It is also important to note for our North-American friends what exactly an exclusive resort means in this context. Some North-American exclusive resorts consist more like a golf-club where all slopes are not accessible unless you pay the "club fee" or in some cases buy a house in the village.
While here Gstaad is still open to the "common man". Yes, it's expensive skiing eating and hotels, with a lot of celebrities coming and going. It's also pretty big with 176km of pistes (where in NA how big a resort is is measured in skiable acres instead, so to give you an idea, it has 10 cable cars, 13 chairs and 13 surface lifts). So big enough they have to also aim for "normal people". Just mentioning it since the word exclusive might spring to mind a different kind of resort than some Americans are used to.
>While here Gstaad is still open to the "common man"
The cost to exist and engage in the day to day commerce of life there is sufficiently high that the common man does not and mostly cannot bother hence no need for other forms of exclusivity.
While it is true that it started as a 4-chan hoax, and the ADL considers it a hate symbol, that's not the entire story. The page of the ADL[0] explicitly mention that in the vast majority of cases it just means ok. Much like how 14 and 88 are perfectly normal numbers, but when someone uses a personalised numberplate Adolf1488 they probably didn't choose those numbers at random.
It's also that symbols and gestures evolve in a social context, people, language, customs and culture changes. It's not unthinkable for symbols to get a worse connotation over time because a group used them a lot. So the question then becomes, do actual white supremacists consistently use the symbol as a way to identify themselves? Eh, I don't think that's the case anymore or in meaningful quantities. But after the populairty of the hoax white supremacists did co-opt it for a while. Is it still completely meaningless if a racist mass-murderer flashes the symbol?
So yeah, indeed it started as a hoax, but the implication that the ADL only included it because they were somehow gulled by a hoax is incorrect.
(As an aside, the OK-gesture is quite culturally different and dependent on context in the first place. Had a mate who while drunk almost started a fight with some Turkish dudes by flashing it, since apparently it mimics the asshole and basically means "you're an asshole". And in France it apparently means that you're a zero, since it looks like a zero.)
As an aside, the latest and active development of nMigen has been rebranded a few months ago to Amaranth and can be found here: https://github.com/amaranth-lang/amaranth . In case people googled nMigen and came to the repository that hasn't been updated in two years.
You're correct that specialised analog companies have not done well historically. However, we don't find ourselves in exactly the same position in computer architecture/performance as we've been decades before.
There's some (relatively) new ideas that now the performance of computers will be pushed more by dedicated silicon for a dedicated purpose, and tools. See for example there's plenty of room at the top [1], or Hennesy's talk at Google [2].
This of course does not mean that analog computers are suddenly viable, but it does mean that they could potentially fill a niche where they failed previously.
Anecdotally, when looking at jobs for hardware design by the likes of Infineon, STM, Cyient etc. there seems to be a relatively high ask for (senior) analog designers, and a new focus on mixed-technology chips. It might turn out to be a dud still, but it isn't the same situation as decades before.
In general in Belgium if you work overtime that time is then alloted to "inhaalrust" up to a certain point (you're never able to work more then 11h/day or 50h/week). Only if you have like a specific agreement where you work "voluntary" overtime, which is not counted towards inhaalrust, but is the standard 50% extra or 100% extra on sundays/holidays.
As for unions, normally if a company reaches 50 employees they are required by law to have a union rep. How exactly that works I don't know. Also while I personally also have never heard of a software specific union, you can always just go with the big normal unions if you want, it's not like they're going to turn you away.
You're not wrong that the price of ram isn't that much these days. However, this is not simply a case of adding more ram and be done with it. There is a significant amount of extra engineering to be done.
It would in the grand scheme of things be rather easy to "just add ram" but that's not how the product lines work for oscilloscopes. It's a bit like asking "Why does Intel price their high-end chips so high? It's not like the silicon is that much more expensive or yields that differ so much that they're 500% more expensive? And the consumer chips don't even support all the features that their Xeon's do!"
And you're right, it's a digital signal, and in the normal world you would just use a logical analyzer and do it like you said. But this is for educational purposes and seeing the same tool and the actual edges is a great and clear example. That's not to say that oscilloscopes aren't useful for debugging digital signals. After all, seeing the exact glitch might help in some cases.
So yeah, basically it's a combination of product differentiation and not the entirely right tool for the job.
I have designed and commercially released an open source (USB) oscilloscope.
There is absolutely no reason you can't just add more RAM (and a memory controller), or even add user upgradeable memory. If the big players don't do it, a newcomer will and they'll fall further behind the curve.
There is no technical barrier that prevents an oscilloscope manufacturer from adding a DRAM controller to their designs, either via an IC or as an IP core in their main FPGA.
The cost would be relatively low, too, and long traces are extremely useful especially for beginners.
Doesn't have an on-board DRAM controller, but I did look into the feasibility of it early on. In the end, I decided it was easier to just use the memory of the attached PC. Can record 10s of continuous data without dropping a single sample.
Your hunch is correct. There is a quote from a british naval officer that roughly says that -if they were right [on aircraft carriers being the next best thing and battleships being obsolete] they'd win the war. If they were wrong, they'd lose the empire.-
The exact quote escapes my google-fu sadly. I'm quite postive I've seen it in either one of Indy Neidell and his team's WW2 week-by-week episode[0] or one of the many excellent Drachinifel's videos about all things naval history[1].
Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?
No because Aircraft carriers are mobile and thus significantly harder to hit. Supersonic and Hypersonic's are most effective against fixed assets like airfields and bases who's locations are known ahead of time. China for example likely has missile right now aimed at Okinawa and Guam, just waiting for the order to launch.
Compare that to trying to hit say the USS Ronald Reagan. It is capable of moving 700 miles a day. They need to track its location, have a firing solution, and continuously update the tracking to ensure they actually hit it as opposed to a near miss. All of these stages could be disrupted by US assets.
Well it would be the U.S. Navy, but not quite. First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Let’s say you do get lucky and find them. Ok. Now let’s say you launch missiles - ok the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles. Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike forces.
It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.
Ok let’s say you have a satellite and you somehow find US ships. Then what?
And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? Maybe a war started and the USAF bombed the Chinese radar stations? Idk.
Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc.
Now what do you do?
Idk why people think that the U.S. Navy hasn’t considered these things. As if China is going to just build some missiles and launch them and that’s that. Whenever you think things are that easy, you should wonder if you have a grasp on the scenario.
I'm sure all the US carriers are accounted by China 24x7 already! :D
+ if I had to bet, then I'd bet that modern submarines, smart mines & rockets can take out any carrier, ship or whatever, it's just that no one has done it yet for obvious reason of not starting a new WW. It's stealth & speed that gives an edge these days, instead of displaying big, slow chunks of metal in a middle of big swaths of water + even 1 "missed" rocket can make the any ship incapacitated or sunk.. & now imagine 100 hypersonic missiles launched as a swarm.
Imo carriers and ships in general are the "battleships of WW2" (considered supreme, failed miserably). Yes, still works against small countries, with limited capabilities and as a "display of power", yet practically I'd assume they'd be sunk during the first days of a REAL full scale conflict. One should never forget the level of technology during WW2 compared to these days.
ps. it's interesting that China is always considered agreesor, though it's the US that's been involved (directly & indirectly) in most of the wars of the 19th, 20th & 21st century + is the TOP1 seller of the weaponry in the world as of today.
> And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range?
yes.
> Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc.
ships move means nothing at all, the missiles are tracking the ships with radar. missile defence shoots down some missiles yes, but usually the idea with these types of attacks is overwhealimg air defence systems with volume of fire, so you fire on the order of 30 missiles at once, and use a probabalistic attack to ensure one or two make it through
Overall, you seem to be the one that isn't very up-to-date. Missiles have been around for almost 80 years, but people are saying things are different now - maybe have a look into why. Hypersonic boost glide missiles can manouver sharply, travel at speeds of up to mach 5, have next to no radar signature, and can time their attacks and manouver such that they come at a carrier group from all angles at once. Many people in the pentagon are sounding the alarm - the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering recently said that such weapons hold carrier groups at risk, and ordered a review into how to defend against the threat. The department of defence has said several times that hypersonics are their "top priority". Just because you don't hear them besides themselves in the media doesn't mean they aren't seriously concerned, but this kind of thing naturally tends to be kept muted in order to not make it obvious if they are defenceless.
The biggest saving grace is that the current systems of this technology have on the order of 1000kms range. terrifying, but can be worked around. However, that range will inevitably increase with time.
> ships move means nothing at all, the missiles are tracking the ships with radar. missile defence shoots down some missiles yes, but usually the idea with these types of attacks is overwhealimg air defence systems with volume of fire, so you fire on the order of 30 missiles at once, and use a probabalistic attack to ensure one or two make it through
I think you're misunderstanding how these missile systems work and overestimating their ability to "lock on" - it's not a video game where they have near-perfect accuracy.
> Hypersonic boost glide missiles can manouver sharply, travel at speeds of up to mach 5, have next to no radar signature, and can time their attacks and manouver such that they come at a carrier group from all angles at once.
Launch of these missiles can be detected by U.S. space-based assets via their thermal signatures, so the CSG would probably know they are coming (obviously anything can happen in war and maybe this doesn't happen, but it's likely to be detected).
Once detected the CSG can begin evasive maneuvers - spreading out for example. These ships are pretty quick and even small course adjustments may render the missiles ineffective. While the hypersonic missiles can adjust in-flight somewhat, it's much more difficult to be accurate with them. Think about it - they're launching missiles from hundreds of miles away to hit tiny ships in a gigantic ocean at a high rate of speed and those ships can shoot some of the missiles down (or at least the research is being done) and move around. It's difficult for the missile to adjust.
Think about it like this: China launches these missiles, and they're very fast but they're detected. USN ships start immediate evasive maneuvers. They don't have much time, but the missile is so fast it also doesn't have much time to adjust. It's never "locked on" in any sense you may be thinking. So can the ships get out of the way? A near miss might as well be a miss by a million miles. It remains to be seen.
There's also something to consider that they aren't cheap, and there aren't very many of them. These aren't simple cruise missiles, and a Chinese launch of such hypersonic missiles is likely to not be a repeatable attack - even so you open the launch sites up to response from the CSG or air assets from other locations. In many war game scenarios I've read, China essentially launches all of the missiles and damages USN assets in the region, but the U.S. just brings more while also retaliating and destroying Chinese assets. A quick and violent war is the best hope that China has (maybe the U.S. will back down) - but long term it loses a war of attrition based on the chess pieces and what's on the board.
So even if China launched missiles and they were wildly successful, it's not going to end the war but at best buy China some time and a moral victory.
Overall, I highly question the ability of Chinese capabilities to effectively track and put missiles on targets. These capabilities will probably improve over time (unless the Chinese nation collapses due to economic factors) which will basically mean that the U.S. will think twice before attacking China due to a serious concern about damage to naval assets.
> The department of defence has said several times that hypersonics are their "top priority". Just because you don't hear them besides themselves in the media doesn't mean they aren't seriously concerned, but this kind of thing naturally tends to be kept muted in order to not make it obvious if they are defenceless
When you read articles about the U.S. military "sounding the alarm" I would not take that at face value.
As an aside - if you're interested in further reading the Rand Corporation and others put out some pretty fascinating in-depth discussions about topics like these.
Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummies.
What makes you think that tracking a ship the size of a skyscraper would be difficult but that tracking a missile would be easy? Yes, the US satelite network will soon be able to detect this type of missile launches, they are working on that capability right now - I never said ships wouldn't know that they are coming, just that there is little they can do with that information if more than one or two missiles are launched.
You seem to be vastly underestimating how well these missiles can manouver. They can't adjust "slightly", they can make sharp turns, with many times more g-forces than a regular plane - a ship has no chance to outmanouver them, any manouvers would only be to present a lower profile to a single missile or to try to confuse the missile's tracking system using some other countermeasures
Finally cost. Yes these missiles are expensive but that is several orders of magnitude lower than an aircraft carrier. Heck, its orders of magnitude lower than a single plane on that carrier
> Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummies.
I don't think this is correct with ballistic missiles or these hypersonic missiles - please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that it's not like a fighter jet locking on to a target and firing a missile. When these missiles are fired they are launched into a general area - in this case where the Chinese think the U.S. Navy ships are, and then after that the missiles will lock on to a target as they re-enter the atmosphere - they have a few seconds to adjust course and do so. They can miss.
> You seem to be vastly underestimating how well these missiles can manouver. They can't adjust "slightly", they can make sharp turns, with many times more g-forces than a regular plane - a ship has no chance to outmanouver them, any manouvers would only be to present a lower profile to a single missile or to try to confuse the missile's tracking system using some other countermeasures
What I'm not saying is the U.S. Navy can just run away or something from the missiles once they are in range, but the ships can move and the missiles can miss.
> as for reading articles about the millitary "sounding the alarm" how does the dod itself sound
It doesn't sound like anything - it's no different. These are just reports that come out form the bureaucracy. The DoD sounds the alarm on all sorts of things.
> Finally cost. Yes these missiles are expensive but that is several orders of magnitude lower than an aircraft carrier. Heck, its orders of magnitude lower than a single plane on that carrier
Cheaper than a carrier but dunno about planes. Maybe the cost can come down over time if they aren't already cheaper.
Also in the grand scheme of things the US Navy can just stay out of their range and harass supply lines, and then U.S. forces in the region can attack these missile systems and destroy them, then the US Navy can move in.
The main concern really isn't these missiles. They present a problem, of course, because they make it difficult for the U.S. Navy to effectively operate in the region (and by effectively operate we mean unimpeded), but they aren't an ace in the hole or some sort of trump card that the Chinese have.
Ballistic missiles are things like ICBMs, there it doesn't matter if you miss by a couple of miles. Hypersonic missiles are fast enough to make ship movement a negligible factor, ship are slow.
All other anti-ship missiles are guided. How bad that can end was shown in the Falkland war, the Royal Navy suffered quite a lot from Argentinian Exocets. Bought from France.
A F-35 is what, 35 million dollar plus, excluding the pilot and training cost? Missiles are cheaper, by order of magnitude.
> Ballistic missiles are things like ICBMs, there it doesn't matter if you miss by a couple of miles. Hypersonic missiles are fast enough to make ship movement a negligible factor, ship are slow.
The hypersonic missiles are like ICBMs though. They operate similarly and enter the atmosphere before coming back down. They’re not nuclear weapons where you can be close enough, they have to be accurate. A miss by 3 feet jug as well be a miss by a mile.
As the missile enters the atmosphere it only has a few seconds to course correct to hit a moving ship. The ship can potentially move just out of harms way. Not the most likely scenario but definitely plausible.
> All other anti-ship missiles are guided. How bad that can end was shown in the Falkland war, the Royal Navy suffered quite a lot from Argentinian Exocets. Bought from France.
Different kinds of missiles. Can’t really compare them.
> A F-35 is what, 35 million dollar plus, excluding the pilot and training cost? Missiles are cheaper, by order of magnitude.
Not sure that these particular missiles are. I think it’s likely they’re closer to $20mm-$30mm in cost. Plus all of the ones China has are basically R&D missiles and not proven.
Having talked to former and active Navy guys, especially working on this stuff, I can tell you that ship don't dodge shit in a modern environment. They are simply to big and slow. If you can't get rid of the attack by counter-measures or shooting the missile down, the ship will be hit.
Which makes sense, but the hypersonic missiles are not like regular missiles and are more like ICBMs. There's a small chance that if a ship takes evasive maneuvers the missile will miss because it also has to adjust targeting at the last second.
I think everybody's clear this isn't WWII style evasive maneuvers with ships trying to evade torpedoes or bombers.
I guess what you're arguing for is that if friendly satellites or whatever reconnaissance assets detect a ballistic or hypersonic missile launch, the targeted ship (or realistically, all friendly ships in the area that could potentially be targets?) can change course, and in the 10 mins(?) it takes the missile to arrive the ship can be in quite another location than that estimated at missile launch time.
I would guess such missile systems would incorporate mid course guidance updates, but then again such comms could potentially be jammed.
Typically the way these kinds of missile emplacements work is that first the ships are spotted with a command/radar unit, which then tries to categorise the ships based on their radar "signature" - in this case signature is literal, in the sense that each class of ship and sometimes even within classes has a unique radar reflaction that can be detected. Most major millitaries over the years of shadowing each other have built up databases of each other's craft including radar signatures from every angle. This is then used to prioritise targets and decide on an attack profile - so it's unlikely it would accidentally be launched at say a destroyer. They then send this plan to their missiles which all start their attack independantly, using their onboard radars to follow the target. The usual countermeasures to this like I mentioned involve using chaff, which is little bits of metal foil that are launched into a cloud in the sky, which presents as a big cloud on the enemies radar behind which the missiles cannot see. This is where manouvering may be used, if the missile momentarily cannot see then you may be able to avoid it. However with swarm attacks, which is how these missiles will almost certainly be deployed at least against a target as valuble as a carrier, they come from several directions which makes deploying chaff and/or manouvering very difficult.
I don't claim it's some secret that only china has or anything like that - the US and several other countries have deployed them as well. Its just that the vulnerability of carrier groups to them necessitates a shift in naval strategy closer to "fleet in being" - essentially that capital ships are too valuble to risk losing so are restricted in where they can operate because they are more valuble as a deterrrent than they would be actually fighting - which reduces power projection ability of carriers, similar to what the early 20th century did to battleships
The issue here is China has no capability to swarm attack with these missiles. They don’t have enough, and they aren’t proven. And once you launch them that’s it. You won’t produce any others to get a second strike. So if you launch them all (China has what, 30?) and sink a CSG, the US just sends 2-4 more and now what? Oh and the US also has aircraft in places like Japan and Korea and Guam that can retaliate.
The Chinese also don’t have a multi-direction launch capability.
The carriers are definitely vulnerable to them in general, but the notion that the carriers are now all of a sudden the same as battleships is an easy and lazy mindset to adopt. “X must be like Y” is a failure in thinking - “oh our startup will just be the Uber for X”. “We’ll be the Amazon of Y industry” etc.
Instead of saying battleships did this thing and then I think these other things will be like them, you should start with the opposite assumption and deduce from that. Assume you’re completely wrong and figure out why carriers aren’t like battleships. It will be an interesting exercise. A good question to ask would be like what’s the point of carriers if there is nothing for the planes to bomb? That makes them actually useless. Even in a scenario where the Chinese are completely capable with these missiles the U.S. fleet can just take over the oceans anyway and then what?
The U.S. has power projection independent of the carrier fleet.
If your views are strongly aligning with what you would hear on Fox News or Reddit you should be very cautious in the certainty in which you hold those views.
> First, how do you even locate the carrier groups?
Perhaps by these SAR satellites China has been launching? SAR satellites have AFAIU been fairly effectively miniaturized recently, enabling a wannabe-superpower like China to send up hundreds or even thousands of them if they want to, making it infeasible to destroy them all cost-effectively at least with today's technology.
I'm not sure what the current level of coverage these things have, but it seems that today the technology exists to track surface naval assets day and night, and through clouds, at a somewhat affordable cost (for a superpower wannabe). So the trick of hiding a carrier battle group in the vast ocean might no longer work.
> the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles.
Considerably more difficult for ballistic missiles. I would also imagine that missiles in principle could be relatively affordable if they were mass-produced; today they are expensive because they are expensive to develop and there's no demand for a huge number of them. So you could saturate the defenses with enough missiles that even if many were shot down, at some point a sufficient number of them are going to get through.
> Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike forces.
Of course, but that goes the other way as well; if those carriers launch strikes against a big modern opponent you're also in for a big time war. I just hope neither side commits such a folly.
> It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.
Of course not. Then again, China probably doesn't build those missiles because they think US carrier groups will easily shoot them down. Both sides certainly have smart people, as well as ossified bureaucracies gunning for the last war.
Note I'm not saying the time of carriers is gone. But it's been 80 years since carriers became the kingmakers of naval force projection, and technology has developed quite a bit since, and there (luckily!) has been no major conflict testing out these new developments. I just think it's foolish to be very certain one way or another.
> Perhaps by these SAR satellites China has been launching? SAR satellites have AFAIU been fairly effectively miniaturized recently, enabling a wannabe-superpower like China to send up hundreds or even thousands of them if they want to, making it infeasible to destroy them all cost-effectively at least with today's technology.
Sure it's possible. I think it's challenging overall but it seems neither of us are completely sure.
> Considerably more difficult for ballistic missiles.
Kind of. Ballistic missiles follow a predictable trajectory - the difference is these hypersonic missiles while mostly following predictable trajectories they can adjust a little bit more at the last second to hit a target.
> I would also imagine that missiles in principle could be relatively affordable if they were mass-produced; today they are expensive because they are expensive to develop and there's no demand for a huge number of them. So you could saturate the defenses with enough missiles that even if many were shot down, at some point a sufficient number of them are going to get through.
Potentially, but then the U.S. may have its own counter-measures. As I think about the costs, the cheapest the cruise missile got to was around $1,000,000. So I wonder how cheap you can make hypersonic missiles in order to create enough of them? They'd have to be hypersonic too b/c the U.S. is likely shooting down others that get too close to the CSG.
But also, what if China goes and builds all these missiles for a war that never comes? Or rather, what if the U.S. just keeps the fleet out of range and just chokes off Chinese supply lines from the sea?
> Of course not. Then again, China probably doesn't build those missiles because they think US carrier groups will easily shoot them down. Both sides certainly have smart people, as well as ossified bureaucracies gunning for the last war.
I agree.
> Note I'm not saying the time of carriers is gone. But it's been 80 years since carriers became the kingmakers of naval force projection, and technology has developed quite a bit since, and there (luckily!) has been no major conflict testing out these new developments. I just think it's foolish to be very certain one way or another.
My bias here is not so much with carriers or the U.S. Navy but by overestimating these missiles and their effectiveness. Whenever I hear all of the armchair generals talking about something (myself included) I immediately have to wonder how we're wrong and why we're wrong. It's like everyone predicting the next market bubble - they latch on to a relatable idea (China has so many missiles they can blow up all of our ships) and stick to it and then barely question that assumption.
> Sure it's possible. I think it's challenging overall but it seems neither of us are completely sure.
I have no idea about the exact capabilities of the Chinese military SAR satellites. But considering that a dinky little startup with a few tens of millions in funding like Iceeye is able to launch half a dozen smallsats with SAR's that have been used for, among others, tracking fishing vessels that have gone dark (shut down their AIS transponders), it seems almost obvious that a high-tech wannabe-superpower would be able to launch boatloads of similar things in order to track foreign naval surface vessels.
> Kind of. Ballistic missiles follow a predictable trajectory - the difference is these hypersonic missiles while mostly following predictable trajectories they can adjust a little bit more at the last second to hit a target.
I was thinking of this supposed Chinese anti-shipping ballistic missile (DF-21D) that has some mid/late course correction ability. The hypersonics everybody is excited about these days are of course a further step ahead of these kinds of things. But yes.
> They'd have to be hypersonic too b/c the U.S. is likely shooting down others that get too close to the CSG.
I think a stealthy subsonic (subsonic for fuel economy enabling long range without having to boost (almost) out of the atmosphere like a ballistic or hypersonic) missile could be an interesting design point - with a supersonic terminal stage. Not sure if such things are on the drawing board anywhere.
> But also, what if China goes and builds all these missiles for a war that never comes?
The same accusation can be leveled at all military spending. What if the US builds a dozen carriers and accompanying battle groups and a war never comes (not counting bombing some 3rd world tinpot dictator)? Oops, the US already did that. You can of course say they provide deterrence or whatever, but so can the Chinese.
> My bias here is not so much with carriers or the U.S. Navy but by overestimating these missiles and their effectiveness. Whenever I hear all of the armchair generals talking about something (myself included) I immediately have to wonder how we're wrong and why we're wrong. It's like everyone predicting the next market bubble - they latch on to a relatable idea (China has so many missiles they can blow up all of our ships) and stick to it and then barely question that assumption.
Fair enough. It's easy enough to get carried away speculating on the capabilities of weapons systems which are closely guarded state secrets.
The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does.
So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.
The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.
Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.
Well yes, but then again no surface navy comes even close to the USN in terms of power projection capability, so it wouldn't upset the status quo in any way.
But absent a major war proving the point (or not, as it may), that's sort of how the "end of the carrier" could play out peacefully over a longer time: Improved tracking of opponent carriers (be it through satellites, drones or whatever) and improved land-based weapons forces carriers to stand away further and further, necessitating longer ranged strike aircraft. Such aircraft need to be bigger to accommodate the required fuel load, requiring either bigger and more expensive carriers, or fewer planes carried and thus reduced strike capability. Rinse and repeat a few iterations, and at some point you start thinking "what's the point of a mobile carrier since the opponent keeps track of its location 24/7, and my strike aircraft have enough range to launch from land bases anyway?"
Yes, but that's my point. You get rid of the carriers and then the U.S. is still the only country projecting power due to air bases and a sophisticated global logistics system.
But either way, even if you know where the CSG is, it can defend itself and the land-based weapons have limited range. So if you're China, the U.S. Navy can go harass your shipping lanes, and protect their own supply lines going to strategic locations.
Yes, absolutely. The US invests heavily in aircraft carriers because they've worked so magnificently at force projection around the world, without any need for regional bases.
...but with the advent of hypersonic missiles, drones, small attack boats, I have serious doubt how long they would last in any modern non-nuclear conflict.
How long will any regional base last? China or Russia knows where they are and would launch against them in the first minutes of a conflict. CSG's are the most survivable force projection assets that the US has.
While here Gstaad is still open to the "common man". Yes, it's expensive skiing eating and hotels, with a lot of celebrities coming and going. It's also pretty big with 176km of pistes (where in NA how big a resort is is measured in skiable acres instead, so to give you an idea, it has 10 cable cars, 13 chairs and 13 surface lifts). So big enough they have to also aim for "normal people". Just mentioning it since the word exclusive might spring to mind a different kind of resort than some Americans are used to.