This is old news, that thing has been in development for a while and I saw articles like this a year ago. If anything, I think this would lead us to cut spending on aircraft carriers since they are now becoming obsolete.
The article is a little silly to anyone with a little military knowledge. Search carrier group compliment Search Aegis missile cruiser Search 1960s Chinese military garbage that I haven't heard of till 2010
And all of a sudden Bush II's missile defense program is useful. Japan's military (no longer a self-defense force) is also mounting them on its guided missile cruisers. There is also the fact that at short range (i.e. miles), the Army has been honing their ability to detonate artillery shells for years.
If it actually travels at 10 times the speed of sound and can actually hit something then it would be a problem.
I saw that story, and came over here hoping it was being discussed. I was not disappointed. If the Chinese are really developing this missile, and if it really does all those things (pinpoint accuracy, supersonic speed), the age of the carrier might be over. They would be just too vulnerable, like when the Dreadnoughts became vulnerable to naval air power. I know about the concept of the Aegis cruisers and their defense of a carrier battle group, but would even the Aegis systems be able to defend against a missile coming in at Mach 10?
Let's pretend their technology works. We have two options: 1) An arms race with China. Potential war with China. 2) Forge stronger economic relations with China such that it's not in their best interest to war with us. Reduce military spending, attempt to balance our budget. Find products to sell to China to help American jobs. Who here wants to pick option 1?
I'm not sure what the title of the thread has to do with China's military development. We spend something in the neighborhood of $600 billion a year on the military. Much of that goes to unneeded bases throughout the world, continued funding of outdated technologies, and waste. I'm not sure how cutting our budget by eliminating these affects our ability to counter China's military development with our remaining massive budget.
reducing in budget does NOT mean reducing in effectiveness. This is a tragic conflation, much like many on the left do with education. The best education is not necessarily the most expensive. Likewise, the best military is not always the most expensive. There is waste, and there are wasteful programs in our military budget that can and should be cut. This doesn't mean anyone who is arguing for such cuts is in any way attemping to argue against effective and strong military for our country.
I approve of the last four posts. Particular kudos to Theu for consistency of reasoning on two different issues. Over the years, had we bumped the general defense budget for every possible new threat we'd be as bankrupt as the Soviet Union. I do wonder at the need for a bunch of new aircraft carriers. They and their accompanying costs are enormous. As a trivial point, I wish we wouldn't name all the carriers after presidents. I prefer Wasp and Hornet to those names.
----------------------ATTENTION-------------------------- Did anyone even bother to read about Aegis missile cruisers? In February 2008, USS Lake Erie (CG 70) successfully fired a Standard SM-3 missile intercepting a satellite that was travelling at 17,000 mph, 250km in the sky. Carriers always travel in a group, ALWAYS. Carrier groups contain 2 Aegis guided missile cruisers with a missile compliment of 122 surface to air missiles each, not even mentioning the 2 Phalanx CIWS. I think we can handle this Chinese military garbage.
Phalanx won't do **** against a ballistic missile. China thinks the Aegis won't always work Linked the in the article are some cartoons the Chinese made about a sailor who thinks his AEGIS system will defend his carrier from ballistic missiles. Apparently they think that our system can't defend this threat, or at least not always defend against this threat. Propaganda....sure, but the fact remains it only takes one to sink a carrier, and DF-21D's are a hell of lot cheaper to build and operate than a carrier task force.
At some point we have to realize that this is going to become an issue of "are you going to lob a grenade through your next door neighbor's window? Because that is what the world is becoming. Distance means nothing. China is a nuclear power. So is the US. Hell, what happened when NK allegedly sank a South Korean anti-torpedo ship? (real good ship huh...) We decided that we were gonna run some drills out in the ocean. Why? Because NK has nukes.... We wont attack them like we did Iraq or Afganistan, or potentially Iran, because they dont have nukes. The US and China would both be stupid to attack eachother. It can only end in nuclear war. Otherwise whats the point? Play pencil break with eachother when both sides have a bazooka in the trunk of their car? Its assinine. Both sides know what will happen. The only option is to treat eachother like next door neighbors and work things out. Economically, socially, etc. We dont go around our neighborhood attacking eachother. Military development cant go much further without ensuring the end of the word. JMO.
We did not become a superpower by building carriers. We were able to build carriers because we were economically strong. The key to being tomorrow's superpower is to strengthen our economy by not eating our seed corn (spending it on nonessential military items or on nonessential domestic government items). Capital ships are not capital; they are consumption.
Active Carriers and year commissioned: USS Enterprise 1961 USS Nimitz 1975 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower 1977 USS Carl Vinson 1982 USS Theodore Rossevelt 1986 USS Abrahm Lincoln 1989 USS George Washington 1992 USS John C. Stennis 1995 USS Harry S. Truman 1998 USS Ronald Reagan 2003 USS George H W Bush 2009 3 more ships are under construction and more are being planned.
Like others have noted, this is old news. The US Naval Institute published a report on it dated March 31, 2009. USNI The authors don't cite any new developments, just new statements from Western think-tanks. I wonder why it's being trotted out now? To drum up support for a larger defense budget? The reality is the Chinese military will never engage in a large scale conflict with the U.S. military. If they ever decide to retake Taiwan by force, they'll drop neutron bombs on Taipei and Kaoshing and the war will be over before our carriers can even leave port. It's highly likely they will tangle with some of their neighbors' navies in the next decade but there is little we can do about that. China can probably win small to medium-size engagements with any other navy in the region except ours. Anyways, a military always accepts it will take casualties in a conflict. A cost-benefit analysis should be applied to any government spending. How much money would it take to reduce the likelihood the DF-21D would hit our aircraft carrier by 20%? 50%? 90%? It might be tens of billions of dollars to counter a threat that is remote anyways.
Switzerland doesn't have an army? It's my understanding that nearly all Swiss men train to defend their country. And what about the Swiss Army Knife? From wikipedia.
Why would China need to attack from above when they can do this since 2007? Uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle US Navy exercise
