• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Embarrassing mistake: Chinese magazine ‘accidentally’ reveals new top secret weapon

Okay. Cavalry is also still useful. Giddyap!

The US has not had "traditional" cavalry since the end of the American civil war.

"Horse mounted dragoons" CAN still play a part in today's conflicts. Such troops were used to great effect in Afghanistan (they just weren't "American horse mounted dragoons".
 
The US has not had "traditional" cavalry since the end of the American civil war.

"Horse mounted dragoons" CAN still play a part in today's conflicts. Such troops were used to great effect in Afghanistan (they just weren't "American horse mounted dragoons".

We can't go to war without proper horse archers, though. They can still kill people.
 
Dude, if they were outmoded then they would not have been used... if they were obsolete they would not have been used or destroyed. They were obviously not obsolete and neither are aircraft carriers. Walls were not obsolete just because somebody invented the trebuchet...

They may very well turn into drone carriers though.
 
Re: Embarrassing mistake: Chinese magazine ‘accidentally’ reveals new top secret weapon

Yes they are. They're useful for power projection. But in a real war, against a modern military, they wouldn't stand a chance. A carrier can be sunk or disabled by a missile a fraction of its cost. And the range of anti-ship missiles is longer than the range of carrier based aircraft. Oops.

When was the last time there was a "real war" anywhere on the planet that would fit your criteria? And it's not like an aircraft carrier operates in isolation. So why do you take it as a given that Chinese bombers at the receiving end of surface-to-air radar-guided missiles fired from destroyers in a carrier battle group would fare batter than a U.S. aircraft carrier attacked by the Chinese? In any case, if we ever have a "real war" with China or any other country with sophisticated missile technology, I would think the state of our naval fleet, with the exception of our nuclear ballistic missile submarines, would be the least of our worries. The fact is we face many threats, including the sort of confined regional conflict or crisis that occurs with regular frequency around the globe. And in those conflicts the ability of an aircraft carrier to project power is invaluable, as we saw most recently with ISIS, which was anything but sophisticated. Nonetheless, it managed to become a major source or misery and death in Iraq and Syria until conventional airpower, much of it carrier based, assisted in its destruction (U.S. airstrikes from carrier Eisenhower top 1,000 against ISIS in Iraq and Syria).
 
From News.com.au

Embarrassing mistake: Chinese magazine ‘accidentally’ reveals new top secret weapon


A centrefold graphic recently flourished intimate details of a Chinese bomber carrying a stark new weapon. State-controlled media has since gone into cover-up mode. But military analysts think Beijing may have been caught with its pants down.

The government produced Modern Ships magazine has splashed high-resolution computer-generated images of China’s most recent addition to its strategic bomber line-up – the H-6N – over the front and feature pages.

But that’s not what drew the eye of the world’s defence thinkers.

The graphics showed the new bomber carrying a huge ballistic missile slung under its fuselage. And that missile looks a lot like one of a family of ballistic weapons deployed by China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) as aircraft carrier killers.

Beijing’s state-controlled Global Times immediately went into damage control mode, declaring, “The images are computer generated, merely conceptual and have no official background.”

But there’s far more to the story than the detailed conceptual images.

And this may confirm Western defence analysts’ worst fears.

COMMENT:-

At US$10,000,000 each (to pick a number at random) the PRC can produce around 375 of those for the cost of one US aircraft carrier.

At six months (to pick a number at random) to produce one of those missiles, the PRC can produce those missiles in around 9.09% of the time that it takes to build one US aircraft carrier.

The logistics of this situation do not look all that rosy for American aircraft carriers.

Carriers are sitting ducks. That's why they need half a freaking navy battalion to defend them.

Basically AC's are for picking on the little guy. They are useless against the Russians or the Chinese.
 
Carriers are sitting ducks. That's why they need half a freaking navy battalion to defend them.

Basically AC's are for picking on the little guy. They are useless against the Russians or the Chinese.

No, an aircraft carrier is mobile. A "sitting duck" would be a conventional airfield, and to get access to it you would either have to invade a country or get permission to occupy it. And we'd also have to figure out how to get the fighter jets or assault helicopters there. Imagine, for example, trying to use FedEx to deliver an entire Marine Expeditionary Force to, say, somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. :doh Or are conventional combat aircraft, like Colonel Custer's 7th Cavalry Regiment, obsolete, too? :confused:
 
No, an aircraft carrier is mobile. A "sitting duck" would be a conventional airfield, and to get access to it you would either have to invade a country or get permission to occupy it. And we'd also have to figure out how to get the fighter jets or assault helicopters there. Imagine, for example, trying to use FedEx to deliver an entire Marine Expeditionary Force to, say, somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. :doh Or are conventional combat aircraft, like Colonel Custer's 7th Cavalry Regiment, obsolete, too? :confused:

Mobile? Yes, like a turtle in vat of peanut butter.
 
They may very well turn into drone carriers though.

For proper, modern drones, you deploy them from aircraft.

I suppose if you have a need for some of the big old bastards, you could modify a destroyer.
 
Re: Embarrassing mistake: Chinese magazine ‘accidentally’ reveals new top secret weapon

Mobile? Yes, like a turtle in vat of peanut butter.

Modern aircraft carriers can travel more than 30 knots. That's a lot faster than an airport. And, like I said, it's not like they're defenseless. They operate with a picket of ASW aircraft and ships armed with surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles and, as a last resort, the Phalanx close-in weapon system.

SM-2 Missile | Raytheon

Phalanx Close-In Weapon System | Raytheon
 
Re: Embarrassing mistake: Chinese magazine ‘accidentally’ reveals new top secret weapon

More displacement = more speed. A carrier can literally sail circles around a destroyer.
 
Soon aircraft carriers will be relics of the past, like battleships before them.

With the advancement in over the horizon guided artillery, it’s my prediction battleships will soon be making a come back.
 
For proper, modern drones, you deploy them from aircraft.

I suppose if you have a need for some of the big old bastards, you could modify a destroyer.

I expect our fighter jets to be largely pilotless inside a generation. We would just need a platform to rearm , refuel, do maintenance on them.
 
I think the opposite... few believe that nukes, beyond a few surgical strikes, will be used. They don't want to get nuked just as badly as we don't.

WWIII will be a war fought on the cyberscape. Expect millions to be driven insane by endless spamming of their facebook, emails, candy crush etc. The US will be screwed due to its lack of focus on mental health care to handle all of those frustrated people.
 
And then BAM! Zombie apocalypse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Okay. Cavalry is also still useful. Giddyap!

You have not seen 12 Strong apparently... special forces rode horses against the Taliban and won.
 
They may very well turn into drone carriers though.

Yeah... they could alter into something different. Even if they were left alone though, except for a couple of potential threats, carriers can still be used to **** up most nations.
 
Carriers are sitting ducks. That's why they need half a freaking navy battalion to defend them.

Basically AC's are for picking on the little guy. They are useless against the Russians or the Chinese.

A very naive comment...
 
WWIII will be a war fought on the cyberscape. Expect millions to be driven insane by endless spamming of their facebook, emails, candy crush etc. The US will be screwed due to its lack of focus on mental health care to handle all of those frustrated people.

I figure they just Fire Sale us and eventually there is the Walking Dead Zombie Apocalypse that we have to worry about...
 
Re: Embarrassing mistake: Chinese magazine ‘accidentally’ reveals new top secret weapon

More displacement = more speed. A carrier can literally sail circles around a destroyer.

Both clock wise and anti-clock wise?
 
Yeah... they could alter into something different. Even if they were left alone though, except for a couple of potential threats, carriers can still be used to **** up most nations.

That is the pint of having so many though isn't it. Not a lot of nations realistically can get at them with conventional weapons.
 
That is the pint of having so many though isn't it. Not a lot of nations realistically can get at them with conventional weapons.

Even if China or some nation came up with a great missile that does not mean that the USA could not come up with a defense that is just as effective. Look at the Israeli missile defense system... that seemed like science fiction when people were proposing/developing it.
 
They may very well turn into drone carriers though.

A big target that carries a lot of drones has something in common with a big target that does not carry a lot of drones.

Do you know what that is?

An aircraft carrier that has been sunk and cannot launch or recover aircraft has something in common with a "drone carrier" that has been sunk and cannot launch or recover drones.

Do you know what that is?
 
Back
Top Bottom