PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Oops, double post.

latenlazy said:

If you can't conclude what the proper success rate is, you also can't conclude how the economics play out (it could be dismally low given unknowables like how a seeker plays against a jammer). You also have to consider that it's not as straightforward as a barrage of missile vs one carrier group. The missile launcher itself will be hunted.

Click to expand...

Theoretically yes, but practically no. See # 3, there isn't any verification either way. The US wouldn't bet the safety of the CG's on the unknown value of the success rate of the ABSM and hence AA is practically achieved. Mission accomplished.

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:

Theoretically yes, but practically no. See # 3, there isn't any verification either way. The US wouldn't bet the safety of the CG's on the unknown value of the success rate of the ABSM and hence AA is practically achieved. Mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

That depends on the nature of the conflict, and also the state of intelligence . Until a conflict is hot, your counter is not a deterrence. It is only an excuse for the other side to develop the counter to your counter. (I know that the argument would be that by developing this counter you stall your adversary from thinking conflict is viable, but again, that depends on the nature of the conflict. Not all decisions to go hot are based on absolute readiness. EDIT: And I imagine any actual conflict scenario between China and the US would not be the type of conflict where absolute readiness on either side is realistic).

latenlazy said:

That depends on the nature of the conflict, and also the state of intelligence . Until a conflict is hot, your counter is not a deterrence. It is only an excuse for the other side to develop the counter to your counter.

Click to expand...

So we should quit weapons development because there will likely be counter, counter to your counter, and so forth? Who has ever claimed that the ABSM is an end-all AA? It is important for the ABSM to serve its purpose now and the near future. And the game continues with more "levels" to come.

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:

So we should quit weapons development because there will likely be counter, counter to your counter, and so forth? Who has ever claimed that the ABSM is an end-all AA? It is important for the ABSM to serve its purpose now and the near future. And the game continues with more "levels" to come.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. Again, I am (and I'm pretty sure Jeff and tphuang are) not saying AShBMs are useless, just that they are not absolute check mates.

I believe the end all suggestion was first brought up when someone specifically used the term "handled" with regards to AShBMs and American CVs.

latenlazy said:

Has an American Supercarrier ever been sunk in a war game?

Click to expand...

More than once.



"In the second phase of the exercise, the Saphir was integrated with the enemy forces and its mission was to locate the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and its accompanying warships and prepare to attack the strike group.

While the fictious political situation deteriorated, the Saphir quietly slipped in the heart of the multi-billion-dollar aircraft carrier’s defensive screen, while avoiding detection by ASW assets.

On the morning of the last day, the order to attack was finally given, allowing the Saphir to pretend-sinking the USS Theodore Roosevelt and most of its escort."



"Van Riper dismissed the new military concepts as empty sloganeering, and he had reason to be skeptical. In the first days of the "war," Van Riper's Force Red sent most of the US fleet to the bottom of the Persian Gulf."

I'm pretty sure I can find other examples with a bit more digging.

Is this the right place to discuss the missile question?

Intrepid said:

Is this the right place to discuss the missile question?

Click to expand...

Good point, probably not. *desists*

latenlazy said:

No, not at all. Again, I (and I'm pretty sure Jeff and tphuang) are not saying AShBMs are useless, just that they are not absolute check mates.

I believe the end all suggestion was first brought up when someone specifically used the term "handled" with regards to AShBMs and American CVs.

Click to expand...

How many weapon systems can practically be claimed as "check mate"? Not a fair or realistic argument against the ABSM.

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:

How many weapon systems can practically be claimed as "check mate"? Not a fair or realistic argument against the ABSM.

Click to expand...

None, but that's why some of us are trying to pull the reins in a little.