manqiangrexue
Brigadier
If you need to invest more than 3 carriers to this mission, it's already cooked. What's the plan? Keep making $20B carrier packages with 4K sailors on them that can be killed by a single ASBM to try to stop shipping from the US to Japan??I should have been clearer that there would need to be multiple Chinese aircraft carriers.
Carriers are more expensive and not expendable. When the option exists to blast all of Japan's ports with missiles, why would you consider doing something so risky and out of our element?IRBMs are expensive and in short supply. But the Chinese military does have a lot more munitions options given that all of the Japanese Home Islands are within 1500km of mainland China.
You can either detect these aircraft in which case you can shoot them down in Asia and over Japan or you can't detect them in which case, even if your carriers aren't all taken out, you still couldn't try to blockade stealth aircraft over the vast expanses of the open sea.Seaborne shipping is only part of it. If the US can operate bombers and tankers from Alaska, and have a clear route from Alaska to Japan, US bombers can use the Japanese Home Islands as a shield, and launch missiles from there, as the Chinese Air Force wouldn't be operating over hostile landmasses in force.
Once again, missiles to take out all air bases in Japan is how to do it. If you want to block shipping from the US to Japan with aircraft carriers, you are talking about dealing with far inferior nations. When China has the power to talk down to the US like some junior country acting out, then we can block them with a carrier and it will be the threat of what happens to them if that carrier is attacked or sanctions violated more than the power of the actual carrier that produces the effect.
With missiles. You wanna neutralize Alaska and Hawaii with carriers??? The US would have to have been beaten to pre-surrender WWII Japan state before you can do that to them.We're talking about a hypothetical US-China conflict where the US decides to declare war on China, as China can achieve its objectives without going to war with the USA.
In order to end such a war, there won't be any alternative but for the Chinese Navy to neutralise the 3rd Island Chain.
Bu they won't do that, because those resources are far better-used on other equipment. Eventually, to put the final nail in American global power, China will build a significant aircraft carrier fleet. But because their use is very limited and they are considered glass jaws in high intensity peer conflict, China will focus more on technologies that risk less to do more damage at least until the US is definitively supplanted.You can look at it as staged objectives:
1st Island Chain
2nd Island Chain
3rd Island Chain (Alaska/Hawaii/Australia/etc)
About 2030, I reckon it should be obvious that China would "win" in the First Island Chain.
About 2035, I reckon it should be obvious for the Second Island Chain.
Then there is the 3rd Island Chain afterwards.
---
From a resourcing perspective, China's economy today is around twice the size of the USA, if you look at the latest price surveys and account for differences in measurement methodology.
So given time, China should be able to build a Navy twice the size, with say 22 aircraft carriers.
And with that increased scale, they should obtain 5-10% better availability along with a 10-20% cost reduction, because they are buying and operating twice as many carriers.
America is very badly overextended and overinvested economically in a navy that is structurally incorrect to fight a modern high intensity peer level war. China is not going to take their numbers and just multiply them by true PPP to see what we can should build. We don't copy other people's homework and accept all their flaws with it.