You've been drinking the bong water again I see.
Posted on 08/12/2011 9:54:11 AM PDT by LSUfan
As a totalitarian society, PRC is a military camp, in which everyone is a soldier. It is easier in such a society to conceal the building of new weapons or pursuing a secret military agenda. The original Hong Kong news story of 2004, which said that China was reported to be building, with the assistance from Russia, 3 aircraft carriers (called Project 9935), floated around the Chinese forums. According to Key publishing LTD.Aviation Forums of 18th Feb. 2004, all 3 ships could be operational by 2008-2010. The Chinese article said that maintenance facilities had been built in Shanghai, Dailan, and Zhejiang. The author of the article was not sure “how reliable” the source was: “so there you go… 3ACs, setting up the scene to become superpower by 2020.”
According to Polmar’s Perspective, other articles cite alleged Chinese plans to build up to 6 aircraft carriers in the near term.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldtribune.com ...
So how long were you in the Navy admiral?
So I ASK AGAIN for possible penetration: In your opinion a situation where the PLAN has 10 CVBG's and we had none that situation is AOK with you, right?
Who ever on this board said get rid of tactical air cover?...you haven’t needed an aircraft carrier for tactical air cover for the last 20 years....we just have been unwilling to implement these concepts.
You replace manned fighters with robotic drones on mini-aircraft carriers that are 480 meters in length and each one of them will have the same fire power as one of our current manned fightercraft carriers.
Read my posts before replying. It really helps the conversation.
You don’t need these Goliaths to do their missions anymore.
Ok Einstein, 1000 NM away from any friendly shore or base how does one have tactical air cover without a CVN around? Hmmmm? This ought to be good.
Best thread ever!
The pro vs. anti-carrier arguments in this thread are basically a replay of all of the arguments about the effectiveness of carriers since the cancellation of the USS Untied States (CVA-58) in 1949.
Robotic Drone Carriers,
READ PLEASE
You've been drinking the bong water again I see.
Yes, we have a need for tactical air cover. The fact that we need it doesn’t mean it’s safe to have so many eggs in such a vulnerable basket. Do we need huge ships requiring an entire supporting fleet? Is there another way? What about much smaller ships flying RPV’s? As I recall, the GHB bombardment platform could launch and recover RPV’s. RPV technology and AI pilots might provide an answer. What the real answer is, I don’t pretend to know. What I don’t want to happen is to lose an aircraft carrier with 5000 men, 90 aircraft and all their logistics and support. We have so much invested in such a small space that we make an awesome high value target for our enemies. If they concentrate on just that one target then they may achieve a political victory like the Tet offensive. The North VC lost the offensive, but won the war by diminishing the political support at home.
"Really big magnets" 
I can’t decide if guys like you are more dangerous to our national defense than the PLANs plan to build CV’s?
http://defensetech.org/2011/02/06/navys-x-47b-stealthy-combat-drone-makes-first-flight/
For example:
There have even been proposals for destroyer sized ships with these in vertical launch tubes and a single recovery deck being able to replace an aircraft carrier.
Best thing about it, you only need a single pilot for ever 7-14 planes. You don’t need an operator for everyone of these because most of the flight is all ran by computers.
How does me laughing too hard to type, help?
You replace manned fighters with robotic drones on mini-aircraft carriers that are 480 meters in length
That sounds like a violation of Free Republic’s Posting Rules buddy
No personal attacks....if you can’t deal with it, go to the Democratic Underground.
Better yet, what about robot drones on submarines?
There was actually one of these in a concept
The problem was the recovery of the plane. Launching via existing missile tube technology wasn’t an issue.
I think this is still something that needs to be worked out.
As far as surface uclav ships, we could have already fielded them with the amount of money being spent on regular carriers. Pilots don’t like the idea of computers taking over their jobs though.
How about we get the flying saucer at are 51 working? I am sure a squadron of those babies could supply tac air for our fleet.
They have been retiring the older Ticonderoga-class cruisers, but keep changing their minds on the replacement cruisers. The Burke-class destroyers are extremely capable platforms, but the cruisers have larger command-and-control capabilities for managing a surface combat group in a battle and larger missile magazines for air defense.
They are also running into problems (primarily financial in nature) with the replacements for the Perry-class frigates. With the proven capabilities of submarines in modern warfare (ie the South Korean corvette Cheonan and the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano), escort vessels are vital in any conflict against a nation which has submarine capabilities, which is almost everyone in today's world. Without escorts, cargo ships, amphibs, and oil tankers would be sitting ducks for all of the pig boats out there.
We need a bigger fleet, period. We are rapidly wearing this one out. The pace of operations is too high per ship.
That's what 0bama is doing.
That is why getting rid of the aircraft carriers makes so much sense. Do you know how many frigs you could get for the cost of one of our current aircraft carriers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.