crobatoTo name a few
Secure oil route to sudan. Patrol south china sea, reduce piracy, instigate PLAN presence in Strait of Malacca(Main chinese sea lane), reinfoce claim in spralty, offer possible assistance to UN peace keeping operations (China currently have a many), able to be more involved in disaster rescue or even anti terrorist operations offshore.
Lets take these objects set by halo and break it up to see if they are truly effective with carriers and if other alternatives provide greater feasibility and cost effectiveness.
1. Piracy in the south china seas.
Thailand has a carrier too. Yet the seas around it is notorious for pirates. US carriers have patrolled in the Strait of Malacca and the South China seas. Didnt dent piracy not a single bit. Pirates are like rats and terrorists. They are not intimidated by brute force. In the face of force, they hide, and later come out in the wood work. They work by stealth and infiltration. You need an incorruptible and vigilant coast guard for that.
2. Supporting UN operations.
Better to have a fleet of LPDs and LHDs which will provide the cause for protection before coming to a carrier first. Even then the support is more of symbolic than genuinely tactical. If you want to get into a brutal campaign, your best investment will always be an offshore base.
3. Disaster rescue.
Get an LHD. Carriers are overkill.
4. Anti terrorist operations.
Anti terrorism operations require stealth, and carriers are not stealthy while planes are LOUD. You will find that for naval SOF operations, you would rather have subs deploying SOF teams at night. Large nuclear subs as a matter of fact, even SSBMs, that you can use to deploy SOF. For that matter, SSGNs can target sites with cruise missiles.
crobatoI am a true beliver in the lightweight fighter, and I look att WW2 when almost all the successful fighters were single engined.
To make the paralell with computers, there todays super computers are really clusters of small computers. Using datalinks small fighters could form similar clusters that should be very lethal.But there are backsides with the lightweight fighter to, I have to admit. First a lightweight fighter has not much room for big errors in the design. A big fighter has more room to accomodate shortcomings. Some people belive building a small fighter is easier to design, but even if a small fighter is less complex and can be designed quicker the margines are smaller. Especially the engines are important, as they really have to be powerful, efficient and reliable as they only have one. Aerodynamical efficiency is also very important, and the pilots has to be well trained in working together.
The big fighter have the advantage of being able to carry a bigger payload a longer way. But the lightweight fighter can take advantage lighter materials and lighter and more fuel efficient engines to catch up.
The thing is, in paper and in theory, the big fighter always sounds better. Which is why big fighters always comes out during post war periods. Before WWII, Germany isn’t the only one with a Zerstorer design; there were Russian, French, British, Japanese and US equivalents too. And its always for the same reason you have now—better range, better punch, and better versatility.
Then the real intense fighting happens and the hard realities hit smack in the face.
By the way this happened over Vietnam too.
crobatoTrue of all current missiles, I think, but not Meteor, which will be powered all the way, able to throttle back & coast, then boost again when it engages the target. An advantage of a rocket/ramjet over a pure rocket. It extends the NEZ even more than it extends the range.
The problem with ramjets they don’t accelerate very well. Once they slow down to a threshold, the engine chokes and does not run. So they have to fly at a constant speed. They have to be accelerated by a rocket and all the ramjet does is sustain the speed. But it also imposes very real limits on maneuverbility that is caused by dramatic drops of speed. Even if the ramjet has burned out and the missile maneuvers by sheer momentum, the intakes and larger cross section of the missile imposes greater drag.
You will have greater range yes, but you will not have greater maneuverbility. As a matter of fact, probably worst off.
crobatoAre they building another AWACS over there?
Also, it seems to be finally the end of an era. China has stopped production of the J-7, and with that, the end of the MiG-21 family.
crobatoIts always better to have the means just in case. All the plans of mice and men are all subject to fate/chance/luck/whatever you want to call it, but the point is you can’t plan for the unexpected, so its always good to have options to react and respond, especially since China is starting to have more and more interestes and citizens abroad.
What would happen if rebels tried to overthrow the goverment of *insert name of african country that China has invest heavily in*? Or a larger country has their eyes on the oilfields of a neighbour that China is heavily invested in? Even if the UN passes a resolution it would count for nothing if the US don’t agree to send some carriers, and as the way things are, the US is not going to send carriers to save China’s bacon. Hell, China could probably count themselves lucky if American money and/or influence wasn’t helping the rebels.
Having your own carrier would be a major help in such cases.
No. That’s a situation not even US carriers can solve. Carriers as big stick diplomacy have never solved anything from Vietnam to Iraq.
As a matter of fact, what makes it worst is that the largest proportion of missions generated and munitions delivered in all the US campaigns are still coming out of land based air forces.
You would find that in situations like the above, it would be better to hatch an alliance with a neighboring country or faction, so you can put a forward base, which in turn where you can base your army and air force units.
In which case, China is better served having a global C41 capability first, and followed by no less than important massive air lift capability.
crobatoTell that to Taiwan.
A carrier could be very useful for providing a threat to Taiwanese assets from a completely different threat axis than currently expected.
And a disproportionate expense just to put one to two regiments of Flankers on the east side of Taiwan.
Not to mention making it more difficult for the US to intervene if China attempts to forcibly reunite the two countries.
Unicorn
It will make the PLAN heel over faster if the carrier is sunk.
There is a reason why battleships like the Yamato and the Tirpitz weren’t use as aggressively as they should. If they get sunk it becames too symbolic. The same happens with a carrier.
crobatoFor fighting the USA, yes, a carrier fleet isn’t useful until it’s big enough & good enough to challenge the USN, which is a lot more than China can afford. But if, for example, you want to send marines ashore somewhere in Africa, then a carrier offshore can be useful. It’s persistent, unlike a bomber flying from China, & immeasurably more flexible than a submarine full of cruise missiles.
That’s very situational and situational reasons don’t justify such expenses, especially if the situation is not likely to happen for China. You cannot transpose US reasons to China, considering that China does not seem to have the inclination to play global cop and dominant superpower with its attendant responsibilities (“the multipolar world”). The Chinese sense of strategy is to mean not to be in a situation to put marines in Africa in the first place.
crobatoYou must be joking.
Individuals working on H1B visas are paid only a fraction of the prevailing compensation rates of their American counterparts. There are even exceptions to minimum wage laws. Today there are Indians with H1B visas who are working at “Indian wage scales” in Silicon Valley!
Really? And that is legal?
H1B visa holder can’t change employers, so they can’t negotiate compensation packages once they’re signed on. This isn’t racial discrimination. Receiving a H1B visa is easier and quicker than traditional immigration proceedures. H1B visa holder have fewer rights than traditional legal immigrants or citizens.
To be fair to the many unemployed and underemployed American engineers, the H1B visa program has probably held down wage scales, which in turn has helped keep inflation low and maintained the competitiiveness of American industryin the global marketplace. The H1B visa program has been good for society and business, etc…..
It’s all legal.
Keep in mind that H1B visas and “guestworker programs” in general grant exceptions to existing labor and immigration laws.
Wrong. That is not legal. You want to bet? Go talk to an immigration lawyer, US Department of Labor and US Immigration.
I am pretty sure they would all be very interested to find out where H-1 and H-2 workers are being deliberately paid lower than than standard.
crobatoI know full well that the Ukranians would supply engines, the question i whether any have actually been fitted.
The engines are built into a ship during an early phase of construction before the hull is ever completed, as it is impossible to install the engines after that. Unless someone have to massively cut the hull open to take out the huge engines, which is going to be a massive expense on its own, it would be impossible to take the engines out in the first place after it is installed and the hull is completed, which it is.
So the engines will still be there, albeit nonoperational. All it needs is the parts to make that happen.
crobatoPaul,
thanks for the bit about Rafale’s antenna (had no idea). My point however, was that the Typhoon Syndicate has a tendency to hype their products. Hell, not only do they claim decisive range advantages over Pesas such as RBE2 (with good reason perhaps), but they claim extremely competitive scan rates too – good enough to equate with Pesas such as RBE2/Bars.
Its supposed to have an almost Bars (Massive PEsa) class detection range AND also has impressive scan rates thereby enabling it to “track” 20+ and engage 6-8 targets – quite equal to the Bars. I mean – they have the cake plus the icing and an additional cherry.
They claim fast scan rates because they claim to use very fast servos and motors. That on the other hand makes the system vulnerable to mechanical failure.
crobatoAfterall shouldn’t PESA achieve LPI a lot easier than a slotted array considering the sidelobes are supposedly lower with a PESA?
Besides Paul’s explanation on the sidelobs, PESA makes it difficult to use pulse compression, another LPI technique. Someone had previously explained it in this forum. To make it short, a PESA guides by constructive/deconstructive interference, and there is a minimum for a signal to endure that. This makes it easier for a slotted array to use this.
crobatoThanks Crobato,
If what you are saying is right, than I doubt any aircraft can be as manuarbly as missile…correct me….coz missile are diesgned to out manouave all the turns that manned aircraft could poossibly achive.
Missiles have a short burn time in seconds and by the time they get near your aircraft, they are flying out of sheer momentum, Thus everytime they are made to turn, they lose quite a bit of that momentum, and everytime they deflect their fins, they lose more speed from the drag. When fired at maximum distances, a missile has no oomph at all when they reach the target aircraft, so they are easily evaded.
If small aircraft do have any advantage, why everyone is gunning for two engine big birds? Should we not concentrate on a small agile aircraft with all the modern gizmo we can cram in?
Because of other considerations. It remains to be seen if the current course is correct. In the sixties, John Boyd ran a series of simulations and calculations proving that at least mathematically, a plane like a MiG-17 is able to physically evade the period’s known AAMs and SAMs.
There are also other means. Basically the best is to kill the other guy before he kills you.
Against BVR missiles for example, the other guy has to keep you in his radar field of view so he can guide the missile. Make him break that lock, and the missile will go free. For both SARH and ARH missiles, the principle is the same, except on the ARH missile, he can break his lock sooner and the missile can go active and autonomous.
To break that lock, there are different means. ECM and jamming is one obviously. Another is the “beam” maneuver intended to exploit doppler notch. Be aware that newer radars are increasingly being more resistant to that trick however. The other is to lock on him on your own radar, so he thinks you fired a missile at him, or actually fire a missile at him, so he will be forced to take evasive measures on his own and ‘forget’ the missile he fired.
Now we can of course, ask the ‘real’ experts who have actually evaded and survived missiles attacks in real life. In the Gulf War 1, an F-16 pilot from a USAF Spanish detachment managed to evade and survive six SAMs consecutively fired at him. That must have been a freaking experience in the pilot’s seat.
Then of course, there is also the old fasioned trick. Turn tail and run like hell. And that works too. In the same war, a MiG-25 literally outran everything that was thrown at him, Sparrows, Phoenixes and AMRAAM. He melted his engines in the process but he survived.
crobatoWhat does that prove? There are Indian engineers working in nearly every developed country. Why? Because Indian engineers work for relatively low wages. Cheap labor -pure and simple. Indian engineers will work for less money than their American, European or Israei counterparts.
It remains to be seen if the Indian “scientists” in question are senior level project managers or entry level staffers.
Wages for a profession in that country are paid roughly the same or in standard no matter what the race is.
Or else you are going to have a long conversation with the Department or Ministry of Labor or whatever is the equivalent.
crobatocheap labour alone is responsible for China being what it is today..what else did you think it had to boast of ? :rolleyes:
Very pro business government, from the highest echelons of the party to the lowly village official. This is a government that will rent space in the People’s Hall, the most sacred place of Chinese Communism—to Ford, GM or McDonald’s to launch their new products. This is a government who knows who the real powers are, so when they visit the US, they check first with the guys who really run the country (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc,.) before checking in with the guy at the White House.
Practical and immediete economic management.
The highest savings rate in the world.
Superior transportation, communication and computer infrastructure, including the highest internet bandwidth in the world.
Very high literacy rates.
And of course, certainly not the least, sheer aggressive capitalistic materialistic greed. This is the same country where the abott of a certain famous Buddist temple would globally copyright its name so anyone who uses the world Shaolin or Xiaolin in the media are going to pay their dues.
crobatoEvading a BVR missile, what properties of an aircraft would help? Do smaal agile aircraft has advantage in evading a missile?
The ability to continously change direction in order to cause the missile either to overshoot or lengthen its flight time till it runs out of kinetic energy (e.g. barrel rolls etc,.) That means roll rates, instant and sustained turn rates, and yes sheer transient performance. To answer the final question, yes.
Sign In
