Chinese sub & Russian fighters humiliate Kittyhawk

Thanks IdonT! I hope to learn alot more from you, I appreciate the information.

PS:  I see you are from Australia.  I beleive the RAAF made a mistake in taking the Superhornet.  The Superhornet was made to work on carriers.  As a result there were some weight penalties involved in strengthening the airframe for carrier use.  Since Australia is not using them on carriers, the F-15 (the ones Singapore and Korea uses) model would have been better.

I have a question IdonT. From what I understand, the F-18 and F-15 are different role fighters. The F-18 I believe is more multirole and the F-15 is a air supiority fighter that has only just been dethroned by the F-22 recently. Atleast thats what I understand from reading on the subject.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by IDonT FYI Van Riper copied the tactics of the Serbian Colonel who shot down the F-117.  He relied on "old fashion" means to rely information (couriers and land lines).  Impossible to jam and detect.    Does that disqualify him in some way? You're not allowed to use 'old-fashioned' tactics?

Originally posted by IDonT   It depends if you are on the offensive.  In a hypothethical US vs China conflict, a US carrier will not operate by itself but will be supported by other force multipliers (AWACS, Tankers, Bombers, etc).  A carrier strke group also has tomahawk cruise missile at its disposal too.

the PRC also have force multipliers , with all things being equal it will still come down to the equipment and numbers available. Though you reminded me of Guam which would help the USN with rear logistics and basing extra force multipliers.

 Tomahawks are pin pricks that do nothing but hurt a few limited places, if they get through any modern defense network.  They just compliment the overall striking force so you would need the air power close up anyway.  i agree with your very good point made about carriers vs CM armed ships. A similar article here in Aus about cruise missiles on our subs vs keeeping a squad of F-111 or equiv came to the same conclusions. planes are far far more versatile, flexible and overall better bang for buck.

Bombers of the stealth type will be good but how many can be deployed and how effective are they, like the cruise missile, on their own? i say this because you wouldn't want to pit the F-18 to the Flanker unless there was a clear number advantage, which i doubt could happen with even two carriers.

The flankers have the edge over the F-18E's on radius and weapons load, they are simply bigger and more powerful. They can take more fuel and/or weapons and fly further, also i suspect a well flown Flanker will be very hard to beat if contact was made. So i would contend on the airspace side the USN will be at a disadvantage. If they stay back to avoid the flanker reach they must deploy more of the force multipliers to extend the Hornets range. If they are forced back things become harder, there are now more very expensive assets flying in the air that need to be protected, fueled and coordinated. Lets not forget that the flanker can fire very long range AA missiles designed for such targets as AWACs and tankers, so the idea they need protection from well organised  hit and run teams is very believable and something else to plan for.

But all of that will still be better than coming in close to a hypothetical 100 missile swarm.

Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):      - at sea level, km 1,270      - at height, km 3,000      - with one refuelling (at 1.500 kg fuel remaining), km 5,200      - with two refuellings in flight, km 8,000

www.sukhoi.org

Originally posted by IDonT FYI Van Riper copied the tactics of the Serbian Colonel who shot down the F-117.  He relied on "old fashion" means to rely information (couriers and land lines).  Impossible to jam and detect.

Originally posted by Zagros The UK would have lost that war had it not been for the behind the scenes play by MI-6 and Chile which stopped Argentina acquiring more exocets (they only had four), Argentina was pretty weak to begin with, it doesn't take much to conquer practically undefended islands.  The battleship was obsolete because of airpower in general not carriers.  The US Navy knew in 1922 of this fact, but again, navy brass paid no heed. So what do you think of Millennium Challenge '02?

Originally posted by Zagros Indeed, no one is going on about a nuclear conflict (except you?) which is why I said the likelihood of those countries going to war - period - is low to zero.  And I did cite power projection - projection over weak adversaries such as Saddam who had no form of defense whatsoever against a carrier group.  Which country - as listed - with a carrier group will seek to project power over another?  None of them.  So it is a status symbol: "I too have the ability to project power over other [pathetically weak] countries".

Indeed, no one is going on about a nuclear conflict (except you?) which is why I said the likelihood of those countries going to war - period - is low to zero.  And I did cite power projection - projection over weak adversaries such as Saddam who had no form of defense whatsoever against a carrier group. 

Which country - as listed - with a carrier group will seek to project power over another?  None of them.  So it is a status symbol: "I too have the ability to project power over other [pathetically weak] countries".

Furthermore, the fact that CHina, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Russia, France, UK, Spain, Italy, and the United states are still building carriers as the centerpiece of their naval strategy proves that they are still needed.

Just a fad, status symbol.  Besides, realistically none of those countries will go to war with each other due to MAD in most cases.  They are perhaps for use at distances against foes whom aren't technically or strategically developed, militarily.