CN Technical Problems, Slowing Economy Cut China’s Carrier Ambitions - Plans to build more than four aircraft carriers apparently put on hold.

Technical Problems, Slowing Economy Cut China’s Carrier Ambitions

Plans to build more than four aircraft carriers apparently put on hold.

thediplomat.com

China’s rapidly developed aircraft carrier program – once expected to grow to a fleet of six or more ships in the next decade – may now be limited to four hulls by budgetary and technical constraints.
The PLA Navy has two aircraft carriers afloat, the Liaoning, a re-fitted ex-Soviet carrier, and an indigenously built evolution of the Liaoning design, the Type 001A that launched in 2018 and currently undergoing sea trials. A third larger, more advanced design, the Type 002, has been under construction since 2017 and a second of that type is planned. The South China Morning Post reports that those two Type 002 carriers will be completed, but that a planned fifth carrier and a future nuclear-powered carrier design have been put on hold.

This is a significant contraction of China’s carrier ambitions. Earlier this year, Chinese naval experts claimed that the PLA Navy would have at least six carrier groups by 2035 and that four of them would be led by nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Chinese President Xi Jinping tasked the PLA to complete modernization by 2035.

But internal military sources told the SCMP that engineers were struggling to overcome technical challenges with the Type 002 and also lacked the expertise to translate its experience with nuclear-powered submarines to propel a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier design. “There is no plan to build more aircraft carriers,” the source said.

If this is true, it appears to have been a rapid change in the PLA Navy’s strategic direction. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a U.S. think tank, procured commercial satellite images earlier this year that show China has added massive new shipbuilding infrastructure to the facilities currently building the Type 002 carrier. A CSIS expert told Reuters that “It is hard to imagine all this is being done for just one ship. This looks more like a specialized space for carriers and or other larger vessels.”

China’s carrier ambitions, and the new shipbuilding infrastructure that appears to have been built to support that ambition, may have been products of a more hopeful strategic environment and more generous economic situation. Over the summer, military sources told the South China Morning Post that the PLA Navy was reconsidering its shipbuilding plans in light of China’s slowing economy and the massive costs associated with not only building a large modern fleet, but operating and maintaining it. These decisions would not just affect aircraft carriers, but China’s advanced new destroyers and amphibious assault ships as well.

The spiraling costs of China’s new fleet highlights the uncertain strategic return on its investment. Aircraft carriers are only as effective as the aircraft that can take off from it, and China faces even greater technical barriers to building advanced, next-generation carrier aircraft than it does making the carriers work for them to take off from. “China may need 10 to 20 years to develop a new generation of carrier-based warplanes, meaning the J-15 is likely to be the main warhorse for some time, despite it still having engine and flight control problems,” once source told the SCMP. Without new aircraft, the combat capability of China’s carrier fleet will remain at a significant disadvantage to the United States’.

Further, with the Liaoning and first Type 002, half of China’s carrier fleet will also be beset by so-called “first-in-class problems,” technical and engineering issues that aren’t apparent in new designs until the ships begin to be operated. Some of these problems can never be completely corrected, leading to the first ships of new designs having more limited capability than subsequent ships of the same design. For these reasons, the PLA Navy originally envisioned Liaoning filling only training and testing roles, not an operational combat one.

But If China’s carrier fleet is ultimately limited to only four hulls, having one relegated exclusively to training significantly reduces its capacity to conduct operations. As a result, the PLA Navy says that it is upgrading the Liaoning to be able to serve some combat role. In April, senior officers on the Liaoning told Chinese state media that “The Liaoning is shifting from a training and test ship to a combat ship. I believe this process is going faster and faster, and we will achieve our goal very soon.”

China may also be coming to terms with the challenges that its carrier fleet would face operating within the so-called first island chain. Southeast Asian navies have been rapidly expanding and modernizing their submarine fleets. Singapore is procuring four advanced submarines from Germany, Indonesia is buying and indigenously assembling a new submarine fleet from South Korea, and Vietnam has been procuring a fleet of advanced Russian submarines.

Armed with modern torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, these submarines could severely limit the ability of China’s aircraft carriers to operate freely in the South China Sea in a conflict. Elsewhere in the western Pacific, South Korea and Japan both produce advanced indigenous submarines, and Taiwan is developing its own domestic submarine program. And outside the first island chain, China’s carriers would have to face the United States’ premier nuclear-powered and modernizing submarine fleet.

Faced with greater technical challenges and lower operational effectiveness than expected, an increasingly threatening operating environment, spiraling costs, and a slowing economy, China’s possible decision to truncate it aircraft carrier fleet looks less surprising and more like strategic prudence.

-End of Article-​

While China's Navy is advancing rapidly, we should not believe for one second that they are infallible. The US and regional allies are in the process of countering the Chinese buildup, and it is starting to appear that we may have a little bit more time than anticipated.

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

In the Yak-38's defense, it was intended and designed to be a proof of concept aircraft. It was meant to give them just enough operational Data in order to design an actual combat capable SVTOL aircraft. It was never intended to become the backbone of the Carrier air wing. That was supposed to be the next airplane, that the Yak-38 was to be the forerunner of. But of course that plane got cancelled and the Military demanded more bloody Yak-38's instead. (This is not a problem unique to the Russian or Soviet Military)

"WE WANT THOSE"
"Those aren't supposed to be for sale, they are just toys for us to build the real ones."
"I WANNA BUY A PLANE"
"Give us a few years and you can buy a plane."
"BUT YOU HAVE THAT PLANE"

And now I understand why The Military is so expensive..it is Run by Stupid Karens.

 

[MrTickles]

@MrTickles officially on suicide watch

Personally, I'm ecstatic over this bit of news. Fuck the People's Republic of China.

USA All The Way!

If you knew my stance on Carriers (I like to call them sitting ducks or battleships of the 40's) then you'd reconsider your words. This is wise, China's focus is and always has been on developing its strategic submarine and air warfare/anti ship destroyer fleets. In the 21st century guided missile technology makes carriers obsolete as offensive platforms in great power confrontations. You will learn this if the Us ever tries to aggressively use its battle groups against a real country.

Carriers are still good for projecting air power on hapless little states. But this is not China's way. It buys what political capital it needs abroad with trade deals.

 

[FlightOfTheBumbleBee]

Thats cool but I'm not voting Trump in 2020 because he tweets mean words.

 

[The Unbecoming]

If you knew my stance on Carriers (I like to call them sitting ducks or battleships of the 40's) then you'd reconsider your words. This is wise, China's focus is and always has been on developing its strategic submarine and air warfare/anti ship destroyer fleets. In the 21st century guided missile technology makes carriers obsolete as offensive platforms in great power confrontations. You will learn this if the Us ever tries to aggressively use its battle groups against a real country.

Carriers are still good for projecting air power on hapless little states. But this is not China's way. It buys what political capital it needs abroad with trade deals.

A carrier task group consist of at least one Ticonderoga missile cruiser, at least 2-3 Areligh Burke destroyers which are about...75%? As effective as a Tico when it comes to anti-air/ABM duty, and they're almost always shadowed by a pair of attack submarines on picket duty. That's just one carrier task group. The US has ten total.
You're not going to be hitting a moving carrier task force from 900 miles away with a DF-17, and China's surface fleet would be shat on in an actual surface v surface confrontation with the USN. Pretty much the only thing that would actually be a concern would be the chinese submarine fleet.

 

[RodgerDodger]

If you knew my stance on Carriers (I like to call them sitting ducks or battleships of the 40's) then you'd reconsider your words. This is wise, China's focus is and always has been on developing its strategic submarine and air warfare/anti ship destroyer fleets. In the 21st century guided missile technology makes carriers obsolete as offensive platforms in great power confrontations. You will learn this if the Us ever tries to aggressively use its battle groups against a real country.

Carriers are still good for projecting air power on hapless little states. But this is not China's way. It buys what political capital it needs abroad with trade deals.

they also cut way back on new Cruisers, Destroyers and Subs. So this isn’t a shift in naval strategy. It’s a massive wholesale budget slash and burn.

As for the Carriers as targets. That’s always been the case. And missiles are a real threat. But the “Magic Hypersonic Carrier Killer” missiles are fluffy PR. A few moments thought will make you realize why. To start off let’s understand that the US has had hypersonic missile or stealth recon capabilities since the 70’s. This is no great secret. There is plenty of footage all over YouTube of many airdropped tests out over Groom Lake. Any footage of UFO’s leaving weird pulsed or puff ball contrails? That’s what those are. Sometimes known as Aurora.

The downside of them is expense. Missiles that cost over a $billion a shot are not a real cost effective weapon system. And the inherent flaw with hypersonic missiles, at least as an Anti Ship Weapon system. They really suck against moving targets. At least moving targets that expect attack and can maneuver. When you dig into it a bit you quickly realize that the only viable use model for such weapons would be a Pearly Harbor style sneak attack against an enemy not aware he is at war. Which tells you all you need about he PRC’s war planning.

 

[armoreddinnerjacket]

When you dig into it a bit you quickly realize that the only viable use model for such weapons would be a Pearly Harbor style sneak attack against an enemy not aware he is at war. Which tells you all you need about he PRC’s war planning.

It's the only viable strategy, and we know what happened to the last SE Asian nation that tried it. If you're going to poke the sleeping giant you have to be able to do more than just piss it off.

 

[spiritofamermaid]

From what I've read, it seems like carriers are very important, not just to Navy/Marines but military as a whole. Why is that the case?

What purpose does it serve for US carriers to be in the middle of the Pacific, or on the eastern coast of Africa? Note that when I bring up those locations I don't mean literally, moreso to exaggerate their remoteness. Is it a world police thing? Note that I don't mean world police in derogatory manner, merely that all other countries in NATO are scrubs and need Daddy USA to help them. Or is it the ability to protect/help Americans abroad (aka the situation with killing American citizens who are abroad which will cause the US to attack the guilty party)?

Also if carriers are so expensive (from what I've gleaned from other posters, we just barely manage to afford ours), why have them? Are they that important?

I think my questions could boil down to:
1a. What do carriers do that are so important?
1b. How do they accomplish this importance?
2. Why are they so expensive? I understand the huge cost is paid all at once in the beginning, because it's the projected cost for maintenance yadda yadda ya, but even then it still seems excessive. Is it because watercraft, and all watercraft is more expensive than one would think?

Feel like I'm answering my own questions here, but still wanted to ask.

 

[RodgerDodger]

From what I've read, it seems like carriers are very important, not just to Navy/Marines but military as a whole. Why is that the case?

What purpose does it serve for US carriers to be in the middle of the Pacific, or on the eastern coast of Africa? Note that when I bring up those locations I don't mean literally, moreso to exaggerate their remoteness. Is it a world police thing? Note that I don't mean world police in derogatory manner, merely that all other countries in NATO are scrubs and need Daddy USA to help them. Or is it the ability to protect/help Americans abroad (aka the situation with killing American citizens who are abroad which will cause the US to attack the guilty party)?

Also if carriers are so expensive (from what I've gleaned from other posters, we just barely manage to afford ours), why have them? Are they that important?

I think my questions could boil down to:
1a. What do carriers do that are so important?
1b. How do they accomplish this importance?
2. Why are they so expensive? I understand the huge cost is paid all at once in the beginning, because it's the projected cost for maintenance yadda yadda ya, but even then it still seems excessive. Is it because watercraft, and all watercraft is more expensive than one would think?

Feel like I'm answering my own questions here, but still wanted to ask.

the biggest thing the Carriers do is exist, and in doing so act as the clear and obvious threat to everyone and anyone, that thereby insures free and open navigation of the seas. As such they are necessary for economic prosperity and free global trade. As you say “World Police”. This was a similar role performed by the Roman Legions and the British Admiralty in centuries past. It’s the implied threat of overwhelming violence that keeps everybody playing nice on the public pathways. Look at the current squabbles over the South China Sea. Now imagine what would happen if there was not the threat of US Carriers going medieval on whoever decides to disrupt free navigation? And yes they cost a lot. The US pays it because the benefit in free and open navigation more than pays for the ability to enforce such free and open navigation.

as for the costs involved in Carriers. It’s not simply the one time build cost. Carriers are small floating Cities. They burn through tremendous amounts of consumables daily. Food, fuel, routine maintenance and upkeep, wages and salaries. Training. Because of their multi role nature they require much larger and more specialized crews. A sub requires a sub crew who’s entire job is operating a sub. A carrier requires a carrier crew, pilots and air crews, aircraft maintenance crews. Air traffic control crew, weather crew, plus people to feed and support all the other crews. And all those crews need paying. Every day. If it’s a conventional carrier it needs frequent fueling, and will get lousy mileage. If it’s a nuke carrier it will need to refuel the reactor every five years at huge costs.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

From what I've read, it seems like carriers are very important, not just to Navy/Marines but military as a whole. Why is that the case?

What purpose does it serve for US carriers to be in the middle of the Pacific, or on the eastern coast of Africa? Note that when I bring up those locations I don't mean literally, moreso to exaggerate their remoteness. Is it a world police thing? Note that I don't mean world police in derogatory manner, merely that all other countries in NATO are scrubs and need Daddy USA to help them. Or is it the ability to protect/help Americans abroad (aka the situation with killing American citizens who are abroad which will cause the US to attack the guilty party)?

Also if carriers are so expensive (from what I've gleaned from other posters, we just barely manage to afford ours), why have them? Are they that important?

I think my questions could boil down to:
1a. What do carriers do that are so important?
1b. How do they accomplish this importance?
2. Why are they so expensive? I understand the huge cost is paid all at once in the beginning, because it's the projected cost for maintenance yadda yadda ya, but even then it still seems excessive. Is it because watercraft, and all watercraft is more expensive than one would think?

Feel like I'm answering my own questions here, but still wanted to ask.

These are excellent questions that do, and are, being asked. Give me a few hours to get off work so that I can type up something cogent, but to very roughly answer your questions:

1a. They offer first day of war capability, beyond the first day (I will explain that concept later). Additionally, they can be dynamically reassigned to another theater in less than a month.

1b. They are a resilient, mobile, airbase. When embedded in a Carrier Strike Group, their capabilities are enhanced.

2. To a certain extent, yes. Being a waterborne system means that you pay far more per foot of operational room than you would on dry land. But also, people tend to underestimate how much it costs to run a military base.

 

[Bad Headspace]

Spoiler: cool post, I like it but it's too long to have it fully quoted

Yeah, this has been obvious to Naval historians and observers for awhile now. When it comes to Carriers, the US, Brits and French make it look easy. (Of the modern carrier equipped navies). Largely because their navies developed Carriers organically from the days of the converted coal barges, learned the basic baby steps through the piston engine propeller craft, eventually evolving to jets and modern super carriers. Learning, 1000’s of lessons and developing tightly interwoven operational doctrine and technology as they went. Modern Carriers are simply the small visible point of a vast web of skills, technology, resources, doctrine, and most importantly expenses. It’s very very hard to jump right into the advanced carrier jet operations when you have no history of getting there.

The Russian’s are 1000x better at Naval Operation than the Chinese. With enough technological capability to in theory make Carriers work. And it’s been a disaster for them each time they have tried. The Liaoning‘s sister ship the Admiral Kuznetzov is a complete disaster. It’s the only Carrier in the world that can only leave port with a dedicated Sea Tug as part of its Carrier Group. It’s been used in one Military Operation in it’s decades long service. Last Year in Syria. After about two weeks of escalating problems and disasters they sent the ships air wing to operate from a land base and sent the ship home. Rumors are the Chinese if anything have even more problems than the Russians. The second natively built Chinese Carrier is by all reports even worse. It rides so low in the water that it honestly risks being swamped and sunk should it ever encounter a Typhoon. No joke. And that’s before you get into any problems involving aircraft. Because they started building the fucker before they had learned any practical lessons from trying to operate the hand me down Russian Abomination. They basically copied a carrier design that doesn’t work, and made it worse because they didn’t know how and why it doesn’t work. There is several decades worth of operational learning to get from this point, to the point where Carriers are a Strategic Asset that can project massed air power anywhere in the world. What they have is a pair of clumsy ships that can each launch 6-12 lightly armed and half fueled strike fighters at a launch rate of about 10 minutes per plane. They’re not getting good value for money out of these things.

This surprises nobody. You can’t learn how to make carriers work through espionage. Your Navy has to learn how From the ground up. And that’s not easy to do when you insist on playing in “Hard Mode”. It’s like learning how to Vidya Game by starting with Dark Souls. Whil

Yeah, this has been obvious to Naval historians and observers for awhile now. When it comes to Carriers, the US, Brits and French make it look easy. (Of the modern carrier equipped navies). Largely because their navies developed Carriers organically from the days of the converted coal barges, learned the basic baby steps through the piston engine propeller craft, eventually evolving to jets and modern super carriers. Learning, 1000’s of lessons and developing tightly interwoven operational doctrine and technology as they went. Modern Carriers are simply the small visible point of a vast web of skills, technology, resources, doctrine, and most importantly expenses. It’s very very hard to jump right into the advanced carrier jet operations when you have no history of getting there.

The Russian’s are 1000x better at Naval Operation than the Chinese. With enough technological capability to in theory make Carriers work. And it’s been a disaster for them each time they have tried. The Liaoning‘s sister ship the Admiral Kuznetzov is a complete disaster. It’s the only Carrier in the world that can only leave port with a dedicated Sea Tug as part of its Carrier Group. It’s been used in one Military Operation in it’s decades long service. Last Year in Syria. After about two weeks of escalating problems and disasters they sent the ships air wing to operate from a land base and sent the ship home. Rumors are the Chinese if anything have even more problems than the Russians. The second natively built Chinese Carrier is by all reports even worse. It rides so low in the water that it honestly risks being swamped and sunk should it ever encounter a Typhoon. No joke. And that’s before you get into any problems involving aircraft. Because they started building the fucker before they had learned any practical lessons from trying to operate the hand me down Russian Abomination. They basically copied a carrier design that doesn’t work, and made it worse because they didn’t know how and why it doesn’t work. There is several decades worth of operational learning to get from this point, to the point where Carriers are a Strategic Asset that can project massed air power anywhere in the world. What they have is a pair of clumsy ships that can each launch 6-12 lightly armed and half fueled strike fighters at a launch rate of about 10 minutes per plane. They’re not getting good value for money out of these things.

This surprises nobody. You can’t learn how to make carriers work through espionage. Your Navy has to learn how From the ground up. And that’s not easy to do when you insist on playing in “Hard Mode”. It’s like learning how to Vidya Game by starting with Dark Souls. While using a shitty unresponsive MadCatz controller.

China publicly rolling back their Carrier program might also be a sign of just how bad their economy is truthfully doing. Analysts will tell you to never believe what the Chinese say about their economy. Pay more attention to what they do. When you see visible signs of them scaling back massive national prestige projects. Things that would elevate them as a Super Power, that’s gonna be a much better idea of the economic situation.

Good take, I like it. Even the US has it's problems with it's new Gerald R Ford class due to trying new technologies that takes time and experimentation to mature. And the US is the only country that has any actual experience with nuclear powered super carriers.

As in everything, hardware is important but the know-how, the strategy and understanding are even more important. I find it hard to put it into words but just because somebody copies or buys something that doesn't mean they know how to use it. A good example for that would be for example the Iran-Iraq war where both armies had rather modern tanks but they have used them as mobile pillboxes instead of a ww2 or Korean War style maneuver warfare. Or on the other hand how the Russians got better in Syria compared to Georgia with mostly the same equipment because they understand their operation better. (Even they had to learn that for decades old legacy equipment that fought against pretty much the same).

The Russian Carrier was bad, no lie about that. It's no miracle considering it never had a chance to be iterated due to the fall of the Soviet Union nor surface Navies were important for the Soviets. Their Sea access is a mess with seas that can't support each other and weird coastlines that get frozen over during the winter. They have focused on submarines and strategic bombers with missile spam to deal with Nato navies.

In all honesty I don't really see the need for China to get it's own Carrier fleet. For the US and in the past the UK and Japan it made sense because they had a lot of assets and clients all over the place. China itself is really centralized and land based. Sure it is contesting the South China Sea and it will be a tale of whose clients Taiwan, Japan and South Korea be, but it would be really foolish to challenge the US in it's strength. Some big battle cruisers with tons of advanced missiles would make a lot more sense. Think something in the way of the Ticonderoga or Kirov classes.

And let's not forget that China lacks experience and know how for air war too! They have a lot of grinding to do for sure

 

[RodgerDodger]

Good take, I like it. Even the US has it's problems with it's new Gerald R Ford class due to trying new technologies that takes time and experimentation to mature. And the US is the only country that has any actual experience with nuclear powered super carriers.

As in everything, hardware is important but the know-how, the strategy and understanding are even more important. I find it hard to put it into words but just because somebody copies or buys something that doesn't mean they know how to use it. A good example for that would be for example the Iran-Iraq war where both armies had rather modern tanks but they have used them as mobile pillboxes instead of a ww2 or Korean War style maneuver warfare. Or on the other hand how the Russians got better in Syria compared to Georgia with mostly the same equipment because they understand their operation better. (Even they had to learn that for decades old legacy equipment that fought against pretty much the same).

The Russian Carrier was bad, no lie about that. It's no miracle considering it never had a chance to be iterated due to the fall of the Soviet Union nor surface Navies were important for the Soviets. Their Sea access is a mess with seas that can't support each other and weird coastlines that get frozen over during the winter. They have focused on submarines and strategic bombers with missile spam to deal with Nato navies.

In all honesty I don't really see the need for China to get it's own Carrier fleet. For the US and in the past the UK and Japan it made sense because they had a lot of assets and clients all over the place. China itself is really centralized and land based. Sure it is contesting the South China Sea and it will be a tale of whose clients Taiwan, Japan and South Korea be, but it would be really foolish to challenge the US in it's strength. Some big battle cruisers with tons of advanced missiles would make a lot more sense. Think something in the way of the Ticonderoga or Kirov classes.

And let's not forget that China lacks experience and know how for air war too! They have a lot of grinding to do for sure

we often forget that the Chinese Military lacks pretty much any practical experience in modern war. And what fewWars modern China has fought have been exclusively land engagements either within or at their own borders. Historically China’s most common war opponent is China. This doesn’t mean that China can’t very successfully fight a war. But it does mean that pretty much all of their doctrines are based on theories and assumptions. Nothing has been actually truly field tested. As you observe the difference in Russian ?Military capability between Georgia and Syria shows what actual experience brings.

one example of that thing you find hard to put into words is what is commonly referred to as “Carrier Operations Doctrine”. At it’s core it is how aircraft flows and moves through the Carrier. Every single element of the Carrier is designed around that From the keel up. Like a modern factory. Everything is based around the flow of the ship. How many elevators and where? For example. Form is designed specifically to match the function. This is part of the reason why hand me down or secondhand Carriers almost always suck. They weren’t built based on your operations doctrine. And your doctrine informs every design decision of a carrier. Every door. Every square foot of deck. Every nut and bolt. And your doctrine mainly comes from learned practical experience. Yeah you can watch all the videos you want on carpentry, but you will never learn it until you pick up a hammer and saw.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE]

Only USA and Russia has any kind of significant military and naval experiences. As medium to superpower nations.

Jungle kingdoms militias don't count.

 

[Bad Headspace]

we often forget that the Chinese Military lacks pretty much any practical experience in modern war. And what fewWars modern China has fought have been exclusively land engagements either within or at their own borders. Historically China’s most common war opponent is China. This doesn’t mean that China can’t very successfully fight a war. But it does mean that pretty much all of their doctrines are based on theories and assumptions. Nothing has been actually truly field tested. As you observe the difference in Russian ?Military capability between Georgia and Syria shows what actual experience brings.

one example of that thing you find hard to put into words is what is commonly referred to as “Carrier Operations Doctrine”. At it’s core it is how aircraft flows and moves through the Carrier. Every single element of the Carrier is designed around that From the keel up. Like a modern factory. Everything is based around the flow of the ship. How many elevators and where? For example. Form is designed specifically to match the function. This is part of the reason why hand me down or secondhand Carriers almost always suck. They weren’t built based on your operations doctrine. And your doctrine informs every design decision of a carrier. Every door. Every square foot of deck. Every nut and bolt. And your doctrine mainly comes from learned practical experience. Yeah you can watch all the videos you want on carpentry, but you will never learn it until you pick up a hammer and saw.

Considering there is no experience for us to see, we could only guess by their own war games and what their military science people are writing. It's a fascinating subject.
I have heard somebody saying an interesting thing about cultural / strategical cliches. It was something among the lines of: Soviets/Russians play Chess, Americans play Poker and Chinese Play Go. Maybe the Chinese are just trolling the USA and will focus on strengthening their position in Africa while being all spooky around themselves on the sea to divide naval powers away from their possessions in Africa. Or something. China needs resources and markets. They too needs to keep expanding.

The headache causing part is even military doctrine can be traced back ultimately to national, economical, cultural goals etc. The China of today is not the cold war China. Hard to read them considering they really didn't intervene anywhere. You could catch Mao helping anybody who made up a communist flag and called themselves socialist so they can compete for influence in the third world against the Soviets. After Deng, they are really economical domination based. So they could try to 1:1 replicate the US strategy and build up a huge navy to secure them Sea Lanes. Which comes in the lack of centuries of experience once again. (Sorry for the incoherent spam)

Only USA and Russia has any kind of significant military and naval experiences. As medium to superpower nations.

Jungle kingdoms militias don't count.

I wouldn't discount the French that much. Sure they don't measure up to for example Russia but they have a really capable industry and lots of overseas experience due to policing their assets in Africa. The UK is a joke, they don't even have a proper arms industry now.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Bone_Buddy’s Case for the Aircraft Carrier Part 1: First Day of War Capabilities, and You.


The question was asked: Why are Carriers so important?

I would like to rephrase the question as “What unique capabilities do Aircraft Carriers have, that make them so important?”



To be Laconic: They Move.

But there is quite a bit of capability wrapped up in those two words. In this section I will discuss one of the most under valued ability this gives the holder.

But first, a background:


There is an informal concept in Military Theory called: “First Day of War Capabilities.” Single use nature of a Ballistic Missile, means that it is a First Day of War weapon. It can only be used once, it is hard to manufacture and maintain, and the enemy is actively seeking to destroy it. Thusly the number of said Ballistic Missiles would naturally attrit to zero over time in a war between two near peer powers.

Any Exquisite Technology (and the capabilities and tactics associated with it), exposed to the front line will degrade or be expended. Maintenance facilities are overworked and under constant threat. Munitions are consumed. Key Personel are killed.

This attrition in capabilities, is a rough Pareto Distribution. In other words, 80% of First Day of War Capabilities (in the theatre) is attrited in the first 20% of the war.

Airfields within range of the front are some of the most heavily targeted strategic installation in war. The primary use of Conventional Ballistic Missiles is to target the static Airbases. That means an Air Force not only has to deal with the Airstrip Tarmac being damaged, but also the Aircraft, and their Maintenance Facilities. This can quickly knock down the regional air forces capabilities from Exquisite to Austere.



Yeah, that is great BONE_Buddy, but this was about what made Aircraft Carriers special.

Aircraft Carriers have the ability to shift in and out of the theatre of war. This means that they can act as a relief force for the regional air force which has been attrited. This relief force will also be inherently more capable than the now exhausted opposition.

All this is to say that the ability to call in fresh reinforcements with undamaged equipment is very nice.

_

This has been part 1 of BONE_Buddy’s Fucking Autistic Prelection.

I’ll get to more tomorrow, but I am tired.

 

[The best and greatest]

Fun fact since the topic of US carriers came up, the John F. Kennedy gets christened tomorrow.

 

[OG Swolemaster]

It’s gonna be hilarious when Japan ends up with more and better carriers than China after their F-35B purchase and Izumo refits.

China will forever be a backwards shithole.

 

[MrTickles]

It's the only viable strategy, and we know what happened to the last SE Asian nation that tried it. If you're going to poke the sleeping giant you have to be able to do more than just piss it off.

We also know what happened to the US armed forces the last time they confronted China directly...longest cough retreat in US history cough

 

[RodgerDodger]

It’s gonna be hilarious when Japan ends up with more and better carriers than China after their F-35B purchase and Izumo refits.

China will forever be a backwards shithole.

nah. Never assume perpetual incompetence of a perceived enemy or opponent. At least not until they thoroughly prove it.

We also know what happened to the US armed forces the last time they confronted China directly...longest cough retreat in US history cough

technically the longest retreat in US Military History began on Dec 8, 1941 and mostly continued until June 1942. How’d that work out for all involved?

 

[MrTickles]

technically the longest retreat in US Military History began on Dec 8, 1941 and mostly continued until June 1942. How’d that work out for all involved?

How did home by Christmas turn out? 800,000 fully mechanized and motorized troops with UN air support vs 350,000 Chinese lightly armed infantry (only things they could carry) with no air cover.

Granted the south Koreans were next to useless, but they did do 90% of the dying on the UN side. A good meat shield.

As for your allusion, China's industrial capacity is far higher than America's. The roles are reversed relative to japan and us in ww2. Don't wake the dragon.

 

[The Unbecoming]

I love how this guy is using both false numbers (it was about 3 million chinks total, 180000-350000 is about how many losses they suffered as a generous estimate pushing us back over the DMZ) while thinking it would be hard at all for the US manufacturing war machine to ramp into overdrive if it was required. If there's anything America loves it's profitting from a good old fashioned world war.

Smelly dumb serbian scum.