China conducts flight landing on aircraft carrier

[marcos]

Well, it is an effective deterrent as well.

 

Think of it like with nuclear missiles; in construction they are an offensive weapon (with a few exceptions like the nuclear-tipped A2A rockets meant to take down bombers etcetera),

And nuclear-tipped ABMs and naval mines.

 

but their role in the strategic sense it ensure that no-one will start a fight with you in the first place.

 

"Ensure peace through preparing for war" etcetera.

So assuming nuclear deterrents work, why do you need naval airpower again, since you already have the ability to raise the surface temperature of any nation that attacks you to 1 million degrees centigrade?

 

In the case of China, having a carrier capability does, like their nuke subs, offer an intercontinental force projection capability. This means that other countries would, before starting a fight, need to consider that they might get hit back, at home. It's a lot easier to start a war if you feel certain that the enemy can't hurt you.

Doesn't China already have ICBMs and SLBMs though?

 

It's definitely about force projection but it's rare that a carrier is ever used for defence. The rare exception was probably the Falklands conflict but that's because the UK were dumb enough not to already have fighter jets on the island last time.

 

Well thats a matter of opinion - its also much shorter(some 247m vs. 300 m ) :)

 

Anyway, the ex-Varyag is considerable larger ship than the CdG - some 67.000 tons full load vs. some 42.000 respectively.

The Queen Elizabeth carriers will be more Varyag size.

 

:) And it uses steam catapult, which makes it worst ...

If it does the same job, it does the same job.

Edited November 27, 2012 by marcos

[marcos]

Luo died just on the day when the J-15 completed a successful landing on China’s first aircraft carrier, Liaoning.

Surely he wasn't that surprised?

[EtherealN]

So assuming nuclear deterrents work, why do you need naval airpower again, since you already have the ability to raise the surface temperature of any nation that attacks you to 1 million degrees centigrade?

 

Because there is a scale to everything.

 

Let's for example say that there's a heatup in SEA. The US is then tempted to step in to support it's allies. If your only deterrent is being able to glass california, they'll go in anyways - because they know you won't do that over a territorial dispute in the ocean since you'd get glassed back.

 

But if you are able to send strike fighters to Guam, Hawaii etcetera etcetera, that is something much more measured - it's something you might actually do!

 

If your options are to do nothing or glass the planet, odds of you doing anything are low to naught - your deterrent is then an invasion deterrent only. If you have multiple, measured, options on the table, the simple fact that there is something in between "nothing" and "KABLAMMOH" means the odds of you doing something go way up real fast.

 

Doesn't China already have ICBMs and SLBMs though?

 

Yes. If you read my previous post carefully you'll note that I said this adds to their deterrent on top of their subs.

 

It's definitely about force projection but it's rare that a carrier is ever used for defence. The rare exception was probably the Falklands conflict but that's because the UK were dumb enough not to already have fighter jets on the island last time.

 

The problem you're having is that you are thinking about "defence" only as "combat".

Having to fight at all means the deterrent role has already failed. We very seldom talk about all those times when there is no fighting, but it is those that are the success stories. Going someplace and bombing a country to the stone age may look good and successful, but is in itself largely a failure. (Or you were dealing with an enemy that just doesn't care, for whatever reason, this being the curse of more assymetric warfare; some people just don't care if you nuke some city someplace because they know you're never going to accept 2 million dead innocents just to get them - but they might care if you are able to place strike fighters wherever they try to hide. Which can then become a reason to not mess with you in the first place. And then of course there's also some quite reputable foes that don't care about this either, but that's a dangerous debate. :P )

 

Classic case is an interview I saw regarding the Falklands War - the british officer that was being interviewed (I fail to recall the name and rank) basically said "well, things would have been a lot easier if we had the old Ark Royal with the phantoms, but then again - if we had the Ark Royal it's not like the Argies would have attacked in the first place".

Edited November 27, 2012 by EtherealN

[marcos]

Because there is a scale to everything.

 

Let's for example say that there's a heatup in SEA. The US is then tempted to step in to support it's allies. If your only deterrent is being able to glass california, they'll go in anyways - because they know you won't do that over a territorial dispute in the ocean since you'd get glassed back.

 

But if you are able to send strike fighters to Guam, Hawaii etcetera etcetera, that is something much more measured - it's something you might actually do!

So is a sub-launched attack with cruise missiles or conventional ballistic missiles and a sub actually has a chance of being able to carry it out without without losing a $10bn dollar aircraft carrier.

 

Aside from that we are really talking about offence anyway, even if it's retaliatory. They don't need an aircraft carrier to fight over territorial waters, what they need is the ability to kill enemy aircraft carriers, enter the DF-21D. If you can provide a 3000+km exclusion zone around the coast of mainland China, it's job done. Of course their vast sub fleet will help there too, not to mention NK's sub fleet.

 

 

The problem you're having is that you are thinking about "defence" only as "combat".

Having to fight at all means the deterrent role has already failed. We very seldom talk about all those times when there is no fighting, but it is those that are the success stories. Going someplace and bombing a country to the stone age may look good and successful, but is in itself largely a failure. (Or you were dealing with an enemy that just doesn't care, for whatever reason, this being the curse of more assymetric warfare; some people just don't care if you nuke some city someplace because they know you're never going to accept 2 million dead innocents just to get them - but they might care if you are able to place strike fighters wherever they try to hide. Which can then become a reason to not mess with you in the first place. And then of course there's also some quite reputable foes that don't care about this either, but that's a dangerous debate. :P )

 

Classic case is an interview I saw regarding the Falklands War - the british officer that was being interviewed (I fail to recall the name and rank) basically said "well, things would have been a lot easier if we had the old Ark Royal with the phantoms, but then again - if we had the Ark Royal it's not like the Argies would have attacked in the first place".

If they'd had Tornados and troops on the island it's not like the Argies would have attacked in the first place, especially if there'd been a few bombers too.:D

Edited November 27, 2012 by marcos

[EtherealN]

Permanent station on remote areas is extremely expensive.

 

Having one carrier (though the Chinese plan for more) means you can have your stuff at home, and the entire planet is within reach of this one station.

 

Your arguments apply equally to the US, Russia, India, Brazil, Spain, India, Italy, the UK, and whatever other operators of carriers I may have forgotten. Clearly they know something you don't? ;)

 

And I hardly have to point out that there are several huge differences in capaiblities between sub-launched cruise missiles and a carrier strike force, do I?

[marcos]

Permanent station on remote areas is extremely expensive.

More expensive than developing, building and running an aircraft carrier?

 

Having one carrier (though the Chinese plan for more) means you can have your stuff at home, and the entire planet is within reach of this one station.

Which travels at about 30knots maximum and therefore could take a fortnight to get to where you want it. It's also infinitely easier to sink than an island.

 

Your arguments apply equally to the US, Russia, India, Brazil, Spain, India, Italy, the UK, and whatever other operators of carriers I may have forgotten. Clearly they know something you don't? ;)

Their carriers are not about defence either. Seriously, when was the last time the US used their carriers defensively?

 

And I hardly have to point out that there are several huge differences in capaiblities between sub-launched cruise missiles and a carrier strike force, do I?

In terms of CAS and moving targets yes but in terms of a retaliatory strike on major infrastructure to inform the enemy that you're not happy, cruise missiles work just fine. But again, this is offence, not defence.

 

If you have lots of little islands a long way from the mainland, then maybe carriers are a defensive weapon, but mostly they're offensive, either by action or threat of action. $10bn buys a lot of aircraft to dot around on a few islands.

Edited November 27, 2012 by marcos

[Pyroflash]

More expensive than developing, building and running an aircraft carrier?

 

Yes, actually. Airfields such as Bagram are extremely expensive to develop, costing the better part of a couple billion to start, then you have to tack on doing this in potentially unforgiving theaters, with nightmarish logistical problems, and limited support. Once it is built, you have to secure it, develop it, maintain it, supply it, and operate it. None of these things are even remotely close to cheap.

 

With a carrier, the initial costs may be a lot higher, but carriers are a lot more defensible, and have the advantage of being mobile, which can count for quite a bit when you are talking about an area deterrent.

 

Which travels at about 30knots maximum and therefore could take a fortnight to get to where you want it. It's also infinitely easier to sink than an island.

Because carriers always have mutual support, and can move, they aren't really as easy to sink as you think they are.

 

Also a carrier going 30+ kts is going to get somewhere infinitely faster than an island is.

Their carriers are not about defence either. Seriously, when was the last time the US used their carriers defensively?

All of the time. Carriers are a force deterrent. Saying "I can hit you anywhere, anytime, with a full airborne force" does a lot to pressure people into inaction. Nobody wants to risk doing something if the odds aren't in their favor.

 

In terms of CAS and moving targets yes but in terms of a retaliatory strike on major infrastructure to inform the enemy that you're not happy, cruise missiles work just fine. But again, this is offence, not defence.

Sometimes eyes in the sky are needed as much as cruise missiles. As much as satellites, GPS, and guided missile systems are nice, they can be easily fouled by a number of sneaky tactics that might not be apparent without some HUMINT over there to drop an LGB. The enemy knows this too, which makes a carrier (possibly) a hell of a lot scarier to them than a submarine which may or may not be sitting in range of their shore.

 

If you have lots of little islands a long way from the mainland, then maybe carriers are a defensive weapon, but mostly they're offensive, either by action or threat of action. $10bn buys a lot of aircraft to dot around on a few islands.

$10 B buys a lot fewer aircraft when you have to develop infrastructure to support them. Especially when you are talking about stealth aircraft. And again, stop thinking about defensive action purely in terms of direct combat. It is flawed thinking and will get you nowhere.

[Steel Jaw]

Carriers have always been offensive weapons, period.

 

Now, without mentioning countries by name, only some of them mentioned are worthy to defend their way of life and promote such around the globe to the overall benefit of humanity, other nations are clearly not and have no rightful business with naval aviation.

[marcos]

Yes, actually. Airfields such as Bagram are extremely expensive to develop, costing the better part of a couple billion to start, then you have to tack on doing this in potentially unforgiving theaters, with nightmarish logistical problems, and limited support. Once it is built, you have to secure it, develop it, maintain it, supply it, and operate it. None of these things are even remotely close to cheap.

Is Bagram a defensive airfield?

 

With a carrier, the initial costs may be a lot higher, but carriers are a lot more defensible, and have the advantage of being mobile, which can count for quite a bit when you are talking about an area deterrent.

The supply requirements of a floating airfield will be just the same as those of a land airfield, in fact probably more, when you factor in ship-specific operational and maintenance requirements.

 

Because carriers always have mutual support, and can move, they aren't really as easy to sink as you think they are.

And because of that mutual support, they're not really as cheap as you think they are.:smilewink:

 

Also a carrier going 30+ kts is going to get somewhere infinitely faster than an island is.

All of the time. Carriers are a force deterrent. Saying "I can hit you anywhere, anytime, with a full airborne force" does a lot to pressure people into inaction. Nobody wants to risk doing something if the odds aren't in their favor.

I think in my example I made it clear that planes would already be based on the island and if you had maybe a dozen islands to defend, separated by thousands of miles, as the UK does, then it might make sense to have a carrier.

 

Sometimes eyes in the sky are needed as much as cruise missiles. As much as satellites, GPS, and guided missile systems are nice, they can be easily fouled by a number of sneaky tactics that might not be apparent without some HUMINT over there to drop an LGB. The enemy knows this too, which makes a carrier (possibly) a hell of a lot scarier to them than a submarine which may or may not be sitting in range of their shore.

The only way to foul GPS is to jam it or take out the satellites. The satellites are at an altitude of 20,200km, so that leaves us with jamming. That's why cruise missiles also have TERCOM and IBN typically. Lasers are pretty easy to mess up too in the case of LGBs.

 

$10 B buys a lot fewer aircraft when you have to develop infrastructure to support them. Especially when you are talking about stealth aircraft. And again, stop thinking about defensive action purely in terms of direct combat. It is flawed thinking and will get you nowhere.

You still need infrastructure to support aircraft on a carrier and you have to support the carrier itself, plus the 'mutual support' ships.

 

I'm a straight thinker, I see defence as defence and attack as attack.

[Alfa]

 

Their carriers are not about defence either. Seriously, when was the last time the US used their carriers defensively?

 

There are different doctrines and different types of aircraft carriers.

 

Soviet naval doctrine was very different to the US one and their carriers were designed for support of the submarine fleet and as such actually a defensive meassure.

 

Even the British Invincible class was initially designed as a dedicated ASW asset and only meant to carry helicopters until someone got the bright idea to put Harrier jump-jets on it.

[vanveken]

of the submarine

 

Cruiser fleet..... :)

[Alfa]

Cruiser fleet..... :)

 

Yup :) - or "SSGN" fleet to use a "western" term.

[vanveken]

The aircraft carrier has been in Russian intended on cover of cruisers of type.ATLANT and OREL

[Steel Jaw]

Even the British Invincible class was initially designed as a dedicated ASW asset and only meant to carry helicopters until someone got the bright idea to put Harrier jump-jets on it.

 

One of the bigger farces in naval aviation history.

[Alfa]

The aircraft carrier has been in Russian intended on cover of cruisers of type.ATLANT and OREL

 

vanveken - you don't build an aircraft carrier to support a cruiser.....rather the other way around. BTW didn't you mean cruisers of type Atlant(Pr. 1164) and Orlan(Pr 1144/1144.2)?

 

Anyway, in Soviet naval doctrine the main anti-carrier assets were the SSGNs("submarine cruisers") which where routinely shadowing US carrier groups during the cold war. The task of Soviet aircraft carriers(and the surface fleet as such) was to operate in support of those.

 

This is quite evident when you look at the evolution in Soviet carrier designs as well as the way they operated.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Alfa

[Alfa]

One of the bigger farces in naval aviation history.

 

Oh I don't know - they did serve them quite well in the Falklands.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Much like with the Kuznecow, having a carrier is nice, but having only one means that you cannot deploy in more than one place at once. And if your carrier goes down for any reason, your deployment schedules are pretty much buggered until you can get it up again.

The best thing is to have 100 aircraft carriers. That way, if 10 of them are down for maintenance, you still have 90 available to take the world over. :) What else would be the reason to have more then one carrier?

[Pyroflash]

The best thing is to have 100 aircraft carriers. That way, if 10 of them are down for maintenance, you still have 90 available to take the world over. :) What else would be the reason to have more then one carrier?

 

Sadly, we live in reality, so 100 carriers is not a feasible thing.

 

The U.S. carrier groups fly in support of NATO operations and humanitarian aid missions. As such, it is important to ensure that they are able to be in position to assist in the completion of the assigned mission even if one or more carriers are down, which is an all too frequent occurrence. They also have to be mission ready even if one or more carriers is already sailing under a mission. Thus the reason for all 11 of them. In addition, these carrier groups are constantly cycling readiness states, with different crews working up to fit deployment schedules so that people can take a break every once and a while. This also gives the ships a chance to undergo refits and maintenance so that they don't fall apart from old age (The oldest of which is the U.S.S. Enterprise, which has been sailing since 1961. That makes it the second oldest actively serving warship in the U.S. Naval inventory. Right after the U.S.S. Constitution, which has been sailing since 1798 ).

[BHawthorne]

Almost 100 years late...

 

Shockingly enough you'll notice that China's progress is remarkably like the US in the 20th century. Spaceflight, carriers, industrial build up, etc... While the US unravels what it did in the 20th century, China is just now experiencing it's technological, industrial and economical renaissance. It's a bit more unnerving if you frame it in the context of momentum and progress during a period of growth than to state it like you did. The US sure isn't growing like it did back then. I frame it as the US has lost momentum and focus. Most people's patriotism will cloud thier judgement on this issue though. YOu've got to see the forest through the trees.

Edited November 28, 2012 by BHawthorne

[Ripcord]

Shockingly enough you'll notice that China's progress is remarkably like the US in the 20th century. Spaceflight, carriers, industrial build up, etc... While the US unravels what it did in the 20th century, China is just now experiencing it's technological, industrial and economical renaissance. It's a bit more unnerving if you frame it in the context of momentum and progress during a period of growth than to state it like you did. The US sure isn't growing like it did back then. I frame it as the US has lost momentum and focus. Most people's patriotism will cloud thier judgement on this issue though. YOu've got to see the forest through the trees.

 

I agree with this. We are two counties at different places on developmental a bell curve.

 

As for the amazing pace of economic growth over there, there are a few things we all need to keep in mind. First, for them to continue this miracle, they need strong markets in Europe and North America to trade with. That is why they are also FLAT right now, because our economies are down. Second, the pace of their growth is due to the fact that they were so far behind for so long, and the opening of global markets has brought in so much benefit so quickly. I am no economist, but I think it might be wrong to assume that this same tempo of growth will continue as they get closer and closer to our level of wealth.

[Ripcord]

vanveken - you don't build an aircraft carrier to support a cruiser.....rather the other way around. BTW didn't you mean cruisers of type Atlant(Pr. 1164) and Orlan(Pr 1144/1144.2)?

 

Anyway, in Soviet naval doctrine the main anti-carrier assets were the SSGNs("submarine cruisers") which where routinely shadowing US carrier groups during the cold war. The task of Soviet aircraft carriers(and the surface fleet as such) was to operate in support of those.

 

This is quite evident when you look at the evolution in Soviet carrier designs as well as the way they operated.

 

Soviet doctrine changed at the end, when they started the Tbilisi (now Kuznetsov). Remember the old Kiev class and Moskva class were primarily helo carriers, with an ASW focus -- well OK, the Kiev was also built to handle the Yak-38 with meant a very limited A-G force projection over the beach, to support naval infantry/amphib ops. But before the Tbilisi/Kuz, they were all about submarines, ASW and heavily armed major surface combatants, and long range bombers. Really it was a pretty radical shift in pretty long-running strategy.

 

Personally I think it was mostly just a function of making a good old fashioned coldwar era display a national might/pride, much like their Buran space-shuttle project. Reagan had his 600 ship navy policy at the time... couldn't be outdone, now could they?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ripcord

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

As for the amazing pace of economic growth over there, there are a few things we all need to keep in mind. First, for them to continue this miracle, they need strong markets in Europe and North America to trade with.

There are more people (thus customers) in China alone then in USA and EU combined! Yes, the purchasing power of Chinese people is not at the level of USA or EU customer, but, they are catching up, fast. Then add the rest of Asia customers, and you will quickly notice that USA and EU are loosing the position of being a dominant "buyer".

 

That is why they are also FLAT right now, because our economies are down.

Chine economy is not flat by any measure. It is actually advancing two to three times the rate of USA and EU.

[BHawthorne]

There are more people (thus customers) in China alone then in USA and EU combined! Yes, the purchasing power of Chinese people is not at the level of USA or EU customer, but, they are catching up, fast. Then add the rest of Asia customers, and you will quickly notice that USA and EU are loosing the position of being a dominant "buyer".

 

Chine economy is not flat by any measure. It is actually advancing two to three times the rate of USA and EU.

 

A lot of it has to do with even in a communist country there is a fast growing middle class with a larger pool of disposable income than in the past. The medium disposable income is improving there for luxury and convenience goods. Consumers with disposable income push economies and progress. With how many people live in China, once that population is empowered with disposable income, it'll be something interesting to witness. Economic health and prosperity isn't just a western first world entitlement. We've got to work for it and ensure it happens or we'll continue to lose our edge.

Edited November 28, 2012 by BHawthorne

[Cali]

In addition, these carrier groups are constantly cycling readiness states, with different crews working up to fit deployment schedules so that people can take a break every once and a while. This also gives the ships a chance to undergo refits and maintenance so that they don't fall apart from old age (The oldest of which is the U.S.S. Enterprise, which has been sailing since 1961. That makes it the second oldest actively serving warship in the U.S. Naval inventory. Right after the U.S.S. Constitution, which has been sailing since 1798 ).

 

It's not just carriers constantly cycling through readiness states, it's the whole military war machine. I can't speak for other countries but the US we are always training, deploying and redeploying just to do it all over again. It takes a lot out of people to do that all the time and with the US military getting smaller, it just means "doing more with less"is what we call it.

[Cali]

There are more people (thus customers) in China alone then in USA and EU combined! Yes, the purchasing power of Chinese people is not at the level of USA or EU customer, but, they are catching up, fast. Then add the rest of Asia customers, and you will quickly notice that USA and EU are loosing the position of being a dominant "buyer".

 

Chine economy is not flat by any measure. It is actually advancing two to three times the rate of USA and EU.

 

Got proof of that?