China conducts flight landing on aircraft carrier

[Pyroflash]

No one here has any proof of anything other than what they read in a paper. I doubt very many of us are global markets economists, so in lieu of that, the best we can do is speculate.

 

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.

 

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to phrase it as if that's not how the system normally works. I was just laying it out in reference to carrier groups specifically so people can understand the why there is a need for more than one carrier.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Pyroflash

[Andrei]

Got proof of that?

 

Well, for instance, the company I work for is selling building equipment in in China. The sales in one given Chinese province beats sales in any given European country, except for Germany. Company originates in EU.

[aaron886]

Got proof of that?

 

Ought to be self-evident, these days.

[Alfa]

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

 

The doctrine didn't change at all nor did the focus.

 

The Kuznetsov, Varyag and even the projected larger "Ul'yanovsk" all carried the same project designation(1143) as the Kiev class and had a significant "ASW focus" as you call it(very capable sonar suite and huge number of ASW helicopters onboard) - gradual increase in size and capability, but nevertheless all designed for the same task under the same doctrine.

 

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.

 

Again there was no shift at all - Soviet carrier designs from the very first 1123 to the very last non-realised 1143.7 all conformed to the "aviation cruiser" philosophy and if anything the onboard ASW and anti-surface capability/armament ony increased with each new design.

 

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?

 

You couldn't be more wrong. Soviet naval doctrine relied very heavily on the submarine fleet with a breath taking development of new designs for varies purposes, while Soviet naval planners only very reluctantly pursued aircraft carriers as a necessary evil, which should be evident when looking at early designs - i.e. an attempt to provide naval airpower through smaller purpose-built and cost effective designs rather than trying to mimic the much more expensive and complex US style supercarriers. In particular complex systems like catapults and arrestor gear were considered a "no-no" as these would inevitably drive up the size and thus cost of the ships.

 

It was the realisation that endurance as well as the modest airwing size of the smaller ships would be inadequate that eventually lead to a gradual increase in size. Even then they continued to pursue VSTOL aircraft to avoid the necessity of catapults and arrestor gear and instead tried to improve the capability of the VSTOL aircraft through the development of the supersonic Yak-41. It was really only when this development proved problematic(constant delays and set-backs) and when Sukhoi and MIG demonstrated the feasibility of launching more capable horizontal take-off jets from a ramp that the carrier designs started resembling more traditional aircraft carriers. But if you look past the superficial resemblence and closer at the configuration and armament, you will see that the basic philosopy remained.

 

It is only in the most recent published intentions by the Russian MoD in regards to the operation of aircraft carriers that there is evidence of a change of doctrine and even then those intentions involve smaller sized vessels(of some 50.000 tons displacement), although without the previous heavy cruise missile armament.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Alfa

[Ripcord]

Well, for instance, the company I work for is selling building equipment in in China. The sales in one given Chinese province beats sales in any given European country, except for Germany. Company originates in EU.

 

Well, OK. I work for the largest manufacturer of construction equipment in the world, with factories in China. And sales are a helluva lot there, compared to any given Euro country, even Germany. But they are not growing like they were, they are flat. Construction projects are still going, but not like they once were. Growth there has slowed. Still growing, though, just not like it was.

 

And let's not kid ourselves here, Chinese consumers are a big part of their economy but they are NOT fueling the economic miracle going on over there.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No one here has any proof of anything other than what they read in a paper. I doubt very many of us are global markets economists, so in lieu of that, the best we can do is speculate.

Have you visited China lately? Go to Shanghai, walk the streets .... Go check China Perl, and when on the top of the tower, take a look at the river below ... I was in China few times, for business. Although, I am not a global economist, I know what I am talking about China, and it is not speculations.

[marcos]

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.

Not sure about that. The MR2 was always the dedicated ASW asset. Surely the whole point of a sub is for no one to know it's there, so trawling around after it with an aircraft carrier kind of gives the game away surely.

[marcos]

Ought to be self-evident, these days.

Exactly LOL. Look at GDP growth for the respective countries.

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

 

And the Chinese one takes into account some PPP deduction which looks to be over-cooked at a glance.

Edited November 28, 2012 by marcos

[Cali]

Well, for instance, the company I work for is selling building equipment in in China. The sales in one given Chinese province beats sales in any given European country, except for Germany. Company originates in EU.

 

Ought to be self-evident, these days.

 

I just said that cause people want hardcore proof nowadays and no it's not self-evident these days.

[Sting57]

Exactly LOL. Look at GDP growth for the respective countries.

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

 

And the Chinese one takes into account some PPP deduction which looks to be over-cooked at a glance.

 

 

These are what is important. Even China's lowest growth rate is over double USA's highest growth rate.

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth-annual

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

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

But that was your argument, I mean you said that it is good to have many carriers because if one is down, then the other one can take over. BTW, we have 11 (or twelve) aircraft carriers. Well, that is not feasible either. Because our budget deficit is 1.2 trillion dollars. Yet, we still mess around with 11 aircraft carriers.

 

The U.S. carrier groups fly in support of NATO operations and humanitarian aid missions.

U.S. carrier group does not do humanitarian aid. Neither do French carrier group. Nor will Chinese carrier group do any kind of "humanitarian aid missions". Military is built for one reason to either defend or to take land.

[EtherealN]

Because our budget deficit is 1.2 trillion dollars. Yet, we still mess around with 11 aircraft carriers.

 

2013 budget gives 901 billion deficit.

Abolish the entire military and you have a deficit of 228 billion.

 

Military is built for one reason to either defend or to take land.

 

Key point being that having an offensive capability is also, almost automatically, a defensive capability. There's really two ways of "defending":

 

1) Pure defensive capabilities. Pursued by Sweden in the cold war; basically get a defensive combat capaibility that is sufficient towards making it "too expensive" to attack you.

2) Force projection capabilities. Pursued by almost every "empire" since the dawn of history. Basically through having the capability to mess someone's home up, you dissuade them from messing yours up (or your allies).

 

Example of number two would be the Israeli conflict - I don't remember if it was Yom Kippur or 6-days, think it was the former. At a stage in the conflict Soviet air divisions were tasked with repainting their aircraft into arab colors and moving to the region. However, this was cancelled - because the US, as a "signal", moved the med carrier strike group closer to palestine.

 

It thereby defused the situation from escalating simply through existing.

 

Now, whether it's actually worth the money... wow... In the case of china; most definitely. They have a lot of interests at sea where they currently have very limited force projection, causing the possibility for armed conflict. Having a capability of fielding a carrier strike force (they're not there yet though - a carrier does not a strike force make) could in this sense ensure "victory" or "defence" without it ever coming to blows.

 

I think we'll see where this is going first when they start building their own carriers and forming some sort of strike force around them.

[wilky510]

Wonder which doctrine the Chinese will follow, a huge strike group like the US? or take another route. FYI, i saw a video the other day for the John C Stennis Carrier strike group. It had 4 guided missile destroyers. Never expected that many in one group! jesus!

 

 

Found the video:

[Fjordmonkey]

U.S. carrier group does not do humanitarian aid. Neither do French carrier group. Nor will Chinese carrier group do any kind of "humanitarian aid missions". Military is built for one reason to either defend or to take land.

 

Funny you should mention that, as the US Navy deployed carriers and/or carrier battle groups both to Haiti after the earthquake there, and to Japan after the tsunami hit. The USS Carl Winston went to Haiti, and the USS Ronald Reagan went to Japan.

 

So yes indeed, a carrier and/or carrier battle group DO render humanitarian aid, and don't just defend/take land.

 

Sending an aircraft-carrier and it's battle-group makes sense. You've got a high level of c3-capabilities which may or may not have been destroyed in the area affected by whatever natural disaster that's taken place, you have the ability to offer protection and security for a rather large area quickly, and you can be on-station for a long time, providing things such as clean water and high-level ER-functionality/trauma-rooms, plus you have the manpower available to help with both the cleanup and rebuilding of the affected areas.

 

And if you look at the bigger picture, there's the added bonus of goodwill, positive press and nice-weather politics involved with such a thing. I doubt that sending the Reagan to Japan after the Tsunami created MORE animosity between the two people.

Edited November 29, 2012 by ShadowXP

[EtherealN]

Carriers were also used to receive refugees in conjunction with the NVA takeover of South Vietnam. (Where you have the classic videos of helicopters and stuff being thrown overboard to make room for more people.)

[marcos]

1) Pure defensive capabilities. Pursued by Sweden in the cold war; basically get a defensive combat capaibility that is sufficient towards making it "too expensive" to attack you.

2) Force projection capabilities. Pursued by almost every "empire" since the dawn of history. Basically through having the capability to mess someone's home up, you dissuade them from messing yours up (or your allies).

Difficult to think of 'empires' in a 'defensive' context.

 

Whilst aircraft carriers can be used for humanitarian purposes, we'd be kidding ourselves if we said they were procured for that. Hell, a Hind can be used for medevac.

Edited November 29, 2012 by marcos

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

2013 budget gives 901 billion deficit.

I've never said 2013, did I? And does 2013 budget deficit of 0.9 trillion dollars make it all right to maintain 11 aircraft carriers? I guess, we need 11 aircraft carries to be able to deliver humanitarian aid around the globe ...

Abolish the entire military and you have a deficit of 228 billion.

I've never said military should be abolished, and I am not sure why are you bringing that up?

[Weta43]

There's really two ways of "defending":

...

2) Force projection capabilities. Pursued by almost every "empire" since the dawn of history.

...

Isn't that like saying muggers carry guns to defend themselves while robbing their victims :)

 

Carriers were also used to receive refugees in conjunction with the NVA takeover of South Vietnam. (Where you have the classic videos of helicopters and stuff being thrown overboard to make room for more people.)

 

And they have probably been used to host birthday parties, but that's not what they're built for...

 

Obviously we all agree that carrier groups have, and are used for, their defensive and humanitarian capabilities, but those capabilities are secondary to their actual purpose - which is force projection as part of building and maintaining an empire.

The US has so many because they feel they it's in their interests to be able to project that force across the whole world, in numerous zones at the same time.

The USSR had 1 carrier, and had more limited goals / different methods of force projection at the time.

I suspect China will see the need for several carier groups, which will say something about the extent to which they wish to extend their influence across the globe.

[marcos]

I've never said 2013, did I? And does 2013 budget deficit of 0.9 trillion dollars make it all right to maintain 11 aircraft carriers? I guess, we need 11 aircraft carries to be able to deliver humanitarian aid around the globe ...

Since when was tritonal classed as humanitarian aid?:D

 

Carriers were also used to receive refugees in conjunction with the NVA takeover of South Vietnam. (Where you have the classic videos of helicopters and stuff being thrown overboard to make room for more people.)

And the USS Alabama was used to film Under Seige.

Edited November 30, 2012 by marcos

[EtherealN]

I've never said 2013, did I?

 

Didn't say you did. Just updated the number since the future is the only thing that can be changed. :)

 

I've never said military should be abolished, and I am not sure why are you bringing that up?

 

To put the numbers into a sort of perspective.

Yes, carrier operation is expensive. But it did not create a deficit. That's the point about abolishing the military; there would still be a deficit even if that happened. So therefore the "deficit" argument is strange to me.

 

Anyhow, might be better if we stick to the subject of China's carrier. Whatever the case may be with the convoluted economics of the united states federal government, if there's someone that is able to afford an expansion of their fleet to new capabilities right now - it's china.

[EtherealN]

Isn't that like saying muggers carry guns to defend themselves while robbing their victims :)

 

No, it's like saying someone might purchase a handgun or rifle for the purpose of defending their family. Right or wrong, people do exactly that. (Well, not in my country, since it would be illegal here, but you get the point.)

 

What I mean in this specific case can be illustrated with the situation in the south china sea - you know that dispute between China, Vietnam and the Phillipines over that big bunch of reefs sitting on top of good fishing and quite possibly a craptonne of oil?

 

Well, Vietnam and China already have been at war with each other. And there have been actual fighting going on, sporadically, in this reef area. Know something that could calm things down? A chinese carrier strike force.

 

Of course, the Vietnamese and the Philippinos won't be too happy, but from the perspective of China this would achieve defence of what they consider to be their territory through deployment of a capability that through it's verey existance means no-one would start a fight. From the perspective of Vietnam and the Philippines this would probably be considered an aggressive move of course, so I guess it's all in the Eyes of the Beholder.

 

I suspect China will see the need for several carier groups, which will say something about the extent to which they wish to extend their influence across the globe.

 

Totally agreed there. They're getting quite the precense in Africa nowadays, buying arable land by the bucketload, and with those regions not exactly being the most stable, they'll definitely have some use for a force projection capability.

[EtherealN]

And the USS Alabama was used to film Under Seige.

 

Isn't that the Steven Seagal movie? Ugh... I wish they'd sunk the thing first... :P

[asparagin]

Isn't that like saying muggers carry guns to defend themselves while robbing their victims :)

 

No, it's like saying someone might purchase a handgun or rifle for the purpose of defending their family.

 

No, it's like purchasing a 50 cal. MG to defend the family.

[EtherealN]

No, it's like purchasing a 50 cal. MG to defend the family.

 

Hahah, yeah, quite possibly. All depends on the threat you're seeing (real or imagined).

 

But well, we'll see where they end up with it and if they give this thing jobs like fleet defence etcetera.

[marcos]

Isn't that the Steven Seagal movie? Ugh... I wish they'd sunk the thing first... :P

It was one of the few decent(ish) movies he made. It was passed off as the USS Missouri in the plot.

 

 

The Alabama itself never did carry cruise missiles (nuclear tipped ones referenced in plot) and it was only later versions of the 16" guns on the Iowa class that could fire a nuclear projectile:

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Edited November 30, 2012 by marcos