The Chinese navy wants to project itself-and to challenge the US Navy, they need a carrier and some planes. I think it takes quite a while to train naval pilots-and manning an aircraft carrier is a tall order. Suppose they buy a nearly complete carrier-assuming they want long range jets 9not Harrier-type jump jets)-how long will it take them to have a credible force?
Who would they buy this carrier from? Any aircraft carrier on the market is already technologically obsolete, and that’s even further removed from US carriers which are never placed up for sale to foreign countries.
But let’s say they get one. It still puts them down 10 to the US, even more if you count NATO allies. They then have to learn everything about how they operate, how to launch and land aircraft… the US is still learning those lessons to this very day. It would be a long time indeed before they were able to make it a viable fighting ship, maybe a decade or so, and even then it would be nothing more than a bump in the road for any modern carrier navy.
It would make more sense for them to leapfrog the carrier. What that leap would end up being is a good question.
Looks like they’re thinking about building them. Maybe.
They need an old one pronto. With an old carrier and an old air wing, they can train the junior officers who will be senior officers when they get new carriers. Experience can only be gained by experience.
Certainly ten years with an old carrier would not be excessive.
I often wonder why the Chinese have not simply built their own carriers. It can’t be that hard if you presume the plans for every existing carrier can easily be stolen. Perhaps it makes more sense to have the dockyards build merchies for profit rather than useless warships.
They got one.
Rented/purchased an old Soviet era Russian job, for training.
1st non-nuclear carrier online in 4 years.
1st nuclear supercarrier in 10.
“Plans” are not just a set of drawings, but include all manufacturing specifications, standards, and processes that go into actually making an object that goes together and meets the desired capability. Certainly they could build a hull, engines, a catapult, et cetera. For a modern carrier, compact nuclear reactors and high pressure steam boilers are necessary. Then there are the electronics, communication systems, electronic warfare, and protective systems which are vital to the role of any modern aircraft carrier.
No doubt the Chinese could do all of this, and I think that ten years to achieve a standard equivalent to other naval air power is optimistic but not hopelessly so. However, that begs the question of what the Chinese Navy would achieve by doing this. Aircraft carriers are really good for one thing; mobile air power projection. The United States maintains a large fleet of carriers and dedicated protective vessels to provide protection to overseas territories and friendly nations around the globe. China of recent history has not been into power projection or controlling large swaths of overseas territory, and aside from Taiwan and a few disputed nations in the South China Sea (most of which have no strategic or economic significance whatsoever) China has little need for naval power projection. Their biggest concern is blockades from other naval powers like the US, UK, and India. In this regard, the Chinese would be better off building and modernizing their submarine forces (which they have been doing) than building up aircraft carriers, which are mostly status items.
Stranger
FYI, the HMS Invincible is for sale.
Pretty much agree with that. I’ll add that obtaining and operating a ‘real’ carrier and accompanying battle group constitutes a significant morale victory for the PLAN. I suspect they are quite annoyed that the pesky Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces operate a few helicopter carriers and they don’t. Could also be useful for their string of pearlsstrategy, but definitely would be the first platform to hit the bottom of the sea if they decided to go head to head with the USN.
PILES to learn in regards to naval aviation. The Russians are probably helping out in that regards, but it’s not like they have a great track record in regards to launching tiny planes of tiny decks in a fu*cking huge ocean.
Nuclear subs with swarms of unmanned air combat vechicles.
As an aside, all this talk of vast drone fleets and such… does it remind anyone of that movie “Toys”? Was the movie prescient in some way or was just really lucky in the writing phase or was it a serious topic back when the movie was written?
Challenge? There’s no challenge.
There’s not a single carrier-to-carrier naval battle on the earth’s surface since the end of WW2. The only two countries that has ever involved in major multi-carrier sea battles are the U.S. and the imperial Japan. During the Falklands War, even though Argentina had an old carrier, they almost did not use it. As a result, the UK carriers were not fighting enemy carriers.
Since Nazi Germany only had one unfinished carrier, the Royal navy also did not have a chance to launch a major carrier battle against Germany during WW2.
The U.S. used carriers to against many low-tech countries during the post-WW2 years: North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya … None of them had any conventional weapon even comparable to a last generation’s U.S. tank.
Today’s carriers are used to against the LOWEST OF THE LOWS. If the U.S. decides to deploy its one dozen carrier groups against the U.K. or Russia (no nukes!), it could be suicide. Carrier-based fighters are no comparison to land-based fighters (of similar costs and technologies). And carriers have to be deployed far from the land if the land country has any land-based long-range weapons.
Today’s Chinese carrier can only be deployed in south east asian waters to police that area. Some areas there are infested by pirates just like Somalian seas. A PLAN carrier group over there can probably not eliminate all pirate threats because an oil-burning carrier can only be there for maybe a week.
Your user id “tingbudong” is funny. Really really really funny. Now I get it … Let’s hope there are other Chinese speakers in this forum.
To keep enemies from knocking at your doors, you need attack subs. The PLAN has a bunch of good subs. Carriers are good at force projection over stupid, light-weight or sick enemies. Sea-based fighters can hardly fight land-based fighters (limited take-off weight, reinforced structure for deck landings, distance from the carrier to the battle zone … blah … blah …). In plain English, U.S. carriers are good for controlling the Persian Gulf to keep oil flowing. They do not stand a chance fighting the Chinese air force over Chinese waters.
Therefore, in the foreseeable future, these Chinese carriers are only used to project Chinese air power over some pirate- or rebel-infested southeast Asian waters. The U.S. will only face the subs.
These Japanese “helicopter” carriers are interesting. They are build for choppers, yet they are capable of launching and landing F-35s. I think the mere existence of these helicopter boats already violates their post-war constitution. Not to mention their future capabilities. These Japanese boats could initiate future escalation of warfare in Asia. After all, it was Japan who initiated WW2 in Asia. On the other hand, the communist China only had several border wars against the Soviet Union, Vietnam and India. Usually China does not take over enemy lands. China only takes back lost lands. For example, the Chinese army once had taken much of northern India during the Sino-Indian War of 1962 (Mao was still alive). The Chinese army moved to the Chinese-claimed borderline and declared cease-fire by itself and then retreated. No Indian land was occupied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
I really don’t think that the Chinese carriers of the future will become much of a threat to Asia’s status quo.
Its not just the planes and pilots, the enlisted and officers that crew the flattops are also important. It really would be better for them to operate a VTOL airwing for the first few years. As well , it is probably worth noting that the internal politics between the chinese army and navy, is most likely why they have not developed a more robust blue water fleet.
Declan
The internal conflicts between the Imperial Japanese army and navy were even worse. Before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war (1937-1945), there were countless murders and fights between Japanese army and navy’s internal factions and between them. Even during the war, they seldom agree with each other. It was like having a whole bag of McArthurs in a small frat house!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Academy_Incident
They even killed each other! If they did not fight against each other, they launch coups and kill Prime Ministers and cabinet members.
During the WW2, Japan and Germany did not exchange much of their technologies. So far as I know, the geographical separation between two technologically-advanced allies kept much of their communications quite difficult. On the other hand, even though the Japanese imperial army and navy both had a great number of combat airplanes, manufactured by only a small number of giant industries (Mitsubishi, Nakajima, …) they did not share a common design of their vital parts such as airplane engines.
However, internal conflicts did not keep the Japanese empire from going outwards. I doubt that internal conflicts could become a major obstacle to the advancement of a country’s armed forces.
From your link:
For eight years now, China has been tinkering with a half finished Russian aircraft carrier. Two years ago, the ex-Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian Varyag, was renamed the Shi Lang (after the Chinese general who took possession of Taiwan in 1681, the first time China ever paid any attention to the island) and given the pennant number 83.
That’s not very subtle. If I was Taiwan, I think I might be asking Uncle Sugar to sell me some ship killing missles. And SAMs. And other stuff that goes BOOM. And I’d be willing to give Uncle Sugar a GREAT price on some land for a base…or several bases. How does free please come here fast sound?
That isn’t the case for U.S. fighters. I have been in a the backseat of Air Force fighters participating in exercises with Navy fighters flying as Red Air. F-18s (Navy bird) are tough agile fighters, with good electronics and great pilots. They are competitive with F-16s and F-15s, good at dogfighting and air to ground stuff. I got out in 1992, but I expect whatever the squids are flying now can hang with whatever the Air Force has.
Gee, somebody ought to invent a ship that can carry a load of oil across the sea. Maybe call it something like a tanker?
Hong Kong and Macau have been under Chinese control for 13 years (July 1997-). People over there are still living their lives. More than half of a million Taiwanese people are living and working in Shanghai, Beijing and many other Chinese cities. Like it or not, it’s getting more and more like the two parts of China will become one.
Ship-killing missiles are not useful even if Taiwan wants to defend itself. No serious navy would operate in the crowded Taiwan Straights (about 100 mi wide). They are sitting duck to both sides. And China has thousands of unguided long range rockets that is capable of covering Taiwan, Okinawa (was an independent kingdom under Chinese protection before it was taken by Japanese warlords) and much of western Japan. These inexpensive rockets could destroy most of the fixed military targets within its range. It can be like Baghdad 2003. There certainly will be collateral kills, but they are more like surgical weapons.
As a result, if China really wants to take over Taiwan, any defense would be meaningless. A few calculated hits can render most military and infrastructural targets to ashes with limited civilian kills (must be more than the Iraqi wars because Taiwan’s population density is MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT OF IRAQ). But precision attacks are doable. And frankly, being governed by the Chinese government is not the end of the world. Living in H.K. is way much better than living in most U.S. inner city neighborhoods (if you do not count bad air and bird-cage-sized apartments), let alone living under Israeli control.
Personally, I don’t think Taiwan is China’s major business. China is surrounded by more than a dozen strong, hostile or unstable neighbors. China needs some weapons to protect itself from Russia, Japan, India, whatever-stans and the gangs. If China names any one of them its potential enemy (before 1939, France wanted the U.S. and U.K to view Germany as a threat, the two countries did not do so in fear of escalation), it would induce escalation of warfare in the whole Asia.
Let’s say China fears the possibility of an India’s invasion into Tibet (Xizhang was under Chinese protection before the British occupation of India, and India now occupied a large part of the traditional Tibet land after its independence. Sikkim once was a Buddhist country before it was taken over by India.) As a result, China needs to build up a large army to against India. However, if China builds a large army, it would certainly escalate the tension. India would buy more tanks and Pakistan would buy more missiles. China has been invaded by England, France, imperial Russia, Japan and many other countries from the 1840s to 1949. China does have good reasons to build up adequate forces to protect itself. It just helps no one if China builds up national defense.
As a result, taking over Taiwan has become the best excuse for China to build up armed forces without causing everyone around China to cry the sky is falling. Everyone recognizes that the Taiwan issue is legal. China does not claim Tokyo its own land. It claims Taiwan.
I don’t mind the Chinese navy calls its first carrier Shi-Lang. It could be used to pacify its own citizen that the resolution of Taiwan issue is at hand. It’s more like that you already have Star Wars and Star Trek, you don’t need to give NASA more fund to go to Mars. See, you already have the universe, who cares about the red planet?
If China wants to take back Taiwan, the carrier would be useless. They already have the cheap rockets. Most military and civilian airports would be destroyed in minutes and without local air superiority, you are nothing. No need for a carrier.
As to U.S. carriers, if China wants to fight against the U.S., it will use subs and long-range missiles. A number of calculated hits could render flight decks unusable and force the U.S. carriers to go home for a lengthy repairing. They probably would not sink U.S. carriers because it would lead to a total war but getting a carrier crippled is still possible. It doesn’t take a Chinese carrier to do the job.
Therefore, I think the only reason for a Chinese carrier is to patrol the south seas. And after you have witnessed Somalia, you probably would recognize China’s need to secure one of its major life line.
In general, a U.S. military ship must refuel every a couple of weeks. It’s called highline, which is a very dangerous job over the stormy seas. Tankers are still needed by any country’s navy, including the U.S., because the nuclear subs and carriers are the only ships that do not need them. You need fuel for your Aegis ships and F-18s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment
During the WW2 it was even worse because piston-engine-powered navy airplanes must use gasoline. Once hit, the gasoline tank would explode. Gasoline explosion killed many Japanese carriers and U.S. boats as well. Today’s jet fuels are much safer to handle.
Sending a fuel-powered carrier group overseas is no small business. It requires many more tankers which may burden the Chinese navy to a new high. After all, during the WW2 China used to have a river-based navy at most. It’s not a walk in the park to send a Chinese fleet to the Indian Ocean and back.