OT: China's new carrier

[95th Rifleman]

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

All this talk of China being behind in tech is a bit pointless. If China decided to build up properly they could put out huge numbers of, admittedly inferior, shps and aircraft and swamp American defenses. For the moment they are cntent to just exchange sabre rattles.

[adimar]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

Don't confuse land & blue water warfare. The major difference between the two is that you can't really hide is open ocean warfare. At least you can't hide without a major technological edge. If you want to compare land and sea than change the land terrain to a flat rocky plain where a guerrilla force can't strike & vanish.
Since the last couple of wars were anti insurgent actions people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

These are my 1.99 cents
Adi

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by adimar

people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

This kind of thinking is daft, arrogant and the reason America lost Vietnam and why Russia lost in Afghanistan.

"We didn't lose because our tactics where out-dated, our technology was developed for an entirely different battlefield and our logistics are strecthed to breaking point. No we lost because we are the good guys and play by the rules and the other guy hides behind civvies, we couldn't possibly lose if they played fair."

Bit of a reality check, the Russians didn't care how many civilians the taliban hid behind, they blew them all up and let God do the counting and the Russians STILL lost.

people refuse to actualy learn the lessons of history, they just make up excuses and keep fighting the last war till they get blown to hell and are forced (like the Germans post-WW1) to re-write the rulebook.

Technology doesn't mean crap against numbers, even in blue water navies. WW1 era bi-planes where responsible for sinking one of the most advanced and modern warships built in WW2 (the Bismark). America won WW2 because they could put 6 carriers to sea for every one the Japanese had. It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

Technology can only get you so far, eventualy the nmbers game decides the outcome. The bigger the scale, the more powerful numbers become. Ony in very small actions does quality overcome quantity, it's the reason spec ops forces operate in small teams.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

[Legbreaker]

I believe it may be worth pointing out that the US economy is, well, basically in the toilet. Unless something BIG happens soon, the US may not be able to maintain the navy they have now, let alone build replacement ships in 20 years.
Meanwhile, China seems to be booming. 20 years from now they may well have the money, the technology and skills to build a seriously decent fleet.
Maybe neither of those things will happen, but maybe they will. Better to worry about the possibility now and work out some contingencies than place head in sand and hope.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.

The US took radar seriously. What most naval officers didn't take seriously was the idea of a Japanese attack on Hawaii.

British, American, and German warships in the early years of the war did have radar. Not very good ones, but they did have them.

[Legbreaker]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
It's also worth noting that WWII did not start in December 1941 - for most of the world it was several years earlier when the Germans were annexing their neighbours. For Japan's neighbours it was even earlier, almost a generation in China's case (Japan's invasion of Manchuria in September 1931).
As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The US took radar seriously. What most naval officers didn't take seriously was the idea of a Japanese attack on Hawaii.

British, American, and German warships in the early years of the war did have radar. Not very good ones, but they did have them.

Have to disagree here, to be certain the US started mounting radars after Pearl Harbor, but it took the murderous fighting off Guadalcanal to teach the USN how to effectively use radars.

The USN started out with a serious case of severe overconfidence in the capability of radar. In many of the naval battles, the IJN, using lookouts with the old Mark I Eyeball spotted US ships long before they were visible on radar!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

Technology is a combat multiplier, like troop quality. A bankrupt strategy is a bankrupt strategy. Assuming a halfway decent strategy, the key is that the leaders and troops using the technology know what to do with it. I suspect the tankers of VII US Corps would argue that technology gave them a decisive edge in western Kuwait in early 1991. The Japanese Navy trained hard for night actions and really took it to the US Navy around Guadalcanal in 1942. As the USN learned what to do with their radar, night actions at sea became less successful for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, I agree that Americans are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, etc. There are some good reasons for this. Hardware looks handsome and brings revenues into Congressman Jones' district. Well-trained troops cost money but don't employ factory workers; and on the parade ground it's nearly impossible to tell the proficient killers from the professional boot polishers. Also, we cling fervently to the idea that all around the world people are, deep down, Americans: democratic, enterprising, and all the other nice ideas. Therefore, we believe in the "tipping point" thesis, in which just a little more effort (money, technology, firepower) will set off a chain of events in which the people will come together, the war will be won, representative government will spontaneously erupt, and the rats we had to get into bed with will be swept away in the new dawn of Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani democracy. Then we'll all have pie (make mine apple, please). Machines, therefore, are more comfortable to believe in than cold-eyed killers and pragmatists who say things we'd rather not hear about what it will take to achieve victory--whatever that means.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Technology is a combat multiplier, like troop quality. A bankrupt strategy is a bankrupt strategy. Assuming a halfway decent strategy, the key is that the leaders and troops using the technology know what to do with it. I suspect the tankers of VII US Corps would argue that technology gave them a decisive edge in western Kuwait in early 1991. The Japanese Navy trained hard for night actions and really took it to the US Navy around Guadalcanal in 1942. As the USN learned what to do with their radar, night actions at sea became less successful for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, I agree that Americans are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, etc. There are some good reasons for this. Hardware looks handsome and brings revenues into Congressman Jones' district. Well-trained troops cost money but don't employ factory workers; and on the parade ground it's nearly impossible to tell the proficient killers from the professional boot polishers. Also, we cling fervently to the idea that all around the world people are, deep down, Americans: democratic, enterprising, and all the other nice ideas. Therefore, we believe in the "tipping point" thesis, in which just a little more effort (money, technology, firepower) will set off a chain of events in which the people will come together, the war will be won, representative government will spontaneously erupt, and the rats we had to get into bed with will be swept away in the new dawn of Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani democracy. Then we'll all have pie (make mine apple, please). Machines, therefore, are more comfortable to believe in than cold-eyed killers and pragmatists who say things we'd rather not hear about what it will take to achieve victory--whatever that means.

Webstral

The problem, the very scary problem, is it will take a massive and bloody defeat on American soil to change this attitude. While America fights conflicts in the gardens of other nations, there will never be enough incentive to change doctrine.

Look at internatonal terrorism, for decades the Americans never took it seriously enough, in fact they supported many terrorist groups operating in Soviet-controlled nations. It's also a big bone of contention over here that Americans in New York and Boston where fund raising for the IRA.

It took 9/11 to really shake America and make the American people and government realise how dangerous terrorism really is and why supporting it, even in hostile nations, is a recipe for disaster. Afterall, it was the American-supported individuals who fought the Russians that masterminded 9/11.

[LBraden]

Aye, it always gets me how people do not realise the "other side" of my fathers exact comment when I got home from school that day and said "what the hell is going on", he replied "The bastards finally got what they need".

Part of that IS because the US paid for terrorism against Communism, but also, large areas of the Eastern Seaboard in the US paid, supplied and even hides IRA people, who in my fathers eyes, as he was 1 Ulster Defence Regiment of the British Army, born in Northern Ireland, are terrorists.

But I think we are going a little off topic from Carriers, but yes, its interesting to see what overtures are going on in Taiwan and China, and that it does appears since some news I heard yesterday, that China has an interest in a "Coastal Defence Force" and using fighters launching Exocets at long ranges.

[rcaf_777]

Owning a carrier is one thing, operating one and carrier strike group, is something completely different, by the time China can operate a carrier strike group, the US will have left that field and moved onto something far more flexible and unmanned

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Owning a carrier is one thing, operating one and carrier strike group, is something completely different, by the time China can operate a carrier strike group, the US will have left that field and moved onto something far more flexible and unmanned

Which could be America's downfall.

[ShadoWarrior]

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?