CV-XX (003 carrier) Thread I ... News & Discussions

nugroho

Junior Member
I wouldn't call SCMP a western mouthpiece per se. It is owned by Alibaba after all.

As for the number of carriers, consider this.

China has 4x the population of the USA.
And most would agree that at some point in the future, China would have an economy twice as large. The Australian government has the Chinese economy growing from 30% larger to twice the size in terms of actual physical output of goods and services in 2030-2035.

And let's say the US continues to spend 3.2% of GDP on the military and split this equally between the Army, Navy and Air Force.

China is already secure on land, so let's say Chinese Army spending increases to match the US.

In the air, the Chinese Air Force has about 2000 combat coded aircraft like the US Air Force. If Chinese Air Force spending increases to match the US, then that would eventually result in a modern stealthy aircraft fleet, which should be more than sufficient to dominate the 1st Island Chain.

Then the main challenge becomes the US Navy, and the goal would be to deter them from even getting involved. If China were to aim for a Navy some 50% larger than the 11 US carriers, that would imply the equivalent of 16 Chinese nuclear supercarriers.

Yet in terms of overall military spending (Army, Navy, Air Force), China only needs to spend 17% more than the US.

If the US is spending 3.2% of GDP on the military, the Chinese figure is only 1.8% of GDP. That is even less than the 2% consistently seen over the past 20+ years.

The implication is that what we've seen so far, is still the early stages of China's military buildup. And that this buildup is easily affordable.
Just reminding, Softbank Japan and Yahoo are the largest shareholders in Alibaba
 

Peter2018

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just reminding, Softbank Japan and Yahoo are the largest shareholders in Alibaba
Yahoo sold its Alibaba stake to Altaba, but then Altaba was liquidated last year. With Alibaba's dual class share structure, the founders of Alibaba still have the majority voting rights for the company.
 

bruceb1959

Junior Member
Registered Member
What does an aircraft carrier do? It launches airplanes. And those airplanes control the sky, perform surveillance and launch weapons.

So it's more accurate to say that that to counter an aircraft carrier, you need your own airplanes.
But China's situation is that its core objectives are close by in the 1st Island Chain, so can be better covered by airbases on mainland China.

Plus a carrier and its air wing is really expensive and vulnerable.
In comparison, land-based airplanes are cheaper, longer-ranged, and higher performance than their carrier counterparts.

---
But I agree for blue-water operations in the Western Pacific, where there is a lot less land-based air support, you do need your own carriers.

Surely the best way to counter a carrier or carriers, is by platforms firing sufficiently powerful weapons from outside the range of the carriers aircraft. Submarines are ideal for this.

I seriously question @asif iqbal's assertion that the Soviets tried this and failed. Air and sub launched standoff weapons were a major concern to NATO during the cold war. .

Fortunately we never had to find out how successful or otherwise they would have been.
 

Intrepid

Senior Member
Aircraft carriers are often a powerful tool in asymmetric warfare. They were not under massive threat in the waters off Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. The Falklands War was an exception.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Aircraft carriers are often a powerful tool in asymmetric warfare. They were not under massive threat in the waters off Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. The Falklands War was an exception.
Keyword is "asymetric".

They expecting that the enemy hasn't got assets to attack them.

In exchange it can deliver extreme amount of cheap bombs, not possible by other ways.


Now ,introduction of expensive stand of missiles to the naval airplanes destroy this equation.

If a 100k ships + 5000 pair hands + airplane required to launch a cruise missile with hundreds of km range ,then why not use 4k ship, with dozens of hands and bit bigger , longer range missiles ?
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
If a 100k ships + 5000 pair hands + airplane required to launch a cruise missile with hundreds of km range ,then why not use 4k ship, with dozens of hands and bit bigger , longer range missiles ?
Because that single ship cannot do what a aircraft carrier and her air wing, Strike group can do;

Almost a retired US Navy captain posted this at skyscrapercity in response to a statement.;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Enough stated...Sorry about the off topic post.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Keyword is "asymetric".

They expecting that the enemy hasn't got assets to attack them.

In exchange it can deliver extreme amount of cheap bombs, not possible by other ways.


Now ,introduction of expensive stand of missiles to the naval airplanes destroy this equation.

If a 100k ships + 5000 pair hands + airplane required to launch a cruise missile with hundreds of km range ,then why not use 4k ship, with dozens of hands and bit bigger , longer range missiles ?
We have a thread where we looked at carrier operations in much more detail.

Future PLAN carrier operations

Basically, for blue water operations, you need a carrier for air superiority and to find opposing ships.

Then it is better for big anti-ship missiles to be launched from surface ships or land-based vehicles.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
post not visible.
Missing post from skyscrapercity;

"Originally Posted by Blackpool88
Desertswo, I'm only quoting to get your attention.

I have a question as a complete layman on Navy matters (BD I would like your view too) - If an Arleigh Burke class destroyer was with a carrier group and an enemy launched a saturation attack of anti ship missiles on the carrier, how confident would you be that the Aegis (or whatever system they use) could handle and eliminate the threat?"
I'm just trying to understand if they could realistically get at a US carrier group in this way. Would also be interesting to see how a Type 45 would handle this situation as their respective systems both state they are capable of tracking 2000 targets simultaneously.

Also has it ever happened in the recent past?
Your's is a good question, but if you'll pardon me, an also uninformed question, because it starts with the premise that the Arleigh Burke/Ticoderoga-class are stand alone weapons systems, and not part of an interconnected whole. Here are some pictures that will sort of make my case. They are in order of where and when they come into play.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!










It's all predicated on the concept of "defense in depth." We have the advantage of the E-2C/D as the eye in the sky. I wish I could tell you exactly what that gives us, but suffice it to say, she's a game changer. She is controlling the CAP made up of, usually, a pair of F-18E/F Super Hornets. She is also feeding, by direct data link, the rest of the ships in the battlgroup, the first of which will often be a Ticonderoga-class posted well away from the main body, out on the threat axis, in what used to be called Positive Identification Radar Advisory Zone (PIRAZ). I honestly don't know what they call it now, but the concept is the same: separate the wheat from the chaff. Anything passing over or near that ship will be challenged and fired upon if necessary. Then the enemy enters the Fighter Engagement Zone (FEZ), where a whole bunch more F-18s are weighting to pounce. Then the Missile Engagement Zone (MEZ) where the various versions of SM come into play. At around the same time, the SLQ-32 is doing all sorts of wonderful stuff. Again, I wish I could tell you what, but it's all sort of voodoo magic, and it works too. Then the Gunfire Engagement Zone, where the MK-45s commence to chopping, then the SRBOC starts popping, and then the Phalanx goes to work. If it gets past all of that, they deserve a hearty "Well done."

Here's the thing though. This premise also assumes the launch platforms got off shots unmolested. Well, "Homey don't play that." In the USN way of war, we go always for the archer first, and not the arrow. It's a much easier problem to solve.
 
Top