China First Carrier heads into Japan dispute.

[Cdnwolf]

http://news.yahoo.com/china-carrier-show-force-japan-tension-festers-055903076.html

[Targan]

Years ago I heard that China bought HMAS Melbourne for scrapping but instead kept the vesel intact to train it's future carrier-based pilots how to take off and land on aircraft carriers. Kind of leaves a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Years ago I heard that China bought HMAS Melbourne for scrapping but instead kept the vesel intact to train it's future carrier-based pilots how to take off and land on aircraft carriers. Kind of leaves a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Yeah. Pardon my French but I cannot believe anyone fucking well bought the whole "Oh we're buying these big-stick, power-projecting ships that first-world navies can field with impunity, but we can buy prebuilt...just to scrap! Yes, yes, of course you silly Westerners, we're not doing anything with these except making belt-clips for your cell phones and maybe a Super Lucky You! casino!"

I wonder how long 'til it's making port calls at the new PLA Naval Station in San Francisco. :(

[Webstral]

Yeah. Pardon my French but I cannot believe anyone fucking well bought the whole "Oh we're buying these big-stick, power-projecting ships that first-world navies can field with impunity, but we can buy prebuilt...just to scrap! Yes, yes, of course you silly Westerners, we're not doing anything with these except making belt-clips for your cell phones and maybe a Super Lucky You! casino!"

I wonder how long 'til it's making port calls at the new PLA Naval Station in San Francisco. :(

It's not that bad. Yes, the presence of a Chinese carrier changes the game noticeably. Until there are at least three of them, the seas east of Taiwan will belong to the USN and allies. Even then, power projection across the Pacific is a long ways off. Things will come to a head with Japan first. Then we'll find out if we still have the edge.

[mikeo80]

Has anyone seen what the new Chi-Com carrier has on deck? My Google-Fu is weak today. I can not find a reference. Write it up to too many hours spent in "real life" and not enough here in T2K land.

IMHO, the F-18's from a Nimitz class would wipe whatever out. And do not forget that our CVN battle groups have Aegis ready escorts, and one (or more) Los Angles attack subs.

Yes, this is a turn for the worse. Until PRG has Nimitz class, LA class etc, etc, I think not a major deal breaker.

My $0.02

Mike

[Capt_Bowman]

At the minute, nothing officially though someone says they saw "Something" in the hangers.

They'll have J-15 (a Chinese copy of the navalised SU-27), a helo-based AEW platform based of the KA-27 I think and probably ASW platforms based off the same.

[Capt_Bowman]

As a side not the Chinese claim they're not planning to put strike aircraft on the carrier just yet, purely fighters for air defence,

[Cdnwolf]

Has anyone seen what the new Chi-Com carrier has on deck? My Google-Fu is weak today. I can not find a reference. Write it up to too many hours spent in "real life" and not enough here in T2K land.

IMHO, the F-18's from a Nimitz class would wipe whatever out. And do not forget that our CVN battle groups have Aegis ready escorts, and one (or more) Los Angles attack subs.

Yes, this is a turn for the worse. Until PRG has Nimitz class, LA class etc, etc, I think not a major deal breaker.

My $0.02

Mike

You forget that most of the time the CV will be within range of most land base aircraft and the Chi-Com will not be afraid to use tac nukes if they have to. (Read any of the Dale Brown novels about Chi-Com combat in that region... especially Fatal Terrain and Skymasters.)

[Webstral]

...the Chi-Com will not be afraid to use tac nukes if they have to. (Read any of the Dale Brown novels about Chi-Com combat in that region... especially Fatal Terrain and Skymasters.)

That made me smile.

[stg58fal]

Has anyone seen what the new Chi-Com carrier has on deck? My Google-Fu is weak today. I can not find a reference. Write it up to too many hours spent in "real life" and not enough here in T2K land.

IMHO, the F-18's from a Nimitz class would wipe whatever out. And do not forget that our CVN battle groups have Aegis ready escorts, and one (or more) Los Angles attack subs.

Yes, this is a turn for the worse. Until PRG has Nimitz class, LA class etc, etc, I think not a major deal breaker.

My $0.02

Mike

Except for the fact that the Chinese have had both the plans and the capability to use neutron weapons on our carriers since at least partway thru the Klintoon regime. And their leaders, both military and civilian, have said at at least a few points during the last 15 years that war with the US was inevitable. Though I'd imagine it won't happen as long as we've got a simpering wimp like Obummer in charge.

[Targan]

Though I'd imagine it won't happen as long as we've got a simpering wimp like Obummer in charge.

Best to avoid overtly RL political comments on this forum.

[Webstral]

Best to avoid overtly RL political comments on this forum.

Echoed. If there are specific policies that had a specific outcome applicable to the subject at hand, then address them. Otherwise, there are plenty of other places on the Internet where one can disrespect former or current Commanders-in-Chief, or politicians from any party in any nation.

I'm no longer in MI, so I'm at least fifteen years out of date for Chinese capabilities. However, the rules that govern their decision-making are the same as they ever were. They have a lot to risk by uncorking the bottle containing the nuclear genie. Since the death of Mao, the Chinese have been making steady progress getting themselves into a position to be the next economic great power. Suggesting that they would put all this on a single spin of the roulette wheel for a nominal payoff is to suggest that they aren't driven by human motives. The Chinese have played a good game of conservative policy thus far. They may start to become a bit bolder, but nuclear use at sea is something on an entirely different plane. Even if the US had no means of retaliation, the Chinese economy is based on manufacturing exports. First nuclear use at sea would result in a massive loss of export business. There is also the little matter of imports: food, fuel, and raw materials. Even in a limited war, these would have to run the gauntlet of US attack submarines. It's hard to see that in the aftermath of maritime nuclear use the blockade would be lifted until the US was satisfied things were in hand again.

The naval balance of power will change over the next ten years. There's no doubt about that. For the time being, though, the US Navy is in a good position to throttle China's sea trade. While this might not bring about the end of the regime, the falloff in food, fuel, and raw materials availability surely would have a serious impact on China's ability to prosecute something as resource-intensive as a naval war.

[DigTw0Grav3s]

Everything I've seen points to navalized Sukhois for the PLAN's new carrier. Terribly heavy plane for the kind of distances they'll be concerning themselves with. I would think they'd be better off with a bunch of MiGs.. but what do I know?

[Webstral]

Everything I've seen points to navalized Sukhois for the PLAN's new carrier. Terribly heavy plane for the kind of distances they'll be concerning themselves with. I would think they'd be better off with a bunch of MiGs.. but what do I know?

It's hard to say what the PLAN is thinking about for their carrier fleet. The fleet carrier niche already has a robust and mature player. If I were a senior staffer in PLAN, I'd point out that toe-to-toe fighting with the Americans isn't going to get good results until the PLAN grows and matures a bit more. In the interim, the PLAN naval air doctrine has to reflect a modus operendi distinctly different from the American naval air doctrine. I don't know enough about the technical details of naval aviation to make recommendations to PLAN. I do know that we might be able to glean something of their concept of use from the composition of the air wing they put aboard their carriers.

[Targan]

From what I've read, China's new carrier doesn't currently have any fighters assigned to it. China's fixed wing naval aviation is still very much in a training and evaluation phase.

[Legbreaker]

Who knows, maybe they'll use it to transport helicopters and vehicles until their fixed wing elements get up to speed? A little like the Australians did with HMAS Sydney during the 1960's.
At least that way the naval crew can get a bit of hands on practise with at least part of their craft...

[LAW0306]

I would worry about OHIO Class SSGN's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

[HorseSoldier]

It's hard to say what the PLAN is thinking about for their carrier fleet. The fleet carrier niche already has a robust and mature player. If I were a senior staffer in PLAN, I'd point out that toe-to-toe fighting with the Americans isn't going to get good results until the PLAN grows and matures a bit more. In the interim, the PLAN naval air doctrine has to reflect a modus operendi distinctly different from the American naval air doctrine. I don't know enough about the technical details of naval aviation to make recommendations to PLAN. I do know that we might be able to glean something of their concept of use from the composition of the air wing they put aboard their carriers.

India and China are developing as regional powers that are concerned about each other, relatively unrelated to China/US issues. Both are developing stronger fleets in general, and carrier capabilities as well.

[Targan]

I would worry about OHIO Class SSGN's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

Absolutely. IMHO the Ohio SSGN conversions are proof positive that the US military is very capable of modifying doctrine and platforms to suit changing geo-political circumstances.

[headquarters]

Agreed. Some of the comments and language in some posts in this thread are not in line with the guidelines.

As fro the rest Web,
Nicely put. Why would someone risk creating a casus belli with the US ? The US navy would blow the surface clean with small losses in a matter of days or weeks.

Using nuclear weapons would almost certainly guarantee having an "argument turn into a knife fight". Chinas economy would crumble with the loss of export revenue ( no US ally would dare oppose US sanctions on Chinese trade). With the massive loss in export revenue huge population groups who have migrated to the industrial centers/ cities to work will be dispaced and possibly create a debilitating social unrest .

As for the balance of naval power shifting in the next decade - things may change yes, but I for one do not believe in a situation that would mean the USN and USAF loosing technological and operative supremacy the next 50 -100 years.

Echoed. If there are specific policies that had a specific outcome applicable to the subject at hand, then address them. Otherwise, there are plenty of other places on the Internet where one can disrespect former or current Commanders-in-Chief, or politicians from any party in any nation.

I'm no longer in MI, so I'm at least fifteen years out of date for Chinese capabilities. However, the rules that govern their decision-making are the same as they ever were. They have a lot to risk by uncorking the bottle containing the nuclear genie. Since the death of Mao, the Chinese have been making steady progress getting themselves into a position to be the next economic great power. Suggesting that they would put all this on a single spin of the roulette wheel for a nominal payoff is to suggest that they aren't driven by human motives. The Chinese have played a good game of conservative policy thus far. They may start to become a bit bolder, but nuclear use at sea is something on an entirely different plane. Even if the US had no means of retaliation, the Chinese economy is based on manufacturing exports. First nuclear use at sea would result in a massive loss of export business. There is also the little matter of imports: food, fuel, and raw materials. Even in a limited war, these would have to run the gauntlet of US attack submarines. It's hard to see that in the aftermath of maritime nuclear use the blockade would be lifted until the US was satisfied things were in hand again.

The naval balance of power will change over the next ten years. There's no doubt about that. For the time being, though, the US Navy is in a good position to throttle China's sea trade. While this might not bring about the end of the regime, the falloff in food, fuel, and raw materials availability surely would have a serious impact on China's ability to prosecute something as resource-intensive as a naval war.

[headquarters]

India and China are developing as regional powers that are concerned about each other, relatively unrelated to China/US issues. Both are developing stronger fleets in general, and carrier capabilities as well.

I think one should bear in mind that China has interest in many overseas location - for instance Africa. With the number of people based abroad and the major investments made I do not think it far fetched that China would want the capacity to be able to make air strikes and land limited forces to evacuate personel etc.

And as Horsesoldier said - China has to compete with India,Vietnam and Japan among others.

Taking on the US seems a like a bad idea for the Chinese leadership.

[Sith]

At this point there is no air wing assigned to the Chinese carrier. There are a only few planes there to train the crew on deck operations.

You have to remember that the US has about 70 years of carrier operations experience and India has about 40 or 50. The Chinese are only now starting to get their toes wet with this kind of thing. Their carrier looks inpressive right now, but that's about all it is.