Speculation grows on China aircraft carrier plans

[Cap'n Cat]

T,
Love ya, man. You know that. But, you're looking backward, my friend. Modern history (that is, 1914 on)has taught us that war accomplishes very little. People are tired of war. Only people like you and your Halliburton weapons conspirators and investors want war. It's passe', my man.

Don't have wars and you won't have crippled, brain-damaged veternas to care for for 1000 years.

Sheit.

Horsesh!t, Cap'n. You knoweth not what you speak.

Wars are WHAT changes the course of humanity. Stating that "war accomplishes very little" is a myopic fantasy.

I do not like war, my dear Cap'n, because in case you forgot, I lost a brother in Vietnam. But personal feelings aside, we're talking about China, and the Chinese govt. is still prinicipally made up of hardliners from the Mao era.

So what? Live and let live, chickenhawk!

Myopic fantasy, eh? Look at the major wars in the twentieth century - the world gained nothing but heartache and more war and dying. Who's myopic? One can make a strong case that Conk capitalism got us the Great Depression which got us WWII and the subsequent conflagrations.

Think about it, T. Really think about it. WWI got us WWII. WWII got us the Cold War and Korea and Vietnam. Dubya's War of Avenging Daddy will get us a collapse in the Middle East and more war. Oh, shit, nevermind people dying.

Leave the pompous shat at the door when dealing with me, too, please, my good California wine-shipping compadre.




Leaving for home. I'll be on later.

[travelinman67]

Leave the pompous shat at the door when dealing with me, too, please, my good California wine-shipping compadre.

Tell you what, Cap...

I'm pompous...

You patronize...

I'd say it's an even trade off.

[AZGrizFan]

Even funnier is his use of the Phalanx system as his "missile defense system" of choice. That's the LAST line of defense, dawg. In between THAT and your "rain of Silkworms" are some of the coolest/deadliest and most effective missile defense systems imaginable. We've got systems on the picket ships that can simultaneously track/shoot down more missiles than you could imagine. In the middle of a shooting war, perhaps the safest place to be is on the carrier. They may become obsolete someday, but I can safely say it won't happen in my lifetime.

Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but the carriers are on their way to obsolesence just as surely as the battleships were. The money spent to confront the Chinese military upgrade would be much better spent on subs. Same for the Chinese. The Chinese are wasting their money on carriers just as we're wasting ours on so-called missle defense systems which can't hit anything outside of a carefully staged event, and usually not even then, as the Patriot missles proved beyond doubt in the first Bush's Gulf War.

That explains a LOT dawg. Your perception of our defense systems is based on the Phalanx and the Patriot missile system????

Wow. Just.....wow.

And, regarding the strawman argument of air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan---you have a very skewed definition of air superiority. We own the skies. Period. And as the Colonel so aptly pointed out, the ragheads have to live and hide in caves to avoid being dust. Sounds like air power being projected if you ask me.

[houndawg]

Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but the carriers are on their way to obsolesence just as surely as the battleships were. The money spent to confront the Chinese military upgrade would be much better spent on subs. Same for the Chinese. The Chinese are wasting their money on carriers just as we're wasting ours on so-called missle defense systems which can't hit anything outside of a carefully staged event, and usually not even then, as the Patriot missles proved beyond doubt in the first Bush's Gulf War.

That explains a LOT dawg. Your perception of our defense systems is based on the Phalanx and the Patriot missile system????

Wow. Just.....wow.

And, regarding the strawman argument of air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan---you have a very skewed definition of air superiority. We own the skies. Period. And as the Colonel so aptly pointed out, the ragheads have to live and hide in caves to avoid being dust. Sounds like air power being projected if you ask me.

Thanks for making my point for me about the coming obsolesence of carriers. Yeah, we own the skies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Period. In fact we've owned the skies in Afghanistan for about six years now, since before your Boy George bungled Tora Bora. And we've owned the skies over Iraq for 17 years now. Where's Osama?


Within 20 years it will be child's play to sit in low earth orbit and drop rocks on carriers.

[Col Hogan]

That explains a LOT dawg. Your perception of our defense systems is based on the Phalanx and the Patriot missile system????

Wow. Just.....wow.

And, regarding the strawman argument of air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan---you have a very skewed definition of air superiority. We own the skies. Period. And as the Colonel so aptly pointed out, the ragheads have to live and hide in caves to avoid being dust. Sounds like air power being projected if you ask me.

Thanks for making my point for me about the coming obsolesence of carriers. Yeah, we own the skies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Period. In fact we've owned the skies in Afghanistan for about six years now, since before your Boy George bungled Tora Bora. And we've owned the skies over Iraq for 17 years now. Where's Osama?


Within 20 years it will be child's play to sit in low earth orbit and drop rocks on carriers.

Are you assuming we aren't prepared to defend against low earth orbiting vehicles? You claim that it will be "childs play" indicates you have knowledge that we are not prepared to protect our ships, and by default, any place on earth, from low-earth orbiting offensive vehicles...

Please share with us what you know about this deficiency....

[houndawg]

Thanks for making my point for me about the coming obsolesence of carriers. Yeah, we own the skies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Period. In fact we've owned the skies in Afghanistan for about six years now, since before your Boy George bungled Tora Bora. And we've owned the skies over Iraq for 17 years now. Where's Osama?


Within 20 years it will be child's play to sit in low earth orbit and drop rocks on carriers.

Are you assuming we aren't prepared to defend against low earth orbiting vehicles? You claim that it will be "childs play" indicates you have knowledge that we are not prepared to protect our ships, and by default, any place on earth, from low-earth orbiting offensive vehicles...

Please share with us what you know about this deficiency....

Please share with us the benefits of seventeen years of total air superiority in Iraq besides bankruptcy.

Colonel, we can't defend against against smaller, slower, ground based missles let alone something like a 1,000 kg rock moving at 7.5 km/s. That's somewhere near 300 million N-m of kinetic energy (KE= 1/2mv^2). Take a much larger rock and all you'd have to do is drop it near a carrier group, the tsunami would do the rest.

[Col Hogan]

Are you assuming we aren't prepared to defend against low earth orbiting vehicles? You claim that it will be "childs play" indicates you have knowledge that we are not prepared to protect our ships, and by default, any place on earth, from low-earth orbiting offensive vehicles...

Please share with us what you know about this deficiency....

Please share with us the benefits of seventeen years of total air superiority in Iraq besides bankruptcy.

Colonel, we can't defend against against smaller, slower, ground based missles let alone something like a 1,000 kg rock moving at 7.5 km/s. That's somewhere near 300 million N-m of kinetic energy (KE= 1/2mv^2). Take a much larger rock and all you'd have to do is drop it near a carrier group, the tsunami would do the rest.

Are we debating Iraq and Afghansitan...or talking about carriers, and Air Superiority???

I long ago shared my position on Iraq, but since you might have missed that, I'll do it again...

Iraq was a mistake...no it's, and's or but's...But Air Superiority supported the initial war to take Baghdad, no doubt...

Afterwards, it became an ground occupation...we maintain air superiority, but that is only a support funtion during a ground occupation (you seem yo like to mix the two)...

One of the biggest mistakes about Iraq was taking our attention away from Afghansitan...Bush diverted much needed GROUND forces from that fight...again, we have air superiority as a support function to the GROUND war...

However, when we entered Afghanistan, we relied TOTALLY on carriers for air power since we didn't have airfields in the vicinity...one carrier was even stripped of it's combat aircraft to support Special Operation helos in and out (just for a short period)...once established in country, we have fixed bases to operate from and no long need the carriers...

So, if you can, let's stop mixing a ground war underway, with the need to maintain power projection capability in the form of carriers...and what air superiority contributes to a ground occupation in Iraq and the overall war effort in Afghanistan...

Now, onto your kinetic energy formula...

DROPPING ROCKS??? WTF are you smoking this morning...

I asked you for further information on your claim that carriers will be "sitting ducks" to low space orbit vehicles...because you seem to indicate that there is no defense against someone "dropping rocks" from near-space...

Other than a formula, can you share something with us that indicates someone is remotely near developing a delivery system that can hit a moving carrier from near space...

[houndawg]

Please share with us the benefits of seventeen years of total air superiority in Iraq besides bankruptcy.

Colonel, we can't defend against against smaller, slower, ground based missles let alone something like a 1,000 kg rock moving at 7.5 km/s. That's somewhere near 300 million N-m of kinetic energy (KE= 1/2mv^2). Take a much larger rock and all you'd have to do is drop it near a carrier group, the tsunami would do the rest.

Are we debating Iraq and Afghansitan...or talking about carriers, and Air Superiority???

I long ago shared my position on Iraq, but since you might have missed that, I'll do it again...

Iraq was a mistake...no it's, and's or but's...But Air Superiority supported the initial war to take Baghdad, no doubt...

Afterwards, it became an ground occupation...we maintain air superiority, but that is only a support funtion during a ground occupation (you seem yo like to mix the two)...

One of the biggest mistakes about Iraq was taking our attention away from Afghansitan...Bush diverted much needed GROUND forces from that fight...again, we have air superiority as a support function to the GROUND war...

However, when we entered Afghanistan, we relied TOTALLY on carriers for air power since we didn't have airfields in the vicinity...one carrier was even stripped of it's combat aircraft to support Special Operation helos in and out (just for a short period)...once established in country, we have fixed bases to operate from and no long need the carriers...

So, if you can, let's stop mixing a ground war underway, with the need to maintain power projection capability in the form of carriers...and what air superiority contributes to a ground occupation in Iraq and the overall war effort in Afghanistan...

Now, onto your kinetic energy formula...

DROPPING ROCKS??? WTF are you smoking this morning...

I asked you for further information on your claim that carriers will be "sitting ducks" to low space orbit vehicles...because you seem to indicate that there is no defense against someone "dropping rocks" from near-space...

Other than a formula, can you share something with us that indicates someone is remotely near developing a delivery system that can hit a moving carrier from near space...

Oh fer cryin out loud........this thread started with T-man in a panic because the Chinese are building a carrier group. My response was that carriers are old news and that they are wasting their money. Why? Because carriers are all about controlling the high ground wherever we may be. Now, I'm going to type this real slow in case you really aren't deliberately misconstruing my opinions (and that's all I offer them as): There is a new high ground. I don't know what presence the military has in space, but you know damn well we're there in a military capacity and we aren't leaving. What the hell do you think the military is up there for? As for being "remotely near" (whatever that means, 10 years, 20 years....feel free to fill us in) being able to deliver a kinetic energy weapon, please explain why you think we can't be remotely near delivering them. We've been bringing things down out of space where we wanted them for, oh, about 50 years now. Speaking of 50 years, that's about how long ago the fastest plane ever built (that we know of) was built. What do you suppose we have up our sleeve now and what do you suppose DARPA has in the pipeline 50 years after the SR-71 and 40 years after going to the moon?

Let the Chinese build all the cariers they want. T-man's panic is much better directed at the Chinese space program, that's where trouble will come from, not the least because of their concept of "remotely near" as opposed to our concept of "remotely near". As for my comments about air power in Iraq, (vs. the non-existent Iraqi air force), the point is that air superiority there hasn't mean a whole lot.