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.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We are, by treaty, obliged to aid Japan in a conflict over the Islands in question. Yet China is still provoking over them. What does that say?

Which treaty?

I think:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan

On top of that, 2013's Defense Authorization Act specifically stated that the Senkaku Islands do fall under that treaty.

Guys....really?

Chinese Naval power?

All we need to do is send in a bunch of submarines...end of chinese navy.

Also everyone knows that the strength of the Chinese is their ability to call up massive amounts of troops.

And lest we forget.....




GG

generalgrog might be one of those 'thinkers' i referred to earlier...

chaos0xomega wrote:
generalgrog might be one of those 'thinkers' i referred to earlier...

No might about it...

chaos0xomega wrote:
generalgrog might be one of those 'thinkers' i referred to earlier...

This is probably the only time I will agree with you and djones520.

Build a Navy in a year ..Nope China has been at it for Naval aviation for the past 30 years with the past 10 in earnest .
Recall prior to WWII the USA had no real naval aviation ..but in 3 years we went from battleships to having effective Naval Aviation.

China has only sailed one refurbed Russian ship ..but they have purchased some 6 other carriers over the past few decades ..and have at least 6 hulls underconstruction the past 10 years and a Naval Air training facility for the past 2 decades

China also has 4 dozen Conventional attack subs ..3 Dozen Corvettes..8 dozen Missle patrol Boats.. 8 dozen submarine chasers..and a gross of PT boats an unknown number of mini subs..more than enough to make their presence known within the area they need to keep others out of ..not to mention more than enough landing craft to put 100,000 troops a day onto Taiwan and Japan ..just becuase they dont have the long range power projection does not mean they arnt capable of projecting power in their corner far enough out to make it really expensive for any nation to bring enough to bear to deal with it

chaos0xomega wrote:

What CptJake said. Thats the problem with so many military "thinkers" today. They thing that to be an effective match against us you have to have equivalent capability, and that is definitely not the case. China has realized it doesn't need to be a global military power to be a global economic and political power, it has all the resources it will need basically sitting in its back yard, and as such only needs to assert regional dominance to be an effective counterpoint to the US (or anyone else) in the economic and political spectrums.

Regionally, that's true. If you believe China's ambition is to remain a regional power, well, we probably don't have much more to talk about.

And as for Russian carriers sucking, again, the problem with American military thinkers. Russian (more precisely Soviet) naval aviation was not and never was intended to be used in the same manner as American naval aviation. Those carriers, and the capabilities they brought to the field, were more than adequate for their intended roles.

Alright, so fill me in; what's the intended role of a carrier that can't get aircraft carrying full combat loads off of it while having seriously deficient sortie rates?

 djones520 wrote:
On top of that, 2013's Defense Authorization Act specifically stated that the Senkaku Islands do fall under that treaty.

Cool, I wasn't asking for my benefit.

I'm sure China will eventually want to be a true global power, moreso out of hubris than necessity, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't realistically need to be anything more than an effective regional power to meet the same ends. China can get the vast majority of what it wants solely by being the neighborhood bully, the remainder of what it wants it can get by being the counterpoint to the US (which has done a good enough job of fething gak up for enough people to make certain nations turn against us, see also a huge chunk of latin america).

Regarding those Russian carriers, the low sortie rate had little to do with the carriers design and everything to do with the poor training of the crews. Those carriers however, were primarily for ASW, close air support for Soviet Marines was secondary, and defensive air/strike was tertiary. The primary offensive capability for Soviet Naval Aviation was from what we would call "Maritime" bombers, that is land-based aviation assets.

morfydd wrote:
Build a Navy in a year ..Nope China has been at it for Naval aviation for the past 30 years with the past 10 in earnest .
Recall prior to WWII the USA had no real naval aviation ..but in 3 years we went from battleships to having effective Naval Aviation.

We started before World War II.

We also lost a hell of a lot of planes to the difficulties of carrier ops during that war, and carrier aviation's only gotten more difficult.

Keep in mind that when we were going about it, there really wasn't much past experience to work from... China has several decades of other peoples experience to draw from on the matter, means that their time to develop the same thing is much shorter and less bloody if their smart about it. If you don't believe that the Chinese can somehow gain access to all that information regardless of security clearance, etc. then I know a Nigerian prince or two that would like to make a business deal with you.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Regarding those Russian carriers, the low sortie rate had little to do with the carriers design and everything to do with the poor training of the crews.

No, the design plays a massive role. Four cats capable of three simultaneous launches, with plenty of room for staging behind, is going to beat out full-deck launch operations that can only send one bird at a time and extremely limited room for staging.

Those carriers however, were primarily for ASW, close air support for Soviet Marines was secondary, and defensive air/strike was tertiary. The primary offensive capability for Soviet Naval Aviation was from what we would call "Maritime" bombers, that is land-based aviation assets.

I'd disagree most profoundly with that. The Kiev class were built specifically for recon and interception. I don't know that the Soviets ever even came up with a decent carrier-based ASW bird.

 Seaward wrote:

morfydd wrote:
Build a Navy in a year ..Nope China has been at it for Naval aviation for the past 30 years with the past 10 in earnest .
Recall prior to WWII the USA had no real naval aviation ..but in 3 years we went from battleships to having effective Naval Aviation.

We started before World War II.

We also lost a hell of a lot of planes to the difficulties of carrier ops during that war, and carrier aviation's only gotten more difficult.

And China will have a steep learning curve but with the added aid of about a century worth of doctrine and tactics and strategy to implement. which they will adapt for their own ends.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Keep in mind that when we were going about it, there really wasn't much past experience to work from... China has several decades of other peoples experience to draw from on the matter, means that their time to develop the same thing is much shorter and less bloody if their smart about it. If you don't believe that the Chinese can somehow gain access to all that information regardless of security clearance, etc. then I know a Nigerian prince or two that would like to make a business deal with you.

It has zero to do with information. I could give you all the information in the world on baseball, you still won't be able to play for the Yankees. I can tell you, from experience, that landing a jet on a pitching deck at night is not something that is easy to accomplish, and simply knowing the theory of it will not help you much. Having been rung out through a comprehensive, experience-based training program put together from decades of learning what works and what doesn't, on the other hand, will.

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Keep in mind that when we were going about it, there really wasn't much past experience to work from... China has several decades of other peoples experience to draw from on the matter, means that their time to develop the same thing is much shorter and less bloody if their smart about it. If you don't believe that the Chinese can somehow gain access to all that information regardless of security clearance, etc. then I know a Nigerian prince or two that would like to make a business deal with you.

It has zero to do with information. I could give you all the information in the world on baseball, you still won't be able to play for the Yankees. I can tell you, from experience, that landing a jet on a pitching deck at night is not something that is easy to accomplish, and simply knowing the theory of it will not help you much. Having been rung out through a comprehensive, experience-based training program put together from decades of learning what works and what doesn't, on the other hand, will.

Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.

I'd disagree most profoundly with that. The Kiev class were built specifically for recon and interception. I don't know that the Soviets ever even came up with a decent carrier-based ASW bird.

I think they were helos rather than fixed wing, but funny you would bring up the Kiev, as its primary role was actually ASW, with intercept and fleet support as secondary. Also note its official designation was actually "Heavy Aviation Cruiser".

No, the design plays a massive role. Four cats capable of three simultaneous launches, with plenty of room for staging behind, is going to beat out full-deck launch operations that can only send one bird at a time and extremely limited room for staging.

Fair enough.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.

I hope they didn't hire Russians.

And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.

It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.

I think they were helos rather than fixed wing, but funny you would bring up the Kiev, as its primary role was actually ASW, with intercept and fleet support as secondary. Also note its official designation was actually "Heavy Aviation Cruiser".

Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.

Well, we could always turn the Afghan poppy farmers legit and start Opium War 3 - Going Up In Smoke...

LOL

You guys can chuckle at my "hand waiving" Chinas navy all you want, but the reality is, when it comes technology, comparing a Chinese navy or even airforce to the USA is quite laughable really.

I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.

I'm talking about present capabilities BTW.

If we keep giving away our technology then the Chinese may well get close to technological parity with the USA.

Need I remind us all about the "scary" Iraqi army in gulf war I...the generals had to call off the dogs because it was becoming a slaughter.


GG

An interesting read relevant to the topic, a paper by Wass De Czege discussing Air Sea Battle concepts and strategy development for the Pacific.

http://www.ausa.org/publications/ilw/DigitalPublications/Documents/lpe13-4/offline/download.pdf

 generalgrog wrote:
LOL

You guys can chuckle at my "hand waiving" Chinas navy all you want, but the reality is, when it comes technology, comparing a Chinese navy or even airforce to the USA is quite laughable really.

I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.

I'm talking about present capabilities BTW.

If we keep giving away our technology then the Chinese may well get close to technological parity with the USA.

Need I remind us all about the "scary" Iraqi army in gulf war I...the generals had to call off the dogs because it was becoming a slaughter.


GG

Go read some of the links posted around in here Grog, it'll do you some good.

China is capable. A point proven when they surfaced a sub in the middle of one of our Carrier Battle Groups, while we were in a wartime exercise, and we had no clue they were there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.

I hope they didn't hire Russians.

And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.

It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.

I'm sure the Chinese can afford to hire some Americans. And while you're right that it requires institutional memory, etc. again, a lot of that can be 'prefabricated' by pulling from elsewhere. What took us 80 years can easily be accomplished by them in 20 or 30 if they can get the right resources in place. The biggest issue will be the one carrier (for now), but that will be changing in time.

Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.

I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).


BTW, a good read if you like what-if is CDR Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).

We're talking about an aircraft that couldn't carrier launch with any stores when it was hot out.

I'm curious what you think our aircraft lemons were. I can't think of any since the '60s.

BTW, a good read if you like what-if is Cmdr. Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.

I'm kind of amused you haven't figured out you're talking to someone with "insider perspective" yet.

 djones520 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
LOL

Go read some of the links posted around in here Grog, it'll do you some good.

China is capable. A point proven when they surfaced a sub in the middle of one of our Carrier Battle Groups, while we were in a wartime exercise, and we had no clue they were there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

Wow....hadn't heard that story. I don't really have an answer to that.

All I can say is it's good thing they did that because it will stir the Navy to investigate how that happened and how they will spend their money to counter the threat.

To be honest with you I think China made a mistake doing that, because they kind of gave away their poker face a bit, and this will force the Navy/Pentagon into upping their research.

GG

Seaward, no disrespect intended, but as best I can figure out you're more or less fresh out of the RAG, so... IMO, you have all the insider perspective and experience of a private (and besides that I can get that same perspective from at least a dozen other people I know, seeing as how 3 of my former roommates are aviators and one is an RIO). Besides that, like most junior naval aviators, you still seem to be suffering from the Pensacola induced delirium that you are God's gift to the aviation community and that the US Navy has no Achilles heal.

As for the lemons (barring the pre 1960s which you already alluded to):
The F-4, as much as I love it, was a flying brick that only got off the ground because of the ridiculous quantities of thrust. Lets not forget that it was originally fielded without a gun and had a nasty habit of leaving a nice black smoketrail in its wake until later on. It wasn't until the development of better missile technology, the add-on of a gun, and alterations to its engines that it really began to shine.

The A-5 had a host of issues when it first entered service, and much like the A-3, I would say that they were doctrinally obsolete before they were even introduced, but thats another matter entirely.

F-3 Demon, initial versions were virtually unflyable, even late production versions were slow, underpowered, sluggish, and useless against contemporary adversary aircraft.

The F-111B, originally designed as a dogfighter, so terrible that ultimately the Navy did the intelligent thing and got the hell out of the project, leaving the Air Force holding a bag full of lemons in the form of the F-111A, and attempted to retool it into the F-14.

The F-8 Crusader, its mishap rate (87% approx.) says it all (although still a great aircraft otherwise).

And just for gaks and giggles: The F-14 was an overweight, underpowered pig of an aircraft that was entirely useless in a dogfight against an even half-way decent pilot until over a decade after it was introduced into service when the Navy FINALLY wised up and put a more powerful engine in there.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.

I hope they didn't hire Russians.

And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.

It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.

I'm sure the Chinese can afford to hire some Americans. And while you're right that it requires institutional memory, etc. again, a lot of that can be 'prefabricated' by pulling from elsewhere. What took us 80 years can easily be accomplished by them in 20 or 30 if they can get the right resources in place. The biggest issue will be the one carrier (for now), but that will be changing in time.

Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.

I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).


BTW, a good read if you like what-if is CDR Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.

Was this the paper you were referring too?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1648631

 generalgrog wrote:

I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.

Yeah, about that.

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.

Yeah, about that.

Dude I sooo knew someone was going to go there...but I wasn't expecting that from the dogs.

GG

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.

Yeah, about that.

Except the battle of little bighorn was indians with repeating rifles vs Cavalry with single shot trap door rifles.


And about that Sub popping up in the middle of a training exercise.

which is better?

A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)

or

B.) alert the foreign sub right away that we can see it and then have said nation go back to the drawing board to design a better sub?


its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.

yes China is expanding their fleet for the only reason of power projection.
The Chinese government is investing all over Africa for natural resources, it makes sense that china would want to have the ability to respond with military force to something that is threatening their interests and it would be on a Continent that most western nations honestly don't give two gaks about.

Indeed. I'd like to think we have a competent ability to fool the enemy and keep our own secrets.

We probably have tons of super advanced stuff that nobody outside of the programs has a clue exists.