big league just yet. You don't make up seventy years of military deficit in two decades regardless of how much money and espionage you throw at the problem. China, until recently, could not conceptualize, design and manufacture their own military equipment. In fact, debate still remains over how much conceptualizing they actually do. China doesn't have seventy years of cold war research to draw from. China doesn't have legit combat experience, the US on the otherhand has fought in more places than I care to remember since 1945. Hopefully without sounding too pro-US, allow me to reiterate that the US knows how to wage a modern combat whereas China is still trying to learn.

We're talking about IADS, but okay. China has been involved in a multitude of combat operations since WW2, including Korea (where they would win in modern day), India, and Vietnam. The Chinese, despite what you assume of the time scale in question, has actually seem to be able to conceptualize, design, and produce things domestically. Like I've stated before, they're the 2nd country in the world to have 2 stealth fighter programs (behind the U.S.), they've developed and deployed AESA radars before Russia (in fact, rumor has it that they're offering that technology for Russia), and their engines seem to be close to parity with Russian ones. This isn't only because they're throwing money at it, but rather also because they have a vested interest in self-defense, now more than ever. I don't have to tell you to comb over history and see how many Chinese have died to secure the land that is modern China and it's essentially clear that derivative of such a life style has developed the fatalistic attitude that exists even today.

Note, that when China beat the UN back to South Korea, they didn't do it by literally throwing man power at the UN forces. They had strategy and tactics that allowed them to encircle the UN forces without being detected and their biggest flaw was the lack of supplies that only got worst as they got further down the peninsula.

[No endorse]

Note, that when China beat the UN back to South Korea, they didn't do it by literally throwing man power at the UN forces.

Wat.

Like I've stated before, they're the 2nd country in the world to have 2 stealth fighter programs (behind the U.S.)

They have released sets of pictures of two possible-aircraft. That's a far cry from two fighter programs, especially considering they look so hilariously much like tech demonstrators. (hint: the engines)

their engines seem to be close to parity with Russian ones

Recent purchase beg to differ.



China is reeeeeeally good at copying, and has a decent engineering base for sometime in the late 80s/early 90s. However, their manufacturing capability is sort of sad (hint: it's ALWAYS the engines), they haven't produced a domestic aircraft that hasn't been a copy of something or just straight up designed by someone else, and they're really not showing off their process capabilities.

Sure, they're cool and all, rah rah rah, but let's be realistic. They're not OMFG TEH AWESOMEZORZ111. If they become THE superpower, it's because Europe/the decent parts of the world and Russia have legislated themselves into idiocy, and America has decided it really doesn't care that much anymore.

[PapaJacky]

Wat.

Should have put simply. But basically, the Chinese practiced tactics involving mass concealment and movement and surprise attacks. This, combined with localized numerical superiority, allowed them to overwhelm and defeat most if not all UN forces all the way back to South Korea. In fact, if you were to ask a PVA soldier back then what was their biggest concern, they'd say it was the lack of supplies, not the enemies themselves.

They have released sets of pictures of two possible-aircraft. That's a far cry from two fighter programs, especially considering they look so hilariously much like tech demonstrators. (hint: the engines)

By "they" you mean independent photojournalists and enthusiasts, the Chinese government has been condemning those public leaks but it's well known that there are two stealth programs in the works.

Recent purchase beg to differ.

I'd assume you're talking about those Su-35s? That's a Russian rumor apparently, no purchase was made.

[No endorse]

I did note how you didn't touch any of my contentions about the incapability of Chinese engineering. Just so you know, I didn't forget.

By "they" you mean independent photojournalists and enthusiasts, the Chinese government has been condemning those public leaks but it's well known that there are two stealth programs in the works.

There are definitely two aircraft in existence, which both appear to be tech demonstrators or integration testbeds. (it's ALWAYS the engines)

-Korean war propaganda-

It's really a shame the US didn't have its heart in that war. But apparently it's not okay to go flattening cities in the post-1948 world.

I'd assume you're talking about those Su-35s? That's a Russian rumor apparently, no purchase was made.

I'm referring to how the Chinese continue to buy Russian engines and source Russian components for their aircraft.

[Forsher]

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.

Your tone suggests for some strange reason (yet again) that you think my idea says that it shouldn't be worth it. In this scenario the cost is obviously too low to make the attacker not attack.

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.

You've grasped it. Now please produce the problematic examples and explain why they are problematic.

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

Brilliant. I'm still wondering why you've bothered to make this post because for some strange reason you still seem to have reached the conclusion that I am saying it is never worth it. I'm not.

[Madda]

I say we stop inviting panda women to have their babies at our zoos. That'll show them.

[PapaJacky]

There are definitely two aircraft in existence, which both appear to be tech demonstrators or integration testbeds. (it's ALWAYS the engines)

Closer to 4.

It's really a shame the US didn't have its heart in that war. But apparently it's not okay to go flattening cities in the post-1948 world.

The war should have been in Nationalist China, but either way they defeated us in the tactical manner of speaking.

I'm referring to how the Chinese continue to buy Russian engines and source Russian components for their aircraft.

But you were referring to a single purchase as of late? As I stated, China hasn't bought those Su-35's that's been circulating on the webs.

[No endorse]

Closer to 4.

But you concede their status as integration testbeds and proof of concept aircraft until further revealed. (ESPECIALLY considering the engines....)

But you were referring to a single purchase as of late? As I stated, China hasn't bought those Su-35's that's been circulating on the webs.

No, I'm referring to every single Chinese aircraft program post-1950.





Really, I should wax poetic about this for a moment. The ultimate test of a country's engineering capability is its engines. And really, the design of their engines says a lot about the country. This is something that should never be forgotten.

Engines are the single most complicated *thing* you can build. Okay, sure, computers, but they're just infinity layers of abstraction. Engines, however, are mental. Their operating temperatures usually exceed the relaxation temperatures of any known solid matter, their internal flows are unmodelable by modern supercomputers, and (in the highest tech cases) their loosest tolerances are generally on the order of a millionth. Aviation engines say a LOT about your country. (Automobile too)

[PapaJacky]

But you concede their status as integration testbeds and proof of concept aircraft until further revealed. (ESPECIALLY considering the engines....)

But I don't. You have to take these things as what they are, stealth fighters in a stealth fighter program. Whether their testbeds or for production is yet to be seen, but until then they're planes for a plane program, stealth fighters for a stealth fighter program.

No, I'm referring to every single Chinese aircraft program post-1950.

Which isn't what's being discussed. If you need a refresher, my contention was that China has already began separating themselves from Russian tech as Chinese tech is steadily growing at a faster pace than Russian tech.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Russia is really the only nation that comes close to being able to mount as challenge to the US. China isn't quite in the big league just yet. You don't make up seventy years of military deficit in two decades regardless of how much money and espionage you throw at the problem. China, until recently, could not conceptualize, design and manufacture their own military equipment. In fact, debate still remains over how much conceptualizing they actually do. China doesn't have seventy years of cold war research to draw from. China doesn't have legit combat experience, the US on the otherhand has fought in more places than I care to remember since 1945. Hopefully without sounding too pro-US, allow me to reiterate that the US knows how to wage a modern combat whereas China is still trying to learn.

We're talking about IADS, but okay.

"China is second to Russia in IADS", yeah but there are a LOT of countries in between.

China has been involved in a multitude of combat operations since WW2, including Korea (where they would win in modern day), India, and Vietnam.

Multitude = 3?

The Chinese, despite what you assume of the time scale in question, has actually seem to be able to conceptualize, design, and produce things domestically. Like I've stated before, they're the 2nd country in the world to have 2 stealth fighter programs (behind the U.S.), they've developed and deployed AESA radars before Russia (in fact, rumor has it that they're offering that technology for Russia), and their engines seem to be close to parity with Russian ones.

Russia isn't even close to the par in terms of technology, less than a decade ago, they were completely bankrupt and thus any cool technology that they were working on was shelved, often never revived. By the time China's possible stealth fighters enter service, NATO and the United States will have operated them for almost a decade and basically will have fulfilled every order for them. Yes, the fact that China has at least figured out how to make a stable, low observable airframe is a huge leap forward in China's abilties however that doesn't make them a modern power. Even China's indigenous avionics and engines are based on either Russian or American designs.

Also, look at China's car industry just to give you some idea on how creative Chinese engineers really are. Intellectual property rights doesn't translate into Mandarin.

This isn't only because they're throwing money at it, but rather also because they have a vested interest in self-defense, now more than ever. I don't have to tell you to comb over history and see how many Chinese have died to secure the land that is modern China and it's essentially clear that derivative of such a life style has developed the fatalistic attitude that exists even today

.
The above is a nice story, but it doesn't alleviate the fact that China is a semi-professional team trying to take on the major league.

[/quote]Note, that when China beat the UN back to South Korea, they didn't do it by literally throwing man power at the UN forces. They had strategy and tactics that allowed them to encircle the UN forces without being detected and their biggest flaw was the lack of supplies that only got worst as they got further down the peninsula.[/quote]
yarly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir
Not even at the cost of thousands of soldiers though.

[JuNii]

lets see... Chinese with old Russian naval equiptent... vs... Japan with US Backed navy...

both made in Taiwan...

[Shofercia]

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.

This is from what I've heard/been able to glean from online military forums, so I don't know how accurate this is, but here goes:

the first step in a simulation is to identify the basic units that will be taking place in a fight. One of them is a Marine Fireteam, led by an NCO, (rank of Corporal,) and has 4 men, including the Cpl. The team is equipped with 3 M16s, and one M249 MG. The Cpl's M16 also has M203 GL attached. After getting the paper stats, you run computer sims, and after computer sims, you go out and watch an actual Marine Fireteam in action, and take measurements, akin to what they did on Deadliest Warrior, but slightly more complex.

You do this for virtually every unit that's involved on both sides, but since you already have some data, you just check for any modifications, (mods). (Yeah, by mods I don't mean moderators.) And then you work your way up: soldier, unit, squad, platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps, army, task force, etc. In all cases you're doing paper-wise table-top, computer assisted sims and actual live fire drills.

Once you have all the data, you invite the big boys. The military brass, the generals, the...

And then you have team captains, and you pick your teams, and agree on what kind of weapons/forces the sides will have. This is incredibly detailed. You play both ways, table-top and computers, and then you have certain unique actions performed by soldiers, using non-live ammo, and if you want to retest something specific, you can involve live ammo and fake targets, or fake ammo and real targets, just don't mix them up.

Then the teams get to pick their units, and how they'll duke it out, etc.

Of course everyone wants to place the US, cause "hurr durr America's going to win" and few want to play Iran. One of the rumors is that the Millenium Challenge was originally intended against Iran, and after Van Riper trashed the Americans while roleplaying as Iran, there was a shift to Iraq. Van Riper had several issues with the Millenium Challenge.

First, he believed that it was too technology reliant, and second, it wasn't classy, as in classical. Usually, when you have a military sim, you have Army X attack Army Y to take objective Z. However the Millenium Challenge was radical, in that it was all about testing the brand new military doctrine of superior firepower. Considering that the unofficial Marine Motto is "Superior Thinking Overwhelms Superior Force" or something similar, van Riper took an issue with that. He also took issues with the whole plan, where there was heavy bias towards US winning, and realized that if shit hits the fan, and US runs out of Special Forces to send in, US will have two choices: send in the strategic reserve, or send in the Marines, and van Riper wants to protect the USMC.

As an aside, the reason that I was fascinated by USMC, is because they're more efficient and less expensive than the US Army. I find that interesting. Anyways, when few credible leaders wanted to command Iran, van Riper jumped on the scene.

Some argue that the battle was rigged from the start. That's bullshit, because van Riper sank half of the navy, and come on, the US Armed Forces can rig better than that. After sinking half of the US Navy involved in the battle, van Riper thought that the Millenium Challenge will either proceed, or the landing will be redone. Instead, the commanders "took note" of van Riper's accomplishment, refloated the navy, and claimed that the landing took place. Van Riper asked to challenge the landing, and was promptly rebuffed. So apparently the Iranians took a break while Americans were landing.

Next up, van Riper began a guerrilla warfare, a modernization of that done against the USMC in Vietnam, set up ambushes, and continuously harassed the American Forces, causing more and more humiliation. When the Americans knocked out radio communications, van Riper sent messages by Minarets and high towers, akin to how the Russians parried invaders during the Middle Ages. You just need a really high building, knowledge of something similar to the morse code, and people with said knowledge willing to climb the buildings. Coded messages were sent by bikes. An intel spreading station was established, and Americans continued to take losses. This was when the brass once again intervened, and declared van Riper's communication system destroyed.

So, all in all, if the game was to be allowed to continue without intervention, it wasn't going to be a pretty picture. Here's military historian, Dolan, opining under the pen-name, Gary Brecher:

When kids play war, they end up spending less time shooting than arguing: "You're dead!" "Am not! You missed!" It just gets worse the bigger the kids...The US military has been having exactly this kind of argument, played out in the world press, since last August...It all comes out of the "Millenium Challenge '02" war games we staged in the Persian Gulf this summer. The big scandal was that the Opposing Force Commander, Gen. Paul van Ripen, quit mid-game because the games were rigged for the US forces to win. The scenario was a US invasion of an unnamed Persian Gulf country (either Iraq or Iran). The US was testing a new hi-tech joint force doctrine, so naturally van Riper used every lo-tech trick he could think of to mess things up...

The truth is that van Ripen did something so important that I still can't believe the mainstream press hasn't made anything of it. With nothing more than a few "small boats and aircraft," van Ripen managed to sink most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf.

What this means is as simple and plain as a skull: every US Navy battle group, every one of those big fancy aircraft carriers we love, won't last one single day in combat against a serious enemy.

The Navy brass tried to bluff it out, but they were pretty lame about it. They just declared the sunken ships "refloated" so the game could go on as planned. This is the kind of word-game that makes the military look so damn dumb. Too bad Bonaparte never thought of that after Trafalgar: "My vleete, she is now reflotte!" Too bad Phillip didn't demand a refloat after the Armada went down: "Oye, vatos, dees English sink todos mi ships, chinga sus madres, so escuche: el fleet es ahora refloated, OK?"

[Paul] van Riper has a reputation as an "asshole" who has a grudge against hi-tech scenarios like the one the military was testing. He also has a reputation as a guy who lives for the chance to make the brass look bad in war games...But that's what a good opposing commander is supposed to do. This van Riper may be an asshole, but then most good generals are...Trusting war-nerds were saying on the web, "Well, the whole POINT of war games is to show up weaknesses! So naturally when van Ripen sank the ships, they made a note and restarted the games!"

[Van Riper] was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.

That should scare the hell out of everybody who cares about how well the US is prepared to fight its next war. It means that a bunch of Cessnas, fishing boats and assorted private craft, crewed by good soldiers and armed with anti-ship missiles, can destroy a US aircraft carrier...A few years ago, a US submarine commander said, "There are two kinds of ship in the US Navy: subs and targets." The fact that big surface ships are dinosaurs is something that's gotten clearer every decade since 1921...

[After being allowed to attack four battleships with a few fighters and bombers, Mitchell's] little biplanes buzzed out...and sank every ship. First a destroyer, then the huge German battleship, then all three US battleships. The Navy tried to ignore the results, but with Mitchell yapping at their heels, they finally started moving from battleship-based to aircraft-carrier-based battle groups.

The British didn't pay any attention to Mitchell's demonstration...Three days after Pearl Harbor, the British found out. A powerful battle group led by the battleship Prince of Wales and the Cruiser Repulse steamed out to oppose Japanese landings in Malaysia, and ran into several squadrons of Japanese planes. In a few minutes both ships were sinking, The Prince of Wales sank so fast virtually the entire crew went down with her. With its Naval screen gone, Singapore the Impregnable fell so fast the British still can't talk about it.

What the battleship was in 1941, the aircraft carrier is now: a big, proud, expensive...sitting duck.Aircraft carriers came out of WW II looking powerful, but that was before microchips. Now, when an enemy tanker can fire 60 self-guiding cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away, no carrier will survive its first real battle.

Carriers are not only the biggest and most expensive ships ever built--they're the most vulnerable. Because even one serious cruise-missile hit means the carrier can't launch its planes, its best weapons. They will sink to the bottom with their crews, not having fired a shot.

That was the real lesson of Millennium Challenge II. And that's what has the Navy so furious at van Riper: he blew their cover. He showed all the hicks back home that the carrier battle fleet can be sunk by "small planes and boats." As weapons become smaller and deadlier, big targets just won't survive...Suppose the Iranians use van Riper's method: send everything at once, from every ship, plane and boat they've got, directly at the carrier. Give the Navy the benefit of the doubt and say they get 90% of the incoming missiles. You still end up with a dead carrier.

Now try shifting the scenario to a US-China fight off Taiwan. The Chinese have it all: subs, planes, anti-ship missiles-Hell, they SELL that stuff to other countries! I'll say it plain: no American carrier would last five minutes in a full-scale naval battle off China.

Another one: http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/c ... ill-weapon

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

[Shofercia]

But you concede their status as integration testbeds and proof of concept aircraft until further revealed. (ESPECIALLY considering the engines....)

But I don't. You have to take these things as what they are, stealth fighters in a stealth fighter program. Whether their testbeds or for production is yet to be seen, but until then they're planes for a plane program, stealth fighters for a stealth fighter program.

No, I'm referring to every single Chinese aircraft program post-1950.

Which isn't what's being discussed. If you need a refresher, my contention was that China has already began separating themselves from Russian tech as Chinese tech is steadily growing at a faster pace than Russian tech.

Not in all areas. In missile tech - Russia's better, and improving faster. In tanks and infantry carriers - again Russia has a better program. Same goes for fighters and bombers. Su-25 performance during the Ossetian War: over 1,000 sorties, one pilot killed, and even that was by friendly fire, because there was an issue with flares.

[PapaJacky]

Russia isn't even close to the par in terms of technology, less than a decade ago, they were completely bankrupt and thus any cool technology that they were working on was shelved, often never revived. By the time China's possible stealth fighters enter service, NATO and the United States will have operated them for almost a decade and basically will have fulfilled every order for them. Yes, the fact that China has at least figured out how to make a stable, low observable airframe is a huge leap forward in China's abilties however that doesn't make them a modern power. Even China's indigenous avionics and engines are based on either Russian or American designs.

It actually does. Note that the estimate for a Chinese stealth fighter was in service by 2020, that has since been lowered to 2015. It's clear to anyone who follows PLA developments that they are quickly accelerating in any sense of the word. Also on Chinese avionics, not true; note again the Chinese AESA for their AWAC, largest in the world, not developed from the Russians or Americans, most likely from Israel.

Also, look at China's car industry just to give you some idea on how creative Chinese engineers really are. Intellectual property rights doesn't translate into Mandarin.

Broad generalization for a minority of Chinese automakers.

The above is a nice story, but it doesn't alleviate the fact that China is a semi-professional team trying to take on the major league.

That'd be true if the Major league was downgrading themselves to the semi-pros for summer training; because that's pretty much what's happening. Either that or China is a major league player.

yarly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir
Not even at the cost of thousands of soldiers though.

yrly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Onjong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Unsan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... 27on_River, etc. Remember, no air support, little supplies, just you, your men, and your orders.

Not in all areas. In missile tech - Russia's better, and improving faster. In tanks and infantry carriers - again Russia has a better program. Same goes for fighters and bombers. Su-25 performance during the Ossetian War: over 1,000 sorties, one pilot killed, and even that was by friendly fire, because there was an issue with flares.

I can actually make arguments that China is advancing faster than Russia in most areas of military tech. In missile tech, Iskander is great, but China has the DF-41D, which I'd argue is more of wunderweapon than the Iskander. ATGMs and RPGs are all Russian dominated, though. Tank and APC wise, Russia and China have traditionally been closely linked. The difference though is that Russia hasn't deviated away from the stigma of the T-72 that much. The T-90 is essentially a T-72BM with T-80 FCS systems. The Chinese, in response to the American dominance of T-72Ms in Iraq, to which a similar variant was the main Chinese MBT, developed their own MBT which is heavier, and arguably more protective than the T-90A or even the T-90MS. APCs are a mixed bunch since both have similar attributes. The Su-25 is a joke in terms of CAS but it's actually better than the PLAAF's CAS due to their lack of a modern one on the offset. Bombers too you can argue that Russia has the historical advantage over simply due to having the necessity of completing their nuclear triangle.

[Shofercia]

Not in all areas. In missile tech - Russia's better, and improving faster. In tanks and infantry carriers - again Russia has a better program. Same goes for fighters and bombers. Su-25 performance during the Ossetian War: over 1,000 sorties, one pilot killed, and even that was by friendly fire, because there was an issue with flares.

I can actually make arguments that China is advancing faster than Russia in most areas of military tech. In missile tech, Iskander is great, but China has the DF-41D, which I'd argue is more of wunderweapon than the Iskander. ATGMs and RPGs are all Russian dominated, though. Tank and APC wise, Russia and China have traditionally been closely linked. The difference though is that Russia hasn't deviated away from the stigma of the T-72 that much. The T-90 is essentially a T-72BM with T-80 FCS systems. The Chinese, in response to the American dominance of T-72Ms in Iraq, to which a similar variant was the main Chinese MBT, developed their own MBT which is heavier, and arguably more protective than the T-90A or even the T-90MS. APCs are a mixed bunch since both have similar attributes. The Su-25 is a joke in terms of CAS but it's actually better than the PLAAF's CAS due to their lack of a modern one on the offset. Bombers too you can argue that Russia has the historical advantage over simply due to having the necessity of completing their nuclear triangle.

It's wrong to compare DF-41D with the Iskander. DF-41D is more of a Topol-style weapon, and I'll take the Topol over that crap. What? Compared to Topol, everything's crap

The reason that Iraqi tanks sucked, is that Saddam didn't know how to use his tanks. Additionally, the T-90 with the Shtora and Arena Integration Systems, and an INVAR, can take on any modern tank. Heavier tanks are just slower targets for artillery and missiles, tanks gotta be maneuverable. In terms of APCs - the BTR 80 is by far, the most underrated APC. It's not the best, nowhere near it, but if you need to make an infantry brigade mobile, it has the friendliest learning curve, and mobility, along with weapon customization, ain't bad. Also, it's not expensive. On the high tech side of things, the Russian VDV have the BMD-4, and that's just an awesome piece of technology! Su-25 is a precision bomber that might be used as a scout for short durations, and that's it. For quality CAS, pair it up with MiG-29s, and you have quality CAS.

To the smartasses saying: "Yars replaced Topol-M!" Nope - it's just a renamed upgrade of Topol-M.

[Elan Valleys]

I should probably point out that the Millennium Challenge Red forces threw a hissy fit when informed that their motorbike messages wouldn't arrive instantaneously after leaving the headquarters.

So it might not have been a total disaster.

Pretty instructive though.

[Dyakovo]

Assuming the missile hits.... It's a rather large assumption...

Active radar homing. Chinese missiles from the late 80's have been used in combat before, hit an Israeli corvette and killed a few of them.

A carrier battle group is not, as you appear to believe, defenseless.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I can actually make arguments that China is advancing faster than Russia in most areas of military tech. In missile tech, Iskander is great, but China has the DF-41D, which I'd argue is more of wunderweapon than the Iskander. ATGMs and RPGs are all Russian dominated, though. Tank and APC wise, Russia and China have traditionally been closely linked. The difference though is that Russia hasn't deviated away from the stigma of the T-72 that much. The T-90 is essentially a T-72BM with T-80 FCS systems. The Chinese, in response to the American dominance of T-72Ms in Iraq, to which a similar variant was the main Chinese MBT, developed their own MBT which is heavier, and arguably more protective than the T-90A or even the T-90MS. APCs are a mixed bunch since both have similar attributes. The Su-25 is a joke in terms of CAS but it's actually better than the PLAAF's CAS due to their lack of a modern one on the offset. Bombers too you can argue that Russia has the historical advantage over simply due to having the necessity of completing their nuclear triangle.

It's wrong to compare DF-41D with the Iskander. DF-41D is more of a Topol-style weapon, and I'll take the Topol over that crap. What? Compared to Topol, everything's crap

The reason that Iraqi tanks sucked, is that Saddam didn't know how to use his tanks. Additionally, the T-90 with the Shtora and Arena Integration Systems, and an INVAR, can take on any modern tank. Heavier tanks are just slower targets for artillery and missiles, tanks gotta be maneuverable. In terms of APCs - the BTR 80 is by far, the most underrated APC. It's not the best, nowhere near it, but if you need to make an infantry brigade mobile, it has the friendliest learning curve, and mobility, along with weapon customization, ain't bad. Also, it's not expensive. On the high tech side of things, the Russian VDV have the BMD-4, and that's just an awesome piece of technology! Su-25 is a precision bomber that might be used as a scout for short durations, and that's it. For quality CAS, pair it up with MiG-29s, and you have quality CAS.

To the smartasses saying: "Yars replaced Topol-M!" Nope - it's just a renamed upgrade of Topol-M.

Didn't exactly help Saddam that not only was he using T-72s in the 90s, but that he was using really crappy T-72s.

[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.

This is from what I've heard/been able to glean from online military forums, so I don't know how accurate this is, but here goes:

the first step in a simulation is to identify the basic units that will be taking place in a fight. One of them is a Marine Fireteam, led by an NCO, (rank of Corporal,) and has 4 men, including the Cpl. The team is equipped with 3 M16s, and one M249 MG. The Cpl's M16 also has M203 GL attached. After getting the paper stats, you run computer sims, and after computer sims, you go out and watch an actual Marine Fireteam in action, and take measurements, akin to what they did on Deadliest Warrior, but slightly more complex.

You do this for virtually every unit that's involved on both sides, but since you already have some data, you just check for any modifications, (mods). (Yeah, by mods I don't mean moderators.) And then you work your way up: soldier, unit, squad, platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps, army, task force, etc. In all cases you're doing paper-wise table-top, computer assisted sims and actual live fire drills.

Once you have all the data, you invite the big boys. The military brass, the generals, the...

And then you have team captains, and you pick your teams, and agree on what kind of weapons/forces the sides will have. This is incredibly detailed. You play both ways, table-top and computers, and then you have certain unique actions performed by soldiers, using non-live ammo, and if you want to retest something specific, you can involve live ammo and fake targets, or fake ammo and real targets, just don't mix them up.

Then the teams get to pick their units, and how they'll duke it out, etc.

Of course everyone wants to place the US, cause "hurr durr America's going to win" and few want to play Iran. One of the rumors is that the Millenium Challenge was originally intended against Iran, and after Van Riper trashed the Americans while roleplaying as Iran, there was a shift to Iraq. Van Riper had several issues with the Millenium Challenge.

First, he believed that it was too technology reliant, and second, it wasn't classy, as in classical. Usually, when you have a military sim, you have Army X attack Army Y to take objective Z. However the Millenium Challenge was radical, in that it was all about testing the brand new military doctrine of superior firepower. Considering that the unofficial Marine Motto is "Superior Thinking Overwhelms Superior Force" or something similar, van Riper took an issue with that. He also took issues with the whole plan, where there was heavy bias towards US winning, and realized that if shit hits the fan, and US runs out of Special Forces to send in, US will have two choices: send in the strategic reserve, or send in the Marines, and van Riper wants to protect the USMC.

As an aside, the reason that I was fascinated by USMC, is because they're more efficient and less expensive than the US Army. I find that interesting. Anyways, when few credible leaders wanted to command Iran, van Riper jumped on the scene.

Some argue that the battle was rigged from the start. That's bullshit, because van Riper sank half of the navy, and come on, the US Armed Forces can rig better than that. After sinking half of the US Navy involved in the battle, van Riper thought that the Millenium Challenge will either proceed, or the landing will be redone. Instead, the commanders "took note" of van Riper's accomplishment, refloated the navy, and claimed that the landing took place. Van Riper asked to challenge the landing, and was promptly rebuffed. So apparently the Iranians took a break while Americans were landing.

Next up, van Riper began a guerrilla warfare, a modernization of that done against the USMC in Vietnam, set up ambushes, and continuously harassed the American Forces, causing more and more humiliation. When the Americans knocked out radio communications, van Riper sent messages by Minarets and high towers, akin to how the Russians parried invaders during the Middle Ages. You just need a really high building, knowledge of something similar to the morse code, and people with said knowledge willing to climb the buildings. Coded messages were sent by bikes. An intel spreading station was established, and Americans continued to take losses. This was when the brass once again intervened, and declared van Riper's communication system destroyed.

So, all in all, if the game was to be allowed to continue without intervention, it wasn't going to be a pretty picture. Here's military historian, Dolan, opining under the pen-name, Gary Brecher:

When kids play war, they end up spending less time shooting than arguing: "You're dead!" "Am not! You missed!" It just gets worse the bigger the kids...The US military has been having exactly this kind of argument, played out in the world press, since last August...It all comes out of the "Millenium Challenge '02" war games we staged in the Persian Gulf this summer. The big scandal was that the Opposing Force Commander, Gen. Paul van Ripen, quit mid-game because the games were rigged for the US forces to win. The scenario was a US invasion of an unnamed Persian Gulf country (either Iraq or Iran). The US was testing a new hi-tech joint force doctrine, so naturally van Riper used every lo-tech trick he could think of to mess things up...

The truth is that van Ripen did something so important that I still can't believe the mainstream press hasn't made anything of it. With nothing more than a few "small boats and aircraft," van Ripen managed to sink most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf.

What this means is as simple and plain as a skull: every US Navy battle group, every one of those big fancy aircraft carriers we love, won't last one single day in combat against a serious enemy.

The Navy brass tried to bluff it out, but they were pretty lame about it. They just declared the sunken ships "refloated" so the game could go on as planned. This is the kind of word-game that makes the military look so damn dumb. Too bad Bonaparte never thought of that after Trafalgar: "My vleete, she is now reflotte!" Too bad Phillip didn't demand a refloat after the Armada went down: "Oye, vatos, dees English sink todos mi ships, chinga sus madres, so escuche: el fleet es ahora refloated, OK?"

[Paul] van Riper has a reputation as an "asshole" who has a grudge against hi-tech scenarios like the one the military was testing. He also has a reputation as a guy who lives for the chance to make the brass look bad in war games...But that's what a good opposing commander is supposed to do. This van Riper may be an asshole, but then most good generals are...Trusting war-nerds were saying on the web, "Well, the whole POINT of war games is to show up weaknesses! So naturally when van Ripen sank the ships, they made a note and restarted the games!"

[Van Riper] was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.

That should scare the hell out of everybody who cares about how well the US is prepared to fight its next war. It means that a bunch of Cessnas, fishing boats and assorted private craft, crewed by good soldiers and armed with anti-ship missiles, can destroy a US aircraft carrier...A few years ago, a US submarine commander said, "There are two kinds of ship in the US Navy: subs and targets." The fact that big surface ships are dinosaurs is something that's gotten clearer every decade since 1921...

[After being allowed to attack four battleships with a few fighters and bombers, Mitchell's] little biplanes buzzed out...and sank every ship. First a destroyer, then the huge German battleship, then all three US battleships. The Navy tried to ignore the results, but with Mitchell yapping at their heels, they finally started moving from battleship-based to aircraft-carrier-based battle groups.

The British didn't pay any attention to Mitchell's demonstration...Three days after Pearl Harbor, the British found out. A powerful battle group led by the battleship Prince of Wales and the Cruiser Repulse steamed out to oppose Japanese landings in Malaysia, and ran into several squadrons of Japanese planes. In a few minutes both ships were sinking, The Prince of Wales sank so fast virtually the entire crew went down with her. With its Naval screen gone, Singapore the Impregnable fell so fast the British still can't talk about it.

What the battleship was in 1941, the aircraft carrier is now: a big, proud, expensive...sitting duck.Aircraft carriers came out of WW II looking powerful, but that was before microchips. Now, when an enemy tanker can fire 60 self-guiding cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away, no carrier will survive its first real battle.

Carriers are not only the biggest and most expensive ships ever built--they're the most vulnerable. Because even one serious cruise-missile hit means the carrier can't launch its planes, its best weapons. They will sink to the bottom with their crews, not having fired a shot.

That was the real lesson of Millennium Challenge II. And that's what has the Navy so furious at van Riper: he blew their cover. He showed all the hicks back home that the carrier battle fleet can be sunk by "small planes and boats." As weapons become smaller and deadlier, big targets just won't survive...Suppose the Iranians use van Riper's method: send everything at once, from every ship, plane and boat they've got, directly at the carrier. Give the Navy the benefit of the doubt and say they get 90% of the incoming missiles. You still end up with a dead carrier.

Now try shifting the scenario to a US-China fight off Taiwan. The Chinese have it all: subs, planes, anti-ship missiles-Hell, they SELL that stuff to other countries! I'll say it plain: no American carrier would last five minutes in a full-scale naval battle off China.

Another one: http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/c ... ill-weapon

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

yeah but heres the thing shof.

He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.

I've been on training platoon night attack. it hard enough getting 25 guys in shouting distance to launch a focused attack. so my question is, did the magic of computer handled logistics, communications, training and subordinates allow Van Riper to pull off a technically true but unrealistic victory? did Van Riper win because he was a good general? or did he win because he's a good wargamer?

[Papal Inquisition]

let me just get my fishing boat, and an RPG, and i assure you that, that thing will sink faster than the titanic.

But seriously, good for them, they got a new ship, though they should possibly keep to fighting on land.

[Paixao]

I can see this being a large problem for Eastern Asia. China is the last nation that should have a carrier, especially a Kuznetsov-class. Especially with the Kuril Islands dispute going on right now.

A Kuznetsov Class carries like 15 fixed wing aircraft and they have one of them.

A Nimitz carries 60-70 and we have 10.

33 actually... and 15 helicopters,

but yeah, point made

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Active radar homing. Chinese missiles from the late 80's have been used in combat before, hit an Israeli corvette and killed a few of them.

A carrier battle group is not, as you appear to believe, defenseless.

the navy has probably been working on that problem for years now.

[Dyakovo]

A carrier battle group is not, as you appear to believe, defenseless.

the navy has probably been working on that problem for years now.

They have been... Part of my time in the service was on a carrier.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

the navy has probably been working on that problem for years now.

They have been... Part of my time in the service was on a carrier.

I think they have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball ... ar_Daggers.