Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Thinking the Royal Navy are amateur monkeys, not a good call. The RN is the only military that has operated carriers in anything other than a turkey shoot since WW2. While there was combat losses in the Falklands war not one was due to problems with compacting of air assets. Assets were heavily compacted for the Falkands war on both RN carriers used, and further compacting resulted in container ships being converted into escort carriers. It all worked rather well, and this was in areas of the South atlantic where the weather was almost always against you. Intercept rates were as good as could be expected allowing for the aircraft the Royal Navy had available. Harrier was an effective interceptor but subsonic.
It can be done, it has been done. So no I do not share your fears, and neither apparently does the Royal Navy. UK pioneered the carrier doctrines used outside the US (and maybe France), have tested them in battle and the model has been adopted or mimiced in some way by every other carrier operator except the US Navy (and maybe France).
The Falklands was a case of the plane being a fit for the carrier. The HMS Invincible was designed from the outset for V/STOL operations (mostly for ASW operations). The old Centaur Class HMS Hermes had been refitted with a ski jump, becoming a "commando carrier" and ASW platform. It's a far cry from conventional carrier operations. With the high level of proficiency shown by RAF and RN aviators, landing a jump jet on a carrier in bad weather is slightly easier than with a fixed wing system (although V/STOL operations in inclement weather has it's own set of risks and headaches).
During the Fleet Air Arm's fixed wing era, the Royal Navy's carriers were notoriously small and tricky, leading to a slightly higher than average accident rate with some aircraft types. In such a cramped environment on the flight deck, it's a testimony to the deck crews, flight controllers, and aviators skill and brass balls that the accident rate wasn't higher. I seem to recall that larger carriers were planned, but Labour Government shennanigans and the infamous 1957 White Paper on Defense killed those long term plans and eventually ended Royal Navy carrier-bourne, fixed wing aviation, leaving the U.S. Navy being the only serious projector of naval power in NATO
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Of course, I am in no real position of authority or knowledge, as all of my information is basic.
However, their is no doubt they have been in a building spree to expand their Blue Water Navy to help their claim to the South China Sea and set themselves up to potential re-take Taiwan. Both of these are key strategic interests in their Naval planning.
To do this, they have begun building a fleet that will have more Hulls than the USN. They have also purchased a Russian skyslope carrier, started building their own version. In addition, they are working on developing a standard style flat-top called the 02 I believe. The plan is to eventually build 5 operational carriers groups? In addition, their new "destroyers" are designed to provide a global, cruiser style warship to show the flag around the world. I know they have also been trying to build a shizzle load of large, anti-ship missiles to help swamp and sink opposing carrier groups, and they all ready have the largest air force in the world that can cover their main operational strategic interests.
Questions to consider:
1. Is China trying to create global power-projection capabilities with their Navy, or is it purely a regional force for their strategic interests in the area?
2. How much does this situation parallel the British-German Arms Race prior to the Great War?
3. How long will it take for them to build an actually capable maritime presence, as opposed to just snazzy new ships? Japan and Germany were able to ramp up relatively quickly.
4. I have less immediate knowledge about their Submarine forces, so insight there would be helpful.
Edit: This topic is tough to discuss as their is so much Chinese misinformation and propaganda out there regarding their naval forces, capabilities, and goals.
The "new and improved" People's Liberation Army Navy, like most of the "new and improved" Chinese military, is mostly a paper tiger. The Chinese will need another 20-30 years before they will be a serious naval power, able to effectively project said power. That's why they moved into the Panama Canal Zone and is starting a second colonial era in Africa. They need land based strategic assets in order to safeguard their foreign interests.
What advanced equipment China installs on domestically produced war machinery comes from foreign sources, and is mostly aimed at the export market. It's the complete opposite from Soviet and U.S. policy on technology transfers to client states during the Cold War (hence so-called "monkey" versions of tanks, fighters, etc for export). The U.S. still operates under that policy today. The Chinese export the better stuff, rather than retaining it for widespread use in their own armed forces. This does fit the primary foreign policy goal of the PRC currently: Making Money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/16 21:35:41
Now this is admittedly fairly impressive, but its nothing especially problematic, and is compounded by the choice of aircraft used. The US Navy often made the wrong choices for carrier based avaition, huge monster aircraft best used on shore. Had the F-16 been accepted for the US Navy things would be a whole lot easier, its a far lighter and more nimble airframe..
The F-18 was chosen over the F-16 for one big reason. If you lose an engine in an F-18, you abort the mission, dump your external stores, and RTB. If you lose an engine in an F-16 you're going swimming.
Edit: Yes, I agree with you, the F-16 engine has been proven to have magnificent engine reliability. Sadly, at the time the decision was made this had not yet been proven. And given the loss rate of the A-4s and A-7s - the last single-engine U.S. Navy aircraft I'm aware of - the Navy decide to play it safe and go with the twin-engine F-18.
The F-16 was NO competition for the F-14. The F-14 was planned from the outset to carry six AIM-54s at long range to fight Soviet bomber units. The original F-16A could not match the F-14 in range, long-range missile load, or target six bombers in one volley and reliably kill five at over 100 miles.
NOW, with the improved AIM-120s and forty years of modernization, an F-16 can finally do the same job. Forty years later. Not at the time the decision was made. Yes, the F-16A would have been easier for the Navy to use... but would not have accomplished the mission the Navy wanted done at the time it was needed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/17 01:37:45
So what you're saying is that you don't understand things like search radar vs. fire control radar, total payload vs. per-hardpoint limits, or combat range vs. ferry range. The F-16 could not carry the AIM-54, could not carry as many of them as the F-14 even if it did magically get the necessary radar upgrades, did not have the F-14's long-range fire control radar or ability to engage multiple targets from extreme range, and did not have the F-14's combat range. The F-16 is a great plane in its role, sure, but it could not in any way do the F-14's job of intercepting Soviet bomber formations well outside of attack range.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
So what you're saying is that you don't understand things like search radar vs. fire control radar, total payload vs. per-hardpoint limits, or combat range vs. ferry range.
Speak for yourself.
Combat range vs ferry range are both constructs based on loadout for a specific role. Absolute range can only be fixed for aircraft without drop tank technology, i.e WW2 or before. Ferry range is variable based on ability to load external stores as is combat range. The F-16 had greater fuel efficiency and a larger underwing stores capacity therefore you could make a longer combat range based on the ratio of mass devoted to fuel and ordnance. Do you understand this now?
Now if F-16 operators are not going to be in a position where they have to say 'we need extra drop tanks and long range missile loadouts' then they are not going to match combat range. If they did they would.
could not carry as many of them as the F-14 even if it did magically get the necessary radar upgrades, did not have the F-14's long-range fire control radar or ability to engage multiple targets from extreme range,.
In reality that wasn't needed long range fire control radar doesn't have to be on the same airframe, and wasn't in practicality. Examples were already given.
The F-16 is a great plane in its role, sure, but it could not in any way do the F-14's job of intercepting Soviet bomber formations well outside of attack range.
Neither could the F-14. The US underestimated the launch range of Soviet Naval aviation, and any attempt to do so would draw the fighter cover well away from the carrier group. Might catch Badgers, wont catch Backfires. Later Cold war doctrines had actual carrier protection occur from shore based squadrons, likely from Scotland or Iceland. The F-14 program avoided having to be put to the test.
The F-16 was NO competition for the F-14. The F-14 was planned from the outset to carry six AIM-54s at long range to fight Soviet bomber units. The original F-16A could not match the F-14 in range, long-range missile load, or target six bombers in one volley and reliably kill five at over 100 miles.
NOW, with the improved AIM-120s and forty years of modernization, an F-16 can finally do the same job. Forty years later. Not at the time the decision was made. Yes, the F-16A would have been easier for the Navy to use... but would not have accomplished the mission the Navy wanted done at the time it was needed.
I think this could best be described as, we don't need to convert the F-16 because we now have the F-14 rather than the inability to do so.
Now the F-14 did enter service first though procurement occurred at the same time.
Other operators have successfully utilised the F-16 for longer ranged roles, including for Naval aviation. The F-16 was and is still good for the job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/17 11:07:24
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
oldravenman3025 wrote: What advanced equipment China installs on domestically produced war machinery comes from foreign sources, and is mostly aimed at the export market. It's the complete opposite from Soviet and U.S. policy on technology transfers to client states during the Cold War (hence so-called "monkey" versions of tanks, fighters, etc for export). The U.S. still operates under that policy today. The Chinese export the better stuff, rather than retaining it for widespread use in their own armed forces. This does fit the primary foreign policy goal of the PRC currently: Making Money.
It also has the advantage of allowing the PRC to develop domestic military production without having to deal with overhead or any embarrassing technical failures (See the boondoggle of the F-35 or that time Iran bragged about a new fighter jet that turned out to be a prop).
Reminds of that one StarGate episode where the Russian character points out that they can let the US shoulder all the costs of domestic development while still reaping the rewards in the long run. EDIT: Except you know, kind of reversed. China's just exporting the testing and proofing of its military production capabilities overseas while hanging onto the underlying technical development and capital.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/17 13:53:42
Orlanth wrote: Speak for yourself.
Combat range vs ferry range are both constructs based on loadout for a specific role. Absolute range can only be fixed for aircraft without drop tank technology, i.e WW2 or before. Ferry range is variable based on ability to load external stores as is combat range. The F-16 had greater fuel efficiency and a larger underwing stores capacity therefore you could make a longer combat range based on the ratio of mass devoted to fuel and ordnance. Do you understand this now?
Now if F-16 operators are not going to be in a position where they have to say 'we need extra drop tanks and long range missile loadouts' then they are not going to match combat range. If they did they would.
Yes, that is how drop tanks work. The point is that having to rely on drop tanks to extend range to what the F-14 could manage on internal fuel alone means reducing the F-16's missile load even more. Having a smaller plane doesn't help if you have to replace each F-14 with 2-3 (or more!) F-16s to get the same number of missiles into an incoming Soviet bomber formation at the same distance from the carrier.
Also, don't forget that the F-16 was not capable of operating from carriers. It would have required airframe reinforcement, stronger landing gear, etc, which means a weight and space penalty and shorter range. So now it's even more dependent on spending hardpoints on drop tanks to get adequate range.
The F-16 was never adapted to by given the pylon attachment, big difference.
And it never had the radar the AIM-54 requires, nor could it because of space and weight limits.
In reality that wasn't needed long range fire control radar doesn't have to be on the same airframe, and wasn't in practicality. Examples were already given.
Again, you don't understand the difference between search radar and fire control radar. AWACs could give a verbal instruction to point an interceptor group towards an incoming threat but it couldn't guide a salvo of missiles to their targets. The fact that in 2019 we're working on guiding missiles with radar independent from the launching aircraft does not mean that it was possible within the technology limits of the era when the choice between the F-14 and F-16 was relevant.
Neither could the F-14. The US underestimated the launch range of Soviet Naval aviation, and any attempt to do so would draw the fighter cover well away from the carrier group. Might catch Badgers, wont catch Backfires. Later Cold war doctrines had actual carrier protection occur from shore based squadrons, likely from Scotland or Iceland. The F-14 program avoided having to be put to the test.
The fact that the role evolved at a later date does not change the fact that, at the time, the F-14 was the only viable option. If you believe that the requirement is X miles of range then anything that lacks X range is not an option, even if 30 years later it turns out that you should have had a different requirement.
I think this could best be described as, we don't need to convert the F-16 because we now have the F-14 rather than the inability to do so.
No, it is best described as "the F-16 can not carry the long-range radar required for the role and can not carry as many missiles". It very much was a lack of ability to fill the role.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/17 15:42:44
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Yes, that is how drop tanks work. The point is that having to rely on drop tanks to extend range to what the F-14 could manage on internal fuel alone means reducing the F-16's missile load even more.
As explained earlier the F-14 had a smaller capacity by 1600kg, and also relied on drop tanks.
Having a smaller plane doesn't help if you have to replace each F-14 with 2-3 (or more!) F-16s to get the same number of missiles into an incoming Soviet bomber formation at the same distance from the carrier.
I don't think you understand how maths work. The F-16 had a larger stores capacity
Also, don't forget that the F-16 was not capable of operating from carriers. It would have required airframe reinforcement, stronger landing gear, etc, which means a weight and space penalty and shorter range.
Where did you get that rubbish? according to the F-16 pilot I knew he newer saw an F-16 that did not have carrier ready attachments. This was explained about twice before. F-16 was designed from the get go to be carrier ready.
This is like your earlier comments on non existing carriers I posted pictures off. Here is the non existent arrestor gear which is part of the F-16. You can see it above, not existing. Did you work at Chernobyl in a previous life?
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
1) Total load capacity =/= number of hardpoints capable of carrying a 1000lb missile.
2) Arrestor gear =/= carrier capable. Air force jets have the hooks because the wires are an emergency landing feature at land bases. They aren't suitable for carrier use and the landing gear isn't designed for it.
3) You still have the radar issue. The F-16 can't carry it, period.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
1) Total load capacity =/= number of hardpoints capable of carrying a 1000lb missile.
The F-16 has nine hardpoints, including two winftiop harpoints with very limited capacity. Yet can hold 17,000lbs of ordnance.
If you think therefore it lacks hardpoints capable of carrying 1000lbs.....
2) Arrestor gear =/= carrier capable. Air force jets have the hooks because the wires are an emergency landing feature at land bases. They aren't suitable for carrier use and the landing gear isn't designed for it.
Except that those who flew the actual aircraft have claimed otherwise. I have little reason to doubt them.
As the F-16 never flew from carriers the proportional concept art never matched reality. However the designers and those selling the aircraft had every confidence that it could be a servicable US Navy aircraft. This aircraft was designed V-1600 for the propose. No its wasn't a new aircraft, just an F-16 variant. I don't know much about what was different in all likelihood hardpoints and radar upgrades to do the things you believe that the F-16 is not capable of.
After the F-16 had won the ACF competition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) pushed hard for the Navy to procure the F-16 as well, presumably for economies of scale, along with the benefits a common aircraft would have to both maintenance and training.
3) You still have the radar issue. The F-16 can't carry it, period.
Sure about that, it didn't carry it. any evidence that it couldnt.
Remember that changing a role of an aircraft can mean changes in its avionics package to fit the role. a lack of historical use for a package doesnt preclude capability especially where there is evidenced that capabilities were offered.
DOD: You cant fit a long range tracking radar into an F-16.
General Dynamics: Hold my beer (and pay us lots of money).
The "new and improved" People's Liberation Army Navy, like most of the "new and improved" Chinese military, is mostly a paper tiger. The Chinese will need another 20-30 years before they will be a serious naval power, able to effectively project said power. That's why they moved into the Panama Canal Zone and is starting a second colonial era in Africa. They need land based strategic assets in order to safeguard their foreign interests.
Yes they are looking for land bases but so were the British. At a minimum you could compare the new and improved Chinese navy to the Red Banner fleet. With the South China Sea being their 'Bastion'. Though the purpose of their bastion is zonal annexation rather than maintaining a concealed ICBM launch region. Though the latter may well be true also someday but China has always kept only a token nuclear arsenal.
What advanced equipment China installs on domestically produced war machinery comes from foreign sources, and is mostly aimed at the export market. It's the complete opposite from Soviet and U.S. policy on technology transfers to client states during the Cold War (hence so-called "monkey" versions of tanks, fighters, etc for export). The U.S. still operates under that policy today. The Chinese export the better stuff, rather than retaining it for widespread use in their own armed forces. This does fit the primary foreign policy goal of the PRC currently: Making Money.
I read this differently. China isn't flexing much muscle so it only needs 'monkey' level assets to keep its own soldiers sharp, they can sell the rest and give clients whatever level of gear they pay for. They don't care if they sell newer generation tech to client states, a bit like Israel in that regard. Though with Israel you aren't quite sure what you are getting.
I like your analysis but am not sure. There are concerns that we have not seen the best of what China can do. They are very adapt at obfuscation, better than the west I believe.
Please remember here their method of colonialisation is part based on resource stripping and part based on giving client states they toys they like, rather than hand me down crud. Oversimplifying here but you could say that the Europeans came to Africa, took the resources, and left schools hospitals and railways, the Americans came to Africa afterwards took the resources and left T-shirts and cola, China is now in Africa taking the resources in return for mobile phones and televisions.
China is upgrading the domestic technology of Africa in a way nobody else has. The Europeans left a lot of state infrastructure, but neither they nor the Americans left much of anything for the average African, at least not that they could taken home and be proud of owning. China is different they are flooding the continent with consumer goods normally seen in developed countries, and selling it at a cheap price.
However the Santa effect works up to the elite too. The way I have seen it described is, it doesn't matter how you got to power, when you are in power China is your friend, and China has nice things for you. If you lose power your successor will then be China's friend. China doesnt manipulate who is in control in Africa, it just offers the goodie bag to whoever is.
It is a very effective means of colonisation, and they have stolen a march on India, who are trying a neo-colonialism policy too.
Now I can see how what you are saying dovetails into what I already learned. A goodie bag toting China might well thing it politic not to 'demean' their clients by offering downgraded military hardware. "You want tanks, we will sell you tanks, but we wont belittle you by taking out the advanced equipment." I can see how that would dovetail into Chinese policy on Africa. interesting.
I can also see China not caring much if they hand out a better generation of tech than the US, Russia or Europe. So there is no local power parity anymore? Why should that concern us?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/08/18 09:59:50
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Easy E wrote: F-16 vs. F-14..... who cares as I do not think the Chinese Navy flies either of them?
It is a discussion of the distinction of what can be done vs what has been done. This is relevant in military projection theory. As we cannot ask the Chinese government what its future navy plans are and expect any meaningful answer, if any, we have to go by what we can summise from capabilities elsewhere. For this we need to look at examples for better known and publically documented carrier fleets.
The F-14 vs F-16 discussion was a topical comparison based on real and once-projected/potential naval use. The F-16 was never a carrier based aircraft, however I believe I have demonstrated that it could have been as well as highlighted the political as well as logistical decisions that meant it wasn't. This expands the knowledge of what in theory can and/or should be used for carrier use, as well as highlighting that just because a particular technology is not seen doesn't mean it can't be done. This is relevant because we don't see drone carriers today, just as we never saw F-16 based carrier aviation. Therefore some believe it couldn't happen, By demonstrating how one could but wasn't it encourages outside the box thinking elsewhere.
One need not prove the F-16 was a good carrier aircraft to raise the probability it was though external dynamics, these are relevant because at procurement stage they are all any developer or government themselves have to go on. However there is enough F-16 information available in the public domain including political decision making from the time to place ourselves back in time and make the decisions of the late 60's early 70's and presume whether the F-16 carrier program was viable for public investment, which it evidently was.
Past deployments of course shape future thinking and doctrine. The US still uses heavy fighters for carrier assets, had the US Navy adopted the F-16 program in 1970 would it have done so?
Now take that example and bring it to the here and now. The carriers of the next generation need decisions of the present. It takes at least ten years, often far longer for a new technology to move from government decision making and spending policy to initial deployment.
Do we have enough technology to make moves to implement a drone carrier program? I think that is a hard yes.
The next question is somewhat harder. Did we have enough technology in the early nineties to implement a drone carrier program that is beginning to emerge today? We cannot answer this one, and any such answer would be highly classified. But we can look for signs. The UK's new aircraft carriers without aircraft are a possible clue, as is the new directions of Indian and Chinese carrier policy and doctrine.
This is a good discussion for armchair theory because the actual information on naval procurement and emerging technology would be so highly classified as to be exclusive to the public domain discussion Dakka is capable of. Thus we can harmlessly theorise to our hearts content and match heads on 'what ifs'.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The video makes a critical error though. 5:30
What can carry more missiles a fleet or a coastline?
Land based anti ship missiles are the key threat, plus satellite tracking. Saturation of defences is possible.
I do think the naval assets in the Persian Gulf are at risk, but only so much as if Iran is given technology and targeting data as a proxy. i have little doubt a third party nation could if it wanted to supply Iran with a volume of missile capable of exhausting the defences of a modern western warship or squadron and cause damage. Note that a missile need not be capable of sinking the ship to need shooting down so the waves of missiles designed to exhaust defences could be cheaper missiles or submunitions deployed early.
Assets in the South China Sea are under similar risk, less ominous as China wont engage without major escalation.
We can see evidence of this with the artificial islands. They are intended to be capable of hosting advanced naval and air projection capability. More recent reports indicate this is not going too well for China, humidity and flooding is causing problems, and installations face subsidence. However I would not be too buoyed by that. Nobody has done what China has done on that scale or with modern technology. There will be teething problems, and China has the resources and tech base to overcome them given time. So if will persists, and I doubt China is looking to climb down anytime soon, the South China Sea garrisons will be operational. When they are it wont matter how good the missile defences are on a carrier fleet, the opportunity to overload them will be evident. When this is added to growing naval assets China is in my opinion gearing up to rewriting the rules on oceanic expansion perhaps treating the South China Sea as similar to a land border or internal domestic waters. This is not currently legal, but might makes right.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/07 20:53:46
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I don;t agree with everything you say Orlanth, but I agree with you 100% on this:
China is in my opinion gearing up to rewriting the rules on oceanic expansion perhaps treating the South China Sea as similar to a land border or internal domestic waters
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Included are a range of advanced drones. Now it is assumed these are mock-ups, but it shows intent.
At 3:06 you see the Gongji-11 attack drone. The video stated at 4:08 that its smaller than US and Russian equivalents and may be so for carrier operations.
Interesting.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
