China to build aircraft carrier

[gf0012-aust]

It might be a good idea to place more emphasis on the topic title...

geopolitical discussions are sure fire ways to end up louder and louder with no happy result for either side.

 

[gf0012-aust]

One reason as to why its difficult to place credibility on some reports re this:

http://image.bulo.163.com/userfile/708/-0Tdw/20050517122223.jpg

http://www.reagan.navy.mil/constructpages/pages/construct009.htm

Note that all the chinese site has done is photoshop the gantry and presented it as a Chinese Carrier.

I wish people would stop doing this as it really makes me cranky and does nothing to lend any credibility to some Chinese claims about capability.



I'd upload the images but for some reason the server is hanging at 100% and not closing off properly.

 

[Cootamundra]

It might be a good idea to place more emphasis on the topic title...

geopolitical discussions are sure fire ways to end up louder and louder with no happy result for either side.

GF, are you talking to me?

If so, isn't this site also for geopolitical discussions? I just couldn't resist pointing out the flaws in PLA's argument/statement. Cheerio

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, are you talking to me?

Nope, it was at no one in particular. More pointedly aimed at some of the older members who should remember the rules.

If so, isn't this site also for geopolitical discussions? I just couldn't resist pointing out the flaws in PLA's argument/statement. Cheerio

we try to minimise politics in here as they have a tendency to go ballistic very very quickly. Web and the mods spent almost 2 years trying to turn it around from being quite feral (in the political sections).

as you might gather, political discussions involving some of the members in here can get quite lively - and then we end up closing down sometimes useful threads.

So its easier to not let everyone wander off too close to the political side of discussion as the great demon "ideology" invariably shoves its head in the door. Then all hell breaks loose.

hence the emphasis on strategic and tactical with a running glance at politics.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I am coming into this discussion late, but I have a nig question for the experts here.
1) What will be the aircraft that will form the fighter strike element

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Your refering to a nation that was at war and also, more importantly, had at that time alot of experience with carrier aviation. I cannot understand the need for china to have any CV's, and that question also is for India as well.

Also, who has the experience in China to train the pilots and what will be the aicraft of choice for this project.

The comments regarding the Battle group are also very telling.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

First of all, I would like to nomiate Mig Leader as the next Chinese admiral, because with hyperbole like that, sub commanders would have happy hunting!

Now back to the topic at hand. I would like to say that the concept of a chinese CV force sort of makes me not want to sell flight insurance to future Chinese Carrier Naval Pilots. Though I am quite sure there are some very talented individuals, they simply do not have the training, experience to make a CV earn its keep, namely its air component, but also a tried and true navalised fighter in the same league as USN types is sorely lacking and a Navalised SU I believed was flying in the late Eighties, but they did not do that well operationally.

My knowledge of ships and naval technology is sparse, but I do know that it took the USA 20 plus years to make the concept of Naval Avaition an operational reality. Frankly I do not think that one can reverse engineer the training and the myriad of systems and operational procedures to make a home grown naval air arm in 3 years.

I think that the countries that are strivng to have the same technology and striking capability as the USN, Royal Navy and France should stop trying to do the same thing, but instead focus on building on their strengths and countering the percieved threat of other countries and their CV's.

Now back to my supper!

 

[wp2000]

First of all, I would like to nomiate Mig Leader as the next Chinese admiral, because with hyperbole like that, sub commanders would have happy hunting!

Now back to the topic at hand. I would like to say that the concept of a chinese CV force sort of makes me not want to sell flight insurance to future Chinese Carrier Naval Pilots. Though I am quite sure there are some very talented individuals, they simply do not have the training, experience to make a CV earn its keep, namely its air component, but also a tried and true navalised fighter in the same league as USN types is sorely lacking and a Navalised SU I believed was flying in the late Eighties, but they did not do that well operationally.

My knowledge of ships and naval technology is sparse, but I do know that it took the USA 20 plus years to make the concept of Naval Avaition an operational reality. Frankly I do not think that one can reverse engineer the training and the myriad of systems and operational procedures to make a home grown naval air arm in 3 years.

I think that the countries that are strivng to have the same technology and striking capability as the USN, Royal Navy and France should stop trying to do the same thing, but instead focus on building on their strengths and countering the percieved threat of other countries and their CV's.

Now back to my supper!

As of experience and required equipment and planes, actually who taught US or UK to operate a CV? Aliens?

If China chooses to own a CV (why they want one is a different question), they will certainly do it gradually to gain experience and prepare all the requirements. It would be really strange if they want to make their first CV as capable as US's CVs.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

As of experience and required equipment and planes, actually who taught US or UK to operate a CV? Aliens?

If China chooses to own a CV (why they want one is a different question), they will certainly do it gradually to gain experience and prepare all the requirements. It would be really strange if they want to make their first CV as capable as US's CVs.

Actually the UK was the first operator followed by the USA, certainly you don't mean anyone else taught them?

For other countries to be able to confront the US in Carrier Naval ops it would be fool hardy not to have a CV that was as capapble and also to have the surface and subsurface elements that history has shown are essential to have an effective open sea counter. SO lets give China the 25-30 years of experience, let them fight 3 or 4 wars to get it right, by that time they will be able to stand toe to toe, but now we are getting into the realm of fantasy.

 

[PLA2025]

The numbers of the economy growth rate I named for China is a calculation from experts and not mine. They definetly may vary, so I never claimed that it would exactly happen that way. I live here in Europe for over 25 years and I really cannot see an economic revival for most West-European countries including Spain, UK, Germany, France and Italy.
But the military funding of China being at 90billion USD is just what the Pentagon claims! they have been talking plenty of BS in the past and the claim of 90+billion USD for the Chinese military has a clear intention: They want to mark China as a big growing military threat which is definetly not grounded or proved. International experts say that the realistic figure for China's spending would be around 60billion USD which is definetly much higher than the official numbers but still much less than Pentagon claims.
China might have catched up the military fundings with the UK, France and slightly surpassed Japan (all three around 45-60billion USD) while Russia ranks 2nd with over 90billion USD!

 

[PLA2025]

Some of you are talking like, that China should not deploy own Aircraft carriers because they would need 20 or more years to gain full experience to operate them efficiently.
First of all, If you say so, why did the US, Japan, UK, France, Russia started to develop and deployed carriers? It sounds to me more like an excuse to exclude China from something that others already have (the question whether they really need one is another).
Second, China or any other nation that has the capability (including the needed money) might not need to experience training of 20 years or more. You must know that the US are/were pioneers or avantgardists in developing and operating carriers. Chinese and others are not beginning their development and deployment from "point zero" but mostly copied technology and analysing experience from carrier-veterans like from the US, France, UK and Russia. What they mostly need is real practice while the first generation of US carrier operators and pilots were starting from point zero and needed much experiments to get it right. Same thing for anykind of technology: it is always much harder (and takes longer) to develop something completely new than copying something already existing. Why does Sony have so much success in TV or Playstation? Both platforms were not own ideas but far more copying platforms from others and develop from that level on indigeniously. The PSone was based on the Super Nintendo CD-Rom which was a co-op product between Sony and Nintendo but the project was cancelled and Sony developed it to their first video game system in the 32bit era.

 

[wp2000]

Actually the UK was the first operator followed by the USA, certainly you don't mean anyone else taught them?

For other countries to be able to confront the US in Carrier Naval ops it would be fool hardy not to have a CV that was as capapble and also to have the surface and subsurface elements that history has shown are essential to have an effective open sea counter. SO lets give China the 25-30 years of experience, let them fight 3 or 4 wars to get it right, by that time they will be able to stand toe to toe, but now we are getting into the realm of fantasy.

But your logic is that because nobody would teach china how to operate CV so they can't or at least shouldn't go for it. If UK could teach themselves, why can't China do the same?

This is the same logic we've debated before. The question is, if some thing has been tried by somebody else already and they are far ahead of you, what should you do? Give up or keep trying? It seems that China decided to keep trying evenif it looks like a waste of resources.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

No, I think the question to be asked is why China needs a CV Group? The only reason a CV exists is to operate in other peoples back yards. A CV for defensive purposes is a bad strategy, and historically the CV has been utilised to safeguard overseas holdings and to exert 21st century gunboat policy. The same can be said for the Indian Navy as well. Running a CV battle group is incredibly expensive and I would advise China to concentrate on getting her conventional ground forces up to scratch as well as developing a true aircraft that can operate from a CV, because frankly the SU series are very big, very heavy, and have shown to be unsuitable for CV operations, and the MiG 29...well that is another story, as was posted by a much more knowledgable posting earlier.

Keep in mind also that the old Soviet Union did not go so far in Carrier ops, if they did there would be a few operational Russian CV's right now, instead of the ones being sold for scrap!

It simply isn't a point of view that why can't China have what other nations have, it is a point of view of China wanting what others have, and not considering what it is going to be used for.

Sort of akin to starting a space exploration program using Russian Technology, it works fine, but is very limited in capability and flexibility.

 

[PLA2025]

I guess China might have 2-3 medium sized carriers before 2025 operational entering the first one maybe around 2015. They definetly won't seek to build and deploy carrier battle groups like the US does. I think the PLAN would deploy one decent battlegroup in the East and one in the South China Sea. The carrier battlegroup doesn't need to match the USN's since they are not meant to face the USN carrier battlegroups. It must be said that China has not been eager to deploy own carriers but far more interested in developing advanced naval surface combatants, attack subs, SSN, and SSBNs, SAMs, Anti-ship-missiles, and anti-stealth detection systems. Although China is seeking to improve its offensive striking capabilities, their priority is still the defensive mission of its own skies, soils and seas.
China will most likely get their carrier battlegroups oneday but there is really no need to force/rush it.

 

[Wild Weasel]

I guess China might have 2-3 medium sized carriers before 2025 operational entering the first one maybe around 2015. They definetly won't seek to build and deploy carrier battle groups like the US does.

Of course they will. Just as they armed themselves with ICBM's.

I think the PLAN would deploy one decent battlegroup in the East and one in the South China Sea. The carrier battlegroup doesn't need to match the USN's since they are not meant to face the USN carrier battlegroups.

So they are mostly concerned about Taiwanese carrier groups?

It must be said that China has not been eager to deploy own carriers but far more interested in developing advanced naval surface combatants, attack subs, SSN, and SSBNs, SAMs, Anti-ship-missiles, and anti-stealth detection systems.

Well clearly it's a bit ridiculous to start with nothing, and hope to reach the penacle of naval technology, without having sorted out a few of the basic things. Then again, the grass IS certainly greener in the neighbor's yard.

Although China is seeking to improve its offensive striking capabilities, their priority is still the defensive mission of its own skies, soils and seas.
China will most likely get their carrier battlegroups oneday but there is really no need to force/rush it.

Like buying up obselete, de-militarized, second-hand carrier hulls from Eastern Europe, behind a charade of building an "amusement park/casino/resort hotel" or anything...

 

[wp2000]

No, I think the question to be asked is why China needs a CV Group? The only reason a CV exists is to operate in other peoples back yards. A CV for defensive purposes is a bad strategy, and historically the CV has been utilised to safeguard overseas holdings and to exert 21st century gunboat policy. The same can be said for the Indian Navy as well. Running a CV battle group is incredibly expensive and I would advise China to concentrate on getting her conventional ground forces up to scratch as well as developing a true aircraft that can operate from a CV, because frankly the SU series are very big, very heavy, and have shown to be unsuitable for CV operations, and the MiG 29...well that is another story, as was posted by a much more knowledgable posting earlier.

Keep in mind also that the old Soviet Union did not go so far in Carrier ops, if they did there would be a few operational Russian CV's right now, instead of the ones being sold for scrap!

It simply isn't a point of view that why can't China have what other nations have, it is a point of view of China wanting what others have, and not considering what it is going to be used for.

Sort of akin to starting a space exploration program using Russian Technology, it works fine, but is very limited in capability and flexibility.

OK, so if we are discussing Should china have a CV, then I agree with you. My view is smiliar, I don't think they need a CV now, or even in the next 5 years. But I can't rule out the possibility that PLAN may want to prepare to send its ships far away from china's coast. If they do want to go that way in the future, then using a semi-operational ship to gain some experiences first is not a bad idea, otherwise you have to use you brand new CV to train everything and iron out possible mistakes.

So the real issue is What's on PLAN's mind about their future? Taiwan or something beyond that?

And, if PLAN does want to build a CV, would they have considered what it should be used for? I bet they would

Talking about Flankers or the Russian aircraft carrier design, it is true they are not ideal and as far as I know, PLAN likes USN's designs. But, can they jump to US CV's level in one go? I think they will take their time and do it gradually unless they are really mad.

And that applies to the space exploration as well. If they can't reach US level in one go, what do you suggest them to do? Give up? or start from a lower level?

I understand what you mean, from a cost effective point of view, all the resources should be spent smartly especially in this commercialised world. But the real difficulty lies in how to measure the cost and benifit, how long the accounting period should be?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So the real issue is What's on PLAN's mind about their future? Taiwan or something beyond that?

at a conflict level from a tactical perspective, a PLAN CV is absolutely useless for Taiwan

And, if PLAN does want to build a CV, would they have considered what it should be used for? I bet they would

at a conflict level from a tactical perspective, a PLAN CV is better for the Spratlys

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I think China would be better off maybe utilising the Assault Carrier concept of smaller carriers employing Helos, there are just so many variables with reference to fixed wing carrier naval ops that it is insanity and also more national pride than common sense and strategic value.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

at a conflict level from a tactical perspective, a PLAN CV is absolutely useless for Taiwan





at a conflict level from a tactical perspective, a PLAN CV is better for the Spratlys

GF If China Does deploy a CV and its organic support elements, where the heck will they base such a group? I am no admiral or naval architect, but naval base infrastructure also has to be taken into consideration if one is to supply, refit and harbour a CV battle Group?

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF If China Does deploy a CV and its organic support elements, where the heck will they base such a group? I am no admiral or naval architect, but naval base infrastructure also has to be taken into consideration if one is to supply, refit and harbour a CV battle Group?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a few predictions.

1) China will develop a large LHA hybrid. Possibly out to 65,000 tonnes and it will be CATOBAR not STOBAR

2) Said hybrid will have large well docks for LCAC solutions - min of 3 and possibly 4

3) Said hybrid will carry a strong marine component

4) The resultant ESG will be primarily based in Myanmar.

5) Myanmar allows them to support the existing listening base with a marine detachment offloaded for "R&R".

6) Myanmar allows fast transit to the Malacca Straits - and china will need to get access to what she sees as an increasingly important SLOC

7a) Myanmar allows them to directly counter the Indian Sth Eastern Fleet based in the Andomans

7b) Myanmar allows them to be closer in transit time to Diego Garcia

I'll bet the majority of this happens within 10 years.