[jabl]

> 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.

[ericmay]

> 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.

[jabl]

> 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.