Chinese carrier weapon
 

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009070...-carriers.html

How credible is this? How could the US counter such a threat? It seems that the days of the carrier as we know it might be coming to a close with technology such as this. From what I read in the article it has a low RCS and unpredictable flight path that missile systems can't track it... making the Aeigis system redundant against these.

What do you think?

It's simple, if your carrier can't withstand them, you just have to find and kill them before they can launch

Besides, anything can be countered by something else, it's just a matter of time

Carriers don't become obsolete until you can match their capabilities with something else

Should be interesting to see what antidote is invented....a vastly improved Aegis system perhaps.

The carrier doctrine has not been tested by an equal enemy since WWII. It is a peacetime weapon to be used for political intimidation ("world policeman"), or in small wars against inferior enemies ("Vietnam").

In a modern war against an equal enemy, I would expect submarines to be the deciding weapon, comparable to how carriers took over the dominant role from battleships in WWII. With today's lethality of weapons and guiding precision, staying undetected in order to not becoming a target constantly wins in importance.

That the concept of CBGs would survive a war with the Soviet Union, already was not certain during the cold war.

Technology is widespread nowadays. there is Russia, China, India as major competitors, although currently a war between them and the US and/or NATO appears to be unlikely. Regarding these nations, we live in a moment of fragile balance that by it's very balance opens a window of opportunity. That America uses it to form close ties with these three blocks is the most important priority beside preventing proliferation of WMDs. More and more, even the relations between the US and Europe are second to America's interest in India, China and Russia. It appears to me that Obama has understood this. As a European I may like that or I may like it not - but that's how things are nevertheless. Europe isn't as important for America anymore. The global balances are shifting to the pacific region.

Basically the deal is, when the aliens land, we will be declared as uncivilized barbarians and slaughtered wholesale.

That's what we built the SM-3 for.

Actually, since it needs external guidance to hit a moving target that can change direction, the best way to defeat an ASBM would probably be through some form of ECM to mess with the guidance system.

Would carriers really be of use in a war of super powers anyway?

They would still be useful in delivering tactical nuclear ordnance deep into enemy held territory by means of their airwings.

If they survive long enough. A submarine with nuclear missiles has better chances.

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.

Does anyone still actually have nuclear tipped fish? I thought they were all gone, replaced in favour of cruise missiles and conventional fish.

1. For example the old TLAM had a range of 2500 km. It carried submunition warheads, nuclear warheads (wiki says 200 kt), or fragmentation warheads.

2. Airwings can't take off from 4000 m below sea level.

3. If the duel is modern CBG versus modern SSN, I bet my money on the SSN. Even more money I would bet if the sub is a modern SS and the CBG runs into it. Defending a CBG versus a Gotland or 212 trapping the CBG in transit must be a nightmare.

I take your point about the below sea level launch platform but still consider an airwing capable of carrying a far superior number of weapons and capable of penetrating closer to the target before launch (less chance of intercepting the incoming and putting all your eggs in one basket........one or two subs as opposed to a few dozen aircraft).

How embarrassing if an old Iranian (ex Soviet/Chinese or whatever) gets lucky and takes out your sub.

Better to get in there with stealth equipped assets or fighter and ecm units, take out the radar and fighters in your path, then sit on the first banger like Dr Strangelove :DL

What kind of tactically achievable objectives might there be after the
ICBM/Submarine strategic exchange is fully complete?

I readily confess ignorance on the topic, but I don't see what is left to do
after the destruction of all major cities on both sides and the depletion
of most strategic weapons.

Isn't anything a carrier could do after that just flogging a dead horse?

Short of nuclear war, the CVBG is still much more useful than the submarine. A submarine can still only control a small bit of water - its sensors can't detect anything too far away. A CVBG can dominate a large swath of ocean, thanks to its long range aircraft and their radars.