China to build aircraft carrier

[gf0012-aust]

With the improved power projection of carrier battle groups in chinas inventory in the future will the US navy react by blostering its presence in the region? Or do they already have the means to offset the influence of battle group as it is? Im sure there will be some sort of reaction by Washington to chinese carriers operating the region.

The largest of the singular USN Carrier Strike Forces is within 3-5 days sailing already. There is also the Kitty Hawk group based out in Japan. Both Japan and the USN have increased the number of Aegis and ASW platforms they have in that area.

The whole purpose of the recent surge exercise in pulling together 7 Carrier strike forces was to show "will and intent".

I really really doubt that China even at the 10 year mark, is going to demonstrate fleet management and carrier battlegroup/strike force handling skills to the level of even the Indians (as an example of a regional Navy who have been in the Carrier game for a looooooong time)

Build, workup, trials, integration, fleet work up, exercises etc are not things that will be learnt to the same levels of proficiency in an 8-10 year window.

Even Navies with Carrier led fleets who have been using them for decades have changed the way that they do Carrier protection, aircraft recovery, guard work, ASW integration etc... in the last 15 years or so - and China is starting from scratch with none of the historical knowledge which is critical for development.

 

[bd popeye]

With the improved power projection of carrier battle groups in chinas inventory in the future will the US navy react by blostering its presence in the region? Or do they already have the means to offset the influence of battle group as it is? Im sure there will be some sort of reaction by Washington to chinese carriers operating the region.

My credintials..I served in the USN for 20 years aboard 5 CV's and various avation units from 1971-'91. I have a son on active duty for 7.5 years as a sonar tech in the USN.

In fact the USN is studying moving a CVN to Hawaii or Guam. I watched the defense approations meeting with the US congress a few months ago and one of the things that was discussed was money for a study to move a CVN to Guam or Hawaii. This is an article from the "Stars and Stripes" from this past march echoing the same thoughts.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27203&archive=true

Navy pushing for addition of second aircraft carrier in Pacific
Hawaii favored as home base; Guam also considered

By Jon R. Anderson, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, March 31, 2005

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy wants to base a second carrier in the Western Pacific — either in Guam or Hawaii — but debate remains on when, or even if, that will happen, said one of the Navy’s top leaders at the Pentagon.

“The discussion has been about Hawaii and Guam, but it has centered principally on Hawaii,†Vice Adm. Joseph Sestak, the deputy chief of naval operations for warfare requirements and programs, told reporters Tuesday.

“The specifics of that are interesting, in that the ability to be in the Western Pacific like we are in Japan gives us speed and response,†said Sestak. Stationed in Yokosuka, the USS Kitty Hawk is currently the Navy’s only carrier based overseas.

“The issue now has to continue to be worked, but there is a commitment to look at putting another one out there.â€

Clarifying Sestak’s comments, an aide added, “The Navy has decided that it wants a second carrier homeported overseas, but the final decision on if that will happen and then where it will go will happen through the Quadrennial Defense Review.â€

The review, which is mandated by Congress every four years, is the Pentagon’s top-to-bottom scrub of the long-term roles, missions, manning, programs and posture of the four services. The QDR, which is just getting started, is due to be wrapped up later this year.

Going into the effort, Sestak said officials are leaning toward Hawaii over Guam as the likely choice for the home of a second forward-based carrier.

“I think they both — in the studies that were done — portended advantages, but we are very familiar with Hawaii,†said Sestak. “I think Hawaii always lent itself to have a fairly well-settled infrastructure.â€

Guam, on the other hand, is closer to potential hot spots such as the Koreas, the Taiwan Strait and the Middle East.

Still, he added, most of the Navy’s carrier presence in the Middle East would likely come from the Atlantic-based fleet.

“A lot of it can come from the Atlantic side,†said Sestak. “If you look at the distances by which you have to travel back and forth, it’s a long deployment to go to the CENTCOM (Area of Operations) from the Western Pacific.â€

The debate on a second forward-deployed carrier comes even as the Navy is wrestling with how it will continue to maintain a carrier in Japan while also downsizing from a 12-carrier fleet to 11 flattops.

Service plans call for decommissioning both the Kitty Hawk and John F. Kennedy, the Navy’s last two conventionally powered carriers, in the coming years.

Officials hope to swap out the Kitty Hawk with a nuclear-powered replacement but are keeping their options open because of Japanese concerns over nuclear power.

“We’re going to mothball the Kennedy,†Navy Secretary Gordon England told reporters recently, but he added, “if you need the Kennedy to go to Japan we can always make the Kennedy available.â€

Meanwhile, maintaining forces that are immediately available — either forward-based or able to surge forward quickly — will be the hallmark of the Navy’s strategy to make up the difference in fewer carriers, said Sestak.

“If you don’t have thespeed to get to the conflict when you really need to be there, you’re interesting, but irrelevant,†said Sestak.

 

[bd popeye]

I have noticed in this form and all other discussions about a PLAN CV that many of the pro-PRC types seem to think that if the PLAN has a carrier it will automatically give the PLAN some super striking force. No way. As others have pointed out that it will take the PLAN years to learn how to operate a CV.

 

[Wild Weasel]

Not to mention developing a truely effective means of defending it. This, of course is not limited to air-launched anti-shipping missiles, but also- and far more likely- against litterally dozens of nuclear, and conventional attack subs operated by countries throughout the region.

As the PRC completes it's carrier, the newest subs from the US, Taiwan, and Japan will be a generation beyond what's currently being fielded. It's unlikely that the PLAN's Type 094 will be an effective deterrent against the SSN-21, SSN-74, Oyashio, and Taiwan's future SSK's. I suspect that the Type 094 will be able to achieve a 1:1 kill ratio at best, and when you do the math, it's easy to see that the PLAN sub force is already at a distinct numerical disadvantage versus modern submarine forces that would be after a Chinese carrier. Against modern US boats, the PLAN best subs are hopelessly out-classed, and out-numbered. When you figure in Taiwanese, Japanese, Austrailian, and possibly even Korean SSKs- the situation looks quite bleak indeed.

If the PLAN itends to defend a carrier from an air attack, they will have to develop additional technologies, or their carrier will quickly become a smoking hole in the ocean. An modern carrier strike group must have an Aegis-quality radar/FC/network, a long-endurance AWACS, comprehensive ECM/countermeasures suites, long-range active-homing SAMs, medium and short-range SAM's for hard-kill battle group defense, point defense/CIWS missiles and guns for last-chance carrier defense, and organic air-superiority/CAP provided by late-generation fighter-interceptors. In addition, survivablity features like damage control systems, high-quality construction materials, and low-observabilty technologies are fairly vital.
I don't know to what extent the PLAN incorporates these features in their most recent ships, but they will most certainly be vital to the carrier's survival in any future conflict with a modern naval combattant.

If the best thing that the PRC can put into the air is a SU-27/33, they will be in serious trouble right out of the starting gate. While the most current Flanker varients are capable, powerful, and reletively inexpensive- they are also VERY large, heavy, not stealthy enough, and at least a full technological generation behind the fifth generation fighters that will be targeting a very vulnerable PLAN carrier.
The Flanker's large size, and heavy weight will mean that even a very large CTOL carrier in the Kennedy/DeGaule weight class would only be able to carry a quite limited number of Flankers, if they intend to embark other specialized types as well. Even the Russian Navy had trouble navalising these fighters. I don't expect the PLAN will make any significant breakthroughs in squeezing gigantic fighters onto a relatively small carrier deck.

In light of current defense technology trends, it's even possible that PLAN flankers may be facing hundreds of unmanned, low-observable fighters by the time a PLAN carrier is ready for combat.
Unless they intend to keep a carrier beneath the air defense umbrella of the PLAF land-based aircraft- the notion of PLAN carrier seems a bit ill-concieved, and naive right now.

The threat is simply overwhelming, and the means with which to defend it is more than a little inadequate, given the PRC's lack of experience and infrastructure this late in the game.

 

[MIGleader]

Not to mention developing a truely effective means of defending it. This, of course is not limited to air-launched anti-shipping missiles, but also- and far more likely- against litterally dozens of nuclear, and conventional attack subs operated by countries throughout the region.

As the PRC completes it's carrier, the newest subs from the US, Taiwan, and Japan will be a generation beyond what's currently being fielded. It's unlikely that the PLAN's Type 094 will be an effective deterrent against the SSN-21, SSN-74, Oyashio, and Taiwan's future SSK's. I suspect that the Type 094 will be able to achieve a 1:1 kill ratio at best, and when you do the math, it's easy to see that the PLAN sub force is already at a distinct numerical disadvantage versus modern submarine forces that would be after a Chinese carrier. Against modern US boats, the PLAN best subs are hopelessly out-classed, and out-numbered. When you figure in Taiwanese, Japanese, Austrailian, and possibly even Korean SSKs- the situation looks quite bleak indeed.

If the PLAN itends to defend a carrier from an air attack, they will have to develop additional technologies, or their carrier will quickly become a smoking hole in the ocean. An modern carrier strike group must have an Aegis-quality radar/FC/network, a long-endurance AWACS, comprehensive ECM/countermeasures suites, long-range active-homing SAMs, medium and short-range SAM's for hard-kill battle group defense, point defense/CIWS missiles and guns for last-chance carrier defense, and organic air-superiority/CAP provided by late-generation fighter-interceptors. In addition, survivablity features like damage control systems, high-quality construction materials, and low-observabilty technologies are fairly vital.
I don't know to what extent the PLAN incorporates these features in their most recent ships, but they will most certainly be vital to the carrier's survival in any future conflict with a modern naval combattant.

If the best thing that the PRC can put into the air is a SU-27/33, they will be in serious trouble right out of the starting gate. While the most current Flanker varients are capable, powerful, and reletively inexpensive- they are also VERY large, heavy, not stealthy enough, and at least a full technological generation behind the fifth generation fighters that will be targeting a very vulnerable PLAN carrier.
The Flanker's large size, and heavy weight will mean that even a very large CTOL carrier in the Kennedy/DeGaule weight class would only be able to carry a quite limited number of Flankers, if they intend to embark other specialized types as well. Even the Russian Navy had trouble navalising these fighters. I don't expect the PLAN will make any significant breakthroughs in squeezing gigantic fighters onto a relatively small carrier deck.

In light of current defense technology trends, it's even possible that PLAN flankers may be facing hundreds of unmanned, low-observable fighters by the time a PLAN carrier is ready for combat.
Unless they intend to keep a carrier beneath the air defense umbrella of the PLAF land-based aircraft- the notion of PLAN carrier seems a bit ill-concieved, and naive right now.

The threat is simply overwhelming, and the means with which to defend it is more than a little inadequate, given the PRC's lack of experience and infrastructure this late in the game.

the u.s is not 50 years ahead of china!!! are u dreaming? anyone who thinks the taiwanese sub force, with its four subs(2 from ww2) can take on the plan is an... [Admin Edit: Choose your words wisely]. the u.s would also need to take time to sassemble its nuke subs, not just send em in. do you have proof that the u.s subs are better? the plans diesels are very effective, especially with aip

any flnakers china uses will donminate the seas. they are verty comfortable with varyag. fifth gen aircraft like the f-22 and jsf are either completing development or being just deployed. and there is no way the u.s can send the f-22 to taiwan. uavs? yeah right. its up to the hornets, which willl be decimated by flankers.

the plan has modern destroyers like 52b and c to protect the carrier. and the sk's will not get into a fight with the chinese anytime soon.
[ Admin Edit: Don't get all hyper with the lingo... discuss with respect to people who you may disagree with! ]

 

[gf0012-aust]

the u.s is not 50 years ahead of china!!! are u dreaming?

The US deployed Phased Array systems on warships as early as 1962 on Enterprise, and Longbeach - she has nearly 50 years experience on over 80 vessels - China has what 2 x 52b's and 2 x 52c's. Only 2 of the 4 are array systems (and not substantiated) In radar alone the US is a golden mile ahead of china. remember that the US has fiired a probe into a comet for research - China has yet to get men into space for more than a week.

anyone who thinks the taiwanese sub force, with its four subs(2 from ww2) can take on the plan is an...

check the ORBAT - they're not WW2 vessels - and the issue is training - not just platforms. Taiwan has engaged in DUCT for the last 20 years - China engages in DUCT against who? how often? where? when?

the u.s would also need to take time to sassemble its nuke subs, not just send em in.

The largest US Fleet is in the Pacific. There are a minimum of 2 attack subs per fleet, and the US recently surged 7 carrier groups together - so that means 14 attack subs in addition to the subs that aren't fleet assigned. Pre-positioning isn't exactly a problem for a nuke. there's also the KittyHawk Group.

do you have proof that the u.s subs are better? the plans diesels are very effective, especially with aip

well, we know that the Xian sounds like a train travelling underwater with its doors open, we also know that it can't fire any missiles (check with Sino-Defence as well). We also know that the Chinese sub that tried to listen in recently on Exercise Talisman Sabre sounded like an underwater blender at high speed. Not a good sign if you're trying to sneak up unannounced.

any flnakers china uses will donminate the seas. they are verty comfortable with varyag.

No Su-27's have rotated off of Varyag. and the Russians had known problems as the Su's couldn't take off with a full weapons or fuel load. ie shortened range automatically. This is all documented by the Russians. Considering the fact that PLAN/PLAAF don't have any pilots who train on carriers then I'm not sure why you're stating stuff that is blatantly wrong. The last time that Russian aircraft rotated off Varyags sister was Oct last year and they lost 2 Su's due to lack of training. Considering that Varyag doesn't even have fiunctioning engines, I'm not sure how anyone would miss any aircraft rotating off it in a highly visible port area.

fifth gen aircraft like the f-22 and jsf are either completing development or being just deployed.

There are now over 50 F-22's in service. Thats more F-22's than Rafale's flying.

and there is no way the u.s can send the f-22 to taiwan.

Ever heard of AAR? How do you think the F-117's got to Saudi Arabia and Japan?

uavs? yeah right. its up to the hornets, which willl be decimated by flankers.

Based on what scenario? This isn't going to be like the Red Baron where magnificent men in their flying machines take off to do air battle. Anyone who thinks that the US is going to commit Carriers into an area that hasn't been sanitised first is letting patriotism over-ride logic.

btw, I'm not American - and I'm part Chinese with mainland relatives.

 

[turin]

China has what 2 x 52b's and 2 x 52c's. Only 2 of the 4 are array systems (and not substantiated)

Interestingly enough the PLAN apparently equipped the newer 051C DDG with a russian AAW sensor suite including russian PAR, which the Chinese procured some time ago. That might hint to the point that the PLAN is not quite sure yet if its own PAR design really lives up to the expectations. At least they feel the russian design is still good enough to equip some pretty important ships with them.

 

[Francois]

Interestingly enough the PLAN apparently equipped the newer 051C DDG with a russian AAW sensor suite including russian PAR, which the Chinese procured some time ago. That might hint to the point that the PLAN is not quite sure yet if its own PAR design really lives up to the expectations. At least they feel the russian design is still good enough to equip some pretty important ships with them.

Actually, Chinese are fielding russian hardware for two reasons :
- Its better then anything they would be able to design.
- Nobody else will sell them anything.

With all these platforms (-27s, sovrenm, Kilos,...), and their related disponiblities/reliance issues, I don't give them too much value.
On the forums, I see a lot of pride about the 52C and alike. This boat is very small (compare it to an AB, or a KDX).
The biggest they have are russian made anyway.

But its ok, all they need is old carriers to make many theme parks around

 

[tphuang]

Actually, Chinese are fielding russian hardware for two reasons :
- Its better then anything they would be able to design.
- Nobody else will sell them anything.

With all these platforms (-27s, sovrenm, Kilos,...), and their related disponiblities/reliance issues, I don't give them too much value.
On the forums, I see a lot of pride about the 52C and alike. This boat is very small (compare it to an AB, or a KDX).
The biggest they have are russian made anyway.

But its ok, all they need is old carriers to make many theme parks around

052C is not as good as AB or KDX, but that doesn't mean Chinese people can't feel good about getting a real air defense destroyer.

As for 052C's PAR system, it's not just some Chinese posters that dream about it being APAR. Richard Fisher also stated that China bought 2 kvant APAR radar from the Ukrainians in 2004. http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.63/pub_detail.asp If it's not on 052C, then it probably will be on a later DDG in the 052 series.

The US deployed Phased Array systems on warships as early as 1962 on Enterprise, and Longbeach - she has nearly 50 years experience on over 80 vessels - China has what 2 x 52b's and 2 x 52c's. Only 2 of the 4 are array systems (and not substantiated) In radar alone the US is a golden mile ahead of china. remember that the US has fiired a probe into a comet for research - China has yet to get men into space for more than a week.

2005 - 1962 = 43 years not 50. And you make it sound like the PAR systems on 052C is the same as the ones on the ones on 1962. That's like saying since China has never had fully indigenously developed fighter jet before, J-10 is at the level of WWI planes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

2005 - 1962 = 43 years not 50.

The first system was designed 1957. It was vessel deployed soon after.

And you make it sound like the PAR systems on 052C is the same as the ones on the ones on 1962.

No, its an issue of generation development.

That's like saying since China has never had fully indigenously developed fighter jet before, J-10 is at the level of WWI planes.

No, because the heritage platform is the F-16 sans Lavi. So the baseline product will be higher.

 

[turin]

On the forums, I see a lot of pride about the 52C and alike. This boat is very small (compare it to an AB, or a KDX).
The biggest they have are russian made anyway.

Displacement of new chinese constructions is rising considerably in recent years. Also the 052C, whatever its capabilities may be, is certainly not a "small" ship, most numbers I have seen are around 6,500 ts, which puts it right in the line of newer western AAW vessels (Horizon, Sachsen, F-100 etc.). If they want to field a more or less dedicated AAW ship, then a displacement around 10,000 ts like for the multi-purpose AB is unnecessary.

 

[tphuang]

The first system was designed 1957. It was vessel deployed soon after.

No, its an issue of generation development.

No, because the heritage platform is the F-16 sans Lavi. So the baseline product will be higher.

and 052C was designed a few years back too, I'm sure. I'm not saying that US is not far ahead of China. Clearly, it is. However, let's not belittle what China has done to its navy in the last 5 years.

Also to Turin, the displacement of 051C is expected to be around 7000 tonnes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

and 052C was designed a few years back too, I'm sure. I'm not saying that US is not far ahead of China. Clearly, it is. However, let's not belittle what China has done to its navy in the last 5 years.

China has made extraordinary progress in the last 5 years. My grief is at some of the extrapolation that goes on at the expense of reality.

Some of the dialogue that traverses forums about future aircraft carriers, "aegis" equiped AWD's and nuclear sub or SLBM capability beggars tempering to get some reality back into the argument.

But, China has made some remarkable steps ever since she went through her RMA decisions after the Gulf War in 1991

 

[Francois]

Just saw a report from the Cdr of the 7th fleet.
He said China is not preoccuping him, as far as they keep fielding so much different assets in so few numbers. And the conscript system is just making it worse.

Beside this, he said that China should open a bit and explain her intentions.
You can't do such as expending with telling why, except if you can't tell because your goal is not tallable (which I am getting to believe more and more).

 

[tphuang]

Just saw a report from the Cdr of the 7th fleet.
He said China is not preoccuping him, as far as they keep fielding so much different assets in so few numbers. And the conscript system is just making it worse.

Beside this, he said that China should open a bit and explain her intentions.
You can't do such as expending with telling why, except if you can't tell because your goal is not tallable (which I am getting to believe more and more).

It's not China's obligation to explain all of its intentions to USA. Just because everyone else treats America as its principal, that doesn't mean China has to. All this stuff about China not facing threat is rubbish. If I have the entire American congress treating me like the enemy and having realignments in the Pacific just to contain me, I'd be pretty nervous too.

 

[PLA2025]

aren't you underestimating Chinese?

China did not have much room to develop high advanced technologies in the past decades because of its communistic manners. But things have changed and Chinese are doing the same thing like the Japanese did in the 1960's and 1970's! They coppied almost everything, cameras, cars, tvs from the West and even surpassed in many sectors! Chinese people are not less but can do the same if they get the chance to show their skills and ambitions. You guys doubt that China can successfully modernize its military forces? Could any of you guys imagine that China would be at the point it is for the recent years? I thought China would end up like North Korea but the trend proved me and many people wrong! China has become the 2nd largest trading nation and its economy growth might not drop below 5% even in after 20 years!
It is hard to accept, but the Asia will be more dominant in this century than in the 20th century when Europe and the US dominated the world policies.

But to return to the topic:
that's why China is not seeking to force its own deployment of any aircraft carriers but rather seek for more lethal methods to stop foreign aircraft carriers. China's submarines are good enough to match most nation's submarines but are inferior to the Russians, US and some Western Europeans (UK, Germany). The one who stated Taiwan would have better subs than China is just being dreaming! As long China stays hard and even gain more international influence, Taiwan is getting nothing!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: aren't you underestimating Chinese?

You guys doubt that China can successfully modernize its military forces? Could any of you guys imagine that China would be at the point it is for the recent years?

That proves that you aren't reading my responses at a minimum.

that's why China is not seeking to force its own deployment of any aircraft carriers but rather seek for more lethal methods to stop foreign aircraft carriers.

I'm curious as to how you come to this assessment when all the indicators are that China is overtly committed to structuring the PLAN around strike groups.

China's submarines are good enough to match most nation's submarines but are inferior to the Russians, US and some Western Europeans (UK, Germany).

I can think of at leasy 10 distinct submarine classes that are superior to Chineses subs - and all of them are potential OPFOR platforms.

The one who stated Taiwan would have better subs than China is just being dreaming! As long China stays hard and even gain more international influence, Taiwan is getting nothing!

Unless you have some skills in soothsaying, I'd think that you're being awfully brave. The reality is that if Taiwan does get access to Scorpenes (and that is looking more likely than ever) - then in one fell swoop she will have a platform that is superior to a Kilo and Song in a multitude of areas. She already has superior performance in her subs compared to some current PLAN sub assets - and she's been training with other navies for a number of years. Training and dissimilar training against quality opponents provides considerable leverage over any country that operates military forces at a hermetic level. She doesn't have the numbers - but quality brings a level of competency and capability all of its own to the assessment mix.

 

[Francois]

It's not China's obligation to explain all of its intentions to USA. Just because everyone else treats America as its principal, that doesn't mean China has to. All this stuff about China not facing threat is rubbish. If I have the entire American congress treating me like the enemy and having realignments in the Pacific just to contain me, I'd be pretty nervous too.

This is the whole point.
They don't have to tell the US their intentions, but at least the international community. China is not alone here down, and far from it.
Except of course if the intentions are ignominious!
We are living in the era of the information.
If one doesn't tell his intentions, he will certainly be misunderstood.
This is the first commendement of diplomatie.

I don't know your family, but if your mother get home very very late every night, and she refuses to tell you or even your father why, she will be suspect, don't you think?
Communication is the key here.

To keep with the metaphor, US is the father, China wants to be the mother, but the kids are all around the place already

 

[tphuang]

This is the whole point.
They don't have to tell the US their intentions, but at least the international community. China is not alone here down, and far from it.
Except of course if the intentions are ignominious!
We are living in the era of the information.
If one doesn't tell his intentions, he will certainly be misunderstood.
This is the first commendement of diplomatie.

I don't know your family, but if your mother get home very very late every night, and she refuses to tell you or even your father why, she will be suspect, don't you think?
Communication is the key here.

To keep with the metaphor, US is the father, China wants to be the mother, but the kids are all around the place already

This is a bad argument. In your analogy, US and the neigbhours would have to love China, because China is the mother. In reality, US treats China like a dude that just came out of jail. US wants to be the paroll officer. Why should China have to comply? Maybe if the Americans stop treating China so badly, it get more transparent reports coming out.

 

[Francois]

This is a bad argument. In your analogy, US and the neigbhours would have to love China, because China is the mother. In reality, US treats China like a dude that just came out of jail. US wants to be the paroll officer. Why should China have to comply? Maybe if the Americans stop treating China so badly, it get more transparent reports coming out.

I am scared that you are getting paranoid.
First, there is nothing like lova and hate in a diplomatic game.
Second, the US is not treating China like a bad boy, but rather like the boy who wants to re-write the rules that everybody agreed to play with at first.
If China gets clear on its intentions, and don't act like a rogue, then its image will be far improved! And everybody will be really feeling better.

But again I belive they can't tell their purposes, because untellable...
But this is my own vision.