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.

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.

1- Hard to say. China tends to be shy about sharing its long range plans. Building up their navy is important to both, however.
Though, upon consideration... 'global' isn't really a term I associate with China, even with things like trade, with military power even less so. That's changing some in the economic sphere, especially in eastern Africa, but I'm a bit dubious about China ever caring about projecting power into the Atlantic or Mediterranean. Maybe next century, for now regional focus is decidedly more important.

2- Not at all, as there isn't anyone else in the 'race.' They're enlarging and modernizing, no one else is really doing that.
Most countries have tried to cut naval costs, and the few that aren't are largely sticking with their mix of fairly modern and need-to-be-overhauled ships.

3- Capable for what? They likely have the most Pacific assets outside of Russia and the US, and a meaningful Naval conflict hasn't happened in over 70 years. What happens now is mostly posture and positioning- they're quite capable of being a meaningful threat to their immediate neighbors in the South China Sea, and it's unclear if acting on that threat would generate a response.

As things currently stand, I doubt they are secure enough in their naval capabilities to make aggressive moves against Taiwan (or Japan or South Korea, if they for some reason wanted to say 'screw it, all in' And that's very unlikely- Chinese government philosophy tends to prefer long range plans to short term gambles) to risk US involvement, but if they blockade the Philippines or whoever and demand a few more strategic islands, its kind of an open question if anyone would challenge those claims.

4- I doubt many do. Most countries try to obfuscate their submarine fleet to at least some extent, and trying to discover those numbers involves espionage and scouting that needs to be kept secret as well.

Voss wrote:
1- Hard to say. China tends to be shy about sharing its long range plans. Building up their navy is important to both, however.
Though, upon consideration... 'global' isn't really a term I associate with China, even with things like trade, with military power even less so. That's changing some in the economic sphere, especially in eastern Africa, but I'm a bit dubious about China ever caring about projecting power into the Atlantic or Mediterranean. Maybe next century, for now regional focus is decidedly more important.

2- Not at all, as there isn't anyone else in the 'race.' They're enlarging and modernizing, no one else is really doing that.
Most countries have tried to cut naval costs, and the few that aren't are largely sticking with their mix of fairly modern and need-to-be-overhauled ships.

3- Capable for what? They likely have the most Pacific assets outside of Russia and the US, and a meaningful Naval conflict hasn't happened in over 70 years. What happens now is mostly posture and positioning- they're quite capable of being a meaningful threat to their immediate neighbors in the South China Sea, and it's unclear if acting on that threat would generate a response.

As things currently stand, I doubt they are secure enough in their naval capabilities to make aggressive moves against Taiwan (or Japan or South Korea, if they for some reason wanted to say 'screw it, all in' And that's very unlikely- Chinese government philosophy tends to prefer long range plans to short term gambles) to risk US involvement, but if they blockade the Philippines or whoever and demand a few more strategic islands, its kind of an open question if anyone would challenge those claims.

4- I doubt many do. Most countries try to obfuscate their submarine fleet to at least some extent, and trying to discover those numbers involves espionage and scouting that needs to be kept secret as well.

1.) China allready has massive influence in the balkans.

2.) China isn't starting the race, China is challanging to one.

3.) The long range gamble here is domination of first south pacific, then the whole of it. China plays always at world domination or what they deem as the world.

 Easy E wrote:

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.

1.) China has no interest in being world cop. This is about securing local resources and invading Taiwan.
2.) Not much. The USA has what, 7 carrier groups? China spends most of its money on internal security.
3.) A good decade or more. Ships are one thing, but capable naval commanders and crew are another. Given China's politics, command will fall only to the most loyal (to a particular faction of the CCP) , not the best commanders.
4.) No idea, but I assume it parallels the surface navy.

What China's naval ambitions might do, however, is prompt India, South Korea and especially Japan to invest more heavily in naval presence. There's your arms race, they're all way, way behind the USA.

Perhaps some key people in China have read Mahan's Influence of Seapower recently and have decided that to be a Great Power you need to be able to control the Sea Lines of Communicaiton. Hence, the need for global power projection.

It's not about being world police, it could be about controlling trade routes. A strategy that is as old as Carthage.

Before they can become a global naval power, they need to learn naval logistics and UNREP.

That's what makes America a global naval power. The ability to build ships is nice, the ability to sail them around is nice, but the ability to park them anywhere there is trouble and keep them supplied IS the core of global naval power.

Five carriers but no logistical support is just a local strategy to outmatch the U.S. in the South China Sea and isolate Taiwan. America likely can't afford to dedicate five carriers just to countering China. Of course, a couple American SSNs might make that plan a costly one...

The power of the PLAN will expand exponentially now that they have aircraft carrier capabilities which will help it to consolidate control over its rogue territories and counter America's push to control all the world's oceans.

My two cents anyway.

If we set aside the consideration of whether or not China is set for a massive collapse in the next 15-20 years, it's a simple answer: yes.

China doesn't want to be the world cop. No wants to be the world cop unless you have vast international and allied international interests. That is what China is interested in. They would ideally like to be the place that the world goes to for commerce, arms sales, infrastructure building, education, etc. This means developing international presence. They're making solid progress in Africa, and even the Middle East.

Even in 2019 you do not project power or presence without a capable naval force. You can throw sanctions, make threats, attempt long-range air attacks, etc....but at the end of the day the ability to show up with a local armed presence is still key. China made big waves (pun intended) when one of their ships showed up off the coast of Libya (?) during the Arab Spring. They were there to extract and protect Chinese workers, but it was also a public statement "hey we're here and we're projecting power".

Their local sea presence is pretty vast, and yes they have a lot of territory they're arbitrarily claiming. But they'd like their sea power to be a proper global asset.

The main issue is time, and training. It was only a few years ago that China actually first managed to refuel a ship while moving. It seems a silly little thing, but that's something NATO fleets have done for decades. It's an indicator that technology can catch up, but without trained and experienced people to use that equipment, it's only half of the equation. The same goes for their carrier exploits. That is a massively steep learning curve, and a deadly one. No simulator work or foreign training is going to magically build the knowledge base to run an efficient carrier program. It's one of the most complicated, expensive and difficult military operations to run.

The advantage China has is technology, new equipment, and a strong desire/motivation to catch up. You can see their dedication and sense the motivation in any of their photos, propaganda videos, etc. They're exceptionally keen on becoming a blue water force. There's just no shortcut to suddenly staffing your Navy with hundreds of thousands of hours of experience.

Their local power is significant. They've made a smart choice in producing loads of smaller ships, and even littoral combat vessels, including missile boats. A cheap boat fitted with long range anti-ship missiles which would in theory "swarm" an enemy force, hoping to knock out some carriers or landing ships etc.

Are they on the way? Yes. Do they have big aspirations? Absolutely. Are they going to suddenly develop a trained carrier fleet overnight? Negative. That could literally be a 10-15-20 year process to even come close to approaching the efficiency and systematic prowess that established navies have. Doesn't mean its not worth pursuing.

China was actually invited to participate in the RimPac exercise for the first time this year - odd considering it's more or less a "prepare to fight the Chinese" naval exercise. To put China's production capacities into perspective, the last large article I read on their development was several years back - but at that point they were producing a destroyer a month....which is insane (and more than they can realistically run/supply so I suspect that was a burst of production).

 Elbows wrote:
If we set aside the consideration of whether or not China is set for a massive collapse in the next 15-20 years, it's a simple answer: yes.

China doesn't want to be the world cop. No wants to be the world cop unless you have vast international and allied international interests. That is what China is interested in. They would ideally like to be the place that the world goes to for commerce, arms sales, infrastructure building, education, etc. This means developing international presence. They're making solid progress in Africa, and even the Middle East.

And running into the exact same corruption and lack of central control that have made Europe and the USA give up on those places. IOW you can pour all the money you want into these places, but without stable, accountable governments you might as well be burning your cash in a bonfire.

Yep, but China doesn't care as long as money is being received.

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, but China doesn't care as long as money is being received.

They're making themselves rapidly unwelcome. China rolls up and says "We'll loan you 3 billion to build this port so your economy can grow". But they bring in chinese laborers to build the port, so barely any of that money goes into the economy, it all goes back home, and the nation is stuck with a 3 billion (and growing) debt it cannot service and the local population gets a terrible impression of the chinese laborers (because people working in a foreign country for a few years aren't on their best behavior). Net effect is no economic growth, unserviceable debt and a population that ends up hating China. China does manage to secure some resources to cover the debt, but they exploit it exactly as you'd expect. It's a masterclass of how to get other nations to hate your guts, and it's driving China further into debt so that corporations can make short term profits.

I didn't say they were doing a bang up job. The reality is that loads of third world or second world countries are still dependent on "someone" for a lot of things. China would like to be that someone, even if they're detested while doing it. I'm sure in their minds they'd like to be the top dog or the only place anyone can go to for X, Y and Z. We're not there yet, but that would be their ideal goal. Then their behaviour and practices would become even more poor. (I'm assuming).

I personally think China's eventual internal collision will happen before they get to that point, but only time will tell.

 Elbows wrote:
I didn't say they were doing a bang up job. The reality is that loads of third world or second world countries are still dependent on "someone" for a lot of things. China would like to be that someone, even if they're detested while doing it. I'm sure in their minds they'd like to be the top dog or the only place anyone can go to for X, Y and Z. We're not there yet, but that would be their ideal goal. Then their behaviour and practices would become even more poor. (I'm assuming).

I personally think China's eventual internal collision will happen before they get to that point, but only time will tell.

Yeah, China has to hit a recession at some point. They've racked up too many bad debts and have a colossal real estate bubble with massive oversupply. If/when that hits it'll effectively scuttle their naval ambitions - navies don't help with domestic social order.

 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?

In anything but the very long term? Probably just regional power. The global power projection of the US Navy/NATO relies on a large global logistical backbone that China does not have any equivalent to and would take a lifetime or three to develop. The US has bases, or has allies who have bases it can use, just about everywhere, and has had them for a lifetime or three itself, with extensive infrastructure and logistical systems built through these in a way China has no match for at this time. Even if China builds 5 carrier battle groups, the US will have more than twice that and a global infrastructure network to support them. More to the point, China doesn't need naval supremacy in the way the US does, China just needs to be strong enough to keep the US out of its back yard.

2. How much does this situation parallel the British-German Arms Race prior to the Great War?

Relatively little would be my gut instinct. The two sides are dramatically more distant, the threats to each from each other are different, and the gap in naval power and force projection is so vast that it's not much of an arms race. Yet at least.

If we look at the big battleship race of the early 20th century, the equivalent today would be aircraft carriers. The US has almost two dozen all told, most of them Supercarriers that collectively have almost twice the deck space of the rest of the world's carrier's combined, and has been operating cariers for nearly a century since the concept inception, at the forefront of the concept and with by far the greatest success and longest operational records. The single carrier China has is a training vessel, it is a 30+ year old Soviet hull that's intended to be used to learn carrier operations, not really for actual combat and force projection, and has half or a third the aircraft complement of a US supercarrier.

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.

This will not be a quick process. The fleets of the early 20th century were nation-bankrupting projects, the various naval treaties that came about after the first world war were agreed to because it was too expensive for everyone to keep the building race going and to maintain existing fleet assets. Today most nations are not willing to devote such resources to programs on such a scale, and China certainly isn't investing at anything like the rate of say, the Kaiser's navy in 1905 (in relative terms). Likewise, a modern warship is a much more expensive, complicated, and time consuming endeavor than an early 20th century warship (which was probably the most complex and expensive thing made by humans at the time), and even in the US building ships takes many years. I would expect China's naval strength to grow steadily, but it will probably be a significantly longer term project unless they want to get into the trouble many nations did in the 20th century with their naval expenditures. By say, 2040, I could China being able to hold its own against anyone *but* the US Navy and having some level of force projection, however if their aim is to dethrone the US Navy, without the boons the US had in the 20th century, I would expect that goal to be more 22nd century than 21st century.

 John Prins wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, but China doesn't care as long as money is being received.

They're making themselves rapidly unwelcome. China rolls up and says "We'll loan you 3 billion to build this port so your economy can grow". But they bring in chinese laborers to build the port, so barely any of that money goes into the economy, it all goes back home, and the nation is stuck with a 3 billion (and growing) debt it cannot service and the local population gets a terrible impression of the chinese laborers (because people working in a foreign country for a few years aren't on their best behavior). Net effect is no economic growth, unserviceable debt and a population that ends up hating China. China does manage to secure some resources to cover the debt, but they exploit it exactly as you'd expect. It's a masterclass of how to get other nations to hate your guts, and it's driving China further into debt so that corporations can make short term profits.

Yes and no. . . There was an African nation, around. . ohh, 7-10 years ago now that sought "world aid" in bringing a national railway system online. Ultimately, they went with China precisely because the Chinese were bringing the labor to build it. Essentially what they did was said, "we will come in, build the rail, bring the rail riding equipment (ie, the actual trains), build the stations, direct it largely where you want it to go. In return, once our system is built, we train you on manufacture of replacement parts, train you on how to operate this system, and you allow us universal trade access, as our workers will be staying put and become an integral part of your economy"

Thing is, doing it that way (bringing in external chinese labor, parts/materiel, etc.) was the far cheaper option to that African nation, and they got a good railway system out of it as all of the European and American options that put in a bid, for various reasons, put int astronomically higher $ bids. What many of the Western options were doing was saying "we'll let you buy the plans off of us for $X, but you then have to figure out on your own how to build it, service it, and operate it" when the Africans were wanting the expertise and training alongside the railway product.

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?

I agree with Vaktathi, I don’t think they can; western (i.e. mainly US) power projection is based of a huge legacy from the World Wars and, before that, the various European empires. Certainly not something you can replicate even in the medium term (if at all). However I don’t think the Chinese are trying to do true global projection, I think they’re going for semi-global / extended regional reach; first goal is to secure the South China Sea, but then I think they want to extend it through the Indian Ocean and over to the east coast of Africa, paralleling their new Silk Road (or whatever the name is for these trade routes they’re building). They don’t want, or need, to go play in the Atlantic, or even the deep Pacific.

2. How much does this situation parallel the British-German Arms Race prior to the Great War?

A little, but not a lot. Germany was trying to do a similar thing, in terms of muscling in to existing player’s territory, but it was the age of empire, when sending in imperial troops with firearms against local tribes with spears was the done thing and everything was all about national power. I think (& hope!) the world is a bit different these days. International organisations, global communications and trade, more advanced developing nations and ultimately nuclear deterrent all make that kind of nationalist confrontation tension less likely. Again, I hope.

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.

I think a key element will be whether they get to use it; if they end up in a small-medium scale conflict that lasts a few years (think Spanish Civil War), that could really accelerate their development, as their crews would get frontline combat experience and they could rapidly evolve and debug their equipment and tactics. If (hopefully) the world stays relatively peaceful, then it’s going to be a long haul, because despite the government support they’ve got, there isn’t an urgency to it and, for the best will in the world, all of their development is going to be theoretical.

4. I have less immediate knowledge about their Submarine forces, so insight there would be helpful.

I don’t know a lot, but I get the impression that it’s further behind than their surface fleet. I think there’s a few reasons for that 1) submarines aren’t as impressive and sexy as surface combatants (early c20 Germany had the same problem, they kept trying to challenge the Royal Navy surface fleet, despite U-boats damn near winning two wars for them). 2) even more-so than a surface fleet, you need to use submarines in anger to really understand how to use and develop them. 3) it’s even harder to leverage other nations experiences, because everyone keeps their submarine technology super secret (again, even more-so than the surface fleets).

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?
Yes. While China has primary goals over the western pacific the new fleet is to give a global range and supremacy.

2. How much does this situation parallel the British-German Arms Race prior to the Great War?
it doesnt. Chinese policy is to slowpeddle until supremacy is required. They have one carrier and are pottering about with it. When the time is right they will build a dozen in a few months.

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.
Not long at all. The Chinese fleet experimental, they want hands on with the tech. They also want to get it right so when they want their real fleet rather than the practice one they will build it quickly.

4. I have less immediate knowledge about their Submarine forces, so insight there would be helpful.
Not much to say. Because not much is known, submarines are easier to hide. they are also more tricky to build quickly.

Now the above is speculation, but speculation based on known variables of other arms of the Chinese military. China has some very advanced stuff, but most of it is locked away. China doesnt want to look like they are a threat until they decide otherwise, that is not their way and is contrary to their doctrines. Maoist China flexed horde muscles, New China doesn't flex its smart muscles. They want to smile and trade, and quietly grow.

 Orlanth wrote:
2. How much does this situation parallel the British-German Arms Race prior to the Great War?
it doesnt. Chinese policy is to slowpeddle until supremacy is required. They have one carrier and are pottering about with it. When the time is right they will build a dozen in a few months.

Ah... the country with the most experience in the world building and using aircraft carriers takes three to five years to build a carrier. A carrier built in a few months is going to be the equivalent of an old Essex class. Sure, they were nice back in the 40s and 50s, but rapidly became outclassed...

And there's a LOT more to having a combat-effective aircraft carrier than just building one. You're trying to operate a fully functional airfield in a VERY cramped space, after all.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
2. How much does this situation parallel the British-German Arms Race prior to the Great War?
it doesnt. Chinese policy is to slowpeddle until supremacy is required. They have one carrier and are pottering about with it. When the time is right they will build a dozen in a few months.

Ah... the country with the most experience in the world building and using aircraft carriers takes three to five years to build a carrier. A carrier built in a few months is going to be the equivalent of an old Essex class. Sure, they were nice back in the 40s and 50s, but rapidly became outclassed...

And there's a LOT more to having a combat-effective aircraft carrier than just building one. You're trying to operate a fully functional airfield in a VERY cramped space, after all.

That was then, a lot has changed, the US Navy is building better and better sauropods, impressive carriers but not actually the future. China is investing heavily in automation and drone technology. Build carrier - think protoss.
From what I have garnered the reason the UK new aircraft carriers have been so slow to accept an air wing is because they are in fact now being converted to drone carriers. Why fly F-35 when you can fly Taranis.

Sure drone carriers still have to carry a lot of the infrastructure of an airfield, but much is missing also, and the aircraft are smaller and more compact.

One other consideration is that carriers can host air wings rather than have them integrally. This will go against US doctrine, frankly it goes against UK doctrine, however there were consideration to fly RAF aircraft off carriers, ostensibly as amalgamation and coast cutting but I also think it is due to a change of doctrine. the carrier becomes a mobile airfield, but rather than carrying its own assets it ferries them in as needed.
This would suit China's needs, they do not have the service history and rivalry of the US or UK armed forces, the Chinese government doesn't care about that, its all really one armed force. you can operate a lot of land based aviation from carriers. Not everything sure, but more than you might think. This might seem incredulous from a US perspective but not really if you scratch the surface, the US armaments procurement has always been deeply politically linked since WW2, while effective it is due to the vast budget, yet the budget is not optimised. Take the F-14 for example, sold exclusively to the US Navy and Iran in the 1970's (Iran used them as a fork of budget AWACS until recently). The F-14 was a huge lawn dart, very complex and oversized, frankly not suited as a carrier based aircraft at all, but the answer was not to make a more efficient airframe but to build larger carriers. That is how the doctrine goes. Meanwhile the smaller and nippy F-16 developed at the same time was never sold to the US Navy for political reasons, it had/s similar performance to the F-14 and yet was considered a land based interceptor, because the Navy budget went to the manufacturers of the F-14 because it meant different jobs with factories in different states. Do you know how many F-16's sold to the USAF had carrier arrestor cable connections? Every single one.

The US has been developing its own drone combat craft for many moons, I worked on the UCAS program 15 years ago for a carrier based drone fighter, assuming China has some sort of hidden edge there I think is assuming far too much, that's a field that the US is absolutely at the forefront of even with manned aircraft programs. It's basically assuming a magic hidden sword to expect such to just pop up out of nowhere and immediately outclass existing units. Drone carriers are likely something we'll see in the future, but they're a ways off still and nobody is holding current projects waiting for a drone solution to pop up.

Drone carriers, while cool in theory, are still going to be extremely complex vehicles, likely even more than current ones, that still require massive logistics support (just different kinds of challenges), and require many years or decades to learn how to operate and use properly. Even if the hardware exists, the software engineering that would go into that is going to take many years and decades yet to not only write but integrate into hundreds of different systems. I see no reason to assume they such vessels could be produced in mere months, particularly by the dozen and with ready air wings. No ships are built that quickly today, and converting a manned carrier to a drone carriernis likely to be as hokey and awkward as old Battleship-Carrier conversions were. Drones are advancing quickly, but combat drones able to match manned aircraft are still many years away, and those currently in service are still largely piloted, just remotely.

We should also be careful in judging Chinese capabilities through the lense of US DoD waste. China has its own issues in such regards, lets not kid ourselves

 Orlanth wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
2. How much does this situation parallel the British-German Arms Race prior to the Great War?
it doesnt. Chinese policy is to slowpeddle until supremacy is required. They have one carrier and are pottering about with it. When the time is right they will build a dozen in a few months.

Ah... the country with the most experience in the world building and using aircraft carriers takes three to five years to build a carrier. A carrier built in a few months is going to be the equivalent of an old Essex class. Sure, they were nice back in the 40s and 50s, but rapidly became outclassed...

And there's a LOT more to having a combat-effective aircraft carrier than just building one. You're trying to operate a fully functional airfield in a VERY cramped space, after all.

The F-14 was a huge lawn dart, very complex and oversized, frankly not suited as a carrier based aircraft at all, but the answer was not to make a more efficient airframe but to build larger carriers. That is how the doctrine goes. Meanwhile the smaller and nippy F-16 developed at the same time was never sold to the US Navy for political reasons, it had/s similar performance to the F-14 and yet was considered a land based interceptor, because the Navy budget went to the manufacturers of the F-14 because it meant different jobs with factories in different states. Do you know how many F-16's sold to the USAF had carrier arrestor cable connections? Every single one.

I won't argue about the drone carriage, aside from it as yet being uproven technology for replacing manned aircraft. Supplement, yes; replace, no.

But saying the F-16 and the F-14 had similar performance is just plain incorrect. The early F-16s did not have the range nor the payload capacity of the F-14. Why is this important? Soviet naval aviation doctrine, which emphasized four to six regiments of 27 aircraft each to go after a carrier task force. The Tu-22 Backfire could carry three large antiship missiles, each with a range over 300 miles and a conventional warhead of over a ton... or a hefty nuclear warhead. The F-16 of the time lacked the range to go out and engage the Backfires safely outside that missile range (295 nm combat range vs. the F-14's 500 nm range), and lacked the payload to deal with them all before they could engage the carrier. The F-14 could carry six AIM-54 missiles with a range of over 100 miles. The contemporary F-16 could carry four AIM-7 Sparrows or early AIM -120s... with a range of around 30-50 miles.

So the F-16 could, at most, engage Backfires roughly 350 miles from the carrier without refueling, while the Tomcats could do so out to 600 miles from the carrier. I trust you see why this is important, yes?

One more thing in the F-14's favor for naval aviation. If an F-14 loses an engine, it turns around and goes back to the carrier. If the F-16 loses an engine the pilot goes for a swim very far from land... That's ultimately why the Navy bypassed the F-16 and went for the actually comparable F-18. When there's no alternate landing site, two engines are always better than one.

 Orlanth wrote:
One other consideration is that carriers can host air wings rather than have them integrally.

And then you get to find out how many aircraft and/or carriers you can lose to accidents involving poorly trained pilots. Carrier aviation is dangerous, you don't put normal land-based pilots on a carrier unless it's an act of desperation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
One other consideration is that carriers can host air wings rather than have them integrally.

And then you get to find out how many aircraft and/or carriers you can lose to accidents involving poorly trained pilots. Carrier aviation is dangerous, you don't put normal land-based pilots on a carrier unless it's an act of desperation.

Or you have an idiotproof carrier, meaning a huge carrier, which also makes for an easy target.

I think something to consider with regard to the carriers is: why have carriers?

Carriers are easily the next battleship if we consider a major conflict between two world powers. They're big, easily targeted, hugely important, etc. However, outside of a major conflict, they're still the best way to get a consistent presence in a vaguely hostile part of the world, or to help secure your own forces in a hostile land. There are dozens of articles every year about "why do we still have carriers?", etc.

If we went to war with Russia or China, our carriers would be gone within a week. I think we know that. Hell, most of our aviation assets would be destroyed within a month.

I think we need to consider though, the other 99% of the time a carrier is in service. If you need local air support in a region where you're not facing enemy aircraft, if you're in a region where you're facing terrorists or an insurgency, or a region where you simply want surveillance and you're not facing dedicated anti-aircraft defenses, etc.

Heck, long after the British ditched their last harriers they carried out air support in Mali (I think) with apaches launched off their remaining smaller jump carriers. I think if we assume China isn't planning to go toe-to-toe with the US using carriers, then they start to make sense. In non-combat situations or in situations where the carrier simply isn't at threat, it does provide China with a much needed tool to exert pressure overseas wherever they may warrant it. Even if it's a junk ship like the old Russian version (very limited on aircraft, etc.) it's still a handful of fighters they can use to send a message wherever they intend to do so.

It's possible the carrier may only be used for training, or international "humanitarian" actions, or it may serve as a glorified helicopter base for overseas interactions, etc. A carrier would also be excellent assisting with anti-piracy stuff if needed.

Also, we have to consider the Indian navy has one (another ex-Russian ship) and those countries aren't exactly best buddies. A carrier is definitely a message that you're flexing your naval muscle a bit. Gotta keep up appearances with the neighbors, sometimes.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Or you have an idiotproof carrier, meaning a huge carrier, which also makes for an easy target.

No such thing. . . Carrier based aviation, regardless of whatever safety measures you put in place is still one of the most inherently dangerous things out there.

 Elbows wrote:
I think something to consider with regard to the carriers is: why have carriers?

To deal with pissant lesser countries that can't fight off your carriers. Just because 3-4 nations on Earth can deal with them doesn't mean the other 200 have any chance.

And note that the anti-carrier weaponry at the moment is all theoretical (as in, they have not been proven effective in the field), and measures and countermeasures are developed continuously. China/Russia can claim they can totes take out a carrier anytime, but that should be taken with a certain skepticism, as every nation is willing to engage in propoganda concerning their capabilities (both for internal and external consumption).

Carriers won't be considered obsolete until a shooting war proves them to be so.

 John Prins wrote:


Carriers won't be considered obsolete until a shooting war proves them to be so.

And you'd still probably see carriers even if a shooting war shows them to be extremely vulnerable.

There's too much value in having an airfield that can be anywhere in the world in a matter of weeks when your focus is on global force projection. A Navy without aircraft carriers is a navy that never anticipates fighting outside the range of land-based aircraft (or a navy that fully expects to always have the support of a navy that has the ability, i.e. NATO).

Why quote my post if you ignored the rest of it...where I basically said exactly what you said?

And, anti-ship missiles aren't theoretical. All surface vessels are easy targets compared to the past. We've never had more range, power, and numbers, and crazy computer-controlled brains in our anti-ship missiles. We're fortunate in that we have enough carriers to take some losses, and enough other surface vessels to hopefully shield them long enough to make use of them. However, if the future is smarter munitions and drones, there's very little theoretical about it (short of one side getting a massive jump on the other and eliminating all of their batteries, silos, and command and control functions...then maybe?)

Carriers are a threat, but that also makes them a pretty significant target. High up on that priority list.

In the Cold War the Russians used to frequently shadow our carrier groups with Russian fishing trawlers (which happened to be stacked with radio and communications gear....and only after the war did we realize they had torpedo tubes as well). In the 70's we knew the trawlers were Russians simply keeping an eye on the carrier groups.

My point above was simple: carriers are still a valuable asset in today's world. It's not the military strength it used to be, but times change. Eventually we'll be moving on to crazier and crazier rail guns and you won't be able to defend your ship against the rounds, etc. There's always more tech.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
One other consideration is that carriers can host air wings rather than have them integrally.

And then you get to find out how many aircraft and/or carriers you can lose to accidents involving poorly trained pilots. Carrier aviation is dangerous, you don't put normal land-based pilots on a carrier unless it's an act of desperation.

Or you have an idiotproof carrier, meaning a huge carrier, which also makes for an easy target.

Or you have training. Air force pilots can do it too.

Serious though. The UK press already made report that the new UK carriers were designed to accommodate RN and RAF aircraft so we know its going on. Now the RAF is elite but I have no belief that the USAF or others hire monkeys to fly. If you can train a navy pilot to land on a carrier you can train an air force pilot also. Now the US doesn't do this because its doctrine of asset separation is ingrained but its no great stretch of the imagination, and we know some other air forces are doing this.

China lacks the inter service rivalry as its services has no pedigree, which is an advantage here. So no egos are bruised if PRN air force pilots got carrier training. China also currently has localised hegemony as its primary goal. Their current carriers are operating close to Chinese coat or artificial islands to the south. There are plenty of opportunities to train carrier crews from off site aviation, its cheaper too as you can train logistical crews i artificially compact environments such as bordered off areas of air bases and then transfer trained crews over to carriers later building up to capacity.

Now if drones are used this makes the most hazardous task for carrier air operations easier. This isn't storage or maintenance but air traffic control and queueing. carriers need really tight queueing as they have very limited space and may be conducting launch and recovery operations simultaneously and under a tight clock. Doing this close to an alternate landing point makes training easier but if a switch to drones is made the queuing can be automated, greatly simplifying the process and adding safety buffers as drones are lighter and less nose heavy which means lower stall speeds and longer loiter times even without VTOL drones.

You have to account for the leap forward in drone tech. Only a few years ago quadcopters didn't work, and the variable rotor Osprey was developed in the 70's but difficult to fly until computers made it easy. If ordinary joes can now do formation drone flying think what a military can do. Many other the limitations of carrier operations are eliminated by emerging tech, tech which China is heavily investing in. We are not far off an age where drone carrier launch and recovery operations can be conducted by a handful of people on control consoles with a minimum deck crew; and I strongly suspect we are already there. We could possibly automate a lot of the procedures for manned carrier operations in the same way. A good portion of carrier deck crews are launch and landing controllers, it's a dangerous job requiring precision coordination and awareness, it is also almost completely automatable if each aircraft manned or not is linked to a computer in the tower and launches loiters and lands with an autopilot assist.

 Orlanth wrote:
Air force pilots can do it too.

No they can't, because they don't have carriers to train on. And, just as importantly, they don't have carriers to maintain currency on. Speaking as a pilot that second part can't be emphasized enough. In aviation it isn't enough to learn to do something once, you have to keep doing it to maintain proficiency or the skills decay and you end up in a dangerous (and potentially fatal) situation. At best a "give air force pilots a few carrier landings" program could create a wartime reserve that could rapidly boost numbers in a situation where it's WWIII and it doesn't matter if you lose 20% of your pilots to accidents every day because everyone dies anyway as soon as the ICBMs launch.

And yes, you could give those air force pilots carriers to train on and regular carrier time to maintain their skills. Great, now you just expanded your pool of navy pilots in all but name, with all of the accompanying costs and other difficulties of expanding the pool of navy pilots.

as you can train logistical crews i artificially compact environments such as bordered off areas of air bases and then transfer trained crews over to carriers later building up to capacity.

You really can't. Landing on a short runway marked off at an air force base is not in any way the same as landing on a short runway on a ship moving at 30mph and pitching and rolling in all axes as you approach. Expecting to build carrier crews without training on real carriers is how you end up crashing a jet into the carrier and desperately hoping it doesn't chain reaction into sinking the ship. Trust me on this. I can land my (much slower) plane on a carrier-length spot of pavement pretty easily, but if I tried to land on a real carrier in anything but the absolute calmest sea conditions the only question would be just which form of fatal crash it would turn into.

Now if drones are used this makes the most hazardous task for carrier air operations easier.

That's an immense "if". We're nowhere near the point of being able to hand off the job to drones. Will we get there eventually? Sure. But it's not a question that is terribly relevant to the subject of China's current naval and political ambitions.

Only a few years ago quadcopters didn't work

Correction: a few years ago quadcopters had no reason to exist. The sole reason for a quadcopter to exist at all is to make as cheap a platform as possible. A conventional helicopter is better for anything other than toy-size toys and camera platforms because of inherent advantages of single large rotors over multiple small electric motors. The only advantage a quadcopter offers is the fact that you can omit the extremely complicated rotor control system of a helicopter and make 95% of it out of cheap injection molded plastic. It's a niche concept that was sitting around waiting for inertial measurement chips to become cheap enough to go in a toy, and as soon as smartphones drove the cost of that technology down enough we pretty quickly proceeded to exactly what we have now.

PS: the first successful quadcopter was flown in 1922. It just never went anywhere because it cost more than $20 to build one.

If ordinary joes can now do formation drone flying think what a military can do.

You know what we call ordinary pilots trying to do formation flying without extensive training? Dead. Telling a cheap toy drone to hover in formation with some other cheap toys is not in any way the same as formation flying in real aircraft.