What's new

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished

but the problem is US would not want to see that, once that happens then US world power no more...cant take that risk so its better to avoid conflicts with those who can use that weapon
The Exocet and its cousins were once touted to be THE weapon against a military with a superior navy. That did not happened. The type of missile remains a credible threat, but not the defeating threat its once reputation had.

The corollary applies to any new weapon that is designed to meet asymmetrically against another weapon. If the new countermeasure weapon fails in combat, not only much investments would be considered wasted, but any war doctrine that rests upon the new weapon will be considered suspicious to achieve successes and most likely will be discarded. Is the military flexible enough in the absence of that particular doctrine ?

Go back to the days of Gen. Billy Mitchell, considered to be the 'father' of the USAF. Much resistance and ridicule were leveled at the aircraft as a viable weapon of war. We would think that even after the experience of WW I, the generals and admirals would have seen at least a glimmer of the aircraft as a potential threat from the third dimension. Not that attack from the third dimension is unknown -- the submarine. We have the benefit of hindsight to extol the foresight virtues of Mitchell but consider how much intellectual and political investments Mitchell made into the aircraft that he risked his career in trying to turn the US military into one uncharted territory of warfare.

The ballistic missile against stationary ground targets is real. Against a moving target, land or sea, is a natural progression. The DF-21D is not an unknown platform like the aircraft was back then but the uncertainty of its efficacy to be a credible combat threat is the same as that of the aircraft back then. Since the end of WW II, no one have done more than the US in advancing the aircraft carrier as a weapon platform in terms of lethality, flexibility, and survivability. All three qualities must advance at the same time and under US tutelage, the aircraft carrier matured into a weapon platform that not even the ballistic missile have matched.

The lethality of the missile is unchallenged. We do not need any debate there. But since the missile is essentially a throw away weapon, its flexibility is limited and its survivability is zero. Regarding flexibility, am not talking about moving it from place to place or different types of warhead it can carry. Am talking about what kind of strategic and tactical doctrines can it produce to give a military as much flexibility as possible which inevitably translate that military into a force to be cautious about. As a strategic and tactical weapon, the aircraft carrier is unmatched in terms of giving any military that dangerous perception about itself, and that perception is not vague but backed up with bloody experience. In warfare, past and modern, a flexible military is a deadly one.

The sword, the spear, and the bow and arrow have not failed in warfare. They were DISPLACED. To date, no weapon platform have managed to displace the aircraft carrier as a deterrence to violence and as an executor of violence. The submarine can threatens only ships, but the aircraft carrier can threaten an entire country.

China is pursuing her status as an aircraft carrier capable military, even if not on the same level as the US currently is. China have no desire the see the DF-21D fails in combat. That does not mean the PLA will not use it other than as a propaganda prop. Too much investments were made, including the intellectual and political risks we can be certain some generals and admirals rendered. But given the decades borne reputation the aircraft carrier has, the PLA is not going to rest its forces on any new strategic and tactical doctrines the DF-21D MAY produce.
 
. .
I face lots of trolls like you. Don't try to be smart here. Next time talk with logic

Oh, well I'll try to be smart, what can you do about it ???

Why my simple question didn't made sense to you ??? Then let me remind you something. Answer of a question should never be another question. It's as simple as that. :)
 
.
Oh, well I'll try to be smart, what can you do about it ???

Why my simple question didn't made sense to you ??? Then let me remind you something. Answer of a question should never be another question. It's as simple as that. :)
This is non sense what you are talking. You don't know a thing and talk big like any other troll. Next time don't post comments on me. My answer was very simple and if you were smart then you should know what i pointed out you but your reply was troll and asked me to google which i already know. First learn combat radius of each aircraft and then comment. Now i will not reply your comments and stop sending me posts
 
.
This is non sense what you are talking. You don't know a thing and talk big like any other troll. Next time don't post comments on me. My answer was very simple and if you were smart then you should know what i pointed out you but your reply was troll and asked me to google which i already know. First learn combat radius of each aircraft and then comment. Now i will not reply your comments and stop sending me posts

FYI, it was not me rather you who had tagged me initially. I was talking perfect sense. In a scenario, like U.S want to attack Iran, Pakistan or even India, how are the supposed to bring in their Airpower ?? Via Cargo ??? LOL :p:

So yes, Aircraft carriers are very much relevant even when the tech to counter them are improving fast. That's what I simply meant to say.
 
.
It appears some are delusional enough to believe that only American aircraft carriers can be targeted.

As if aircraft carriers from other countries couldn't be targeted just as easily in time of war?

As you said, if it is finished, then why are other countries building and seeking to master them?
No you are looking at the wrong side of the picture ... US is undisputedly sole superpower and even Russia and China can't defeat US ... However, in distant areas like South China sea US supremacy was guaranteed by these aircraft carriers ...

So if China and Russia can counter those aircraft carriers it does not means that they can defeat US but it means that US unchallenged supremacy can be challenged in areas far away from US, however, in foreseeable future there is no doubt that no nation at this point of time can challenge US on its mainland or at neutral venue ...

What OP is talking about is a specific battle scenario at specific places and specific circumstances and offcourse the home nation will always of huge advantage, however, if you are talking about a complete war then still there is no match to the military might of US ...
 
.
It appears some are delusional enough to believe that only American aircraft carriers can be targeted.

As if aircraft carriers from other countries couldn't be targeted just as easily in time of war?

As you said, if it is finished, then why are other countries building and seeking to master them?

Some country still build carrier is for the purpose to project their power to deal with weaker country, and they dont not need many.

The carrier wont be much effective to fight major power like America, Russia or China.

Remember how many times Chinese sub appear silently near US carrier? we can imagine if that happened in war situation.
 
.
Nothing is "unsinkable". If a US Carrier is sunk, it won't be the first one in US Naval history. The real question is - what happens next? Is the attacking Nation ready for the escalation and retaliation that will most certainly follow? If so - sink away!
 
. . .
There is reason why supercarier become more fragile. In the future there will be submersible arsenal that can carry 300 missile including those with range > 1000km. That will be real threat to the supercarriers.


China is developing a warship of naval theorists' dreams
An arsenal ship that can be submerged in water.

arsenal_sub.jpg

https://www.popsci.com/futuristic-chinese-warship-concept-is-making-waves
 
.
There is reason why supercarier become more fragile. In the future there will be submersible arsenal that can carry 300 missile including those with range > 1000km. That will be real threat to the supercarriers.


China is developing a warship of naval theorists' dreams
An arsenal ship that can be submerged in water.

arsenal_sub.jpg

https://www.popsci.com/futuristic-chinese-warship-concept-is-making-waves

Where I come from, those things are called SSBNs. Currently in the US called the Ohio class, and in Russia the typhoon class. Nothing new there
 
.
Where I come from, those things are called SSBNs. Currently in the US called the Ohio class, and in Russia the typhoon class. Nothing new there

He's clearly a fanboy for one specific country.

In his mind, all other countries are weak compared to the one specific country he fanboys for.

Just my 2 cents
 
.
He's clearly a fanboy for one specific country.

In his mind, all other countries are weak compared to the one specific country he fanboys for.

Just my 2 cents
Chinese have some work to do on their subs. Their diesel electrics and SSNs are both noisy, easy to detect and leave a terrible heat signature when submerged...but they are better than their neighbour's subs I suppose...kinda
 
.
That doesn't answer my simple doubt. How is U.S or any other country who's intention are to attack a far away nation, supposed to bring their fighters and bombers within their striking range ??? Can you please enlighten ?? :)

You are correct not many countries have the ability to fly a fighter jet to the other side of the planet without landing in some 3rd party country to refuel. in fact i think only the US has this capability. Maybe Russia and France can pull it off with some refueling tanker prepositioning..but the US does this every day.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom